Re-release of 2004 essay I wrote for Virtual Procrastinators, and following thread generated by friends.
So, I was thinking there’s no better way of getting in the mood to
write on Machiavelli than by listening to Disney’s villain songs…
so, right now I’m listening to Ursula’s “Poor Unfortunate Soul”….
and yes, she is Machiavellic indeed.
“The only way of getting what you want is by becoming human”
Ursula
“I never thought hyenas essential
They’re crude and unspeakably plain
But maybe they’ve a glimmer of potential
If allied to my vision and brain.”
Scar
“Oh! Marry the shrew? I become sultan. The idea has merit!”
Jafar
Definitely, the most interesting villains Disney offers have read a
copy of The Prince or The Discourses. The main idea Machiavelli
shares with us is that, when it comes to ruling a kingdom, the end
justifies the means.
The reason these Disney Villains are so good is because they are very
real and have true motivations behind their actions. We love them
because they hold some truth in them… even though we root for
our “hero.”
Ursula was attacked by the laws of the kingdom. She learnt to do
things her way, to survive. They kicked her out because she didn’t
abide to their rules. The movie doesn’t really give us much
information regarding her past, but we do know she and King Triton
have a past. Surely she was once his right hand, and realized how
weak and incompetent he really was. Perhaps because he never had
sons? We never really know how those “under the sea” laws work, but
surely they were against females raising to power, yet we have this
king who continues having daughters (12 or something?) in his attempt
to bear at least one son. Yet he cannot. Or maybe he has had sons,
yet he kills them because he feels threatened by them. Perhaps King
Triton feels he will last forever? Perhaps the Trident *can* give him
ever-lasting life as well. Thing is though, no matter what the
situation is, Ursula knows him better than anyone else, and she has
developed a plan to get a hold of the power she longs for. She feels
apt to take power, she knows how to use the trident, and her
knowledge of magic helps her enhance that power. She, even though
hated by the royal family, feels harming them is the only way the
correct order of things can be achieved. As Machiavelli says: “We
have not seen great things done in our time except by those who have
been considered mean; the rest have failed.”
And then, we have Scar. Second in line, and upset with the way
kingdom laws randomly choose a heir to the throne. He finds utterly
absurd that such an important job (being king) can be determined by
how fast someone comes out of his royal mother’s uterus. Scar is
definitely smarter… yet his brother, bearer of brute strength is
king… but not for long. See, Scar has developed a subtler plan. He
has “arranged” the king’s dismissal, but without him being possibly
linked to the crime. Unlike Ursula, he really played his cards right,
taking advantage of the situation of being second in line. He figures
it is easier to remain king by pretending he is innocent and not
upsetting the lionesses, who are definitely a powerful fraction of
the government. Thing is though, he encounters something Machiavelli
says Cesar Borgia encountered as well when he rose to power: “extreme
and extraordinary misbehavior of fortune” aka bad luck. So it
happens, when Scar rose to power, a big drought took control of the
savanna. In other words, the economy dropped. The investors and
workers (the animal population) moved out of the kingdom, searching
for places with better economy. Which left Scar with bigger problems:
one would be the constant comparison of him with his belated brother
Mufasa (everyone starts blaming Scar and comparing him to the good
ol’ days in which Mufasa was alive), and second the mercenaries
(hyenas) who put him on top are out of control and creating a state
of anarchy in the already impoverished kingdom. Civil unrest was
unavoidable, and less when fortune would have it, the true heir to
the throne, Simba, comes back to “fix” things. We’ll leave this
subject on hold though, as we move on to our third example.
Jafar as royal adviser feels the same way Ursula surely felt when she
used to be trusted by King Triton (in a pre-The Little Mermaid era).
Jafar is smart, and the Arab lands would be nothing if he wouldn’t be
controlling things. The Sultan is an imbecile. He has toys he plays
with all day, and lacks leadership abilities. He can’t even find his
daughter a husband. So, Jafar feels he should start getting the
credit he deserves; after all, it is he who rules the kingdom anyway.
Taking advantage of his “second in line” state (similar to Scar’s,
yet not having the misfortune of dealing with a male heir), Jafar
tries to become Sultan through legal means. He will marry Princess
Jasmine because the law says she must marry him before her birthday,
if she doesn’t marry a prince before, that is. Thus, the Prince Ali
problem arrives. As luck would have it, just before the deadline,
Jasmine falls in love with this “prince,” making Jafar take desperate
measures by arranging Prince Ali’s dismissal. Prince Ali accuses
Jafar of the assassination attempt and also claims he has the Sultan
hypnotized, which is all a lie, of course. Jafar is ruined because of
this calumny, but (as Ursula) he finds more direct ways of getting
his vengeance. The finding of an uthopical magical object, the lamp,
helps him restore order and grasp power without having to depend on
thirds. But, as Machiavelli says: “there is nothing more difficult to
take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its
success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of
things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done
well under the old conditions, and lukewarm (indifferent,
uninterested) defenders in those who may do well under the new.”
And now as all Thesis of “Punto Final” do, we must tie together all
three villains, and explain what went wrong in each case. One thing
Machiavelli teaches us is the study of elliptic history. That way we
learn how to play our cards.
The biggest mistakes these villains could do was to not hide their
evilness, not forming the right alliances, and not dismissing the
heirs to the throne when they had the chance to do so. In other
words, they played with their food. They let their emotions control
them, thus making them weak to their enemies. I’m afraid to include
Scar completely in this boat since neither his emotions nor his pride
ruined him. So, lets divide them up again, shall we?
Ursula let Ariel and Prince Whats-His-Name (Eric, who kinda looks
like Aladdin, only white) live without turning them
into worms (just as she did to Triton). How can you let enemies of
the new State roam around when your order is still young? That’s a
big No-No. She trusted she would be invincible with her new trident,
just as Jafar trusted his lamp. Trust in magical charms or fetishism
is not enough to maintain your State. Wits is, alliances, charisma…
tangible actions, knowing when to retreat, and pretending you’ve
retreated as well. Jafar and Ursula put so much thought into climbing
to power, they didn’t put that much thought in staying in power. And
that’s when, during that weakest hour, the previous princes pulled
the rug from under their figurative feet.
Scar on the other hand, he did manage to stay in power, and the only
thing he did wrong was not to send “troops” out and destroy the
hyenas. They knew too much, and they had grown too powerful as well.
When his order was young, the best way to reinforce his place would
have been to accuse the hyenas of subversive murderers and having
them killed. That way he would have gained his way into the lionesses
good side, and would have wiped out the only ones who could take him
out. In the end, bad luck and the return of a more liked suitor to
the crown brought his end… that, and letting the hyenas live.
So, I guess we have learnt brilliant plans aren’t enough to rule a
kingdom. Sometimes one has to take the backseat in life, simply
because destiny wants to spite us. If we plan to do a hostile take
over, we must kill all suitors to the throne, just like the Russians
did when they wiped out the Romanov Dynasty, even after the Tsars had
lost all power. Come to think of it, Maybe Ursula *was* Ariel’s
mother, thus it could explain why didn’t she kill her when she had
the chance. Perhaps some piece of motherly love was still there, and
all the hunger for power was just Ursula’s way of coping with the
loss. Another interesting fact is how both Jasmine and Aladdin are
Machiavellic characters. They trick Jafar because they want to usurp
his power. Jasmine pretends she’s in love with him, hurting his ego,
and Aladdin taunts him to get him to wish erroneously. Aladdin in the
end is the wisest man, he rises to power by being likable and by
taking the opportunity turmoil brings him, the opportunity to “save”
the kingdom. Iago, being the smart bird that he is, later assumes
Aladdin’s position (the position of a suck-up) and is able to enjoy a
life of luxury and peace.
So, maybe, just maybe, the Machiavellic way of thinking is not the
best way. Maybe kingdoms are bound to be won, and to be lost by acts
of fortune. Even though he was very smart, Machiavelli never
accomplished his dreams. Writing his stuff didn’t take him out of
political exile, and didn’t help him win Lorenzo the Magnificent’s
favor. He says: “he who has relied least on fortune is established
the strongest,” which is true, but in the end, perhaps things move in
what appears to be a more random order. Maybe Scar was right when he
said: “Life’s not fair, is it?”
-Alex
————————————————————–
Subsequent thead:
————————————————————–
Disney Villains used to be attractive, remember the evil queen in
Snow White and the witch in Sleeping Beauty, sure they look like
Drag Queens but hey, they kind of have a gothic type of beauty.
My theory on Ursula is that she was the king’s lover, I mean come
on, all those tentacles must make any merman go crazy for her. Then
Triton started an affair with little Sebastian and well poor Ursula
ended up depressed and emotional dependent on food, she used to have
quite a nice figure you know.
And no, Life isn’t fair at all, AT ALL! but it still has it’s
beautiful moments…
-Cecilia
————————————————–
ONCE I HEARD:
“GIVE POWER TO SOMEONE AND YOU’LL KNOW THEIR TRUE
SELF”
POWER, THE IDEA OF IT; THE ESSENCE, ITS COURSE IN
ACTION AND EVERY SINGLE DETAIL CONCERNING ITS
INVOLVING, IS DEFINITELY INTRIGUING.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THOSE WITH POWER ARE THE ONES
REMEMBERED; THE OTHERS, WHO WILL CARE.
IF ONE, REVIEWS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE FEW THAT
OBTAINED MAGNIFICENT POWER, MACHIAVELLI’S “PREACHINGS”
SEEM TO BE THE PATH THEY EMBRACED TO OBTAIN THEIR
DESIRABILITY.
THE TERM “MACHIAVELLI” HAS BEEN USED FOR CENTURIES AS
A SYNONYM OF EVILNESS. WE HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THIS.
WHY SUCH A BRILLIANT MIND AS MACHIAVELLI BE DISTORTED
INTO A NEGATIVE TERMINOLOGY? “THE PRINCE” MAY BE
STILL SHOCKING TO MANY, BUT WE HAVE TO AGREE THAT IS
BRILLIANT.
MANY OF US(I MUST INCLUDE MYSELF) ARE INTERESTED IN
THE VANITY, THE GLORY, THE HUNGER OF ACHIEVEMENT THAT
SUM TO, OF COURSE POWER.
IF WE MAY COMPARE, WE ARE NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM
ANIMALS; DARWINISM TEACHES THAT THE ONE WHO WILL
SURVIVE IS THE MOST FITTED TO DO SO. AND SO, WE MUST
THEN DEDUCE, THAT THE ONE THAT WILL RULE SHOULD BE
THE MOST FITTED FOR SUCH TASK. THE QUEEN BEE
THEORY…BUT WHY WAS THAT PARTICULAR BEE CHOSEN?, WHAT
MADE HER SO DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHERS?WHY SHE HAS THE
POWER AND THE OTHERS CANNOT? LUCK, DESTINY…??
OUR ERAS MAY NOT BE THE SAME AS MACHIAVELLI’S BUT HAVE
THINGS CHANGED AT ALL?
LENIN, STALIN, HITLER, CASTRO. WHY ARE THEY STILL PART
OF OUR HISTORY AND OUR PRESENT? BECAUSE MACHIAVELLI
WAS RIGHT, AS SIMPLE AS THAT.
CHAPTER 17 AS WELL AS CHAPTER 18 ARE POSSIBLY MY
FAVORITE CHAPTERS OF THIS “MASTERPIECE”.
“IT IS BETTER TO BE FEARED THAN TO BE LOVED”. YEP IT
SOUNDS LIKE A MAFIOSO SAYING, BUT HOW BRILLIANT!!!
CHAPTER 18, MACHIAVELLI ARGUES THAT THE PRINCE SHOULD
KNOW HOW TO BE DECEITFUL WHEN IT SUITS HIS PURPOSE.
WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE THE NECESSITY OF BEING DECEITFUL
HE SHOULD NOT APPEAR THIS WAY. INSTEAD HE HAS TO
EXHIBIT 5 VIRTUES: MERCY, HONESTY, HUMANENESS,
UPRIGHTNESS AND RELIGIOUSNESS.
SO IN OTHER WORDS TAKE THE WORLD FOR A SUCKER, LIE
AND MAKE THEM BELIEVE HOW GREAT YOU ARE. MAKE THEM
LOVE YOU BUT AT THE SAME TIME FEAR YOU. ISN’T THAT
WHAT GREAT RULERS DO? QUEEN BEES?
AND YES, DISNEY VILLAINS!
WHAT IS GREAT OF THE VILLIANS IS THAT DEEP INSIDE WE
ADMIRED THEM BUT FEEL GUILTY IN ADMITTING IT. WHY?
BECAUSE WE KNOW WE ARE NATURALLY EVIL.
URSULA KNEW TOO MUCH, SHE HAD POWER BUT BECAME BLINDED
BY IT, SO DID JAFAR AND SCAR. THEY WERE BLINDED BY THE
AMBITION POWER PROVIDED AND THEY WERE NOT CHOSEN, SOME
OTHER BEE WAS.MANY OF THE MEMORABLES RULERS FAILED AS
DID THESE DISNEY “VILLIANS” BUT WE ALL KNOW IT WAS FOR
THE SAME REASONS…
SOME PEOPLE MAY HAVE HUNGER FOR POWER BUT POWER
CHOOSES WHO HE WANTS TO EMBRACE. PERSISTANCE, SELF
ASSURANCE AND THE USE OF KNOWLEDGE MAY HELP BUT AT THE
END WHO WILL RECEIVE IT???
-KIKI
——————————————————–
I have to admit, I have not read Machiavelli’s work. I have used the
term once or twice, but never cared to find out why. This is a very
interesting discussion, but it got me thinking (yes, I can still
smell the smoke coming from my ears) about how maybe the villains
are not the only machiavellic ones…
Anyway, from what I could gather from the posts, this philosophy
basically states that it’s all about the power, no matter what means
one uses to achieve it, as long as it is achieved and maintained.
Quote: “Chapter 18, Machiavelli argues that the Prince should know
how to be deceitful when it suits his purpose when he should have
the necessity of being deceitful he could not appear this way
instead he has to exhibit 5 virtues: Mercy, Honesty, Humaneness,
uprightness and religiousness.”
But which characters in the Disney universe truly represent
this “ideals” but its heroes.
Quote: “Another interesting fact is how both Jasmine and Aladdin are
Machiavellic characters.”
Sure, villains have to be machiavellic, but, in the end, those that
are in power are the ones that set the rules… And who holds or ends
up in power in every Disney Movie? The “good guy”, right? Good guys
that show mercy, honesty and humaneness and in the end succeed in
convincing us that they (if they weren’t) are truly upright people
with a righteous set of beliefs. Of course, most of them start as
innocent, likeable, good natured, blah, blah, blah… And most of them
might even really be like that. But what matters here is that, in
the end, they are the ones that have overcome adversity and have
gain the “power” (be it freedom, success, conquest, status, a
consort, etc.).
Let’s check some of the most prominent animated movies Disney has
released (I would go into the non-animated ones but I don’t like to
mess too much with the master of machiavellic thought… Mary Poppins)
and it’s main characters…
“Dumbo” (1941). Dumbo. A little circus elephant, shunned by his
equals because of his over-sized ears, unknowingly avenges his honor
by becoming the Star of the Show.
“Bambi” (1942). Bambi. A coming of age story about a deer fawn grows
up and fights for a mate, survives a devastating forest fire, and
ultimately takes the place of his father, the Great Prince of the
Forest.
“Cinderella” (1950). Cinderella. A girl who has been shown little
love by her foster-family, finds the means to leave them behind and
become a Princess.
“Peter Pan” (1953). Peter and Wendy. An eternal boy, with the help
of his chosen consort, fights the evil adults… I mean pirates of
Never Never Land in order to become the “ruler” of the place.
“Robin Hood” (1973). Well, Robin Hood, duh! A fox manages to steal
from the rich and give to the poor, while outwitting the evil prince
and the sheriff of Nottingham.
“The Little Mermaid” (1989). Ariel. The youngest of twelve mermaid
princesses not happy with being just a princess finds a way to
become Queen.
“Beauty and the Beast” (1991). Belle. A poor, yet learned peasant
girl exchanges places with her father as the captive of a Beast.
Little by little gaining the loyalty of his followers and the key to
his heart, leading him to murder and to turn himself into a whole
new man.
“Aladdin” (1992). Aladdin. A thief steals his way into the sultan’s
daughter pants.
“The Lion King” (1994). Simba. A young cub learns from his father to
be kind to those that follow their leader and ruthless against those
that oppose.
“Pocahontas” (1995). Pocahontas. A young Native American princess
works her way out of an unwanted marriage by seizing the opportunity
to help out the enemy and become their link with her nation.
“Hercules” (1997). Hercules. A young demi-god learns the necessary
skill of a “hero” to win back his rightful place as the son of the
King and Queen of the Gods.
“Mulan” (1998). Mulan. A girl not happy with the role society
expects her to play joins the army disguised as a male in a campaign
against the barbarians that are invading her country, and by so
doing, gaining the affections of her superior and a recognition from
the emperor.
“The Emperor’s New Groove” (2000). Pacha. A man carries the burden
of helping a llama that used to be the emperor in order to win his
favor and not lose his home.
As you can see this movies are all about personal gain. Sure, love
and other subplots may develop along the way, but that is only to
make our heroes seem more human make them, and I quote, “…hold some
truth in them”.
It’s interesting though, how most of them acquire what they desire
by making an “alliance” to someone of the opposite sex in the same
or a higher station. Snow White, a Princess, had Prince Charming.
Cinderella also chose a Prince. Peter Pan a high society girl from
the suburbs (or should I say Wendy chose a man with many talents).
Sleeping Beauty could only be rescued by a Prince (commoners not
allowed). Robin Hood had to go after Maid Marian, who was kin to the
king. Ariel had to fall in love with Prince Eric. Belle had to
seduce a Beast, which was really a Prince. Aladdin went after the
Princess. Pocahontas went after John Smith, not necessarily a
nobleman, but with power enough amongst his people. Mulan after a
high-ranking officer and Pacha had to kiss a llamas’, I mean, an
emperor’s ass.
So, the easiest way to acquire power is to make an “alliance” with
someone that already possesses it. This says a lot about how Disney
wants people to look at the world. Those “less fortunate”, or with
aspirations outside of their current possibilities, will always, by
a struck of luck, find themselves someone who either: a)has a noble
title and riches but had little love during his/her live and now
will take anyone that will show them an ounce of love (i.e. Maid
Marian), b) only cares about good looks (i.e. Prince Charming), c)
is interested in exploring other species (i.e. Beast), d) bring
adventure into their lives (i.e. Jasmine), or e) are confused about
their sexuality (i.e. Mulan).
Once such a person has been found, one may encounter some…
competition, which “everyone” will believe to be “evil”. But with
the help of the little people that seem to be inspired by the great
amount of luck one of their own has had, the adversary shall be
annihilated and the ultimate goal: Power, shall be attained.
We can even take it as symbolic that most of them turn out to be
prince/sses or King/Queens in the end.
The only thing missing here is that they don’t get to power by their
own efforts:
Quote: “…there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more
perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take
the lead in the introduction of a new order of
things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have
done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm (indifferent,
uninterested) defenders in those who may do well under the new.”
None of them would have come to power if it weren’t for the little
people that put them there, either because they wanted to reinstate
a former order, or because they wanted to replace it with a new one.
Demonstrating, alas, that without support they are nothing.
“Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (1937). The Seven Dwarfs. Without
them, the little white as snow princess would have never survived in
the forest and would have never been found by her Prince. Of course,
since they are the little people, she was never to lower to their
station, but there would always be a certain grade of affection…
Maybe as uncles twice removed… Or something like that.
“Dumbo”. Timothy Mouse. This little fellow became Dumbo’s manager.
Quite an unlikely character, but without whom this young pachyderm
would have never been able to fly.
“Bambi”. Flower the skunk and Thumper the rabbit. Bambi learns from
this unlikely pair of the forest’s wonders and dangers- especially a
danger called “Man.” Without them, our little Prince of the Forest
would have perished after his mothers’ demise.
“Cinderella”. Fairy Godmother, the mice. A little magic here, a
couple of mice turning into horses and an escort over there, and
Bibbidi Bobbidi Boo! What have we got? A new home away from the
evil step-mother and sisters. Hurray!
“Peter Pan”. Tinkerbell. This hot-tempered pixie could make anyone
fly with her fairy dust. So, why not use her gift to help Peter get
rid of the evil Captain Hook? Besides, all he had to do was make her
feel important and try to make her believe that size doesn’t really
matter.
“Robin Hood”. The Merry Men. Did you really think this beloved man
in tights could still from the rich without a gang? Welcome to the
Medieval Mafia.
“The Little Mermaid”. Sebastian and Flounder. Why get in trouble
alone, when you can get your friends in the king’s bad side as
well? Besides, with their musical talents and abilities to be in
the right place at the right time, how else did you expect her to
become the Prince’s bride?
“Beauty and the Beast”. Mrs. Potts, Lumiere, Cogsworth, Chip, etc.
With the help of this enchanted inanimate objects that want to
return to the way things were, Belle manages to seduce the Beast
into submission.
“Aladdin”. Genie, Abu and Magic Carpet. Without the monkey, there
was no lamp. Without the lamp, there was no genie. Without the
genie, there was no magic carpet. Without the magic carpet, there
wasn’t silly love song. Without silly love song, there was no
princess. Without the princess, there was no Prince.
“The Lion King”. Timon and Pumba. This was a relationship of
survival. Timon and Pumba showed Simba the ropes and Simba offered
them protection. Since Nala came along and ruined the relation they
had by putting kingly ideas in Simbas head, they had no choice but
to try and help in their protector’s cause. Besides, his success
meant their success.
“Pocahontas” The Willow Tree, the wind, the raccoon, the bumblebee.
They all knew a new world order was to arrive soon, the Virginia
Company. That’s why they chose to help Pocahontas know what was
coming and how to befriend he who would have been her enemy, John
Smith.
“Hercules”. Pegasus, Phil. Pegasus was made to serve Hercules. Phil
wanted the glory of being the trainer of a real hero (and not being
stroked down by Zeus’ lightning bolts).
“Mulan”. Mushu. Her family’s dragon “totem”. The one her ancestors
sent her to protect her on her journey. Just like Tinkerbell
in “Peter Pan”, no matter what the size, it came in handy from time
to time, besides, by helping Mulan, he would advance in status.
It’s also amazing that, even though our “heroes” are “normal”, some,
if not most, need of magical aid to succeed. Something that will set
them apart from the rest of the world. Not everyone has a magic
lamp, a pixie, or a fairy godmother. Which takes me to the delusion
of the Disney people that beings with such powers would submit so
easily and effortlessly to the whims of such selfish, self-centered,
lucky-as-hell individuals.
Quote: “So, maybe, just maybe, the Machiavellic way of thinking is
not the best way. Maybe kingdoms are bound to be won, and to be lost
by acts of fortune.”
Maybe “machiavellic” is one of those terms that acquire meaning
according from who’s mouth it comes from. If I say “machiavellic” in
this essay, I’m referring to those most of us would consider heroes,
for their actions are very shrewd and have only one goal, which is
not only a happy ending.
The poor, so-called “villains”, who’s only fault was the want/need
of change. They were “machiavellic” indeed. In fact, consciously
so. Unlike the “good guys” who carry out their plans unconsciously
out of habit. The “villains” only mistake lies in that they failed.
Failure is the cause of their “evilness”, of their “villainy”. For,
if they had succeeded, the “heroes” would have been they.
Who can assure you that they where “evil”? Who can tell you that
only chaos and mayhem would follow if they had won? People FEAR that
word (evil) so much? They FEAR change. They FEAR not been led, not
been told what to do, what to think. They FEAR loss. They FEAR
loneliness, insecurity. They FEAR not knowing what tomorrow may
bring…
That’s what the Wonderful and Magical World of Disney feeds us with
their wonderful art: FEAR.
FEAR, ambrosia for the “heroes”.
-RJ
————————————————————–
The very same project manager who almost didn’t receive my email at 8:34AM. Gasp…
