Contemplating the content of this book in order to formulate conclusions was a sobering experience for me. It produced a great number of cynical thoughts about the values and culture of the United States. For example, comparing Canada's handling of the red scare to the United States approach raises questions about what makes American politics so vicious and vindictive. Are the negative energies of right-wing politicians really different from the vitriolic fervor of the members of CORE that went after Ralph Bakshi's Coonskin? Do the motivations for "protecting" the public from certain material also relate somehow to these negative energies? Considering that United States children are taught that they live in a land of freedom and democracy, there is something very disturbing about the idea that American viewers need protection from the sight of cow udders and the other images mentioned in this text.
While researching this book I grew to feel most censorship is simply stupid. I am tempted to say all censorship is unnecessary, but I assume society will always demand a few basic rules. A much healthier way of handling the situation would be to rate everything that is shown and simply let the public decide whether to watch a show that contains potentially offensive language or images. Since the censors watch every second of the material, why not let them rate shows rather than cut them? Guidelines for special viewing hours (Saturday mornings, for example) could be established without having to write thousands of rules and regulations. At present the Cartoon Network tells people making shows to simply follow a few broad rules.
Self-censorship can be a serious problem, especially in the 1990s when pressures are at an all-time high. A person inside the animation industry said of self-censorship today, "We have a lot of cowards for bosses who censor themselves all the time for fear of lawsuits, the politically correct and the almighty dollar. Our legal system is a bigger burden to our society today than the production code ever was. The timidity and undue caution it forces on the creative community are insidious."
Racism is a difficult problem for society to deal with. It is hard to imagine a time when each race will not insist it is better than another and express those feelings in jokes, cartoons and other forms. As a young, idealistic college student who marched for civil rights, I argued with my African American sociology professor, who said there will always be scapegoats and racism. Thirty-five years later I have seen society hide its racist past from public view, but new, perhaps more subtle forms of racism have appeared that are directed against blacks and other groups of people. I find it depressing to have to agree that my teacher was right about human behavior.
On the subject of scatological humor, it seems that television has probably pushed the envelope about as far as possible. The future may see improvements in the quality of writing and the content of shows. Writers for The Simpsons have developed a formula for shocking and amusing the public by showing bare butts and using words like "damn" and "hell," but the series has grown through its exceptional scripts. If television becomes more repressed and inhibited in the future, it will be the creative talents of the writers that will probably save animation from becoming as dull as most television cartoon shows were from the 1960s through the 1980s.
One trend to watch in the future is the use of television animation to present propaganda to the public. At present several shows for kids have positive ecology themes. Other contemporary values in shows are "Say no to drugs," "Stay in school," and "Don't smoke." These are positive messages, but what will happen if various groups start to finance shows that stress their points of view? This happened in the 1950s when the Sloane Foundation financed three Warner Bros. cartoons that presented heavy-handed economic messages within normal-looking theatrical cartoons. Heir Conditioned (Freleng, 1955) has Elmer Fudd trying to convince Sylvester to invest his inheritance rather than spend it. Economic messages can also be found in By Word of Mouse (Freleng, 1954), which teaches the benefits of mass production and consumption, and Yankee Dood It (Freleng, 1956), which presents capitalist theory on how to run a profitable factory. Warner Bros. made one propaganda cartoon a year for three years as the foundation paid $25,000 to make each film. It cost Warner about $23,000 to make each cartoon, so a profit was made before the films went into distribution. The films are still shown in the Warner Bros. cartoon packages on television. The funder of these propaganda cartoons was a foundation formed in 1934 to honor Alfred P. Sloane, the CEO of General Motors.1
Theatrical cartoons containing propaganda were also made by John Sutherland Productions in Los Angeles for distribution by MGM. The Sutherland films were sponsored by Harding College (now Harding University) in Searcy, Arkansas. The conservative Christian school was founded in 1924, a few months after Warren G. Harding, the twenty-ninth president of the United States, died in office.2
While these historic films may be seen as harmless educational messages, what if a group that you disagree with sponsors television cartoons in the future? Should the shows be boycotted or censored? Experts speculate that as the number of cable channels grows to 500, we may end up with stations that show, at all hours of the day, programs that are nothing more than half-hour and one-hour commercials. Why not have ducks, rabbits and superheroes, made using some low-budget computer animation system of the future, present propaganda messages?
Should society censor television propaganda for causes many people disagree with? It would take an enormous organization to regulate the content of 500 channels. Or, should Americans assume people in a democracy are smart enough to make up their own minds about seeing propaganda for a cause they do not support? If that is the case, why can't viewers watch uncensored shows now, instead of having Standards and Practices people deciding what needs to be cut? These are serious issues. Someday television may have channels representing a lot of points of view that currently are rarely heard. What will happen if channels represent the views of organized labor, homosexuals, small political parties, anarchists, and other groups that may offend mainstream society?
Another disturbing element hinted at in this text is the way the public accepts animation. For years people in the industry have been commenting that the only animated films that do well in the marketplace are those that stick to certain proven formulas. One example is Disney's format for features, which includes lots of songs, scripts aimed at young audiences, cute big-eyed females, happy endings, and other elements that please the public. Ralph Bakshi, a few Japanese directors and other individuals have attempted to produce well-animated films aimed at an older audience, but their attempts have not really established a great demand for more films of this type. Fritz the Cat and Who Framed Roger Rabbit are rare examples of adult-oriented animated features that have been profitable. There is hope that in the coming years, as more companies begin to produce animated features in the United States, some will attempt to make films with more mature themes. Until that happens, most financial backers will continue to play it safe and put their money into animated musicals aimed at kids.
The most positive outlook for the future of animation is suggested in the discussion of Japanese features, the Tournée of Animation and the Sick and Twisted animation anthologies. There is a small but growing market for both finely made small productions and crude scatological works. These are works free of artistic interference from censors and producers concerned about tailoring a product for a specific market. Sex and violence are part of the attraction for some of the films, but others that have done well at the box office have drawn an audience because they are intelligent, well-made works that offer audiences something not found elsewhere. In the 1980s and 1990s, several small distributors found a market for the brilliant films of Jan Svankmajer, the Brothers Quay, the Bolex Brothers, Nick Park, Bill Plympton and other animators. Their work has done quite well at art houses and on college campuses. I suspect that some of the most interesting animated films in the future will be made by individuals heading small production groups rather than by the major studios interested in competing with Disney. One hopes that as quality films are produced by independent animators, the market for their works will grow.
Many people view cinema as a form of literature. Unfortunately, the Hollywood producers have limited their animated products to kids' entertainment. The independents have shown us that animation can be a great deal more. It could become one of the most exciting art forms of the twenty-first century.