Gender first draft

Gender

 

When you look at the representation of women in early animation they are often drawn over sexualised and portrayed to be weak never the main hero even when they are the main character. Men on the other hand have always been shown to be strong characters, with a tall muscular build, like Superman. Fred Moore, who drew Minnie Mouse said about how although Minnie and Mickey mouse were drawn the same, there were certain things to make them different.

 

“In order to make Minnie as feminine as possible, we should use everything in her make up to achieve this end. Her mouth could be smaller than Mickey’s and maybe never open so wide into a simile, take, expression etc. her eyelids could help very much in keeping her feminine as well as the skirt swaying from the body on different posses, displaying pants. Carrying the little finger in the extended possession also helps.”

(Fred Moore.)          

 

It is very clear when watching Popeye cartoons from the 40s that the animators do portray women as the weaker sex. A typical episode consists of Popeye and his nemesis Bluto trying to win the affections of Olive Oil. Bluto would kidnap her often and maybe tie her to a railway line, and then Popeye would come in, have a violent fist fight with Bluto, and save Olive. Throughout this Olive would constantly be screaming “oh Popeye, save me save me.” Even in the episode I yam what I yam, olive is being attacked by a group of natives. She is quite clearly beating them by repeatedly punching them and sending them flying, but still she is calling for Popeye to save her. Then once again at the end she is in his arms as if he is the hero of the day, even though she probably took out just as many as he did. It’s the same with Disney’s the little mermaid (1989). Although she is the main character of the film, it is ultimately Eric who saves the day killing Ursula unlike the original book which sees her as the hero when she has to kill the prince at the end in order to return to the sea. She is unable to do this and dissolves into foam.

 

In contrast to the Disney film is the 1932 daily mirror strip Jane, a “strip tease cartoon” about a “…dizzy blond…” (Chapman 2011, 39). The typical story would follow Jane on a misadventure where she would eventually shed her clothes, most frequently by accident catching them on tree branches and doors, so she would end up in just her undergarments and on occasions completely nude.  In one misadventure it only takes five pages before she has to take her dress off after sitting on some wet paint with her saying, “Oh, dear, Fritz, I'm supposed to be here interrogating and I haven’t been here ten minuets before I do a strip-tease in front of a poster of myself in the to nix!” Although every day would see her eventually losing her clothes, she was still the main heroin and was a good refection of the changing times.

 

“…the daily mirror nevertheless provided a fairly good reflection of wartime changes in British society. Jane herself transformed from a frivolous ‘bright you thing’ whose life revolved around cocktail parties and juggling boyfriends to a ‘mobile woman’ who works on the land…”

(Chapman, 2011, 42.)

 

It became very popular during the Second World War being seen as good for moral. It was read by several servicemen of the time as well as young schoolboy, it being “their first real expositor to female sexuality.” (Chapman, 2011, 40.) During the Blitz however there was a shortage of paper meaning that there might not be a Jane strip sometimes resulting in no spirit amongst the services. Jane had such an impact in the ranks that the armed forces were sometimes referred to as “Jane’s fighting men,” even in parliament it is clamed. At this time she was a recruit for British Intelligence for colonel Y at Hus Hush House.

After the war had ended she was still made out to be useful, which was a reflection of what was going on in Britain. During the war women had taken over the jobs that would have usually been done by men proving that they were just as capable. After the war they demanded that they would stay in employment and was the start of more women going to work and equality for women. Jane reflected these growing changes. Although by modern day standards the content of Jane would be considered exploitive to women and sexiest, it was acceptable by the 1940s standards and appealed to both sexes, not just men. A survey conducted by the daily mail found that 82% of its women readers looked at Jane where as only 71% of its male readers did. But of course not all people did approve of the Jane strip. One reader wrote complaining about the “absurd” letters that were being sent in about the strip wrote…

 

“… I have not seen anything extra funny in this strip. I have been taking about it with the girls in our office and the verdict was universal- corny. For all it is doing is lowering the high standards of womanhood. I observed also that every letter sent in was from the opposite sex.”

 

It wasn’t just women folk who objected to Jane though. When she first appeared in 1945 in the armed forces newspaper The Maple Leaf, she caused much controversy within the Canadian ranks. One solder requested for her removal asking her to be tossed out “on her much displayed posterior.” Another described the strip as the work of “an inspired degenerate.”

One British lieutenant banned his whole battalion from reading Jane calling it an “unhealthy sex stimulate” and said that it was his duty to “protect my men from such moral degradation, and the temptation to immorality away form them.” But such was the popularity of Jane even the House of Commons were on her side and said that the Colonel had “over-stepped his mark.”

  

In john Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men, once again like Crooks, it portrays Curlys wife in a view of the time. The men’s attitude toward her is that of a second class citizen, but she deals with it in a different way to Crooks. Crooks tries to keep himself to himself where as Curlys wife seems to play up to the view of her not being much use by flouncing herself about. Again, this was a view of the time about women and quite a contrast to Jane, who was being published in England at the same time. Steinbeck’s book reflected the still widespread view of women not being of any use. The characters don’t like Curlys wife because she keeps giving everyone “the eye” making them think of her as a bit of a slag, referring to her as “a tart”. But in reality she is just in want of attention which she finds in Lenny, but ends up dead because of it. What little power she does have she uses against Crooks the stable buck with the threat of getting him hung, as said in the chapter on race. It is also shown that she has more power than the white workers as well. When Candy stands up to her also in Crooks defence, she shoots him down telling him “Tell an’ be damned,” “Nobody’d listen to you, an’ you know it.”

The men also talk about going into town to spend their earnings at a brothel. This reflected that women at this time were just seen as objects for men to use whether it be for cleaning around the house, or sex, one of the main trades of Victorian women and still was in America. The view of women not being proper people is also reflected in the fact that Curlys wife is not given a name.

 

Equality for women in the work place is the theme of the Nigel Coles 2010 film, made in Dagenham. It is about the strike at Ford by the sewing machinists which started on the 7^th of June 1968. The female workers walk out in protest against sexual discrimination, after learning that they would be paid 15% less than the full rate received by men. This strike lead to the Equal Pay Act of 1970 law which came into force on the 29^th of December 1975. But women in the media were still being shown as the source of jokes. In 1968 the then newly created London Weekend Television broadcasted the first episode of the sitcom Never a cross word. It was extreme in its sexism, relying on the view of the women being stupid and just an object of Scopophilia and domestic housework. The plotline sees wife Deirdre played by Nyree Dawn Porterp as a scatterbrained wife who is banned from driving her new car by husband Ronald, portrayed by Paul Daneman, in case she crashes it after doing so in the opening of the episode. He gets her a new mini and she advises for a lodger to try and help pay for it as a way of thanks, Ronald being the one who goes out to work. He thinks that he is in charge of the house and her. This is highlighted from the very start when he tells her she should have got up when the alarm went off, and because she didn’t he is now late. When she questions why he doesn’t get up when the alarm goes off he replies, “because I am the bread winner and need those extra seconds to charge my batteries,” and then orders his breakfast. It is also shown from the start that Deirdre isn’t all that bright. When filling out the form to describe her car it asks the body type, she thinks it means her measurements not the cars. Ronald tells her to just sign it and he’ll fill out the rest later.

 On arriving home with the car he then tells her that he won’t give her the money to get ensured until she has had more lessons, so she goes about getting the money herself but he threatens to blacklist her and stop her from doing so. She then drives the new car without his knowledge and before she even has left the garage crashes it once again. She then says to the lodger, “some idiot has put the gear handle on the wrong way. You know that little diagram on top of the stick thing? Well I put it into reverse and it went forward.” The garage owner first offers to take payment in the form of a striptease from Deirdre for the repairs on the car, again showing women to be something just there for men to gaze upon for pleasure.

 

This paved the way for the typical 1970s comedies, witch are parodied nowadays. Things such as the carry on films, and on the buses, which are famous for their blatant sexism and innuendoes. In fact the whole plotline for the 1971 screen adaptation of on the buses is getting ride of the newly hired women drivers, which in the end they succeed at. The equality act is also referred to when Stan asks Jack what the union is doing about it he says, “There’s nothing they can do about it. Under then new act there can be no discrimination…”  It’s also similar to the plotline of carry on cabby form 1963. This sees a new cab firm run by women, Glamcabs, start up in town in competition with an all male one. The way they are shown to get customers is by basically looking sexy. But they are also shown to be just as efficient in contrast to on the buses. In both films their male contemporaries try and sabotage their operations. In on the buses they play various pranks like putting up signs to direct the women in the wrong direction, putting pills in their teas so they have to go to the toilet every five minuets, and placing spiders in the cab of the bus, because they assume that all women are scared of spiders. All these pranks pay off in the end and they get ride of the women drivers. But in carry on cabby the women come out on top. One of the men pulls off the fan belt from the engine of a Glamcab so that the battery runs down. But when he pulls up and sees her at the side of the road, she has a spare tucked under her skirt. Most of the time it just shows them at the side of the road broken down, with a male passenger fixing the car for them. So still it’s a man who comes to the aid and knows how to fix the mechanical problem. Although it shows women still being seen as sex objects, it also highlights how they in this film have learnt to use that to their advantage, especially in a time where they weren’t seen as equals and men to be the weaker sex in that they’ll do anything for a pretty face. The women make a point of saying how they are going to get the customers when they first get going. They are also shown to outsmart them men in a scene where one of them men dresses as a woman in order to let the others in and tamper with their cars to put them off the road. the women go along with it letting the men get in, only to spry them with water at the last second, forcing the manager of them men’s taxies to come in the next day to propose a truce.

 

So carry on cabby presents an interesting case if you look at when it was made. Its still shows sexism in the work place, but it’s highlighting the sexism in the world, showing the view of the useless woman in the male characters eyes, but then demonstrating that they are not useless but in fact just as good. It shows the male characters to be the stupid ones not knowing how to deal with competition. In on the buses and not a cross words, it uses women and sexism as the main joke, reinforcing the view of the useless woman. This is interesting as they were both made after carry on cabby, so shows a return to a sexist viewpoint. The theme of the on the buses film is also interesting as it was made at the time when the new equal pay act was just going through, so you would have thought that it might not have attempted to make women look stupid, it is very much an old-fashioned film considering when it was made. In carry on cabby it seems to be introducing the idea of women in the workplace as equals, then on the buses sees a complete step back in those terms.

 

But women themselves have also had an impact in the way they are represented in the world of animations and have used it to their advantage. In the Paul Wells book understanding animation he says about the representation of women in animation in a part called, Wayward girls and wicked women: the feminine aesthetic.

 

“… it is ironically, women filmmakers who have recognised animation as a form in which they can work and achieve significant ends that are not available in any other film form.”

(Wells, 1998. 198)

 

He talks about how it differs when women themselves design the look of these women and also how women animators have used animation in order to say things that they are unable to in live action, or male animators are unable to in the same way, again backing up another of my theories put forward in my introduction, that animation can be used in a way that live action cannot. Again looking at Jane in a time when nudity in or even partial nudity was socially unacceptable, the cartoon strip of Jane was able to get away with such things because it wasn’t real life whereas the model Chrystabel Leighton-Porter whom modelled for the artist was often subject to questions of her chosen profession.

 

“I suppose I was the only person in Britain whose war work was getting undressed.”

(Chrystabel Leighton-Porter.)

 

Evelyn Lambert was a very important person in terms of not just animation as she was the first female animator in Canada, but also film in general being one of the few women in the world during the 40s and 50s working as a co-director in any form of cinema. She implies that “the Disney industrial and aesthetic ethos was inherently informed by a lack of individuality and a fixedness in approach.” This view point backs up the idea that once Disney came into existence as an animation studio, the animators had a set of “rules” they had to follow and didn’t have the freedom they use to in the past, there was a set of guidelines they had to follow now, which is backed up with what Fred Moore said about drawing Minnie Mouse.

Race, first draft

Race

 

During my research I read “understanding Animation” by Paul Wells. He looks at various things in animation and why certain things are used. In his chapter entitled “issues in representation,” he looks at the depiction of race in early cartoon and how they changed.

He mentions the 1941 Bugs Bunny cartoon produced by Leon Schlesinger and directed by an unaccredited Tex Avery. Wells talks about the writings of Beck and Friedwald, and how they describe Bugs’ hunter adversary as “depicted as a typical “thick lipped” “lazy darkie,” (Beck and Friedwald 1982.)

I then went online to view this particular cartoon to examine the representation of this character. As it is said, he is shown to be lazy and slow. His whole posture is similar to a chimp, and he is given the typical thick lips. It reinforces the idea of the time of the black man as lower class and stupid being outwitted by Bugs at ever turn.

Wells then goes on to say how in 1946s the big snooze in which the sequence where the hunter is humiliated by Bugs was re-used but he is now replaced with Elmer Fudd. Some people may argue that this was because Fudd was now established as Bugs’ adversary, but others may argue that is was a reaction to the changing times and views of race in animation, I think it might be a bit of both.

 

The idea of the black man being lazy was the time and was often used as the reason for preventing them from voting. This cartoon backs up that view that people took, and shows how animation can be used as a tool to deliberately put an idea or particular view into someone’s head.

The Disney cartoon entitled education for death: THE MAKING OF A NAZI, was a world war two propaganda film. It follows the story of Hans, a German boy, throughout his life being trained up to be a Nazi.

It begins with him being registered at birth. His parents have to provide proof that they are “pure Arian,” then ask if they can name him Hans. The narrator says that that they are told that this name is alright, “for the time being,” implying that they may have to change his name later in life in fitting with the Nazi raceme. Then they are handed a hereditary passport with twelve more spaces for more children, “a subtle hint that Germany need soldier.” Already just one and half minuets in, and the film is already suggesting that every child in Germany is seen as a future soldier. It then retells the story of Sleeping Beauty as “taught” in German schools. The narrator tells us that Hans as taught that the wicked witch represents democracy and is defeated by the prince, who is Hitler. Sleeping beauty is shown as Germany, a large overweight blond woman with a horned helmet and beer receptacle, slumped in the bed like a slob. Hitler goes red in the face and the both of them start to heil Hitler for ten seconds in a comical exaggerated way. Hitler then loads Germany onto a horse and rides into the sunset, the trees saluting as they pass. The narrator then says “the moral of this Nazi fairytale seems to be that Hitler got Germany to her feet, climbed into the saddle, and took her for a ride.”

The ten minuet film sole purpose is to sell the idea that all Germans are born and taught to be evil. In the closing shots the narrator says “he sees no more than the party wants him to,” as horse eye covers with swastikas appear on his face, “he says nothing but what the party wants him to say,” as a mizzle appears on him, “and he does nothing but what the party wants him to do,” as chains appear on his neck connecting him to all the other solders. All this is implying that no German has any right to do anything, and are just tools for the Nazis to use in their war. It’s a really good example of using animation to place an idea into the minds of people. If shown to someone of a young age, it would brainwash them as much as the film suggests that Germans brainwash their children for a life of killing. Although the film is obviously racist and propaganda, it can be argued that it is justified by showing the ideas of the Nazi raceme by saying how Germany’s children are taught in school. It may not be totally true but they are using familiar things like the education system and fairy tales to plant a idea into the viewers head. This was a straight forward anti-German film aimed to sell the idea of the evil Nazi. Similar to that is 1944s bugs bunny cartoon Nips the Nips, where bugs is washed up on an island where he encounters the Japanese. Again like in all this and rabbit stew, the portrayal of the Japanese man is an over exaggerated caricature of what a real person would look like.  Like the black hunter, he is depicted as some what stupid being outwitted by bugs with hand grenades in ice lollies and being given his own bomb back. Instead of being slow and lazy in this case he is quick and goofy. He has over large ears and front teeth, a small nose, and pointed wide eyes. Of course he is also set on killing Bugs from the moment he meets him with no explanation why, at least the black hunter wanted to eat him after killing him. Where the black hunter was really just a hunter and made to be black for the comic effect, proven by the fact that he could easily be replaced when Elma Fudd in the big snooze, backing up my theory that it was just based on a popular view of the time and so was altered when times changed, the depiction of the Japanese was straight forward racism, there to depict the Japanese in a certain way. Although not as hard hitting as education for death: THE MAKING OF A NAZI, it is still a Propaganda film aimed at portraying the Japanese as idiot solders hell bent on killing without reason at a time when the Japanese were heavily involved in the War. This time thought it is shown in a more light hearted way inline with a typical fun cartoon using racial stereotypes to mock them subtly giving the impression that they kill with no reason instead of blatantly saying they are taught this way. On viewing education for death I laughed more at the absurdity of the obvious racism in it, where as I didn’t laugh as much at the Japanese man in the bugs bunny cartoon as it just seemed to me to be just a poor attempt to make the enemy look stupid. Education for death seemed to be more though about in their attempt to brainwash its audience, although in a less subtle way. So in a way the bugs bunny cartoon can be seen as more clever in its approach to propaganda as it falls the viewer into thinking they are just out on another fun adventure with a lovable cartoon character, but in education for death it makes no attempt to hide the fact that it wants you to believe that all Germans were evil Nazis.

 

Not all portrayals of people in the media are deliberately racist. In all this and rabbit stew I would argue that the portrayal of the black hunter was racist, but not in the same “nasty” way that the Japanese solder is shown in nips the nips, his black appearance was just used for comic effect and was a reflection of views of the time, much like the characters in the BBCs sketch series Little Britain. The whole premise of that program was to poke fun at the stereotypical person in Britain such as Vicky Pollard, a foulmouthed teenager who had loads of kids at an early age, dressed in a tracksuit and lived on a cancel estate, the stereotypical Chav. Another one was Emily Howard, a transvestite who was quite obviously a man who dressed as a woman would have done in the Edwardian times and had far too much makeup. But in contrast to all this and rabbit stew, they were not put there to reinforce that view, more to take the Mickey out of people who had that view of those stereotypes.

 

The portrayal of the Japanese in nips the nips was put there to create a view of what they were like. The portrayal of the stable buck Crooks in the John Steinbeck novel of Mice and Men is a very good and truthful example of the views of people at that time. Since its publication it has been challenged 54 times because of its contents. The characters frequently refer to Crooks as the “nigger” and beat him for fun. He is also not allowed to sleep in the same bunkhouse as his white colleges.

The book has been criticised for being racist in this respect, but because it is based more on real life written by Steinbeck in 1937 from his own experiences Bindlestiff in the 20s, there is still an argument to say that it was just a view of the time. It was in my opinion reflecting the views of the time not to reinforce the view of the “lazy black man” like in all this and rabbit stew, but because that was a cartoon and not making an attempt to reflect reality, there wouldn’t be an argument that it wasn’t anything but racist. But in of mice and men Crooks is not made out to be anything other than another person, although not treated as one. He is in fact portrayed to be probably more intelligent than most of the white men, challenging the view of the time. He has a large collection of books and magazines and is also described as having a neat clean room, not the common view that people of the time subscribed to. This was rare in the 30s to portray a black man in such a way, so although he is described on many occasions as “the Negro” or “nigger,” he is not made out to look any less of a person. The way his character is made out is to reflect the prejudices of the time. We learn that because he is outcast from the rest, because of the colour of his skin, he is lonely, a common theme that runs throughout the book. When he does speak up for himself to Curlys wife he is immediately shot down, her saying “listen Nigger” “you know what I can do to you if you open your trap,” “I can get you strung up on a tree so easy it ain’t even funny.” The implication of telling people he raped her and she could get him hung for it. Candy then cuts in telling her that he would back Crooks up if she did this, but she tells him that no one would believe him. They would take her word over that of a black man, which was true. This is also the theme of Harper Lees 1960 book, To Kill a Mockingbird. In this Tom Robinson, a black man, is accused of raping Mayella Ewell a young white woman. Toms layer finds proves that he is in fact innocent of this crime, but still the judge sentences Tom.

We sympathise with Crooks instead of laughing at him or thinking him to be lower class than the rest. In this way it is similar to Little Britain as it is trying to show how people at that time saw the world around them, although Little Britain uses it in a comical way, the message is still the same. Comparing these two very different texts shows how the same message can be used to and put across, but in a completely different approach.