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

[Mr. Yagoobian]

>>All together the home entertainment division has made available a staggering amount of content with amazing breadth spanning decades and decades, and what's the vocal public response? Outrage & complaining, belied by lukewarm reception at market.<<

Fact: All the titles in the last several waves of Walt Disney Treasures sold out entirely, and that's without any marketing toward or access to the general public whatsoever. Hardly lukewarm response and better than any other library of similar vintage is selling.

In any event, this spin is hardly relevant to "Song of the South" (the subject of this thread) which is the most popular, highest grossing classic catalog film from any studio to never have been made available on home video.

It's still on highest grossing films lists and the demand from the public on sites like Amazon is clear from the number of posts demanding its release. This title is clearly more popular still than many of the later animated "classics" frequently released to the widest marketplace. Its suppression is simply a choice of the rights holders.

I didn't drag this thread kicking & screaming off-topic.

A bunch of those titles in the last several waves still took years to sell out, and the titles in the last several waves were generally issued in *greatly* reduced runs---Donald Volume 4, for example, pressed fewer than 40,000---I'll wager that's less than 1% of what <i>Tangled</i> will move on home media in its first week. It's all relative, of course; I stand by my estimation of the Treasures' market performance

[merlinjones]

Can't seriously compare Treasures marketing to a recent wide release classic - - there is zero marketing support for one product and saturated-in-all-markets-and-demos support for the other. They choose to create demand for the latter (even a weak theatrical performer) and not for the former.

But this is irrelevant to the topic at hand -- Uncle Remus.

Even Iger has publically admitted that internal studies show there is money to be made on releasing "Song of the South" -- the demand for the title is already there.

They simply don't want to.

[Disney Duster]

Well why not just release Song of the South in a number a little smaller than those?

Then what are the other differences?

Read the past 30 pages. Oh, wait.. you already have!

I thought you'd say something like that. What it comes down to is what I originally said, that the only difference is this time Disney's usual Disney sugar-coating was in a film that also had black people and history in it.

It's time everyone also learned that Disney originally had a very liberal, leftist, Jewish, even Communist man named Maurice Rapf work on the script for "Song of the South" because, Walt Disney told him, he knew that Rapf didn't want him to make the movie (we can only assume it was because Rapf thought it could be offensive in its treatment of race).

However, even though Rapf contributed a lot to the script, he got into an argument with a very Southern man who also worked on the script, and left the project. How much of Rapf's work made it into the picture, I don't think anyone knows. It's our guess.

But black people singing being happy as they make money working for their former "owners" who happen to be nice to them and making friends with them...I want to know why that is bad. Right now. I want to hear a good, reasonable reason why that is bad. If I was owned by someone, and they were nice to me, and then they freed me, and they let me work for them still but paid me money and eventually I might have land and a house, I'd probably sing pretty happily too.

It's true that this instance of a white family being so nice to their black employees and Uncle Remus getting to dream of possiby making it to Atlanta was RARE. But so is love at first sight. And living happily ever after. It's what Disney has always done, and it's still possible, there still were some nice white families. This is a book that is not a biography. It is fiction. They wrote about a situation that never happened, but it was still a positive situation, not a bad or offensive situation.

The most offensive thing in Song of the South is really the tar baby. Now that is extremely mean and sad, though they didn't think it was at the time they made it. Also, it is being faithful to the original story. Can you blame Disney for being faithful to the original source and historical classic book? Maybe they could have made the baby out of honey or something else? Also, the tar baby originated in African folklore. In other words, it was Africans who came up with it.

Hm...I just learned that on Splash Mountain, Br'er Rabbit was captured in a beehive. I think honey is closer to the tar thing, but whatever, bees make honey. Though it's very Winnie the Pooh.

[Wonderlicious]

One poster remarked: >>And to come back to the "problematic stereotypes" you touched upon. Uncle Remus is a subservient 'Uncle Tom' stereotype, one that was already out of style in Hollywood in 1946, when the film came out.<<

Untrue. James Baskett's characterization and performance of Uncle Remus is quite naturalistic, layered, gentle and subtle for the era -- in direct contrast to the many truly racist "Stepanfetchit" and "Uncle Tom" caricatured "minstrel show" stereotypes still found at the time.

The Italians seem to think differently. Look what they renamed Uncle Remus!


For the record, "zio" means "uncle"

To be serious, though, I guess that Uncle Remus was called Uncle Tom in the Italian version simply because Italians would be familiar with Uncle Tom's Cabin than the Brer Rabbit stories, or at least they would have been in the 40s and 50s; as a European (British) born in 1988, I never knew there was such a thing as Uncle Tom's Cabin until around three or four years ago, whilst I've known very well about Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit since an early age (pretty much because of Song of the South, surprise surprise).

Anyway, I'm out of this thread. Or at least for the time being.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

But black people singing being happy as they make money working for their former "owners" who happen to be nice to them and making friends with them...I want to know why that is bad. Right now. I want to hear a good, reasonable reason why that is bad. If I was owned by someone, and they were nice to me, and then they freed me, and they let me work for them still but paid me money and eventually I might have land and a house, I'd probably sing pretty happily too.

This is ultimately why the film *cannot* be released---because there are far too many members of the buying public who seem to be completely unaware that this scenario is entirely devoid of reality.

I don't even know where to begin. I'm simply aghast.

Sure, a few slaves were voluntarily freed by their owners...a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the approximately 1/3 of the southern US population that lived in bondage. Nowhere in documented history will you find anything close to a vague approximation of the scenario presented in the film, in which a even a simple majority of a plantation's work force were voluntarily freed and voluntarily stayed. As for "making friends"...please.

Historians have approximated four key elements of slave life.

One: slaves were treated as inferior creatures and taught that they were inferior. Can you truly befriend someone who believes that you're a lesser being and treats you as such, and expects you to believe the same?

Two: slaves, as a rule, had no independence to speak of. Say you're a slave. Someone else is deciding where you live, how you may clothe yourself, when you get up, when you go to bed, and what you do---generally hard physical labor---for nearly every moment of the day. Can you truly befriend that person?

Three: slaves had no control over their destinies---not over what career to pursue, nor how to shape their futures---especially whether or not they could ever escape slavery---nor whether or not to marry or procreate, nor how to maintain relationships with their families. Can you honestly befriend someone who decides whether or not you may take a spouse, or whether or not you may ever see your parents or children?

Four: slaves were subject brutal physical punishment. One historian surveyed around 2000 narratives taken in the 1930s from former slaves. About 70% of those narratives detailed whippings---whippings with a *whip*, whippings that left physical and psychic scars---that they had suffered. And those narratives were taken from folks whose average age was *ten* at the time slavery ended.

For all intents and purposes, friendly relations between slaves and owners is a MYTH. It's truly astounding how many slaveowners thought themselves beloved by their slaves---owners who felt it was absolutely their duty to administer 90-lashing beatings, their right to impregnate twelve-year-old black grils---and only discovered the truth of the matter when their slaves were no longer their property.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Can't seriously compare Treasures marketing to a recent wide release classic - - there is zero marketing support for one product and saturated-in-all-markets-and-demos support for the other. They choose to create demand for the latter (even a weak theatrical performer) and not for the former.

To make the point I'd intended, the comparison is entirely valid. Clearly the Treasures line was not assembled with mega-profits in mind nearly so much as making vintage, classic studio material available, material the dedicated Disneyphile doesn't need a massive marketing campaign to desire or to find (at least if the frequency and intensity of ranting & raving on this forum were any reliable indicator)---material that still, in too many instances, has sluggishly crawled off the shelves.

[Goliath]

[...] Guess I still have unresolved issues with you. I don't like to walk away from a problem until there is an understanding, while you're perfectly happy to insinuate I'm not classy or that I don't know anything about music. With little follow-up input from you, what am I supposed to think? Too often, you come off like a snob who judges based on appearences. And that's not the kind of person I tend to ignore.

Why do I get the feeling you're reading way too much in my posts (and, apparently, other people's, posts as well)? I think you're simply seeing things that aren't there. And this isn't the first time.

One poster remarked: >>And to come back to the "problematic stereotypes" you touched upon. Uncle Remus is a subservient 'Uncle Tom' stereotype, one that was already out of style in Hollywood in 1946, when the film came out.<<

Untrue. James Baskett's characterization and performance of Uncle Remus is quite naturalistic, layered, gentle and subtle for the era -- in direct contrast to the many truly racist "Stepanfetchit" and "Uncle Tom" caricatured "minstrel show" stereotypes still found at the time. In fact, one might say Baskett's portrayal of Uncle Remus is rather progressive for 1946, which undoubetdly accounts for the special Oscar awarded to him for the role (...and surely the Academy as judges in the matter would have been considered a progressive organization for the time).

That one poster was me. And, like I've told you quite a few times, that 'quote'-button is there for a reason. Anyway, I don't know of a single film historian who agrees with your point of view. I've read dozens of essays of film scholars on Song of the South in general and Uncle Remus in particular, and nobody ever said he was progressive for the 1940's --because he wasn't. The general consensus under film historians is that Uncle Remus as portrayed by James Baskett is a throwback to the 1930's. Yes, he's not a "Stephan Fetchit" kind of character, but that wasn't the only stereotype around in the 1940's. One of them was the Uncle Tom character, and Uncle Remus fits that mold on all accounts. He's not the only one in Disney's film, by the way. The black cook is a throwback to the Aunt Jemima stereotype.

What you're stating is not fact, it's just your personal opinion. And that would be alright, if it was founded on actual arguments, which it isn't. You have no reference to lean upon when you elevate the Uncle Remus character to the status of a somehow ' progressive' portrayal of black people. Because he was anything but. But I don't have the feeling anything any of us will say will ever change your mind.

WWhat it comes down to is what I originally said, that the only difference is this time Disney's usual Disney sugar-coating was in a film that also had black people and history in it.

No.

This is ultimately why the film *cannot* be released---because there are far too many members of the buying public who seem to be completely unaware that this scenario is entirely devoid of reality.

I don't even know where to begin. I'm simply aghast.

He tends to have that effect on people. His worldview is that of a 12-year old, or he must be on acid permanently. That are the only two explanations I can come up with for anyobe who talks about " happy former slaves making friends with their former owners" . Yeah, and they all held hands and sang songs.

[Lazario]

Why do I get the feeling you're reading way too much in my posts (and, apparently, other people's, posts as well)? I think you're simply seeing things that aren't there. And this isn't the first time.

Nice try; no sale. Are you honestly telling me that you actually listen to what I say about music, movies, etc.? I don't think you do.

I do agree, however, that this is all beating a dead horse. As I've already established, there are arguments you just won't listen to. And this (anything critical of you) is one of them.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Why do I get the feeling you're reading way too much in my posts (and, apparently, other people's, posts as well)? I think you're simply seeing things that aren't there. And this isn't the first time.

Nice try; no sale. Are you honestly telling me that you actually listen to what I say about music, movies, etc.? I don't think you do.

...

...so?
Why on *earth* are you invested in whether or not he cares or listens or disagrees?

[merlinjones]

>>This is ultimately why the film *cannot* be released---because there are far too many members of the buying public who seem to be completely unaware that this scenario is entirely devoid of reality.<<

How in the world is suppression of art, film history, literature, pop culture or any intellectual property going to better educate the public? People can only learn and grow if they are free to view works of the past to adapt for the future. We must expand exposure to art and history and storytelling to heal old wounds and grow as a society - - not limit knowledge and great lessons of the past, good or bad. Otherwise, who will decide what we can see?

[Lazario]

>>This is ultimately why the film *cannot* be released---because there are far too many members of the buying public who seem to be completely unaware that this scenario is entirely devoid of reality.<<

How in the world is suppression of art, film history, literature, pop culture or any intellectual property going to better educate the public? People can only learn and grow if they are free to view works of the past to adapt for the future. We must expand exposure to art and history and storytelling to heal old wounds and grow as a society - - not limit knowledge and great lessons of the past, good or bad. Otherwise, who will decide what we can see?

You are aware that you said that same thing months ago. Aren't you? Practically verbatim. And I don't think it's working. See, we have these things called minds and you're working from a set program, trying to jam your data into us and you seem to go, "why isn't it taking? Why aren't they just agreeing with me?" Because we can see things are a little more complex than you think they are.

As I said before, there is nothing to learn from the film. People don't want it to learn. They want it because they like it as-is. You don't seem to even understand why we're having this discussion in the first place. I think maybe Walt was who he was and nobody challenged him on being a racist. The movie won't tell us whether this or something else is true, so- what exactly do you think we're learning from the film? How do we know that you really care about art? That you're not pushing so hard for the film because you are inclined toward racism yourself?

It's not like I expect an answer, ever. You don't express a human opinion, you express one of a moral anarchist. "Everything is art, don't censor anything." Well, this isn't censoring art- it's refusing to release something through the proper channels because of a business decision. Disney own it, it's their right.

Are you ever going to become a real person, or keep repeating the same views in constant record-skipping mode?

...so?
Why on *earth* are you invested in whether or not he cares or listens or disagrees?

Goliath and I go back a bit; we've been having serious discussions and heated debates here for almost 2 years now. What do I care? I don't want to be rude but, you don't understand that question. And I don't know why you asked. But I can handle this myself. I don't feel I have to explain myself to anyone else. So I won't.

[merlinjones]

Censorship and suppression of historic works is not a right - - even for rights holders. If a corporation has abandoned commercial use of an intellectual property asset they inherited, it should be consigned to the Public Domain, precisely so that we the people are able to digest the material for ourselves. That's why copyrights expire.

Nothing to learn from the film? Sure there is. To start:

"Just because these here tales is about critters like Br'er Rabbit an' Br'er Fox, that don't mean they ain't the same like can happen to folks! So them who can't learn from a tale about critters, just ain't got the ears tuned for listenin'."

"It just goes to show what comes of mixin' up with somethin' you got no business with in the first place."

"Brer Rabbit, bein' little and without much strength, he's supposed to use his head instead of his foots."

"You can't run away from trouble. There ain't no place that far."

Etc. There is much of value to be found in the life lessons of the Br'er Rabbit fables. And this sort of ageless wisdom and morality seems to be needed more than ever today.

-- And in the larger film itself, there's a lesson in loyalty and the bond of friendship to heal beyond age, class and race -- our ability to inspire each other regardless of society's limitations. For many who have posted, viewing the film as a child has inspired greater wisdom, trust, admiration, inclusion, tolerance, harmony and diversity - - the very opposite of racism. That the film is beloved still is evident in posts of that nature all over the net, not just in this thread.

...Again, as Uncle Remus said of his stories: "If they don't do no good, how come they last so long?"

[Mr. Yagoobian]

The film itself would seem to be lacking in outright educational value---clearly, if it's possible to pose the following in all earnestness---

But black people singing being happy as they make money working for their former "owners" who happen to be nice to them and making friends with them...I want to know why that is bad. Right now. I want to hear a good, reasonable reason why that is bad. If I was owned by someone, and they were nice to me, and then they freed me, and they let me work for them still but paid me money and eventually I might have land and a house, I'd probably sing pretty happily too.

Heck, the film can't even determine for its audience when it's set.

It provides only an opportunity to educate...a unique opportunity, certainly, but the education has to be sought & found elsewhere.

Censorship and suppression of historic works is not a right - - even for rights holders. If a corporation has abandoned commercial use of an intellectual property asset they inherited, it should be consigned to the Public Domain, precisely so that we the people are able to digest the material for ourselves. That's why copyrights expire.

Nothing to learn from the film? Sure there is. To start:

Their rights pertain to their property, which they have not abandoned.

As for Remus' lessons...interesting how his tales seem to focus on keeping out of trouble and staying in one's place.

At least in the *film*.

[Goliath]

I'm not even arguing that the film shouldn't be released. In fact, very early in this thread, I've already established that I think it should be released. Make it available through the Treasures-line, in a limited number of copies. Have a special introduction at the beginning of the film by a film historian, a segment you cannot skip.

What I am arguing is that the film *is* a racist whitewash of history. But so are Gone with the Wind and D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and to my knowledge, they're freely available. I'm principally against holding back historic films. It's not like surpressing release will make it go away. You can't erase the fact that Disney made the film. And why would you want to? Let's have it out in the open and be surprised how embarrassing it is --and how mind-blowingly DULL!

Nice try; no sale. Are you honestly telling me that you actually listen to what I say about music, movies, etc.? I don't think you do.

Why, yes I do. How else do you account for pages and pages of discussion between you and me on all those subjects? BUT! Whenever I don't agree with your opinions or tastes, you get mad --sometimes even ballastic. (Not just me, by the way, happens to other people, too.) If somebody doesn't agree with your taste, you'll accuse him/her of not taking you seriously. You want to be affirmed in your taste, or else you'll trash the other person. Very sad indeed.

[Heil Donald Duck]

They are cowards end of story.

[Barbossa]

They are cowards end of story.

Yup. But... they did have the guts to put the Tar Baby in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (watch the scene when Eddie is driving into Toontown), and I thought Huck Finn covered darker themes, and that one is out on DVD. Same with Treaure of Matecumbe, it's got the KKK in it and it's also on DVD. Makes you wonder.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

They are cowards end of story.

Yup. But... they did have the guts to put the Tar Baby in Who Framed Roger Rabbit (watch the scene when Eddie is driving into Toontown), and I thought Huck Finn covered darker themes, and that one is out on DVD. Same with Treaure of Matecumbe, it's got the KKK in it and it's also on DVD. Makes you wonder.

Wonder about what, I wonder? I don't quite understand the points of comparison. I haven't seen <i>Matecumbe</i>, but from what I understand there's an attempted lynching. The story of Huck Finn is largely the story of Jim and his attempt to escape slavery. The Klan was a violent terrorist organization; slaves wanted *not* to be slaves---there's nothing really incorrect or inaccurate or historically debatable about those things.

The inclusion of the tar baby in <i>Roger</i> is an interesting. There's nothing inherently racist about the figure or the tale of the tar baby, which is a product of the oral tradition & has a number of folkloric antecedents on the American and African continents. Racism has *attached* to the tar baby through misappropriation has a derogatory ethnic slur.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

...so?
Why on *earth* are you invested in whether or not he cares or listens or disagrees?

Goliath and I go back a bit; we've been having serious discussions and heated debates here for almost 2 years now. What do I care? I don't want to be rude but, you don't understand that question. And I don't know why you asked. But I can handle this myself. I don't feel I have to explain myself to anyone else. So I won't.

And yet you seem positively driven to explain yourself.

I understand my question perfectly: I'm asking because as far as I can tell this forum doesn't support an ignore feature and therefore I find it impossible to participate on this forum without encountering this discussion. What I *don't* understand is why you're so deeply affected by what Goliath thinks or why you feel the need to have the discussion in public, but you're entitled.

However---if you don't want the conversation subjected to public comment and evaluation, don't have it in public.

[Lazario]

If a corporation has abandoned commercial use of an intellectual property asset they inherited, it should be consigned to the Public Domain, precisely so that we the people are able to digest the material for ourselves. That's why copyrights expire.

Too bad that's not the way things work.

And for your information (where have you been that you haven't noticed this?), people are able to digest this material. I told you it's up in full on YouTube (and in fact, more than one user has uploaded it). Everyone on this forum has told you it's available on a very high-quality bootleg / reproduction DVD set.

Wake up.

Censorship and suppression of historic works is not a right - - even for rights holders.

Do you have any idea how offensive you are? Not to mention: unrealistic? You cannot continue to call this a matter of censorship and suppression at all. That is not how Disney sees it, it is a business matter exclusively. And for you to cry social injustice when this film itself is a part of a social injustice- is downright sickening. As is your self-importance. You are a perfect example of the profound selfishness involved in this debacle. Why in hell is insulting an entire race of people less important than getting an official "DisneyDVD" symbol on a copy of this film? Is this your life somehow- will you survive without Disney releasing this film on home video? I'm beginning to have my doubts about that.

Nothing to learn from the film? Sure there is. To start:

"Just because these here tales is about critters like Br'er Rabbit an' Br'er Fox, that don't mean they ain't the same like can happen to folks! So them who can't learn from a tale about critters, just ain't got the ears tuned for listenin'."

"It just goes to show what comes of mixin' up with somethin' you got no business with in the first place."

"Brer Rabbit, bein' little and without much strength, he's supposed to use his head instead of his foots."

"You can't run away from trouble. There ain't no place that far."

Etc. There is much of value to be found in the life lessons of the Br'er Rabbit fables. And this sort of ageless wisdom and morality seems to be needed more than ever today.

-- And in the larger film itself, there's a lesson in loyalty and the bond of friendship to heal beyond age, class and race -- our ability to inspire each other regardless of society's limitations. For many who have posted, viewing the film as a child has inspired greater wisdom, trust, admiration, inclusion, tolerance, harmony and diversity - - the very opposite of racism. That the film is beloved still is evident in posts of that nature all over the net, not just in this thread.

...Again, as Uncle Remus said of his stories: "If they don't do no good, how come they last so long?"

I think I'm going to vomit.

Many people have this personal belief that we must consider the source from which we are given information, advice, morality, etc. That if it's conveyed in the form of poor taste (among other things), that cancels out the validity of what the source might be preaching. Clearly, you either disagree or you've never heard of this. Well, the nicest thing to say about the way Song of the South chooses to tell it's tales and fables is that it's in poor taste. If you can't grasp even this, I'm not sure you can handle the worst of the movie.

Oh, and... "The opposite of racism"??! Keep in mind this next example is figurative: you're telling us just because the characters in this movie send us the message that their spirits are free, we should ignore the shackles and chains around their ankles? Or, perhaps you didn't notice. How is that something we should embrace or celebrate? Because you think it compares to real life? Well gee, I guess we are stuck having to work for a living and though that's a grind, we could all sing and dance knowing that the human spirit is too powerful to contain. HOWEVER, meanwhile- the whites are free and the blacks are not. Black people who see this movie now aren't stupid. They understand what you're saying. And yet, a great many of these people don't see this movie as being the least bit inspiring. Without black people - there is no Song of the South.

Stop pretending you are more enlightened than an entire race of people.

Nice try; no sale. Are you honestly telling me that you actually listen to what I say about music, movies, etc.? I don't think you do.

Why, yes I do. How else do you account for pages and pages of discussion between you and me on all those subjects? BUT! Whenever I don't agree with your opinions or tastes, you get mad --sometimes even ballastic. (Not just me, by the way, happens to other people, too.) If somebody doesn't agree with your taste, you'll accuse him/her of not taking you seriously. You want to be affirmed in your taste, or else you'll trash the other person. Very sad indeed.

I admit that I have some fairly radical tastes at times. But I DO NOT POST opinions about them on this board to be affirmed in any way. I post them on this board because I've been posting them on this board for almost 6 years now (minus the Banned months). UD is a community where people know me and they share what's personal to them, and so do I. We all post what we think and like, etc. That's the way it's been for awhile. And many times, people have both agreed with and disagreed with my tastes. I do the same with them. I don't know if I mentioned JPA, but I've had several very civil mini-discussions with him and he's not a problem. YOU ARE.

You can smokescreen this with lies all you want, but who do I have problems with, time and time again? YOU. You are a problem every month or two. You keep coming back with a new bag of bullshit. You can't stand that I have a problem with The Godfather. That was a problem with you, you subsequently followed me into at least 2 other threads and posted negative responses on purpose. One of them was in Movies You Haven't Seen Yet but Want To (whatever it's called) where you criticized my taste for not being classy. Now, I wouldn't "Read Too Much" into that normally- not if it were coming from anyone else. It came from YOU. And it came not a day after The Godfather incident.

Way back in Best Albums from 2000-2009, you will notice that while everyone was angry at you, I was trying to engage you in discussion. Putting the problems we had from Sleeping Beauty in the past. I knew you had something to say. I wanted to hear you express yourself. And you were talking for awhile, I thought things were going great. Mainly, because you were talking. It was about you. Then, when I express an opinion- you completely ignored it. "I don't care" about that. And when we were talking about Lady Gaga, all you did was mock me. Seriously, you can keep trying to turn this against me. But, I do not mock people for not agreeing with me. I do take the way people treat each other personally because it is personal. You ask- what accounts for the pages and pages of replies for you? You only reply because I'm being critical of you.

What would be nice is an affirmation that you ever listen to what I'm saying about anything subjective. Because I consider you an important person on this site because of your dedication to issues in discussion I don't ever want to see vanish from this often very apathetic community. You only pay attention when it's politics. You'll notice, you never reply to a post of mine on music or movies unless it's to insult me in some way. That's not listening- that's looking for an angle. And lastly, PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS ONE- THIS IS THE KEY: I've told you many times when we have fought, that if you can't do what I'm asking (listen to me rather than waiting to type) without mocking me... Don't Reply to My Posts. I told you that several times during the Sleeping Beauty debate back in '09.

So much for your theory that I need you - or anyone else - to affirm my tastes. It's bull.

However---if you don't want the conversation subjected to public comment and evaluation, don't have it in public.

I thought about that. Don't get me wrong, I don't pretend that I'm owed a public forum to air out my problems. However, this is a very scummy topic on the forum and I don't care whatever people talk about in it- it will be preferable over listening to more whining about how unfair it is for Disney not to release Song of the South.

Although, I will apologize if I'm getting in the way of your replies at all. I really appreciate how level-headed you are on this issue. You're the kind of poster this forum needs more of.

[merlinjones]

>>you're telling us just because the characters in this movie send us the message that their spirits are free, we should ignore the shackles and chains around their ankles?<<

In point of fact, "Song of the South" takes place post-slavery -- and Uncle Remus freely leaves the "only home he's ever known" for Atlanta when he is forbidden to tell the stories that keep his (and Johnny's) spirit alive - - a major plot point. He returns home when the antagonist (Miss Sally) capitulates, again by his own free will.

That viewers may disagree on the film's content depending on their points-of-view and personal experiences is undeniable and understandable -- but that's true of any movie. Open debate and critical thought is healthy for society's learning and growth, as is this very discussion. We are all learning from each other right now as a result of the film's existence.

Different people can process and experience works of art in different ways and that is why we must all be free to view and learn and process historic works as they were meant to be seen by the authors/creators. To limit the film's availability or consign it to poor quality bootlegs is to block future generations from perhaps finding something positive in this work (-- even in criticism of it --) that others have not considered or forgotten. No single opinion holds all the answers.