Random Thoughts: The Political Implications of The Lion King
Most people remember seeing The Lion King by Disney as a little kid, and I will say, it was one of my favorite movies as a kid and it still holds up till this day. We all remember the feels that overcame us when Mufasa was killed by Scar and when Simba avenged his father's death. When I was a kid, I never really thought about the story of the Lion King too much, and I haven't thought about it a lot until recently. After thinking about the movie more, and taking some history classes, I started seeing the Lion King in a whole new way. Was Mufasa really the good guy? Was Scar really the bad guy? I won't know for sure, but I think that the story draws some parallels to some events in history.
After thinking about how the Lion King drew parallels to some events in history, the conclusion I came up with was that Mufasa only catered to the interests of the elite (Lions, Monkeys, Birds, etc.), which is why the common people (the Hyenas) sided with Scar to overthrow Mufasa. Scar now with support of the commoners then pulls off a successful coup by killing Mufasa in a way that makes it seem like Mufasa fell to his death. After Mufasa's assassination at the hands of Scar, Scar assumed power and replaced the monarchy with a dictatorship due to Simba not being of age at the time. This "military dictatorship" ended up being worse than the monarchy and Simba assembled a team during his time in exile. After a couple of years and gaining enough power, Simba defeats Scar and reestablishes the monarchy with him as the rightful heir to the throne.
That was a pretty heavily loaded summary of the events of the Lion King, but I think that if you really think about it, it makes sense. We know that Scar was power hungry, and was supposed to be king after Mufasa, but due to Simba being born, Scar lost his claim to the throne. Scar's only options to get a shot a the throne was if Simba died or Mufasa died. This is the point in the Lion King where I disagree with Scar's choice because if I were Scar, killing Simba would be a lot easier than killing Mufasa. Since Simba was so small it would've been easier to kill him, thus Scar being the rightful heir to throne after Mufasa. Simba always had someone watching over him constantly, so I guess it wouldn't have been so easy to kill Simba.
After Scar killed Mufasa, he was able to assume control over the kingdom, but he knew that once Simba came of age, Simba would replace him as king. So to stop this from happening, he sends Simba into exile. At this point, you would think that things would be good from here on out, because the commoners had finally ousted the king who didn't care for the common folk, and instituted a king who they felt better represented them, but they were dead wrong. If anything, in my opinion Scar ended up being WORSE than Mufasa was. Instead of issuing equality to all of the animals under his reign, all he did was reverse the roles by putting the common the people into positions of power, and the rest of the animals into poverty.
After many years of being alone and in exile, Simba now older and stronger, comes back and challenges Scar for the throne. He gains the support of the old elite class and some friends he made while in exile, and then kills Scar in a similar way that Scar killed Mufasa. After finally gaining vengeance, Simba decides to go back to the exact same thing his father did, by kicking the Hyenas back into poverty, reinstating the monarchy and putting the old elites back into power.
Even though I thought the ending was awesome, I thought to myself, what is stopping another uprising from happening again? Just because the leader of the separatist faction is dead (Scar), doesn't mean that this won't happen again. A similar scenario can be seen in the middle east, because even though we killed Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban activity didn't just magically stop. However, I also thought that Simba was smarter than his father, and that he would be more careful, and actually bring peace to the animal kingdom. So all in all, I think the Lion King is more than just a simple kids story, and if you think about it hard enough, it can reflect some situations in our history. So, the next time you sit down and watch a movie, you might want to consider that sometimes you have to delve deep to find the true meaning of some things.
After thinking about how the Lion King drew parallels to some events in history, the conclusion I came up with was that Mufasa only catered to the interests of the elite (Lions, Monkeys, Birds, etc.), which is why the common people (the Hyenas) sided with Scar to overthrow Mufasa. Scar now with support of the commoners then pulls off a successful coup by killing Mufasa in a way that makes it seem like Mufasa fell to his death. After Mufasa's assassination at the hands of Scar, Scar assumed power and replaced the monarchy with a dictatorship due to Simba not being of age at the time. This "military dictatorship" ended up being worse than the monarchy and Simba assembled a team during his time in exile. After a couple of years and gaining enough power, Simba defeats Scar and reestablishes the monarchy with him as the rightful heir to the throne.
That was a pretty heavily loaded summary of the events of the Lion King, but I think that if you really think about it, it makes sense. We know that Scar was power hungry, and was supposed to be king after Mufasa, but due to Simba being born, Scar lost his claim to the throne. Scar's only options to get a shot a the throne was if Simba died or Mufasa died. This is the point in the Lion King where I disagree with Scar's choice because if I were Scar, killing Simba would be a lot easier than killing Mufasa. Since Simba was so small it would've been easier to kill him, thus Scar being the rightful heir to throne after Mufasa. Simba always had someone watching over him constantly, so I guess it wouldn't have been so easy to kill Simba.
After Scar killed Mufasa, he was able to assume control over the kingdom, but he knew that once Simba came of age, Simba would replace him as king. So to stop this from happening, he sends Simba into exile. At this point, you would think that things would be good from here on out, because the commoners had finally ousted the king who didn't care for the common folk, and instituted a king who they felt better represented them, but they were dead wrong. If anything, in my opinion Scar ended up being WORSE than Mufasa was. Instead of issuing equality to all of the animals under his reign, all he did was reverse the roles by putting the common the people into positions of power, and the rest of the animals into poverty.
After many years of being alone and in exile, Simba now older and stronger, comes back and challenges Scar for the throne. He gains the support of the old elite class and some friends he made while in exile, and then kills Scar in a similar way that Scar killed Mufasa. After finally gaining vengeance, Simba decides to go back to the exact same thing his father did, by kicking the Hyenas back into poverty, reinstating the monarchy and putting the old elites back into power.
Even though I thought the ending was awesome, I thought to myself, what is stopping another uprising from happening again? Just because the leader of the separatist faction is dead (Scar), doesn't mean that this won't happen again. A similar scenario can be seen in the middle east, because even though we killed Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and Taliban activity didn't just magically stop. However, I also thought that Simba was smarter than his father, and that he would be more careful, and actually bring peace to the animal kingdom. So all in all, I think the Lion King is more than just a simple kids story, and if you think about it hard enough, it can reflect some situations in our history. So, the next time you sit down and watch a movie, you might want to consider that sometimes you have to delve deep to find the true meaning of some things.
Comments
Post a Comment