Robert Rudolph

Professor Granillo

English 103

30 May 2019

Post #10

As children, many people assume Disney movies to be heroic fantasies that promote one

of its characters as an idol. However, many people can agree that “The Lion King” does not fit in

to the typical storyline of a Disney movie. In fact, audiences have over looked the harsh reality

of how Disney interprets some of its characters. “The Lion King” suggests to its audience that

the circle of life is apparent and cannot be changed. Despite this appearance, viewers tend to

overlook how Disney portrays the “low class” characters in the movie. Through the use of

critical race theory such as intersectionality and semiotics, “The Lion King” surveys a different

perspective to the circle of life message.

Disney’s “The Lion King”, released in June 1994, examines the life of Simba as he

discovers the fate of his father’s kingdom, The Pride Lands, is at stake following the death of

Mufasa, Simba’s father, due to Scar, Mufasa’s brother, leading Mufasa in to a stampede of

wildebeests. The Disney movie surveys the scarce family relationship at hand and shows how the

social order affects these relationships.

The use of critical race theory lens with an emphasis on intersectionality is featured in

“The Lion King”. Intersectionality is described by Lois Tyson in their book “Critical Theory

Today” that “no one has a simple, uncomplicated identity based on race alone. Race

intersects with class, sex, sexual orientation, political orientation, and personal history in forming

each person’s complex identity” (358). This idea of intersectionality is featured in this film
through the portrayal of the citizens living in the elephant graveyard; the “slum” of pride rock.

The films primary antagonist Scar is considered to be the leader of the elephant graveyard. While

he is technically considered royalty since he is the brother to King Mufasa, his oppression in the

film is featured by his homosexual characteristics that are apparent to viewers. Aside from Scar,

the elephant graveyard also features hyenas that are characterized with African American and

Latino accents, as well as one of the characters being mentally disabled. This difference between

the pride lands and the elephant graveyard is described by Amy Cappiccle in their article “Using

Critical Race Theory to Analyze How Disney Constructs Diversity: A Construct for the

Baccalaureate Human Behavior in the Social Environment Curriculum” Cappiccle writes that

“the aristocratic, heroic, heterosexual king presides over a lush and orderly kingdom, while the

villainous gay king rules a decaying and antisocial wasteland largely inhabited by an African

American and Latino citizenry” (14). This intersectionality of the elephant graveyard and the

oppression its citizens is also apparent through the lens of semiotics.

Semiotics is described by Tyson as examining “the ways linguistic and nonlinguistic

objects and behaviors operate symbolically to “tell” us something” (204). In this context of “The

Lion King”, the setting of the elephant graveyard features a dark color scheme with many bones

of deceased elephants laying all over the floor. This use of signifiers portrays the idea that this

place is considered to be the “slum” of the pride lands. The transition from the pride land to the

elephant graveyard instantly goes from sunny and clear to dark and smoky, which insinuates that

this area and its inhabitants own a much darker personality compared to those in the pride land.

“The Lion King” oppresses the elephant graveyard by insinuating that it is a dark and evil place,

which in return also reflects how the audience should be viewing its inhabitants.
Though “The Lion King” is a Disney classic that is favored by many people, it’s portrayal of the

social order suggests that those who live in the “slums” are automatically represented as evil.

Thus, this is portrayed through the lens’ of critical race theory and semiotics. While the film is a

fictional story revolving around the life of animals, the messages conveyed reflect how such

people that would be considered as “pride land” and “elephant graveyard” residents are classified

in our own society. Amy Cappiccle writes that “Disney's animal stars typically

anthropomorphize the fiction of some human trait, and cultural familiarity with the human

stereotype. … Disney's circle-of-life theme simply becomes a metaphor for justifying a prototype

of White privilege” (14-15).