Vintage Cartoons

[Widebrim]

And before I get too out of hand here, I’m talking about peoples’ judgment to watch or publish these things. I HATE the current obscenity laws which I believe are unconstitutional because I don’t think any government should impose censorship. :rage: Too political, so I’ll stop there.

Then you would have REALLY HATED the obscenity laws that existed when our parents were young...Seriously, censorship, and I hope that you would agree, cannot but exist in society; it is how and why censorship is imposed which is the crux of the problem, or debate.

Now, should some of the overtly racist cartoons of the past be completely taken off the market, so as not to offend certain people? I think that a viable argument could be offered for the affirmative, but, again, who would decide?

 

[LizzieMaine]

Now, should some of the overtly racist cartoons of the past be completely taken off the market, so as not to offend certain people? I think that a viable argument could be offered for the affirmative, but, again, who would decide?

Well, they already have been. The decision was made by the owners of the films so as to avoid compromising their brands with unwanted controversy. You could call it censorship or a careful business decision, but either way it's already happened.

 

[Lady Day]

The racial stereotyping in Coal Black is not intended to be offensive, it's played strictly for laughs, along with everything else stuffed into this great cartoon: references to wartime rationing, army life, Citizen Kane, etc. It's very much a product of the freaky energy of the war years, filtered through Bob Clampett's unique direction.

The key comment I always mention when I show it is that the actual target of satire in this cartoon is not the African-American community, but Walt Disney's pretentions in adapting European fairy tales like Snow White in such an uncreatively traditional manner, rather than using America's own unique vernacular, i.e., jazz. Following Tex Avery's lead, Clampett just wants to jazz up these fairy tales for a contemporary audience and have some fun with them.

This has been chewing at me a bit. Ive been thinking on this for a few days. I completely understand the viewpoint that this is coming from, I do, but to say that the racial stereotyping is strictly for laughs and not meant to be offensive is something I guess I personally cant believe.

Whenever I hear this argument, and Ive heard it before, I always think of those last few minutes of Bamboozled, where that actual minstrel show montage plays consecutively. We might not see it in our PC washed brains, but that was the normal, the expectation of the time. On TV, movies, advertising, etc. That character was the normal for the audience this was targeted to. White people were represented in many different facets in entertainments, many reaches. Not black people. So when different facets of black people began to be explored with any real credibility, Id say popularizing in the mid 40s, Id say this view was shattered, then completely done away with in the late 60s (completely, being a very rubber term, I guess).

I hope that made sense.

LD

 

[Widebrim]

Well, they already have been. The decision was made by the owners of the films so as to avoid compromising their brands with unwanted controversy. You could call it censorship or a careful business decision, but either way it's already happened.

Yes, I'm aware that many have been removed from the public eye (that's what this thread is mostly about). I was simply speaking theoretically, as to whether such action is ever justified. Regarding motivation for said removal, I would lean towards the latter reason that you listed.

 

[Red Diabla]

This has been chewing at me a bit. Ive been thinking on this for a few days. I completely understand the viewpoint that this is coming from, I do, but to say that the racial stereotyping is strictly for laughs and not meant to be offensive is something I guess I personally cant believe.

Whenever I hear this argument, and Ive heard it before, I always think of those last few minutes of Bamboozled, where that actual minstrel show montage plays consecutively. We might not see it in our PC washed brains, but that was the normal, the expectation of the time. On TV, movies, advertising, etc. That character was the normal for the audience this was targeted to. White people were represented in many different facets in entertainments, many reaches. Not black people. So when different facets of black people began to be explored with any real credibility, Id say popularizing in the mid 40s, Id say this view was shattered, then completely done away with in the late 60s (completely, being a very rubber term, I guess).

I hope that made sense.

LD

OK, here's my white girl take on this.

There IS the possibility that Clampett and other individuals at the time wouldn't consider themselves racists. Just the fact that he didn't take the Lazytown route in portraying blacks could be an argument in favor of that theory.

However, look at who looked good in cartoons. Uhm...nobody. Everyone in cartoons was made fun of, was prone to stereotyping, and was a simplification of society at the time. In fact, I'd say there's more of a chance that cartoons would potentially make fun of more types of people than live-action films. Equal Opportunity slamming, if you will.

Is society racist? At the time these cartoons that we're talking about were made, yes. Now? Yes. I look at the response to Obama and there's no doubt in my mind that racism is unfortunately alive and vocal in the USA. That doesn't mean that everything that comes out of Hollywood is intended to be equally racist.

Being in the animation industry myself, it'd wound me deeply to find out that Clampett thought less of other people based on the color of their skin. But...look at his cartoons where he makes fun of white people. He's brutal across the board.

Disney's Song of the South is still too controversial to sell in the USA, even though most folks get pirated copies from Japan. Are they racist for wanting to see that film, or are they putting aside the sterotype of Uncle Remus and concentrating on the really good animation of B'rer Rabbit, source be damned?

I think it's wrong to pretend some of these cartoons didn't exist...how to handle them now? I can see why there's so much conflict about that.

RD

 

[Lady Day]

Again, I do genuinely get what you are saying, especially as an animator myself. And I do think there is a difference between a racial caricature and racism.

Clampett, and others were products of their time, and drew from what was being referenced, highlighted, and garnered laughs, like anyone. Im not expecting their work to be pillars of responsibility for the time. Im saying that their damage (the cartoons) isnt as aloof and merely comical in relation to an of the animation as I think it is being discussed in this thread.

I guess what Im trying to see is where is the perspective content to place these cartoons in that merely comical category? If this visual is all you are exposed to, not just in this medium, but mostly all entertainment and advertising content, then that is your normal.

LD

 

[LizzieMaine]

Again, I do genuinely get what you are saying, especially as an animator myself. And I do think there is a difference between a racial caricature and racism.

Clampett, and others were products of their time, and drew from what was being referenced, highlighted, and garnered laughs, like anyone. Im not expecting their work to be pillars of responsibility for the time. Im saying that their damage (the cartoons) isnt as aloof and merely comical in relation to an of the animation as I think it is being discussed in this thread.

I guess what Im trying to see is where is the perspective content to place these cartoons in that merely comical category? If this visual is all you are exposed to, not just in this medium, but mostly all entertainment and advertising content, then that is your normal.

LD

Very well put. This is a subject that I dug pretty deeply into when writing my book on "Amos 'n' Andy's" early years on radio -- before you can really discuss any racial portrayals in the popular media, you have to take a very broad look at all aspects of that media: movies, cartoons, radio, the stage, the funnies, popular fiction, basically the whole range of how various ethnic groups were portrayed.

One of the ways in which A&A were absolutely unique for their era is that that they were the only people in mainstream popular culture who offered African-American characters who *didn't* fit stereotypes alongside those who did -- the father of Amos's fiancee, for example, was portrayed as a very serious, dignified college graduate and successful businessman, who spoke without a trace of dialect. And this was being done in 1928-29, at a time when you never saw an image like that anywhere else in popular media -- in fact, as far as I was able to find, and I looked pretty deep, this was the first instance of such a portrayal anywhere in the mainstream "white" culture.

It took a good twenty or thirty years for the rest of the popular media to catch up to that -- and they knew, consciously, that they were going out on a limb to do it. It's much easier in popular entertainment to just go with the flow of the times and not rock the boat, and most writers and performers did so. Indeed, even A&A's appearances in other media, such as movies and animation, which weren't under the control of the program's creators, fell into that same rut of constant stereotype.

 

[Doctor Strange]

(Wow, I step away for a half a day, and this thread gets active!)

Lady Day, perhaps I need to re-examine Coal Black: I have had/shown my 16mm print for so long - since the 1970s - that I am very used to thinking about it the same way. But I honestly think it shows little or no malicious intent compared to so many of the less inventive "stereotype" cartoons of the time. Much like the disgraceful treatment of the Japanese in WWII-produced cartoons, those are very hard to watch nowadays without being appalled. (You say that you've seen them, so you must know what I mean.)

Let me also say that in the very small world of NYC-based cartoon buffs that existed back in the pre-cable, pre-VCR, pre-Internet days (where you found out about this stuff gradually through library research, revival-house screenings, and word-of-mouth), there were collectors who specialized in these stereotype cartoons because they believed the stereotypes to be true. These clowns actually thought these cartoons were evidence of black inferiority! As a 60s idealist raised by New Deal/New Frontier liberal-Democrat Jews, I was utterly disgusted by this... Coal Black is the only film of this "type" that I have in my collection, precisely because it is so different from most of the others.

Taken in the context of the stereotype shorthand humor of cartoons and live-action films of the 30s/40s (which the movies inherited wholesale from radio and vaudeville) - where all Scots are cheap, all Jews are scheming, avaricious money-grubbers, all Italians are excitable and operatic, all French people wear striped shirts and berets and only think about romance, all country folk are dumb rubes, and let's not even discuss the disgusting treatment of Native Americans! - Coal Black is "standard" in some ways... but exceptional in most. It does not want you to laugh at its silly black caricatures because they're "accurate", but rather uses them as part of its nonstop barrage of gags, and its explosive jazzy soundtrack, to create a freewheelin' laugh machine carefully designed to cheer soldiers and homefronters alike in those awful darkest days of the war.

Anyway, Coal Black has been discussed in detail by greater experts than I: see the following links at animation historian Michael Barrier's site:

Interesting essay on Coal Black by Milt Gray - http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Essays/Milt_Gray/Gray_on_Coal_Black.htm

And its long feedback thread (which eventually devolves into mostly Jones vs. Clampett sniping, but includes some worthwhile points too) - http://www.michaelbarrier.com/Feedback/feedback_clampett.htm

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think a really good way to understand the greater scope of this issue is to visualize a scene --

Bugs Bunny is being pursued by Elmer. He runs past a cop on the sidewalk, turns back, grabs the cop's billy, and whacks Elmer over the head with it.

What color is the cop?

Point being, in all classic animation of the Era, you didn't see a black character unless there was a *need* for that character to be black, either to fit a setting (Africa, the South, etc.) or to fit a specific stereotyped gag, or to caricature a specific celebrity. In all other cases, white was the default, so you never had a chance to see just a random African-American cartoon character as part of the setting. Such a character was always "the other," and that's something that ties in generally with the way black characters were used in other sorts of fiction.

 

[Fletch]

I think a really good way to understand the greater scope of this issue is to visualize a scene --

Bugs Bunny is being pursued by Elmer. He runs past a cop on the sidewalk, turns back, grabs the cop's billy, and whacks Elmer over the head with it.

What color is the cop?

Irish.

Whaaa? Green is a color.

Nobbutsrsly - and by way of extending your point - you didn't see Irishness in the toons either, unless you needed a cop, or a barkeep, or a Cagney or Cohan "turn", or a back-catalog song for Bugs to sing: "She's the daughter of Rosie O'Graaady, a regular old fashioned goil..."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Irish.

Whaaa? Green is a color.

Nobbutsrsly - and by way of extending your point - you didn't see Irishness in the toons either, unless you needed a cop, or a barkeep, or a Cagney or Cohan "turn", or a back-catalog song for Bugs to sing: "She's the daughter of Rosie O'Graaady, a regular old fashioned goil..."

Fair point -- so consider another example. Consider the classic fall-guy in Warner cartoons -- that pot-bellied, potato-nosed schmoe who always takes the pratfall on the banana peel, falls down the manhole, gets knocked off a ladder, or whatever. Why isn't that ever a black guy? The answer, of course, is that those aren't "racial" gags, and black characters weren't used in animation unless a "black character" was specifically called for by the gag or the setting, and if he *was* used, he'd always be set apart in some way -- wearing a zoot suit or being a jungle native or whatever. He was never just some guy in a baggy suit chewing a matchstick.

There *was* such use of black characters at the time in non-visual media. Amos and Andy once did an entire fifteen minute program about two guys choosing wallpaper -- a situation that could be done just as well by Lum and Abner. Nothing in it depended on the race of the characters for the humor. But in cartoons, movies, and other visual media, the black character always had to be the *black* character. He could never just be The Average Man.

 

[Lady Day]

Nothing in it depended on the race of the characters for the humor. But in cartoons, movies, and other visual media, the black character always had to be the *black* character. He could never just be The Average Man.

This is a good point, and its gotten much better, especially in animation.

To bring a bit of contemporary animation into it for perspective, I guess that is what I adored about Up. It was just so not an issue and just so well done that I envision their brainstorming session to be..."Hey, in Russell's character design, lets make him asian. Why not? Sure, okay." Done.

As opposed to their parent company, sister division, Disney Animation and The Princess and the Frog. But thats pretty personal for me, so I wont get into that.

LD

 

[Widebrim]

Irish.

Whaaa? Green is a color.

Sure 'tis...lol

 

[Widebrim]

As opposed to their parent company, sister division, Disney Animation and The Princess and the Frog. But thats pretty personal for me, so I wont get into that.

LD

If it's not too fftopic:, please fill us in on that, LD. When I first saw promos for it, I remember thinking something like, "Hmmm, black princess dressed in European clothing. And from Disney...What gives?"

-Widebrim

 

[Lady Day]

I personally wish they *had* set the story in that kind of fictional fairly tale land. Same premise as all their other princesses, except this one just happened to be brown. That would have been fantastic.

Instead they put her in post WWI New Orleans just so they could use jazz music as a backdrop :eusa_doh: then did everything they possibly could to not acknowledge her race, or the stark limitations of her being in that era. IT handicapped the whole story, so much so, that they actually removed it completely by turning her into a frog for over an hour.

Not to mention her prince is a handsome, never worked, broke, gigolo who's initial premise is to marry her rich best friend. Could their *be* a bigger stereotype than that?

Disney seems to think that if a character of color is used, then the situation they are in *has* to be significant to their race. sigh

Ive watched it like 15 times now, thinking it will get better in the next viewing. No such luck. I do hope in her next film (she is after all there to fill a demographic in Disney's very successful Princesses line) that they give her a real fairy tale story.

LD

 

[John in Covina]

Today it seems that rule for ethnic humor is: ethnic humor can only be done by a person of a specific ethnicity making fun of their own ethnicity.

If anybody else does it then it's time to be upset about the disrespect and stereotyping.

Similar issues have come up with some Our Gang / Little Rascals and 3 Stooges shorts. I think one problem is where we see some things that could be considered pretty strident, other things that were innoculous becomes offensive because this is driven by those with the "thinnest skin" as it were. (As in to be thin skinned = easily offended or upset.)

In some ways it's unfortunate because some stuff was hardly controversial but dropped "just in case" somebody might get offended. It is similar to digitally taking the guns out of ET or creating new ratings based on behavior only recently percieved as bad. Smoking in films will probably garner R ratings in the future. Things get out of hand when they are controlled by the most "sensative" amongst us. A well balanced view is usually not what a hysterical person wants to hear about.

 

[Widebrim]

Today it seems that rule for ethnic humor is: ethnic humor can only be done by a person of a specific ethnicity making fun of their own ethnicity.

If anybody else does it then it's time to be upset about the disrespect and stereotyping.

Similar issues have come up with some Our Gang / Little Rascals and 3 Stooges shorts.

Like the 3 Stooges short, I think it is "Uncivil Warriors," where Curly (disguised as Moe's wife) brings in what is supposed to be their baby, which turns out to be black. This is actually a very funny scene, and there is no racism going on in it, yet the shot of the baby is cut out of many prints.

Regarding ethnic humor, you and I recently spoke about how years ago the "ethnic" comedian was a staple of talk shows, the Borscht Belt, and the Catskills. Pat Cooper (a.k.a. Pasquale Caputo) could talk about how Jews love Chinese Restaurants, Rodney Dangerfeld could relate how his Puerto Rican neighbors kept him up at night with their loud music, and Don Rickles could insult every race/ethnic/religious group on the face of the Earth and always get a scream from the audience. It seems that in those days, when a comedian leveled the playing field, he/she could get away with just about anything...

 

[Undertow]

I think a really good way to understand the greater scope of this issue is to visualize a scene --

Bugs Bunny is being pursued by Elmer. He runs past a cop on the sidewalk, turns back, grabs the cop's billy, and whacks Elmer over the head with it.

What color is the cop?

Point being, in all classic animation of the Era, you didn't see a black character unless there was a *need* for that character to be black, either to fit a setting (Africa, the South, etc.) or to fit a specific stereotyped gag, or to caricature a specific celebrity. In all other cases, white was the default, so you never had a chance to see just a random African-American cartoon character as part of the setting. Such a character was always "the other," and that's something that ties in generally with the way black characters were used in other sorts of fiction.

Very good point (as well as your later comment). That is a great perspective!

 

[Widebrim]

Fair point -- so consider another example. Consider the classic fall-guy in Warner cartoons -- that pot-bellied, potato-nosed schmoe who always takes the pratfall on the banana peel, falls down the manhole, gets knocked off a ladder, or whatever. Why isn't that ever a black guy? The answer, of course, is that those aren't "racial" gags, and black characters weren't used in animation unless a "black character" was specifically called for by the gag or the setting, and if he *was* used, he'd always be set apart in some way -- wearing a zoot suit or being a jungle native or whatever. He was never just some guy in a baggy suit chewing a matchstick.

There *was* such use of black characters at the time in non-visual media. Amos and Andy once did an entire fifteen minute program about two guys choosing wallpaper -- a situation that could be done just as well by Lum and Abner. Nothing in it depended on the race of the characters for the humor. But in cartoons, movies, and other visual media, the black character always had to be the *black* character. He could never just be The Average Man.

In live-action films, at least you would see from time to time a Black or East Asian in the background just doing his/her own thing (I think of D.O.A., for example), to the contrary of animated films.

 

[Fletch]

Regarding ethnic humor, you and I recently spoke about how years ago the "ethnic" comedian was a staple of talk shows, the Borscht Belt, and the Catskills. Pat Cooper (a.k.a. Pasquale Caputo) could talk about how Jews love Chinese Restaurants, Rodney Dangerfeld could relate how his Puerto Rican neighbors kept him up at night with their loud music, and Don Rickles could insult every race/ethnic/religious group on the face of the Earth and always get a scream from the audience. It seems that in those days, when a comedian leveled the playing field, he/she could get away with just about anything...

Of course a lot of that might have been because all of them, and their material, even the genre of stand-up itself*, were all part of a common culture of white-ethnic New York. It was one of the few places these groups mixed back then, and the only place it was really OK to talk about it.

*The idea of one person just telling jokes - not even stories, just one one-liner after another - was not mainstream entertainment before the Catskills' heyday. It certainly wasn't part of radio, the movies, or even vaudeville - it didn't make an "act."