OK, I haven’t seen Who Framed Roger Rabbit since I was twelve, but even if we take it as a given that it is indeed ABOUT racism on one level, why does it follow that it perpetuates racism? Just going by what people have said on this very thread, it sounds more likely that it critiques racism.
So anything that even deals with racism is unwatchable by you, fessie?
I didn’t mean to say that WFRR perpetuated racism, any more than POTA. They’re both more social commentaries, but I think that racism is the subject.
Now I can’t find the post that mentioned it, someone else brought that film into the conversation. I think I introduced POTA. But I didn’t mean to offer it as an example of racism on the part of movie studios, sorry for not being more clear.
No, it’s not that any film about racism is unwatchable - it’s the cruelty of WFRR that got me.
But I love POTA.
I brought in Roger Rabbit – but not as an example of commentary on racism. I asked if people thought that the backup jazz musicians – portrayed by crows – were themselves racist, as the crows in Dumbo are supposed to be.
To make my position clear, I think they originally had Black characters in mind when they originally made the crows in Dumbo, but not from racist motives – they were looking for “character”. But the crows don’t have to be “read” that way – they don’t bear any of the stereotypical characteristics of blacks. They have southern accents, but that can apply to southern whites as well (or southerners of oriental abstraction, for that matter), so most people don’t care about those crows the same way they do about, say, the black picaninny centaur/donkey Sunflower in Fantasia (who’s shown with the stereotyped hairstyle, is obviously a servant, and has the body of a donkey. Nobody complains about the two black zebra-cebtaurs, I notice, who are kinda cool. But they don’t have that hair, and they’re not servants.)
I suggested the crows in Roger Rabbit simply because it’s a more recent example, from a more modern perspective and a more socially-conscious Disney, yet you could arguably make the same suggestions about them as the Dumbo crows. I don’t think they’re vracist, myself.
Hopefully concede the point. Unfortunately there’s a lot of crappy Disney scholarship out there.
(My wife is a professor of music history and she’s given a few papers on music in Disney movies. I’m not as on top of the field as she is, but I pick up a lot through osmosis.)
Some scholars seem to have a hard time getting past the idea of DISNEY THE MEGACORPORATION and actually engaging with the art itself. They already have decided what Disney represents – inauthenticity, sentimentality, exploitation, racism – so when they look at the movies or the theme parks they tend to seek out those elements that confirm the Disney stereotype.
I’m not denying that there is some truth to the stereotype. Stereotypes become stereotypes because they do contain a kernal of truth. Walt really did hate unions and The Song of the South really does try to put a happy face on slavery. But there’s a lot more to Disney than the stereotype and a lot of scholars have trouble seeing it.
(I remember my wife complaining about one paper that criticized Disneyland for being “plastic”. The thing is, if you actually walk around Disneyland and LOOK at how it’s put together there’s not much plastic outside of Tomorrowland. In fact most of the park is hand-crafted out of traditional building materials – brick, plaster, carved wood. Disneyland itself is the antithesis of cheap, mass-produced plastic crap. It’s actually a testiment to the power of individual artistry and good workmanship. But the physical reality of Disneyland had to be ignored because it didn’t conform with this guy’s Big Theory of Why Disneyland Sucks.)
They most certainly are a part of that product line. I should know, those Princesses have been supplying my paycheck for the last six months.
As for her relative whiteness, what LHoD said. If a white person in a black shirt reads as a black person, then there’s no reasonable way you can go on to argue that a character in an Arabian setting, in Arabian dress, with an Arabian name, is anything other than an Arab.
I had no idea you were a kept man, Miller.
See… I wonder about this. Whose responsibility is it to cater to black children? Must Disney create black fairy tales? Why not have black animators create fairy tales for black children?
I grew up adoring fairy tales. Read them all, over and over. I didn’t expect the characters to reflect me. My dad saw to it that there were plenty of black role models in art around me.
Still, I will admit…Disney’s might and greatness did have power to instill ideas of blonde, blue eyed beauty. I suffered from that as a child.
I don’t regret that I read the fairy tales though. It gave me fodder for learning. I was taught to rid myself of any ‘inferiority complex’ that I was allowing myself to have over Disney’s ‘propaganda’*
*And I do understand that this propaganda was not necessarily true, intended propaganda.
I know I said I didn’t want to argue this any more, but I want to clear this up. Nobody said they’re “hateful”. And to address earlier posts, nobody said that there weren’t black people in existence who spoke like that. The problem is that the image of the shuckin’ & jivin’ black man was the only way black people were presented, giving the impression that that’s all black people are; one-dimensional grinning, tapdancing*, undeducated folks. THAT’S why it’s a stereotype. It’s not hateful, just demeaning. And most likely not by the standards of 1040s white America, but by today’s standards. (Although the fact that they nicknamed the white voice-actor “Jim Crow” indicates they had some idea what they were doing).
Had Disney regularly featured black characters of all types, and this was just one character in a whole repertoire of black characters, it might be different. Maybe.
I agree with you there; just add the crows to that list.
*Yes, I know the crows didn’t tapdance, but please allow me a tiny bit of hyperbole here
I agree with the bulk of your post (especially re: Disneyland), but this latter point is a bit puzzling, as Song of the South is set post-Civil War.
That should read 1940s, of course. :smack:
Me and my family really, really like that cartoon. We don’t dare tell the rest of our family that. But we were so happy to find it on you tube recently.
Yes, but very shortly after. Technically Uncle Remus isn’t a slave when the movie takes place but he WAS a slave just a few years before and the master-servant relationship he has with the plantation owners is only a short step away from their previous master-slave relationship.
However, I’m willing to acknowledge that I exaggerated. How about “Song of the South really does try to put a happy face on black oppression”?
That’s satisfactch’ll.
I have distincyly mixed feelings about it. There’s no doubt that some scenes 9the opening and closing ones), with the naturalistically rendered silhouette of the mother telling the story in front of the fire are gorgeous, and the rest of the film moves with an insane frenmetic pace and immense creativity. And the stereotypes are so far over-the-top that no one could take them at all seriously.
But,but,but…
The film is a collection of the most offensive stereotypes. Sexy thin black women and fat overbearing dominating black women. Prince Charmin wears a zoot suit and has dice insets on his teeth. And a host of others.
I always hated it when National Lampoon hauled out a collection of offensive stereotypes and invited us to laugh at then, effectively saying “It’s OK – we don’t believe these. we’re making FUN of them!” But they were still tell the same demeaning jokes, so I couldn’t. And I have trouble with this for the same reason.