# Is anyone else disturbed by this?



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

I wasn't sure what forum to put this in, hopefully this one is appropriate.

I've begun to be very disturbed by a recurring theme I've noticed in children's movies and am wondering what you all think about it. It seems that every kids' movie has a plot line that features the main character becoming separated from their parents/family/group and then having to rely on strangers(possibly people with whom he'd never normally associate) to make it through the rest of the events in the movie, sometimes returning home, sometimes not. I'm mainly thinking of movies for young children(think animated, Disney/Pixar) as I have a three year old.

Has anyone else noticed this? What do you make of it? Are you disturbed by it? Thanks for input


----------



## Tjej (Jan 22, 2009)

What bothers me more is the disrespectful attitudes of characters in many movies and TV shows.

I think the lost theme has been going on for decades - Bambi comes to mind immediately. If you think about it, kids movies have pretty harsh plots.

Tjej


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

Most children's books seem to involve children who are orphaned or otherwise separated from their parents so that they have a scope for the big adventures they are going to have. I'm 43, and that was the complaint I have about a lot of the books I read as a kid. It was one of the reasons I didn't want to read the Harry Potter books 11 years ago. Oh great, another kid, orphaned and mistreated by his guardians.

I read the Little House series over and over again, one of the few series I read that had a strong family unit. I guess some other books did, but a lot involved children on their own. So it doesn't really surprise me that the same happens in movies.


----------



## CrazyCatLady (Aug 17, 2004)

I don't like the theme, but it's certainly nothing new. Stories like that have been around for a very long time. I think because way back when it wasn't all that unusual to lose a parent while you were still young. It was also before stranger danger happened.

Luckily for me my six year old hates movies, so I haven't had to deal with any of this kind of thing yet. I assume it could be a good way to get discussions going about sensitive topics?


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

If you review literature and movies extending back as far as you can into history, I think you'll find that it's a common situation. There is nothing new about fictional children separated from their parents, through death or unfortunate absence...

Fairy tales - Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Hansel and Gretel, Beauty and the Beast etc.
_A Little Princess
Alice in Wonderland
The Wizard of Oz
Heidi
Oliver Twist_

Even in stories like _Winnie the Pooh_, the parents are absent. It's difficult to have adventures with Mom and Dad present. Narratives require a conflict to be introduced and (usually) resolved. Parents usually prevent conflict or resolve it for their children. It's convenient for authors to dispose of parents in order to carry on with the story they want to tell.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

So I realize it's not a new theme, I was just wondering if anyone is bothered by it. But it sounds like mostly you just view it as a convenient story telling device?


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Internally it bugs me. I don't like the whole separation thing.. but for them it is an intriguing/touching plot that rakes in the $$$.

We don't do Disney though







For other reasons.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
So I realize it's not a new theme, I was just wondering if anyone is bothered by it. But it sounds like mostly you just view it as a convenient story telling device?

I don't recall being disturbed by these kinds of plot situations when I was child, other than within the context of the story e.g. I was desperately unhappy for Sara Crewe in The Little Princess, who wouldn't cry for Jane Eyre at the terrible boarding school, etc. Since most children's stories are resolved with a happy ending, I think I learned early to trust that the author would work things out fairly satisfactorily eg. Anne was a plucky orphan who found a wonderful new home at Green Gables. My own children weren't upset either - again, I think they trusted the storytelling process.

I know it is very disturbing to some children, and thus to their parents. There are a few old threads from parents looking for gentle stories for their sensitive children. In case you are looking for suggestions you can do a search. I suspect you will find more book threads than movies.

There is a saying that there are 2 basic stories in Western literature - someone goes on a journey or a stranger comes to town. For children, both of these plots are often easier to tell if parents aren't along for the ride, unless the parents themselves offer something to the narrative.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

A further thought:

Developmentally, the most important thing for children is the process of becoming independent. Since it's a universal, many (most?) narratives will reflect this theme to some degree. It's helpful to provide children with opportunities to work through this experience vicariously. Of course, some stories will provide better examples, role models, and guidance than others. And some stories are just better than others.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Disney is notorious for kids going mom-less. I hate it. The only good mom is in Treasure Planet.

But yes, I also hate the obnoxious, rude kids in Tv thing and I did not let my littles watch crap like that.


----------



## carlylovesthesims2 (Mar 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *philomom* 
Disney is notorious for kids going mom-less. I hate it. The only good mom is in Treasure Planet.

But yes, I also hate the obnoxious, rude kids in Tv thing and I did not let my littles watch crap like that.

the reason for disney not having mums in movies especally the early ones is walt disneys mum died when he was a little boy hence the theme of bambi etc being without a mum i have walt disneys auto bio


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

That's the basic premise of just about any children's tale or story or book ever told or written. There is a lot of literature about it out there.

The plot of most children's books is that kids have an adventure and face some sort of serious obstacle and figure something out on their own. To do this, they need separation from their parents. Otherwise, the parents would fix (or at least provide a lot of help fixing) the situation, as a good parent would when their child is faced with a serious obstacle. And that wouldn't be a very interesting story.

So, no, it doesn't bother me at all. That's the sorts of stories most kids are drawn to, and it's good for them to imagine themselves as independent problem-solvers. Children practice separation by imagining it, and stories provide an image-rich environment in which they can explore emotions and fantasies freely.

What sort of confuses me is people who think that Disney invented this. I'm hard pressed to think of a single traditional fairy tale or children's novel written well before Disney that doesn't involve the children being orphaned, running away, shipped off to the neglectful uncle who lets them roam free for the summer, and so forth.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carlylovesthesims2* 
the reason for disney not having mums in movies especally the early ones is walt disneys mum died when he was a little boy hence the theme of bambi etc being without a mum i have walt disneys auto bio

But Walt has been gone some years and Mulan is the only character with a mom besides Jim of Treasure Planet... unless I've missed something.


----------



## odenata (Feb 1, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *philomom* 
But Walt has been gone some years and Mulan is the only character with a mom besides Jim of Treasure Planet... unless I've missed something.

The mom lives in _The Lion King_ - it's the father that dies in that one. _The Princess and the Frog_ has a mom, I think. The pups in _101 Dalmations_ have both a mom and dad.

If you include Pixar things, there's a mom in _The Incredibles_ and _Toy Story_.

At any rate, the theme of being lost/on adventure alone doesn't bother me. When I was a kid, I liked to picture myself as the protagonist of my own adventures and I liked stories like these. Parents are safe and comforting, thigns that don't really lend themselves to excitement and adventure.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

I'm not thinking that Disney invented this storytelling device, I was just using their films as an example, starting point because that's what first got me started thinking about it. But then, as you all have pointed out, almost every kids' story shares this device. I was thinking it would be nice to see an example of a family working together to solve a problem or have an adventure, to see an example of being able to count on your parents for help. But it seems the general consensus is that it's just a more interesting story without parents.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
I'm not thinking that Disney invented this storytelling device, I was just using their films as an example, starting point because that's what first got me started thinking about it. But then, as you all have pointed out, almost every kids' story shares this device. I was thinking it would be nice to see an example of a family working together to solve a problem or have an adventure, to see an example of being able to count on your parents for help. But it seems the general consensus is that it's just a more interesting story without parents.

Keep in mind that most of these stories are written for children older than yours and mine







I think that the idea that books and movies can be for very young children is very, very new. When we were kids, there were no movies or TV for babies or toddlers... even Sesame Street was for 4-6 year olds. Alas, there is money (a lot of money... about $2 billion dollars a year) to be made in the under-3 market, and the people who design these shows obviously see no need to reinvent the wheel when coming up with storylines for their shows and movies.

But, at the same time, I don't think that it's entirely developmentally inappropriate. Toddlers and preschoolers enjoy being very independent, and they're so egocentric that they can take or leave parents at any particular moment. Many popular preschool characters have no parental presence, and it still works as a device to have the child figure out problems on his/her own. Others have a strong parental presence, but the device still involves other characters to guide the protagonist. I'm thinking of Sid the Science Kid, which is one of the very few kids shows that I like. He has a very strong family support system that reinforces the daily lessons, but the bulk of his learning still occurs when he ventures outside the home to discover things with his peers. I think that definitely appeals to preschoolers, who are very curious about the world outside their homes and who are just starting to be developmentally ready to form peer relationships.

The "age compression" issue, where young kids are now being exposed to things that were intended for much older kids, is something to keep in mind when watching movies and shows that weren't made in the past 5 years or so with the under 3 market in mind. Most Disney movies, most children's movies, most children's TV shows that were created before the 0-3 market became the largest media growth industry, are NOT designed for kids younger than school age or so. Whether it's appropriate for your child is definitely up to the individual child: some 3 year olds might be perfectly okay with Bambi, others might be scarred for life, and I have a feeling that most wouldn't have the faintest idea what was going on. I don't think that mine would! Bambi is kind of an extreme situation (imo... I, personally, am in the scarred-for-life camp. I've never seen it all the way through! And I didn't see it for the first time until I was someplace in elementary school and we had a VHS player), but the same is true of similar movies and media.


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

My kids, at least, are drawn to the stories where the parents have minimal roles or are absent. I think they get a real sense of empowerment when they read stories like that. Our son read every 120+ of the Boxcar Children (grandfather is minimally there, but really, he's just the deep pockets that funds their adventure), and dd has just finished reading every one of the blasted Rainbow Fairy books where the parents are also minimally there.

IMO, most 3 year olds are not ready for movies yet. I know I'm in a minority, but developmentally, they can't follow the full story arc and have trouble linking the scary climax with the resolution. Add to that the fact that my children in particular are quite sensitive to visual images, and we haven't done very many movies (and very few in theaters because my kids are sound sensitive too).

There are good books/movies where there is no separation. The movies we've done are:
Mary Poppins
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (both versions, one has a different name)
Cinderella
Cars
Veggie Tales Pirates Who Didn't Do Anything

Only Cinderella has death/separation from parent, and she's 'older'. And my kids didn't care for it all that much. We're not TV free, but so far, they haven't missed not seeing movies. Now that they're a bit older, we might add them in, but so far there hasn't been much out there that I want my kids to see.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
I was thinking it would be nice to see an example of a family working together to solve a problem or have an adventure, to see an example of being able to count on your parents for help.

There are some stories like this. Upthread, someone mentioned _Little House on the Prairie_. _Swiss Family Robinson_ comes to mind. The _Moomintroll_ books reflect a strong family unit, although not exactly human! _The Wheel on the School_ by Meindert deJong, an old Newbery award-winner, is a charming little story that shows an entire village coming together. Similarly _The Twenty One Balloons_ by William Pene duBois, another Newbery winner has families working together, albeit the focus is on the protagonist, an unmarried, childless adventure-seeker. _Cheaper by the Dozen_ (the original book by Galbraith) wasn't intended for children, but many enjoy it.

I admit, I have an easier time thinking of books, rather than movies or t.v. shows. Many of these have been adapted for the screen though.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
IMO, most 3 year olds are not ready for movies yet. I know I'm in a minority, but developmentally, they can't follow the full story arc and have trouble linking the scary climax with the resolution. Add to that the fact that my children in particular are quite sensitive to visual images, and we haven't done very many movies (and very few in theaters because my kids are sound sensitive too).

I agree with you. I can't remember when they can start following storylines at all (I used to know this... I think it's around 3), but I imagine that it takes a while beyond that for them to be able to keep track of much of anything for an hour and a half. Today my DD told me about "this morning" when we saw the geese on her way to preschool... that happened last spring! Time is a funny thing when you're 3.

I'm not adverse to screen time, but I do try to keep in mind that she's not really getting much story out of it. She likes the moving images, mostly. And that's okay, and it has its place. Later today, DS's speech therapist is coming and the easiest way to keep her out of the way for an hour is to put on a movie. I've even taken her to a movie theater twice: we saw "Babies" and a version of The Nutcracker last Christmas. The movies that she watches involve a lot of dancing, babies, or puppies and not a whole lot of storyline.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

I certainly appreciate all the responses. I'm most bothered by movies where there is a traumatic separation from the parents and from that became curious what it was all about and why I couldn't think of a single movie where that didn't happen. We really have only watched Cars, which he adores. And even in that movie there is separation. I guess the troubling aspect to me is the imposed separation, I think if the protagonist wants to set out on an adventure, that's fine, it's just the traumatic nature of the separation that I have found disturbing. And yes, maybe I'm thinking about it in terms of my young child and may not be so bothered by it as he is older, but I just can't shake the curiosity about why. And I totally understand the age-old, global nature of the theme- I have a degree in English and a minor in anthropology. But, perhaps because of that I know that fairy tales, folk tales, myths, etc. have a function in a society and are designed and retold to transmit some sort of information about the group. And I keep wondering, what are these stories saying to our children? I guess that's my real question. What message is being conveyed here? And before we just start watching and trusting movies to be entertainment I thought I'd explore this more. So I'm very happy to read so many responses!

And thank you for suggestions of stories which either feature parents more prominently or don't require a traumatic separation to get the story started. I'll check them out.


----------



## lookatreestar (Apr 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
Keep in mind that most of these stories are written for children older than yours and mine







I think that the idea that books and movies can be for very young children is very, very new. When we were kids, there were no movies or TV for babies or toddlers... even Sesame Street was for 4-6 year olds. Alas, there is money (a lot of money... about $2 billion dollars a year) to be made in the under-3 market, and the people who design these shows obviously see no need to reinvent the wheel when coming up with storylines for their shows and movies.

But, at the same time, I don't think that it's entirely developmentally inappropriate. Toddlers and preschoolers enjoy being very independent, and they're so egocentric that they can take or leave parents at any particular moment. Many popular preschool characters have no parental presence, and it still works as a device to have the child figure out problems on his/her own. Others have a strong parental presence, but the device still involves other characters to guide the protagonist. I'm thinking of Sid the Science Kid, which is one of the very few kids shows that I like. He has a very strong family support system that reinforces the daily lessons, but the bulk of his learning still occurs when he ventures outside the home to discover things with his peers. I think that definitely appeals to preschoolers, who are very curious about the world outside their homes and who are just starting to be developmentally ready to form peer relationships.

The "age compression" issue, where young kids are now being exposed to things that were intended for much older kids, is something to keep in mind when watching movies and shows that weren't made in the past 5 years or so with the under 3 market in mind. Most Disney movies, most children's movies, most children's TV shows that were created before the 0-3 market became the largest media growth industry, are NOT designed for kids younger than school age or so. Whether it's appropriate for your child is definitely up to the individual child: some 3 year olds might be perfectly okay with Bambi, others might be scarred for life, and I have a feeling that most wouldn't have the faintest idea what was going on. I don't think that mine would! Bambi is kind of an extreme situation (imo... I, personally, am in the scarred-for-life camp. I've never seen it all the way through! And I didn't see it for the first time until I was someplace in elementary school and we had a VHS player), but the same is true of similar movies and media.

ITA!! this makes so much sense. my dd is in the inbetween camp, sometimes she acts scarred for life or very dramatic about "scary" scenes. and other times she could care less. we tend to stick to shows that were originally books and pretty preschool/family friendly.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
I'm thinking of Sid the Science Kid, which is one of the very few kids shows that I like. He has a very strong family support system that reinforces the daily lessons, but the bulk of his learning still occurs when he ventures outside the home to discover things with his peers. I think that definitely appeals to preschoolers, who are very curious about the world outside their homes and who are just starting to be developmentally ready to form peer relationships...

Yes, I think Sid the Science Kid is nice as is The Little Einsteins, really it's the trauma of separation that bothers me, not so much the lack of parents.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
I certainly appreciate all the responses. I'm most bothered by movies where there is a traumatic separation from the parents and from that became curious what it was all about and why I couldn't think of a single movie where that didn't happen. We really have only watched Cars, which he adores. And even in that movie there is separation. I guess the troubling aspect to me is the imposed separation, I think if the protagonist wants to set out on an adventure, that's fine, it's just the traumatic nature of the separation that I have found disturbing. And yes, maybe I'm thinking about it in terms of my young child and may not be so bothered by it as he is older, but I just can't shake the curiosity about why. And I totally understand the age-old, global nature of the theme- I have a degree in English and a minor in anthropology. But, perhaps because of that I know that fairy tales, folk tales, myths, etc. have a function in a society and are designed and retold to transmit some sort of information about the group. And I keep wondering, what are these stories saying to our children? I guess that's my real question. What message is being conveyed here? And before we just start watching and trusting movies to be entertainment I thought I'd explore this more. So I'm very happy to read so many responses!

And thank you for suggestions of stories which either feature parents more prominently or don't require a traumatic separation to get the story started. I'll check them out.

Ah, I get what you're saying now.

I think the traumatic thing is, quite honestly, sorta a lazy "hook" into the story. Most older stories don't really require that. Fairy tales without parents usually have a line int he beginning about "um, the mother died and, uh, something vague happened to the father... and now, down to business." With the newer Disney type movies I think it's become the formula to have a traumatic opening scene that captures your attention right away and keeps you at the edge of your seat. I thought that Finding Nemo was so overt about the seemingly endless 10 minute cycles of "swimming... OMG DANGER... resolution" that it kinda got boring after a while. Obviously a movie has to keep you interested, but in this particular case it seemed to really oscillate between extremes and it just came off as sort of lazy after a while.

Now my mind is wandering... it is 3am... I was listening to a radio program recently about the Grimm brothers, and they talked about how originally the published stories were supposed to be an anthropological study for adults to collect these old folk tales. But that adults weren't much interested, and they caught on as children's storybooks for middle class children. And these middle class parents were a little dubious about not only the gore (and I think we've all heard "but the original Grimm fairy tales are full of gore, so that's proof that children can take very scary things!" But those stories weren't really intended for children.) but also about the really negative light that many of the parents were portrayed in. So in the second edition and later editions, the Grimms (the two main brothers, and then a 3rd brother who sort of took over after a while) themselves took out a lot of the gore, and changed a lot of the family dynamics. They really played down the evil parents, and in stories where the evil parents were important they turned them into STEP-parents and just sort of threw something in about how the real parents were really nice but, alas, dead.

So it's interesting that I think your concern also isn't new







It sounds to me like the early 19th century concerns about the Grimm fairy tales! And a sort of invention-of-childhood age compression going on there too. The original stories for adults were toned down for the children who ended up being the audience. And now our society is now in a place where the original stories (in the form of books and movies) for older children probably do need to be toned down for the younger children who have ended up being the audience.

But back to the traumatic storylines. I do think that it is often lazy and formulaic and unnecessary. I think that the separation is necessary, but the traumatic separation is not. Sometimes, yes, it adds to the story: the line from The Secret Garden where Mary is told "there's no one left to come" and thus learns that her parents have died and everyone totally forgot about her is wrenching, but it's an essential part of setting up her character as both totally bratty but also very sympathetic. (And, slightly related, it's always been interesting to me that in the movie versions of A Little Princess, Sara's father is alive and they're reunited. I think it was the Shirley Temple version that started that, and I'm not aware of any other versions that don't have a living father at the end. So, sometimes, it seems like movies do try to un-traumatize things and whitewash them. The movie versions always take out the diamond mines, which are TOTALLY the best part). Other times, like in Finding Nemo, I think it's just part of a formula.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
I certainly appreciate all the responses. *I'm most bothered by movies where there is a traumatic separation from the parents* and from that became curious what it was all about and why I couldn't think of a single movie where that didn't happen. We really have only watched Cars, which he adores. And even in that movie there is separation. I guess the troubling aspect to me is the imposed separation, I think if the protagonist wants to set out on an adventure, that's fine, it's just the traumatic nature of the separation that I have found disturbing. And yes, maybe I'm thinking about it in terms of my young child and may not be so bothered by it as he is older, but I just can't shake the curiosity about why. And I totally understand the age-old, global nature of the theme- I have a degree in English and a minor in anthropology. But, perhaps because of that I know that fairy tales, folk tales, myths, etc. have a function in a society and are designed and retold to transmit some sort of information about the group. And I keep wondering, what are these stories saying to our children? *I guess that's my real question. What message is being conveyed here? And before we just start watching and trusting movies to be entertainment I thought I'd explore this more*. So I'm very happy to read so many responses!

And thank you for suggestions of stories which either feature parents more prominently or don't require a traumatic separation to get the story started. I'll check them out.

You raise some interesting questions. Purely for discussion purposes, what about narratives with parents who exist in the story, but are written as largely absent from children's lives (and the adventures they have). These parents are written as being unaware of what is happening with their children. There is no traumatic separation, but what kind of message is conveyed about oblivious, perhaps even neglectful parents, and children who essentially carry on secret lives from their parents?

In some ways, a traumatic separation may convey a healthier family situation. The underlying message is that a parent would intervene and solve the problem if they could, but they've been prevented from getting involved. In stories where parents are present but don't get involved, I think you can read in a more distressing message about family bonds and parental roles - if you wanted to. Honestly, though, I don't, because I think tales about children having independent adventures are archetypal stories in our culture.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

And not to get all conspiracy-theoryish (I get paranoid at 3am when I'm suffering from pregnancy insomnia... sorry about that), but I do worry that the "hooking" of very young children onto this sort of emotional roller coaster at such a young age sets them up for a need for more and more extreme forms of entertainment as they get older. I don't think that it's good for very young kids to be exposed to such artificial emotional extremes... most preschoolers are good enough at coming up with their own emotional extremes just based on day to day experiences! Don't even get me started on what happens in our household if DD gets the wrong spoon!

I have no proof, no study, not even any anecdata... but I still can't help but feel that if your 3yo is watching Finding Nemo (sorry to keep picking on that one movie... I really just used it as an example of what I think happens in a lot of kids movies) then where do you go from there? How could it NOT work to desensitize children to real emotions when they're exposed to such extreme artificial emotions at such a young age as entertainment?

I'm sure others don't agree with me, and as I said I have nothing to back that up. But I do have to say that it concerns me just how violent and emotionally exploitative movies and TV have gotten, and how younger and younger children seem to be the audience for these sorts of things. I don't see how things like the Saw movies can't desensitize a young teenager to the real violence of the world. Even if they logically know that it's not real, our brains work in weird ways and process new information by relating it to old, even in a subconscious way.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

I am not disturbed.

if you look at children's stories historically that IS the recurring theme.

i recall all the stories i have read from russia, native american stories, australian aborigine tales, india and china tales (i have always been a fan of world fairy tales since i was a little girl) and what you describe IS the theme.

children are tricked, abused....

the way i look at it is that it fulfills the purpose of stories. i think stories are ways of sharing real life with everyone.

in fact i rather enjoy these stories because it kinda shows the deeper connection with everyone.

for example the role of animals helping out hansel and gretel. i mean all grimms and anderson did was travel around and collect the stories that are being told. and i think these are coping mechanisms for our children to deal with the real world.

historically the family is always there. there is no need to write about that. its the obvious.

i dont think children are being to exposed to things much worse than they were exposed to many years ago. however the vehicle of expression - books and pictures and movies is what makes it really scary.

i mean look at mother goose. i grew up with mother goose. i remember a LOT of the poems. not once, not once did i connect death with any of the themes. hush a bye baby and robin red breast. i have spoken to moms who also grew up with mother goose and they dont remember ever noticing the dark side of the book either.

i can relate to you looking at it from a anthropoligical point of view.

what is it saying to our kids? is it saying what we think our children is picking up? or are they really just focused on the grand story.

i have shared a lot of the stories with my dd. i tell her stories and sometimes i describe the scary house on a chicken leg with a scary witch in it from russian folk tales. in fact i have some of the original illustrations and they are beautiful. it did not affect my dd. she enjoyed the adventure aspect of it.

in fact if anything i think we go the opposite way. look at books and literature for toddlers and psers. i am not talking movies. i remember most of teh books are buddy buddy tales about getting along with friends, doing stuff with your parents and gparents. and they are kinda boring. to me. and were to my dd. seh wanted something 'fantastic' or adventure. it was really hard for me to find adventure for a 2 year old so i had to revert to story telling. dd's first favourite long book was 'and to think i saw it on mulberry street' by dr seuss.

oh it is sooo beautiful. in just its simplicity. a little boy 'sees' things on his way home from school. to me that book epitomises childhood for me. rather what our children expect out of childhood.

what also concerns me is the vehicle by which these tales are delivered. only thru books and movies. a kind of a flat unimaginative way. both books and movies, but of course movies the most unimaginative out of the two. has anyone ever sat and listened to a story? nothing, nothing to beat that. no book will ever come close to the story told.

i think in this culture we are missing out on soooo much. we are losing so much richness. this weekend i just happened to be sitting close to a puerto rican family spending their day in the park. and the gma was telling the tired gkids a story. i could not understand a single word but oh boy she was such a pro. she kept me riveted with teh tone of her voice and all the different dialogue she was using. i was lucky i had that when i was growing up. but i feel sad that my dd is missing out on that.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
And not to get all conspiracy-theoryish (I get paranoid at 3am when I'm suffering from pregnancy insomnia... sorry about that), but I do worry that the "hooking" of very young children onto this sort of emotional roller coaster at such a young age sets them up for a need for more and more extreme forms of entertainment as they get older. I don't think that it's good for very young kids to be exposed to such artificial emotional extremes... most preschoolers are good enough at coming up with their own emotional extremes just based on day to day experiences! Don't even get me started on what happens in our household if DD gets the wrong spoon!

I have no proof, no study, not even any anecdata... but I still can't help but feel that if your 3yo is watching Finding Nemo (sorry to keep picking on that one movie... I really just used it as an example of what I think happens in a lot of kids movies) then where do you go from there? How could it NOT work to desensitize children to real emotions when they're exposed to such extreme artificial emotions at such a young age as entertainment?

I'm sure others don't agree with me, and as I said I have nothing to back that up. But I do have to say that it concerns me just how violent and emotionally exploitative movies and TV have gotten, and how younger and younger children seem to be the audience for these sorts of things. I don't see how things like the Saw movies can't desensitize a young teenager to the real violence of the world. Even if they logically know that it's not real, our brains work in weird ways and process new information by relating it to old, even in a subconscious way.

See, I don't think it's conspiracy theory-ish at all! That's what I'm talking about! I agree with you. It seems everywhere the emotional takeaway is that it's not a safe world you live in little child and your parents can't help you.

Another element of my thoughts was started by hearing about the book, Hold
on to Your Kids. I have not read the whole book, just a sample, but it was making a lot of sense. Then I noticed this movie theme idea and putting the two together made me wonder if these movies are helping to orient children towards their peers instead of their parents? In these movies it is their peers who help them usually, not even other adults. So that's when I really started thinking about this and becoming concerned. Basically the premise of the book seems to be that our society/culture begins to separate our children from us at an early age and orients them towards their peers, which makes it difficult(if not impossible) for parents to have the guiding influence that we should. They say that the educational setting is such that a child who is parent oriented(as the authors say they should be) will struggle greatly and have much anxiety in the setting, whereas the peer oriented child will appear to perform better or be much more suited to school. That aspect struck a chord with me, as I imagine my ds would be totally traumatized to be separated from me at school and
would appear as ill-equipped to function well in a learning environment. As I said, not having read the book, I can only imagine where the author will go with the notion, but I can easily imagine them being in favor of homeschooling.

Anyway, I digress. But that book's idea really has got me thinking about what these movies are doing and I was wondering if anyone else felt this way?

And Lach, I had to try really hard not to wake everybody up laughing about the preschooler's ability to come up with their own emotional extremes based on mundane daily experiences! Too funny!


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

When I really think about most fairy tales and nursery rhymes I get pretty disturbed -- yes, there's the ubiquitous dead-mother theme, and in nursery rhymes there's also some really gory, freaky stuff if they're taken literally.

But then I remind myself that the scary aspect of those things never crossed my mind as a kid, so it's probably not crossing my kids' minds either -- they just don't perceive it the way we do.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I think it's a popular theme in children's stores, and always has been, long before Disney/Pixar came around, is because becoming separated from their parents is a common fear for children. People like stories based on issues that they think about a lot. "Thrillers" that adults like are based on the kinds of fears that adults have.


----------



## macandcheese (Jun 22, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
If you review literature and movies extending back as far as you can into history, I think you'll find that it's a common situation. There is nothing new about fictional children separated from their parents, through death or unfortunate absence...

Fairy tales - Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Hansel and Gretel, Beauty and the Beast etc.
_A Little Princess
Alice in Wonderland
The Wizard of Oz
Heidi
Oliver Twist_

Even in stories like _Winnie the Pooh_, the parents are absent. It's difficult to have adventures with Mom and Dad present. Narratives require a conflict to be introduced and (usually) resolved. Parents usually prevent conflict or resolve it for their children. It's convenient for authors to dispose of parents in order to carry on with the story they want to tell.











Heck, even the Peanuts don't really have parents around.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
If you review literature and movies extending back as far as you can into history, I think you'll find that it's a common situation. There is nothing new about fictional children separated from their parents, through death or unfortunate absence...

Fairy tales - Snow White, The Little Mermaid, Hansel and Gretel, Beauty and the Beast etc.
_A Little Princess
Alice in Wonderland
The Wizard of Oz
Heidi
Oliver Twist_

Even in stories like _Winnie the Pooh_, the parents are absent. It's difficult to have adventures with Mom and Dad present. Narratives require a conflict to be introduced and (usually) resolved. Parents usually prevent conflict or resolve it for their children. It's convenient for authors to dispose of parents in order to carry on with the story they want to tell.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
So, no, it doesn't bother me at all. That's the sorts of stories most kids are drawn to, and it's good for them to imagine themselves as independent problem-solvers. Children practice separation by imagining it, and stories provide an image-rich environment in which they can explore emotions and fantasies freely.

What sort of confuses me is people who think that Disney invented this. I'm hard pressed to think of a single traditional fairy tale or children's novel written well before Disney that doesn't involve the children being orphaned, running away, shipped off to the neglectful uncle who lets them roam free for the summer, and so forth.

I agree with both of these. I loved stories as a kid where the kids solved their own problems even if it was a traumatic start. Bambi though, made less sense to me. Although I can think of some maybe not totally traditional tales but longer works that qualify - Little Women, Five Little Peppers, What Katy Did - but most of them are very domestic dramas, not high adventure. Swiss Family Robinson is one of the few I can remember. There are a lot of 'new family' books too like Pollyanna and Anne of Green Gables and all that.

It may not be hugely popular to say in a NFL community but remember, lots of mothers died in childbirth so losing a mother probably was that significant of a cultural trope.

I love how the Lemony Snicket books preserved the theme but played with it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LynnS6* 
There are good books/movies where there is no separation. The movies we've done are:
Mary Poppins
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (both versions, one has a different name)
Cinderella
Cars
Veggie Tales Pirates Who Didn't Do Anything


The father in Mary Poppins is scary though - my son hates him; so's the dad in Peter Pan - where the parents are the abandoned ones, interestingly.

Our favourite pro-family-togetherness modern movie is The Incredibles though. It does have violence in it but the way that family operates is something we really enjoy watching.

For slightly older kids there are a lot of books with families though - Beverly Cleary (and Ramona and Beezus is out as a movie version), Judy Blume, especially the Fudge books, and so on.

I think these books are less commonly adapted to film because they're just not as cinematic. And when they are they can get ruined (like I was annoyed at how Ramona and Beezus kept pushing into the zone of romantic comedy).


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
So I realize it's not a new theme, I was just wondering if anyone is bothered by it. But it sounds like mostly you just view it as a convenient story telling device?

I don't think it's the best choice for 3 yos. My ds found typical disney type movies disturbing until he was more like 7. I'm surprised more young children don't find them upsetting. But it's a great story telling device. Ds's favorite books are all the kids doing things and problem solving without adults being present (Hardy Boys, Mad Scientist Club, Animorphs, Narnia). Though those particular books all have families in the background. For young children, I think shows like Little Bear and Blues Clues are a better choice than disney movies. For older kids, the absent parent theme is interesting to explore.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

I see the lost parents thing as going WAY back to the old myths and stories. Women Who Run With the Wolves (all about female myths) explains how the too-good mother has to die, in part so the female adventurer can go out into the world, and not be just imprinted with the same old story. There's more too it than that, but basically it comes from a deep psychological place of breaking away and making your own discoveries.

I agree that most of these stories and movies particularly are for older kids. I mean, back in the day everyone would have heard the same stories around the fire or bedtime, but a visually "real" Disney movie might indeed be too much for a 3yo... or 2yo! I did NOT get it that everyone assumed DD had seen every Disney movie at 2yo. We certainly do some now, but it's like Mary Poppins.


----------



## goldenwillow (Jan 5, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WindyCityMom* 
Internally it bugs me. I don't like the whole separation thing.. but for them it is an intriguing/touching plot that rakes in the $$$.

We don't do Disney though







For other reasons.

Same here. Disney has bothered me for a looooonnng time.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
And I keep wondering, what are these stories saying to our children? I guess that's my real question. What message is being conveyed here? And before we just start watching and trusting movies to be entertainment I thought I'd explore this more. So I'm very happy to read so many responses!

I think at least part of the message is to believe that you have your own power. Pretty good message in my eyes.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I agree with both of these. I loved stories as a kid where the kids solved their own problems even if it was a traumatic start. Bambi though, made less sense to me. Although I can think of some maybe not totally traditional tales but longer works that qualify - Little Women, Five Little Peppers, What Katy Did - but most of them are very domestic dramas, not high adventure. Swiss Family Robinson is one of the few I can remember. There are a lot of 'new family' books too like Pollyanna and Anne of Green Gables and all that.

I admit it's been a long time since I read them... but even
1) Little Women starts with the father at war and the mother working long hours, so the girls are in effect on their own to deal with the obstacles that come their way. They have very close relationships with their parents, and the parents are by no means neglectful, but they are absent for practical purposes. Many of the obstacles that the girls face also happen away from home with no parents immediately available: Meg when "visiting," Jo at work, Amy at school.
2) In The Five Little Peppers, the father is dead and the mother works long hours. Again, parents by no means neglectful, but absent for practical purposes. The Moffats followed a similar setup.
3) It's been a trillion years since I read What Katy Did, but I seem to remember that the mother was dead, the father was very busy (a doctor?), and it was largely through her siblings and her same-age cousin that she learns patience and all the other stuff that is the moral of the book. I remember not liking the book very much because I thought it was much too preachy! The cousin really annoyed me.

I'm not pointing this out to disagree with you, just to say that this theme is really so universal in children's books that it is hard not to find it! Others mentioned the Little House books and the Ramona books, and I think those are good examples of books where all members of the family are equally present. I read an interesting article once about how the Ramona books came under a lot of criticism when they were first published because many adults thought that children shouldn't be burdened with stories about "adult problems" and the Ramona books are quite open about the financial and career problems that the parents face. And, at the same time, this is one of the reasons that the books were so instantly popular... they didn't condescend to children, or romanticize poverty (the way that books like The Railway Children, The Five Little Peppers, The Moffats, etc do) and so lots of kids really related to them. Even as a young child (I was probably in 3rd or 4th grade when I first read it) I remember being a little incredulous that in the Railway Children the father's thrown in jail and they lose all of their money and possessions, but still end up in a lovely romantic little cottage with lavish meals and hired help while the mother supports this lifestyle by writing a couple of children's stories.

That's another digression, but it's also a valid point that there was (and probably still is, the success of the Ramona books notwithstanding) conventional wisdom that children don't want to read about grownup problems, and so that's another reason why grownups are scuttled off to the edge of the plot, if they appear at all.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:

And I keep wondering, what are these stories saying to our children? I guess that's my real question. What message is being conveyed here? And before we just start watching and trusting movies to be entertainment I thought I'd explore this more. So I'm very happy to read so many responses!

Quote:

I think at least part of the message is to believe that you have your own power. Pretty good message in my eyes.
Yes, these stories allow children to safely explore scary issues. Many children wonder about what life would be like if they had to go it alone, if they had to face monsters or disasters without a parent coming to their aid. In side the confines of a story a child can wrestle with and conquer an enemy.

I think real life used to be scarier than it is now, and to a small child, with no control over his or her life, being able to conquer a scary situation, safely inside their minds, is _useful_ 'wishful thinking'. It preserves our egos and gets us through the night.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
I admit it's been a long time since I read them... but even
1) Little Women starts with the father at war and the mother working long hours, so the girls are in effect on their own to deal with the obstacles that come their way. They have very close relationships with their parents, and the parents are by no means neglectful, but they are absent for practical purposes. Many of the obstacles that the girls face also happen away from home with no parents immediately available: Meg when "visiting," Jo at work, Amy at school.
2) In The Five Little Peppers, the father is dead and the mother works long hours. Again, parents by no means neglectful, but absent for practical purposes. The Moffats followed a similar setup.
3) It's been a trillion years since I read What Katy Did, but I seem to remember that the mother was dead, the father was very busy (a doctor?), and it was largely through her siblings and her same-age cousin that she learns patience and all the other stuff that is the moral of the book. I remember not liking the book very much because I thought it was much too preachy! The cousin really annoyed me.


LOL the cousin bugged me too.

I think you're right about the deaths - funny that I don't remember them, but on reflection - yeah.







And those were the most intact families I remembered other than the Cleary and the Blume.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
...I remember being a little incredulous that in the Railway Children the father's thrown in jail and they lose all of their money and possessions, but still end up in a lovely romantic little cottage with lavish meals and hired help while the mother supports this lifestyle by writing a couple of children's stories.

That's another digression, but it's also a valid point that there was (and probably still is, the success of the Ramona books notwithstanding) conventional wisdom that children don't want to read about grownup problems, and so that's another reason why grownups are scuttled off to the edge of the plot, if they appear at all.

I wish that cottage model worked. Although not with the jail part. 

That was a great post. I agree. And I stand corrected!


----------



## blizzard_babe (Feb 14, 2007)

I remember being drawn to just these kinds of books and movies as a kid... precisely BECAUSE the kids got to be independent and were doing it all on their own. For kids, like, me, who came from very secure, fairly sheltered homes, it was fantasy... a "what if." I still really enjoy fantasy fiction, as well as realistic fiction that bears no resemblence to my everyday life. I loved the Little House books as a kid... but I especially loved the chapters where the parents would go off to town or something and the kids would be home, taking care of business.

Childhood is all about moving from dependence to independence (or, rather, inter-dependence on other adults). I think that stories, throughout human history, have served to help children (and adults... think parables in the Bible and other religious texts) process what is going on in the world around them.

Now, as for the traumatic "hook" aspect of the separation... yes, that's probably unnecessary and something of the result of modern theatrics/cinematics. If you look at the "old" orphan stories, as a PP mentioned, it was just a bit of a note at the beginning. "Oh, by the way, so-and-so's parents died." Because, back then, it wasn't so unheard of and kids could likely fill in the "how did they die?" blanks with any number of plausible responses. In the era of, especially, modern medicine, losing both parents and all your siblings in the course of a week doesn't happen very often, so a more explicit and shocking (to kids and to us, neither of whom have likely experienced such events in the course of a normal lifetime). What is shocking and traumatic to us was an unfortunate reality during the times when modern storytelling evolved. Even the Boxcar Children, which takes place in and was written not all that far back in our collective social past, is sort of able to skim over the "how the parents died, what they died of, how come social services didn't intervene, etc.," because it was assumed that such things could ostensibly happen for any number of reasons.

Not that I trust Disney any farther than I can throw them to have our best interests in mind. I'm just saying that Harry Potter and such stories often have to start with something pretty... um... spectacular in order to place the main character in a position of early independence/interdependence, rather than dependence.

Now, age 3, in our modern world where it's pretty unlikely that any of us are going to get carted off on the plague cart (though I know of old people in rural Alaska who lost their entire extended family to influenza in the early 1900s), at least in most parts of the world, might be a bit early for such stories. But stories of independence/interdependence (and thus, separation from parents/guardians) in older children serve, I believe, an important fuction, especially if you consider the social origins of storytelling.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

That's standard fairy tale fare.

You can't have much of an adventure or cautionary story with children as main characters and also have competent, present, parents. They would protect the kids from the negative situation that provides the whole drama/storyline.

There's a book called The Witch Must Die, I think, that goes into these themes somewhat.

Edited to add: It does irritate me though, and I try to avoid the "mommy snuff film" genre; bambi, finding nemo, dumbo, etc. etc.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Really interesting discussion. It occurred to me that the conversation, understandably, is about literature and films from a Western culture and tradition. Our culture has an undeniable cult of the individual and celebration of libertarian ideals. The rugged, independent individual is favoured, and naturally this is reflected in our stories, even stories for young children.

I'm not too familiar with children's literature and films from non-Western cultures. I wonder if there's a difference in cultural attitudes about co-dependance, collaboration and collectivism that translates into a primacy of family in these stories.

OP, looking outside of Western culture may provide you with more examples of family stories. Or maybe not - I really don't know.


----------



## blizzard_babe (Feb 14, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
Really interesting discussion. It occurred to me that the conversation, understandably, is about literature and films from a Western culture and tradition. Our culture has an undeniable cult of the individual and celebration of libertarian ideals. The rugged, independent individual is favoured, and naturally this is reflected in our stories, even stories for young children.

I'm not too familiar with children's literature and films from non-Western cultures. I wonder if there's a difference in cultural attitudes about co-dependance, collaboration and collectivism that translates into a primacy of family in these stories.

OP, looking outside of Western culture may provide you with more examples of family stories. Or maybe not - I really don't know.

A lot of the traditional Yup'ik (Alaska Native) stories I've heard also include a theme of separation from the group... and pre-contact Yup'ik society was VERY collaborative. I'd guess that exploring self vs. society is a pretty common theme across cultures, with each culture of course putting its own spin on things.


----------



## fancyoats (Jun 12, 2008)

in real life (ideally, anyway) parents -- and mothers in particular, it seems -- keep everyone safe -- and thus boring







parents are the ones who avert danger and solve the problems and handle the strange grown-up stuff that happens. there is no story when the parents are around, you know?


----------



## Thalia the Muse (Jun 22, 2006)

Quote:

the reason for disney not having mums in movies especally the early ones is walt disneys mum died when he was a little boy hence the theme of bambi etc being without a mum i have walt disneys auto bio
Um, no, Walt Disney's mother lived well after her son grew up -- he bought her a house in Los Angeles and moved her out to be close to his family. He was devoted to his mother (and had a problematic relationship with his dad). Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I had to write about the topic professinally so have a lot of trivia at my fingertips!


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Thalia the Muse* 
Um, no, Walt Disney's mother lived well after her son grew up -- he bought her a house in Los Angeles and moved her out to be close to his family. He was devoted to his mother (and had a problematic relationship with his dad). Sorry to be pedantic about this, but I had to write about the topic professinally so have a lot of trivia at my fingertips!

And Bambi was a book before Disney turned it into a movie -- the mother dies in the book, too -- it's an integral part of the story, not something added on by Disney.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *blizzard_babe* 
A lot of the traditional Yup'ik (Alaska Native) stories I've heard also include a theme of separation from the group... and pre-contact Yup'ik society was VERY collaborative. I'd guess that exploring self vs. society is a pretty common theme across cultures, with each culture of course putting its own spin on things.

I suspect that's true. Which goes back to the universality of the theme and the need for stories to explore and express the experience of growing independence. It was just a thought for the OP if she's searching for other sources for entertainment.

We enjoy watching international children's films, although we haven't seen a huge number, and most of what we've watched are from Western cultures. The Scandinavian countries, Germany and Japan all seem to have thriving children's film industries. If you're looking for something aside from Disney/Hollywood, I recommend them, even if the themes of separation and independence are part of the plot. See if your city has an international children's film festival or perhaps the library or cultural centres.


----------



## QuestionGal (Feb 19, 2006)

Before you dive into "Cheaper By The Dozen" be aware that the dad *does* die, of a heart attack. It's based on a true story and that's what really happened. I can't remember if his death is in "Cheaper by the Dozen" (IIRC it is) or in the sequel "Belles on Their Toes."

I distinctly remember reading that book in 5th grade (as a class) and the teacher warned us that the next chapter was really sad and suggested we skip it. We chose to read it instead and I was devastated. It's still one of my all time favorite books but certainly not without loss.


----------



## InMediasRes (May 18, 2009)

I agree that exploring independence from one's parents is a universal theme for children, but children don't write those stories. I thought they were intended as morality tales about the dangers of running off or talking to strangers?

Here's wiki on Little Red Riding Hood. It's pretty disturbing, and was originally meant to warn young girls about the advances of strange men.

I let DS watch Finding Nemo for a while. It was his favorite just because he loved all the colors and the fish, but after many many many times watching it with him, I decided that it's not really a kid's movie at all. I could write an analysis on it if I wanted to, but it seems to be a character piece. We actually stopped watching it after I got pretty upset about the scene of the seahorse dad spanking his kid HARD for...not doing anything wrong.







Those movies are actually pretty violent for a 3yo anyway.


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

All the Disney movies start off with killing off the mom.

I think also, it tries to show the child that they don't need their parents and it is perfectly ok to rely on strangers for much. They clearly need SOMEONE, it just is not the parents. That is the message it sends.


----------



## Proudmomoftwinsplusone (Feb 21, 2004)

When I watched Finding Nemo with my twins (then age 4) and nemo's mom disappeared from the movie because she was eaten by a shark, I lied and told the boys she was out grocery shopping. Then we were watching Lion King and when the father died, I turned off the movie and said, ok, now they just have to take him to the hospital and the movie is over.

So yes I find it disturbing and cant bear to think of my boys being sad because someone lost his mommy! But I stopped trying to change story lines after a while, it became too difficult.


----------



## leilamom (Nov 19, 2006)

I have issue with many of the TV shows that are geared for preschool children that have missing parents... and most of these are on Nick

Wonder Pets - the animals usually have to save some baby animal who has gotten into trouble via negligent parenting and they have to help

Dora - We rarely see her family, and she goes on these wild adenventures alone

Max and Ruby - Ruby, the sister, takes care of her little brother as if she were a parent, and we never see their parents

Strawberry Shortcake - No parents there, she has to raise her sister, Little Apple Dumpling

Backyardagains - Although we assume the kids are playing in the backyard together, we never see the parents watching them or interacting with them

Even Harry Potter is an orphan

I just don't get it...I would like some shows based on real families, like Ramona that was on PBS or Little House on the Prairie. I guess Little Bill's family is around too. It's hard to find shows that have real parents around where something catastrophic hasn't happened and I don't like the message that kids don't need parents.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lisa1970* 

I think also, it tries to show the child that they don't need their parents and it is perfectly ok to rely on strangers for much. They clearly need SOMEONE, it just is not the parents. That is the message it sends.


This is what I'm talking about. And the message of not needing the parents really bothers me.


----------



## angelandmisha (May 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *leilamom* 

I just don't get it...I would like some shows based on real families, like Ramona that was on PBS or Little House on the Prairie. I guess Little Bill's family is around too. It's hard to find shows that have real parents around where something catastrophic hasn't happened and I don't like the message that kids don't need parents.


I don't know how to quote multiple posts, so I'm posting again. I'm glad to hear some people are concerned about sending the message that kids don't need parents.

Has anyone read Hold on to Your Kids? If so, do you think that these types of movies are being used to encourage kids to become more peer oriented, or is it just a coincidence because no parents makes for a more interesting story(as asserted by most upthread posters)?

I'm really interested to hear what everyone has to say and this has been fascinating to read.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InMediasRes* 
Here's wiki on Little Red Riding Hood. It's pretty disturbing, and was originally meant to warn young girls about the advances of strange men.

Thanks, that was interesting!

I also like this:

http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004...withwolves.asp

Quote:

I think the traumatic thing is, quite honestly, sorta a lazy "hook" into the story.
This reminds me why I lost interest in Speilberg's movies. I felt manipulated by one gut wrenching tragedy after another. It felt self conscious and almost unseemly.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tjej* 
What bothers me more is the disrespectful attitudes of characters in many movies and TV shows.

I think the lost theme has been going on for decades - Bambi comes to mind immediately. If you think about it, kids movies have pretty harsh plots.

Tjej

I agree with this. The separated from family movie theme was too much for my dd until she was almost seven, but it isn't something that bothers her now. We talk about the attitudes we see and I limit the ones I have big problems with. I think the themes of independence and working with friends that are seen in many kids shows (Strawberry Shortcake, Dora, Wonder Pets, etc...) are good themes. I am fine with my dd having adventures with friends in the outside boundaries with her good friends. There won't be any real going over a mountain or going through snake tunnels in the boundaries my dd has available to her so she will need her imagination, but I think it is still fine to watch shows that give empowering messages that aren't to sad or immoral.


----------



## Tway (Jul 1, 2010)

What's always bothered me about Disney is that the characters are either 100% good, or 100% evil (or the evil ones repent and become 100% good). I think that creates really unrealistic expectations in kids. No one can be perfectly good all the time, and it's unfair to consistently show role models who never veer off the straight and narrow.

In real life, kids do things they shouldn't--but that should be part of learning and growing up. Instead, Disney movies make it seem like doing wrong is equated with being bad.

Actually, I'd say it's a very North American trait--to pit one set of ideas/beliefs against another and label one as "good" and the other as "bad"... as if there always has to be a side. But that's a totally different subject altogether.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *angelandmisha* 
Has anyone read Hold on to Your Kids? If so, do you think that these types of movies are being used to encourage kids to become more peer oriented, or is it just a coincidence because no parents makes for a more interesting story(as asserted by most upthread posters)?

I'm really interested to hear what everyone has to say and this has been fascinating to read.

I've read it, but I kind of tune out a bit because...I thought there were interesting and valid points in that book but they were drowned out by the hysteria. I really found it to be one of the most fear-mongering books about parenting that I *wanted* to like.

But then I grew up in the 70s/early 80s and have vivid memories of parents tossing everyone outside to play with their peers and the parent sphere and the child sphere didn't really intersect that much really, so the nostalgia for some perfect nuclear family didn't impress me. I was much more drawn to Mary Pipher's The Shelter of Each Other as a model for connected and strong families.

On the consumer end I find Robert Bly's The Sibling Society, about how parents/adults are pressured to stay adolescent in their thinking to be much more compelling a view about cultural pressure.

Anyways...no I don't think it's anything newly peer-oriented on the abandonment side of things. I do think there is cultural pressure around a kind of rudeness, but it's not through these kinds of classic tales. If anything, most of the kids want to achieve family in some way, even if adults are curiously absent.

It's more the Simpsons kind of thing that I think represents a shift in parent-child relations. (Not that I don't love Matt Groenig.)

Even though I'm not a Disney fan, Disney also brought 101 Dalmatians to the screen, and Peter Pan. Pinocchio even, although he doesn't have a mother, unless you count the Blue Fairy.


----------



## lilmom (Nov 9, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
And not to get all conspiracy-theoryish (I get paranoid at 3am when I'm suffering from pregnancy insomnia... sorry about that), but I do worry that the "hooking" of very young children onto this sort of emotional roller coaster at such a young age sets them up for a need for more and more extreme forms of entertainment as they get older. I don't think that it's good for very young kids to be exposed to such artificial emotional extremes... most preschoolers are good enough at coming up with their own emotional extremes just based on day to day experiences! Don't even get me started on what happens in our household if DD gets the wrong spoon!

I have no proof, no study, not even any anecdata... but I still can't help but feel that if your 3yo is watching Finding Nemo (sorry to keep picking on that one movie... I really just used it as an example of what I think happens in a lot of kids movies) then where do you go from there? How could it NOT work to desensitize children to real emotions when they're exposed to such extreme artificial emotions at such a young age as entertainment?

I'm sure others don't agree with me, and as I said I have nothing to back that up. But I do have to say that it concerns me just how violent and emotionally exploitative movies and TV have gotten, and how younger and younger children seem to be the audience for these sorts of things. I don't see how things like the Saw movies can't desensitize a young teenager to the real violence of the world. Even if they logically know that it's not real, our brains work in weird ways and process new information by relating it to old, even in a subconscious way.

Me, me, me! I agree with you completely! I find that we are exposing our kids at increasingly younger ages to stuff that it's not really necessary to be exposed to, in general, when it comes to media and entertainment. My husband brought home Finding Nemo and my 3 yr old DS was scared to death about 10 minutes into it! I definitely decided it was not for little ones.

And don't even get me started on the stuff for teenagers and adults. I am really just not that big on tv/movies for littles in general. If it wasn't for my DH, we'd probably be tv-free with our little guy. But DH is not on board.

OP, I agree with you that I am really disturbed that there are no parents around in these movies or tv shows. Rarely there are, like the Incredibles, but that is definitely not a movie for a 3 yr old either, IMO.

Actually, the whole trend in the past 20 yrs or so of making cartoons into shows for adults bugs me. I know LOTS of people disagree with me, DH included, but I think that when we do that, and it LOOKS less realistic, we allow things to happen in those cartoons that we wouldn't allow to happen in a "real" show with actors. Does that make sense? That's kind of veering off topic though.

Anyway, I DO think that it is, well, maybe not a conspiracy, but definitely a mindset in our society now that we're teaching our kids to rely on peers or strangers and not the family unit. I think we've become SO politically correct that nobody wants to portray a family unit with parents, because then you might offend single parent homes, or GLBTG homes, or homes where kids are raised by grandparents, or whatever the situation. And so what ends up happening is, the kids in the shows are raising themselves, or depending on peers, or society, to take care of them. Which, for me, is a negative thing. I want my kids to come to my DH or myself in a crisis, if at all possible. And I think that is okay for us to teach that. I think we should have more movies with families, not just kids running around by themselves.

I haven't read Hold On to Your Kids but I might look it up..I enjoyed Protecting the Gift a lot though. I have no idea if it's similar or not.


----------



## BellaClaudia (Aug 1, 2008)

yeah.. they did it with Bambie, with Snow White, and ever since..
pretty much they are recycling the same plot as this sold once and
so it keeps selling..

It is mostly about missunderstanding the concept of times that changed and parents being ready for less-stress and less-violence in the stories.

Disney just goes for easy way out and simple conflicts of a hero against the circumstances as they trive on conflicts bad.. good etc..

Clearly movies like Caillou prove that there might be a movie for kids that have no conflict but just be aobut kids for kids and it also sell..

wish more people understood this and produce violent free products.


----------



## MovnMama (Jul 3, 2009)

This is a fascinating thread! I wanted to weigh in on the other end of the spectrum, age wise, with an interesting note. It builds off one PP's reply:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
In some ways, a traumatic separation may convey a healthier family situation. The underlying message is that a parent would intervene and solve the problem if they could, but they've been prevented from getting involved. In stories where parents are present but don't get involved, I think you can read in a more distressing message about family bonds and parental roles - if you wanted to. Honestly, though, I don't, because I think tales about children having independent adventures are archetypal stories in our culture.

I teach high school language arts, but the above observation is very much coming true in lots of young adult fiction and also film and tv. Rather than the (albeit disturbing) theme of the "offed" parents and independent, adventuring kids, more frequently media and books have included "needy" or "oblivious" parents that children and teenage characters "take care of" in a manner that is out of sync with what a healthy parent-child role should be.

Interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/bo...ew/Just-t.html


----------



## gmankono (Dec 30, 2003)

I'll weigh in on the side of being disturbed by the violent "emotional hook" to yank us into a sense of danger or excitement to a story, but I have to agree with journeymom's post:

"Yes, these stories allow children to safely explore scary issues. Many children wonder about what life would be like if they had to go it alone, if they had to face monsters or disasters without a parent coming to their aid. In side the confines of a story a child can wrestle with and conquer an enemy. "

What does strike me, and irks me most, is that there are really so few family adventures. As I read through this thread though, catching the various examples, it did start to make sense: the ideas of home and family are the expected norm, so unless either one or both of the parents are unavailable, there is little reason for a child to rise up and take on an adventure that their parents would likely tell them wasn't for them. My DW mentioned being concerned at how often we warn our DD to "be careful" and as soon as she did, I felt like I was catching myself saying it all the time.

That being the case, it does make sense that it would take some plausibly extreme circumstance to require a kid to rise up to a big adventure, which was a thrilling idea when I was a kid. I'm kind of amazed at how many things seem WAY too scary & dangerous now that I'm a dad. I whisper silent apologies to my mother for the ways I must have frayed her nerves as a kid every time I see kids doing things that seem too dangerous to me now.

I do wish there were more adventures as families, but I'm finding myself hard pressed to think of examples I really liked or like now. Swiss Family Robinson comes to mind, as do more recent examples of Spy Kids and The Incredibles. The main thing that stands out is that there are pretty extreme circumstances that the parents themselves are involved in, not just going through the daily steps of providing shelter, food, etc, but out-and-out adventures that I recall wondering who had families that did that sort of thing. Later, I found out my dad used to be a mountain rescue climber, and he taught me to rock climb, but until I was old enough, he was just "my dad" and either working or tired, so I had to imagine adventures until we started having them.

I do recall reading "The Boxcar Children" and trying to imagine what it would be like to have to try to make life work like that, and it was a thrilling adventure to read about, from the safe confines of my everyday world.

I'm just very much still of the mind that DW and I need to screen things first to make sure we're comfortable with the message that a movie or book sends, before suggesting such a thing for a movie or reading night. If it's a worthwhile adventure, and we can talk through the traumatic part, it could be worth it, but we have yet to watch Bambi, mostly because DW and I aren't fans.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

I think a lot of you are giving Disney too much credit in the story writing aspect of their films. The vast majority of Disney films are very old stories, from various parts of the world. Even Mulan. They don't write the stories, they just adapt them into an animated film.

That being said, I've only known one person to be upset by a Disney movie. It was Bambi, and had nothing to do with the mom dying and everything to do with how it was shown in the film. It was too abstract for her to comprehend at that age, as she told me once "I would been less disturbed if Bambi's mom had gotten her brains blown out on screen."


----------



## accountclosed2 (May 28, 2007)

Which is what I like about most of the Swedish Astrid Lindgren-films. Except for Pippi herself, most of the children in those films live in close-knit family units, with very loving and caring parents. And the children still have fabulous adventures.

Even Tommy and Annika are very close to their loving parents.

Other good examples:

The Children of Noisy Village, gosh I'd love to live that way! Three families share life on a farm in 1929, and the 6 older children have loads of fun, helping family as well as having their own adventures, and the parents are very gentle and care.

Madicken or Mardie (different translations), upper middle class family life in small town during WW1, parents very loving and caring, and the girls have their own adventures, some ending less well than others (note to self: Do not jump of a roof with umbrella trying to fly), and a lot of talk of how bad it is to hit children!

Ronia the Robber's daughter is fantasy, so quite different. But a close-knit family life, where baby Ronia is breastfed and the family co-sleeps (and at the beginning, a homebirth where Ronia's mother sings through contractions!) When Ronia is older 10-12 they let her out of the castle to have her own adventures in dangerous forest. But parents still there when needed, to rescue her or support at home.

Saltcrow Island is set in the 60s and early 70s, the kids have lots and lots of freedom, and adventures, but all parents on island will look out for all the children, again loving and caring parents.

Lotta of Troublemaker Street is a caution in herself, a 5yo who doesn't behave very well. Ordinary middle class family 1970s. Parents very caring, kids have own adventures (Lotta moves into neighbour's attic at one point).

Emil in Lonneberga, set in late 1800s, for times very gentle parenting with loving parents, but Emil locks himself up in woodshed when father angry, father locks outside, both pleased with arrangement.

There are more, but tired baby needs to sleep.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

Which is what I like about most of the Swedish Astrid Lindgren-films. Except for Pippi herself, most of the children in those films live in close-knit family units, with very loving and caring parents. And the children still have fabulous adventures.
Well, Tommy and Annika's parents let them sail to the South Seas with Pippi for several weeks (months?). It doesn't _bother_ me - it would be a dull story if the parents came along, and no story at all if the kids didn't go - but it isn't exactly normal parenting.









As for the "abandonment" themes in many stories - no, they don't bother me at all. There are plenty of family-based books and movies if you look for them; they don't all portray unproblematic family life, but they give a spectrum of views on the subject. The Railway Children (loss/separation as well as closeness _and_ freedom to explore); The Incredibles (working together and loyalty, uniting against a hostile/scary world); Anne of Green Gables (very strong parental bonds and relationships, albeit adoptive); the Ramona books; the Francis books; Five Minutes' Peace and the other books; Little Women; Babar; Pride and Prejudice; Mary Poppins... If you ingest that kind of media as well as the kids-having-their-own-adventues stuff, I don't think children will get an unbalanced view of the nature of family life. Chance are they won't particularly notice the parents missing, when that's not the point of the story. I mean, did you really spend The Phantom Tollbooth wondering how Milo coped without his mummy? Of course not (well, I hope not!). Would the Narnia stories have been improved if Edmund and Lucy had spent their days in Narnia pining for their mother - or if she'd shown up to conquer the White Witch? Nope - that would have ruined the whole thing. I think it's kind of insulting to artists to demand "violence-free product" or "family-oriented product" at the expense of the _stories they are trying to tell_. Most of the good stories would be hopelessly neutered under those conditions. Media that's produced with the intention of being harmless and inoffensive is usually drivel.

Also, I think a lot of Disney criticism is too generalising. Yes, Disney is famous for dead-parent or absent-parent motifs. But there are plenty examples of meaningful parent/child relationships in the films. Mulan gets a decent bit of screentime with both parents; Belle has a nice, mutually supportive relationship with her father; Tiana's relationship with her father drives much of the film, even though (and partly because) he's dead, and her mother's demands for grandchildren are classic!


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

I loved Anne of Green Gables, which involves an orphaned girl who finds loving adoptive parents though. I also love Harry Potter but was already an adult when it came out.

I do remember being upset by Babmi as a child and also by Dumbo and Willie Wonka. I to this day don't think i could tell you the whole movie of Bambi and still cannot watch Dumbo. Other movies, like Cinderella, never upset me so much, but maybe because the separation from teh parents was much less dramatic or never shown. I mean in Bambi you see and hear teh mom get shot. And in Dumbo the poor mama elephant rocking her baby through bars. I am getting teary eyed just thining about it.

Willi Wonka I remember just thinking it was wacked out and I thought the part at the end when Wonka goes nuts and starts yelling in the air balloon thing was scary for me as a kid.


----------



## Laedi (Jan 12, 2009)

It was Dumbo that traumatized me as a child. We watched it in elementary school and I had to leave the class because I was crying so hard. As an adult, The Lion King set me off. In the theater I was sobbing like a 3 year old and everyone else had moved on and was laughing at the witty humor that followed but I cried through darn near the entire movie.

I'm not a fan of Disney movies. I'm sensitive and they break my heart.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Laedi* 
It was Dumbo that traumatized me as a child. We watched it in elementary school and I had to leave the class because I was crying so hard. As an adult, The Lion King set me off. In the theater I was sobbing like a 3 year old and everyone else had moved on and was laughing at the witty humor that followed but I cried through darn near the entire movie.

I'm not a fan of Disney movies. I'm sensitive and they break my heart.

My DD had a dance recital, and before the kids went on stage (while the other classes were dancing) they had them in a back room with movies and snacks and coloring, to keep them calm and happy. At the meeting the woman who owned the place said "it'll be a really simple movie, nothing scary, we don't want the kids to get upset."

So I walk in with my DD, who is 1 month shy of 3, and they're putting in The Lion King! First of all, they're only going to be back there long enough to watch the beginning part! I couldn't believe it. I asked them to please put on something else, because that movie really scared my DD (which was a lie... she'd never seen it. But REALLY!). The teenager who was in charge of the room sort of rolled her eyes but put on Lady and the Tramp instead. At least the scary part of that is towards the end. Next year I'm planning on having a talk with the woman who owns the school about exactly what constitutes a "scary" movie, and imo it's nothing where a parent dies in the first 10 minutes. I was assuming they'd have some Dora movie or something like that.


----------



## mtiger (Sep 10, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *carlylovesthesims2* 
the reason for disney not having mums in movies especally the early ones is walt disneys mum died when he was a little boy hence the theme of bambi etc being without a mum i have walt disneys auto bio

Except many (most?) of Disney films are based on quite old, well-known fairy tales that have nothing to do with Walt Disney's mother dying or not.


----------



## journeymom (Apr 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MovnMama* 
This is a fascinating thread! I wanted to weigh in on the other end of the spectrum, age wise, with an interesting note. It builds off one PP's reply:

I teach high school language arts, but the above observation is very much coming true in lots of young adult fiction and also film and tv. Rather than the (albeit disturbing) theme of the "offed" parents and independent, adventuring kids, *more frequently media and books have included "needy" or "oblivious" parents that children and teenage characters "take care of" in a manner that is out of sync with what a healthy parent-child role should be.*

Interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/bo...ew/Just-t.html

I haven't read the article yet. But Bella's mom in the Twilight series comes to mind.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QuestionGal* 
Before you dive into "Cheaper By The Dozen" be aware that the dad *does* die, of a heart attack. It's based on a true story and that's what really happened. I can't remember if his death is in "Cheaper by the Dozen" (IIRC it is) or in the sequel "Belles on Their Toes."

I distinctly remember reading that book in 5th grade (as a class) and the teacher warned us that the next chapter was really sad and suggested we skip it. We chose to read it instead and I was devastated. It's still one of my all time favorite books but certainly not without loss.

I had forgotten about that (and can't recall which book it's in either), thanks for the reminder.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MovnMama* 
This is a fascinating thread! I wanted to weigh in on the other end of the spectrum, age wise, with an interesting note. It builds off one PP's reply:

I teach high school language arts, but the above observation is very much coming true in lots of young adult fiction and also film and tv. Rather than the (albeit disturbing) theme of the "offed" parents and independent, adventuring kids, more frequently media and books have included "needy" or "oblivious" parents that children and teenage characters "take care of" in a manner that is out of sync with what a healthy parent-child role should be.

Interesting article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/bo...ew/Just-t.html

Thank you for posting that article! Funny enough, it mentions _Twilight_ and _When You Reach Me_, among other books I was thinking about when I wrote my post. I've noticed lots of kids entertainment that have oblivious or incompetent or neglectful, yet present, parents. The mom in _When You Reach Me_ seemed to be the same law school student mother in Vicki Grant's _Quid Pro Quo_, right down to the ranting about abstract human rights all the while she is ignoring her own child's emotional distress. I like Hilary McKay's Casson family novels (_Permanent Rose_ etc.), but the father is absent and the artistic mom essentially leaves the children to starve while she works on her art in the garden shed. _King Dork_ was a powerful novel about bullying, but the parents are absolutely oblivious and incapable of helping their son - like all parents in any novel I've ever read about bullying. I could go on and on with examples.

Absent the traumatic separation ("mommy snuff films" is a great descriptor someone used upthread), I think I'd rather my kids read about or watch the orphaned or separated child protagonist. I suppose the trend is almost inevitable though. In the same way that it was common in the past for a child to be orphaned or cast out on their own at very young ages (I'm thinking of the British home children sent to farms in Australia, Canada, NZ etc. at very tender ages), it's now fairly common for children to be emotionally abandoned by their parents who are separated, divorced, or simply immersed in working long hours or otherwise coping with the demands of modern life. I think children's literature and films reflect this reality.


----------



## Hokulele (Mar 2, 2005)

Funny you should bring this up - I've been having a similar issue. DD is 5yo and I've been looking for good books to read aloud to her. SO many of them seem to have some kind of separation from parents. Pippi Longstocking, The Boxcar Kids series, traditional fairy tales (look at a traditional telling of how Cinderella ends up with the awful step-sisters! yikes!) .... etc etc etc.

I worry that for DD that will be traumatic and long after we've read the story she'll still be grappling with the whole idea of parent separation.


----------



## denimtiger (Jan 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hokulele* 
Funny you should bring this up - I've been having a similar issue. DD is 5yo and I've been looking for good books to read aloud to her. SO many of them seem to have some kind of separation from parents. Pippi Longstocking, The Boxcar Kids series, traditional fairy tales (look at a traditional telling of how Cinderella ends up with the awful step-sisters! yikes!) .... etc etc etc.

I worry that for DD that will be traumatic and long after we've read the story she'll still be grappling with the whole idea of parent separation.


I worry about those things too, and I don't think we can count on our children not "getting" the concept. My dd was not yet 2 when she saw the beginning of "The Lion King" at her cousin's house, not the scary part, the very beginning when all of the animals are celebrating the birth of the new baby. She freaked out, running to me asking "Why did that monkey take the baby away from his mommy? Why did he do that? He needs to give that baby back to his mommy!"

I understand that it makes for an interesting plot device, I have degrees in English and literacy, but I also think that there is an overwhelming trend in our society to push stories and characters and concepts on kids just because they are animated or marketed toward children. It must be appropriate for every child if Disney made it or it's animated. It's expected that a three-year-old girl know the names of the Disney princesses. Even my daughter's swim teacher asked all of the three-year-olds if they wanted to go under the water so they could "see Nemo." My daughter now thinks that Nemo is an invisible friendly creature who lives in the bottom of swimming pools.

Of course, building one's way toward independence is an important theme in childhood, but I also think that there is a rather disturbing system in place that systematically separates children from "the rest of society." And I think that a lot of the movies and stories out there reinforce that separation.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

It doesn't bother me as it is very much the traditional Hero's Journey, the Hero has to either lose or separate from his parents and other parental figures so that the Hero can finally reach his/her independence and take on responsibilities freely. It's very much a literary tradition and also how life works in a general sense, you separate more and more from your parents until you are a responsible adult. It doesn't work as neatly as in movies/stories in real life typically, but I don't think it is a bad theme.

But I can definitely understand why some themes may be inappropriate for some children depending on age/maturity.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

Exactly, the Hero's Journey.

At the same time, books with lovely families (for little kids) are a nice balance, too. But I do remember thinking as I got older that nice families just made me feel bad about my own (which was a LOVELY family, but every kid seems to think their family is embarrassing, right?). I know for my 3yo, she's very into stories of families, which she then acts out. She also likes, say, Jane and the Dragon, but that's ultimately about making friends and learning to be nice to each other, along with being sort of a hero's journey. But there's always the return home at the end!

I think there are lots of great books about families for older kids, like Madeleine L'Engles books, the Austins and other ones... The Mozart Season is a good book with a real family...


----------



## gcgirl (Apr 3, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ollyoxenfree* 
Purely for discussion purposes, what about narratives with parents who exist in the story, but are written as largely absent from children's lives (and the adventures they have). These parents are written as being unaware of what is happening with their children. There is no traumatic separation, but what kind of message is conveyed about oblivious, perhaps even neglectful parents, and children who essentially carry on secret lives from their parents?

Peanuts! "Mwa-mwa-ma-ma-wa..." Totally in the background. You notice none of them ever came to Charlie Brown's rescue when he was being tormented by Lucy, eh?

With all the free-range parents on this board, I'm surprised at some of the responses. I'm big on family togetherness, but kids spend their entire childhoods arcing AWAY from their parents. Of course they have private and even secretive lives! Gosh, my favorite fantasy growing up was of getting lost in the woods and having to survive and find my way back home. I "ran away" several times (from a perfectly together, loving family) just for the thrill of it. (Usually running away meant hiding out in my backyard, but still.) My best-loved books usually involved a separation, death of a parent, neglect, what-have-you, essentially leaving the child characters on their own to problem-solve and figure out what's-what.

Now, I totally agree that 3-YEAR-OLDS should not be subjected to this sort of thing. But the five and older set are usually looking for adventure.


----------



## Doodlebugsmom (Aug 1, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lach* 
And not to get all conspiracy-theoryish (I get paranoid at 3am when I'm suffering from pregnancy insomnia... sorry about that), but I do worry that the "hooking" of very young children onto this sort of emotional roller coaster at such a young age sets them up for a need for more and more extreme forms of entertainment as they get older. I don't think that it's good for very young kids to be exposed to such artificial emotional extremes... most preschoolers are good enough at coming up with their own emotional extremes just based on day to day experiences!

This reminds me of the work of Bruno Bettleheim, a renowned child psychologist during the 20th century. He published a book entitled _The Uses of Enchantment_ in 1976. In this book, he theorizes that:

"traditional fairy tales, with the darkness of abandonment, death, witches, and injuries, allowed children to grapple with their fears in remote, symbolic terms. If they could read and interpret these fairy tales in their own way, he believed, they would get a greater sense of meaning and purpose. Bettelheim thought that by engaging with these socially-evolved stories, children would go through emotional growth that would better prepare them for their own futures."

Bettlheim is just one theorist, and I'm sure there are others who would disagree with him. I've always been drawn to more dark literature and film, so I tend to see the truth in his writings.

Anyway, his writing and theories are very interesting to me, but I don't think that Disney/Pixar movies are the best way to expose children to these themes.


----------



## grniys (Aug 22, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *odenata* 
The mom lives in _The Lion King_ - it's the father that dies in that one. _The Princess and the Frog_ has a mom, I think. The pups in _101 Dalmations_ have both a mom and dad.

If you include Pixar things, there's a mom in _The Incredibles_ and _Toy Story_.

At any rate, the theme of being lost/on adventure alone doesn't bother me. When I was a kid, I liked to picture myself as the protagonist of my own adventures and I liked stories like these. Parents are safe and comforting, thigns that don't really lend themselves to excitement and adventure.

That's the way I look at it, too.


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

Quote:

It doesn't bother me as it is very much the traditional Hero's Journey, the Hero has to either lose or separate from his parents and other parental figures so that the Hero can finally reach his/her independence and take on responsibilities freely.
Exactly. It amused me no end when some people I knew were surprised and distraught at Dumbledore's death in the sixth Harry Potter book. I was like "Dude, you expected he and Harry would have a showdown with Voldemort arm-in-arm? Where'd be the drama in that?" I mean, yes, it was sad, but it _had_ to happen. Just like Obi-Wan Kenobi couldn't help Luke face Vader, and Gandalf couldn't accompany Frodo to Mount Doom, and Merlyn couldn't be on hand to advise Arthur about the Lancelot/Guenevere situation, and Mufasa couldn't send a bolt of lightning from the sky to kill Scar when he was fighting Simba, and... well. So on.







And for some stories, the loss of the Safe Awesome Parental Figure Who Makes Everything OK has to happen at the _start_, or the story will never get out of the starting gate.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smokering* 
Exactly. It amused me no end when some people I knew were surprised and distraught at Dumbledore's death in the sixth Harry Potter book. I was like "Dude, you expected he and Harry would have a showdown with Voldemort arm-in-arm? Where'd be the drama in that?" I mean, yes, it was sad, but it _had_ to happen. Just like Obi-Wan Kenobi couldn't help Luke face Vader, and Gandalf couldn't accompany Frodo to Mount Doom, and Merlyn couldn't be on hand to advise Arthur about the Lancelot/Guenevere situation, and Mufasa couldn't send a bolt of lightning from the sky to kill Scar when he was fighting Simba, and... well. So on.







And for some stories, the loss of the Safe Awesome Parental Figure Who Makes Everything OK has to happen at the _start_, or the story will never get out of the starting gate.











Add in the Merlin/Gandalf/ObiWan figure in Eragon whose name I can't remember. If he's a wise mentor charged with instructing the young hero in battle skills and life lessons, you know he's going down before the end of Book 1. Like the dog in a story of a hardscrabble family fiction (the Old Yeller effect).

I know this is a serious topic and children's emotional lives are at stake, but here's a little humour: Sorting Algorithm of Mortality and Algorithm of Deadness


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

As a child, this was my very favorite fiction theme - I lapped this stuff up. Not so much in Disney movies, but in books. THe Narnia Books, or even a book like "A Wrinkle in Time" where the kids have to rescue the father. And I loved movies like Goonies (though it clearly wouldn't be suitable for a toddler.)

In fact, in my neighbourhood a favorite game was something we called "Lost Kids". It was kind of a Littlest Hobo scenario, except we were wandering kids instead of a dog, and we looked for a real home and had adventures. Mostly we lived under a slide.

As far as books with intact families, there are the _Wrinkle in Time_ series, where the parents are there, or _Meet the Austins_, but the kids still go off alone a lot in both.

Even a story for really young kids like _Blueberries for Sa_l has a moment when the child is separated from the mother, that is the dramatic moment in the story.

As far as kids being alone in the stories, I do think it is primarily a plat device to explore the theme of the Hero: but I also think we may interpret it a bit differently than parents even from the not-so-distant past. Up until recently, kids were given a lot more freedom. As a seven year old I could roam around playing "Lost Kids" but many children today would not be allowed to do that.


----------



## Sorin (Nov 7, 2005)

I haven't read this thread in its entirety, but as an English prof, I have to weigh in.









We need to be careful when we say that the American media is trying to do X with these stories/movies. As some people have mentioned, many of the Disney movies are based on very old fairy tales (some of them non-Western), and many of these fairy tales are *far* more violent in their original version.

For example, in the original Cinderella fairy tale, one of the evil step sisters cuts her toes off so that she can jam her foot into the glass slipper. (This fairy tale exists in a Mother Goose version written in the 17th century and a Brother's Grimm version written in the 18th century).

In the original Little Mermaid (written by Hans Christian Anderson in the mid-19th century), she does not win the heart of the prince and remains human and lives happily ever after. The prince marries someone else, and she (SPOILER ALERT) DIES!

I read all the gruesome original stories as a kid, and I loved them (hmm . . . maybe that helps to explain a few things







). What is being marketed to American kids today is a watered-down, happily-ever-after version. Kids going off on their own? Absent parents? *shrug* Ok. At least they are not being shown a wolf being gutted by a woodsman only to have Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother pop out so that they can fill his body with stones! Now *that's* traumatic!


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I'll have to admit to being bummed at Dumbledore being killed off. I really liked the character and hoped he'd stick around. But, I did kind of expect him to be killed - just thought it would happen sometime in the first half of the last book.


----------



## Bluegoat (Nov 30, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sorin* 
I haven't read this thread in its entirety, but as an English prof, I have to weigh in.









We need to be careful when we say that the American media is trying to do X with these stories/movies. As some people have mentioned, many of the Disney movies are based on very old fairy tales (some of them non-Western), and many of these fairy tales are *far* more violent in their original version.

For example, in the original Cinderella fairy tale, one of the evil step sisters cuts her toes off so that she can jam her foot into the glass slipper. (This fairy tale exists in a Mother Goose version written in the 17th century and a Brother's Grimm version written in the 18th century).

In the original Little Mermaid (written by Hans Christian Anderson in the mid-19th century), she does not win the heart of the prince and remains human and lives happily ever after. The prince marries someone else, and she (SPOILER ALERT) DIES!

I read all the gruesome original stories as a kid, and I loved them (hmm . . . maybe that helps to explain a few things







). What is being marketed to American kids today is a watered-down, happily-ever-after version. Kids going off on their own? Absent parents? *shrug* Ok. At least they are not being shown a wolf being gutted by a woodsman only to have Little Red Riding Hood and her grandmother pop out so that they can fill his body with stones! Now *that's* traumatic!

This sort of thing - softening the stories - actually bothers me a little more than the lack of parental involvement. Now, I am not suggesting telling grossly violent tales to toddlers. But it really bothered me that Disney changed the ending of The Little Mermaid - it isn't nearly as good, as substantial, a story. Or that movie versions of A Little Princess have the father live. Or what Disney did with The Hunchback.

Some people say that death is the new sex - the reality we are scared to let our kids in on - and I think there is some truth to that.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bluegoat* 
Some people say that death is the new sex - the reality we are scared to let our kids in on - and I think there is some truth to that.

There may be some truth to it, but I don't personally enjoy downer entertainment. (I've never read Hunchback, and now that I know how it really ends, I won't.) I think Disney really should have left stories like The Little Mermaid and Hunchback of Notre Dame alone, but if they were going to do them, I prefer the version they did. My kids have lost a beloved pet and a baby brother, and knew there was a good possibility they'd lose their aunt...all in the last three years. They know about death. They don't need it in their entertainment.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Reading this thread, I've been trying to think about cartoons that have good family interactions in them. I've come up with a few, and all on PBS. Caillou has his family, and they are attentive and wise. The best cartoon family I can think of is the Berenstein Bears. Those parents are so ideal! They are the right amount of hands-off, with the appropriate degree of guidance. They are interesting adults in their own right, each having talents and productive activities that they do. They are good examples of how I'd like my children to grow up.

I've noticed a lot of the parent-less shows are on NickJr, but they also have Olivia, which I like. Her parents aren't a major part of most plots, but they contribute a little here and a little there as adult input is needed.


----------



## Lady Lilya (Jan 27, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QuestionGal* 
Before you dive into "Cheaper By The Dozen" be aware that the dad *does* die, of a heart attack. It's based on a true story and that's what really happened. I can't remember if his death is in "Cheaper by the Dozen" (IIRC it is) or in the sequel "Belles on Their Toes."

I distinctly remember reading that book in 5th grade (as a class) and the teacher warned us that the next chapter was really sad and suggested we skip it. We chose to read it instead and I was devastated. It's still one of my all time favorite books but certainly not without loss.

It was in the original movie too. The mother goes on to continue his work, giving the presentation he was going to give about efficiently running a household with a large family.


----------



## alis (Aug 14, 2010)

I haven't read all the responses but I have done quite a few courses in children's literature at university.

This is a very common theme to most children's literature. The issue is not meant to be a "lack of parental involvement" but "the independent child". Children live through the literature. The stories are written so that the child can see a part of themselves in the protagonist, or experience independence through the lives they read (or watch).

Children's literature is usually about overcoming an obstacle and growing up. In order for the child in the story to do this, the child needs some sort of way to be independent from a parent, and that usually involves being an orphan or being distant.

Literature, for the child, is supposed to be escape and fantasy.


----------

