Actually, Eisner isn’t that short but Jeffrey Katzenburg IS (I think he’s around 5’3".)
my point, TK, was that they are being portrayed as flawed characters who nonetheless have the potential to come through and do the right thing. Neither Shrek nor Fiona is able, until the wedding scene, to get beyond the “poor poor pitiful me” focus on self to see the hurt the other experiences. The donkey is slightly better in this regard but has his own quirks. And their mockery of Farquaad’s height is part and parcel of the characterization, which is as a whole a subtle way to suggest to kids that if you don’t want to be made fun of, don’t make fun of others either.
so mocking people’s looks instead of character is ok, so long as they mock you?
I agree with Polycarp. In the Disney movies, the main characters are perfect, practically. Belle and Ariel don’t have any real character flaws–they are goodness personified. Pocahontas–again, goodness personified. Quasimodo? Same deal. Sleeping Beauty? Yep. Cinderella? Of course. All of Disney’s main characters that I can think of don’t have any character flaws. However, the Shrek characters do have character flaws.
We don’t cheer for them uncondionally because they do mock Farquad. But, inspite of the fact they have their own personal problems and character flaws, they are able to rise above those things and find true love.
IOW, the ogres in Shrek are more human than the Humans Disney creates.
No, but women who are perceived as being taller than normal do. The cultural perceptions of the relationship between size and power, and why this treatment is given to tall women and short men, is left as an exercise for the reader.
The problem with Shrek is it doesn’t hold up. I saw in theaters, and liked it. I bought the DVD, and it was ok. Right now, I have no desire to watch it anytime soon.
Monsters, Inc. was brilliant. And I hate every Disney movie that isn’t Toy Story 1 or 2.
Several do, and overcoming the flaws is a major (the?) theme of the story.[ul]* Aladdin- Lied about his past
- Pinocchio- Also was a liar (IIRC)
- Simba- Ran away from it all
- Hercules- In it for the glory
- Sheriff Woody- Selfish
- Mowgli (Jungle Book)- Running away from who he is
- Dumbo- wouldn’t trust himself
- Kuzco (Emperor’s new Grove)- too many to mention[/ul]To characterize Disney leads as “always perfect” is a little unfair.
I still say it was a cheap shot in an otherwise excellent movie.
Several do, and overcoming the flaws is a major (the?) theme of the story.[ul]* Aladdin- Lied about his past
- Pinocchio- Also was a liar (IIRC)
- Simba- Ran away from it all
- Hercules- In it for the glory
- Sheriff Woody- Selfish
- Mowgli (Jungle Book)- Running away from who he is
- Dumbo- wouldn’t trust himself
- Kuzco (Emperor’s new Grove)- too many to mention[/ul]To characterize Disney leads as “always perfect” is a little unfair.
I still say it was a cheap shot in an otherwise excellent movie.
Nitpick: The Toy Story movies (and Monsters Inc.) are really Pixar movies, IMO. Pixar’s folks (particularly John Lasseter) do the bulk of the heavy lifting on them, and calling them Disney movies is a misnomer.
So, Elwood, what’d you think of A Bug’s Life? 
(Failed to see Monsters Inc. in the theaters, to my shame. I plan to atone for it by getting the Super Deluxo Special Edition DVD when it comes out)
Right you are.
[quote]
Lord Farquaad is said to resemble chairman Michael Eisner in face, voice (John Lithgow) and temperament, though the 3-foot-tall Farquaad is about half of Eisner’s height.Still Shrek was a very thinly veiled stab at the Disney CEO
(same source)
Pixar also did *A Bug’s Life
I walked out on Shreck. People trying to rationalize the cruel jokes in this movie have never been the butt of them I would bet.
The movie also glorified violence to no end. Not good for kids.
BTW: There is no such thing as “short man’s syndrome.”
Eisner apparently called Katzenberg a “little midget” in private, so that may be the reason for all the short jokes.
Another vote for Monsters, Inc. as much better than Shrek*. I think the “characters are flawed” argument is disingenuous because the movie implicitly endorses the short jokes and doesn’t condemn the comments made by the “good guys”. They make fun of the “bad guy” through primarily his height and there’s never any trace that the movie itself doesn’t think this is alright. He’s the villain so jokes at his expense like that are perfectly acceptable and not seen as a “flaw” at all.
I also thought the ending was a cop-out simply by having her be an ogre in the first place. How many animated kid movies have the ugly/homely hero end up with the beautiful girl? Beauty & the Beast? Nope, he changes to a “dreamboat.” Hunchback? Nope, he loses her to the knight but is still happy. It would have been a gutsy thing to have her–as a stunning princess–overcome her preconceptions and accept him despite his “ugliness”; by her picking him when she’s an ogre too, what’s the big deal? Of course she’s going to find him attractive if she looks exactly the same as he does! Hardly a message that subverts the “beautiful people” model that’s typical in these films.
Shrek deserved its Oscar. It was one of the best animated features ever made.
Look, Farquaad was a tyrant and a despot. And you’re crying over a few SHORT JOKES? Ghod, people have been making fun of Napoleon for centuries!
I guess I’d better not make fun of Mussolini being bald, then.
BTW, Isaac Asimov had a sidekick in his Lucky Starr series called John “Bigman” Jones. Anyone making fun of his lack of heigt lived to regret it.
That’s heighg. Er, heighth. Aw, hell, “lack of tallness”, then. Thats what I get for typing with my left hand.
My feelings exactly. IMHO, the ending is actually reactionary in implying that everyone would be better off if they just stuck to their own kind. Or maybe I’m just over-deconstructing the movie.
Although I enjoyed the movie, the iffy ending, contradictory messages and yet another dumb-ass Matrix parody disqualify it for greatness. That honour goes to Waking Life, the best animated feature of the last couple of years.
I liked the movie…
It’s just that the short jokes are against what the movies about… there are no redeeming comments or content in the movies about the jokes. It just might hit people who are short, and expecting to see a movie about tolerance, and getting a movie that’s tolerant against every except “short.”
It ISN’T that big of a deal, but I consider it a flaw, like a lot of others. Maybe in the sequel will get some pro-short-man comments. I mean, the jokes are ok, they just could redeem them like they did the “big/ugly” jokes.
Yeah, another thing is that it’s always the male who’s a beast. Could you imagine beauty being a male and beast being a female?
I just think it’s saying it’s ok for men to fall in love with just beauties, and women have to be sensitive
I sort of saw the movie as “no ones perfect… but everyone’s perfect”
shrek: everyone hates me! and everyone will… I’m too much of a freak for anyone to love ever!
everyone: nuh uh, we love you for who you are!
Farquaad: I’m perfect in every way, that troll thing is not even deserveing life because hes not as good as me!
everyone: nuh uh, that aditude makes you worthless. heaven’s your not even so perfect! your short! stop pretending your perfect in every way!
But . . . she did accept him that way, before she knew her “true form.” Her night spent talking with Donkey made that clear–she loved Shrek. The problem was that she thought he would not accept her if she was not a stunning princess. That’s why she goes ahead with Farquaad when he shows up–she’s waiting for an indication from Shrek that he is in love with her and wants her, and when he doesn’t give it (because he overheard and misunderstood the conversation with Donkey), she leaves.
What’s more, both she and Shrek obviously fully expect her “true form” to be the princess one and not the ogre one.