Was Walt Disney A Saint, An Evil Sinner Or The Devil Incarnate? The Truth About Some Of Those Nasty Disney Stories!

Some rumors regarding Walt Disney have lived on far too long. Was he a Nazi? A super-secret FBI agent? Is he frozen somewhere in a vault? And why does the Christian right hate his company so much? Karl F. Cohen takes on all these myths and more to set the record straight.

Walt Disney and his corporation are either one of the most evil companies in the world or they have become the subject of countless false rumors, lies and hoaxes. Conservative preachers have warned their followers not to pollute their minds with the company's products and to boycott their theme parks. The National Enquirer has run numerous exposés including one article that began, "Walt Disney was one of America's most admired geniuses. But behind the scenes, he was a hard-drinking drug user whose behavior was so weird his brother Roy feared he was crazy!" Books and magazine articles claiming to reveal the truth have labeled the man an illegitimate child, an FBI spy, a Nazi sympathizer and many other shocking things.

To understand why so many people are fascinated with spurious facts about the man and his company, one should look at their history. In the early 1930s Mickey Mouse went from being a troublemaker to become a virtuous member of society who could do no wrong. By the mid-30s the company's films were always wholesome family entertainment. In the '50s the company's TV shows further perpetuated their wholesome image by creating the myth that the first theme park was "the happiest place on earth." Walt's TV image was that of the perfect father or uncle. The public seems to have forgotten that the studio produced hard-hitting war propaganda that taught us to hate our enemies during WWII and that there was a nasty strike at the cartoon factory in 1941.

No other Hollywood studio has the carefully manicured reputation that Disney spent years cultivating. As a result when other companies create controversial product, nobody seems to care. When Disney does something slightly irreverent, conservative family oriented pressure groups can and will protest. The problem is Disney has carefully created an image that is hard to live up to all the time. It is known to employees of the company as "The Franchise" and it stands for quality, wholesome entertainment.

When Disney doesn't live up to its image and the press becomes aware there is a problem, it is news. When a few people protested the release of Song of the South as a racist film in 1946, it was reported in many papers, but not on page one. By the time Hippies held an uninvited "be-in" at Disneyland in the late '60s, the park's overreaction to the "Hippie invasion" was front page news across our nation. When wildlife was killed by gardeners using and/or disposing of pesticides incorrectly in Florida, the company was labeled an enemy of the ecology movement and for several months the press seemed to take delight in revealing every human error that they became aware of at Disney parks.

I maintain that certain members of the clergy, press and other groups and individuals have, over the years, exploited the public's fascination with the company to further their own self-interests. In some cases they have deliberately created false rumors. While some stories were probably started as harmless forms of humor, others appear to have been fabricated and/or spread by religious leaders to strengthen their point of view. What is even worse are elaborate hoaxes published in books and articles that report fascinating facts that scholars find impossible to confirm, but in some cases are easy to disprove. The sad thing is that a gullible public rarely learns they have been fed a lot of misinformation, so false myths become "well known facts." For instance, my wife has a 95 year-old aunt who once told me that she is sure Elvis is alive.







Comments


It is a shame that given the opportunity to write about Disney, Karl F. Cohen wastes the chance to really discuss the problems Disney has caused. It would have been far more interesting for him to discuss the way animation has now become dominated by the 'Disney look' and how this look has effected the aesthetic of world animation. For most viewers outside of America the stance taken by the extreme right and church groups is just a reflection of the bigger soical problems america has. The real problem with Disney is that they produce bland rubbish. The edge of the early work has long since gone to be replaced by a corporate animation that offends no one (Apart from the nutters on the extreme right.) and says very little. The viewer is only required to sit passively and is never questioned or challenged by the work that is shown. I am talking about the animation that is produced and has now become a huge glode product. It seems that Disney animation is really only about making money and nothing to do with art, aesthetics or creativity. Animation that actually steps outside of this normal is rare on the ground, never shown in mainstream cinemas and is usually labelled alternative. If we look at what passes for major works of animation the vast majority has a look, storyline and content that really never changes. Sit and compare Dreamworks animation to Disney and one would not know who produced what. All I can say is thank god there is still a strong tradition of european animation that still requires the viewer to think and not be a passive viewer.
Tim Gray (not verified) | Thu, 08/08/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
I found this article to be somewhat biased as well. Karl talks about certain things found in the Disney animated films (for kids, remember that) and dismisses them like it's no big deal. Oh just two frames of a topless woman and saying to face the facts of buildings are considered phallic??? Please excuse me, but I've never seen a building look the one shown on the cover of the little mermaid. When it involves kids, there's just no excuse. No excuse. I also can't believe that the writer has not seen the dust written word "sex" in the Lion King. I only found it when I heard this "rumor", and tried to check it out for myself. It was very easy to find, and I was just in shock when I saw it. Come on, what are we supposed to do when this kind of stuff happens? Dismiss it and say "Oh so and so has it in for Disney and they're just trying to find anything wrong with the company because they don't like them". No there's a reason and thank God for those people that see those things, else kids are being fed with this crap. And I think a very honest question is WHY?
George (not verified) | Mon, 08/05/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
Great article ... nice to see someone else defend Walt besides me. On the Nazi issue, I would point out a fact I learned from "Walt Disney - The Man Behind The Myth," a special I saw on cable: Concerned with the rumors while considering presenting Walt with an award, the B'nai Brith Assoc (not sure of spelling) investigated him thoroughly and found the stories to be utterly baseless. To me, the idea is so ignorant ... oh, yeah, a Nazi would create "Der Fuerer's Face" and shut down production on features to produce military training films and adverts for War Bonds instead. It doesn't surprise me that Wildmon and the AFA have a stick up their behinds, this is the same moron who ruined "The Real Ghostbusters" with his comments about Janine being "too slutty" and Egon's science-speak being too heady (for him and his sheep, maybe) and the ghosts being too scary (hello, they're ghosts, isn't that the point?)... that's why succesive seasons became mindless drivel. He thought that Mighty Mouse sniffing a flower constituted drug references. If he's not smart enough to come live in the 21st century (or even the 20th) with the rest of us, he shouldn't try to influence TV, an invention that obviously frightens and confuses Mr. Unfrozen Caveman Preacher. Speaking of frozen, if all those sheep can believe in a 2000+ year-old book of fairy tales/moral plays, I can believe the coffin is really a cryogenic device ... makes about as much sense and has as much basis in fact, with a much happier outcome ... I'd love to see Walt come back and kick his ungrateful Nephew's butt up between his shoulders for that "Kiddy crap" remark Roy Edward made in the LA Times in '80 or '81, when he wanted to shut down the animation studio permanently. Eisner needs a boot to the head, too, for not giving credit where it is due to Tezuka for borrowing so much from "Kimba The White Lion" to bring us "The Lion King." If you don't believe me on this count, just watch the first episode of Kimba, and the episode where Claw (a dark brown lion with a black mane and one injured eye) is introduced, with his hyena henchmen ... you'll see that 90% of the film comes from this anime classic. Ah, well, Walt was an angel too good for this Earth, the rest of us are just imperfect mortals.
Nora Salisbury (not verified) | Fri, 08/02/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
I find it interesting as I read the article and than read the view points of those that have posted their comments. It seems people are quick to get on a bandwagon no matter what the flag above that wagon is flying. This also relates to the writer of the article. I find that Karl F. Cohen seems to have a chip on his shoulder towards the AFA. Most of the article I find bais based upon how Karl wants to view Disney the person and the organization. If this was an article about Walt himself there is no reason to go into AFA and their views about Disney the corp. machine. I agree with someone else about Bob Thomas's WALT DISNEY:AN AMERICAN ORIGINAL. I thought that was a good show and vary balanced with lots of facts from both positive and negative about the man. I read this piece with a grain of salt. Overall it had some interesting points but does not really do what the title says and that is to dispell rumors. I think Karl is to close to the subject and holds it to dear to his heart to be able to objectively look at the facts and report just as that facts not personal opinions.
charles (not verified) | Thu, 08/01/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
Hey Karl, was going to send an email congratulating you on the article, but then figured I should do it in "public." You're good at sorting the facts, without hyperbole. And I say that as someone not particularly predisposed towards the Disney aesthetic, or Disney as a corporate conglomerate. It's funny how people often have to wrap their cultural complaints in character assassination; it shows a real shallowness of argument. Also, I agree with the poster below: we should all draw the line at Disney promoting gay admirals. That's clearly a violation of the "Don't ask / Don't tell" policy.
Chris Lanier (not verified) | Mon, 07/29/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
I really enjoyed this article. It was well put together. I just have one problem. Why is it that parents have a problem with Disney but they let their kids see and read books such as Harry Potter?
Pharra (not verified) | Mon, 07/29/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
Paul Naas is absolutely correct (as he has been many times in the past when I was proud to be his co-instructor teaching animation at the Disney Institute). First, that this is a very well written and accurate article (which, of course, goes without saying for anything that Karl Cohen has written. Karl's contribution to animation history is much appreciated). Second, that it is a much needed article to be written. We have at least a generation or two who did not grow up watching Walt Disney on television every Sunday night. Working with college students, I can inform you that the majority of them are under the impression that Walt Disney is either like Betty Crocker or Colonel Sanders. Either completely "made up" or a real person who was merely a figurehead and not involved in the day-to-day decision making. For them, Walt Disney was not a real human but a mythological figure like Paul Bunyan. As a result, these "stories" are very hurtful because they feed that mythological image. I know for a fact that it is extremely hurtful to the Disney family if someone comments on whether Walt was frozen or not. (A simple search on the internet can provide you with Walt's death certificate along with a very clear official signature that Walt was cremated. When Walt passed away, he lay in his hospital bed for hours for the family to say its final good-byes. Certainly not something to do with a body to be cryogenically frozen.) Just like Elvis, it is hard for us to accept that Walt is gone because he had so much more to do and share. I tell folks that the only Disney On Ice is the Feld Entertainment show that performs in your hometown. Walt was not always a pleasant person and certainly not a perfect person but his ideas have an even greater impact on the world today than when he was alive. That type of power scares a lot of folks and the natural tendency is to lash out at it and to try to find flaws that we ignore in other products. (Does anyone recall and is still outraged by the subliminal images that were being put into GARFIELD cartoons like one frame of the Statue of Liberty as a joke?) Because of Walt Disney, we all expect more from the Disney Company. We expect a functional satisfaction (that it delivers what it says it will deliver) and an emotional satisfaction (the way it goes about delivering it). By the way, Walt COULD draw Mickey Mouse and often did up until his death although without the polish of a Freddy Moore. However, Walt could not draw Donald Duck or any of the other Disney characters on model to save his soul. I think the closest document we have today about Walt Disney is Bob Thomas's WALT DISNEY:AN AMERICAN ORIGINAL that is a well-balanced presentation of the virtues and vices of Walt Disney without wallowing in either.
Jim Korkis (not verified) | Mon, 07/29/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
I will agree some of the things said about Disney are blown out of proportion, but some are not. I am especially very unhappy about the latest family friendly Disney film. They condone cloning, voodoo, cross dressing, and praying to a fallen star. Please don't say any of this is my imagination, because I watched the movie very closely. I am a big Disney fan. We are DVC members, belong to our local Disney club, WDCC member, etc. We go to at least 1 or 2 conventions a year. A minimum of 2 trips to the parks a year. But I do think Disney should not allow many of their totally far left animators to push their political agenda on a very trusting audience. The article rants about the religious right doing something that is perfectly legal. Boycotting is one way to make a point, and the animators putting the above mentioned causes into child films is another. And I think you mislead people about the Gay Day's at Disney. Nobody has said Gay's cannot go to Disney, but to promote that lifestyle as something admiral is also promoting an agenda. I have heard many stories about the inappropriate behavior that is displayed in front of young children. And nobody says anything for fear of offending the offenders. This is one of the reasons behind why the groups who oppose Disney call for boycotts, because a place that was meant to be the happiest place in the world for children and families promotes lowers their standards so badly.
Cynthia Langewisch (not verified) | Sun, 07/28/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
Terrific article - I think both of the first posters missed the point. Yes, Disney has become a giant media conglomerate, but that's a fairly recent development, and happened decades after Walt's death. If the second poster sees Karl's article as negative, then he either didn't read it or didn't read it carefully enough. It's purpose is to dispel some of the rumors and false stories surrounding Walt's life. I'd encourage this fellow to go back and read it again. The problem with letting some of these rumors continue unchallenged is that sooner or later they become accepted as fact. For example, we all "know" that Mama Cass died by choking on a ham sandwich. We've all heard the story - problem is, it's not true. The same thing applies to these unsubstantiated rumors about Walt Disney. The longer they're out there unchallenged, the more they gain credibility, until they're perceived as "true". One correction - the web site mentioned in the article is www.snopes.com.
Paul Naas (not verified) | Sat, 07/27/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink
Thanks for the informative article. When I tell people I dont care for Disney, I get all sorts of weird reactions. Of course they arent thinking about the man. They are thinking about the cute little mouse and all the fluffy little characters that they buy along with their happy meals. I dont care about Disney the man. What I do care about is Disney the corporation and what it is doing to the media industry and to western culture. I don't care about Disney's attitude on homosexuality or religion. I am concerned about an expanding monopoly and its uncontrolled influence of movies and televion. Imagine an entire generation raised with only the Disney animated versions of classic stories. Imagine one company able to rewrite history with its releases of "Pocahontas" or "Pearl Harbor" Imagine Disney's dominance in the media and marketing industry. Imagine a company so powerful that they can buy New York City's 42nd street. Mickey Mouse is just an icon. No personality, no values with the exception of greed and expansion.
Karl Koeller (not verified) | Fri, 07/26/2002 - 00:00 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.