AWN.com | Media Kit | Contact Us | Register | Log in | Forgot Membername/Password?

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.
By Karl Cohen | Friday, July 26, 2002 at 12:00 am

While touring to promote Snow White in Germany, Roy and Walt might have tried to recover lost money or to lobby Germany to lift its ban on U.S. films. © Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.
While touring to promote Snow White in Germany, Roy and Walt might have tried to recover lost money or to lobby Germany to lift its ban on U.S. films. © Disney Enterprises, Inc. All rights reserved.

The questionable theory that Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy comes from Charles Higham's book Errol Flynn, The Untold Story. Perhaps Eliot decided that if Higham could have his Nazi, he could have one too.

As for Walt the anti-Communist, he and other studio heads were called to testify before Congress in 1947 about Communist infiltration in the film industry. Walt's statements were sincere but somewhat naive. I doubt that he read a great deal about politics. A knowledgeable person might not have said, "I believe he is a Communist... I looked into his record and I found that No. 1, that he had no religion and No. 2, that he had spent considerable time at the Moscow Arts Theater studying art direction or something." He was then asked, "Any others Mr. Disney?" and he replied, "Well, I think Sorrell is sure tied up with them. If he isn't a Communist, he sure should be one." A few minutes later he said, "In my opinion they are Communists. No one has any way of proving those things." I do not believe his reasons for calling people Communists would hold up in a court of law, yet his public testimony did damage the careers of several people. His testimony was quoted in a successful campaign by conservatives to put Tempo, an animation studio in New York run by two of the four people Walt identified as Communists, out of business in the early 1950s.

Disney In The Coming Years
Considering Disney has become our nation's second largest media conglomerate, it is logical that the number of pot shots taken at this corporation will increase. Disney may eventually be the subject of exposés about giant corporations trying to control the media and the way we think, just as William Randolph Hearst has been the subject of several books and the feature Citizen Kane. I'm sure some ministers will continue to find fault with the corporation and tabloids will have lots more nasty stories to share with us in the coming years. That sort of journalism is stupid, however millions of people buy into that part of our culture so, unfortunately it will continue.

Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince by Marc Eliot. New York, NY: Birch Lane Press and Carol Publishing Group, 1963 ISBN 1-55972-174-X (US$21.95)

Karl Cohen teaches animation history at San Francisco State and is the author of Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, McFarland, 1997. Portions of this article are from his book and from his review of Eliot's book published in the Society for Animation Studies Newsletter, May, 1993. For more information about Disney myths see his book (available from Amazon.com) and visit snopes.com. Disney's FBI file can be seen online at apbonline.com/media/gfiles/disney. You may also want to visit Websites of the American Family Association and Paw Creek Ministries. Cohen wants to know if people who prevent kids from enjoying Mickey Mouse and Snow White are being un-American?


« first‹ previous1234567




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
« first‹ previous12

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.