MyAmericanFuture

MyAmericanFuture
MyAmericanFuture

Monday, April 14, 2014

April 14, 2014: Animated History: Doctor Propaganda

[Inspired by my recent viewings of The Lego Movie and Frozen with my boys, a series on what animated films (including those two) can help us AmericanStudy. Leading up to a special Guest Post on a particularly complex and under-appreciated American animator!]
On an icon’s surprising starting points.
As I wrote in one of my earliest posts, it’s possible to read The Cat in the Hat (1957) as particularly radical in its portrayals of family and gender roles (especially in relationship to dominant 1950s images and narratives). But even if you don’t subscribe to that reading of Cat, it’d be very difficult to argue that its author, Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel), didn’t have a substantial and generally very radical impact on the world of children’s books and animation—not just in his voice and style, his silliness and playfulness, his breaking of virtually every formal and generic rule, but also in his subtle but frequent inclusion of progressive themes and morals, including prominently the anti-Cold War (and anti-war period) ethics of The Butter Battle Book, among many other such messages.
Which makes it that much harder to grapple with the fact that Geisel got his start crafting animated propaganda films for the military during and after World War II. But he did—first making army training films (featuring the cautionary tales of one Private Snafu) as part of Frank Capra’s Signal Corps (the organization that produced the most prominent U.S. WWII propaganda, the epic eight-part Why We Fight series), then branching out into even more overt anti-Axis propaganda works. Geisel even continued to make such films in the aftermath of the war, creating works to be distributed to soldiers in occupied post-war Germany. To call these films propaganda isn’t to critique them, necessarily—the term has come to be used pejoratively much of the time, but at its core it’s simply descriptive, a categorization of works that are overtly designed to further political purposes. Geisel’s World War II works were precisely that, and achieved their purposes clearly and convincingly.
As the Capra reference indicates, Geisel was far from alone as an artist who enlisted in the war effort—in fact, he was more the norm than the exception. Moreover, it’s even possible to link his World War II works directly to (for example) his later anti-Cold War messages, since in both cases he could be seen as opposing the proliferation of violence and war (in the first case by the Axis powers, in the second by the Cold War superpowers). But for me, the problem is more one of style—whatever else we say about propaganda films, they are by design and necessity both straightforward and conservative, neither of which are terms that we would likely apply to most of Seuss’s subsequent children’s books and works. Of course we can simply say that Seuss evolved and changed, as does any artist (especially a talented one) over the length of a long career. But we also have to consider that each stage of Seuss’s career tells us something about the man and his work, and can’t dismiss or minimize the first stage just because it doesn’t line up with how we (or at least I) like to think of him.
Next animated history tomorrow,
Ben
PS. What do you think? Thoughts on this film, or other animated histories and stories you’d highlight?

2 comments:

  1. Big fan of animation, but concerned when it aims its morality tales at children as did Disney in his Education of Death (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l14WDZCnz-w). Not going to say that teaching children that dictatorship such as Nazi Germany are bad, but to blatantly paint the people living in that country, under that government, as black and white two-dimensional figures does neither the subject nor viewer justice. While NO ONE (I hope at least) is going to jump to defend Hitler, the cartoonist still use this over-simplified two-dimensional view of American politics as well, such as Make Mine Freedom by Harding University (then College) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH4j5NiJAiE) who aimed their anti-socialist propaganda straight at children. I'm all for public education, but not indoctrination. Can't Daffy just be... well, Daffy?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed on all counts, Anne. Geisel's WW2 films were mostly for soldiers and/or adults (at least officially), but I would still agree that animation by its nature has that ability to speak to kids in a very particular and effective way, making any propaganda (even justified propaganda) very troubling in that form.

    Thanks,
    Ben

    ReplyDelete