I blogged about the Baa Baa Green Sheep episode here href=”http://junius.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_junius_archive.html#200060068” rel=”nofollow”>http://junius.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_junius_archive.html#200060068 .

I read through tons of buyers’ reviews of Vol. 3 on Amazon—most don’t mention Whoopi at all, but the ones that do pretty much convinced me that the whole disclaimer thing was silly and heavy-handed, and if/when I get my hands on that volume, I’m going to find it pretty damn annoyning too. As you say, there’s already a disclaimer on the box; they could have even added a 10-second blurb at the beginning of each video saying “Not appropriate for children,” or made the disclaimer a feature that you choose to select from the main menu, and it would have sufficed. But they chose a really obnoxious CYA strategy instead. I will happily concede that point.

But—you knew there had to be a but, didn’t you?—I have to agree with Harry that the “liberal activists” that Steyn thinks needed to be placated don’t really exist beyond the imaginations of hypersensitive corporate CYA artists and professional “anti-PC” activists like Steyn. It’s a strawman.

Steyn also seems to have a really hard time distinguishing (1) his problem with the disclaimer and (2) his problem with Whoopi Goldberg, and it makes his whole argument that much weaker. Would having a celebrity with no known political affiliation have made a difference? It’s hard to tell.

Finally,

It’s true you don’t see many positive images of people of color on ‘’Looney Tunes,’’ but then the images of people of non-color aren’t terribly positive either (Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam).

That’s just plain stupid. I’ve seen WB shorts from the 30s and 40s that make “Amos ‘n’ Andy” look enlightened. Steyn knows this full well. The fact that he has a point in this particular instance doesn’t make him any less of a hack in my view.

But yeah, wrt the big picture, I give: the people who released Vol. 3 screwed up.

Steve

I see. That explains a lot.

I’m ashamed to say I don’t remember. One was a “big-budget” action flick about a special police task force charged with breaking up a drug ring run through Vietnamese refugee camps; the other one (not exactly action) was one of the later God of Gamblers flicks, maybe III?

But that’s part of what I found so funny—I just don’t believe that these purported liberal activists exist. They’re a figment of the imaginations of the corporate WB people, who probably read too much Mark Steyn. If they do exist I’d want to see real evidence—like a website devoted to warning people about the evils of old Looney Toons.

Come on Chris, tell your Baa Baa Black Sheep story.

…part of that is from the summer job I had dubbing Hong Kong action flicks…

OMG, you lucky f**ard! For a long time that was, quite literally, my dream job. Which ones did you do?

“…in a column by Mark Steyn this summer.” – Fuck Mark Steyn. That said, if I had to watch Whoopi Goldberg lecturing me on the evils of old cartoons…

And the BBFC can go fuck themselves too.

“I stopped to buy the third boxed set in the ‘’Looney Tunes Golden Collection.’’ Loved the first two: Daffy, Bugs, Porky, beautifully restored, tons of special features. But, for some reason, this new set begins with a special announcement by Whoopi Goldberg explaining what it is we’re not meant to find funny: ‘’Unfortunately at that time racial and ethnic differences were caricatured in ways that may have embarrassed and even hurt people of color, women and ethnic groups,’’ she tells us sternly. ‘’These jokes were wrong then and they’re wrong today’’ — unlike, say, Whoopi Goldberg’s most memorable joke of recent years, the one at that 2004 all-star Democratic Party gala in New York where she compared President Bush to her, um, private parts. There’s a gag for the ages.

I don’t know what Whoopi’s making such a meal about. It’s true you don’t see many positive images of people of color on ‘’Looney Tunes,’’ but then the images of people of non-color aren’t terribly positive either (Elmer Fudd, Yosemite Sam). Instead, you see positive images of ducks of color, roadrunners of color and tweety birds of color. How weirdly reductive to be so obsessed about something so peripheral to these cartoons that you stick the same damn Whoopi Goldberg health warning on all four DVDs in the box. And don’t think about hitting the “Next” button and skipping to the cartoons: You can’t; you gotta sit through it.

A Hollywood that’s ashamed of one of its few universally acknowledged genuine artistic achievements is hardly likely to come up with any new artistic achievements. As the instant deflation of that Whoopi cushion reminds us, the movies are now so constrained by political correctness the very act of storytelling is itself endangered. That’s something slightly more ominous than the feeble limousine liberalism…”

Yep, it remains strange to me I’m actually expected to buy a product, then be preached at by the corporation I just gave money to that the product I just bought isn’t good and that I should be ashamed if I enjoy it, and to be preached at by, of all people, Whoopi Goldberg. Would you pay Whoopi Goldberg for moral advice? If you bought the cartoon collection, you already have.

“What perianwyr said. It’s very easy to imagine someone who’s not an avid animation geek picking up a Looney Tunes DVD for their kids, imagining that it contains the innocuous (and thoroughly edited) WB ‘toons that were shown on Saturday morning TV in the 60s and 70s. They would be mistaken. So why not give them fair warning?”

Uhm, a fair warning would be to put the disclaimer on the box before the discs are bought (which is also done). A sermon from Whoopi after the films are already paid for doesn’t warn anybody of anything. Presumably, it was the balance that Warner Brothers thought would appease all parties: the fans of the cartoons, who wanted to see them, get to see them (they like that). But they have to sit through a liberal scolding first (they don’t like that, but they’ve been socialized to accept a scolding by a celebrity, so they won’t dislike it too much). And liberal activists, who don’t want anybody to see those cartoons, have to suffer through the fact that some people watch cartoons contrary to their wishes (they don’t like this). But those viewers have to sit through a liberal scolding first (and liberal activists like that very very much). Thus, everyone is kind of happy and kind of unhappy-but not unhappy enough to either not buy the tapes (cartoon fans) or make a scene (scolding liberals).

Steve

Yes, I’d go for Derek Griffiths too. How about having him issue such a warning on a set where nothing is racist, rude, etc?

BBC 3. The rude digital channel. But old people swearing is perennial comedy.

On the cartoon issue: am I right in thinking that the WB 5-minute short pretty much vanished from the American TV schedule a lot longer ago than the British schedule? Also, I’d be happy to hear a disclaimer, as long as it was by the sainted Derek Griffiths.