The troublesome gender attitudes encoded within Disney’s animated canon have long been a hot topic for cultural scholars (for a 6-minute crash course, see Sanjay Newton’s video essay Sexism, Strength and Dominance, embedded above). But while the films themselves often telegraph mixed messages (Disney heroines are often stubborn and independently minded, but at the end of the day almost always function as damsels in distress), today Boing Boing’s Cory Doctrow has opened up the floodgates to reveal evidence that the institution that produced these films has always been, by design, an unambiguous boys club.
It all started when Doctrow linked to this rejection letter, on beautiful full-color Snow White-themed stationary, received in 1938 by a young lady who had inquired about Disney’s animators training program.
“Women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen,” the letter informs a Miss Mary V. Ford of Searcy, AK. “For this reason girls are not considered for the training school.” The letter goes on to say that although ladies were hired to do basic tracing and coloring in the Ink and Paint department, “it would not be advisable to come to Hollywood with the above specifically in view, as there are really very few openings in relation to the number of girls who apply.”
A Boing Boing reader then went on to point out that this letter was not an isolated incident, but indicative of Disney’s institutional policy of excluding women from all non-inking work. This Disney Studio Artists Tryout book, also dated 1938, firmly states that the Ink and Paint sector is “the only department in the Disney Studio open to women artists.’”
Both of the above examples are almost 70 years old, so it would be easy to write them off as relics. But then there’s the first-hand testimony of Danah Boyd. Today, Boyd is one of the most well-respected technology/social media bloggers/writers/thinkers out there; ten years ago, while a sophomore studying computer science at Brown, Boyd approached an Imagineer recruiting booth at a trade show. As Boyd tells Boing Boing,
I approached and asked if there were internships available, but the recruiter told me that there were no internships available for artists. I responded by saying that I was a developer and that I wanted to code. The response I received was, ‘but you’re a girl.’
“I walked away stunned and midway out of the convention hall, I ran into my advisor (Andy van Dam) and relayed this story. He turned beet red and ran off to ‘make things right.’ Not 15 minutes later, I saw the recruiter at Disney stomping out of the hall. I found out later he was fired. “
Interestingly, three years after Boyd’s incident, Disney inducted Harriet Burns into their Disney Legends hall of fame. This probably qualifies as nitpicking, but check out her bio on the Disney Legends site. After introducing Burns as “the first woman ever hired by Walt Disney Imagineering in a creative rather than an office capacity”, the bio then relegates the actual projects Burns worked on to the fifth paragraph; graphs one and two are devoted to the fact that Burns was “the best-dressed employee in the department.”
I’m a bit of a doc junkie, so I was pretty pleased to see that Kevin Kelly (co-founding editor of Wired) has put together reviews of 100 of his favorite documentary films. Better yet, the 56-page book is published in PDF format, so you can download it for $3 (at the Boing Boing Digital Emporium).
On his website, Kevin nicely sums up what I love about docs:
“The very best of these non-fiction films are as entertaining as the best of Hollywood blockbusters. In contrast to the fiction that most movies are, true films offer authentic plot twists, real characters, and truth stranger than fiction. They aim to both entertain and to inform–a powerful combo.”
I think this book will be a great tool to change the minds of people who aren’t quite sold on the idea of enjoying documentaries. And for those who have long loved docs, apparently there’s already been a film club launched around the 100 films reviewed in the book. I’m not sure who organized it, or where, but it sounds like a good idea for Spout doc fans.
I’ll be back with more after I have a chance to look at the book.
It’s true. A few people in the world don’t have any trouble having fun. They can throw together a party, gather up a bunch of cool people, and generally make memorable things happen. But most of the rest of us could use a few idea-starters, it seems. At Spout we’ve been talking a lot about more ways to get people watching and talking about films together. Some of our ideas revolve around DIY-type party planners for different types of film-watching experiences–some crazy and fun-driven, others more contemplative and conversation-driven.
Anyway, I got kind of excited about this Battlestar Galactica party planner idea when I ran across it yesterday on Boing Boing. Zack Exley, the online activism strategist from the political organization MoveOn, has had plenty of success with his politically-driven house party concept. Now Exley and others have applied the idea to fan parties for Battlestar Galactica. Not exactly my cup o’ tea, but pretty cool nonetheless. The site helps you organize a party if you want to host, or you can find a party that’s being hosted in your area if you’re looking to hang out with other fans during the season opener. How cool would that be for films? (Especially if you’re into a somewhat obscure director or genre.)
The idea of many people doing the same thing on the same night in dozens of homes across the nation is pretty exciting, too. After all, those of us who love the same things are connected–we’re a part of one big community that’s usually just inhibited by geography.
So here’s my question: What do you think would be the best first Spout film-party planner concept, if we were to do such a thing? What would the theme be, or the featured film?
I was doing my daily Boing Boing scan yesterday and was reminded of my last visit to a Starbucks, where I saw the film Akeelah and the Bee displayed for sale. (I’m sure many of you have looked at this display once or more a day as you get caffeinated, but for me, Starbucks, like Wendy’s, is something I reserve for travel.)
Anyway. I’ve been intrigued for a while by how the coffee giant has gotten themselves so involved in the music industry, in terms of marketing, distribution, and–let’s face it–two-way brand building. Now they’ve branched out with their first foray into film, with Akeelah and the Bee. Apparently they co-financed the making of the film, in addition to all their marketing and distribution efforts.
Here’s some of what the September 11 Boing Boing entry had to say:
The interesting thing here is the retail opportunity presented by a Starbucks partnership for DVD distribution. In bookselling, research has it that more than half of the people who might buy a book if they spotted it will never set foot in a bookstore or place an online order. In the golden age of pharmacy and grocery-store spinner-racks, more than half the books sold were sold outside of stores. Big-box stores and online stores can put together a much deeper, long-tail-compliant catalog than neighborhood stores or pharmacies ever could, but they can only sell those books to the kind of people who are willing to patronize bookstores.
The thing about selling a movie or a CD or a book in a Starbucks or other popular retail establishment is that it’s entirely positive for the sales of the media: the bookstore people will buy it in a bookstore, or maybe pick it up at Starbucks. The non-bookstore people who have an interest in that kind of movie/book/CD will pick up the title without cannibalizing sales that might have been generated elsewhere. It’s a wholly positive development.
Starbucks has already turned itself into a quiet powerhouse for CD sales for discs that it also owns a stake in — I’m fascinated to see if they manage to do this with movies, too.
I agree with most of this, but I get nervous when I hear things like “It’s a wholly positive development.” At this point, with this film (which is supposed to be pretty good), I can’t see anything wrong with it. But when corporations start tying themselves that publicly to films, and begin branding themselves through those films, how will that affect the art? Does it begin to smack of “special interests?” Will we be co-opted by not-so-great films? I guess my point is that it’s not just about making good films available for purchase at a wider range of places. It’s a more complex issue.
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
