BLAM!
Cut to this day in 1942, when Walt Disney’s Bambi premiered at Radio City Music Hall in New York City. The huge audience was delighted; “from all over the darkened house childish laughter broke forth continuously.” Reviewers also typically appreciated the film. The Times, for instance, gushed:
In colors that would surprise even the spectrum itself, Disney’s cartoon craftsmen have re-created a woodland that shimmers and glows and darkens altogether magically. The wind over a green field, the morning light on the meadow, the hushed naves of the forest inhabited by all sorts of hidden folk, the artists have made with a simple and loving touch.
Still, many critics, even those wowed by the wonders of Disney’s spectacular animation, were somewhat put off by an animal cartoon that lacked madcap hijinks. And after its splashy release, even though Bambi ran successfully throughout the nation, it didn’t recover its enormous production costs. The film was, initially at least, a commercial failure. In the wake of World War II, though, subsequent releases and shrewd marketing made it into one of the top grossing pictures of the era. By 1988, it had earned its distributor more than $47 million. By comparison, Casablanca, also released in 1942, had earned less than a tenth that.
Returning for a moment to Radio City Music Hall on this day in 1942, the Times also noted that, scattered amidst the laughter, there were a few “tears and boohoos.” Which doesn’t surprise. Because, as the above clip suggests, Bambi’s an extraordinarily sad movie. Given that, it seems odd, particularly with the war ongoing, that no contemporary critics wondered if children viewing the film could handle the thought of Bambi losing his mother. In subsequent years, this has become the pivotal question about the film. Pauline Kael suggests:
It is one of the paradoxes of the movie business that the movies designed expressly for children are generally the ones that frighten them the most. I have never heard children screaming from fear at any of those movies we’re always told they should be protected from as they screamed at Bambi and Dumbo Bambi’s mother is murdered, Dumbo’s mother is goaded to madness and separated from Dumbo; those movies really hit children where it counts.
It was almost much worse. Walt Disney originally wanted Bambi’s mother shot onscreen as Bambi ran away to safety. Bambi later was to have returned to the spot of his mother’s death, where he would have found only the imprint in the snow where the hunters had dragged away her corpse. Disney, of course, reconsidered. And so we are left with the relatively bloodless version above.
Perhaps more interesting, at least to an erstwhile environmental historian like me, is Bambi’s depiction of the natural world. The film is based on Felix Salten’s Bambi: A Life in the Woods, originally published in 1926. Salten was a classic “nature faker,” an author who relied on anthropomorphized animals for his main characters, creatures who talked and imparted important life lessons to readers. Disney, even though he aimed for realism — he had one of his animators spend half a year sketching deer in Maine’s Baxter Park and later imported a pair of fawns to his studios so that his artists could study their movements — stripped away much of the ecological grit present in Salten’s novel. Disney denatured Bambi.
Disney’s animators famously cutified the animals they drew by exaggerating the size of their heads and eyes and shrinking their muzzles, giving them the proportions of human babies. Initially, Disney resisted this tactic with Bambi. But after his artists had trouble imparting dramatic expressions to Bambi and his friends, they reverted to form: “a smaller muzzle and much larger cranium finally created the new design.” Anthropologist Elizabeth Lawrence writes: “With a huge head dwarfing its trunk and a pair of oversized eyes with pupils and lashes Disney’s Bambi arouses sympathy and nurturance and a sense of parenthood.”
At the same time, Bambi’s is a woodland without predation. Whereas Salten’s Bambi encounters ferrets killing mice, crows killing a baby rabbit (the offspring of the character who inspired Thumper), foxes killing pheasants and ducks, and owls killing mice (mice don’t fare very well in Salten), in Disney’s Bambi, Friend Owl is best buddies with Thumper — unlikely bedfellows indeed. The only two instances in which nature appears to be even remotely red in tooth and claw are the difficulty of winter and the competition among bucks during mating season.
More telling, humans are entirely set apart from the natural world. Although they are never seen in Bambi, people wreak havoc throughout: hunters kill Bambi’s mother, they set fire to the forest, and their dogs attack Faline. The warning Bambi’s mother gives her son before she dies hangs in the air for the remainder of the film: “Man is in the forest.” Salten also depicted hunters as dangerous. But at the end of Salten’s story, Bambi’s father leads his son to view a dead poacher, the wound in his neck still fresh, “a small red mouth. Blood was oozing out slowly.” Bambi’s father, himself nearing the end of his life, then explains:
He isn’t all powerful as they say…Everything that lives and grows doesn’t come from him. He’s just the same as we. He has the same fears, the same needs, and suffers in the same way. He can be killed like us, and then he lies helpless on the ground like all the rest of us, as you see him now.
In Salten’s work, then, human and non-human animals alike are part of the natural world. Disney, too, hoped to end with the complex scene above. But test audiences reacted poorly — “four hundred people shot straight in the air” — to seeing a human corpse on screen. Thus ended Disney’s flirtation with a complex conclusion for Bambi. Commerce, as ever, trumped art in the Magic Kingdom.
Assessing a film’s impact is always difficult. But there’s little doubt that Bambi has shaped the culture. No less an authority than Kiefer Sutherland recalls that Bambi was the first film he ever saw and that “it taught [him] about — I guess on a broad scale — sexuality.” Getting into a bit more detail than may be necessary, Sutherland admits: “I was in love with Thumper’s girlfriend from the time I was seven until I was ten. She’s got all that eye shadow on and she’s looking real good.” Any movie that can make a furry out of a man like Jack Bauer is strong stuff.
More seriously, Bambi’s portrayal of a natural world in which there’s no place for humans props up a classic and destructive American cultural dichotomy. As environmental historian William Cronon argues in his brilliant essay, “The Trouble with Wilderness, or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature”, the ongoing opposition of the human and non-human worlds, the separation of people from nature in other words, often stands in the way of effective environmental stewardship. Only when people recognize that they are an inseparable part of nature, rather than fetishizing a nature set apart from themselves, will they begin to care for ecosystems ranging from gorgeous pristine wilderness to decaying urban landscapes.
In the meantime, though, that giant head, those huge eyes, so totally cute. No, I don’t mean Kiefer Sutherland, you sicko. I mean Bambi, the poor deer.


42 comments
August 14, 2008 at 2:14 am
Ralph Luker
Thanks for this, Ari. I must have first seen “Bambi” when I was a very little boy, because I named my first pet goat after Bambi’s mother. Faline didn’t seem like a real name I’d heard before, so I called my goat “Pauline”. Only later did I learn that that was the name of the wife of my father’s boss. Fortunately, she was amused.
August 14, 2008 at 5:05 am
Jason B
It seems to me this notion that children will be irrevocably damaged if they encounter death in a story is a fairly recent invention. At every stage of storytelling, as far as I can tell, death has been a part of childrens’ stories–but since some time in the eighties, when the baby boomers really started coddling their spawn, the minds of children are allegedly too fragile for reality.
I don’t think we’re better off for the change.
August 14, 2008 at 6:06 am
kid bitzer
i don’t think it’s always damaging for kids to be exposed to artistic depictions of death.
but there is something deeply, deeply sick about the regularity with which disney kid films begin with the ritual killing of the mother. can’t have a disney film until the mom has been killed off in the opening frames, or just before. from bambi to finding nemo and others too.
is the idea that we can’t have fun when mom’s around? or is it because the shock to the kid makes them more pliable for what’s to come–like kidnappers trying to jump-start the stockholm syndrome by reinforcing the hostages’ vulnerability?
in any case, disney has a formula. and this is a routine part of it. and that’s sick.
August 14, 2008 at 7:05 am
Matt McKeon
In most non poor American lives, death is offstage. A century ago, death stood at people’s elbows, a common experience for most families, regardless of social class. It was a common part of literature as well. What fairy tale didn’t feature death? What major literature work isn’t populated by orphans, widows and widowers?
Grimm’s tales, on which a lot of Disney films are based, is full of stepmothers and the struggle between the first wife’s children and the stepmothers’ children.
There’s probably been a thesis or two written about how Disney films portray strong, evil women.
August 14, 2008 at 7:07 am
Vance Maverick
KB, you’re right about the formula, but it’s not only Disney. Babar begins with the killing of the mother; and Peter Rabbit begins with the reminder that Mrs. Macgregor put Peter’s father in a pie. In children’s lit, there may be more orphans and foundlings than kids still in the nucleus. As for the reasons, your kidnapping analogy is probably not far off.
August 14, 2008 at 8:24 am
BP in MN
Ari, “reek havoc”? Really?
Given how few areas were really free from some form of human involvement, the idea of a pristine nature is silly. And as ari points out, it’s hideously counterproductive for true conservation efforts, because it sets up an unrealistic and unachievable goal which is easily opposed because of real concerns for human needs. Admittedly, the “no human contact” is often a strawman, but it resonates because of the pop culture view of the ecosystem.
And so we get “arguments” about clear-cutting vs. no logging at all, or roads vs. inaccesibility, where the real issue is whether logging and road-building can be done in such a way as to coexist with the current ecosystem.
August 14, 2008 at 8:48 am
ari
Oops. It was late. Sorry. And fixed.
August 14, 2008 at 9:01 am
Jason B
I like to find new uses for the word “wreak,” because it’s unnecessarily wedded to the word “havoc” (similar to “battle” and “cancer”).
Mostly because I like to wreak a more thoughtful employment of vocabulary.
I also like to prounounce it “wreck,” even though either is standard.
August 14, 2008 at 9:17 am
KRK
I’m able to give old Disney stories a pass on the dead/absent mother (occasionally both parents) because they didn’t invent it, and I think it does serve the purpose mentioned above — setting the child out into the world without the security a mother/parent provides. A convention of hundreds of years worth of fairy tales and all that, many of which were the source material for Disney films. Where I won’t give Disney a pass is on turning all of the female leads of their new generation films into hoochie mamas (and often spoiled brats as well, but that’s another story — am I the only one who was rooting for Ariel to die at the end of Disney’s mermaid movie?). What impressed me most about Dreamworks’ Prince of Egypt was their ability to portray female characters without obvious cleavage and without enough breast profile that a viewer could accurately calculate cup size. Disney animators nowadays give the impression that this is a necessary element of drawing females.
It is one of the paradoxes of the movie business that the movies designed expressly for children are generally the ones that frighten them the most.
This has been true in my experience. Bambi – scary. Pinnochio – scary. My 4-year-old goddaughter and her 8-year-old sister apparently bawled their heads off at some point in the recent Curious George movie when George and ManWithYellowHat were separated. I read somewhere that other countries (Britain?) have a movie rating system that actually tries to rate kid movies based on whether a kid is likely to be scared or upset rather than just lowering the acceptable quota of cursing, skin, and decapitation.
August 14, 2008 at 9:47 am
zunguzungu
Great post. I wonder how this discussion might map onto the latest generation of post-Pixar computer animation movies? I’ve only seen Toy Story and Cars, but it’s interesting to see how little of this kind of familial drama there is in those movies (though, obviously, the families of cars and toys is a vexed problem). And what I know about the others suggests that the “orphans and foundlings” narrative has taken a back seat to something else.
August 14, 2008 at 9:51 am
Jason B
My 4-year-old goddaughter and her 8-year-old sister apparently bawled their heads off at some point in the recent Curious George movie when George and ManWithYellowHat were separated.
I’m such a wuss that when I saw Snoopy run away from home in Snoopy, Come Home I cried like someone had killed my mother. Did it leave lasting scars? Well, I still remember it. Is that a scar?
August 14, 2008 at 10:27 am
eric
I like Pixar much better than standard Disney for many of the above-mentioned reasons. Finding Nemo is, as far as I can remember, the only one that has that standard mother-death scene. The rest of them are all novel, and often thoughtful.
(though, ZZ, in Toy Story there’s no father, iirc.)
But yeah, you can blame Disney for lots—what KRK notices, e.g. (which wasn’t true of old-school Disney, but that’s another story)—but orphans, not so much; that’s the source material. Even though Baum set out to create a more modern, less dark fairy tale in The Wizard of Oz, Dorothy’s still an orphan.
August 14, 2008 at 10:40 am
SEK
From Whit Stillman’s The Last Days of Disco:
Quoted at length not because I love the frisson of “thoughtfully” and “hunh,” although I do — but because Disney could’ve done for the human rights movement what it purportedly did for the environmental, but for the fact it didn’t go well with test audiences. (Not that I take Tom’s 4 a.m. bit of blowhard seriously, mind you.)
August 14, 2008 at 10:56 am
Neddy Merrill
Let us all praise Whit Stillman. “I prefer good literary criticism” still cracks me up after all these years.
If it didn’t go well with test audiences, doesn’t that undermine the idea that Disney could’ve?
August 14, 2008 at 10:58 am
ari
I’ve been looking for a YouTube of that scene from Metropolitan forever. Make me one, would you?
August 14, 2008 at 11:03 am
zunguzungu
Neddy, test audiences can’t be trusted to judge such things.
From Sullivan’s Travels:
Sullivan: What do they know in Pittsburgh?
Lebrand: They know what they like.
Sullivan: If they knew what they liked, they wouldn’t live in Pittsburgh. That’s no argument.
August 14, 2008 at 11:06 am
SEK
6:04, Ari.
August 14, 2008 at 11:09 am
ari
My hero.
August 14, 2008 at 11:14 am
eric
Sullivan’s Travels just pwns in all kinds of ways.
August 14, 2008 at 12:46 pm
JPool
It may be worth pointing out that Finding Nemo, while indeed mother-killing, is a different kind of mother-killing/disabling movie from either Bambi or Dumbo. Coral’s death isn’t shown as a trauma for Nemo’s development, as he grew up happily without her, but rather for his father Marlin (a contrast to the celebration of the absent/distant father in Bambi), who is plagued by fears of greater loss. When Nemo is separated from his father (temporarily orhpaned?) he finds a supportive, if slightly loony, community of adults, rather than evil circus people, ala Pinocchio.
August 14, 2008 at 12:46 pm
joel hanes
I have seen postings by foresters that blame the forest fire scene in Bambi for the policy of complete fire-suppression in America’s national forests from WW II to the 1980s or so.
August 14, 2008 at 12:48 pm
ari
Yes, joel, many hunters also blame Bambi for the deer overpopulation problem now plaguing much of American suburbia. How true any of this is, I have no idea.
August 14, 2008 at 1:14 pm
KRK
Well, it is pretty sad how a generation or two of girls named Bambi were denied promising careers in forestry and rifle-making due to the taunts of their peers and were forced to take refuge in the adult film industry.
August 14, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Vance Maverick
Ari, have you posted here on environmental history? Looks like e.g. “Pinchot” and “Yosemite” have yet to put in an appearance.
KRK, I admit you made me laugh. (Are you the Croatian island?)
August 14, 2008 at 1:43 pm
eric
girls named Bambi
I knew a girl (nick)named Bambi. But Bambi was a boy!
August 14, 2008 at 1:43 pm
eric
Looks like e.g. “Pinchot” and “Yosemite” have yet to put in an appearance.
Vance, we have a long-term plan for the blog.
August 14, 2008 at 5:09 pm
KRK
Vance, I’m not an island. Just a lowly neck, as in the tongue twister: “Strčc prst skrz krk.”
August 14, 2008 at 5:10 pm
KRK
Aw, I get the html right but can’t spell. That should be:
Strč prst skrz krk.
August 14, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Vance Maverick
we have a long-term plan for the blog
First I’ve heard! Something, that is, beyond tdih?
August 14, 2008 at 8:18 pm
WILLIAM NEAL
Funny how on one hand people use Disney as a touchstone (ha!) for all things “wrong” in art, and then on the other, how it all affects us generations of idiots all along the way, good or ill. Many things do. Anthropomorphism, or Animism, the inanimate as a spirit, the animal as human, whatever, doesn’t matter. It’s art as license to entertain. You do whatever. You make whatever based on what you know or like and would like to know, and you try what you can and see what you come up with. I don’t give a rats ass about the legacy of Disney I don’t consider him a saint or a fool. He was lucky, true, but he turned state’s evidence, to a foolhardly commission in the 50’s and for that should never be forgiven. From a cartoon to this huge global economic entity. It’s amazing. So what about Bambi? Whatever he may have changed the original stories, it doesn’t matter. Most things you see and know as original, are adapted altered from “original”/previous material, and for good or ill we see them, saw them, and they are, and will forever be a part of us. Oh well. I’m just jealous I couldn’t make a concerted effort and make such an entertainment impact on the world.
August 14, 2008 at 8:20 pm
ari
If you’re interested in investing, Vance, I can send along a corporate prospectus. But you’ll need to sign a few non-disclosure documents first. Have your lawyer twitter my lawyer, okay?
August 14, 2008 at 8:22 pm
ari
Sorry you didn’t like the post, William.
August 14, 2008 at 9:12 pm
bitchphd
I actually can’t remember if PK has seen Bambi, but he does, in fact, find Dumbo’s separation from his mother intolerable and refuses to watch that movie again.
August 14, 2008 at 9:15 pm
bitchphd
I’m such a wuss that when I saw Snoopy run away from home in Snoopy, Come Home I cried like someone had killed my mother.
OMG, my mom has a story of taking me and my younger sister out of the theater *sobbing* after that movie. I don’t remember it, though, probably because I’ve repressed the trauma.
August 15, 2008 at 9:02 am
Jay C
Thanks for the post, ari: even if Bambi does remain the gold standard for critique of “Disneyfication” – it’s still a good flick: flaws and all.
But it’s good to be reminded that Walt Disney didn’t always “create” the stories he turned into films – even if (as I recall from a long-ago article poll; maybe for Bambi’s 50th?) only 2% (maybe less) or respondents could identify Felix Salten ; (an Austro-Hungarian Jew, btw) as the author of Bambi; the majority crediting Uncle Walt.
But research can be rewarding: the <a href=”
August 15, 2008 at 9:05 am
Jay C
Thanks for the post, ari: even if Bambi does remain the gold standard for critique of “Disneyfication” – it’s still a good flick: flaws and all.
But it’s good to be reminded that Walt Disney didn’t always “create” the stories he turned into films – even if (as I recall from a long-ago article poll; maybe for Bambi’s 50th?) only 2% (maybe less) or respondents could identify Felix Salten ; (an Austro-Hungarian Jew, btw) as the author of Bambi; the majority crediting Uncle Walt.
But research can be rewarding: the Wikipedia entry on Bambi turned up the following nugget:
Felix Salten was the pen name of Siegmund Salzmann, who was born in Budapest, Hungary but grew up in Vienna, Austria. The book was translated from German into English by Whittaker Chambers, who needed to supplement his income while working at a Communist newspaper.
August 15, 2008 at 9:13 am
ari
What’s weird is that I knew the Chambers anecdote. But I couldn’t find evidence sufficient for my purposes (feeling confident that someone wouldn’t call me a credulous fool in the comments) to include it in the post. I’m a coward that way. It’s an excellent story, though, either way.
August 15, 2008 at 9:14 am
ari
And by the way, I’m not calling you a credulous fool. I’m pretty sure that Chambers did translate Salten’s book.
August 15, 2008 at 11:07 am
Jay C
ari: don’t feel bad about the “credulous fool” inference: since I rarely believe just anything I read on the Internet (with the signal exception of EOTAW!) – I’m cool.
BTW: here are a couple of independent links to the Whittaker Chambers reference I Googled up. It’s on Google – it must be true.
August 15, 2008 at 11:11 am
ari
Yeah, those seem credible enough — relatively speaking. It’s just that when I plagiarize from Wiki for my stump speeches, I always get burned.
August 15, 2008 at 11:16 am
Vance Maverick
I don’t find it strange that Chambers should have done the translation. He ran in literary circles (friend of Zukofsky!) and Witness, while strange, is effectively written.
Didn’t JJ Angleton run in literary circles too, publish a magazine, etc.?
But I do find it strange that Jews in the German-speaking world named their children Siegmund and Siegfried.
August 15, 2008 at 11:19 am
ari
Jews are inscrutable, Vance. You should know that by now.