One unusual cartoon character from classic cartoons was Eugene the Jeep, an animal that might be a magical dog, from the “Popeye” cartoons.
On March 16, 1936, Eugene the Jeep made its first appearance in the Thimble Theatre strip that starred Popeye. The Jeep was a yellow creature, somewhat like a dog. But, unlike a dog, Eugene walked on his hind legs and had magical powers.
The history of Eugene the Jeep is a little blurry because of different stories in Popeye episodes. But it was an interesting and unusual character who we hope one day may make it to the big screen.
From Where Did Eugene the Jeep Come?
In the comic strip, Eugene the Jeep’s origin was explained by the fact that Olive Oyl’s Uncle Ben found Eugene in Africa and then gave it to Olive. Animated episodes, however, provided different takes on Eugene.
In animated versions of Popeye, the animators treated Eugene the Jeep largely as a “magical dog.” In The Jeep (1938), Popeye gave Eugene to Olive Oyl and Swee’Pea.
But a few years later in Popeye Presents Eugene the Jeep (1940), Popeye received Eugene from Olive. In the episode, he acts like he had never seen the “baby puppy” before. The episode is not available for embedding but is available on YouTube.
Near Misses With Movies
Eugene the Jeep almost made it onto the big screen with Robin Williams in Robert Altman’s 1980 movie Popeye. An early screenplay by Jules Feiffer included Eugene the Jeep.
But reportedly it was difficult to make the magical creature believable in the live-action film. So, he was taken out of the story. Some of his magic remained, though, as the writer gave some of the Jeep’s characteristics to Swee’ Pea in the movie.
But although Eugene the Jeep missed out on that movie, he is still around. For example, he is the school mascot for a couple of high schools.
At one point, Eugene the Jeep was scheduled finally to make it to the big screen by appearing in a 3D Popeye movie directed by Gennedy Tarakovsky (Hotel Transylvania). Tarakovsky left the project in 2015 after disagreeing with the studio, which wanted a more modern version of Popeye. Still, in 2020, there were rumors that there was hope the movie might still get made.
The video below features a screen test of animation from Tarakovsky’s film, including an appearance by Eugene the Jeep.
We will have to wait and see whether Eugene the Jeep ever makes it to the big screen.
What is your favorite Eugene the Jeep story? Leave your two cents in the comments.
In Part One of this two-part series on redemptive violence in American Westerns, we considered how the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma significantly changed the ending from the 1957 film. In making the change, the movie embraced the myth of redemptive violence, a concept explained by writer Walter Wink in several books.
“The Myth of Redemptive Violence” appears in the media and popular culture to teach the lesson that violence provides redemption. In these scenes of redemptive violence, the audience feels a release and joy that the hero, often in an apparent beaten state, rises up in a flurry of violence to save himself or herself, save another, or save an entire town.
It is through the act of violence that the hero and society is redeemed and saved.
{Note: This post and the previous post discuss the ending of classic Western film and thus include spoilers.}
Classic Westerns: Shane, High Noon, & The Searchers
Although redemptive violence seems more common in today’s action films like in the updated 3:10 to Yuma, it has been present throughout film history. Many classic Westerns perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence.
But the best of them add a layer of complexity and avoid the simple violence-as-redemption lesson. For example, the classic Shane (1953) fits Walter Wink’s pattern of redemptive violence with Shane beaten until he rises up to redeem himself through violence. But the movie adds something more. Shane’s acts of violence do not bring him a happy life, it was not done out of his own vengeance, and it also may have brought about his sacrificial death.
Similar underlying complex themes are present at the end of High Noon (1952). The movie at first glance ends with a typical redemptive violence shootout, where we are relieved that Gary Cooper killed the bad guys. But his redemption comes from his fulfilled duty more than the violence. Ultimately, he rejects the violence when he throws his badge on the ground at the end and rides off with his Quaker wife to be a farmer.
Similarly, Robert Altman’s beautiful McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) still offered a nod to redemptive violence with the killing of the bad guys. Yet, it also showed us the hero’s tragic death and the consequences of violence.
The Searchers (1956) bucked the redemptive violence myth further. Although the film promises violence at the end, instead we get mercy. The hero then is left with a troubled future because of his violent past.
In the scene below, we see Ethan Edwards, played by John Wayne, finally capturing his niece stolen by the Native Americans. Edwards is an angry violent man who hates the Indians so much he plans to kill his niece who was taken into their culture. But near the end of the film, his character finds redemption through a small nonviolent act.
Naked Spur (1953), starring Jimmy Stewart, features a similar ending. Stewart’s Howard Kemp is angry and seeks revenge throughout the movie, only to break at the end to find himself in something besides violence.
Modern Westerns: Unforgiven, Appaloosa, Dances with Wolves
In this new century, movie makers often create movies that fail to grapple with the complexities of violence and instead offer violence as redemption. Even in the highly regarded “anti-Western” of Unforgiven, where many critics praised its realistic treatment of violence, the movie ends with acts of redemptive violence just like other Clint Eastwood Westerns. The movie promises more, but in the end it slips back into the pattern of redemptive violence as we enjoy watching Eastwood kill the wounded and unarmed Gene Hackman.
Similarly, Appaloosa (2008) offers us a complex vision of the West. But it still settles on a final shootout so viewers are satisfied that the bad guy is killed.
Dances with Wolves (1990) attempted to get out of the cycle of redemptive violence. It does have flashes of it though, such as where the white men – whose evil is shown by the fact they kill Kevin Costner’s horse and the wolf – are killed in a battle at a river. Had the movie ended there, it would have been a redemptive violence lesson: Good guys kill bad guys.
But the film continues and the ending is something different.
After the bad white men are killed, Kevin Costner’s character remains troubled by what the future might bring. And the movie ends with him and Stands With a Fist, in effect, sacrificing their lives living with the tribe to leave on their own to protect the tribe. Thus, the movie ends with an act of sacrifice rather than an act of redemptive violence.
The ending of Dances With Wolves, though, is somewhat unsatisfying. Perhaps it is because the movie led us to believe that it would provide us with redemptive violence due to its previous acts of violence. But at the end there is no big act of violence to put an end to the bad guys and make the good guys heroes. Maybe because the good guys of the movie are the Native Americans, and we all know they do not win, the movie could not end differently. Costner and the tribe never get their redemptive violence because the Native Americans of history never did.
Conclusion
The themes of Shane, High Noon and The Searchers — with their ambiguities and troubled heroes – almost seem too complex in comparison with the modern version of 3:10 to Yuma. The modern movie says, “the bad guy is now good because he killed the bad guys.” But in these older movies, it was not enough to vanquish the bad guys. There was something troubling that lingered even after the final acts of violence.
Of course, not all old Westerns were as complex as The Searchers, so maybe it is unfair to make a comparison across time to a few classics. Still, watch for redemptive violence messages in any modern action film you watch.
Because so many films teach us that redemptive violence solves problems, we must consider what our entertainment teaches us. And we must consider how that entertainment may reflect our society today.
What do you think about the use of violence in film? Leave your two cents in the comments.
