DVDizzy Forum

If any of this feels off... remember, I've been absent from this discussion for about 4 days.

Goliath wrote:Mind you, I'm *in favor* of releasing the film. I'm against the censorship and hiding of history that's going on now. But that doesn't mean I'm going to pretent this film is not racist. Because it is. Disney-fans just don't *want* to see it.

Loyal Walt-worshippers?

jpanimation wrote: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.

I hope by that you don't mean the sequence as they're leaving the house where we the audience realize black people are in fact smarter than white entertainment allowed us to think they were.

If so, I call your attention to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRM6jUDzOcQ#t=6m36s

And you'll note (though Helmsley was only in his 30's and Sanford was in her 50's) these characters were both in their 40's during this time. So they were both of appropriate age to have seen the movie. And in this clip, I think you'll see they're not exactly praising Disney's portrayal of blacks.

Either way, the point was hardly that the black people all magically were born into well-educated families. Merely that they were looked down upon by white films and filmmakers, writers, etc.

Goliath wrote:

Margos wrote:I wasn't aware that a kindly old black man telling stories (and having more common sense and wisdom than any white people in the film!) was racist. Thank you so much for that! Now I understand what "racism" is!

Your sarcasm is totally misplaced.

She's not just being sarcastic - but completely dismissing the issue in one blow: 'I'm black so I would know'. I don't want to say something that might get me in trouble, but what the hell (that's never stopped me before); it was a real 90's cliche that every time someone asked a black person if something was wrong and offensive to blacks, their response was (a general paraphrase): "right- I'm the ambassador for what all black people think. We all think alike?" Margos isn't just adding a personal perspective to this, she's seeking to control the issue.

And to Margos herself... you know, this is what I was talking about in the bisexuality discussion when I brought up Lady Gaga. Like it seemed you were suggesting all gay and bisexual people should feel the same way about her just because she intends to be the spokesperson for our freedoms and social concerns (a quite large responsibility for one person to take on alone). Sweet girl? Of course. But that doesn't mean she's a musical messiah (though her albums are remarkable for American club music, she's not perfect). Nor do this movie's good intentions excuse its' utter ignorance.

FYI - - The are a lot of great covers of the songs from "Song of the South" available at the iTunes store - - a few notables: "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" by Johnny Mercer, Bing Crosby, Bob B. Sox and the Blue Jeans, Dionne Warwick, The Jackson 5, Louis Armstrong, The Mike Curb Congregation, Paul Petersen, Xavier Cugat, Ray Conniff and Lawrence Welk.

Wait...how you guys know Margos is a female and a black woman? I've never heard her announce this on this board....

Super Aurora wrote:Wait...how you guys know Margos is a female and a black woman? I've never heard her announce this on this board....

She said it in this very thread, only one page back.

I see. I didn't bother read 24 pages of arguing that would go no-where.

I think this gif help sum this thread up:

Anybody see this weekend's Weekend Update on Micechat? Go here:
http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/weeken ... mment14027

And scroll down to the last pic in the update. Well if the Mouse House doesn't sell it...

Someone go to that fair and get me a copy!

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

merlinjones wrote: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.

I wasn't under the impression that this film was supposed to represent real life first of all. In real life we wouldn't have animated characters singing and dancing with us.
Besides, just because the era the film is based on is what it was doesn't mean in the film the worst of it has to be portrayed. Just because it took place during Reconstruction-era doesn't mean it has to mention lynching and all the bad things that happened during it. Not showing the bad isn't white-washing anything. Everyone knew the bad. Just because it's a period film doesn't mean it has to show the bad of the period. That wasn't the point of the story and shouldn't be just because it took place when it did.

Goliath wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote: 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.

I'm sorry I forgot, is Song of the South about the relationship between Johnny and Uncle Remus or about the Reconstruction era? Just because it takes place during the Reconstruction Era doesn't mean the film has to make reference to the goings on of the period. Just because it takes place during a bad era doesn't mean it has to dwell on the bad.

Explain why you think he is a naive, subservient, child-like Uncle Tom stereotype.

Barbossa wrote:Anybody see this weekend's Weekend Update on Micechat? Go here:
http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/weeken ... mment14027

And scroll down to the last pic in the update. Well if the Mouse House doesn't sell it...

Someone go to that fair and get me a copy!

I actually live 3 hours away from Springfield IL where there State fair is going on right now...I would love to go but lack of money and I got an injured foot equals a no go for me

The_Iceflash wrote: I wasn't under the impression that this film was supposed to represent real life first of all. In real life we wouldn't have animated characters singing and dancing with us.
Besides, just because the era the film is based on is what it was doesn't mean in the film the worst of it has to be portrayed. Just because it took place during Reconstruction-era doesn't mean it has to mention lynching and all the bad things that happened during it. Not showing the bad isn't white-washing anything. Everyone knew the bad. Just because it's a period film doesn't mean it has to show the bad of the period. That wasn't the point of the story and shouldn't be just because it took place when it did.

Absolutely agree with you. As a matter of fact, is there any Disney movie that tries to give us the reality of what happened? The bad things that happened shouldn't be looked over, but this movie simply isn't about all that.
Anyway, apart from all the controversy (which I think is unjustified) it was a bit of a boring movie to me. I really wonder if all the people that complained about it ever saw it to begin with.

And the ironic thing was that detractors of Walt Disney (at least, according to Neal Gabler in his book, "Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Dream") would always accuse Walt of gutting traditional values and American myths and archetypes, in addition to refining the values and sharpening the myths and archetypes.

The_Iceflash wrote:I wasn't under the impression that this film was supposed to represent real life first of all. In real life we wouldn't have animated characters singing and dancing with us.

Oh please...

Please! Try a little harder, will you?

This is the oldest strawman argument in the book. "It's just a film." So, nothing else matters? Then why are we even on UD, discussing them?

The_Iceflash wrote:Besides, just because the era the film is based on is what it was doesn't mean in the film the worst of it has to be portrayed. Just because it took place during Reconstruction-era doesn't mean it has to mention lynching and all the bad things that happened during it. Not showing the bad isn't white-washing anything.

Yes, it is a whitewash. Because Disney paints an overly rosy picture of a very dark period in history. Disney violates history.

Imagine a film being set in Europe, 1943. Imagine everybody in it is happy and cheerful, and they sing and laugh all the time. It wouldn't make sense at all.

If you like the film and don't care if it's racist, that's okay. Just say so. But don't come with strawman's arguments like these.

Goliath wrote: Yes, it is a whitewash. Because Disney paints an overly rosy picture of a very dark period in history. Disney violates history.

Of course Disney violates history. That's what Disney does best!

I think the main point (and I have not been reading this thread too carefully, I apologize) is that Disney needs to acknowledge that, yes, this film is not the most racially sensitive film out there and, perhaps, use it as an example as to how far we have come in the 60+ years since its release. I mean, the country went through a whole civil rights movement since then, for crying out loud. Song of the South is far from the only film out there that, for lack of a better word, "celebrates" white supremacy (not that I'm implying it necessarily does that), nor is it the last.

People seriously need to let this go.

Iger has clearly said that they will NOT release it. Everybody has their own stance on this and I don't think anybody is willing to change that stance. The discussion will go in circles like this, but in the end it really doesn't matter, because it won't be released either way. When the person in charge of the company says that they won't release it, I think you can take that as an official press release.

And to be honest, I watched it, didn't find it all that great - boring even. I know that's besides the point, but still... this discussion makes it seem like it's the best movie EVAH!!! Which it is definitely not (in my opinion of course).

But the animated segments are anything but boring...that's really what we all want, when it comes down to it (and possibly some amazing bonus features). And just the principal of the whole thing, like what Renata said about there being worse films...but just because it's Disney and for a family...

All in context, Disney. All in context.

Goliath wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:I wasn't under the impression that this film was supposed to represent real life first of all. In real life we wouldn't have animated characters singing and dancing with us.

Oh please...

Please! Try a little harder, will you?

This is the oldest strawman argument in the book. "It's just a film." So, nothing else matters? Then why are we even on UD, discussing them?

because, in the end, and this goes for every movie, it's a movie. It's an entertainment piece. true, these films boast a lot worth discussing, but there are far more important things in life that these "critics" would be much better off criticizing than a two-hour piece of FICTION.

Goliath wrote:

The_Iceflash wrote:Besides, just because the era the film is based on is what it was doesn't mean in the film the worst of it has to be portrayed. Just because it took place during Reconstruction-era doesn't mean it has to mention lynching and all the bad things that happened during it. Not showing the bad isn't white-washing anything.

Yes, it is a whitewash. Because Disney paints an overly rosy picture of a very dark period in history. Disney violates history.

wow, are you really that ignorant? Aside from sports dramas, Narnia, Pocahontas, Mulan, and Mary Poppins, since when has Disney ever been known to even gloss over a historical event, let alone portray it? Most of Disney's even remotely known works are pure fantasy-never meant to be overanalyzed. And it's been said before, movies represent the time in which they are made, by whomever makes them. Not the period that is portrayed in them.

Duckburger wrote:People seriously need to let this go.

Exactly.

I can't flipping believe someone decided to spark this one up again. Let it die already.


Oh, and ajmrowland - drop the attitude. We all have different perspectives. And until you bring someone else into yours, you can't call them ignorant. Period.

I'm in favor of a Song of the South release but I think what REALLY pisses me off is that Disney won't release the film here but has no problem releasing it in evry other freakin' part of the globe (Europe and Asia come to my mind immediately). What hypocrisy! They claim "racial sensitivity" for keeping it in the vault domestically, but they have no such qualms in raking in the $$$$ by releasing it internationally.
Gone With The Wind, The Little Rascals, Holiday Inn, Babes in Arms, Babes on Broadway, Wonder Bar, The Jazz Singer.etc., and other films of that era that contain politically incorrect/racially insensitive material have been released on DVD here with nary a peep of controversy from anyone.

Song of the South deserves to see the light of day in the USA! Let the consumer decide to purchase or not! I am 100% against censorship in any form!

disneyboy20022 wrote:

Barbossa wrote:Anybody see this weekend's Weekend Update on Micechat? Go here:
http://micechat.com/forums/blogs/weeken ... mment14027

And scroll down to the last pic in the update. Well if the Mouse House doesn't sell it...

Someone go to that fair and get me a copy!

I actually live 3 hours away from Springfield IL where there State fair is going on right now...I would love to go but lack of money and I got an injured foot equals a no go for me

It's just a sore foot. This is a bootlegged copy of Song of the South we're talking about here. Buy a bunch and sell them to UD board members! Lets send reyquila, he'll buy them all!

Barbossa wrote:

disneyboy20022 wrote: I actually live 3 hours away from Springfield IL where there State fair is going on right now...I would love to go but lack of money and I got an injured foot equals a no go for me

It's just a sore foot. This is a bootlegged copy of Song of the South we're talking about here. Buy a bunch and sell them to UD board members! Lets send reyquila, he'll buy them all!

Yes but in a white keepcase and not in a paper CD sleeve

Wait? Reyquilla is vactationing at the IL STATE FAIR???? I never would have imagned that....