Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech I am fascinated with the issues this film brings up. I am not black, so I will never see the film in the same way that a black person does. However I do know that there is a distinct difference between racism and insensitivity. Is this film insensetive? A big maybe. I guess anything which portrays any group using stereotypes is being insensetive to that group. I mean is the Sopranos insensetive to Italians by portraying Italians on the show as mobsters? Or are Italians who are offended just being too sensetive? Because not every Italian is involved in organized crime we can't portray any of them that way? I've heard much criticism of Song of the South, most by people who have never seen it. "Oooh I heard this film was banned because it was so racist.". The complaints that have come from informed sources range from "The film portrays blacks in a derogatorry (sp) manor, with poor grammar, and simple ways" to "It portrays life in the post Civil War South as a happy time with good will between former slaves and plantation owners". I love this last one: apparently every moment in every persons life in the Post Civil War south wholly revolved around the former slave/master relationship. Apparently other issues never came up. Little boys didn't worry about being teased by the neighborhood bullies, Marriages didn't experience turmoil, and nobody told anyone any stories that weren't about slavery. Clearly these things didn't happen. Kidding aside, Song of the South is about all these things, and I'm sorry but it's not about Slavery. Like any good film, it focused on the story it wanted to tell, and all the others, which were all no doubt happening in the background, were simply left out.
Originally Posted By basil fan I don't care if movie characters are black or white, but I prefer stories that aren't *about* being black or white, just about being human. That's what Song of the South is, and apparently why it is so despised in some circles: it features black characters but isn't about being black. It's just about people. Mouse Tales <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/mice.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/mice.html</a>
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Song of the South is exactly like Coors beer. Once you can get it anywhere no one will want it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I prefer stories that aren't *about* being black or white, just about being human.<< Uh, what's the name of the movie again?
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech Are you suggesting that being set in the South requires that it have some sort of racial undertones?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Are you suggesting that being set in the South requires that it have some sort of racial undertones?>> South, north, whatever. Everyone knows that the movie portrays slaves as "happy darkies"; a stereotype which black people find very offensive. Is that really so hard to understand?
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech <<Everyone knows that the movie portrays slaves as "happy darkies"; a stereotype...>> Um first of all, there aren't any slaves in the film. This takes place after the Civil war so everyone portrayed is free. As for Everyone knowing what you said above, yeah everyone knows it, and hardly anyone's seen it. I bet you most of those people couldn't tell you the name of the boy in the film but could tell you something that Al Sharpton's said about it. How would you define a "happy darkie" RoadTrip? Is it that they were happy? What's the part that's offensive? Can you define it without using catchphrases? I am not disputing that someone may find the film offensive, but I would like to understand why.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<How would you define a "happy darkie" RoadTrip? Is it that they were happy? What's the part that's offensive?>> A black person portrayed as living in slave quarters on a plantation, working in the fields, happily singing about their life. Whether they were technically free at that time or not, Disney portrayed them living and working under the same conditions that existed during slavery. And doing it happily. People far more knowledgeable than me, both within Disney and outside, have found the film troublesome. <<Iger: "... We've discussed this a lot. We believe it's actually an opportunity from a financial perspective to put Song of the South out. I screened it fairly recently because I hadn't seen it since I was a child, and I have to tell you after I watched it, even considering the context that it was made, I had some concerns about it because of what it depicted. And though it's quite possible that people wouldn't consider it in the context that it was made, and there were some... [long pause] depictions that I mentioned earlier in the film that I think would be bothersome to a lot of people. And so, owing to the sensitivity that exists in our culture, balancing it with the desire to, uh, maybe increase our earnings a bit, but never putting that in front of what we thought were our ethics and our integrity, we made the decision not to re-release it. Not a decision that is made forever, I imagine this is going to continue to come up, but for now we simply don't have plans to bring it back because of the sensitivities that I mentioned. Sorry.">> Source: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S ong_of_the_South</a> <<Still, as folklorist Patricia A. Turner writes: Disney's 20th century re-creation of Harris's frame story is much more heinous than the original. The days on the plantation located in "the United States of Georgia" begin and end with unsupervised Blacks singing songs about their wonderful home as they march to and from the fields. Disney and company made no attempt to to render the music in the style of the spirituals and work songs that would have been sung during this era. They provided no indication regarding the status of the Blacks on the plantation. Joel Chandler Harris set his stories in the post-slavery era, but Disney's version seems to take place during a surreal time when Blacks lived on slave quarters on a plantation, worked diligently for no visible reward and considered Atlanta a viable place for an old Black man to set out for.>> Source: <a href="http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/sots.htm" target="_blank">http://www.snopes.com/disney/f ilms/sots.htm</a>
Originally Posted By SIR at X-S Tech Are they "slave quarters"? Or are they merely housing for extremely poor people? Are the housing conditions shown an innacurate portrayal of what former slaves would have lived in? Inarguably thier life must have been incredibly difficult, with perhaps no visible differences from thier days as slaves. However I hardly think that because they weren't going head to head with the plantation owners, this should be a sign of overall contentedness. Their singing as they went to work in the fields is not necessarily because they were happy but a way to lift spirits, because work was hard and they weren't enjoying themselves. I'm sure that like a high percent of todays population, most of the slaves were survivors, preferring not to make waves, during slavery times and after. They probably tried thier best to get by and get along with everyone. It's a very small percentage in any group who ever have the courage or skills to lead a revolution or fight an oppressor. Only a handful of black plantation workers are even shown in closeup in the film, and certainly their could have been other more proactive, less complacent individuals who's stories are not being told in the film. I am not trying to be belligerent, or offend anyone, just trying to understand. And I hope you don't think I'm calling you stupid RoadTrip. I DO think that there is a huge overcompensation with Political Correctness these days though and many people will absolutly accept a charge of racism or prejudice so that they can quickly repent and everyone's happy. I applaud that you would fight for protecting someone's feelings- an admirable stance, I just think it get's overdone sometimes. I hardly think Bob Iger's public statements should be considered unbiased opinion on this film. Speaking as the head of the Company he can hardly be candid. The Neal Gabler book too said that Walt received quite a bit of warning that it would be considered offensive even during early script writing and filming. I guess it's clear that Walt was "insensetive" if nothing else. He couldn't understand, and perhaps didn't care about the blacks struggle for equality, any more than it served his film, which wasn't much. He wanted to tell the story of the friendship between an old black man and a young white boy. He ignored a lot of other stuff. He didn't intend to offend, because if he did he certainly could have made a more offensive film. But everyone picks on what wasn't portrayed in the movie. I just wonder, if someone made a film that offended me, what would I do? It's certainly happened in the last couple of years, and the films have been far more belligerent and aggressive in their offense. In other words, I was offended at the points being deliberately made and the stance being taken, not at an ignorant portrayal by an ignorant writer or director. What do you do in this situation. Do you do everything you can to squash it, keep it from ever being seen? That's a virtual impossibility especially nowadays. Or do you feel offended for a bit, say, "what an idiot" and move on with your life?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I guess partly I feel that much of the talk concerning this film is because people can't see it. I truly think that if it were available it would be seen as a curiosity, like Wind in the Willows, and not much else. It certainly doesn't have the fairy-tale appeal of Disney's other classics. Disney may be excessively PC on this, but Disney goes out of its way to avoid offending ANYONE (except for TDLFAN and the Spirit). ;-) Disney is a target for criticism and protest. Whether it’s the Southern Baptists, the American Family Association, or literally dozens of other groups that have boycotted Disney for assorted minor ‘sins’, Disney is criticized for things that would be ignored from other companies. They can’t afford to do things that they KNOW will generate controversy. Is SOTS any worse than many other movies made in the same era? I’m sure it is not. I was shocked a few months ago when I watched ‘Holiday Inn’ and saw the extended scene with Crosby in blackface. There certainly was a different sensibility during those times. But Disney wants to avoid taking the chance of offending a large number of people, and I don’t see anything wrong with that.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Are you suggesting that being set in the South requires that it have some sort of racial undertones?<< I'm suggesting that the movie is NOT just about being human, as was suggested. Its title (which is Disney's, not Harris's) and opening theme song overtly and specifically glamorize the setting and time period of the movie. I think it should be released, and I think it WILL be released. (I'm still sticking to my prediction that the announcement will come at some point when the media is busy with the Presidential election.) But I also think that some fans need to pull their heads out of the sand and take a serious, non-defensive look at its content. RoadTrip's quote of Patricia A. Turner in post 9 is a good place to start.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I've heard much criticism of Song of the South, most by people who have never seen it... "It portrays life in the post Civil War South as a happy time with good will between former slaves and plantation owners". I love this last one...<< Since I have made this point in virtually every thread that touches on this topic, I am compelled to comment again. (I have seen the film.) Yes, Song of the South is set in post Civil War times. But the depiction of the former slaves makes it clear that they would rather live in the same cisrcumstances, and that, indeed, they are happier this way. This is not the exclusive message of the film; if it were, it would be so obvious that it would be easy to identify and refute. It is the very way in which it is casually employed that is troublesome. >>...apparently every moment in every persons life in the Post Civil War south wholly revolved around the former slave/master relationship. Apparently other issues never came up.<< Of course other issues come up in the course of this film. But that does not in any way discount valid criticism about something as basic as the "former master/slave relationship," especially inasmuch as the framework of the film (the relationship between Uncle Remus and Johnny) was a creation of the filmmakers. >>I don't care if movie characters are black or white, but I prefer stories that aren't *about* being black or white, just about being human. That's what Song of the South is, and apparently why it is so despised in some circles: it features black characters but isn't about being black. It's just about people.<< Like it or not, Uncle Remus and his people are black, and little Johnny and his people are white. In the course of the film, much is made of the separate worlds they inhabit. While it would be nice to believe that this is a movie in which everyone is equal, it just isn't the case. >>Are they "slave quarters"? Or are they merely housing for extremely poor people? Are the housing conditions shown an innacurate portrayal of what former slaves would have lived in?<< For anyone who understands the milieu, Uncle Remus is living in former slave quarters, on the plantation in which he was doubtless a slave. >>Inarguably thier life must have been incredibly difficult, with perhaps no visible differences from thier days as slaves. However I hardly think that because they weren't going head to head with the plantation owners, this should be a sign of overall contentedness.<< The problem with this argument is that it suggests an all-or-nothing approach. Either they must be contented or going head to head. What it fails to acknowledge is that the blacks in Song of the South aren't merely contented; they are childlike and oblivious in their happiness. This is what is viewed as so offensive. >>...everyone picks on what wasn't portrayed in the movie.<< While much criticism leveled at Song of the South is based on wrong information, there is a great deal of thoughtful criticism that is derived exactly from the film's content. Rather than tilt at the imaginary windmills thrown up by the uninformed, it would be better to study the arguments advanced by those whose valid objections are grounded in reality.
Originally Posted By pecos bill What boggles my mind is that the film is a work of pure fiction, with episodes of pure fantasy, yet everybody seems to think it is some kind of Ken Burns documentary. My God, release the film, let the whiners whine, and in a month nobody will have ever known the difference.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Why is it so danged important to some of you to have the film released in America? You know if you really want to see it there are many ways of getting it. Why do you have such a strong urge to rub it in people’s faces? The more you say you are not racists the less I believe you.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I think it's the frustration of the film's "home" being here, but it's released overseas, and not right here where it's from. Yes, I have un unofficial version, but I would love to have an official version because it would be the best quality, and maybe even with some extras as a bonus. I don't think anyone wants to rub it anyone's faces. They just want it as easily and legally available. -Jerry D'oh, there I go again---too many emails! ;-)
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I don't know... I guess I still go with the Coors Beer example. I'm convinced that once SOTS was readily available in the U.S. no one would want it any more. I remember when us Midwesterners used to get all excited when someone we knew was going to Colorado. We'd give them money and ask them to bring us back a case of Coors beer. Dang, that hard to get beer was the best tasting brew we'd ever had. Then they made it available everywhere. I can't even remember the last time I bought Coors beer... it would have to be at least 10 years ago. Now I would pay people good money NOT to bring me a case of Coors. Once you could get it whenever you wanted we all realized the truth... Coors beer is just one step removed from horse piss. I think they filter it or something. -Byron Crum… too danged much email again!!
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The more you say you are not racists the less I believe you.<< That may be pushing it too far. "Danged Disney apologists" I can sign off on. None of your arguments - or anybody's arguments - have yet explained why they *shouldn't* release it (other than your garden variety cowardly corporate CYA), and SIR is right about one thing -- there are FAR worse things playing at a theater near you right now. And historical films that are REALLY racist (Birth of a Nation, anyone?) are readily available on DVD. SOTS is no Birth of a Nation or even Gone With the Wind, but it's certainly not without historical and entertainment value from a filmmaking standpoint. The question is, given that SOTS is a famous **Disney family film** with problems, how do you bring it out legally wihtout tarnishing the brand? I think it's doable. It's not doable if we're going to pretend that the problems aren't there (even though it's repeatedly worked for Peter Pan and Dumbo). If they put some care into the presentation, marketing, and timing of release, then the whiners' whining won't seem so valid and will be mostly ignored. Also, I don't buy the "many ways to get it" argument. Aside from not wanting to support lawbreakers (or give them your credit card number), there's the issue of presentation. The boots certainly do not put the movie in any historical context, other than throwing in even dicier animated material from other studios. And then there's picutre quality. Even the official SOTS releases from overseas are quality deficient. It's an old 80's transfer from a somewhat iffy print. It's got some serious issues with scratches and dirt, and the color sucks. A remastered version - one that they didn't mess up like they did The Little Mermaid - would be mighty nice.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>None of your arguments - or anybody's arguments - have yet explained why they *shouldn't* release it... The question is, given that SOTS is a famous **Disney family film** with problems, how do you bring it out legally wihtout tarnishing the brand?... A remastered version - one that they didn't mess up like they did The Little Mermaid - would be mighty nice.<< That's an easy one. Disney is not interested in releasing films to be "mighty nice." They are interested in releasing films to make profit. Like it or not, Song of the South is viewed as enough of a liability that it would probably not be profitable to remaster and release it. It is a viable film oversease, and that is how we can get legal copies, albeit ones that are not to the fanatical standards of today's videophiles. That Peter Pan and Dumbo are regularly reissued is no mystery. These have become beloved standards, which reliably return healthy profits, thereby justifying the additional care in their production and release. So, short answer (finally) is that they shouldn't release Song of the South because it is unlikely that it will enhance profits. Cold, but true.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Song of the South is viewed as enough of a liability that it would probably not be profitable to remaster and release it.<< Horse puckey! This isn't "Hot Lead and Cold Feet" we're talking here (which DID get remastered and released, BTW). This is one of the most requested unreleased movies ever, from any studio. There are logical reasons to not release SOTS, but the inability to turn a profit on it is certainly not one of them. >>It is a viable film oversease, and that is how we can get legal copies<< Your choice is a PAL VHS from the UK (nuff said) or a pair of rare Asian laserdiscs mastered in the mid-80s from a faded and dirty print. You don't have to have fanatical standards to see the problems on these sources. They're comparable to public-domain dollar DVDs. Besides, show of hands . . . how many US consumers have a laserdisc player or a PAL VHS machine? I was with you for a while, Dug, but you're headed off the deep end here.
