‘Mulan’ Tale Doesn’t Need Disney’s Help

In your article “No Herculean Gross; Why?” (Calendar, July 19), Disney’s 1998 animated feature “Mulan” is described as “the tale of a high-spirited girl trying to be the perfect daughter.”

Ever since I heard of Disney’s attempt to animate Hwa Mulan’s story, I’ve been looking forward to its release with great anticipation and high anxiety. Now you just tripled my anxiety. It seems Disney is turning the story of Mulan into “The Little Mermaid” meets “The Joy Luck Club”!

Hwa Mulan is much more than “a high-spirited girl trying to be the perfect daughter.” She was a farmer’s daughter in the Tang Dynasty (AD 618-AD 907) who volunteered to take her father’s place when he’s ordered to join a military campaign, because he’s old and in ill health.

She disguised herself as his son, because sons were allowed to substitute for fathers, and fought with distinction on the battlefield. No one knew her true gender until after the war when her fellow soldiers visited her hometown. After her story reached the emperor, she was highly awarded for her heroism on the battlefield, her patriotism and her devotion to her father. She eventually married her best friend, a fellow soldier.

Hwa Mulan was courageous, self-confident, ingenious (to hide her gender from her fellow soldiers), loyal (to her country and her father), and highly skilled with sword and arrows. Although she lived in 7th century China, she’s inspirational to today’s young girls the world over. Her story is so rich in texture--just think about the possibilities of hiding her gender in a military camp!--that Disney really doesn’t need to embellish or alter it. And it has a happy ending!

Warning to Disney: Mulan’s story is so well known to Chinese--in Chinese, her name is synonymous with “female soldier” or “heroine”--that if you do alter it, you shall hear an uproar that’s the mother of all uproars!

JASMINE KUNG

Anaheim

Regarding the story “No Herculean Gross; Why?”: Back in the “good old days” of Disney animation, a full-length feature was released about every four years. Why? Essentially the studio pulled together to work on just one project. With that kind of schedule, animation was more of a novelty.

Now, with multiple directors, thousands of animators, computer-aided ink and paint, a studio like Disney has the ability and finances to release and market a feature every year. And so they do.

But here’s the rub: An animated feature is a creative endeavor. Those talented people writing the stories and drawing the pictures get burned out. Think about it: How many lovely ballads and upbeat showstoppers can Alan Menken write before he extinguishes his creative flame? When studios start cranking them out and basing everything on formulas and focus groups, they all blend together.

And audiences become desensitized and apathetic too. As great as “Hercules” is, and the El Capitan post-show, and the Victory Parade at Disneyland, and all the wonderful merchandise, and the McDonald’s action figures--we have our limits. It all starts to look the same after a while. And the wonder wears off.

That is exactly why the so-called numbers have dropped. “The Lion King,” in and of itself, is not a superior film to any of the others in the last several years. It was just at the peak of the popularity of the animated medium.

What studios don’t realize is that audiences will wait for something that’s new and fresh and exciting. Really! Better a great movie every two years than just a “better-than-average” movie every June. And certainly not seven in the next 18 months!

JIM KOCHER

Hollywood

Could it be the arrogant head of Disney was wrong when it shrugged off the Baptist boycott as insignificant? Maybe it underestimated the number of families who are concerned with the direction Disney has been taking away from family values. The quiet majority is using this boycott to make a loud statement. Maybe someone in the Disney financial department is beginning to hear our message and can pass the word along.

JEAN OLSON

Newport Beach