The Lion King is Macbeth from Scar’s POV

The Lion King
Released 15/06/94
Directed by Roger Allers & Rob Minkoff
Written by Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts & Linda Woolverton

Being as I am, a deftly sophisticated and terribly well read individual, I was in the car talking to my boyfriend about Shakespeare. Specifically, Hamlet. Specifically, how Hamlet was appropriated in the roughest sense to make Disney’s The Lion King (1994)

Fine. We were talking about The Lion King.

The Lion King Does have certain echoes of Hamlet in it. Namely, the uncle killing the father to steal his throne, and the son’s vengeance. There’s a ghost too, voiced by Darth Vader and showing up in the clouds over Africa. All good things. The Shakespeare appropriation goes further though, as The Lion King spawned a sequel based loosely off of Romeo and Juliet, and a third film that sits parallel to Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (by Tom Stoppard). That last one is an appropriation of an appropriation of Hamlet; take a moment to wrap your brain around that and then let’s move on!

We were talking about all of this, when Boyfriend mentioned he often confused Hamlet with another Shakespeare play, Macbeth. Being the deftly sophisticated and terribly well read individual I am, I has a chuckle at this adorable peasant-like ignorance, and then had a thought. Maybe Boyfriend was on to something. Maybe The Lion King has a little more Shakespeare than first thought. Maybe, just maybe… Oh yes indeed. The Lion King is Macbeth from Scar’s point of view!

Mind. Blown.

Let’s examine this, shall we? Macbeth, set in Scotland, tells the story of, uh, Macbeth. Macbeth has a claim to the throne second to the King, Duncan. But Duncan undermines this claim and instead names his son as his successor. Macbeth (with a little prompting from three witches and his wife) murders Duncan, shifts the blame, and takes the throne. The son flees. Under his rule, Scotland is in chaos. Unwilling to abandon ship, Macbeth sticks it out to the bloody end, when the son returns, kills him, and reclaims his throne.

GEE. THAT SOUNDS FAMILIAR.

Scar was next in line for the throne, until Mufassa named his son Simba as his successor. Scar (with a little prompting from three hyenas) murders Mufassa, shifts the blame, and takes the throne. Simba flees. Under his rule, Africa is in chaos- no food, no water, nada. Unwilling to abandon ship, Scar sticks it out the the bloody end, when Simba returns, kills him, and reclaims his throne.

Disney, you clever minx.

There are a few obvious issues with this reading. The first is the witches. I have likened them, very loosely, to the hyenas, who are Scar’s assistants. The only real parallels are that there are three of them, they cackle and cause trouble, and they hail Macbeth/Scar as a king. However, it’s also worth noting that Shakespeare perhaps didn’t write the major witches scenes in Macbeth– Thomas Middleton probably did. The connection is lose, but forgivable.

Lady Macbeth is a more major raised eyebrow. She doesn’t have a parallel in The Lion King, which is a shame because she does play a rather pivotal role in the play. Arguably, this omission from the film can be justified by the way lion prides are structured, with one Alpha male that mates with all the ladies. Realism on this side, I think, justifies straying from the original text.

So there we have it! Children’s films proving yet again how complex and sneaky they can be. Simba is our Hamlet; Scar is our Macbeth. Let the word of Shakespeare live long, and prosper.

The Other Message In Inside Out

Inside Out
Written by Pete Docter, Meg LeFauve, Josh Cooley
Directed by Pete Doctor
Released 19/06/15

Recently one of my work colleagues was discussing an interaction they had with a small girl who approached them and asked,

“Are you a boy or a girl?”

To which my colleague replied, “What do you think I am?”

“You look like a girl, but you have short hair like a boy.”

“What did you say?” I asked.

“I took the opportunity to subtly and positively attempt to teach them that gender shouldn’t be such a big deal and that it’s okay to be either or neither.”

“Do you think she understood?”

“Probably not.”

And yes, maybe kids don’t understand that life is messy and people are complicated and all binaries are false binaries but whatever. That’s not going to stop Pixar from making a move about it! Inside Out (2015) was released earlier this year and when it was over, I felt like I wasn’t fully comprehending the whole picture yet. Yes, the message about emotions hit home, and all the business about growing up and becoming a more complex human being with the ever changing intricacies of personality and feeling. When I saw it again though, I realised that there is so much more going on. Let’s talk about how Pixar has managed to hit the nail on the head with their representations of gender, and why this matters.

Let’s start with our protagonist, Riley. Riley plays competitive ice hockey. She also loves her butterfly curtains. We never see her in anything other than jeans and hoodies. She also daydreams about her imaginary boyfriend*. On a surface level, Riley is already a character that doesn’t subscribe to typical gender roles. But let’s do as the film does and move inside. We get to see the insides of a few character’s heads, but what’s notable about Riley’s in particular is that she alone has an internal cast of characters of both males, and females. WELL THIS JUST GOT INTERESTING!

Look even more closely, and one may notice that the choice of colours for the internal cast is either gender neutral (yellow, green and red) or gender reversed- blue for a girl, purple for a boy, and the pinkest character is implied to be male, the imaginary friend Bing-Bong. The colours and the aforementioned combination of characteristics given to Riley offer an interesting visual play on how we may perceive gender in the film. One must not forget, of course, that this is a film for kids. I don’t the films message is so blatantly “forget gender! Just be a human!” But the message is there- it’s okay to be whatever you want to be.

Embracing who you are is just one side of the coin. “It’s okay to not be okay” seems to be the other message in the film, and I think there’s a valuable lesson there; not just to embrace the complexity of human emotion, but the complexity of the human experience overall. “Not being okay” is strong wording, perhaps better phrased as, “things not going as expected”. It’s okay to feel your feelings, it’s okay to struggle sometimes. And it’s okay to fall somewhere in between what’s generally accepted as ‘normal’.

Could it be that Pixar has given us a protagonist that falls into that grey area between both ends of the spectrum? Surely not. And yet, there it is. I’m going to go ahead and guess the decision was less about subtly and positively suggesting that gender is a false binary, and assume it was a financial decision, you know, so the film appeals to both boys and girls. But if Pixar is accidentally participating in a conversation that is only just starting to edge out from university social sciences classes, they hey! I can get on board with that.

*Yes, I know gender and sexuality have no correlation. Just, come on. Work with me here.