DVDizzy Forum

The introductions show both a number of matches after being struck in blackface, and Mickey and Minnie in blackface after Pluto collapses the stove onto them. Both time the blackface characters state "Mommy" and Maltin explains why they are doing this (re: "Tha Jazz Singer").

However, in my opinion (and yours may be different), there is a big difference between showing a character in blackface for a few seconds in a 6-8 minute short and showing the main character (who also happens to be Disney's icon) in blackface for the length of the short.

While some here may not think this is insulting, others certainly will. To be honest I think I find this insulting, and I'm dead against revisionist filmmaking and think every film has a right to be seen in its original format. What will campaigners who don't share the same views on historical films think of this short?

I don't think something like this can be (this isn't really the word I'm looking for, but I can't think of a better one) "dismissed" by a minute or so of Maltin talking before the short begins. The same is also true for "Trader Mickey" where Mickey is captured by stereotypical black comedy cannibals.

I feel that if Disney are to release these two shorts as part of the second Black and White set, they need to do a lot more to educate the public about the social climate of the time. A lengthy documentary needs to be included, and I would also suggest an optional commentary track on both of the shorts discussing the issues raised in the cartoons as they happen.

Personally, while I think I will personally find both sorts offensive I do not want them to remain locked in a vault as a consequence. However you must see the shorts from a corporate point of view. If corporate Disney has serious reservations about releasing an almost harmless film like "Song of the South" (I accept a small percentage of the American population may find the film distasteful) their reservations about releasing these two shorts must be even more serious. If only because Mickey, their major meal ticket is involved in both. Disney executives even got flooded with complaints, demonstrations and death threats over "Dogma" before anyone even saw the film (and hadn't even begun shooting!). As a company with a reputation for "family" entertainment, Disney has less leeway than other studios over matters like this with certain members of the public. Rightly or wrongly, that's how it is, and Disney has to consider this when deciding what to release.

Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised when the next set is released, but I don't think anyone here should assume that these two shorts will be included on the next set.

Obviously what Disney should do is release a Walt Disney Treasure with SONG OF THE SOUTH, and the banned cartoons like Trader Mickey, Cannibal Capers, Hell's Bells, Mickey's Mellerdrammer, Mickey in Arabia, etc. And then make it so you can only get it by a mail order or something, with a contract promising you WON'T be offended, and you WON'T sue.

Dacp wrote:with a contract promising you WON'T be offended, and you WON'T sue.

I dont think anybody can sue over the content of a dvd.

STASHONE wrote:

Dacp wrote:with a contract promising you WON'T be offended, and you WON'T sue.

I dont think anybody can sue over the content of a dvd.

Welcome to America where Fat people sue McDonald's for making them fat anything is possible in America!

I don't think that they're worried about being sued. They're worried about bad publicity and boycotts.

2099net wrote:I don't think that they're worried about being sued. They're worried about bad publicity and boycotts.

when has bad publicity and boycotts ever stopped any studio from releasing anything? i dont think Disney will suffer any from releasing Song of the South or any other short as long as they have disclaimers. i think they will make more money than damage from bad publicity and boycotts. besides how many people are going to boycot Song of the SOuth? 5% of the population? while 95% of the population will rush in stores and start stocking up on the movie! i know i will be stocking up on it!

MickeyMouseboy wrote:besides how many people are going to boycot Song of the SOuth? 5% of the population? while 95% of the population will rush in stores and start stocking up on the movie! i know i will be stocking up on it!

I think a more reasonable estimate of actual Disney boycott is about 50 people, which is like 0.000001% of the population.

2099net, while I understand what you are saying, I think documentaries and such are just too much, and I personally don't think disney would want to bother with that.

Sorry, but there are/were cannibals in Africa as has been documented, so they are doing nothing wrong by making/releasing a cartoon that deals with that, and besides the African canibal thing is still used in cartoons today.

The black face thing has been adressed and if you watch a lot a classic movies, you will find black face acts a lot!

What they should do is what they have been doing...
Put a disclaimer before the cartoon, and allow the audience to judge for themselves whether they would want to see the cartoon or not. I'm sorry 2099net, but I think you are making way too bigf a deal of this, and I think these cartoons will be released, on the set, otherwise why not just deny their existance, besides disney is releasing all their cartoon shorts uncensored, so unless Walt himself censored these cartoons at some point in his life, we will see them ad they will be uncensored, and I do not think these cartoons need any kind of explaination, from Arabian stereotypes, to whateverelse, as a society we have already seen it all, and therefore should not be offended by it.......

I think that a good disclaimer would be:

"Dear viewer,

If you are to damned stupid to realize that people were portrayed differently in film back in the 1930s, please remove this DVD now and return it to your local retailer. Just tell them you are too ignorant to watch really old cartoons and that you are returning them, WITHOUT protesting them, so that cartoon lovers and film historians CAN still enjoy them.
Thank you!"

Maerj wrote:I think that a good disclaimer would be:

"Dear viewer,

If you are to damned stupid to realize that people were portrayed differently in film back in the 1930s, please remove this DVD now and return it to your local retailer. Just tell them you are too ignorant to watch really old cartoons and that you are returning them, WITHOUT protesting them, so that cartoon lovers and film historians CAN still enjoy them.
Thank you!"

But wouldn't that work for Song of the South too?

I think Song of the South will be released sometime next year, so hopefully, we can forget about that ban, and have optomistic thoughts that no other disney short or feature will be banned. ....

My final words on the subject will be these (bearing in mind we're the exception on this board when it comes to understanding historical filmmaking):

Think how stupid the average member of the public is. Now by definition half of the public has to be equally stupid or even more stupid.

I rest my case.

Maerj wrote:I think that a good disclaimer would be:

"Dear viewer,

If you are to damned stupid to realize that people were portrayed differently in film back in the 1930s, please remove this DVD now and return it to your local retailer. Just tell them you are too ignorant to watch really old cartoons and that you are returning them, WITHOUT protesting them, so that cartoon lovers and film historians CAN still enjoy them.
Thank you!"

ROFL!!!!!!! good one Terry! that's something i would have put on a DVD!

But if you think about it, a lot of the population is really stupid, and so they can probably watch Song of the South without realizing that there's anything wrong with it. Now that's not exactly a good thing, but I know a lot of people who don't see what's so terrible about the portrayal of the Native Americans in Peter Pan.

I don't think that half of the population is really stupid or anything. Its just that we have certain individuals who get "offended" by everything and have to try to cause trouble. Either that or there are those who are suing people for ridiculous things just to make a quick buck.

i can see it now

8 year old african american girl sues 8 year caucasian girl

Susie (8 yrs) african american Sued her long time friend Britney (8 yrs) caucasian for inviting her to watch Disney's long time banned Song of the South and depicting her as one of the slaves in the movie. susie said today "our friendship will never be the same after viewing the movie." Britney said today on her defense "i only asked her to get the cookies while i got the soda after we watched the movie, that's all". Disney executives have agreed to pull the tittle in a month while consumers rush in stores to get a copy in hands. Disney Fans said today "Song of the South is a inpirational movie and everyone that gets offended is stupid and ignorant" while that might be case is America's population to face and admit the way of thinking of the 1930's? join us next week for how close minded is our country. have a great night!

Check it out, the definition of a cartoon:

a. "A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption."

b. "A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon."

c. "A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation: criticized the actor's portrayal of Jefferson as a historically inaccurate cartoon."

d. "To draw a humorous or satirical representation of; caricature."


Apparently black people are to be segregated from the application of said humor. I wonder if there's any controversial statements to be made regarding that?

Apparently people find the satirization and exageration of such black charicatures offensive because apparently there are idiots in this world who were under the impression that cartoons were supposed to pertain to the actual honest portrayal of real life reflections and situations.

I wonder if these people have the common sense and judgement to conceive their own decisions regarding what it is they chose to watch and purchase in modern media because apparently they do not have the intelligence to make the obvious distinction between present day documentary and animated short. Perhaps they would just prefer to make obnoxious frivolous complaints, regardless, because they can't come up with a more substantial means of passing their time.

Maybe we should gather all the excessively overweight fat people, big-shoed squeeky voiced citizens and talking animals of this great nation and have them all submit complaint forms to animation studios regarding the exagerated and satirical stereotypes of their images being portrayed in these so called "cartoons".

In fact, I think somebody should make a cartoon about these halfwits, foucssing on the satiration of their profound mental adjournment. Perhaps we can place them back in the middle ages and see whether they than have the capacity to identify the subtle differences in sociological context.

we should open our own studio UltimateCartoons and draw a fat person going to Mc Donald's ordering a number 1 super sized and when he gets to the window the lady charging tells him that she cant sell food to fat people anymore cause they're afraid that they will sue and she points to a sign in her window reading only people 185 lbs or less are allowed the fat person gets mad and threatens the lady and leaves.

this will be such a hit with all the suing going on! what do you guys think?

Very clever. It'll be a smash! "Joe's Lunch Break" He could get kicked out of all the major fast-food establishments.