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.

Dumbo

The first thing I have looked at is the 1941 Disney film, Dumbo. This film is rated with a U certificate. I hadn’t seen it for many years now, but remember loving it when I was a child. On viewing it again, it struck me how bazaar the film was. I loved the classic animation style of the time, with the movement characters so fast paste and flexible no matter what their body shape.

The emotions that come across in their faces bring tears to you eyes, like the part when Dumbo goes to see his mother who has been incinerated, it’s very emotional. The style of animation can be quite dark in places, and I remembered finding a lot of it a little scary when I was young, but not being old enough to really understand, so I never got nightmares. There is a lot of rain in it, which adds to the horror. The part when they are putting up the tent I could see might give nightmares as it is very dark and the workers also are a tad scary. But in all these parts you usually get a break in the darkness with a little comic relief, like Dumbo making a little mistake, and the audience will go “awwww, how cute.” That is a common factor throughout the film. Dumbo is shown to be a cute little creature, an innocent minor. This adds to the character and you can really relate to him. But even with the cuteness of Dumbo, I think if you were to make this film now in the same style of dark animation, it would be rated as a PG. I don’t think that children would be as scared as the as the people who put certificates on films think, this has been proven as I never suffered from watching it over and over, but because things are too strict now. People do I think wrap kids up in cotton wall and are over protective sometimes. Another thing that stood out to me on viewing was the issue if race. When putting up the tent, the men are all black migrant workers. The owner of the circus and the performers are a white, and also the people who come to visit, like the children who torment Mrs Jumbo, are all white. This is something that had never occurred to me when I picked this film out to review, but again says a lot about the time it was made in and what was acceptable. I don’t think it was a deliberate attempted at being racist, it was just how things were at that time. The crows are also quite obviously black stereotypes, but still, I don’t think it was intended to be making fun of them; it was just used as their characters.

 

The next issue in this film that would certainly not be allowed now is the views on smoking and alcohol. One of the most famous parts of Dumbo is the song, “the elephants on parade.” This whole sequence in induced by Dumbo and his mouse friend Timothy drink too much campaign after the clowns spill it in the water bucket. It also shows the clowns constantly drinking too. If this film was made, it would have to incorporate the sequence in some other form, or cut it completely. I think that would be the most likely as when you do watch it is one of the freakiest bits in the film. A lot of people say that that part always scared them as a child, especially the part with the elephant made entirely of heads. They crows in the end are also smoking; something that would not be allowed at all in cartoons now. In those days however it was nothing. One of the crows wakes Timothy up by blowing smoke at him, and then repeatedly does so. Now if you tried putting that in a kids cartoon now people would be saying that it was encouraging children to smoke.

Some of the dialogue used is also very un-PC. On several occasions Dumbo is described as a freak because of his oversized ears, and on the side of his mothers prison it say mad elephant. You also wouldn’t get the level of abuse that the animals receive in the film nowadays. Circuses now don’t use as much animal acts; it is more gymnasts and clowns because of animal rights movements and the issue of animal cruelty. The film is of its time really, but that is still the way people envision circuses, even today. If you were to make a film involving a circus now, you would most probably include all the traditional animal acts in it even if they aren’t true of the time, because that it’s what people expect to see.

 

I think because of all the guide lines put down in, not just animation but in society itself, you would not be allowed to make a film like Dumbo now. it may seem a very sweet innocent film on the suffice, but when you scratch deep and take another look, there are many things that would not be allowed. This I think is a terrible shame, and means that some brilliant films might not be able to be made. If you’re only just thinking “oh that’s a good point, I never thought of that watching it. but now you say that, its true,” it just shows that it really doesn’t matter if you include smoking and drinking in a film like this because people don’t really think about it that much, they just want to enjoy the film. Ok so it might get a PG, but that doesn’t mean you have to cut so much out of it.