In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Milk a Cow | Michael Yates Michael Yates University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown Mikey@vms.cis.pitt.edu Milk a Cow Karl E. Cohen. Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and BlacklistedAnimators in America. McFarland, 1997. ($35.00) In this interesting and informative book, Karl Cohen takes an in-depth look at censorship in the world ofanimation . Using original sources and interviews as well as what appears to be all of the secondary literature on the subject, he scrutinizes both the history and the struggles of the animators to make their art. He also includes chapters on the use and demise ofracist images and on artists who were blacklisted because oftheir union activities and political beliefs. In the early days, there was little in the way ofcensorship and animators began to create an exciting and adult body of work. These cartoons were an ideal vehicle to poke fun at the nation's often hypocritical mores. Sometimes slightly risque, other times somewhat raunchy (with plenty ofbarnyard humor because many ofcharacters were animals,) animation's uncensored heyday was in the early 1930's. From 1930 to 1934, in Betty Boop films, it was possible to see cartoon characters uttering profanity, spitting and making obscene gestures . Sexual references were also found, while alcohol and drugs were mentioned in some shorts. There were even a few gags that referred to homosexuality, bondage, and bestiality, (p. 13) These photoplays produced a reaction from avariety of groups (not only religious organizations such as the Catholic National Legion of Decency but political officials as well) and soon censorship was in full swing. One justification was, according to the Motion Picture Code, that films might be "directly responsible for spiritual or moral progress, for higher types of social life and much correct thinking." Of course, it could not be left up to the animators, themselves, or the viewers to decide just what this meant. The extent ofcensorship has been truly amazing. A Disney film, The Shindigwas banned by the state of Ohio "because it showed a naked cow." A Popeye cartoon in which Popeye has to wriggle to get a can of spinach out of his pocket had to be changed to avoid any hint of"sexual promiscuity." Walter Lantz, creator of Woody Woodpecker said in a magazine article that Woody could not "lie, drink anything stronger than root beer, kiss a gal, be unkind to old people, or milk a cow," among many others. In the face of official censorship, most animators simply began to govern themselves rather than risk troubles with the studios and most studios did the same rather than have their cartoons condemned by the Hays Office (Hollywood's regulatory agency) and denied distribution. Negative racial and ethnic stereotypes were as common in animation as they were in the movies. Cohen's chapter on this subject gives plenty ofexamples ofthis odious practice, but his focus is on how stereotyping was attacked by the injured groups and eventually eliminated. In this section, and in other parts ofthe book, the author cites instances where the laudable desire to end racism generates some new forms ofcensorship . Films that are antiracist, such as Ralph Bakshi's Coonskin have been attacked as racist and hurt financially and denied wider distribution. Some animators may even hesitate to use images that they think might offend anyone because they fear numerous accusations. Similar fears have kept racist films from the past from being shown (such as the anti-Japanese World War Two propaganda titles ) despite the obvious value of such works to historical understanding. While official censorship ended with court challenges in the 1960's, censorship by no means was over. Network television provided fertile ground, justified largely in terms ofprotecting innocent children. The story in television is much the same as that for films with numerous "don'ts." Here is a note sent to writers and producers by a Broadcast Standards and Practices Department: "Caution on the appearance ofthe 'snot.' As agreed at script stage, we expect this to look clear and shiny rather than thick, green and disgusting. As you know, any depiction ofnasal mucus brings with it questions of good/bad taste as well as problems for our Sales Division." (p. 141...

pdf

Share