Indiana Jones and the Disney Connection

Stoo

Well-known member
Too much to write & quote so I'm going to split my replies into seperate posts. Hope it's not a problem. The 2 mods, Pale & Attila, come first. Then Rocket, Tash & Montana. Le Saboteur gets his own.
Pale Horse said:
In the spirit of good fun...and discourse
I think you're going to find yourself in the minority on this one, Stoo. :)

As the arguments pro/con develop over time. Just my 2 cents at this stage in the game.

Chuckle...if someone were to say the Camp of KOTCS matches the Camp of High School Musical...that would be the death knell you'd have to concede to.

Personally, I'd like to see the anti-semite argument well postulated as a comparatory example, but I doubt anyone will even investigate, much less try.
Yikes. You'd "like to see the anti-semite argument well postulated"? I'll pretend I didn't read that.:eek: Is my opinion really that blasphemous to you? A better comparison would be: Indiana Jones is to Disney is what Wayne Gretzky was to the Los Angeles Kings. A sensational boon to the team but he wasn't born there!:p

Yes, so far, I'm in the minority in this thread but in 'real-life', other people I know have echoed the same sentiment: What does Indiana Jones (& Star Wars) have to do with Disney? Like you say, "All in the spirit of good fun" but (for the record) yourself & Attila are some of the Disney freaks I was talking about and your nuts will be hard to crack. By the way, where is roundshort?;)
Attila the Professor said:
I'm not sure that's relevant though, especially considering many of the Disney films are their own versions of earlier, often more gruesome stories. A film being made into theme park attractions doesn't seem all that far afield from the same principle.

Also, doubtlessly, there's something attractive to Lucas and Spielberg about having their films realized in another medium. (After all, Star Wars was also brought to life in Disney parks, and there's ET at Universal.)

Rocket's right, of course, that Eisner is a lot of it, especially since he was pivotal in the creation of the original film's deal at Paramount.

But it's also important to remember that it's far from the case that all of the attractions at the Disney theme parks originate in old Disney properties. Sure, that became the case later on, and has always been the case to some extent (Eisner sure didn't invent synergy). Indeed, some of them were clearly influenced by given films, with the Jungle Cruise having The African Queen all over it, and Frontierland, Main Street USA, and the Haunted Mansion have various films and genres all over them. (There was a stagecoach ride, for Pete's sake...)

Now, yes, the bringing - in of outside properties was a new development, sure. But it was an artistically fruitful one, especially in the case of the two Indiana Jones Adventure attractions, which are among the pinnacle examples of immersive theme park design they've come up with, from queue onward. (The stunt show's fun, and and so is Star Tours, but the Paris coaster has never sounded like anything all that special.)

Does the quality of the product make up for your concerns? Perhaps not. But I think it's a good thing both for the Disney parks and for the world of Indiana Jones.
As mentioned previously, the "Star Wars" ride is part & parcel of my argument.

Pre-1987, I can't think of any Disney attractions which are based on a story written only a decade or so before being built. Likewise, I don't know of any which bear the name of a film not made by Disney (that is, a film with an original story and not based on any book or folklore). Sure, The Jungle Cruise is an obvious homage to "The African Queen". One of the boats even has the name but the ride isn't called, "The African Queen". Haunted houses have been a mainstay since amusement parks first began and when the original, Anaheim park opened in '55, westerns were all the rage so having a section of the park dedicated to that genre was a no-brainer. The later parks copied the same formula. Which pre-'87 attractions were emblazoned with the name of a non-Disney film? None, right?

I suppose my main issue is my distaste for Disney's acquisition of licenses for products they did not create. It renders the whole idea of the parks into something too generic. As Rocket & yourself say, the finger points largely at Eisner. Where does it/will it stop before the parks should be simply called, "MovieLand" (or if you prefer, "Disney's Land of Movies & Fairytales")?:confused:
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I think those two audiences are closer than either of us would like...

We've had the "is Indy a good role model discussion" before...and he surely did NOT start out as one. As the iconic role and move became a series, the questionable material made the jump away from Indy and to the villains. Indy became closer to a Disney hero with each outing.

Disney still retains the child friendly content but has matured to attract teens and (as the case with Pleasure Island) adults.

Indy softened enough to fit into this Disney evolution.
Of course the last 2 films have softened him up (especially "Skull") but, no matter how much Indy has changed to fit the Disney 'family' mould, the character wasn't created under its banner. If Indy 5 ever gets made, can we expect to see Cinderella's castle fade into the opening 'mountain shot' rather than the Paramount logo? It's certainly going that way...

As for Pale Horse's analogy of the "Skull" crowd = the "High School Musical" crowd...yes, I agree, it's much too close for comfort.:eek:
Inexorable Tash said:
Unfortunately, for whatever reason, most of the population of the planet seems to be more obsessed with entertainment in the form of sports, alcohol and politics. So, I'm grudgingly willing to accept that if there's going to be a place to dip into a thrill ride set in an ancient temple with a whip-weilding archaeologist, it's going to be bolted into the city block of Orange County ruled by the mouse.
"Grudgingly willing to accept", eh? It's a bitter pill to swallow...'Fess up, boy!:whip:
Montana Smith said:
All these things have probabaly happened in Disney cartoons (especially the violent shorts with the likes of Donald Duck) - if not Disney then Warner Brothers (Tom, & Jerry, Wile E. Coyote, etc). There was so much cartoon violence, which if turned into live-action becomes much more shocking.
Sorry, Smiffy, but that is a terrible argument. Firstly, Warner Bros. cartoons are irrelevant in this case (even though they were violent indeed)! Secondly, kiddie/family cartoons do not show blood. Thirdly, a man being shot in the head is a ghastly sight to see. In a cartoon, a character getting shot in the head ends up with a black face and no nose but he still lives. It's funny!:D In "Raiders", it is not.:gun::dead:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
Sorry, Smiffy, but that is a terrible argument.

I know. I just wanted to read your reaction! ;)

I never did visualize any "wild, pre-marital sex" between Mickey and Minnie, nor Donald and Daisy.

The only bit I really meant was the last sentence: "There was so much cartoon violence, which if turned into live-action becomes much more shocking."

Some of that cartoon violence did transform into shocking imagery in Indiana Jones movies. More so in TOD, as, for me, the grand finale of ROTLA had a cartoon quality. The head shot and the vicious fight the German truck were harder. But the cartoon black comedy creeps in everywhere - propeller blades, rock crushers. All those nasty things that Disney animals have probably done to each other at some time or another.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Le Saboteur said:
The bulk of Disneyland's attendance comes from Southern Californians with Annual Passes, and of that roughly half of that turnstile count are childless twenty & thirty-somethings. You obviously want to cater to that group since they have more money to spend than you're typical family of four.
I've only been to Walt Disney World in Orlando (1978 & 1982) and DisneyParis (April 2008) so I trust you on the present demographics of the Anaheim park. However, when I was at the Paris park in '08, it was overwhelmingly FAMILIES of TOURISTS. Children were everywhere and barely any French could be heard amongst them. (One can only guess what the Tokyo demographics are.)
Le Saboteur said:
The only person to blame for the "franchise capturing" that Disney has (or has not) been able to do is George Lucas. He's willfully ignored the franchise for twenty-plus years, and Disney is just about the only thing keeping Indy in the public consciousness.
Sabby-baby, I disagree with your 20+ years comment. The last Young Indy TV movie aired in '96 and the "Complete Adventures of Indiana Jones" was released on VHS a couple of years after that. Not exactly "willingfully ignored" for the past 20+ years.;)
Le Saboteur said:
I'm afraid that you're missing the broader comparison between Indy & Pirates, Stoo. I'm referring to the ride, not the movie; until Disney took the effort to upgrade the ride and make it slightly more mature (and to tie into the movie), it was ignored.
...snip...
As the demographic has shifted, so has the ride and the merchandise. It's slightly more risque, but still walking a very fine line.
You know more about that than I do so I'll give a humble bow...but maintain that "Pirates" is Disney property. Indy isn't.:p Plus, the Indy attractions started to appear, like, 2 decades before the "Pirates" films even began. Oh, my goodness...
Le Saboteur said:
What's more "Adventureland" than Indiana Jones? Not much I wager. So rather than design something that's only going to draw comparisons, why not go all out and acquire the license?
Because they didn't create the character, perhaps? Temple du Péril is a shameless PROSTITUTION of the Indiana Jones name. Apart from the coaster being similar to the mine carts in "Doom" there is NOTHING else related to Indy. As far as I can recall, there isn't even a fedora in the set-ups for the waiting line. They play Indy music at the entrance gate. Hooray.:rolleyes:

"What's more Adventureland than Indiana Jones", you ask? SINDBAD! (For those not in the know, it is spelled that way.)...and he doesn't require a license!(y) Agreed, Indy is a perfect 'fit' for any Adventureland but he ain't Disney produce. "Aye, there's the rub...":whip:

P.S. Le Saboteur, I forgot to mention that you're one of the Disney freak crew I mentioned before!:p
 
Last edited:

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Stoo said:
I suppose my main issue is my distaste for Disney's acquisition of licenses for products they did not create. It renders the whole idea of the parks into something too generic. As Rocket & yourself say, the finger points largely at Eisner. Where does it/will it stop before the parks should be simply called, "MovieLand" (or if you prefer, "Disney's Land of Movies & Fairytales")?:confused:

Well, at WDW, Disney MGM Studios(now called Disney Hollywood Studios) which you mention in your post is precisely that(there's also a movie park in Disneyland Paris I believe). It's a celebration of Hollywood and movies(there are other references to non-Disney material) so Lucas seems like a perfect fit there to me.

You ask when will it stop, but really, beyond Lucas has it really progressed? Since Pixar is releasing hit after hit, most of the new attractions come from there. So its just really a non-issue.

Disney did buy Marvel, so I suppose we'll eventually see Marvel characters in the parks, but since they've been seen at Universal parks before that, it'll be quite a while before kids will be getting an Iron Man ride or getting Spider-man's autograph. And even then, I'm sure they'll only be place in proper places like Disney Hollywood Studios.

While I saw Star Wars prior the riding Star Tours, the Indiana Jones ride was the real reason I got into Indiana Jones. I know I'm not the only one with that experience, as Indiana Jones isn't as subversive as Star Wars is. So Disney gets some extra money from people who aren't into "Disney" as others as well as from the merchandise, while Lucas and Spielberg benefit by having their franchise have a life beyond just the movies(as well as probably making a dime from everyone who walks in the park or something).

I think you just need to accept that while you have reservations about it, that its mostly just you as there isn't really much to argue with. When the creators of this franchise are embracing it its only natural being against Indiana Jones' exposure to the parks is a minority among most fans.
 

kongisking

Active member
I too went "Huh? What?" when I first learnt that Disney had an Indy attraction, but I guess I've gotten used to it. Then again, I do love the Disney Animated Canon, so maybe I'm just biased by nostalgia...:eek:
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Stoo said:
REMINDER: I did say "family entertainment"...not just "kiddie" so, please, don't ignore this.;)
Forbidden Eye, your list of shocking elements (which I didn't quote because they can read above) don't hold a candle to anything shown in the Indy films. The only thing that comes close is the mention of a child's heart getting ripped out and that isn't shown on-screen. You don't SEE a child's heart being ripped out in a Disney film, do you?:rolleyes:

@Le Saboteur: My good friend....Along with the other comments above, you're simply reinforcing my point: Other than a money-making venture for lot$ of ca$h, there is no reason why Indy has become part of Disney lore. Mentioning "Pirates of the Caribbean" is absolutely POINTLESS because that sprang from a Disney ride to begin with.

Indy was NOT created by Disney and he doesn't belong there!:gun:


Sure, Indy wasn't created by Disney, but you know what- neither was Roger Rabbit! Yet, at Disneyland there's a ToonTown precinct and a Roger Rabbit ride, and in the 90s, when Roger was popular, he was in Disney on Ice shows and was seen as a Disney character.

And what about Inspector Gadget? The cartoon was certainly not made by Disney. Yet they made the live action film and have a roller coaster in the ToonTown district based on the cartoon.

My point being if you question the inclusion of Indy and Star Wars in Disney paraphenalia, you might as well question Roger Rabbit and Inspector Gadget.

In terms of morality, or sqeaky clean image of Disney (regardless of it's intended audience) that's more of a modern history thing as it's been pointed out already.

Would you call Fantasia moral? I watched it for the first time in a while, and couldn't believe that there were female figures in both "Night on Bald Mountain" and the Mt. Olympus segments with exposed breasts. Sure, artistic licence that may be, but I wouldn't consider "Fantasia" family entertainment necessarily. I would say a far more sophisticated audience. Even the "Sorcerer's Apprentice" segment with Mickey has a moment of violence- He kills a personified broom rather brutially.

And you don't think Satan playing with his creatures on Bald Mountain doesn't hold a candle to a heart being ripped out? Maybe it's impact is different in this day and age, but in American society back in '40, that would have been a really big and similar impact, if not more.

So how does Indy not fit in your eyes? To me, he's the personification of the spirit of adventure and looking beyond Forbidden Eye, at the original Adventureland for what it was, you can see the inspirations of serials and adventure novels in it's look and design. Why not have a modern day icon that takes from the same influences?
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
I really don't see what the problem is.
Much more to say to you later, Forbidden Eye.:whip:

In the meantime, here is some concept artwork for Indy 4 that should be shared with you all. This film was on the table before the release of "Skull" but, unfortunately, Don Knotts passed away in 2006. (Auditions were held to replace Don Knotts in the role of Wheely Applegate.):p

There were 3 working titles:

Indiana Jones and the Love Bug
Indy & Herbie: Take the Money and Run!
Indy & Herbie Break the Bank at Monte Carlo

IndyHerbie.jpg
 
Last edited:

Le Saboteur

Active member
Violet said:
And what about Inspector Gadget? The cartoon was certainly not made by Disney. Yet they made the live action film and have a roller coaster in the ToonTown district based on the cartoon.

Just to clarify, Gadget's Go Coaster is not inspired by that famously bumbling detective. No, it's based on the work of Gadget Hackwrench from the late eighties cartoon Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers. Or did you not find it odd that you were riding around in acorns?

1288081-25801-gadget1.jpg


Surely you remember...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2e5q6ubDlZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Forbidden Eye said:
Well, at WDW, Disney MGM Studios(now called Disney Hollywood Studios) which you mention in your post is precisely that(there's also a movie park in Disneyland Paris I believe). It's a celebration of Hollywood and movies(there are other references to non-Disney material) so Lucas seems like a perfect fit there to me.
I don't understand the question Stoo is asking. Disney "Hollywood Studios" has attractions that feature all kinds of films from the Hollywood meta-fiction: The Searchers, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, Alien, Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, the Muppets, I Love Lucy, etc.

If Indiana Jones doesn't "belong" at Disney theme parks, do any of these others?

Since I anticipate that the answer is "no," why?

Epcot is essentially a World's Fair with a few Disney characters thrown in. I don't see how any of this is incompatible with Walt's vision of Disney's theme parks. Personally, when I go to a Disney park, I don't really care all that much about Mickey.
 
The triumph of Walt Disney's will was destined to be diluted.

Though Walt co-opted characters, no one had the strength, insight and forethought to continue his legacy.

The company took the easy path and opened the door to outside influences instead of developing talent and product in-house.

Shame really.
 

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Le Saboteur said:
Just to clarify, Gadget's Go Coaster is not inspired by that famously bumbling detective. No, it's based on the work of Gadget Hackwrench from the late eighties cartoon Chip n' Dale: Rescue Rangers. Or did you not find it odd that you were riding around in acorns?

1288081-25801-gadget1.jpg


Surely you remember...

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2e5q6ubDlZE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Haven't been on the coaster (I don't really like rollercoasters much). Just saw the sign and it resembled the Inspector Gadget writing. My apologies! I've only been to Disneyland twice.

But yeah, I do remember Rescue Rangers. I happen to have Volume 1 of the series.

Even so, the Roger Rabbit argument still stands though I wouldn't be surprised if Roger's changed hands to Disney.

One other thing while we're on the topic of Roger Rabbit- What about Jessica Rabbit and her "booby-trap"? The way she's drawn (though inspired by Tex Avery's animation from the period) ain't exactly kid friendly or as she says, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
 

Rivers

Active member
[Indy was NOT created by Disney and he doesn't belong there!:gun:[/QUOTE]


Neither was Alice In Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, Snow White, ect, ect, ect,
Does that mean they shouldnt be there either?
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The triumph of Walt Disney's will was destined to be diluted.

Though Walt co-opted characters, no one had the strength, insight and forethought to continue his legacy.

The company took the easy path and opened the door to outside influences instead of developing talent and product in-house.

Shame really.

Joy through appropriation. A Disney-Indy anschluss.


Bad Disney!
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Me said:
In fact, according to my mother, the very 1st film I saw in the theatre was a re-release of "Snow White".
Oops, just realized it wasn't "Snow White". The 1st film I ever saw in a theatre was a re-release of "Sleeping Beauty". Apparently, I cried like crazy when she went to sleep because I thought she had died!:eek:
Violet said:
Even so, the Roger Rabbit argument still stands though I wouldn't be surprised if Roger's changed hands to Disney.

One other thing while we're on the topic of Roger Rabbit- What about Jessica Rabbit and her "booby-trap"? The way she's drawn (though inspired by Tex Avery's animation from the period) ain't exactly kid friendly or as she says, "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way."
Sorry, Violet, but the Roger Rabbit film IS a Disney product!;) They created Touchstone Pictures in the '80s for more mature/adult-based films. As for your comments about "Fantasia", I'll get to those later...
Rivers said:
Neither was Alice In Wonderland, Winnie the Pooh, Snow White, ect, ect, ect,
Does that mean they shouldnt be there either?
Rivers, you willy-nilly, silly ol' bear! Your head must be stuffed with fluff.;) Disney has made films of each of those stories. If they had made an Indy (or "Star Wars") film then there'd be no issue. Guess you didn't bother reading everything I wrote so here's a repeat of some appropriate bits for your own, personal benefit:

Pre-1987, I can't think of any Disney attractions which are based on a story written only a decade or so before being built. Likewise, I don't know of any which bear the name of a film not made by Disney (that is, a film with an original story and not based on any book or folklore). Which pre-'87 attractions were emblazoned with the name of a non-Disney film? None, right?
kongisking said:
I too went "Huh? What?" when I first learnt that Disney had an Indy attraction,...
Yee-haw! I'm not alone. High 5, Kong!(y)
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Stoo said:
"Snow White"

Speaking of Snow White and The Triumph of the Will:

http://www.militantesthetix.co.uk/opticsyn/floridani.html
Leni, Walt and Walter: Deutsch-Amerikanische Freundschaften

Esther Leslie



In November 1938 Leni Riefenstahl sailed to America, on the luxury liner Europa. Riefenstahl hoped to sell her latest film, Olympia, to an American distributor, and she began her search for American powerbrokers while still at sea. In her luggage, there were three different prints of Olympia and numerous copies of the book Beauty in the Olympic Struggle [Schönheit im Olympischen Kampf] and other publicity material.


Her film of the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin had premiered a few months before, a treat for Hitler?s 49th birthday. Paid for by the Propaganda Ministry and the Film-Kredit-Bank, the film had enjoyed accolade after accolade, as Riefenstahl escorted it from venue to venue across Europe. Riefenstahl?s Olympia, as much as its subject, the 1936 Berlin Olympics, successfully promoted New Germany?s public image abroad. The 1936 Olympics had been designed as a widely broadcast spectacle of peace, an internationalist gesture. For the duration of the festivities, attended by people from across the world, the press had printed pages in three or four languages for foreign visitors. Cinema programmes had included international movies and short films. But, as the games drew to a close that exceptional ?normality? returned to nazi everyday life. The cessation of official-backed jewish persecution, prompted by the attention-seeking and attention-garnering games, was wound up and Hitler prepared for a public attack on the jews at a party rally in September 1937. There he accused them of bolshevism and support for the republicans in Spain. (Kater, 50) This harangue unleashed a violence that culminated just over a year later, in November 1938, in the horrors of Kristallnacht. Pacific, cosmopolitan Germany had been an illusion for the cameras.


On the third day of Riefenstahl?s sojourn in the United States the Anti-Nazi League began a campaign against her, further boosted by horrified responses to the anti-jewish pogroms. In Detroit, on 18th November she met with modern factory-meister Henry Ford, an industrialist who felt some affection for Hitler. She headed for California, via the Grand Canyon. In Hollywood the Anti-Nazi League called for a boycott of Riefenstahl, running, on 27th November, an advertisement in the Hollywood Reporter. It declared: "There is no room for Nazi agents!!" Walt Disney was one of the only Hollywood celebrities to receive her. She visited him on 8th December 1938, for a three-hour tour of the Disney studio.


Fascists had their eyes on Hollywood. It had been described by il Duce?s son, the bomber and filmist Vittorio Mussolini, as the "centre of political agitation against the fascist idea". (Storm/Dreßler, 128) However, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was still breaking box office records in Rome at the end of 1938. It was to be one of the last. American films were being phased out in Mussolini?s Italy. The German cinema magazine Film Kurier in February stressed that the Anti-Nazi League was a jewish organization that was part of a "jewishified film industry". On her return to Germany, Riefenstahl gave a detailed report of her American trip to Goebbels, who then noted in his diary an extraordinary reversal of fact: in America ? "The Jews are ruling with terror and boycotts." ["Die Juden herrschen mit Terror und Boykott."] Goebbels voiced uncertainty about whether or not to ban American films.


The association of Disney and Riefenstahl was not new. They had been brought together before ? in fascist Italy ? at the Venice Film Festival, where Olympia had won the Coppa Mussolini. Disney?s Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs had been a strong competitor for the prize. Asked later why she should have met Disney in the US, Riefenstahl said:


And why not! ... Disney and I have never met before but our pictures ? Olympia and Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs ? were the two outstanding successes in many outstanding countries.


And she goes on to suggest an aesthetic logic to their rendezvous.


He has the German feeling ? he goes so often to the German fables and fairy tales for inspiration. (Graham, 222- 223)


What is "the German feeling"? Disney?s aesthetic, especially in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Pinocchio [1940], and Fantasia [1940] with its ?Sorcerer?s Apprentice? tale from Goethe, drew on both Romanticism and a folkish Gothic woodcut tradition. Snow White was a fine Grimm fairytale, though Disneyfication of the ending involved junking Snow White?s vomiting up of the poisoned apple lodged in her throat, and in its stead borrowing an awakening, re-animating kiss from Grimms? Sleeping Beauty. The German sourcing of Disney?s feature-length films was a major topic of discussion in German film journals. Critics wanted to know who would guarantee that Disney would treat his German material well. (Storm/Dreßler 110) The fairy-tale, according to the nazi critics, was a German affair.


In Riefenstahl?s terms, "the German feeling" denotes a concoction of the romantic, the Gothic, elements of the neo-classical. For Riefenstahl and for Disney, perhaps, the "German feeling" is a code word for restitution and a by-word for kitsch. In 1939 Clement Greenberg, the American theorist of high modernism, defined kitsch as an antithesis, a "rear-guard" of the avant-garde. (Wood/Harrison, 529) In the grim ?30s, the avant-garde fades, exiled, in hiding ? in the "Totalitarian World", or stamped out by the dumb violence of economic facts ? in the "Democratic World". It is occluded by its antithesis. For Greenberg, kitsch was both American commercial culture and the totalitarian art of nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Kitsch, the culture of the industrialized masses, explains Greenberg, exploits tradition. Kitsch is that which is recognizable. Kitsch is heightened reality that is made dramatic. (Wood/Harrison, 537) Kitsch bears traces of yesterday?s avant-garde, diluted. (Wood/Harrison, 534) In the Soviet Union this kitsch is represented by Socialist Realism, an idealized naturalism. In nazi Germany it is monumentalist art, again illusionistic and illusory. In America its quintessence is surely high-style Disney.


There had been another German reception of Disney, one that stressed its avant-garde and utopian elements. In the first version of Walter Benjamin?s 1936 ?Work of Art in the Age of its Mechanical Reproduction?, a section titled ?Mickey Mouse? explains how in film?s strange modernist montage-land, first steps are taken for a critical reconfiguration of our world. Cartoons radicalise that effect of live film ? where the nature that reveals itself to the camera ? a second nature ? is unlike the unmediated nature that flaunts before the eye. Adventurous travellers are offered a multitude of trips through widely strewn ruins in a world turned anti-physical. The dynamite of the split-second explodes this world. Space is expanded and shrunk by montage, while time is stretched and contracted by time loops. Cartooning takes such anti-physics for granted. And it outbids the individualism of madness and dreams by producing "figures of the collective dream such as the earth-encircling Mickey Mouse" (Benjamin [2], 461- 462). Benjamin says that this cosmos of detonated physics requires Mickey Mouse as occupant, for his function is curative. In the same essay, he speaks of the camera operator as dissector, as surgeon. For Benjamin, the segmenting, annihilative effect of the cinematic look can slice through the natural appearance of everyday life like a surgical instrument, contravening the tendency of film to mirror the surface. For Benjamin such dissection, an investigation of the world in close-up, production of links between things through montage, analysis of movement through slow-motion and so on, is part of a critical, scientific approach to the world. This is accompanied by an anti-naturalist, utopian rebuttal of physical laws and ?natural? constraint. The image becomes "a multiply fragmented thing, whose parts reassemble themselves according to new laws" (Benjamin, 227). As Benjamin?s perceptive epilogue to the ?Artwork essay? notes, such critical, analytical dissection ? a metaphorical dismantlement - was not the goal of film at the Reichsfilmkammer, nor indeed at the Disnet Studios, as a footnote to Benjamin?s ?Artwork essay? indicates ? something more violently real was at stake.


Placing his understanding of the Disney films in the context of nazi victory in Germany, he considers the latest Mickey Mouse films: "(Their dark fire-magic, for which colour film has provided technical preconditions, underlines a trait, which until now was only present in hidden ways. It shows how comfortably fascism ? in this realm too ? can appropriate so-called ?revolutionary? innovations.) What surfaces in the light of the latest Disney films is actually already present in some older ones: the tendency to locate bestiality and violence quite comfortably as accompaniments of existence. This calls on an older and no less terrifying tradition; it was introduced by the dancing hooligans which we find in mediaeval pogrom images, and the ?ragged band? in Grimms? fairy tales form their imprecise, pale rearguard." (Benjamin [c], 377)


Violence is now revealed to be less a critical metaphorical dismantlement, and more a way of life, a realistic representation of everyday brutality.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Continued...

Film succumbs to photographic immediacy?s commanding ideology of naturalism. Film is constrained in the service of reflecting an apparent vision of an elevated real. The originary critical effects of recording technologies have been assuaged by ideological overdetermination. While Hollywood cranks up to polish the disempowering cultish and dazzling commodity glow through its charismatic stars and mythic histories, Benjamin?s chilling commentary on fascist aesthetic cultism ponders the nazi use of recording machines at vast rallies, monster meetings, mass sporting events and in war. The latest technologies are deployed by the nazis to make heartfelt representations of the masses at play, at work, at war. Manipulated emotion is the currency in Hollywood and at the Reichsfilmkammer alike.


From the 1930s onwards the Disney studio had been taming the cartoon, displacing its original avantgardish anarchy and formal inconstancy. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was the first film to make extensive use of dialogue to define the personalities and show how the characters thought ? fully rounded cartoon characters were born. Cartoons could provoke pathos. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs milked this. Snow White?s scenes were increased as the story took shape ? she became the point of identification, rather than the anatural dwarfs. At the same time, the sound track was beginning to be used to supply and interpret feelings and sensations in addition to conveying dialogue. Modernist dissolution of reality is abandoned in favour or illusion of reality. Disney transforms cartoons in the service of commercialism ? making them Adorno?s commodity form, offering a false appearance of integration and wholeness, magically concealing the labour that went into their production. And they distance themselves from the art of the avant-garde whose law of form had taken fragmentation and disintegration into itself, making clear how constructed not only it is, but also our social world ? now ripe for transformation. Along with deep space and gestures towards illusionistic realism come melodramatic values ? the Hayes Production Code had affected cartoon characters too. For example, with its introduction in 1933, vampish Betty Boop was redressed with a longer skirt and a higher neckline. Snow White provided a clear-cut and priggish morality, a virginal and highly sanitized ideal. As it became naturalistic, moralistic and tamed, the cartoon was turned respectable, a regular part of the studio-system for the middle-brows. (Hay, 83) If Dumbo lost that depth, it may have been because it was drawn swiftly, on the cheap, by strike-breakers. Melodramatic values however were evident in abundance. Kracauer notes how Dumbo the baby elephant becomes a highly paid star for the same circus director who beat his mother. And he insists that the cause of all this is presence of a plot. The feature-length film necessitates a plot, and that, in turn, bolsters the presence of conventional social values in the film. No longer can the gag or the moment be the main propulsion of the film. The avant-garde temporality, a time of interruption, confounded linearity, moments, is abolished in favour of narrative, logic, development and closure. So unlike early Mickey Mouse cartoons ? with their gags and disruptions ? and a pesky, ratty creature creating mischief, indulging in vaudeville, and low-life and, as the German magazine Film-Kurier put it in 1930, he was a beast living in jazz rhythm; every step a dance move, every movement syncopated.


By the mid-30s, Disney advances a cartoon version of Hollywood movie-style mise-en-scene and acting. Realism was where the focus lay. Recreation of this was aided by advances in depth of field generation, and the use of the multiplane camera. This movie-style negates flat-space and the self-referentiality of the drawn cartoon and substitutes a deep cartoon space. It was the definitive rollback of modernist revelation of materials. If the modernists used the illusion of depth it was to investigate the illusion. The modernist return to zero, stripping away all the clutter and effects of culture, was reversed in the re-furbishing of the screen with objects stretching into every corner. The feature-lengths, from Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs onwards, re-institute the laws of perspective and gravity, fight against flatness, and no longer explode the world with the surrealistic and analytical cinematic dynamite of the optical unconscious developed in 1920s cartooning. The re-institution of physical laws was most evident in the animators? dilemma when designing a scene that showed Snow White falling. They worried about the height of the drop and whether it could lead to her death. By the late 1930s, Disney wanted his cartoons to look 3-D real, from the muted earthy backgrounds, perspectival faithfulness, to the life-likeness of movements and skin-tone. Using techniques such as rotoscoping the Disney studio strove after an increased knowledge of organic structure and a more acute sense of timing, breaking down movements in order to build them up mechanically. Disney produced an animated imitation of realist cinema, in terms of content and form; romantically realistic, an idealized real.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
And finally...

Epilogue

Roy Disney visited Germany in March 1938 to seal a deal on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But in the autumn of 1938 there was a controversy in Germany about whether or not the film would be shown in the Reich. Due to currency difficulties, the film was very expensive and also, embarrassingly for the nazis, too technically advanced compared to German animation at the time. And anyway after Kristallnacht in November international reservations were growing about trade with Germany. After the production in Hollywood of a number of anti-nazi films, the Propaganda Ministry put the pressure on critics to express anti-American sentiments. In 1938 the Propaganda Ministry made possible the purchase of fifty American movies, including Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. But critics were beginning to voice frustration at American domination of the silver screen. In Licht-Bild-Bühne, one critic bemoaned the fact that even though Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was not going to be seen in Germany, at a conservative estimate at least 200 pages of text and image about the film had appeared in the German press. In comparison a "top" German film Heimat, that was to be shown in America, had not even garnered fifteen pages of publicity in the American press. (Storm/Dreßler, 122) In September 1939 a report in Film Kurier attacked "Bolshevik Machinations in Film America", and it revealed details of the Dies committee?s investigation into communist supporters amongst the Hollywood film community. The report stated that with the exception of Snow White, almost every actor in Hollywood is helping the reds. (Storm/Dreßler, 99) By 1939 a little war had been declared in the press ? on the Anti-Nazi League and the "56 Hollywood stars" who had signed a petition against Germany. The author of the Film-Kurier article claimed that a lack of artistic capability made them resort to "atrocity propaganda" against Germany, or else they were forced to sign the petition under threat of violence. Those who attack the Germans "out of hatred or stupidity or cowardice" can surely not complain if they are refused appearance on German cinema screens. Despite this, in that year twenty new Hollywood movies were shown in the Greater German Reich. However such sentiments in the film press made the purchase of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs for German distribution very difficult. American films were banned from German premiere film theatres. And yet an exception was to be made for Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. This was a film of high artistic quality, claimed the film experts and the gentlemen from the Propaganda Ministry agreed. (Storm/Dreßler, 123- 4)The same excuse had not been made for Felix the Cat, banned since 1935. Perhaps it was "the German feeling" that so impressed them. "Who is the fairest of them all?" asks the evil witch-queen of her magic mirror in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. Why, one whose skin is white as snow, and evil, as embodied in the witch and the vultures, of course, is always dark, hooked-nose and ugly. Beauty and evil manifest themselves on the body ? as the witch cackles, while preparing her magic poisoned apple: "on the skin the symbol of what lies within". While class emerges in the image of the friendly but imbecilic and dirty dwarf-workers, Snow White, the temporarily fallen princess possesses a white skin that is emblematic of her inner purity. Some are born to rule, it shows on their very bodies. The poets Stefan George and Hans Blüher and other fin-de-siècle esoterics had asserted the association of white skin and moral purity, most forcefully. The ideas of the esoterics were enthusiastically taken up in the Third Reich. One popular book, Nordic Beauty [1937] by Paul Schultze-Naumburg, explicated the theory of racial body types and moral substance, avouching a racist version of the pseudo-science of physiognomy. This proposed the idea that the soul is racially determined and its characteristics manifest themselves on the body. Schultze-Naumburg?s examples were, in fact, a collage of ideal forms from artworks of the past. The author claims that Nordic bodies exhibit the Nordic virtues of logical clarity and truthful thoughtfulness. A good body has clear borderlines and separate parts. Nordic peoples are tall, slim, fine-limbed with narrow hips and narrow faces. The Nordic female breast has chiselled contours and is small and upright unlike the rapid maturation of fleshy oriental breasts, or the mammoth, formless, spongy breasts of mongoloids, racial types who are deemed inferior, illogical and dissembling.(Taylor/van der Will, 66, 137) Snow White, as asexual as a nazi sculpture of virtuous naked Germanic womanhood, and each of the seven dwarfs are all such clearly demarcated types, their bodies, their names, their souls all in unity. These might have had much to say to a ?nazi? audience.


In 1938 Hitler arranged for a copy of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs to be brought to his private cinema at Ubersalzberg. He thought it one of the greatest films ever made. (Storm/Dreßler, 110) It took a world war to stop the continued exchange between Walt and Leni and all that they represented.





Works Cited


Benjamin, Walter. Illuminations. London: Fontana, 1992.


---. Gesammelte Schriften volume I, part 2. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1991.


---. [c] Gesammelte Schriften volume VII part 1. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 1991


Graham, Cooper. Leni Riefenstahl and Olympia. Metuchen, N.J. : Scarecrow Press, 1986.


Hay, James. Popular Film Culture in Fascist Italy: The Passing of the Rex. Bloomington: Indiana University Press 1987.


Kater, Michael. Different Drummers: Jazz in the Culture of Nazi Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.


Storm, J.P, M. Dreßler. Im Reiche der Micky-Maus: Walt Disney in Deutschland 1927-1945. Berlin: Henschel Verlag.


Taylor, Brandon, Wilfried van der Will [editors]. The Nazification of Art. Hampshire Winchester Press, 1990.


Wood Paul, Charles Harrison [editors]. Art in Theory. Oxford, Blackwell, 1992.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Forbidden Eye said:
Well, at WDW, Disney MGM Studios(now called Disney Hollywood Studios) which you mention in your post is precisely that(there's also a movie park in Disneyland Paris I believe). It's a celebration of Hollywood and movies(there are other references to non-Disney material) so Lucas seems like a perfect fit there to me.
WillKill4Food said:
I don't understand the question Stoo is asking. Disney "Hollywood Studios" has attractions that feature all kinds of films from the Hollywood meta-fiction: The Searchers, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, Alien, Twilight Zone, Aerosmith, the Muppets, I Love Lucy, etc.
Guys, the Epic Stunt Spectacular is the only Indy attraction in a "Hollywood Studios" park. The other 3 (and the "Star Tours" rides) are within the MAGIC KINGDOM, The Holy Ground! That's the difference.:) Even so, "Hollywood Studios" was started as a "Disney-MGM" park. What does MGM have to do with Indy? Nothing. The Epic Stunt Spectacular should be in a Paramount park.:whip:

(Yes, Forbidden, there is indeed a "Hollywood Studios" at Disneyland Paris. I went to it and had a lot of fun. My girlfriend would not go on the "Tower of Terror":eek: so I went alone. Awesome!)
Forbidden Eye said:
You ask when will it stop, but really, beyond Lucas has it really progressed? Since Pixar is releasing hit after hit, most of the new attractions come from there. So its just really a non-issue.

Disney did buy Marvel, so I suppose we'll eventually see Marvel characters in the parks, but since they've been seen at Universal parks before that, it'll be quite a while before kids will be getting an Iron Man ride or getting Spider-man's autograph. And even then, I'm sure they'll only be place in proper places like Disney Hollywood Studios.

While I saw Star Wars prior the riding Star Tours, the Indiana Jones ride was the real reason I got into Indiana Jones. I know I'm not the only one with that experience, as Indiana Jones isn't as subversive as Star Wars is. So Disney gets some extra money from people who aren't into "Disney" as others as well as from the merchandise, while Lucas and Spielberg benefit by having their franchise have a life beyond just the movies(as well as probably making a dime from everyone who walks in the park or something).

I think you just need to accept that while you have reservations about it, that its mostly just you as there isn't really much to argue with. When the creators of this franchise are embracing it its only natural being against Indiana Jones' exposure to the parks is a minority among most fans.
You say it's a non-issue but then go on about Marvel. Disney's acquisition of Marvel is exactly what I mean when I ask, "When will it stop?"

Believe me, my objection to having Indy rides at Disney wouldn't stop me from $pendng ca$h to experience them. I DID go on the Indy & Star Wars rides in Paris, am jealous of my brother for seeing the Epic Stunt Spectacular and am kicking myself for choosing to visit Universal Studios in L.A. instead of Disneyland. "Temple of the Forbidden Eye" is on my life's to-do list!;)

I'm well aware about the money-making a$pect of the whole affair (see: post #28) but feel that the artistic integrity of "Raiders" is being forsaken by associating Indy with Disney. I also have a strong aversion to the fact that somewhere down the road, some kids too young to know better (or an alien), whose first exposure to Indy is via a Disney attraction, might believe that Indiana Jones is a Disney product.:eek:

Child: mommy daddy, da indi ride wuz reely good. can we watch an indi moovie on da disnee channel?
Mom: No, my little munchkin, we can't. Sorry, dear.
Dad: Sorry, son, but we can watch them on DVD! Ready to see a man getting his heart ripped out and another one getting shot in the head?:gun:
 
Last edited:
Top