Who'd have thunk that these new streaming services would have to go back and account for past prejudices? Talk about paying for the sins of your fathers. This is more like paying for the sins of your grandfathers. And their grandfathers.
But it must be done, apparently. This is the age in which we live. But some folks are better at solving the predicaments of modern living. And should be complimented, and perhaps studied for more clues. The rest of us are tip-toeing through this minefield, and would like to understand, too.
Disney+ is a "thing" these days, although some of us graybeards wouldn't know where to find it. Perhaps it has something to do with a smartphone or laptop. But it's all the rage with those who aren't Luddites. Those studios and companies that produce movies and TV shows want folks to pay for their product, and--trust us--we know why. Movies cost more than your daily newspaper to get to market. And if Disney, or anybody else, wants folks to sign up, log in, and compensate the company for its films, glory be, let the business world turn.
And there are other companies going in that direction. The papers are beginning to talk of "streaming wars." And the more salable products those media companies can put out there, the more money they might make. They might even go back and offer old movies and shorts from back in the day. Nostalgia sells, too. Where is Happy Days when you need a fix?
With that ability, however, comes the aforementioned minefield. Imagine showing an old Tom & Jerry cartoon, including the ones with the stereotypical lady of the house who's afraid of mice. Or the one in which old Tom gets an exploding cigar, and is left with blackface after the blast. Oh, Lord, we remember a Warner Bros. short that featured an African pygmy with a bone in his hair. Today, this would not do.
With its release of the original Dumbo, Disney+ added this to the movie's description, for all the streaming world to see: "This program is presented as originally created. It may contain outdated cultural depictions."
You said it, brother.
Warner Bros. went further, and did a better job, with its message to viewers: "The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While these cartoons do not represent today's society, they are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be that same as claiming these prejudices never existed."
That's the way to do that. Then, let the movie/short/cartoon play.
We the People are smart enough. A friendly reminder that things weren't always modern is enough. It certainly beats censorship. Which reminds us, has anybody seen Song of the South lately? It was winning Academy Awards in the 40s, but the entire movie is considered verboten today. In fact, has anybody younger than 50 ever heard of Uncle Remus or Brer Rabbit? Or understand where the phrase "zippity do dah" came from?
We saw a MAS*H episode a while back that wouldn't work today, either. In this particular installment, Hawkeye not only sexually harrassed a nurse through the entire scene, but did so in front of his boss, and her boss. But we can remember the women of our household in the 1970s: That Hawkeye! Such a card! Today, he'd be tarred and feathered, or at least the TV show's producers would be.
Society evolves. The past doesn't. If modern Americans are going to look upon past entertainment--streaming archives, as it were--we have to come to the conclusion that the writers, actors and cartoonists were products of their time. Just as today's writers can quote Mencken or Twain or Dickens without endorsing some of their views, so can modern viewers watch a Disney flick from the World War II era without clutching our collective pearls. Or, worse, banning the films completely.
We can do this. Warner Bros. showed us how.
Editorial on 11/15/2019