Song Of The South

[ChrisR1973]

Ive been wondering something, after reading the latest news that they still are not wanting to release Song Of The South on DVD...

Why the heck did Disney even make this movie if it was so offensive to so many? I've never seen the movie.. all I've ever seen is clips of the "Zippity Doo Dah" song.

[JDWeil]

Ive been wondering something, after reading the latest news that they still are not wanting to release Song Of The South on DVD...

Why the heck did Disney even make this movie if it was so offensive to so many? I've never seen the movie.. all I've ever seen is clips of the "Zippity Doo Dah" song.

I don't know Disney is sooooo sensitive about this film. They act like they want to bury it while at the same time, Griffith's Birth Of a Nation which is several time more controverisal and a heluva lot more ofensive is readily available on home video. Go figure......

[MonkeyFunk]

You're really not missing much. The three animated segments are pretty much the best thing about it.

[ahem]

I vehemently disagree. There's a great central performance by the ill-fated Disney child actor Bobby Discroll and dependable support from Hattie McDaniel and James Baskett. Racism and universal prejudice is explored tastefully through a child's eye, and the film was photographed in stunning 3 strip technicolor by Citizen Kane legend Gregg Toland.

[adoptedBatpuppy]

Is it a movie or a cartoon? I have never even seen it air on Disney channel, what is is about, that it is so controversal?

[Yamwacky]

SOTS is a charming film. The fact that the setting takes place on a working plantation with African-American slaves is the reason Disney's reluctant to release it. Slavery has nothing to do with the story, it's just the setting in which it's told. The idea of slavery is repugnant to me, but like it or not- it is historical fact. The roles of the African-American characters are heartwarming and positive (the negative stigma of slavery aside)- but that stigma alone in today's hyper PC world makes it impossible for most folks (or so Disney co. thinks) to view SOTS for what it is. It's a shame and a discredit that the brillant performance of James Baskett (Uncle Remus) should be censored by political correctness. He was the first African-American male awarded an Academy Award for this role after all.

[Patchwork]

Actually, I'm pretty sure the movie took place after the Civil War, and Uncle Remus was a sharecropper or something.

[candy17]

Why the heck did Disney even make this movie if it was so offensive to so many? I've never seen the movie.. all I've ever seen is clips of the "Zippity Doo Dah" song.

So did I, at least on this sing-along video I had when I was a kid (it was borrowed to someone and never given back) and on the recent Saturday Night Live TV Funhouse cartoon where two kids find out all the twisted secrets of the Disney vault...including a version of Song of the South where the black guy singing the song bashes his own race.



Is it a movie or a cartoon?


From what I've seen, it's a movie that's half-live action and half cartoon, kinda like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Cool World, Space Jam, and Looney Tunes: Back In Action to name a few.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Why the heck did Disney even make this movie if it was so offensive to so many?

Simple. At the time, it wasn't offensive. You may replace that with "wasn't offensive to any of the people making or watching the movie" if you like, or with "it was offensive at the time but the studio at the time didn't know or didn't care."

I can't say for certain, but I think the concern is over perceived minstrelsy (http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa100800a.htm) of the cartoon. The fact that the movie (and, for that matter, the company) is aimed at kids is probably another reason why Disney is a bit gunshy about releasing it. This is a problem that stuff like Birth of a Nation doesn't have, even though that has far more blatantly racist imagery. Not all racism is created equal.

In the end, I think Disney decided it wasn't worth whatever effort it would take to get the movie out on DVD and manage whatever protests it will generate. I liked the idea fielded nearly a year ago, which was to put something on the disc explaining the context like they did with the Disney WWII cartoons that had incredibly racist images of the Japanese. However, I can imagine that managing to put together a message like that in a manner that's acceptable enough to the players concerned AND is something the average kid can understand is really, really hard. I think that's an effort that Disney doesn't have the inclination or the resources (or both) to do right now.

-- Ed/Ace

[Hordesman]

The Disney WWII cartoons set was released in limited quantities. I don't think there's any chance SOTS gets a wider release than that in the US.

Walt did go out of his way to hire a writer who was liberal for the time, but the guy obviously did not write something that was acceptable today. Bascially it comes down to Tomming. This is one of the only Reconstruction-Era films... possibly the only one made for kids... and what is shown of this period? Blacks still sitting on the plantation, helping white people with their problems, and showing favor for white children over their own.

But there is definitely a bittersweet element in the little boy's friendship with Uncle Remus- like he was only there for the kid while the parents considered splitting up. And then out the door he goes. I hope he ran for public office.

[One Radical Dude]

I don't remember much about the film, except that I did sing a little bit of "Zippity-Doo-Dah" song. Disney will likely never release this movie again, which is very unfortunate.

[Fan of Sponge]

Song of the South should be released into the American markets before someone really makes fun of the whole issue like Boondocks for example. Song of the South is deemed culturally or historically significant in my opinion and the National Archives really need to preserve films that deal with the issue of race and how it was stereotyped before the era of political correctness. We're losing part of our history today thanks in part to politicial correctness and how we treat the past. Who cares about the core market who watched the movie back in the day? Those who watched the movie are now all grown up and probably retired from their work. So what if Disney accidently enters into their worng demographics sometimes like they did with Alice and Wonderland when college campuses started asking for the film to the movie? Disney needs to be more embracive with different demographics. It just not about family anymore.

[Nin-Nin69]

You know what people remembered the most about the movie was Zippity Doo Dah and characters such as Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox. Not stereotypical bashing and labeling. If this was so stereotypical, then why the Hell was Splash Mountain built in 1992? Anyone who's been on it knows they play music from Song of the South the entire time and features all of the cartoon characters from the film.

[Hordesman]

You know what people remembered the most about the movie was Zippity Doo Dah and characters such as Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox. Not stereotypical bashing and labeling. If this was so stereotypical, then why the Hell was Splash Mountain built in 1992? Anyone who's been on it knows they play music from Song of the South the entire time and features all of the cartoon characters from the film.

Splash Mountain had a big selling point in being able to use almost all of the AA figures from a closed Tomorrowland show called "America Sings"- thus pitching an AA-filled attraction at a fraction of the cost. They just had to build a show building and the Brers' AA figures. Most of the reused figures didn't even need to be recostumed to fit into the SOTS setting. Ok, it had to be cheaper than AS' Goose figure whose outside was removed so it could be a droid in the waiting area for Star Tours... or Sam the Eagle (a host of AS who didn't make it into Splash Mountain) who was built from part of the Haunted Mansion's unused Hatbox Ghost AA. And apparently, it was even cheaper than shipping the AS show to Tokyo Disneyland who'd asked for it.

[The Weed Of Cri]

I live 10 miles from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, where the school board ordered all the copies of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn removed from the school libraries because one person said it was racist. It doesn't take much to start a firestorm, just one loud voice and a lot of press coverage. It's a sad state of affairs, but until more people grow a thicker skin, and more people learn to discount the opinions of ignorant malcontents who think the world owes them a free lunch and life free of discomfort, things are not gonna change.

[CookieS]

Since racial issues are still a hot topic, I'm sure Disney would rather avoid the subject entirely rather than drudge this up for the sake of history. Originally they were going to do a featurette that talked about the racial undertones of the film, as a sort of disclaimer, but I guess that fell through. Disney tries really hard to keep its brand squeaky clean.

I'm not sure if everyone is aware of this, but Disney actually run two big movie studios under alternative names, simply to avoid the possible negative critism of the Disney brand by the public. Touchstone/Hollywood Pictures is owned by Disney, yet is responsible for such adult hits as "Pulp Fiction," "Kids," "Kill Bill," and "Bad Santa." Miramax, which Disney took over in '93, produced "Clerks," "Sex, Lies, and Videotape," and "Scream."

As you can tell, Disney does a lot more than just what we consider Disney-esque. The key is branding. They don't allow some of their more adult material to be labled as Disney. If they had the ability to make it so that "Song of the South" could be magically assigned to another of their studios, they would. Unfortunately the film has been part of the Disney canon for a while. When Disney thought "Nightmare Before Christmas" was too scary for the Disney lable, they switched it to Touchstone Pictures, yet, when you play the video game "Kingdom Hearts" you'll see Jack Skellington right along side of Donald and Goofy.

The bottom line is that Disney actively crafts the Disney image and to allow the idea of racism to invade those fuzzy memories would be damaging to their bottom line and could result in a backlash. You'd think we'd all be smart enough to not have to deal with this, but we all know that the majority of people are not as open minded as we'd like, and will probably flip out. Unlike Hitler's "Triumph of the Will," this film is geared towards children which makes the debate for the sake of film history a little more complex. Ideally it would be nice to have a release with the featurette and use it as a platform for people to discuss racism and slavery. Disney Channel had films for Black History Month this past year, so its obviously not out of the question. It just gets weird when you're trying to discuss racial issues when there are animated characters bouncing around.

[adoptedBatpuppy]

I think Disney contradicts itself, why would they release The Color of Friendship on Video, and not Song of the South. :eek: The Color of Friendship is a Disney Channel original movie from awhile back it's about two girls, one white and another black becoming friends despite their families' racism towards each other. :ack: From what I remember.

[CookieS]

Yeah, but Disney had complete creative control over how they approached "The Color of Friendship." Racial issues were the plot itself. In "Song of the South" all racial issuses are ignored and everyone smiles. Plus the movie deals with slavery, which Disney has never publically delt with as a company.

[prankster619]

For anyone who wants this released, we really need to put pressure on the Studio to do it. We gotta start holding out on spending money on their stuff.

[Arsenal]

Related questions: Why can Disney release Peter Pan with its blatantly stereotypical treatment of Native Americans and no one seems to mind?

How come the only latino characters in Disney films are chihuahuas (Lady & the Tramp, Oliver & Company)?

I'm not saying the Song of the South is without faults. I'm not saying it shouldn't be released either. What I am saying is Disney has a history of--let's say racial insensitivity. (Many long-running entertainment companies do. Warner Brothers has a fistful of problematic cartoons.)

I do think it is odd that Song of the South is singled out.

[Zorak Masaki]

How come the only latino characters in Disney films are chihuahuas (Lady & the Tramp, Oliver & Company)?



To be honest, "Cars" fixes that (cheech marin plays one of the radiator springs residents), but still, not releasing song of the south is just pathetic, plus, why was it allowed to be released in Japan with no problem?

[Kagetsu]

I do think it is odd that Song of the South is singled out.
It's not the only one. The release Fantasia has at least one part cut for racial steriotyping overtones.

The movie itself was live action of a boy befriended by Uncle Remis. The stories Uncle Remis told of Br'er Rabbit were animated.

I remember the mother sent Uncle Remis away as a bad influence on the boy. THe boy ran across the field with the bull to stop him from leaving and was trampled but not killed. I had the impression he'd been "sold down the river" but he could have been an old sharecropper after the war,,, I'm not sure. :shrug:

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


To be honest, "Cars" fixes that (cheech marin plays one of the radiator springs residents), but still, not releasing song of the south is just pathetic, plus, why was it allowed to be released in Japan with no problem?

I'm not entirely sure that casting Cheech Marin to play a car that's a got a ton of stereotypical elements of flashy Latino cars really "fixes" the problem of ethnic insensitivity in Disney films.

I am emphatically NOT accusing Disney or Pixar of racism in this case or in the case of Luigi's accent and flamboyant speech patterns or Flo's rather prominent chrome lips. But I am minorly troubled by the fact that the only 3 ethnic characters in the entire movie seem to be defined largely by ethnic stereotypes.

As for "why in Japan and not here," I think it boils down to the sense of history in the respective nations. It's the same reason why a movie like Ararat (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0273435/), about the Armenian genocide, never got a theatrical release in Turkey but didn't raise much of a fuss when it was released (admittedly, to arthouse theatres) in the U.S. Even describing the events shown in the film as "genocide" can get you in BIG trouble in Turkey, but the historical charge there is just not present in the American market. On top of that, the Japanese aren't exactly known for being hugely racially sensitive and Disney is out to boost the bottom line once all is said and done.

I still think it would be better to release it with something about context than to just sit on it, but I ain't running Disney.

-- Ed

[Hiya Animation]

Why the heck did Disney even make this movie if it was so offensive to so many? I've never seen the movie.. all I've ever seen is clips of the "Zippity Doo Dah" song.
It was released by Dinsey all the way up into the 1980s. Then the PC Police got ahold of it and deemed it "racist" which it by no means is.
I've seen most of the movie from a DVD my dad's friend made of it. It really is a great film and I loved getting to see it.

And this "steriotyping", if you can call it that, is nothing compared to the early Warner Bros shorts and some of the Betty Boop stuff.
James :zim:

[Zuric]

How come the only latino characters in Disney films are chihuahuas (Lady & the Tramp, Oliver & Company)?

wasn't there the DCOM about an all hispanic dance team, and wasn't one of The Cheetah Girls hispanic

[MonkeyFunk]

It was released by Dinsey all the way up into the 1980s. Then the PC Police got ahold of it and deemed it "racist" which it by no means is.

The NAACP attacked it when it was first released; the criticisms didn't start in the 80s.

[Wolf Boy2]

This may be shocking, but **Gasp** some slaves did stay with the white families and (hide the kids, this might be offensive) some of them were HAPPY.

Why is it no one cares when movies like "Gettysburg" or "The Blue and the Grey" portray all southern people as slave-owning bigots? Making the white people look evil is also racism. But no one cares about that kind of racism.

My ancestors owned slaves, but they weren't evil people. Their slaves could read and write (which was VERRRY rare). Two slaves fought for the south in the Civil War (while, ironoically, one of the white guys fought for the north). The black family continued to work at my family's logging mill until the 1940s, when my grandfather's father died, and one of brothers was killed in Germany, thus causing the mill to close. After it closed, the families were scattered. My grandfather moved to Norfolk, 10 years later my mom was born, 32 years lated I was born.

When my grandfather was a boy, there was this old black guy named Tom Brown (yes, they did call him Uncle Tom-- God, how cliche!) who was to my Grandfather what Uncle Remus was in the movie. The old guy told him stories and stuff when they'd ride in his truck. Well, Uncle Remus didn't have a truck. But you get what I mean.

Don't think I am downplaying the suffering of black people, however. One of my ancestors (on my father's side, no relation to Granddaddy) in the 1800s shot a black guy in the face simply because the poor black guy tried to shake his hand. Instead of hanging him for murder, the white people praised the son of a *****. Even in my grandfather's family, which was very accepting, there were subtle seeds of racsim (like called the old guy Uncle Tom -- c'mon, that's obviously racist).

The Civil War and Civil Rights were not all black and white (no pun intended). These were complicated times in history, and different people had different motivations for what they did. There was no defined "good" and "evil." In the Civil War, the north and the south both thought they were fighting for what was right. Many people in south didn't even consider slavery to be the cause of the war (that was a northern opinion). Robert E. Lee, for example, never owned slaves. The ones he inheritied, he freed. Stonewall Jackson never owned any either. They had other reasons for being in the war.

The northern white soldiers had racism in their own ranks. Northern soldiers frequently raped black women and got away with it (whereas they were punished if caught harming a white woman). Three northern states once tried to pass legislation to bar blacks from living there. And then after the Civil War those same blue-coated soldiers that freed the slaves went and massacred Indians out west. While the north was committing atrocities like Wounded Knee, the KKK was lynching innocent black people in the south.

The whole mess was so damn complicated that it is impossible to lump everyone into two catagories of "good" and "bad." It is hard to make a movie about such a morally gray time without offending someone. Black people want the black suffering highlighted, while the white people just want to pretend it never existed.

Song of the South is set in a particular time and culture, one that existed, whether people like it or not. I understand that there was a lot of serious racism in the old south (FAR more racism than acceptance, certainly), and I know that the "Uncle Remus" scenario was actually quite rare. But it did exist. And by the time of the movie, it had become a popular myth in American culture. The movie is a historical artifact, and represents not just the time it is set in, but the time it was made in.

If parents disscussed the film with their children (what parts are legit, what parts are BS), than it could actually be a tool for healing old wounds and moving America forward to world of better understaning and tolerance.

[trayguy]

SONG OF THE SOUTH is a very good movie disprite its racism connotations. The songs are very good and classic and the animation is wonderful . I remebering seeing it as a kid and that was a long time ago. I for one would like to see it on DVD and I also would like it to be archrived for future generations to come. BTW I have not see BIRTH OF A NATION AND I would like too and make my own opinion on it.

[Arsenal]

Originally posted by Wolf Boy
If parents disscussed the film with their children (what parts are legit, what parts are BS), than it could actually be a tool for healing old wounds and moving America forward to world of better understaning and tolerance.

I agree.


This may be shocking, but **Gasp** some slaves did stay with the white families and (hide the kids, this might be offensive) some of them were HAPPY.

And, yes, there were some slaves who were happy. That doesn't justify the practice. Most slaves were abused physically, mentally and sexually.


Why is it no one cares when movies like "Gettysburg" or "The Blue and the Grey" portray all southern people as slave-owning bigots? Making the white people look evil is also racism.

Wasn't it "Gettysburg" where the southern soldier explains that he was fighting for his rights, not slavery? That opinion seems to coincide with yours.

This is a bit of a tangent but, yes, Lee never owned slaves. Furthermore, Lincoln was a confirmed racist who only freed slaves as a political tactic. That doesn't change the fact that slavery was, is and will always be wrong.


The northern white soldiers had racism in their own ranks. Northern soldiers frequently raped black women and got away with it (whereas they were punished if caught harming a white woman). Three northern states once tried to pass legislation to bar blacks from living there. And then after the Civil War those same blue-coated soldiers that freed the slaves went and massacred Indians out west. While the north was committing atrocities like Wounded Knee, the KKK was lynching innocent black people in the south.


Once again, agreed. But no one was talking about this until you brought it up. It seems like you have a soapbox you want to stand on.

Blacks, latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, women, the Irish and Italians were all persecuted at some time in U.S. history. That persecution has not entirely ended (though I would argue it is no longer government sanctioned). That fact has very little to do with Disney animation.

If you want to continue the discussion, PM me. I think we've hijacked this thread enough.

[Wolf Boy2]

Blacks, latinos, Asian-Americans, Native Americans, women, the Irish and Italians were all persecuted at some time in U.S. history. That persecution has not entirely ended (though I would argue it is no longer government sanctioned). That fact has very little to do with Disney animation.
No, I didn't mean to go off on a tangent. Nor did I mean to defend slavery.

I was, however, defending this particular movie. And what I said applied to a thread about the movie. When a movie is very controversial (like "Brokeback Mountain" or "The Passion of the Christ"), one cannot discuss the film without disscussing the controversy.

One walks a fine line when writing a historical story, because whatever he portrys in his main characters is what the audience will assume was the norm at that time. Does that make sense?

For example, you might want to write a movie with savage "spear chucking" (pun intended) African natives as the bad guys. Making this story would be a VERY BAD IDEA, because it would cause audiences to assume that all Africans are (and thus, all black people) ignorent and violent like the ones in your movie. Even though story is about particular, fictional Africans, it still spreads negative sterotypes.

Song of the South does this also, but instead of speading negative stereotypes it spreads positive stereotypes about a culture and practices that should probably not be portrayed so sympathetically. I understand what people like Roger Ebert are saying when they say that Disney films become a part of a child's mind because children take them more literally. That is the base of the controversy.

I just don't think that there is enough bad content to warrent not releasing it on DVD.

As far as Birth of a Nation goes, it is not a childrens movie, thus the effect on little kids is null. I only watched it becuase it was part of my History 104 class, and I doubt many people outside of college will buy this silent dinosaur. Which BTW, is really boring crap (besides being racist) and unless your professor forces you, don't bother watching it.

Aside from the controversy, I found Song of the South to be a delightful concept, but a poorly executed movie. It was much too long, and the live action segements got boring. However the animation was top-notch and it was fun to hear where classic songs like "Zipadee-do-dah" came from. The ending, however, was laughably cliche.

On a side note, the 1881 Uncle Remus book that Song of the South is based on, was written as a defense of slavery, by the author's own admission.

[Ed Liu]

Howdy,


Song of the South does this also, but instead of speading negative stereotypes it spreads positive stereotypes about a culture and practices that should probably not be portrayed so sympathetically. I understand what people like Roger Ebert are saying when they say that Disney films become a part of a child's mind because children take them more literally. That is the base of the controversy.

Well, on top of that, a stereotype is still a stereotype whether it's positive or negative. Besides, what may look like a positive stereotype to one person can look a lot like a negative one to others. Most people tend to believe that Charlie Chan or Mr. Moto are "positive" Asian stereotypes, since they're both on the side of the angels and at least 10 times smarter than everybody else in the room with him. That doesn't change the fact that both are still stereotypes of a different sort and still rather insulting.

-- Ed