Rejection letter from Disney - from 1938!

[Cameron]

A friend of mine sent me a link to this scan that he found on Flickr. The description states "This letter originally belonged to my grandmother. After she passed away we discovered it and were surprised at how well it was preserved for being nearly 70 years old." The image is kind of small, but the letter says..

 

June 7, 1938

 

Miss Mary V. Ford

Searcy,

Arkansas

 

Dear Miss Ford,

 

Your letter of recent date has been received in the Inking and Painting Department for reply.

 

Women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen, as that work is performed entirely by young men. For this reason girls are not considered for the training school.

 

The only work open to women consists of tracing the characters on clear celluloid sheets with Indian ink and filling in the tracings on the reverse side with paint according to directions.

 

In order to apply for a position as "Inker" or "Painter" it is necessary that one appear at the Studio, bringing samples of pen and ink and water color work. It would not be advisable to come to Hollywood with the above specifically in view, as there are really very few openings in comparison with the number of girls who apply.

 

Yours very truly,

WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, LTD

 

The original scan (including a larger copy) can be found on Flickr, click "all sizes". Aside from the text, the letter-head (and footer) is pretty amazing.

 

Cameron.

[ginzo]

What a beautiful letterhead. And, at the same time, what a depressing letter.

[Ed]

Disney hates women? Excellent!

[BelizeIt]

Well everyone knows that Girls are trouble.

[the ghost]

Well, I'm sure Disney used the following equation to decide weather women were able to work at Disney. Upon careful analysis of the following problem it is easy why Disney decided not to hire women.

makes perfect sense to me.

[dino]

^ LOL, love that equation!

[gerd.muller]

...oh yes, those good old days!

[SteveC]

Yep - times have certainly changed in the last hundred years. My Grandmother (99 and fingers crossed 100 in April) has many interesting stories, like back in the day ( c.1925) women were allowed to work but HAD TO give up work on the day they married as she had to. She tells me things relaxed a bit in the 1930's when women were allowed to work even married until they fell pregnant. (don't know about unmarried pregnant women, it's not discussed so I guess there weren't any) I think WW II changed the employment landscape globally, and probably for Disney animators too.

[BeemerBoy]

Great find, Cameron!

 

Yeah, that letterhead is simply the best I've ever seen. Also, it should be pointed out that although women weren't hired for "creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen," they were still involved in the overall creative process of the original cells.

 

When you consider that out of every ten women workers in 1940, three were in clerical or sales work, two were in factories, two in domestic service, one was a professional—a teacher or a nurse—and one was a service worker, the fact that Disney even hired them for these positions at all, was ahead of the curve, you might say.

[larrygator]

^Although this doesn't vary much from factory work.

 

"The only work open to women consists of tracing the characters on clear celluloid sheets with Indian ink and filling in the tracings on the reverse side with paint according to directions."

[BeemerBoy]

^ True to a certain extent. The tracers and inkers were at the bottom of the totem pole. But going by the date on the letter, this would have been just after the huge success of the release of Snow White (December 1937), and I'm sure there was a huge influx of would-be animators/artists of both genders wanting to work for Disney.

 

And considering Walt pretty much took the profit from Snow White and put it right back into improving the animation studios for his employees, the conditions there probably trumped the typical "factory work" available to most women elsewhere.

 

Either way, it's true that the animation process back then wasn't glamorous by any means.

[Jds03]

Either way, it's true that the animation process back then wasn't glamorous by any means.

 

I sort of disagree, I think that the animation style back then wasn't efficient in comparison to today's standards, however it was still indescribably revolutionary and, in my honest opinion, was the single greatest breakthrough in the history of moviemaking.

 

The team that Disney organized to create cell animation produced some of the greatest works of art mankind has ever collaboratively created. Snow White, Bambi, Cinderella, Aladdin and the Lion King are absolute visual masterpieces, and I’m not just saying that to butt-kiss to the people who think I’m an idiot because of my opinions on Disney.

 

So, sure there were kinks in the animation process, but for the time period Disney made it as glamorous as it got. It wasn’t their fault they couldn’t use women for allot of the process, it was the programs that wouldn’t accept them. If they had been able to get the proper training, I’m sure Disney would have used women for more tasks, because Disney needed as much help as they could get. Traditional animation is one of the most tedious and time consuming art forms, and I know from experience. It was an amazing achievement for the animation team to even make full movies back then, but to make them at the level of detail and aesthetic quality Disney’s animation team did is something that is not only glamorous, but absolutely incredible.

[mcjaco]

^ I think you're misunderstanding Scott's use of the word "glamorous."

[Jds03]

Well, yeah I understand he wasn't referring to the actual animation produced, but Disney’s process of making it. I just can’t pass up an opportunity to talk about how awesome animation is