Song of the South Discussion

[Lazario]

As long as Dumbo, Gone With the Wind, Breakfast at Tiffany's, Peter Pan and The Searchers can exist with their racial stereotypes in place and still be regarded as classics without any problems whatsoever, I see no reason why Disney can't do the same with Song of the South and Fantasia.

As I explained to PatrickvD, the crows in Dumbo are treated as smart, caring, helpful characters. The bear, rabbit, and fox in Song of the South are none of those things. They are stupid, selfish, nasty stereotypes that make Disney look as bad as they tried to make the characters look. The crows change the entire movie, they actually give Dumbo and Timothy the confidence they need to go back to the circus and face their problem head-on. They're also presented as a contrast to the clowns, who are given racially ambiguous voices but whom I'm characterize as white, and are mostly mean and insensitive to Dumbo's safety and integrity.

However, Peter Pan I'll give you.

As I said in my first post, I honestly don't understand the issues that some people have with the film, and I would love if someone would point out specific examples of where the problem lies.

Different people have different problems. But it's remarkable to me anyway that one family film that someone would passionately defend as socially or spiritually positive could spawn so many varied offenses from people arguing the exact opposite. To me, the portrayal of the slaves is in extreme poor taste. For me, personally, it's an annoyance and I roll my eyes. The portrayal of the animated characters, on the other hand, is outright HORRENDOUS. This is where the film shocked me. If you've seen it... if you have eyes and ears that work, you know these stereotypes are aggressive, to say the least. The team at Disney went out of their way to make these 3 characters as obnoxious, ignorant, buffoonish, and unlikable as humanly possible. While clearly letting us know these actors are black. Which also makes them look bad for degrading themselves. Forgetting the fact that these are stereotypes, not a single one of these characters is likable nor are the actors' performances tolerable. Just the sound of these voices hurt worse than Fran Drescher's most extreme laugh. The actors are going over-the-top on purpose. And their behavior... Even for a Disney cartoon short this is beyond absurd, beyond surreal, beyond comic exaggeration, and beyond storytelling.

It's not an example of: why can't 3 animals in the woods get along(?). Disney were portraying the actual animals as being different from other Disney animals. As characters, they have far less sense and no social skills. The only civility we truly know took place in the story is shown offscreen- when Rabbit and Bear made their deal. The second we see Bear coming (and he's undoubtedly the most offensive one of the bunch), Rabbit is in a humiliating position doing the typical "black man scared" routine - CUT TO: blood thirsty, hyper, evil, insane Fox gleefully and psychotically getting ready to slaughter what is in effect another black man (with voices like these, it's impossible to ever see the characters as just being animals) - CUT TO: the Bear hanging in the same position with butt sticking out, being humiliated because he's so dumb, he doesn't know the Rabbit is taking advantage of him. And that's the protagonist of these sections of the movie- a character who has to take advantage of a character who initially meant him no harm to show that he can use his head. That's his solution, how to fix his problems. And don't even get me started on how the Bear is portrayed as irrationally, uncontrollably violent. The fact is- the characters are all without any sense whatsoever. And their purpose in the film is questionable to the point of serious disrespect on the part of Disney's creative staff.

In my eyes, it seems as if you don't want to face history in movies...

Well, if you're going to put it like that, what's to stop me from saying you believe the history tells itself and the filmmakers just borrow it. That there is no process of storytelling involved, no creativity or craft that goes into how the movie goes about showing us history. No bias or slant. I'm sorry, but that's foolish to me. Filmmakers don't just tap into history and let it show and tell itself- they portray it. And oftentimes, they portray it poorly. They have to write dialogue for people they didn't know, they have to film dramatizations of events they didn't see happen, cast actors who are playing people they've usually never met. There are hundreds of things they could get wrong in terms of accuracy.

Don't assume I can't handle history. I'm one of those viewers who would prefer to get my history from someone who knows it better than almost any filmmaker could possibly show it. Though I admit, I usually don't watch historical films because they take place in period and period films bore me to tears.

I'm not even remotely talking about the quality of the films, the quality of the director, or whether or not the film "makes a statement".

It seems you picked the wrong person to debate this with. I am talking about film quality. You can see I'm judging Song of the South, that's why you replied. What did you think I was doing?

I'm certainly not making any pretentious assumptions. I don't even know what tangent you're on about Bay's movies being cashcow... Yes, I know they are, but what does that have to do with anything? You lost me there.

You mentioned Pearl Harbor. That film is terrible. Why would you defend a film's abuse of history in your argument defending films' right to use history? And that's not what I'm talking about anyway. You're acting as though I have a problem with the fact that Disney showed black people in their film at all. That would make me a racist, rather than someone attacking the characters for being appalling stereotypes of black people.

But regardless, I could say the same about those that are against the film - you won't step back from hating it to see all of the great things about the film that so many have pointed out. You'll barely even acknowledge them (for instance, your conversation with merlinjones, where you completely dismiss Disney's filmmaking as "cheap ploys". The same filmmaking that formed groundwork for the company that millions of people hold so dear to their hearts. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss something like that).

You think they made every film the exact same way? That's the only conclusion a person could draw after reading something like that. And we both know it's wrong.

Not all of us prefer to get our history lessons from movies.

See, I think this is where the problem is. You're not watching these films for what they are meant to be: entertainment. They aren't trying to make a statement or teach history. It's just a family film made for entertainment purposes, that happens to have a piece of history in it, simply because of the time that the film is set in.

Wow... you really did pick the wrong person to debate this with. I was being somewhat facetious before when I said that but now I know it's true. No matter how I view the film, you won't accept it because you feel I'm taking the film more serious than it takes itself? Which of course is a strongly contrary view to that of merlinjones.

No, I don't want to hear anything bad about the film unless you can actually back it up with, as I've said, specific examples. The countless numbers of times I've talked to people about this, the furthest they can give me is the same thing you're giving me - "Blacks are stereotyped, slavery is not shown appropriately", etc... But I wish, for once, I could sit down with someone who is against the film and watch it with them, and have them point out every instance where they feel it is offensive.

Well I'm sorry it can't be me. I do not have the time to go as in-depth as I used to in threads. Not to mention this film has been a sore spot on the board and the previous thread was closed- as I felt it should have been. And this thread isn't doing much better since so many of the responses have been the same dronish Disney fanism that I have seen from just about everyone who's defended the film. I've already spent untold hours discussing it and debating it and bitterly arguing this out a year ago (with someone who actually AGREED with me that the film is offensive, if you can believe it).

What's more, after reading your posts thus far, I don't trust your objectivity. I'll admit maybe we have gotten our wires crossed and we're not following each other. Nonetheless, after re-reading this reply, I decided to go into a little bit of detail on my biggest issue with the film. So hopefully you get an idea of how serious I am about this film being extremely offensive.

[SWillie!]

What's more, after reading your posts thus far, I don't trust your objectivity. I'll admit maybe we have gotten our wires crossed and we're not following each other. Nonetheless, after re-reading this reply, I decided to go into a little bit of detail on my biggest issue with the film. So hopefully you get an idea of how serious I am about this film being extremely offensive.

I'm really glad you did, because I at least understand which issues you have a problem with, instead of the giant, dumb generalization of "it's a racist movie" that so many people use.

Wow... you really did pick the wrong person to debate this with. I was being somewhat facetious before when I said that but now I know it's true. No matter how I view the film, you won't accept it because you feel I'm taking the film more serious than it takes itself? Which of course is a strongly contrary view to that of merlinjones.

I'm really not sure why you keep saying things like this... about me not wanting to talk to you about this, about how I won't accept your view no matter what. I feel like you've tagged me as an asshole in every word I say, and I'm honestly not trying to be.

Anyways, on with the film...

Different people have different problems. But it's remarkable to me anyway that one family film that someone would passionately defend as socially or spiritually positive could spawn so many varied offenses from people arguing the exact opposite. To me, the portrayal of the slaves is in extreme poor taste. For me, personally, it's an annoyance and I roll my eyes. The portrayal of the animated characters, on the other hand, is outright HORRENDOUS. This is where the film shocked me. If you've seen it... if you have eyes and ears that work, you know these stereotypes are aggressive, to say the least. The team at Disney went out of their way to make these 3 characters as obnoxious, ignorant, buffoonish, and unlikable as humanly possible. While clearly letting us know these actors are black. Which also makes them look bad for degrading themselves. Forgetting the fact that these are stereotypes, not a single one of these characters is likable nor are the actors' performances tolerable. Just the sound of these voices hurt worse than Fran Drescher's most extreme laugh. The actors are going over-the-top on purpose. And their behavior... Even for a Disney cartoon short this is beyond absurd, beyond surreal, beyond comic exaggeration, and beyond storytelling.

It's not an example of: why can't 3 animals in the woods get along(?). Disney were portraying the actual animals as being different from other Disney animals. As characters, they have far less sense and no social skills. The only civility we truly know took place in the story is shown offscreen- when Rabbit and Bear made their deal. The second we see Bear coming (and he's undoubtedly the most offensive one of the bunch), Rabbit is in a humiliating position doing the typical "black man scared" routine - CUT TO: blood thirsty, hyper, evil, insane Fox gleefully and psychotically getting ready to slaughter what is in effect another black man (with voices like these, it's impossible to ever see the characters as just being animals) - CUT TO: the Bear hanging in the same position with butt sticking out, being humiliated because he's so dumb, he doesn't know the Rabbit is taking advantage of him. And that's the protagonist of these sections of the movie- a character who has to take advantage of a character who initially meant him no harm to show that he can use his head. That's his solution, how to fix his problems. And don't even get me started on how the Bear is portrayed as irrationally, uncontrollably violent. The fact is- the characters are all without any sense whatsoever. And their purpose in the film is questionable to the point of serious disrespect on the part of Disney's creative staff.

I mean, obviously we will never agree on this. I think the animated portions are some of the most enjoyable shorts in Disney's history. Nonetheless...

I don't think the characters are unlikable at all. (And no, this is not a case of "It's a Disney character therefore I love it!" kind of thing.) I think they are unique, entertaining, and downright funny characters. While I understand if you think they are obnoxious, etc... I don't understand why that has to be because they are black. Why can't they just be ignorant, buffoonish characters who happen to be black? Your view on it, to me, seems like someone who is afraid of being called a racist and therefore automatically pushes away any black character who is also stupid.

The thing is, when I watch these shorts, I'm not thinking "these characters are obviously black." I'm thinking, "this is a fox, a bear, and a rabbit, and their racial identity has nothing to do with anything." I highly, highly doubt that the story artists went "well, our characters here are 'black'... so that means we have to make them all complete idiots." Instead, it was probably more along the lines of "well, our story here calls for a couple of complete idiots, so we'll need a few stupid characters... and it just makes sense to have them be 'black', simply because Uncle Remus is the one telling the story."

...blood thirsty, hyper, evil, insane Fox gleefully and psychotically getting ready to slaughter what is in effect another black man...

See... this, to me, is just absurd. No, he is NOT going to slaughter another black man. He is going to slaughter a rabbit. Why does race have to have anything to do with it?

And that's the protagonist of these sections of the movie- a character who has to take advantage of a character who initially meant him no harm to show that he can use his head. That's his solution, how to fix his problems. And don't even get me started on how the Bear is portrayed as irrationally, uncontrollably violent. The fact is- the characters are all without any sense whatsoever. And their purpose in the film is questionable to the point of serious disrespect on the part of Disney's creative staff.

This is all a perfectly understandable argument. I agree that the idea that Brer Rabbit is being used as a "role model" is not the best idea. And yes, the characters are all without any sense - but that's the point. That's what makes them entertaining. But again, what do any of these points have anything to do with the characters being black? (Unless I'm mistaken and you're no longer talking about race being an issue here... I'm not sure.)

Long story short, I don't see these characters as black. I see them as characters.

On a side note, you mentioned period films make you roll your eyes, and it's just making me wonder... what movies do you like? Just out of curiosity... We're obviously polar opposites, as I would watch a period film over anything else any day of the week.

[Lazario]

I don't think the characters are unlikable at all. (And no, this is not a case of "It's a Disney character therefore I love it!" kind of thing.) I think they are unique, entertaining, and downright funny characters. While I understand if you think they are obnoxious, etc... I don't understand why that has to be because they are black. Why can't they just be ignorant, buffoonish characters who happen to be black? Your view on it, to me, seems like someone who is afraid of being called a racist and therefore automatically pushes away any black character who is also stupid.

Well, it's not because they're just stupid. I mentioned more than once in my argument with the poster I said agreed with me that The Jeffersons did the same thing with Leroy, the guy who worked behind the counter at Jefferson's store, in the 4th season. But I also told you Bear is inherently violent and irrational - he's what they call a "shoot first and ask questions later" type, Rabbit is a manipulative liar, and Fox is a real psycho. Giving him the ability to speak- they pushed him into territory I've never seen in Disney before. To try and match this with another character, they would have to give The Jungle Book's King Louie a chainsaw and a Tobin Bell speech - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHOWOsb0n_I . The fact that the characters are also stupid isn't divorced from these other characteristics / personality traits. They work together to create a portrait of a real person the people creating this movie believe could exist. I say this because several of Disney's animated films tried to evoke real human personality traits in the characters to remind us of real people. It's one of the reasons people find Bambi's learning scenes so cute. Disney did this with Thumper and his family, Snow White - I remember vividly hearing Walt Disney say he wanted a voice actress who sounded like a real little girl, they did it with Bambi's design - they wanted him to be more like a baby and for us to like him for that reason. In fact, that's the whole reason people cry during "Baby Mine" in Dumbo. Because they're convinced these drawings are more than animals, the humans are more than colors and paint, etc. Why don't I look at them as just animals? Because Disney rarely wanted that from his audience.

The thing is, when I watch these shorts, I'm not thinking "these characters are obviously black."

Well, reading that makes me think then that you have no experience being offended by racial stereotypes. Therefore, the logical step most take next is to think: how is this person a good judge of this? How would they know?

To be fair, I understand your point about stereotypes and I've seen plenty. I don't complain about them all. Dumbo, to an extent, used stereotypes too. But they simply made the crows seem black. That's all they did. The characters were already every other thing they were (every other characteristic / personality trait). They were good "people" who just happened to be black.

I highly, highly doubt that the story artists went "well, our characters here are 'black'... so that means we have to make them all complete idiots." Instead, it was probably more along the lines of "well, our story here calls for a couple of complete idiots, so we'll need a few stupid characters... and it just makes sense to have them be 'black', simply because Uncle Remus is the one telling the story."

I'd like to believe that too but, to keep this civil I'll say: everything I've learned throughout my life about respect has taught me to believe the exact opposite. If you want me to take it easy on the actual artists, I'll say there's a chance it wasn't their decision to make the characters so offensive. That they got their orders from a Walt or someone else. Someone who may have acted like they meant well but produced this instead.

But, isn't it interesting how we both knew they were black? That's something you weren't surprised to hear me say, even though we have differing opinions. If nothing else, I've proved that to you. That says a lot to me. People know these are potentially insulting stereotypes and they choose to see them as not.

...blood thirsty, hyper, evil, insane Fox gleefully and psychotically getting ready to slaughter what is in effect another black man...

See... this, to me, is just absurd. No, he is NOT going to slaughter another black man. He is going to slaughter a rabbit. Why does race have to have anything to do with it?

I explained that in the part of that sentence which you cut out. They made sure we wouldn't forget which race the actors were in the dubbing. They were trying to be as stereotypical as possible. If the characters had been given less stereotypical voices, you might have a point.

On a side note, you mentioned period films make you roll your eyes, and it's just making me wonder... what movies do you like? Just out of curiosity... We're obviously polar opposites, as I would watch a period film over anything else any day of the week.

How old are you?

And before you stop and think what I might be insinuating with that question, I'm not trying to say you're naive because you might be younger than me. I believe both my generation and the one growing up in the new millennium are both equally blind to racial stereotyping but in different ways. Maybe all generations are.

As for me and movies, I watch a lot of dumb movies. But I'd prefer to watch something truly innocent at its' core if I want entertainment derived from dumb situations. Perhaps something not molested by Hollywood - in this case I'm talking about movie star mugging, cliches in music scoring, and. Ghost World is actually a fantastic example of a great movie released by a major studio. And actually has relevance to this discussion topic. It shows different ways people can recognize something is offensive but disagree on whether we should look at it. A key scene involves racial stereotyping and shows that everyone who sees it knows it's racist. But certain people don't know what about it is offensive when asked. Thinking what's wrong with it never occured to them.

[SWillie!]

Why don't I look at them as just animals? Because Disney rarely wanted that from his audience.

This is a very legitimate point. Pretty much everything you're saying in this most recent post are good points.

They were good "people" who just happened to be black.

This, however... you're saying you're okay with good "people" who just happen to be black... but if they are bad "people" (Fox, etc) then it's because they're black, and therefore it's a stereotype? I still don't really understand why they can't just be stupid idiots who happen to be black.

But, isn't it interesting how we both knew they were black? That's something you weren't surprised to hear me say, even though we have differing opinions. If nothing else, I've proved that to you. That says a lot to me. People know these are potentially insulting stereotypes and they choose to see them as not.

You're definitely right - I certainly am aware that they are black, and more so, that they are black stereotypes. But I'll say it again - stereotypes exist for a reason, and I don't feel as if they should have to be offensive to anyone.

I will admit that I am white male, and so, with the exception of extreme feminists or people assuming I'm gay because I work at Disney World, have never been the victim of any stereotyping. Maybe that completely negates every opinion I have on this film. But there are plenty of people I know (I hate when people use the "I know some people like that, so I know them all" logic, but here goes) who would be in the potentially offended group, who see no problem with this film, or of stereotyping of this kind in general. Which brings me to your next point...

How old are you?

And before you stop and think what I might be insinuating with that question, I'm not trying to say you're naive because you might be younger than me. I believe both my generation and the one growing up in the new millennium are both equally blind to racial stereotyping but in different ways. Maybe all generations are.

I'm 21. And I think you've possibly hit the nail on the head with this one. Although I wouldn't use the same words - I think the younger generation is not "blind" to racial stereotyping, but are much less sensitive to racial stereotyping. I'm not saying that older folks are over sensitive, but I believe they are certainly more sensitive. And really, you can see that not only in stereotyping, but pretty much in everything - due to the time we grew up in with the internet and media and everything, we are pretty much numb to everything. Race, war, politics, sex, language... the whole nine yards. And so that explains why those people closer to my age who I have talked to about this are much more "meh... who cares? No big deal" than some of the older folks.

As for me and movies, I watch a lot of dumb movies. But I'd prefer to watch something truly innocent at its' core if I want entertainment derived from dumb situations. Perhaps something not molested by Hollywood - in this case I'm talking about movie star mugging, cliches in music scoring, and. Ghost World is actually a fantastic example of a great movie released by a major studio. And actually has relevance to this discussion topic. It shows different ways people can recognize something is offensive but disagree on whether we should look at it. A key scene involves racial stereotyping and shows that everyone who sees it knows it's racist. But certain people don't know what about it is offensive when asked. Thinking what's wrong with it never occured to them.

I suppose the way in which you watch movies is much too intelligent for me. (Gosh, I hate to give that to you!) But I'd much rather sit and enjoy a popcorn blockbuster than a Criterion Collection thinker.

[Lazario]

They were good "people" who just happened to be black.

You're saying you're okay with good "people" who just happen to be black... but if they are bad "people" (Fox, etc) then it's because they're black, and therefore it's a stereotype? I still don't really understand why they can't just be stupid idiots who happen to be black.

Don't try and play games. Okay? Just stick the argument at hand. I already explained quite well that both the examples in Dumbo and Song of the South were stereotypes. But the crows broke out of a stereotype to prove they were worthwhile characters. The trio in Song of the South were stereotypes at best. Which is why this is a problem. Why are the stereotypes in this movie unforgivable? Because they add insult to injury in the eyes of many intelligent people. It's the same reason I don't approve of someone pissing on a person's grave. It's spineless and disrespectful.

You're definitely right - I certainly am aware that they are black, and more so, that they are black stereotypes. But I'll say it again - stereotypes exist for a reason, and I don't feel as if they should have to be offensive to anyone.

I will admit that I am white male, and so, with the exception of extreme feminists or people assuming I'm gay because I work at Disney World, have never been the victim of any stereotyping. Maybe that completely negates every opinion I have on this film. But there are plenty of people I know (I hate when people use the "I know some people like that, so I know them all" logic, but here goes) who would be in the potentially offended group, who see no problem with this film, or of stereotyping of this kind in general.

I still see racism firsthand (from real people, not actors in a movie- etc) nearly every week of my life. The issues of people who oppose this film's depiction of black people are still very relevant.

I'd much rather sit and enjoy a popcorn blockbuster than a Criterion Collection thinker.

We're talking about a movie featuring slavery, attempted murder, and a little kid who weeps. If you're going to have that kind of attitude- this discussion has already become void.

[SWillie!]

We're talking about a movie featuring slavery, attempted murder, and a little kid who weeps. If you're going to have that kind of attitude- this discussion has already become void.

See... to me, we're talking about a fun film featuring memorable characters, songs, and story. I don't think I have an "attitude" about anything - I was agreeing with much of what you said in my last post, trying to make sense of our obvious differences, and you still have an attitude with me, it seems.

[disneyboy20022]

There's been an article posted about Song of the South through the New York Post. The Article is called Exclusively on Youtube

isney’s “Song of the South’’ hasn’t been legally available in any form in the US since its last theatrical release in 1986, but you can find it with a few clicks of a (non-Mickey) mouse.

The racially controversial, part-animated 1946 musical that gave the world “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah’’ has resided in its entirety on YouTube, apparently without protests from the Mouse House’s lawyers, since at least 2008.

Most classic-era movies on YouTube have long been in the public domain, but a much smaller number, like “Song of the South,’’ are still in copyright. Sometimes tangled rights issues block a video release — as is the case with the noir-inflected 1949 version of “The Great Gatsby’’ starring Alan Ladd, which briefly surfaced on TV around 1980 and has never been released by its owner Universal on video.

There are no such legal obstacles with “Song of the South.” Cartoon segments from the film have been available on video from Disney since the 1980s. The studio is much more sensitive, though, about the live-action portions, which even back in the 1940s were criticized by the NAACP for “the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship” — though the happy, singing Uncle Remus (played by James Baskett, who won a special Oscar for “his able and heart-warming characterization”) is technically a sharecropper after the Civil War.

“I just felt there are elements to the film, while it was a relatively good film, that wouldn’t be in the best interest of our shareholders to bring it back, even though there would be some financial gain,” Disney CEO Robert Iger told shareholders in 2011. “I just don’t feel that it’s right for us to use company resources to make it available.’’

Some of those who have long lobbied for the film’s release believe that Disney, which used to zealously guard the film’s copyright, has quietly decided not to block efforts to distribute it on YouTube or through other channels.

“It’s curious,’’ says Christian Willis, who has exhaustively chronicled the film’s travails at songofthesouth.net for more than a decade. “They were really heavily enforcing [the copyright], and any clips they could find were being quickly pulled down from YouTube.

“People used to be prosecuted for selling bootlegs, but as far as I can tell that hasn’t happened since 2004,” Willis says. “You can find bootleg DVDs [mostly derived from licensed foreign laserdisc releases] on dozens of pages at eBay. Maybe it’s a way for Disney to ease pressure on them from people demanding to see it.”

Jim Korkis, an unofficial Disney historian who recently authored the book “Who’s Afraid of Song of the South?’’ theorizes the studio may be testing the waters for an eventual release by letting it circulate in bootleg form to gauge reaction (which has been mostly positive, though a significant number still regard it as racist).

“Disney has digitally transferred this title, and it could be made available on Blu-ray in the snap of a finger,’’ Korkis says. “But it’s a no-win situation for them. What makes ‘Song of the South’ different than [the racially problematic] ‘Birth of a Nation’ or ‘Gone With the Wind’ is that it’s primarily a children’s movie, and providing any amount of historical context isn’t going to help.’’

source: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/e ... wchvO1kR7J

Also it appears that because of this article Disney is taking action against Bootlegs of Song of The South. Interesting.

Back on April 7, I wrote that the normally litigious Disney has apparently been ignoring copies of the controversial "Song of the South'' (1949) uploaded to YouTube since at least 2008. Now the Mouse House appears to have begun a crackdown on bootlegs of the film, which has never been legally available on video in the United States and hasn't been shown theatrically here since its 1986 reissue. A 2011 upload containing the entire movie in a single file -- formerly embedded in my article -- has been blocked by YouTube on copyright grounds at Disney's request. And most of the 2008 upload, in 10 parts, has also been blocked. But there are multiple versions of what appears to be the entire film still available to watch on YouTube as of this morning.

Amazon has removed all but one listing for bootlegs DVDs of "Song of the South'' -- derived like the YouTube uploads mostly from authorized Asian video releases -- from resellers. But a Google search still yields ads for three websites selling bootleg DVDs directly. It's anyone's guess exactly when Disney's lawyers started sending out cease and desist letters, and how aggressively this will be pursued.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/di ... z2QkQ4Q7gH


J

[milojthatch]

Unless an official release is finally coming, I think Disney just opened up a can of worms.

We're talking about a movie featuring slavery, attempted murder, and a little kid who weeps. If you're going to have that kind of attitude- this discussion has already become void.

First, this film does not feature slavery. It takes place in the era of Reconstruction of the South. Slavery has come to an end. That said, there were many on both sides who kept the appearance of slavery up because they didn't know anything else. All the Emancipation Proclamation did was those slaves who wanted to leave that life now legally could. Some however did not for various reasons. I feel this film capture history rather accuracy. The problem is that in our PC society, some of us have a hard time viewing the past for what it really was and wish to burry things they deem as ugly. These are the people who are doomed to repeat those same ugly mistakes.

As for attempted murder and a little kid that weeps, isn't that in most Disney films? Heck, in Lion King we actually see full on murder, forget attempted murder. If you don't like the film, don't buy it. But it's wrong for Disney to keep it from fans that do want to own it.