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

[UncleEd]

In my experience achedemics and people who claim to be open minded are some of the closed minded people I've come across. Yeah, that is a poltical hing to say but you have to examine the politics of why Song of the South is censored. But many "open minded" people I've met use the old "If one person is offended then it's wrong" arguement in nearly all aspects of life. This only applies to some minority ethnic and racial groups though. There can be one racial/ethnic/minority group offended by something and these people won't say boo or even laugh along at the joke but if it's the right racial/ethnic/minority group they'll declare war on the offender.

Since the "right" people are offended with Song of the South they have enough clout to scare Disney. I hold the attitude that we're all adults, we can decide for ourselves but others would rather protect us from supposedly offensive historic material rather than confronting it, examining it and decide for ourselves. Disney isn't forcing anyone to see Song of the South if they release it. They aren't even forcing them to buy it. When I know about something I won't/don't like I just don't look. People who are offended shouldn't buy it. Disney should listen to Jiminey Cricket when he says "Well, you can't please everybody".


I bet if they release Song of the South Rosie O'Donell will go after them. I heard today she said that Snickers should be sued over their Super Bowel commercial because it will cause violence against gays. Then she showed the ad. I thought it was a dumb commercial but I don't see how that will cause violence against gays. Snickers pulled the ad later today. If a Snickers ad can create that much contraversy I imagine Song of the South would be like opening the gates of Hell on Disney.

[TheGreatOz]

I heard today she said that Snickers should be sued over their Super Bowel commercial because it will cause violence against gays. Then she showed the ad. I thought it was a dumb commercial but I don't see how that will cause violence against gays. Snickers pulled the ad later today.

I luv ya' UncleEd, but now we really will need a GPS to find the thread again.

Bring Back The Treasures!

[darth_deetoo]

"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]

Not quite sure where the name calling is, but might comment did elicit that response, and no, it wasn't directed at the person who posted that - it was directed at Big Disney Fan.

I don't see what the big deal has been about discussing Song of the South. The potential cancellation of the Treasures has pretty much run it's course until any new information comes to light. If any does, feel free to drag the thread back on topic. But having said that, the thread title originally was about the next wave of treasures - not the cancellation.

Speculation on a release of Song of the South as a treasure seems perfectly on topic to me. But now we're getting off topic by discussing whether the topic is staying on topic or not or whether we're straying into the domain of other topics. It's all a bit topical for me.

[slave2moonlight]

Anyone who argues against the release of "Song of the South," or any other film really, is on the same level as a book burner, in my opinion. This film is part of history and needs to be accepted in that context. It's about the same as folks saying the holocaust never happened. I'm not saying there aren't some books that we wouldn't be better off burning, but who is to say which? "Our" governments have enough restrictions on us as it is. Everyone would have different selections, which is why the general consensus seems to be to keep them all around and not read something if we don't like it. That's how movies should be treated too.

Now, I can agree with some things UncleEd has said, but I think some of them are wrong and even contradictory. First, it's the independent films that are usually made by directors doing what they want and not worrying about a reaction. Yes, such films often have an agenda, and if it is an agenda that Hollywood agrees with, they do give those movies praise and awards. UncleEd is 100 percent correct that Hollywood and the media have certain agendas, and there are certain things it doesn't like. Hollywood is NOT a big fan of Christianity, and that has more to do with "Passion" getting snubbed in so many ways than anything else. I feel bad for folks who saw the film, religious or not, and saw nothing but a 2 hour (or however long it was) beating, and then call themselves film lovers. There was a lot more to this film than that. The parts that left a stronger impression on me were the scenes about Jesus's relationship with his mother, and the depiction of Satan. Those who would say the film isn't Oscar worthy without having seen it, well, that's ridiculous no matter what film you're discussing.

And, when I talked about Hollywood above, I was speaking more about the celebs and the award givers. The studios have one agenda: To make big bucks. That is why they are supposedly getting into the religious film business now, after Passion did so well, hoping to please such movie goers. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, as big movie studios in the past haven't seemed to have a very clear understanding of things from the religious person's point of view. And, they will probably have to tread very shaky ground so as not to offend the Hollywood royalty. You probably won't be seeing big names in these sorts of films. But, as for director's having control over their movies, I don't think that's very often the case when working for the big studios. That's why we see so much of the same stuff coming from them. It's all about the money.

As for Mel, I feel bad for him. He made a movie many people love, but he got thrashed for it because some folks got a certain impression from it. I saw the film, and I never once got the idea that he was blaming any certain group for the death of Jesus. I tend to think that was either the result of some viewers being overly sensitive, looking for something to dislike about the film in other words, or Hollywood's agenda to ruin a film and filmmaker because of his Christian views. So, later on, Mel gets busted for drunk driving. Okay, that's something I cannot support him on. You could almost call that attempted murder. That's like firing a gun off into a crowd. Still, how many celebs have gotten busted for that? But, what else? Mel apparently let loose with a ton of racist dialogue during the arrest. That was bad. Very bad. However, I am not going to be as hard on him as most people seem to be after the incident. Why? Because how hard did the media go after him after Passion of the Christ, trying to make him out to be antisemitic, even dragging out words from his father and trying to use them to get Mel into trouble? Maybe Mel really is antisemitic and has the same crazy ideas as his father. However, there's a fair chance he was tired of people calling him antisemitic because he made a Jesus movie, and, in a drunken condition, snapped and angrily vented nonsense. Neither scenario is very appealing, but hopefully it was the second one, and I can't claim to know which. If he had been sober, it would have been easier to tell.

[reyquila]

Or of course the word Gay, which meant "happy", which since became a derogatory word for homosexuals (but has since been reclimed by homosexuals, and is no longer derogatory in most instances).

The word gay didn't keep Disney from releaseing Cinderella which the fairy godmother says, "Be gay!" when Cinderella was leaving for the ball. It's surprising there wasn't controversy (Fall, 2005) over that. People...

The word gay is also used in Pinnochio!!

[merlinjones]

Check out my essay: "In Defense of Walt Disney's Uncle Remus" (originally published on SaveDisney.com) at songofthesouth.net (a great site!):

http://songofthesouth.net/news/archives ... fense.html

>>Though the film has been labelled "insensitive" or worse... "racist"... I see it as quite the opposite: a reaffirming story of the bond between two friends that refuse to be separated by race, class, age -- a friendship that is forged and held against all odds. A tale of unity.<<

[UncleEd]

But Oz, I was using Rosie as an example of the environment we live in today. So it wasn’t really off topic.


Slave - Yes, I’m with ya on that. These people who want to hide films like Song of the South are nothing more than book burners. I’d like to see a warners short called Coal Black and de seben dwarves but I bet chances are slim to none it will ever be released. (This film is an all black parody of Disney’s Snow White. From what I’ve read the animators went to Harlem to study the black community and saw it more of a celebration of that community than a slam.) On this note, I’d like to add something I told my brother in our debate. If you take a tooned up caricature and make him a white guy no one cares but if you make him black or Chinese then it’s a racial stereotype or racist cartoon character. This is yet another double standard. If you caricature anyone of a race of course some ethnic features will be caricatured. I bet if a white guy had drawn Fat Albert & the Cosby Kids then that would be considered a racist cartoon.



I think a lot of mainstream directors are pushing political agendas in their films just as much as the independent guys. People like Spielberg, James Cameron, Quinton Terrentino, Clint Eastwood, and other “big name” directors are all guilty of making films to shape public opinion. How many remember Spielberg announcing he was doing a film on Lincoln being a racist around the year 2000. Then 9/11 happened and he shelved it. Now the film is back on track again. Tim Burton even ended Planet of the Apes the way he did to make a political statement. What happened to the days when films were just entertaining and when they did contain a message it was still entertaining and not preachy (like the original Twilight Zone. And why the new Twilight Zone failed. They were too in your face political in tone when Rod Serling was more subtle.)


I did mention that the studios only care about profits and that’s why these films no one wants to see win awards. It justifies why the studio put all this money into it. Yes, I have read about the recent surge in religious films coming down the pike as a result of Passion’s success but this won’t mean much if they don’t understand why people went to see the Passion. I’m sure they lump Divichi Code as a religious film even though lots of Christians boycotted it. Here is what I’m saying though. Did anyone see that TV remake of 10 Commandments on ABC last year? The theme of the film was to question is the God of the Jews is a cruel God or not. AS far as I know the film didn’t get a huge audience. Now compare that version with the DEMill version. Sure he takes some liberties with the Bible but the film was entertaining. The remake had some gory scenes that I bet were put in because some exec said “Well, the Passion was gory so that must be why it was a success” Just because Bible pictures are not in fashion doesn’t mean they’ll be good films. I’m sure a gem or two may appear but I’m anticipating a lot of garbage in that pile. By the way, how well did The Nativity Story do? I didn’t se it myself but it looked well made. I wondered if it was a success or not.


I was by no means saying Mel deserved a pass for his actions. What I was saying is the media and other celebrities came down hard on Mel but they forgive others for doing the same things he did. How many times have Nicole Richie, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton been busted for DUI or drugs? Look at how fast Kramer’s comments were let go. (To me that smelled like a set up but that’s another story) To this day they still bring up Mel as being unforgivable. Even the idiots will say things and not get how stupid they sound. Rob Schneider made the comment he would never work with Mel on Passion of the Christ 2 but he would on a comedy. First of all, that is the stupidest thing he’s ever said. AS if there would be a Passion of the Christ 2. Secondly, look at the films Rob Schneider makes. They are by far much more offensive than anything in the Passion of the Christ.


The reason a lot of people too offense with Passion wasn’t because they were sensitive. To me it looked more like the Media was exploiting a history of Catholics persecuting Jews over the crucifixion in centuries prior and they applied that to the film. Yes, some of the people who killed Christ were Jews but they themselves are guilty, not a whole group of people. I don’t see how anyone on either side can make that claim. It’s exactly like those black people who blame all white people for slavery today. And that is the baggage Song of the South carries with it. The reputation others have laid upon this film. But all of this stuff is connected and I think this is the first time I”ve ever been part of a discussion that has examined the political side of Hollywood playing a part in the release of Song of the South. Without a doubt some people won’t see the connection or not want to address these issues but I think it’s a big part of why this film stays hidden in the Disney Vault.

[UncleEd]

" primarily the whole "red man" thing on Peter Pan (as well as the insanely jealous women, hence why I pretty much hate Tinkerbell) and the portrayal of slaves in Gone with the Wind. "


I didn't see this in the Treasures thread and since no one have given the official Disney answer I will. The reason why Peter Pan's indiands are okay and song of the south is not is because they are Neverland Indians so they can be red. This sounds like BS to me but iat least it kept the film unedited. This was an official statement made by Disney when asked about the Petr Pan Indians at a time when Indians in the shorts were being cut, like in Wind Wagon Smith.


The reason Gone with the WInd remains unaltered is because it's Ted Turner's favorite movie. It's why he bought the MGM library. Ted Turner has the guts to say no to the PC crowd too. He gets it in film preservation now. Disney should learn from him in how to care for and release their library.


It was also suggested by someone that James Baskett getting a special award had some racial prejidice behind it. That is not the case. He won this award 2 years after the film's release and due to Walt's lobbying. It was common place back then for actor's and films to get special awards other the the recognized category's. (Walt really got that one for Snow White because of this practice. Today he still would have gotten one for advancing technology. Judy Garland also got a special munchkin Oscar for being in Wizard of OZ.) Baskett was awarded for being the embodiment of Uncle Remus. That is better than a yearly award because it's good every year. He IS Uncle Remus and will always be. His performance was so great it was above the standard categories. That is why he got a special award.

[slave2moonlight]

I’d like to see a warners short called Coal Black and de seben dwarves but I bet chances are slim to none it will ever be released. (This film is an all black parody of Disney’s Snow White. From what I’ve read the animators went to Harlem to study the black community and saw it more of a celebration of that community than a slam.)

Yes, I've seen Coal Black. Very interesting take. I wouldn't share the opinion that such a film is not racist, but it IS history, and that's why I don't believe in hiding it. Besides, such caricatures are so exaggerated and extreme, so downright ridiculous, that it is almost hard not to find them humorous, even when we know better. Look at a program like Chappelle's Show. It is an absolutely hilarious program, even though probably MOST of the humor deals with racism and stereotypes. The truth is, stereotypes can be quite funny when viewed from a certain point of view. What people used to laugh at in a racist way, we often find funny today because it is so absurd. But, there is a double standard when it comes to what is tolerated. Hollywood is all about double standards though.

I think a lot of mainstream directors are pushing political agendas in their films just as much as the independent guys. People like Spielberg, James Cameron, Quinton Terrentino, Clint Eastwood, and other “big name” directors are all guilty of making films to shape public opinion. How many remember Spielberg announcing he was doing a film on Lincoln being a racist around the year 2000. Then 9/11 happened and he shelved it. Now the film is back on track again. Tim Burton even ended Planet of the Apes the way he did to make a political statement. What happened to the days when films were just entertaining and when they did contain a message it was still entertaining and not preachy (like the original Twilight Zone. And why the new Twilight Zone failed. They were too in your face political in tone when Rod Serling was more subtle.)

Of course, main stream directors have their agendas too, but they get away with them in two ways: 1. If they have to, they can make a film on their own, if they're rich enough. And 2. Their agendas are usually agendas Hollywood supports, so the studios they are working for allow it.

Where I felt you were contradicting yourself was by coming down on Hollywood for making agenda films, and then lifting up Mel for doing the same thing. Like I think I said before, most people trying to express themselves have an agenda. The important thing to point out is that if your agenda is different from Hollywood's you will have a hard time of it. Anyway, discussions like this always make me think back on Dean Jones, and how, when he became a Christian, he was blacklisted in Hollywood for many years. At least, that's his story, and I find it very believable, because I've heard similar ones.

I did mention that the studios only care about profits and that’s why these films no one wants to see win awards. It justifies why the studio put all this money into it. Yes, I have read about the recent surge in religious films coming down the pike as a result of Passion’s success but this won’t mean much if they don’t understand why people went to see the Passion. I’m sure they lump Divichi Code as a religious film even though lots of Christians boycotted it. Here is what I’m saying though. Did anyone see that TV remake of 10 Commandments on ABC last year? The theme of the film was to question is the God of the Jews is a cruel God or not. AS far as I know the film didn’t get a huge audience. Now compare that version with the DEMill version. Sure he takes some liberties with the Bible but the film was entertaining. The remake had some gory scenes that I bet were put in because some exec said “Well, the Passion was gory so that must be why it was a success” Just because Bible pictures are not in fashion doesn’t mean they’ll be good films. I’m sure a gem or two may appear but I’m anticipating a lot of garbage in that pile. By the way, how well did The Nativity Story do? I didn’t se it myself but it looked well made. I wondered if it was a success or not.

Yes, they do seem to lump DaVinci Code in as one of the new religious films out of Hollywood. At least, the media seems to, which I agree is totally ridiculous. Be careful not to think everyone wants to see the same sorts of movies you want to see though. I don't think the case is that no one wants to see the movies that are winning Oscars, but it doesn't strike me that they are appealing to the majority of movie goers. Yes, Hollywood does try to change that because these films fit their agenda, but I still say most of these types of films are probably indie films. Anyways, I agree, Hollywood in general doesn't know how to make religious films today it seems, with the rare exception. Prince of Egypt was excellent, I enjoyed Passion, and the Nativity was simply wonderful (and I believe it was a big success, though I can't say I know for sure, but I thought I read that somewhere). But, when you have mostly non-religious folk making or overseeing religious films, well, I will be surprised if they know how to go about it. I didn't see the Ten Commandments you mentioned, but that NBC/Hallmark film on Noah's Ark was an absolute joke.

I was by no means saying Mel deserved a pass for his actions. What I was saying is the media and other celebrities came down hard on Mel but they forgive others for doing the same things he did. How many times have Nicole Richie, Lindsey Lohan, and Paris Hilton been busted for DUI or drugs? Look at how fast Kramer’s comments were let go. (To me that smelled like a set up but that’s another story) To this day they still bring up Mel as being unforgivable. Even the idiots will say things and not get how stupid they sound. Rob Schneider made the comment he would never work with Mel on Passion of the Christ 2 but he would on a comedy. First of all, that is the stupidest thing he’s ever said. AS if there would be a Passion of the Christ 2. Secondly, look at the films Rob Schneider makes. They are by far much more offensive than anything in the Passion of the Christ.

Oh, I didn't mean that you were saying that, but since Mel had been brought up, I felt like saying a few words about him. He has been demonized lately, and while I find drinking and driving absolutely despicable, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of drinkers out there have driven before while not totally sober. But I still understand folks being totally angry at him about that. There is no excuse for it, but to make a bigger deal out of it for one person than another is ridiculous. No, I wasn't defending him on that point really. It's the way he's been demonized and turned into this Nazi character by the media. It would be one thing if that had happened only after he spewed out ethnic slurs in a drunken rage, but that wasn't the case. They started off calling Mel a Nazi just because of Passion of the Christ. It was all over the place, and all I'm saying is that it wouldn't surprise me to find out that all that name calling eventually got to Mel. I'm just saying that, on the subject of whether or not he truly is antisemitic, I'm not convinced that he is yet, when it's possible he was just sick of being called one for no solid reason. Kramer is a different story. I have never had any respect for hecklers. I just don't get that and feel people who do that should be thrown out of any club immediately. However, Kramer just busted out with the racist stuff outta nowhere, sober as far as I know, and that was just bizarre. I have my share of conspiracy theories, but I don't see a motive there. Also, I wouldn't say that Kramer has been forgiven for his outburst already. I still see him flashed on the news everytime they show Mel Gibson too. As for Rob Schneider, I think he was just making a joke if he said that.

[UncleEd]

That article makes a lot of great points. I wish Disney would take it to heart.


I haven’t seen Coal Black so I can’t say if it’s racist or not. But I will say I do find that a lot of the black caricatures in the cartoons not to be racist. In the Silly Symphony set I found most of their appearances to either be pro black or as a tribute. Like in Santa’s Workshop you have the gag where he’s stamping the Southern Belle dolls as they come down the chute. Then the black doll comes down, does a summer salt, and stamps herself. The black characters always have a soulful rhythm to them too like the Mammy doll in the Toys short. I don’t see these as negative characters any more than I would see a period W.C. Fields character as being negative to whites or drunks. Sometimes a joke is just a joke and a character is just a character and there was no ill intent behind it.


I have a friend who works in the comic book industry and he has been championing the release of controversial films like Song of the South and he told me that back when he was growing up he worked in the mills with lots of ethnic groups and they all picked on each other but they knew when it was in fun and when it was meant derogatory. You can tell the difference. He said today people offend too easily and back then it was just the way people were and no one thought twice about it. If someone was going to play rough with it then they got it back rough right back. But they all got along and took care of each other. I think our country has lost this melding pot idea and there are groups at work in our land who try to divide us so they can stay in operation. It’s always the same people stirring things up and the media throws the spotlight on them. I bet if these guys shut up or were ignored then people would get along better. Notice the stories are always the same “We’ve come this far but we have a long way to go.” Bill Cosby called that for what it is and they flamed him for it. I think he was right though.


The reason I don’t see Mel as pushing an agenda is because he just made a film based on the crucifixion whereas the other directors with agendas I was referring to have made films that make a judgment call on morality or social issues as being right or wrong. Mel just presented a story that some people believe to be the foundation of their religious beliefs but he doesn’t try to belittle you if you don’t believe it to be true. Do you still find it to be a double standard on my part?


You know, Dean Jones has always struck me as a decent guy. I have heard his story before but I never understood if Disney persecuted him in the 70’s or if Disney was the only place that would give him a job. Do you happen to know? But he’s one of the few Disney alumni still alive I’d love to meet.


To my knowledge none of the directors I mentioned have made their agenda films on their own. They have always had studio support. I was just saying that the agenda Hollywood film makers support isn’t always the kinds of things people want to see. And yes, I was wrong in saying no one wants to see these movies but far less seem to than any number of other films. I think some of the Disney animated “bombs” made less money than some of these films have but because they are Disney animated features they are still regarded as bombs but these other films are given some prestige by media and Hollywood so thy get a much more favorable light. I know some of the films awrere independent but it still reeks of double standard to me.


I by no means was suggesting that Hollywood should only be making preachy “Ned Flanders” kinds of religious films. I can’t stand those! Prince of Egypt was a great film. The original 10 Commandments was a great film. Neither were preachy. Passion of the Christ wasn’t preachy. Most of the “great” ones aren’t. I was just using an example with the 10 Commandments because you have one version that got it right and one that got it horribly wrong. From a strictly money/business standpoint, if Christians really are the majority of film goers who go to films like Passion and Nativity Story then I would assume these people wouldn’t go to a “religious” film that attacks or questions their faith like the remake 10 Commandments did. (I don’t include Divinchi Code because it’s not a religious film) To me that 10 Commandments remake felt like whoever wrote it HATED the fact that there are people who believe this stuff so they wanted to attack God and the story. I’m sure others felt that too since I haven’t heard anything about it since it aired.


I didn’t mention that Noah’s Ark film because no one seems to remember it. I saw it the one time it aired and I remember all the comedians lampooning it. (For those of you who haven’t seen this it was humorous because at one point pirates attacked Noah’s Ark!) The joke Jay Leno used was something like “Someone is going to burn for this” It was just one of those typical NBC Hallmark epic mini series but they were really weird with this. IT was like Noah’s sons were Shadrack, Meshack, and Abendigo, they lived in Soddam & Gammorah and Noah’s buddy was Lot and Carol Kane played Lot’s wife. And when she becomes a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and wears it around his neck. I also remember that on the ark Noah’s wife, played by Mary Steinbergen, went insane and chased her family around with a knife. But when hose pirates attacked the ark I just thought it was hilarious. If it had been another time and TRIED to be campy it could have been an Irwin Allen or Sid & Marty Kroft film.



I think your theory on why Mel snapped makes sense. I’ve never heard that idea before. Personally I don’t see how anyone claiming to be a Christian could hate Jews and be anti-Semitic since their religion is built on Judaism and Jews. I caught a show on National Geographic last night saying that Christians are only nice to Jews to bring about the end times. To me that is a “racist” statement (even though these are religions and not races) yet they made it. My theory on Kramer is that these guys were heckling him and he tried to belittle them, as all comics are supposedly trained to do, he just went about it the wrong way. Why I said he was possibly set up is because I wonder what these guys are doing egging him on in the first place and in the end they wanted paid a few million dollars for a settlement because they were offended. Now, that is what got my attention. Why should anyone be entitled to a few million dollars just because they heckled a guy and he called them some racial slurs? If this held water every steal mill in America would be dolling out money.

[Escapay]

I haven’t seen Coal Black so I can’t say if it’s racist or not.

Here ya go.

WARNING:

This cartoon will offend. Click at your own risk.

Escapay

[2099net]

Again, I say, films about social "issues" do tend to make better films than light romantic comedies, police procedural thrillers or hack and slash horror films. That's just the way it is. It’s the same for books. All of the great authors have written about society and politics (in the true sense of the word – human interaction) and commented upon the subject of their writings. Jayne Austin, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens... the list goes on and on. And yes, people like Dickens used their work to try and influence the world. Dickens wrote a lot about poverty and child labour for example.

Most of these are probably leaning towards the left, but generally most artistic or creative people do lean towards the left. That's just the way of the world, and judging by historic works, always has been.

Spielberg has made lots of films, but he's also made ones with different social political messages. What links The Color Purple to Catch Me If You Can? Or Schindler's List to Always? Apart from the fact that they're all films about human interactions. And then, his companies (Amblin/Dreamworks) between them have made such diverse films as The Money Pit, Gremlins, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Arachnophobia, Casper and Gladiator.

Anyhow moving on…

The reason Mel's arrest and drunken insults were so newsworthy wasn't because the media "hated" Mel, or wanted to knock him down a peg or two as such. It was because it had a good "media spin" – it was, let's face it, an ideal hook for a story. Devoted Catholic Christian who made the Passion of the Christ reveals his "true colours" (notice how I have put the latter in quote marks).

It's just the perfect story for our celebrity obsessed culture today, because it debunks a media myth built up around a celebrity, regardless if this persona pushed by the media in the first place is right or wrong.

Had it been somebody else, it would still have been news, but not pounced on so gleefully by the media.

And as I said before, that's the problem Disney has. It has its own myth, and it has to uphold that myth because it's what keeps it in business. Disney haven't helped Song of the South's reputation by withdrawing it for so long – because now Song of the South as well as Disney has a mythic reputation and many people who don't know better consider it racist… why wouldn't they? Disney refuses to show it, there must be something wrong. (Note however, Song of the South is still seen periodically on UK TV, and I would expect many other countries in the world).

People would find it hard to have a media campaign against Gone With the Wind or Birth of a Nation, for example. Both films are not only classed as cinematic milestones, but are familiar through repeated showings. There's no big "hook" in a story about them. But Song of the South has two hooks, the Disney name and the fact it has been withdrawn from circulation for so long.

Disney has to find a way of releasing Song of the South without letting people hijack the release and the Disney name to push their views onto the media. That said, I don't belittle anyone who does find the film offensive, just as I don't belittle anyone who finds Vera Drake et al offensive. But as has been pointed out, nobody if forcing you to watch the film and in Song of the South's case, there's much worse films to focus on (or better yet real world examples of racism) if that's what you want to do.

[TheGreatOz]

But Oz, I was using Rosie as an example of the environment we live in today. So it wasn’t really off topic.

And...Disney owns The View, so they're luvin' it.

[slave2moonlight]

Again, I say, films about social "issues" do tend to make better films than light romantic comedies, police procedural thrillers or hack and slash horror films. That's just the way it is. It’s the same for books. All of the great authors have written about society and politics (in the true sense of the word – human interaction) and commented upon the subject of their writings. Jayne Austin, Mark Twain, Charles Dickens... the list goes on and on. And yes, people like Dickens used their work to try and influence the world. Dickens wrote a lot about poverty and child labour for example.

Ah, but all those other films are about human interaction/social issues as well, whether intentionally or not. You can't really make a film that isn't, if it involves interaction between characters. Some films, however, are more blunt about the viewpoint they are talking about. More focused on the viewpoint, I guess you could say. Whether or not they make better films is more a matter of opinion. I tend to feel such films are trying to push something down my throat (even when it's something I agree with). They become propaganda to me, and propaganda is only appealing to me when it's historical (or just plain bizarre, though modern propaganda like that can also be a little scary). It's really more a matter of personal taste than anything. Of course, they can definitely make a bigger splash either way, simply because they are more noticeably in support of people's views or against them.

Most of these are probably leaning towards the left, but generally most artistic or creative people do lean towards the left. That's just the way of the world, and judging by historic works, always has been.

Well, this only proves that most successful creative people lean toward the left, and that only reflects the views of those who help to make them successful. But consider how much art, historically, is religious art. Again, this only reflects the views of the commissioner, of course, but religion and the Left aren't exactly great bedfellows.

Spielberg has made lots of films, but he's also made ones with different social political messages. What links The Color Purple to Catch Me If You Can? Or Schindler's List to Always? Apart from the fact that they're all films about human interactions. And then, his companies (Amblin/Dreamworks) between them have made such diverse films as The Money Pit, Gremlins, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Arachnophobia, Casper and Gladiator.

Spielberg is one of those great directors who can do the "social" stuff and still doesn't feel too snooty to do the popcorn stuff. The popcorn stuff has more of a ticket sales guarantee, getting more people to see his "social" stuff because it has his name on it. And, of course, the social stuff has more chance of winning awards.

The reason Mel's arrest and drunken insults were so newsworthy wasn't because the media "hated" Mel, or wanted to knock him down a peg or two as such. It was because it had a good "media spin" – it was, let's face it, an ideal hook for a story. Devoted Catholic Christian who made the Passion of the Christ reveals his "true colours" (notice how I have put the latter in quote marks).

It's just the perfect story for our celebrity obsessed culture today, because it debunks a media myth built up around a celebrity, regardless if this persona pushed by the media in the first place is right or wrong.

Had it been somebody else, it would still have been news, but not pounced on so gleefully by the media.

Well, you're forgetting the point of my theory. The media was trashing Mel as antisemitic long before the DWI incident. It was "The Passion" where it all started. More importantly than the news folks, the more Hollywood type folks were doing so. TV shows of all kinds. That's what shows a desire by Hollywood to take this man down. Though his actions were totally wrong and I have no doubt the news folks loved the fact that it was a story with a great hook, that doesn't make it any less plausible.

And as I said before, that's the problem Disney has. It has its own myth, and it has to uphold that myth because it's what keeps it in business. Disney haven't helped Song of the South's reputation by withdrawing it for so long – because now Song of the South as well as Disney has a mythic reputation and many people who don't know better consider it racist… why wouldn't they? Disney refuses to show it, there must be something wrong. (Note however, Song of the South is still seen periodically on UK TV, and I would expect many other countries in the world).

I agree about Song of the South, and it's amazing to me (and quite offensive) that they show it in other countries and not here.

[slave2moonlight]

The reason I don’t see Mel as pushing an agenda is because he just made a film based on the crucifixion whereas the other directors with agendas I was referring to have made films that make a judgment call on morality or social issues as being right or wrong. Mel just presented a story that some people believe to be the foundation of their religious beliefs but he doesn’t try to belittle you if you don’t believe it to be true. Do you still find it to be a double standard on my part?

Well, by having an agenda, I mean more along the lines of having an idea, a point you are trying to get across. I don't feel Mel simply wanted to make a religious picture. He was expressing his feelings about his beliefs, showing things he felt were important so that others could see and think about them. He had his agenda, but he wasn't pushing it down people's throats because he is just one man making movies. I know what you mean about Hollywood. "Hollywood," in terms of the film industry and those who control it, or at least TRY to control it, seem to have a definite agenda, one that could simply be called "far left," but it's more than that I think, and, yes, they do seem to be trying to say "you should be ashamed of yourself if your beliefs differ from ours." It's a meaner, more agressive agenda. However, many Christians take a similar stance from the opposite side. But what Hollywood often does in their anti-Christian movement is try to demonize all Christians, trying to say they all are judgemental like that. They do it by promoting movies, often independent ones, that push anti-Christian viewpoints and generally make Christians look bad. Take the movie "Jesus Camp," which focuses on some really crazy Christians. People see this movie, especially the ones already with negative feelings about Christians, and come out really hating us. In other words, they perpetuate stereotypes to support their agenda. Basically, it's propaganda. A little scary, in fact. It's building up, and there will eventually come a time that those of us who are old-school Christians may have a good reason to be afraid in public... There's still a desire to milk us for our money though, so they are starting these little divisions to make "Christian films," and hopefully we will keep our eyes on those and not notice all the Jesus Camps being released around us in the meantime. I doubt the religious film divisions will last long though, but who knows.

You know, Dean Jones has always struck me as a decent guy. I have heard his story before but I never understood if Disney persecuted him in the 70’s or if Disney was the only place that would give him a job. Do you happen to know? But he’s one of the few Disney alumni still alive I’d love to meet.

Always been one of my favorite Disney guys. All I remember hearing is that Walt didn't really want to discuss religion with him, and I forget if he said he had been blacklisted by Disney as well. I don't know.

Personally I don’t see how anyone claiming to be a Christian could hate Jews and be anti-Semitic since their religion is built on Judaism and Jews. I caught a show on National Geographic last night saying that Christians are only nice to Jews to bring about the end times. To me that is a “racist” statement (even though these are religions and not races) yet they made it.

It's totally contradictory, but I'm sorry to say that many of my fellow Christians are pretty screwed up. In fact, a lot of the more popular ideas I don't agree with or find questionable. At the heart of our religion should be a love for everybody, no matter what they believe or even do, and how anyone can miss that message is beyond me. As for that program you mentioned seeing, I've seen some like that, maybe even that one, and it is just another step in the media (and other groups) trying to demonize Christians.

As for Kramer, it's plausible that was a set up, but then it could just as easily and probably more likely have been a case of greed after the fact, which happens all the time. Many people who see an opportunity to get a ton of money from a rich guy will take it, but most aren't as likely to perform a set-up. How would they know that he would go into a racial tantrum? I certainly wouldn't have expected it. I'm sorry to say that Michael Richard's (Kramer's) actions that night are something I can't get behind. I haven't heard that he was drunk or high, and so it seemed a racist reaction to me. I can understand the anger, I don't think it warrants millions of dollars to be paid to anyone (I think mutual apologies should be the only penalty, mutual because I think heckling is dispicable too), but that was a big overreaction. However, I seem to remember reports following about how no one seems to be without some form of racism within them, or at least hardly anyone, and that should be brought into better public understanding. The only way we will ever get over racism is if, as Morgan Freeman has said in interviews, we stop identifying people by color/race all together; completely stop using words of such reference. Trouble is, that would be very hard to do without forgetting our history, our films, our books, and that would also be dangerous. But, that may be the goal of such folks as have been trying to keep "Song of the South" out of public eye, and it may take hold someday. But it won't until they get rid of every single movie, book, painting, etc... with the slightest hint of racism. That would be quite a feat. And, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.

[2099net]

Ah, but all those other films are about human interaction/social issues as well, whether intentionally or not. You can't really make a film that isn't, if it involves interaction between characters.

Of course they are. It would have to be a pretty brain dead film not to be about human interaction. Even Jackass could be classed as being about human interaction. But generally, they're not about deep social or political (in the non-governmental sense of the world) issues.

Well, this only proves that most successful creative people lean toward the left, and that only reflects the views of those who help to make them successful. But consider how much art, historically, is religious art. Again, this only reflects the views of the commissioner, of course, but religion and the Left aren't exactly great bedfellows.

Forgive me if you think I'm asking a stupid question, but isn't don't Christian religion teachings lean to the left? All this redistribution of wealth, be a good samaritan, turn the other cheek stuff? I know over here, the Church of England has ministers who make political statements often, and when they do, they lean to the left.

The reason Mel's arrest and drunken insults were so newsworthy wasn't because the media "hated" Mel, or wanted to knock him down a peg or two as such. It was because it had a good "media spin" – it was, let's face it, an ideal hook for a story. Devoted Catholic Christian who made the Passion of the Christ reveals his "true colours" (notice how I have put the latter in quote marks).

It's just the perfect story for our celebrity obsessed culture today, because it debunks a media myth built up around a celebrity, regardless if this persona pushed by the media in the first place is right or wrong.

Had it been somebody else, it would still have been news, but not pounced on so gleefully by the media.

Well, you're forgetting the point of my theory. The media was trashing Mel as antisemitic long before the DWI incident. It was "The Passion" where it all started. More importantly than the news folks, the more Hollywood type folks were doing so. TV shows of all kinds. That's what shows a desire by Hollywood to take this man down. Though his actions were totally wrong and I have no doubt the news folks loved the fact that it was a story with a great hook, that doesn't make it any less plausible.

Well, you may be right. Not coming from America I don't know the situation at the time. But I know in this country nobody even thought about Mel Gibson. The Passion of the Christ didn't perform that well over here (it seems to be about £10m - for a country with approx 1/6 of the population of the United States). But when his drunken rant happened, everybody in the UK media was gleefully reporting it on the news. I'm sure it would be the same if... I dunno "nice guy" Tom Hanks punched somebody, where as if Russell Crowe punched somebody again, I doubt it would get much coverage this time.

I agree about Song of the South, and it's amazing to me (and quite offensive) that they show it in other countries and not here.

Yet they still refuse to release it on DVD over here.

[slave2moonlight]

Of course they are. It would have to be a pretty brain dead film not to be about human interaction. Even Jackass could be classed as being about human interaction. But generally, they're not about deep social or political (in the non-governmental sense of the world) issues.

Well, my point is that all films have a sort of social value because they all (or almost all) are about interaction. And those films that focus too deeply on a certain social issue often feel like propoganda or are so serious or dull that they are often not liked by most of the general public. And the fact that they are focusing on a particular issue shouldn't make them award worthy alone, or more worthy than films that don't take that sort of focus.

Forgive me if you think I'm asking a stupid question, but isn't don't Christian religion teachings lean to the left? All this redistribution of wealth, be a good samaritan, turn the other cheek stuff? I know over here, the Church of England has ministers who make political statements often, and when they do, they lean to the left.

Let me explain what I mean. I can't say I know much about how the "Left" is defined in the UK, but here it seems to, as represented in the media at least, take a bit of a negative stance on religious beliefs and many of the moral issues Christian churches usually hold to. Abortion and premarital sex being good examples. Mainly because of issues like that, those who are more strongly religious (speaking still of Christians) are usually expected to lean to the right in the U.S., despite the fact that there should be agreement between Christians and the Left on several issues such as those you mentioned.

[2099net]

Of course they are. It would have to be a pretty brain dead film not to be about human interaction. Even Jackass could be classed as being about human interaction. But generally, they're not about deep social or political (in the non-governmental sense of the world) issues.

Well, my point is that all films have a sort of social value because they all (or almost all) are about interaction. And those films that focus too deeply on a certain social issue often feel like propoganda or are so serious or dull that they are often not liked by most of the general public. And the fact that they are focusing on a particular issue shouldn't make them award worthy alone, or more worthy than films that don't take that sort of focus.

No, but they're more award worthy if they feature good writing, realistic dialogue and good acting. A film like Die Hard may amuse and entertain, but it really can't be compared to the typical "Oscar bait" film.

I'm not a big fan of the Oscars - they've made some huge mistakes in the past, but I generally don't have problems with their best picture nominations, even if I do with the winners sometimes. However, I do object to the fact that you generally have to have worked on a best picture nomination or contender to be acknowleged for other aspects of the production, such as editing, set design or costumes etc.

Forgive me if you think I'm asking a stupid question, but isn't don't Christian religion teachings lean to the left? All this redistribution of wealth, be a good samaritan, turn the other cheek stuff? I know over here, the Church of England has ministers who make political statements often, and when they do, they lean to the left.

Let me explain what I mean. I can't say I know much about how the "Left" is defined in the UK, but here it seems to, as represented in the media at least, take a bit of a negative stance on religious beliefs and many of the moral issues Christian churches usually hold to. Abortion and premarital sex being good examples. Mainly because of issues like that, those who are more strongly religious (speaking still of Christians) are usually expected to lean to the right in the U.S., despite the fact that there should be agreement between Christians and the Left on several issues such as those you mentioned.

Well, pretty much everything in the UK at the moment is middle ground. Tony Blair for example is in a left-wing party, but he supports the Iraq War, has made students pay for further education courses, and is slowly privatising our NHS. Meanwhile David Camaron who is leader of the right-wing opposition actually has a greener manifesto than the Labour party, and arguably a more tolerant policy towards immigrants. He also refuses to state his party will lower taxes if elected into power.

We do not have this huge partisan divide that seems to be in place in the US - you only have to look at the New York Times bestsellers lists to see how bipolar US politics is at the moment.

That said, it makes it damn hard to make a proper informed voting decision over here when both of the major parties share so many views and policies.

As for stuff like abortions and drugs, generally those on the left support relaxations, but not exclusively. There's a few Conservative MPs (right) who support a less strict drug policy over here for example.

But none of this is about Song of the South. I'd like to ask again, does anyone find One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing more racist than Song of the South

[MikeyMouse]

Anyone who argues against the release of "Song of the South," or any other film really, is on the same level as a book burner, in my opinion.

'Nuff said. Amen.

[blackcauldron85]

"His basic argument was that if one black person is offended then it's racist."

Well, what if one were white and was offended by the collar?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

Anyhoo, they need to release this film sometime. The Treasures or Legacy sets are the way to go. I'm sure that some American Indians were offended by "Pocahontas", we already know (from this thread) that some African Americans were offended by "John Henry". Some British were offended by Dick Van Dyke's accent in "Mary Poppins" (I'm not British, but I think he did a good job). Someone's bound to be offended by anything. And, as other people have mentioned, "Roots" and such have been aired...I mean they weren't showing "happy slaves" (which SOTS doesn't show, since they're sharecroppers, for Pete's sake!). I understand that Disney doesn't want to offend people, but too late! You can even buy "Birth of a Nation"- we watched that in a film class a year ago- that's offensive. "Song of the South"? Not offensive. I mean, some people may be offended, but it's not meaning to be offensive, and they're takinig it the wrong way. Uncle Remus is a nice old man, with no children (that we know of) of his own. He enjoys telling stories to his employers' child. That brings him joy. If he had children of his own, maybe he wouldn't enjoy it as much. Some people complain that the black characters are so subservient to the white characters, and I just don't feel that way. They were employed by Johnny's parents, so they had to be obedient in the way that any employee would be. He just liked children, and he and Johnny had a special bond. It's so sad how some people just don't give this movie a chance. That's why including it in the Treasures or Legacy collections would be a perfect fit. Give it a chance!

As I've said multiple times, the "What Makes the Red Man Red?" segment in "Peter Pan" is so much more offensive than anything in "Song of the South". I haven't seen "One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing"- what's offensive about it?