Pirates of the Caribbean Redhead Auction Scene Changing: the Debate
If you haven’t heard by now, Disney announced that it would be updating Pirates of the Caribbean at Walt Disney World and Disneyland to remove the ‘Redhead Wench Auction Scene’ and replace it with a new auction scene. This was easily the most controversial Disney news since…eh…about 48 hours before. (Last updated February 26, 2018.)
I don’t have anything to add in terms of news beyond what the Disney Parks Blog shared. So, if that’s all you want, go there. Instead, I wanted to offer some commentary on this. I feel this news has not necessarily been a conversation so much as a shouting match guided by underlying political(ish) views.
Update: Pirates of the Caribbean has now returned from refurbishment, and the new scene has debuted. It pretty much is identical to the concept art, and while there are a couple of cheesy lines of dialogue in the new scene, or analysis of the new Auction scene is pretty much the same as it was when we saw the initial concept art…
I know I’m essentially putting my entire head into the hornet’s nest here, but I think this is an interesting topic that pertains to the intersection of art, history, evolving cultural norms, and more. I also believe it’s a conversation capable of being had without ad hominem attacks…
I think the first, and strongest, argument in favor of maintaining Pirates of the Caribbean is artistic integrity. We’ve discussed theme parks as art on the blog before; the unfortunate reality is that most people do not view theme parks, or the attractions therein, as art. I don’t think it’s a snobbish thing, but rather that (like video games) most people have never really given theme parks that type of consideration.
When viewed as art, there are some practical realities that must be considered and concessions that must be made given their functional purpose. Refreshing Carousel of Progress’ final act is not like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Likewise, you cannot expect Future World to be forever unchanged–the very theme dictates otherwise. Extreme examples, to be sure, but the point stands. There’s more fluidity to theme parks than other art; things must be updated.
However, there must be a line. Arguably, you approach that line when the conversation involves updating classic attractions–the masterpieces. If the change is change for its own sake or so a new generation of Imagineers can leave their mark–neither of which would actually improve on the attraction–it should not be made. (While I do not think this is change for its own sake, the replacement auction scene does not make a ton of sense in the context of the ride–but that’s another topic for another post.)
The question is: where do updates that fit with evolving cultural norms and values fit into that? Do we reject such changes, acknowledging that the attraction was a product of a different era, when certain gags and jokes would’ve been okay that are cringeworthy today, and appreciate it as art of its generation? Or, do we view Pirates of the Caribbean through a contemporary lens, and expect its content to comport with today’s values?
I’m not sure there’s an easy answer to that, and it certainly doesn’t help that there is not really a body of art theory (or even an ongoing discussion about parks as art) to provide guidance. Usually, art must be confronted on the terms of its day, as it does not change over time. The best example of art being changed decades later that we really have is the revisionism of the E.T. walkie talkies controversy, but that’s different…or is it?
I also think there’s something to be said for being willing to preserve and confront history, even that which makes us uncomfortable. Revisionist history is a problem, and if we don’t face our mistakes, we’re bound to repeat them. There are two components to this: pirate history and American history.
In the case of American history, the case can be made that Pirates of the Caribbean is not just significant as a Disneyland classic and one of the last attractions that Walt Disney himself had personal involvement. You can make a case that, whatever its shortcomings, Pirates of the Caribbean is a ‘time capsule’ of pop culture and views towards entertainment in the 1960s. For this perspective, you have to ignore the 1990s and Johnny Depp changes, but it’s still an arguably-valid point.
With regard to pirate history, I’m not sure a compelling argument can be made that this is a historically accurate take on pirate history to begin with. Is altering the scenes of something that never purported to reflect actual history really revisionist? Moreover, are we actually confronting the bad acts of pirates in the attraction, or are we celebrating them? This leads me into the next point…
The ‘confronting’ side of presenting the dastardly deeds of pirates in Pirates of the Caribbean is that the attraction is acceptable because it is a cautionary tale. This is most clear in the Disneyland version, but even in the other attractions there are signals (“dead men tell no tales”) in the dialogue, visual imagery, and narrative framing.
Despite these, I’d contend that Pirates of the Caribbean does not proceed as an archetypal morality play. The characters who embody specific vices or bad deeds are not confronted with justice. They neither face nor make any difficult decisions, they do not atone for their sins, and they are not directly punished for choosing the wrong path.
Likewise, the audience is not challenged by the negative attributes of the pirates. They are presented at face value, and that’s pretty much that. Due to the narrative structure of Pirates of the Caribbean, each misdeed is presented as a fleeting vignette, not to be revisited. It does not seem to me as if these scenes are asking the guest for contemplation or to make any sort of value judgment.
Pirates of the Caribbean does not have the touchstones of a morality tale, unless you are willing to infer a lot from its narrative framework. While I mentioned above that an argument could be made that it’s a cautionary tale, I think that’s probably only to the extent of the greed of the pirates. Greed is a concept that can be read broadly, but I think it’s a pretty big stretch to say, “these pirates died for their greedy act of selling women.”
This is not to say that Pirates of the Caribbean glamorizes piracy. The foreshadowing and general tone of the narrative frameworks suggests pirate life was grim. I don’t see the attraction as a celebration of pirate life. I don’t really see it as a condemnation of pirate life, either. Instead, it falls in a grey area in between, almost a way of saying: “Hey, you know everything that seems fun in the middle? It’s actually not good…but enjoy it anyway!”
I think it’s easy to see how conflicting interpretations of Pirates of the Caribbean can exist. For my part, I don’t think Pirates of the Caribbean has any message whatsoever. My ‘interpretation’ of Pirates of the Caribbean is pretty straightforward: you begin with varying degrees of foreshadowing and foreboding, which serve to build up to the big reveal of the pirates besieging the fort.
Everything that follows is more about offering clever vignettes of wacky stuff pirates do than about telling a linear story into their fall. I doubt that the actual intent with the narrative arc was to give moral heft to the attraction; it was likely for the sake of pacing and building up to the ‘big reveal.’ From that perspective, the question for me is whether ‘wackiness’ is enough to justify a scene like this?
The strongest argument in favor of modifying the scene to something that does not showcase the subjugation of women is changing social norms. While the scene is explicitly depicting human trafficking and sex slavery, I think casting the auction scene as problematic solely in that light misses the point. Most guests are probably not concerned about these heinous acts being normalized for their kids.
Even as bad as those things are (and likely would not be kosher in an attraction built in 2017), I don’t think their depiction is what bothers people about this scene. Just like other “bad acts” in Pirates of the Caribbean, there’s little danger of the normalization of crime and violence by virtue of exposure to Pirates of the Caribbean–we can all agree those are bad things.
I think it’s a false equivalency to compare the auction scene to, say, the scene with Carlos that could be viewed as waterboarding (a comparison I’ve seen made repeatedly online since this news broke). The controversy surrounding the auction scene is not simply about an act, in isolation, that is bad. It’s about how guests perceive and internalize the act.
In the case of waterboarding, there should be little impact (unless, I guess, you’ve been waterboarded before?) on most guests. I don’t think the same can be said for objectifying women. I’m no good at math, but women are probably like half the world’s population, give or take.
The cumulative effect of casual sexism on women is an issue that is now, rightfully, in the public spotlight. What passed in the 1960s as an innocuous gag we now understand could be viewed to normalize misogyny and the objectification of women. While it’s recently become clear plenty of men yearn for the ‘good ole days’ of the 1960s, I’m not particularly keen on societal regression. Just because something was viewed as “okay” for decades does not mean it was, and will always be, okay. Times change.
As someone who has never experienced the ill effects of misogyny, I feel like this is a scenario where it’s not really my place to offer a value judgment on how the redhead auction scene does or does not impact other guests. I don’t know what that’s like to experience the world as a woman.
Even as I want to be able to justify this current auction scene to myself as being important because of artistic integrity or the history of Disneyland and pop culture (and that is exactly what I did as recently as 5 years ago when addressing the topic), I have come around to the perspective that this is selfish. I picture a hypothetical scenario: I have a young daughter, and after experiencing the attraction, she asks about that scene. What do I say? Even if she doesn’t say anything, do I proactively address it? To be honest, I have no idea.
As much as I value my nostalgia and iconic aspects of classic attractions, it feels “right” to err on the side of not reinforcing sexism. The iconic characters will still be there. The attraction will still focus on the pilfering of pirates.
I’m going to open this topic to reader comments, but I want to reiterate that I expect this to be civil. Besides, as persuasive as inflammatory rhetoric, devoid of reason is…actually, it isn’t persuasive at all. If you have a point to make, articulate it logically, and don’t insult others.
I hate to see rides that are so iconic altered! It devalues it and looses the experience
I have enjoyed for 30+ years ( I have ridden it from a small child to present).
You will never please everyone If Disney is making these changes due to being politically correct. I work with the public and can tell you from experience that you can’t please every person! If I gave out huge bags of 100 dollar bills someone would complain it was to heavy!!!!! I say leave the ride alone and let me experience it in its unaltered state! I do agree with an earlier post even the addition to jack sparrow I was not a fan of but I understand Disney want to promote new moves. Is Disney going to have counseling for long wait times and quiet spaces for people that don’t like me eating turkey legs in the future next???
But it has already gone through several changes over the years. Most notably, the bastardization by the addition of the multiple(!) Jacks. Which if you’re looking at it from a “purist” view, the classic ride has been drastically altered and therefore is fair game to change as they wish.
I am just surprised because they have SO MANY items for sale bearing the “We wants the redhead” for sale…in 2017.
But then again, they are so good at still making a profit by manipulating our nostalgia (Toad’s Taxi, the Nautilus at Trader Sam’s, Dreamfinder, the list goes on). maybe it doesn’t matter.
I have nothing to add to one side of the argument or another, but good grief, I enjoyed signing on to read restaurant reviews and instead getting a wonderful critique of American revisionism du jour. The philosophy undergrad in me commends you.
I’m all for female impowerment, if they replaced the red head with oh say a plain Anne Bonney or Mary Read doing something truly piratical like stabbing an officer, instead they are shopping/auctioning gag and it’s their only scene. Yeah and I am over whelmed and annoyed by political correctness especially all the whining about, hair, music food etc misappropriating culture. Don’t get me wrong I am not for racial slurs, violence prejudice, but lets start using common sense and tolerance on all sides
If I had not ever experienced the attraction before, I don’t think that changing this one scene would leave me with a profoundly difffent experience than any I’ve had so far. That combined with “err on the side of not reinforcing sexism” makes this change fine with me!
I think a lot of the backlash against this change stems from the fatigue many of us have due to the social justice warrior movement. Safe spaces, micro aggressions, and white privilege are many of the words thrown around in society today. It seems you cannot say or do anything without offending someone. Disney has been a place that you could go to escape this reality, at least for a little while. It kind of feels like all of this stuff is now creeping into the Disney experience. It’s a little depressing.
“It seems you cannot say or do anything without offending someone.”
I would argue that this has always been the case, not just in the age of the “social justice warrior movement.” The difference today is that people from marginalized groups are speaking up for themselves.
The fact that these topics seem like products of “society today” to you is evidence that you have enjoyed a certain degree of privilege. That is not a judgement of you or your character, it is just a recognition that if you are not offended by something others call sexist, for example, it is unlikely you have much personal experience with sexism.
I’ll leave you with this: You say that, “Disney has been a place that you could go to escape this reality.” I challenge you to consider the hypothetical little girl and her parent Tom mentions in the article. Maybe they would prefer Disney to be a place where they can escape the constant, ever-present reality of sexism. Disney is supposed to be a magical land of fantasy for children. Why not remove a reminder that the little girls who visit will go out into the world and be judged and valued based on their looks?
Thank you, I think Disney wants to create a space for everyone to escape.
my Yale-educated red-headed daughter bought a ‘We wants the redhead’ shirt for her boyfriend. I mention Yale to indicate she is no stranger to politically sensitive issues and also just to brag,..
You should brag! And be very proud. Sounds like she has her head on straight too!
The first time I rode Pirates of the Caribbean I was twelve. At that time I had no concept of sexual trafficking, so that angle didn’t bother me, although as an adult, of course it does.
What did bother me is the objectification. I didn’t know the term, but was already familiar with the concept. The pretty red-head is valuable, the chubby brunette is not. I identified more with the chubby brunette, and remember feeling sad that no one wanted her.
I know that this is a little thing, but multiply it by the thousands of girls and boys who see this scene.
Nowhere in the Disney Parks blog article did they say they were changing the ride because of societal norms. If they, however, admit that at some point, then look out, Tom. The CBJ is next!
I always felt the attraction as a whole was a tongue-in-cheek “It’s good to be bad” message (as evidenced by the song, which is not changing). I kind of feel if they clean up the pirates too much then what is the point of having pirates? But I also get that the scene is problematic for many and ultimately don’t really care if it changes. I think your suggestion of “lead us to the treasure” is a very good one, better than what they have planned.
Very interesting post, Tom. I’m a woman, and I can report that I am far more offended by the addition of Jack Sparrow to the ride, than I ever was for the auction scene, or the chase scene, or the torture scene. But now that they’ve already messed with the original, I’m fine with the change. Maybe I’m weird…
I figured this post would garner a ton of comments, but I cannot summon enough indignation to feel strongly one way or the other. I admit that that last time we rode it (with my daughter) it did cross my mind that I didn’t really want to explain what “buying a bride” meant to my daughter. On the other hand, it didn’t cause me great stress either.
My thoughts on this is that Disney keeps all the same audio animatronics but give them different roles within the new scene. The famous redhead should be turned into a pirate and be the one to fire the gun at the pirates across the water when they start chanting about wanting a desired product on the auction block. As we have come to know there were several female pirates that disguised themselves as men in order to fit in or didn’t disguise themselves and were considered just as notorious as their male counterparts. I think by doing this you keep the integrity of the overall ride but you update with the information we have now that wasn’t known when the ride was first created.
What I find most striking about the auction scene is not necessarily what is being depicted, but *how* it is being depicted compared to other scenes in the attraction.
This scene not only portrays women as victims, but the animatronics also express the emotional stress that comes with victimhood. One of the women is sobbing into a handkerchief, while being consoled by the woman behind her. All of the women except the redhead show body language that portrays a feeling of utter defeat.
We don’t see these kind of feelings expressed by the other (mostly male) animatronics in the ride. We don’t see them being afraid, in pain or being grief-stricken. We do see pirates inflict harm on other characters, like in the scene with Carlos, but we don’t see these hefty emotions being expressed there. The portrayal is more slapstick-y than anything else.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not saying this was done with intent by the imagineers. Like Tom very eloquently made the case for here: changing times, changing social norms.
To me, the auction scene is an iconic part of the attraction. I can’t conceive of anything in that spot that would make sense and replace such a famous scene in a way that even matches, let alone exceed what is there now.
I don’t know if it’s fair to say that real-life pirates never engaged in these activities. Doesn’t make it right, but I imagine that there were times when women were taken advantage of. I do not think most people are leaving the ride thinking that watching that scene makes it ok to treat women like that.
I do feel like there is something of a message in the ride’s depiction of pirates. It appears to me that the Pirates and what they were doing was responsible for their destruction, with the city on fire, some pirates jailed and unable to escape, and then the final scene before the upramp at Disneyland, where they are gleefully shooting at each other in their stupidity and carelessness. They ensure that they will not survive because of choices they have made. That does not directly address what happened in the Auction scene, but I don’t think it’s fair to say the attraction does not give us an opinion on what happened.
I don’t know if I agree that everything should be changed to fit modern social norms. Nor do I feel that keeping the current scene means that Disney condones what is happening. I think that Disney’s past record on this is uneven. One other example that sticks out to me is Peter Pan. Disney has in the past edited many of its films to remove problematic elements, but has let Peter Pan exist unaltered, despite 10 minutes of appalling racism against Native Americans. I do not believe that this means that modern Disney is racist. I do think, however, that it is hypocritical for Peter Pan to be left untouched (probably due to its popularity) while many of the other changes were made to other films. That segment drags on for about 10 minutes; the Auction scene in Pirates, to me, is less offensive and lasts maybe 30 seconds. Yet Peter Pan continues unaltered (and probably more accessible for most people; even if it isn’t available from the Disney Vault, more people have probably seen Peter Pan than have not) and one of the most famous theme park attractions ever must change.
I suppose it is shocking in retrospect that the chase scene was changed two decades ago and this is only being addressed now.
I guess part of my issue is that I am tired of Disney messing with, and to me largely messing up, classic attractions instead of actually fixing real problems that exist: Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, the mess that is Epcot right now, Stitch being there for as long as it has, etc. What i would like to see is a restoration of Pirates as it existed prior to Jack Sparrow. I’ve never liked any of the films. My issue is not with Jack Sparrow being there, but the way that every line of dialogue seems to start with “Captain Jack Sparrow…” and how they changed the “plot” of the ride to revolve around him. I’m grateful that I was able to experience Paris’ version before they changed it, because it put in sharp relief what the 2005(6?) additions did to the ride. I would love to see the rides switch back to how they were, even as I doubt that that will happen.
I don’t know how coherent this is, but this is how I am feeling.
“What passed in the 1960s as an innocuous gag we now understand could be viewed to normalize misogyny and the objectification of women. While it’s recently become clear plenty of men yearn for the ‘good ole days’ of the 1960s, I’m not particularly keen on societal regression. Just because something was viewed as “okay” for decades does not mean it was, and will always be, okay. Times change.”
This implies that everyone who disagrees with the change is merely a misogynistic, truculent and reactionary right-winger, insensitive to female opinion and indifferent to the effects of societal sexism. At the very least, it intimates that those who favor keeping the scene are indirectly making common cause with or enabling such backward individuals and should therefore alter their opinion, lest one be branded a reactionary. I, too, am not keen on societal regression, but you don’t have to be to disagree with the revision of a scene that will further dilute the artistic integrity of a fifty year old attraction and is done for no other purpose than to satisfy our contemporary national obsession of with moral and historical sterility.
Furthermore, labelling theme parks attractions “experiential art” is mostly, but not entirely, fallacious. Take a theater production that is adapted to comply with contemporary cultural contexts; the original production is still available and can still be performed and viewed. Conversely, once a change is made to specific theme park attraction, it is highly unlikely that alteration will be reversed. Rather, the original will be relegated to memories and old ride-through videos. While many, if not all, attractions and lands within a park should substantially change and evolve (especially when theme necessities it, or it is manifestly obvious an attraction/area has not held up well against time, or it is believed genuine improvements can be made), this particular modification is being done entirely in service of the positively vacuous determination of modern society to scrub away unsettling allusions to the past.
If you read that single paragraph in isolation, I can see how you arrive at the conclusions you do about its inferences. If you read the entire post, I think context eliminates such a reading.
You’re right. The first two sentences of my comment displayed a tendentious reading of your post. That said, the rest of my argument is legitimate and reasonable, although many probably disagree with it (which is fine).
Well said.
Thank you for your insights, Tom. The forum posts I’ve read over the past 24 hours have been, frankly, appalling. Personally, if the ride is changed or not I really don’t mind- but I have always thought that that scene (and the merchandising of the ‘we wants the redhead’ quote) is gross.
The funny thing is, I never thought/would never dream of it being replaced, and I never would have given it more than a passing thought…until all of this brouhaha exploded. I have read (presumably) adults rail against PC culture, SJW’s, feminaz-s (not sure if I can type that word), what have you. Quite frankly, the reaction is appalling.
These people don’t see the issue with the scene. I have read interpretations that the red head seems into it, that it’s really more of a marriage thing, etc, etc. WTF? It’s an auction of women. To be taken by drunk pirates and raped. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills and that 97% of people that go to Disney don’t see this. Instead, they just see through their nostalgia glasses that there’s nothing wrong with it, it’s history, it’s iconic, and on and on.
So, yeah. I didn’t much care before but now- sure, take it out. It’s not like the ride wasn’t already changed (funny how most of these people don’t seem to mention the included Jack Sparrow animatronics when they talk about this ‘iconic’ ride). I just…I don’t mean to seem naive, but I can’t believe all the garbage I’ve read the past 24 hours.
After decades of riding pirates, the thought & idea of rape has never once entered my mind as an adult or child. If you sense “these women will be raped” from the auction scene, you are bringing your own psyche’s damage/baggage and applying it to a for-fun ride.
Because your personal demons make it uncomfortable for you, everyone else must now suffer a different vision than the original work of art. You are the problem. Be offended. Deal with it.
I think “L” gleamed that the red head would be raped based on knowledge of that time period and what Pirates actually did to women, not their own baggage. If you know anything about the *real* history of Pirates then I’m sure you are aware of what life was like for the women they captured.
TonyG, my guess is that you and I would find a lot of common ground on the pervasive tyranny of political correctness. However, when I rode Pirates as an adult, it was pretty clear to me – and my wife, and our adult friends – that “these women would be raped” was the ultimately outcome of that scene. Logic and context clearly dictate this outcome. If you don’t see that as an adult, then you are putting either naive or willfully ignorant. Either way, perhaps you need to “deal with it” through personal reflection before you attack others.
“After decades of riding pirates, the thought & idea of rape has never once entered my mind as an adult or child.” That’s called privilege.
I can’t help but wonder what TonyG thinks IS going to happen to the women who have been auctioned off. Does he think they are going to live happy, fulfilled lives as wives to the pirates, merrily keeping house and picking out curtains, cooking a nice pot roast as they wait for their husbands to get home from a long day of pirating?
Well, I felt the women wouldn’t be raped because in the original chase scene, they were never caught. The women resisted by running away. When they changed the meaning of the chase scene, it ruined the narrative. You don’t know if the women were raped. It might be implied.
To make sense of the revamped scene, they need to show Pirates chasing after the villagers for their treasures.
You are right, TonyG. I am sure the women are being auctioned because the pirates need a new tiddlywinks partner. Silly me.
I think what it comes down to, as you pointed out, is that about half of the riders are women. It is now well-understood that casual sexism has long-reaching impacts. If the ride story had not already been majorly altered to include Jack Sparrow I would be more sympathetic to the ride purist arguement. But the fact of the matter is, this scene was a sore thumb in a ride with an already chaotic/confusing story and message. The ride will still be incredible, and while it is important to acknowledge the grief that long-time fans feel when historical attractions are modified, this paeticular scenario offers a clear benefit to a large audience.
“If the ride story had not already been majorly altered to include Jack Sparrow I would be more sympathetic to the ride purist argument.”
That’s about how I feel. The Jack Sparrow additions had a far worse impact on the attraction than this change conceivably could. Yet, I see many people who oppose this are totally fine with Jack Sparrow, which undermines the history argument, I think.
On the other hand, I think it is a fair point that bad changes in the past should not justify more ill-advised changes, but when the argument is framed in terms of ‘preserving what Walt wanted,’ well, that ship has already sailed.
I would just like to add that human trafficking does still occur in this day and age (abroad and in the USA), so I think the argument of “that scene depicted what was a long time ago, we don’t have to worry about that now” is a false one. And like any good Law & Order SVU fan will agree, sexually based offenses are considered especially heinous, so the auction has always made me somewhat uncomfortable. Whereas, the looting and drunkiness etc. has made me just say “Well, they are still loved by their mommies and dads–they can’t be that bad.” I say this as a 40-something mother of a 9-year daughter, who recently asked me what exactly was happening in that scene. I explained that the pirates were looking for wives. Like other commenters have mentioned, the fact that the redhead is just fine with the situation, actually makes it feel more icky. If they had her upset about it in one scene, then was a part of the fighting back/chase scene, it would be more palatable.
Thank you, Tom, for your reasonable and level-headed analysis. I have read way too many disheartening comments about this change from those who seem VERY keen on societal regression, it was becoming depressing.
This was a very balanced, insightful piece, but I must admit my first reaction at this news was extreme disappointment. This is one of my favorite attractions, and it feels like every time they change it, it gets worse. That said, I’ve always wondered why I didn’t hear complaints about the attraction or the movies as a whole. They are clearly taking bad behavior and making it look fun (which, I must admit, it generally is). What concerns me is that we have apparently decided that objectifying women is bad, but pillaging is entertainment. I’m willing to get on board with leaving my brain at the door and calling the movies and the ride “fun.” What I can’t get on board with is deciding to celebrate one bad behavior while condemning the other one. I realize there could be extreme examples, like a rape scene, that would be clearly unacceptable, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.