As the title suggests, this study will investigate the influence Walt Disney had on production during these years by looking at the some of the cartoons produced and the ways in which Disney’s staff, by their responses to his actions, shaped Walt Disney’s personality themselves.

Walt’s visions of bigger and better productions led him, as far as many of his employees were concerned, to become increasingly autocratic in terms of both direction and production. Conversely Walt always considered this behaviour to be of a ‘paternal’ bent¹ and often described his workforce as his family. These differing interpretations of Walt’s attitude created strong feelings of betrayal and resentment in later years, both for Walt and his ‘family’.

Just eleven years later, with Walt Disney gaining industry and audience recognition, work began on a new project, Three Little Pigs. This turned out to be Disney’s biggest hit up to that point. But, the trio of porcine protagonists and their adversary, the Big Bad Wolf, brought with them the company’s first taste of controversy, both publicly and internally.

On its release in May 1933, Three Little Pigs met with immediate and overwhelming success, "…returning rentals to Disney… of $125,000 in its first year"², providing Disney with his second Oscar³.

Released just as America was reaching it’s lowest ebb in the depression and around the same time that Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, the cartoon, it’s message and it’s song "Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Wolf" became ingrained into the hearts of millions of Americans. The tune "…proclaimed hope in the face of overwhelming adversity, while it’s moral tale promised safety and prosperity for common people who practised hard working diligence"⁴. It is likely that this was "…the most widely seen cartoon of the 1930’s."⁵

According to Steven J. Watts in his essay Walt Disney: Art and Politics in the American Century, the cartoon betrayed Disney as a "sentimental populist… who defended the dignity of the common man"⁶. Furthermore, this reminds us that he was not necessarily the obsessive⁷, right wing racist and anti-Semite as he has often been portrayed⁸.

Despite this popularity, Three Little Pigs was not devoid of problems. The primary issue surrounded certain unpleasant Jewish caricatures⁹. In one specific scene the wolf disguised himself as a Hebrew peddler, which prompted the leaders of several Jewish organisations to approach Disney with their concerns over this portrayal. Following this delegation the offending scene was removed from all further releases, and replaced by a nondescript door-to-door salesman¹⁰.

Internal problems also arose early in production when Disney chose to ‘cast’ individuals to draw each of the characters. The idea was to allow the pigs to develop a personality¹¹, but when Disney saw how well this worked, he began to expand the system, which created problems on his next big project.

Insistence on specialisation from his animators led to spiralling production costs and resentment from other animators who felt Walt was showing favouritism. Conversely, Disney believed he was ‘rewarding’ individual animators for previous good work¹².

The artistic strength that this method of organisation spawned also increased pressure on the other animators to change and improve their style to match up to the likes of Hamilton Luske, Fred Moore and Wilfred Jackson. Each was hand picked by Walt to animate the bulk of the scenes in Three Little Pigs¹³.

This resentment did not truly rear its head for several years and instead had time to disseminate and augment itself in the hearts and minds of Disney employees until eventually it developed into something far more destructive for staff and management alike.

Meanwhile Disney, encouraged by the success of Three Little Pigs¹⁴ was ploughing ahead with plans for a new type of cartoon: the first ever fully animated feature¹⁵, utterly oblivious to the silent but growing animosity within the ranks.

On June 3^rd 1934, a year and three months after Pigs was released, "The New York Times reported that [Disney] ‘contemplates [producing] …a full-length feature based on Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs…’"¹⁶. Later that year Disney said he believed Snow White would be released early in 1936. He could not have been more wrong. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was finally released in time for Christmas 1937, and once again Walt received more recognition and awards. Meanwhile his staff – animators, inbetweeners and inkers – were exhausted adding to the feelings of resentment that had started to take root in 1933.

Disney’s continued use of ‘casting’ and his ever-increasing desire for ‘realism in animation’ exacerbated these feelings. This push for realism can be traced back to Disney’s youth in Kansas City. However, he did not strongly advocate the idea until 1929¹⁷, after which he used the studio to further implement his ideas on realism in animation, until a final peak with the production of Bambi (1942). During the production of this feature, Disney brought live deer to the studio and demanded "…exact animated replication…" of the animals¹⁸. This was the last time this kind of realism was enforced by Walt.

It was in fact the combination of ‘casting’ and ‘realism’ that caused most of the dissention because Disney created a hierarchy of directors and animators all responsible for the same character and who inevitably stepped on one another’s artistic toes.

A prime example of this is the tension Disney created when he ‘cast’ Grim Natwick to animate the character of Snow White and appointed Ham Luske as director of the live action film that Natwick was to use as a guide (to heighten the realism). Thus Luske was technically given control of the character despite Natwick being expressly chosen for his ability to animate female characters¹⁹.

Many years later Grim Natwick clarified this division, stating that "…he did not even know what Luske was doing…" yet as far as Disney was concerned Luske was supervising Natwick throughout²⁰. This was not an isolated example and with this in mind it is not so difficult to understand why by the end of 1937 "…the pressure was extraordinary…"²¹

Disney’s character did nothing to alleviate tensions. He was desperate to get Snow White released by the end of 1937 as production had now overrun by nearly two years and costs were nearing $1.5 million²². To this end, it was not uncommon for the women of the inking and painting department to work from seven in the morning until after ten at night, though according to Richard Schickel, few complained²³. Yet not many years later, Disney’s expectations for the same eagerness took the staff close to breaking point²⁴. However, it is worth remembering that the depression still had a strangle hold on the USA in 1937, thus silence over excessive working hours may have been founded more by a fear of job losses than by a sense of loyalty or love for their work.

Despite all these internal wranglings, Snow White was the success Disney had hoped for, recouping the costs plus half a million Dollars profit within six months of its release.

Watts suggests the reason for this success is two-fold; first, the obvious novelty value – Snow White was a full colour, fully animated picture running in excess of one hour with totally synchronised sound. Secondly, with the depression still gripping the country, this film reaffirmed Disney’s populist nature by representing and celebrating the "…dignity of (literally) the little guy who… works hard, maintains an upright character, and pulls through the worst travails offered by… the social order"²⁵. These positive messages were exactly what depressed America needed, so on these terms it is no surprise that Snow White was a success.

Fuelled as he had been in 1933, by success, Disney jumped headfirst into a number of ambitious projects: the design of a brand new, purpose built studio in Burbank²⁶ and simultaneously embarking on pre-production of Pinocchio and Bambi. Though the production of these cartoons held bearing on general labour relations, it was not until the eventual move from the old Hyperion Avenue studio to Burbank in 1940 that relations really took a turn for the worse.

It is ironic that affairs between Disney and his staff got so out of hand after the move, as Walt envisaged this new plant to be his most grandiose show of paternalism. For example, as one animator recalled, "…any animator could pick up his phone and call the coffee shop and have [anything] delivered…"²⁷. In other words everyone was supposed to feel happy and comfortable in this futuristic, air-conditioned building. However, over and above these benevolent facades, the studio was really intended by Walt to be a factory of efficiency²⁸, and it was this that riled the workers so, that a year later, when combined with all the lingering resentments, most felt driven to strike²⁹.

Much of the problem was that the new studio was too sanitised and organised. Hyperion, though it had been cramped and uncomfortable to work in, had been a relatively informal environment, so this new, highly organised climate took many by surprise and alienated many others due to the arrangement of the departments. Michael Barrier describes the building thus: "Walt Disney’s office was on the third floor, which he shared with the writers… directors and layout artists were on the second floor and animators [including inkers, painters and inbetweeners] on the first."³⁰ This seems reasonable in itself, that is, to keep all similar branches together, only the divisions did not end here. Each department was isolated, which created problems in inking and painting as they felt Walt treated them with less respect than he did staff in other departments; it is not an unrelated point that these staff were all women.

The work in Burbank was arranged as a factory assembly line, creating highly monotonous work that many have described as slave labour. Ex-Disney employee, Mary Eastman recalled that "…the supervisors would come … and watch how well you were inking and how fast you were painting… some people were fired.³¹" This of course created discontent and planted in the minds of many, the idea that Disney was a misogynist. This was reinforced by his reported ‘straight-laced’ persona; Marc Eliot explains that there was a ban on socialising and anything that might suggest sex or sexuality³². However, it is more likely to have been this so-called Puritanism that meant he did not employ female animators or male inkers and painters³³ than any sexist beliefs.

So, as we can see, general relations between Disney and his workforce deteriorated severely during 1940-41. The last straw came when a small controversy over pay combined itself with a bigger issue over union membership.

The issue over pay developed due to Disney’s habit of arbitrarily dishing out bonuses, raises and salary alterations as he saw fit and to those he felt deserved it. It appears that no one found fault with this until 1940 when the studio got into financial difficulties. These were caused by an under-whelming public response to both Pinocchio³⁴ and (devastatingly for Disney) Fantasia³⁵ combined with the massive cost of building and re-locating to Burbank; thus the regular increases and bonuses stopped. To offset the losses the studio’s bankers pressured for salary cuts. Walt’s brother Roy sensibly cut administrative pay by a uniform 10%; Walt on the other hand, believing he was behaving sensitively and softening the blow cut just some creative salaries arguing that those who suffered were overpaid anyway. Furthermore, he offered some of his better-paid animators the opportunity to decide by how much their wages would be cut. By doing this of course, rather than his staff recognising his supposed ‘sensitivity’ and concern, Walt simply managed to alienate most of them, and add more fuel to their continually swelling bitterness.³⁶

Relations continued to sour as many artists, including Babbitt himself, left the federation to join the Screen Cartoonists Guild, a stronger, outside union, yet management stubbornly refused to recognise the guild.

The crunch came when it became clear that the earlier pay cuts were not going to be sufficient and layoffs would be unavoidable. Walt proceeded to perform the inevitable but chose to lay off mostly guild members. When the guild threatened to strike, Walt responded by firing Art Babbitt, the guild’s unit chairman. The pot had finally boiled over and on May 28^th, 1941 nearly three hundred Disney employees took their positions on the picket lines outside the Burbank studio³⁸.

The strike eventually lasted until September 1941 and of its consequences, two are of interest to us. One is the production of Dumbo. The other, which overshadowed Disney for the rest of his life, was the conviction that the strike was caused by Communists³⁹.

We need to briefly discuss the production of Dumbo, as in terms of Disney features, this film is quite remarkable. The first factor is that it was produced and released remarkably quickly and at minimal cost. Initial storyboard work had begun in mid-1940, but the bulk of the animation did not get underway until spring 1941. Thus strike-breakers performed most of the artistry.

The ‘innocent’ nature of the film is due mainly to the fact that Roy – seeing that Walt was taking every day of the strike entirely personally and growing increasingly disaffected and agitated because of it – began to fear for his brother’s health. To get him away from the hostile environment, Roy arranged for Walt to take part in a government funded good-will trip to South America. His absence during the summer of 1941 thus afforded the handful of loyal animators, a creative freedom that few had experienced under the watchful eye of ‘Uncle Walt’, allowing production to run far more smoothly than they were used to⁴⁰. Thus the film was more "fun… spontaneous…"⁴¹ and considerably more successful than its immediate predecessor Fantasia.

There is however one vaguely sinister side to Dumbo. In one scene some of the circus clowns sow the seeds of industrial unrest; today this is generally viewed as a reflection of the disturbing events occurring just outside the studio gates⁴².

Whether Walt ever made the connection is unclear; though judging by his alleged responses to other ‘suggestive’ animation⁴³, it is quite likely he did not as there do not appear to be any reports of an adverse reaction.

The other notable consequence of the strike was Walt Disney’s new found (and supposedly obsessive) anti-communism. However, despite the odd outburst here and there – Watts describes how Disney placed a full-page advertisement in Variety saying he was "…positively convinced that Communistic agitation, leadership, and activities have brought about this strike…"⁴⁴ – he appears to have done little to enforce these recently acquired beliefs for several years. Though this was most likely due to the interruption of World War II, which caused troubles all of it’s own⁴⁵.

In fact, it was not until 1947, when the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) increased their investigations in the movie industry that Disney was able to ‘avenge’ the treatment he had ‘suffered’ in the hands of his ‘family’.

So, on Friday, October 24, 1947, Walt Disney appeared before HUAC as a ‘Friendly Witness’⁴⁶ and proceeded to name two ex-employees, Herbert Sorrell and David Hilberman, explaining that he was convinced that they were Communists and it was they who instigated the strike of 1941⁴⁷. Both were added to HUAC’s Hollywood Blacklist.

Furthermore, and in total contradiction to all Eliot’s heavy-handed accusations, Walt’s daughter Diane Disney-Miller recalled that her father always considered himself to be a true liberal⁵⁰, though she does not refute the fact that he blacklisted Hilberman and Sorrell.

So, as we conclude this study of Walt Disney, his personality and his affect on the fortunes of the Disney Corporation we find ourselves with a plethora of contradictions. Some say he was obsessive, anti-Semitic, racist, a spy for the FBI, sexist and uncaringly autocratic. Others suggest he was misled, sentimental, liberal and eventually disillusioned.

However, all agree that despite the many mistakes he made and the wildly misdirected gestures of paternalism that he felt were so sympathetic, but which his staff found so infuriating, the years between 1933 and 1947 produced some of the best cartoons, (feature length and short), to come out of Hollywood for years to come.

Thus this study suggests that had it not been for the actions and personality of Walt Disney, however reprehensible or misguided, he would not have become such a legend. Furthermore the cartoons produced in that period may not have been – whether recognised at the time or not – the masterpieces we perceive them to be today.