Taking a Crack at Wisecrack’s Crack at Disney

I’ll begin this essay like all great commentaries with an anecdote about my reverence for the people I am about to disagree with.  I found Wisecrack almost 6 years ago with their series earthling cinema.  I loved it because it was great, brief  movie commentary and analysis without the pretentiousness due to the host being an alien that misinterpreted much of what Earth was about.  Since then I have popped in on Wisecrack videos here and there, but they’re kind of long and always making these long connections to some Icelandic philosopher and at a certain point its like, it’s just Flubber man, it ain’t that deep.  But they are obviously a team made up of intellectual people that love pop culture, talking about it, and always finding something new to look for within it and that is commendable work.  But this time they’ve gone too far, nobody attacks Disney!  Nah, just kidding.  I just disagree with almost everything in this video.

Here’s the video so we can be on the same page:

So four days ago Wisecrack released a video that I just saw this morning entitled “How Disney Ruined Culture”.  This is a pretty expansive and morose indictment to make on a company that has helped to define American culture, but I’ll give them the click bait benefit of the doubt because the video doesn’t really even claim this.   I’ll be honest, I didn’t like the title and opened the video not looking to learn something, but for a fight, I knew I was not going to agree and after watching it three times I still don’t.  The video begins with a short history lesson about Walt Disney and how in spite of losing Oswald the Lucky Rabbit, he vowed never to be screwed by a company again. Wisecrack states that from then on and after the release of the tremendously successful Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Disney developed a formula, find an existing story, make it cute and wholesome, and become a gazillionaire.  This is my first grievance with the video.  They do say that Walt Disney had an aesthetic, but they never give him any creative credit for it, they are only suspicious of it stating (Walt Disney was) “ruthless in his quest to make all things adorable.”  But it can’t be because that was the style of his and his animators, but because he was trying to brainwash the country into coming back to his movies time and time again.  Isn’t it possible that Walt Disney’s aesthetic aligned with the people, just because it did?  Because it was good art the likes of which they had not seen before?  Or should Disney be intentionally be creating ugly sick figures with nosebleeds.  Calling it uncute because so many people like it is ridiculous.  There was no blueprint on how to make the highest grossing sound film of all time.  Especially not a feature length animated one because it had never been done before.  What Disney did know was that people like to look at cute characters, wow I wonder where he could have possibly come up with that one, this just in people prefer to look at nice as opposed to ugly (all the while the witch character is about as ugly an animated creature has ever been).

The video goes on to try and claim that the Disney adaptation of the folk tale Pinocchio is a whitewashed retelling of its source material and even though it is cleaned up for 1940’s audiences, I disagree that the same moral isn’t there.  Wisecrack says the the original’s author Carlo Collodi never wanted to give his readers the warm fuzzy feeling the Disney adaptation delivers.  Collodi’s ends with Pinocchio hanging dead from a tree…. I’m sure it fit with the tone of the rest of the tale, and Wisecrack sums it up well reinforcing this, but simultaneously they are trying to contrast it to the Disney film.  Wisecrack says “There is still something unsettling about how a media giant like Disney can take a beloved fairy tale purge it of its original intentions and rewrite the narrative in our collective memories” and this quote really bugs me for a couple of reasons. The original is darker and it goes much harder when it comes to punishing Pinocchio, but Walt Disney’s keeps the message.  It makes us ashamed of Pinocchio and his disobedience, and finally puts Pinocchio to the test where he ends up giving his little wooden life for Geppetto.  It doesn’t need stabbings, hangings, and misapprehended murderers to assert its point.  “There is still something unsettling about how a media giant like Disney can take a beloved fairy tale purge it of its original intentions and rewrite the narrative in our collective memories” ugh I really hate this.  Wisecrack is mad that Disney had the foresight to know that if he wanted to make a movie based on a really dark and satirical Italian folk tale, he would probably have to clean it up a little to allow it to fit and succeed with modern sensibilities.  How dare someone want to make a successful film?  Wisecrack even admits that they understand people wouldn’t want their kids watching a movie that ends with a gruesome hanging, but then why isn’t the same story without the grave obscenities sufficient?  Pinocchio does bad things, Pinocchio is punished, that is the basis of both stories except in Disney’s he makes a sacrifice and is rewarded, think of it as an epilogue if you must.  “There is still something unsettling about how a media giant like Disney can take a beloved fairy tale purge it of its original intentions and rewrite the narrative in our collective memories.”  Beloved fairy tale?  About a minute ago you were just telling us about all of the angry fan mail Carlo Collodi received because of the grim ending of Pinocchio and he ended up bringing the puppet back to life to continue the series.  Even back when it was released people were still not receptive of his ending.  Now, as a writer, he is allowed to write whatever book he sees fit and as far as I know nobody lethally forced him to bring Pinocchio back to life, so what does that say about his own artistic creed?  He’s just going to let the audience tell him what to write and continue the series?  What could be the reason for that?  Maybe to sell more books?  Last time, “There is still something unsettling about how a media giant like Disney can take a beloved fairy tale purge it of its original intentions and rewrite the narrative in our collective memories”.  This last part about our collective memories.  That is on you and your parents, go ahead and read the original if you wish, it’s out there and no one is stopping you.  I won’t be so ignorant to say that Disney movies don’t have a great influence on us, but to blame them for your recollection of the story of Pinocchio.  It is Disney’s Pinocchio.  In the opening credits of the film it states “From the story by Collodi.”  If you want to hunt down the original be my guest, it’ll hardly require a bloodhound.  I don’t know how you get more widespread than being considered a classic, one of the best selling books ever published, and being the most translated non religious book in the world.  Disney wanted to put his own spin on it and because of it you think the world missed out on a hanged puppet.  

Thankfully at around the nine minute mark Wisecrack conceded that Disney’s adaptation is… and adaptation “artists are allowed to adapt”.  Wisecrack goes on to cite There Will Be Blood as one of the best examples of an adaptation that deviated heavily from its source material to make something new and fantastic.  “Nobody would accuse Paul Thomas Anderson of whitewashing Oil!”  Honestly, based on your claims in this video you’re starting to make me think that there probably are some Sinclair purists out there that resent and want nothing to do with the P.T. Anderson picture.  Someone is always going to complain and I really think you’re doing the same to Disney, just because they are so big, which you do get into right now.  Wisecrack thinks (part of) the difference is in Disney’s formula and scale.  “PTA hasn’t created a billion dollar industry stripping stories of their content and replacing them with a deranged Daniel Day Lewis.”  Again, I disagree with this claim of Disney pillaging ancient tales and transmogrifying them like someone making The Teletubbies out of Taxi Driver.  Not that they have to, but they absolutely keep the morals alive and as the engine of these films.  Sorry for the short digression, back to the other sect of this rant.  PTA, There Will Be Blood, great filmmaker, great film, terrible argument by Wisecrack.  Let’s just say Paul Thomas Anderson did decide to make an Upton Sinclair cinematic universe using Oil!, The Jungle, and Dragon’s Teeth and let’s say that they made a combined 3 billion dollars at the box office over the course of ten years.  Does that now make them bad?  Is There Will Be Blood no longer a masterpiece because the filmmaker decided to be inspired by other works of Sinclair and found a method of filmmaking that suited the style and he was monetarily rewarded for his creation with tremendous box office success?  Are they no longer good movies?  If PTA can do it once, then Disney should be able to do it as many times as they want.  An adaptation is an adaptation and if the people flock to them, that’s all there is to it.  The formula only works when the movies are good or if the people go to them.  If the films stop being pleasing for the audience then the scale shrinks and the formula retooled.  Wisecrack makes it seem like they bought this formula from Fellinius, the Greek god of movies and he told the if you make movies exactly like this you’ll have a media empire in less than 100 years.  The formula in which you speak is still a movie made by hundreds of artists hard workers that have to start with nothing, or an old nursery rhyme that’ unfit for a feature length movie because the goose character is murdered by a half bull half elf with an oedipus complex.  It takes them years to do all of this and to try and boil it down to a formula and a sausage factory is reductive and narrow.  What’s the original plot of Beauty and the Beast?  I just read the plot on Wikipedia and it’s pretty much the same.  You know what else I saw?  A version by someone named Beaumont as well as variants from all of the world.  Everyone’s got there own version of this story so why can’t there be one with a musical led by a candelabra?  I happen to really like that version.  

Wisecrack goes on to list every animated feature and tell us the astounding news that they are adaptations.  Gasp!  There is a segment about The Little Mermaid,but it is pretty much just like the Pinocchio segment so I don’t think I’ll get into it.  Maybe a little.  Wisecrack talks about how the original version had dark religious overtones and I’m wondering why on Earth Disney would begin their renaissance with a children’s film that has an eerie lingering religious context.  And based on their explanation I think I might agree with the original’s ending more, how she should be saved by sacrifice, not falling in love (even though Pinocchio’s sacrifice wasn’t good enough for you).  Again in Wisecrack’s defense they talk about how Disney’s stock may have not have seen the same altitude had they gone with Hans Christian Andersen’s idea.  His story sounds great too to be honest, much darker, more realistic, and human, but there is nothing stopping anyone from making that movie.  Wisecrack could start shooting their gritty indie Little Mermaid tomorrow if they have such a problem with it.  As much as people like to think Disney could buy every stdio in the world, but they can’t have a full monopoly (even though they are pretty close).  As long as they don’t buy YouTube and Wisecrack has their channel or a website, they can release their Little Mermaid and the people can decide for themselves what they want their version to be.  And that’s another thing, individuals have their own versions of things.  An avid Marvel reader in 1992 would have the original Infinity War be his version of the story whereas a 7 year old in 2018 would have the Marvel Studios film be his.  There is no right or wrong.  They do continue to ramble off examples like Pocahontas, which they call a bad history lesson.  First of all, who is going to these movies with a pad, pen, a globe, hoping to ace their history test the next day?  They are entertainment, it is up to them, their parents, teachers whoever to tell them what really happened.  Pocahontas and John Smith are just familiar names dedicated to an idea of a Native American and a pilgrim.  And if someone does go through the first quarter of their life thinking it’s real, that’s on them, they look stupid for a minute, so what?  No company that makes children’s movies is going to make the film about colonists kidnapping Pocahontas and murdering her husband.  Faithfulness to the old stories can’t be gospel if the current artists are going to retell them with carte blanche.  They are for inspirational purposes so that the company that has the rights to make a film out of them can then create 90 minutes of fun for the whole family.  Wisecrack then makes one of their most ludicrous claims by saying these movies that “polish off any rough and unsavory edges” can be harmful to developing minds.  Wisecrack is kidding themselves when they try to say that Disney movies are basically one big happy game of Candy Land.  Mufassa in the stampede.  Need I say more?  Ursula is terrifying, Jafar is sinister, Maleficent is cunning and relentless, the evil step mother is a psychological torment, pick a villain these movies aren’t always so happy.  In the beginning of Frozen Anna and Elsa lose their parents after a happy montage!  So what are you on about?  Why is it that they need to be as creepy as your precious folk tales, they are a different kind of realistic and harsh and disturbing.  Pinocchio does not have a bland wholesome narrative, he washes up ashore dead.  Ursulla cons Ariel into singing a losing contract and steals her voice to seduce Prince Eric for herself, how is that bubbly and wholesome?  Then Wisecrack proceeds to cite a a Psychologist, Susan Darker-Smith who stated that young girls who identify with characters such as Cinderella or Belle are more likely to end up in abusive relationships as adults.  With the belief that ‘if their love is strong enough they can change their partner’s behavior’.  This brings Wisecrack to the crux of their argument.  “Ironically by peddling a convenient narrative in which all the world’s problems can be solved by true love, Disney fails to give children any tools for navigating real life problems.  And that was kind of the whole point of fairy tales, to convey the darker and crueler aspects of life so as to better prepare children for the realities of adulthood.”  Well said and it would be ironic if it were true.  The psychologist uses Belle and Cinderella as examples so I will too.  In Cinderella she is thrown away into the tower of her own home after this cruel woman who married her father takes over the manor after his unexpected death.  The step-mother is driven by jealousy of Cinderella and forces her to be the maid in her own home on top of just treating her like dirt.  Cinderella does treat the woman respectfully and is optimistic about the future.  She is eventually rewarded by a fairy godmother who helps her get to the ball.  Once there it is her beauty, charm, and pleasantness that allows the prince to fall in love with her and they live happily ever after.  Cinderella does keep her graceful demeanor even in the wake of her horrid step-mother and I suppose she supposes if she remains nice maybe her step-mother will change, but what is the alternative?  She is rude right back to the step mother?  Where would that get her, probably just more house work and a sleeping bag outside.  Cinderella is riding the status quo, but it is her good nature that eventually gets her out of the situation.  Not because of love bending behavior, but because she’s a quality person and once the world learned of her, she was exposed to a better class of people whom she could spend her time with.  Belle on the other hand absolutely wanted to change Beast’s behavior.  He of course was mean and coarse and unrefined and ultimately it is her love for her that changes him into a prince, even though he was a good guy all along, underneath.  This could ultimately be a case of Stockholm syndrome, but it doesn’t mean it’s a bad example for kids.  It’s a story about not judging a book by its cover, getting to know people before you fully judge them.  Beast was kind of a jerk and Belle had no interest in pursuing a relationship but as they got to know each other she learned to love him and he sacrificed himself for her and her love brought the Beast back in his handsome price form.  I will say though that the Shrek version of this is a better message because if they’re in love physical appearances should not matter, but that’s not being contested right now. 
In addition Belle rejected Gaston who is is abusive yet desired by the rest of the town, so she did exercise good judgement by renouncing him.  I guess an interesting movie could have been what would happen if Belle was Gaston’s prisoner, would she have t learn to love him?  Would he lighten up and become a better man?  Probably not.  Also, for the women that identified with these characters, if they are identifying with Belle and Cinderella does that not just make them somewhat destined to be in a relationship like this?  These movies did not tell them to be in an abusive relationship, but maybe they did represent their personalities on the screen for the children to grow up and manifest.  Some people have poor judgment in people and sadly get together with abusive monsters and probably should not give them second chances.  But it is commendable to see the best in people and not want to give up on them especially if there is love.  These situations are tragic, but is it Disney’s fault for creating Belle who was actually stuck with someone long enough for his rough edges to erode and they could fall in love?  I don’t think so.  

Finally the video ends on an economic note paraphrasing Milton Friedman saying that since Disney is a business they have no obligation to teach morality to their consumers, all they have to do is make money.

I hate how disgusted Wisecrack is with Disney’s cuteness, they treat it like it’s all an evil scheme to print money. But cuteness alone is not a great idea, cuteness does not make a movie, cuteness is a piece of the puzzle and yeah Olaf is cute and funny, but if he was the entire movie, Frozen would be hated.  Take the Minions movie for example 55% on Rotten Tomatoes and 49% audience score.  Of course these readings aren’t all telling but they get the point across.  The minions are cute, they’re tiny, they have a stupid language they’re a bright yellow with overalls, they’re evil henchmen, and yell banana in a throaty inflection.  That movie is all minion and it is terrible.  Maybe it’s fun for babies, but without a good enough story all they are is cute with diminishing returns.  It is not my intention to sound like some Disney white knight, I don’t love what they did with Star Wars either, but not because of a cuteness overload, just because it was severely rushed.  I especially don’t like them adapting their own movies word for word into live action pictures.  That is the type of adaptation I don’t condone because it is bereft of creativity, much unlike their 90’s and earlier counterparts.  The 130 billion dollar company does not need me to rush to its defense, but I will defend the right to adapt and make quality family entertainment.  Disney is an easy target because they are so big, but if they didn’t exist I am sure people would be finding some way to blame the Brothers Grimm for their hang ups.  And I really think you should consider changing the title of that video, it’s just so wrong.