Hello.
"GOOD GRIEF' was the title of an article I read this past weekend. A local writer in Winston-Salem (I was visiting family) had written an article about animated Christmas TV specials he watched as a kid (I think he was born in the 1970's) that included: A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS, RUDOLPH THE RED-NOSED REINDEER and FROSTY THE SNOWMEN.
The entire article was one large warm and fuzzy piece about Holiday cheer and how those particular Christmas specials contributed to his family's Holiday merriment. The artcle concluded with a brief synopsis of A CHARLIE BROWN CHRSITMAS and then related how that particular 1/2 hour special would NOTbe made today...and that was it -he left it hanging right there.
It's too bad that it ended there...it would have made a great starting point for some open discussion.
I would have to assume that because the TV special, made in the mid-1960's contained verses from the Bible (Book of Luke) spoken by Linus Van Pelt- that would make it verbotten today?
The 60's were progressive but still - it's sad that a story can't include religious beliefs...that we are so PC or anti-PC...that concern is placed in the wrong areas.
I saw a basic cable show the other night and there were no problems it seems to have the words "God" and "damn" in the same sentence...and other works like "shit" and such were bleeped out. Something seems off...
What do you think?
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
We here in Seattle just went through that whole "Holiday" tree issue at the airport! They took 'em down, then back up. PC gone nutty. God forbid if in the news they were actually refered to as "Christmas" trees! :rolleyes:
Happy Winter Solstice..or, whatever!
(Merry Christmas!!!)
Splatman:D
SPLAT digital
As I understand it you can't even show graveyards with crosses on tombstones in animation anymore. (of course I have no idea how much of that they were showing before the PC era) but the point is any religious references, exzcept for general eastern style spiritual stuff is verbotten.
NPR did a great story recently on the Charlie Brown Christmas Special. Apparently it almost didn't get made at the time--the themes of materialism and the true meaning of Christmas were not considered child-friendly by the executives at CBS. They also disagreed with the decision to use the voices of children who were not trained actors, and they did not consider jazz acceptable Christmas music. Charles Schultz had heard a Guaraldi song on the radio while he was in a taxi crossing the Golden Gate Bridge--he went out that evening to hear Guaraldi play and invited him to compose the music for the special.
Remember the horror, the crushing disappointment if you MISSED it!!
It didn't play 24/7 back then.
God, religion, and main stream TV are certainly one issue. But I think the treatment of the story and characters might be considered too subtle for today's TV programing. Doesn't hit you over the head with a moral and a doesn't have a black and white cast of good guys and bad guys. Even the mean kids are "friends".
The message was kind and simple. No one lectures, Linus gives his speech with quiet sincerity, the mean kids aren't demonized, they weren't "bad", no one had to sum up the story with some "lessons learned" speech -- just "Maybe it wasn't such a bad tree after all!".
For the viewer, kids were allowed to come to their own conclusions, you didn't have to be told how hurtful the kids' comments were or how bad they made Charlie Brown feel. I think today's shows/movies try very hard to teach a lesson to their characters, like in "Cars" or 'Happy Feet" but somehow fall short of connecting with kids. You have to let the viewer think for themselves. I think kids can actually learn something from Charlie Brown as opposed to "what did the producer want you to think".
And lastly, someone picked music that was not mainstream and wasn't trying to get to the top of the charts. Sheer brilliance. I can't think of anything today that has such a unique, fun sound. "Charlie Brown's Christmas Special" was very, very special. It wouldn't be made today, but in fairness, nothing really came close to it back in the day. Maybe the original "Grinch".
>> The Simpsons have one maybe every 3 years.
I just watched this the other day and absolutely loved it, though I don't know if it's for family viewing.
"No one gets my organs" -- funniest bit of the year. :)
What is the message of A Charlie Brown Christmas?
I thought it was the same message of just about every other winter-holiday advertisement: Be warm, fed, and happy with friends and/or family.
The funny thing about that issue, Splat, was that the Rabbi just wanted a Menorah on Display, not to take down the trees. He'd apparently been asking for months. It was the airport who took down the trees rather than include a Menorah.
Hello.
Harvey, you took my comments out of context. What I was saying was the writer seemed to indicate at the end of his story that A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS would NOT be made today if the script contained references to the Bible.
Sorry, if my comments were not specific enough.
Also, I have a different opinion of A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS. To me, the animated story was not about the qualities you mentioned. The story was about "the true meaning of Christmas" as opposed to the more material aspects that some folks seem to embrace.
As I said, thats just my opinion...
Thanks,
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
...the missing part was that the Rabbi had "Lawyered up", and was wanting to hold a religious ceremony to light said Menorah.
Possible lawsuit=Port gets cold feet and pulls the plug on the "Holiday Trees" (heh-heh), to cover their rear.
After a big to-do, the Port puts the trees back up.:rolleyes:
And Harvey, I believe Christmas is a goverment holiday, no?
Yowza!
Splatman:D
SPLAT digital
>> I thought it was the same message of just about every other winter-holiday advertisement: Be warm, fed, and happy with friends and/or family.
First off, what's so nice about this show is that it is open to interpretation so if that's what you got out of it then that's the message.
I found it explored the "spirit of Christmas" in it's many forms. Charlie Brown experiences something a LOT of adults go through, they just don't "feel" Christmas. Is it because it's become so commercial? the greedy, long list of presents? Is it the school Christmas pageant that seems to be about everything BUT the Nativity? the artificial Christmas trees that come in pink and red.
So what brings everyone together? Taking care of one sad little tree.
So, for me, it's not about being fed, or warm or happy. It's about giving. Giving of yourself.
FWIW, the folks I know who go through Christmas much like Charlie Brown find great fulfillment far away from the shopping and lights and even the TV, and to some extent, away from church and religion. They enjoy helping at shelters and volunteering. So, probably the best thing about the Christmas Special is that there is truth behind it.
I think the Grinch sums up the whole decoration debate perfectly.
Take them all down -- it really shouldn't matter.
"He hadn't stopped Christmas from coming, it came.
Somehow or other, it came just the same.
It came without ribbons! It came without tags!
It came without packages, boxes, or bags!"
That's not to imply anyone who objects to decorations is a Grinch. Not at all. I think people who celebrate Christmas shouldn't put so much emphasis on decorations in the first place.
Yeah, that context was not made clear. Thanks for clarifying.
I still don't understand what the "God - damn - shit" thing is about. Oh well.
I agree that today the Bible verses would probably be removed in order to be more sensitive to people of various faiths, or lack thereof. (Approximately 5 billion of the earth's inhabitants are non-Christians. Perhaps the cartoon-makers want a little of that market, as well.)
However, so what? Linus would have probably found something more relevant to say, about good cheer or whatever. The story would have been just as good.
Clearly, the message of the story was in the last few minutes of the show, when everyone decorated the tree. Obviously they were embracing the material, at least somewhat, since you can't decorate a sad tree without materials.
What would Christmas be without the material aspects: the decorations, the food, the gifts, the seasonal cartoons, the yule log?
It would be pretty bleak, :eek: despite the romanticized version in the Seuss story.
I believe you're correct. There are laws in place that close down the government on Christmas day. However, I don't believe that there are any laws in place that require the government to decorate your airport.
Yes, "giving" is the "happy" part. We give because it makes everyone happy.
Christmas, or the winter solstice, is one of the more important holidays of the "Western" world because it's the coldest and darkest time of the year: the most important time of the year for people to be warm, fed, and happy.
There should be!
You obviously haven't been to Sea-Tac Airport! ;)
Splatman:D
SPLAT digital
I have, actually.
There are few things tackier than seasonal decorations in an airport.
I say, leave the decorations to the people who mean it: the private businesses and citizens.
Hello.
Yes Harvey, "the ture meaning of Chrsitmas" would depend upon your beliefs. I think the great thing about the Holiday Season is that most folks slow down, take more time for their families, friends and what they believe...and they do a general overview of the past year. Giving seems to be a big deal (though, my sense of it says- we should to give ALL year round).
Now a days- folks should be more tolerant of others beliefs- as long as they are lawful....
Happy Holidays Harvey!
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
You realize we're not talking about actual materials; we're talking about materialism.
The material aspects of Christmas and the materialism aspects of Christmas are two very different things.
Materialism is about materials, or the material. That's why it's called "materialism." Pardon me for pulling out the dictionary, which some people object to for some reason, but materialism is "the preoccupation with material rather than intellectual or spiritual things." In this scenario, the gifts, food, and decorations are that material that materialists are preoccupied with. A typical materialist might be a child who only cares about what toys she gets for Christmas, and doesn't care to thank anyone for them.
Now that we know what materialism means, I don't believe the message of CBC was anti-materialist. If anything, there was an anti-gaudiness side message; but even that doesn't get through as the gaudy parts of the show are some of the most enjoyable: the dance, the tree market, Snoopy's house, etc.
LUCY: Look, Charlie Brown, let's face it. We all know that Christmas is a big commercial racket. It's run by a big eastern syndicate, you know.
Charlie Brown's disgust with "commercialism" was a "McGuffin" (see Hitchcock) used to get to the real message at the end, which I suppose specifically is to bring cheer to the sad. It wasn't necessary for the McGuffin to be commercialism in order to get to the message. The McGuffin could have been anything that makes someone sad during Christmas: a sick relative, poverty, the loss of all the toys, etc.
(Who, besides me, can name all the characters in this scene?)
Yes, when I said 'materialism' I was talking about 'commercialism.' (My dictionary defines materialism as "a tendency to consider material possessions and physical comfort as more important than spiritual values"- quite different than just material.) And yes, it is a plot device to get to the desired ending, but they could have chosen any McGuffin they wanted and they chose commercialism--not the most obvious choice for a network trying to sell advertising.
I think the main reason a Charlie Brown Christmas wouldn't be made today would probably be based on PR executives determining it wouldn't generate enough spin off toys, not any mention of the biblical meaning of the Christmas Story. PC is not all that alive and well today, just look at the radical right trying to push their beliefs on everyone.
I don't understand why the Menorah couldn't have been installed at the airport. It was being donated. If they wished to hold a ceremony to install it what the hey, was anyone being forced to take part? I think there should have also been a Kinara.
I am a flaming agnostic, but I have no problems with enjoying the decorations of faiths all around. And hope that this time of year most people instead of being stressed and full of road rage, take a little time to consider the important aspects of life.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
I'm intrigued by this. Does that mean that you're enthusiastic in your ambivalence? Steadfast in your uncertainty?
I'm not trying to be a smartass, I'm truly intrigued by having agnosticism described in this way.
Maybe it's a way of concisely identifying two separate traits...
*Bay area memories flood back from childhood*
I guess just that I am secure in my personal understanding of the world and life in general, that I don't know and I'll probably never know and that's ok with me.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Cool. Thanks.
I never claimed that material(s) and materialism are the same thing. Larry mentioned materialism ("material aspects," specifically), so naturally I commented on it by discussing materials, which are what materialism involves.
If it's something we can't buy, there must be another way. We are spirits in a material world. :cool:
>> PC is not all that alive and well today
I was thinking along the same lines, religion has been such a hot topic in the media over the last few years and has been profitable. Look at "Borat". I don't think religion is as much of a show stopper as the writer of the article [might] have felt it was. Maybe that's the reason he stopped writing.
Religion is out there. "The Nativity" is a new production. Of course "The Passion of Christ", "The Da Vinci Code", "The Da Vinci Code Decoded", several documentaries on Judas. Animation-wise, there was "The Prince of Egypt" and recent large budget animated films like "The Ant Bully" and "Happy Feet" have some religious undertones with reference to worship and being grateful to the one who created us.
But none of them will be as beloved as CBC. Must be the music.
Maybe not, but you did link them together by implication:
I'm just sayin' :)
Of course I "linked them together." They are linked together. Materialism involves the material.
Holy guacamole. :rolleyes:
Charles Shultz used Christmas decorations in two ways.
First as guady commercialism and then when the children decorate the little tree, taking the lights from Snoopy's contest winning doghouse, they become a symbol for caring. "All it needed was a little love".
How brilliant is that?! The exact same objects with two very different messages.
The question behind Seattle's airport is, are the Xmas trees Snoopy's dog house or are they the little tree at the end? (it actually sounds like a little of both).
[edited to add] I was reading up on CBC and came across a mention that Santa Claus is not in this. There's a brief mention when Sally is making her list (her "fair share"). And that's it. Maybe that's what makes it so great -- and loved by all ages. No Santa.
Indeed.... ;)
I think the true point that is being missed by certain cartoon boys obsessed with getting to level 7 on their latest gameboy adventure, or one in particular who is totally caught up in his own hubris, is what Christ said (Derek 3:12-13) when he first came into the village:
"Where's the fucking bog mate? I'm dying for a slash!!"
...or so I've heard
Rev John St. John Johns
Three years later, and I'm still waiting for the funny from Monkeywanker.
please take my advice: please take your OWN advice: ignore
PS..congrats on winning the rat's ass award for your trivia question.
the little red haired boil (with graphic blandishments)
Monkey Christmas
.
No, it was my fault this time. I shouldn't have mocked Meriwether.
Happy Holidays. Hark the herald angels sing, etc.
I'm also puzzled about what the original topic was supposed to be, but Larry wouldn't answer my questions about it. He seems to want more religion in cartoons, and he either wants television to be more censored or less censored.
However, a semi-interesting analysis of CBC and other holiday cartoons emerged. :)
wipe the tears and come inside, johnny boy...just as many people care about what I say as care about your latest "hey everyone, look at what I drew" postings..tit for tat as they say in the heppy land, fur fur away.
...and the funny part is, at the end of the day it don't mean a hill of beans in this crazy cock-eyed world
...now, if your'e looking for some cool medical advice, let me be the first to submit my diagnosis
Dr Benway (offering a cup of home made egg nog, with extra nog)
.
we obviously have different ideas of what constitutes fun in our waking hours, as neither of the two options you mention are part of my madcap laugh a minute lifestyle.
Dr Zaius
I think a lot of us can relate to trying to do the right thing, and seeing it kind of collapse during the effort.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Hello.
Happy Holidays Harvey!
I tried to make my point a couple of times.....
No, I do not think we need to see more religious programming on TV.
How one feels about their belief system is up to them.
My original points about the Christmas special were two-fold:
1. Because A CHARLIE BROWN CHRISTMAS contains references to the Bible would it be made today.
2. The person who wrote the newspaper article basically stopped the article when he got to the above question #1...it seemed he did not want to go there...and that seemed like a cop out.
The usage of "words" was just my observation.
Thanks.
Larry
web site
http://tooninst[URL=http://tooninstitute.awn.com]itute.awn.com
[/URL]blog:
[U]http://www.awm.com/blogs/always-animated
[/U] email:
larry.lauria@gmail.com
Number two is definitely a cop out, but a practice that repulicrats like to follow. They like to hint at some "great" society wrong or oversight, but they stop short of spelling it out, because they realize if they outlined their argument they wouldn't stand a chance. So they love to stir the waters for those swimming in flood waters without the hope of ever being picked up by a lifeboat. They hope to pick up their votes without ever offering them a true solution or a place in the lifeboat.
Hope that didn't contain too many metaphors. I am in that kind of a mood at the moment.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Certainly it would still be made. They'd just remove the Bible verse, is all. My question is, unless you're a religious fundamentalist, why does it matter whether they keep the verse in or not? Linus could have recited a poem about Christmas, and the cartoon would have been just as meaningful.
Not so. For those that believe in Christmas and Christ the bible verse is the heart and the core of the whole time of year. And I think Schultz was a believer so for him it was the core of the project.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
>> They like to hint at some "great" society wrong or oversight, but they stop short of spelling it out, because they realize if they outlined their argument they wouldn't stand a chance.
Which leaves the reader thinking (at least my interpretation) that the writer implies "Wasn't life so much simpler and better when TV programming was white and Christian. This PC, diversity, inclusiveness sucks because Charlie Brown couldn't be made today."
Oh yes it could and with government funding under the "Faith Based Initiatives". More so today than in the sixties when separation of church and state was more uniformly inforced.
The fact that it was made then speaks more for Schultz's integrety and determination to stick with his original concept than anything government or the pr departments of the media had going at the time. And he found his audience, and I applaud him for that!
B'ini I think you misinterpret my comment. What is meant is that a lot of times politicians and commentators like to rouse the populus based on unfounded wrongs, without coming out and outlining the wrongs like the original writer in the piece Larry refers to did. He complains it couldn't be made today, be he stops short of spelling out that he thinks it's because of the biblical reference. He infers that that is the reason, and then leaves it to stir controversy.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
The sixties and seventies were much more PC, diverse and inclusive than this modern age. If Charlie Brown or any of his friends were muslim this cartoon would have to be cleared through the State Department. Don't try to lecture me on fairness, you're talking to a fossil hippy type.
The people trying to inhibit the use of Christian symbols at that time were the media/Park Avenue types they were looking for market share.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
>> The sixties and seventies were much more PC, diverse and inclusive than this modern age.
How can that be? The sixties and seventies were at the height of the Civil Rights and Women's Rights movement. People were fighting for equality and it still isn't "fair".
TV programming was anything but PC, diverse and inclusive. It still isn't. And when it tries to be it's all too obvious.
I think people are nostalgic, like this writer, about Christmas specials of yesteryear, for a tiime when you could celebrate (and decorate) without having to worry about offending other faiths. When airports did decorate for Christmas without a thought for other faiths.
Yesterday, I was in the deli and the man at the counter had a button on that said "You can wish me a Merry Christmas". He joked he was tired of the generic "Happy Holidays".
I think our culture is struggling with "inclusiveness". I think it's resented.
What's more, I don't think the writer would be satisfied with a "Faith Based Initiative", because that would be too religious. Back in the day, Christmas was just part of our culture like Thanksgiving and July 4.
I think this goes beyond "could it be done" in a legal sort of way, but more, would our culture accept it today.
But don't get me wrong -- I'm in full agreement about the religious right and no one pokes fun at it like the Colbert Report.
http://www.devilducky.com/media/39373/
Bull shit don't talk to me about the sixties and seventies I lived them. The civil rights movement was the end of the fifties up to the middle of the sixties. By the seventies women, blacks, everyone had equal rights. We fought for those rights for those of you today that let them be eaten up by the Patriot Act. We fought an obscene war, and those of us that are still alive today are outraged to see our youth sell their civil liberties for the promise of personal security.
Charles Schultz wouldn't have bought into the Faith Based Initiative moronity any more than I do. He built his project and he saw it to completion without government aid or media approval.
I don't even think you know about Bush's "Faith Based Initiative".
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
You allowed your principles to be undermined by the promise of fewer taxes by allowing Bush to fund his Christian right friends. You allowed us to go to war because you were too stupid to be informed to point that you would have known there were no WMD and that Sadaam was never involved with Bin Ladin, and that the majority of the bombers were Saudis, how many times do you have to be told that? You were probably out waving flags while the anti war people were meeting in Washington, before the war and telling you it would lead to exactly what it has and the reasons for it were absurb.
You smiled while they passed the Patriot Act, don't lecture me on equality.
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
Easy, killer. You don't know me or my politics or religious affiliations.
I'm speaking objectively about our culture, specifically about Christmas, not my personal views.
Pages