Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt That's all fine and dandy, but what do any of her words about Walt have to do with the occasion at hand and what purpose do they serve? Was it necessary to even bring up antisemitism or misogyny at the event? Nothing in the above analysis moves me to believe that it was.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder So Donny very "confidently" quotes an unsourced, very lengthy passage by our very own DlandDug?
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance Doug posted it on facebook today. I would copy and paste it, but if Doug wants it here, I'll leave that up to him.
Originally Posted By leemac An interesting article on THR about this whole thing: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/was-meryl-streep-correct-calling-669589">http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...g-669589</a>
Originally Posted By TomSawyer That wasn't written by DlandDug - it was a post from the Walt Disney Museum. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.waltdisney.org/content/defense-walt-disney">http://www.waltdisney.org/cont...t-disney</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Ahem. Yeah...just going to toss this back up, since it seems Nostradamus-like in retrospect: >>The response is basically, "Know I know Walt wasn't perfect, but..." then spend six paragraphs explaining why any criticism whatsoever of Walt is rubbish.<< I still don't get it. Unless you start with A - Walt Disney was perfect, it seems only to follow that eventually you will be exposed to Walt Disney's flaws. You can gripe with the context, you can whine all you want about the person raising the issue and "Who's she to talk!" but it doesn't change reality: Walt Disney wasn't perfect. And if he wasn't perfect, then what, exactly, gives with the over-the-top rush to defend? I suppose the answer is in the title of this thread....
Originally Posted By ecdc >>since it seems Nostradamus-like in retrospect:<< It also seems appallingly poor spelling in retrospect. How on earth did I miss that twice?!?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And if he wasn't perfect, then what, exactly, gives with the over-the-top rush to defend?<< I'm all for revealing true failings by Walt and others. But I think as Doug's piece explained, there's reason to take issue with "Walt was an anti-Semitic and sexist" full stop statement. Her comments made those claims and left the charges there as fact. I'm not on board with attacking Meryl Streep and diminishing her. She's obviously a very intelligent person and a phoenominal actress. However, that doesn't give her a free pass to do a drive-by like that and not get some push back. Yes, I'm a Disney fan, probably a mildly rabid one at times. But I don't think I am blind to Walt's failings and shortcomings. He is a human being, not a religious icon (Mickey is the religious icon -- kidding!!!). I just don't like it when people make these broadbrush claims -- "Walt was sexist and anti-Semitic" and skip along the path, leaving those things to fester and take root. There is much evidence to suggest that while Walt certainly was a man of his era, he also was ahead of it in many ways. Pulling a 1938 form letter, not written by the man himself, as evidence is weak. And it ignores many facts in evidence. That isn't fair.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan While I believe Walt hated communism, and that he blamed it for ruining things at the studio with the strike, I am disappointed he cooperated with HUAC as he did. I am sure, politically, Walt and I would be far apart on many issues. Be that as it may, there's is still much to admire about him, his work, his legacy, warts and all. But before we go around branding someone a racist or anti-Semite or sexist, we have to look at the whole picture.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>However, that doesn't give her a free pass to do a drive-by like that and not get some push back.<< I think that's fair. But while everyone is insisting we understand the context of Walt's anti-Semitism or whatever, it's worth understanding the context of Streep's comments. She's recognizing a woman in a male-dominated industry--one that frequently has little use for women once they stop looking drop-dead gorgeous--and is doing so in the context of a film (Saving Mr. Banks) that was produced by Disney and released by Disney. It does in fact sugarcoat and does in fact completely reverse in some ways the truthfulness of P.L. Travers's relationship with Walt Disney in order to make a feel-good story. We're willing to shrug at anti-semitism, blacklisting left-wing Hollywood writers and performers, and a poor appreciation of women because of the time period, but we expect perfection from Ms. Streep in her exact words and timing? We want sympathy and charity for Walt Disney but we want none for the point Streep is trying to make? That was my point way back in post 3. We can have charity for both people involved here. We can see what they were trying to do, understand their limitations, and realize they both had a point.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I think if you take Walt in context and Streep in context, they both look imperfect but basically fine.
Originally Posted By andyll >>And if he wasn't perfect, then what, exactly, gives with the over-the-top rush to defend?<< "over-the-top" ? Correcting mis-infomation, exaggerations, and outright lies is hardly over-the-top. Every time a loudmouth public figure sprouts off about a topic without verifying their facts and sources it just perpetuates the rumors. I've seen no examples of people saying Walt Disney could do no wrong. However many are saying that instead blinding believing all the rumors... mostly perpetuated by someone who is known to have hated Disney... perhaps we should view both sides to the story.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It does in fact sugarcoat and does in fact completely reverse in some ways the truthfulness of P.L. Travers's relationship with Walt Disney in order to make a feel-good story.<< That's true, but if that's so, isn't Emma Thompson part of that sugar-coated story? I mean, Streep is honoring and praising Thompson. And yet, I wonder if she would say to Thompson, in private, "Hey, what's the deal with being part of a movie that doesn't tell the whole story?" Streep made specific charges in her speech -- in any context, she called him an anti-Semite. Was he? I think there is a whole lot of evidence that he was not. Did he wind up supporting a group that was anti-Semitic? He did, but I am not convinced that was ever his goal. I don't think that's just the fanboy in me talking, just trying to be fair. For the record, I loved the movie. But I am troubled to be learning now that so much of it was not factual. I knew very little about the quest to get the Mary Poppins script other than it took Walt's personal involvement to seal the deal and took many years. I wasn't expecting a documentary, and I am all for artistic license, but not for twisting facts to fit a storyline when it involves real people.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Walt Disney was deeply flawed. If not for his wife, we would have been stuck with Mortimer Mouse.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>while everyone is insisting we understand the context of Walt's anti-Semitism or whatever, it's worth understanding the context of Streep's comments.<< Strongly disagree. There's no possible context that gives you a free pass to spew regurgitated horse hockey. Like accusing the Beverly Hills B'nai Brith's 1955 Man of the Year of being anti-Semitic.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <in any context, she called him an anti-Semite.> To be fair to Streep, she actually didn't. She said Ezra Pound was "supposedly" one (which is actually well documented in Pound's case). But even of him, she said " But, his poetry redeems his soul." Of Disney, she said "He formed and supported an anti-Semitic industry lobby." This is borderline; the group certainly was, but was not formed to be so. It was formed to be anti-communist and wound up being anti-Semitic as well. I think if you read the WHOLE Streep speech... <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/oscars/2014/01/meryl-streep-emma-thompson-best-speech-ever">http://www.vanityfair.com/onli...ech-ever</a> ... you'll see it's really about praising Thompson and saying she's one in a long line of women who have had to deal with Hollywood undervaluing them. With a side commentary on how people are complicated and even people unsavory attitudes can be great artists. Did she overstate the case on Walt? Perhaps. But it certainly wasn't a hatchet job.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I think if you read the WHOLE Streep speech...<< I did read it a couple of days ago. She did call him an anti-Semite. I think she made a statement that was unfair, broadbrush, and not supported by all the facts. That doesn't mean I agree with fans who want to besmirch her. "Meryl who?" with photos of a Walt looking puzzled and such on FB. No need to go there. But it is fair, I believe, to call an untruth an untruth and not let it stand.
