WALT: The Man Behind the Myth (1 Viewer)

[MarcoBiscotti]

I've had this for quite a while now and you can usually find authentic copies on Ebay for reasonable prices, but for those having difficulty tracking it down... www.MainStreetMegastore.com keeps it in stock along with a number of other theme park exclusive dvd's, albeit at ridiculously exagerrated prices. It's definitely worth a purchase though, and I'll add my name to the list of those who found this documentary to be really thoughtful, inspiring and touching. Highly reccommended.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Marc Eliot's book isn't just a "smear" book...it also takes great pains to point out the brilliance of Disney's work. But it also gives credit to a lot of the "little people" who didn't get much of the credit they deserved when working under Disney. I do find the overall tone too negative, but you can't deny that it's painstakingly researched, and that since the Mouse couldn't dispute the facts, they couldn't sue, and had to resort to damage control instead.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"...you can't deny that it's painstakingly researched."

Yes I can.

**POST EDITED TO SOOTHE SOME USER'S SENSIBILITIES**

In fact, Snopes.com has done a breathless vivisection of Eliot's "research". Eliot's book is similar to other prominent mass-market works of conspiracy theory in that facts are twisted or fabricated out of whole cloth to fit the agenda of the author. If the author stuck to the known documented facts, he would not be able to go forth with his conspiracy theory, and so the author re-makes the world to fit his purposes. Such people make entertaining works, and they sell a lot of books (and in some cases, movie tickets), but you do a disservice to yourself to take any such things at face value.

In Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, the man actually asserts that Walt Disney made it his "quiet life's work" to put hidden messages pertaining to Mary Magdeline and the "Sacred Feminine" into his movies. We're talking delusions on a grand scale here. Eliot's book is no less absurd when he postulates that Mickey Mouse was embraced by children because his round ears reminded them of breasts, while Bugs Bunny was more popular with adults because his long ears reminded them of penises.

 

[Lynda-Marie]

Ernest, thank you for the above information about Walt! I read about him in grade school, and the book I read stopped just short of calling Elias a child beater.

I think when I get some money again, I am going to look up the DVD mentioned above as well. Walt was a genius, and perhaps it was his being hurt as a child that reached out and touched my dad, who was hurt as a child as well, so deeply.

As for the Dark Prince of Hollywood book, snopes.com a website that debunks a lot of urban legends, has quite a sharp denouncement of that book. Many of the things the author reported as "facts" were unsubstantiated rumors as well as outright falsehoods.

 

[george kaplan]

That's a bad example. I can't say much about F911 without violating forum rules, but depending on your point of view, F911 is either truthful or false. 'Balancing' it would only lead to a mixture of truth and lies.

If what the Walt book says is false, then 'balancing' it isn't a solution, and if what the book says is true, 'balancing' it would be a bad thing.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I just remembered a great story about Walt as a boy...see post below...

 

[Eric Peterson]

Ernest,

Thanks for the detailed information on this DVD. I was contimplating buying it, and had shifted that thought to a must buy after reading your first post. However, after your needless comparison to F 9/11, I now must question everything in your first post. Apparently, you don't realize that what you just did is the very same thing that Michael Moore is guilty of. That is taking a piece of information and distorting it to an extreme which can be easily pointed at, and in turn ruins the rest of the message. Personally, I really liked F 9/11, but walked away wishing that Moore would have not stretched things like he did (It might have made more of an impact). This is exactly the same thing that you just accomplished for me.

 

[Lars Vermundsberget]

It's been a while now since I read that Eliot book, but based on what I seem to remember I think it's fair to say that it has an unbalanced view on Walt's violent influences and tendencies. A lot of other "facts", on the other hand, are just plain untruthful or pure speculation. At least that's what it seems like based on a good handful of other WD biographies that I've read.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Personally, I really liked F 9/11, but walked away wishing that Moore would have not stretched things like he did (It might have made more of an impact).

Wouldn't this be the reason Ernest listed this as a film that's unbalanced, and wouldn't you therefore be agreeing with him?

Anyway, this can't be a path of conversation that has any hope of going anywhere positive, so let's all take a step back and forget about this sidestep. The Eliot book and F9/11 have very little to do with this thread.

 

[Ernest Rister]

EDIT

Agrees with Brandon.

I'll be happy to discuss this DVD and Walt Disney's life in this thread -- but I'm done talking about Marc Eliot and his lurid slanted nonsense.

 

[Kevin M]

It's worth noting that this film is available at Netflix for those that are interested.

 

[Brandon Conway]

*Is interested*

Though I'll probably just blind buy the thing when I get the chance. Disney (and most particularly Disneyland) is of high interest to me, so I know I'll enjoy it.

 

[Ernest Rister]

This story was new to me when I first heard it -- it was in one of the more recent Disney biographies of the late 90's. Name escapes me at present, but I'll suss it down, never fear.

We have to step into the wayback machine and go back to the days when Walt was a teenager of about 15. His older brother Roy was leaving the farm to go into the military to fight in WWI. Walt was terrified, because Roy had protected him from Elias during their father's more enraged moments. Walt didn't know what to do, and told his brother how scared he was.

Roy had previously had his fill of Elias' treatment, and had stood up to him. Roy took young Walt aside and told him what he did: "When he comes for you, you take him by the hands, and you look at him straight in the eyes. You don't let go, and you don't look away."

Roy left, and Walt inherited the bedroom. Sure enough, the night came when Elias came pounding up the stairs, ready to dole out the discipline. Young Walt did as his brother instructed. As Elias shouted and railed, Walt sprang up, grabbed Elias by the wrists, and stared up into his eyes.

Elias was stunned, then went limp. Elias didn't say a word, just stared back at Walt, until he finally turned and walked back down the stairs.

According to the story, Elias never laid a hand on Walt again. A few months later, Walt would use his art skills to alter his birth certificate so he could follow his brother Roy into war.

 

[Matt Lucas]

Ernest---

I want to start by saying that your original post from May 7 [post #20 of this thread] is perhaps the most interesting thing I've ever read on this forum. It's fascinating to consider Walt's work in light of what you've shared about his early years at home and his relationship with his father. It makes me think about his work in a new light, particularly the role that fathers [or father figures] play in his films. Peter Pan comes to mind, for instance.

Anyway, I'd also like to ask a favor: Can you offer references for these amazing stories of Walt's early years? You mentioned Walt telling stories of abuse during interviews, etc. Have these been published, and if so, how or where might I read them? I'm not saying this because I want proof or anything like that---I'm genuinely interesting in reading the original sources for the information.

And this is a completely different film, but since it is more or less related, I was wondering if anyone has seen Frank and Ollie. If so, what's your opinion on it? Is it similar in presentation to Walt: The Man Behind the Myth? I didn't even know FaO existed before I stumbled onto it on Amazon.com.

Thanks,
mattl

 

[Ernest Rister]

Frank and Ollie is a sweet, 3-star documentary about friendship. It's about two guys who have been best friends since early in life, who bought houses next door to each other, who went to work at the same company, etc. Frank and Ollie spent more time with each other than with their respective wives (it seems). Together, through mutual criticism and praise of each other's work, they helped each other become two of the best character animators of all time. Thomas and Johnston illustrate their philosophies of animation, and deliver exacting analysis of choice pieces of classic animation, including a thrilling, extended breakdown of a pivotal scene in The Jungle Book, half of which was animated by Frank, the other half by Ollie.

It isn't the most pulse-pounding documentary in the world, it moves at a quiet, even pace and I can see general audiences napping to it. But if you're a serious admirer or student of animation, the thing is damn near priceless.

As for references on the treatment of the Disney boys by Elais, every single major biography of Walt Disney has devoted time to it, some more than others. You can check their annotated references for the precise interviews from which they've gleaned these stories. See:

Leonard Mosely, Disney's World
John Taylor, Storming the Magic Kingdom
Bob Thomas, Building a Company: Roy O. Disney and the Creation of an Entertainment Empire
Bob Thomas, Walt Disney: An American Original
Richard Schickel, The Disney Version
Steven Watts, The Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

Ernest, my apologies to you and Mr. Disney...I haven't read the book again since it came out. You're right. Marc Eliot has been debunked on many of his assertions. Oops.

Oh well, it was an entertaining read at the time...

 

[Brandon Conway]

A friend of mine, having seen my comments in this thread, allowed me to borrow his copy of the DVD. I just finished watching it, and I thought that it was very good. While there were some awkward spots in the film, particularly the overly dramatic presentation of the 1941 strike, I found it to be quite enjoyable. The final moments of the film that deal with Walt's illness and passing were especially well done, IMO.

8/10

 

[Ernest Rister]

It's fascinating to consider Walt's work in light of what you've shared about his early years at home and his relationship with his father. It makes me think about his work in a new light, particularly the role that fathers [or father figures] play in his films. Peter Pan comes to mind, for instance.

The theme of a father distanced from his children is a recurring one in the Disney canon. The Three Lives of Thomasina and Mary Poppins are both extremely powerful explorations on that theme. And yet, the opposite can also be true, as we see in Pinocchio and Old Yeller, where a boy's love for his father helps him overcome tragedy. The father in Swiss Family Robinson is kind, loving, clever, and almost always right. Father Cam Calloway may hit the sauce, but he knows corruption when he sees it, and he earns the respect of his son and the entire town in Those Calloways. Rudi Matt worships his dead father in Third Man on the Mountain.

The truth is, it is rare in a Walt Disney film to find a two-parent household, as many people wiser than me have all noted before. Gene Siskle once cracked, "It wouldn't be a Disney film without parental death!"

On the one hand, I think this single-parent or no-parent feature was an outgrowth of Walt's own natural efficiency with storytelling. Unless there is a narrative reason for a character to exist, less is always more. And yet, on the other, the absence of two-parent households marks the Disney films in an unmistakable fashion. It is my final belief that Walt's reaction to such stories, and his affinity for them, is the reason why so many were produced. Walt responded to those stories, and I think the ultimate expression of that was Mary Poppins. Cold distant father humanized by fantasy, discovering his love for his children, learning it doesn't take much to show your children you love them -- this film was probably the most personal film Walt Disney ever made, and it explains his devotion to it and his personal oversight of the production.

Leonard Maltin called Poppins Disney's masterwork because it encapsulated all of Disney's work into one movie, animation, live-action, use of music...the hidden element, of course, is what Mary Poppins is all about. A fantasy of a father realizing how poorly he is treating his children, and how much he loves them, and how much he can learn from them. Numbers and cents and cold grey walls giving way to kites and string and holding hands in the park. I think Poppins is Disney's masterwork because it is the definitive statement of who Walt Disney really was an entertainer and as an artist, and yes - as a person.

This is going to sound supremely sappy. But every once in a while, when I hear "Feed the Birds", I shed a tear or two -- not for George Banks, but for Walt as a boy, because of what he endured as a child, and no child should ever have to endure that. I think in a way, that's what the true "magic" of Walt Disney was all about...Walt Disney created the opportunity for families to share their time and their love together. Disneyland is the ultimate example. And yet the root of the whole thing was the back of Elias Disney's hand.

 

[Scott*Par]

FYI, deepdiscountdvd.com has "Walt: The Man Behind The Myth" for $20.51 w/ free shipping. It was in stock as of this morning.

Scott

 

[Kevin M]

Well I just received this from Netflix (I don't often blind buy unseen films as a general rule of thumb) and have just finished watching practically everything on the disc and I would agree that it was a good timeline of events in Walt's life....I would categorize it as being similar to The Complete Beatles in that it is a fairly accurate timeline of events but lacking truly deep details and IMO mildly whitewashing/gleaming over the darker sides of Walt's life/childhood.

But a well made and interesting doc nonetheless & being from Disney the DVD presentation was top notch.