Originally Posted By Doobie This topic is for discussion of the May 22 article: Jim on Film at <a href="News-ID180310.asp" target="_blank">http://LaughingPlace.com/News-ID180310.asp</a>.
Originally Posted By jazzfan4 The real tragedy is that the stereotypes all had some basis in fact before the artist began the characterture and the fact that people real acted that way is lost on the offended. I’m old enough to have traveled to the south in the early 1960’s before integration had really taken place, and it was much different than it is today. One train even had a Jim Crow coach on the Central of Georgia. If your going to worry about the past and be offended because of the stereotypes of Amos and Andy, or of Native Americans in the old westerns, your not going to make progress. Yes, we can go buy Dumbo, Peter Pan, Short Circuit and many other movies that have stereotyped groups of people, but you can’t go buy Song of the South where the only truly good people are the Slaves on the plantation. I purchased a PAL copy on E-bay and had a conversion made, I have watched looking for the things that might a problem, and in the context of the times the characters are only humans with the typical faults we see in people today. Kids need Uncle Remus to teach them to use their brains not their foots or their fists.
Originally Posted By Sir_Clinksalot Very good Article Jim. I think it would be wise to concentrate on the present and future, instead of dwelling on the past.
Originally Posted By Quasimodo Song of the South does have one animated scene that many find offensive - the tar baby sequence. While the "tar baby" is just a sticky, tar covered "doll" meant to trick and ensare B'rer Rabbit, the term "tar baby" was used for many years in a derogatory manner that denigrated African-American children. Much of the criticism of Song of the South's inherent racial insensitivity often overlooks this particularly offensive scene. Why? Ya got me... Good article, though. Thanks Jim. -Quasi
Originally Posted By TheMadHatter JazzFan4... Do me a favor... Stop refering to the "Sharecroppers" in "Song of the South" as slaves. There is a difference. Thanks
Originally Posted By jazzfan4 Well then perhaps mad hatter you can tell me what period of american history is depicted, 1840 to 1860 or 1870 to 1890 because I don't have the first hand knowlege of the time period of Uncle Remus. I guess the Tar Baby sequence might be offensive but it is really a baby made of Tar to trap Brer Rabbit so I never thought about an alternate meaning. You have to admit that the Tar Baby does get the best of Brer Rabbit.
Originally Posted By Quasimodo In the 1880s Joel Chandler Harris began to publish whimsical, imaginative stories that accurately reproduced local black folktales in authentic language. The stories centered on the character of Uncle Remus, a former slave who is the servant of a Southern family. Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. -Quasi
Originally Posted By Quasimodo >>I guess the Tar Baby sequence might be offensive but it is really a baby made of Tar to trap Brer Rabbit so I never thought about an alternate meaning. << No offense to you, jazzfan4, but just because you've never heard "tar baby" used as an epitet, doesn't mean it never was. Personally, I don't think Song of the South is ever going to be re-released in the US in my lifetime. -Quasi
Originally Posted By Quasimodo >>I guess the Tar Baby sequence might be offensive but it is really a baby made of Tar to trap Brer Rabbit so I never thought about an alternate meaning. << No offense to you, jazzfan4, but just because you've never heard "tar baby" used as an epitet, doesn't mean it never was. Personally, I don't think Song of the South is ever going to be re-released in the US in my lifetime. -Quasi
Originally Posted By MouseBear Salutations All, Good Article Jim, your suggestions are excellent. jazzfan4- Song of the South depicts Reconstruction. During this time period, which began in 1865 and lasted until 1877, many African Americans did stay on Southern plantations. They simply had no where else to go. However, it was possible for them to leave (as Uncle Remus almost does at the end of Song of the South) and they were paid in some fashion for their work. MouseBear
Originally Posted By CuriosWolfSo This Wolf had to wonder if the Russian characters in "Peter and the Wolf" are stereotypes. I know that there is nothing offending about them but were they all hunters and did they really hunt wolves? Well, there is one thing I don't like about how often people tends to typecast us wolves as ferocious blood-thirsty villains! Yes, even animals get typecast too and being a wolf myself, I can tell you that we are NOT all like that! Yet Disney and other people keep enforcing that evil wolf cliche! While there's nothing I can do about "Peter and the Wolf" (I still like it despite that scary "Comin'-at-ya" drooling wolf menace..) I hope that Disney and the others can counterbalance that by making movies that show wolves as friendly or being guardians and/or spiritual guides (as they often are in old Native American stories) I just thought of something else...do today's Step-mothers (& step-daughters) feel bad about the way they are treated in fairytales as cold, unfeeling wicked ladies? Do stories like "Cinderella" make them feel bad? I'm sure they are not all bad like we wolves are not all savages!
Originally Posted By terwyn I think what Jim (and some other folks) miss about the overt and current subtle stereotyping in Disney films is that fact that for every "white" villian or buffoon, there are many time more cute or heroic "white" character. Whereas when it comes to minorites they are either invisible all together or rendered so toned down so they appear to be "white folk" with a great tanning job. What's so interesting about how "white" characters were added to "Lilo & Stitch" as to allow Disney's "white" audience an opportunity to identify with at least someone in the film. I've been to Kauai (where L&S is set) while there are plenty of "haoles" there are vastly more Asians, native Hawaiians, Filipinos, etc. who are the "normal" locals and the "whites" are the out of place tourists. Can anyone say the same about including non-whites in Disney's films as incidental or supporting characters? I think not. Minorities are mostly used only where the story is set outside of the US or in comic relief roles. Take "Princess Diaries" couldn't the girlfriend of the main character have been a Chinese-American, since "PD" was supposedly set in San Francisco? There are a significant number of Asians in San Francisco, why couldn't Disney cast a cute Asian actress in that role? Or a Black or Latina for that matter. IF we've progress so far from the Indians from "Peter Pan" or "Song of the South's" noble ex-slaves, why haven't there been African characters set in Africa in Disney's animated films? There's been an awful lot of globe trotting in recent Disney animated films in the last twenty years, but almost no Black characters (except for Cobra Bubbles or the Doc in Atlantis, which was essentially the exact same character in both films). Need I remind folks that "Lion King" and "Tarzan" didn't feature human Africans? Suppose Disney only featured "whites" as either villians or buffoones, no princesses, or "prince charmings." Would Americans flock to Disney animated films in the same number, all things being equal?????? The fact that most "white" Americans haven't experienced the ridicule that so many minorities in America have for generations shows difficulties that the mainstream has with true diversity in the media. It seems that the "mainstream" cannot fathom the issues that minorites have had to deal with for years, because they've NEVER experienced such hatred or ridicule that they are truely blind to the pervasiveness of stereotyping in the media, including Disney's films. The nearest that "whites" can relate to is the stereotype of the Disney princesses. For decades, "white" woman-childs have been protrayed as needing rescue by their "prince" and to live happily ever after. The problem is that only "white" women can appriciate this sort of stereotyping. Only recently has Disney begun to break out of the Disney princess mindset and develop more rounded female characters. Why not minorites? I truely hope it isn't because most of the execs.(who happen to be "white") hire mostly people like themselves, who don't interact with non-middleclass, suburban whites. In the "bad old days", before the civil rights movement, minorites were invisible because they were considered less "valuable" than "whites" were and were subject of ridicule. What's the rational in today's media where they are likewise invisible.
Originally Posted By -em I never have seen Song of the South- I really want to but cant get my hands easily on a copy to view- However I have seen some older disney films this month and It makes me wonder how some of those got past the sensors-- The one part that I can think of at this time of the morning- Is the end of Savage Sam when the white boys fight the indians- Not only is there some not choice words but there is some pretty vivid fighting sequences that I wasnt to impressed by... -em
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Ok...in Lilo & Stitch I counted 3 caucasian characters (animal shelter lady, red haired girl, and big, sunburnt tourist) compared to many more Hawaiian and Asian characters. It seemed to pretty accurately reflect the cultural diversity that is Hawaii to me. And although I do agree that Disney has (especially in the past) not represented minorites that well, they have done a decent job lately in creating positive leading roles for minorities in their animated films. Pocahontas is a prime example. Esmeralda from Hunchback was another one. Also Mulan, Jasmine and Aladdin. Also the short John Henry is a wondeful story with very positive characters. Disney does have a long way to go, but then so does American society. Also I find the term "whites" just as offensive as any other epithet. I realize that many people feel empowered by using that, but it certainly doesn't help change people's views. If anything it isolates people and makes them withdraw further, or lash out in anger. I, for one don't like to be generalized. I consider myself to be extremely open minded, so I don't associate with the term "whites" It's one of those terms that makes me cringe. So if you want to affect change, using derogatory terms like that doesn't work.
Originally Posted By Jim Terwyn, I think you make a lot of good points. The ending of my article addresses your main issue, however, and I think it holds the key to battling caricatures. My call was for people to stop trying to fix the past and do something about the future--working to make sure that people of color are featured in all films, which is an issue that I developed in an article that will hopefully be posted sometime soon. As for specifics, I would have to disagree that Dr. Sweet and Cobra Bubbles are essentially the same character. I would say they are both very different characterizations. And while I agree with you on the issue of Lilly in PRINCESS DIARIES, I do think it was good that they (I think) made the character Jewish (Though, I know, those were just examples you used, not by any means the basis of your argument).
Originally Posted By DisneyLogic This is a very interesting subject. It is a small version of the problem we as a supposedly open-minded and Western society have embracing the idea that at any given moment there are a large number of ways of looking at reality. We seem to work on this axiom that says at most one viewpoint can be correct and that proponents of the various viewpoints should "fight it out" until there's only one left standing. One reason why I think the fantasy and science fiction genrés do so well is that they are so disconnected from real events stories and value judgments do not and indeed cannot be allegorical in any true sense. It is a severe limitation of our culture, I'm afraid, and somehow comes packaged with the whole melting pot idea. I mean, in the end, as a greater and greater number of cultures are represented in America, I'm afraid noone will be able to say anything about anyone. This is seen when public institutions take on telling history as well. Remember the Enola Gay flap at the Smithsonian? Even the Park Service's Pearl Harbor memorial suffers from this. I don't know what Disney can do about it. Having a way of publishing "Song of the South" on video, perhaps with commentary explaining the age it came from and represented, would be an important step forward. I almost think it would be worth trying that project just to see how it might be done. The weird thing is that "Song of the South" as it is could be justified entirely on the basis of being true to the original sources, the stories and the books. But we, as Americans, even if we tolerate all kinds of books in publication, somehow feel a movie is more powerful or has to represent consensus more. LORD OF THE RINGS suffers some of this when Peter Jackson changed some characters, partly because the visual medium has limitations which books don't and partly because, frankly, some parts of the LOTR are not well done as story. It's really odd and I think it speaks volumes about our collective limitations.
Originally Posted By Ursus J Bear Terwyn, I thought it was interesting, but the way you seem to have nearly obsessed about how races are portrayed in films is almost racist in itself. *prepares himself for the flames to follow*
Originally Posted By JimG This is a fine article. I too am tired of all of the so-called "political correctness". I'd especially like to comment on "Song of the South", a most worthy Disney movie and certainly one that _should_ now be available for its many fans on home video (tape & particularly DVD). As indicated by some prior posts, "Song of the South"'s era is the POST-Civil War period, and certainly not the "slavery period". Accordingly, the poor white and poor black characters in the film are certainly "sharecroppers", and none are "slaves". Uncle Remus is the stellar figure in "Song of the South" who manifests fundamental morals, and who is totally responsible for the film's positive ending. Uncle Remus (depicted by Oscar-winner James Baskett) is simply the hero of the play and perhaps the one character who displays common sense. I recommend "Song of the South" to all open-minded people. It is an excellent movie for children as long as the parents are there to clarify any questions relating to the film's historical context.
Originally Posted By terwyn Ok...in Lilo & Stitch I counted 3 caucasian characters (animal shelter lady, red haired girl, and big, sunburnt tourist) compared to many more Hawaiian and Asian characters. It seemed to pretty accurately reflect the cultural diversity that is Hawaii to me." I've acknowledged that point, gurgitoy2, however the second part of my point was how incidental or supporting minority were included in other Disney Feature Animated films. How many black, Asian, or Latino mermaids were in "Little Mermaid" or "Tarzan"? These are pretty recent films, not long, ago in the unenlighten days of yore. I still contend that that the "haole" characters in L&S was for comfort factor, so not to alienate Disney's precieved mainstream audience. Need at least one caucasian character in every film . "And although I do agree that Disney has (especially in the past) not represented minorites that well, they have done a decent job lately in creating positive leading roles for minorities in their animated films. Pocahontas is a prime example. Esmeralda from Hunchback was another one. Also Mulan, Jasmine and Aladdin. All of those characters you mention, with the exception of Mulan, were so generally devoid of any sort of ethnic identity, that they are indestinguishable from any cacausian suburban teenager in America. As I pointed out, they seem to read as folks with a good tan job. "Mulan" was different, because Disney was trying to crack the Chinese market. Kudos to Disney, but they turned around and populated "Hercules" with so many blondes and redheads, that Greece could actually have been set in Ithaca--NY. Don't forget "Emperor's Groove", except for the scenery, the movie was more at home in Burbank (Disney Studios, per chance?) than ancient Cuzco, Peru. "Also the short John Henry is a wondeful story with very positive characters." "John Henry", while a gem of a short film (cartoon), Disney showed absolute no faith in this film. Instead of adding it to another Disney feature film, like the "Roger Rabbit" cartoons, they maybe showed it in very limitted release for possible consideration for an animated short Oscar and only showed it once a couple of years ago on the Disney Channel during Black History Month. Big deal. Finally they bundle it together with a group 55 year old shorts of other Disney legends and another cheapo direct to video title was born. An absolute waste of an opportunity to be inclusive, instead of stereotypical behavior for Hollywood. "Disney does have a long way to go, but then so does American society." No arguement from me. "Also I find the term "whites" just as offensive as any other epithet." Sorry, if you mis-took my usage. I was trying to be consistant in my description. I called Afro-americans "blacks". Euro-americans is no where nearly a common identification. Does your sensitivity seems a bit telling on your true feeling on this issue??? "I realize that many people feel empowered by using that, but it certainly doesn't help change people's views. If people DID bring this issue or expressed an opinion would things actually get better, in your opinion. The fact that Jim brought up the issue in his column is both forward thinking and honest on his part. Sweeping issues as important as diversity would most likey make most folks like you feel more comfortable, but would anything change since the late 1950's? Afro-americans had waited nearly 100 years for Euro-americans to come around to treating them on a somewhat limitted equal basis. If the civil rights leaders piped down, would the voting rights, equal accomodations, or equal employment acts have been considered when they did. Don't forget that for the first several decades of DL's operations, Disney didn't hire minorites, except for the Tahitian Terrace or backstage positions, because Disney argued that they weren't hiring employee, they were "casting" parts for the DL park. Kinda weasle words for discriminatory practices, isn't it? "If anything it isolates people and makes them withdraw further, or lash out in anger. Maybe. I'm sure definitely for those members of the Montana Militia. Anyone who professes "openmindedness" wouldn't feel isolated or a need for withdrawl to discuss issues such as this. Only those who hold notions of superiority would feel singled out. I, for one don't like to be generalized. I consider myself to be extremely open minded, so I don't associate with the term "whites" It's one of those terms that makes me cringe." Chill out guy, I wasn't writing about you in particular. Guilty feelings, maybe? So if you want to affect change, using derogatory terms like that doesn't work. That's what the Segrationists back in the 1960's South were saying to the Kennedy Administration when they were pushed to follow civil rights laws. Likewise the White South African gov't. leaders when most of the countries of the world started to point out the injustices of their form of government. Only folks who are content with the status quo and liking what s/he sees in society or in Disney films would say such things.
Originally Posted By terwyn " I thought it was interesting, but the way you seem to have nearly obsessed about how races are portrayed in films is almost racist in itself." Obsessed? Moi? Hardly. I've never said that non-whites should only be the leading characters in all Disney Films. I'm only pointing out that Disney may not be moving all that far or quickly toward diversity as I may care for or in comparision to other major film studios. Who's using the "race card" here? Ursus? Unlike the America protrayed in the stereotypical Disney film, America is much, much more diverse than is apparent. I heard someone point out that the #1 American golfer is a black/Thai/white/Native American/etc. and the #1 Rap Artist is a white midwesterner surbanite. Much more diverse than what you see in the media, isn't it? Click. . . click . . . fzzzz. Darn, my zippo must be low on fluid.
