Home / The Gospel According to St. Mickey

The Gospel According to St. Mickey

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Mark Pinsky, religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel, is a long-time student of the cult of Disney.

His article on the quiet ascension of the World of Walt to the status of U.S. national faith appeared in this morning’s Washington Post.

It is revelatory.

Finding Faith in the House of the Mouse

Disney’s Pervasive Vision Omits Churches but Reflects Belief in Higher Power

The world’s most famous rodent and his animated friends say more about faith and values than you might think – they’re not just postage stamps.

There are life lessons in the full-length animated features that have been the signature of the Walt Disney Co. for nearly seven decades.

Peter Pan taught us that “faith, trust and pixie dust” can help you leave your cares behind.

Jiminy Cricket showed Pinocchio – and millions of moviegoers – that “when you wish upon a star,” dreams come true.

“Bambi” stimulated baby-boomer support for gun control and environmentalism.

“Cinderella” became a syndrome.

“The Little Mermaid” illustrated the challenges of intermarriage.

“The Lion King” hinted at Hindu tradition in the “Circle of Life.”

Walt Disney said he wanted his theme parks to be “a source of joy and inspiration to all the world.”

Some have compared them to shrines to which American families make obligatory pilgrimages, parents reconnecting with their own childhoods while helping their kids experience a cartoon fantasy mecca.

Even Disney’s detractors see tremendous symbolic value in his cartoon characters.

As a boycott loomed in the mid-1990s, one Southern Baptist leader – denouncing the Disney corporation’s human-resources policies toward same-sex couples – asked his sympathizers: “Do they expect Mickey to leave Minnie and move in with Donald? That’s goofy!”

There is a consistent set of moral and human values in these movies, loosely based on Western, Judeo-Christian faith and principles, which together constitute a “Disney gospel.”

Ironically, it is at the same time a largely secular scripture that reflects the personal vision of Walt Disney and the company he shaped in his image and, to a lesser degree, the commercial goals of the studio.

So good is always rewarded; evil is always punished.

Faith is an essential element – faith in yourself and, even more, faith in something greater than yourself, even if it is some vague, nonsectarian higher power.

Hard work and optimism complete the basic canon.

In “Pinocchio,” an old man needed a miracle, supernatural intervention, to give life to his little boy, slumped motionless across the room.

So the white-haired woodcarver did what might be expected under the circumstances:

He knelt on his bed, folded his hands on the windowsill and turned his eyes to heaven.

Then, in his soft Italian accent, he did not pray. Instead, Geppetto wished upon a star.

The transformation from puppet to boy that ensued in Walt Disney’s Oscar-winning 1940 animated feature “Pinocchio” was indeed miraculous but not traditionally divine.

As the man slept, a winged, glowing spirit, the Blue Fairy, advised the marionette to “let your conscience be your guide,” to “choose right from wrong” so he could earn the “gift of life.”

Walt Disney, who as an adult avoided church services, did not want religion in his movies.

“He never made a religious film, and churchmen were rarely portrayed in Disney movies,” according to Bob Thomas in “Walt Disney: An American Original,” authorized biographer of the company’s founding brothers.

Disney’s daughter Diane Disney Miller told one minister that there are no churches on Main Street because her father did not want to favor any particular denomination.

It is an explanation repeated today by company officials, as if the company’s genius for the generic did not extend to creating a one-size-fits-all church.

Walt “didn’t want to single out any one religion,” according to Disney archivist David Smith.

Notwithstanding, few entertainment productions continue to have as profound an impact on young children as these animated features.

Together, “The Lion King,” “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs,” “Aladdin,” “Beauty and the Beast” and “The Little Mermaid” have sold hundreds of millions of videocassettes and DVDs, adding exponentially to viewings at movie theaters and readings of bedtime stories based on the films.

These animated classics – which are reflected in all of the Disney theme parks – rely primarily on mythic tales and images, some pre-Christian, that are replete with witches and demons, sorcerers and spells, genies and goblins.

Yet millions of children around the world know from Disney much of what they do about the practical application of right and wrong.

In the Western world in particular, the number of hours children spend receiving moral instruction in houses of worship is dwarfed by the amount of time spent sitting in front of screens large and small, learning values from Disney movies and other programming.

What accounts for this enduring impact?

For many parents, Disney’s entertaining morality tales, from Pinocchio to the company’s latest releases, have offered a safe haven for children’s viewing in modern, often toxic popular culture.

In recent decades, “culture war” debates between conservatives and liberals have unfolded in religious circles.

One term in particular, “secular humanism,” emerged on the right in the 1980s as a pejorative term for the idea that universal values can be defined and communicated without a religious – usually Judeo-Christian – context.

Disney’s gospel is what we might call “secular ‘toonism.”

Some religious conservatives have complained that the animated features under Michael Eisner’s regime represent a betrayal of Walt’s “family-values” legacy.

But the haze of childhood memories may be distorting.

A 1954 Time magazine cover story, coinciding with the opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, noted that Walt Disney had been described as “the poet of the new American humanism” and that Mickey Mouse was “the symbol of common humanity in struggle against the forces of evil.”

In addition to the founder’s humanism, the early films strongly supported environmentalism, the theory of evolution and, arguably, a tolerant, even gay-friendly attitude that would doubtless make today’s conservatives uncomfortable, to say the least.

In the 1990s, this controversy about Disney’s products and policies erupted into a full-fledged boycott led by the Southern Baptist Convention.

There was good reason for this battle about values, especially as it relates to the animated features.

There is growing evidence, beyond the speculative and the theoretical, that they can have a real impact on the lives of children.

A recent study conducted by Colorado State University researchers suggests that “everything we need to know about parenting and family relations can be learned from watching Disney movies,” according to a March 27 article in the National Post newspaper of Canada.

“These films are likely to play a role in the development of children’s culture and may influence children’s and adults’ information about families,” wrote Toni Zimmerman, Shelley Haddock, Mia Adessa Towbin and Lori K. Lund of the university’s department of human development and family studies, where the research was done.

Given the large percentage of movie characters in families without both birth parents in the home, the features may be especially helpful to parents and children in “blended families,” according to the study.

“Having a variety of families portrayed in the animated films is beneficial for children in two ways,” the study concluded.

“It presents children with images of families other than their own, helping children to realize that there are many family types they can choose from later in life. It also increases the likelihood that children will be able to see a representation of their own kind of family in at least some of the movies.”

Powered by

About bookofjoe

  • RJ

    How about this for the next Disney animated film:

    Mickey and Minnie have an amicable divorce after Mickey admits to his homosexual tendencies. Mickey then shacks up with Goofy.

    The pair move to Massachusetts to get married, but they are not allowed, because Goofy is a dog, and this would therefore constitute not merely a gay marriage, but an inter-species marriage.

    The ACLU submits an amicus brief on behalf of our delightful characters when Goofy fights all the way to the US Supreme Court arguing that, while he may be a dog, he is a sentient creature, just like Mickey, and is therefore to be accorded the same rights as anyone else. An animated Flipper and Mr. Ed make cameo appearances here.

    Mickey v. Massachusetts captures the attention of the nation, and the USSC decides in favor of the protagonists by a vote of 7-2. A sinister Scalia and Thomas cast the dissenting votes, but their own love affair comes out after Donald Duck accidentally videotapes Scalia begging Thomas for “rough bareback sex” from a “well-endowed black American.”

    Mickey and Goofy then fly to Boston to get hitched, but a crazed right-wing gunman named Jorge Shrub kills them both with a semi-automatic assualt rifle that was recently un-banned by corrupt Congressmen led by Don Telay.

    The final scene shows Mickey and Goofy involved in an STD-free all-male gang bang, sans-condoms, in heaven, teaching kids that true love never dies.

    Whatcha think? Should I pitch this to Eisner?