Originally Posted By xrayvision Geesh, an edit feature or better profreading by me would be nice. <<(the fatehr states that he's a controversial writer but doesn't the topic creating the controversy)>> Should say (the father states that he's a controversial writer but doesn't define the essay topic which is creating the controversy)
Originally Posted By mawnck >>and the father's role as an abolitionist writer (the father states that he's a controversial writer but doesn't define the essay topic creating the controversy)<< I recall seeing (reading? dreaming?) Ward Kimball talking about this . . . how the scriptwriters went out of their way to indicate that the film was during the reconstruction, that all the white characters were progressive and understanding supporters of equal rights, and that these were definitely not happy slaves on a plantation. Then they started getting concerned about how moviegoers in the South would react to such things, and started watering it down, and watering it down, and making the historical context more and more oblique, until that plot point was so fuzzy that nobody got it, and they ended up with, for all intents and purposes, happy slaves on a plantation.
Originally Posted By xrayvision ^mawnck, thanks for sharing that interesting info. If the historical context was left in place, then moviegoers would catch all the symbolisms used to indicate that the Father and the Grandmother were both progressive thinkers that were ahead of their time, and the mother was still somewhat behind the times in her ways (including her dress and how she dressed her son). If it's not explained that the Blacks are free on the Grandmother's plantation and the father is an abolitionist, then you miss the context of the film, you miss the understanding of the characters and miss some of the main characters' conflicting views on society (ie, old-minded young mother vs the progressive thinking father/grandmother/Uncle Remus). I didn't fully understand why the father/mother split up or catch all the symbolism until I did research on the Uncle Remus stories, read about the characters' backgrounds in detail and re-watched the film on google. With my researched info, I perspective of SOTS changed from disliking to enjoying the film. Holes in the storyline's historical context and watered down character development is part of the cause for the controversy regarding SOTS.
Originally Posted By Pirate Mickey Disney does not care about offensive stereotypes and being sensitive. Just look at the Jimmy Kimmel Show on ABC. They do jokes and skits with stereotypes and no one has canceled the show yet.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Disney does not care about offensive stereotypes and being sensitive.<< Disney cares about having a lot of publicity whore "activists" marching up and down Buena Vista Street and Harbor Blvd. for the TV cameras. That's the bottom line. Jimmy Kimmel? You should see "The Boatniks"! (It's out on DVD. Blatantly racist, just not against blacks. Come to think of it, I don't think there's a single black actor in it.)
Originally Posted By basil fan I didn't think the Japanese pearl-diving girl in The Boatniks was racist. the bad guys treat her like a dope but she ends up playing *them* for dopes; she's actually very savvy. Unless, of course, you were talking about some other scene in the movie that I forgot about. You're right, it's not about racism or about the movie itself' it's all about how they think some people will react & the negative publicity it will create. The Tarzan Equation <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/tarzan.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/tarzan.html</a>
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I didn't think the Japanese pearl-diving girl in The Boatniks was racist. the bad guys treat her like a dope but she ends up playing *them* for dopes; she's actually very savvy.<< Yeah, she plenty smart cookie, but I don't think that's much excuse for the portrayal in general. Pretty much every reference to Japan in that movie was, at the very least, pushing the line, right down to the music cues. But the worst of it was reserved for the Mexicans a bit later in the movie. I don't want to be Mr. PC Policeman around here. I'm perfectly happy to have The Boatniks distributed far and wide for those who like seeing over-the-hill 60s sitcom stars slouching through embarassingly bad movies. (And I LOVE Pink Lady and Jeff, and thus have no room to criticize.) I was just joining in the discussion of the Disney double standard. If The Boatniks is OK, then SOTS should be golden. And SOTS doesn't even suck.
Originally Posted By Blackie Pueblo Bottom line is it is all about business. The Disney corporation has to look at will it cause a loss in profits due to the protests or will it be a profit. I guess I can understand why the African American community would be upset. I agree with the previous post that it is desperatly needed to be explained in details on what the situation is with each character. You can't just let the audience figure it out for themselves. Many won't. It's a shame they couldn't have a large special feature explaining the film, the controversy and what the actual message is. What they need really, is a leader of the African American community to watch the film and add their support. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "We'll show you a laughing place!"
Originally Posted By DVC_Pongo But then that begs two more questions. 1.) _Blackie don't you think your name is offensive, not to me, but to someone somewhere I am sure? 2.) _WHO is the Leader of the African American Community? In some circles it may be Ludacris, in others Jessie Jackson, in still others The Nation of Islam guy...officially known as "The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan." It would be impossible to find a single "Leader of the African American" population in the US. After having posted this topic I have learned many reasons why the film is offensive, maybe not to me, but to many. And in light of that, I have to admit, it would be messing with a Hornet's Nest to re-release the film.
Originally Posted By basil fan Blackie said "a" leader, not "the" leader. Obviously, there is no "the" leader, but there are many "a" leaders. For Disney Girls Only <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/girls.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/ disney/girls.html</a>
Originally Posted By xrayvision While I know the SOTS exclusive site are reporting continued petition support, I've noticed that the online Disney message boards' ferver for SOTS's release has dwindled somewhat since the movie was recently made available on Youtube and Google Video (which just removed the full SOTS presentation after a three month run and 4000 views). Was the Google Video/YouTube presentations of SOTS enough...or does the satiating hunger of older Disney nastalgists and curious younger Disneyphiles still exist, in overwhelming numbers, for Disney to release the film on DVD?
Originally Posted By mawnck I think that the ready availability on the 'net has a lot to do with it. People are seeing what it's really like and going "Oh . . . No big deal." But I also think that Bob Iger's pronouncement at the last annual meeting has taken the wind out of the fan community's SOTS sails. Which is kind of odd, considering that, if you read his statement closely, all he REALLY said was "there's some problematic stuff in it" and "no release is planned right now" Which is all he could reasonably be expected to say at the time. Imagine the stink if he'd dared to imply "maybe one of these days"! This new "Legacy Collection DVD" thing that they're firing up sure would be a great venue for it, wouldn't it. ;-)
Originally Posted By ecdc See, I think the perceived outrage would be much smaller than anticipated. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would hold separate news conferences and...that's about it. Disney could put it as part of the Treasures DVD or Legacy collection with an introduction by Leonard Maltin and maybe even get permission from PBS to include the American Experience documentary on Reconstruction or, more likely, get a History Channel documentary on it so people can be exposed to the real Reconstruction era. Any storm would be minor and blow over quickly.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I don't think Michael Richards helped with any release in the near-future. *rolls eyes* All that does is make anything like SOTS even more sensitive now...*sigh*...
Originally Posted By xrayvision >>See, I think the perceived outrage would be much smaller than anticipated. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton would hold separate news conferences and...that's about it.<< More venerable and influencial Black actors like James Earl Jones, Oprah Winfrey or Bill Cosby (vs a played-out civil-rights leader from the 50's/60's) would probably be more appropriate and more palletable for the general american public (including African American community). Regarding using a U.S. political activist to sell an idea or product, I think the era of one iconic activist representing a whole movement of people (ala JFK, Martin Luther King) are long over in the U.S. Jesse Jackson, and particularly Al Sharpton, are not influencial nor respected enough for their endorsement to cause an entire U.S. race population to buy or accept a product. I think both individuals would add more stigma and controversy to a SOTS video than add appreciative value. Entertainers and sports figures have taken over the former role of 50's/60's activists in creating a voice to move a mass of people to action (ie, Venessa Williams and Jessica Simpson have moved masses of people to attain clearer skin by buying "Proactiv" acne wash).
