Song of the South: Too Offensive to Release on DVD?

[Escapay]

Well we've had many a conversations about them before, but mainly the controversy is over the offensiveness of a certain lace collar.

Escapay

[jlppr]

i don't get it. what do you mean by lace collar?

[Escapay]

It's an inside joke around UD, that originated with pinkrenata I believe, and basically whenever someone asks what's so offensive about the film, we say it's the lace collar that Johnny is forced to wear one day when he goes out to play.

Escapay

[pinkrenata]

Is it just me, or is my (originally brilliant) joke getting old?

[SpringHeelJack]

Is it just me, or is my (originally brilliant) joke getting old?

No. Please take that image down. I'm very offended by that collar.

[Escapay]

Is it just me, or is my (originally brilliant) joke getting old?

It never gets old, Renata. It's become a trademark of UD.

UD: Lace Collars and Slipcovers A Go-Go!

Escapay

[goofystitch]

I must admit that out of the many tiimes I've seen the film, I have always wished a black bar would appear over Johnny's collar. lol.

To answer your question, jlppr, the main reason "Song of the South" is so controversial is for racial matters. The film takes place on a Southern plantation with black workers. That's not bad in a film like "Gone With The Wind," but Disney has a politically correct reputation and they fear the film will tarnish that. The only thing about the film that caused me to raise an eyebrow was the fact that the workers all go about their business with smiles on their faces singing songs. However, it is never stated that they are actually slaves. They could be being paid. Johnny's parents are seperating, so he and his mom go to live with his grandma for a little while and Johnny is without a fatherly figure and with many troubles on his mind. One old plantation worker, Uncle Remus, consoles the boy with animated anecdotes about Brer Rabbit and how he solved similar problems. The boy uses the stories to solve his problems and in true Disney fashion, the father returns and the family lives happily ever after. It's a really good film and it is a shame that Disney hasn't officially released it in the U.S, but it has been talked about in recent years and it is rumored that Roy is campaigning to get the film released as part of the Walt Disney Legacy Collection. I'm just hoping that if it does get released, it is completely uncut and restored. My copy was taken from an Asian laserdisc and the picture quality isn't so great. It also has I believe Mandarin subtitles during all musical numbers.

[Escapay]

However, it is never stated that they are actually slaves. They could be being paid.

It takes place after the Civil War, so they are free, but it's never stated explicitly in the book. However, the mere fact that Uncle Remus can come and go as he pleases definitely is a sign that they're not slaves.

My copy was taken from an Asian laserdisc and the picture quality isn't so great. It also has I believe Mandarin subtitles during all musical numbers.

Japanese subtitles, as one of the two releases of the Japanese laserdisc has subtitles during just the songs. The other has it throughout the whole movie. The Hong Kong laserdisc (which my copy is from) is devoid of any subtitles, but I think it's a lesser quality transfer than the Japanese laserdisc. And compared to the BBC broadcast, the quality difference is astounding.




Escapay

[goofystitch]

Thanks for all of the info. My copy looks slightly better than yours, but nowhere near as good as the BBC broadcast. I heard of an awesome bootleg that was an "Anniversary Edition" and even had subtitles. I had an opportunity to own such a copy when my brother was at a comic con, but I had already bought a copy on VHS(horrible copy) and then DVD, and felt that this DVD was probably from the same source and it was before I was really in to Disney history and bonus features. I really wish I had gotten it, because since then I've read about how great the picture quality was and that the bonus features were pretty neat.

[UncleEd]

I'm all for getting Song of the South on DVD but here is the problem with Song of the South. I have a brother who is a college professor in history and I was watching a copy of Song of the South I got at a comic book convention and he spazzed out at how I was watching a racist film and we debated on where the stories come from and why he thinks they're racist and why John Henry is even a racist figure. His basic argument was that if one black person is offended then it's racist. It doesn't matter if it really is or not, the history behind it, or anything. It only matters if people think it's racist. Then he said if I ever played that film when his kids were around that he'd turn me in for corruption of minors and he rubbed his Masters degree in History in my face as if that makes him an authority on all things and trumps my Bachelors in animation. Now, you have a lot of people like my brother out there and most are found on college campuses or are in achedemic circles. These people live in their own little bubble that is outside reality and they think they're right. I'll never understand why these people say John Henry is a racist figure when his story is about a man vs. a machine and he was the man who won. Plus he was a BLACK man. To me that would be a very positive rolemodel in not only black folklore but american folklore. Especially when the media gleefully had to point out diring this year's Super Bowl that both coaches were black as if that is why they were good coaches. They were good coaches first, black second. Just as John Henry was a strong man first and a black man second. But my point is that this is how this community thinks and you can bet your bippy that the media outlets would jump all over the contraversy of Song of the South coming to DVD even if just one person complained because that's what they do. They'll haul out all the token negroes like Sharpton and Jackson who will most likely speak out against the film because that's what the media always does. This film has gained such a reputation because Disney has kept it in the vault for so long that it's bum rap greatly eclipses the actual content of the film. I bet most people who condemn it have never even seen it. And I"m sorry if I sound political but you have to understand that this film would becomea political issue if it were released. That is what Disney fears. That is why they never show it in the US but have released it in other countries where the US media won't cover it and there are no NAACPs to raise a fuss. That is a double standard. I'd also bet that if Obama is elected President that Disney will shy away from releasing Song of the South because Obama's election would bring in a tide of stories on how far America has come, how far black people have come, etc. And if Disney were to put Song of the South out at that time they would be slammed with even more bad PR then if they put it out now. This film isd a PR nightmare for them.


As for the release being "tastefully" done, I'd say Bill Cosby would be ideal to host but that's because Bill gets the issue of race relation in the US. But when he voiced his opinions look at how fast his own community turned on him. None of the black leaders listened to what he had to say, they called him names, said he was a sell out, and ran him through the mud. That only validates his points that much of the black community doesn't want to confront these issues. Releasing SOng of the South on DVD would be a metaphore for the black community facing the past of blacks in films. Even though there are many films that portray blacks in a darker, negative light, Song of the South's reputation has made it the grand daddy of them all. Never mind that UNcle Remus is the smartest guy in the film, the man all the whites go to for advice, or that these stories were originally told by black slaves and were brought over from Africa. The reputation is everything. Disney doesn't have the guts to get Cosby but he is the ideal choice. Cosby also quit funding many black schools because of the corruption of the administration and the waste he saw go on. He got a lot of flack for that. I bring this up because Cosby has proven he is a courrageous man in issues of race and if he were the front man for a Song of the South release he would not fear the backlash Disney and he would surely get. Perhaps we should reach out to Bill and Leonard and Roy and get them together on this? That would be the ideal team. Some would go for Oprah or Whoopi but I can't see them doing it. They are much too PC. And quite frankly, I find that only ablack celebrity can host this to be a bit racist in itself. It's like Disney is saying "Well, we need to get some famous black person to be the frontperson because they can't argue with a black person". I know that's how things are handled today but I think it just supports and reenforces racism rather than abolishing it.


I'll conclude with saying that I've always been against Song of the South being a Treasure release. The Treasures combine material that could only be released as collections. It has never done a film in itself. True, two features have been included but with other similar shorter films or short subjects. It seems a stretch to have a title that could carry itself as its own release to be a Treasure. Now, a Legacy release makes more sense and I think that's our best option. But I'm telling ya, it has to be released before Obama gets elected (there's a good chance ANY democrat will be elected this time) or we'll have to wait a decade before we can even think of seeing Song of the South again. The time to act is now. If we organize at the grass roots level maybe we can sway Disney to release the film from the vault and finally allow millions of people to see this gem for the first time.

[jlppr]

thanks for the info,

i have also seen parts of the movie and i never thought of them as slaves either. but even if they were it history. what about movies like Roots or Schindlers List or even Passion of the Christ. these are movies that deal with very controversial subjects yest they have been released on dvd and people go out and buy them. because while some people are criticising the movies, others are learning and using the movies to teach others. and i personally can't stand Schindlers List but yet we were forced to watch it in the 7th grade. controversial movies can be quite useful. and i never saw anything controversial about SOTS

[jlppr]

then why not put SOTS in the second disney rarities along with all the other rare shorts that were msiising from the first volume.

how many are there anyways? where can i find out about the shorts that were produced by disney?

[TheGreatOz]

Wow! UncleEd...tell your pseudo-intellectual brother you've just posted 20% of your Masters' thesis...
and tell him to put it in his pipe and smoke it!

Good post; thoughtful.

[UncleEd]

Thanks, OZ. I should probably go back and fix the spelling errors though. It was late night and my computer was crashing so I wanted to post before I lost it. Anyway, when I was in college for my final paper in my History of the 60’s class I wrote a 35 page paper on Song of the South and Walt’s race relations. The professor was one of those PC NAACP guys who had chosen an African name because his born name was his “slave name”. But he gave me an A on the paper. That episode proved to me that if you can present any controversial material in the right way then you can win anybody over.


I’d like to add that when Song of the South does come to DVD that maybe Floyd Norman should be prominent on it like Don Hahn, Eric Goldberg, and others have been dominant on Platinum titles of classics. The reason being is he worked with Walt, he was one of the first black animators ever, he defends Walt on accusations of being a racist, and he has an affection for the film. This guy would be the ideal Disney employee to present the bonus features but Disney would never think to use him. And read his article on how he did a Bre’r Rabbit Christmas comic in the 70’s and 80’s and had to prove that the film wasn’t offensive to black people.


John Lasseter should be part of that grass roots campaign I mentioned too. As a lover of vintage Disney and all animation I’m sure he’d support releasing the film. We just have to make these people aware of our efforts. If they know enough people want it they’d surely answer our requests. But If this film is seen as a powder keg now, it will be upgraded to a nuclear explosion if Obama is elected President. I’m telling ya, if that happens before Song of the South comes to DVD we’ll be waiting years before Disney even considers releasing it again.


I also forgot to mention that the actor who played Uncle Remus was the first black man to win an Oscar. Doesn’t that mean anything? My black college professor actually spit in the face of every black Oscar win because of the kinds of roles they were for but once he read my paper he supported the Uncle Remus win, which he was unaware of prior to that.

[UncleEd]

First, I suggest you read my posts in the Disney Treasures Thread.


Secondly, if you think the media raised a fuss over Passion of the Christ, wait till you see what they'd do on Song of the South. To this day they gleefully go after Mel Gibson on anything and several actors attack him and say he doesn't deserve forgiveness yet they forgive people who do the same things as Mel all the time and even stuff much worse. It's a double standard and no matter how much noise and snubbing the media, celebrities, and Hollywood brass did to Mel and continue to do, peopl still went to see the movie. It's one of the most successful films ever released. People wanted to see the film and Hollywood and the media were dumbfounded.


You have to understand the way Hollywood works now. Ever since the 1970's the sweeping way to do things is the filmmakers make the films they WANT To make and if people don't want to see them then screw the audience. THey're just simpletons anyway. I'm not exagerating, whenever these film makers get a camera on them they always act like they're the smartest people in the room. Many of them get into political areas as if their experience as an actor or a film maker makes them an authority on social and political issues. I think the reason is they want to feel validated and that leads me to my next point.


The Oscars used to be an award given to the greatest films of the year. Look at the kinds of films that used to win and get nominated. Now look at what wins and gets nominated today. With rare exception, the majority of films are ones that do poorlky at the box office but have some poltical or social message that makes Hollywood feel good. They have to validate why they make a movie that no one wants to see so they nominate them for wards and try to give them some prestiege because the audience has rejected them. How else can you explain the pattern of the nominations in recent years? The year of Passion of the Christ it wasn't even nominated and I think the winner that year was Brokeback Mountain and a film about a woman who aborted babies was also nominated. Brokeback didn't even get a surge in business when it was nominated. Could it be that the majority of people didn't care for the subject matter? Yes, I know that's not PC to say but explain to me why a film about gay cowboys that the media says we should see and praises to high Heaven and wins all kinds of awards barely makes it to 100 million domestic gross and a film they bash to bits like Passion of the Christ cleared 125 million in its first 5 days of release?


But the politics of Hollywood all play a part in why Song of the South has been shuttered a way for so long and why it continues to be locked up with it's release becoming less and less likely each year. By the way, does anyone else not find it ironic that a theme in Song of the South is that Uncle Remus' stories are supposed to be harmful to children and that is the excuse that this film has not been released in decades?


We had to watch Schindier's List in 8th grade and I didn't care for it at the time. I haven't watched it since though. THe reason I didn't like it is they touted up ythat this was a film about the Jews andthe Holocaust but it focused more on the Nazis and a lot of fictionalization and needless sexual content. I was more offended that the school made 14 year olds watch a film with graphic nudity than any of the horrors of the JEws. That stuff is historic and we should never forget. I felt that in dramtizing the story they just put stuff in to put it in if it happened or not. Even though I"m against censorship sometimes I think that the Hayes office wasn't such a bad thing because it FORCED film makers to think of ways to get around the code. Now that they can show anything they can and do just because they can. But no one is going to go after Schiendler's List because it has a reputation of being a benevolent film on the Holocaust. While it does play a part, that is not the only thing in that film and high chool students should be watching it, just as they shouldn't be watching any films with nudity or content. See, you don't NEED that stuff in the film to make it a good film and it degrades a film to me when they do stuff like that. That's all I"m saying.

[2099net]

To UncleEd

Woah there tiger! There's a lot in that post I don't agree with. Some of its political, but on the whole:

People do not make the movies that they want with a "screw the audience" mentality. For every filmmaker who has made a movie the way they wanted, I'm sure I could name 3 or 4 who's vision was seriously compromised - mainly to attain a higher audience and therefore profit.

All of the films you mentioned happened to be "low budget" movies, which means the size of the audience is not so important. Even The Passion of the Christ was a small, low budget picture - for much the same reasons (which in the end, all the studios who passed on the film obviously regretted doing so).

As for the Oscars, well, generally the films that they pick are good films, though I wouldn't go as far as say that they're the best. And that's because - well, there's more drama as well as human truth in a film about an back-street abortionist, love which society forbids, or euthanasia. Wars films and biographies have traditionally done well at the Oscars too, for the same reason.

You don't have to agree with the films, but there's certainly more scope for plot and interaction in these films (or similar) than a feel-good romantic comedy (for example).

Now, far be it for me to upset you (and I'll admit, I've never seen the movie), but was The Passion of the Christ actually a good movie? When a lot of the movie is taken up with showing torture? I have no intention of seeing this movie, and I personally do not think it deserves an Oscar (just like I didn't think Silence of the Lambs did, but that's another, but similar, issue)

Now as for Song of the South, I think the best example you could give is Dogma. When Miramax, a subsidiary of Walt Disney, wanted to make Kevin Smith's film, they were picketed, slandered in the media, Kevin Smith and Miramax employees even received death threats! All before anyone complaining had seen the film or read the screenplay. One of the issues the protesters brought up frequently to spark media interest was that "Disney" a "family" company was looking to invest and release a blasphemous film. The name "Disney" was the important issue – notice how hardly any of the media covered The Da Vinchi Code protests.

And I was surprised Constantine from Warner Bros. (a film, even though I am not religious I thought could easily be taken as more offensive or blasphemous as the previous two films I mentioned put together) got away without major complaints. I'm sure had Constantine been a Disney film, all heck would have broken loose.

And that's what Disney is up against – it has (rightly or wrongly) a reputation of being a family centered business. And while offshoots like Touchstone and Miramax for the most part do successfully divert people's attention off the Disney brand and allow "adult" releases, Song of the South would be Disney branded, and something that would - in all probability - be an ideal foot into the door for anyone who wanted to complain and present their views to the media.

Oddly, I think that One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing is a racist film – not only does it have Western actors "yellowing up" but accents and stereotypes are played just for laughs, something nobody could accuse Song of the South of. Yet OoODiM is readily available without a hint on controversy.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

His basic argument was that if one black person is offended then it's racist. It doesn't matter if it really is or not, the history behind it, or anything. It only matters if people think it's racist.

I'm sorry - this is quite terrible in my opinion - and as far as I understand you've also described the core of the whole SotS problem. This reasoning makes it legitimate for anyone to say they don't like it and claim they're offended - and make it "count" in the debate. That way anyone is basically allowed to be entirely emotional and make sure there'll never be a clear-headed debate. Certainly not my concept of critical thinking and totally unworthy of an academic.

Or... is he going to make a point there are different rules for different colours in an "academic" debate?

[ramapith]

"Was that directed at me?"

Just great, guys.
Our one chance at a serious thread about saving the Disney Treasures—the future of which is still clearly uncertain—and we've completely blown it. Even efforts to get the discussion back on track have failed in the face of everyone's angry defenses.
Evidently, some element within Disney wishes to shelve the Treasures line. Regardless or not of whether this element is presently on the winning side of the struggle, I imagine they are surely thrilled to see this thread degenerate into name-calling about an unrelated subject.

Song of the South absolutely merits the time you're spending to discuss it, but in a different thread— please!
Okay, fire when ready. I guess I asked for it.[/b]

[UncleEd]

I don't expect everyone to agree with me but there is still a lot of truth in what I"m saying.


Many directors do indeed make movies just the way they want to with the screw the audience attitude. Yeah, there are some who get studios telling them what to do but in those cases they are lesser known directors and their films are usually not political in nature.


I had a film making friend who is not a Christian and he saw Passion of the CHrist and he raved to me how great a film it is. I think that people who dismiss it as a film that is just a guy being tortured for 90 minutes without even seeing it are just proving my point about the media labeling this film so no one would see it. It is a fact that no mainstream studio would make the film because they said no one would watch a Bible or Jesus movie. So Mel ponied up 30-45 million (depending on where you read) of his own money and made it himself. He was sneered and jeered in Hollywood but in the end he was laughing all the way to the bank. By the way, I wouldn't call that a low budget movie.

It is also a fact that when the Academy ran the screenings for Passion of the Christ very few people attended. It actually had the lowest attendance of any voter screening in the history of the Oscars. No one wanted to be seen at this film screening. So how can you dismiss a film without even seeing it? That is what the Oscars does and more and more in recent years.


I wouldn't call human truth being the factor why stories about back alley abortion, Euthanasia, and homosexuals being the reason these films are nominated for awards and in many cases sweep them. The films are geared to validate views that scociety has rejected as the norm and trying to get a sympathy "vote" in changing the real views of society. "Oh, look at how sad it is that two cowboys can't betogether in our opressive society", "Isn't it sad that this woman has to suffer with illness, lets kill her", "This bacxk alley abortionist was just trying to do what she thought best, let's let her off." That is the message of these films. They are misinformation designed to change the views of society and shame people into accepting the views that the film maker has presented. Anyone can polish a film to be well made but it still can be propaganda in the end and that's what these films that are nominated are designed to be. They aren't designed to be good films, they're designed to be political stements to sway opinions. When people don't go and seethem they have to validate why they keep making them to the studio execs so they protect their own andcircle the wagons to nominate these films for wards. There were plenty of films in past years about the human condition that won Oscars that were not political propaganda.


Like it or not, Hollywood does push an agenda and in recent years they have been getting more and more blatant about it. I"m not one of those people who looks for hidden meanings in everything but this attitude from Hollywood personalities is as plain as the nose on my face.


There are some Christians and Thelogians I know who love Dogma. One pastor gave everyone the Buddy Jesus that year as a Christmas gift even though in the film it was a negative thing. Disney has gotten in trouble a few times releasing contrversial subject matter under its aliases. I remember there was a big to do about a film called Powder but I forget the details. And who can forget the much adu about nothing with Esmeralda's dance in Hunchback. There's nothing sexual about it in the least.


There was a bit of media coverage on the Da Vinchi Code and the commentators had the attitude of "Well, this is retalioation for the "racist" Passion of the Christ.


Constantine was under the radar. That's why there were no protests.


Is One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing on DVD? I have never seen that but always wanted to.

[2099net]

Re: One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing

Its available in the UK, and was licenced to Anchor Bay when they released their other Disney titles, such as Watcher in the Woods and The Black Hole.

As far as I know, unlike other Anchor Bay licenced titles, its not been re-released by BVHE in the US... yet.