Who has seen Song of the South?

[Iago]

I have never seen it and really want to see what all the fuss is about over the supposed racism etc... not just that though, I love live-action and animation.

[Angelstreetpup]

i agree what is so racist about that movie?

[Wonderlicious]

i agree what is so racist about that movie?

Well, Patricia A Turner says...

Disney's 20th century re-creation of Harris's frame story is much more heinous than the original. The days on the plantation located in "the United States of Georgia" begin and end with unsupervised Blacks singing songs about their wonderful home as they march to and from the fields. Disney and company made no attempt to to render the music in the style of the spirituals and work songs that would have been sung during this era. They provided no indication regarding the status of the Blacks on the plantation. Joel Chandler Harris set his stories in the post-slavery era, but Disney's version seems to take place during a surreal time when Blacks lived on slave quarters on a plantation, worked diligently for no visible reward and considered Atlanta a viable place for an old Black man to set out for.

Kind old Uncle Remus caters to the needs of the young white boy whose father has inexplicably left him and his mother at the plantation. An obviously ill-kept Black child of the same age named Toby is assigned to look after the white boy, Johnny. Although Toby makes one reference to his "ma," his parents are nowhere to be seen. The African-American adults in the film pay attention to him only when he neglects his responsibilities as Johnny's playmate-keeper. He is up before Johnny in the morning in order to bring his white charge water to wash with and keep him entertained.

The boys befriend a little blond girl, Ginny, whose family clearly represents the neighborhood's white trash. Although Johnny coaxes his mother into inviting Ginny to his fancy birthday party at the big house, Toby is curiously absent from the party scenes. Toby is good enough to catch frogs with, but not good enough to have birthday cake with. When Toby and Johnny are with Uncle Remus, the gray-haired Black man directs most of his attention to the white child. Thus Blacks on the plantation are seen as willingly subservient to the whites to the extent that they overlook the needs of their own children. When Johnny's mother threatens to keep her son away from the old gentleman's cabin, Uncle Remus is so hurt that he starts to run away. In the world that Disney made, the Blacks sublimate their own lives in order to be better servants to the white family. If Disney had truly understood the message of the tales he animated so delightfully, he would have realized the extent of distortion of the frame story.

http://snopes.com/disney/films/sots.htm

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

I saw it, and it's really good! Like DisneyKid said the Animated scenes were the highlight. Worth your time if you happen to see a copy.

[Maerj]

i agree what is so racist about that movie?

Well, Patricia A Turner says...

Disney's 20th century re-creation of Harris's frame story is much more heinous than the original. The days on the plantation located in "the United States of Georgia" begin and end with unsupervised Blacks singing songs about their wonderful home as they march to and from the fields. Disney and company made no attempt to to render the music in the style of the spirituals and work songs that would have been sung during this era. They provided no indication regarding the status of the Blacks on the plantation. Joel Chandler Harris set his stories in the post-slavery era, but Disney's version seems to take place during a surreal time when Blacks lived on slave quarters on a plantation, worked diligently for no visible reward and considered Atlanta a viable place for an old Black man to set out for.

Kind old Uncle Remus caters to the needs of the young white boy whose father has inexplicably left him and his mother at the plantation. An obviously ill-kept Black child of the same age named Toby is assigned to look after the white boy, Johnny. Although Toby makes one reference to his "ma," his parents are nowhere to be seen. The African-American adults in the film pay attention to him only when he neglects his responsibilities as Johnny's playmate-keeper. He is up before Johnny in the morning in order to bring his white charge water to wash with and keep him entertained.

The boys befriend a little blond girl, Ginny, whose family clearly represents the neighborhood's white trash. Although Johnny coaxes his mother into inviting Ginny to his fancy birthday party at the big house, Toby is curiously absent from the party scenes. Toby is good enough to catch frogs with, but not good enough to have birthday cake with. When Toby and Johnny are with Uncle Remus, the gray-haired Black man directs most of his attention to the white child. Thus Blacks on the plantation are seen as willingly subservient to the whites to the extent that they overlook the needs of their own children. When Johnny's mother threatens to keep her son away from the old gentleman's cabin, Uncle Remus is so hurt that he starts to run away. In the world that Disney made, the Blacks sublimate their own lives in order to be better servants to the white family. If Disney had truly understood the message of the tales he animated so delightfully, he would have realized the extent of distortion of the frame story.

http://snopes.com/disney/films/sots.htm

Patricia A Turner® is a moron. She complains about the black kid not being invited to the birthday party. Does this woman know ANYTHING about American history? Do you think the black kid would have been invited in the year the movie takes place? How about 1900? 1920? 1950? NO! There was segregation! D'oh! The family in the movie didn't even really want the little white girl at the party, since as Miss Turner points out they are considered 'white trash.'


Perhaps Miss Turner needs to read some text books about history. Now I'm not saying Song of the South is a 100% factual portrayal of race relations in a post Civil War South (it doesn't try to be), but its more of an artifact from our past. It shows attitudes about African Americans at the time the film was made, attitudes which differ greatly with those from today. I really don't think that it was the filmmakers intention to make an offensive movie.

Song of the South was about a lonely boy, who befriends a kindly old man who teaches him lessons about life through a series of charming stories which are based on African folktales. Any other ideas or messages obtained from viewing this film are clearly a product of the individual viewer. If you watch this film wanting to be offended, you will be. If you take it for what it is, you'll see some great animation, wonderful characters, hear some unforgettable songs and will have a great time.

[Sunset Girl]

Am I the only one here that got to see it in the theaters? Of course, the last theatrical release was back in 1986.

[RJKD23]

Wow..
When reading the previous pages...it felt like I was here on UD almost 2 years ago!

Listen to E...
"I never look back, dahling. It distracts from the now."

[Noriel]

I haven't seen it and if it weren't for Splash Mountain at the Disney resort... would have probably never knew the movie existed.

[Hikari]

My boyfriend bought me the pal VHS and since I never heard of it really I was a bit dissapointed and since I was collecting dvd of animation not live action i didnt really see why he bought it to me and since it was a gift I didnt wanted to pay to convert it to ntsc so finally he sold it back on ebay and I never seen it altough I already had a copy now I am bittting my finger about it

[ichabod]

After seeing the movie "Holes for the first time today, I have to say that that shows more racism than Song of the South! As has been mentioned in previous posts the "racism" shown in Song of the South is not really present at all. It alls things such as Toby not being present at the party and stuff like that. Now Disney seems to think that is somehow innapropriate. Yet in Disney's 2003 film "Holes" Sam is murdered because he is a black and kisses a white woman.

Now which of those shows the most racism?

[tu]

i have the DVD from taiwan that's made "before the copyright date " ,but i haven't finish it yet,the qulity isn't so good!

[Jayden]

I've seen it, boring as hell except for the Brer Rabbit bits. If the entire movie was the Brer Rabbit story, then it'd be MUCH better. But alas, we are stuck with the boring Uncle Remus stuff in between the brilliance. I will get this when it comes out on DVD, at least then I can easily skip over the boring stuff and come straight to the inspired parts.

(Sorry if I seem to come down hard on this movie, it's my opinion that it is WAY overrated, and this is because of it's lack of availability, not necessarily the quality of production. A lot of people who hear nothing but, "Oh, Song of the South is so great" are going to be VERY disappointed when they see this movie for the first time)

After seeing the movie "Holes for the first time today, I have to say that that shows more racism than Song of the South! As has been mentioned in previous posts the "racism" shown in Song of the South is not really present at all. It alls things such as Toby not being present at the party and stuff like that. Now Disney seems to think that is somehow innapropriate. Yet in Disney's 2003 film "Holes" Sam is murdered because he is a black and kisses a white woman.

Now which of those shows the most racism?

Now that depends, I've never seen Holes, however was there meant to be a commentary in there about this kind of behaviour? Because filmmakers in modern times often do that. They include something that looks like racism to prove a point and provide a commentary on that. More than likely, this is what happened with Holes as there was not a huge outcry over it (That I can remember). However, Song of the South's racist depictions are the attitudes of the time and don't provide any positive commentary on the issue. It just depicts African American slaves as being incredibly happy with their lot in life (plus other such nonsense).

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be released, indeed I believe that it is an incredibly historically significant work and should see release, but I'm just stating that there probably is a big difference between the racism shown in a modern movie like Holes and the older movies like Song of the South

[TM2-Megatron]

For some reason my local rental place has a bootleg DVD of it, so I have seen it. Anyone expecting "the most controversial movie of our time" or something to that effect will be dissapointed, I think. Sadly, this just seems to be another case to alot of nutballs at Disney over-reacting.

[disneywb]

I've seen it once at Fort Wilderness, Disney World. I don't remember anything except for the Brer Rabbit bits.

[MinnieMe]

My mom saw it way back when and possibly when it came out again in 1986. I've only seen the clips they showed on the Disney channel when I was younger. The entire movie may have even been on, I don't remember.

What I don't understand is... if it's so racist, why was it re-released in theaters in 1986? Not much has changed since then in the world of racism since then. And if there were no complaints back then, why all the fuss?

I think Disney is too over-cautious. I was just watching my Treasures Mickey in color vol 2 today and it had these little intros before some of the shorts- like "we know nowadays that it isn't right to dress up like an indian, its an example of how enlightened we've become since this was made" or "we all know there's nothing funny about gunplay, it's part of pluto's nightmare." Come on! Can't you just show a cartoon from 1940 as a part of history without explaining it's lack of PCness??? Same thing with Song of the South- can't you show it as a film, a work of art, rather than some controversial movie?

[Luna]

I saw it in the theater when I was a kid(I think I was about 7 or 8 at the time)....I don't remember it too well,though (aside from "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah")...

[dvdjunkie]

Jayden needs to get a life. Why does he chastize a movie that he hasn't seen in total?? He just wants to be different from the rest of us, I guess.

What I have learned over the years is that the NAACP has put pressure on the Disney people by telling them that the movie shows black people in an unfair light. Well, what is unfair about the truth. Back in those days, they were slaves, and manservants and such. Sure it wouldn't work today, but this movie was made in 1946, c'mon, give me a break.

I own the Japanese LaserDisc copy of the movie and it is fabulous. I just recently transfered it to DVD+RW for my collection. I have heard that it is coming out in the US in the spring of 2006.

[Christian]

Saw it for the first time in 1974.

[cydney]

I saw this movie in the theatres when I was really young. All I remember from that was the Brer Rabbit parts. A few years ago my grandpa bought a copy off of Ebay and we watched it. I was so excited to see it again, but when I saw it I thought it was actually pretty boring. I'm sure I'll watch it when it comes out again, and hopefully change my mind, but until then it's no big deal to me.

[ichabod]

Now that depends, I've never seen Holes, however was there meant to be a commentary in there about this kind of behaviour? Because filmmakers in modern times often do that. They include something that looks like racism to prove a point and provide a commentary on that. More than likely, this is what happened with Holes as there was not a huge outcry over it (That I can remember). However, Song of the South's racist depictions are the attitudes of the time and don't provide any positive commentary on the issue. It just depicts African American slaves as being incredibly happy with their lot in life (plus other such nonsense).

Yes I am aware of that, and that is why I was talking about straight out portrayal of racism in Disney films rather than the fact that there is the whole Slavery issue in SOTS. I guess I didn't make it clear.

I for one think that Disney tried to downplay the racism in SOTS for example rather than the slaves being ordered about left right and centre I think they made it look as though they were doing it happily. Kind of a happy medium that made sure all elements of the atory were there. There were slaves but because it was a Disney film they made it appear that they were doing it happily. I think in hindsight that this does stick out, but I do not feel the film was made with any malice. I think it just seemed a way to skirt around the issue that just maybe wasn't though out properly.