DVDizzy Forum

The rumor about the NAACP boycotting or protesting the film is totally false.

Also, the African-American characters in the film are not slaves. They are poor and work on the plantation, but it is not slavery. There really is nothing to be offended about in this film, that is all just hype.

Well, It might not be slavery, but it sure does look like slavery. So, say, little kid's would watch the film, and think it's slavery. Now, the thing that is bad, is that they show the African-American's as happy, and we all know, that most, if not all slaves, were not happy, and were treated poorly. So many of the people protesting the film, are worried about that... I believe!

well the slaves in the plantation in SOTS are not treated poorly and they seem pretty happy to me! uncle remus and the grandma seem to have a good relationship for been slave/master. so i dont know why the big fuss.

If they were slaves, they couldn't just up and walk away. Uncle Remus did this. If he was a slave they would:

A. Force him to work.
B. Run after and catch him when he casually leaves.

It takes place after the abolition of slavery. Plus, Ginny's family lived in just as poor conditions as the African American people in the film.

The people who protest this film are idiots, if there are people who are actually protesting it. They obviously have no understanding about history and the time at which this film was made. This film is a part of American cinematic history and African American history and needs to see the light of day.

tell him how it is Terry! plus i bet more than half of those morons have not seen SOTS since the day Disney locked it in the vault.

Well, yes, I know that they are not slaves. But prejudice was high in the 40's and so on. I mean, whites in front, blacks in back. So, most african-american weren't happy in that condition. So showing that african-americans were happy back in the time is what people are afraid of.

So, I see what people like Maya Angelou are protesting, yet I still think that the film should be released.

I don't know. I'm tied both ways.

Well, if they can go back and digitally put frowns on all of the balck people in the movie, maybe then we can finally get it on DVD.

Jabroni you need to read more history, in the 40s there wasnt any slavery, african americans were free. but racism and prejudice still happened

Maerj wrote:Well, if they can go back and digitally put frowns on all of the balck people in the movie, maybe then we can finally get it on DVD.

ROFL!!!!! they can do it now! Digital Era! were getting song of the South!!!!!!! yay!

Well the negative points that I heard about the film are:

1. Even though it takes place after slavery, the plantation with the white boss and black workers, looks "suspicsiously like slavery and has that feel"

2. The African Americans all seem happy in the movie

3. The white boy has a little black friend that gets up before him and is always suppose to be by his side and make him happy

4. The white boy befriends a whitetrash girl, whom his parents don't approve of, but when he finally is able to persuade them to let her come to his party, the black boy is no where to be found

5. Uncle Remes and the rest of the African Americans in the story seem to cater to the white boy, and want to make him feel better, while not giving a damn about the black boy (Many were arguing that they should care more for someone of their race than not)

These were all things that I have read. I have not seen the movie to know when is or is not legitimate. And I would believe that the NAACP did make that threat. Whether it was along time ago and would or would not stand today, or whether it was recently. Although I could understand why they would want it to be hush hush.

Iam groing more interested to see this movie, which seems to have created such a contreversy. I agree with Disneyfella, though, that if anyone complained today, it would probably be to start trouble.

<<Jabroni you need to read more history, in the 40s there wasnt any slavery, african americans were free. but racism and prejudice still happened
>>

Yeah, I'm sorry. I just edited it. Since I haven't learned much about the mid 1900's, I am not as smart on the subject. I have, however started the 1800's about slavery, civil war, middle passage, ect. THat's why I mistakenly said slaves rather than african-american, even though I knew the difference.

how can someone have a OPINION WHEN THEY NEVER SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!!!!! you cant go by what people say!

Uncle Remes and the rest of the African Americans in the story seem to cater to the white boy, and want to make him feel better, while not giving a damn about the black boy (Many were arguing that they should care more for someone of their race than not)


just to let you know prince all of those are lies to make the movie look bad. the little black boy doesnt have parents like white boys, yes the black boy is to take care of him but they start been friend and play together along with the so called white trash girl. they are all playing at the end. only uncle remus takes care of the white kid. and uncle remus tells stories to both of the boys and if im not mistaken he hugs the black kid as he does.

Even though it takes place after slavery, the plantation with the white boss and black workers, looks "suspicsiously like slavery and has that feel"

wrong! the black workers dont even work in the movie, they are partying and singing and having fun.


The white boy befriends a whitetrash girl, whom his parents don't approve of, but when he finally is able to persuade them to let her come to his party, the black boy is no where to be found

i dont know where they get this, her parents dont appear but once or twice. and the boy's mom doesnt object maybe that's why white boy goes to pick her up.


first watch a movie before attacking it with lies

Phillip,

Not all of what you heard is untrue. So, let's address these points:

Well the negative points that I heard about the film are:

1. Even though it takes place after slavery, the plantation with the white boss and black workers, looks "suspicsiously like slavery and has that feel"

Bosses are really never shown in the film. The boy's Mother and Grandmother are the only ones in any authority that are shown.

2. The African Americans all seem happy in the movie

Well, Uncle Remus sure is. The black workers on the way to and from work sing songs, but did they not have 'work songs' to help pass the time?

3. The white boy has a little black friend that gets up before him and is always suppose to be by his side and make him happy

The movie and characters all do center around the lil boy. The young black child is told to keep an eye on him. The white boy is a lil rich kid from the big city, wearing frilly outfits and stuff. So, he does need someone to watch over him.

4. The white boy befriends a whitetrash girl, whom his parents don't approve of, but when he finally is able to persuade them to let her come to his party, the black boy is no where to be found

Yes, the black child disappears when it is time for the birthday party. And yes, the mother doesn't want the lil white trash girl there. But as I said, they are rich people and, the Mother especially, looks down on the poor people and certianly doesn't want to invite them to parties. But again, in the post slavery era, blacks weren't treated equally. They weren't treated equally up until the 1960's with segregation and all. Thus the protests and turmoil that was experienced during that decade.


5. Uncle Remes and the rest of the African Americans in the story seem to cater to the white boy, and want to make him feel better, while not giving a damn about the black boy (Many were arguing that they should care more for someone of their race than not)

Well, I don't think everyone caters to the kid, but they are certainly nice to him. A heck of a lot nicer than the white trash kids are.

Black people werent allowed to be happy in the 40's? Thats a good reason to ban this film.

They might as well boycott The Patriot and Schindler's List and every other film in which historical content is presented in a way in which minorities were ensleaved or opressed. Better yet, just deny that these events ever took place, ignore them and burnb all the evidence. That would work.

MickeyMouseboy wrote:how can someone have a OPINION WHEN THEY NEVER SEEN THE MOVIE!!!!!!!! you cant go by what people say!

Uncle Remes and the rest of the African Americans in the story seem to cater to the white boy, and want to make him feel better, while not giving a damn about the black boy (Many were arguing that they should care more for someone of their race than not)


just to let you know prince all of those are lies to make the movie look bad. the little black boy doesnt have parents like white boys, yes the black boy is to take care of him but they start been friend and play together along with the so called white trash girl. they are all playing at the end. only uncle remus takes care of the white kid. and uncle remus tells stories to both of the boys and if im not mistaken he hugs the black kid as he does.

Even though it takes place after slavery, the plantation with the white boss and black workers, looks "suspicsiously like slavery and has that feel"

wrong! the black workers dont even work in the movie, they are partying and singing and having fun.


The white boy befriends a whitetrash girl, whom his parents don't approve of, but when he finally is able to persuade them to let her come to his party, the black boy is no where to be found

i dont know where they get this, her parents dont appear but once or twice. and the boy's mom doesnt object maybe that's why white boy goes to pick her up.


first watch a movie before attacking it with lies

First of all I don't CARE about this film! I'm certainly not rying to slander it or whatever you are accussing me of this time!! I was merely stating points that people who are opposed to the film had said. I also said that not having seen it, I don't what is and is not legitimate. I was just rtying to show you all what I've heard about the film to explain why disney might be ho9lding off on releasing it. However, I also said that, with the way things are going at disney they probably will release it. Personally I don't care, and hope for all you die hard fans out there that, you do get your movie on DVD with plenty of special features!!!!!!!!!!!

sorry but you have a way of writting that usually comes out sounding like something else

I think talking about which bits are racist, or why it is considered racist is irrelevant (partly).
The point that most film enthusiasts should be making is that the film should see the light of day BECAUSE of its tarnish, not because the tarnish is of a certain kind.
The fact is: there was a film that was made in the 1940s by a major studio that told a story, and a man won an Oscar for it. A very significant Oscar I might add (first African-American male to win I believe?).
So, if the film is so important, the question shouldn't be why the film has been tucked away, but why can't we decide for ourselves?
I've used the example time and time again of Birth of a Nation, which has about 3 different DVD versions available now. It is a racist film. It celebrates the birth of the KKK. There are many reasons why it is considered a racist film, all of which are correct. There are many people who believe that about Song of the South, and they may or may not be correct too.
But nobody questions the availability of Birth of a Nation because it is so important.
My point? Well, I had one five minutes ago...what did I do with it?
Oh yeah. The fact that the film has elements that not everybody is comfortable with is a strength, because it makes it an important historical document and a talking point.
Hiding the film away because of these elements only gives them strength. Instead we should be focusing on its strengths as a film and saying "Hey, look - that was wrong. Let's make sure it doesn't happen again!"

Ok,I'm not making any sense. I'll shut up and go away now.[/i]

A very significant Oscar I might add (first African-American male to win I believe?).

Actually it was a "special Oscar" (or "Honorary Award" to give it's Academy title). Ronald Coleman actually won "Best Actor" that year for his performance in "A Double Life" - James Baskett wasn't even nominated.

Which could be looked upon as being racist too - why should they create a new award just because the actor was black?

Honorary Award
James Baskett
For his able and heart-warming characterization of Uncle Remus, friend and story teller to the children of the world, in Walt Disney's Song of the South.

Consequently, I don't rate his Oscar winning status to be that important, as the Academy seems to belittle his performance. Notice how they say "able" - it's almost as if they are awarding him for being "average" according to that wording.

Note: My opinion is in no way related to Baskett's performance, just how the Academy chose to honour it.

But as I have said before, all this is history - including the Academy Award mis-step. People cannot learn from history if it is buried.

I personally don't think anything in "Song of the South" is offensive - certainly not more so than other films like "Birth Of A Nation" and "Gone With The Wind". It would appear nobody in the UK finds it offensive - there have been no complaints reported for any of it's television screenings.

But I accept that to others it could be offensive. But it's also true that others find films like "The Evil Dead" offensive. The trick is not to watch anything you think you may find offensive!

However, sadly (partly due to Disney's actions, I think) the film is more than just a film now - it's a legend. Therefore I think that there should be very careful consideration if/when it is released in America. Seriously, I don't think a brief introduction from Maltin would be enough. Pehaps if it was done as soon as the controversy started, but not now.

My suggestion is a 2 disc Vault/Special Edition with a substantial documentary (1 to 2 hours) which discusses:

1) The portrayal of the African-American in classic American Literature. This could cover a lot of ground, including the Mark Twain books (which of course could be illustrated with clips from the Disney films!)
2) Other films pre 1948 and their portrayal of Afican-Americans. This shouldn't be a problem as a lot will be public domain. As Loomis suggests, "Birth of a Nation" would be a good films to discuss.
3) The African-American in society in the late 1940's
4) The film, common misconceptions and it's audience response (contrast the original response to those from the 21st Century)
5) The Acadamy Award (while I think this is an injustice, present the facts and let the viewer decide).
6) The portrayal of African-American's in later Disney films, and American entertainment in general.
7) An overview.

Of course in addition to this, we would have the normal Vault like supplements - including a more detailed documentary on the making of the film.

If Disney are really clever, they could perhaps label this as an Educational release - further distancing itself from the film as "Entertainment".

Either way I'm convinced it will be released in Europe at some point before the end of 2004. In which point it will probably wise for you American's to invest in a multi-region player. DVD talk is constantly showing adverts for multi-region players which do PAL>>NTSC conversions at reasonable prices, and their International DVD forum almost always has one or more discussion on the pros and cons of each machine.

I tend to agree with 2099 on this one (BTW, I know what you mean about the Oscar being racist in and of itself, but it still was a big move on the part of the Academy. When a whole award ceremony was about gloss and glitz, it was a big step in the 1940s. But I agree, still a bit of an insult to give him the "Honorary Award").

Placed in the right context, there is no reason we have to see this as the bastard red-headed step child of the Disney family. A Vaultish disc would be grand.

2099net wrote: Actually it was a "special Oscar" (or "Honorary Award" to give it's Academy title). Ronald Coleman actually won "Best Actor" that year for his performance in "A Double Life" - James Baskett wasn't even nominated.

Which could be looked upon as being racist too - why should they create a new award just because the actor was black?

That reminded me of So Dear to My Heart. The black sheep was presented with a Special Award, because the judges thought he couldn't be qualified to compete for the main prize.