Mother Talkers

Classic Christmas Cartoons... Not Politically Correct Anymore

Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:19:49 AM PDT

I’ve been busier than heck trying to get my house in order the past few days before family arrives today.  And, right now I should be busy cleaning bathrooms... but I just had to share one last diary with you before Christmas tomorrow.  

Last week, I saw an article on MSNBC about our old classic Christmas cartoons.  According to Mary Beth Ellis, the cartoons are no longer fun to watch... but are wrought with terrible social messages.  For example:

Why were the Peanuts characters so hideously unsupervised? Why can't Frosty the Snowman get over himself? Why are the elves in "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" so in need of hypertension meds?

There’s more....

In the case of "A Charlie Brown Christmas," baby-sitting my nephew forced me to view the special through the eyes of a person momentarily in charge of a 3-year-old. What I learned wasn’t the true meaning of Christmas or the dangers of over-commercialization, but that whipping other people around with a blanket looks like excellent fun. Hey, let's fling Linus to major head trauma! Peace on Earth. The child thinks this is hilarious, which leads me to fear that he will try it with his baby brother, and I will somehow get blamed.

We watch a lot of ABC Family Channel this time of year.  We know all the words to the Snow Miser and Heat Miser’s songs.  DH and I always get a chuckle out of the policeman who begins to write a ticket for the two elves who have ridden in to Southtown with their reindeer, Vixen, and says...”Riding a Vixen the wrong way down a one way street”.   I know... juvenile.  

We’ve seen Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer more times than I can count this past month.  Here’s what Ellis has to say about the classic Rudolph:

There is no workplace so wretched, however, as that in “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” Much has been made of Santa's incredible sense of entitlement in this film, and, as we can see, the North Pole is very much a top-down operation, with counterproductive attitudes issuing directly from the boot of St. Nick.

Every time Donner says, "No! This is man's work" as he stomps out of the cave, I shake my head over the fact that he still has a job when he comes back.

However, absolutely none of this excuses the trollopy behavior of Clarice, Rudolph’s little lady friend. She's filling exactly the role the men surrounding her expect her to, and her bow-headed self requires saving at the hands of a non-licensed dentist and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge destructor Yukon Cornelius.
Plus, she just met Rudolph, and she lets him walk her home. And before they've taken two steps? Full body contact. Then, at the end of the film, while everybody else is working, she's standing around under the mistletoe. Help a sister out, Clarice, and help yourself.

This all completely reminds me of Rachel’s diary about warning labels on the DVDs of old Sesame Street episodes.  Do we need that with these cartoons?  I guess Sesame Street’s saving grace is that the shows are supposed to be educational.  The Classic Christmas cartoons are pure entertainment... nothing more.  

But maybe they can be educational.  I’ve explained to Grant, who is 7 ½ that Donner saying (and yes, I do cringe when he says it) “this is man’s work” is ridiculous.  He gets that.  I think we can still watch the cartoons without worrying about any underlying social messages, because the greatest influence a child has are his parents.  If you teach your children these things aren’t acceptable, they’ll grow up knowing it to be true.  

Oh... and I also have to mention that Ellis gripes about Frosty’s ala Cookie Monster’s pipe in the Alister Cookie sketch.  Puleez... gimme a break.

Should we toss out all the old classic Christmas cartoons?  Do they need warning labels?  What say you, MotherTalkers?

Poll

Christmas Cartoons...

3%4 votes
1%2 votes
94%103 votes

| 109 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Christmas Cartoons, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, A Charlie Brown Christmas (all tags)

Permalink | 10 comments

  • Oh man... (0 / 0)

    here we go with trumped up indignation. Just because one has a deadline, one does not have the right to pick on Charlie Brown.  

    I childproofed my house but they got back in somehow.

    by lonestar canuck on Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 07:55:38 AM PDT

  • We just watched (0 / 0)

    Rudolph last night! My husband and I were rolling our eyes at stuff, but we all loved it. It's just dated, that's all.
  • Um, guys? (0 / 0)

    Isn't this piece meant to be a satire on modern parental attitudes?  It reads to me like it was inspired by the Sesame Street warning labels.

  • satire, sure (0 / 0)

    but still, did we need this article? I mean, really - it's kids' programming!

    • Strange (0 / 0)

      There's a discussion page linked to the article where people can post their thoughts and feelings about the Xmas specials and the article.  And, the author posted this:

      I'm Mary Beth Ellis, the author of this article.  I assure you that do not have issues, or need Valium, and was quite happy with my Christmas presents.

      I fear that some of you are misunderstanding the piece.  The point of it was to purposely view these special through the eyes of an adult-- which, of course, ruins them.  By showing the ridiculous reactions that we can have if we don't suspend our disbelief, I was arguing that we should view the specials as their creators intended.  So you see, I really do agree that these specials still are "magical," and we ought to see to it that they remain so.

      If you have any other anxieties about this article, feel free to email me or visit BlondeChampagne.com.  I'm sorry if you didn't like it.

      I still can't tell if it's satire... wouldn't the author say "Hey... it's satire, people".  It seems more like she was trying to be clever or something and it missed the mark.  

  • Huh... (0 / 0)

    I guess it is supposed to satire.  

    The author again on the discussion page:

    One more comment here:

    I certainly don't expect every person on the planet to agree with or love each word I've written.  If you don't understand that this piece was satirical, that's one thing; if you understood that it was satire and still didn't like it, that's another.  It is the nature of writing.  Everyone is welcome to his or her own opinion.  I have just as many emails from people who thanked me for the piece and liked it.

    What troubles me is the insulting nature of some of these responses.  I have always beleived that a vital part of writing is the discussion with readers, so I came here to reiterate that this is indeed a satire.  In my responses, I've calmy explained myself and even apologized to those of you who didn't like a piece which didn't cost you a dime to read.  However, some of you, never having met me, have decided that I am a nasty, miserable person, even after (presumably) reading my explanation.  If I truly am such a brooding termagant, do you really think I would have responded in this manner?  

    That is why I've twice invited everyone to email me to discuss the article in a civilized manner.  Exactly one person has actually done so; he and I exchanged emails, and he admitted that he'd read the article too quickly and enjoyed it the second time around once he understood the spirit in which it was intended.  We wished one another a merry Christmas and went on with our lives.

    If you are honestly of the opinion that I have deep, angry childhood issues and sit sadly in front of "How the Grinch Stole Christmas!" fretting about the poor, dead roast beast, then, well... I'm afraid there's nothing else to do but wish you a merry Christmas.  I hope everyone has a safe and prosperous 2008, and I also hope you enjoy these specials at the same time next year, as I certainly will.

Permalink | 10 comments