 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Click here
|
Disney: The Tragic Kingdom's Fall From Grace 10/15/1997 It is the characteristic excellence of the strong man that he can bring momentous issues to the fore and make a decision about them. The weak are always forced to decide between alternatives they have not chosen themselves.
-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer1 Walt Disney, a company which became famous for its quality family productions, has, in recent years, embarked upon ventures that are damaging to the traditional family, and, by extension, to American society.
Such activities as promoting Gay Days at Disney World (and not informing other guests until they show up to see a man dressed in a black patent-leather skirt and pink rhinestone mouse ears2), publishing a book which contends that homosexuals are a third sex, equal to males and females; and, releasing an album by Insane Clown Posse, whose promotional website "[w]elcome[s] [kids] to [a] dark carnival, a celestial circus of lunacy, madness, and excess that travels time and space to distort pleasant youthful memories into horrific living nightmares" (emphasis added), are all examples of Disney's moral bankruptcy.
As a result, Disney has lost many parents' trust. Now pro-family groups are working to convince the company to return to the principles Walt Disney himself found important.
The Walt Disney company has lost its moorings in American culture. By owning ABC, Disney comes into America's living room every night; by owning Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures and Miramax Films, they influence untold millions of people every week in the theaters; and, by owning two book publishers, various radio and television stations, and 880 Disney stores, The Disney Company touches children's hearts and minds. It's easy to see that Disney influences every part of our lives.
The Walt Disney company needs to realize that it has a responsibility to the American people. In a recent paper, Richard D. Land, President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Conference, wrote, "As the caretakers of national treasures like Mickey Mouse, their influence looms even larger than their revenues. They have tremendous power to mold national opinion and values." Land continued, ". . . most parents viewed Disney as an ally and a friend in the struggle for decent, wholesome family entertainment."3 Disney has a responsibility to the ideals it once engendered.
It used to be that Disney productions were top-notch entertainment. That cannot be said anymore. Ironically, the actor hired to play the voice of an amiable gargoyle in The Hunchback of Notre Dame is uneasy about taking his son to see one of Disney's "kid" films.4 It is certain that Walt Disney would be horrified if he were to see his company today. However, the company has the opportunity to set a new precedent for its future productions. But will it? A Historical Context When Hitler began his systematic annihilation of people who did not measure up to his standard of a perfect race, the church was strangely silent. Their rationale was that Hitler would never impose or persecute the church. And, after all, Hitler was a political figure and the church should never get involved with politics.
There were a few dissenting voices during that period of history. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a well-known pastor in the 1920's and 30's. He worked not only as a Pastor, but with the underground. Later in the war, he was part of a failed attempt by Admiral Canaris to assassinate Hitler. Pastor Bonhoeffer saw the actions of the Nazi government and was deeply troubled.
What, he reasoned, would prevent the Nazi stormtroopers from coming after the Christians once they had captured all the Jewish and handicapped people. In response to these troubling thoughts, Pastor Bonhoeffer used his pulpit to preach against the evil he saw in Germany. Bonhoeffer, in essence, said, if a moral people do not stand against immoral acts, those people will suffer. These words and convictions eventually led to Bonhoeffer's death.
We must stand against the immoral acts Disney has proliferated or suffer as a result of it in our culture, in our children's views on the world and in our family structures. Disney has very clearly crossed a moral line in advocating an alternative lifestyle through their theme park activities, their movies, their music and their TV shows. What more does Disney have to do to motivate people to protest against their actions. What will it take? Historical Perspective on Morality in the Entertainment Business In 1930, the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, Inc. had a production code which many others in the industry, such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), endorsed. This production code was created in cooperation with the church, and in response to what was considered:
"a growing trend of departure from the level of accepted moral standards." In the introduction of this production code, it was stated that, "Motion picture producers recognize the high trust and confidence which has been placed in them by the people of the world and which have made motion pictures a universal form of entertaining. . . . they [the producers] know that the motion picture within its field of entertainment may be directly responsible for spiritual and moral progress, for higher types of social life, and for much correct thinking. (emphasis added)5
This production code had three general principles:
The Church, acting on behalf of the people, helped to ensure that these standards were met. Uncle Walt had no problem with this code, because the films under his direction fell well within its parameters. Unfortunately, in the 1960's, the Church decided to abandon its involvement in the entertainment business, and since then, there has been a gradual drift into immorality.
The ironic thing about this shift in production is that it was not driven by the market. A study conducted for Michael Medved by the research director of the Screen Actors Guild found that every year from 1983 to 1993, PG-rated movies financially outperformed R-rated movies.6 Mark Canton, president of Sony Pictures, confirmed these findings in a 1993 speech to motion picture distributors by stating that "[S]ince PG-films are three times more likely to gross $100 million than R-rated movies, any smart business person can see what we must do -- make more PG films.'" If Disney wants to continue in the business of producing classics, it should remember the heroines that made Disney synonymous with quality family entertainment. The Moral and Cultural Problems with the Magic Kingdom "When [Walt Disney] opened Disneyland on July 17, 1955, [he] dedicated it to the ideals, the dreams and the hard facts that have created America . . . with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world."7 It's hard to believe that the Walt Disney Company is following its founderís vision for the Disney Company. As a long-standing entertainment icon, the Magic Kingdom exerts an emotional and nostalgic hold on American culture. But it is fast losing this distinction because of its arrogance towards the very consumers it once served.
It wasn't too long ago that Disneyland's male employees were required to be clean shaven and to have short hair. Likewise, the women and Disney characters were dressed modestly and in good taste. The park was also immaculately maintained, and children could romp and play without fear they would be accosted by sexual deviants.
Since 90% of Americans do not endorse or approve of homosexuality8, the question must be asked, why does Disney feel it must produce the movies, books, television shows and music which promote a homosexual lifestyle, graphic violence and unrestrained immorality? The Fall From Grace The downward slide toward moral decay appears to be a freefall. It took Rome 300 years to fall, but it may take The Disney Company less than 30 years. Let's look at some of the examples:
Selected Disney Companies:
In response to these actions, CWA, along with the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), various other family groups and denominations, are boycotting Disney. CEO Michael Eisner's response to the SBC boycott was "[they] took a very extreme position, which we feel is foolish. They seem to have been off on a tangent this year."15 And, The Disney Company's press release blatantly responds, "[W]e are proud that the Disney brand creates more family entertainment of every kind than anyone else in the world, and we plan to increase production." This "in your face" response to the concerns about Disney's activities communicates either an inability or unwillingness to listen to valid complaints. What We Can Learn From the Historians and Other Boycotts We have only to go back to the founding of our nation and revisit the Boston Tea Party to see that standing on principle yields freedoms that everyone can enjoy.
As Cal Thomas, in one of his op-eds on the subject of the Disney boycott, wrote, "No one thought the young man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square eight summers ago would be successful in deterring the Chinese army from firing its appointed rounds, but that image spoke to a world gone mushy about the power of one."
He also recounted the story of William Wilberforce's moral stand against slavery. Wilberforce was hotly vilified for his stand, and yet, on his deathbed, word reached him that the English Parliament had finally outlawed slave trade. Here was a man who stood firm in his moral convictions and eventually saw a change in public policy. Another example a of a boycott toppling an immoral system after many years is South Africa.
Disney is not invincible. We have only to look at their aborted ventures in Long Beach, CA, or EuroDisney in Paris, France; or more recently, the debacle involving Disney's attempt to build a historical theme park in Manassas, Virginia.
In 1991, Disney walked away from a $2 billion marine-themed project in Long Beach, CA, when environmental concerns dragged on.16 EuroDisney, an American-style theme park in Paris, [France]; drew disappointing crowds and lost nearly $1 billion in its first year.17 And in Manassas, VA, writers and historians banded together to fight the corporate giant's land grab and defeated it. When they spoke up to save the Civil War battleground sites, they were hooted, mocked, and ridiculed.18 This sounds surprisingly like todayís coverage of the current boycott.
In the end, the articles and editorials which were written about the Manassas project agreed that Disney would do better to build elsewhere, instead of desecrating historic areas. We too can communicate to Disney, through the boycott and other venues, that it would do better to listen to its bread and butter consumers, than a small group of politicking homosexuals. Why Family Groups Are Boycotting To sum up the primary reason we should participate in a boycott, columnist Linda Bowles writes, "One of the greatest spiritual tragedies of our time is that a number of mainline churches have been seduced and corrupted by the spurious argument that to judge homosexuality is un-Christian."19 This allegation weakens the argument that we should be standing on principle and on the moral underpinnings upon which this country was founded. Additionally, this shows that "homosexuals have refined the art of propaganda."20 Ms. Bowles continues by stating, "Homosexuals have identified Christianity as the enemy. Religious values stand between them and what they want to do and be."21 At one time, the homosexual community viewed Disney as an enemy, because of its commitment to family values and family programming. This can no longer be said.
CWA, along with the various other groups, have decided to take a stand. We can no longer be the "silent church." It is clear that by not confronting the homosexual agenda, we implicitly endorse it. We are also willing to be a light in this dark world -- despite the cost.
"Disney finds itself in hot water with the Southern Baptists [and other groups such as CWA] precisely because Disney -- not Time Warner, Sony, or Fox -- presented themselves as the avatar of 'family entertainment,' while out some unmarked door the conglomerate was shoveling something else. If customers now want to complain because they see the company moving in an 'anti-Christian and anti-family direction,' Disney can thank itself. It trained them to expect better," writes Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. of the Wall Street Journal.
Disney is an integral part of our history, our culture and our heritage. It would be a pity to allow Mickey Mouse to become the poster child for the homosexual movement. It also would be sad if we could no longer freely bring our children to the Disney theme parks, or to Disney movies, because executives insist on kowtowing to a small minority of people who do not represent America. It is time for American families to speak out. We must let Disney know that we expect better from them.
|
|
Concerned Women for America 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 488-7000 Fax: (202) 488-0806 |
Feedback / Questions? || Problem with this page? || Archives
