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

————————————————————–