SFGate-"Disney could unlock 'Song of the South'"

[Skellington or Sparrow]

something that always kind of annoys me about this is the whole thing with people being upset about uncle remus being a happy slave.

even though i've never seen the movie i've seen enough of it and heard enough about it to get the idea that it's not that he's happy being a slave, he's happy inspite of it (although he wouldn't have it any other way doesn't he?).

anyways.
that's just my opinion.
you choose to feel sad.
and you choose to be happy.

[goofystitch]

He's not actually a slave. All of the African American's work and live on the plantation, but not by force. And also, you never even see Remus doing a lick of work. For all we know, he is retired. I mean, the man walks around with a cane and tells stories to children. Wouldn't that make most old men happy?

[Poppins#1]

Have any of you noticed the "Sealed Song of the South DVD" ads by google on the forum page here at the UD? How is this not bootleg? If it is bootleg, why does Luke allow the ads?

[my chicken is infected]

I've seen plenty of ads for bootleg SOTS DVDs on this place from Google ads. Luke can't control what Google puts in their ad banners.

[DarthPrime]

I hope this is released eventually on DVD, in any Region.

Its sad that this film has been unavailable for so long. All the bootlegs that have been sold, proves that there is a demand for it.

[BrianG]

I found this interesting article on JimHillmedia.com:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hill/ ... -frog.aspx

[Big Disney Fan]

He's not actually a slave. All of the African American's work and live on the plantation, but not by force. And also, you never even see Remus doing a lick of work. For all we know, he is retired. I mean, the man walks around with a cane and tells stories to children. Wouldn't that make most old men happy?

I think it would. Besides that, the film is set in the 1880s, roughly two decades after the Civil War and slavery both came to an end. So maybe the black people on the plantation work there for a living.

[carlossilva]

Check this:

http://www.songofthesouth.net/news/index.html#051107

If the statement is accurate, it looks like we're still far from having the movie released.

Off to the bootlegs, I guess ...

Carlos

[blackcauldron85]

Thanks for the link, Carlos. I've never heard of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, but have they SEEN the film? This really makes me . Grrr. "The film depicts blacks as happy-go-lucky, submissive, storytelling, servants and helpmates." WTF? There's nothing wrong with being happy or telling stories or with helping people!!!???!!! Again, WTF? These people just like to get their way. If they campaigned for McDonald's to stop selling hamburgers, they wouldn't stop until they won. They really make me so mad. Disney NEEDS to show this film, because those people who haven't seen it think that it's this horrible, "Birth of the Nation"-type film, and IT"S NOT!

[carter1971]

Thanks for the link, Carlos. I've never heard of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, but have they SEEN the film? This really makes me . Grrr. "The film depicts blacks as happy-go-lucky, submissive, storytelling, servants and helpmates." WTF? There's nothing wrong with being happy or telling stories or with helping people!!!???!!! Again, WTF? These people just like to get their way. If they campaigned for McDonald's to stop selling hamburgers, they wouldn't stop until they won. They really make me so mad. Disney NEEDS to show this film, because those people who haven't seen it think that it's this horrible, "Birth of the Nation"-type film, and IT"S NOT!

I couldn't have said it better. Why can't some people get this simple concept through their heads? If you are offended by a movie, then don't buy, don't rent it, and don't watch it on TV. But don't tell those of us who want to see it that we can't.

Oh, and even if we were talking about Birth of a Nation, I'd still campaign for its release. Even though I don't agree with its message, I despise censorship.

[blackcauldron85]

Thanks for the applause, carter1971! "Birth of a Nation" has been released (we watched it in one of my film classes)...unless my teacher had an illegal copy...?

[2099net]

Thanks for the link, Carlos. I've never heard of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, but have they SEEN the film? This really makes me . Grrr. "The film depicts blacks as happy-go-lucky, submissive, storytelling, servants and helpmates." WTF? There's nothing wrong with being happy or telling stories or with helping people!!!???!!! Again, WTF? These people just like to get their way. If they campaigned for McDonald's to stop selling hamburgers, they wouldn't stop until they won. They really make me so mad. Disney NEEDS to show this film, because those people who haven't seen it think that it's this horrible, "Birth of the Nation"-type film, and IT"S NOT!

Well, in your reply to the LAUPR, you missed out "submissive" and "servants". There's not much difference from being an unpaid slave to being a low paid servant who is expected to know his place at all times and never question "white" rule.

People do have legitimate complaints about Song of the South, because it does present a false "fairytale" image of a turbulent time in history. It's no use saying something like "But Uncle Remus was friendly with the white boy" or "The kids play together". It's not a specific character or characters who are wrong in the film, its the whole set-up.

What is under debate is how strong we think these people's complaints are. I personally think with a bit of editorial before and/or after the movie, the correct context is shown. Even if its just excusing the film as being a product of its time, and today we would know better.

Birth of a Nation, by the way, may have negative representation of minorities, but it accurately reflects the views of the time, so it is a social document. It can be used and discussed just as much as an anti-racism example as a pro-racism example. Song of the South just ignores both the views post-civil war and the views of the 1950s, and isn't really anything.

That said, from the little I've seen of Norbit - or Soul Plane as PapiBear brought up in another thread - some modern films are much more offensive with their racial sterotyping.

[Fflewduur]

Somehow Song of the South is locked away in the vault while Gone With the Wind is one of the most celebrated motion pictures of all time. <resigned sigh>

[Escapay]

*sigh*

I think we're all jumping the gun a bit too soon. When I read the LAUPR's press release, the one thing that stood out was this:

[The LAUPR oppose] the re-release of Song of the South without a disclaimer and a preface on the historic harm of racial stereotypes on American society.

That's all. They're not banning the film outright. They would rather want Disney to release the film with a disclaimer/preface than without one. If anything, they're actively doing what many of us have only said on the forums what should be done for a Song of the South release, and that is have someone put it in the proper context before the film starts.

So, am I bitter? Not really. We never had it set in stone that Iger's "re-evaluation" statement in March would mean a release. This LAUPR incident is just another bump in the long and winding road to a Song of the South release.

Escapay

[blackcauldron85]

[The LAUPR oppose] the re-release of Song of the South without a disclaimer and a preface on the historic harm of racial stereotypes on American society.

But, why, then, does the article posted on songofthesouth.net say:
"Disney's decision not to re-release the film"...is Iger & Co. incapable of having Leonard Maltin or someone else speaking a little about the history of the film & whatever else will make the LAUPR happy? Instead of backing away, they should make that disclaimer & release the film.

[PapiBear]

Thanks for the link, Carlos. I've never heard of the Los Angeles Urban Policy Roundtable, but have they SEEN the film? This really makes me . Grrr. "The film depicts blacks as happy-go-lucky, submissive, storytelling, servants and helpmates." WTF? There's nothing wrong with being happy or telling stories or with helping people!!!???!!! Again, WTF? These people just like to get their way. If they campaigned for McDonald's to stop selling hamburgers, they wouldn't stop until they won. They really make me so mad. Disney NEEDS to show this film, because those people who haven't seen it think that it's this horrible, "Birth of the Nation"-type film, and IT"S NOT!

So, racial stereotypes aren't racial stereotypes if they're nice, then? Gentle, benign racism is OK - it's the mean-spirited, angry racism that's the problem?

On the surface, no, there's nothing wrong with simply being happy, telling stories, or helping people. But how those are depicted is another thing altogether.

You overlooked three key words - HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, SUBMISSIVE, and SERVANT. Do you know what "happy-go-lucky" means? It doesn't just mean "happy." It means cheerfully irresponsible. Is that how Black people should be portrayed? Do you think that shows us in a good light? Do you think depicting Black people as submissive is a good thing? Do you think it's accurate and ideal to depict Black people as submissive, always smiling, always laughing, always servile, cheerfully irresponsible, and eager to help White people? Do you think "yes ma'am, dat sho' is funny" and "yessuh, you's right to be angry at me" is the proper kind of speech for African Americans? Do you think Black people should always show deference to White people, no matter what? Do you think Black people are wrong for protesting this sort of portrayal of us? Do you think we should "know our place" and not speak out about things that hurt and offend us, or show us in an unrealistic, demeaning way?

It's pretty obvious that you don't give a damn about what Black people think, feel, or say, as long as you get to watch and rewatch your precious old film. Don't even try to deny it. I've been dealing with people like you all my life. What's worse is that you act entitled, like you're owed a film like this, no matter who it harms.

Disney doesn't NEED to show this film. They're not going to go broke if they don't release it. You, on the other hand, need Disney to show you the film again, so you can feel justified. This whole country was built on the backs of my people, after your people stole it from the original inhabitants. You've been assuring yourselves that you're the best of the best, and that you're always righteous and good and decent, despite what the truth is. Your people have been depicting my people and other people of color in demeaning and degrading ways for centuries, so you can act justified that what you did to us was right. We're saying we're not going to let you get away with it anymore. And that just gets you all hopping mad, doesn't it? Lawdy lawdy! If massa ain't gettin' served, massa's angry! Dem Didney folks betta gib massa da movie he want, or massa gon' git out his whip!

I just knew someone would reveal their true nature eventually. That's why we don't trust you.

[Loomis]

Bottom line is the bottom line.

If Disney can work out a way to make money off this, then you can bet your bootlegs that this will see a legitimate release in a few years. Iger is obviously highly aware of the huge fan demand out there for the film, and knows there is a market. If there is a market, there is a dollar to be made and that is always something mega-global-hyper-plex Disney is going to take advantage of.

Personally, I agree with the wisdom that the right framing device for the DVD - as with the 'controversial' toons on the Treasures discs - would see this put in its proper context. My only concern is that Disney "providing the appropriate context" means editing the hell out of it.

Be interesting to see where this leads.

Still, I think this is just one of those films everybody wants because they can't have it. We are a generation raised to believe we can buy happiness through the accumulation of things, and not being able to have a thing makes us all feel incomplete.

[Princess Stitch]

Bottom line is the bottom line.

If Disney can work out a way to make money off this, then you can bet your bootlegs that this will see a legitimate release in a few years. Iger is obviously highly aware of the huge fan demand out there for the film, and knows there is a market. If there is a market, there is a dollar to be made and that is always something mega-global-hyper-plex Disney is going to take advantage of.

Personally, I agree with the wisdom that the right framing device for the DVD - as with the 'controversial' toons on the Treasures discs - would see this put in its proper context. My only concern is that Disney "providing the appropriate context" means editing the hell out of it.

Be interesting to see where this leads.

Still, I think this is just one of those films everybody wants because they can't have it. We are a generation raised to believe we can buy happiness through the accumulation of things, and not being able to have a thing makes us all feel incomplete.

First of all.. dang.. that's one of the most intelligent things I've ever heard.. if only it was said by someone wearing pants.. that would make it more credible...

I've watched SoTS, a copy that I downloaded of course. I do agree that for our times it is not a politically correct movie, however, it was made a long time ago. That doesn't make it's protrayal right, but it doesn't mean it should be destroyed either. I think that everyone should have a chance to view every film that was made if they so chooose. If I ever find a film that I think is offensive, I will not be watching it. This film doesn't offend me and yes, maybe that's because I'm a 23 year old white female who grew up in Canada. I can understand how some people could be offended by this film, but just becuse you don't like it, does that mean that me or my family should not be allowed to watch it either?

Whether it's released on home video officially or not, there are still bootlegs and downloads that are freely available right now, and if someone really wants to see the movie they can. I just dont' see how having a home video release will be much different. An introduction to the movie is a good idea, maybe they could even throw in a documentary of some sort to be used as an educational aid.

[UncleEd]

2099- There is no legit gripe with Song of the South. You're not even American so you don't know to the lengths that these groups go to stir the pot and get attention. Look what they did to Don Imus last month. That was a show where people CHOOSE to listen and they bitched and moaned and picketted until he was fired. If they don't want to hear it then don't listen but let the people decide. Entertainment censorship should not take place because of a small minority that gets all the press. The audience should always be the ultimate judge. These groups who went after Imus are the ones who go after everything, including Song of the South. And SOTS does depict parts of the south of that era accurately. The PC crowd just feels guilty admiting that many freed slaves WERE happy and many freed slaves ENJOYED their lot in life. That is all 100% true. But we only ever hear about the slaves who were abused and whatnot. That did happen but not to the extent we are lead to believe. The fact is that most were indifferent to being slaves and free. I just can't stand this revisionist history crap with an agenda. These same people are trying to meddle with the Frog Princess and according to Jim Hill are succeeding. I can't stand it!

By the way, whenever Birth of a Nation is shown publically at a large scale in America there are protests from black groups. The only reason they can't stop that film is because it's in the public domain.

[blackcauldron85]

I think I should feel special...this was my first attack on the UD forums...

PapiBear, I'd love to know what your stance on "Gone With the Wind" is.

The movie depicts a bygone era, made in the 1940s, when Hollywood wasn't as concerned with the depictions of different groups. This obviously does need to be said on a release of SOTS, if it is ever released. People should put it in the correct context.
Obviously, African Americans, or anyone in America, for that matter, does not speak in the dialect you mentioned...I mean, some people might, I don't know, but, in general, people don't. Back in the 1880s, many emancipated slaves worked on the plantations that they once were forced to work on. They were used to being submissive to their masters, and, for some, probably many, they continued being submissive to their masters...From my reading, many slavemasters were not excessively mean or violent toward their slaves. But, anyway, many slaves were fearful of their masters. Even if they shouldn't have had to worry and be scared anymore, the slaves were so used to being submissive that they continued to be...old habits die hard, I guess.

If SOTS, or any movie, for that matter, took place in the 20th Century, and they were portrayed in "that" way you're speaking of, I'd be outraged. That said, this movie not only was made in the 1940s, it is a movie about the 1880s.

(the following italicized quotes are of PapiBear)

"Do you think Black people are wrong for protesting this sort of portrayal of us? Do you think we should "know our place" and not speak out about things that hurt and offend us, or show us in an unrealistic, demeaning way?"
Of course, everyone has the right to speak their mind. I don't mean to be rude, but you say "us". I know what you mean, but "you" weren't a sharecropper in the 1880s. You're an intelligent Black man of today. I know that it's different, but I'm personally not offended by bad things that white people have done- I think that it's horrible, but I'M not personally involved. I don't agree with slavery. My grandfather's family is from Louisiana- I don't know much about them, but maybe, somewhere in my family tree, there were slavemasters. I don't know. If so, I had nothing to do with that. I don't agree with it, but that's not ME. That's not my family now. I don't know why some people back then were so mean. Some people today would jump at the chance to own slaves. I wouldn't, and I'd like to think that the majority of Americans wouldn't. I like to treat everyone fairly.

"It's pretty obvious that you don't give a damn about what Black people think, feel, or say, as long as you get to watch and rewatch your precious old film. Don't even try to deny it. I've been dealing with people like you all my life. What's worse is that you act entitled, like you're owed a film like this, no matter who it harms."
I do give a damn, actually. What I meant by "Disney NEEDS to release this film" was that so many people are judging the movie without having seen it. They don't know what to think about it, since they haven't seen it. If they were given the opportunity to see it, viewed in the correct context, of course, then they could accurately judge the film, based on their beliefs. And, to make another point, slavery happened. The Halocaust happened. They're horrible things that happened, but they are a part of history. We cannot erase them. We can learn from the mistakes of the past. Heck, WWII all together happened. Should violent war movies not be made? I'm sure that someone who has lost a loved one in a war will be offended by someone getting shot and dying in a film. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but America has a painful past. Should we forget about the past altogether? As long as we've learned from it, then I don't think I agree with that.

"This whole country was built on the backs of my people, after your people stole it from the original inhabitants."
Your people. My people. I had ancestors on the Mayflower, for example. They were alive many, many centuries before I was. I have nothing to do with them, except that we're distant relatives. If it weren't for one of them, I wouldn't be alive today, and, for that, I'm grateful that they existed. But, I did not tell them, "Hey, leave England and come to America and take land away from the Native Americans". I had no part in that. I have nothing to do with slavery...I was not alive. You were not alive. There's nothing we can do now but accept and learn. We must accept that it happened (I mean, it really did). We must learn that it was a horrible thing.

"Your people have been depicting my people and other people of color in demeaning and degrading ways for centuries, so you can act justified that what you did to us was right."
Again, Your people. My People. I am not a filmmaker. I am not a published author. I haven't depicted anyone anything anyhow. I didn't do anything. I do not think that slavery was right. I think it's horrible how African Americans were treated. When watching "Roots" or any other movie/show that deals with the topic, I cry, or sometimes I can't even watch (I don't like violence). My nature is that I don't like violence. So, I wouldn't beat slaves if I was around in the 1800s. I'm not like that. My ancestors may or may not have been, but I don't know them. I had nothing to do with them. I had no influence over their decisions.

"Lawdy lawdy! If massa ain't gettin' served, massa's angry! Dem Didney folks betta gib massa da movie he want, or massa gon' git out his whip!"
You said it, not me. I'd never say that. I didn't make the film. As a fan of Disney history, and someone who believes you can't judge a book by its cover, I think that the movie should be released, with its correct historical context given, so that people can judge for themselves. And be educated with Leonard Maltin's, or whoever's, history lesson that would be attached to the film.

"I just knew someone would reveal their true nature eventually. That's why we don't trust you."
I wasn't aware that people don't trust me. Anyone else, raise your hands!