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

[Mr. Yagoobian]

>>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?

I stand corrected.

But I doubt the wisdom of an international all-region release: controversy would ensue regardless, with one camp upset that the film would be released at all and one decrying the hypocrisy of releasing it exclusively outside the US. No matter how much money it might make, the remuneration could not possibly compensate from the PR fallout and the loss of goodwill. Racism is a defining issue in the American experience. This is a company that makes money on family entertainment---they're not going to put themselves in the middle of a highly charged and divisive debate. Not at this time, anyway, and not for the foreseeable future. Would the film provide an excellent teaching moment? Yes. Are they obligated to provide it to us? No. The company's obligation is to its stockholders first. Honestly, I don't know what good it would do anyway. <i>Gone With the Wind </i> is perennially celebrated as a crowning achievement in American cinema and few seem to care that it's racist trash.

[Lazario]

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.

Now you're getting silly. You don't win a great victory by liking a movie. This is real life, not The Mighty Ducks for heaven's sake!

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.

Okay, spaceman- time to join the motivational speaker circuit where you belong. There are brighter lights and bigger things in your future. We're only holding you back. Don't forget to write us when you're the new Tony Robbins.

"We can never be free in a culture"? Where do you live? This is America! Do you have any idea how many people have their civil rights stomped on every single day?! What are you- 3?

[merlinjones]

>>But I doubt the wisdom of an international all-region release: controversy would ensue regardless, with one camp upset that the film would be released at all and one decrying the hypocrisy of releasing it exclusively outside the US.<<

But that didn't happen in real life. The film WAS available on VHS (and on Laser in Asia) in every major international market except North America throughout the 80's and 90's - - and we hear it's still playing on UK television from time to time. All of this with not a whisper of controversy.

I think if it isn't found at the big box stores in the USA, there will be no complaints. And likely not even then once the movie is seen again. The prevalent response online is generally "what's the big deal"?

If the international discs were open region it wouldn't be available "exclusively" outside the US, it just wouldn't be available at physical retail. No one who wanted it would complain because they would be too busy ordering it from Amazon, importers or ebay.

The numerous (and heavily viewed) clips on YouTube (not to mention the openly displayed bootlegs all over the net and at every swap meet and convention in the nation) have already shown that the film can be accessed and screened today without the sky falling. The screenings in Philly three years ago reportedly provoked no protest (and I don't recall any in the three theatrical reissues of the 70's and 80's either).

Respect the audience's freedom to decide - - their right to interpret art for themselves. Don't fear debate and art and history, but encourage learning.

[Lazario]

Respect the audience's freedom to decide - - their right to interpret art for themselves. Don't fear debate and art and history, but encourage learning.

Would you like us to legalize marijuana too?

Don't fear getting high! Encourage the freedom to allow it to take you to another world of time and space. New planes of discovery! New avenues of enchantment! New mountains of miraculous sky-scraping! It's a total enlightening experience. Don't fear it! Embrace it. Let it open you up. Man, you're closed off to the possibilities... Don't be uptight. It would be so wonderful. Live the dream. Be the unreachable goal. Jump on the table and dance like a fool. Who cares if people are staring at you? And you've stopped bathing. You'd like to buy the world a tab- I MEAN, a joint. Free ourselves from all our Earthly burdens. Won't you do it for me? Little ol' me... Huh?

[merlinjones]

The end of the movie always makes me cry - - as the two friends are tearfully reunited despite any differences in age, race or social status; united through the tales of Br'er Rabbit in a bond of imagination, laughter and the power of storytelling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex0Da3n2 ... re=related

[KubrickFan]

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.

I said it isn't accurate because its intention isn't to be accurate. Disney's intention was to tell a story, that happened to take place during the Reconstruction. It doesn't give you the realistic version because it doesn't set out to do so. Therefor it can't change history, because it isn't meant to be taken as history, or even as fact.

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.

So, for example Schindler's List is whitewashing history, simply because their tale was different from the one most Jews had during WWII? That completely makes sense .
If it's plausible, then it doesn't whitewash history. It's as simple as that.

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.

No movie can give a complete and correct look on something that happened, just because there are so many stories to tell. There were families in WWII that didn't notice that much from the war, and the dark sides of it, just as there were slaves who weren't outright lynched as soon as they were free. To argue otherwise is ridiculous.
And frankly, I don't like to be called insensitive, just because my view is different from yours.

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")

You think it's really that simple?

But is it truly racist? Have the majority of the people who actually complained about it actually seen it? And how many people are still complaining these days? No offense, but the movie hasn't been in circulation in the US since the 1960's, and would anyone who thinks it's really racist go through the trouble of finding a copy?
Of course nothing should be racist, ever. I already said that. I just think that people are offended a bit too quickly these days. What SotS does is stereotyping, at best, and you see that in many other Disney movies.

And it should be that simple. I really think that. Too bad some simply won't see that.

[Mr. Yagoobian]

>>But I doubt the wisdom of an international all-region release: controversy would ensue regardless, with one camp upset that the film would be released at all and one decrying the hypocrisy of releasing it exclusively outside the US.<<

But that didn't happen in real life. The film WAS available on VHS (and on Laser in Asia) in every major international market except North America throughout the 80's and 90's - - and we hear it's still playing on UK television from time to time. All of this with not a whisper of controversy.

I think if it isn't found at the big box stores in the USA, there will be no complaints. And likely not even then once the movie is seen again. The prevalent response online is generally "what's the big deal"?

If the international discs were open region it wouldn't be available "exclusively" outside the US, it just wouldn't be available at physical retail. No one who wanted it would complain because they would be too busy ordering it from Amazon, importers or ebay.

The numerous (and heavily viewed) clips on YouTube (not to mention the openly displayed bootlegs all over the net and at every swap meet and convention in the nation) have already shown that the film can be accessed and screened today without the sky falling. The screenings in Philly three years ago reportedly provoked no protest (and I don't recall any in the three theatrical reissues of the 70's and 80's either).

Respect the audience's freedom to decide - - their right to interpret art for themselves. Don't fear debate and art and history, but encourage learning.

Context is everything. In other countries race-based slavery was not the institution it was in the United States. Elsewhere it was not a contributing factor in a war that tore this country apart, and elsewhere it didn't leave a legacy we're still struggling with a century and half after emancipation. Re: screenings in the 70s and 80s---things have changed since then. Approaches to serious historical scholarship, what is studied and what is known about the period, have changed dramatically (and I'm not talking about what passes for US history education in K-12, which is pretty pathetic). The social climate has changed: we're more culturally aware and sensitive, but at the same time our public schools are more segregated than they have been at any time since the civil rights movement. I'm not surprised that a screening at a Philadelphia library caused little or no fuss, but that's a far cry from the company trying to reap economic dividends from a home media re-release. Controversy is a relative term; I don't pretend to know the magnitude of the debate that would be raised were the film to be released, but considering the race-based discussion caused by a pretty darned innocuous film like <i>The Princess and the The Frog</i> I think one would be fooling oneself to think the prevailing consensus opinion of a Disney-sanctioned Song of the South reissue would be "What's the big deal?" The company doesn't have to claim it or make money off of it for people to see it and discuss its faults or merits: as you pointed out, the film *is* available now---to view or to own---by anyone who wants it badly enough. Disney's now in the process of creating high-resolution digital archives of all their animated features; they've considered and punted the idea of re-releasing the film before and they'll undoubtedly look at it again. If they feel circumstances are right and they can create an appropriate context, they'll let it out of the vault. I'm comfortable with that. Even apart from the race discussion it's got its share of faults---it's not a very good movie in its own right and as an adaptation of its source material it leaves much to be desired.

[Lazario]

But is it truly racist? Have the majority of the people who actually complained about it actually seen it?

I can only speak for myself. Yes, the material is clearly racist. Whether or not the filmmakers intended it to be. The film shows a clear disrespect for black people and it's been argued that the film isn't even historically accurate for the time it takes place in. That's enough for me.

And how many people are still complaining these days? I just think that people are offended a bit too quickly

Very true. And again, not the first good argument you've made. This does us as much harm as it can do good. But this isn't just about Disney's decision. They made it based on public concern. Which you and Merlinjones are probably right about - there is less of than support. But the fact is- it's just like I said: people who support the movie don't care that it's offensive. The stereotypes don't stick out as blatantly to them as they do to people who are aware of how people are taken out of character and mocked (among other things) for their race, etc. And... let's not forget that people with opinions often don't represent the majority, one way or the other. There are still a lot of people who don't know about this movie. If most high profile people in American culture who have voiced a negative opinion on the movie are in fact black, that's all Disney needs to hear. So we know why they're doing this. It's not even something they thought to do on their own to cover their asses. They knew releasing the film would displease people. And I think their concerns are valid. Have they seen the film? You'd have to ask them. But even if they did, many people are smart enough to know that sentimentality doesn't magically overpower insults.

Of course nothing should be racist, ever. I already said that. What SotS does is stereotyping, at best, and you see that in many other Disney movies.

The entire movie is about the south during the plantation years and black people. The entire movie. That is not the same as the indians in Peter Pan or the siamese cats in Lady and the Tramp.

I don't even remember the child who, you've gone to great lengths to make us believe, keeps the movie from being offensive. The movie is not very good anyway, it's very forgettable (although for some reason there is one moment that I remember liking a lot- it's like a song or something, the very last animated sequence in the movie I think...). But you'd better believe I remember the nasty stereotypes. And I know other people will feel the same way. That they'll remember the black characters and not the white ones (I do remember him crying a lot but that is it). And they'll have to find them amusing just to tolerate them.

I guess life just isn't as simple as some people think it is.

The end of the movie always makes me cry - - as the two friends are tearfully reunited despite any differences in age, race or social status; united through the tales of Br'er Rabbit in a bond of imagination, laughter and the power of storytelling.

Bucking for a job writing film synopsis on the back of Disney videos?

[merlinjones]

Much of what comes out of the Disney Channel displeases and insults far more people than "Song of the South" but that doesn't stop anyone from putting it out (nor should it, as art should be freely given and received in an open society). In that case, the marketers don't seem to care who may be offended so long as the product makes money.

I think the film's suppression says more about the personal preferences of the deciders than it does about the public's ability to digest the movie for themselves (truly, how can such an innocent film be unique among all Hollywood product to be worthy of censorship?).

The film has always been a big moneymaker and still would be if available. Why is it different from any other ("Gone With the Wind" for example)? Any protest publicity would only drive sales out of curiosity. Let the market decide.

[jpanimation]

Would you like us to legalize marijuana too?

Yes. As Libertarian, I cherish everyone's liberty that grants one the right to choose, and it shouldn't matter if it's self-destructive behavior, as long as it's not infringing on anyone else rights. As we've seen from the past, prohibition doesn't work and only makes matters worse. This prohibition on drugs is a giant waste of taxpayer's money and is only causing more violence on the border. Currently, high school kids have easier access to drugs then they do alcohol, so who are we protecting? Especially since banning drugs has only fueled drug cartels and gangs smuggling and trafficking here, causing an increasing amount of unnecessary violence. Do I condone the self-destructive behavior (using drugs), no but I don't think the government has the right to infringe on one's freedom of choice. If it was legalized, then I'd be perfectly fine with them putting restrictions on it like they currently do with alcohol, cigarets, and gambling (e.g. operating vehicles, age, etc.). I'd personally love to see stats publicly released on just how many innocent victims have died from the drug cartels/traffickers, both here and south of the border, due to this self-imposed prohibition on drugs (as it certainly isn't stopping those who want it from getting it).

[Super Aurora]

Would you like us to legalize marijuana too?

HELL YEAH. Are you kidding me?

[Mr. Yagoobian]

Much of what comes out of the Disney Channel displeases and insults far more people than "Song of the South" but that doesn't stop anyone from putting it out (nor should it, as art should be freely given and received in an open society). In that case, the marketers don't seem to care who may be offended so long as the product makes money.

I think the film's suppression says more about the personal preferences of the deciders than it does about the public's ability to digest the movie for themselves (truly, how can such an innocent film be unique among all Hollywood product to be worthy of censorship?).

The film has always been a big moneymaker and still would be if available. Why is it different from any other ("Gone With the Wind" for example)? Any protest publicity would only drive sales out of curiosity. Let the market decide.

You can't say "let the market decide" while simultaneously imposing your will on the company's property rights: they're entitled to sell what they want, when they want, where they want, at the price they want. They're also entitled to decide *not* to offer a property for sale at all. This film isn't <i>Gone With the Wind</i>, it's a product of a company built on family entertainment, and they've made a decision to protect their brand. Protest has material consequences that can only be guessed at and intangible consequences that cannot be quantified at all. I don't think the collected data exists to justify the position that more people are offended by Disney Channel product than by <i>SotS</i>. Even if it were true and it could be empirically proven, I think the reasons one would have to be offended by <i>SotS</i> carry more weight than any reason one could put forth for being offended by the Disney Channel.

[merlinjones]

>>Disney's now in the process of creating high-resolution digital archives of all their animated features; they've considered and punted the idea of re-releasing the film before and they'll undoubtedly look at it again. If they feel circumstances are right and they can create an appropriate context, they'll let it out of the vault.<<

Nah, that's just standard "wait and see" management technique.


>>They're also entitled to decide *not* to offer a property for sale at all.<<

Sure, it's their right to profit on the asset or not. But that's where copyright law comes in. Since that only exists to protect commercial interests, if commercial exploitation has been truly abandoned as you suggest, then the historic work should be in the public domain. Use it or lose it, right?


>>This film isn't Gone With the Wind, it's a product of a company built on family entertainment, and they've made a decision to protect their brand.<<

In reality, the film has been a big part of the Disney name for 70 years and its' characters and music are on display everyday at the most popular Disney theme parks to this very day. It's existence is a longterm fact of history. And the movie was made by a historic filmmaker. It's an inherited cultural asset, not just a corporate product.

The harm done to the brand by the Disney Channel has been far more damaging. Did you see that prominent "South Park" episode last year? -- more telling of the brand's current status in pop culture than any parody of "SotS" (and the target of ridicule was not 70 years old).


>>Protest has material consequences that can only be guessed at and intangible consequences that cannot be quantified at all.<<

So fear should rule the day? That can be true of anything.

But history proves differently. After being withheld in the civil rights era 60's, "SotS" was reissued in 1971 to become the biggest Disney reissue ever to that date - - with no protests - - and this in the activist 70's. The fact of history is that the movie has always been a popular moneymaker. It won multiple Oscars. This controversy exists only in a vacuum.


>>I don't think the collected data exists to justify the position that more people are offended by Disney Channel product than by SotS. Even if it were true and it could be empirically proven, I think the reasons one would have to be offended by SotS carry more weight than any reason one could put forth for being offended by the Disney Channel.<<

Just ask anyone on the street over the age of 12.

[Lazario]

Would you like us to legalize marijuana too?

Yes. As Libertarian, I cherish everyone's liberty that grants one the right to choose, and it shouldn't matter if it's self-destructive behavior, as long as it's not infringing on anyone else rights. As we've seen from the past, prohibition doesn't work and only makes matters worse. This prohibition on drugs is a giant waste of taxpayer's money and is only causing more violence on the border. Currently, high school kids have easier access to drugs then they do alcohol, so who are we protecting? Especially since banning drugs has only fueled drug cartels and gangs smuggling and trafficking here, causing an increasing amount of unnecessary violence. Do I condone the self-destructive behavior (using drugs), no but I don't think the government has the right to infringe on one's freedom of choice. If it was legalized, then I'd be perfectly fine with them putting restrictions on it like they currently do with alcohol, cigarets, and gambling (e.g. operating vehicles, age, etc.). I'd personally love to see stats publicly released on just how many innocent victims have died from the drug cartels/traffickers, both here and south of the border, due to this self-imposed prohibition on drugs (as it certainly isn't stopping those who want it from getting it).

HELL YEAH. Are you kidding me?

Oh, I know you guys are huge potheads -

I just want to hear Merlinjones admit it.

[merlinjones]

All I want or need is that "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" feeling you get from watching Walt Disney's Technicolor sensation "Song of the South"!!!

Who can watch the climax of this wonderful film without smiling, getting tears or goosebumps?

[Lazario]

All I want or need is that "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" feeling you get from watching Walt Disney's Technicolor sensation "Song of the South"!!!

You in a cult or something? By any chance...?

[Disney Duster]

All I want or need is that "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" feeling you get from watching Walt Disney's Technicolor sensation "Song of the South"!!!

Who can watch the climax of this wonderful film without smiling, getting tears or goosebumps?

First time I watched it...I don't think I did any of those. I might have smiled. But I don't even remember the climax. I watched it like 2 or 3 years ago. First and only time.

I don't think it's that great, and actually some of it did bother me, like the voices for the cartoon characters sounded so black caricature, but for some reason I am way more accepting of Dumbo's crows. But even though I don't think it's that great, it should be released, and I cannot deny it must have something about it to make so many people like it and wnat it so much.

[merlinjones]

http://www.PetitionOnline.com/sots1946/petition.html

[Goliath]

Context is everything. In other countries race-based slavery was not the institution it was in the United States. Elsewhere it was not a contributing factor in a war that tore this country apart, and elsewhere it didn't leave a legacy we're still struggling with a century and half after emancipation.

Thank you. You said it so well. I'm not even against rereleasing the film officially on Disney dvd. But the 'arguments' the defenders of this (indeed very weak) film make, are pathetic. I've tried to explain 'context' to them, and so have others --that's why this thread is so long. Other countries have had their own racial problems. For one thing, the Netherlands (were I come from) was the biggest slave-trader in the world, in the 17th century. We were also one of the last countries to outlaw slavery (1863). But, like you said, we 'only' shipped them to the US and 'thus' don't have the same cultural and historical consequences of it that the US has to deal with. That's why the film can be shown on Dutch tv, but is not commercially available in America.

I don't pretend to know the magnitude of the debate that would be raised were the film to be released, but considering the race-based discussion caused by a pretty darned innocuous film like <i>The Princess and the The Frog</i> I think one would be fooling oneself to think the prevailing consensus opinion of a Disney-sanctioned Song of the South reissue would be "What's the big deal?"

It's wishful thinking. That's what it is. I think that, most people who are in favor of Disney releasing the film officially on dvd, know deep down that it would spark a major controversy. Especially in today's divided political and racially divided climate in the US. But they want to own the dvd. They want it for themselves. They want to complete their collection and that's why they're convincing *themselves* it's not a big deal.

[merlinjones]

Suppression of art, history or intellectual property can never lead to true freedom. We must share and learn and grow together openly -- and that means without fear of debate, politics, authors, artists or filmmakers... or innocent old movies! That's how our minds change and grow.

It's not about collecting things on a shelf, it's about encouraging the perspectives of all storytellers, it's about perpetuating historic art for the ages so everyone can enjoy, laugh and learn from these relevant, timeless themes and culturally significant fables.

Time for the rights holders to free Uncle Remus from the Disney vault on DVD and Blu-Ray disc -- and buy extra sets for your friends and family in appreciation!