The Macksey Journal
Volume 2 Article 43
2021
Hook, Ursula, and Elsa: Disney and Queer-coding from
the 1950s to the 2010s
Adelia Brown
Mount Holyoke College
Recommended Citation
Brown, Adelia (2021) "Hook, Ursula, and Elsa: Disney and Queer-coding from the 1950s to the 2010s,"
The Macksey Journal
: Vol. 2, Article 43.
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Johns Hopkins University Macksey Journal. It has
been accepted for inclusion in The Macksey Journal by an authorized editor of The Johns Hopkins University
Macksey Journal.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Hook, Ursula, and Elsa: Disney and Queer-Coding from the 1950s to the
2010s
Adelia Brown
Mount Holyoke College
Abstract
Despite not yet introducing a queer main character in one of its major animated features,
Disney has produced many characters that critics interpret as homosexual. Most of these
characters are villains. Disney has a problematic history of queer-coding its villains, but many
queer theorists argue that Frozen (2013) changes this pattern by queer-coding Elsa, a hero.
Unfortunately, this argument neglects many of the more negative aspects inherent to the
queer-coding in Frozen. These problematic elements become clear when compared to other
Disney films with queer-coding since 1950, namely Peter Pan (1953) and The Little Mermaid
(1989). Through analysis of these earlier films, along with the queer theory work of former
Disney employee Sean Griffin, this paper illustrates how Elsa’s triumphant coming out narrative
displays many problematic similarities to queer-coding in more homophobic Disney films. In
comparing Elsa’s queer-coding to that of Captain Hook and Ursula, disturbing similarities
suggest that in 2013, Disney retained many of the homophobic views that influenced its queer-
coding in 1953.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Keywords: Disney, Queer-coding, Sean Griffin, Homosexuality, Film History
Despite not yet introducing a queer main character in one of its major animated
features, Disney has produced many characters that critics interpret as homosexual. Most of
these characters are villains. Disney has a problematic history of queer-coding its villains, but
many queer theorists argue that Frozen (2013) changes this pattern by queer-coding Elsa, a
hero. How heroic is Elsa, though? Frozen’s queer representation loses its shine when viewed in
light of other Disney films with queer-coding since 1950, namely Peter Pan (1953) and The Little
Mermaid (1989). Elsa’s triumphant coming-out narrative displays many problematic similarities
to queer-coding in more homophobic Disney films. In comparing Elsa’s queer-coding to that of
Captain Hook and Ursula, disturbing similarities suggest that in 2013, Disney retained many of
the homophobic views that influenced its queer-coding in 1953.
In the early 1950s, when Peter Pan was released, Disney strove above all else to position
itself as a family-friendly corporation. According to Sean Griffin, a former Disney employee who
focused on queer studies, Disney in the ‘50s focused on “representing itself as an upstanding
moral organization”
that parents could trust to influence their children’s moral development
(Griffin 3). This meant conforming to the moral leanings of the general, movie-attending public,
which at the time, expected very little controversial content due to the restrictions of the
Production Code. The Code, which regulated objectionable content in motion pictures, sought
to ensure movies portrayed “correct standards of life” (Motion Picture Association of America
6). Intuitively, Griffin continues that this meant “gender and sexuality are portrayed more
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
benignly”
than they were in the 1940s (Griffin 41), when Disney enforced its family-friendly
image less strictly. Did all types of gender and sexuality warrant this treatment? Griffin reveals
the answer in his introduction. Disney “consistently posited and reinforced [...] an image of
American middle-class heterosexual courtship”
(Griffin 4). Griffin argues that despite claiming
to downplay sexuality, Disney neglected to downplay heterosexuality. It accomplished this by
portraying heterosexuality as morally pure and innocent. Theoretically, this implies that Disney
could also portray homosexuality so long as it portrayed it as morally vile and corrupted. Griffin
provides evidence of Disney exploring taboo topics by controlling the way audiences interpret
them. Apparently, “Disney’s reputation was so carved in stone within American culture that, at
least once, the studio was able to transgress the Production Code”
by displaying naked buttocks
(Griffin 46). The public had enough faith in Disney’s morality that they automatically
interpreted the scene as innocent and morally pure. It follows that Disney could also display
homosexuality such that audiences would interpret its motives as morally pure: by
characterizing the homosexuality as corrupted.
Many read Captain Hook in Peter Pan as a queer-coded homosexual man. Hook
comically exaggerates Father’s more feminine tendencies. Father stumbles about without a
confident masculine gait, while Hook glides girlishly across the floor (Peter Pan). Father worries
a little too much about his cufflinks, while Hook dresses with impeccable style. Hook’s costume
also reflects femininity, complete with loose long hair, a flowing cape, a pink shirt, and a bushy
feather in his hat. Griffin observes that despite this clothing’s femininity, it also resembles
traditional masculine clothing of the time period (Griffin 76). Hook’s cape hangs too tight and
low, but a nice jacket over a clean undershirt appeared masculine. Hook’s pink, bushy feather
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
appears feminine, but an impressive hat had a place in masculine fashion. In addition to
exaggerating Hook’s femininity, the costume exaggerates his masculinity. This portrays
feminine men as a warped and comical version of masculine men. Hook’s feather further
emasculates him in relation to his femininity. At the beginning of the movie, the feather
represents feminine masculinity. Despite its pink and fluffy appearance, it serves as a phallic
status symbol for Hook. Later in the movie, Peter Pan shaves the feather, effectively
emasculating Hook’s phallus. Rather than replacing it with a more masculine symbol, Hook
simply loses the object, as well as the masculinity behind his feminine style. Griffin argues that
“how theatrically [Hook performs his] gender roles [suggests that] the naturalness of [his]
gender can be called into question” (Griffin 73). Indeed, Hook’s performance of masculinity
retains enough elements of femininity to resemble just that: a performance.
By intrinsically tying Hook’s queer-coded traits into his villainous traits, the film
encourages a negative interpretation of homosexuality. Griffin initially argues that Hook could
serve as positive representation for the gay community, but a closer look at the film, as well as
Griffin’s own evidence, paints a darker picture (Griffin 73). Griffin later states that Hook is
“using his cultured dandyism to hide his evil designs”
(Griffin 76). This interpretation directly
ties Hook’s femininity into his villainy. Indeed, the same costume that covers Hook’s femininity
with masculine elements simultaneously covers Hook’s piracy with proper elements. While the
other members of Hook’s crew wear torn, casual clothing, Hook’s clean and dapper cloak
creates the illusion not only of masculinity, but of propriety. His performative masculinity hides
his femininity and his villainous acts at the same time, implying a connection between the two.
The villainous actions themselves also tie into homosexuality, as Hook, in Nico Lang’s words,
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
“preys on young boys” (Lang). Lang’s word choice emphasizes that Hook does not merely
“hunt” young boys; the word “preys” suggests a sexual interpretation. Rather than immediately
killing the Lost Boys when he has them tied up, Hook asks them to join his crew and live with
him (Peter Pan). Barrie, the author of the original Peter Pan story, prompted much critical
argument regarding “whether or not there was anything sexual about [his] affection for [...]
boys, and the question has never been settled to anyone’s satisfaction,” according to Constance
Grady. This means that each adaptation of Peter Pan, of which there have been many, must
choose a way to handle a villain whose origin involves potential pedophilic homosexuality.
Rather than hiding this potential leaning in the character, as one would expect a family-friendly
company to do, Disney chose to highlight the behavior, taking pains only to portray it as
villainous. Disney could portray queerness without risking their moral reputation, so long as
that queerness involved objective harm and unquestionable evil. This becomes further
apparent when considering Disney’s different responses to queer tendencies in a hero as
opposed to a villain (Griffin 41). Peter Pan has historically been portrayed as a feminine
character, with many adaptations even going so far as to cast a woman in the role, but Griffin
observes that “Disney’s Peter Pan is one of the most masculine versions of the character, a
definite attempt to downplay the genderbending.” Peter Pan’s voice actor is male, and his
costume lacks the feminine flourishes of Hook’s. The feather in his cap is red and pointy, with
no fluff to be found. Despite highlighting Hook’s femininity, Disney took pains to hide Peter
Pan’s. This implies that in the 1950s, queerness could only occur in a Disney villain, not in a
Disney hero.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
By the late 1980s, Disney stopped prioritizing their family-friendly image at the cost of
all else. Griffin explains that “the driving motive for the company was no longer ‘What would
Walt have done?’ but ‘What will make a profit for the company?’” (Griffin 106). This meant
prioritizing profit over Walt’s moral ideals. In practice, this likely explains the “in-jokes and sly
winks that most children would not catch or understand” that Griffin later observes during this
period (Griffin 146). Parents buy tickets, so Disney began appealing more to adults, which
naturally involved a loosening of its family-friendly moral code. Disney began “encouraging a
camp reception”
(Griffin 145), which directly contrasts the trusting reception they encouraged
in order to skirt the Code in the ‘50s. Rather than encouraging audiences to interpret all images
in the most innocent light possible, Disney began leaning into the humor of less innocent
interpretations. This could potentially open the door to different, less negative types of queer-
coding or representation.
In creating Ursula for The Little Mermaid, designers drew inspiration from a drag queen,
which led to more overt queer-coding than in Peter Pan. Codirector John Musker, who helped
to design Ursula, explicitly stated that he “really [tried] to get some of Divine’s big, campy,
overweight diva” across in the character (Acuna). Divine was a famous drag queen during this
time period, and his campy, diva traits, far from incidental, were inherent to his drag identity.
This means that the film explicitly codes Ursula as not just a celebrity who happened to do drag,
but as a recognizable drag queen. Ursula’s appearance supports this. She is overweight and
physically imposing, her hair forms a mohawk, and she wears bright red nails and heavy
makeup. Her movement also resembles Divine’s, as she shakes her hips and sashays through
purple mood lighting reminiscent of a drag show. Her speech resembles that of a drag persona,
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
as well. She says, “they weren’t kidding when they called me, well, a witch”
(The Little
Mermaid), which creates a pun on the word “bitch.” This resembles typical drag language much
more than typical Disney language. Thirty years earlier, even implying non-family-friendly
language like this would be taboo. Ursula’s verbal emphasis on “the importance of body
language,”
along with the suggestive shaking of her hips, also ties into drag while brushing the
risqué (The Little Mermaid). The implication that Ariel should move her body as Ursula does for
the purpose of attracting Prince Eric draws attention to sexual body parts, something Disney
would not abide in the ‘50s. Perhaps if a Disney film could now create puns on immoral
language, it could also positively or neutrally portray queer-coded characters.
On the contrary, despite Disney’s reduced moral responsibility, Ursula’s queerness still
ties directly into her villainy and evil. Her desire to become a queen serves as her primary
motivation, which connects drag queens to villainous behavior. Furthermore, her example
victims in “Poor Unfortunate Souls” include a conventional heterosexual couple that she
corrupts (The Little Mermaid). This reflects the way she tries to separate Ariel and Prince Eric.
Ursula consistently fights against the positive ideal of heterosexual romance. Near the end of
the movie, she does this by donning a kind of drag, impersonating a more feminine woman.
Showing Ursula, a masculine character, don a more feminine appearance for the purpose of evil
connects crossdressing and drag with evil intentions. She laughs maniacally as she transforms,
emphasizing the villainy of dressing up as a feminine woman. When her disguise dissolves at
the wedding, she turns back into her masculine self, with rolls of fat bursting out of the
wedding dress. A bigger, masculine character emerging from a feminine dress resembles a
negative perception of drag queens, and the dark lighting and horrified reactions portray the
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
behavior as evil. The wedding in particular also emphasizes Ursula’s corruption of the
heterosexual union. Ursula does not simply fight against the heroes; she fights against their
heterosexual family structures. This positions her queerness as inherent to and part of her
villainy.
In the 2010s, gay representation became an issue of contemporary discussion, but
Disney still had not included any explicitly gay characters in a major animated feature. Renee
Davidson observes that in 2013, “when Disney movies do allude to queer sexuality, including
same-sex romance, this is usually in the context of a joke-- a comical accident that leaves all
parties disgusted and mortified”
(Davidson). This implies that although Disney still portrayed
homosexuality as humorous and crude, the homosexuality it ridiculed was overtly defined
rather than coded, or at least coded in a way that was more obvious to the audience given the
prevalence of gay representation as an issue. Davidson emphasizes Disney’s pattern of
“ridiculing” homosexuality, but also remarks that “the company doesn’t shy away from
attempts to profit from queer consumers” (Davidson). This represents a natural progression
from the campiness of Disney in the late 1980s. Disney could include references to the queer
community to appeal to queer fans, while still emphasizing the moral lowness of the queer
community to appeal to families with traditional moral values. Most often, this still took the
form of queer-coded villains. Regardless, gay audiences began “to queer their favorite Disney
characters” (Davidson), including the heroes. It makes sense that Disney would play into this
new tendency, so as not to lose queer viewers; however, the company still could not take a
definitive pro-gay stance without risking ire from its more traditional audiences.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
In Frozen, Elsa displays queer-coded traits, despite functioning as a hero. Kierran
Petersen points out commonly acknowledged “parallels between the kingdom’s rejection of the
magical powers [...] and society’s rejection of homosexuality” (Petersen). This positions Elsa as a
gay person living in a homophobic society. Indeed, the emphasis of closing doors in an attempt
to “keep her powers hidden away from everyone” (Petersen) liken Elsa’s hidden powers to the
metaphor of homosexuality being “in the closet.” The juxtaposition between Anna and Elsa
during “For the First Time in Forever” contrasts Anna’s heterosexuality to Elsa’s ice powers,
comparing Elsa’s ice powers to homosexuality. Anna sings “a chance to find true love” over Elsa
singing “conceal, don’t feel, don’t let them know” (Frozen), suggesting the thing Elsa conceals
relates to her chance to find true love. “Let It Go” also contributes to this reading, as according
to Petersen, “many equate [it] with the experience of coming out and accepting one’s sexual
orientation” (Petersen). Elsa “lets go” of her restraint because “now they know” (Frozen),
mirroring the way a gay person stops restraining themselves once others already know they are
gay.
Unlike in previous films, Elsa’s homosexuality pertains to her status as a hero, not as a
villain. Ryan C. Robert “argues that the film has given LGBT youth a character with which to
empathize” (Petersen). This sets Elsa apart from previous queer-coded characters, whose status
as villains discouraged the audience from empathizing with them. Like Ursula, Elsa serves as an
obstacle to Anna’s heterosexual romance. This ties her behavior into queerness, and it initially
seems villainous; however, because Hans takes on the role of the villain, thwarting his romance
with Anna actually positions Elsa’s queerness as heroic. Elsa consistently supports and strives
for family values, something previous films pitted queer-coded characters against. Elsa says “I
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
don’t wanna hurt you” to her heterosexual parents (Frozen), explicitly denying animosity
between her queerness and their heterosexual relationship. She also names Kristoff “the official
Arendelle ice master and deliverer”
not despite but because of his heterosexual relationship
with Anna (Frozen). Throughout the movie, Elsa unwaveringly supports the “good” characters,
including their heterosexuality. Fittingly, Frozen “attracted more than the usual amount of
controversy for a kids’ cartoon” (Petersen), according to Caitlin Dickson. More parents worried
that Frozen condoned homosexuality, which suggests that Elsa represents a more positive
portrayal of homosexuality. Rather than including homosexuality only to punish and vilify it,
Frozen queer-codes a heroic character who survives to get a happy ending.
Still, Elsa displays a fair amount of villainous queer-coding, despite her position as one of
the film’s heroes. Fittingly, a troll claims “there is beauty in [Elsa’s ice powers] but also great
danger” (Frozen); likewise, the film portrays Elsa’s queer-coded powers as heroic, but also dark
and dangerous. Elsa was originally intended to be “a villain and pure evil”
(“Elsa from Frozen”),
according to producer Peter Del Vecho, and much of her queer-coding was likely established
during this phase of development. This would explain why Disney suddenly included a positive
example of queer-coding despite the popular controversy surrounding gay representation. In
fact, Ron Clements, codirector of The Little Mermaid, points out the “connection” between
early Ursula sketches and early Elsa sketches (Acuna), which emphasizes the similar brands of
queer-coding in their original character designs. Like the way Peter Pan emphasized Hook’s
predatory behavior towards boys and The Little Mermaid emphasized Ursula’s use of
crossdressing to destroy the wedding, Frozen emphasizes Elsa’s queer-coded ice powers as a
source of danger to the straight characters in the film. She heroically hopes Anna will “be safe
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
from” her, but Anna admits that “actually [she is] not,” and neither is the rest of the town
(Frozen).
The ice powers that queer theorists compare to homosexuality genuinely endanger
the entire community. Anna, who serves as the heterosexual romantic lead, also serves as the
face of Elsa’s destruction. Her injury at Elsa’s hands provides the inciting incident for the plot,
and her frozen heart, inflicted by Elsa later on, establishes the driving time pressure for the
film’s final act. In the end, Elsa does participate in the happy ending, but her seemingly uplifting
realization that “love will thaw” positions ice, which represents her queerness, directly opposed
to love (Frozen). Although Elsa’s ice powers seem to represent homosexuality, a kind of
romantic love, the nature of ice presents homosexual love as cold and opposed to “true” love.
Only “true” love can save Anna from the corrupted love of Elsa’s ice powers. Despite surviving
to a happy ending, Elsa receives no love interest, not even a heterosexual but queer-coded one.
Rob Price describes Frozen as “a timid step in the right direction,” but acknowledges that it “still
sticks to plenty of societal standards” (Petersen). Indeed, Elsa fulfills heroic roles never before
filled by queer-coded Disney characters, but the one heroic role she does not fulfill is that of the
love interest—arguably the most relevant role for providing positive gay representation. This
half-hearted step in the right direction reflects Disney’s attitudes in the early 2010s. Although
Elsa’s queer-coding avoids the overtly negative, Disney did not take an explicitly positive stance
on homosexuality.
Comparing Elsa to queer-coded villains of the 1950s and 1980s reveals that by the
2010s, Disney had taken a more positive approach to gay representation, but still failed to
discard many of the homophobic tendencies behind its previous queer-coded characters. Peter
Pan portrayed Hook’s homosexuality as both ridiculous and condemnable. The Little Mermaid
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
portrayed Ursula’s queerness in a campier fashion, allowing the movie to condemn it while still
temporarily reveling in it. In Frozen, Disney made progress by queer-coding a hero, and many
critics applauded what they considered a positive portrayal of homosexuality. Indeed, Frozen
represented a more positive portrayal than any Disney film before it but still retained much of
the company’s previous homophobia. Throughout the years, Disney appears to steadily move
towards increasing acceptance of homosexuality, but it moves no faster than the box office
comfortably allows.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
Works Cited
Acuna, Kirsten. “How ‘The Lion King’ codirector, a drag queen, and one of Disney’s greatest
animators helped bring The Little Mermaid villain to life.” Insider, 2019.
Davidson, Renee. “Why are there no gay Disney characters?” Salon, 2013.
“Elsa from Frozen was meant to be an evil queen with an army of snow monsters.” BBC,
Newsbeat, 2017.
Frozen. Directed by Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck, Walt Disney Pictures, 2013.
Grady, Constance. “How the fantasy of Peter Pan turned sinister.” Vox, 2017.
Griffin, Sean P. Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company from the Inside Out.
New York University Press, 2000.
Lang, Nico. “Disney’s long, complicated history with queer characters.” Harper’s Bazaar, 2017.
Motion Picture Association of America. A Code to Govern the Making of Motion and Talking
Pictures, 1949. Margaret Herrick Library, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
Peter Pan. Directed by Clyde Geronimi, Hamilton Luske, and Wilfred Jackson, Walt Disney
Pictures, 1953.
Petersen, Kierran. “Disney’s Frozen and the ‘gay agenda.’” BBC, 2014.
The Little Mermaid. Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker, Walt Disney Pictures, 1989.
Published by JHU Macksey Journal, 2021
