Reflections on the Sorcerer's Apprentice and the Villainy of Things

 

Mickey Mouse as the Sorcerer's Apprentice

Fantasia (Walt Disney, 1940)

 

 

I. 

 

Goethe's Der Zauberlehrling (1797) is a ballad composed of fourteen stanzas with an unusual rhyme scheme. It tells the tale of an occult master and his young disciple who discovers that objects are not always there simply to serve us and may in fact be invested with a malevolent spirit; that an enchanted realm is not necessarily a safe space to inhabit.   

Whilst the poem remains popular in the German-speaking world, I suspect most people know the story of 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice' thanks to its adaptation by Walt Disney in the animated film Fantasia (1940), starring Mickey Mouse - a character about whom the philosopher Byung-Chul Han writes in his fascinating short work Undinge: Umbrüche der Lebenswelt (2021) [a] ...        

 

 

II. 

 

According to Han, the representation of material reality in the Disney universe and Mickey's relationship with things radically changes over time. 

 

In his earliest adventures, inanimate objects of all kinds have their independence and behave in an unpredictable - somewhat treacherous - even dangerous manner. Mickey is constantly obliged to grapple with these objects and they remain a permanent source of frustration for an anthropomorphic mouse attempting to impose his will upon the world, as well as providing comedy gold. 

 

For as Han rightly notes: "The cartoons are entertaining to a large extent because of the villainy of things." [46]

Sadly, however, times have changed and one of the depressing aspects of life today is that things have lost their mischievous character. In transforming material reality into a safe space that offers no resistance or dangers, we have succeeded in subordinating objects to our control. 

 

In other words, objects are obliged to behave themselves and even though we manipulate and exploit them, they no longer have the right to rebel or extract their revenge: 

 

"The villainy of things is now probably a thing of the past. We are no longer maltreated by things. They are not destructive; they do not offer any resistance. [...] Things are submissive. They are submitted to our needs." [46-47]

 

Han continues:

 

"Today, even Mickey Mouse leads a digital, smart and immaterial life. His world is digitalized and informationalized [...] the representation of material reality is markedly different [...] Things no longer have an independent life; they are obedient tools for solving problems." [47]

 

Is this a good thing? Is it right for a cartoon mouse to teach children that there is a quick solution - an app - for everything? 

 

I don't think so. 

 

And, personally, I would prefer life to be problematic; that physical reality remain something we constantly bump up against. I rather like being at the mercy of objects which not only want to harm or make fools of us, but also support, sustain, and comfort us.  

 

Ultimately, I agree with the young witch who recently informed me: 'When non-things beckon us to enter a virtual abyss, it will be the saving power of actual objects that will summon us back into the nearness of the nearest.' [b]

 

 

Notes

 

[a] This work was translated into English as Non-things: Upheaval in the Lifeworld, by Daniel Steur, (Polity Press, 2022). Page numbers given in the above post refer to this edition.

     

[b] I'm paraphrasing here from a paper due to be presented at Treadwell's Bookshop, on 8 February 2024, entitled Bells, Books, and Candles: On the Continuing Allure of Actual Objects in an Age of Virtual Reality. For more information - and an abstract - see the most recent entry on the TTA Events page: click here.   

Education for Death

The original poster for Walt Disney's 

Education for Death (1943)

 

I.

 

Education for Death (1943) is an animated short film produced by Walt Disney, which illustrates how to make a Nazi out of a child. Directed by Clyde Geronimi, it was based on a non-fiction book of the same title by Gregor Ziemer, published two years previously [1]. 

 

The film tells the story of Hans, a boy born and raised in Nazi Germany and enrolled (with his parents blessing) into the Hitlerjugend. 

 

The audience is told that Hans is fed a constant diet of lies and taught how to hate any non-Aryan peoples - particularly the Jews. His sacred duty is to serve his Führer and Fatherland, even if this meant sacrificing his life.    

 

In one scene, Hans and his fellow pupils watch as their teacher draws a cartoon on the blackboard of a rabbit being eaten by a fox, prompting Hans to express his sympathy for the former. The teacher, furious by this display of feeling, orders Hans to sit in the corner wearing a dunce-cap, to the amusement of his classmates. 

 

Hans thus learns an important lesson; namely, that it is right for the strong to prey on the weak and that he must show no mercy for his natural inferiors.

 

Later, Hans takes part in a book-burning, where works by Spinoza, Voltaire, and Einstein are consigned to the flames and the Bible is replaced with a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf. 

 

After years endlessly marching and sieg heiling dressed in his Hitler Youth uniform, Hans is finally deemed a good Nazi and old enough to join the Wehrmacht so that he can fight (and if need be die) for his country. 

 

Years of indoctrination into National Socialist ideology have ensured he only sees, thinks, and does what the Party want him to see, think, and do. Hans has effectively become a hate-filled automaton, blind to the irony of the fact that in order to view Jews as subhuman, he has himself been dehumanised.

 

Ultimately, Hans and his young comrades meet the violent end they were educated for and the film ends with a row of swastika-stamped graves ...  

 

 

II.

Unfortunately, Nazis are not the only ones who educate their children for death, or martyrdom, as some would have it ... 

 

The textbooks used in the Palestinian Authority school system are full of deadly ideas and images. Expressions of hatred towards Israel - including the denial of its right to exist and praise for the armed struggle against it, as well as crude antisemitic propaganda targeting Jews in general - are so commonplace that even the UN and the EU have voiced their concern [2]. 

 

But whether some members of these organisations like it or not - and whether flag-waving supporters of Palestine care to admit it or not - youngsters in Gaza and the West Bank are educated from birth in an atmosphere of religious and political fervour, which results in (and perpetuates) a profoundly depressing cycle of violence and terrorism disguised as holy war or jihad. 

 

 

Images found in Palestinian schoolbooks showing a youth firing stones 

at Israeli soldiers and a girl laughing as the infidels burn. 

 

 

Notes

 

[1] Gregor Ziemer, an American author and teacher who lived in Germany from 1928 to 1939, wrote the book Education for Death after fleeing Germany on the eve of World War II. His work highlights how the Nazi Party controlled every aspect of children's education. As well as the Disney short, the book also inspired the black-and-white live action film Hitler's Children (dir. Edward Dmytryk, 1943), starring Tim Holt, Bonita Granville, and Kent Smith. It's brutal portrayal of life in the Hitler Youth was among the most financially successful films produced by RKO Studios. 

 

[2] As recently as May of this year - just five months before the present conflict in Gaza began (thanks to Hamas) - the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning hateful Palestinian textbooks and threatening to freeze funding for education, unless all antisemitic content was removed.

      Whether they'll actually do anything, however, is doubtful; the EU remains the Palestinian Authority's largest financial benefactor and this is the fourth consecutive year that the European Parliament has passed a resolution criticizing the Palestinian Authority for its school material. Nevertheless, this is the first time that an EU resolution has directly linked the deplorable stuff found in some textbooks with the role played by adolescents in terrorism.  

      For their part, the PA defends much of the material as an important part of their own cultural narrative.

      As for the United Nations, in 2019 a panel of independent experts submitted a report containing unprecedented criticism of the Palestinian Authority, finding that they had failed to implement UN treaties on racism. 

      The committee also reported the existence of hate speech in media outlets (particularly those controlled by Hamas), in statements made by public officials, and in school curricula and textbooks. It called on the PA to combat such hate speech and to remove derogatory comments and stereotypical images from school textbooks that perpetuate racial prejudice.

 

Cruella De Vil: If She Doesn't Scare You, No Evil Thing Will

Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil in Disney's
101 Dalmations (dir. Stephen Herek, 1996)

Cruella De Vil is a character originally created by Dodie Smith in her 1956 children's book The Hundred and One Dalmations. But probably most of us know her via Walt Disney's animated film adaptation or later live-action version, starring Glenn Close (1961 and '96 respectively).   

As the (less than subtle) name suggests, the puppy-stealing London heiress wrapped in mink is one of fiction's great villains. She has become an icon of stylish (and stylised) evil within popular culture, both in the English-speaking world and beyond. The Polish, for example, are very fond of the woman they know as Cruella De Mon, whilst the French are equally attracted to Cruella D'Enfer. 

What very few people realise, however, is that her surname is also a literary allusion to Bram Stoker's Dracula (1897). In the novel, the Count sometimes goes under the name of De Ville; he purchases a house in London under this alias, for example. Thus, Roger Radcliffe's description of her as a vampire bat and an inhuman beast, whilst intended to be humorous, is perhaps more apt than he realises.    

The animated Disney version of Cruella - voiced by Betty Lou Gerson - differed from the character described by Smith in several respects. For example, in the novel she is said to be cooly indifferent and detached. But in the film she's a manic character, only just managing to keep things together. Gerson is believed to have based her version of Cruella on the actress Tallulah Bankhead, known for her outrageous personality and many mannerisms.  

In the live-action 1996 film, meanwhile, Cruella was re-imagined as the glamorous head of a haute couture fashion house specialising in the use of exotic skins and fur. At the start of the film it's revealed that she had even had a rare white Siberian tiger slaughtered for its pelt.       

Although the movie wasn't particularly well-received, Close's performance in the role as the cigarette smoking doraphile and zoosadistic sociopath won critical acclaim and secured her a place within the pornographic imagination; as did her distinctive costumes, make-up, and jewellery (the latter made from teeth to emphasise her fetishistic penchant for wearing dead animal parts).

Ah, Cruella! Cruella! This evil Venus in Furs! This mad embodiment of coldness and cruelty!

The curl of her lips
The ice in her stare
All innocent children
Had better beware ...


Notes

The song Cruella De Vil was written by Mel Leven and sung in 101 Dalmations (1961) by Bill Lee. Lyrics © Walt Disney Music Company / Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. Click here to watch on YouTube (and don't forget to sing along).

The animator for Cruella in all her scenes in the above film was Marc Davis. 

The costumes worn by Glenn Close as Cruella in the '96 movie were designed by Anthony Powell and Rosemary Burrows.

The Three Ducks (Donald, Daffy & Howard)

Donald Duck © The Walt Disney Company / Howard the Duck © Marvel Worldwide, Inc.

Daffy Duck © Warner Bros. Inc.

I have never been a great fan of Disney's Donald Duck. Partly, this is due to his choice of outfit consisting of blue sailor shirt, cap and red bow tie; not a look I much care for.

That said, he's clearly more interesting and more edgy than his friend and rival Mickey Mouse. For whereas the latter is simply irritating, the former is amusingly irritable and often seems at odds with those around him and in general conflict with life - a bit like a feathered George Costanza. Indeed, someone should write a comparative analysis of these two characters as they seem to share a wide range of personality traits.

Despite this retrospective Seinfeld connection, as a child I had much more time for Donald's Warner Bros. counterpart, Daffy Duck. Probably this has something to do with being part of a TV generation growing up on Looney Tunes, rather than being a regular movie-goer. Also, Daffy, created by Tex Avery, was, to me at least, simply funnier as well as a more contemporary-seeming, more savvy figure than Donald. Mel Blanc's brilliant vocal characterization doubtless played a large part in this. And, crucially, Daffy spurned the sailor suit and dared to go naked.

  

The third fictional bird to have played an active role in my imagination, is Howard the Duck, created by writer Steve Gerber and artist Val Mayerik for Marvel Comics in 1973. Like Donald and Daffy, Howard is often ill-tempered and foul-mouthed (no pun intended). But unlike them, his character lends itself more to nihilism and existential angst, rather than screwball comedy. 

For Howard reveals that life is joke. But it's an absurd and often cruel joke lacking in point or punchline. As Gerber once explained, via Howard he sought to demonstrate how the things, people, and events we value and take seriously are distinguishable from those things, people, and events we despise or think ludicrous only thanks to interpretation and perspectivism (i.e. personal prejudice and the contingency of viewpoint).

Unfortunately, Gerber and his publishers soon clashed over issues of 'creative control' and the writer was removed from his own series in 1978. The comic in its original format quickly folded. Around this time, Disney was also threatening to sue Marvel for copyright infringement, claiming that Howard looked too similar to Donald and insisting that the former put some pants on!

Today, now that Disney own Marvel, one can't help fearing that with or without trousers, Howard's days are sadly numbered.