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

[merlinjones]

Hey, check out this awesome on-set footage captured during the production of "Song of the South":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7FjknQy ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yMKvc7z ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-0FOkuo ... re=related

[Lazario]

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!

That argument has been done to death. Because, you see... it's self-censorship. They have the right. It's their property, they own it.

Has anyone come up with a good counter yet to Disney's assumption that a release of this film would hurt their business?



As for the history of the film in other territories... Well, I guess (since no one ever tries to enlighten us) we just assume that Europe has a better history of racial harmony than we do. Of course, though, it couldn't all have been roses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AM_xgrYqIIs#t=3m22s

[KubrickFan]

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?

But it is just a movie, in the sense that its goal isn't to give a history lesson. Its goal is to entertain. Mary Poppins doesn't give a realistic view of England in 1910, should that movie be condemned too?

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.

You think everybody in Europe during WWII were constantly depressed? I've heard and read many times that people looked back at it as a time where the people in a community were there for each other. The bond in times like that was extremely close. Would any movie that portrayed something like that be violating history as well?
If you can't see it's not a racist movie, and doesn't try to depict history, that's okay. But don't try to write it off as violating history, because that's just nonsense.

[merlinjones]

Here's some great preproduction and storyboard art from the film. Such beautiful work from great talents should not be suppressed.

http://www.michaelspornanimation.com/splog/?p=1713

[Goliath]

But it is just a movie, in the sense that its goal isn't to give a history lesson. Its goal is to entertain. Mary Poppins doesn't give a realistic view of England in 1910, should that movie be condemned too?

What a stupid equation. Did Mary Poppins whitewash racial history? Come on, you're smarter than this!

You think everybody in Europe during WWII were constantly depressed? I've heard and read many times that people looked back at it as a time where the people in a community were there for each other. The bond in times like that was extremely close. Would any movie that portrayed something like that be violating history as well?

I was talking about a movie in which *everybody* was happy *all the time*. Sure there were moments of happiness, but the war was an all-consuming reality; it was something you were always reminded of. To omit that from a film set in Europe 1943 would be preposterous. Same with SotS, where it's pretended that it was a happy time for former slaves.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Mary Poppins doesn't give a realistic view of England in 1910, should that movie be condemned too?

<i>Mary Poppins</i> had at least one realistic historical element: Mrs. Banks was a suffragette.

Regarding the film's availability in other territories: suggesting the company's raking in $$$ from Asian releases is spurious. For one thing, piracy poses a huge challenge to legitimate market sales in much of Asia. Respect for intellectual property rights is virtually nonexistent; couple that with that kind of infrastructure found in Korea, for example (where more than 80% of homes have broadband access faster than anything commercially available in the US)...well, you get the idea. For another thing, releases originating in Japan don't earn the company squat because <i>SotS</i> is considered a public domain property under Japanese copyright law. I think there was laserdisc in Hong Kong---bootlegged from the UK PAL VHS, if I'm not mistaken.

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.

Okay, let's see...1940s America. Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws prevail. Pickaninny centaurettes appear in <i>Fantasia</i>. <i>Amos'n'Andy</i> is hugely popular. <i>Brown v BOE of Topeka</i> is a decade away. James Baskett is unable to attend the premier of the film because he wouldn't have been allowed in the Atlanta theatre. Black actor Clarence Muse, hired to assist in writing the film, resigns when his suggestions for "upgrading the image" of black characters in the film are rejected, saying the movie would be "detrimental to the cultural advancement of the Negro people;" actor Rex Ingram turns down the role of Uncle Remus because he feels the film would "set back [his] people many years." And just for a little additional texture---1946, the year of the film's release, an African-American fella named Isaac Woodard is dragged from a bus in South Carolina, beaten, his eyeballs ruptured, leaving him with amnesia and permanently blind; he's found guilty of disturbing the peace. It takes two days for him to get medical attention. Three weeks after his family reports him missing he's found in a SC hospital receiving substandard care. And oh yeah: he's a decorated WWII Army veteran, honorably discharged for only hours before the beating, on his way home and <b>in uniform</b>. So if one wants to argue that the film's representation of the Reconstruction period is trumped by the historicity of the context and social circumstances surrounding the film's production...okay.

[KubrickFan]

What a stupid equation. Did Mary Poppins whitewash racial history? Come on, you're smarter than this!

Neither did Song of the South, which isn't about giving an exact replica of what it was back then. I thought you were smart enough to see that, too.

I was talking about a movie in which *everybody* was happy *all the time*. Sure there were moments of happiness, but the war was an all-consuming reality; it was something you were always reminded of. To omit that from a film set in Europe 1943 would be preposterous. Same with SotS, where it's pretended that it was a happy time for former slaves.

It completely depends on what the movie wants to show. SotS is a fable, completely made up. And you're saying that no former slaves could be happy, back then? I highly doubt that. Does a movie like Inglourious Basterds alter history too?

[Lazario]

What a stupid equation. Did Mary Poppins whitewash racial history? Come on, you're smarter than this!

Neither did Song of the South

KubrickFan, when it comes to Blu-Ray there's no question you know whereof you speak. But that statement (bolded) is unwise. To put it mildly. (And perhaps if we're being accurate; closer to crazy)

The question we're really arguing here is- are most people offended by the movie? I take it your answer is- if they knew what you say it's really about, they wouldn't be.

I was talking about a movie in which *everybody* was happy *all the time*. Sure there were moments of happiness, but the war was an all-consuming reality; it was something you were always reminded of. To omit that from a film set in Europe 1943 would be preposterous. Same with SotS, where it's pretended that it was a happy time for former slaves.

It completely depends on what the movie wants to show. SotS is a fable, completely made up. And you're saying that no former slaves could be happy, back then? I highly doubt that. Does a movie like Inglourious Basterds alter history too?

Inglourious Basterds was an action movie. People did not go to see it because it made a social statement. They either went because of the hot cast, the action scenes, or because they were already fans of the director.

Family films have a different background. Maybe most people know that they're not realistic. But this is the new millennium. We're living in an age where most people really do believe fake-truths and so much stupidity as being real. So, they are likely to take this as their racial history education and not want to know anymore. Besides, who outside the privilaged upper-middle class bubble (let alone the upper class gated communities) would tell families that kids should know more about things like this? This world right now already cares way more about money than people. Look at Disney.

[KubrickFan]

KubrickFan, when it comes to Blu-Ray there's no question you know whereof you speak. But that statement (bolded) is unwise. To put it mildly. (And perhaps if we're being accurate; closer to crazy)

The question we're really arguing here is- are most people offended by the movie? I take it your answer is- if they knew what you say it's really about, they wouldn't be.

Have most people who complain about this movie even seen it? It's often the case with movies/music/games that are criticized; most haven't even seen it, and from hearsay conclude they don't like it.
I would also like to say that I'm absolutely not racist, should anyone take me for one (God forbid). But is SotS really racist? Or do most people don't like it because they heard it's about a happy slave, walking around with children?
This movie is seen from a child's point of view, and children are often more naive/innocent than their adults. So, even if slavery was explained to him, he wouldn't care because the kid sees Uncle Remus as a friend. Is that so negative? Really?

Family films have a different background. Maybe most people know that they're not realistic. But this is the new millennium. We're living in an age where most people really do believe fake-truths and so much stupidity as being real. So, they are likely to take this as their racial history education and not want to know anymore. Besides, who outside the privilaged upper-middle class bubble (let alone the upper class gated communities) would tell families that kids should know more about things like this? This world right now already cares way more about money than people. Look at Disney.

I see what you're saying. So because of a few who can't separate truth from fiction, this movie should just be locked away? I think we can do a lot better than that.

[merlinjones]

>>For another thing, releases originating in Japan don't earn the company squat because SotS is considered a public domain property under Japanese copyright law. I think there was laserdisc in Hong Kong---bootlegged from the UK PAL VHS, if I'm not mistaken.<<

You are mistaken. There was a legit NTSC Japanese LaserDisc release from Disney (two different pressings) that was widely imported - - with bilingual track options, but Japanese subtitles burned under the lyrics only (as the songs are on the English mus/efx track). There was also a Hong Kong LaserDisc release without subtitles that was a PAL to NTSC conversion.

Disney definitely sold it in Japan on VHS and Laser for quite some years (as well as on VHS in Europe), so I don't see how they couldn't make money on it.

Without a wide US release, the wisest thing would be for the company to put out an international Blu-Ray/DVD combo with all Region access - - then they can sell it through importers and the internet without domestic controversy. Why give all the bucks to bootleggers?

[Lazario]

Have most people who complain about this movie even seen it? It's often the case with movies/music/games that are criticized; most haven't even seen it, and from hearsay conclude they don't like it.

I would also like to say that I'm absolutely not racist, should anyone take me for one (God forbid). But is SotS really racist? Or do most people don't like it because they heard it's about a happy slave, walking around with children?

I have most definitely seen it. And I said a couple months or so back that the most offensive parts for me were indeed the animated segments. That's where they really trot out the stereotypes. Aside from maybe Gone with the Wind, I have never in my life seen or heard black people talk like the animated characters in this movie. Not even in historically-themed films. And it's beyond shocking, it's sickening! Especially Brer Bear! "Duuuuuuuhhhhhh..." Count how many times he says that in the movie. He slurs every word he says like he's drunk (clearly the stereotype they were aiming for) until he gets angry. Then he's a brainless neanderthal who's not even as smart as Disney's other big bears like Lunkjaw- who at least looked before he leaped. Brer Bear just pounds anything in sight. I didn't realize overweight black people were Lennie from Of Mice and Men. Which is exactly the impression they are going for. It's not cute or funny. Then you have the slick and scheming Brer Fox. But to be fair, he's a villain. Equal representation (smiliies distort the lines in a paragraph, so just imagine an eyeroll here). And the hero is Brer Rabbit, who is nearly as dumb as Brer Bear. "That! I! Is!" You remember, I take it. That is not a shorthand way of talking, like the (very intelligent for the time) crows in Dumbo had (watch their body language as well). That is pure ignorance, plain and simple. And it doesn't strike me as natural. They are making a very specific point for us to notice and I wouldn't even be surprised to hear they expected a Thumper-like reaction out of children of the time who might see the movie. Something along the line of, "he sure does talk funny!"

And here's where I feel duty bound to bring up The Jeffersons again. In 1974, the "Lionel Cries Uncle" episode featured the character of a late-60's / early-70's man who had spent his life working as a butler and was very well-read, highly intelligent, and articulate. As you can imagine, he was black. Now, the argument is made several times throughout the episode that black people are not as stupid as white people in the past have made them out to be. In a discussion at the end, the Louise (Weezy) character mentions Disney's Song of the South in a satirical, sarcastic tone. Meaning, even as children they knew this was wrong. And this was in the early 70's. The sentiments that this movie is ridiculous have not sprouted up recently. They've been present in the culture for a very, very long time. But we haven't always noticed them. Nor does this film give black people of the time any credit for being able to notice that the film's stereotypes weren't even close to being accurate. Jovial is one thing. So happy that they walk around with chucklingly goofy vocal tone and eyes almost glazed over with freakily, doofy-"I'm happy I tell you, I'M HAH-PY!!" look to them is another. Like I've always said about Disney, they're so magical they can practically inject their live-action segments with supernature. And suddenly characters played by live actors, and what's happening to them, stop feeling realistic. One of the reasons they're so charming. Watching Song of the South now is not a heart-warming experience. And you don't even have to watch The Jeffersons or know any black people to see how much this movie wants us to believe black people really act this way and are capable of expressing themselves this poorly.

This movie is seen from a child's point of view, and children are often more naive/innocent than their adults.

Good argument. But I ask the question- who wants to watch this? Seriously. Child's point of view or not (and I didn't realize Disney was in the habit of insulting children as well as adult characters- Dumbo, Bambi, and a number of other child characters in Disney's films are usually given more credit than this- when you ignore the cliches put in to boost the sentimental aspects), these characters are still offensive. Even in a fantasy film context. People watch animated shows and movies all the time and hate the characters if they're too crude or they think the animators are being too political. Look at South Park, Family Guy, American Dad. People have a shitstorm if The Simpsons HALLOWEEN Special so much as makes a tiny left-leaning remark at the end of a War of the Worlds type parody. Behavior of animated characters, regardless of the intent of the animators and creators, does anger people as though they were real. Even if the stories take place in fake places and under the silliest of circumstances with loud music, jokes - it doesn't matter. We need to be consistent. I hate South Park when they build an entire episode around an extended fart joke (that hybrid car thing) or a gerbil/hamster that crawls around the insides of someone who put the creature up their anus. Just like I sincerely hate most of this film for trying to make people like it and yet, they insult people. In the process, they insult me too. At this point, we're talking about: some people care that the movie is offensive and some people don't. No more b.s. That's what's really going on here.

Family films have a different background. Maybe most people know that they're not realistic. But this is the new millennium. We're living in an age where most people really do believe fake-truths and so much stupidity as being real. So, they are likely to take this as their racial history education and not want to know anymore. Besides, who outside the privilaged upper-middle class bubble (let alone the upper class gated communities) would tell families that kids should know more about things like this? This world right now already cares way more about money than people. Look at Disney.

When I really work this whole think out, KubrickFan- I don't know that I wholeheartedly believe that it influences the way people think now or not. Despite the reality show idiots that are paraded on our TV screens every hour, we're at least as smart as Maya Rudolph's character in Idiocracy. Able to put ourselves (when extremist religious views aren't a factor- there's no way to crack the crust of the helmets the, for example, Phelps clan wear between the skin of their head and their brains so they don't have to worry about thinking) in someone else's shoes enough to say it's unfair the way things are usually set up. And that if things were different, we should all be the same so no one thinks they're better than anyone else.

For the most part, it's just a matter of basic respect. The only thing I've been arguing this whole time (and I never said it should be censored or held back- because if I did, I'd be trying to get YouTube to take it down or reporting the bootleggers on that site to someone at Disney- I'd be putting up a real fight somehow but I'm not) is that we should always consider what people who think this movie is offensive have to say. Since it does go back a long way. (I also said I think Disney made the right decision in this case, but... I said, "for once")

I see what you're saying. So because of a few who can't separate truth from fiction, this movie should just be locked away?

You think it's really that simple?

With that statement- you're insulting our intelligence, KubrickFan. Just like Goliath said you were.

[merlinjones]

Interesting review of "Song of the South" by Sam Adams following a public Philadelphia screening in 2007:

http://citypaper.net/articles/2007/10/04/screen-picks

>>Considering that it's often ranked among the most controversial movies ever made, the most surprising thing about Song of the South is how innocuous it is....<< (much more at link)

[Barbossa]

With Disney's stance on this movie, I'm surprised they haven't pulled it off Youtube yet. There's nothin' like watching a movie spilt-up in ten parts.

[merlinjones]

>>With Disney's stance on this movie, I'm surprised they haven't pulled it off Youtube yet. There's nothin' like watching a movie spilt-up in ten parts.<<

It was taken off YouTube few years ago, then put right back up again - - the current batch of posts has some high hit counts and mostly positive comments.

The rights holders should take a clue and get it out on DVD properly -- the movie's reputation casts a much larger shadow on the company in suppression than the reality of the film if screened openly.

[Lazario]

I thought the uploader disabled comments on the video's parts...

[merlinjones]

Looks like no comments allowed on the film itself, but there are plenty on the various clips and segments also posted at YouTube. This movie is very widely appreciated by those who have actually seen it - - the lovers outpost the haters by a decisive margin.

[Goliath]

Neither did Song of the South, which isn't about giving an exact replica of what it was back then. I thought you were smart enough to see that, too.

No, you keep changing the point. The original point *was* that SotS doesn't give an accurate depiction of Reconstruction-era Southern USA. Now you use *that* as an 'argument' for doing just that. That's circular reasoning: you say it's not accurate because it isn't accurate.

And if SotS didn't whitewash history, then do you think Reconstruction really looked liked what Disney depicted? Because that's what you're saying.

It completely depends on what the movie wants to show. SotS is a fable, completely made up.

That's not true. Only the animated parts are fables. The live-action parts are a portrayal of post-slavery southern USA. And it's a whitewash.

And you're saying that no former slaves could be happy, back then? I highly doubt that. Does a movie like Inglourious Basterds alter history too?

I never said SotS 'alters' history. I said it's whitewashing history in the sense that it gives us a false image of that period in history. And you're bringing another strawman argument into this, one that is -again- VERY easy to counter. Your point seems to be: 'there could have been *some* former slaves who were happy'. 'Some' and 'could be'. COULD be. But even if there were former slaves who were happy with their miserable circumstances, who were happy to fled lynch mobs, and who were happy to be forced to work for their former owners... even *then* you'd still have no case. Because the experience of some don't compare to the overall bigger picture.

It's like my comparison with WWII: focussing on one person who is happy one day in Europe, 1943 and presenting that as a WWII-film, with no mention of the war and the deportations, would be utterly ridiculous. The same is the case with SotS.

I cab't believe you're *SO* insensitive to this and *SO* stubborn, and *SO* committed to distort history and *SO* desperate to defend a racist film that you would grab onto such WEAK strawman arguments.

Lazario is right: this is a debate between people who care that the film is offensive and those who don't.

[Barbossa]

After reading thru a bunch of these posts, I had to google and rewatch that SNL TV Funhouse sketch Journey to the Disney Vault. The original Song of the South Walt only played at parties.

[merlinjones]

This debate is about the freedom of current and future generations to view historic works and intellectual properties so they have the ability to learn and grow using their own minds and hearts. We can never be free in a culture that suppresses art or allows corporations or special interests to decide for us what we can see or read or process.

[Goliath]

I'm not in favor of Disney holding back this film. I've stated that numerous times. But that's not what this thread is about.