So I was very pleased with myself, since I’d picked up for a mere eight bucks from my video store a DVD of the original pilot episodes of the old “Lone Ranger” series. I’d watched the Clayton Moore/Jay Silverheels shows frequently when I was a kid, but never saw the first ones. Granted, for eight bucks, you can forget about extras. Be happy it plays at all. But I was pleased.
So I put it on and Kath and I settled in to watch it. The show opens, there’s the Ranger galloping up in the mask and the outfit, and the narrator says, “This is an epic tale of the most fabulous character of the old west.” And Kath and I looked at each other and immediately said, “Ohhhhh, he’s faaaaabulous!”
Uh boy.
PAD
• 
This can’t end well…
“How are you this morning, Tonto?”
“Tonto super. Thanks asking.”
raw hide?
Look, he wore a black mask, a tight, powder blue outfit, spent all his time camping and travelling, and only shot silver bullets. You BET he was fabulous.
Any fond memory of our past that we think is sweet and/or innocent can take on a whole different conotation when viewed by today’s eyes.
A perfect example is the musical “Hans Christian Andersen” with Danny Kaye.
I remember it as a nice little movie, worth the rental cost from Blockbuster. When I showed it to my nieces and nephews (ages 21 to 15), I was asked if Andersen was secretly a closet pedaphile!
I haven’t been able to watch the movie again since.
Something similar happened in film school when we watched some of the Douglas Sirk movies from the 1950s. Most of Rock Hudson’s dialogue was fair game for all those proto-MSTers in the audience (since it was before said show existed).
The next day in class, we were all yelled at by our prof for not being able to turn off the regulators in our head and just watch the movie in its proper cultural context.
Am I the only one here who’s getting visions of “Rustler’s Rhapsody” at this point? (Hëll, I may be the only one here who’s SEEN it … I think it grossed about, what, fifteen bucks?)
And as for the above…
Any fond memory of our past that we think is sweet and/or innocent can take on a whole different conotation when viewed by today’s eyes.
… let me just quote esteemed philosopher Tom Lehrer. I’ll start, you fill in the blanks:
“When correctly viewed, everything is _.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan — and the Wizard of Oz, __. ”
TWL
Powder-blue clothes, lots of silver,…sounds to me like a manager of ladies.
My girlfriend and I watched “The Care Bears Movie” not long ago, which I bought for her randomly one day, because she was really excited to find it on DVD for cheap, but didn’t have any money…
…anyway, we spent a good deal of the film laughing at our not-so-mature interpretations of the (non-existant) indications that the Care Bears are incredbily, spectacularly gay.
*bows head in shame*
Did I mention we’re both in our early 20s, I being a history major and legal studies minor planning on becoming a lawyer, and she a psychology major who’s also going on to grab school?
*laughs*
“Wait, did you say…CONFIDENTLY heterosexual…?”
Oh yes. Yes, I remember “Rustler’s Rhapsody” quite well, thanks.
And hey…what was the name of the first villain the Lone Ranger took on? Butch Cavendish. Yes, that’s right: His first opponent was Butch.
I’m reaaaaaally starting to hate the Rawhide Kid. “Rustler’s Rhapsody” aside, I never thought about this stuff before.
PAD
And before me I see one of the benefits of being a hermit: The ability to filter certain types of humour from your own.
I’ve never found gay jokes all that funny, and by going out on an as-needed basis and making exceptions only for people whose senses of humour I’m familiar with, I can keep them from pervading my own ideas of what’s funny.
Of course, that all goes to hëll when one of my few gay friends becomes extremely active in the Chicago gay community and invites me to the same party as a bunch of card-carrying GLAAD members. I won’t say I was forced, but my options were to either listen to the CD the slightly funny lesbian comedienne and pretend to be more amused than I was (my conclusion: gay comedy is many, many years behind straight and asexual comedy) or leave, and look like a paranoid straight guy (which I’m not — it’s equivalent, in its own way, to a lone white man in a group of black people who bear him no ill will: there’s a very good chance he’s mostl likely still at ill ease, no matter how enlightened he is). I still don’t find gay jokes all that funny, but now my mind tells me I should laugh anyway.
Anyway, your mention of the LR show’s cast sparked a memory in me (an asexual one that was extremely funny). In 1992, I was in the show The Nerd by Larry Shue. In it, there’s a scene where the main character is telling his friends where the eponymous nerd entered his life and says that they’d corresponded infrequently. The last town he’d moved to was “a town in Wisconsin with an Indian name… I can’t remember it…” and one of his friends says, “Silverheels.”
“Huh? Oh, right… Silverheels, Wisconsin.”
The oldest in the cast was 17, and the director couldn’t put his finger on the name. I didn’t get that joke for about five years.
If you ever see that a theatre near you is doing a presentation of The Nerd, go see it. It’s dámņ funny.
I saw “The Nerd” years ago, on Broadway, with Mark Hamill. It’s when I first met him; Bill Mumy introduced us.
PAD
Hmm. That means that just before you met him, I had my one and only encounter with Mark Hamill. Was living in LA then, and went in for the weekly comic run. Said “Excuse me” to the guy in front of the next rack I wanted to check…and realize he looks awfully familiar.
Since he chatted with the cashier before leaving, when I went up to pay I asked if that guy was Mark Hamill. Yep, it was, and what they’d been talking about was how he wanted his books held since he was about to go be in a Broadway play.
I haven’t read the new Rawhide Kid comics. However, I did listen to the book-on-tape version of Shane recently, and let me tell you that for the first, oh, third of the book, there’s an awful lot of suggestion that he is, well, fabulous. I mean, he shows up in slick and fancy duds, and as he comes in to the young narrator’s home, he plucks a feather and sticks it in his fancy hat. He has a “special understanding” with the narrator’s father… and when the narrator’s mother wants to know about what the current fashions are in the city, he is able to discourse at length about the minutae of what the modern urbane woman is wearing. And all the references to poeople who recognize just what kind of man he is…
It really is an enjoyable book, arguably the definitive example of its form. But it took me a while to believe that the overtones were unintended.
Just found out since posting my original comment above, that Turner Classic Movies is scheduled to show the Andersen movie Monday night at 7pm Central Daylight Time if anyone is interested.
It’s funny because I recently purchased the DC ARCHIVES HC of the first 20 issues of Detective Comics (Batman).
Every scene with Bruce and Ðìçk is increasingly more disturbing. Especially one where, after a solo adventure, Bruce chastises Ðìçk by saying “Why you rascal, I should beat your hide for jumping on those men without me.”
I always saw the Batman/Robin dynamic as father-son but when you read those early adventures, especially now that people like Michael Jackson have sensitized us to that brand of behavior, you can really see why those rumors about their TRUE relationship developed.
Its kind of strange that guys like Bob Kane or Jack Kirby, who grew up in the tough neighborhoods of NYC, would end up writing such swishy material. You write what you know and all that…
Best-Chris
Have you ever seen the Lenny Bruce-voiced Lone Ranger cartoon?
It is halarious and irreverent. It involves the Lone Ranger, who has never stayed around long enough for townsfolk to thank him, becoming rather greedy and perverted….
Anyway, a friend of mine had it taped years ago, so I have no idea where it came from or where it can be had. But it is worth finding if you are so inclined.
The sad thing is, PAD’s little anecdote is funnier than anything Zimmerman wrote in four issues of the new Rawhide Kid series…..where was Mel Brooks when we needed him?
On being unable to turn off certain filters: way back during my first year in grad school, I knew my brain had been altered irrevocably when I found myself, over Christmas break, sitting down in front of the TV and suddenly unable to watch “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer” without performing both Marxist and homoerotic readings of the text. (The most telling question reamains: just why was the dolly on the Island of Misfit Toys? There was nothing visibly “wrong” with her, after all, unlike the Charlie-in-the-Box or the train with square wheels, etc.)
My then-girlfriend and I began laughing over the absurdity of the exercise, much to my mother’s growing consternation. “Can’t you just leave it alone as a kids’ show? Next you’ll start doing this with The Wizard of Oz, or something….”
I barely kept the hot chocolate from launching out the nose….
On being unable to turn off certain filters: way back during my first year in grad school, I knew my brain had been altered irrevocably when I found myself, over Christmas break, sitting down in front of the TV and suddenly unable to watch “Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer” without performing both Marxist and homoerotic readings of the text.
‘I’m jolly old Chris Kringle, I’m the king of ding a ling!” I mean come on….
There hasn’t been any Smallville trheads lately, so I thought I would throw this comment in here. Hope that’s ok.
The WB has announced their fall schedule, and in a completely brain dead move has scheduled Smallville Wednesday nights at 8:00 (just before Angel at 9:00), but annoyingly opposite Enterprise on UPN.
The most telling question reamains: just why was the dolly on the Island of Misfit Toys? There was nothing visibly “wrong” with her, after all, unlike the Charlie-in-the-Box or the train with square wheels, etc.
When you pull the string on her back, she screams “WAGON TRAIN!” at a piercingly high volume. ‘strue. Heard it on the internet. And yes, it’s easy to see gay subtext in Rudolph. Not Rudolph himself so much, but Hermie? Gay as a tree full of parakeets. Consider his last line…
“All right, you can be a dentist. After Christmas.”
“C’mere! Open your mouth!”
Don’t look at me like that, dammit. I was normal before I started watching MST3K.
Re: Smallville…a completely brain-dead move? The WB’s moving their marquee player out of the way of 24 and the NBC comedies and setting it up in Dawson’s Creek‘s place to anchor Wednesday night. Seems like a pretty good idea to me, and Angel finally gets a lead-in that it fits together with, something it hasn’t had since Buffy switched to UPN. Plus, they stand a better chance of getting more young viewers at 8 o’clock than at 9.
(my conclusion: gay comedy is many, many years behind straight and asexual comedy)
Not everyone has the same sense of humour. The fact that you did not find a lesbian comic amusing does not make the comedy “many, many years behind straight and asexual comedy” … it just means that you can’t relate to it.
When I was a child, I secretly suspected that He-Man was gay, but since growing up, I’ve dropped that theory as being too obvious. Really, the most homosexually oriented of all of the 80s cartoons was GI Joe. If you don’t believe me, just look at what the characters wear…
Destro: Tight black leather pants, an open leather vest with no shirt, and a silver face mask.
Dr. Mindbender: Again, tight black leather pants. No shirt or vest. A mustache that only gay men and pørņ stars could get away with, and a MONOCLE. A monocle, for God’s sake!
Shipwreck: A sailor suit, with the hat tipped to one side. His shirt was, of course, worn with only the bottom button fastened. Also, the parrot didn’t exactly scream heterosexuality.
Serpentor: Green and gold sequined snake suit. Really, there’s not much more telling than that.
Also, if you get the chance, go back and watch the PSAs at the end of each episode (you know, the “knowing is half the battle” ones). The Joes are always showing up in the most bizarre places. My personal favorites are the ones where they show up in the tree outside a kid’s second story bathroom and where the two kids are swimming in a pond when one of the Joes SCUBAs up from behind one of them (what was he doing down there?).
Also, any show with a character named Snowjob…
Hey, don’t forget that silly costume that the Rainbow Raider in the Flash books wore, hee hee! While there were some good stories with Roy Bivolo, (anyone read that Flash special from a few years ago in which he invaded a movie set?) he was still a very silly looking villian in that suit of his, and so Geoff Johns opted to kill him off last year.
Dr. Mindbender may have been the gayest action figure ever. Even if he ditched the cape-and-no-shirt-but-suspenders-anyway look, there’s still that monocle and handlebar mustache to contend with.
He probably escaped all the time because the Joes were too busy questioning their sexuality when they chased him.
Nekouken wrote:
I’ve never found gay jokes all that funny, and by going out on an as-needed basis and making exceptions only for people whose senses of humour I’m familiar with, I can keep them from pervading my own ideas of what’s funny.
I agree. Even I’ve found them tasteless and appalling. In fact, it’s insulting to say, the movie, comic book and television characters, not to mention even real life people they’re being made about!
Meanwhile, while we’re on the subject involving the Lone Ranger and such, this reminds me, how many here are familiar with that nearly obscure movie from 1981 that unsuccessfully attempted to tell the origin of the Masked Man?
Whether or not anyone knows about that disastrous catastrosphe that even the late, great Clayton Moore himself boycotted, one of the things it was most notorious for was the fact that its so-called “star”, Klinton Spilsbury (“Klinton WHO?!?!?”), was causing any number of problems on the set, including, angeringly enough, an assault on a waitress who worked on the set.
Anyway, I recall once coming upon say, an old review from the NY Times, and while that Janet Maslin could sure be cynical(I think she insulted Moore in her review, how dare she!), what was interesting for starters there was that she said that there was more chemistry between the non-entity and the guy playing Tonto than there was when it came to who may have been the only woman in the cast(besides the LR’s mother?). Indeed, that kiss between them was so groaningly clumsy and half-hearted I couldn’t believe they wasted their money on such a dolt.
And to turn again to what the NY Times was mentioning, I recall once seeing someone else who’d seen it saying that he couldn’t believe they’d built it around the “gay appeal” of the legend. GAH! As loath as I am to say it, I’m afraid it may be true. Eeeeeeewwwwwwww!
Anyway, fans stayed away from the movie, mainly in support of Moore, who’d been disgraced for 6 years and wasn’t allowed to wear the mask in public appearances because of Jack Rather’s legal meddling, and it rightfully flopped. As for the non-actor, he ended his career as quickly as he’d begun, and hasn’t been heard of since. 6 years later, Moore happily won back the right to wear the mask. As for Rather, what exactly was it that would make him think that nobody would realize that the LR, aside from being a fictional character, was indeed a young guy, no matter who wore the mask in reality? Some things are just so hard to understand, eh?
Anyway, I guess that’ll be enough for now, and if anyone else wishes to offer their two cents on the topic of the LR and such, feel free to follow up.
Oh, I remember that lousy Long Ranger film. The only decent thing in it was Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish.
PAD
Well, fortunately, my last English class was freshling year in college, so I never had any instinct to view Rudolph via a Marxist/homoerotic reading…
On the other hand, I did realize that it was actually the first X-Men tv special. I mean, Rudolph’s a mutant. With a glowing red nose (Cyclops). Who isn’t allowed to interact with normal reindeer when his powers become public after an attempt to disguise them.
I’m just waiting for the sequel where Clarice goes Dark Phoenix/Seal on the Workshop.
Since I see there are quite a few Msties out there, I thought you all might be interested in knowing that MST3K has been releasing 4 disc DVD sets of some of it’s stuff as MST3K collections.
They are up to volume 3 right now, and while they don’t have many extra’s, some of the films come with the ability to see the original version of the film complete and uncut without the comments from Mike, Joel & the bots.
They have not really been advertised, and I kinda stumbled upon them while looking for something else on Amazon.
SPB
Oh, I remember that lousy Long Ranger film. The only decent thing in it was Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish.
PAD
er . . . PAD . . . I know it’s impolite to point out spelling mistakes . . . and it may have been intentional . . . but . . . given the context of this thread . . .
Long Ranger?!!
Either a Freudian slip or too much information . . . ; )
Budd
Sequential Tart (a webzine about the comic industry) had an interesting article this month about Rawhide Kid as compared to other stereotypically-gay characters in comics. The article’s at http://sequentialtart.com/art_0503_3.shtml
I haven’t read Rawhide Kid, but have read (and liked) the other characters they compare him to, making me wonder whether RK is as bad as the critics have made it out to be. [Yes, I know he’s by the company that created Marville.]
One further (final? prolly not) note about The Legend of the Lone Ranger: Tonto was played by Michael Horse, who later went on to play Deputy Hawk on Twin Peaks…thus making him the only actor from the movie (apart from Christopher Lloyd and Jason Robards, obviously) to ever do anything again.
**Oh, I remember that lousy Long Ranger film. The only decent thing in it was Christopher Lloyd as Butch Cavendish.
PAD
er . . . PAD . . . I know it’s impolite to point out spelling mistakes . . . and it may have been intentional . . . but . . . given the context of this thread . . .
Long Ranger?!!
Either a Freudian slip or too much information . . . **
Actually, it falls into the tmi category. The “long” part is true. After all, the guy’s 6’6″.
Klinton Spilsbury was a very sweet man, but very aggressive sexually. He would charm and try to jump just about any man or woman he found attractive and it took considerable effort to get him to take no for an answer. I was flattered by his attention, but at times I did feel like his behavior bordered on attempted rape. I would think a woman could be quite threatened by him. I hadn’t heard about the waitress event, but it, sadly, would not surprise me if it were true.
Klinton never wanted to be an actor–I think he was trying to be a writer. He inherited family money and last I heard was living happily as a gazillionnaire on a ranch in Mexico somewhere. Probably terrorizing the help.
Sorry if I creeped anybody out, but I couldn’t resist filling you in a bit.
Anyway, as a gay guy, the jokes here have not bothered me. Guys in tights are pretty funny; we just suspend our disbelief and go with it in the comics. But if we detach a bit, our heroes can really make us laugh. It’s just as valid to “go gay” with our sophomoric thoughts than in other directions–just try to have a discussion about Triplicate Girl sometime. One man’s smutty joke is another’s “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex”, yes?
How could anyone in the 21st century NOT get hysterical at the dialogue in those old Detective Comics? I would venture to guess that in the 30s Batman and Robin stories were pørņ for gay kids.
And take it from someone who knows: “Rudolph” is the all-time gayest Christmas show ever. Yes, Hermie is SO gay, but the Prospector and even the f—ing Snowman are right up there. There isn’t a gay man in the country who doesn’t watch that show and howl. I have planned parties around it.
I am confused, though, as to why a monocle reads gay. I must have missed that day in gay school, where, clearly, Shane and the Batman archives should be required reading. I am going to go buy my copies tomorrow. Maybe DC Direct should be buying ad space in OUT Magazine.
Love ya, PAD, and love this forum. You are the best.
Paul
The details on Spilsbury’s assault of a waitress were spoken about in the LA Times in 1981, around the time that the film was due to be released. For the record, it was said that he’d done such a bad vocal performance too, that his voice ended up being dubbed by James Keach. Wow, even there, he stumbled.
Actually, it falls into the tmi category. The “long” part is true. After all, the guy’s 6’6″.
Klinton Spilsbury was a very sweet man, but very aggressive sexually. He would charm and try to jump just about any man or woman he found attractive and it took considerable effort to get him to take no for an answer. I was flattered by his attention, but at times I did feel like his behavior bordered on attempted rape. I would think a woman could be quite threatened by him. I hadn’t heard about the waitress event, but it, sadly, would not surprise me if it were true.
*cackles* Wow. Who knew? A shame, though, but I bet lots of people have known folks like that. I can think of a number from high school and college. Fortunately, I don’t know of any these days. The social groups I hang out in have a low tolerance for that kind of thing.
Budd
The thing I never understood about the Lone Ranger was the mask. It was originally said he wore the mask because John Reed was too much of a target, but I suspect it wouldn’t take more than a couple of appearances before the Lone Ranger was an even bigger target. It’s also not like he had a secret identity to protect, since he never used it.
I always thought the mask was for iconic purposes. Remember that criminals, rustlers, and the Butch are all a superstitious, cowardly lot, intimidated by the notion of a horseback rider with no visible ocular ridge. Also, it’s Texas, so he can carry some frisson from Mexican mask wrestlers.
Another possible reason for the mask is that he had a family to protect. Specifically, he had a brother and a young nephew. That nephew, by the way, grew up to be another great radio character: THE GREEN HORNET!
Yes, the Green Hornet! Another masked snappy dresser who spent all his time hanging out with a guy who barely spoke English and did all the heavy lifting!
originally posted by malvito: “Not everyone has the same sense of humour. The fact that you did not find a lesbian comic amusing does not make the comedy “many, many years behind straight and asexual comedy” … it just means that you can’t relate to it. “
I related to it; I knew why it was supposed to be funny. It was just such a primitive type of humour. One specific bit that all the gay people laughed uproariously at that I found barely smirk-worthy was “Dating Tips for Ðÿkëš” (I can’t remember the comedienne’s name, but this was her specific bit. She had people in the audience write questions on cards and hand them up to her. At the end of the act, she’d read the questions and then answer them in a sarcastic and supposedly witty fashion). I can understand not being clever when you force yourself to adlib answers to questions with little to no preparation, but I’m a straight suburban white boy, and not a single one of her answers wasn’t the same as what I expected her to say. At no time was she exceptionally clever in her answers beyond the level of, say, fifth or sixth grade, but these gay aquaintances found them to be the funniest things ever (and the one who invited me is not only an amateur comedian who is funnier than that bit, he’s also almost as well-versed in stand-up comedy as I am). My lack of perspective wasn’t the issue; I’m an enlightened guy. It was simply that she wasn’t all that funny (and her delivery was crap. I hope the visual was funny). No, I stand behind my initial conclusion: my comedy technology is far in advance of gay comedy.
Actually, Batman and Robin WAS pørņ for Gay kids in the 40’s. The infamous Doctor Wertham explained he’d been cued in to the Dynamic Duo by a Gay teenager he was trying to ‘cure.’
As for Hans Christian Andersen… Should we break it to them? I mean, they probably don’t even know about Danny Kaye yet.
Of course, the all-time champ for this kind of thing is an obscure writer of boys’ series books who went by the name of Leo Edwards. He did the Jerry Todd series, the Poppy Ott series, the Trigger Berg series, the Andy Blake series, and the Tuffy Bean series, all great fun. The guy was genuinely funny, in a Boy Scout Jamboree kind of way, and he was by all accounts a very nice guy. But at least once per book, there’s a line that’ll stop you dead. One example, quoting from memory…
‘And isn’t that romantic of him!’ Poppy joked. ‘Our little schemer!’
I kicked him under the table. ‘Just wait’ll I get you in bed tonight!’ I growled.
Actually, Batman and Robin WAS pørņ for Gay kids in the 40’s. The infamous Doctor Wertham explained he’d been cued in to the Dynamic Duo by a Gay teenager he was trying to ‘cure.’
Actually much of Dr Wertham’s methods and theories have since
been discredited. And one gay teen, (or even a few gay teens for
that matter), relating to Batman and Robin does not mean that
the comics served as Gay pørņ for kids in the 40’s anymore then
some Nazis reading a Superman comic would make Superman Nazi
propaganda, (remember Wertham also claimed Superman was a
fascist). Are there things in the Batman comics of the 40’s and
50’s that make us, with our modern sensibilities cringe and
giggle today?, absolutely. But look at those works within the
context of the time they were written, not within the context of
the time you’re looking at them. Batman and Robin have, IMO,
been unfairly singled out. There were dozens of popular culture
figures at that time that had similar relationships,
relationships that look odd in todays world but didn’t raise any
eyebrows in older and, yes, more innocent times. Humor aside I
think it’s quite unfair to look at such works and interprete them
though the wrong end of the telescope, (ie looking at them and
appling modern subtext and interprationa rather then viewing them as the creators
and audience of the time they were created would). Wertham was
an idiot who applied bad science to reach his conclusions,
(Juvenile Delinquents read comics, so comics must cause Juvenile
delinquency, the fact that juvenile delinquents also sat in
chairs and drank water and millions of kids who weren’t juvenile delinquents read comics never occurred to him). Why people pick
out the Batman and Robin are gay thing, (not that there’s
anything wrong with that), and give it some kind of weight when
just about everything else Wertham wrote has been proven wrong
is, frankly, beyond me.
Another possible reason for the mask is that he had a family to protect. Specifically, he had a brother and a young nephew. That nephew, by the way, grew up to be another great radio character: THE GREEN HORNET
Not quite. The nephew, Dan Reid, grew up to have a son, Britt Reid, and *he* was the Green Hornet.
PAD
Mr. Hudak, forgive me for saying this, but where and when exactly did Wertham ever say that Superman was supposedly a fascist? Is there a page number or a chapter in any of his books that says anything like that?
Now no offense, but you see, I’ve noticed that a lot of people who’re identified with the media establishment and comics in particular seem to be very surprisingly vengeful against him for damaging the comics and movies industries without even asking if they too did anything just as bad.
Now don’t get me wrong, even I feel that he overreacted on certain things when it comes to comics, if not movies. And in sharp contrast to the popular and bold film critic and political commentator Michael Medved, he was being very awkward in his own approach. But I want you to know that it doesn’t mean that all of his research was 100% garbage. In fact, do you know that before Seduction of the Innocent was written, he’d been very celebrated as a researcher, and then, after he writes this one book about comics, so the industry then makes it into a millstone around his neck, demonizing him day and night for things that, when compared with all the totalitarian regimes, terrorism and street crimes in this world, was peanuts by comparision. There are many much more important things to worry about than what he did.
One of the strangest things about Wertham is that when people attack him, they make it sound as if he’d never even criticized the movies business at all, or even nazism and its predecessors, as he did in his late 1940’s book, The Show of Violence, as if he’d ONLY gone after the comics publishers and nothing else.
Well why? Easy. It’s because in this showbiz world, criticism against it is NOT ALLOWED. Sure, some movie producers, let’s say, will act as if it helps them and they enjoy getting slammed, but the truth is that no filmmaker truly wants to be criticized for what they do. And while I’m on that subject, let me point out that Michael Medved was attacked severely by the establishement after he dared to write the very thoughtful book, Hollywood vs. America in 1992.
For the record, this reminds me, there was a time two years ago when I once had an argument with a very weird sounding man from New England about violence and what could happen if the culprits in the Columbine massacre had been reading say, issues of the Punisher and Wolverine, and do you know what he said in reply? He claimed that the shooters were being bullied, when even the most crummy of news magazines gave the correct story, of how they were playing with violent videogames, and he even tried to justify their worship of nazism.(shudder)
By doing this, the man from New England not only lied about what went on in Colorado, but also insulted the victims and their families. I just can’t believe someone so morally bankrupt has access to a computer.
I brought this up because I hope those who read this will let that serve as a lesson that if they start making up excuses for violence, they’ll be in no better a position than even Wertham himself.
I think the best argument for anyone who likes violent entertainment in example, is that it largely depends on how the children are being educated, or if the parents are being responsible. But don’t go around trying to say that the media is just a scapegoat. That’s just a lame excuse typical of many people in showbiz and such, who’d rather deny that they could be guilty than be honest, which would help them a lot more.
The comics companies today use Wertham as a weapon against anyone who dares to criticize their products as being harmful for children, or even adults. I think it’s a shame that he goofed off when it came to that, because now, look at what Marvel’s doing by going out of their way to prove that they can be violent and nasty when they don’t have to be, running the risk of alienating many readers old and new.
For the record, let’s be clear, that while Wertham’s accusations against the Batbooks was certainly overreacting, most of his arguments on violent influences did have some weight, and that even some his own detractors today have brought similar arguments around in spite of everything. So remember, whatever your opinions on Wertham, if I were you, I would not think it a good idea to demonize him, since not only would it make his detractors look silly in the face of the public, but also because there are many, much more important things to worry about.
Unlike most people, I don’t blame WERTHAM for the state of comics in the 50’s up until the early 80s. True, Seduction of the Innocent did lead to the very restrictive early Comics Code, but we should really blame are people in congress at the time who supported banning comic books (like Richard Nixon) and the heads of the major comic companies for writing such strict rules. When really the whole code was written by the publishers of Archie to screw Gaines and put their own comics seen as the squeaky clean any one can read happy fun books. Granted, Gaines fuelled the anti-comics fire with his speech before congress. (I read a transcript which Mad printed at one point.) You have to admit though, the publishers had a choice. Stop publishing or create mediocre crap till things died down.
The code served it’s purpose up until the direct sales market hit. The code only prohibited sales of comics with ‘offensive material’ at newstands. Once newstands were no longer the major supplier of comics, that stopped being a problem. Parents began complaining about content again, because fewer and fewer books had the code seal on them and seem family friendly enough. Even though I’m not reading any Marvel books right now, I like their solution to the parents issues better. A ratings system. The good for kids/ bad for kids system just doesn’t cut it. Case in point: both Jughead and JLA are code approved books. When my cousin was about five and learning to read he got really interested in comics. So I gathered up some comics from my various boxes (Jughead, Baby Huey, etc.) and put them in a bag. When he was five he was made cause I wouldn’t let him read JLA. As he’s gotten older I’ve put more stuff in the box. Now that he’s about ten, (and has read Toilken about a million times) I let him read almost anything with a code sticker on it.
Though for some reason his five favorites are Tellos, Groo, Elfquest, what little YJ he’s read and Giffen’s JLA. As long he doesn’t start emulating Guy Gardener or Groo, I’m fine. (My aunt would kill me.)
Thanks for the interesting points, Jess. Indeed, some of the major companies(and some of the Congress) were responsible for leading to the Code, just so that they could prevent competition from other companies, and here when what could really have been done, and what, to say the least, could’ve been more ideal and responsible was to work out some age limit policies with newsstands in which certain books could only be sold to adults, whereas others could always be sold to all ages. And then, things could’ve worked out for the better for many companies.
BTW, last time I posted, I discovered that a site flaw that occured last year when the site was beginning seems to have returned: a “GM log” error, even though the text still seems to post properly. So if you see this message appearing, try reloading the page afterwards to see if your message is already there.
Avi Green asked: “…where and when exactly did Wertham ever say that Superman was supposedly a fascist? Is there a page number or a chapter in any of his books that says anything like that?”
In answer, I present you with a paragraph and accompanying footnote for a paper I wrote to avoid taking an English class:
Wertham also attacked the superhero comics for promoting erratic, unacceptable behavior in otherwise wholesome children. Superman and his ability to defy gravity and other physical laws represented confusion and possible danger to children who attempted to emulate him. He also claimed that Superman comics “[blunted] sensibilities in the direction of cruelty that has characterized a whole generation of central European youth fed on the Nietzsche-Nazi myth.”*
*Wertham, Seduction of the Innocent, 97.
Also, the reason Seduction is viewed as badly as it is when Wertham did, as you say, launch similar attacks against other media, is that attacking the most other media is less likely to be effective than comics.
Comics have always had a smaller audience, and never had the sort of backing movies and television shows do. What to a movie studio would have been nothing more than some bad press turned out to be nearly irreparable damage to the reputation of the industry. Its storytelling muscle having been castrated and its ability to defend itself permanently crippled, the actions of Dr. Wertham set the industry on a downward spiral from which it has never shown signs of recovering from (the ’90s don’t count. Speculation buyers may have appeared to give support to the comics industry, but at best they were illusory and at worst they nearly killed the comics industry, and in no way could be percieved in the long run as a sign of improvement).
Wertham’s ill-informed, poorly-researched witch hunt resulted in comics being the easy guys to push around, and cemented their status as such by “proving” almost irrefutably that comics are meant for children.
Thanks for the notes, Nekouken. Yes, I was aware that some parts of his research were sloppily researched(and I always wondered why). It’s a shame, since thanks to that, he ended up doing nobody any favors. I did some more checks on Google, and yes, that part, one thing that I hadn’t been fully aware of, was spoken about even in Time magazine.
If it’s not too late to make this addenum, to answer the e-inquiry of a curious, yet anonymous e-mail writer.
After rereading my original commentary on this subject, my nephews and nieces are correct for today. Their movie review took place a few years back when I had everyone over for the day so their respective parents could go Christmas shopping in peace.
Sorry for any confusion on the matter.
OOPS! Screwed up again.
Their AGES are correct for today.