The wife and I gathered around the computer, and we watched the downloaded video of dubious origin on the monitor.
I'm just shocked that anyone can consider this film racist, and it's virtually blackballed.
It's a lovely, heartwarming tale, with great songs, and fantastic characters. The black folks are the *good guys*, it's the white kids that are the villains. How anyone can think paid servants = slaves is beyond me. I guess we'd better ban all video of Benson and Maude, lest anyone think it's slavery.
Highly recommended to all who get the opportunity. I sure hope Disney wakes up and releases this film on dvd soon, it deserves to be seen in it's full glory.
So, I actually watched Song of the South last night...
-
Uncle Remus
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1005
- Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2003 6:24 am
- Location: In the South.
In Song of the South, none of the black folks are treated badly in the movie. They are all kind people and they care for everyone there on the plantation. Also James Baskett won an Academy Award for his able and heart-warming characterization of Uncle Remus, friend and story teller to the children of the world. So James Baskett should receive some credit for his work.
-
herman_the_german
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:49 pm
- Location: 1313 Mockingbird Lane in Mockingbird Heights
- Contact:
Song Of The South - Racist?
Part of the problem is that many viewers did not realize that the film is set after the abolition of slavery.
When they saw the black workers in the fields singing and being so happy, they assumed that they were being depicted as happy slaves, while a majority of the slaves lived under miserable circumstances.
But the thing is that even after the abolition of slavery, most of the freed slaves did not really improve their lot by being free, since they either had to go and work for the previous slave owners or were all of a sudden unemployed.
White "low class" people also had to compete with the new black workers. It wasn't a happy circumstance for anyone involved. The film of course ignores or revises all of this.
The purpose of the film is simply different from what the protesting viewers would like it to be. What the film was (probably) trying to do, even perhaps moreso than play up the subversive tactics of the slaves, is present an idyllic setting where the slave remains on the plantation.
The idea of Uncle Remus isn't necessarily racist, but the idea of a slave liking his white masters so much that he wants to stay on the farm has been the crux of critical arguments stating that Uncle Remus was supposed to be the perfect former slave - Very Uncle Tom - in a sense that he still performed slavelike duties for the family.
Many feel that SONG OF THE SOUTH, is at times terrific entertainment, but but it is also dangerous in presenting a picture of the Reconstruction that is not necessarily accurate or flattering, yet tries to depict it that way. Many think Disney should have been more socially responsible at the time, and in making an intelligent move by at least thinking about this decision.
When they saw the black workers in the fields singing and being so happy, they assumed that they were being depicted as happy slaves, while a majority of the slaves lived under miserable circumstances.
But the thing is that even after the abolition of slavery, most of the freed slaves did not really improve their lot by being free, since they either had to go and work for the previous slave owners or were all of a sudden unemployed.
White "low class" people also had to compete with the new black workers. It wasn't a happy circumstance for anyone involved. The film of course ignores or revises all of this.
The purpose of the film is simply different from what the protesting viewers would like it to be. What the film was (probably) trying to do, even perhaps moreso than play up the subversive tactics of the slaves, is present an idyllic setting where the slave remains on the plantation.
The idea of Uncle Remus isn't necessarily racist, but the idea of a slave liking his white masters so much that he wants to stay on the farm has been the crux of critical arguments stating that Uncle Remus was supposed to be the perfect former slave - Very Uncle Tom - in a sense that he still performed slavelike duties for the family.
Many feel that SONG OF THE SOUTH, is at times terrific entertainment, but but it is also dangerous in presenting a picture of the Reconstruction that is not necessarily accurate or flattering, yet tries to depict it that way. Many think Disney should have been more socially responsible at the time, and in making an intelligent move by at least thinking about this decision.
Re: Song Of The South - Racist?
Which can be explained on a VHS/DVD introduction.herman_the_german wrote:Part of the problem is that many viewers did not realize that the film is set after the abolition of slavery.
When they saw the black workers in the fields singing and being so happy, they assumed that they were being depicted as happy slaves, while a majority of the slaves lived under miserable circumstances.
It's a children's film Herman. It's a bit harsh to state the film revises history. What about Treasure Island - that doesn't show the cruel hard facts of pirating. But nobody expects it to because it's for children. The film simply ignores what it considered inappropriate (especially considering the time it was made).herman_the_german wrote:But the thing is that even after the abolition of slavery, most of the freed slaves did not really improve their lot by being free, since they either had to go and work for the previous slave owners or were all of a sudden unemployed.
White "low class" people also had to compete with the new black workers. It wasn't a happy circumstance for anyone involved. The film of course ignores or revises all of this.
That may be the case, but it's also true. As you stated many slaves did end up working for their former "masters" and this was occasionally done out of choice. This in itself seems like a poor argument for witholding it's release.herman_the_german wrote:The purpose of the film is simply different from what the protesting viewers would like it to be. What the film was (probably) trying to do, even perhaps moreso than play up the subversive tactics of the slaves, is present an idyllic setting where the slave remains on the plantation.
The idea of Uncle Remus isn't necessarily racist, but the idea of a slave liking his white masters so much that he wants to stay on the farm has been the crux of critical arguments stating that Uncle Remus was supposed to be the perfect former slave - Very Uncle Tom - in a sense that he still performed slavelike duties for the family.
Well, considering the year it was made and how blacks in general were portrayed by the media it was quite simply an achievement for the film to be made at all. Had it decided to show a more "realistic" snapshot of the timeframe it was set-in, I doubt it would have been classed as suitable viewing for young children by the critics and opinion makers of the time.herman_the_german wrote:Many feel that SONG OF THE SOUTH, is at times terrific entertainment, but but it is also dangerous in presenting a picture of the Reconstruction that is not necessarily accurate or flattering, yet tries to depict it that way. Many think Disney should have been more socially responsible at the time, and is making an intelligent move by at least thinking about this decision.
People who are quick to protest need to understand that. While they may not like it, "Song of the South" helped open the doors for black characters and to a lesser extent stories in American cinema.
It really did only need a brief introduction. Now it probably needs more because Disney's publicised ban on releasing the film has given it an "urban legend" reputation. A reputation it doesn't deserve.
Personally I think Huckleberry Finn is probably a more offensive story - it certainly uses more offensive language, even if ultimately serves a higher purpose. Does anyone ask for this to be banned in America?
While that last question may seem like sarcasm, it's actually a serious question - has anyone campaigned for Huckleberry Finn to be banned over there?
Most of my Blu-ray collection some of my UK discs aren't on their database
-
herman_the_german
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 218
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 4:49 pm
- Location: 1313 Mockingbird Lane in Mockingbird Heights
- Contact:
SOTS
The opinions expressed above are not mine. I recently read a book on banned cartoons and a whole chapter was devoted to SOTS:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... eimprovemz
Personally, I grew up in Mexico, where there was also slavery, both Black and Amerindian. But due to this mix and due to different historical circumstances the whole historical chapter of slavery is viewed differently.
In Mexico a new racial mix (Mestizo) was born of the Spanish and the Amerindian races (plus the Black race to a smaller extent, and only regional). The modern day Mexican sees himself as descendant of all these races, and he sees himself as a descendant of both kings and slaves. That is not to say there is no racism in Mexico, of course there is. But slavery itself is not a touchy subject: everybody shares the same background.
The average Black or White US citizen does not recognize this mixture, because for the most part the races were kept separate there, and America is seen as mostly as White America, though it is not: in reality it IS a melting pot, there is more racial variancy here than anywhere in the world. But the slavery issue remains (and is likely to do so in the future) a touchy one.
So you can see why I do not agree with the protests or the criticism of SOTS, it is simply not a part of my background. Yes, it was bad (both slavery itself and the movie's depiction of its consequences), but it is time to learn from history and to move on. By censoring what may be construed as potentially offensive material we also stop learning the lessons of the past.
And yes, Huckleberry Finn has been banned several times in US history. In a recent survey of attempts to ban books in the United States, the American Library Association ranked Huckleberry Finn the fifth most frequently challenged book of the 1990s.
Personally I do not find HF offensive either. Jim (the black character) is the smartest and most sensitive and most humane character, and Huck himself shows as lot of personal growth in his relationship with Jim. Tom Sawyer is the only character who, surprisingly, comes off as a manipulative jerk. But the main thing about the novel's treatment of the characters is that they are all shown as individuals, not as representatives of the white or black races. Any characteristic the individual shows is shown as an individual's characteristic. Any allegations of racism in the novel are thus made invalid.
Recently I saw a version of Tom Sawyer (1973) in which Huck is barely a part of the story, and no black characters are portrayed at all. This scares me more than SOTS, and I would think that the American people could see how dangerous this version is, (talk about whitewashing history!) a lot more dangerous than avoiding social relevance or commentary such as SOTS did.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... eimprovemz
Personally, I grew up in Mexico, where there was also slavery, both Black and Amerindian. But due to this mix and due to different historical circumstances the whole historical chapter of slavery is viewed differently.
In Mexico a new racial mix (Mestizo) was born of the Spanish and the Amerindian races (plus the Black race to a smaller extent, and only regional). The modern day Mexican sees himself as descendant of all these races, and he sees himself as a descendant of both kings and slaves. That is not to say there is no racism in Mexico, of course there is. But slavery itself is not a touchy subject: everybody shares the same background.
The average Black or White US citizen does not recognize this mixture, because for the most part the races were kept separate there, and America is seen as mostly as White America, though it is not: in reality it IS a melting pot, there is more racial variancy here than anywhere in the world. But the slavery issue remains (and is likely to do so in the future) a touchy one.
So you can see why I do not agree with the protests or the criticism of SOTS, it is simply not a part of my background. Yes, it was bad (both slavery itself and the movie's depiction of its consequences), but it is time to learn from history and to move on. By censoring what may be construed as potentially offensive material we also stop learning the lessons of the past.
And yes, Huckleberry Finn has been banned several times in US history. In a recent survey of attempts to ban books in the United States, the American Library Association ranked Huckleberry Finn the fifth most frequently challenged book of the 1990s.
Personally I do not find HF offensive either. Jim (the black character) is the smartest and most sensitive and most humane character, and Huck himself shows as lot of personal growth in his relationship with Jim. Tom Sawyer is the only character who, surprisingly, comes off as a manipulative jerk. But the main thing about the novel's treatment of the characters is that they are all shown as individuals, not as representatives of the white or black races. Any characteristic the individual shows is shown as an individual's characteristic. Any allegations of racism in the novel are thus made invalid.
Recently I saw a version of Tom Sawyer (1973) in which Huck is barely a part of the story, and no black characters are portrayed at all. This scares me more than SOTS, and I would think that the American people could see how dangerous this version is, (talk about whitewashing history!) a lot more dangerous than avoiding social relevance or commentary such as SOTS did.
-
Prince Phillip
- Anniversary Edition
- Posts: 1419
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 11:48 am
- Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Song Of The South - Racist?
When I was taking a night school English class, to get ahead, the english teacher asked us to suggest books that we could read, for the curiculum. I suggested Huck Fin. because it was a classic and I had never read it, like wise several other students agreed with me, but the teacher said that he was not allowed to teach that book, do to the contraversial content...2099net wrote:Personally I think Huckleberry Finn is probably a more offensive story - it certainly uses more offensive language, even if ultimately serves a higher purpose. Does anyone ask for this to be banned in America?
While that last question may seem like sarcasm, it's actually a serious question - has anyone campaigned for Huckleberry Finn to be banned over there?
Defy Gravity
-
jesus_brer
- Gold Classic Collection
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 4:03 pm
Re: Song Of The South - Racist?
That's an *excellent* point. By making such a big deal out of it and unofficially banning it, most people now think it's an offensive film, and deserves to be banned.2099net wrote:It really did only need a brief introduction. Now it probably needs more because Disney's publicised ban on releasing the film has given it an "urban legend" reputation. A reputation it doesn't deserve.
Truly sad.