Of Bugs Bunny and weird censorship decisions

[Satan's Onion]

(Note: If a moderator feels like moving this to Discussion or something, that's quite all right--I'm just not sure whether this was too frivolous or not for that particular forum. Also, I wanted the slightly greater leeway for off-topicality that I think posting here might offer. Also also, lazy readers be warned: Huge paragraphs ahead.)

Okay, this starts with a cheapo DVD I got at the local Wal-Mart--a two-hour compilation of quite old cartoons. You've seen them before, surely: they sell for around a dollar and come in really slim cases. I love that sort of thing; some of my favorite comic moments ever are from shorts like "Rabbit Seasoning" ("Wabbit season!" "Duck season! Fire!") and "Duck Amuck". So even tho' this is obviously made with an eye towards a quick profit, I tend to snap this sort of disc right up. They're never less than fascinating to me, even if I've never seen any of the cartoons on them before.

Anyway, one of the upshots of getting something like this is you tend to see stuff that you'd never, ever see on TV, for a variety of reasons (like the World War II-era "Scrap Happy Daffy", or the so-shittasmic-they're-enthralling Three Stooges cartoons, or--I could go on and on), or sometimes, as here, you see a new edit of a cartoon you'd already seen--in this case, a Bugs Bunny short called, I think, "Fresh Hare" (brief plot outline: Elmer Fudd of the RCMP searches the frozen Canadian wilderness for a certain wabbit at large; zany hijinks ensue). The problem is with the end: Bugs is in front of a firing squad and is told he can have one last wish. After a bit of thought, he decides he wishes he was in Dixie--cue music, singing, and (since this was made in the 1930s or '40s) everyone on screen in blackface.

The weird bit is this--they (that is, whoever edited this cartoon before the DVD compilers got to it, as the DVD itself says these are "presented as produced for theatrical and/or television viewing", which I think means "don't blame us for any wacky editing") decided to show this bit, but with all the faces blurred out. If it was objectionable enough to warrant blurring all the most offensive bits out, why bother to show it at all? (I'm sure that the first time I saw this piece, it cut this bit entirely.) Goodness knows I've seen plenty of other cartoons with objectionable bits hacked out, often at the expense of narrative coherence, and they're usually not nearly so conveniently suited for it (I mean, this is like the very last ten seconds).

It's like if you're watching something with a lot of swear words, edited for network television--say, an episode of The Sopranos: you have a pretty good idea of what Tony's actually saying from the look on his face, but the soundtrack offers nothing saucier than "Hey, forget you, butthole!" It feels, somehow, like whoever edited this is trying to have it both ways: "Well, this print is complete and pristine, a historical document of its times and a self-contained story, so lopping the end off it would ruin it completely, of course--but we're gonna digitally alter it so's it doesn't hurt anyone's feelings now." Isn't that just swapping one method of historical revision for another? Wouldn't it just be easier to either drop the cartoon, cut the end off of it (which wouldn't be quite such a burden to my free-speaking instincts, because I know lots of kids are likely to see this DVD who don't have someone around to explain the problems with this cartoon's ending. Better, perhaps, to put the issue aside for the moment than to bring it up in a weird-ass, confusing way), or just show it warts and all and then have the Uncomfortable Talk about Why Nobody Does That Anymore?

So--any thoughts? Am I a horrible person for thinking it'd just be better, in the long run, to either show these things warts and all or not at all--that trying to "defang" this sort of moment puts people at greater risk of forgetting why it was so wrong in the first place? Or am I just reading far too much into about ten seconds of old edited Warner Brothers cartoon? Do I need to lay off on the question marks for now?

[Demetrius]

Well, you did buy the DVD at Walmart, they censor stuff on their own. I have seen the cartoon you are talking about and have it on tape from a long time ago. The broadcast I have shows the whole thing, blacked faces and all. I have many issues with Walmart's tampering with products and selling them without warnings that they have been censored, most often this is with their music, which I no longer buy from them.

[Satan's Onion]

You might be right--I wonder what relationship this Digiview Entertainment has with Wal-Mart. I mean, I doubt they actually specially censored this shot--not for a simple dollar DVD--but if they told Digiview to cherrypick a special cut of this, it wouldn't be so surprising. What's odd is that they chose not to just cut that last shot, I think, (or choose a version in which it had been cut). It's also weird--and stinky with bullshit--that they include on the packaging this disclaimer:

Originally Posted by whoever designed this DVD package

The cartoon content on this DVD is presented as originally created. Cartoon content is presented as produced for theatrical and/or televison viewing.

When you think about it, those two sentences rather contradict themselves (particularly in light of this edit and the painfully obvious replacement of the Three Stooges cartoon theme with some cut-rate library music). The first sentence says this stuff is presented as created (which is clearly blowing smoke up people's sphincters); the second seems just to say "Okay, stuff might have been edited, but we didn't do it".

edit: I've been looking around their website, and initially I couldn't find an entry in their catalogue for the DVD I got. Like, at all. I only found it by looking under "Children's" instead of "Animation", and the entry there doesn't really tell you anything. Be told: digiviewus.com is a singularly shitty website. Tho' I notice on their "company" page that they have offices in Bentonville, Arkansas--the birthplace of Wal-Mart. Which isn't at all a surprise, but I feel all sleuthy now for finding it out.

[8 Man]

Censorship exists for one reason: lazy, irresponsible parents (and lame, out-of-touch old people) fascistically abusing the courts in order to ban anything they find objectionable. This extends to any person or group without a sense of humor and/or the capacity for critical thinking.

[Sesshoumaru]

Don't forget that censorship is also used to advance political adgendas, although I think in this particular case that 8 man is probably right. Also, I agree with Satan (please don't take that out of context) that run-away censorship (such as banning Huckleberry Finn from schools) could easily lead to people (especially the young) forgeting why something was considered so wrong in the first place (at least, I think thats what he meant).

[Satan's Onion]

Yeah, that's one of the points I was trying to get to in my ramble. (I do tend to go on a bit, don't I?)

Also--not to make anyone unnecessarily uncomfortable, but a quick check of my signature should be evidence that I'm not actually a "he". (Maybe I oughta put it back in my user title, instead of my signature...)

[Dj_StarChild]

I remember watching that clip, at the tender age of like...10, or something, and thinking "man, they had a pretty stupid idea of what black people are like, back then."
Sometimes, I see things that make fun of the way they were so misguided by satirizing the white guy in black face thing, and sometimes I can't tell if they're serious or not... But then, Bugs Bunny doing an Al Jolson impression is pretty much on par with Freakazoid doing a Jerry Lewis impression, as far as time periods and audiences go.

Speaking of censorship of things that might/ought to offend african-americans: I really wish Popeye's™ commercials would disappear. They're ridiculous, and I feel disgusted with whoever decided it'd be a good idea to interview a bunch of black people yelling "I love fried chicken!" and I feel sad for the people who they got to yell it. Longing sigh.

edit: speaking of satan's onion's sig-- actually, I've noticed that guys tend to have longer eyelashes than women... maybe I'm just not taking a large enough sample.

[Nique]

Popeye's has commercials? Besides. I'm with Dave Chapel on this one - everyone loves chicken because it's golden delicious and you'd be crazy not to. It trancends race.

Therefore, a group of Black people yelling 'I love fried chicken' doesn't seem any more wrong to me than... Well, damn. It doesn't seem wrong at all becuase popeyes does has some pretty good chicken. I mean, maybe that's encouraging a steriotype somehow, but it's not like they're lying about the chicken. Hell, I'll do it.

I LOVE FRIED CHICKEN!!!

The real shame here, is how we all assume that Satan's Onion is a dude. I mean, just becuase her name was taken from Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and her avatar features ugly guys with mullets...?

...Actually, yeah, maybe can you put something pink or anime in your avatar instead, cause it's freaking us out.

[Satan's Onion]

Hey, that's Mark Wing-Davey as Zaphod Beeblebrox in my avatar--the best Zaphod Beeblebrox there ever was!

editositude: But I saw this image and I liked it just that much. Still, it was Zaphod Beeblebrox from Betelgeuse Five, not bloody Martin Smith from Croydon...

I mean, if you think that's freaky-deaky, I'm not even really trying with that one. Son of Editositude: and I still have one or two avatar things kicking around my hard drive that could be construed as "a bit odd"...

[TKLink]

Psh, everyone knows Ed's a girl =P (Edward Wong Hau Pepelu Tivrusky IV=Best name evar)

Anywho, not having scene the clip, or really seeing an edited cartoon (at least, that I know of =\ ), so ican't really comment. But reading it, I can see what you mean. It'd just be silly, and, could quite possibly ruin it for me. Ah well, I agree with you, anyhow =P