Talk:Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs

Hold on, now...we can't put captions in the infoboxes for films. I'm going to include more images, and perhaps we can move the caption and reword it. I know this is a very offensive film, but we have to remember our neutral point of view when covering it.

The cartoon in and of itself doesn't define darky iconography; it was derived from or is based upon it (the only reason the characters appear as they do is becasue it was the standard in Hollywood cartoons at that time). I've reworded it to say "an example of", because the cartoon itself can't be a concept.

Also, the article on blackface covers darky iconography in great detail. What would be wrong with piping or redirecting the link? --FuriousFreddy 23:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Image removal?

Could someone explain the repeated removal of the two images from this article? I've just been replacing them, since the remover has not given any reason; but perhaps there is some subtlety I'm missing? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Murder Inc.

Furthermore, the film suggests that she escapes from the clutches of Murder, Incorporated unharmed by having sexual intercourse with each of its members.

actually she just kisses them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cortes Jr (talk • contribs) 03:16 21 February 2006.

It's not a falsehood. That scene has obviously sexual implications. --FuriousFreddy 17:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It certainly is a falsehood. I just watched the cartoon , and the only thing shown is lipstick marks. Kissing is sexual, but sexual does not necessarily mean intercourse. The cartoon is what it is; it doesn't need exaggeration.

I’m down with Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs. It’s my all-time favorite cartoon and it’s what sparked my affinity for retro jazz, swing and blues, what is now my favorite style of music. This cartoon is certainly not racist, just impoliticly correct at moments. This was an amazing tribute to black culture, and the positive surely outweighs the negative. What’s to be offended by? Big lips? They’re dad-blasted caricatures! If whites can be characterized, why can’t blacks? The notion that black culture cannot be utilized in cartoons is racist itself. I find contemporary black stereotypes much more offensive than relatively harmless ones such as dice. It infuriates me that someone would censor something like that but defend such degrading contemporary minstrel shows such as hip-hop and Def Jam. And then there’s ones like Dumbo and the Jasper shorts that are totally positive and nonstereotypical, and that no one could be rationally offended by, except maybe Jasper and the Watermelons but even that wasn’t that bad. I think Warner Bros is oversensitive about re-releasing African-American cartoons because of the fear of offending someone; they feel they need to be responsible since cartoons are more easily scrutinized because they appeal to children. But all they do is deprive people of great works of art. They will be sure to gain more fans than lose if released again. They can’t hide it forever! I am black by the way, and this cartoon reinforces my pride rather than put me to shame, go figure. The jivin’ musical score, the frenetic animation, the beautiful So White, what’s not to love? My other C11 faves are Goldilocks and the Jivin Bears (Goldie’s another cutie) Tin Pan Alley Cats, Clean Pastures, and Sunday Go To Meeting Time. And the one with black Elmer Fudd was hysterical. He was portrayed as an individual buffoon who happened to be black, no diffwent than Fudd was potwayed as an individual white guy. Huhuhuh. The only WB Censored 11 I find racist are Angel Puss (but then it’s doubtful harm was really intended) and the native ones. But I see the native cartoons differently depending on what mood I’m in. One day I find them totally appalling and grotesque and can barely watch, the next day I find myself pointing at the screen and giggling like an idiot laughing at the stupidity. Besides, anyone who thinks natives really have bicycle tire lips, jump rope with oversized nose rings, eat watermelon and dance around the fire covering their mouths going “woo-boo-woo-boo-woo” has problems of their own.

And agreed above, So White did NOT have sex with them, she plastered them with kisses. That rumor was even refuted in one of my animation encyclopedias of classic animation. She is no more "sexual" than Betty Boop. She is sexy in the flirtatious and provocative but innocent in the Betty Boopish kind of way, and doesn't fit the racist black "jezebel" stereotype (but Foxxy Love from Drawn Together sure does.) It's racist to assume that just because a character is an attractive black female that she is immediately a jezebel. Also, Dorothy Dandridge played a variety of characters, some of them fit the "jezebel" stereotype (Carmen Jones) and some didn't. Your article is very slanted and biased-it lacks BALANCE. Maybe you should take a hint or two from this level headed black woman. Oh but wait, my opinion doesn't matter, because I'm BLACK and MODERATE and in this day in age only hyperPC far lefty extremist white males' opinions like yourself only matter, whether you admit it or not.

And while I understand how people can be reasonably offended by the dice/lip gags, take a look at the contemporary stereotypes on BET and Comedy Central and compare- they makes those old dice gags look like a church, don't they?

My further Coal Black comments posted on forums.goldenagecartoons.com 65.54.97.193 02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)wackyoverkhaki

• What suggestions do you have for improving the article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, sorry for being so aggressive. I did make a revision (19:13, 13 September 2006) but of course this was before I was aware you had to establish some sort of professional reputation here to do that whereas I am just a guest- I am not a regular visitor. What I did was try to balance it out a bit more so there was a mixture of positive and negative sentiments, as the article had a very negative slant. In the “controversy over racist content” I specifically stated the stereotypes in the cartoon. Some of the quotes weren’t word for word, so I altered them so that they were, or they're at least a lot closer to word-for-word than they were before. I also added a little more detail to the names, i.e. the full name of one of the voice actors is Leo “Zoot” Watson (of the jazz string band Spirits of Rhythm) and I also noted that Danny Webb also provided the voice for the queen. (Ruby Dandridge voiced the queen when she spoke in a high voice and Danny Webb spoke her deeper froglike lines). But most importantly, I eliminated the excessive unnecessary slander and defamation of So White, as I explained in further detail on my above comment. The original author of this article pulled the actual sexuality of the cartoon way out of proportion, which isn’t a surprise since contemporary America’s minds aren’t so clean and are way too obsessed with sex. These are the same types of minds who search for sexual innuendo in SpongeBob SquarePants and accuse SpongeBob and Patrick of being a gay couple.

However, I will acknowledge that the content of the article is not for me to decide. While I have a lot of knowledge of the cartoon, I am only a guest- I have not established a professional reputation here nor am I regular user. I also lack fundamental knowledge needed to contribute to this website like how to make certain things function, inserting things, proper citation, etc. I am also a busy young woman. If you don’t like my revision, there are some very good Coal Black articles on the web that do provide an excellent example of balance and insight (but certainly not all of them!). So like I said before, I don’t call the shots around here, my only intention is that you take my comments into consideration. Thanks. 65.54.154.12 04:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)wackyoverkhaki

• You mistake my drift; my apologies. Please, please edit the article -- guests are as welcome as long time participants to make constructive changes to articles. What's we're less interested in is personal opinions and personal feelings, and that's what I was rather opaquely (I guess) referring to. We try to keep Wikipedia from being a discussion forum or a chat board; these talk pages, as much as possible, are for the purpose of improving the articles they are attached to. We don't expect new users to know all the nuances of editing articles (like, as you suggest, citations), and we'll be happy to help. We want new editors, especially if they can fill in gaps in experience, background, knowledge, and so on. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor, but what to say instead?

Under the controversy section, there's a phrase that runs "in roles that actresses such as Dorothy Dandridge and Lena Horne were forced to play."

I don't think that it's entirely appropriate to say that professional actresses are forced to play sexy roles. It's sort of like saying that a chef is forced to cook dinner because that's where the most money is, instead of slinging hash on the breakfast shift at the diner. As many pharmacists are discovering these days with the controversy around drug-induced abortions, nobody's forcing you to stay in a profession that you disapprove of either morally or politically.

I just haven't figured out a way to re-write the sentence. I'd like it to communicate the idea that these roles were (unfortunately) what was offered to these women, but without implying that's the only type of role they played (which is inaccurate, and how all of my re-write attempts ended) and also without pretending that they had no choice in the matter (which is how the current version fails). Other actresses turned down roles like these -- and still do, for that matter. For example, not every actress does nude scenes, even in this modern era where it's not supposed to be a big deal.

Anyone have any ideas? 66.124.70.108 04:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we first might wonder about the entire section; it feels like a personal essay - accurate, certainly, but who is drawing these conclusions and comparisons? On your main point, it's a pretty common usage when discussing various forms of discrimination; think of it as "forced to take work inferior to the work that would have been available had they had less melanin." If you don't understand the drive of the artist to create, you might not understand how indeed it is a matter of being forced. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

My reaction is pretty much "yes, but." It's one thing to say that a blue collar worker is forced to take whatever's on offer when you're trying to feed your kids. It's another thing entirely to say that you're forced to take starring roles in major films. If you don't like the role, you do have the options of smaller roles or live theatre (both of which let you use your creative talents), in addition to a complete change of industry.

IMHO, if your drive to "be an artist" outstrips your morals, you need to be talking to your therapist, not claiming that you were forced into inappropriate roles. (My impression, which might be wrong, is that these actresses did not mind sexy roles nearly as much as they minded, say, the white actors getting paid dramatically more for similar work. I don't mean to imply that these specific women chose to violate their own morals.)

However, I've got a friend who's been living in a homeless shelter for the last year because she is more devoted to her artwork than she is to putting a roof over her head. She makes no excuses: she prefers being a starving artist to working in an office. She's not claiming that she's forced into being an artist, or that she's forced into living in a town where a studio apartment rents for $1,000 a month. She could, after all, get an office job (which she loathes), or move to a cheaper area (the San Francisco Bay area is simply not a good choice for low-income people). She just doesn't choose to, and since she has no kids to take care of, what she chooses to do with her time and talents is really up to her. Right now, she'd rather sleep in a homeless shelter and be an artist the rest of the time. In my books, sleeping in a homeless shelter just so you can spend an extra forty hours a week 'being an artist' is proof of a very strong creative drive.

However, while the drive to create may be strong for some people, it's not really an adequate excuse for doing what you oughtn't. If your artistic impulse is stronger than the one that gets your kids fed and housed, then you're not an artist: you're either a phenomenally selfish person or someone who desperately needs a psychological evaluation. Similarly, if your desire to be an artist has you violating your own morals, then you've got problems, not an artistic drive.

The bottomline is that even if your creative drive is much stronger than average, I put "being forced to star in a movie" right up there with "being forced to eat chocolate cake." I may be a sucker for chocolate, but "I'd like to offer you some chocolate cake" is not sufficient justification for me to claim that I was forced to eat it.

On the broader subject (I apologize for the soapbox above): you're right, it's pretty much a personal essay. While it's basically (in my opinion) right on the money except for implying that these actresses had no choice in the matter, it's not exactly verifiable. Perhaps it should just be moved (or a reference found to support it: surely analyses of this piece exist!). 66.124.70.108, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Awkward Phrasing

The following is AWKWARD and should be revised: Originally, Clampett wanted an all-black band to score the cartoon, the same way Max and Dave Fleischer had Cab Calloway and His Orchestra score the Betty Boop cartoons Minnie the Moocher, The Old Man of the Mountain, and their own version of Snow White. However, Schlesinger refused, and the black band Clampett had hired, Eddie Beals and His Orchestra, only recorded the music for the final kiss sequence. The rest of the film was scored, as was standard for Warner cartoons, by Carl W. Stalling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.38.136.209 (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

ZOOT WATSON?

This is an actually completely understandable mistake. In his 1969 interview with Michael Barrier, Clampett recalled that one of the voice actors for this cartoon was named "Zoot Watson". But, according to Michael Barrier's website (michaelbarrier.com), Keith Scott, the Australian voice expert, discovered in the WB archives that the person Clampett recalled as "Zoot Watson" was actually named "Leo Watson". ---Posted by JS on March 19, 2007