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.