DVDizzy Forum

I'm watching the "From the Vault" section on the Walt Disney Treasures: More Silly Symphonies DVD, and in my opinion, some of these cartoons are more racist in 8 minutes than Song of the South is in 94 minutes. I also watched the first hour of "Gone With the Wind" for the first time last week (I didn't have the attention span to watch the rest), and it seemed like the slaves were portrayed like they were in Song of the South.

zackisthewalrus wrote:

I'm watching the "From the Vault" section on the Walt Disney Treasures: More Silly Symphonies DVD, and in my opinion, some of these cartoons are more racist in 8 minutes than Song of the South is in 94 minutes.

Agreed. I think the difference is that most of the Silly Symphonies have largely remained out of the public conscience, especially the more offensive ones. In comparison, many people know about Song of the South because of the famous song Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah and the presence of the characters in the Disney parks (Splash Mountain and walk-arounds of Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and Brer Bear).

I also watched the first hour of "Gone With the Wind" for the first time last week (I didn't have the attention span to watch the rest), and it seemed like the slaves were portrayed like they were in Song of the South.

"Gone With the Wind" is hailed by many historians to be the most accurate depiction of the average relationship between plantation owners and their slaves in the pre-civil war era of the South. If you pay attention during the opening credits, you will even see a historian credited for supervising the accuracy of the entire film. One of the first scenes involves Scarlet's mother telling one of her white workers that his son was born tonight (to one of the slaves). The man denies that the child is his, but the mom knows otherwise. She lets the man know that the child is now dead (presumably murdered) and that he is fired. The main slave featured in the film was "Mammy," and that role was typically highly respected by the plantation family because she was the one who really brought up the children. Later in the film, there is Prissy, and this is the character who is disobedient and while they do show Scarlett O'Hara slap her a few times, other cruelties aren't shown. However, Scarlet does threaten to "lash her." Other slaves are seen throughout the film and there is even a scene towards the end of the film in which Scarlett is walking through town and a white man with the intention of ripping-off the newly freed slaves is offering them "30 acres and a mule."

Obviously, Gone With the Wind is not a family movie and is geared towards a more mature and sophisticated audience. Song of the South is a family film and takes place after the civil war, therefore, all of the black people in the film are workers, not slaves. However, this fact is never clearly stated, which is where much of the controversy arises. People who perceive the plantation workers as slaves find it unacceptable that they go about their work singing and smiling and laughing. Other people don't deem a plantation to be a good setting for a family film.

Many people claim that the way some characters in Song of the South speak is stereotypical of black people of the time. They make the same argument about the crows in Dumbo and some people are already up in arms over the way some of the characters talk in the forthcoming The Princess and the Frog. To all of this, I say that the way that the average black person spoke back then is just that: The way they spoke. To say that this is an offensive stereotype to me seems stupid and ignorant. If that's the way we are going to treat the way black people talk in film, then film's such as Friday and Bringing Down the House should one day be deemed to offensive for release as well.

I'm not saying that nobody should be offended by Song of the South. I can see why some people don't want Disney to release it, but it really does depend on the perspective through which you look at it. I am white and I can sympathize and empathize with the black community over the injustices that have historically been done to them, but I can't pretend to feel the exact same pain that they do. To me, if enough black people claim the film is offensive to them as a collective group, then perhaps it shouldn't be released. I would like for it to be and I think that it would be great if it could at least get a limited release through the Treasures line for fans of the film to get a legal copy, but I do understand the other side of the argument.

I think that Leonard Maltin sums it up best in his introductions to many of the offensive content on the Treasures. The offensive material is a reflection of the times in which the film was made. As a society, we know better now. However, we can now look at these films through more cultured eyes and understand that these scenes are inappropriate today.

If I have the chance to go to the D23 convention, I'm hoping I'll get to bring up the question with Bob Iger or someone important. Haha. Leonard Maltin always says in the "From the Vaults" section that the material shouldn't be swept under the rug. That should include this film, so I'm going to raise the question if I go.

I'm going to the D23 Expo as well. I can't wait.

I started typing this in the D23 thread, but it really belongs in here. Ugh, too many threads dealing with the same subject!!!

In the D23 thread, goofystitch wrote:But I'm not counting on ever getting an official release from Disney. And if they ever did, I think Disney would need to do a lot more than merely have an introduction about the times in which the film was made. I think there would need to be notices on the packaging warning the buyer of the content as well
as a full documentary about the way African Americans were portrayed in film in the 1940's and about how it should be viewed in the cultural context of the times, not today.

Notices on the packaging? Really? I mean, I see where you're coming from, but does Gone With the Wind have notices on the packaging? No. Birth of A Nation? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing no. If someone were to buy SOTS if it became available, I think they'd know what they're getting into, unless they've lived under a rock. I mean, surely most people at least know of the film, right? Surely there are much more offensive films than SOTS, and those have been released. It's hard- you can't please everyone.

I agree to an extent about the fact that SOTS is more well-known than some of the wartime shorts, for example, but Japanese-Americans and German-Americans, if they know about the history of their culture, might at least be familiar with the fact that Disney made offensive shorts. I think that part of it might have to do with the fact that there are more African Americans in this country than Japanese-Americans? There surely are a lot of German-Americans, though. I don't know. Regardless of me being a Disney fan, as a former film student, I don't think that films
should be banned. I think for gory films, for example, they definitely need warnings on the packaging (which will actually encourage some kids to watch the films, unfortunately). I think that, if SOTS were to be released, the packaging should boldly and largely make a point to mention the introduction (or whole segment) by Leonard Maltin (or whoever). The set could be a great educational tool. They could include the "John Henry" short as a bonus feature, and have a featurette on that, showing how far the company has come. They could have a whole documentary on the history of African Americans in Disney films, mentioning Polly and Polly, Comin' Home!, and Dr. Sweet from Atlantis...a lot of educational material could be included as bonus features. I think Disney could really make a sensitive set.

And, heck, if Disney knows that they're not going to release SOTS anytime soon, I think that it would make financial sense to at least release the animated segments. You know, the fully animated segments. But then some people will complain about the Tar Baby, yadda yadda yadda. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but you can't hide the past- you
can learn from it, though.

The film itself has some nice lessons in it, like it doesn't matter your age or race, you can still be friends with someone, and even being mean doesn't get you anywhere (Brer Fox, Brer Bear, and Ginny's brothers). They could include those lessons in a bonus feature! So much opportunity is being missed, I think. It's not like every African American has an issue with the film, either- only a select, vocal, few. I think I've said it before, and surely others have, too- everything can offend some people. My raisin toast could offend someone, for Pete's sake, and I'm not going to stop eating my raisin toast! "Charles in Charge" could be offensive to male babysitters or nannies! Urkel or Screech could be offensive to nerds everywhere! Some conservative redheads may be upset that Ariel is partially dressed throughout parts of the movie!

I understand Alex's comment (in the D23 thread) of how SOTS is a) live-action (well, mostly), and b) more well-known than the offensive Wartime shorts. But Peter Pan is offensive (the "What Makes a Red Man Red" segment offenses me, and I'm not Native American!), but I don't fast forward through that part or anything. I still love the film, flaws and all! Pocahontas offended some Native Americans and some historians (for not being true enough to the real story), and that still came out! (I've been searching for an article about the controversy, and this is the best I found...I don't feel like looking further: http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs ... cahont.htm ). Disney had Native American consultants while working on Pocahontas, but didn't Disney also have at least one African American consultant while making SOTS?

One of the biggest complaints about SOTS is the "happy slaves". We know that the fim takes place during Reconstruction (and that should be mentioned on a feature on the DVD); there are always happy people, or at least people who keep happy faces on for their children or whoever. I haven't seen the film Life is Beautiful, but I read about it, and the father keeps a happy face on for his son, regardless of how the father is actually feeling. And some people are just generally happy people. To say that every sharecropper was miserable and wouldn't sing while working is bull, I think. Sure, it probably wasn't the most ideal situation to be in, but the sharecroppers were alive and working, weren't they? Surely sharecroppers (just like slaves!) sang songs while working. They weren't miserable 24/7 like some make the situation out to be.

Another complaint is about how Uncle Remus "lives and breathes" for Johnny (I'm exaggerating, of course, but from what some people say, that's what they make it seem like). Maybe Uncle Remus has no children of his own, and he has a bond with Johnny. Even if Uncle Remus did have kids, he can still have a bond with Johnny! I mean, he is called Uncle Remus even by Johnny's mom- obviously he is held in high esteem by the family (well, I mean, at one point he was held in high esteem by the family!). It's not like he's some creepy old dude preying upon Johnny, using stories as a means to do other things! He's a kindly old man who enjoys being a storyteller. Nothing bad about that at all. Especially with all that Uncle Remus had gone through (being a slave, for one, but we don't know his backstory, so one could ask where his family is...), it's great that he can be joyous and share the gift of story with others.

Bottom line: People are going to complain no matter what. The people complaining weren't slaves themselves. My cultural background isn't as "tarnished" as some others', but I'm also such a mutt that I don't identify with just one culture (I'm English, Danish, and Italian on my dad's side, and German, Welsh, and Irish on my mom's side), but if someone came out with a film showing Irish people as fighting drunkerds, or a movie showing Pilgrims in a bad light (at least 2, if not 3, of my ancestors were on the Mayflower), or showing Lewis & Clark (I'm related to Merriweather Lewis somehow) badly, would I want the films to be banned?!? NO! But, again, I'm not as attached to my cultural background as some people are, and I'm also not personally affected by my background, as some people of other cultural backgrounds are.

Maybe some African Americans who still aren't treated as fairly as they should be feel that, if SOTS were released, they would be treated even worse. There are always ignorant people out in the world, unfortunately. and ultimately, the movie shows how people of different ages, races, backgrounds, and lace collars can be great friends and have such a strong impact on each others' lives! Such a positive message. I'm still convinced that a lot of the people who complain haven't seen the film. And as I said, some people are offended by everything, so sure, some people can be offended by the film, but that's no reason to ban the film from everyone. They can just choose to not watch it. And, sure, if the statement I made in the first sentence of this paragraph is true for some, then, sure, I can see why they wouldn't want the film released, but, at the same time, the messages of the film are so positive that I'd like to think that there wouldn't be a new meanness towards African Americans. Lace collars, sure, but not African Americans. But maybe I'm ignorant. I don't know.

Usually films and other media aren't really affected by outsiders; Eminem knows he offends people, but he doesn't tone down his music. People that don't like his music just don't have to listen to it. People who are homophobic don't have to watch gay-genre films. People who don't want to see the Japanese in a bad light don't need to watch most American-made WWII films. People who don't want to see "happy slaves" don't need to watch SOTS. Any film can spawn meanness; I mean, did some kids call their Native American schoolmates "savages" after seeing Pocahontas? Did some kids call their Japanese-American schoolmates "Japs" after seeing Pearl Harbor? I don't know, but I'm guessing the bullies are mean and maybe did. Some people are just mean bullies who are rude and ignorant. They are no reason, though, to ban a film!

Knowledge is power, and you should teach your kids about your cultural background, and teach them how to react if someone is rude to them about it. Films should promote education, not be banned so people make up things...

blackcauldron85 wrote:

Notices on the packaging? Really? I mean, I see where you're coming from, but does Gone With the Wind have notices on the packaging? No. Birth of A Nation?

They do not, but they also aren't family films. The thing about Song of the South is that it is partly animated, which greatly appeals to kids who don't understand the history or social context. For them, they could see a little white boy being served by all the black people in the film and get the wrong idea, which is why I suggested the packaging. And why many people are aware of Song of the South, there are still a lot of people who have never heard of it. Or they have heard of an offensive Disney movie with "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah," but aren't aware that it is called Song of the South.

I agree to an extent about the fact that SOTS is more well-known than some of the wartime shorts, for example, but Japanese-Americans and German-Americans, if they know about the history of their culture, might at least be familiar with the fact that Disney made offensive shorts.

True, but to Japanese and German Americans, they would understand their culture's involvement in WWII and understand that the offensive shorts were more of a morale booster for American's at the time. And yes, they are a much smaller minority than African Americans. I'm not saying it is ever good to offend anybody, but those shorts aren't widely known about outside of devoted Disney fans and they did have introductions about cultural sensitivity today.

Regardless of me being a Disney fan, as a former film student, I don't think that films should be banned. I think for gory films, for example, they definitely need warnings on the packaging (which will actually encourage some kids to watch the films, unfortunately).

I agree wholeheartedly that films should not be banned. I never said that I didn't think Disney should release it, I said I don't think they ever will. The reason there should be a warning on the packaging is because the film does appeal to children and as a future parent, I wouldn't show this film to my kids until they were old enough to understand the context in which it was made. Again, kids are very impressionable and can get the wrong idea very easily. I don't think it would be as big of a deal if it was released through the Treasures line, which appeals mostly to adults, but even then I feel that a sticker on the package should inform consumers that the material may be offensive to them.

And, heck, if Disney knows that they're not going to release SOTS anytime soon, I think that it would make financial sense to at least release the animated segments. You know, the fully animated segments. But then some people will complain about the Tar Baby, yadda yadda yadda. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but you can't hide the past- you can learn from it, though.

I think you just answered your own question right there. While the animated sequences are beautiful and highly entertaining, there are still parts of those that many African Americans find offensive, not just obvious things like the tar baby, but also the way they speak. While their dialect isn't exactly uncharacteristic of the way slaves and indentured servants spoke, it is more of a Hollywood stereotyped version of it that is viewed as offensive. As a white male, the movie doesn't really offend me personally, but it isn't up to me to decide what should or shouldn't offend other people. If enough people say this movie is offensive to them, than it is and we need to be sensitive to that.

The film itself has some nice lessons in it, like it doesn't matter your age or race, you can still be friends with someone, and even being mean doesn't get you anywhere (Brer Fox, Brer Bear, and Ginny's brothers). They could include those lessons in a bonus feature! So much opportunity is being missed, I think. It's not like every African American has an issue with the film, either- only a select, vocal, few. I think I've said it before, and surely others have, too- everything can offend some people. My raisin toast could offend someone, for Pete's sake, and I'm not going to stop eating my raisin toast! "Charles in Charge" could be offensive to male babysitters or nannies! Urkel or Screech could be offensive to nerds everywhere! Some conservative redheads may be upset that Ariel is partially dressed throughout parts of the movie!

The film does have some nice lessons and morals, but as I said before, kids can also get some very bad messages from it, again this is part of the reason why I think a notice would need to be on the package stating that the film is not suitable for young and impressionable children and that viewers may be offended by the material inside. No amount of bonus features or introductions will change people's feelings. And yes, some people get offended over some seemingly ridiculous things, but I don't think perceptions of racism is one of them. I think that needs to be taken seriously.

I understand Alex's comment (in the D23 thread) of how SOTS is a) live-action (well, mostly), and b) more well-known than the offensive Wartime shorts. But Peter Pan is offensive (the "What Makes a Red Man Red" segment offenses me, and I'm not Native American!), but I don't fast forward through that part or anything. I still love the film, flaws and all! Pocahontas offended some Native Americans and some historians (for not being true enough to the real story), and that still came out! (I've been searching for an article about the controversy, and this is the best I found...I don't feel like looking further: http://www.journalism.sfsu.edu/www/pubs ... cahont.htm ). Disney had Native American consultants while working on Pocahontas, but didn't Disney also have at least one African American consultant while making SOTS?

I hope that Disney films are never censored, but the Native American population is so small that, unfortunately, when they have a complaint, it is often seldom heard or taken seriously. If Disney did have an African American consultant on Song of the South, it was probably more for dialect coaching than historical consulting. If that was the case, we would not see all of the plantation workers singing, smiling, and dancing as they go about their work.

One of the biggest complaints about SOTS is the "happy slaves". We know that the fim takes place during Reconstruction (and that should be mentioned on a feature on the DVD); there are always happy people, or at least people who keep happy faces on for their children or whoever. I haven't seen the film Life is Beautiful, but I read about it, and the father keeps a happy face on for his son, regardless of how the father is actually feeling. And some people are just generally happy people. To say that every sharecropper was miserable and wouldn't sing while working is bull, I think. Sure, it probably wasn't the most ideal situation to be in, but the sharecroppers were alive and working, weren't they? Surely sharecroppers (just like slaves!) sang songs while working. They weren't miserable 24/7 like some make the situation out to be.

Well, the traditional slave songs are very sad when you think about them. They usually involve a religion and God finally freeing them when they die, which is not the same as singing happy little tunes about the South and smiling and dancing while they do it.

Bottom line: People are going to complain no matter what.

True, but even more so if it was released.

Maybe some African Americans who still aren't treated as fairly as they should be feel that, if SOTS were released, they would be treated even worse. There are always ignorant people out in the world, unfortunately. and ultimately, the movie shows how people of different ages, races, backgrounds, and lace collars can be great friends and have such a strong impact on each others' lives! Such a positive message. I'm still convinced that a lot of the people who complain haven't seen the film. And as I said, some people are offended by everything, so sure, some people can be offended by the film, but that's no reason to ban the film from everyone. They can just choose to not watch it. And, sure, if the statement I made in the first sentence of this paragraph is true for some, then, sure, I can see why they wouldn't want the film released, but, at the same time, the messages of the film are so positive that I'd like to think that there wouldn't be a new meanness towards African Americans. Lace collars, sure, but not African Americans.

I think the problem is that there are still so many social prejudices against African Americans in this country. It kills me to see people driving around with confederate flags on their trucks because that flag has a hurtful meaning behind it. I also hate seeing window decals that state "The South will rise again." There is still a lot of prejudice out there and as a film, I don't Song of the South sets out to change anybody's mind. If the message we want to teach our children is that everybody is the same regardless of skin color, there are many films that convey this message more strongly. Again, I don't really think Song of the South is suitable for small children because they can get the wrong idea. I would say that the perfect age to introduce a kid to Song of the South would be between 10 and 13, when they know enough about history and their own classmates to recognize that white people aren't better than black people (or any other group of people) and that this isn't how people should be treated.

Usually films and other media aren't really affected by outsiders; Eminem knows he offends people, but he doesn't tone down his music. People that don't like his music just don't have to listen to it. People who are homophobic don't have to watch gay-genre films. People who don't want to see the Japanese in a bad light don't need to watch most American-made WWII films. People who don't want to see "happy slaves" don't need to watch SOTS. Any film can spawn meanness;

Actually, Eminem's music is censored when it goes on the radio to eliminate the offensive material, except for when it targets one person such as a celebrity or his ex-wife Kim. And while my personal views are that homophobia shouldn't be tolerated, as a gay man I constantly see material in many main stream TV shows and movies that is very offensive to me. I'm not saying these films should be edited or banned, but some more sensitivity would be great, and I think that's what this boils down to. Many people feel it would be insensitive to release Song of the South today. There are many fans, like you and I, who would love an official release with some great bonus features about the social context in which it was made, which is why IF Disney ever releases it, it should be more along the lines of the Walt Disney Treasures set and with a notice that the film may not be suitable for all ages and may offend the viewer.

Knowledge is power, and you should teach your kids about your cultural background, and teach them how to react if someone is rude to them about it. Films should promote education, not be banned so people make up things...

I wholeheartedly agree, but kids don't understand cultural background and history until a certain age. And by the time that they do, they need a few years for it to set in. I was once a psychology major and studies show that most prejudiced feelings that we have were formed when we were between the ages of 3 and 15. With what we know today, racism should be obsolete, but since so many parents still teach their children hatred towards groups of people, racism and prejudice still exist. That's the main point I was making with my post in the other thread. I would LOVE it if Disney did release Song of the South, but I don't think they ever will.

goofystitch wrote: I agree wholeheartedly that films should not be banned. I never said that I didn't think Disney should release it, I said I don't think they ever will. The reason there should be a warning on the packaging is because the film does appeal to children and as a future parent, I wouldn't show this film to my kids until they were old enough to understand the context in which it was made. Again, kids are very impressionable and can get the wrong idea very easily. I don't think it would be as big of a deal if it was released through the Treasures line, which appeals mostly to adults, but even then I feel that a sticker on the package should inform consumers that the material may be offensive to them.

I agree with you Goofystitch and I'm not picking apart your post, but I don't think any kid will get the "wrong idea" from viewing Song of the South. There is, on the face of it, nothing overtly wrong with it.

The issue is it is "perceived" as being wrong - partly by those with political motivation for stirring up trouble and issues - but mostly by Disney's strange decision to "vault" the title for fear of causing mass offence. It may cause some offense, I agree. But its not been long shown on TV over here in the UK and we didn't have rioting on the streets, newscasters telling us how offended we should have been, or... or... any comment at all as far as I can see.

Really, Disney has brought this on themselves. As such I agree I find it unlikely Disney will release Song of the South, but I think the reason is Disney has unwittingly created the urban legend that it is offensive themselves instead of disputing it.

In a sane world, a release with a brief contextual introduction and perhaps a contextual documentary would be perfectly okay. Of course, a sane world wouldn't have 24 hour news channels or countless talk radio stations desperate to fill content with trivia, controversy and opinion.

Many great points Netty. I agree that there is nothing overtly wrong with Song of the South. I think most of the controversy found in the film itself come from thinking too much into things, but again, my view is that if people say it is offensive to them, it's not my place to tell them why they shouldn't be offended or that their feelings are invalid. And with my small background in psychology, I recognize many of these instances in the film and that there are some questionable messages that a child could pick up from the film. I know that you live in the UK and I admit that I don't know a lot about racism there, but I'm sure that things are at least slightly different here in the US. I guess no one can really say what will happen until it has happened, but I do feel that if this film were ever widely released here, there would be lots of controversy and backlash towards Disney, which is what they are avoiding by not releasing it. Maybe it wouldn't happen, but the risk for Disney as a company is too great.

Well written, Blackcauldron85! I truly believe that people who never have seen SOTS (because they were not able to) have heard some rumours about the content of the film and believe it's much worse than it actually is. Disney did release the movie on video in Europe, so it's not so much Disney that's against the movie being released, as it's afraid to step into a pool of trouble and wanting to avoid being 'controversial'. (chicken?)

I got news for you Disney people: your company has been 'controversial' and a 'stone of contention' for many people since the beginning. Has that stopped you?

2099net wrote:but I don't think any kid will get the "wrong idea" from viewing Song of the South. There is, on the face of it, nothing overtly wrong with it.

I agree with that. A funny story that Bobby's aunt likes to tell is of when the family was on vacation at WDW and they went to Chip 'n Dale's campfire movie at Fort Wilderness. SOTS was the movie that night. Bobby's cousin, who was just a little boy at the time, came away, I think crying, about "that nice brown man". Kids care for Uncle Remus- he's a nice old man! I mean, I think his skin color may stick out more to people who aren't exposed to African Americans on a regular basis (and in suburban Massachusetts, Caucasians are the majority), but I don't think that little kids will be like, wow, those people are working for the white people because of their dark skin; little kids don't understand the Civil War or know about it or anything- it's the adults who just complain to have something to bitch about who made the movie get banned.

goofystitch wrote:my view is that if people say it is offensive to them, it's not my place to tell them why they shouldn't be offended or that their feelings are invalid.

I can understand that, but we both admitted that people can get offended by anything...and I do understand your saying that race relations is a sensitive issue, but...

goofystitch wrote:True, but to Japanese and German Americans, they would understand their culture's involvement in WWII and understand that the offensive shorts were more of a morale booster for American's at the time. And yes, they are a much smaller minority than African Americans. I'm not saying it is ever good to offend anybody, but those shorts aren't widely known about outside of devoted Disney fans and they did have introductions about cultural sensitivity today.

Just as African Americans understand their culture's involvement in the Civil War. Obviously they weren't the "villains" as the Japanese-Japanese and German-Germans were, but what about Japanese-American internment camps? Japanese-Americans were treated horribly (in certain parts of the country more than others) during WWII, even though they did nothing wrong! It's true that the WWII shorts about the Japanese weren't dealing with Japanese-Americans, but it still would be offensive, epsecially to people who actually were treated poorly during that time. There are people right now who were alive during WWII. There aren't any people who were alive during the Civil War right now. My point is, Japanese-Americans sure as heck can be offended by the Wartime shorts. I understand your point of SOTS being well-known, but at the same time, being offensive is being offensive. Just because African Americans are a bigger populace than Japanese-Americans doesn't give people the right to offend Japanese-Americans more than African-Americans. And I know you don't feel that way, but I think if Disney is going to release material offensive to other ethnic groups, why not African Americans? And, to me, the Wartime shorts are more offensive than SOTS is. I mean, there is no "kill the slaves" message in SOTS!

(And thanks, BelleGirl!)

When I saw it on the BBC a few years ago I was pretty unaware of the controversy's nature. It wasn't untill I did some research that I found out what was supposedly so wrong with this film.

All I saw was a happy African American man telling stories. That's probaply what kids will see too. Of course back then it was more than wrong to send the idea out that black people were happy being slaves and that the relationship between whites and blacks was just swell. Despite the fact that the film takes place after the civil war.

When you think about it, doesn't that make the Princess and the Frog every bit as controversial? In 1920s New Orleans people didn't live happily together. They were still seperated. Is Disney maybe using the Princess and the Frog as a "look, that worked, we can now release SotS" type of thing?

My head hurts trying to figure out what Disney is thinking anyway.

They definitely brought it upon themselves to vault the film. They'll only draw attention to the film when they do decide to finally release it and it will cause more controversy from idiotic activists.

In the 20th century, there always were some African Americans who were accepted doing things that whites did: look at people like Jackie Robinson or George Washington Carver, for just 2 famous examples. Blacks definitely had jobs...I mean, everyone did live together, but of course there were restaurants and schools that were segregated, but some blacks still worked in some places where whites went. I don't know much about Louisiana in the 1920s, but, one can also consider other things in Disney movies:

While it's true that Agrabah isn't a real place, surely Jasmine wouldn't go around wearing what she's wearing in real life!

In real life, Pocahontas was a lot younger than she is in Disney's movie.

Disney is allowed to take creative liberties! And, do you think people will complain about a strong black woman with a great work ethic? Versus, "Oh, look, happy slaves". Will people really find a problem with Tiana?

If Disney releases Song of the South on DVD/Blu-Ray, maybe people will want to have a complete hybrid collection, and they will also buy Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon.

BrandonH wrote:If Disney releases Song of the South on DVD/Blu-Ray, maybe people will want to have a complete hybrid collection, and they will also buy Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon.

Don't forget So Dear to My Heart and Who Framed Roger Rabbit! And I guess one could say some of the package films, too...

blackcauldron85 wrote:

BrandonH wrote:If Disney releases Song of the South on DVD/Blu-Ray, maybe people will want to have a complete hybrid collection, and they will also buy Mary Poppins, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and Pete's Dragon.

Don't forget So Dear to My Heart and Who Framed Roger Rabbit! And I guess one could say some of the package films, too...

Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it?

I saw SOTS in 1986 when I was 7 years old (40th annivesary release to the theatre). I LOVE the Music (Zip-A-Dee-Doo Dah is one I can remember). I wish they'd release the movie on Blu Ray / DVD.

And I think maybe a 4 year old could not understand, but I think an 8 year old could. Maybe the DVD could be released with a booklet about how to explain the time setting to younger children.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Disney is allowed to take creative liberties! And, do you think people will complain about a strong black woman with a great work ethic? Versus, "Oh, look, happy slaves". Will people really find a problem with Tiana?

well, I don't think we should ever underestimate the stupidity of society.

Randy Newman himself has already dropped an F-bomb in relation to how stupid he thought it was that African Americans and whites mingled like it's no big deal in TPatF.

I could easily see more stupidity on the horizon. No matter how intelligent and ambitious they make Tiana.

PatrickvD wrote:

blackcauldron85 wrote:Disney is allowed to take creative liberties! And, do you think people will complain about a strong black woman with a great work ethic? Versus, "Oh, look, happy slaves". Will people really find a problem with Tiana?

well, I don't think we should ever underestimate the stupidity of society.

Randy Newman himself has already dropped an F-bomb in relation to how stupid he thought it was that African Americans and whites mingled like it's no big deal in TPatF.

I could easily see more stupidity on the horizon. No matter how intelligent and ambitious they make Tiana.

It just goes to show what Albert Einstein once said: "Only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, although I'm not sure about the former."

Someone posted to YouTube the three scenes that cause the most controversy: scene 1, scene 2, and scene 3.

And from the film's Wikipedia page:

Film critic Roger Ebert, who normally disdains any attempt to keep films from any audience, has supported the non-release position, claiming that most Disney films become a part of the consciousness of American children, who take films more literally than do adults.

I enjoy Song of the South both as a Disney fan and as a film on it's own merits. The animated sequences are top notch and the film is memorable. It would be wonderful to be able to have an official home video release from Disney with lots of great bonus features about the production and the historical context in which it was made, but I would be downright shocked if Disney ever did officially release it.

1. I see nothing racist about the first scene- she's just a stubborn old lady who surely would say that to anyone!

2. I don't recall the other 2 scenes, but in historical context, the third one kind of makes sense- where would the free, former slaves get work? At least they were able to work. I mean, it's the lesser of two evils, pretty much.

And, I mean, is less than 3 minutes of footage enough to ban a whole film? A G rated film, I mean?