Vintage Cartoons

[Undertow]

I'd like to address something that has been on my mind for the last few years. I apologize if I'm duplicating another thread, and if so feel free to banish this one.

I purchased some cheap $1 DVDs from Walmart a few years ago filled with old cartoons including National Telefilm Associates, Looney Toons, Merrie Melodies, Van Buren Corp. films, etc. with the hope of catching old forgotten cartoons. What I found amazed me, saddened me and shamed me.

I was amazed that the films included on these easily accessible, easily purchased discs occasionally spilled over into overt racism; amazed because I was surprised a company like Walmart would allow something like that sold on their shelves.

I was saddened because many of these cartoons, especially the overtly racist ones, are all but banned from viewing for the rest of eternity. I can certainly appreciate that some of the material was particularly cruel or insensetive, but even Scrap Happy Daffy, a war time cartoon promoting salvage, is considered too overt due to the Nazi's depicted. Many of these cartoons are a real treat with some pretty funny characters, albeit politically "unacceptable" for current audiences.

And I was ashamed because there is no discussion, nor consideration, on the part of these studios to re-release these cartoons in any form. I've been following Amazon, eBay and other sources regarding the sale and distribution of these cartoons and it seems the companies involved simply do not want their names attached to this kind of material.

So here's my beef: when will it end? When will we stop pulling all of these gems from distribution? When will we accept our sordid pasts and simply move forward, while not trying to hide or deny what has taken place?

Here's a good example of what I mean. At one time in the recent past, Cartoon Network had made public its decision to discontinue showing cartoons with Speedy Gonzales because they were deemed offensive and overtly sterotypical of Mexican Americans. I'm sure you agree, between Speedy and his cousin Slow Poke, it's not as if they were wrong. However, upon receiving this news, the League of United Latin American Citizens cried, "NO!" because it turns out Speedy is a very popular character among Mexican Americans. And why not? Granted, he's a little rough around the politically-correct edges, but it's only a cartoon and Speedy is, after all, the only Mexican character in regular shuffle.

How do you all feel about this topic? How do you think this issue should be handled? Do you think these cartoons should be preserved for all to own, or should they be locked away forever as shameful to our society?

 

[scottyrocks]

I think everyone that has problems with stuff like this should just get over themselves. These are cartoons, fer-chrissakes. Everyone is too d@#ned sensitive.

 

[Talbot]

I think it depends on wether these stereotypes are meant to be propogated(as per the time), or used to reflect on how far we have come. I'm all for the second point, no tolerance for the first.

I'm strictly a Warner Brothers Merrie Melody guy myself, although I can give Beanie & Cecil a nudge every now and then...

 

[Red Diabla]

For me, it depends on the cartoon. Generally, Speedy Gonzales is low on the offensive scale, but I remember vividly a Universal cartoon called Lazytown that was one of the most horrible, racist thing I'd ever seen. I literally was gape-mouthed while watching it.

Then there's something like Bob Clampett's Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarves, which has racial stereotyping in it. From what I've read, Clampett would go to the jazz(read: black)clubs in LA where few whites would dare to tread because he thoroughly enjoyed the music and the culture. So he made a couple of cartoons about it, including Coal Black. It's offensive by today's standards, but it's not mean-spirited. Where does that one lie?

And the WWII anti-Nazi cartoons? I think they're funny. Making fun of white people is still acceptable, so why not show those?

I thought that on some of the Looney Tunes DVD box sets, they had Whoopi Goldberg talk about some of the racial cartoons and put them into context of the time they were made. I think having an explanation to go along with some of these cartoons would be essential.

RD

 

[Subvet642]

I'm with Undertow on this; we cannot simply throw away huge swaths of our collective past and culture (however misguided, racist or whatever) simply because they offend our current sensibilities. Are we trying to edit the truth about ourselves out of our past for future consumption? Are we trying to fool our descendants? As for myself, I plan to stockpile as much as I can so that they won't be lost to my family, at least. I managed to tape 16 hours of Bugs Bunny from Cartoon Network's "June Bugs" marathon several years ago, and plan to have them transferred to DVD.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'm with Undertow on this; we cannot simply throw away huge swaths of our collective past and culture (however misguided, racist or whatever) simply because they offend our current sensibilities. Are we trying to edit the truth about ourselves out of our past for future consumption? Are we trying to fool our descendants?

I don't think the motives are anywhere near so noble, to be honest. The real reason is that the owners of these properties want to avoid any sort of controversy which might compromise the commercial value of their brands. It's been a long long time since the actual showing of cartoons was in any way important to Warner Bros. and the like -- rather, the value is in the marketing of the characters as commercial properties. Making something like "Bugs Bunny Nips the Nips" commonly available would not likely encourage the sale of cutesy Bugs sweatshirts or other paraphernalia -- so such images simply disappear.

As far as the cartoons themselves are concerned, they weren't made for the people of 2009, so we shouldn't be at all surprised, shocked, or scandalized if they don't reflect current attitudes. They were made for the people of 60 and 70 years ago, as disposable, ephemeral entertainment, and no one ever considered the possibility they would have any life beyond that. If we're going to look at them today, we either have to consider them on their own terms, or simply not look at them at all.

 

[Doctor Strange]

As usual, Lizzie is right: it's commerical interests that account for attempts to cover up "embarrassing" old cartoons, not altruistic concerns for anyone's feelings.

Regarding Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs: I have owned a 16mm print of this cartoon for over thirty years, and have shown it in all kinds of contexts - always with a bit of an explanatory preface... and never with anything less than splendid results!

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.

If you've studied Hollywood cartoons as much as I have, and have seen films that do use racial stereotypes as an end in themselves, that do intend to demean African-Americans, it's very clear that Clampett isn't out to do that in Coal Black (or the equally delightful Tin Pan Alley Cats).

Pretending that decades of comedy - in movies, radio, and vaudeville - wasn't largely based on that period's commonly accepted racial/religious comic stereotypes is a miscarriage of history. It's a lot more enlightening to see the past as it was, both good and bad, than to whitewash it...

 

[Subvet642]

I grew up absolutely loving these cartoons. I never liked Disney, MGM, Hanna-Barbera or any of the others. Thanks Doc, Lizzie, for the insight, (ta have, see? lol ) I always took them that way, myself. I'm just irritated that something that I loved so much as a kid (and now, too) would be taken away.

 

[Hugh Beaumont]

What I find disturbing is how society has already gone down the path of censoring history.

That is the way things were back then and it is good to see how far we've come. We need things like this to remind us of what not to do. If it's censored, how will next generations know what not to do?

Things are simply out of hand. I can't even get a copy of Song of the South. I saw it as a kid in the theaters in the 60's profound effect on me and how bad slavery was.

 

[Lincsong]

Morons. I have a neighbor named Gonzales and over his mailbox he's got a Speedy Gonzales.

 

[Talbot]

I don't think the motives are anywhere near so noble, to be honest. The real reason is that the owners of these properties want to avoid any sort of controversy which might compromise the commercial value of their brands.

Couldn't agree more.

I have to say that whenever I'm in the states and I see Darlie toothpaste, I have to ask myself, how much effort did they put into their rebranding exercise?

 

[HadleyH]

Exactly

As far as the cartoons themselves are concerned, they weren't made for the people of 2009, so we shouldn't be at all surprised, shocked, or scandalized if they don't reflect current attitudes. They were made for the people of 60 and 70 years ago, as disposable, ephemeral entertainment, and no one ever considered the possibility they would have any life beyond that. If we're going to look at them today, we either have to consider them on their own terms, or simply not look at them at all.

I totally agree with Lizzie! :eusa_clap

 

[PrettySquareGal]

"Remember when men wuz men, and wimmin wuz wimmin'?"

Not an exact quote maybe, but I recall Yosemite Sam saying that and I didn't get it as a little kid. Now I get it.

Bugs dressing in drag to foil the enemies- priceless.

Women shrieking and jumping on a chair because of a mouse- love it.

 

[Undertow]

I agree with the stated sentiment: I think there is very much commercial interest involved in these decisions to pull certain cartoons and very little to do with actual ethics.

I think a cartoon like Coal Black should be recognized as a masterpiece and showed often; at least if only to show younger generations what it was to live in that era. Who's pretending it wasn't a little slanted? And considering the intention behind its creation, it's not as if there's inherent racism abound.

Even episodes like Jungle Jitters are relatively innocent in their presentation. I suppose there are others, specifically All This and Rabbit Stew which aren't particularly kind, but it's not as if the black character was treated with any less respect than Elmer Fudd, or any other character at that time. And many of the references in Tom&Jerry/Sylvester&Tweety cartoons in which something explodes in a character's face transforming them into blackface aren't so much racist as they are emulating an understood form of comedy from that period.

I think an enterprising individual could make some dough off these old cartoons. They could market a 5+disc set of banned, canned and censored cartoons with commentary from some of today's leading personalities and sell it for a mint. I think it would do our society much good to see where we came from, especially in order to know where we're going. [huh]

 

[MisterCairo]

The quickest way to increase demand for something is to attempt to ban it. I often wonder why some people feel they are qualified to judge what I may watch, read or listen to, or at least to give me a lecture before hand to ensure that I understand the "context" in which something was produced.

Live free or die (my favourite license plate motto by far)!

 

[Carlisle Blues]

The quickest way to increase demand for something is to attempt to ban it.

I agree there is an inherent market for those things that are not dangerous per se, but, causes a social stir.

 

[Undertow]

How about irony?

I happen to own all seasons of the crass Drawn Together series. Season Two includes an episode about just this topic. For those of you unfamiliar with the series, I say this is ironic because the show is far, far more racist and objectionable than any of the classic cartoons.

In any case, I believe the show, in it's low brow way, addressed the topic pretty well. Foxxy Love, the black character, is turned into a "racist-cartoon" version of herself and shortly spirited away with others like her to be erased (quite literally). The mastermind is none other than Mickey Mouse (i.e. Disney), also once a black face cartoon himself, along with Bosco and others. In a round about way, the episode points out that although these cartoons can be relatively inappropriate by today's standards, we should also keep in mind the time and place they were created.

Anyway, I thought I would share that with you because here we have a pretty offensive cartoon that often goes out of bounds and far exceeds anything even conceived of during the Golden Era commenting on these older cartoons, although objectionable by today's standards, which are far tamer. [huh]

 

[skyvue]

Who says these cartoons have been banned? If networks opt not to show them, that's their call. But then, they don't really make a practice of showing 1940s cartoons of any stripe, as far as I know.

The cartoons in question are readily available in DVD collections. Anyone who wishes to see them can, and easily.

 

[LizzieMaine]

There *is* a group of Warner cartoons that have been specifically held out of distribution since the late sixties -- there were originally 11 titles, all of which had racial content which was considered no longer acceptable, and I think since then several additional titles with wartime content have been added to the list. I know this ban covers television distribution, and I think it also includes theatrical shows -- you can't rent a 35mm print of "Coal Black" or the other restricted titles from Warner Classics, even for a curated retrospective show, and I don't think the 16mm companies handle those titles anymore either.

But there are plenty of bootlegs in circulation, so they're still very easy to see if you're determined to see them.

 

[Undertow]

Who says these cartoons have been banned? If networks opt not to show them, that's their call. But then, they don't really make a practice of showing 1940s cartoons of any stripe, as far as I know.

The cartoons in question are readily available in DVD collections. Anyone who wishes to see them can, and easily.

Among others less known, I'm also referring to the "Censored Eleven"; I challenge you to produce DVD titles with these works included. I have found Jungle Jitters on a $1 Walmart DVD in the bargain bin as well as All This and Rabbit Stew, but nothing else thus far.

I suppose by "banned" I mean censored. As far as I'm concerned, the two are synonomous. There are many examples of other cartoons that aren't listed in the "Censored Eleven"; I own a few of them as well.