Reading Response - Kevin Shortsleeve

This week’s homework required for me to read quite an extensive essay by Kevin Shortsleeve on Disney and the 1930s. It was definitely an endurance event, requiring my focus and demanding my attention. I really liked the arguments by Shortsleeve as he introduced a wide and well-supported assortment of arguments that had me constantly highlighting my page and writing notes. However, along with his breadth of arguments and unique perspectives, I lost a consistency to his writing and found his arguments, while very strong, not totally cohesive and at times, straying from his thesis. Nonetheless, I have learned a great deal about the Disney Corporation, particularly its antiquated 1930s ideology, and developed a more acute eye to critically assessing writing pieces.

I will begin with what I really liked about Shortsleeve’s piece. I though the structure of Shortsleeve’s essay was strong. It was easy to tackle his piece because it was broken up into smaller subheadings that helped divide the piece into a collection of arguments. Furthermore, the arguments did not stand alone but were connected through linking phrases and segues. For example, Shortsleeve transitions from a discussion on the enduring appeal of Disney to a discussion of the 1930s Disney by writing

‘the origins of our discontent can be traced historically to the crucial decade in which the company came of age’.

The strength of Shortsleeve’s essay also lies in his contribution to the greater discourse community. The beginning of the essay cites a vast array of previous authors and critics in the field of Disney and culture, thus presenting Shortsleeve’s arguments as part of a greater academic argument,

‘Sayers was incensed at the Disneyfication of fairy tales, objecting to the overly simplistic, sentimental approach – the dumbing down’.

This theme is continued throughout the essay, enhancing its validity, as Shortsleeve uses other critics to supplement his argument and also present his own argument in response to others. For example Shortsleeve writes:

Steven Watts, in the Magic Kingdom: Walt Disney and the American Way of Life (1997), notes that since the late 1960s “the imbroglio over the Disney Version and the fallout from it have continued to cloud a clear view of Disney and the impact of his work”. I believe that there is an “imbroglio” and that it does “cloud a clear view of Disney”, but I do not think The Disney Version is connected with it.

In addition, Shortsleeve uses to great effect a ‘mini-thesis’ to introduce the theme of his essay before divulging into a ‘proper thesis’ to extend his argument and signpost the direction of his essay.

à mini-thesis ‘I seek to identify a basic rift that occurred nearly seventy years ago, which has fueled paranoia in Disney corporate, artistic, critical and public spheres’

à main thesis ‘I believe that the Disney Company has remained unchanged since its initial climb to international fame in the 1930s. Political and social thought of the 1930s… has remained integral to Disney’s corporate structure and artistic sensibilities. Achieving and maintaining great commercial success via an Orwellian-style management, while selling utopian dreams of agrarian, monarchical kingdoms in its films, has impressed, entertained, and subliminally frightened audiences for nearly seventy years... It is this fractured experience that specifically haunts us.’

Lastly, the strength of Shortsleeve’s piece lies in his framing of his essay. The discussion of Disney’s housing village Celebration, described as a microcosm of the paranoia surrounding the Disney Corporation, acts as an example that threads the essay from introduction to conclusion. Furthermore, Shortsleeve uses the analogy of a child overhearing his parents, but being assured that everything is okay, to frame his discussion on the ‘silent tension’ and ‘suspicion’ surrounding Disney. The analogy is introduced towards the beginning of the essay as more abstract and is resolved at the conclusion

‘If we are like the child I described and is Disney is our duplicitous parent, then, as critics of the media giant we are rendered especially fragile. We are burden, paranoid and fearful… When we criticize Disney, we are like a child testifying against his parents. We are intimidated, guilt ridden, or reactionary.’ 

My greatest criticism of Shortsleeve’s essay is that it almost feels as though its two essays amalgamated as one. It feels as if Shortsleeve is (i) discussing why criticism of Disney is disparate to criticism of other companies and why there exists paranoia around the Disney Company and (ii) discussing the influence of the 1930s on the Disney Corporation. The essay title reflects my opinion, it almost exists as two distinct titles ‘The Wonderful World of the Depression: Disney, Despotism and the 1930s. Or, Why Disney Scares Us’. Synthesizing the two is a monumental task and I feel like they would be better served independent of the other. It feels as though the discussion on the 1930s and Depression era spans the body of the essay and then Shortsleeve returns to why Disney scares us. Shortsleeve’s attempt to link them, ‘basic rift that occurred nearly seventy years ago, which has fueled paranoia in Disney’, is not referenced explicitly enough to merge the two contrasting arguments. It is not until the conclusion of the essay, The Appeal, that the argument returns to why Disney scares us. The consistency of the two arguments is thus called into question and I conclude that the two argument should exist separately.

Complementing my analysis of the writing approach and techniques of Shortsleeve, I would also like to share some exciting new insights I have gained from this essay. Shortsleeve focuses on the 1930s to form comprehensive arguments on the influence of the era on the Disney Corporation and how the characteristics of 1930s Disney persist today. I have learned that the success of Disney is closely tied with the Depression era and the need for entertainment and entrepreneurship in a time of immense economic difficulty. Shortsleeve communicates the popularity of Disney’s utopia and American nostalgia for rural society during a time where unemployment was high and distraction was in high demand – ‘Audiences sought deliverance from a system, a place, and a time that had failed them’. The 1930s also enticed political movements such as monarchy and totalitarianism that Disney effectively used to domineer his company and control his enterprise. The comparison to Walt Disney and Henry Ford emphasize Disney’s shrewd and mechanical business approach.  The 1930s also formed the basis of Disney Parks, with Main Street and Hollywood studios being a representation of 1930s America. Disney portrays the 1930s as a Golden Age of American patriotism, innovation and self-sufficiency in stark contrast to the Depression filled reality. This misrepresentation and glorification is what characterizes the Disney brand. Shortsleeve’s descriptions of the 1940s strike, Walt’s anti-unionization, false egalitarian spirit, desire to build a new society and political influence all point a more comprehensive picture of Disney the man. Duplicity is characteristic of Walt Disney and also the Disney Corporation, which Shortsleeve effectively articulates in his essay while maintaining an objective analysis.

In summary, Shortsleeve’s essay has been a profound reading for this class and has had the dual function of educating me more about the Disney Corporation and enabled me to improve my critical analysis skills.