MICKEY MOUSE: Depression Era Icon

[Ray Pointer]

By popularity polls, and accounting records, there is no arguement that POPEYE became the boxoffice champ of the 1930s. But he did get a late start. Still there was, and is an affection for MICKEY MOUSE. And recent releases give people a chance to rediscover the character as he evolved into the cultural icon that he became.

Recently, many people has expressed a disdain for Mickey Mouse. Although I have my own sentiments, I'd be curious to find out why anyone would dislike him. :mickey:

[JDWeil]

According to what I've read, Mickey was something of a problem child, a personality without a personality. The Mouse was concieved as a replacement for Oswald and many of the early MM cartoons were remakes of Oswald shorts. Mickey was a very hard charcter to write for, and became increasingly so as the years went by as other Disney characters (and characters from other studios) with more pronounced personalities captured the audiences imagination. It is also a strange fact that what we know of Mickey Mouse came from the comic strip, not the screen cartoons. It also seems strange that Walt himself most identified himself with the character and as Walt's fortunes rose, Mickey also became more suburban in outlook but was a kind of mayonnaise on white bread type, too much of a nice guy to be effective as a comedian. Walt finally ran out of ideas to keep Mickey fresh in the early '50's and discontinued the series in 1952.

[Thad]

IMO, if they wanted to keep Mickey 'fresh', they should have incorporated some of Mickey's persona from Floyd Gottfredson's comic strip into the films. Disney was so good with drama and staging, and Gottfredson's Mickey would have been the ideal way to utilize it, seeing as those stories are some of the best with a fictional character ever.

It's a pity most of the American population thinks of Mickey as a boring houseowner, while the rest of the world sees him as the adventurous character he was in the early 30s (which is survived by foreign comics produced to this day).


-Thad

[Dave Bennett]

I think my impression of Mickey was indelibly formed by the wonderful Carl Fallberg/Paul Murry serials in WDC&S that I just could not read enough of as a kid --: the scrappy problem solver who was a good friend to Goofy and never lost the crease in his trousers!

:tomcat: ••• :jerry:

[Mac]

Mickey is absolutely one of my favourite cartoon characters ever, but many people seem to dislike him nowadays. Alot of people only really know the corporate symbol Mickey and that is a major reason why some people don't like him. I've talked to people I know who don't like him and a lot of it's to do with they've been presented with this annoying, squeaky voiced little do gooder who won't stop smiling. Ever seen those adverts for Disney World which show kids in the awe of the enchanting magic of Disney and it's just so annoyingly twee and sick making? To a lot of people, this is what Mickey stands for: a cutesy-pukesy little mouse character who represents an ultra fake world of love and magic. He's the spokes mouse of a vomit inducing land which pretends to be all nice, but is really just another evil, giant, polluting, money grabbing, charity thieving, sweat shop owning American company!

Ironically this is also the reason why some people like him - alot of people buy into the magic of Disney and do love characters who they perceive as nothing more than just a cute little bundle of fluff (just like the modern Winnie-the-Puke)

[Vdubdavid]

I think that Disney should have utilized WWII to perk up the Mickey series. Here was an opportunity for Mickey to be the rather aggressive character he'd been in the early 30's, but directed at a foe that deserved to be fought with (namely the Axis powers). It's interesting that except for, I believe, "Commando Duck" none of the character-driven wartime Disney shorts actually take place in a theater of war, opting for a homefront army camp instead. A Mickey Mouse cartoon set in the battlefronts of Europe might have done for Mickey what it did for Popeye, an infusion of fresh story ideas.

[Matthew Hunter]

I used to hate Mickey Mouse, because all I'd ever really seen were the color cartoons of the 40's where he's shown as a bland little guy in love with Minnie and stuck keeping Pluto out of trouble. The later ones are even worse...ever seen the one where Minnie makes him do her yard work? What a wimp! The truth of the matter is, Mickey's not funny. Even in the better cartoons that threw him in with Goofy and Donald, it was Goofy and Donald who got the laughs, not Mickey.

But then look at the comics, which I have now been exposed to. He's still not funny, but he's likeable, because he is resourceful, adventurous, and brave, while still remaining a nice guy. He actually has a villain or problem to face rather than a wayward mutt or some trivial job to do.They should've done Mickey that way to keep him alive in cartoons, or taken a cue from the early b/w cartoons and picked up the pace, at least making the story and gags funny and intriguing.

[Ray Pointer]

I'll add my response. First, MICKEY MOUSE was a phenomon of The Depression in many ways. First, the sound gimmic was very entertaining at a time when sound cartoons were something new. The early ones display something of a formula built around music, with little plot. Seen today, they seem like animation exercises, but they were preparations for the future, a training ground. On one level, this "formula" was necessary and a short cut in order to get the cartoons out. At the same time, Disney was looking ahead to the time when he could go beyond this formula and expand the situations.

There has been much written about the personality of MICKEY MOUSE, some quoted from Walt Disney himself. His concept of Mickey was that he was an adventurous "boy," a do anything hero. This had a tremendous affect upon a world that saw only misery and dispair around them. But to see this energetic
creation deal with adversity and triumph may just have help the public pschologically, giving them hope.

As for the falsetto voice, people should really view the original black and white cartoons that featured Walt Disney's voice as Mickey, as he did it in some of the color ones as well. It has also been said that Mickey was
Disney's alter ego. And anyone who has the impression that Mickey
has a frozen happy face throughout the cartoons has not really seen them
or they would notice the various facial expressions displayed, his angry
expression being most amusing to me.

Regarding the voice, there is a substitute Mickey Mouse voice that has never been credited, and that was William "Ford" Banes. I knew Ford Banes from Jam Handy in the late 1960s. He had worked at Disney in the 1930s as an Inbeteener and Assistant Animator, then had a nervous breakdown from drawing mouse ears and tails. He asked to be transferred to another position, and was made the studio guide. He told me of the many film stars and public figures who would visit and be taken on a tour, including Mary Pickford, Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, Winston Churchill, Mae West, and Shirley Temple!

Ford's view was that Mickey became so precious to the public that it got to the point where they were so limited with what they could do with him for fear of violating his image with the public. At the same time, as the nation was pulling itself out of the doldrums of The Depression, and with the sentiments of WWII, a more brash and faster paced type of cartoon was in order, and the gentle heroism of Mickey Mouse was a bit too tame for the 1940s climate.

But let's not forget the tremendous entertainment value that MICKEY MOUSE was, and the influence that he had on a generation. And the cartoons still
retain a certain charm that we are not seeing in today's product.:mickey:

[JDWeil]

Looking back, it's no wonder that Walt Disney said, "I sometimes wonder how we sold those early shorts."

[Mac]

I love the Mickey Mouse cartoons, but I actually feel that the series ended in 1942 with SYMPHONY HOUR. After that he just made appearances in Pluto shorts and I think that was a real shame (although at least they made Mickey and the Beanstalk). I still really enjoy the Mickey shorts of the early forties such as like MR MOUSE TAKES A TRIP and THE LITTLE WHIRLWIND (I don't think that Mickey's being a wimp for cleaning up Minnie's yard!) and it seems strange to me that Walt, who loved the character so much, didn't make more special Mickey cartoons. I have noticed that what I consider the end of the Mickey's short cartoon series coincides with the end of the major progression of "Golden Age" Disney animation though.

I really wish that Mickey had got to star in his own feature, alongside Donald and Goofy as I'm sure that had one been made it would have wound up being my one of my favourite films. Whenever I read about abandoned projects like the feature length "Morgan's Ghost" I can't help but wonder what might have been! Also, as has been mentioned, some really great cartoons could have been made featuring stories like the ones from the comics. Some of these could have even been featurettes or at least double length. In the end there were a lot of missed opportunities in Mickey's animated career - if only Walt hadn't wasted his time with all those live action action films!

[Ray Pointer]

In reference to Disney's remark, wondering how they sold those shorts, it was in the context of the difficulties they had staying afloat and deriving their income from them. The little known fact is that the Columbia period was very unstable for Disney since he was not paid on time for the delivery of the cartoons. Many times Disney would have to layoff, and he and Roy took pay cuts just to keep things going. The story has it that when faced with continued delayed payments, Walt went to Harry Cohn at Columbia and demanded the back payments. To this Cohn is reported to have said," Young man, you should consider yourself lucky if you get paid at all!"

As for Mickey's decline, there are other factors involved beyond those already discussed. Part of it had to do with a continued literalization of the cartoons.
As they became more realistically self-conscious, the less credible Mickey Mouse became. Seeing him in more realistic settings rose questions about the plausibility of a four foot mouse. My take on it is that his decline also was associated with Fred Moore's redesign, giving Mickey more articulated eyes.
At this point, he resembles less of a cartoon design of a mouse, and more of a bear. One the one hand, this was a sincere desire to "modernize" the design. But what was lost in the process was the original Art Deco concept that was a style unto itself, and was part of the acceptablity of the character.

This pattern of "modernization" affected all characters that made the transition into the 1940s and 1950s, including POPEYE. Unfortunately,
these efforts to "improve" in many cases were done without a realization of a style that already existed.

As for Mickey Mouse as a feature character, this has been suggested before. But the truth of the matter is that the level that Disney features were reaching for was beyond that of an already awkward character. The continued focus on "naturalistic" fantasy in Disney features just did not
apply to this four-foot mouse. Mickey Mouse was very precious to Walt Disney, and he had reached a point where he could only be used with "sepcial material." His later appearances were made merely on the strength of his past reputation. Perhaps one of the best of his 1940s cartoons was MICKEY AND THE SEAL. Compared to his earlier cartoons, there simply is not as much action and wild antics. But after a period of time, it is felt that these things have been done, and to avoid repetition, the studio had to explore other avenues to make the efffort worth doing. So it stands to reason that placing Mickey Mouse in a feature would seem like a rehash stretched to 70 minutes.
:mickey:

[GeorgeC]

As I said before on another forum which I no longer post to -- ain't I a stinker? :bugs2: --,

I prefer the design of Mickey in "The Brave Little Tailor" as opposed the Freddie Moore redesign. It's simpler, more iconic, it LOOKS right even though he's got button eyes and no whites.

But honestly, does every character have to have that leve of realism? :befuddled

It's too bad that sometimes as human beings we don't know when to quit at things while they're good... You can't really top near-perfection, and I kinda think the Mickey design was near that point in "Tailor." :mickey:








My personal favorites: :bugs2: :daffy: :ysam: :befuddled :marvin: :sowhite: :tomcat: :jerry: :droopy: :wolfie: :red: :mickey: :donald: :goof: :scrooge: :sailor: :betty: :audrey: :felix:

I love these icons! Many thanks to the geniuses that cobbled these stickies up! :D

[Ray Pointer]

QUOTE=GeorgeC]As I said before on another forum which I no longer post to -- ain't I a stinker? :bugs2: --,I prefer the design of Mickey in "The Brave Little Tailor" as opposed the Freddie Moore redesign. It's simpler, more iconic, it LOOKS right even though he's got button eyes and no whites. But honestly, does every character have to have that leve of realism? It's too bad that sometimes as human beings we don't know when to quit at things while they're good... You can't really top near-perfection, and I kinda think the Mickey design was near that point in "Tailor." :mickey:

These are my points, exactly. I believe that BRAVE LITTLE TAILOR represents the Zenith of MICKEY MOUSE in that it incorporates all of the elements that explain why he was such an important icon of The Depression. After that, Mickey became diluted by the redesign.

But maybe it should be understood that the animators then were not that conscious of what they were doing. They did not have these realizations we have, and always thought that they needed to do better. This was also a reflection of educational level. Those without a great deal of formal art training were lost in this bewilderment, while those more artistically sophisticated were more stylistically aware. This is one of the reasons for the rise of UPA, as many of you already know.:magoo:

[mbaker]

Mickey was a much better character in the 30's than he was in the following decades. I like his current designs, but his original personality got lost in the transition somehow. Walt missed a golden oppertunity to make Mickey into a war hero durring the 40's. That probably would've made him more than just a boring wimp with no personality. (or a coorperate icon) There were a few moments in recent years where Mickey showed some signs of spunk, and humor, ('The Prince & The Pauper', 'Runaway Brain, 'The Three Musketeers', and some 'Mickey Mouseworks' shorts) But they were few, and far between.

[Mac]

I also prefer the old button eyed Mickey and it's true that Mickey lost an important part of his iconic design with the introduction of eyes with pupils. However, the 1940s design is still really appealing and I feel there was still a lot more that could have been done with the character. Mickey still worked as a character and to me it never seemed weird that he was a four foot mouse, despite how Disney cartoons were becoming more realistic (Goofy and Donald don't seem out of place either). Mickey still existed in his cartoon world and he could have retained his earlier personality and starred in a lot more excellent cartoons, just like how he continued as a great character in the comics. IMO Mickey's redesign reflected the dilution of the character that was happening rather than Mickey being diluted by the redesign.

I still believe that a feature could have been made which was centred around Mickey in his cartoon world. A sort of comic adventure which needn't have been a rehash because it would have told a more complex and involved story with the characters. It's a shame that such a thing wasn't attempted during the era of the package features.

[Ray Pointer]

As the Disney organization grew, it needed more product. One of the reasons why it started producing live action films was because of frozen assets in England. So he used those to produced some of his first live action films at the famous Pinewood Studios.


"Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea" was DIsney's first domestically produced live action film, directed, ironically by Max Fleischer's son, Richard.
This was, and still is a wonderfully imaginative and entertaining motion picture.
Of course, the fact that MARY POPPINS attained some amount of attention with The Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences cannot be overlooked as well.

From a business standpoint, it was Roy Disney who was urging the live action production, especially when their wave of Live action comedies such as "The Shaggy Dog" and "The Absent-Minded Professor" were making huge profits compared to the money that was lost on SLEEPING BEAUTY. If it had not been for the success of "101 Dalmations," produced on a tighter budget and reduced staff, Wlat Disney Productions would have gone completely out of the animation business all together. So to say that Walt was wasting his time making live action films is really a misguided assumption.:scrooge: :mickey:

[magadizer]

I think Mickey (and some others, there is at least one Cubby Bear short that ends this way) were great characters when they were involved in adventurous stories, with a little danger. But too ofter the writers resorted to an it-was-all-a-dream resolution which cheated the characters of their herioc adventures. I'm thinking of shorts like "The Mad Doctor." I don't think the comic-strip Mickey ever escaped peril by merely waking up. What a cheat!
:mickey:

[J Lee]

As others have pointed out, Mickey's success worked against him, since as he became more popular there was less and less he could actually do that would meet with parental approval. And that was even prior to the redesign. Add to that the fact that Disney did not want to take Mickey in the direction towards rougher comedy that Warners was pulling the rest of the short-subject industry, and you ended up with a character that really didn't have a reason for being anymore, except as the company's corporate logo. Mickey certainly could have been worked into more entertaining cartoons than he was placed in, since Warners managed to keep Porky Pig going into the 1940s and 50s even though his personality was just as bland as the mouse's was. But Porky was allowed to play with a rougher crowd, something Mickey never was allowed to do by his bosses.

(If you look at Chuck Jones' B&W Porky Pig cartoons of the early 1940s, made during Chuck's "quiet" period, you can easily see Mickey being subsituted in Porky's place with little or no change in script. But even Jones' cute, tame stuff of the day was edgier than what Walt was willing to let his mouse either get away with or be subjected to at the time.)

[thebitterduck]

My view on Mickey Mouse was colored by the fact that I saw both incarnations of him in my younger days, and that includes reading digests of the comics as well. To me, Mickey Mouse ideally is a nice guy (new incarnation), but when the pressure's on, he'll get out there and kick some butt (Old incarnation). That's my view on Mickey Mouse.

Sincerely,

John "thebitterduck" Kilduff

[Mac]

So to say that Walt was wasting his time making live action films is really a misguided assumption.:scrooge: :mickey:

Sorry, I do realise the importance of Disney's live action output - I was just being flippant when I said Walt was wasting his time. This is because IMO Disney never did create anything quite as speical or as timeless as his best animated cartoons in live action and, to an animation fan, it always seems a shame how the Disney 'golden age' of animation came to an end in the 1940s. I can't help but wonder what would have been created if the war never happenned and the features after Snow White had been really successful etc. and Disney had remained dedicated to animation. Maybe Mickey would have made an animated come back.

[Jack]

I thought I'd chime in to pretty much agree with those who wished more of Mickey's comic strip personna had been put into the cartoons of the 40's. Mickey got to do lots of cool stuff, like foil Nazis and save the world. This is the Mickey Mouse we should have gotten in the animated shorts. It seems most of the better 1940's cartoons are good because of Pluto (a character I really don't care for) or someone else, with already-mentioned exceptions like "Mr. Mouse Takes A Trip" and "The Little Whirlwind."

As for the redesign - I must admit I really like the early 40's design where Mickey had more "realistic" ears. I just find it very appealing, much moreso than most of the other "eye-with-pupil" designs. I think it's second only to the 1930's design.

BTW, the comics did use the "it was all a dream" gimmick a few times.


Jack :mickey:

[Ray Pointer]

Mickey Mouse's comeback was television in 1955. Since Disney's focus was on building DISNEYLAND, Mickey became the "collateral" offered to ABC-Paramount in exchange for the financing and publicity for Disneyland. By today's standards, the structure of the DISNEYLAND and MICKEY MOUSE television shows would not be acceptable since they were structured as promotions for the theme park offered in the form of entertainment. But due to the cleaver way it was done, it was very entertaining and good public relations rather than an annoying hour-long commercial.

Regarding the issue of why Disney did not put Mickey into a feature, perhaps there is another way of explaning this. Aside from the increasing limitations
placed on the character, it should be understood that Mickey Mouse was essentially a character that worked in the short cartoon format. He was also an icon of The Depression, and public sentiments soon changed. The concepts and scope of Disney animated features was on a much higher and complicated level, achieving high levels of artistry that were beyond the conventions of cartoons. It was not Disney's "folly" not placing Mickey Mouse into a feature, but his desire to move on to more ambitious things. Mickey was exhausted. Again, since the character was so precious to Walt, he preferred to protect the image of the character, and leave him with the established impression of the cartoons that were already made. In many respects, this was a wise move. Look at all the recent attempts at reviving a character that had been dormant for a period--the most recent and famous being the, pardon the expression, POPEYE in 3D(????). But this is an issue the result of other things, and the question relates to the continued production of Mickey Mouse during Walt's lifetime.

The fact that Mickey was essentially a light entertainment character that worked in the short format, again is part of the answer. But as the expense for short cartoons rose, Disney discontinued producing them on a large scale, producing only an occasional short to accompany one of his features. The last Mickey Mouse cartoon, "The Simple Things" (1953) had the value of the name, Mickey Mouse. But this value was based on the cartoons of the past. This, and the other new 1950s cartoons were more of a "sentimental" reminder of the more adventerous character from 20 years before. His appearances by this time elicited smiles, but certainly not laughs, as the comedy was given to Pluto.

Mickey does not really do much in "The Simple Things" other than fish. The majority of the story centers on an annoying seagull trying to steal the catch, and the most of the comedy stems from Pluto mugging due to a clam in his mouth. So with all of Disney's other activities, including the features, there just wasn't the interest or motivation in doing anything more with Mickey Mouse, and considering the final outcome, Walt was right in giving Mickey closure at this point.

You might consider the outcome if Walt Disney had chosen a Mickey Mouse feature over producing SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS. The impression and the impact would not have been the same, and if a Mickey feature had failed, it would have spelled the end of the Disney Studio, and animation history would never have progressed to where we are today.:mickey:

[Mac]

You're right, Ray. I know that Walt had a philosophy that he'd rather make no Mickey cartoons at all than produce bad ones. Also had his first feature been centred around Mickey Mouse I doubt he would have been taken seriously. That's why people laughed at the idea of Disney making a full length feature - many people could only imagine Mickey Mouse and Silly Symphony type cartoons stretched out to feature length.

I do believe though that Disney could have continued making occasional cartoons with Mickey as the star beyond 1942. Although Mickey's on screen personality had become more and more of a 'boy scout' type, I believe that after the war, the public would have been willing to accept a more adventurous Mickey again. It wouldn't have been a complete revival since Mickey had never really gone away and it needn't have been a reash because, as the comics illustrate, there were different kinds of stories that could be told with the character. As for a feature, well I'd still loved to have seen what a Walt era result would have been like!