The stupidest thing done on TCM last night should have been accidentally playing a Dogville Comedy (a series “as funny as AIDs and nuclear war”) rather than a Popeye cartoon. But in actuality, it was the piece they played, above, that was supposed to introduce it. Jack Shaheen has obviously never seen Popeye the Sailor Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves or is legally blind.
For some reason, Fleischer opted to use “Ali Baba” for the title, even though Bluto is called “Abu Hassan” repeatedly throughout the film, possibly because the former had more name recognition. (Sort of the opposite reason for why Bob Clampett had to call his short Coal Black rather than the more appropriate So White.) So in spite of the title, it’s clearly only using the story as a basis for an adventure story, not bastardizing it as Shaheen suggests.
There are many cartoons that exemplify poor Arab images in film, but this isn’t the one. One beautiful thing about the Fleischer cartoons is how they succeeded where the other Hollywood and New York studios always failed: not adhering to formulaic portrayals of specific races or genders. Everyone and everything should look as exaggerated and different as possible. And how could it do “more to denigrate Arabs than any cartoon ever” if Popeye is going out of his way to save a community of Arabs?
Popeye Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves is one of the most atmospheric, thrilling, and funniest animated films ever made. Shaheen seems to be another dime a dozen ‘film scholar’ who obviously hasn’t done the least of his obligations by seeking out as many films as possible to draw such a conclusion. At least he’s in good company.
(Via Cartoon Brew)
Addendum: I read that Sahara Hare (which starts out brilliantly and sort of fizzles out by the four minute mark) was another cartoon that was supposed to be presented with an introduction but was dropped. Good thing too, because it would’ve been an embarrassment trying to explain the negative social values therein and convincing anyone that this isn’t just Freleng doing a normal Bugs/Sam picture with a costume and scenery change. I’m all for encouraging better enlightenment and tolerance in fan communities when it comes to racial imagery, but there’s a right way and an asinine way to do it, and it’s just weird to see TCM doing so much in the latter. But hey, right, they’re just cartoons.
The lazy, PC way to critique movies, animated or otherwise, when it comes to how Hollywood portrayed minorities and other cultures is just to assume anything made before 1967 or so is de facto offensive, which is what we get here. It’s the same mindset that can’t differentiate a Chuck Jones Inki cartoon from “Angel Puss”, which is why none of the former cartoons have made it onto any of the official Warner Home Video DVD releases yet.
I know people online are speculating the cartoon was pulled for racism, but I have a feeling an error was involved rather than concern about racism. Why show the intro if they weren’t going to show the cartoon?
As for Jack Shaheen, you may disagree with him, but nothing I find online makes me think he’s some idiot “dime a dozen” scholar as you claim. Apparently he surveyed just under 1000 films for his book back in 2001. Looking around online, I see a LOT of people call this cartoon “notoriously racist” and similar terms.
I understand you’re angry and you disagree, but this “he’s stupid and blind and hasn’t seen any films” argument of yours isn’t particularly compelling.
That’s all well and good, but I’m not angry, just flabbergasted TCM put something on so hollow. Shaheen’s crime is the intro here, and based on that alone, he has no idea what he’s talking about.
Before you get too impressed, his book Reel Bad Arabs is simply an index. There is no discussion about context or merit, only organization by “most offensive” (not even by date or director). Watching 900+ movies isn’t an impressive feat if you’re not going to offer anything more than that. I will have to look at his book more carefully, but it seems blatantly obvious all he wants to do is come up with a dirty laundry list rather than actually discuss when certain cinematic elements transcend the stereotypes.
Thad, take a closer look at that title. It’s not “Ali Baba and”; it’s “Ali Baba’s”.
In the classic tale, Ali Baba is not the leader of the Forty Thieves; he is someone who discovers their store of loot.
Daniel, in all the years that I have been aware of this cartoon (more than forty) I have always taken the wording of the title to mean “Popeye meets the forty thieves from the well-known story of Ali Baba.” Unfortunately today, children don’t read classic stories, nor are they taught reading comprehension. In a way, Popeye takes the role of Ali Baba, but this isn’t a straight retelling of the tale in the way that Popeye’s Aladdin cartoon (sort of) is.
Hey Thad,
I’ve often wondered where the networks draw the line with stereotypes. Many cartoons are filled with them. Some accepted, some not. It’s seems a bit hypocritical. Has “Hillbilly Hare” been banned in this way? Then again, I can’t imagine any Hillbillies waging terrorist threats against TCM.
In any case, Sam has some of the funniest animation when he tries to get his camel to giddyap!. :)
Thad, it’s 2:35 AM early the 22nd and TCM is showing “Popeye Meets Ali Baba’s Forty Thieves.” I didn’t come in early enough to know if they showed the intro or not. I assume somewhere it was announced that it would be showing again since it was missed the first time, but I don’t know that for sure.