July 5, 2019
On The Odd Decision to
Censor Oneself
In December 2001, Disney began releasing its original
cartoon classics as part of its Walt
Disney Treasures series, and for the next few years, consumers were able to
get such collections as Mickey Mouse in
Color or The Complete Goofy. The
cartoons contained on the sets were presented in chronological order, and
whenever one contained what might be considered questionable content by today’s
standards, Leonard Maltin would appear to give us what might pass today as an
early spoiler alert – only instead of telling us key plot details, he simply
warned us that some people might be offended by what followed.
And sometimes what followed was as innocuous as Pluto
sticking his head in a furnace and coming out covered with black soot. He then
got down on one knee and belted out, “Mammie!” Film aficionados, both then and
now, got the refeence instantly, and I can imagine them chuckling a bit at the
animated rib of Al Jolson. Whether they took offense to it or not, I cannot
say. However, the reaction to blackface has always depended on the audience
watching it. It is certainly possible that White audiences laughed, while
African-Americans sat silently, a look of resignation or shock on their faces.
They would have been fully aware of the historical use of blackface to
dehumanize and ridicule African-Americans and that it had its origins
during the horrific days of slavery. Sadly, it continued as “entertainment” far
longer than we’d like to admit.
So, perhaps modern audiences needed Maltin’s warning of
possibly objectionable content. The same could probably be said of viewers who
have discovered these cartoons or others like them in the years since. One can
only speculate what today’s young people would make of Heckle and Jeckle or the
Asian-looking cat that plays the piano with chopsticks in The Aristocats. However, Maltin’s words of warning were only the
first part of his introduction. Following it were words that I agreed with then
and am in complete agreement with today: It is better to see these images for
ourselves and talk about them than it is to sweep them under the rug and
pretend they never existed.
It’s better that we can see Al Jolson putting on blackface.
It better that we can Tom (the cat) wearing a cymbal as if it were a
traditional Chinese hat. It’s better that we can see John Wayne swaggering his
way through his performance as Genghis Khan, the obviously White actors wearing
blackface in The Birth of a Nation,
Buster Keaton appearing as every member of a black minstrel show, and Mickey
Rooney banging his head on a lantern every time he awakens in Breakfast at Tiffany’s. It’s better that
we remember what was as it truly was and not as we’d like it to have been.
What does it mean, then, that Disney has begun removing
“questionable content” from their films? Gone is the crow’s musical number from
Dumbo, cast into permanent exile is Song of the South, and, discovered just
this week, mysteriously deleted is Stinky Pete’s inappropriate flirtatious
offer to get a pair of identical twins into the next Toy Story movie. Apparently, Disney no longer sees controversial
moments as teachable moments. Or perhaps it’s something even more disturbing.
Maybe it believes that the internet generation is unable to see offensive
content without flying into a rage. Whatever the reason, Disney’s decision is
akin to throwing in the towel, and it casts their decision to remake their
animated classics as live-action films in a new light. After all, doing so
allows these classic tales to be told in a way that takes into account “modern
sentiments,” a term that in too many people’s eyes has come to mean sans
controversy.
I remember seeing Toy
Story 2 in theaters. I remember the laughter that followed Stinky Pete’s
indecent proposal. Everyone knew what he was referring to, and it was fun to
see him caught in the act. Of course, that was before Me Too and Times Up,
before stories of violent assaults perpetrated by powerful players in Hollywood
made headlines almost daily, before Bill Cosby was found guilty of sexual
assault. Can we laugh the same way today, or do we suddenly fall into stunned
silence, shocked that a cartoon has made light of something so vile?
Of course, to do so would be to judge the film through much
clearer eyes than we had back in 1999, a time when Harvey Weinstein was being
praised for successfully promoting foreign and independent films and the women
whose careers he secretly ruined were being promoted as “difficult.” Years
later, a website would begin publishing articles with titles that began “Why
Hollywood Won’t Hire…” Never did they list that a Hollywood starlet couldn’t
get a decent role because she had fought back.
There is a conversation to be had about how or even if to
watch movies that are made controversial by modern sentiments or their
association with a figure that is now despised, However, this is a conversation
that we should be able to have, and if we make the decision to watch them, we
should be able to. Disney’s decision denies us this choice and robs us of what
it once recognized as a teachable moment. What’s more, it reinforces a terrible
stereotype – a misnomer about the fragility of this generation. But let’s says,
for argument’s sake, that the word has indeed turned hypersensitive and can no
longer handle the mere suggestion or sight of something repugnant. The answer
is still not to delete it from public record. The answer, as it’s always been,
is to inform people of it and then to let them make their own decisions. Disney
used to understand this.
No comments:
Post a Comment