Campy and Corrupt; Disney’s Fixation with Queercoding Villains

Written by Gemma Raso

Graphics by Dana Dang

Disney has been a staple of childhoods for decades. Whether it was feeling enamored by the original, slightly grainy Snow White floating through the forest, laughing at the one of a kind rapport between Timon and Pumbaa, or feeling the magic of the carpet that carried the romance between Aladdin and Jasmine, these moments have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars, and have remained iconic years after their release. 

As these films took up such a principal part of life for many, a particularly strong connection to specific Disney characters was fostered. Perhaps it was Mulan’s devotion to family which drew you in, or Cinderella’s twirl in her iconic dress. Or maybe your favourite Disney moment was something more akin to friendship; Lilo & Stitch, Woody and Buzz Lightyear, Remi and Linguini. Or perhaps, you were drawn to the villains and their inexplicably devilish accents, for a reason you could never put your finger on. Well, there is a possible reason, and that’s called queer coding. 

Queer coding is the process in which fictional characters appear, or are coded (written, communicated, acted), to be queer. Oftentimes their sexual orientation is never part of the story, but because they exhibit characteristics stereotyped as being ‘queer,’ they become perceived by the masses in this way. Queer coding became popular in the cold war era, as the U.S. government, and a number of religious and conservative groups, became increasingly concerned about the impact media was having on the public. While depictions of the LGBTQ+ community were not outright banned by the American government, they were heavily discouraged. Directors and writers would give their characters certain attributes to be recognisable to members of the community (specific mannerisms, styles, and sayings), while maintaining their perceived straightness to the censors. Only in one situation would these queer idiosyncrasies move to the unavoidable forefront of the characters personality; when they were associated with villains. If these queercoded characters met their demise, then the creators were not endorsing this frowned upon lifestyle.

Disney follows a binary, in a number of different regions. There is (often) a good, heterosexual, gender normative hero/heroine, existing beside the evil, queer, gender diverse villain. Automatic biases are formed, as the ‘evil’ villain becomes synonymous with ideas of queerness, while the heroic, heterosexual lead always ends up victorious. The villains are perceived as especially wicked because of their attempts to disrupt heteronormativity. As Richard Dyer explained in The Culture of Queers, “notions and feelings of immorality, deviance, weakness, illness, inadequacy, shame, degeneracy, sordidness, disgust and pathos were all part of the notion of Queerdom.” These ideas fit perfectly into the creation of Disney villains. 

Of course, the meaning of ‘queer’ and ‘heterosexual’ are so much more complicated than what Disney ever communicates (or what this article attempts to explain) - as are the spaces they occupy, and the spectrums they exist on. But these complex structures are so easily simplified when they’re put into such a distinct binary; good versus evil. 

The term, queer characteristics, in this case, generally refers to effeminate features within male characters, or more masculine ones from female characters. It’s not hard to find these ideas present within some of the most popular Disney films. Consider The Lion King; Scar’s limp wrists, well groomed mane and swaying hips, compared to Simba’s heterosexual storyline and traditionally ‘masculine’ qualities. Or take Hades in Hercules, who ‘sashays through his kingdom,’ always responding to news melodramatically, and wears lipstick. His mannerisms juxtapose Hercules’, who obsessively works out, focuses on his physical form and never sways from his unquestioning morals, all while pursuing his heterosexual love story. 

This queer coding isn’t exclusive to male characters by any means. One of the most notorious examples is The Little Mermaid’s, Ursula, who is based on the late, iconic, drag queen Divine, who inspired elements as specific as Ursula’s figure, lashes, and love of extravagance. Ariel is a symbol of good luck and fortune with her brightly coloured tail. In fact, all the merfolk in The Little Mermaid have similar, extravagantly coloured anatomy below their waist. This contrasts heavily with Ursula’s dark, daring, and writhing phallic tentacles. Similarly, Maleficent (both in the 2014 film and original Sleeping Beauty) possesses phallic horns, a facially masculine build, and an equally severe personality, which opposes Princess Aurora’s maiden-like innocence. These ideas were born from the years when queer women were seen as being corruptive influences, and queer men were anything but manly. 

Many Disney films conclude with the eradication of the queer villain, sometimes being offered one final chance for redemption and to escape with their lives, but as they regularly disregard this offer, they are killed. This elimination represents the political need for the queer villain to be eradicated, while also acting as a symbol for the continued prevalence of heteronormativity. The films also close, almost exclusively, with a heteronormative ending. Whether it’s with a marriage like Ariel and Eric’s, or the return to a heteronormative family as in Brave, the queer villains are only allowed to exist in these films up until the point when they cause enough mayhem to disrupt said heteronormative ending. They act as markers for the chaotic, immoral world that could be. This frightening, physical reality can so easily be compared to the brightly lit, overwhelmingly happy heterosexual one that the film began in - therefore communicating how negative it would be if there were any disruptions to this heteronormative way of living. 

However, there are two important elements to point out. The first is that ‘queer coding’ is equally as much in the eye of the viewer, as it is in the creator. It was not always the intention, deliberate or otherwise, to make these characters be in line with harmful presumptions of queer people. Our perception of these villains as queer is equally related to our understanding of queer behaviour and definitions, learned through media and society. 

The second is that this queercoding of Disney villains doesn’t always need to be harmful. As Terra Necessary writes in Pride,“instead of learning how bad it is to be swishy and fabulous, all you got was a generation of gay kids with evil role models.” Arguably, it is these villains who supply the story. They move the plot forward, they provide the entertainment and the elements that hook the audience. And they also provide the most gorgeous, campy, inspiring costumes - Cruella de Ville’s iconic hair can be seen trending, largely due to TikTok influence, and Shego and Jafar’s fashion will forever be nothing short of inspiring. 

While Disney films, at the time of release, only acted to encourage the harmful stereotypes and perceptions of the queer community, they have become a source of comfort and inspiration for many young, queer people now. As Pride says, “the [characters] may be stereotypical, murdering hot messes, but they’re OUR stereotypical, murdering hot mess[es].” The queer community has reclaimed many traditionally harmful characters, phrases and perceptions in the last few decades, and perhaps the Disney villains are next to follow suit.