There’s a lot of interesting history in the ways that urban planning and infrastructure development have been used to reinforce racism. Robert Moses, the guy who designed the roadways in New York City, made the bridges on the Long Island Parkway too low for the city busses at the time to go under, because he wanted to prevent the type of people who ride buses (wink, nudge) from getting to the wealthy white beachfront properties he was developing. He did a lot of other stuff like that to make it so that, in the most literal sense possible, the city was physically hostile to black people
This is the greatest progression of events I have ever read, where’s my historical gay romance novel about this
KING JAMES, CAN YOU CHILL?
Local King Cannot Stop Promoting His Boyfriend
where’s the lush period drama about this series of events?
fun thing about king James, this guy was fairly public about his bf (more public than what was acceptable). He threw lots of extravagant parties with his man on his arm. It pissed off the church obviously so to get them off his back, he’s the one that ordered the third translation of the Bible from Hebrew to English (the King James Version aka the Authorized Version) so the Bible every hot blooded all American Christian reads today was literally just written so a very gay king could fuck his boyfriend in peace.
oh my god this is hilarious
“guys, guys. I know this looks kinda gay, and i promise i have a good explanation for all this, but have you considered… that jesus… is also gay? checkmate, heteros.”
The late Ruth Thompson, a cell painter on “Snow White” who later became a multiplane scene planner, recalled: “We tried everything – airbrush, drybrush, even lipstick and rouge, which is perhaps the basis for the legend because we did, in fact, try it. But nothing worked.”
The airbrush was difficult to control on such a small area; drybrush was too harsh; lipstick and rouge unwieldy and messy. Everything proved to be impractical and all hope seemed lost to give Snow White her little bit of color when the idea of using a dye was proposed.
Again Ms. Thompson: “Someone suggested a red dye because the blue day we added to give Donald Duck his distinctive sailor-blue never really could be washed off the cell without leaving a bluish stain where the paint had been applied.”
Ever since the mid 30’s when color became the norm for all the cartoons, not just the “Silly Symphonies,” all paints and inks were made at the studio. During this period as well cells were routinely reused for economic reasons, thus the need to wash them off. Apparently Donald’s special blue color was made with a dye added to the usual powdered pigments. “So we tried that.” As the women gathered around in what must have seemed just another dead-end effort, all eyes became fixed on the red dot which soon became a small glow with no perceptible edge. The hushed silence soon gave way to sighs of relief. The method had finally been found. Now the application.
…
Among the studio’s many inkers (an extremely demanding profession), was one young lady whose training and skill was unique: Helen Ogger. Just being an inker placed one within the elite confines of this most “holy of holies” area of the Nunnery, as the Ink and Paint Department was so called (Walt had strict and quite Victorian views that the sexes not mingle at the workplace, allowing no male personnel save the “gofer” boy and the paymaster “Mr.” Keener to enter this domain of mostly unmarried women ). But Helen was in addition a very fine cartoonist and one of the few women at Disney’s or anywhere else, who could animate.
…
Such a seemingly insignificant detail (as the cheek colors) might be thought not worthy of special mention (she, as well as the other inkers and painters, was given no screen credit). But when one adds up the number of footage required to be tinted freehand on each individual cell, the hours suddenly turn into weeks and months. In fact, such a treatment was never attempted again on such a scale and even today, the publicity stills from “Snow White,” most of which do not have the added blush, bear witness to how that little touch of extra care adds to the vitality we see on the screen.
The work was done on all close-ups, most medium shots, and even on some long shots. The Queen was also similarly tinted. Hundreds of hours were needed to complete this task, arduous, repetitive and, of course, hard on the eyes. Ultimately a handful of other girls were needed to assist Helen as the clocked ticked toward the deadline.
Helen had to place several cells together on an animation board, one atop the other, just like in the process of animation, in order to get the ‘registration’ right (the spot of red just right in relation to the preceding and following ones) – all of this without any guide. She would work out her own extremes and then ‘animate’ the blush in inbetweens. Her work deserves admiration and gratitude and it is unfortunate that her contribution has remained unknown and her anonymity unaltered during her lifetime. She was paid, as were the rest of the Inkers, $18 a week, which included a half-day on Saturday and the many, many hours of unpaid overtime “Snow White” would require – all given unstintingly, (by everyone involved, it should be added), to a project whose joy in participating was its own reward.
She eventually became head of Inking and Special Effects and even taught classes in animation at the studio. She left in 1941 (apparently part of the terrible strike that would leave the Disney Studio changed forever), taking her skills with her. She died in Glendale in February of 1980. Perhaps it is safe to say that her departure was critical to the abrupt demise of this now unique effect (it was also used, though on a much smaller scale in both “Pinocchio” and “Fantasia”). None of the other inkers or painters were animators and it is this fact, not just the factor of economy nor the changing tastes, which surely must be considered a reason why such details were never attempted again. The golden age was over.
Also, here’s an interesting article about female cel painters at Disney. I am now fascinated by the idea of writing something with a Depression-era cel painter as a protagonist.
Chanel was never tried for her crimes as a collaborator. She used her connections, information, and money to pay off the right people and cover her tracks.
She was briefly arrested and questioned by a French judge, but basically got off scott-free and allegedly told her family that she was freed by Winston Churchill.
Just so everyone is aware, Chanel S.A. is currently owned by the Wertheimers, a Jewish family that regained control of the brand after Coco tried to use her Nazi ties against them while the fled. Basically, at this point, it’s Chanel in name only.
I mean, I know the above is a great stroke of poetic justice & a fantastic corporate takedown (which tbh I would LOVE to watch a movie of) in a world which so rarely rarely rarely gets to see the master’s house dismantled with the master’s tools, so to speak—
—but my first thought was that that was the SICKEST BURN IN ALL EXISTENCE & tbh has me laughing my ass off. This is now one of my personal favorite revenge stories and I LOVE it.
ngl that was my reaction too, that is fantastic
(Coco fans can still fuck right off tho)
I didn’t know a Jewish family was back in control of Chanel now, that makes me so damn happy!
XD
This is WRONG. I’m a French historian and I studied Chanel for a long time and seriously can you think by yourself instead of believe stupid things like this ? She was the lover of a nazi for a time and that’s all. Plus Coco Chanel helped women getting emancipated with her clothes (no corset, short hair, short dress…). So before pretending to know French History please open a book.
I’m tired of Tumblr and people who think they know everything.
…except this information comes from a recent investigative book by historian & journalist Hal Vaughn, whose data comes from declassified WWII gov’t. documents, including from Germany and France both.
(also, I’d hesitate to call elevation of “low” fashion perfectly in line with other trends of the era, particularly as inspired by & pulling from other working class womenswear— no matter how chic or artistically innovative it may be— “emancipation,” but that’s neither here nor there #just my 2¢)
Hal Vaughn is only one person and History is made by a lot of point of view. Coco Chanel is not perfect, she was close to some Nazi indeed BUT she’s not a Nazi herself and this part of her life is quite unknown (and she was secret as a person). I don’t want to talk about this anymore here because Tumblr is really an awfull place for History.
Imagine thinking that having romantic relationships and close friendships with Nazis, along with publicly trying to muscle out the Jewish co-owners of your company by arguing that Nazi Aryanisation laws should be applied in your favour was just a minor character flaw that didn’t make you a fundamentally bad person.
Also, imagine thinking that documents showing somebody had a Nazi Abwehr codename and agent number was less important than the so-called “feminist liberation” of the clothes they designed.
“You can’t call Coco Chanel a Nazi! She emancipated so many women with her clothing designs! I mean, not al those dead Jewish and Romani women, obviously, but lots white European women got to wear short dresses because of her so, FEMINISM.”
Also, look, I have to say because this is my personal bugbear, but NO, Chanel did not liberate women by pioneering a new, freer style of dress. She was one of many and it was a longer process. I’ve written a ton of blog posts on this. It’s one of the most pernicious myths of fashion history, next to all the guff about corsets, which it’s technically a corollary of.
The Myth of Chanel and the 1920s: Introduction
I – A Sea Change
II – Standing Out from the Crowd
III – A Slender Pair of Shoulder Straps
IV – The Sole Survivors <– Particularly important for this discussion
V – Outdated Old Masters
VI – Femininity and Androgyny
VII – Jersey Cloth
VIII – Expensive Poverty
IX – The Bob
X – Rising Hems
This all may make me look like a deranged obsessive, but it’s important for a number of reasons. In this particular case, it’s important because Chanel was not a progressive with a mixed legacy, she was a former Nazi who was among the leading designers of her day, but was in no way especially revolutionary. She just got to come back to business after the Depression and World War II (which very few other Parisian couturiers of her generation were able to do, in part because they weren’t protected by Nazis), rewrite the past with herself at the center of it, and keep her name in the mouths of the public.
So if you want to defend her, I’m sorry, but you have to defend her based on her own merits rather than this story about her having “liberated” women through innovative clothing design.
I find that hard to reconcile with how 18th century dresses had boobs practically hanging out of them. Maybe the chest wasn’t as sexualized as the ankles were back then…
I have a dim memory from back in high school… I think someone once told me that breasts were no big deal back in corsetry-and-necklines-down-to-there days, they were considered a food source for children and that’s it.
But ANKLES. Oh, GOD. ANKLES. The ANKLE was connected to the LEG, which connected to THIGHS, which hid a woman’s SECRET FLOWER. The ankle was the gateway to the secret flower, so it was considered quite a stirring sight!
I have never considered that “leg bone connected to the ankle bone” song as a sexy tune before but
“Fan language was created when women weren’t allowed to talk in the company of men. So they created their own language with fans in order to communicate.”
Gemma Arterton on her lead role in the play Nell Gwynn