Originally Posted By DVC_dad Okay I just sat down and watched (a completely legal and old VHS version of) Song of the South. I tried every which way, turned it over in my minds eye, played Devil's Advocate, on and on and on... And I honestly cannot see ANY reason whatsoever that this movie should be out of print. Can someone please open my eyes and once and for all explain it to me? I don't get it!!! Gone with the Wind is certainly more offensive that this gem. Please help me to admit that I am narrow minded and wrong about this movie. Does anyone know what in the movie is offensive?
Originally Posted By FaMulan I'll take a stab at it: Gone With the Wind made by MGM, a maker of "grownup" movies. Song of the South by Dinsey, a maker of "children's" movies. As such, when Political Correctness conquered the world, Disney became hyper-aware of its image and acted (or overreacted) accordingly. MGM doesn't have the reputation as purveyor of fine family entertainment.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo I'm with you DVC Dad - there are some stereotypes in it, but then again, there are stereotypes in virtuallyevery movie. I think we actually do our young people a diservice by shielding them from historic attitudes.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros What I find particularly interesting about Song of the South is that (at least the way I interpreted it) the villains are the white parents and the comforting and supportive characters are the ones who are supposedly given a bad reputation. I guess, if you really stretch it and don't look at the big picture of the movie, people could find it somewhat offensive, but the whole message of the movie is very different from that.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Gone With the Wind made by MGM...<< In point of fact, Gone With the Wind was made by Selznick, and distributed by MGM. The basic problem with Song of the South is that, to many people, it perpetuates an offensive racial stereotype of happy former slaves who prefer to spend their lives on the plantation. It is also a source of confusion in the minds of many that leads them to believe that it is set during the slave period. Actually, it is set after the Civil War. I have shown my copy to friends. Most of them are mystified over all the fuss. And some feel that the film is a badly dated artifact of a simpler time.
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo However, the idea of former slaves staying on their old plantations and being happy is not necessarily a bad one. In real history, during the reconstruction, share cropper, robber baron movements, life was very hard for all southerners and there was a huge backlash on the new freed men. Violance a bullying seemed to be very common place, and the KKK raised their ugly heads. The plantations still offered some form of protection and familiarity. While I would never condone slavery, I do recognise that not all slave owners would beat their slaves. In a number of cases, newly freed slaves became very important in the rebuilding of the South after the war, and helped their former owners get on their feet,while gaining some wealth and lands themselves. If SotS were put in the proper historicalcontext for an audience that is un familier with 1870's Southern life, it can actually be a helpful tool.
Originally Posted By mawnck Most of the black characters are portrayed as stereotypical singin' dancin' simple folk (especially Toby with his "United States of Jawja" talk), while the grandmother is a sweet old lady type who respects everybody, even though the blacks had to have been her slaves just a few years previous. They're on a plantation and they never do anything--I don't think there's a single cotton ball in the whole film. The group singing is dubbed in by a white choir. The cartoon characters all speak in ebonics, and are based on the typical black stereotypes of the time. The situation portrayed in the movie is totally unrealistic for the reconstruction period -- no, there WEREN'T plantations in Georgia full of happy, content black folks, because regardless of the feelings of the plantation owner, it would not have been socially acceptable to his neighbors. The very idea of Uncle Remus setting off by himself is absurd . . . his life would've been in danger. And the movie is called "Song of the South" -- if that isn't glorifying the reconstruction period, what is? I want it released too, and I don't think any of the above should keep it off the market (Memo to Bob Iger: Stop being a wuss), but if you saw "no problems," you weren't paying attention.
Originally Posted By disneyfreaksk I remember this movie from childhood and loved it. I can see why Disney is apprehensive about releasing it. I just miss the movie. I liked Uncle Remus and was amazed that the blue bird would sit on his shoulder and sing!
Originally Posted By basil fan Put me down in favor of SotS. I want it released & I want a copy. Disney Trivia Quiz <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/dquiz.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/dquiz.html</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc I would love to see it released. I think most people would. Disney fears that squeaky wheel it seems. That said, sign me up for post 8. It is understandably offensive to my African American friends and I'm not about to tell them they need to suck it up.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Interesting replies. I watched the whole movie. I was paying attention. It’s possible that I disagree with you about this film, I’m still deciding. At what point was the movie pulled out of print? Was it ever released publicly in the US? What was the reason given at the time for it’s removal?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad Most certainly Archie Bunker was far more offensive than this film. Not saying that makes it okay to re-release the film, just saying there are things out there a LOT more offensive.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad For those against the movie, how do you feel about “classics†such as Uncle Tom’s Cabin that uses the “N†word often. Or Adventures of Huck Finn that uses Soutern Drawls and ebonics throughout? How are these different? And by the way, if you read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and realize that it was written in the period in which it takes place, you will find that there must have been many slaves that simply stayed on the plantation because sadly enough they had no where else to go. How are these works different? Or are they offensive as well? NOTE: I am asking out of genuine curiosity, NOT out of spite or with some hidden agenda.
Originally Posted By mawnck Nobody here has chimed in "against the movie," only pointed out what some people might take offense at. The "classics" arguement for me is a non-issue. The classic movies and literature mentioned in this topic are not Disney movies. Uncle Tom's Cabin and Huck Finn certainly do contain some offensive content, and have been banned from many a school library because of it. But exposure to these books generally comes in the teenage years or later, when readers will allegedly have a more mature outlook on the problem areas, and the context from which they arise. Whereas, as we all know, "Disney movies are for kids." This is also where the issue of quality raises its ugly head . . . is SOTS really a classic in the league of Gone With the Wind or Huck Finn? (Hint: No. It's typical 1940s melodramatic schlock that happens to have some fabulous animated segments.) Then there's the "people who make a living being offended" thing. We all know about them. They could get several good years' worth out of a SOTS DVD release. I can understand an exec like Iger not wanting to mess with that. I don't approve, but I understand. Your point that there's a double standard at work here is valid, DVC_dad. But pointing it out doesn't make it go away. (And just to reiterate, despite my opinions expressed above, I WANT IT RELEASED.)
Originally Posted By Dznygrl If they're so worried about kids of today viewing this movie, the least they could do is release it as a part of the Disney Treasures Collection and not really have it marketed toward children, such as On the Front Lines (Der Fuehrer's Face and Education for Death, etc.). It might give them a better shot at portraying the film in its historical context.
Originally Posted By basil fan I just watched The Rocketeer again, & it really trivializes the Great Depression. Sure, Cliff & Peevy talk a little about being strapped for cash, but there are no bread lines or street-corner apple-sellers to be seen. And some of the characters actually seem to be happy. Imagine finding happiness in a time of hardship! Is this an insult to those who struggled through that awful time? All kidding aside, I've said it before: if I was a freed slave, you can bet I'd be singing. Beside the fact that many slaves had a deep, strong faith that gave them joy in the midst of hard times. For Disney Girls Only <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/kuzco.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/kuzco.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>if I was a freed slave, you can bet I'd be singing. << With the immaculately arranged voices of the (white) Ken Darby Singers, no doubt. ;-)
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger Well, it was either them or the Paris Hilton Sound-alike Choir. I think basil fan made the right choice.
Originally Posted By xrayvision According to Wikipedia, SOTS recently played on BBC in mid August 2006. Shortly thereafter, online videos of SOTS began appearing on google video (full lengh feture uninterrupted) and youtube (segmented). Perhaps Disney could offer downloadable Vault videos, like SOTS, from it's website that wouldn't receive the backlash that would occur by selling/marketing/distributing SOTS DVDs' in stores. Or, they could run the full length show with historical introduction on PBS or American Movie Classics, which will explain the historical time period (after slavery) and the father's role as an abolitionist writer(the fatehr states that he's a controversial writer but doesn't the topic creating the controversy). Then, copies of the PBS/AMC enhanced version of SOTS would be avail. for sale or download if the initial PBS/AMC TV showing was well received.
