Song of the South: Too Offensive to Release on DVD?

[Margos]

But ask yourself this: as a black person, do you think black people are naieve, childish, and obedient and subservient to white people? And do you think the freed slaves lived such happy lives as those in SotS? Or is it just one big whitewash of history?

I think that both black and white people can be naiive and childish, but I don't think that this is how the black people in SotS are presented. You see, after the Civil War, many former slaves (especially those who had good relationships with their masters) stayed behind to work as sharecroppers. And it is notable that Johnny's grandmother seemed to treat her slaves just like human beings, which was not too terribly rare.

The truth is, many accounts made by Northerners of slavery were often "worst-case scenario" tales. Uncle Tom's Cabin was more melodrama than fact. Some masters did treat their slaves this way. Many others (like Johnny's grandmother in SotS) were much, much kinder. The thing was, both North and South were so busy slinging mud on one another (politics as usual), that there are many misconceptions about the behavior of both sides before and slightly after the war. Since the North won the war, however, it is generally their exaggerations that have been written down as fact.

I think that slavery was a terrible institution, and am obviously very glad that the North won the American Civil War. However, as someone who has studied American history, I cannot overlook the many misconceptions about the era. Remus' situation was not terribly rare, and of course the sharecroppers were "obedient," wouldn't you be if you lived on your boss' property? I know I would, or I might find myself without a job and a livelihood!

And even under slavery, many slaves (mostly those with more lenient masters) did take joy from sitting around at night, singing songs and telling stories. Hey, that sounds just like SotS!

[merlinjones]

It should again be noted that Uncle Remus and Aunt Tempe are shown as the wisest and kindest characters in the movie -- it's Miss Sally and the Faber Boys that are the ignorant antagonists. Elderly freed slave Uncle Remus leaves "the only home I've ever known" because of their unfair actions and is invited back to unify the family.

The film is about a positive bond between a man and a boy that can't be divided by age, status or race -- a bond forged through imagination, moral fable and the power of storytelling.

[Margos]

It should again be noted that Uncle Remus and Aunt Tempe are shown as the wisest and kindest characters in the movie -- it's Miss Sally and the Faber Boys that are the ignorant antagonists. Elderly freed slave Uncle Remus leaves "the only home I've ever known" because of their unfair actions and is invited back to unify the family.

The film is about a positive bond between a man and a boy that can't be divided by age, status or race -- a bond forged through imagination, moral fable and the power of storytelling.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Disneydood]

Here, here. I agree, well said. We demand a release!! Official 2-Disc Song of the South "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah" Special Edition. If Disney wants to be greedy they can sell an expanded gift set like they did for Aladdin/ Lion King, only they can put it in a basket and include canned foods. They can call it "Special James Gift Baskett Set."

[Goliath]

It has been explained, at great lenghts, by Lazario and me (and others, I'm sure) why this film is racist in a number of ways. ?

Those claims have also been challenged by just as many on here.

Yes, with such shining examples of intelligence as: "but... but... but... Uncle Remus is a NICE man, no?"

The arguments Lazario and I made have never been *really* adressed, because people don't grasp -or pretend not to- the *underlying* racist premises in the movie. The fact that Uncle Remus is a nice man who gets along great with white children doesn't make him any less of a naive, subservient, child-like Uncle Tom stereotype, that was already out of fashion in Hollywood in 1946... Let alone that it negates Disney's whitewashing of the Reconstruction Era.

But Disney fans have no interest in real history, they are too blind to find any fault with something that 'Uncle Walt' made.

It should again be noted that Uncle Remus and Aunt Tempe are shown as the wisest and kindest characters in the movie [...]

No, they're not. Disney puts them on equal hight with children only. They are placed on the same level as kids, not adults. This sends the message that they shouldn't be taken seriously; they are childish; they are big children. And that's how Uncle Remus behaves in this film: as a big child, especially during the much-beloved 'Zippedy-doo-dah' scene. Uncle Remus is an outdated (in 1946 already) version of Uncle Tom, and Aunt Tempre, the cook, is the typical offensive stereotype of Aunt Jemima.

@ Margos: I believe you belittle in what conditions freed slaves lived after the Civil War. The way it's protrayed in Song of the South, is a fairytale. I think you're looking at this film through the pink-colored glasses one sees all too often with Disney fans. I say this, because you try to trivialize the actions of the South before, during and after the Civil War, by placing them on the same level: "two equal parties slinging mud at each other... oh, it's just politics, people! Just one side which wants to hold slaves and another which wants to abolish it. Yep, nothing different about them."

Besides, your historical assesment doesn't change the fact that the way Disney portrayed the black characters (naive, obedient, child-like) was already offensive and outdated back in 1946.

But all is has already been discussed. This is just a rehasing of previous debates.

[merlinjones]

>>This sends the message that they shouldn't be taken seriously; they are childish; they are big children. And that's how Uncle Remus behaves in this film: as a big child, especially during the much-beloved 'Zippedy-doo-dah' scene.<<

That's a difficult argument to apply to a Walt Disney movie. One of Walt Disney's favorite recurring messages in his most memorable films is that the adult should never lose sight of his inner child.

Uncle Remus is a renowned storyteller and optimist who uses his vivid imagination to make a hard life more colorful (for himself and others) via an unbridled spirit of youth (represented by the animated sequences).

In this picture, Miss Sally (the antagonist) has hopelessly abandoned her own inner child to become a cold-hearted adult (she forbids the storytelling and patronizes Uncle Remus) so is hopelessly lost in life and must rediscover what Uncle Remus has in abundance (the spirit of youth and imagination) to make her failed family life whole again and to reconnect to her own imaginative son (and thereby her own inner child).

In Walt's world (and the world of this film), Uncle Remus has the position of higher wisdom. Those adults who have lost their inner child in Walt's movies are generally portrayed as antagonists who must rediscover their spirit of youth to heal (see also Mr. Banks, Mr. Dawes, Mr. Darling, Polly Harrington, Dr. Mac Dhui) -- or become simply villains (Vickie, Barnaby, Captain Hook).

As a vivid storyteller and eternal optimist with a healthy inner child, Remus is Walt's own avatar in this movie. The highest compliment given a character in Disney lore (see also Mary Poppins, Peter Pan, Pollyanna et al).

[Goliath]

That's a difficult argument to apply to a Walt Disney movie. One of Walt Disney's favorite recurring messages in his most memorable films is that the adult should never lose sight of his inner child.

That's very different from making a black man the only adult in the film who behaves childishly. Also keep in mind that black people used to be portrayed as child-like in the Hollywood films in the 1920's, 30's and 40's.

Uncle Remus is a renowned storyteller and optimist who uses his vivid imagination to make a hard life more colorful (for himself and others) via an unbridled spirit of youth (represented by the animated sequences).

That's just a nice way of saying he's a man with a child-like imagination, who only communicates with children, because that's the only level he's capable of communicating. You're trying to make the character into something better than he really is, and you do it solely because *you* like this film, and you don't want to like a racist film. That's why you have to pretend Uncle Remus is something he's not.

In this picture, Miss Sally (the antagonist) has hopelessly abandoned her own inner child to become a cold-hearted adult (she forbids the storytelling and patronizes Uncle Remus) so is hopelessly lost in life and must rediscover what Uncle Remus has in abundance (the spirit of youth and imagination) to make her failed family life whole again and to reconnect to her own imaginative son (and thereby her own inner child).

Yet even more covering up racist patterns with beautiful, noble, but ultimately made-up arguments. A very idealized way of looking through pink glasses to a white woman belitteling a black man, a freed slave, who's supposedly happy to live in a wooden shack on a plantation in the South during the Reconstruction Era! I don't know if I should or ....

[merlinjones]

>>That's just a nice way of saying he's a man with a child-like imagination, who only communicates with children, because that's the only level he's capable of communicating.<<

I don't see any limitations placed on Uncle Remus' ability to communicate in the film - - the limitations are shown belonging to those who can't perceive the importance and relevance of his stories. That he prefers to communicate more with children than adults (through the power of imagination) is not much different from Mary Poppins -- they are the ones open to his message. And let's not forget this story is told from a child's perspective - - Johnny's. It's about his friendship with Remus and how the wisdom of those tales affect his own decisions in life.


>>Yet even more covering up racist patterns with beautiful, noble, but ultimately made-up arguments. very idealized way of looking through pink glasses to a white woman belitteling a black man, a freed slave, who's supposedly happy to live in a wooden shack on a plantation in the South during the Reconstruction Era!<<

I'm just giving you the text of the film. Sally is the antagonist (she's cranky and unfair and we don't like her). Remus is the protagonist (he's brilliant and alive and we identify with him).

Uncle Remus doesn't define himself as a victim, but instead has risen above his circumstance of oppression to inspire others with his tales of Br'er Rabbit. Above all he is a beloved storyteller, moralist and optimist. And when that goes sour and he is unfairly denied his identity as a storyteller, Remus takes the initiative to leave the plantation as a free man.

Clearly there are dated impressions in the film, but you can't ignore the actual story all together. Remus is the hero and we love him, care about him, want to be enthralled by his tales and songs, his warmth and wisdom.

[ajmrowland]

my copy arrived today. Will watch tomorrow.

[Margos]

In this film, Goliath, being childlike is the whole theme of the story! It's considered a good trait! All the other adults (white and black) don't have what Remus has: an innocent, inner child. It is this which allows him to connect with an understand the problems of the children, allows him to see Br'er Rabbit come to life in the end, and allows him to think with his heart when everyone else around him is using their eyes and heads to come to a false conclusion.

And no, Goliath, I'm really not trying to belittle the conditions of slavery. It was bad. Even those who were treated well sometimes said (in slave narratives after escaping) that it didn't matter how well you were treated: being owned was bad enough. However, there were some sharecroppers after the war who actually did live as the sharecroppers in SotS did. It's a movie, of course. But hey, that's no different than showing the Italian pizza shop guys in Lady and the Tramp running a successful business in turn of the century New England.

Look, Goliath, SotS doesn't offend me. And no amount of your arguements will make it do so. If it offends you well, then, that's a personal thing. I wasn't aware that it was supposedly offensive towards the Dutch, but whatever, I guess I'm just insensitive like that.

[Rudy Matt]

Look, Goliath, SotS doesn't offend me. And no amount of your arguements will make it do so. If it offends you well, then, that's a personal thing. I wasn't aware that it was supposedly offensive towards the Dutch, but whatever, I guess I'm just insensitive like that.

Wait, I thought people were saying that the more people see the film, the less people would find to complain about...you just joined my camp, in that I believe nothing - no introduction, no context - is ever going to save the film from being attacked by those who want to do so. In other words, why even go there? It doesn't profit anyone, the race-baiters or the preservationists...just let it go. It was a movie, you want to watch it, go watch it. Let the world and the Disney co. move on past your own petty agendas.

[Rudy Matt]

ah, so that's what your getting at. You see, what i was trying to say is that these storms dont last nearly as long as you claim. It always happens at first, gets a little worse, and then it blows over, like all bad things. If the storm never comes, than nobody appreciates the blue skies and rainbows at the end.

Um, this thread was started over three years ago...you people are all Disney fans and you have all seen it, but that hasn't made any of you stop arguing. Why in the name of God would you think a mass market release in the age of the Daily Show and every other snarky horsecrap cheap-shot media entity would make the storm "go away"?

You people just want it on your shelf in an official version to complete your collection. No one has ever presented a convincing argument otherwise.

[ajmrowland]

^I gave you the examples that pretty much spelled it out for you. look at my earlier posts. unbiased thinking definitely changed my view of the world, and the roots are in at least one of my posts within the last two or three pages. I bid you put your thinking cap on and look. It's not hard.

[merlinjones]

Debate is good for the mind. Freedom for the mass public to view historic creative works is nothing but positive. History can't be erased, but it can be studied. Argument may never end, but how does that justify suppression of art or any intellectual property by corporate rights holders? We are not on the planet to avoid argument, but to learn and grow. Walt Disney made a classic film from classic literature that should be available in quality form for purchase by everyone who wants it (that includes the general public) so they can enjoy, laugh, learn, imagine, sing, analyze, research, debate - - and yes, argue. That's what it means to be alive in a world of artists, all of whom see things and interpret things differently.

[dvdjunkie]

I am still at a loss for the debate on whether or not this movie has racist overtones.

The time period that this movie supposedly takes place sets the story apart from movies made today. The fact that black people are depicted as slaves and underclass people is not a reflection of today, but how it was back then, and should make us all proud at how far our country has come today in the racial equality problems we have had.

Those people who say that it is a racist film should take a good look at how they really feel about the different people around them today. They should remember that this movie takes place back when people, regardless of their color or race, were treated differently than they are today.

I think that the NAACP is way out in left field if they say that this movie will set racial relations back twenty years. Don't they realize that it is only a movie, and there are a lot more movies today, as well as television shows, the depict black people as lower class citizans. They should try to get these movies and television shows changed or have the same rants against them as some here at UD have against "Song of the South", which deserves to be released NOW!!!! without any censorship or some disclaimer.

I love this movie and those who have watched it with me at home, have never complained once about how people are segregated or treated in this movie.

[TheSequelOfDisney]

I think it's just sad that I've been a Disney fan for so long and I have still yet to see this film simply because, I guess, Disney doesn't think we can handle it. I think I can. Plus, I want to see it.

[ajmrowland]

Youtube!

[Goliath]

This is an answer to all of you, since I don't feel like repeating myself too much.

Uncle Remus doesn't define himself as a victim, but instead has risen above his circumstance of oppression to inspire others with his tales of Br'er Rabbit. Above all he is a beloved storyteller, moralist and optimist.

And *that's* exactly the problem with this film: that it's a white-wash of American history. It shows freed slaves living happily on the plantation where they once were forced to work. Not just Uncle Remus, but all the black people in this film are showed laughing and singing while they still work on the plantation, this time as 'free' persons. Uncle Remus and the other black people used to be *slaves*. The white people in the film used to *own* them, like you own an object or a piece of property. And this film tries to tell us that the black people are happy to live on the plantation of their former *owners*, the ones who fought in the Civil War to protect their 'right' to own them as slaves.

Margos even tries to rewrite history by saying former slaves did so voluntarily, and that they were happy to live there and work there. All because she, and a lot of other people in the thread, don't want to admit they like a film that's essentially racist. The truth is, that most black people in the South didn't have a *choice* but to stay on the plantation and work there. They had no other places to go to. What options does a man or a woman has when he used to be somebody else's property, never had a home of his own, never made an income and lived among white people who would rather still hold him/her as a slave?

In real life, Uncle Remus wouldn't have sat around telling stories to white children. He would have been running for his life to escape the lynch mobs. That's the reality Disney tried to white-wash.

Clearly there are dated impressions in the film,

And they were already dated in 1946. Disney-fans nowadays are used to saying: "well, that's just the way black people were portrayed in 1946. That's just film history." But it's not true. Disney made a throwback to the 1930's.

but you can't ignore the actual story all together.

As I explained above: the story *is* the problem, although Disney-fans won't acknowledge that. Because they'd rather hush their conscience (for liking a racist film) with empty explanations like:

Remus is the hero and we love him, care about him, want to be enthralled by his tales and songs, his warmth and wisdom.

P.S. The 'Quote'-button is on the right of every post.

[Super Aurora]

When I watch this movie, I don't really watch it for historical accuracy, I watch it for the silly cartoons of Brer Rabbit and gang, or just the movie itself. I'm well aware that this movie is totally not a true depiction of Reconstruction era. If I wanted watch something like that, I'd go watch a documentary.

What's awesome about this movie is that Uncle Remus gave us an awesome attraction where we can see boobs flash by. I think it's called Flash Mountain or something like that. Remus knows how to cater to fanservice.

[Goliath]

What's awesome about this movie is that Uncle Remus gave us an awesome attraction where we can see boobs flash by. I think it's called Flash Mountain or something like that. Remus knows how to cater to fanservice.

'Boobs flash by'? Why didn't I know this? And why isn't that attraction in Euro Disney Paris?