Like those traditional princess movies, though, Lion King devalues female agency. Every
change, besides one, that occurs in this story is the result of male action.
The one exception is when Nala encourages Simba to return home. This barely
counts, though, since what she's doing is getting a man to come fix things.
Irene Mecchi, Jonathan Roberts and Linda Woolverton's iconic
story paints a picture of a simple moral dichotomy in which good is represented
by responsibility to one's community and connection to one's ancestors, and
evil by greed and familial estrangement. Directors Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff
emphasize the point by drawing the Cain figure Scar as the leader of a Nazi
rally in a hellish elephant graveyard, and the Abel figure Mufasa as a divine
presence at the edge of the savannah. These two males in relationship to
protagonist Simba, constitute the core of the plot.
For American boys and girls who became cognizant of stories
in the early 90s, The Lion King was
universal fare. Why shouldn't it have been? It taught us to value our families
and communities, and to respect our ancestors. By phrasing the narrative so
entirely in masculine terms, however, The
Lion King also taught us that only males had the agency to change things
for good or ill in the world. The movie's central crisis is created by one
male, and solved by another male, while females are relegated to the role of
dependent deuteragonists. The Lion King
teaches us family values that disempower an entire gender.
It is unfortunate that such a beloved classic reflects such
chauvinism on the part of American society. Moving forward, we need to work to
create a canon that empowers all members of our society equally.
