Don't buy the Fantasia DVD unless you want to waste money. (1 Viewer)

[george kaplan]

Rain,
Just for the record, it's not so much that the black centaur is subservient, it's the manner in which it's drawn that is offensive. On the other had, the black crows in Dumbo are just drawn as crows.
------------------
"That audience - 12 to 19 year old pimply faced, mean spirited males - came, watched and went on to whatever god-awful other pursuits" USA Network CEO describing professional wrestling fans

 

[Holadem]

I am curious about one thing: All those who advocate leaving the movie as it is for "educational" purpose, or perhaps those who own earlier versions:
Did YOU ever turn to your kid and explain to him/her that what he/she just saw was inapropriate and why? Do you BOTHER? Does that even OCCUR TO YOU??? Or do you just keep watching like a good happy family?
--
Holadem - its nice to be all theoretical and talk about how things SHOULD be, but I live in the real world.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Holadem,
Constantly.
It begins with explaining that Jerry cant really hit Tom with a hammer and have him just bounce back into shape (so they dont try it on the family cat) and then, gradually, it gets deeper and more philosopical.
The real world will not change unless we change it. I live in the real world too, I sure could use some help making it better.
Mike

 

[Patrick McCart]

I don't have any kids, nor am I married, but I would explain this stuff...
"These charactures were popular in the 1940's, but they're not really tolerated now."
I'd also explain how anything on that big reflective screen or the small glowing screen is NOT to be taken seriously (not even the news

)
Because people take film so seriously, censorship has to be made.
TV is now the modern babysitter...if people would just raise their children instead of leaving it to the boob tube, maybe some people could actually LEARN something by past stereotypes.
I'd like to point out that one episode of the comic strip, Curtis featured a running story of Curtis' barber finding blackploitation movies in the shop's walls.
He mentions that the film festival made up of those movies will feature some racial (not racist!) cartoons including one with "Little Black Sambo steals a bowl of grits" (This is probably a reference to Ub Iwerks' 1933 cartoon, "Little Black Sambo."
I'd like to point out that Turner once released a huge Looney Tunes collection that had a LOT of cartoons with racial scenes and no complaints were made. Yes, even that Bugs Bunny/Elmer Fudd cartoon with a black minstrel group singing at the end.
It wouldn't really hurt for the public to be educated on this sort of stuff...instead of being shielded by it.
------------------
-P.J. McCart

http://cztoondb.tripod.com

 

[andrew markworthy]

Holadem, of course I or my wife explains that sort of thing to our kids. The alternative (let them watch anything and then wonder why the kid's a psycho by its teens) is too hideous to contemplate. Equally, we are at pains to point out when something is ridiculously PC because some folks lie in ambush longing to be offended by the topic in question.
No, I don't think that seeing one scene with questionable values will corrupt a child, but a whole lot of them might. And before anyone leaps on me for this - I know the evidence on the effects of TV violence, etc, is shaky, but I for one am not prepared to take the chance with my own kids.

 

[Ben Motley]

Rain,
I'm sorry you felt the need to delete your post. I caught it last night, and thought it made some real sense and brought a lot of perspective to the issue. But then, I've gotten a few threads closed with my own statements before

.
As for the issue, I do not condone censorhit in any form. Period. But hey, that's just me. As for a company protecting their own interests, that's just the American way. Yes, I'd like to see Dumbo, Fantasia, and Song of the South in their original form, but they are the property of Disney, and therefore are subject to their control. Can I think that their tactics are wrong? Absolutely.
------------------
M. Hyde

 

[Kevin M]

Yes George, but the meaning of Jim Crow in the 20's 30's & 40's was not only of White Face or Black Face but of any stereotypical singing-dancing and/or wisecracking black performer, at least according to one of my 1994/95 websters five definitions of the term. And when I look at the characters in Dumbo I see them as dancing singing wisecracking ethnically stereotypical of those times(at least they sound this way to me) and they are crows, to me it isn't much of a leap to see them as typical late 30's early 40's racist stereotyping. And as I said this is just a theory of course but it is one that I happen to agree with.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Ho-sanna-hey-sanna-sanna-sanna-ho-sanna-hey-sanna-ho...sanna!!"
....what the hell does that mean anyway?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Holadem: Your viewpoint represents the heart of the problem. Parents don't feel that they should have to take the responsibility of instilling their morals unto their children, but that that responsibility should fall upon the creators of the media they position their children in front of. When a school shooting occurs, do they people en masse blame the child or children? Sure, they're arrested and jailed, but society doesn't place blame on the children or their parents, it places blame on television and movies and video games. I don't know about you, but my parents taught me the values they found important, and I myself judged those values to find out weither or not they're valid. I didn't rely on movies to teach me the way.
It's interesting the contempt for the comparison between movies and history books. It's ridiculous that movies be used as teachers of history but expected that they be used as teachers of values? And if they are such important teachers of values, do I really want my children to learn movie studios' values over my own?
If Fantasia went out uncensored and without historical warning, and I'd buy it, and when the scene in question came up, I'd explain to my children why I believe such a portrayal of African Americans is wrong.
Which brings up another point: If an African American is portrayed as anything other than perfect, is that racist? I know many people in a variety of races, and I'll be the first to tell you that there are black and white assholes, both male and female. I also have many black and many white friends who I'd trust with my life.
I certainly find the portrayal of an African American female centaur as inferior to a white female centaur such as in Fantasia wrong on the very basis of the portrayal. I 'd also find the portrayal of a white person as inferior to an African American person wrong for the very same reason.
Why should artistic work of the past be editted to teach our children values when our own voices already do such a good job?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

quote:And when I look at the characters in Dumbo I see them as dancing singing wisecracking ethnically stereotypical of those times(at least they sound this way to me) and they are crows, to me it isn't much of a leap to see them as typical late 30's early 40's racist stereotyping.

So basically what your saying is, is that if an African American in a movie dances or tells a joke, than it's racist. So to be equal, only Caucasians (That IS what I'm supposed to call myself, right? I'm confused as to the latest PC trend.) can dance or tell jokes in a movie? I dunno, but that seems like a pretty racist segregation to me.
Seriously, if that was the intent of the original production, the home presentation could perhaps provide a documentary on the thought processes of the time period and the racism which still plagued creative endevors of the time period, and leave it in the actual presentation to provide evidence of the mentioned racism.

 

[Kevin M]

Adam you know damn well that isn't what I was saying.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Ho-sanna-hey-sanna-sanna-sanna-ho-sanna-hey-sanna-ho...sanna!!"
....what the hell does that mean anyway?

 

[Ben Motley]

Okay, so why has nobody brought up Hekyll and Jekyll yet??? Do they escape the pc racism bash because they are so refined in there mannerisms? But wait, they are still crows, refined mannerisms and all. And what about the crows in Fritz the Cat? Now THOSE were some hip crows!
------------------
M. Hyde

 

[Kevin M]

I can see this thread being closed soon.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Ho-sanna-hey-sanna-sanna-sanna-ho-sanna-hey-sanna-ho...sanna!!"
....what the hell does that mean anyway?

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Kevin: I know it wasn't, hense the "Seriously" opening to my second paragraph, I just used your quote to further my point. I certainly wasn't trying to attack anyone in particular. I really hope it isn't closed, even if things start turning against my viewpoint... it's a tricky situation, and I'd like to hear others' views and reasons before the conversation ends. By publishing racist works, are we condoning them? Looking back that seems to be as key a disagreement as that of artistic integrity.

 

[Kevin M]

I don't mind every opinion being expressed, agreeing with my own or not, the last post (not yours) just seemed a bit on the "non-constructive" side of things. Being cute is okay but not in this type of discussion. You know?
It's also that when you get into a discusion of racism in pre-civil rights cartoons it is easy to dismiss the idea based on the fact that they are cartoons and as such are IMO more widely open to interpretation except where it's very obvious as in Buggs in blackface or Fantasia's cut scenes. I don't mind people disagreeing with the idea of early Disney toons being less than PC, but don't flat out (and this is aimed at no one in particular) dismiss the idea because you happen to love the toon in question. I grew up loving Tom & Jerry when they still had Mable* the maid in them and at the time I saw nothing wrong with her....to be honest I still miss her in those damn cartoons but others didn't see it that way & now she has been replaced with a white lady (at least the last few times I saw the show she was) so I can see how tearing up our childhood memories might be a factor in this. I don't know if it is right to cut up these cartoons or not and I can see why many want the choice to be in their hands but I can also understand why studio's may want to "cover their asses" while doing the right thing as far as not offending anyone with their older titles.
Anyway I hope this thread stays on a more non-agressive slant, it has been a thoughtful one so far.
* I think this was her name anyway.
------------------
-Kevin M.
"Ho-sanna-hey-sanna-sanna-sanna-ho-sanna-hey-sanna-ho...sanna!!"
....what the hell does that mean anyway?

 

[Mike Knapp]

One thing has been ignored here and I would like to address it for a moment.
Years ago there were many black performers that crafted quite a good living from the "schtick" we are talking about here.
Jack Benny's companion Rochester...Bojangles, Stymie and Buckwheat, Stepinfetchit, Amos and Andy to name but a few.
Are we now to say that their considerable talents and marvelous performances are to never again be enjoyed because of some political correctness? Was their lifes work for naught? How insulting to them and their decendants that I would bet are quite proud of their accomplishments.
Think about this for a moment. Buckwheat gets scared and his dreadlocks fly into the air and his eyes enlarge. How racist...but when Macauley Caulkin does the same thing it is placed on the poster for the movie Home Alone.
Why is one racist and one acceptable? How utterly hypocritical.
To edit these performances (even the illustrated ones) out is to deny the artist (or performer) his due respect. Entertainers work hard at their craft and the sucessful ones succeed despite the attitudes of the day. Rather than seeing at these as bad representations not to be looked upon again we should look at theses performances as a triumph of the human spirit to overcome obscene adversities and obstacles placed unjustly in their path.
Something to consider.
Mike

 

[Ben Motley]

Let's bring this up to date. How about a little show called In Living Color? Or Martin? Those shows consistantly, CONSTANTLY use racial (NOT RACIST, but racial) stereotyping in the service of humor. Oh, but you say that these shows are made by blacks, and therefore it's okay. Well, I don't believe it's okay to do something yourself and criticize others for doing the same thing. That is called hypocrisy.
------------------
M. Hyde

 

[David James]

/Mounting soap box, snapping flame suit securely in place/
My word, let's stop taking ourselves so seriously. Disney decided to alter one of their movies, get over it. I'm afraid I've got really bad news for you, we can't control the thoughts of others. Someone makes a movie, later they decide to change it, the world will go on. Was it because of perceived racist content, who cares, they made it, they can change it. Did they alter the movie to be more sensitive to African Americans, personally I hope so. You see, I think it's a good thing to think about how we act, talk about, or portray others. I think life (and movies) can still be exciting, dramatic, funny, scary and romantic without offending people. Should movies be mandated that way, of course not.
To me it seems more than a little arrogant that some believe there is a point where the artist is no longer allowed to modify their art without our approval. Let's leave the legal issues aside for now. Someone explain to me why we get to say to Lucus, Spielberg or Disney, "stop, you may no longer modify your movie". I can certainly appreciate the arguments of whether a movie is better or worse from such actions, but it seems to be the height of arrogance to say it's ours now and you no longer are allowed to modify it.
In response to the inevitable and to save time, here are some answers
No, I don't believe in government censorship
No, I don't think actions like Disney will ultimately result in government censorship
No, I don't think racism will vanish because of Disney's action
No, I don't care if Rochester, Amos and Andy, Buckwheat (the original or Eddie Murphy) are shown on TV again or not.
and finally, yes, I do think the world would be a better place if people behaved in a "politically correct" way and if that makes the world boring and drab, I'm all for it.
/Dismounting soap box/

 

[Ben Motley]

Lucas and Spielberg are alive, and can defend their works.
------------------
M. Hyde

 

[cafink]

quote:To me it seems more than a little arrogant that some believe there is a point where the artist is no longer allowed to modify their art without our approval. Let's leave the legal issues aside for now. Someone explain to me why we get to say to Lucus, Spielberg or Disney, "stop, you may no longer modify your movie".

It is my opinion that such a point is reached when the filmmaker releases his work to the public.
In 1977, I went to the theater and saw a movie called 'Star Wars' (actually, I'm a few years too young to have done that, but let's make believe for the sake of argument). Twenty years later, the director of 'Star Wars,' Mr. George Lucas, retools the film, explaining "Oh, I was never happy with the original film, it didn't match my artistic vision."
So what I saw in the theater twenty years ago was 'Star Wars: A Work In Progress'? It simply said 'Star Wars.' Was this not a film with which Mr. Lucas was happy? It said right on the screen, "Directed by George Lucas." It did not say "an Alan Smithee film." The original film was good enough for George Lucas. If it wasn't, his name should not have been on it.
If there were flaws with the original version, I think I should be entitled to a refund. But nope, I had to pay $6.50 to see the new SPECIAL EDITION of 'Star Wars.'
I don't expect to recieve much support for this position, but I simply can't stand this practice.

 

[Ben Motley]

Oh you've got my support Carl. The only reason Lucas gets to do this is that he was smart enough to buy Star Wars back from Twentieth-Century Fox in '77. Sure, other directors get to release "director's cuts" all the time, but they don't have the power to shelve the original releases because those are owned by studios, or other individuals. At what point do we have the right to tell a filmmaker, or an artist of any sort for that matter, that they cannot change their works? At the point of change of ownership, plain and simple.
------------------
M. Hyde