Originally Posted By Dabob2 <She said "He formed and supported an anti-Semitic industry lobby." Is that statement true?> Yes. He was a co-founder of the group, and it was anti-Semitic. As I've already said, he did not form it with the intent of being anti-Semitic, but with the intent of being anti-communist. And I can see how one can read Streep's sentence as implying that anti-semitism was the r'aison d'etre. Perhaps Streep should have said "He co-founded an industry group that became horribly anti-semitic." She didn't. Meanwhile, what she said was not untrue. "The fact that she brought any of this up at all shows her intentions were obviously aimed at denigration." Now see, I can't agree with that either. The speech was mostly about Emma Thompson. Her intentions were to praise Thompson. Especially for her performance in this particular movie, for which she'd won the award. And so Streep, in addition to long passages (if we're into word counts) recounting Thompson's good qualities, talks a little about the subject of the movie, which was of course PL Travers and her experiences with Disney. She says they were both hard-headed, "superior" people who clashed. She points out that women (including both Travers and Thompson) have had to deal with a Hollywood that largely undervalues women. And she points out that even great artists have their flaws. Since one of her secondary subjects was Disney, she points out some of his imperfections. And yet, she says, he brought joy to billions. Now, you may say she overstated the flaws. I'd agree with you actually. But it's not accurate, reading the whole speech, to say that her intention was to trash Disney. That's a fairly minor part of it. Her intention was to praise Thompson and she recounted both the long history of women in Hollywood and the principals of "Saving Mr. Banks" to do so. It might not have been a successful way to do it in some opinions, but I think clearly the primary intent was to praise Thompson.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<It was a mean spirited and pointless attack, and I hope the Disney Company refuses to sign her to further contracts.>> Walt's been dead for over 40 years - I highly doubt that the Disney Company of today would refuse to sign her just because she made some comment about the original founder of the company. Denigrating Walt Disney - the person - isn't the same as denigrating the Walt Disney Company of 2014.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>As I've already said, he did not form it with the intent of being anti-Semitic, but with the intent of being anti-communist.<< Let's also not forget that the Red Scare did not exist in a vacuum of people who just disliked Communists. It was part of a culture of suspicion towards "the other." It might be difficult for us to appreciate today, but in the eyes of anti-Communists, being Jewish made it more likely that you'd be a Communist or Communist sympathizer. Ditto being black. Those things immediately made you suspect. Walt Disney would have been a part of that culture.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I don't think I've commented on this yet. But I've been following the thread, and my take on it is no matter how noble or just your cause may be, when you try to give attention to or gain support of a cause by using information that is unfair, incorrect, or even only slightly misleading, you not only undermine your own character and credibility but also harm the perception of the initial cause itself. Thank you.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>When your defense is close to hitting double figures in paragraphs, you may be overreacting.<< Or it may be an indication that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on your side.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "All the nitpicking going on here and meanwhile the most important point of this whole flap is being missed; why was she compelled to mention any of this stuff while presenting at an awards dinner in the first place?" Is this really all that important? An actress has some views of Walt that lack a lot of nuance. So what?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Is this really all that important? An actress has some views of Walt that lack a lot of nuance. So what?<< It's important because there is an excessive amount of slanderous BS out there about Walt Disney. And when someone like Meryl Streep gets on TV and reinforces it with her ill-conceived "remarks", then it is entirely appropriate to set the record straight. It may not rise to the level of getting Jenny McCarthy to shut the hell up about vaccinations, but it's still important to a lot of us.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Is this really all that important?" I think the context is very important. It was an awards dinner attended by Hollywood elite and she is a world renowned film actor. I'm perplexed as to why she felt it necessary to blast Walt Disney at such an occasion, especially when she wasn't asked her opinion of the man.
Originally Posted By andyll >>I'm perplexed as to why she felt it necessary to blast Walt Disney at such an occasion, especially when she wasn't asked her opinion of the man.<< Quite honesty even if everything she said was 100% true I don't think that is the forum to say it. Jenny McCarthy is a great example of the same thing. It's unfortunate but these people DO influence a lot of others with their words and should be held to a higher standard then some smuck like me posting on a random forum.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "Is this really all that important? An actress has some views of Walt that lack a lot of nuance. So what?" *letting my rage flow* SO WHAT!??? SO WHAT?!?!?!?!!? I'll give you so what!!!!!!!
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "Or it may be an indication that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is on your side." That may be so. But it doesn't prevent it from being an overreaction. "It's important because there is an excessive amount of slanderous BS out there about Walt Disney." Meh. There's far more out there that deifies the man. An actress saying something stupid is really not a big deal. "And when someone like Meryl Streep gets on TV and reinforces it with her ill-conceived "remarks", then it is entirely appropriate to set the record straight." Sure. That takes 4 or 5 sentences. If you need to list every little piece of evidence to the contrary, that might be a bit much. Especially when there is a grain of truth in what she said. "I think the context is very important. It was an awards dinner attended by Hollywood elite and she is a world renowned film actor. I'm perplexed as to why she felt it necessary to blast Walt Disney at such an occasion, especially when she wasn't asked her opinion of the man." I don't know why either. But, still, I don't see that it's a big deal. Will her comments have much, if any, effect on his reputation? Will it affect Disney's business in any way? "SO WHAT!??? SO WHAT?!?!?!?!!? I'll give you so what!!!!!!!" You have reached true Disney fandom. Your pin is in the mail (you do have a big Disney pin collection, right?)
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I don't like to waste my money on things that just sit in one spot.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "I think the context is very important. It was an awards dinner attended by Hollywood elite and she is a world renowned film actor. I'm perplexed as to why she felt it necessary to blast Walt Disney at such an occasion, especially when she wasn't asked her opinion of the man." >>I don't know why either. But, still, I don't see that it's a big deal.<< It isn't to me personally, but I do think it's important that the historical record is accurate. Sure, in the scheme of all that's happening in the world casually throwing negative things out there about a deceased Hollywood legend to a group of industry bigwigs isn't a big deal, but it is a somewhat callous and irresponsible thing to do.
