oy vey, disney!! -- reconsidered

Yes, I will admit it. My last blog attempt was a rather long and irritated anti-Disney rant. I'm sure it was one of those long winded complaints that make some readers roll their eyes and sigh in despair. With all the serious issues going on in the world, I pick the most petty and inconsequential thing to get worked up about. It also didn't help that my ire was so poorly explained. I didn't take the time to really elaborate on anything at all. Upon finishing the post, I knew the piece was so poorly done that I almost deleted the entry. As my finger hovered above the 'delete' key, however, I decided, 'nah. Leave it up.'

And so it stays.

However, I do feel the need to explain my last entry a little better. I didn't present a persuasive or well thought out argument, and I want a second chance to correct that situation. A slightly fuller and more in depth explanation of where I'm coming from would be nice. (And for anyone asking why, well ... why not? It's my blog.) I want to clarify certain points, and to elaborate on others.

To begin with, I realize that Disney is one of those untouchable institutions that most people are afraid to criticize. There are certain things that are held sacred in American life, including, but not limited to, apple pie, baseball and the capitalist dream. Like home baked desserts and Babe Ruth, Disney is embedded deep within the American psyche. Criticizing the House of Mickey Mouse seems a bit unsporting, more than a little unfair and yes, even a bit disloyal. After all, if you are like me (or any typical American middle class kid), Disney was a major part of your childhood. Attacking Donald Duck and co. is like biting the hand that feeds you your first morsels of early fantasy. Even now, there's a part of me that holds a very special spot for some of Disney's great films over the years.

I'm not alone in this association of Disney with fond memories. A few days ago, my boyfriend and I sat down and watched Mary Poppins. There we were, ages 26 and 27, completely absorbed by a movie we had both watched and loved as little kids. We sang along, laughed, and even quoted dialogue from the movie. More importantly, we were completely absorbed into the plot. For a moment in time, our childhoods were recaptured and placed before us on the silver screen. We were innocent again. Or, at any rate, that's how we felt.

But that was the Disney magic of yesteryear, and I'm discussing the Disney of now. While I'm sure the Disney films of today's generation please their young audiences every bit as much, I take issue with the direction that the studio is going in. I am deeply disturbed and disgusted by the corporation's recent decision to turn 'The Diary of Anne Frank' into a cartoon. There are many reasons why, but several really stand out.

To begin with, let me address the idea of commodity. Disney is, and always has been, a commercial enterprise. This is true of any movie studio, of course, but the Disney Corporation has taken the concept of consumerism to a whole new level. The film studio has gone from marketing films to marketing a life style.

When I was younger, children could expect to see a Disney film at the cinema and then, perhaps a few days later, discover a Disney toy in their Happy Meal. Of course there were places like Disney World, but the Walt Disney franchise had yet to make serious inroads into the playrooms and closets of little children.

Today, kids can expect an Happy Meal Toy and much, much more. Disney has discovered ways to brand almost every conceivable item a child could want, and, cunningly, has figured out how to market them mercilessly to kids. There are endless advertisements for the latest Disney movie. There are hundreds of different types of Disney toys to buy, from Mickey Mouse dolls to Hannah Montana lipstick. The toys, of course, are designed to promote whatever the latest Disney film is. If you need proof of this, take a stroll through any toy store the next time a big Disney film comes out. And, of course, there are Disney beach towels, Disney pajamas, Disney hairbrushes and Disney pencils. There are Disney tissue boxes, Disney hats, Disney mugs and Disney books. Everything has become Disnified.

There is no escaping the mammoth hulk of Disney's commercial enterprise. Such aggressive marketing does not suggest that the studio is concerned about making artistic and meaningful movies. Instead, the blatant emphasis on 'Buy Disney' really underscores the fact that the company is interested in making as much profit as possible from as many children as possible. And let's not be too generous here -- children are the target. Hook them in young, and they will remain loyal for life. Cynical? Yes. Accurate? Well, ask any Media Studies professor.

Of course, Disney Studios is not the only one guilty of this. However, I would hold a children's company to a higher standard ... and Disney is, of course, a company aimed at creating products for children. Commercial culture should not have a place among the young. It tends to be a corrupting force, the source of unhappiness and endless economic tribulations. When childhood becomes commodified, what happens to the simple pleasures of learning to play without fancy toys and the latest gadget?

Disney's business plan of taking over the planet does not bode well for a film about the Holocaust. What ridiculous toys and tie-ins will the company come up with in order to push the movie? Are they going to have Anne Frank dolls, complete with diseases and an emaciated body? Are there going to be beach towels emblazoned with Anne Frank, so that children can wipe their chlorine stained bodies all over the face of one of Holland's most important icons? Even if Disney decides to be 'restrained' in their approach to marketing the film, there will certainly be toys, tie-ins and all other manner of ridiculous crap to promote the film. And honestly, no one should be making a profit off of the death of a teenage girl.

There is also the issue of racialization in Disney films. A prime example of this occurs in the film 'Pocahontas,' which was purported to be a politically correct take on the story of John Smith and the Indian girl who saved him. There were so many historical and cultural inaccuracies in that film that it's clear the studio chose to go with what was most appealing and marketable over the truth.

For one thing, Disney didn't get the young Indian princess's name right, which was, at one time, Matoaka. Um, red alert. How can a movie be about a woman when they can't even get her name right? Would they make a movie about John Smith and call it 'Bob Brown?' Instead of referring her to by her given, culturally correct name, they call her something else entirely, thereby stripping her of her individuality and cultural affiliation. While no one is sure where 'Pocahontas' came from, it is not her given, correct title. Names are a powerful force, and by depriving Matoaka of hers, Disney has stripped a powerful woman of her very essence.

Disney's Matoaka was portrayed as a sexually ripe and buxom woman who spent inordinate amounts of time frolicking about in short skirts and skin tight tops. Never mind that this is completely culturally incorrect. While historically inaccurate, depicting Matoaka this way was a bit of an affront as well. The showing of upper legs by women was not routinely done in most traditional North American indigenous cultures. Showing a woman's thigh is almost universally considered taboo among many indigenous groups. For some Native people viewing the movie, seeing Matoaka dressed so inappropriately was akin to calling a legendary Native American woman a prostitute.

I am loathe to see how Disney racializes Anne Frank into a stock Jewish character. Because, yes, stereotypes are all the rage at Disney. (More discussion on that later.) Is Anne going to spout off songs in Yiddish, sigh "oy vey" and make some half truthful remarks about what it means to be Jewish and different? The filmmakers will have to include something stereotypical so that audiences understand Anne is a 'real' Jew. The same thing was done in 'Pocahontas' by making Matoaka make inane comments about the sun and rain. Wow! She knows about nature. She communicates with animals and is one with the forest. She must be a real Indian. I predict something similar will happen to Anne in the Disney film.

With racialization comes sexualization. For example, the film makers at Disney turned Matoaka into a pin-up girl, a fantasy of the animators, with little basis in reality. In fact, Matoaka was thought to be just a young girl when she saved Smith -- if that ever even happened at all. (It's open to debate.) Yet somehow she is presented on screen as a tawny skinned Barbie doll. She wasn't marketable enough as a little girl, so they sexed her up a bit. Sex sells, after all.

The sexualization of female heroines in Disney films is well known, and I can only imagine what Disney will do to Anne Frank. Is she going to develop a Barbie perfect waist-hip ratio, a full set of breasts, and be morphed from child into a hybrid girl-woman? There has yet to be a Disney heroine that has been anything but gorgeous with supermodel perfect body measurements. I don't think Anne Frank needs to be morphed into a Sports Illustrated model.

If anyone thinks this is a one time issue, think again. Disney has a long history of portraying racialized and sexualized stereotypes in their films. Just take a gander at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LibK0SCpIkk and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byaMd_PNyIY&feature=related. While the clips may seem mild, the fact is, over long periods of time, exposed to seemingly harmless stereotypes, children begin to embody the politics of gender and race that Disney continually creates.

There is an amazing documentary about the effects of Disney on young girls. I forget the name of it, but anyway, the film makers interview young children after they have watched a Disney film. Inevitably, the girls want to emulate the looks and behavior of the film heroines. This is sort of a problem when girls want to look like Ariel of 'The Little Mermaid' -- because really, only a cartoon is going to look like that.

There is also the issue of historical gloss. Disney does not have a proud tradition of faithfully sticking to historical accounts. Issues like war, rape, disease and theft are almost always glossed over. This was certainly true in 'Pocahontas', where the entire issue of First Contact was overlooked. It would have been a wonderful chance to teach children about America's early history. Instead, Disney decided to make a film about a romance that probably never even happened in the first place.

I sincerely doubt that Disney is going to find a way to tastefully address issues surrounding the Holocaust in their cartoon version of 'The Diary of Anne Frank'. Are they going to address the camps themselves? I doubt it. How does one create cute and colorful pictures of emaciated Auschwitz victims? How does one create storyboards around gas ovens, forced medical experiments on children, and the evil dictator himself, Hitler? By leaving out major facts of the Holocaust, children will be left with a half baked and poor understanding of one of the world's greatest tragedy. And that, to me, is unforgivable.

I also take issue that the Disney corporation was, for years, run by a well known anti-Semite. This isn't too say the company now is anti-Semitic; however, I feel that a company with a past of anti-Semitism is the wrong place to take on a movie that deals with one of the worst horrors in Jewish history. It's insensitive to say the least, and I think highly inappropriate. I don't think a movie studio known for making black employees feel uncomfortable would do well to suddenly turn around and try to re-make a version of 'Roots.'

Examples abound of Walt's anti-Semitic ways. A former Disney animator, Art Babbitt, once came forward to speak of his former boss's interest in pro-Nazi causes. He was quoted as stating "In the immediate years before the War there was a small, but fiercely loyal ... following of the Nazi party ... Disney was going to meetings all the time." I should add that Disney attended these meetings on a regular basis with his friend and lawyer. He obviously thought well enough of what he was hearing to attend on a regular basis and bring friends along.

Perhaps more damning, in a 1932 cartoon entitled 'The Wayward Canary', Mickey Mouse is seen using a cigarette lighter with a swastika painted on the side. Accident? I think not.

Walt also admired the work of Leni Riefenstahl, who made documentaries in the 1930's that glorified Nazi causes. After 1938, she approached various studies in Hollywood looking for work, and Disney was the only one who would see her. At their meeting, he is known to have told Leni he admired her work, and would hire her ... if only it wouldn't damage his reputation in Hollywood.

Jewish animators in the Disney studio were often the subjects of vicious practical jokes. Adding fuel to the fire, in an original version of 'The Three Little Pigs', the Big Bad Wolf is dressed as a Jewish peddler. Another film, 'The Opry House', has Mickey Mouse dressed as a Hasidic Jew.

Racism and anti-Semitism aside, I would like to address yet another issue raised about my last post. A friend of mine made the valid comment that animation can be used to address serious issues. I thought this was a brilliant point, and I felt like an idiot for overlooking it.

I agree 100% that animation can be a fine vehicle for tackling major issues. 'Waltz With Bashir', 'Persepolis', 'Grave of the Fireflies', and even 'Akira' deal with politically charged and highly relevant issues. From the Iranian Revolution to the bombing of Japan, these films deal in highly artistic, adult and tasteful ways with unsettling and deeply disturbing issues.

However, I emphatically believe that Disney animation is not a vehicle appropriate for such serious topics. What sets Disney apart is the formulaic approach of its films; a sexy heroine that needs rescuing, a naughty (but not overly evil) villain, a young and handsome hero, and some sort of fuzzy animal sidekick. There's also plenty of musical numbers, a vibrant color scheme, and pacing designed to keep the attention spans of young children. Historical evils are glossed over, as are the most basic of cultural facts.

Obviously this is very different from the stark animation styles and realistic treatment of the subject matter found in films such as 'Persepolis.'

In other words, genocide is not a topic for talking animals, song & dance numbers, and comedic interludes. That's about as offensive as making a light hearted family movie about the rape, torture, murder and starvation in Rwanda.

I also feel that young children have no way of comprehending the Holocaust. Their brains cannot wrap around ideas like 'six million deaths', torture, religious persecution and starvation. While every youth on this entire planet should learn about the Holocaust, early childhood is not the time.

The only true way to grasp the idea of the Holocaust - if it is even possible -- is to see the pictures, read the eyewitness accounts, and to try and grasp the aftermath of what wiping out 6 million people has done to humanity.

The Holocaust

Experiments on a Victim

(warning: somewhat graphic imagery)

Children Victims

(disturbing imagery, but not graphic)

Furnaces

Thousands of Discarded Shoes

Evil

(warning: graphic imagery)

Now, having seen those photos, you tell me ...

is Disney the right vehicle to get across the horrors of one of the worst hate crimes in history?