DVDizzy Forum

Well, it has always been marred by issues like these even before Walt started actually making the movie.

I know one thing, if any of us were ever in charge of Disney, this movie would be the first thing on the list.

merlinjones wrote: This whole "forbidden fruit" (as you say) aspect was created by the Eisner and post-Eisner management at Disney who internally banned the movie for lack of political correctness -- that absence from public view has taken on a life of its own and created monsters in the shadows where there are none. It's dated to be sure, but not racist in intent or theme.

Well, I haven't seen the film (except for little, more widely distributed snippets like "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" and some of Brer Rabbit's scenes, so I don't know if it's racist or not.

But, I do wonder if Disney had never been scared to release on home video, if it would be considered one of their most important titles like Mary Poppins and Roger Rabbit, or would it be more like Bedknobs & Broomsticks or Treasure Island, where it's kind of well-known, but doesn't receive the same amount of attention from Disney or the public.

If there was never a controversy and it's always been available on home video, I think it would be VERY well-know but not well liked. Why? Well to put it bluntly, the live action segments are just plain boring. Besides James Baskett, no one else has enough personality to really hold my attention (one wonders if this would've been different if Walt hadn't taken the cost cutting procedures of filming live action instead of all-animated like he originally intended) and the kids were just annoying.

It's the animated segments that this movie will always be famous for (and liked for). The animated segments not only feature 3 distinct and memorable morality tales (and characters), but also extremely famous/catchy songs. The three big songs are "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah," "Everybody's Got a Laughing Place," and "How Do You Do?" Whether you've seen the movie or not, you've probably heard these songs at some point. People would also know the animated characters, stories and songs from Splash Mountain, one of the most popular rides at any of the Disney Parks.

I don't recall any rides or merchandise based on those other movies you've mentioned. I actually don't even remember any of the songs (if there are any) from those movies. This leads me to believe that Song of the South (even without the controversy) would be more known to the public than those films but not necessarily more liked.

jpanimation wrote:If there was never a controversy and it's always been available on home video, I think it would be VERY well-know but not well liked. Why? Well to put it bluntly, the live action segments are just plain boring. Besides James Baskett, no one else has enough personality to really hold my attention (one wonders if this would've been different if Walt hadn't taken the cost cutting procedures of filming live action instead of all-animated like he originally intended) and the kids were just annoying.

Though kid actors are always generally annoying. You have to search far and wide to find your Karen Dotrice's and Matthew Garber's, or Kim Richards' and Ike Eisenmann's. They are the exception to the rule. (And perhaps... they're a package deal sorta thing, like they just work well together?)

>>If there was never a controversy and it's always been available on home video, I think it would be VERY well-know but not well liked.<<

Well, I'm old enough to remember (not all that long ago) when the film was shown regularly and it was indeed very well loved, and still is well loved by most people who remember seeing it in a theatre as kids. The live-action was certainly deemed corny, simplistic and dated yet effective and appealing - - while the animation, the cartoon characters and the indelible hit score/songs (and Uncle Remus himself) were and are well loved by those who know the film well - - The movie etched a memorable impression with audiences and always made a ton of money in reissue, quite unlike the (likable and enjoyable but in the end, dismissable) Bedknobs, Pete's Dragon, etc. Otherwise we would not have seen it perpetuated so long and there would have been no Splash Mountain.

Like it or not, Song of the South had a whole lot of Walt's personal attention and care in it - - and it's memorable to audiences in that way, just like his other major classics. But the movie wouldn't be such a flashpoint had they just kept in release - - it might even have faded a bit with age and no controversy. But it remains the powerful and appealing story about the power of storytelling and storytellers to make a difference - - I cry every time I watch it.

Hattie McDaniel's Sooner or Later was recorded by such singers as Rosemary Clooney, Dinah Shore and Doris Day. You can hear an instrumental version of Sooner or Later in the queue at Splash Mountain at Disneyland and I would guess also at Walt Disney World. (I can only recall hearing it at DL.)

merlinjones wrote:Well, I'm old enough to remember (not all that long ago) when the film was shown regularly and it was indeed very well loved, and still is well loved by most people who remember seeing it in a theatre as kids. The live-action was certainly deemed corny, simplistic and dated yet effective and appealing - - while the animation, the cartoon characters and the indelible hit score/songs (and Uncle Remus himself) were and are well loved by those who know the film well - - The movie etched a memorable impression with audiences and always made a ton of money in reissue, quite unlike the (likable and enjoyable but in the end, dismissable) Bedknobs, Pete's Dragon, etc. Otherwise we would not have seen it perpetuated so long and there would have been no Splash Mountain.

Like it or not, Song of the South had a whole lot of Walt's personal attention and care in it - - and it's memorable to audiences in that way, just like his other major classics. But the movie wouldn't be such a flashpoint had they just kept in release - - it might even have faded a bit with age and no controversy. But it remains the powerful and appealing story about the power of storytelling and storytellers to make a difference - - I cry every time I watch it.

"Like it or not" ... ? Well, MJ, I think that's neither here nor there. JPA made a very valid point. And enough people have fluffed it up already. It's not a very good film. When it's not been overtly racist and absurdly simple minded.

I wouldn't say "like it or not" to you unless you said it to someone else first. So, since you have... I say that's the way it is. Whether you like it or not.

>>I wouldn't say "like it or not" to you unless you said it to someone else first. So, since you have... I say that's the way it is. Whether you like it or not.<<

Nothing personal intended. I'll clarify "Like it or not..." as "Whether you personally like the movie or don't..." - - it had a lot of Walt's own care and attention in it's production and was very popular with audiences and made lots of money in reissues through 1987 and many people still recall it vividly and fondly (see numerous comments here, on Amazon, on the petition, etc.), are still humming the hit tunes, enjoy the attraction based on the film and don't view the story as racist in intent. Those are just the facts of Hollywood history (as is criticism of the film since its first release).

Naturally, you are more than free and welcome (and encouraged) to debate the film's content - - that's what makes a free world go 'round (...the kind of world where we can readily access historic works of art that haven't been suppressed by intellectual property rights holders.). : )

If that's setting a theme / precent of humility, I'll add to it and say... I may have been a little off months before when I said I agreed with Disney's decision to keep the film locked away. If black people who find the film offensive haven't developed thicker skins by now, perhaps they should learn how to deal with it.

But also, I really don't think it would make that much of a difference / be that landmark a thing if they ever did release it officially. It would still be as under-the-counter as the film's availability is now. Strictly online. Even if they did put it out with the Disney logo on it, most stores would then refuse to carry it. They're not stupid.

Someone's already made this connection; no? One of the reasons I consider this argument so ridiculous is I can't see anything stopping people from purchasing the film online in the form in which it's currently available. I do believe there are enough copies for everyone here to start with. And for the people who aren't here, enough copies could be made available.

So, this is obviously an argument of principle. Correct? But this is where the fork rises up in the road. On one hand, yes- it's morally wrong to censor anything. And we can't support something immoral. It's bad for our collective conscience. On the other hand, we have what would happen if Disney were to release the film. Have you thought about that? Thought about it further than- now I can get a copy with the actual Disney logo on it? Or- now a long-standing wrong has finally been set right?

Here's how I see it, the complications:

1. How do you market a film like this? What do you say to promote it's re-release on DVD? The best thing to do would be to not bother. Just slip it into any given wave of releases of whatever line of films is already out. Don't give it a special label of any sort. Will that make fans happy? To draw attention to the release means having to lie about it if there is any hope of selling it at all. "Enchanting Disney songs that will fill your heart with joy, like Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah!" To do that, they would have to show the clip. And even that sequence is a little shocking. Not to mention that by now, I think it's not crazy to say our culture is more familiar with the parodies than the real thing. What can they say about the movie in a commercial / DVD sneak peak? Do you think they can ignore the film's controversial legacy?

2. A release for the film is prepared with the proper bonus features to place the film in proper historical context, explain why it's so completely ignorant to real racial struggles and condescending to an entire race of people. Your next gamble is getting people to pay attention to the arguments people make for the film. Since it's Disney, you know someone will try and defend the film. There is no defense for it. None whatsoever. The best they can do is offer up interview subjects who like the film and can't see the problem other people have with it. Because, what professional person willing to speak positively about the film actually understands what is inherently wrong with it? I haven't seen a Disney documentary yet where they're able to speak completely objectively about something, a movie or story for Disney. Every one I've seen has caved to sentimentality at some point. In a way, that's part of their charm.

3. The reception buyers have to the film once it's out. I would be all for Disney releasing a movie that stirs up strong reactions in its' viewers. For the right reasons. This movie is not likely to do that. Most audiences today would probably view the film's subject matter with apathy and ignorance. Those who would be likely to even buy the film. What attraction does this film have for today's family audiences? I still say JPA was right on the money. People would not be very taken with the over-the-top dramatic performances, grating high-pitched voices and stupidly slap-happy mannerisms for the animated characters, and the dumb smiles plastered on everyone else's faces.

Either way, this is the fate that awaits a potential official Disney DVD release. No matter how you slice it, it's white-washed. At best, it's a release for the converted. Fans who've already made their mind up about what it is, means, and what elements are the more overriding. Some of these people who already scoff at just about anyone who thinks it deserves to be taken to task for what it suggests. I won't call this apathy anymore. At worst, for the bigger fans, it's intense denial. Most people still aren't expected to have to face serious racial issues (or else, God help us- they wouldn't even make garbage like 2004's Crash, intended as a wake-up call to just how racist America really is), so most truly offensive and questionable films, jokes, attitudes, music, etc. reinforced by our culture go largely unnoticed.

What harm does one more film do? Probably none (I believe this release would still be ignored by the public at large, unless a controversy followed). But this does signify where much of institutionalized ignorance starts. In what is fed to children and families. And the motto of everything made for them: keep stories simple. Don't explain things. And if they're being fed / raised on shallow or unclear, possibly hypocritical, values- so what? Who's going to complain? Let's judge the movie by the filmmakers' intentions, not by what they actually created. That's the legacy the film has on UD. I'm still one of the only people speaking out against it. Little ol' me. What should happen is that a critical, hard look at the film make more people skeptical of it. Not make them embrace the film, warts and all. What do you really want to happen in the case of this movie? The former or the latter? Disney would have to make their mind up too. They couldn't just sell it as-is. And it's not really their style to explain things objectively.

Disney always stands for (as far as they know): "Everything we sell to you is safe and reinforces a happier, better way of life." Can you even begin to imagine how they could spin this movie to fit that criteria? Especially when so many intelligent cultural figures have already found serious fault with the film and the messages it sends?

They'd have no trouble selling the film just the way they did in 1987 - - emphasizing the animation of the Br'er Rabbit stories over the live-action aspect. The people who wanted the film would be happy to buy it - - while the rest wouldn't bother (like any movie). Younger consumers would simply recognize the characters and song from Disneyland and Walt Disney World's ever-popular Splash Mountain -- same poster does that too.

Here's the 1987 ad campaign. Looks no different from all their airbrushed home video covers of today (though it's drawn better in some respects). These characters are very appealing.:

http://www.moviegoods.com//Assets/produ ... 1020.A.jpg

Lazario, the only remotely redeeming thing about your post is the link to the hilarious SNL skit. Thanks!

ajmrowland wrote:Lazario, the only remotely redeeming thing about your post

Buddy, it's the blank, empty truth. Not a call-to-arms. So, I dare say... that's the way it's meant to be. It's not like you expect a reward when you tell someone they have ketchup on their tie.

ajmrowland wrote:is the link to the hilarious SNL skit. Thanks!

And, you're welcome.

Well, Im frankly witholding judgement until I get that second glimpse of the film I'm waiting for, so I guess that also negates my previous comment.

merlinjones wrote:They'd have no trouble selling the film just the way they did in 1987 - - emphasizing the animation of the Br'er Rabbit stories over the live-action aspect. The people who wanted the film would be happy to buy it - - while the rest wouldn't bother (like any movie). Younger consumers would simply recognize the characters and song from Disneyland and Walt Disney World's ever-popular Splash Mountain -- same poster does that too.

Here's the 1987 ad campaign. Looks no different from all their airbrushed home video covers of today (though it's drawn better in some respects). These characters are very appealing:

http://www.moviegoods.com//Assets/produ ... 1020.A.jpg

Very appealing? Perhaps- if you think black people are really like that.

Even Roseanne argues that in the era this film was made, these stereotypes were idiotic and offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yAvPClhUfA#t=7m10s

Lazario wrote:Very appealing? Perhaps- if you think black people are really like that.

Even Roseanne argues that in the era this film was made, these stereotypes were idiotic and offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yAvPClhUfA#t=7m10s

Well, I found the animated characters very appealing. I don't think black people are really like that, but I also don't think the animated characters were stereotypes of black people. I'm guessing that the animated character's personalities were based on their animal stereotypes (i.e. sly fox) used in the original African folk lore with Anansi (Br'er Rabbit). When the West Africans created these stories, they were as morality tales (or to explain the unknown, like Greek Mythology), I don't think they created these tales to offend anyone.

As for the stereotypes in the Roseanne clip, I honestly don't know how people of African decent talked or acted in the 1800's but to pretend they we're like that in the 1950's is incredibly offensive.

Br'er Rabbit is wonderful and appealing character and, like Johnny in the film, I learned a lot from his tales and the wisdom of Uncle Remus. I've often quoted the themes from the movie like "You can't run away from your troubles, there ain't no place that far." or "Now you've put your foot in it." or "The stories don't do no harm. And if they don't do no good, how come they last so long?"

Big Disney Fan wrote:Well, it has always been marred by issues like these even before Walt started actually making the movie.

I know one thing, if any of us were ever in charge of Disney, this movie would be the first thing on the list.

Don't speak for me, I'm in no rush for this to be released in such a polarized, reactionary U.S. People who want it can watch it on YouTube or buy an import copy. There is no pressing need for a U.S. release.

^I disagree. The only reason anyone can react to anything with offense, rightfully or not, is by having little to no exposure to it. Videogames, for example, are generally looked down upon by those who are above middle-age and seen as destroying today's children, yadda yadda, but anyone who's played them just see them as another form of entertainment. most people are offended by nudity, but nudists understand that it's just the human body. yet another example of America's controversy-happy culture.

By waiting, Disney wont be softening the "impact" when they finally release it. It'll just be harder for people to digest when they do.

>>There is no pressing need for a U.S. release.<<

Copyright abandonment? Seems like this film belongs in the public domain if the intellectual property holders have abandoned domestic commercial rights. Then it could be viewed and exchanged freely as a historic work. Though I suppose there would be music rights issues...

A workable compromise alternative for the company to make money on this title while keeping it from North American release would be to market region-free or all-region multi-lingual "international edition" DVDs and Blu-Rays overseas. Then anyone who want a nice copy of Walt Disney's classic could easily buy the import in specialty shops or online and it would never need to be found in the big box retailers. Yet, Disney would make the money (and reinforce the copyright) instead of bootleggers.

ajmrowland wrote:^I disagree. The only reason anyone can react to anything with offense, rightfully or not, is by having little to no exposure to it.

I will repeat...anyone who wants to see it can do so. Easily. Import it, or watch it on YouTube. Problem solved.