Talk:The Three Caballeros

Discussion

The penguin,at least in the spanish version is named "Polo" (Pole)

---

Anything about this film being little more than a travel video for Latin America? It basically depicted a Banana republic. Don't get me wrong, I've loved it since childhood, but it rivals Song of the South in its rather patronizing and backwards portrayals of non-white ethnicities. 129.12.228.161 22:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm surprised the article doesn't mention how zany it gets towards the end. The animators had got to have been smoking some serious stuff. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaayyy Jalisco no te rajeees!!!

Bena película, algo viejita ya, pero me trae buenos recuerdos de mi niñez... (tengo 24 no se confundan).

• ¿Qué? --Ryanasaurus0077 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

December 15, 2008

I wish I still had it on tape, but the version my parents had of this film - which dated to the early 80s, and I believe was taped from television - added numerous sequences not in the "official" film. This was done mostly by editing in theme-appropriate shorts that were nto part of the original film. I assume it was to make the movie - which is rather short at less than 80 minutes - fit within a two hour block of time for television airing. In some cases, these theme-appropriate shorts matched characters appearing in the film. I was stunned when I watched the original on VHS about two years ago, because so much of what I remembered from the film - indeed, my favorite sequences - were missing. For example, I know for a fact the short "Clown of the Jungle" was included, as well as "Pluto and the Armadillo." I'm also 99% certain that "Morris the Midget Moose" was included, although it was re-narrated, I'm pretty sure, to match the film better (the original short is narrated by this little beetle; the way it appeared in my verison of The Three Caballeros, I'm fairly certain the narrator's voice was a reasonable match for the narrator throughout the film - at least it didn't sound like the voice of a weak little bug). I'm also 100% certain there was at least one more short edited in, but I remember so little about it it would be hard to come up with a title. Something about staying out over night in the desert, in a tex-mex western theme.

I wish I still had this Beta tape made from television all those years ago, so I could provide better verification.

Andrew Dixon

Original Songs?

Does anyone know, if the songs in the movie are considered as "original songs" or at least rewritten for this movie? Considering Leonard Martins The Disney Films, the songs are "original" material, but some other sources say, that only "Baia" was written for it, and the other songs (mainly frm Ary Barroso) were already released before the production of this film.

What's true?--80.138.104.83 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Three Men/The Three Cowboys

Should we mention that the title means one of those above in English. BTW I'm a pretty sure it's The Three Men. 174.16.80.109 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ay Jalisco no te rajes!

It is my understanding that the title song in this film took its melody from an already existing Mexican song called "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!", written by Manuel Esperon and Ernesto Cortazar. Manuel Esperon's Wikipedia page says that he wrote the song for a 1960 film called "De tal palo tal astilla", but this can't be true as I'm pretty sure "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" was written before "The Three Caballeros". I found out that Manuel Esperon wrote the music for a 1941 film called "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!", so it seems likely that he wrote the song for that film, but I don't know for sure what songs do appear in that film and even if I did know for sure that the song "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" appeared in the film of the same name, that does not necessarily mean that it was written for that film. Does anyone know the history of this song?--Jpcase (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I should have made the following comment a long time ago, but never got around to it. After discussing the matter with the editor who wrote that "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" was written for "De tal palo tal astilla", I have found out that the song was not in fact written originally for that film, though it is featured in the film. I have also found out that "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" is indeed featured in the 1941 film of the same name (here is a link to the clip) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrZZlbtjRfQ&feature=relmfu - I still don't know for a fact that the song was originally written for that film, but it seems highly likely. If anybody could confirm this 100% though, please do!--Jpcase (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What language is "Os Quindins de Yaya" sung in?

Does anybody know what language the song "Os Quindins de Yaya" is sung in? It is the song sung by Aurora Miranda when Donald and Jose go to Bahia. I would think that it would have been sung in Portugese, as that is the main language of Brasil, but IMDB says here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038166/soundtrack - that it is sung in Spanish. I'm pretty sure that IMDB simply made a mistake, but as I cannot understand Spanish or Portugese I would like some confirmation. Could someone please tell me what language the song is in?--Jpcase (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

According to this page - http://latinbaby.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/olanguages/#comments - the song is in Portuguese, so unless anybody who speaks Spanish or Portuguese believes otherwise, that's what I'm going with.(I actually found this page and included info about the song being in Portuguese in this article a while ago, but decided that I should mention it here)--Jpcase (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, it's portuguese. 2804:14D:5C70:970E:682D:A35C:75C6:5F98 (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in! Yeah, I realized a long time ago it must be in Portuguese; IMDB clearly made a mistake. Asking this question was among the very first things I ever did on Wikipedia, so it's quite a blast-from-the-past to see someone respond, haha. --Jpcase (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Jesusita en Chihuahua

I have found conflicting information on the authorship of the song "Jesusita en Chihuahau" (Also known as "The Cactus Polka"), which is played towards the end of the film while the cacti are dancing. Some IMDB pages (Including the page for "The Three Caballeros") attribute it to Manuel Esperon and Ernesto Cortazar, however others attribute it to Quirino Mendoza y Cortes. After extensive internet searching on the authorship of the song, I have found that an immense majority of sources state that the song was written by Quirino Mendoza y Cortes, during the Mexican Revolution. These are the only two sources I could find aside from IMDB, that attributed the song to Manuel Esperon:

http://forum.bcdb.com/forum/Manuel_Esperon_99_composed_Three_Caballeros_P111748/ (Does not mention Ernesto Cortazar)

http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=1&Movie=722 (States that the song was written by both Esperon and Cortazar)

In addition to the lack of sources, it seems almost definite that the song was indeed written during the Mexican Revolution which lasted from 1910 to 1920. Manuel Esperon was born in 1911, which means that he could have been no older than 9 years old when the song was written.

I could find two sources attributing the song solely to Ernesto Cortazar (http://music.aol.ca/song/101-strings-orchestra/jesusita-en-chihuahua/808987) (http://music.aol.com/song/101-strings-orchestra/jesusita-en-chihuahua/2594171), one source attributing the song to Ernesto Cortazar and Quirino Mendoza y Cortez (http://music.aol.com/song/silvestre-vargas/jesusita-en-chihuahua/11390026), as well as the source above which attributes it to both Cortazar and Esperon. Cortazar was born in 1897, which means he could have been 23 at the oldest when the song was written, though most sources date the song to 1916, which would have made him only 19. I know that Ernesto Cortazar was a lyricist, though I do not know whether he was exclusively so or if he also wrote the melody of songs. Almost all versions of "Jesusita en Chihuahua" are purely instrumental which means that if Cortazar only wrote lyrics he could not have written the song. It is possible however, that he wrote lyrics to the piece at some point after is initial release. I have only found one version with lyrics though (featured in the film "Love Laughs at Andy Hardy") and I do not believe that Cortazar wrote that version.

I have also found two sources which say that the piece is traditional.

http://www.cockmanfamily.com/john/jesse_polka/jesse_polka.pdf

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Jesusita-en-Chihuahua/3776

Though I am not sure, this may simply be due to the fact that all of Quirino Mendoza y Cortez's songs are in the public domain, as there was no copyright law in Mexico when he wrote them.

One further complication is that according to the poster on this site (http://forodeespanol.com/Archive/LetraJesusitaChihuahua/dbrqr/post.htm), some sources state that the song was written by Martin Robles in 1895 under the title "Virginia". I have only been able to find one source saying this, seen here - (http://books.google.com/books?id=nbCZdCO5Y9QC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=Jesusita+en+Chihuahua+Martin+Robles&safe=strict&source=bl&ots=3WGmR7J8id&sig=JD-Xdt32j6EjBeO6EJF3Q2U5gCg&hl=en&ei=YbfPTuaWA4n30gHR2oU6&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Jesusita%20en%20Chihuahua%20Martin%20Robles&f=false)

Does anybody have firm proof of who actually wrote this song?--Jpcase (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL additions

An editor, Codybitto - continues to make additions to the article, ignoring the WP:CRYSTAL guideline. In addition, the additions are unreferenced. Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Birds - Fact and Fiction

Does anyone know which of the birds in the movie are fictional, if any? Not being an ornithologist, they seem to all be capable of being real, or at least based on real birds. I've done a Wikipedia search for them but not being sure of spelling I wasn't able to find anything for certain. If they are real, they should be listed and linked to their Wikipedia articles if those exist. The following is a list of birds from the movie (spelling is a guess):

Anabepreto: real or fictional? (said to be a bird of Colombia and Venezuela with "bagpipes" which I take to mean a large lung capacity)

Arapapa: real or fictional? (said to be a bird of Paraguay with a large "pompidour"-like crest)

La Tierita (the Scissors Bird): real or fictional? (shown to be a bird like a swallow with a very long tail)

Arapasu: real or fictional? (shown to be a bird with a large, thin curved beak)

Toucan: obviously real

Aracuan: real or fictional? (said to an "eccentric" bird with a very unusual call, a bit like a Disney version of Woody Woodpecker)

Marequito: real or fictional? (said to a small bird that builds a haphazard looking nest but which is actually very structurally sound)

Flamingo: obviously real

Ornero: real or fictional? (from The Gauchito, said to be a bird that builds a nest shaped like an oven (orno))

70.31.48.55 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues with "The Gauchito"

There are a few issues I have, primarily geographic, with the setting of The Gauchito. I understand that the Spanish version sets the story in Argentina while the English version places it in Uruguay. More correctly, the gaucho/narrator is said by the primary narrator to be "an old gaucho from Uruguay." It's a bit ambiguous whether the gaucho is most recently from Uruguay but grew up somewhere else or whether the story takes place in Uruguay itself, though I think the latter is the stronger implication. Here are some of the geographic issues with the story:

The gaucho says that he went out hunting for "condor birds", which I assume he means the Andean condor. This bird only inhabits the Andean mountains far to the west of Uruguay.

Even if accepted that the Andean condor may have had a range capable of reaching Uruguay, or perhaps a stray condor made its way there, the gaucho says he went "high up in the mountains. Uruguay is virtually flat and basically is all Pampas plain or rolling hills. The highest peak is the Cerro Catedral at 513-4m (1 683-6') AMSL and according to the "Geography of Uruguay" Wikipedia article, "...hilly areas are remarkably featureless, however, and elevations seldom exceed 200 meters [656']." There simply aren't any mountains high enough in Uruguay as described by the gaucho and shown in the film.

Confusingly, the gaucho said he was off to hunt ostriches which are not native to South America, but Africa.

It seems that Disney was either confused when they did this story or they figured Americans probably wouldn't know or care about these things. 70.31.48.55 (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• The Three Caballeros.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Category:Films about chickens

Moved from User talk:Geraldo Perez § Three Caballeros

I'm having a hard time understanding why you're against having the "Films about chickens" category added to The Three Caballeros. Last I checked, anthropomorphic chickens are still chickens, so yes, Panchito Pistoles is "literally" a chicken (a cartoon chicken, but still). --Jpcase (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jpcase: It is WP:NOTDEFINING as the film is not about parrots, ducks or chickens. It has three Disneyfied anthropomorphic cartoon characters as the main characters but that is not the focus of the stories, it is a link that ties the individual story segments together. It is already categorized as category:Films about birds and Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters. That is sufficient. The fact that the main characters are cartoon Disney chickens, ducks, and parrots is somewhat irrelevant, as the stories are not focused on that, that is just part of their character descriptions much as it is not about singers (Category:Films about singers) just because a singer is also in the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for responding so fast! I'm afraid that I'm not following though. The Three Caballeros is absolutely about a parrot, a duck, and a chicken. I understand that the plot doesn't have anything inherent to do with those particular species, but neither does the plot have anything inherent to do with birds - so why shouldn't the "Films about birds" category be removed as well? --Jpcase (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jpcase: The story is about Donald Duck, José Carioca and Panchito Pistoles, not about animated ducks, parrots and chickens in general, just as the story is not about animated Americans, Brazilians and Mexicans in general, another attribute of the characters. That is just part of the description of the characters about as important as what they do and the clothes they wear. They are cartoon characters with rich descriptions and backstories in this particular story setting. Unless a story focusses on some attribute of a character, the story isn't really about that attribute. When you say "I understand that the plot doesn't have anything inherent to do with those particular species", that is basically what WP:NOTDEFINING says don't use as a category. I think the mention in the lead about the documentary about birds that kicked off the story somewhat justifies the about birds category, though I think it is weak, and it seems to be a common link for some of the segments. Probably should be removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess I just don't see what the harm is in allowing for a broader scope of categories. And I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation of WP:NOTDEFINING. When you say that The Three Caballeros isn't about chickens in general, well, sure - it's not about the daily life of chickens, in the way that something like Chicken Run is. But it is about a chicken. By the same measure, Chicken Little (2005 film) isn't about the daily life of chickens, but it is about a chicken, and aside from the fact that Chicken Little has the word "chicken" in its title, I don't see why Chicken Little should be considered to be anymore "about chickens" than The Three Caballeros is "about chickens".

I would also say that The Three Caballeros actually is about Americans, Brazilians, and Mexicans in general. But it would be redundant to create "Films about Brazilians" and "Films about Mexicans" categories, because the article is already included in the "Films set in Brazil" and "Films set in Mexico" categories; it would also be pointless to create those categories, since having an American, or Brazilian, or Mexican character isn't a particularly distinguishing characteristic of a film. On the other hand, it's rare for a central character in a film to be a chicken - so the fact that Panchito Pistoles is a chicken seems like a defining characteristic of The Three Caballeros, if you ask me. --Jpcase (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jpcase: The harm is WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION in general and having this film in that category when that is just a minor attribute of how Disney chose to animate the characters appearance and what they call him. The character looks a bit like a chicken, is called a rooster, but the character doesn't act like a real chicken, and the film is not about chickens, so it is misleading to categorize it as if it were. A general problems with some editors adding categories to articles, particularly fiction, is trying to use every theme, setting, descriptive adjective as the base of a category when it not the crux of what the fiction is about. I wasn't planning on going through existing articles to prune categories that are not defining but it is a general problem. I just try to keep the ones I watch from getting non-defining categories. WP:OSE is noted but it doesn't set a precedent to continue doing it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

As a bit of an aside. American, Brazilian and Mexican are attributes of the three main characters much as their animated appearance is which is why I used those examples. Setting location is an attribute of where the story is based and doesn't imply anything about the main characters so the setting attributes of the story would not be redundant with the nationality attributes of the characters in the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My point about redundancy is that if a story takes place in Brazil and Mexico, then saying that the film also has Brazilian and Mexican characters adds no new information. I realize that setting and nationality are attributes of separate things, but creating separate categories for each attribute would serve no practical purpose. If you ask me, categories on Wikipedia should, above all, be useful. I'm not arguing that we should create a category for "every theme, setting, and descriptive adjective" in a given film, because doing so wouldn't be useful. But I believe that adding the "Films about chickens" category to the Three Caballeros article could be useful, and I disagree that it would be an example of overcategorization - although I'm aware that overcategorization is something to avoid (and I appreciate your vigilance in reverting unconstructive edits to the Caballeros article over the years).

If someone were to create an article along the lines of "Films about sombreros" or "Films about cigars" and then add The Three Caballeros to those categories, because Panchito Pistoles wears a sombrero and José Carioca smokes a cigar, then that wouldn't be useful, because, for starters, it wouldn't even be an accurate description of the film - The Three Caballeros isn't about sombreros or cigars, it simply features sombreros and cigars. But if someone created categories along the lines of "Films featuring sombreros" or "Films featuring cigars", then that still wouldn't be useful (and I would consider it a blatant form of overcategorization), because both of those attributes of the characters are incidental. Creating categories for the types of clothes that characters wear or the types of every day activities that characters engage in serves no practical purpose. But creating categories for the types of animals that are central characters in a film does seem to serve a practical purpose. The difference is that wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar are both minor attributes of the characters, but the fact that Panchito Pistoles is a chicken is a major attribute of his character, regardless of whether or not he acts like a chicken. --Jpcase (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jpcase: And I see that as a minor attribute of this cartoon character about the same level of how he is dressed. It is a comment on his physical appearance, nothing more, and is basically irrelevant to the story being told. At this point in the discussion we look to have reached in impasse. I'll move this discussion to Talk:The Three Caballeros to get input from others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page for additions discussion in context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language dub actors

I removed information about the dub actors for the foreign language versions of this film here and again here as information about dub actors belongs in the articles about this film in those language wikis and it is basically irrelevant trivia for this article what happens in the foreign dubs. A section of the article about the foreign language dub process may be appropriate if sourced but transient details without context add no value to this article. I disagree with the edit summary statement that undid my original edit of "Voice actors from foreign versions are usually non notable in the English wiki, but this is clearly an exception since it is important to point out how Nash, Oliveira and Garay voiced their characters in multiple languages" as I don't see any clear exception to the general statement that "Voice actors from foreign versions are usually non notable in the English wiki" that justifies adding that information. That three of the actors also dubbed some foreign versions is information about the actors themselves, not information about this film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This is interesting information that is relevant to the film; it's not just relevant to the actors. It should be included in the article, but I agree that it should only be included in the "Production" section (or possibly in a "Distribution" section) with references. It doesn't need to be added to the "Cast" section. I'd be very surprised if there aren't several sources out there that discuss this film's dubbing process. I'm not going to take this on myself, but if anyone wants to do so, adding sourced information about the principle actors dubbing their roles for foreign releases of the film would make for a good improvement to this article. --Jpcase (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Babalú

In this 2017 edit, an anonymous IP account edited this article to say that the song "Babalú" is used in The Three Caballeros. Does anyone know for sure whether or not this is accurate? I built the Soundtrack section of this article myself, about a decade ago, and never came across any information about "Babalú" being used in the film. It's certainly possible that I may have missed a track or two while I was compiling the soundtrack information. But it would be good to confirm whether or not "Babalú" is actually used in the film.

If the information about "Babalú" appearing in The Three Caballeros is accurate, can someone identify which scene of the film contains the song? Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Cultural sterotyping etc.

Alright, so an an editor added some material, and another editor removed it.

The material was added by User:Shaun3099, with an edit summary of "We added to critical reception to show how the film is read as problematic", and it is lot of material -- about 15 paragraphs. There are some refs.

The material was removed by User:69.122.161.52. His edit summary was "The removal of irrelevant analysis copy and pasted from another source without attribution". Maybe, but I didn't find this exact material anywhere on the web (I did only a cursory test). So if User:69.122.161.52 could tell us where she found the material it was copied from, that'd help. Also it doesn't seem like it'd be entirely irrelevant to the subject. It may too long, or poorly ref'd, or POV, or just not up to our standards, or whatever. But those are different problems to have.

Anyway, the addition of the material by User:Shaun3099 was her second edit ever, and the removal by User:69.122.161.52 was her third edit ever. So that's odd, and what's going on here. I haven't perused the material or checked the refs, but maybe someone familiar with this page can see if some of this material can be salvaged, or what. I mean, it is an awful lot of material, but maybe a couple paragraphs could be refined from it? Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the material that was added and then removed:

Many have commented on how The Three Caballeros has aged, as it is now considered a very westernised hegemony of the different cultures that it includes. The film was made in 1944 to strengthen ties with Latin America, at a time where the company was struggling due to the strain on both the entertainment industry and its workers throughout World War 2. Many of the staff had been drafted, and the public were not spending their time or money in theatres. This is evident through box office statistics for The Three Caballeros, which came in at $3.4 million - a mere shadow compared to some of the company’s predecessors. This includes Fantasia and Bambi, which came out in the three previous years and gained $76.4–$83.3 million and $267.4 million, respectively. It was a major dip in what was otherwise known as the ‘Golden Age’ of Disney, which opened up the market for the creation of the ‘Good Neighbourhood’.It is clear that a wider audience was trying to be reached with not only this film, but the entirety of ‘the Good Neighbour’ films. Originally named Surprise Package, The Three Caballeros showcases an “idealised world.” However, in this endeavour to showcase different cultures in a way that is fanciful, there is much evidence to support that it could be considered a colonialist feature. It showcases many notorious stereotypes and perpetuates a negative or romantic view that is not accurate to the reality. Disney itself does not still stand by the film’s cultural authenticity, as it is listed in the Disney+ selection screen as containing “outdated cultural depictions.” This being said, the specifics as to why this is now seen more prominently throughout can be broken down into certain scenes and the characters that are used to navigate them.

Within the film, The Three Caballeros, there are many different problematic depictions of Latin America and its people. In the first scene with the penguin, this can be read from many different angles, when applying a post-colonial lens of analysis. The penguin can be seen as both the coloniser and the colonised. Pablo can be seen as the coloniser for his fantasising and mysticism of the beaches, his fantasy with the other place. Said wrote about Orientalism as a way of mystifying the East in order for Western control. Pablo is doing just that, he has photos of the hot and sandy beaches and thinks that these are exactly what they are like, that he knows everything about them simply from the pictures he has seen and he will be able to go there and enjoy them no questions asked. He believes that the photos equal the reality.

He can also be seen as the colonised through his final reaction when arriving there. Pablo is seen to be missing his home in Antarctica and may wish to go home. This could be ready as Pablo being a greedy native. No matter what he does, or where he goes, or what he has, he will always want more, that the native is never satisfied and as such, must stay in their own place. Renan writes that the native requires “the superior races” to act upon them in order to be “satisfied”. This then implies that the natural state of the native is one of savageness, one where the native cannot stop and will not stop. Disney here can be seen to support this claim by Renan, as Pablo is seen as always wanting more. While this scene is in relation to penguins, the name Pablo is a common Latin American name, so it is very easy to imagine the penguin as a human being, also given the highly humanised way he is presented within the film.

The second scene telling us the story of “Burrito” places us in Uruguay, in this we are shown a town in the country, as run-down, old, and not really upstanding when compared with modern values. This could be a chance by Disney to delegitimize the native and their world. If they show and preview an image of Uruguay as a distressed looking, rustic place, then it is easier for the coloniser to make lesser assumptions about them. They are perpetuating stereotypes of Latin America as poor, not good with money, they would rather gamble on races than fix up their town. Disney uses this scene to promote these negative held stereotypes to their audiences, not forcing them to change or alter their views, a classically used trope and theme throughout many Ethnographic films in early cinema history. Rony argues that this could be some way to promote dominance again over these people, as they are on show for the American, white audience. This idea of stereotyping Latin America is in direct conflict with the very message of the film.

Throughout the film, Donald Duck himself can be read as a stand-in for the coloniser, when he enters Latin America. Immediately he provides us with a “US perspective from which to venture into the unknown.” This then lets us know that all we are seeing is through the eyes of the coloniser, literally a white man.

As a white representative, he is illustrated as the “norm”, whereas the other birds appearing in the plot are illustrated as strange and exotic. That does make clear that the film is from a very American point of view and predominantly wants to reach an American audience instead of giving consideration to a Latin American audience that may have felt misinterpreted.

José Carioca sees himself as a real Brazilian and appears to tell the audience something about Baía by glorifying it although he has never been to Baía before. By using a book to learn about and later enter Brazil by it, The Three Caballeros clarifies, the following images are just a representation or even the production of an imagination of the foreign’s perception of one country and its culture. By reading a book and seeing its pictures one gets the impression to know how the reality is, sometimes without questioning it.

When Donald enters Brazil, he meets Aurora Miranda singing and dancing. Her sister, Carmen Miranda, had already been a “Brazilian Bombshell in many Hollywood films.” Yet this film did not want to portray the Latin Americans as simply erotic male fantasies, this is a very confusing idea when presented with an actress who’s own family were known for just that, it allows an audience to eroticise and fantasise about her and her country. This can be seen, as Hall and Said write, as a way of eroticising foreign females for a white, male audience. They are promoting ideas of the erotic other within this scene so that the White man may feel control over her and strengthens the western self-image of someone who has power over someone or something.

Donald begins to dance and sing along, seemingly knowing the words and moves perfectly, as it is a lesser culture, the Anglo man is able to take over and perform like he has been there for years, a furthering of the idea of Donald as a coloniser. Bhabha writes that this could be due to the fact that the coloniser seems to know everything about the colonised through depictions of their stereotypes. Donald, the representative of America, has seen these stereotypical depictions and as such feels like he knows everything about them and is able to fit into their world seamlessly. Donald Duck then begins to become angry when Aurora leaves him and goes to dance and perform with men of her own country, he feels entitled to the woman as he is American, he feels ownership over her. The scene then transitions, and we see two men dancing in silhouette form, before their bodies switch and become two animals dancing the same moves. The symbolism here with colonialism and the idea of the animalistic virtues of the native does not need to be argued. It is very clear the message of Latin American men Disney is trying to push for here. Memmi here would argue that even though Donald is marching in and claiming the land to be his, as he tries to take away the people and more specifically, Aurora; the native themselves are not challenging these assumptions made on them. The Brazillian’s are happy to just sing and dance for Donald, so they themselves are also promoting the negative stereotype presented by Disney within the film narrative.

Donald is then transported to Mexico by Panchito Pistoles, a classic stereotype himself, and the same exact routine occurs. He is a self-proclaimed “son of a gun” and shoots randomly in the air. That implies the image of an impulsive and gun-loving Mexican mind. Panchito appears to be reduced to his guns which appear to be his only character trait. But also his samba hat is temporally in the focus, that can be seen as an object one can hide something beneath and may hint on the American perception of the Mexican as shady and non-transparent. Panchito’s appearance broadcasts something else than what he is verbally saying about Mexico. He describes the country as a “paradise” and romanticises it. In actuality, he is talking about Mexican music and culture. So the different verbal and nonverbal messages that appear to be in congruence with each other can be seen as a discrepancy in the way Mexico does want to be seen but also the way America does want to see it. The hat may then serve to function as a metaphor for the American view of the Mexican. Panchito serves as a face-value character, never delving into who he is, just focusing on his appearance and not substance; literally, there is nothing beneath the hat and there is only focus on the surface that looks colourful and bright.

But also the object of transportation to Mexico’s beaches, a flying magic carpet, illustrates the mixture of cultures and demonstrates the disregard of their differences. The flying carpet is a stereotypical, eastern object that is used as a means to position the birds above the women down the beach and promotes the voyeuristic and especially male perspective of view. This could then serve as a key indication of Disney’s disregard for telling a truthful story when it comes to the representation of Latin American culture. They are using signifiers that do not even belong to their culture, not caring about how that will be received by a native audience.

Donald becomes enamoured by the females of the place, he walks in and commands the whole scene, forcing the natives to accept him, then taking over, before just leaving again and not thinking about what he has just done, feeling little to no remorse over leaving, other than the “beautiful women”. Donald also changes their dynamic to the music, the music shifts from what appears to be a Mexican folk style, to American jazz. Bhabha here writes that the colonised is offered an either or choice. They can either accept this change and try to now live their life in relation to the White man and his culture, or they cannot accept it and be forced to through varying methods of imperialist colonialism. Donald then seems to become the centre of the story, this journey revolves around him, all the Latin Americans are wanting to please him, their jokes, antics, everything they do is directed to Donald Duck, the coloniser. The final scene of the film, the singing and dancing woman, features some of the same aspects of colonisation and Orientalism. The film throughout highlights ideas of the other as a mystical and erotic fantasy of the white male, but also presents ideas of the native as lazy, greedy and just teasing towards the coloniser.

Having Donald, José, and Panchito, as animated illustrations, allows the characters certain freedom in behaviour and tendency to surrealism when it comes to the narrative. Kraucer writes that “animation is called upon to present that which is not real - that which never happens.” It therefore stands to reason that Disney can be seen as giving themselves their own creative license to tell this story in the way they are. If we are all supposed to know that animation is a myth and not a true telling of reality, then Disney can present these regressive stereotypes of Latin America and claim that they are part of this untruthful narrative.

Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As it is now, it definitely places WP:UNDUE weight on these critiques, but the sources look scholarly, and maybe some of it is salvageable. I am reading over it/considering it.--MattMauler (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly a college essay. The sources are all about literary/film theory — post-colonialism, race and ethnicity perspectives — but they're not about The Three Caballeros specifically. The essay uses The Three Cs as an example to demonstrate the student's mastery of the theory they're learning in class. The points that they're making are definitely valid, and there is an important colonialism critique of The Three Caballeros, but putting it in the article in this form is original research. What we'd want to see is a published source where a writer takes this kind of theory and applies it to The Three Caballeros, and then we would use that secondary source as the reference, and summarize their points in this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mnmh. If it is a college essay, we can't use it, because we can't assume that it is User:Shaun3099's -- altho it probably is. "Probably" is not good enough for copyvio purposes. We can't know if its a college essay, but it's OK to use our wit to say "This really reads like a college essay, so it probably is, so we can't use it".

However, we could use the sources to write a much shorter section -- "Some people have claimed such-and-such..." using the sources given. But only the ones we can access -- we can't take User:Shaun3099's word for what they say. (I've contacted User:Shaun3099.( Herostratus (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

American jazz representing White man's culture? Why does the essay keep contrasting the White man with Latin Americans? The former colonies of the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire in Latin America already have plenty of white people and a partly European cultural heritage. Dimadick (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what people say who have sufficient expertise and notability such that it's worthwhile for us to report what they say, provided it's not nonsense. It's not nonsense. It could be wrong I suppose, but its not nonsense. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

There is one source that's relevant above — ref #9: Diversity in Disney Films : Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Disability (McFarland & Co, 2013), which has a chapter by Karen S. Goldman: "Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros: The Representation of Latin America in Disney's "Good Neighbor" Films". It's definitely worthwhile adding a Criticism section that summarizes the main points of that chapter. The text that's posted above doesn't do a very good job of that — it only has two half-sentences from that chapter, and they're not very interesting. I'd suggest scrapping the above text, reading that book, and then adding to the article based on that. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)