Oedipusian Scar: The Lion King
After reading “Young hero Simba defeats old villain Scar: Oedipus wrecks the Lyin’ King” I am surprised at the many proposed and also doubtful of the true intentions of the many theories that are present in the article. The main theory that this article focuses on is Oedipal psychology. Odeipal psychology is the belief that a child has a desire to engage in sexual relations with their parent of the opposite sex. In terms of the movie The Lion King that would be Simba desiring to have relations with his mother, Sarabi. However, I disagree with this theory.
Although there are interesting points risen in the paper I do not believe the original intentions were for Simba to want to have sexual relations with his mother. Additionally, I do not necessarily
believe the points risen within the paper support this idea. The first piece of evidence the paper discusses to prove that Simba had Oedipus intentions was when he begins to blame himself for the death of his father, Mufasa. The paper writes, “it is common in the case of the death of a parent, for the same sex child to feel guilt because according to Oedipal theory, he or she at some point wished that the same-sex parent would die or disappear.” In other words sometimes children blame themselves for the death of the same sex parent because he or she at some point wishes for that parent to die so they can engage with their other parent that is alive. This may make sense but I do not believe that Simba blames himself for the death because he wished for his father to die and in my opinion had no desire to engage his mother. Before Simba’s father was killed in a stampede, Simba was practicing his roar. His evil uncle Scar, started a stampede of wildebeests. Simba was then convinced by his evil uncle, Scar, that it was his roar that started the stampede and that it was his fault Mufasa died. It was simply the belief that Simba was responsible for his father’s death because of his roar. The paper also goes on to prove its point. The paper claims that the strongest evidence of the Oedipus was when Sarabi, Simbia’s mom, calls Simba Mufasa, which is her husband’s name, when he returns from his exile. This is the first time Sarabi has seen Simba sine he left his homeland as a baby cub. While he was away he grew into a fully grown lion. The paper then states, “The fact that she addresses her son by her husband’s name clearly has Oedipal implications.” However, I completely disagree with this statement. I do not understand how there is a correlation with confusing someone to be someone else and Oedipal tendencies. When Simba returns he is simply just an older lion and he happens to look like his father. Since he looks like his father Sarabi accidentally mistakes him for her husband. This is like when we see our relatives that we do not see often and they say we look just like one of our parents. The next piece of evidence discussed is that Simba attacks his evil uncle, Scar, because he is hurting his mother. It is believed that Simba attacks his uncle because he had Oedipal tendencies with his mother. However, I also disagree with this. I think it is simply that when Simba saw his mother in trouble he had to do something to help her. It is just like in our lives if we see someone we care about in trouble we do whatever we can to step in and help them. In other words, if we saw a family member in the middle of combat with someone we would try to help the family member just like Simba did. Simbia saved his mother because she is a family member and took care of him for much of his life. The last piece of evidence that is discussed to prove Oedipus is that Simba nuzzles with his mother before his mate Nala. It is believed that this detail further proves that The Lion King contains Oedipus because he nuzzles his mom first. I also do not agree with this belief. The reason for nuzzling his mother first is Simba just saved his mother and realizes that if he didn’t she would have most likely been killed. Additionally, he nuzzles his mother first because Simba returns to his homeland with his mate Nala. Simba saw his mate while he was away from his home but did not see his mother. Nala brings Simba home. Therefore, when he returns with his mate it is his mother that he nuzzles first because he has not seen her yet but he has seen Nala. I do not believe that The Lion King has an Oedipus complex in it. I instead believe that the author of the paper was over analyzing the movie as a whole. In my opinion I also think that the overall evidence does not support the claim that there is Oedipus. I feel that the evidence instead, contains much more practical reasoning as to why Simba thought and acted the way he did.
Although there are interesting points risen in the paper I do not believe the original intentions were for Simba to want to have sexual relations with his mother. Additionally, I do not necessarily
believe the points risen within the paper support this idea. The first piece of evidence the paper discusses to prove that Simba had Oedipus intentions was when he begins to blame himself for the death of his father, Mufasa. The paper writes, “it is common in the case of the death of a parent, for the same sex child to feel guilt because according to Oedipal theory, he or she at some point wished that the same-sex parent would die or disappear.” In other words sometimes children blame themselves for the death of the same sex parent because he or she at some point wishes for that parent to die so they can engage with their other parent that is alive. This may make sense but I do not believe that Simba blames himself for the death because he wished for his father to die and in my opinion had no desire to engage his mother. Before Simba’s father was killed in a stampede, Simba was practicing his roar. His evil uncle Scar, started a stampede of wildebeests. Simba was then convinced by his evil uncle, Scar, that it was his roar that started the stampede and that it was his fault Mufasa died. It was simply the belief that Simba was responsible for his father’s death because of his roar. The paper also goes on to prove its point. The paper claims that the strongest evidence of the Oedipus was when Sarabi, Simbia’s mom, calls Simba Mufasa, which is her husband’s name, when he returns from his exile. This is the first time Sarabi has seen Simba sine he left his homeland as a baby cub. While he was away he grew into a fully grown lion. The paper then states, “The fact that she addresses her son by her husband’s name clearly has Oedipal implications.” However, I completely disagree with this statement. I do not understand how there is a correlation with confusing someone to be someone else and Oedipal tendencies. When Simba returns he is simply just an older lion and he happens to look like his father. Since he looks like his father Sarabi accidentally mistakes him for her husband. This is like when we see our relatives that we do not see often and they say we look just like one of our parents. The next piece of evidence discussed is that Simba attacks his evil uncle, Scar, because he is hurting his mother. It is believed that Simba attacks his uncle because he had Oedipal tendencies with his mother. However, I also disagree with this. I think it is simply that when Simba saw his mother in trouble he had to do something to help her. It is just like in our lives if we see someone we care about in trouble we do whatever we can to step in and help them. In other words, if we saw a family member in the middle of combat with someone we would try to help the family member just like Simba did. Simbia saved his mother because she is a family member and took care of him for much of his life. The last piece of evidence that is discussed to prove Oedipus is that Simba nuzzles with his mother before his mate Nala. It is believed that this detail further proves that The Lion King contains Oedipus because he nuzzles his mom first. I also do not agree with this belief. The reason for nuzzling his mother first is Simba just saved his mother and realizes that if he didn’t she would have most likely been killed. Additionally, he nuzzles his mother first because Simba returns to his homeland with his mate Nala. Simba saw his mate while he was away from his home but did not see his mother. Nala brings Simba home. Therefore, when he returns with his mate it is his mother that he nuzzles first because he has not seen her yet but he has seen Nala. I do not believe that The Lion King has an Oedipus complex in it. I instead believe that the author of the paper was over analyzing the movie as a whole. In my opinion I also think that the overall evidence does not support the claim that there is Oedipus. I feel that the evidence instead, contains much more practical reasoning as to why Simba thought and acted the way he did.