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

[Luke]

But none of this is about Song of the South. I'd like to ask again, does anyone find One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing more racist than Song of the South

I'll let you know when Disney ends their unofficial US "boycott" of <i>One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing</i>. Sadly, there's not the market for <i>Dinosaurs is Missing</i> bootlegs, I gather...

[MikeyMouse]

Some people are offended by homosexuality (not me, but some), but that didn't stop NBC from airing "Will & Grace," a show that champions the alternative lifestyle. Some people are offended by crude language, violence, and scenes of sexual acts and nudity (again, not me), but HBO has never felt pressure to stop airing "The Sopranos" (other than the fact that the show is really starting to suck).

I think all the sensitivity is aimed at not offending minorities. If a middle-class Christian white person is offended by homosexuality on prime-time television or nudity in a movie, then they're chastised as not being more open-minded or simply told not to watch it. However, if a gay person is offended by a candy-bar ad or a black person is offended by Uncle Remus, then the ad is pulled and the movie is put on lock-down. No one cares whether or not I was offended as a man of Italian-descent by the caricature of Tony in "Lady & The Tramp." I wasn't, but that's not the point (not all Italians are hefty spaghetti-slinging accordion-playing mustachioed opera-hopefuls with goofy accents). Caricatures are meant to be funny...to grossly over-exaggerate a feature or tendency so we can all laugh at ourselves...yet "Tom & Jerry" and any cartoon with a caricature of a minority needs a disclaimer in order to be released.

Censorship is wrong on any level, as we ALL, regardless of race, color or creed, should have the chance to make up our own mind as to what we watch, read and believe, and what we allow our children to have access to. The fact that SotS is so innocuous in comparison to shows like "The Sopranos", "Roots", or even the hilarious "Blazing Saddles" makes this situation all the more difficult to digest. As has been said before, there are plenty of DVDs available out there that have a much higher potential to be offensive.

Point being...if we worry about offending everybody, there will be nothing left to release, as you could always find at least one person (and as an earlier poster stated, "if it offends one person it's offensive") who is offended by whatever it is that's in question.

[slave2moonlight]

No, but they're more award worthy if they feature good writing, realistic dialogue and good acting. A film like Die Hard may amuse and entertain, but it really can't be compared to the typical "Oscar bait" film.

Yes, that makes a film more award worthy. Shockingly, I've never seen "Die Hard," however, I do not feel that the specifically social films have a monopoly on good acting, writing, realistic dialogue, etc...

[slave2moonlight]

Well said, Mikey Mouse.

[TheGreatOz]

I think all the sensitivity is aimed at not offending minorities. If a middle-class Christian white person is offended...they're chastised at not being more open-minded...

Amen to all that.

There are groups and individuals who are making a living at "being offended" and just waiting to b*tch, boycott or sue.

As long as everyone quivers and runs like roaches in the daylight...every time a minority says, "Boo!" this will never change and only get worse.

Song of the South has become one of those Urban Legends of Racism, like Amos & Andy:
"Hide the evidence and then preach about 'how awful' it was. Give it a fictional reputation worse than reality."

Someone should suggest Disney release SOTS on DVD and donate all the proceeds toward reparation.

[MikeyMouse]

Someone should suggest Disney release SOTS on DVD and donate all the proceeds toward reparation.

Hah! Not likely, but an amusing idea, no less. At least it proves how ridiculous this whole thing is.

[kbehm29]

Disney should take a look at how much a bootleg copy of SOTS is selling for on ebay right now - $100 bucks a pop. Maybe that will show them how sought after their dvd really is.

I haven't seen this movie since I was little. I would love to buy it on DVD someday. I think Disney should release it as a Collectors or Masterpiece edition for a higher price tag.

Does anybody know if Disney faced much controversy when they released their last VHS version? Or have they never done that either in the US?

[TheGreatOz]

Does anybody know if Disney faced much controversy when they released their last VHS version? Or have they never done that either in the US?

No VHS or Laserdisc in the US.

For the 40th Anniversary (1986-1987), it was released in theaters in certain parts of the country.

It was readily available as a laserdisc import from Japan between 1980-1985...and as a UK import on VHS (PAL). Most of the LD stores in the Northeast US had them "by request" for $59. Their cost was $39USD.

The bootleg DVD is allegedly a dub of the laserdisc with the Japanese subtitles removed.


P.S. I am informed that a repressing of the laserdisc in 1990 had Japanese subtitles only on the songs. There were two selectable audio tracks: original English and dubbed Japanese.

[slave2moonlight]

I suppose if they want to lessen the number of people being exposed to the film that might possibly be offended, they could release a pricey 4 disc edition or something. It'd be extremely pleasing to the hardcore fans, and yet the hardcore fans would probably be the only ones who would buy it.

Of course, using the Legacy collection would probably work well enough in the same way, as the Treasures Collection would have as well.

[Lars Vermundsberget]

I think all the sensitivity is aimed at not offending minorities. If a middle-class Christian white person is offended...they're chastised at not being more open-minded...

Amen to all that.

There are groups and individuals who are making a living at "being offended" and just waiting to b*tch, boycott or sue.

Important and problematic point - shows that there are different sets of rules...

[dcp3y]

2039 isn't that far away! My toddler might get to see it then with her children. Just wonder if she will still remember the 'zippity-do-da' song then; she loves it now.

I'm pulling for Roy here - surely he can make the Legacy thing happen! If not, what tangible Disney Legacy is there? Oswald, Destino - both nice in their own right but minor in comparison with SoS. Or do we have to wait for another trade from NBC to swap a football announcer for Uncle Remus? A SoS release alone would cement the Legacy collection as collector-worthy, which I think is teetering on relevance currently.

I find it amazing that this film is not on the Library of Congress list of National Films - it needs to be! Letter writing anyone? We may have better luck on that front than battling directly with Disney executives. What would their response be when the film is enshrined forever in our national archives -> we're still not releasing it?

I like the 4 disc collector set idea - I'm sure that will get SoS where it needs to be - chiefly into my video collection. Sorry for the blatant self-interest oozing from my post.

[slave2moonlight]

[TheGreatOz]

2039 isn't that far away!

I'm not sure what 32 years from now signifies?
Copyright expiration?
Don't hold your breath on Di$ney being that careless.

No matter, Al Gore says Oklahoma will be beachfront property before then from Global Warming.

Seriously...

I Googled Song of the South and saw a couple of sites selling "brand new, shrink-wrapped, All Regions" DVDs of it for $19.95.
Why are eBay prices $125+ ?

Obviously these are homemade DVDs from laserdisc (hopefully) or VHS (ugh!).

Permit Oz to gaze into his crystal ball...

"The year is 2021 - Disney releases the Song of the South 75th Anniversary Collection Video Download with all the 'offensive' material deleted...like the Tar Baby...and the voices of the fox and bear are revoiced by white guys who sound like Tim Considine and David Stollery.
How PC! The characters now sound like Spin and Marty.

Collectors complain and Disney provides direct-to-brain downloads, so when we watch the video, our brain adds the deleted scenes and superimposes the original voices.

This way, the 'offensive' material is never released publicly.

Now the year is 2046 (Global Warning was a myth) - For the Song of the Non-North* 100 Anniversary Edition, the entire un-cut movie is dowloaded to our brains. *New PC title.
We begin whistling "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" all day and wonder why"

[Fenryr]

So, how many people have actually seen the Tar Baby sequence?

I've actually got a copy of Song of the South on DVD. Granted, it's reproduced from a VHS copy I bought in a London supermarket during the early 90's, but if I can get my computer to read it, I'll upload clips of it.

[slave2moonlight]

I've got the movie on VHS. Bought a UK one off ebay and had a conversion copy made. That was YEARS ago, and I'm sure I paid a pretty penny for it. Wish I had waited and gotten it on DVD. But, I'll make due with the tape until an official one comes out or I get some way to make a DVD of it myself, whichever comes first.

[Fenryr]

I have a feeling it's going to be a long time before Disney even acknowledges Song of the South's existance, and yet, they promote Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah to death. Never could understand why a song from a movie that nobody is allowed to know exists anymore would become an unofficial Disney theme.

[slave2moonlight]

I have a feeling it's going to be a long time before Disney even acknowledges Song of the South's existance, and yet, they promote Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah to death. Never could understand why a song from a movie that nobody is allowed to know exists anymore would become an unofficial Disney theme.

It's not really taken to that extreme. They have a whole ride based on this film (amazingly), so they don't totally deny its existence. It's just considered "vaulted."

[Fenryr]

Meh, exaggeration or not, wasn't Splash Mountain built before SotS got pulled? I remember being the only 8-year-old who knew who the characters were when I rode it around 93. I'm kind of surprised it hasn't gotten "re-imagined" by now.

[UncleEd]

“I’m not sure how to do that quote thing that everyone does but my reply is in response to various posts since I last posted.)


I’d like to point out that I feel over all most films made today are not of the quality of films made decades ago and I’m sure this applies to the films that deal with social issues too. (why do you put that into quotes?) Where they lack is in the script and that’s why I said some time ago that I wonder if the Hayes office was such a bad thing because it forced screenwriters to get around the rules. Look at all the changes made in North by Northwest and tell me that had they been allowed to show everything if it would still have been as great of a film? That train going through the tunnel in the finale has become as memorable as the ending for Planet of the Apes and what was great about it is you can real in sexual content if you wanted to but if you have a clean mind it was just a train going through a tunnel so it pleased everybody. This kind of thinking is lost in today’s age where you can show everything. Film maker’s say it makes a film more realistic but I’ll argue that older films were scarier, more romantic, more adventurous, funnier, and sadder than any number of films made today. You try turning on Turner Classic movies and not get swept into the most obscurest of films 80% of the time. Then try watching HBO, Showtime, or any number of channels that feature newer films and try and do the same thing.


True, book authors have included issues in their books but they weren’t preachy and those that were successful told a story first and had whatever the issue play a role in the story but they always rooted their arguments in fact and not in emotional debates. The films we see trying to urge social change are purely rooted in emotion and not backed by fact. The reason being if they presented the facts they would lose the argument horribly so they rely on emotional arguments to gain a sympathy support.


I tend to believe that people only act on the information they are presented with and allow me to use an example. Back when abortion became legal in the US there were no ultra sounds, there was no DNA testing, there were no 4-D ultrasounds. Since the 1970’s scientific advancement has come such a long way that many of these examples have been factors that have caused people to reverse their opinion on this subject. A recent poll found that only 34% of Americans support abortion but the laws stay on the books because judges are afraid to touch this issue and the media gives that minority a lot of noise so they are heard the loudest. I actually saw an interesting thing on PBS last night on the Supreme Court that said the swing vote judges only voted for Roe v. Wade because of all the noise the women’s rights movement was getting and they thought this was a women’s rights issue and it would give them good PR if they went for it. However, abortion was not an issue taken up by any women’s groups until after the decision. It’s all a fascinating issue to read up on compared to its reputation of what happened. But because abortion supporters are losing the argument with facts in their assertions that a fetus is not human, abortion supporting film makers make a movie that sympathizes with an back alley abortionist. That is what separates the majority of book authors who dealt with social issues with film makers who do the same thing today.


You have your gay lobby too. Every time some report comes out that says scientists are looking for or think they’ve found a gay gene or about gene therapy curing genetic disorders the gay community swoops in and starts complaining that this is a slippery slope and a dangerous box to open. According to them they’re born this way and can’t help it so that makes this the only biological disorder that the victims don’t want to be cured of. No other birth defect is celebrated so why is it different in this case? The gay community has tried to make themselves into a racial minority and there are so many angles you can look at this debate and wonder what the logic is. But that is why we get films like Brokeback Mountain, to gain or keep ground for this group should being gay ever be proven not to be genetic or should it be proven to be genetic and a cure proposed.


All of these interest groups are much like the interest groups that involve race that are keeping Song of the South from being seen. When few people goes to these films the film makers have to justify why they made them so they nominate them for awards. That is what separates the films of today that champion issues with someone like Dickens.


Let’s look at the issues Dickens addressed. Because Charles Dickens’ father couldn’t pay his debts the family had to go to debtor’s prision. This is said to be the single even that changed Charles Dickens life and why he was always a champion of the poor (and incidentally, he was one of the first champions against book bootleggers and for intellectual creative property rights and protections.) He told stories about Oliver Twist and Great Expectations that always dealt with class systems and orphans and the poor. It did not preach and I argue that these kinds of stories and themes are just as potent today as they were back then. They were always stories first and social/political meanings second, if at all. You don’t have to be political to enjoy them though. The kinds of films we get today that try and do what Dickens did are blatantly political first and stories second. They also deal with issues that are fluff compared to Dickens. Any way you look at it a champion of real poverty and poor struggles trumps a gay cowboy movie in any book. These kinds of films aren’t dealing with issues of survival. They are dealing with issues that are more about luxury and they ram it down the audience‘s throats in an effort to shame us into agreeing with their side. The three you brought up, forbidden gay love, abortion, and euthanasia are all luxury subject matter. In all other aspects these people are living rather comfortable lives and none of these issues have anything to do with survival. They’re all manners of convenience and cannot compare with slavery or poverty issues. And why isn’t poverty still a relavant issue today?


But Dickens didn’t pull the propaganda game. He used elements that he believed in and never preached. And speaking of Charles Dickens, did you know that when he wrote A Christmas Carol he is on record saying it was a religious tract and if you know the depth of Biblical doctrine you’ll find another depth to the story? Everything from who the Phantoms chained together are to the lines that Jacob Marley says all tie into Dickens faith. But this is lost on most people because he was not in your face about it.
2099, you use extremes in what films aren’t nominated for Best Picture. No one said Die Hard or Jackass was Oscar worthy. What has been said is that a lot of films that lean to the left and are preachy are nominated and win Oscars. There are plenty of films that get overlooked that are not liberal propaganda that are well written. Romanic comedies could be nominated for Best Picture if they are well made. There was a time when they used to win so why couldn’t/shouldn’t one win again? Most recent ones haven’t been great though. But to say any genre should be shut out just because of what genre it is is folly.

Slave2moonlight articulates what I’m trying to say about old and new films and their forcing their values down our throats today and this used to not be the case. Films are for entertainment first and foremost unless they are a documentary. I was using “agenda” in the context you use “propaganda”. To me everyone has an agenda but it’s when their agenda becomes propaganda that goes to far. I think the new Hollywood tradition is to show extreme cases of whatever they’re for and against so they can get support for their views.


I was not making excuses for Kramer. Being egged on is no excuse for his behavior but he was still egged on and those guys are not the innocents that the media makes them out to be. It’s not like Kramer saw 2 black guys in the audience and just started calling them names. They kept irritating him until he blew his top and then they kept it up. I think they thought it was funny to get that reaction out of him so they kept it up. He still shouldn’t have done it but I think Kramer’s problem may be more of an anger issue than a racial one.










When I was in college the left leaning faculty tried to tell us that the only reason religious art was made was because the artists were forced to make it due to the “oppressive nature” of the church. I argued that but was deemed a kook. I don’t buy the whole “if this (insert famous person from another century) had lived today then he would have been more enlightened and agreed with the left” commentary. And it’s not just schools that consider anything to do with Christian religion in the past to be offensive. A few days ago there was a program on the National Geographic Channel on Sir Issac Newton (the mathematical genius who invented/discovered several forms of mathematics) and this program painted him as a kook because he spent the last 55 years of his life looking for mathematics in the Bible. It’s even said he figured out the date of Christ’s return or tried to. But my point is when you have even educational programs making commentaries on what is acceptable and what is not it’s no wonder you have some groups laughed at and others accepted as law.


I feel that Spielberg started doing the social/political films because he wanted to be taken more seriously than just a spinner of fantasy films. Sometimes he’s successful but most times he’s not. There is no denying, however, that his social/political films make far less money than his fantasy stuff. But I think he’s forgotten how to make good fantasy films anymore. When was his last really good one? Jurassic Park? I’ve had a hard time sitting through his fantasy fare since then because it seems more drawn out and boring than in his hey day. I think making political films has ruined his gifted talent he used to capitalize on so easily. Now he is unable to access those abilities anymore.

I too find it offensive that Disney PRETENDS to be doing a favor to black people by vaulting the Song of the South in the US but then goes and releases it in places all over the world where the NAACP doesn’t have a foot hold.


I’m not sure that 2099 can understand what it’s like here in America if 2099 has lived in the UK all 2099’s life. It is not surprising that the politics and religion in the UK is reversed with the US. During the Civil Ward it was the Republicans who were for Civil Rights and the Democrats who were for slavery. By the way the parties are today you’d think it would be the exact opposite. The reason being is that party’s shift sides every few decades because they always oppose the other’s views. Then they start coming to the center and eventually shift so they have become opposites. That is the nature of political parties in any country.


Now, 2099, some Christian teachings are about helping the poor and sharing and things you might consider to be liberal but the liberals in our country have nothing to do with religion. They have been the more secular party for years and the party responsible for making our history PC and erasing anything Christian from the public square that they can. Only after the last 2 Presidential elections seemed to have been decided by Christians have the liberals started to seek out religion but they have made a mess of it as always. They just don’t get it. It’s not enough to be seen in church to be the reason people vote for you, it has to do with what you stand for and your behavior. Just last week the democrats held a big meeting and had a Muslim priest give a prayer and if you see what the priest was actually saying it a political statement about Muslims and Jews. It was just worded in a way that unless you are familiar with the language of the Muslims who do violence you wouldn’t pick up on.


Just because Passion of the Christ didn’t do well, according to you, doesn’t change the fact it has grossed nearly 1 billion dollars world wide. So maybe the UK rejected it but other countries must have liked it.


I Agree completely with Mickeymouse in that some groups are allowed to be offended while others are feared. I think the reason for that is because the media has placed the spin that it’s forward thinking to bow to the grace of some minority and gay groups and backwards to bow to others. Look at the spin they gave the illegal immigrant subject in the US. They quickly started calling them “migrant workers” to avoid the term “illegal” even though they are hear illegally.


I never bought the whole “Ludwig von Drake is offensive because he’s a German scientist so he must have worked for Hitler” argument. True, he was probably loosely based off from some of Hitler’s scientists who defected to the US biut 1.) not all of those guys were supporters of Hitler or Nazis and 2.) Ludwig von Drake is a cartoon duck! Plus the Sherman brothers loved the character and wrote a lot of material for him and from everything I’ve read they’re Jewish. So how can a character who is a cartoon duck and fleshed out by a couple of talented Jewish songwriters be an anti-Semitic character? That’s yet another case of people looking for ways to be offended. As they say, sometimes a duck is just a duck.


I like how Leonard Maltin pointed out on the Silly Symphony DVD that the Hollywood moguls were mostly Jewish and they made films with Jewish characters in them that some today claim are offensive. I think these guys made this stuff because there was a time when people could laugh at themselves and laughed with each other. That time is sadly gone and everyone is so uptight about offending people that you can’t say or do anything anyone without someone coming after you.


Black Cauldron - I said earlier that Disney says the Neverland Indians are Neverland Indians so that’s why they don’t consider them to be offensive. When Pocahontas came out her descendants who helped on the film spoke out against it but I forget on what grounds. I rthink Russell Means was kicked off from some leadership position in some group over his praise of the film’s accuracy. But, you know, all of this Indians being offended about stuff is usually bogus, as John Stossel pointed out on 20/20 years ago. At the time some women’s rights group having nothing to do with Indians got Congress to change the name of every place in America that had the word “Squaw” in it. They objected because it was the Indian word for a woman’s private area. They claimed Indians were offended as well. So Stossel went to some big meeting of 80% of the nation’s Indian tribes and the tribal leaders laughed about it and told him that they always laugh at how silly the white men are when they do stuff like this. And they HATE being called “Native Americans”. They’d rather be called by their tribe names but accept the term Indians. Yet, in every text book they are Native Americans just like blacks are referred to African Americans. Why can’t we all just be Americans and stop singling ourselves out?


Oz - the only reason Song of the South was nominated in selected theaters in the 80’s was to validate the Splash Mountain theme. Eisner was hesitant that anyone even liked the movie anymore so it was released for 2 weeks and it grossed more money more quickly than any other Disney release or re-release up till that time (it may still hold the record).


I was going to ask if Song of the South was on the Library of Congress Film Registry but forgot. I’m sad to hear it is not. But just because a film is on it is no guarantee that the film will be released again. Star Wars was there for years and George Lucas refused to release it for years only to have Fox make him do it. That was a film that always made tons of money for the bootleggers at the comic cons.


I’ve seen the tar baby sequence many times. They used to air it on the Disney channel often and I never once thought it was supposed to be a black person. When I was a child I just took it to be like a scarecrow or any number of human like puppets one could make. It still doesn’t look like a black person to me. And isn’t the tar baby still in Splash Mountain? I know he was there when it opened.



Now, has anyone read the Uncle Remus stories? I have the complete collection book you can get at Amazon and some of the stories in here are surprising. The most shocking to me was called “Why the Negro is Black” and it said on Creation Day God made man out of the mud and they were all black. So He made a fountain and told them to wash off the dirt. The first guy climbed in and used up most of the water and came out white skinned, blonde haired and blue eyed. The next guy used most of what was left of the water and ended up a Chinese guy. Finally the last man went in and there was barely enough to get the bottom of his feet and hands wet and he was the first black man. Now, most people would say this story is racist but this was a story that black people told so I have trouble saying that. Sure it’s not PC but I feel it is historical to black heritage. (Do wee have any black members here who would like to offer an opinion?) Nothing in Song of the South is as “bold” as this but if this is what people think of when they read Uncle Remus stories I can see why people might think stories like this are in the film since it has rarely been seen for so long. Can’t you?

[Luke]

While it's got nothing to do with <i>Song of the South</i> or its potential DVD release, I'd like to throw this article into the mix regarding <i>The Passion of the Christ</i>'s Oscars snub:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainmen ... 028159.stm

Had Gibson and company pushed the movie with an Oscar campaign, I think it's possible it would have possibly picked up more nods. Maybe not. I certainly don't think it would have earned a Best Picture nomination or anything, but the fact that with no awards campaign whatsoever it still received three Oscar nominations does indicate that the movie clicked with a lot of viewers, even those who comprise the supposedly liberal, godless Hollywood that are thought to have been ostracized by the movie's unconventional success. Now on the one hand, it would have been somewhat tacky for a film thought to be more than a film by its creators to be campaigned alongside things like <i>Ray</i> and <i>Sideways</i>. But look at <i>Schindler's List</i>, another movie that ventures to go beyond cinema...which was highly decorated by the Academy.

And no, I'm not equating Oskar Schindler with the Christian Messiah, nor comparing the Holocaust to the Crucifixion/Resurrection, so please don't jump on me for that. I'm merely pointing out that what can be perceived as an awards underrepresentation by <i>The Passion of the Christ</i> was, in some ways, the result of Mel Gibson and Icon's decision not to push it for the awards consideration. Judging from the millions that are spent to get a film awards season recognition, a promotional campaign would appear to be necessary to the Oscar process.