Sunday, March 05, 2006
Who Framed Roger Rabbit

Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

Adolf Did

Or, Schindler’s List in Slapstick

By .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) ::: philms ::: (17) Comments ::: Read the whole thing

Comments

1

Good article.  You could say that Doom’s attempt to eradicate diversity for homogenity is another characteristic of Hitler’s fascism. 

I’m proud to say that I was the first person to read this after it was published, as there were zero hits when I clicked on the article :)

Jim R.

Posted by Jim Rovira on 06 Mar 06 at 01:05 AM
2

Doom?  Yes, there should be more room for murder-lust and demon-spawn in our ‘melting pot’.  You obviously know nothing about Doom: it’s a game.  And Roger Rabbit is a cartoon.  Yosemite Sam?  Who sympathizes with that hate-filled slay-monger?  He’d be just as happy to kill Roger Rabbit as anyone!  Oh wait…it’s a *cartoon*, where one can dispense all the violence one likes without consequence.  Same with Doom… it’s a *video game*.  Infinite lives, infinite banality.  I find the analogies in the article to be compelling, but comparing “Doom” and “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” is like comparing “Super Mario Brothers” and “The Sopranos”:  more than a bit of a stretch, and an insulting one at that.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06 Mar 06 at 07:26 AM
3

Judge Doom was the name of the chief bad guy in the film.  Pull your head out then reread the article and my post.  This has nothing to do with the video game.

Posted by Jim Rovira on 06 Mar 06 at 10:07 AM
4

John,

I read your article with great interest.  Several years ago, I wrote a piece for Bright Lights Film Journal: http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/34/rogerrabbit.html

which might interest you.  What you hit squarely on the head, I touched on briefly.  It seemed to me that associating the Toontown residents with the Holocaust wasn’t that farfetched.  I was dealing, primarily, with the Zemeckis-Spielberg way of handling historical material.

Best Regards,

Bob Castle (a past Metaphilm contributor)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 06 Mar 06 at 12:41 PM
5

I quite liked your article.
Two points. ^^

xxxLips

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 10 Mar 06 at 06:09 PM
6

It is also of note that Judge Doom ended up being a toon himself… he hated that which he was. Many have commented on the fact that Hitler was Jewish and he too hated that which he was.

Posted by Amanda Newhouse on 17 Apr 06 at 07:49 PM
7

Who framed Roger Rabbit?

Jozeph did

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 15 Jun 06 at 11:15 PM
8

This is an interesting analogy, but it’s lacking in that it ignores the more immediate and obvious metaphorical conceit of the film.

The culture that was obliterated and in order to irrigate and then further suburbanize Los Angeles, and the virulent prejudice that manifests itself in the city’s design—as a conglomeration of ethnically and socioeconomically homogeneous enclaves—is against non-whites, particularly against Blacks and Latinos, to a far greater extent than it is against Jews, who also faced no small degree of discrimination in L.A.

I recommend reading City of Quartz by Mike Davis for a deeper understanding of why it’s not necessary to travel so far to understand the analogy that’s being drawn in the film.

Posted by Josh R. on 10 Nov 06 at 05:49 PM
9

ok. this article is wonderful. so original and progressive. thats why i love it. now, my only criticism is as follows:
i feel as though the roger rabbit character is a representative of the the biblical jesus christ. here is why: first, he is completey accepted by both the characters of the movie and the viewers sitting at home in the united states on their couches as being more “in touch” or more intelligent than the common toon encountered in this film. He is the only toon character, including the cab benny, jessica rabbit, and the weasels who were obviously influenced by outside sources, that is aware of this, and as a result he is the only character that can cross the bridge between toon and human, at least until the end. Roger says himself in the film that “im a toon, toons need to laugh” in response to eddie trying to silence him. this shows roger’s conviction that no matter what the circumstances, and no matter what the people around him *think that they* need to do to protect him, he will maintain his integrity and own personal (or rabbitical) ethic regarding his work and home life.
After this, the tides change. Eddie is brought into Toon-town. This obviously is symbolic of the American government finally “giving in”, however, they obviously realized that their troops of the second world war being deployed to places totally foreign was a necessary and strategic move. However, Eddie’s personal reasons for helping roger in the first place were, actually was, his brother’s deathe. And in US foriegn policy, this is where Pearl Harbour comes into play. Twenty years after WWI, i guarantee that there wasn’t an american soldier really wanted to get involved in another war. however, when show that you may be helping not only the american way of life, but the way of life of countless other nations…. who could say no??? Nobody, obviously. However, it happened, and despite the current situation of the USA, which was the strongest country in the world despite the depression, the USA had realized the need to stop the force that was the axis of evil. (truman style, not george W bush, which is ridiculous.)

Posted by jeffrey B on 11 Jun 07 at 11:59 PM
10

Ok, did we forget it’s a cartoon? Most of the “Toon” characters originated in or around the ‘40’s, detective stories were very popular then, and it was also a time of mass urbanization in L.A.

Isn’t it possible that it is what it is? Simply mind numbing entertainment?

Turn off your computer and get some rest. When you wake up, get a life!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02 Jul 07 at 12:06 AM
11

Pretty funny logging on to your computer to tell people to turn off their computers :).  Even funnier to place the film in a specific, determining historical context then say it’s just mind-numbing entertainment.

Posted by Jim on 02 Jul 07 at 12:23 AM
12

Hey, I’m a funny guy!

Good night,
XOXOXO

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02 Jul 07 at 12:30 AM
13

I’m sorry. As well written, and overly thought out as the argument may be, the Holocaust is a bit like the subject of Jesus Christ. You can squash just about anything into an allegory for either one.

I recently sat through one academic lecture where the speaker spent almost an entire hour arguing that the Harry Potter books were a direct allegory of the Holocaust, and that Voldemort was Hitler!

While I don’t mean to compare that unfortunate argument to this otherwise good paper, pretty much the only part of either one that isn’t a stretch is the archetype of an oppressive regime imposing its will on a population of innocents. But then again, I’ve also just described the Soviet Union, the Taliban, the RIAA, etc.

I mean no disrespect to the author’s wonderful writing. But please no more Holocaust symbolisms. If I want to watch yet another movie dissecting its themes, I’ll go to my local video store and pick from one of the 1000+ and counting titles based on the subject (for a war that lasted for 5 years, that adds up to roughly 200 movies for each year).

Posted by Jack Meyer on 07 Jan 08 at 04:53 PM
14

I really thought the point that doom ends up being a toon relevant to how hitler was part jew yet wanted to eradicate them all. Even though its a cartoon I think it has bigger implications. After years of <A HREF=“http://www.characterplanet.com”>gaming</A> you can see other video games with good plots and relevant things such as seeking destruction of a certain people, yet in the end you are them.

Posted by Kevin on 07 Feb 08 at 07:35 PM
15

Actually, Doom was a self-hating accountant who couldn’t reconcile his figures…

Jim

Posted by Jim on 08 Feb 08 at 03:42 PM
16

Just an odd little quibble. Both John Golden and Bob Castle made the same understandable error. The title of the film isn’t “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?” It is “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” It is a statement, not a question. Ignoring the possibility of a typo-graphical error, I’ve always thought of it as a puzzle with the answer right in front of our eyes. Who framed Roger Rabbit? Why, Who did or course.

It is similar to the play on words of “Cast Away” (as opposed to “Castaway”) and “What Lies Beneath” (as again opposed to “What Lies Beneath?”).

“Who,” “What” ... Will Zemeckis next pose a non-question beginning with “Where?”

Posted by Todd Ford on 12 Mar 08 at 02:03 PM
17

I like those odd quibbles, Todd…

Posted by Jim on 25 Mar 08 at 07:33 AM

Post a Comment

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?