Definitely an improvement on many animation bits. Many of them were quite hilarious. Me and at least one of my friends couldn't help but to genuinely lose it at several bits, especially the penguin in the beginning. Of course I still have the same criticism that I have with many of Disney's first works; they act more as animation showcases and setpieces than they do as telling coherent, well-written stories. They do a fantastic job at being animation showcases; they're beautiful. The setpieces are wonderful, but it's quite dated. Back then, being animated and beautifully so, was enough. Now, we've been, or at least I've been from a young age, accustomed to seeing the art form used as a medium for a narrative. So it feels unsatisfying to see such high budget, creative problem-solving, and new technologies be "wasted" on something that lacks substance. One of my friends who I watched this with described this and others like it as "animation tests," which obviously isn't accurate overall, but it's a decent descriptor of what they feel like. The result of having no overarching narrative, rather having a collection of short stories, doesn't make it feel like a movie. Which isn't very objective but it's an interesting insight to how our perspectives have changed.

Speaking of changed perspectives, it's interesting to see yet another Disney+ disclaimer on this. My friends and I agreed that there was a big dumbing-down of cultural elements, but that the intention of this was to foster a positive, more understanding relationship between Americans and everyone south of North America. And in that respect, I find it overall to be both successful and respectful. I don't see where they get the idea that there are harmful racial depictions; sure, the live-action men in the Baia sequence were all wearing the exact same outfit and could absolutely be argued to be stereotypical, but it wasn't a stereotype integrated with the intent to put a culture down; rather they clearly wanted to introduce their culture to Americans and accept them with open arms. The characters of Jose Carioca and Panchito Pistoles were created with the purpose of giving Brazilian and Mexican cultures a representation equivalent to Donald Duck; their appearances in Saludos Amigos and this film are obviously intended to show an American cultural icon metaphorically representing Americans, becoming friends with similar metaphorical proxies of their own respective countries. "You like Donald? Well watch him meet and become close friends with Jose as Jose spends time with him and shares his culture. Watch the two of them then meet Panchito, who does the same with his." Perhaps this could have been better if it wasn't as meta; rather than a presentation, they could have made them a narrative. But if they did, perhaps it wouldn't be as educational? Regardless, the cultural disrespect of these films is either entirely percieved, or quite possibly accidental.

Some may criticize Panchito's appearance, gunslinging, vocalizations, behavior, etc, as stereotypical. Perhaps this is true. Perhaps this is true of all three of the Caballeros, at least to a certain degree. But I think back then, the stereotypes existed not to make fun of them, but to give them a proxy by which to represent them. Whether or not this is just, is up to debate. Me personally, I love the American stereotype of a swearin' sailor-mouthed gunslingin' flag-totin' bible-lovin' American. I can like the one-sided portrayal because I know it's not accurate to me and I would like to think people in other countries understand that too. This character isn't me and he doesn't represent me; he represents a simplification of the culture that surrounds me. Perhaps some of this stereotype is true to me, some of it's hyperbolic, and some of it's not at all what I'm like. But I don't mind it one bit, neither do I mind other, more offensive stereotypes like that of the obese, rich, selfish American. I only get frustrated when someone tells me that's exactly what I am as an individual as a way to demean me, especially if it hasn't a semblance of truth to it. Unless it's in good fun; I was raised LDS in Utah and many of my out-of-state friends make Mormon Polygamist jokes in reference to this. I find it funny. Being able to laugh at/with ourselves and each other with the mutual understanding that it doesn't define us as individuals is one of the beauties of living in a melting pot, no matter where said pot resides. It's something I think today's culture is sorely lacking. Another example of this positive effect, the Ultimis Crew from Treyarch's COD Zombies are all extremely stereotypical, and I love them all. Though I understand it's not representative of all individuals in their respective cultures, it endears the cultures to me as a whole. It neither makes me hate them nor fills me with false ideas of how every individual in those group behave. Anyway, to my understanding, Mexicans are, on average, positive on characters in this vein. For whatever reason Speedy Gonzales comes to mind. To my understanding, most cultures are fine with hyperbolic stereotypes, so long as they aren't used against them with the intention of dismissing them as all bad people and destroying their individuality. Sometimes it seems the people frustrated with these characters are conflating the racist stereotypes that target people, with the stereotypes that poke fun at certain aspects of them. Poking fun and genuine racism are obviously two very different things. I love Tank Dempsey; I do not love getting told I'm responsible for school shootings just for living in a country that has a problem with preventing them. I'd imagine Mexicans love characters like Speedy Gonzales; they do not love being told they're responsible for all sex trafficking on the Mexican-American border. I wish this did not have to be explained. Stereotypes can be weaponized to be disrespectful and then some. They can be utilized for the opposite effect. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater; there are many benefits to be had from taking stereotypes less seriously. Both in the respect that we shouldn't arbitrarily percieve inoffensive ones as offensive, and that we should stop using them to denegrate cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities we do not understand.

The one inaccuracy that my friends and I agreed may be harmful is their historical erasure of Tenochtitlan; if children watched this, they may have been falsely told that Mexico City and Mexicans as a whole existed independently of the Aztecs, which is far from true. This misconception and simplification of history was not created by this film, rather this film's participation in it is symptomatic of the issue itself. There were many events that caused historical aftershocks in our culture to where we forget where much of Mexican land, culture, and even genetic heritage comes from. Mexico City was not founded by Spaniard Conquistadors. Mexicans are not 100% descended from Spaniards. Mexico as a whole, similarly to many continents changed by colonization, is downstream of the clashing of two or more groups of people; the native and the foreign. Spaniards brought their technology, ingenuity, morals, Christianity, and more, and distributed it into native culture. Their people and culture mixed. The moral implications of this, the actions of individuals or of the groups as a whole, have been and will continue to be debated for millenia. Regardless, it's important not to forget when making what is intended to be a respectful exploration and explanation of other cultures to American children or adults alike. Your history must be accurate and must not haphazardly blot out these aspects. But I realize that this is an extremely difficult thing to do. How do we ensure that there is no misunderstanding about what happened in history without going into immense detail that won't be understood by the children in the audience? How do we accurately tell the events as they happened without historical inaccuracies, without offending, but without going into all the nuance of a textbook or documentary? It's a problem that if I were tasked with doing on this project, I wouldn't know where to begin and would likely require consulting from historical experts and test audiences alike. Do the historians find my portrayal to be accurate? Did the Mexican audience like how I portrayed their culture? The Brazilians? What do each of these groups have to say about it? Should I edit the film further before release to cater to their respective critiques? It's easy to criticize with 79 years of hindsight. With the information at hand and the intentions they had in mind, I'd say this film did a pretty good job at what it was intending to do. 

However, if I were tasked with making it, I would have opted for a narrative story. Saludos Amigos, which would likely be renamed, would have been a film that perhaps pits Donald a sticky situation being stranded in Brazil, meeting Jose, who helps him, and they become fast friends as Donald inadvertently is exposed to a significant amount of his culture. Perhaps they'd promise to meet again in America, so Jose could explore American culture in the same way. Thus, The Three Caballeros, as its sequel, could have Jose visit Donald in America, the two of them being on vacation in Texas perhaps, eventually something leading them to cross the border and meet Panchito, so they can explore his culture as well. I'm just throwing out ideas, but perhaps if these were narrative stories rather than presentations, they could have resonated more with audiences from all three cultures and have become just as culturally significant as the likes of Snow White, Pinnochio, Dumbo, Bambi, etc. Perhaps the cultural ramifications of these films would have been more effective towards the results they were going for and these films would be far more timeless. Perhaps they wouldn't be maligned as culturally insensitive and thus a part of a forgotten bygone era that many today wholly dismiss for this percieved injustice. Onee big advantage of making it a narrative would be that they don't have to go into detail about the history; they don't have to be educational and accurate simultaneously. They can be accurate and respectful, but don't have to explain complicated history to children or ignorant adults. They could show the journey of specific characters and have the emotional understanding of those cultures be downstream of our connection to them. If you tell a story with the intent of metaphorically having Americans, Brazilians, and Mexicans bond with an understanding of their respective cultures, so long as that story is well-crafted, your respect for those cultures will shine through your work. Those that appreciate your work, at both a young and old age, will likely have individual consicous or subconscious changes to reflect the change you wanted to incite in them. Doing it as a silly yet enchanting presentation, while it has its benefits at being able to be more detailed, may not be as effective and presents challenges as I've discussed that will age your work drastically.

One final thing worth mentioning: it's fascinating to see the characterization of Donald in both this and Saludos Amigos. In a more modernized characterization, he just seems to be extremely quick to anger, and he gets humiliated often, though not in the same sense as many characters are humiliated in... more contepmorary writing rooms. These two films seem to make him, for lack of a better term, horny. I don't object to simply having an animated character react to attractive women, animated or otherwise, but some of his behavior in these films are questionable to say the least. Back then it was culturally acceptable to... treat women that way. But it comes off as... strange, to say the least? He's extremely down bad in a way that hasn't seemed to age well. It's entertaining, but in a meta sense I'm laughing more because I'm somewhat appalled that this was okay to animate 79 years ago. Though I've definitely seen far worse examples of issues in this vein outside this film specifically.

Overall, while this work has aged poorly in many ways, at its heart, it's most certainly not with the intention of being disrespectful. Indeed, it's quite the opposite. Disney ought not to malign this work by poisoning the well against it with the exact same disclaimer they trot out for everything. It seems more like they're ticking a box as to not offend people, rather than actually judging this work on its own at face value.