Disney again reaches outside of the West and Judeo-Christendom for source material. “Mulan” concerns a 2,000-year-old Chinese legend about a high-spirited daughter in a traditional Chinese family. In order to save her ailing father from being called to war against the Huns, she disguises herself as a man, takes her father’s armaments, and marches off to battle. The movie steps outside of established clichés in a number of ways, made even more admirable by the fact that it’s Disney producing the film. Despite Disney’s reputation for being socially progressive, their works still tend to reflect a middle American value system.

Mulan (Ming-Na Wen) makes for an engaging, empathetic, and unusually strong female lead. She is not a maiden to be rescued, nor someone who requires a beautiful dress and slippers to be made desirable. In fact, in this case, the heroine saves the hero (Shang, voiced by B.D. Wong), the Emperor (Pat Morita), her fellow soldiers. And, oh, yeah, she saves the whole nation of China too by using quick thinking and nimble physical skills. One of the family’s guardian spirit’s, Mushu the little dragon (Eddie Murphy), joins her in the adventure in order to regain his own stature. This character follows in the footsteps of Robin Williams’ genie in “Aladdin” (1992) as a wise-cracking, anachronistic, and genuinely enjoyable companion. “Mulan” benefits from a much greater emphasis on story and character than a typical Disney movie. Although it should be noted, the film doesn’t present a pure form of Chinese culture, but rather China as viewed through the prism of American culture. Hey, they had to make sure it appeals to the demographic, right?

On the whole, “Mulan” is a strong offering from Disney, ranking up there with “Beauty and the Beast,” “The Lion King,” and “Aladdin,” though it bests none of these.

Of course, this being a Disney animated feature, there’s no gay content. But I would be remiss if I didn’t comment on the fact the whole movie centers around drag.

The LGBTQQ community incorporates lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning people. Although the moniker doesn’t explicitly include cross-dressing, drag is clearly associated with the gay community. To a certain extent, its inclusion reflects the outmoded stereotype that gay people have inherent gender issues. But it’s also true that gay people, in the process of coming to terms with a nontraditional sexual orientation, are able to make peace with attitudes, behaviors, and mannerisms that are outside the box of admittedly restrictive gender roles in society at large. In other words, a lot of gay men make peace with their inner anima, and lesbians with their inner animus. They can do drag because it’s fun or an expression of some interest inside them, and because they’ve broken through the boundaries of convention in a way most people don’t or can’t.

Many people, including myself at times, question the inclusion of transgendered persons in the community; it seems as though they are piggybacking while dealing with a fundamentally different issue. My homosexuality is not about my gender identity; I’m a man, no question, no desire to be otherwise. But is it really true to say my homosexuality is not about my gender identity? A sensible and sustained argument can be made that society, through rigid gender role-typing, forces homosexuality to be about gender identity. The idea: man is active, dominant, the forceful giver, while woman is passive, receptive, the one who takes it. Even physically, this understanding is more limited than it needs to be. But when the physical roles translate into emotional and relational roles, we enter into the realm of pervasive sexism. Sexism feeds homophobia because homosexuals are seen as perverting traditional sex roles. Homophobia is not just an unwillingness to accept alternative sexualities; it’s an unwillingness to accept alternative sex role behaviors.

Anglican Bishop John Spong writes, “In the Biblical world of male values, the humiliation of a male was best achieved by making males act like women in the sex act. To act like a woman was thought to be insulting to the dignity of the male” (1). In response to this passage, the Reverend George Tyger observes, “For many men, to be feminized remains a frightening and humiliating prospect. The fact that being a gay man and being feminine have little to do with each other matters not” (2).

So what do we take from this? Homophobia will not cease to exist until sexism does. Although this blog concerns itself with homophobia in the media, and does not typically address sexism or transphobia, these three prejudices are nevertheless intimately intertwined. As a result, a movie like “Mulan” which challenges preconceived ideas about gender roles contributes to a more gay positive world. If it becomes increasingly acceptable to dress in nonconformist ways, and more fundamentally to BEHAVE outside established sex roles, the gay community can only benefit.

Therefore, despite the absence of any real gay content, I’m nevertheless scoring it for positivity.

Also note, out actors George Takei and B. D. Wong provide voices in the movie.

————————————————-

(1) John Shelby Spong, RESCUING THE BIBLE FROM FUNDAMENTALISM, Harper Collins, 1991, p7

(2) The Reverend George Tyger, “Sexism, Homophobia and the Bible,” a reading from the First Universalist Church of Rochester, 7 December 2003.