Speedy Recovery

I have a pet peeve which might be termed "The Trivialization of Words Which Oughta Be Inflammatory."  It's when you take some minor injustice and liken it to some true, monumental wrong.  I know a voice actor who can't get hired by a certain studio because the folks there who do the hiring think he's not very talented.  Instead of accepting that, he says, "The studio has blacklisted me," thereby trying to make them seem as evil and misguided as the industry-wide conspiracy that once drove certain talented writers and actors out of the business and, in a few cases, to their deaths.  One employer deciding on his own not to hire someone does not constitute a "blacklist."  In the same spirit, an animator I know has taken to describing the current spate of layoffs as "The Holocaust."  Frankly, I don't think one should invoke words like "The Holocaust" unless actual murders and racial genocide are being committed.  (Years ago, when I first got into computer bulletin boards, I believe I started a rule that caught on.  It stated you weren't allowed to describe someone as a Nazi unless they were actually heiling Hitler and/or invading Poland.)

This brings us to the recently-expressed sentiment in some quarters that Speedy Gonzales cartoons have been "banned."  No, they haven't.  The Cartoon Network, which controls them all, has simply decided not to show them at this moment, the same way the Cartoon Network doesn't show a lot of films that it owns.  "Banning" would be like if the government came in and forbade the exhibition of any animated motion picture that featured a supersonic rodent character, voiced by Mel Blanc doing a cliché Mexican accent.  That is not what has happened here…but do an Internet search for "Speedy AND Gonzales AND banned."  See how many write of the cartoons' absence as if jackbooted government censors have kicked down doors and burned all the prints.

The films in question have been generally withheld because there is no upside to exhibiting them…only potential problems.  The folks at Cartoon Network have about a thousand Warner Brothers cartoons in their library plus zillions more from Hanna-Barbera, MGM, Ruby-Spears and other producers.  Given the rapid rate at which audiences seem to tolerate and even enjoy reruns, there is no harm (to them) in omitting a few cartoons that involve racial stereotypes from the schedule.  There is, however, a possible downside if certain groups protest and/or sponsors get uncomfy.  I think it's dumb to get upset over a silly little cartoon mouse and even dumber to fold in response to that pressure (or, dumbest, the possibility of that pressure).  But I understand why they do it.

Only they don't, really.  In truth, Cartoon Network occasionally sneaks one of those racially-sensitive films into the air with no fanfare.  I don't know if they've run a Speedy Gonzales lately but they will, probably without calling huge attention to it and thereby daring folks to object.  The more they can do this, the closer those cartoons are to joining the normal rotation.

Also: Currently on the Internet, one can sign several petitions (like this one) that ask Cartoon Network to free the imprisoned Señor Gonzales.  Ordinarily, I think protest movements designed to move TV networks are a colossal waste of time that almost never cause the desired change.  This one, however, might have some impact.  A groundswell of requests — or even a trickle that can be passed off as a groundswell — could provide some moral cover for Cartoon Network.  If and when they run the cartoons more blatantly, objections can be met with, "We're only bowing to demand," thereby making them look less like spreaders of ethnic caricatures and more like public servants.  In any event, the Speedy Gonzales cartoons will eventually lose their leper status and be aired more routinely on TV…whereupon they'll be largely ignored.

This is because of one point which I don't think alters the current argument but I might as well make it.  It's that the vast majority of cartoons that featured Speedy Gonzales were pretty lousy.  The character is kind of cute and might still have some merchandising potential…but more than half his cartoons were done during the late period wherein DePatie-Freleng Studios was producing the cartoons for Warner Brothers.  The non-Speedy cartoons created under that arrangement are rarely shown and no one cares, no one clamors to see them, no one mounts protests demanding their exhibition.  The Speedy cartoons from that period are no better.  Of the earlier Speedy Gonzales cartoons, it's true that one won an Academy Award and three more garnered nominations…but by that point, so few theatrical cartoons were being made that, each year, WB could pretty much designate which of its films would get nominated.  At the time, they had great merchandising hopes for the mouse so WB applied its corporate muscle there.  (Also, Friz Freleng — who was directing Speedy's appearances — was the senior director and he wanted the films hyped for Oscars.)

But Speedy's films aren't particularly great and most people — including many who are protesting their unavailability — probably wouldn't watch them if they were routinely available.  That, of course, is not a reason to "ban" anything.  It is, however, an excellent reason to not run them…at least, not very often.