McEvoy, JP.  "Walt Disney Goes to War".  The LA Times. 5 Jul 1942.

This piece from the LA Times is from 1942, the year that The New Spirit was made.  The author summarizes the different types of war films Walt Disney had made at that time, and who views them.   Disney made films to be distributed internationally in support of the American cause, shorts advocating the Agricultural Department’s food drive, and training movies for the military.  He used the same characters that appeared in his cartoons for children to promote American ideals, and he was able to have a considerable influence on the American public.

The most defining line in this article is that art is a “dynamic force”.  For Disney, his art became a cultural and political force both at home and abroad.  He was able to apply his comedy to films that addressed the very grim reality of war.  Because his films featured familiar characters and lighthearted storylines, they appealed to a wide audience and were extremely effective.  As the article points out, with The New Spirit, he was able to make audiences laugh while paying their biggest income tax installment.  His unique ability to make war films funny is why he is considered a “propaganda genius” and was able to be so influential.

The last chapter of Robert Fyne's book Hollywood Propaganda of World War II is called “Distortions, Prevarications, Fiction-as-Fact: Reflections on Propaganda”.  It explores the question of how accurate and how effective propaganda films from World War II really were.  While many GIs took issue with the inaccuracies in the way that the war was portrayed in most films, the author argues that the movies offered audiences the escapism and reassurance that were necessary for the Allied victory. 

Disney’s war films were consistent with much of what was discussed in this chapter.  In Spirit of ’43, stereotypical images of German and Japanese people were used to distance Americans from the enemy.  They were very patriotic and featured the symbol of the American flag.  They also offered the American public reassurance that the Allies would defeat the Axis, and that actions like saving money to pay income tax would make a real difference.  Disney made other war films that had similar messages, and it encouraged the viewers to heed their advice in order to ensure the defeat of the Axis powers.

Arnold, Thomas K. "DVD-Day for Disney's WWII Films".  USA Today. 18 May 2004.

This article from USA Today is about the release of Disney's WWII films on DVD in 2004.  It explains that some of the material may be seen as offensive today since the films frequently portray Germans and Japanese in a negative manner.  The film critic Leonard Maltin comments on the DVD set, saying that Disney’s short films like The New Spirit are so significant because they are unlike any others put out by Disney or other studios.  The article also offers statements from an animator who worked on many of Disney’s war shorts.

The release of these films on DVD 60 years after they were first shown to audiences is a testament to their lasting impact on American culture.  The article states that Disney produced “hundreds of hours” of material, which is why his films were so prevalent during this time.  Maltin said that this set of DVDs was one of the most important ones he has been involved with, and this is because of the unique circumstance of their production.  A studio that usually made films for children was now a powerhouse of wartime propaganda and military morale building films.  Films like The New Spirit are considered to be a part of American history, even though their influence is even more far-reaching than the national level.   The article states that Hitler was inspired by Disney’s shorts to commission his own animators to produce German propaganda films.  Through his animated shorts, Disney became a political player in WWII.

This is a transcript from testimony Walt Disney gave in 1947 in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee.  Disney explains the films he made during WWII, referring to them as propaganda and anti-Nazi.  He also talks about the impact he believes his films had on the public during the war, particularly with regards to The New Spirit and Spirit of ‘43.  According to Disney, 29% of Americans said that the films caused them to pay their taxes earlier and gave them a better understanding of what taxes do.  He goes on to implicate former studio employees as members of the Communist party, and states that they are to blame for the strike the Disney studio experienced a few years prior.  In his testimony, Disney makes clear his anti-Communist and anti-labor union sentiments.

In this source, Disney himself discusses his war films and the effect they had on the world during World War II.  He establishes that film is an effective way to disseminate propaganda, and cites a study that claims that his films caused 29% of people to file their income taxes earlier.  This is a very significant effect, and it indicates that not only were people watching the Disney films, but they were changing their behavior based on them.  In part due to Disney’s films, the war effort was able to garner the support of the American people.

"Walt Disney Goes to War".  Life Magazine.  31 Aug 1942, 61-69.

Life Magazine ran an article about Walt Disney and the war effort in August 1942.  It describes how hard Disney was working to make films for the government and military, with 90% of his 550 employees making films that related directly to the war.  The article also shows pictures and sketches from specific films that Disney studios made for the Army and the Navy, along with other propaganda films.  His “Aerology” films for the Navy were used to allow pilots to experience animated weather conditions that they may not typically encounter in their training.  In the propaganda film “Reason and Emotion”, Disney uses humorous images to encourage Americans to use reason throughout the war and not to be swayed by emotions. 

This article provides examples of how animation was used to create effective propaganda and training films.  Animation can create scenarios that may not normally exist, which can be helpful in military training.  It allows the viewer to see things that a camera could not reach.  The reason that Disney had such enormous success in animation was his integration of humor to his films.  The article states that Disney’s artists were such good teachers because they kept the audience’s imagination.  Because he was able to present factual material in an entertaining manner, the viewers paid attention and took his films to heart.

This book provides an overview of the efforts of the Warner Brothers’ studio to aid in the war effort, namely by campaigning against Nazism.  Birdwell examines the complex relationship between the Warner Brothers Studio and the US government in promoting the war effort.   

Birdwell’s discussion frames the effectiveness of the “Private Snafu” series in the context of other films of its time which sought to promote the US war effort.  The book provides a good understanding of mainstream propaganda films which were accessible to a broader audience and how they are different from the “Private Snafu” series.

This is a contemporary essay of how government agencies helped shape Hollywood documentaries.  What is particularly interesting is that an author of the essay was involved first-hand in the Hollywood-US government interaction: Robert Katz was Deputy Chief of Long Range Operations in the Office of War Information (OWI), Overseas Branch and then Assistant Chief of Production Planning in the International Motion Picture Division of the Department of State in 1946 and 1947.  In this essay he co-authors with Nancy Katz, Robert Katz discusses the role of the "Private Snafu" series vis-à-vis other elements of government propaganda to manage and ensure morale of the troops.  Specifically, the Katzs discuss how one of these shorts film portrays the consequences of Private Snafu neglecting a hole in the mosquito net: death at the hands of "Anopheles Annie," a malaria-carrying mosquito.  Such films were direct answers to concerns and questions that soldiers had about life in the military.  In addition to the Armed Forces, other forms of government interaction with the film industry included the Overseas Branch of the OWI, which actually made films that were shown exclusively abroad to promote elements of the New Deal.

This essay places the “Private Snafu” series in historical and contextual perspective in relation to other war time film propaganda, both in terms of the intended audience and the production process.   It also captures the importance of the documentary filmm=-making approach and its relevance for effective propaganda.

Smoodin discusses the complex relationship between Hollywood and the government, which essentially acts as a studio as it plays a increasing role in controlling film media during World War II.  Smoodin points out the irony that in serving to assuage soldiers’ discontent with military life, the “Private Snafu” series also reinforced how much discontent permeated the military.   By presenting a negative example of how not to act, these films were effectively both modeling and providing resistance against military authority.  

Smoodin’s argument resolves the fact that the “Private Snafu” series both illuminated and worked to address contradictions within military life.  In fact, the seeming irony does not undermine the ideological purpose and inherent success of these films to serve the needs of the government in maintaining morale in the military because they represented the reconciliation between the individual and the group in social psychology.  The relevance of psychology and one’s awareness as an “everyman” soldier vis-à-vis the greater goals of the group (and the nation) meant that the “Private Snafu” series provides more positive answers to address soldiers’ concerns than exposes negativity about these concerns.

Ohmer notes in her review of "Animating culture: Hollywood cartoons from the sound era" by Eric Smoodin (Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, 1933. 216 pgs) that "Private Snafu" series was often shown at civilian theaters at the end of military film. According to Smoodin, the character of Private Snafu acted as an outlet that addressed soldiers' discontent while also indoctrinating them further with ways of military life. 

Ohmer’s discussion hints at a counterpoint to the effectiveness of the “Private Snafu” series in that the propaganda may have done more harm than good for its audience.  Although the films succeeded in ironing out soldiers’ qualms, their discussion of these qualms reinforces many of the negatives of military life.

In a contemporary magazine article, Arthur L. Mayer, who was also Assistant Coordinator of the War Activities Committee - Motion Picture Industry, discusses the role of “Private Snafu” in documentaries.  The “Private Snafu” films were usually exhibited along with magazines as part of the military service’s entertainment package known as “G.I. movies.”

Mayer’s discussion reveals that the “Private Snafu” series acted as effective propaganda with an agenda to advocate and instruct its targeted audience, the soldiers, and was also embedded as entertainment.  The incorporation and exhibition of the “Private Snafu” series vis-à-vis other forms of media, such as mainstream film and magazines, and exclusively for soldiers demonstrates that branding propaganda as entertainment enhanced its effectiveness.

This anthology of over 100 years of American films includes a famous short from the "Private Snafu" series of twenty-six animated short films made by Warner Brothers.  These films were shown exclusively to servicemen and served as educational government "posters" for soldiers through the use of negative examples.  The stories were created by Theodor "Dr. Seuss" Geisel and the U.S. Army's Information and Education Division, with composer Carl Stalling.  The featured film in this anthology is "Private Snafu: Spies" (1943), which tells the story of a soldier, Private Snafu, whose negligence and spilling of state secrets lead to his destruction at the hands of Nazi enemies.  The short successfully promotes the idea of "loose lips sink ships" through humor and an engaging and easy-to-understand story line.  There was a mutual relationship between the government and film studios and at the same time the state department also strategized trade agreements related to film in a way that bolstered the industry.

“Spies” serves as a good example of how “Private Snafu” was an effective propaganda vehicle that results from the collaboration between government and the film industry during World War II.

Shull, Michael S. and David E. Wilt. Doing Their Bit: Wartime American Animated Short Films 1939-1945. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2004.

Chapter 8 of Shull and Wilt's book describes the history of Private Snafu and his role as an educational tool. GIs could relate to Snafu, yet did not want to be him. Private Snafu was goofy-looking, physically unimposing, ignorant, and disgruntled young soldier: "a diametrical opposite of the handsome soldier portrayed in Hollywood films." Private Snafu proved to be the transition between the sanitized training videos and the harsh realities of war.

Wartime US military videos often downplayed the gory traumatic injuries and death of war. The Private Snafu series, being an animation, could portray GI death and ease soldiers into reality that disobedience and noncompliance would lead to death. After all, animations lived in the borders of fantasy and reality, so death, capture, or pain were unreal, even comical to the viewer. Such has to be the outlet for the anxieties the soldiers felt. It had to allow soldiers to desensitize them from the senseless destruction around them. In many ways, the transformation of Private Snafu mirrors the transformation of every GI. In the beginning (the first few episodes), Private Snafu is the complete idiot who disregards authority, but by the end, becomes a quirky member of the unit that gets the job done.

Ohmer, Susan. Rev. of Animating Culture: Hollywood Cartoons from the Sound Era, by Eric Smoodin. Film History Vol. 6, No. 3 (1994): 405-408.

Animation was an outlet of soldiers to vent their frustrations, but more importantly, a tool to indoctrinate them about military life and protocol. The cartoons emphasized fulfilling patriotic duty, despite tensions and contradictions in military life. But additionally, Smoodin asserts that cartoons functioned to reduce tensions arising from the rest of the program. The film bill exemplified American ideals, the cause that the soldiers fought for, but also diffused potentially jarring differences to produce a smooth, functional unit. Animation was a key component in mitigating differences.

Frank Capra produced the Army-Navy Screen Magazine, which featured newsreels, training, and usually concluded with Private Snafu. As the entertaining and humorous portion of bill, animations was a happy contrast to newsreels and dramas, which dealt with more serious subjects. SNAFU stood for "Situation Normal: ALL F**ked UP". It was an unofficial acronym describing how the normal state of affairs is in a mess.  The Private Snafu series presents the idea of tensions and contradictions in military life, but in an acceptable manner. Often times, newsreels, training films, and dramas triggered tension, which needed a safe outlet: cartoons. This led to acceptance of the norm and desensitization towards the harsh realities, even the idea of killing or being killed becomes less foreboding.

Birdwell, Michael. Technical Fairy First Class? Is this any way to Run an Army?: Private Snafu and World War II. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television Vol. 25, 2 (2005): 203-212.

This article explains how Private Snafu was brought about and why he was brought about.  Snafu was the anti-soldier: he kept idle, left weapons in disrepair, skipped training, and so forth. He "died--again, and again and again--so that many GIs might live". Snafu was a tool of indoctrination that the military believed was necessary for the average GI. The lack of censorship for crass behavior catered to the soldier's need for humor and escape from the mundane training videos and dramas.

Chuck Jones used the voice of Bugs Bunny for Private Snafu's voice, creating a dissonance. Soldiers associated Bugs Bunny with wit, doing the right thing; Snafu, on the other hand, does the wrong thing, but still preserves two essential traits of Bugs Bunny: disrespect for authority and a knack for smart-aleck remarks. This dissonance leads soldiers to distance themselves from Snafu and unite against his blunders. The message is clear: every GI could be snafu. As mentioned in the article, the Private Snafu series was an antidote to the tedious training videos and reinforced what they had learned from those training videos. Additionally, the parody of Jiminy Cricket, the Technical Fairy First Class, served to represent the shortcuts in the military that always backfires. In end, Snafu is bi-polar: on one hand, we have the normal non-career solider that the GIs related to and on the other, we have the anti-soldier that GIs had to alienate against. This enforces obedient behavior--the "if I follow orders, I will be fine" mentality.  It desensitizes them against reality, in hopes of staying alive.

Fyne, Robert. Rev. of Doing Their Bit: Wartime American Animated Short Films, by Michael S. Shull and David E. Wilt. Film &
History: an Interdisciplinary Journal of Film and Television Studies 35.1 (2005): 78.

Robert Fyne reviews the monumental body of work by Shull and Wilt on Hollywood World War II propaganda. Fyne discusses of parody's importance as a viable propaganda format. Cartoons, according to the authors, became an extension of the government persuasion machine. Animation spoofing reality was a method of escapism for the public weary of wartime films.

This is the basis of my research--that indeed, Hollywood through the animation medium created propaganda to desensitize soldiers towards reality. This becomes clear when you consider the plentiful use of parody as a propaganda format. In Snafuperman (1944, Private Snafu), Snafu is transformed into a super version of himself (a clear parody of Superman), but instead of helping the troops, he creates more mayhem. But Snafu's comic parodic ways repackages the importance of protocol of studying manuals in an acceptable manner. In The Spirit of '43 (1943), Donald Duck is in the classic parody of devil and angel. It emphasizes how the income taxes paid would support the troops, rather than the sacrifices civilians were making; the animation associated spending with vice as opposed to surviving in tough times (remember, this period is at the end of the Depression).

Katz, Robert and Nancy Katz. "Documentary in Transition, Part I: The United States." Hollywood Quarterly Vol. 3, No. 4 (1948): 425-433.

Documentaries attracted widespread public interest after World War II, but during the wartime period, it was mostly shown to the armed forces. To the soldiers who fought in distant theaters, it was a means to political education. It was important for the ordinary GI to know his allies and to the causes and issues at stake.  Documentaries such as Frank Capra's Why We Fight series or True Glory politically educated soldiers, but there were also documentaries such as the This Is America series, which portrayed images of normality for the homesick GIs. The first major US documentaries with a definite point of view came during the second Roosevelt administration and included the popular Private Snafu series, but it had to overcome the stigma of being government sponsored. There is also the element of interactive instruction through documentaries (including the Private Snafu series). Such films acted as direct answers to concerns and questions that soldiers had (in accordance to the military viewpoint). It simultaneously satisfied individual curiosities as well as assimilating individual soldiers into the unit; it made these sources of propaganda seem unbiased and trustworthy.

It is important to understand the amount of propaganda that was thrown at soldiers, in order to keep the discontent to a minimum. In addition, it was a form of social control. The constant stream of propagandistic documentaries took a toll on the soldiers as well as priming them for more propagandistic material. Torn between the images of home and normality and the patriotic duty demanded, they were susceptible to additional propaganda. The earlier animations and documentaries geared towards to soldiers were overly conscious of the "official" nature of the work and tried to avoid committing to a concrete message. Instead, the later animations and documentaries struck a clearer chord by gearing the feature to a specific message, whether it is not revealing secrets liberally (Private Snafu in Censor) or why we fight the war. With clear messages in the form of entertaining animation, soldiers become desensitized to constant barrage of propaganda, in other forms besides animation, as well as to the conditions they are exposed to.

Fagelson, William F. "Fighting Films: The Everyday Tactics of World War II Soldiers." Cinema Journal Vol 40. No. 3, (2001): 94-112.

Fagelson looks at the feeling of alienation from home felt by World War II American soldiers. Soldiers, in an attempt to "keep in touch" with the home front, would watch the popular flicks. However, as they saw the film, they pinpointed Hollywood as a source of the home front's inaccurate understanding of the war and of able-bodied men who remained safely at home (and misrepresented them in film). Additionally, film's portrayal of promiscuous women ignited fears of infidelity and portrayal of idle able-bodied men created resentment of civilians whom soldiers perceived as doing nothing in the war.

The article emphasizes how soldiers were skeptical of Hollywood films. However, cartoons were an alternate source of propaganda, which WWII soldiers would have been familiar with since they had grown up with it. It is important to understand the mentality that was united against what was perceived as a disingenuous portrayal of war. Despite being preyed on by films, soldiers continued to watch films, but actively challenged the themes.  Cartoons portrayed the "fun" side of patriotism and used parody to tone-down the same propaganda elements available through cinema.

The Serious Humor of La vita e bella

Millicent Marcus defends Benigni’s use of humor in Life is Beautiful this piece.  He believes that the limiting Holocaust art to historical record only permits documentary accounts as representations in which case the humanistic and moral nature of its history is lost.  He believes that Life is Beautiful is presented as a fantastical yet biographical account of the Holocaust in which Giouse is conscious of the fantastical nature yet acknowledges its message to future generations.

Marcus points to the film’s spoof of fascism and Guido’s unique fantasy-infused humor as its “antidote.” He points to the first half of the film’s elegant 1930’s mese-en-scene particularly in the ball scene as an indication of the film’s social commentary. He highlights Guido’s courtship of Dora and his mistranslation of the German soldier in the concentration camp as two examples of his ability to use his whimsicality as authority. 

Moreover, Marcus assess the reality controversy by calling attention to the Guido’s split audience with the inner being Giouse, and the outer being the viewers.  Marcus believes that Giouse’s perspective establishes “childhood innocence” as the standard by which the film is judged. Even more so, the viewers’ bond in their knowledge of Guido’s fantasy, again recognizing the rift between fantasy and reality.

Finally, Marcus assess Benigni’s own “game-work” humor in which he must use improvisation to alter Giouse’s perception of the concentration camp.  Marcus applauds Benigni’s capacity to flawlessly shift from his typical slap-stick comedy of the first half of the film to a more constricted yet still humorous version in the second half.

Marcus closes with his praise of the final moments of the film when he believes the mixture of hilarity and grief culminate.  The tank symbolizes the coming together of World War II history and Guido’s fantastic game. In sum, the film effectively fuses humor and the Holocaust into a “ground-breaking” film.

Doherty creates a social, historical and cultural context to better understand the production environment in 1946, of which The Best Years of Our Lives could be considered a consequence.  Wyler, himself a veteran of the war, sought not to create a classical, heroic depiction of decorated servicemen’s celebrated and joyous return home, but rather, an honest film with rife with social and cultural implications.  Rather than giving audiences an idyllic and glorified portrayal of the return home, he recreated the difficult readjustment of veterans back into their “normal lives” at home.  That the film was met with wild success is a testament to Doherty’s argument that the postwar American audience found a deeper meaning in film, and sought it as a tool not to escape from, but to address social problems.

This book examines the portrayal of the war at different stages in books and movies of the time, and draws a correllation between the movie and the purpose it was considered to serve.  In the essay “New Heroes: Post-War Hollywood’s Image of World War II,” Philip Landon strives to characterize the common war film of postwar period.  He claims that “war films of that time shared a myth essentially similar to the western,” films that lacked critical acclaim due to their uniformity and generic context in portraying the war.  As Paul Fussell wrote, “Hollywood shared the mass media’s aversion to examining the actual horrors of the War’s mechanized battle fronts.”  The attempts of these war films were not to push any limits as far as conventions, depth and complexity of story, and level of provocation, but rather sought to create a “mythic hero remarkably well-suited to the mood and circumstances of post-war America,” as it was perceived by the studios.

This observation raises an interesting point touched upon in the biography of Samuel Goldwyn. During the war, Hollywood naturally made heroic war tales to instill sentiments of hope and pride in American citizens. However, Hollywood generally tended to apply this same belief to the immediate post-war period, Goldwyn included. Any actual dramatic portrayal of the war and its negative effects was considered a risky bet, especially casting a real-life double amputee with hooks for hands. But as the ARI analysis and the film's wild success both demonstrated, Americans were no longer disillusioned about the war, and in some way, shape or form, were seeking an outlet for this. The war had profound and negative effects on their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons who brought these effects home with them. The ability of The Best Years of Our Lives to translate the true-to-life experiences of returning veterans from all ages and socio-economic levels to film was groundbreaking at the time, and was what the American public wanted to see.

This book examines the life and political career of the 33^rd president of the United States, Harry S. Truman.  Born in Missouri, he went off to serve as a captain of artillery in World War I.  Upon his return, he began his career in politics and quickly rose to great local and state popularity due to his "reputation of honest and efficiency as well as for party regularity."  His political shrewdness caught the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, searching for a new vice presidential candidate to replace Henry Wallace in the 1944 election.  After Roosevelt died in April of 1945, Truman assumed the presidency and was initially preoccupied with foreign policy: the Allied conference in Potsdam  and the conclusion of the war in Europe.  But perhaps the issue that took precedence at the time, and remained a major point of political debate the year after (1946, when The Best Years of Our Lives was made), was the decision in August to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan.  Though Truman maintained till his death that he made the decision solely on the basis of ending the war, preventing an invasion of Japan and saving American lives, the book explores alternative beliefs that Truman had alterior motives, such as preventing participation of the Russiancs in the Japanese defeat, as they had pledged to do at the Yalta conference.

The decision to drop the bomb was initially greeted with great acceptance by most Americans, who were relieved to see the surrender of Japan, the end of the war, and the return of the troops.  Soonafter, however, people began to question the morality of leveling an entire city and killing hundreds of thousands of civilians with a single bomb.  People began to question if dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a good decision, if perhaps the US should have warned Japan of the awesome power their new weapon was capable of, if it should have been dropped on a military base rather than a city.  This debate was very much alive and well during 1946, the year of The Best Years of Our Lives, and this social commentary is very much interjected into the film.  For example, upon Army Sergeant Al Stephenson's (Fredric March) return home, his son promptly asks him if when in Hiroshima he saw the damaging of effects of radioactivity on survivors of the bomb.  The film is not a sterotypical, patriotic postwar film for many reasons, and its ability to recognize domestic debate over foreign policy is one reason for that; its discussion of complex issues lends it a layer of intellectualism.  At that point in American History, and still to this day, the American conscience has not been able to completley accept the decision to use the atomic bomb.

Chapter 9 of this book analyzes Wartime Romances during World War II. The chapter's introduction, followed by a series of personal accounts, paints a picture of romantic life in the early to mid 1940s in the United States. It is one in which the war intensifies relationships of all kinds, leading to quick and hasty marriages which did not always end happily. It describes the immediate draw the uniform had on women, its glamour and romanticism, its honor, sense of duty and pride. The book also deals with the Homecoming of troops in chapter 12. Once again, through personal account of returning servicemen and their families, men came back home changed, permanently altered. They were eager to leave the service, but unable to detach from it and their many war experiences and memories.

This book certainly helps create a social and cultural understanding of America during and immediately after the war that puts elements of The Best Years of Our Lives into proper context. The relationship between Fred and Marie, married for only 20 days before he left for the war, serves as a perfect example of hasty marriage during wartime. Also, the idea of the glamour, prestige and romanticism of the uniform serves as the sole basis for Marie's attraction to Fred. Her dismayed and crestfallen reaction to Fred's assumption as a civilian role is the beginning of their marriage's end.

In addition, the detailed insight this book provides into the soldiers' unexpectedly complex and painful readjustment to life back at home and inability to abandon thoughts helps one understand the internal tension veterans experienced up their return home. It clarifies the grounds for many men's conversion into civilian life, which all too often included adultery, alcoholism, ostracism and alienation. The ability of The Best Years of Our Lives to capture these feelings through the stories of the three protagonists is one of many reasons it received so much critical and box-office success at its time of release.