Little Mermaid: There's the penis-spire in the castle on the cover of the VHS box. Also, the tiny, little erection of the tiny, little priest at the movie's end.
Aladdin: Aladdin may or may not whisper "Teenagers take off your clothes."
Lion King: The word "sex" is clearly written. Supposedly there's a penis visible in the stars after the Ghost of Mufasa appears?
Who Frame Roger Rabbit?: probably as the best ones. There's a deleted scene where Baby Herman puts a $5 bill down a woman's blouse. There's an up-skirt of Jessica Rabbit (who is commando). And there's this (which isn't really sexual innuendo, but it is ridiculous):
Knowing all of this, I think it's hilarious that in Chimpanzee the word "nut" is said 800 times.
Director: Alastair Fothergill; Mark Linfield
Narrator: Tim Allen
Look. I get it. There are nut trees. These things exist. Especially in rainforests. And it just so happens nut trees are a crucial part of the plot of Chimpanzee. There's nothing immature or ridiculous or even controversial about calling a nut grove a nut grove, or a nut tree a nut tree, or a nut a nut.
I just find it funny given Disney's history of innuendo that Disney now has a movie where the word "nut" is used 100 times.
Again, given the context of the film, the repetition of the word is justifiable. I could say nothing more about the topic. But what fun is that?
I see three scenarios.
Scenario 1: Disney executives are all pure of mind and think only in Family-Friendly terms, which is why they are completely unaware of sexual innuendo or sexual images placed in their films by artists, writers, or directors.
When those of us see "SEX" in the floating flower petals-pollen-dust, Disney Executives are busy crying because they're emotionally connected to Simba and feeling his confusion, loss, and ache.
When those of us see Jessica Rabbit's rabbit-hole, Disney Executives are thinking about how cartoonish that car crash was and it's not scary because it's cartoon-like and isn't there a way to make it a fun, family-friendly ride, because wouldn't that be great for everyone???
Scenario 2: Disney said, "Fuck it. Everyone already thinks we put innuendo in our movies, let's just make it blatant!"
So in the first draft of the script, the writers were very aware of the use of the word "nut" for the male "testicle", so they did their best to use EXACT descriptions of the nuts: like fig, Brazil, other nuts that grow in the rainforest.
But the Disney executives, annoyed at nearly two decades worth of debate about sexual innuendo in their films, FORCED the writers to devolve the specific nut names to the more generic category of "nut", thus the reason we have the word "nut" a 1,000 times in a G-rated movie.
Scenario 3: THIS IS SEXUAL INNUENDO!!!!!
Not only is it sexual innuendo, IT'S SUBLIMINAL MESSAGING!!!!!!
DISNEY WANTS US ALL TO WANT NUTS!!!!
Okay, that's probably not true.
I'd bet good money on none of these scenarios being accurate.
But. If anything, this is a lesson about branding.
Repeated and varied claims of sexual innuendo and subliminal messaging have spoiled the purity of "family wholesomeness" that the Disney brand is so well known for.
Really, Disney just co-produced Chimpanzee. And Chimpanzee isn't even a "Disney" movie. It's Disneynature. Which means me even associating Chimpanzee with movies like Aladdin, The Lion King, and Little Mermaid is a bit outrageous.
The Disney name is there though. And that's the power of "branding". When we think of a brand, generalizations immediately come to mind. This is true of people too. Of anything, really.
When people first saw Sarah Palin, they thought she was a strong personality, gung-ho, passionate. Then we saw more of her. And perception changed.
We see it in movies all the time too. Especially high school films. The jock who seems like a jerk ends up being sensitive and creative. The shy, nerdy kid ends up being courageous. What's essentially going on here, is, in business-speak, re-branding. These characters are perceived one way, and they take action to change that perception.
Back to the Future is a perfect example. Marty is trying to change George's brand. Lorraine isn't impressed by George. He's shy and bumbling around her. But when George knocks out the minotaur known as Biff, he's re-branded himself as way more masculine and courageous. George appeals to Lorraine.
We also see Brand Damage in film.
In The Empire Strikes Back Lando Calrissian seems friendly and awesome (and isn't his name cool???). Then he sells everyone out to Vader. Cold. Calrissian isn't so awesome. We can't trust him anymore.
For Total Brand Decay there's one of my favorite movies: Training Day. Alonzo goes from this legendary-type of figure (highly decorated detective) to a crazy son of a bitch, to a not-so-good-cop, to a bad person, to a egomaniacal creature, to a dead man, to a blurb in the newspaper.
Real-world companies are aware of how people perceive them. These companies work hard t
If Pixar had made Chimpanzee, would I have been giggling at the word "nut"?
If some studio I had never heard of had made Chimpanzee, would I have been giggling at the word "nut"?
I'm immature, but I'm not that immature (I don't think?).
Disney, as a brand, is known for "family friendly fun" but also "sexual innuendo and subliminal messaging". How could I not giggle at the word "nut" in Chimpanzee?
Did I Like It:
Yes. I didn't expect the twist.
The thing that really hit me....After Oscar's mom is...lost...and we're watching Oscar mew and wander and being unhappy...That's all real. Like. This isn't a Disney movie. This isn't a movie. This is a documentary. And what we're witnessing is a child confused and grief-stricken. Then rejected again and again by those around him. This is a child seeking support and finding none. It was one of the saddest things I've watched.
And when Freddie adopts Oscar, I don't think Tim Allen stresses this enough...things like this don't happen. The alpha male chimp does not adopt.
As Jane Goodall said, in a PeoplePets.com interview, about the relationship: "It's not rarely, it's never. It's only ever been seen once in all the 53 years I've been involved with wild chimps. It's most unique. And the fact that it would actually happen while the film team was there, it's almost inconceivable. It's just amazing."
What really interested me were all the "extra" shots. There's some incredible footage. And the choice to use time-lapse footage in almost all of it intrigued me.
Oh, and the dramatic rain-drop slow-mo scene. That was incredible to me. Malick-like.
I kept thinking, throughout, how did they get all this footage? And at the end we see the filmmakers. The chimps are just...like...ignoring the filmmakers. That's one of the most incredible things to me. No one was attacked during the filming? No one was caught in the crossfire of the War For the Nut Grove?
I'd like to see a documentary about the filming of Chimpanzee.
Tim Allen does the grunts from Home Improvement. I would have liked the movie just for that.
I thought it was kind of unfair to portray "Scar" and his group as total bad guys. Are they really huge jerks? Does Scar's group have females and children? Don't they have an equivalent of Oscar? Aren't they just trying to survive? I get it's a better story to make it Good Chimps vs. Bad Chimps, but...still. Is that what was really going on?
What It's Good For:
-great look at Chimpanzees
-seeing something happen that rarely happens
-Tim Allen fans
-people who love "Earth" and love seeing nature
-giggling at a perfectly legitimate use of the word "nut"
-if you don't like Chimps because of that whole "evolution" think bothers you, you may dislike this movie
-the narration has bothered people
-the word "nut" is repeated again and again and again and again and again, it started to disorient me
-the death can make some people sad
-Chimpanzee movies: start here
-Disney movies not known for innuendo: Sleeping Beauty; Snow White; Cinderella; Tangled; A Goofy Movie
-Nature documentaries: Planet Earth; Blue Planet; The Cove; Natural Disasters; Life in the Undergrowth