Because I'm a sane and rational individual, I have begun categorizing songs from Disney movies, and breaking them down into somewhat of a taxonomy. With that short introduction, here are the five categories I have come up with, along with some sub categories that also exist within them. It is important to note that songs can fall in multiple categories.
1. The Exposition Songs
The most common of all songs in a musical, as most real exposition in a musical is done in song. When this is NOT the case, the musical is usually pretty bad (I'm looking at you, Rent) and the story is not progressed through the music, making the addition of the songs... not very important. These songs are categorized by explaining plot points, providing character background, and any other plot important device achieved in song. This family of songs also has two sub categories - the theme, and the montage.
Theme: Pretty self explanatory, an exposition song that explains the theme of the story or provides the thematic tune used throughout. The Muppets is a good example of a recent version of this, as "Life's a Happy Song" is the the background music for most of the movie. "Fathoms Below" from the Little Mermaid is a good example of a thematic song that sets the table for the movie, sort of explaining what the musical will be about.
Montage: Once again, self explanatory. An original song over a montage is extremely common in Disney musicals, as there is usually a large passage of time that occurs in the movie. These songs don't necessarily explain the plot in their song, but become exposition songs when paired with their visual counterparts.
2. The Villain Song
This is Disney I'm talking about here, villain's sing. And it's usually unpleasant. Sometimes this is an exposition song as well, but it doesn't have to be. This is usually a song who's sole purpose is to identify the villain and confirm to the audience that "Yep, that's the bad guy." Ursula's song "Poor Unfortunate Souls" is a great example of this category.
3. The Love Song
Disney movies have love songs. They usually don't advance the plot, they're just love songs. Enjoy them, most of them are pretty good. "Beauty and the Beast" from Beauty and the Beast is probably Disney's greatest example of this category.
4. The Gibberish Song
Disney is kind of well known for making songs without real words. Or, if there are real words, it's impossible to comprehend, or they're presented in a tongue twisting fashion. The premiere example of this category is Bippidy Boppidy Boo from Cinderella. If Lewis Carrol had a stroke while writing, that is the song he would create.
5. The Money Song
A lot of times a song comes up that doesn't really fit these categories, but it's the song heard on the radio, re-released by different artists, or just the one marketed the most. This song is there to make money for the movie. Not always the best song in the movie, but for whatever reason it either becomes the most marketed or is the most marketed by intentional design. "Let it Go" from Frozen is the overkill example of this category.
So there are the five categories of Disney songs. Listening to the Disney station I created on Pandora for Nate, I am able to assign one of these categories to every song I hear, and so far with little or no argument from the wife about what is what. To give an example of how the songs in a movie can break down, I'll assign the songs from The Little Mermaid into their appropriate categories.
Fathoms Below - Exposition, theme category. This song sets up the story, explains the mermaid legend, and even introduces the idea that fisherman are evil.
Part of your World - Exposition song. This song explains Ariel's desire to be human and how she thinks the human world is different, setting up the plot of the entire movie.
Under the Sea - Money song. Possible Exposition. This song is the one every kid loves, the one they sang along to growing up, the one Disney marketed. And rightfully so. I say it is also possibly an exposition song, as the purpose of this song is to explain to Ariel why going to the human world is a bad idea.
Unfortunate Souls - Villain song. Sang by the villain, the song
is dark and doesn't exactly advance the story, just talks about her
ability as a... contract negotiator? Sure, let's go with that.
Les Pouissons - Gibberish song. I know the song is in French and that's a real language, but between the thick accent and the fact his laugh is used to finish a line of rhyme, this is a gibberish song. Doesn't really do anything other than that.
Kiss the Girl - Love song. Money Song. The obligatory Disney love song, it mildly advances the plot, but not by a lot. This is also a money song, as this was another song successfully marketed independent of the movie.
So there's a breakdown of one Disney classic, you can do the same to all others. I'm sure there are more categories out there, but this is what I have so far. Open to debate!
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
*Important note - if you're gonna comment on this, PLEASE read the whole thing.*
*It should also be noted that I have never been discriminated against in any way, nor denied service from an institute based on some uncontrollable factor of my person. Not having that experience probably changes my opinion, even though I will do my damnedest to prevent that, and look at this openly and objectively.*
This is a little late to the party, but I feel necessary to talk about Indiana Senate Bill 101, better known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Indiana, or RFRA. And in talking about this, I'm pretty sure I'm going to anger everyone reading this in some way, mostly because I have opinions in line with both sides of this bill.
The first thing I think is necessary is some clarification. There seems to be a mob consensus that this bill legalizes discrimination against the LGBT community. That is not true. The core of this law states very simply that religious liberty of individuals and corporations can only be limited by the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. What that translates to is unless the government can present a compelling interest or reason, they cannot restrict an idividual or business their right to practice their religious freedom.
On the surface, that sounds like the first amendment, and would be a very good thing. In fact, I would wager that if you presented that language to people who loudly oppose this bill (as I do - more on that later) they would be for that.
However, what IS true is that groups wishing to use this law to discriminate against the LGBT community will attempt to do so
Unfortunately, because of other laws in Indiana (or rather, lack of other laws) they will be successful in doing so. This is because prior to this bill there was no law in Indiana that protected LGBT groups from discrimination. Businesses in Indiana could already deny service based on sexual orientation. Nothing was stopping them.
And first angry responses will be to this - I'm kinda okay with that.
I'm a big supporter of the free market, and truly believe that if a business wants to deny service to someone, they should be able to. For whatever reason. There used to be signs up in stores that said things like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." As a capitalist society with a free market, we should allow businesses to practice in whatever manner they please. A business enacting a policy that is poor for business should not be illegal. It's simply a poor business decision that the company will pay for, either from lower profits of from complete failure. But if a company chooses to deny access to any party for whatever reason, they should be allowed to. I don't necessarily think this is right, or even fair, but it is what I believe. As long as we live in a capitalist society we as a people should look at businesses in this way.
Several years ago I was a constant figure in the Games Workshop store in Marysville. That store - and company - try to foster a family friendly environment. They do this by enacting language rules, telling people to be nice, simple things like that. However, a change to policy had to be made when one customer was constantly open carrying his fire arm into the store. This man was doing nothing illegal, and he would tell you that constantly, but the presence of his weapon was making many other patrons of the store uncomfortable, and some didn't want to be there when he was open carrying. So the store enacted a policy denying open carry patrons to the establishment.
That man, who was doing nothing illegal (I really want to stress that), had made his presence bad business, so the store denied him access until he removed his weapon. This was a good policy for the store that resulted in a positive for the business. This was not an attempt to deny this man his second amendment rights, it was simply a policy put in place for the sake of the business.
While the above situation is similar to what businesses will now try to do in Indiana, I do understand why RFRA is bad not just for Indiana, but for the country. Mostly because good ideals in promoting equality were not on the agenda of the people who supported this bill.
It is also important to know that a national bill was passed in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is a national bill on the books - for over twenty years - with very similar language to what was passed in Indiana. This was the law under which Hobby Lobby successfully challenged covering birth control for their employees in 2014. In fact, after the Hobby Lobby decision, ten states have passed individual RFRA bills, making Indiana's situation far from isolated, or unique.
It is also important to understand that many members of congress who originally signed the 1993 RFRA are horrified at the direction the interpretation has taken, and never foresaw this direction of that bill. Insert title of column here.
The problem in Indiana's bill though is the same problem that happened in the Hobby Lobby case, and that is simply in stating that corporations are people. In Indiana SB 101, a person is defined as "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association," which means that the applications can be used towards businesses and their ability to refuse service to people they deem violating and individuals religious beliefs.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is an outspoken opponent of LGBT equality, and has written many briefs disagreeing with same sex marriage, and appealed the supreme court legalization of same sex marriage in his state. Zoeller viewed the passage of this bill as a way to fight back against legalization of same sex marriage, meaning one of the state's highest legal figures plans on abusing the broad language of this bill.
When RFRA was signed in Indiana, lobbyists from two groups who loudly oppose same sex marriage, the American Family Institute and the Indiana Family Institute, were invited to attend the private signing of this bill. When two groups who clearly intend to do exactly with this bill what Governor Pence claims he didn't know could be done with it are invited to attend his signing of said bill, there is clearly an ulterior motive present.
(Quick side note, the Indiana congress is now trying to change the language in the bill to not make it an LGBT discrimination tool. These are the same people who voted 40-10 to pass the exact same bill three days before it was signed by Governor Pence.)
And this is why I do loudly denounce this bill. The lobbyists and congressman who pushed this bill intend to use it as a discriminatory tool. It is a modern version of a Jim Crow law. This is institutionalized racism. Unopposed or unchecked, it is designed to lead to more laws of that nature, and that is sad considering the advances in feelings of this country in regards to LGBT communities.
...but yet I feel if a business doesn't want to open their doors to anyone who is LGBT, they should be able to do so. It's a weird tightrope to walk, I know, but that is honestly how I feel.
*It should also be noted that I have never been discriminated against in any way, nor denied service from an institute based on some uncontrollable factor of my person. Not having that experience probably changes my opinion, even though I will do my damnedest to prevent that, and look at this openly and objectively.*
This is a little late to the party, but I feel necessary to talk about Indiana Senate Bill 101, better known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Indiana, or RFRA. And in talking about this, I'm pretty sure I'm going to anger everyone reading this in some way, mostly because I have opinions in line with both sides of this bill.
The first thing I think is necessary is some clarification. There seems to be a mob consensus that this bill legalizes discrimination against the LGBT community. That is not true. The core of this law states very simply that religious liberty of individuals and corporations can only be limited by the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. What that translates to is unless the government can present a compelling interest or reason, they cannot restrict an idividual or business their right to practice their religious freedom.
On the surface, that sounds like the first amendment, and would be a very good thing. In fact, I would wager that if you presented that language to people who loudly oppose this bill (as I do - more on that later) they would be for that.
However, what IS true is that groups wishing to use this law to discriminate against the LGBT community will attempt to do so
Unfortunately, because of other laws in Indiana (or rather, lack of other laws) they will be successful in doing so. This is because prior to this bill there was no law in Indiana that protected LGBT groups from discrimination. Businesses in Indiana could already deny service based on sexual orientation. Nothing was stopping them.
And first angry responses will be to this - I'm kinda okay with that.
I'm a big supporter of the free market, and truly believe that if a business wants to deny service to someone, they should be able to. For whatever reason. There used to be signs up in stores that said things like "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." As a capitalist society with a free market, we should allow businesses to practice in whatever manner they please. A business enacting a policy that is poor for business should not be illegal. It's simply a poor business decision that the company will pay for, either from lower profits of from complete failure. But if a company chooses to deny access to any party for whatever reason, they should be allowed to. I don't necessarily think this is right, or even fair, but it is what I believe. As long as we live in a capitalist society we as a people should look at businesses in this way.
Several years ago I was a constant figure in the Games Workshop store in Marysville. That store - and company - try to foster a family friendly environment. They do this by enacting language rules, telling people to be nice, simple things like that. However, a change to policy had to be made when one customer was constantly open carrying his fire arm into the store. This man was doing nothing illegal, and he would tell you that constantly, but the presence of his weapon was making many other patrons of the store uncomfortable, and some didn't want to be there when he was open carrying. So the store enacted a policy denying open carry patrons to the establishment.
That man, who was doing nothing illegal (I really want to stress that), had made his presence bad business, so the store denied him access until he removed his weapon. This was a good policy for the store that resulted in a positive for the business. This was not an attempt to deny this man his second amendment rights, it was simply a policy put in place for the sake of the business.
While the above situation is similar to what businesses will now try to do in Indiana, I do understand why RFRA is bad not just for Indiana, but for the country. Mostly because good ideals in promoting equality were not on the agenda of the people who supported this bill.
It is also important to know that a national bill was passed in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. There is a national bill on the books - for over twenty years - with very similar language to what was passed in Indiana. This was the law under which Hobby Lobby successfully challenged covering birth control for their employees in 2014. In fact, after the Hobby Lobby decision, ten states have passed individual RFRA bills, making Indiana's situation far from isolated, or unique.
It is also important to understand that many members of congress who originally signed the 1993 RFRA are horrified at the direction the interpretation has taken, and never foresaw this direction of that bill. Insert title of column here.
The problem in Indiana's bill though is the same problem that happened in the Hobby Lobby case, and that is simply in stating that corporations are people. In Indiana SB 101, a person is defined as "a partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association," which means that the applications can be used towards businesses and their ability to refuse service to people they deem violating and individuals religious beliefs.
Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller is an outspoken opponent of LGBT equality, and has written many briefs disagreeing with same sex marriage, and appealed the supreme court legalization of same sex marriage in his state. Zoeller viewed the passage of this bill as a way to fight back against legalization of same sex marriage, meaning one of the state's highest legal figures plans on abusing the broad language of this bill.
When RFRA was signed in Indiana, lobbyists from two groups who loudly oppose same sex marriage, the American Family Institute and the Indiana Family Institute, were invited to attend the private signing of this bill. When two groups who clearly intend to do exactly with this bill what Governor Pence claims he didn't know could be done with it are invited to attend his signing of said bill, there is clearly an ulterior motive present.
(Quick side note, the Indiana congress is now trying to change the language in the bill to not make it an LGBT discrimination tool. These are the same people who voted 40-10 to pass the exact same bill three days before it was signed by Governor Pence.)
And this is why I do loudly denounce this bill. The lobbyists and congressman who pushed this bill intend to use it as a discriminatory tool. It is a modern version of a Jim Crow law. This is institutionalized racism. Unopposed or unchecked, it is designed to lead to more laws of that nature, and that is sad considering the advances in feelings of this country in regards to LGBT communities.
...but yet I feel if a business doesn't want to open their doors to anyone who is LGBT, they should be able to do so. It's a weird tightrope to walk, I know, but that is honestly how I feel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)