Disney, DVD, and Beyond Forums
https://dvdizzy.com/forum/
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.carolinakid wrote: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!
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?Goliath wrote: 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?
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?Goliath wrote: 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.
What a stupid equation. Did Mary Poppins whitewash racial history? Come on, you're smarter than this!KubrickFan wrote: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?
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.KubrickFan wrote: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>Mary Poppins</i> had at least one realistic historical element: Mrs. Banks was a suffragette.KubrickFan wrote:Mary Poppins doesn't give a realistic view of England in 1910, should that movie be condemned too?
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.ajmrowland wrote: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.
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.Goliath wrote: What a stupid equation. Did Mary Poppins whitewash racial history? Come on, you're smarter than this!
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?Goliath wrote: 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.
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)KubrickFan wrote:Neither did Song of the SouthGoliath wrote:What a stupid equation. Did Mary Poppins whitewash racial history? Come on, you're smarter than this!
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.KubrickFan wrote: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?Goliath wrote: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.
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.Lazario wrote: 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 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.Lazario wrote: 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 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!"KubrickFan wrote: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?
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.KubrickFan wrote:This movie is seen from a child's point of view, and children are often more naive/innocent than their adults.
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.KubrickFan wrote:Lazario wrote: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.
You think it's really that simple?KubrickFan wrote: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?
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.KubrickFan wrote: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.
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.KubrickFan wrote:It completely depends on what the movie wants to show. SotS is a fable, completely made up.
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.KubrickFan wrote: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?
The original Song of the South Walt only played at parties. 
