Barefooters are well-aware that Disney is utterly paranoid about bare feet. Just try to enter their parks barefoot and you will be descended upon.
But it is not just the parks.
Disney also promotes a false history of the country, pretending that bare feet just never (or rarely) existed in our past. We can see this from their Tom Sawyer movie, Tom and Huck. This is a 1995 movie starring Jonathan Taylor Thomas (of “Home Improvement” fame).
But first, let’s take a look at how Tom Sawyer was portrayed pre-Disney.
There are two movies you can see on YouTube. The first is a 1930 black-and-white version:
The second is a color remake, so we’ll talk about that one:
The classic scene that everybody remember is the fence whitewashing scene. Here it is:
All of the boys are barefooted, which is the historically accurate view. Mark Twain even remarked in his autobiography about going barefoot as a boy all the time.
We are also introduced to Huck Finn, and of course, both he and Tom are barefooted.
In the book, another of the classic scenes is when Becky Thatcher tosses Tom a flower, and he picks it up with his toes. Here he is grabbing the flower:
and here he is finishing grabbing it:
Most barefooters are well-aware of this trick for picking things up (particularly those with back problems, like me).
Tom Sawyer is barefoot throughout the entire movie, as are most of the boys. Mark Twain makes it quite clear that shoes are worn only for Sunday church. In fact, just before Tom runs away to be a pirate, we see that one of his friends that accompanies him has also had enough because he is forced to wear shoes. Here are the comments by his friend:
My Mom was gonna whack me if I didn’t put these shoes on.
Shoes. Anybody’d think there was snow on the ground.
Squeezin’ your feet.
You can see the scene here (go to the 9 minute, 20 second point):
Now contrast that with the Disney version, from 1995. Here’s Tom taking a look at the fence that needs to be whitewashed:
and a few of the boys he gets to whitewash it for him:
Shod, all.
They do have Huck Finn going barefoot, though:
In this shot you can see both Huck and Tom, with Huck barefoot but Tom shod. In fact, Tom is shod throughout the entire movie.
Oh, and the picking-up-the-flower scene. Omitted. Of course it is omitted, for Tom is not barefoot the way he is supposed to be.
There is a pretty subtle message being transmitted here. In the 1930 and 1938 versions, the only shod boy is Sid, Tom’s younger and smarmy brother. Sid is a goodie-two-shoes, almost literally. There, being shod is a bad sign. Bare feet are a sign of the normal kids.
In the 1995 Disney version, the only barefooted one is the outcast, the oddball, the renegade: Huck Finn. That’s the Disney message. Forget that kids used to go barefoot. Rewrite history so that everybody was shod all the time except for the undesirables.
It’s no wonder that people these days think that going barefooted is ridiculous. That is what the High Holy Gospel According to Disney preaches.
Yes, we do see bare feet in something like Tangled. But that is a cartoon. The message there is that it is OK to be barefoot if you don’t really exist. And real people outside of a fantasy just don’t do it.
No wonder why Disney is looked at suspiciously by the barefooted community.
I’ve pretty much given up on Disney because of it’s numourous prejudices and misrepresentations of things, not the least of which is children and bare feet. They misrepresent history so often, I’d be surpised if you could find something historically accurate in the whole lot.
Though it is not Disney, there is a german Tom Sawyer film out recently and the boys are barefoot as they should be.
In Europe they obviously know American history better than in the States.
Hey, Kees, thanks for the pointer!
I have a friend (American) who’s spent quite a bit of time in Germany, barefoot. He says that, while there are very few Germans who actually go barefoot, almost all of them recognize the health benefits of doing so.
In the Russian 1981 movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081917/ (see also http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyG6e1nGMDw ) the boys are mostly barefoot (except Sid), though not all the time.
The fence scene:
I like the 1980’s Reader’s Digest produced Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn movies. They are musicals, which some people do not like, but they do show the boys barefoot all the time. They even are shirtless and skinny dipping in some sceens.
Victor,
Many thanks for the link. It was very interesting to watch.
[I edited your comment to embed the video and the picture.]
While sometimes the boys are not barefooted, I think in each case it was pretty much justified. It was not unreasonable for Tom to wear shoes at the trial, while all dressed up. The picnic (before the cave scenes) was a Sunday picnic, when everybody would have been dressed up, so Tom and Becky in the cave shod would be reasonable, too. But, when Tom went back with Huck, then they were both barefoot.
I think this is the most faithful of any of the Tom Sawyers I have ever seen (it helped that it was 3 hours long). It included the cat/teacher’s bald head scene right from the book (one I have always found funny). They even had Injun Joe die properly. In the American versions, there is the confrontation with Tom in the cave, and he falls to his death. In the book, it is just as in the movie—the elders sealed up the cave, and Injun Joe ended up starving to death in it by the sealed up door (and because Tom was sick, nobody checked earlier).
I also found interesting that when Tom and Huck were pirates, they were stripped down, just as in the book. These days, (almost completely unjustified) fear of pedophilia would prevent such a thing. Another example of myths affecting policy.
It was also amusing, though, to see some of the Russian touches, or, I should say, things that struck this American as not quite American (but that might be part of a Russian’s perception of America). The village of St. Petersburg was way too rural, with that rocky road (though it was interesting to see the kids navigate it barefoot without any trouble). Conestoga wagons would not have been used for transport in a town. I suspect having folks shoot at Injun Joe as he escaped the courtroom came from seeing too many westerns 🙂 I also found amusing having the portrait of George Washington as “The Father of Our State”. Made me think it may have been an Invisible Insanity type of translation, since the idiom is “Father of Our Country.”
But all in all, quite enjoyable to watch.
Dear Robert the Bob, I just saw the movie and I fully agree with you, it is very good, very faithful to the novel and decorated with a russian touch. For me, the most noticeable russian touch was Huck Finn’s face; Tom could be a gringo without freckles, but Huck is unmistakably russian.
And about the “Fathers”, in Latinamerica we talk of Padres de la Patria (Fathers of the Fatherland).
I think that from a soviet point of view “Father of the State” was a real compliment; for soviet eyes that put good old Washington in the same league than Lenin.
Over the hills and far away in winter
Machi
Jake,
Thanks for the pointer. Unfortunately, all that is on youtube is the trailer. Notice that Becky is played by Jodie Foster? (And Tom is Johnny Whitaker from “Family Affair”.) It looks like I can check it out from my local library though, so I’ll have to do that.
Bob, I am glad you liked the Russian Tom Sawyer and found it faithful to the text (and perhaps spirit) of Mark Twain. They say that the Russian Sherlock Holmes (starring Vasily Livanov) is also very good 🙂
Speaking of “State” vs “Country” is another matter. There is a fundamental confusion in the Soviet and post-Soviet minds about what constitutes country, state and government. For example, many people don’t understand how you can love your country and still be critical of the state (as a political system) or government. Some confuse loyalists and patriots. But that will do, I don’t want to clutter your blog with political rant, just take into account that the confusion of State and Country in the movie can have grave roots.
Bob,
Do the Disneyfication of Peter Pan next! Have you seen the 2003 version
with Jeremy Sumpter as Peter Pan? Maybe it’s not fair to compare an animated
feature to live action, but….this film is close to the J.M. Barrie book. Disney’s version of course had Peter Pan in green booties, and the children flying around in bedroom slippers…Really? Even when I was a child I found that strange…In the 2003 version, Peter and all the children are barefoot throughout the movie. Too bad this was released during all the Harry Potter/
Lord of the Rings Hoopla…This is a wonderful film…Recommended!
@TodaysTomSawyer,
I’ll have to look into it when I get a chance. Just don’t expect me to be in a Rush to do so. 🙂
I have just noticed that this entry is not filed under the tag “Movies” which made it somewhat difficult to find.
Vas, that’s because I hadn’t created that category yet when I wrote it—it’s only after a few posts on a topic that I realize I need a new category.. And then I didn’t go back and mark the older ones.