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

[Jules]

Papi Bear - do you even want SotS released in the first place?

Oh, and by the way - how old are you? Lighten up dude. Not every white person you glance at is racist. I'm not, at least ... though I guess you think otherwise.

Let's just say I'd like to see SotS released, and I wish that stupid Los Angeles something-board didn't give Disney cold feet.

[Pluto Region1]

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.... 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.

When I read what PapiBear said I was just shocked. That is NO WAY TO TREAT A FELLOW UD'er, PapiBear - you can make your point without going into a nasty racial diatribe. If you don't agree with releasing the film, you can state your arguments in a calm coherent manner, or choose not to participate in this discussion.

Very good point about GWTW, blackcauldren! My feeling about showing slaves that were happy or dancing: we don't know that slaves were miserable 24 hours a day and never laughed or danced. As bc has pointed out, the relationships were complex and no one knows what happened on a particular plantation, if some were treated better than others and one would imagine, even suppressed black sharecroppers found time to relax or try and enjoy what free time they had. The film depicts a fictional possible plantation scenario, which COULD have existed.

As I've said before in other SOTS threads, the film is not much different than many films of the 1930s/1940s that show blacks as servants to whites and none of those studios have censored the release or showing of those films, so why is Disney being held to a different standard? However, I do not have any objective to Disney putting together a narrative for the film that places it in some sort of politically-correct context.

To argue that the film is SO HORRIBLE that its going to do some sort of damage to any black youth who may see it, to me seems ridiculous. Especially when you consider the constant daily subjection to negative images and values as depicted in the black rap videos. But that's a whole other issue that apparently the black urban group wants to ignore.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Which ones of all you people taking part in this thread have actually seen "Song of the South"?

(I have.)

[UrsushH.Bear]

I have Lars. When it really comes down to it. . . It's a Disney movie with a Disney plot, I think once it comes out (if it does) it won't be as heated topic as people think. (then again, i've been wrong before- and i will be again- i'm sure)

[Jules]

I have. (Thanks Netty!)

[blackcauldron85]

I've seen it.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I have Lars. When it really comes down to it. . . It's a Disney movie with a Disney plot, I think once it comes out (if it does) it won't be as heated topic as people think. (then again, i've been wrong before- and i will be again- i'm sure)

I could also be wrong, but I also tend to think that most of the heat in this debate would go away if most of those involved actually got to see SotS.

[Escapay]

Which ones of all you people taking part in this thread have actually seen "Song of the South"?

(I have.)

*raises hand enthusiastically*

As always, my argument for the film is that it takes place from Johnny's point of view, and as a young child he has not yet been "tainted" with the adulterated perceptions of racism. That is, he doesn't recognize the physical differences between people, only that of behavior/personality. He likes people like Uncle Remus, Toby, Aunt Tempy, Ginny, etc. because they are good and kind people regardless if they're black or white. And he doesn't play with the Faver boys because they're mean kids who drown puppies.

Still, the most offensive thing in Song of the South has been, still is, and will always be...

THE LACE COLLAR!

Escapay

[MikeyMouse]

* raises hand *

I've seen it, too...recently, at that, as I wanted a fresh perspective as this debate started to boil. I agree that if people actually watched the film, they might not be so up in arms about it.

On a side-note, it looks like Papi's angry attack has earned him some time in the sin bin. That's the first time I've ever seen anything that angry on UD...including reyquilla.

[Princess Stitch]

*raises hand and jumps up and down*

I've seen it! I had heard about it before but when my Disney movie obsession kicked into full swing a year ago and I heard all the controversy, I just HAD to find a copy to watch for myself! I was too young to have seen any of the theatrical releases I think.

I agree that if most people watch the movie instead of reading all the bad press they won't be that offended. I was prepared for something awful the first time I watched that movie, but I loved it!

[UrsushH.Bear]

I agree. Yet, I had a conversation with a co-worker who loves the movie, yet was apalled when she saw it as an adult. the script is fine, the ebonics are fine, but visually-she's got a problem with the differences in costume and settings from the plantation house to Remus' quarters.

Historically- it must have been much worse than the Disney costuming department depicted.

My favorite frame in the movie is Johnny's hand in Remus' on the bed. It's really what it's all about. Relying on- living with- and helping each other.

[carlossilva]

I have seen it, too, both in original and in portuguese-dubbed versions ( both of which I own on VHS ).

Could anyone please explain which black character(s) are shown in a demeaning way, and on which scenes ?

Thanks

Carlos

[Lars Vermundsberget]

Could anyone please explain which black character(s) are shown in a demeaning way, and on which scenes ?

I don't think I've seen any such thing in particular explained very convincingly during years of following this very same debate. The criticism seems to be directed more or less vaguely at the general idea and setting of SotS. In my opinion this also suggests that there wouldn't be much point in trying to edit out the supposedly offending parts. It would be an all-or-nothing deal...

[Nandor]

I had the good fortune of seeing the movie without knowing about the controversy.
Though I found the movie to be very boring, I was surprised to find out it was supposedly racist. I didn't notice anything, which most likely has to do with the fact I wasn't looking for it.
If I ever do get the movie on DVD, I'll skip through the live-action parts. I won't see anything racist or boring that way ^^

[PeterPanfan]

I,too,found it quite boring...I didn't see anything racist in it,so I don't know why PapiBear made this into a bashing thread.

[Prudence]

Besides, some of us have mixed ancestry. At least, I have mixed ancestry. Portuguese, German, Belgian, Lichtensteinian, Italian, lines that hail from other European countries, Inuit, British, Greek, distant Asian lines, and yes - even distant African lines. I consider myself predominately Portuguese and Belgian in ancestry, and look as "Aryan" as a great deal of Caucasian Americans do, but my lineage is nearly as mixed as it comes. I may be white, but that doesn't mean my ancestors were slave owners of Africans.

Technically, some of my ancestors had "white slaves," if they could be considered as such. Serfdom wasn't much better than slavery, which brings me to another point. Disney has produced many movies in which the main heroine or hero was an unappreciated servant - no better off than many of the Pre-American Civil War slaves were.

[Loomis]

Perhaps if the possibility of its release can cause this much angst in an Internet community, then the world may not be ready to review it in the year 2007.

Racial issues aside, and I know it is very hard to do so when the debate is largely centered on the topic, but whatever happened to appreciate a film as a piece of art? Disney fans have argued long and hard to have Walt Disney recognised as more than just a filmmaker, but as a 20th century artist. Art is not meant to conform and fit nicely into people's preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be. It is meant to challenge and confront. That may not have been the original intention of SOTS, but on a long enough timeline, all art makes us think about the way people behave in a certain point in history.

Film is not only art, but an important historical document. It is often very much of its time and place, and at other times it challenges the status quo. SOTS falls into the former. It is a example of attitudes of the 1940s. It also won an Academy Award for an African American actor, the first male to do so. To ignore this film, or ANY film, purely because there are certain attitudes that have changed in the last 60 years - and will no doubt change again in the next 60 - is tantamount to ignoring chunks of our cultural past. That is a worse crime than offending modern sensibilities, as it opens the door to ignorance and allowing the racist attitudes of the past to resurface.

This has been a Loomis rant.

[MikeyMouse]

Film is not only art, but an important historical document. It is often very much of its time and place, and at other times it challenges the status quo. SOTS falls into the former. It is a example of attitudes of the 1940s. It also won an Academy Award for an African American actor, the first male to do so. To ignore this film, or ANY film, purely because there are certain attitudes that have changed in the last 60 years - and will no doubt change again in the next 60 - is tantamount to ignoring chunks of our cultural past. That is a worse crime than offending modern sensibilities, as it opens the door to ignorance and allowing the racist attitudes of the past to resurface.

Amen!

[UncleEd]

I missed Papi Bear’s post somehow. I present the following facts for Papibear’s response.

1.) There were white slaves and black slave owners in America.

2.) In the state of Louisiana there were more black slave owners of white slaves than white slave owners of black slaves.

3.) Many of the black slaves who were sold to Americans were done so by their own tribes in Africa.

4.) Stop blanketing all whites for being responsible for what their ancestors have done. Your gripes only hold water if you are a black slave addressing a white slave owner.

5.) The slaves and those descended from them have had much better lives than they would have lived in Africa. You have to admit that even the worst off slave from that period still lived more comfortably than your average African.

6.) It is a myth that the majority of American Indians are unhappy about the Europeans coming to America.

7.) It is a myth that before the white men came that the Amwerican Indians were just these peaceful tree hugging pacifists. The fact is that they were violently warring amongst each other. The coming of some of the more seedy white men brought these tribes together.

8.) If you don’t like the lot you have been dealt in America then go live somewhere else. In the 1920’s there was even a Back to Africa movement lead by black civil rights leaders. When they got to Africa the Africans wouldn’t let their ship dock and sent them back to America.


9.) Go see Song of the South before you gripe about it.

10.) Go read the posts from other black men on Jim Hill Media who have the exact opposite opinion you do.

11>) When you post or say ignorant and prejudiced comments like you have here you only reinforce the prejudices that some people have about “your people”. Prejudice is funny like that in that it goes both ways even though the light only gets shown on one side of it.

Thank you.

[carter1971]

Which ones of all you people taking part in this thread have actually seen "Song of the South"?

I've seen the animated segments, but not the whole movie. Two of those three segments I saw on YouTube, in extremely poor quality. The other I saw on the Alice in Wonderland Masterpiece Edition DVD, and it looked beautiful. I certainly would love to see the entire film with a beautifully restored feature. Even though many people have said that the live-action portion is boring, I'd still like the see it, if nothing more than to see James Baskett's Oscar-winning performance.

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.

There's certainly a bit of truth in that, even in my case. I don't feel "incomplete" because I don't have it (though my Disney DVD collection does) but it does get under my skin that certain groups continue to try to block it. Still, my main reason for wanting the film on DVD is simply because I want to see it and have a nice copy in my collection of Disney films, not because I need it to feel happy.

Racial issues aside, and I know it is very hard to do so when the debate is largely centered on the topic, but whatever happened to appreciate a film as a piece of art? Disney fans have argued long and hard to have Walt Disney recognised as more than just a filmmaker, but as a 20th century artist. Art is not meant to conform and fit nicely into people's preconceived notions of what should and shouldn't be. It is meant to challenge and confront. That may not have been the original intention of SOTS, but on a long enough timeline, all art makes us think about the may people behave in a certain point in history.

Film is not only art, but an important historical document. It is often very much of its time and place, and at other times it challenges the status quo. SOTS falls into the former. It is a example of attitudes of the 1940s. It also won an Academy Award for an African American actor, the first male to do so. To ignore this film, or ANY film, purely because there are certain attitudes that have changed in the last 60 years - and will no doubt change again in the next 60 - is tantamount to ignoring chunks of our cultural past. That is a worse crime than offending modern sensibilities, as it opens the door to ignorance and allowing the racist attitudes of the past to resurface.

This has been a Loomis rant.

That was no rant, sir. That was well said and applause-worthy!