Walt Disney Biography
Matt Russo
some reading over Winter break. OH, I can't WAIT until winter break...
My Hell semester will be over, and then... WDW!!!! Let me at it!
Thanks
Matt Russo
Richard Trethewey
The book "Walt Disney: An American Original" by Bob Thomas (Hyperion)
is the definitive work. Since he was commissioned by Disney to write
it, he had complete access to the Archives and Mr. Thomas has been
writing and speaking about Walt for over thirty years now. You won't
find much of anything negative about Walt here, of course. If you're
looking for a more critical look at Walt, I'd suggest "The Disney
Version" by Richard Shickel (Simon and Schuster). Schickel doesn't
hesitate to criticize Walt. Indeed, Disney fans would probably feel
he went out of his way to be critical. Still, it add balance.
I also enjoyed "The Man Behind The Magic" by Katherine and Richard
Greene, if only because they were the only ones to print photographs
of Walt's parents that didn't make them look like mannequins(sp?).
Jack Kinney's "Walt Disney And Other Assorted Characters" (Harmony Books)
gives an animator's point of view with a decided edge. Diane Disney
Miller's "The Story Of Walt Disney" is pretty saccharine, as you
would expect from a doting daughter, but it has the most human
perspective of all the Disney biographies.
Now then, with all of that, I hope you'll forgive a blatant plug
for my own book... at least indirectly. In 1993, a man named Marc
Eliot wrote a book called "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince"
(Carol Publishing Group). In that book, Eliot made many scandalous
allegations about Walt. The Disney family, the Studio, and all
knowledgeable authorities roundly criticized the book for its
errors and sloppy, sleazy reporting. Eliot followed rumors including
one that claimed that Walt was actually the illegitimate son of
a Spanish woman. Eliot also used the FBI file on Walt as a basis
for claiming that Walt was a spy for the FBI. When I heard this
story, I was curious, so I got my own copy of Walt's file through
the Freedom of Information Act. The file contains a record of
many events, many documenting Walt's contacts with the Bureau, but
none supporting the allegation Walt was a "spy". As a Disneyana
dealer, I knew a lot of folks would be interested in seeing Walt's
FBI file, so I organized the material into a book and included
my own commentary on what the file shows. It includes the
transcript of Walt's 1947 testimony before the House Un-American
Activities Committee, and over 70 capsule biographies of important
people in the Disney family and the history of the Studio. I pay
particular attention to places where the Eliot book loses track
of the facts. Anyhow, if you'd like more information, just
write or call and mention "Walt Disney: The FBI Files". Thanks
for putting up with this. I didn't intend to be so long-winded.
Richard L. Trethewey
800-647-5085 from 9AM to 5PM Pacific time
Stephen W. Worth
<tret...@delphi.com> wrote:
> Now then, with all of that, I hope you'll forgive a blatant plug
> for my own book... at least indirectly. In 1993, a man named Marc
> Eliot wrote a book called "Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince"
> (Carol Publishing Group). In that book, Eliot made many scandalous
> allegations about Walt. The Disney family, the Studio, and all
> knowledgeable authorities roundly criticized the book for its
> errors and sloppy, sleazy reporting.
As bad as the Eliot book was in some parts, the section on the Disney
strike made up for it in my opinion. None of the other Walt biographies
are nearly as well researched in this area. The Disney strike was one of
the most pivotal happenings in the animation business and it's a shame
that none of the other writers you mentioned gave it the objective and
accurate review that it deserved. Eliot was the only one to seek out the
strike supporters like Art Babbitt and Bill Littlejohn to get their side
of the story, instead of depending on the heavily edited (and one sided)
resources in the Disney Archives.
____________________________________________
Stephen Worth Animation Art
vin...@lightside.com Restoration, Authentication,
Appraisal and Sales
Richard Trethewey
but I have to admit I hope you're wrong about Michael Medved being
the author. My view of the world and his just don't intersect.
I should also have mentioned Bill Justice's autobiography "Justice
For Disney" (TOMART) as a good insight into Walt. Since Bill worked
both as an animator and an Imagineer, I think he worked pretty
closely with Walt on things where Walt's occasional insensitivity
was less prevalent. Just a thought.
Richard L. Trethewey
Rainbo Animation Art
AlWeHo
Richard, there is also a book coming out from Michael Medved (sp) who
wrote the "Jews in Hollywood" book.
Forgive me if I have both the author and title wrong, the article ran in
Variety a couple of weeks ago.
I understand he is also a good writer, and will take an even-handed
approach with Walt.
Hope this helps (as un-informative as it may be...)
Al
(alw...@aol.com)
Richard Trethewey
Steve,
Smile, you and Karl Cohen are really into that strike.
But seriously, you're right that the strike seldom gets more than an
asterisk. I cannot agree, however, that Eliots coverage made up for
the rest of his book. Like the rest of Dark Prince, the strike
coverage was nearly all anecdotes of people who had an axe to grind.
Walt's behavior during the strike left a lot to be desired, but
Eliot made no attempt to present his viewpoint. Eliot's research
seems extensive until you examine what he does with it. While
most people latch onto the alleged speech in Reno, I think there
is another example that's far more telling. The book has a photo
of a "Record Of A Birth" document from Chicago in the name "Walter
Disney" that Eliot uses to add credence to the Mojacar Conspiracy
Theory that Walt was actually born illegitimately in 1891. Eliot
quotes the clearly visible date at the bottom of the document to
support the January 1891 "birthdate". Of course, if you look
closely at the document it has a box for "Date Of Birth" filled
in with December 20, 1890 - the recognized birthdate of Raymond.
The rest of that story is only slightly less credible or well
researched. It only took a phone call to the Cook County Clerk's
office to discover that the real reason there was no birth certificate
for Walt was that Illinois didn't require birth certificates until
1916. One additional phone call to the FBI took care of the
"SAC Contact" silliness. Sorry. As you can see, I don't think
much of Eliot's work. Good luck!
Stephen W. Worth
<tret...@delphi.com> wrote:
> But seriously, you're right that the strike seldom gets more than an
> asterisk. I cannot agree, however, that Eliots coverage made up for
> the rest of his book. Like the rest of Dark Prince, the strike
> coverage was nearly all anecdotes of people who had an axe to grind.
> Walt's behavior during the strike left a lot to be desired, but
> Eliot made no attempt to present his viewpoint.
Yeah, you're right... the bit about Walt's parentage was pure speculation,
but it was interesting for me, not because of the info it shines on Walt's
actual birth mother, but for the speculation that Walt might have had
suspicions himself about the subject. There is a lot of stuff in the first
few films about separating a child from a parent and placing it with a
surrogate parent. (Pinocchio being adopted and manipulated by Stromboli /
Bambi and his mother and mysterious father / The wicked queen in Snow
White -- her step mother / Dumbo's separation from his mother / etc.) I
found it fascinating that Disney might have felt this kind of alienation
himself, whether warranted or unwarranted. It's these kinds of resonances
that give Disney's early films the same depth as folk tales and fairy
tales... (have you read Bettleheim's "Uses of Enchantment?" -- ti's
fascinating and quite critical of Disney's embellishments on the original
folk sources.) In Eliot's book you have to read between the lines and
ignore the slanted "facts" in some of the more lurid parts to get the tiny
nugget of truth in the whole thing., but it's still interesting.
When it comes to Eliot's charges of Walt's prejudice against Jews, Blacks
and Women, I think he hit the nail right on the head. One glance at the
list of employees at the studio would verify that. Joe Grant was the only
Jew who ever became successful in the early days of the studio, and he has
admitted that he never discussed it with anyone for fear of losing his
job. There was only one black employee, a barber... and women were held
back as artists with only two or three notable exceptions. They were
accepted as color stylists and designers (Mary Blair and Sylvia Holland)
but not as animators. Do you know who Xenia de Mattia is? She was a great
animator at Disney who never got any acclaim because she was a woman and
animation was incorrectly seen as a man's career at the time. It is also
true that Walt kept an autographed photo of Mussolini in his office in the
early 30's. Mussolini was heralded by some Americans at the time, (despite
the fact that he was a fascist) because, "at least he makes the trains run
on time." These kinds of beliefs were common among people of Walt's
upbringing and era. That's no insult against Walt's memory, it was simply
a less enlightened time in some ways. Sweeping this under the rug would
only serve to perpetuate the wrong that was done against people that
didn't fit Walt's mid-Western image of what his employees should be like.
Even today, some prejudices against women and certain ethnic groups
continue in the animation industry. It's an important topic, and shouldn't
be ignored by Disney historians.
As for the strike, I don't think The Dark Prince pictured Walt as any kind
of a tyrant. It gave a clear and complete picture of a businessman of the
old school, who thought his company was his to run as he wished and that
the only way to oppose organized labor was to attack it head on. That was
Walt's viewpoint and Eliot made that very clear. That was certainly a
justifiable position given how far he brought the company between 1928 and
1938. As for the strike leaders who Eliot interviewed having axes to
grind... well I suppose they did, but those axes were richly earned.
Remember that Art Babbitt didn't lead the strike to improve his own salary
and benefits, he was paid a tremendous amount of money by depression
standards. He had a house in the Hollywood Hills and drove a Lincoln. The
reason he led the strike was to help the assistants and ink and paint
girls who were required to put in unpaid overtime at starvation wages just
to keep their jobs. Disney asked for (and got) the complete dedication of
his staff on Snow White. But when he plowed all of the profits into
building a huge new studio, and rewarding just a select few lead
animators, while still demanding that the rest of the artists continue to
expend the same amount of time and effort for the same paltry wages, he
was asking for trouble. (boy is that a run on sentance or what!) Anyway,
Babbitt did what he did for ethical and moral reasons, not personal axe
grinding. He was fired for incompetance several times. (each time being
reinstated by the Supreme Court.) Any other man would have just given up
and gone on to another studio. But Babbitt was a different breed of man,
and as an animator, he was far from incompetant.
Basically, the reason that they call it HISTORY is because it's "His
Story." Every account has a point of view that is justifiable from
somebody or other's perspective. Ultimately, the reader has to come to his
own conclusions. Deifying Walt by picturing him as the living embodyment
of the American Dream, while ignoring his foibles, intolerances and
prejudices does him as much of a disservice as a person as dragging his
reputation through the mud would. Unfortunately, because of the political
problems inherent in using the Disney Archives as the sole source of
research info and giving the Disney Co. the right to edit "offensive"
material, it may be impossible to come up with a book that gives both
sides of the issue. The purpose of the Archives is not to preserve Disney
history, it is to edit it, and make that info available to serve the
purposes of the legal, filmmaking and marketing arms of the company. I
personally think that after reading all of the authorized biographies,
Eliot's book fills in some valuable corners of Walt's personality that
haven't been dealt with before. I recomend it as an alternative, not the
absolute truth. Film history is a relatively young branch of journalism.
Someday we may see one single text that presents a completely balanced
view of Walt's life and accomplishments, but I sure haven't seen one yet.
Thanks for reading my long-winded response!
See ya!
Steve
Richard Trethewey
Sorry for the lapse. Its been one of those weeks, sigh.
I'll just take these things as they appear in your note...
As to the speculation that Walt had doubts about his parentage,
it's like 90% of the material in Dark Price, allegations tossed
out without providing any evidence, let alone a source. I just
don't find it credible. I go into my reasons in my book, but just
consider the number of people who would have had to have been
sworn to secrecy in order to keep the information from Walt. I
just don't see how the brothers could have kept such information
from Walt, especially Roy. The fact remains that whatever friction
there was between Walt and his father over the way he was treated
as a youngster, Walt was certainly devoted to him. Walt and Roy
built their parents a home in California, and Walt gave his dad
his own workshop in the Studio and gave him a window on Main Street.
Not everything Eliot wrote was wrong, I just didn't find anything
he said that wasn't confirmed elsewhere to lack credibility. If
you look in the appendices where he denotes the sources for facts
and quotes, I think you'll note that there's nothing behind any
of the lurid or speculative material.
As for Walt's biases, I didn't look into that issue at all. I did
note some newspaper articles that indicated a modicum of sensitivity
to Blacks' reaction to Uncle Remus as Song of the South was in its
early stages, but much of that could have been to preserve the
Studio's image. While counting women and minorities in high places
in the Studio makes for interesting speculation, it's not a very
reliable indication of Walt's attitudes this many years after the
fact. As some clever wordsmith once said, "The plural of
'anecdote' is not 'data'." Yet, to be honest, I'm sure Walt's
attitudes were typical of the day in many ways. However, in all
of the books I read, I found very few instances of venality by
Walt. Art Babbit certainly was one, unfortunately, but I really
didn't have him in mind when I wrote about people with axes to
grind. The Iwerks clan seemed to be very outspoken with Eliot.
Eliot said he had talked to Art Babbit quite a bit, but when I
think back on the book, I don't have the impression that anything
of Babbit's in the book was particularly nasty or biased.
I was thinking of Walt's post-strike persecution of Babbit
and the hiring of Willie Bioff when I mentioned that Walt was
less than a saint during the strike. My sympathies were also won
by the poor aspiring artists who were solicitied to make the trek
to Hollywood for an apprenticeship of varying lengths (which
apparently consisted largely of in-betweening and ink-and-paint work
more than any art classes) for slave wages, only to be summarily
dismissed when they were no longer needed. But while Walt
obviously abused a whole slew of people who worked for him,
he also appeared genuinely hurt by the thought of a strike.
He was either an insensitive clod or so totally wrapped up in
his work that he didn't see what his employees went through
during this period. Or perhaps the truth lies somewhere in
the middle. I suspect that he lost all perspective in pursuit
of making Snow White and afterward keeping the Studio afloat
in the following years leading up to the War.
God only knows why Walt had a picture of Mussolini. We know that
prominent people were always writing to him, and obviously
something about Mussolini attracted Walt and vice versa. On the
other hand, Walt was friends with Spencer Tracy (hardly a Fascist)
and was close enough to Louis B. Mayer to support him against the
major studios. In reading Walt's testimony before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, the only place I know where
Walt's political views were expressed at length, unedited and
obviously unrehearsed, it is clear that he wasn't very sophisticated
in such matters. He knew he didn't like communists, socialists,
or unions, and that was about it. "I feel that if [the Communist
Party] can be proven un-American that it ought be outlawed. I
think in some way it should be done without interfering with the
rights of the people. I think that will be done. I have that
faith. Without interfering, I mean, with the good American rights
that we all have now, and we want to preserve." Every time you
find an example of one kind of behavior in Walt, you can pretty
easily find an example of the exact opposite - even in the
authorized biographies.
Certainly authors are entitled to a point of view. I tout my
book as having been written "from a fan's point of view." But
I don't consider that license to propagate rumors, slander,
distort, or deceive, and Eliot was guilty of all four. He seldom
had any corroborating evidence for anything he wrote that had
not been previously written, or at least he failed to provide it
in print. I cannot think of a single reliable fact that Eliot
brought to light that wasn't available in the other biographies.
Hell, even the Mojacar business was mentioned in one of the other
books, but that author had the good sense to dismiss it. I'm not
sure of exactly what crime Eliot may have committed in writing
"Dark Prince," but it wasn't journalism. It wasn't even attempted
journalism or conspiracy to commit.
And believe me, I am *very* familiar with the Company's attitude
toward people writing about Walt without their blessing. They
kept me dangling for several weeks waiting for permission to
reprint a couple of letters Walt wrote to J. Edgar Hoover that
appear in the file. It wasn't fun and it didn't turn out well.
You now know the secret behind the blank pages. Still, I choose
not to think the Company had a sinister motive in denying the
world knowledge of the fact that Walt thanked Hoover for sending
him an autographed copy of one of Hoover's books, sigh. Maybe
when I do the second edition to correct the errors Karl keeps
finding (and he found some beauts, smile) I'll have to courage
to take a pot-shot at Disney Legal in the Foreword. And in my
own defense, Your Honor, I tried to keep some perspective. I
criticized Walt when I thought he deserved it, I just seldom
found a solid basis to do so.
Aloha!(tm)
Rick Trethewey
Stephen W. Worth
<tret...@delphi.com> wrote:
> As to the speculation that Walt had doubts about his parentage,
> it's like 90% of the material in Dark Price, allegations tossed
> out without providing any evidence, let alone a source.
I agree that there's little hard evidence for the claims about Walt's
questionable parentage. Eliot himself makes that quite clear when you read
the book. But I think it's interesting that he might have had suspicions.
Also, reading between the lines and adding a little more speculation to
the heap... perhaps Walt wasn't looking for some hidden secret about his
own past... maybe he was looking for a lost brother ten years different in
age to him? A brother that shared his creative spark, rather than taking
after the more conservative minded Roy... Eliot doesn't mention that, but
it would certainly answer several of the factual inconsistencies. In my
reading of Eliot's book, I thought he was very clear about how
insubstantial these speculations were. He certainly wasn't presenting them
as uncontroverted fact.
> But while Walt
> obviously abused a whole slew of people who worked for him,
> he also appeared genuinely hurt by the thought of a strike.
> He was either an insensitive clod or so totally wrapped up in
> his work that he didn't see what his employees went through
> during this period.
I don't know if either was the case. I think he probably felt, like many
self-made men, that he was the father figure of his company, and that he
was doing the best thing for his children/employees whether they liked it
or not. That was the attitude of many early industrialists. (Carnegie,
Ford, etc...)
> God only knows why Walt had a picture of Mussolini. We know that
> prominent people were always writing to him, and obviously
> something about Mussolini attracted Walt and vice versa.
Again, I think he admired the unquestionable father figure that a
(benevolant) dictator would represent (not that Mussolini filled the bill
as entirely benevolent!)
> "I feel that if [the Communist
> Party] can be proven un-American that it ought be outlawed. I
> think in some way it should be done without interfering with the
> rights of the people. I think that will be done. I have that
> faith. Without interfering, I mean, with the good American rights
> that we all have now, and we want to preserve."
Yikes! That's a pretty scary quote! I wonder what Thomas Jefferson would
have to say about that! You won't hear sentiments like that in Great
Moments with Mr. Lincoln! (Although Margaret Thatcher might be willing to
agree with those sentiments when it comes to Northern Ireland...)
> Certainly authors are entitled to a point of view. I tout my
> book as having been written "from a fan's point of view." But
> I don't consider that license to propagate rumors, slander,
> distort, or deceive, and Eliot was guilty of all four.
I disagree on counts two and four. Legally, you can't slander a dead man;
and I think Eliot was very clear in the text and footnotes that some
points were unsubstantiated and were based on rumors. Rumors can be
interesting too as long as the author clearly states that they are rumors,
and you as the reader keep them in context. Maybe Eliot's book does
distort some things, but it is more a sin of omission. Eliot's book
doesn't seem deceitful to me, just one-sided and incomplete. Taken along
with the similarly one-sided authorized biographies and distilled through
a little careful thought, I think a careful reader can come up with a
pretty good idea of what Walt was really like as a man.
>He seldom
> had any corroborating evidence for anything he wrote that had
> not been previously written, or at least he failed to provide it
> in print. I cannot think of a single reliable fact that Eliot
> brought to light that wasn't available in the other biographies.
I think the whole chapter on the strike was well researched and had not
been adequately covered previously in any of the authorized biographies.
> And believe me, I am *very* familiar with the Company's attitude
> toward people writing about Walt without their blessing. They
> kept me dangling for several weeks waiting for permission to
> reprint a couple of letters Walt wrote to J. Edgar Hoover that
> appear in the file. Still, I choose
> not to think the Company had a sinister motive in denying the
> world knowledge of the fact that Walt thanked Hoover for sending
> him an autographed copy of one of Hoover's books, sigh.
Did you see the episode of Frontline on Hoover? Perhaps that had something
to do with their effort to maintain distance between them. Babbitt once
told me (I think I've got the particulars right...) that after the Art of
Walt Disney book was released, he noticed an illustration of the Mushroom
Dance attributed to an "unknown artist." He called the publisher to let
them know that he was the one responsible for the drawing and the
publisher told him that they knew that, but Walt had specifically demanded
the inaccurate caption, saying, "If that bastard Babbit's name is in my
book, I'll pull the rights for ALL of the illustrations." Politics, when
it came to the publication of sensitive info, was common even in those
days.
> And in my
> own defense, Your Honor, I tried to keep some perspective. I
> criticized Walt when I thought he deserved it.
Bravo! There are far too many folks who have done just about everything
short of nominating Walt for sainthood. He was a human being with his own
biases and foibles in addition to his creativity and genius. It's foolish
to ignore either side of the story. Maybe now that we've had "Walt Lite"
and the "Dark Prince," the stage will be set for someone else to do a
truly objective bio. If that is the case, then Eliot's book has served a
good purpose. (But I'll still take anything I read with a grain of salt!)
Thanks for the interesting thread!