DVDizzy Forum

Oh man, I hoped I was kidding when I wrote that! But there are actual Hitchhiking clubs?



albert

I think the real problem with Song of the South is that Uncle Remus doesn't act "Black enough" for modern audiences. Now if uncle Remus was angry, carried a pistol, sold drugs and cursed. Disney would have no problem with this movie.

Right, things have gotten pretty off-topic. There is a big picture to offensiveness. It's all interconnected.

And to scaps: I wasn't trying to villify Goofystitch, or pick fights with him. I was simply challenging one of the things he said. I, too, understand the reason Disney wouldn't want to release the movie, but I still want it released. And I guess I also just wanted to be right about something on this site for once. My bad.

I'll try and stay strictly with SOTS from now on.

Little Red Henski wrote:I think the real problem with Song of the South is that Uncle Remus doesn't act "Black enough" for modern audiences. Now if uncle Remus was angry, carried a pistol, sold drugs and cursed. Disney would have no problem with this movie.

And that would be a positive image of 'blacks'?

Well, I know you are being cynical now...

2099net wrote:I'm all for correct political correctness because if done correctly and not allowed to become bigger than the issue in hand (like it often can), political correctness is only asking people to treat others with respect. I think presenting Song of the South with contextual information is showing respect, so I think its an appropriate way of releasing it. And any objection about the release could be justified by Disney simply by pointing to the same issues being raised in the text or documentary accompanying the release.

And I'm sorry, but if some people are offended, then the only answer for them is not to buy it and view it.

Very well said, Netty.

Does Disney think that some people will boycott Disney if they release SOTS? Sure, some people say that they'll boycott the company, but you know that when Beauty and the Beast gets rereleased, the little kid's grandmother will buy it for him. A full boycott on a company as large and entertaining as Disney? Really? I just don't see a lot of people keeping with it.

At the same time, though, look at how much debate this subject has caused just here on this forum. There will be so much more debate and controversy all over if it gets released. I still say release it. I still say, you've offended other ethnic groups, why not one more? I kind of kid with that, because I don't want people being offended, but a) it's a historical movie, not in the sense that those events happened, but in the sense that it takes place when it does, and b) as Netty said, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

Little Red Henski wrote:I think the real problem with Song of the South is that Uncle Remus doesn't act "Black enough" for modern audiences. Now if uncle Remus was angry, carried a pistol, sold drugs and cursed. Disney would have no problem with this movie.

...yes. That would solve all the problems.

Little Red Henski wrote:I think the real problem with Song of the South is that Uncle Remus doesn't act "Black enough" for modern audiences. Now if uncle Remus was angry, carried a pistol, sold drugs and cursed. Disney would have no problem with this movie.

Because that's how regular black people behave...

I'm not sure whether I'll laugh or cry at your bigotry.

I think he was kidding.

blackcauldron85 wrote:I think he was kidding.

I don't see how.

I think it was sarcasm about how movies today that depict black people as being angry, carrying pistols, selling drugs and cursing are perfectly acceptable. And yet something like SotS crosses the line.

Apparently, it went over most people's heads.

Disney's Divinity wrote:Apparently, it went over most people's heads.

Lots of things seem to go over people's heads when it comes to SOTS.

albert

SpringHeelJack wrote:So if we all pick up more hitchhikers, Disney will release "Song of the South" on two-disc DVD and Blu-ray?

Yes and I'm going to start it off by picking up the three that live in the Haunted Mansion

Goliath wrote:

Little Red Henski wrote:I'm not sure whether I'll laugh or cry at your bigotry.

I'm a mulatto.

I think its funny that over 200 years since the time this movie took place people still have a problem with Uncle Remus and his stories. At this point I don't care if Disney ever releases Song of the South on DVD. I have good bootleg copy sitting on my self. P.S. The film is more anti white thrash if anything. The white thrash family are the villains in the movie.

Little Red Henski wrote:

Goliath wrote: I'm a mulatto.

I think its funny that over 200 years since the time this movie took place people still have a problem with Uncle Remus and his stories. At this point I don't care if Disney ever releases Song of the South on DVD. I have good bootleg copy sitting on my self. P.S. The film is more anti white thrash if anything. The white thrash family are the villains in the movie.

Actually, it's only been about 140 years, but that is a good point.

ajmrowland wrote:

Little Red Henski wrote: Actually, it's only been about 140 years, but that is a good point.

Thanks. It just seemed like over 200 years.

Super Aurora wrote:I'm going to start it off by picking up the three that live in the Haunted Mansion

Then I'm off to pick up the one with hooks for hands you always read about. Whatsisname... Hook Hand Herb...

Super Aurora wrote:
I'm going to start it off by picking up the three that live in the Haunted Mansion


Then I'm off to pick up the one with hooks for hands you always read about. Whatsisname... Hook Hand Herb...

And hands off Constance Hatchaway...she's mine!

goofystitch wrote:I agree that there is nothing overtly wrong with Song of the South.

Many people find the film offensive. I find it offensive.

I don't think just because I find something offensive that it should be banned (I have other reasons). But when we're judging whether something is wrong with it or not... Don't you, somewhere, feel that certain people would understand better than others what is wrong with the film (though, it should be noted this truly wasn't marketed to black moviegoers)? That the majority opinion here is lacking information or even an idea of a strong, intelligent black figure from that time period?

Not that I'm saying I'm well-versed in black history or anything - I'm not (at all). But it didn't even take that for me to be offended by the film.

These discussions are completely off the beaten path. People don't even seem to be trying to understand what about the film could possibly be offensive. I don't usually mind though, I still think Disney is (for once in their capacity as a nasty, overbearing corporate force) making the right decision by censoring something. For the wrong reasons, yes. But still - the right decision.

The matter of the film being offensive has nothing to do with impressionable messages children will pick up. It's a question of taste and an issue of - why do we want something done in bad taste to be released, especially when too many people will only treat it as being in good taste. Who would ever want to see a race of people portrayed the way black characters are in Song of the South? Where is the appeal to that film now, other than yet another brainless whitewashed piece of family commerce and having the film as a collector's item?

And just so I don't incur the wrath of the fans (or so that I can say at least I tried not to) - there are equally offensive things on children's shows these days. Have we really come a long way? Not exactly.

goofystitch wrote: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.

That's a fairly safe position to take. Safe... and as mindless as the point of view that everyone who doesn't support the release of this film on DVD in the States is "an idiotic activist" and that the controversy is based on "supposed" faults of the film.

I don't know if I've mentioned this before- but black people have not been fond of Song of the South's portrayals of blacks for many decades now. It's nothing new. This is not the result of political correctness of the 90's or Black Power of the Vietnam era or the American cultural revolutions of the 60's or any movement. People who were rubbed the wrong way by this movie have every right to be taken seriously.

Lazario wrote:But when we're judging whether something is wrong with it or not... Don't you, somewhere, feel that certain people would understand better than others what is wrong with the film (though, it should be noted this truly wasn't marketed to black moviegoers)?

I agree that most of us aren't African American here and aren't the target demographic to be offended by the film. One of my best friends is African American, and I could ask her her thoughts on the film. I haven't yet, but maybe I should.

Lazario wrote:Many people find the film offensive. I find it offensive.

That's like how I feel with "What Makes the Red Man Red", but I don't think that it should be censored. Also, sure, that song is just a small part of the film, while for some people, all of SOTS is offensive, or most of it is (lace collar. ROAR).

I can understand that people who are offended by the film can't understand why others would want to watch something that hurts others. I get that. At the same time, I know that SOTS isn't the most offensive film out there. But, yes, I do understand that it offends people. At the same time, I think that the positive messages outweigh the negatives. SOTS really should come out as an educational DVD...not aimed at children, but aimed at just people in general, and it should have a lot of educational material in it. It should have things for kids, such as maybe a featurette on people of all ages and races getting along, as well as documentaries on the time after the Civil War, as well as sharecroppers, and of course features on the source material.

Lazario wrote:Who would ever want to see a race of people portrayed the way black characters are in Song of the South? Where is the appeal to that film now, other than yet another brainless whitewashed piece of family commerce and having the film as a collector's item?

I said this earlier: take away everything, and at its core, it's a story of an old man who tells stories that make a little boy feel better about life, and he learns valuable lessons. The story could be set anywhere, in any time period (but it's set when it is because of the source material), and that'd still be the core of the film. Yes, I know: "but it isn't set anywhere, in any time period, and that's the problem".

Lazario wrote:I don't know if I've mentioned this before- but black people have not been fond of Song of the South's portrayals of blacks for many decades now. It's nothing new. This is not the result of political correctness of the 90's or Black Power of the Vietnam era or the American cultural revolutions of the 60's or any movement. People who were rubbed the wrong way by this movie have every right to be taken seriously.

Another valid point. At the same time, and I know I'm becoming a broken record, but I just feel strongly about this topic: Just because there are more African Americans than there are Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, or German-Americans, it's okay for Disney to take into consideration the feelings of African Americans? Not to be insensitive towards African Americans, but some Native Americans take issue with Pocahontas and, of course, "What Makes a Red Man Red", and then you have the Wartime shorts.

Bottom line: If the Wartime shorts could be released in as sensitive a manner as possible, why not Song of the South? I know that it's been said that the shorts aren't nearly as popular/famous/whatever as SOTS, but it's still the same idea. They both are offensive to some people, yet the shorts were released. Yes, of course there will be a public outcry when and if SOTS is released. Duh- it's a controversial film. But presented in a sensitive and educational manner, I see no reason why the film can't come out.

And, Birth of a Nation is available. "But that's not a family film." It isn't, and that is a valid argument to an extent, but it's still available on DVD- was there a lot of backlash against its release? "But SOTS is Disney." Yes, it is Disney, and that's part of the reason, due to Disney's reputation, which was discussed earlier in this thread.

Controversial films exist. I believe in education, not censorship. I mean, censoring Sunflower in Fantasia is one thing- it doesn't take away the whole film. But SOTS, which isn't an anti-African American film, it has good messages, (which, as Little Red Henski said, is also showing poor white Americans in a bad light) is just unfortunate.

I'm coming from a Disney fan, film student perspective, so duh, I want the film released, but I do think that it'd be a great educational source if presented in the proper manner.

But Laz, lots of people find certain things "offensive". There's degrees of offence.

I know that Kazakhstan "officially" found Borat offensive, and protested diplomatically. That's major offence. Although, in Borat's the joke was not about Kazakhstan, only ignorant people who thought such a place as he described could exist in Eastern Europe. But beyond even the social stereotyping (depending on how you see it of either Kazakhstan or the United States), Borat still offends a lot of people due to its language, subject matter and nudity.

Should Borat be banned? I doubt you would say yes.

Is Song of the South offensive out of context? Yes, no doubt to many, and some more than others.

Is Song of the South offensive in context? Yes, probably as much as it is out of contextual information. But with the correct contextual information, it becomes historical evidence. It's not just a film for entertainment (although it obviously would fulfil that purpose) but its an educational tool.

Education doesn't really know "offence". Should we censor the history of the American Civil War/World War I/World War II/The British Empire and ignore or smooth over any atrocities which may have been performed in their name? So why ignore or smooth over African American's portrayals in the media and the actuality of their real lives in the 1940s?

I'm not belittling the offence Song of the South may cause to some, but I don't see how simply burying the past helps anyone or anything. Again, I'd like to state I only support a release with sufficient contextual supplements.