Song of the South Discussion

[KubrickFan]

I've seen it once, and honestly? If there hadn't been that huge controversy (which I really think was overblown) then it would have gotten a bare bones DVD release years ago, like the majority of Disney's live action movies.

[monorail91]

I honestly think Disney is ruining its rep even worse by NOT releasing it. Everyone I know who hasn't seen it imagines this horribly offensive and racist movie when it really isn't. Yes, it's insensitive when it comes to the issue of slavery but it's not as bad (in that regard) as Gone with the Wind. By not releasing this film on DVD, it looks like Disney has something really awful to hide, when the movie is not very offensive at all.

[DarthPrime]

Finally saw the entire movie for the first time, and really enjoyed it. I don't see why this isn't available on DVD/Blu-ray at all.

monorail91 - I've seen the same issue regarding people who haven't watch it. When I watched it I honestly looked for something I would find really offensive to say "they were right Disney shouldn't release it". After watching it I was upset... Not that its offensive or racist, but that its a classic Disney movie that is hidden from the public.

[monorail91]

Absolutely agree, DarthPrime. I think it's my favorite (primarily) live-action Disney film. I think the ending is spectacular, and the scene where everyone is gathered around the house at the end to pray for Johnny is really beautiful.

[Dr Frankenollie]

Finally saw the entire movie for the first time, and really enjoyed it. I don't see why this isn't available on DVD/Blu-ray at all.

Where did you see it? How? Did you watch an old video, or is it available online (if so, can you please give a link)?

[disneyboy20022]

Finally saw the entire movie for the first time, and really enjoyed it. I don't see why this isn't available on DVD/Blu-ray at all.

Where did you see it? How? Did you watch an old video, or is it available online (if so, can you please give a link)?

It probably was a bootleg.....it's the only one we Disney Fans are okay with getting a bootleg in good quality since Disney won't release for reasons we may never know...and oh you know the drill

[Lazario]

I honestly think Disney is ruining its rep even worse by NOT releasing it. Everyone I know who hasn't seen it imagines this horribly offensive and racist movie when it really isn't. Yes, it's insensitive when it comes to the issue of slavery but it's not as bad (in that regard) as Gone with the Wind. By not releasing this film on DVD, it looks like Disney has something really awful to hide, when the movie is not very offensive at all.

Do you believe that everyone making a case against Song of the South approves of Gone with the Wind? I don't think you should be reaching for another movie to act as a shield for this one.

And it's your opinion that the film isn't as offensive as the worst of its' reputation. I don't agree. And, as a matter of fact, the film literally shocked me. Someone who sat through the finale of Takashi Miike's Audition and didn't bat an eye.

[milojthatch]

I honestly think Disney is ruining its rep even worse by NOT releasing it. Everyone I know who hasn't seen it imagines this horribly offensive and racist movie when it really isn't. Yes, it's insensitive when it comes to the issue of slavery but it's not as bad (in that regard) as Gone with the Wind. By not releasing this film on DVD, it looks like Disney has something really awful to hide, when the movie is not very offensive at all.

Do you believe that everyone making a case against Song of the South approves of Gone with the Wind? I don't think you should be reaching for another movie to act as a shield for this one.

And it's your opinion that the film isn't as offensive as the worst of its' reputation. I don't agree. And, as a matter of fact, the film literally shocked me. Someone who sat through the finale of Takashi Miike's Audition and didn't bat an eye.

Ok, forget "Gone with the Wind." How about "Peter Pan?" No? Maybe "Treasure of Matecumbe?" Still no? How about "Der Fuehrer's Face" then?

Disney is rather silly to me. They have released tons of films or cartoons from their past that actually are a bit so so PC, yet this one film they just hang on, almost like it makes them feel good about themselves or something.

Personally, none of any of it bothers me. It was all from their time periods. I find it so funny how many of the same people that get on other's people cases (like mine) for being sensitive to harsh language, sex or violence in modern films suddenly turn to lilies when old films with anti-PC situations and themes comes up. I'm going to use the same line many have used on me or others for standing up to the other stuff. Grow up.

We can not act as if history never happened or try to hide it, which is what is really going on here. We can't pretend it never happened, becuase that is a sure fire way it will be repeated. But, we also can't judge the past by modern standards. All we can really do is learn from it.

What Disney needs to do is not just release it and have someone like Leonard Maltin shares some words before it's shown, but use the release of the film as an opportunity to examine and learn from the past. Have some documentaries about the time period and how things are different today. Maybe have some activities parents can use to implement with tehir kids after watching. There are tons of ideas and they would make old Disney fans happy and PC folks happy for such an educational release.

[SWillie!]

Do you believe that everyone making a case against Song of the South approves of Gone with the Wind? I don't think you should be reaching for another movie to act as a shield for this one.

And it's your opinion that the film isn't as offensive as the worst of its' reputation. I don't agree. And, as a matter of fact, the film literally shocked me. Someone who sat through the finale of Takashi Miike's Audition and didn't bat an eye.

I think anyone that doesn't approve of Gone with the Wind is a flat-out idiot, as it is obviously one of the best and most important movies of all time, and always will be. While I don't personally enjoy it, it would be extremely ignorant to try and argue with that.

I would love for you to go into detail about what parts of the film "shocked" you. Because, after having seen it as a child and not remembering much of it, after all this debate about it over the years, I gave it another shot a few months back, literally watching for any instances that might upset even the touchiest person, and I honestly could not determine what the fuss is about.

If you can point out ONE example where the slaves are being treated badly, or are put in a negative light, that would be great. Because I seriously can't see it. For the majority of the film, Uncle Remus is the happy go lucky friend who everyone loves to death, and even all the other slaves are depicted as an important part of the family, caring for the kids. The two boys even become good friends! The one time that negativity comes to Uncle Remus is when he is asked to stay away. That has nothing to do with the fact that he is black or the fact that he is a slave. It's simply because of his stories.

So, unless you can point something out that I'm missing, then I don't understand why this film is any different from any period piece ever made. Because, like it or not, slaves were real. It really happened. Some were treated horribly, some were treated as family. Thankfully in this film it is the latter. But at the end of the day, the movie depicts life as it actually was during the time the film is set in. Please, Lazario, explain to me why that is a problem.

[KubrickFan]

Do you believe that everyone making a case against Song of the South approves of Gone with the Wind? I don't think you should be reaching for another movie to act as a shield for this one.

And it's your opinion that the film isn't as offensive as the worst of its' reputation. I don't agree. And, as a matter of fact, the film literally shocked me. Someone who sat through the finale of Takashi Miike's Audition and didn't bat an eye.

I think anyone that doesn't approve of Gone with the Wind is a flat-out idiot, as it is obviously one of the best and most important movies of all time, and always will be. While I don't personally enjoy it, it would be extremely ignorant to try and argue with that.

I would love for you to go into detail about what parts of the film "shocked" you. Because, after having seen it as a child and not remembering much of it, after all this debate about it over the years, I gave it another shot a few months back, literally watching for any instances that might upset even the touchiest person, and I honestly could not determine what the fuss is about.

If you can point out ONE example where the slaves are being treated badly, or are put in a negative light, that would be great. Because I seriously can't see it. For the majority of the film, Uncle Remus is the happy go lucky friend who everyone loves to death, and even all the other slaves are depicted as an important part of the family, caring for the kids. The two boys even become good friends! The one time that negativity comes to Uncle Remus is when he is asked to stay away. That has nothing to do with the fact that he is black or the fact that he is a slave. It's simply because of his stories.

So, unless you can point something out that I'm missing, then I don't understand why this film is any different from any period piece ever made. Because, like it or not, slaves were real. It really happened. Some were treated horribly, some were treated as family. Thankfully in this film it is the latter. But at the end of the day, the movie depicts life as it actually was during the time the film is set in. Please, Lazario, explain to me why that is a problem.

According to the folks I've argued with, Remus being happy is the problem. Since they were freed slaves, apparently they couldn't be happy. Never mind the fact that the movie didn't exactly try to replicate the era, but was going for a stylized, fable like approach. Like Mary Poppins, Treasure Island, or any movie Disney makes. Okay, the era might be a sensitive thing for some people, and I understand that, but there's nothing in there that would warrant the treatment Disney has given it now. I also truly wonder if people who make such a fuss about it, have actually seen it.

[Lazario]

I think anyone that doesn't approve of Gone with the Wind is a flat-out idiot, as it is obviously one of the best and most important movies of all time, and always will be. While I don't personally enjoy it, it would be extremely ignorant to try and argue with that.

You know what I meant.

I would love for you to go into detail about what parts of the film "shocked" you. Because, after having seen it as a child and not remembering much of it, after all this debate about it over the years, I gave it another shot a few months back, literally watching for any instances that might upset even the touchiest person, and I honestly could not determine what the fuss is about.

If you can point out ONE example where the slaves are being treated badly, or are put in a negative light, that would be great. Because I seriously can't see it. For the majority of the film, Uncle Remus is the happy go lucky friend who everyone loves to death, and even all the other slaves are depicted as an important part of the family, caring for the kids. The two boys even become good friends! The one time that negativity comes to Uncle Remus is when he is asked to stay away. That has nothing to do with the fact that he is black or the fact that he is a slave. It's simply because of his stories.

So, unless you can point something out that I'm missing, then I don't understand why this film is any different from any period piece ever made. Because, like it or not, slaves were real. It really happened. Some were treated horribly, some were treated as family. Thankfully in this film it is the latter. But at the end of the day, the movie depicts life as it actually was during the time the film is set in. Please, Lazario, explain to me why that is a problem.

Yeah... no. I'm just not going to bother. Other than the fact that I've already made it very public here what I disapprove of in Song of the South and what angered me (in the other thread about the movie- one that surely negates the existence for this one), I don't care for the way you've decided to ask me to explain. Whether I enjoy or approve of either film, to put it bluntly: I'm not an idiot and I won't have you or anyone else suggesting that I am.

[SWillie!]

Yeah... no. I'm just not going to bother. Other than the fact that I've already made it very public here what I disapprove of in Song of the South and what angered me (in the other thread about the movie- one that surely negates the existence for this one), I don't care for the way you've decided to ask me to explain. Whether I enjoy or approve of either film, to put it bluntly: I'm not an idiot and I won't have you or anyone else suggesting that I am.

Fine, I figured you wouldn't. But at least tell me this: if you could have things your way, would you eliminate films like Pearl Harbor that show war? Or Mulan, which shows an asinine view of women and how they should act "in the presence of a man"? Or Slumdog Millionaire, which shows all kinds of horrible things? Or The Ten Commandments, which shows Ancient Egyptian slavery?

Because all of these examples are the same thing as Song of the South - they are period pieces, showing the horrible truth about the human race.

Shitty stuff happens. Does that mean we push aside and choose to ignore it?

[merlinjones]

In my view, the film reaffirms how the human spirit can survive and thrive through the power of storytelling, youthful imagination, hope, optimism, even in the toughest of times (or the aftermath of tough times) -- a recurring message in Walt Disney's films.

The bond between Remus and Johnny transcends age, race, economic position -- Remus is handing the torch of his stories (and their power to educate and heal through laughter) down to Johnny. Each of their lives is enriched by the tales of Br'er Rabbit, in both the telling and the listening (just as the audience is enriched by the experience of watching the film and hearing the wise old fables it retells).

[Lazario]

In my view, the film reaffirms how the human spirit can survive and thrive through the power of storytelling, youthful imagination, hope, optimism, even in the toughest of times (or the aftermath of tough times) -- a recurring message in Walt Disney's films.

The bond between Remus and Johnny transcends age, race, economic position -- Remus is handing the torch of his stories (and their power to educate and heal through laughter) down to Johnny. Each of their lives is enriched by the tales of Br'er Rabbit, in both the telling and the listening (just as the audience is enriched by the experience of watching the film and hearing the wise old fables it retells).

So you're saying: regress ourselves back to before it happened? Or imagine ourselves in a softer, gentler place beyond it? The way a victim might following a vicious attack, sexual assault / rape, or murder attempt?

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Not everyone thinks the way to make it through something hard is to ignore it. If only, though- it is a nice sentiment. Just doesn't hold any water as an argument.

Yeah... no. I'm just not going to bother. Other than the fact that I've already made it very public here what I disapprove of in Song of the South and what angered me (in the other thread about the movie- one that surely negates the existence for this one), I don't care for the way you've decided to ask me to explain. Whether I enjoy or approve of either film, to put it bluntly: I'm not an idiot and I won't have you or anyone else suggesting that I am.

Fine, I figured you wouldn't. But at least tell me this: if you could have things your way, would you eliminate films like Pearl Harbor that show war? Or Mulan, which shows an asinine view of women and how they should act "in the presence of a man"? Or Slumdog Millionaire, which shows all kinds of horrible things? Or The Ten Commandments, which shows Ancient Egyptian slavery?

Because all of these examples are the same thing as Song of the South - they are period pieces, showing the horrible truth about the human race.

You're really digging, you know, to make your point. Not into me as much as into desperation- the only thing that group of films you mentioned have in common is that they try to show us our history. Yes, I would eliminate Pearl Harbor. But not because of any (potential) pretentious assumptions on your part that it actually makes a statement. If I agreed with you, why would I challenge that? I'd do it because Michael Bay is perhaps the worst director in the history of film and a smug jerk who treats his audience like a cashcow and nothing else. Every last one of his films proves this definitively.

But... You don't really want to talk to me about this, do you? (Down to, maybe.)

Shitty stuff happens. Does that mean we push aside and choose to ignore it?

Not all of us prefer to get our history lessons from movies.

And, since this is as good a time as any: ^ therein lies why I chose to make that first reply in this thread in the first place. To keep reminding the supporters that you have to take other peoples' opinions into account. The more you whine about it, the tougher my skin gets and the less I care about how unfair this situation is to you. Remember something: you're choosing to oppose people who are (at least in my case) against the film earning honorary status through a would-be prestigous release by either Disney DVD or Criterion Collection. A film which has the distinction of portraying its' black characters as thimble-deep stereotypes or clownish buffoons, and is appropriately treated like an embarrassment, does not deserve that kind of accolade. People outright don't want to hear anything bad against the film unless they're saying it.

Your replies are soaked in: "oh, YEAH?!" I've had enough discussions here sparked by that kind of thing in the past and they don't go well. I don't think you want to hear what I have to say. And even if a small part of you did, what interested me more than analyzing it further is the attitude people use to swat negative observations about the film away.

[merlinjones]

>>Not everyone thinks the way to make it through something hard is to ignore it.<<

By that logic, it follows that history, art, film and intellectual property shouldn't be censored or suppressed -- but exhibited, experienced and discussed openly so everyone can debate and learn from it pro or con. Rather than ignore it or hide it in a vault subjectively.

In any event, in the Brer Rabbit stories they share, both Remus and Johnny find that proactively looking for positives (finding your laughing place) or thinking through solutions (using your head instead of your feet) in life when things are bad is preferable to giving into bitterness (or trying to run away from your troubles). If you lose hope or spirit, then the bad guys (the intolerant Miss Sallys, bullying Faber Boys -- or hungry Brer Fox) win.

[Lazario]

>>Not everyone thinks the way to make it through something hard is to ignore it.<<

By that logic, it follows that history, art, film and intellectual property shouldn't be censored or suppressed -- but exhibited, experienced and discussed openly so everyone can debate and learn from it pro or con. Rather than ignore it or hide it in a vault subjectively.

I was talking about difficult experiences in a person's life. Not bad films.

Now you're arguing that the film is important to see because it annoys a lot of people? Wow.

In any event, in the Brer Rabbit stories, both Remus and Johnny find that proactively looking for positives (finding your laughing place) or thinking through solutions (using your head instead of your feet) in life when things are bad is preferable to giving into bitterness (or trying to run away from your troubles). If you lose hope or spirit, then the bad guys (the intolerant Miss Sallys or Faber Boys -- or hungry Brer Fox) win.

By "virtue" of intention? Perhaps. But not through the film's execution. Song of the South is a poorly made film which only touches the hearts of people who wear them on their sleeves. The film didn't work to get powerful reactions, they pushed a button and - if you're willing to stand back from where I did - you see who responded favorably to their cheap ploys and who didn't.

[merlinjones]

>>Now you're arguing that the film is important to see because it annoys a lot of people?<<

Art of all types creates reactions, intended or not -- but isn't that why it's there? Creative and historic works, whether important or dismissable, should always be available to exhibit, express or digest. We can't progress as a society through suppression of expression or ideas -- or artifacts of history.

If all the films, books or songs that annoy people or provoked criticism were to be suppressed, there wouldn't be much left. And who is to be the arbiter for all? Doesn't work that way.


>>By "virtue" of intention? Perhaps. But not through the film's execution. Song of the South is a poorly made film which only touches the hearts of people who wear them on their sleeves. The film didn't work to get powerful reactions, they pushed a button and - if you're willing to stand where I do - you see who responded to their cheap ploys and who didn't.<<

Well, every time Uncle Remus revives Johnny with one of his stories at the climax it make me all teary - - just as with Snow White, Pollyanna, Peter Pan, Mary Poppins, Thomasina and Walt's other highly sentimental films, which seem cut from the same emotional cloth, so I guess I'm just a sucker for his "cheap ploys" as a filmmaker in general (along with a lot of other folks).

[Lazario]

Well, typically Disney had a great way of filtering sentimentality through fantasy. Typically. Some films just got way too overbearing (South, of course, but Bambi's another good example).

[SWillie!]

You're really digging, you know, to make your point. Not into me as much as into desperation- the only thing that group of films you mentioned have in common is that they try to show us our history. Yes, I would eliminate Pearl Harbor. But not because of any (potential) pretentious assumptions on your part that it actually makes a statement. If I agreed with you, why would I challenge that? I'd do it because Michael Bay is perhaps the worst director in the history of film and a smug jerk who treats his audience like a cashcow and nothing else. Every last one of his films proves this definitively.

I really wasn't digging at all. The thought was plainly obvious to me when Gone With the Wind came up. In my eyes, it seems as if you don't want to face history in movies... so I just used the first few films I could think of that showed a negative aspect of history. I'm not even remotely talking about the quality of the films, the quality of the director, or whether or not the film "makes a statement". I'm certainly not making any pretentious assumptions. I don't even know what tangent you're on about Bay's movies being cashcow... Yes, I know they are, but what does that have to do with anything? You lost me there.

But... You don't really want to talk to me about this, do you? (Down to, maybe.)

I'm not really sure why you seem convinced of this. If I didn't want to talk to you (or anyone) about this, I wouldn't keep coming back. As I said in my first post, I honestly don't understand the issues that some people have with the film, and I would love if someone would point out specific examples of where the problem lies.

Not all of us prefer to get our history lessons from movies.

See, I think this is where the problem is. You're not watching these films for what they are meant to be: entertainment. They aren't trying to make a statement or teach history. It's just a family film made for entertainment purposes, that happens to have a piece of history in it, simply because of the time that the film is set in.

And, since this is as good a time as any: ^ therein lies why I chose to make that first reply in this thread in the first place. To keep reminding the supporters that you have to take other peoples' opinions into account. The more you whine about it, the tougher my skin gets and the less I care about how unfair this situation is to you. Remember something: you're choosing to oppose people who are (at least in my case) against the film earning honorary status through a would-be prestigous release by either Disney DVD or Criterion Collection. A film which has the distinction of portraying its' black characters as thimble-deep stereotypes or clownish buffoons, and is appropriately treated like an embarrassment, does not deserve that kind of accolade. People outright don't want to hear anything bad against the film unless they're saying it.

No, I don't want to hear anything bad about the film unless you can actually back it up with, as I've said, specific examples. The countless numbers of times I've talked to people about this, the furthest they can give me is the same thing you're giving me - "Blacks are stereotyped, slavery is not shown appropriately", etc... But I wish, for once, I could sit down with someone who is against the film and watch it with them, and have them point out every instance where they feel it is offensive.

Stereotypes exist for a reason. While they are not always true, they are most certainly not always false. If you're talking about the accent stereotypes of the animated characters that many take issue with, I simply see no grounds in that argument because people DID (and do) talk like that. Why is that bad to show it? If you're speaking more about the general stereotypes of the slaves... again, I don't see how it is bad, because people were actually like that. Sure, not every single person... but some people did, and so in my opinion it is a legitimate characterization of a group of people. Again, stereotypes exist for a reason. The only reason people take issue with it is because someone decided that "stereotyping" in general is a BAD, bad thing. I don't get it.

Your replies are soaked in: "oh, YEAH?!" I've had enough discussions here sparked by that kind of thing in the past and they don't go well. I don't think you want to hear what I have to say. And even if a small part of you did, what interested me more than analyzing it further is the attitude people use to swat negative observations about the film away.

Again, I don't know why you think I don't even want to hear what you have to say.

But regardless, I could say the same about those that are against the film - you won't step back from hating it to see all of the great things about the film that so many have pointed out. You'll barely even acknowledge them (for instance, your conversation with merlinjones, where you completely dismiss Disney's filmmaking as "cheap ploys". The same filmmaking that formed groundwork for the company that millions of people hold so dear to their hearts. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss something like that).

So again, I challenge you to use examples from the film to back up your opinion, instead of using the same old generalizations that all those who are against it use. Many of those people have never even seen the film, and form their opinion on speculation and what they have heard about it. But, someone as seemingly passionate about the subject as you seems like you might be able to make someone like me at least start to understand where the problem with this film lies. At the moment, I simply cannot wrap my head around it.

[KubrickFan]

As long as Dumbo, Gone With the Wind, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Peter Pan and The Searchers can exist with their racial stereotypes in place and still be regarded as classics without any problems whatsoever, I see no reason why Disney can't do the same with Song of the South and Fantasia.