There is no doubt that a critic�s review of a film can impact the films performance at the box office. However, does a critic�s review influence the way an audience will feel about a film? Author and critic Margaret Lazarus certainly tries to influence readers of her article, �All�s Not Well in Land of The Lion King,� by stating that the Disney movie is a prime example of the stereotypes that are typical among today�s society. Lazarus implies that there is an underlying meaning to the movie. She believes this meaning is exuded in the portrayal and actions of particular characters. I believe her accusation that Disney is trying misguide young children through a subliminal message in The Lion King to be completely absurd. My question is, why does Lazarus feel the need to slander The Lion King by trying to cite examples that are empty statements without anything to support her argument?
Lazarus gives a brief overview of the film in her article but she also tries to twist The Lion King into something that it is not. She first claims that there are two specific and distinct places that the animals inhabit. The Pride Land is a happy place where all is good and animals �live together in supposed harmony� (Lazarus 1). The other place, known as the elephant graveyard, is a dark and drab land where evil lurks. The problem with this is that in society it is not black and white like Lazarus tries to illustrate. Sure there is some bad in society but along with the bad usually comes good and vice versa. Nothing is as clear cut as Lazarus tries to imply when she describes the habitats of the characters. Lazarus then describes the characters that live in the Pride Lands. She depicts the animals in the Pride Lands as being good natured. Lazarus describes the king of the Pride Lands as a beautiful golden lion whose son, Simba, will succeed him as king. This is a stark contrast when compared to the description that Lazarus makes when she references...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document