Article: Song of the South

[WDWFOREVER]

Does this mean that it is never even shown on TV in America? In England, it was shown on TV about 4 years ago. I remember sitting down with my son who was then about 5 and watching it with him. I grew up on tales of Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox and wanted him to experience the songs as well as the stories in the film. Zip-a-dee-doo-dah is still one of my favourite songs. It didn't even occur to me at the time that it could be perceived as anything other than a cheery old man telling lovely stories with morals to a young boy. I think it is sad that todays children aren't given a chance to see such a beautiful film.

 

[d-r]

I don't know. I have a copy of it. If you honestly don't believe it doesn't perpetuate outdated stereotypes, I don't know what to tell you. It isn't just the happy darkies singing in the fields or the tar baby. It is not so subtle that all the power is in the big house - yeah, the poor white share croppers don't have any, either, so it isn't just a racial thing, but it sure can come across as one. I agree that the real message is that Uncle Remus is the smartest one of the bunch, and that his relationship with the white boy is a powerful message, but I can see that would be hard for some folks to have as a take away message. Don't think for a minute that the old south revisionists don't see this film as a portrayal of things the way they ought to be. I almost wouldn't mind some sort of nice 2-dvd set that included a solid historical documentary of hollywood's historical depiction of stereotypes and the civil rights movement, especially if it included some material to help parents of young children teach anti-bias lessons in interpreting media-based stereotypes. For parents who would take the time to really discuss it with their children it could be a very valuable teaching tool. But ultimately, it doesn't bother me at all that it isn't released. For film buffs, historians, animation fans it is easy enough to get, and personally I would hate to see it become the next video baby sitter.

 

[loveswdw]

Its probably been 15 years or so but the last time I watched SOTS was in a "theater"! Disney re-released it when I was in high school and we saw it at the theater. It was great!

Probably won't see it re-released in theaters again as long as they won't release it on DVD.



loveswdw

 

[mikeymars]

>>I think most people, black or white, who object to the film have never even seen it. <<

Bingo.

Every single "opponent" of this film I've ever spoken to face to face (all of them textbook gen Y or X PC types) has neither read the book or seen the film. When I point that out to them, they make excuses ("I don't need to see bigotry, I know it when I smell it," etc.)

>>I almost wouldn't mind some sort of nice 2-dvd set that included a solid historical documentary of hollywood's historical depiction of stereotypes and the civil rights movement<<

I don't hear anyone saying this about Gone With The Wind. Why? Doesn't that film contain so-called "depicitions of stereotypes?" How come it is "O.K." to release that film without them, but Song of the South isn't?

>>especially if it included some material to help parents of young children teach anti-bias lessons in interpreting media-based stereotypes<<

Oh, so now family video night has to involve political propoganda? Anti-bias comes from being raised the right way, not because of "material" from Hollywood.

 

[Mooobooks]

In regard to the earlier post about the legality of auctions on eBay: while it is legal to sell an original laser disc or VHS PAL or SECAM (French) tape of Song of the South, it is ILLEGAL to sell a copy made from them.
While it is legal to make a VHS, or DVD (now that recording DVD decks are available) copy for your own use, it is ILLEGAL to sell that copy. It doesn't matter a damn whether you are selling your original PAL VHS tape with it, selling a copy is illegal, period.
As anyone who has bid on a copy of Song of the South on eBay knows, you are immediately besieged with e-mail from people who want to sell you DVD dubs--also illegal.
Why Disney doesn't stop this, I don't know.
However, Disney's lack of action in protecting its copyrighted material is not limited to Song of the South. There are numerous auctions of illegal copies of Haunted Mansion lithographs on eBay every day. It's easy to find people selling illegal copies of many copyright Disney items on eBay.
There also seems to be some question about whether or not the film takes place during the era of slavery or afterward. Only a person who has not watched the film could have such a question since one of the main plot points involves Uncle Remus deciding to leave and take up residence elsewhere. Duh! Slaves can't leave! Slaves were property and couldn't make any decisions regarding their own welfare.
Just another example of people who haven't watched the film (including those in the media) jabbering away.

 

[mikeymars]

>>While it is legal to make a VHS, or DVD (now that recording DVD decks are available) copy for your own use, it is ILLEGAL to sell that copy. <<

This may be correct, but per my review of the Fair Use Act, I'm not 100% convinced it is. The law clearly states a copy of a tape made for personal use is viewed by Congress as the property of the consumer, not the studio or distributor, so per your argument, it would now be illegal to sell personal property.

Anyway, presumably if you are correct the gang in Hollywood would have sued hundreds of eBay sellers into the stone age years ago, since they are obvious public targets, but they haven't been touched. Why not make a few examples? I guess that comes back to your other point about Disney not protecting their copyrights. Maybe they are afraid to here, because going after "illegal" sellers of "Song of The South" would only draw attention to the fact Disney has in essence censored one of the films Walt was most proud of.

>>As anyone who has bid on a copy of Song of the South on eBay knows, you are immediately besieged with e-mail from people who want to sell you DVD dubs<<

Interesting, in that I purchased an original U.K. distributed Disney VHS copy of Song of the South a year and a half ago on eBay. I've never received any subsequent email of the variety you described, and no, my purchase was not through a "private" eBay auction (one where names of bidders are hidden). Perhaps those spammers only go after people who buy "lots" of fims on eBay (I haven't).

>>There also seems to be some question about whether or not the film takes place during the era of slavery or afterward. Only a person who has not watched the film could have such a question since one of the main plot points involves Uncle Remus deciding to leave and take up residence elsewhere. Duh! Slaves can't leave! Slaves were property and couldn't make any decisions regarding their own welfare.

Excellent, excellent point. I can't wait for the PC types here to try to rebut it (they won't, but will instead try to spin the debate back to how "the old south revisionists see this film as a portrayal of things the way they ought to be.")

In other words, it seems the anti-Song-of-the-South crowd is just as guilty of stereotyping (ergo, all supporters of re-releasing the film are bigots living in the 1940s) as they claim their "opposition" is.

 

[Another Voice]

The production of the movie (costumes, props, sets) was based on the late 1840’s and early 1850’s. That time frame was chosen because it roughly fits the character that Joel Chandler Harris wrote about and when he would have been telling his stories in a situation depicted in the movie. For every example of a post-Civil War setting, there is one that indicates a pre-war setting.

The issue of slavery and the exact year was specifically omitted from the script. Even back when the movie was made Uncle Remus was controversial. It was an unfortunate decision, in my opinion, because while Song of the South doesn’t say slavery & sharecropping was a good thing – the movie doesn’t exactly say it was a bad thing either. A sin of omission can be just as grievous as a sin of commission.

The film was last released theatrically to a very small of the screens in 1986. It did spark some protests (including pickets outside of Disney’s gate). The controversy was too much for the management of Disney to take. The film has not been shown or released since. I believe it hasn’t been released on the film festival circuit either.

The film is available on home video throughout most of the world except North America. What constitutes “personal use” when you make a copy is still a fuzzy area at least as far as Hollywood is concerned. They are focusing their efforts on where the big money is instead of individuals: the mass distributors and the people that make the enabling technology. Remember that Disney filed a lawsuit to make VCRs illegal in the United States; they took it all the way to the Supreme Court before they would admit defeat.

Gone With The Wind is considered an adult movie and the audience is assumed to be able to understand the subtleties of past depictions of who gets to slap whom. No one watches The Birth of a Nation today for entertainment; if watched at all it is solely because of its place in the technical development of motion pictures. The vaults of Hollywood are filled with films that are no longer suitable for a general audience because of changes in the culture (Ginger Rodgers has a lavish musical number in an early film where she sings and dances about the “wondrous south-of-the-border treat”, marijuana. The drug was perfectly legal and accepted at the time the film was made – but we know more today and so that scene is locked away.). Song of the South is considered a childern’s or a family movie – those types of films have a different standard for violence, drug use, sex, anti-American or other illegal/immoral actives than films marketed towards adults or historians. The entire movie rating system and television restrictions is based on varying standards.

Having both watched the film (I even own a legal copy of it) and knowing something of history, there is nothing in the “main plot points involves Uncle Remus deciding to leave and take up residence elsewhere” that proves or disproves the timeframe of the movie. There were freed slaves in the South; even Presidents Washington and Jefferson freed their slaves after their death and it was considered a gesture of compassion throughout the history of the South. As the Civil War approached there was growing pressure - both morally, politically and economically, to do so as well in many areas. A particularly well-liked person could be set free as a "reward" for years of "loyal service", especially if elderly and unable to earn their keep. Far from proving a time period, this could be seen as just another example of how the plantation system worked.

Again, the ambiguity was intentionally placed into the movie in an attempt to please both sides back when the movie was made. Far from pleasing either side, that ambiguity seems to have become the film’s primary fault.

 

[disneyjunkie]

Mikeymars, would you object to Disney doing a remake of SOTS?

I'm sure if GWTW was a Disney movie, it would also be in the same boat SOTS is in?

Why is so hard to believe a slave would say he's leaving. Isn't that what 100s of slave did?

If slaves never ran away, why was there an underground railroad.

 

[mikeymars]

>>Mikeymars, would you object to Disney doing a remake of SOTS?<<

Yes, and let me explain why.

First, name a single -- yes, single -- re-make that Disney has done that improved on the original. Go ahead. 101 Dalmatians? Yep, let's have them do to "Song of The South" what they did to their remake of this classic: hire John Huges to write in a bunch of cheap, unfunny urine and buttocks jokes. Yeah, I get it, the dog disapproves of someone, so he lifts his leg and urinates on their photo. Ho ho ho. Ha ha ha ha. I can't stop laughing. I can just see it now - the "new" Song of the South starring Sinbad as Uncle Remus and Macaulay Culkin as an adolescent Johnny. Can't wait.

Secondly, the agenda of those who want the film "remade" is screamingly transparent: they want to steam clean it completely, turning a classic 19th century story into some horrific 20th century "PC-compliant version."

Their "new" version will have Uncle Remus in chains, being whipped nightly by Johnny's mother, with the climax featuring not Uncle Remus saving Johnny but instead the heroic revolting "slaves" burning the plantation. Every African American character will be sympathetic, and every white character will be the devil.

>>I'm sure if GWTW was a Disney movie, it would also be in the same boat SOTS is in?<<

Interesting hypothesis. Why the PC fanatics aren't after MGM/UA for continuing to distribute GWTW is beyond me, given it is clearly a story containing slaves and is crammed full of the supposedly horrific stereotypes the PC gang can't stand. Can you say "hypocritical cowards?" Or stated differently, they're after Disney solely because it -- as a family focused company -- is a much easier target.

>>Why is so hard to believe a slave would say he's leaving. Isn't that what 100s of slave did?

If slaves never ran away, why was there an underground railroad.<<

Uh, have you actually seen the film? Unlce Remus doesn't sneak out in the dark of night (as fleeing slaves did). He gets into a wagon right in front of the "main house" in broad daylight and drives slowly away, as Johnny screams "please don't leave." That isn't exactly what a "fleeing slave" would do, now is it?

 

[d-r]

I don't hear anyone saying this about Gone With The Wind. Why? Doesn't that film contain so-called "depicitions of stereotypes?" How come it is "O.K." to release that film without them, but Song of the South isn't?

OK.

First of all, it is a bogus argument to say "Gone with the Wind" is worse for stereotypes than SotS, so they should release SotS." That would be exactly like saying in 1962 that the school segregation in Little Rock Ark. wasn't nearly as bad as the violence and voting oppression in Mississippi, and since that was going in Mississippi, the they should let segregation go on in Little Rock.

Second, if you don't think there has been any controversary about Gone with the Wind, I don't know what to tell you.

Third, Gone with the Wind isn't considered a children's movie.

Fourth, Disney has not no control over what Ted Turner does with Gone with the Wind. Whatever he decides to do with the property he owns has nothing to do with what Disney decides to do with the property they own, and it isn't Disney's reputation on the line.

Fifth, of course not everyone who watches Gone with the Wind is a racist or has glorified notions of the old south that never was, but have you watched Gone with the Wind with a bunch of KA's at a deep south university?

DR

 

[MelissathePooh]

I will preface this by stating that I HAVE seen the movie. My question to everyone who doesn't have any problems with SOTS is this:

Do you believe this is an accurate portrayal of african americans during that time period? If not can you then see how some might find this offensive?

As far as the GWTW debate goes - obviously that isn't debated much here as this is a Disney based forum, but you can find several groups in opposition of this film from civil rights groups to women's rights groups. As far as relating it to Disney its pretty irrelevant - its not a Disney release and they have no control over it and as AV already pointed out its never been pushed as a childrens or family film.

 

[d-r]

Excellent, excellent point. I can't wait for the PC types here to try to rebut it (they won't, but will instead try to spin the debate back to how "the old south revisionists see this film as a portrayal of things the way they ought to be.")

In other words, it seems the anti-Song-of-the-South crowd is just as guilty of stereotyping (ergo, all supporters of re-releasing the film are bigots living in the 1940s) as they claim their "opposition" is.

Oh gosh. You quoted me there so now I feel compelled to reply to it. OK. There are some misunderstandingsand presumptions there so let me point them out I guess.

First, "anti-song of the south." I guess that's me, which is strange because I am not anti-song-of-the-south. I think I mentioned that I own a copy; I own an original from the UK and the copy of that I legally made to play on my US player. I am not sure if I mentioned that I think that the movie has both artistic and historical merit, but I am quite sure that I did say it could be a wonderful teaching tool. Hell, there are things about the movie that I really like.

Second, big problem with your whole perception here. PC crowd? Claiming the "opposition" is bigots. ***.

I didn't say for a minute that everyone who watches the film or enjoys the film is a bigot. Think about it - I said I have the film. Jeez.

Look. What I said was that there are people out there who ARE old south revisionists who believe in a glorified fancifal version of an old south that never was. Look. I have watched college students parade through Auburn in confederate uniforms and scarlett Ohara dresses. I've known of preschoolers who awaken from nightmares crying "don't let the yankees get me." Do a simple web search and you will find many of these revisionist sites. Look. I am so proud to be a southerner, and I always will be, but that doesn't mean I can't see through the balony of that revisionistic view, probably only the way a southerner can I guess. That's the mindset I was talking about, and if you can't understand that my saying that old south revisionists will watch this movie and think about it warmly as "the way things ought to be" isn't implying that anyone who watches, wants to watch, or loves this movie is a old south revisionist, or as you put it, a 1940's bigot, I don't know what to tell you. I think you have some sort of chip on your shoulder, because you wrote a lot more into what I said than what I wrote. Now here, I have to say that I assuming that you are talking about me since you quoted me, if you are trying to make some more general point about some generalized "PC crowd" then never mind what I just said, I guess.

FWIW, I agree with what AV said (as usual) but I always took the movie as being after the war. I thought the black families and the poor white family were all share croppers. I thought it was during hte reconstruction. I'm adding that because of the "Excellent point" part. As Patricia Turner wrote:

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.

 

[DNSDisney]

Sorry but i really feel the need to chime in here.
We are talking about a movie here, one that is half animated half film. Which for it's time was never done before! It is ART! We aren't talking about a history film. Should we cover all the nude paintings and statues in Musums because someone is offended by them? Should everything in this world be so PC that we can't tell one person or there ideas from another? Difference is what makes America and the world such an interesting place. Like with art, different even though you don't agree with it is good. I am 5th generation Georgian and I don't get insulted by people making Bubba or redneck jokes. They aren't true of all southerns but it is humor.
Disneys Song of the South is a classic and should be see as that. A piece of art from a bygone time. And I for one wish they would re release it. And maybe they will seeing they are doing so many movies about there rides lately. Lets just hope they don't remake the movie and ruin its charm and artistry .

 

[d-r]

I agree with you that sots is art, and I still maintain that it is a part of our history (the film itself, in terms of the portrayal it presents as well as its role in media history). This is where I said that the film is readily available to historians, animation fans, those who study the media, etc. How many people on this very thread have said they own a copy of it? Wasn't it pointed out on this very thread that it is easy to obtain through e-bay and other means? If one is truly interested in this "peice of art" they can easily obtain it.

My point of view goes back to what I said earlier in the thread about Treasure Planet. I don't believe that there are a lot of us animation geeks out there. I don't think that most people are concerned about art and history in animated films (let alone quality). I honestly believe that most people want a tape with the disney stamp on it to babysit their preshoolers with (this is why I think that junk like Jungle Book 2 outperformed a fairly decent movie like Treasure Planet - if people were concerned about Art in animated films I can't see that happening. If they had any inkling of the history of animated films I can't imagine them giving a cent to the insulting JB2). As I said before, if the film was released with an interest in the Art and History with it, like that 2-disc set that I talked about with accompanying documentaries, I think that would be great. But I suspect it would be released as a kiddie movie, not as an interesting peice of art or history. Maybe I'm wrong about that. What do you think? Would most people view this as a kiddie film or as a historical peice of art that should be appreciated as such?

You mentioned "PC" and "differences of opinion." Do you really think that presenting outdated stereotypes is presenting a "difference of opinion?" And do really you think that if someone thinks that it probably isn't a good idea to show millions of preschoolers who live in 2003 a portrayal of the mainstream culture's view of race relations from the 1940s, then that person is being "PC?" Go beyond that small group of Disney, film ,and animation films who would view this movie as art and history. Do you really think this would be a good idea? Do you really not believe that there are innappropriate stereotypes in this film? Or do you just not mind perpetuating them to a new generation of preshoolers?

I agree with you that I hope that they don't remake the film. I agree with you about the historic and artistic merit of the film and I think it would criminal to alter it, edit it, or remake it. I would be sick over it. However, I'm just not convinced that are society is at a place yet where the film can be appreciated for what it is and when it was made ("a piece of art from a bygone time.")

DR

 

[CasualObserver]

I think everyone will agree that SOTS is a victim of PC. In my opinion, it's PC gone amuk. I happen to be watching The Daily Show last night and they had a lady who wrote a book documenting the crazy PC that goes into school textbooks. There is a list of 500 words that can't be uttered ina textbook. You can't say that a blind person is "courageous" because it means that being blind is a handicap. There were plenty of other examples that just left me dumbfounded. Her argument was that the Left wants to remove one type of references and the Right wants to remove the other type. The result is that even history is altered in order to try and please everyone.

PC has victimized our culture for far too long. It's high time we being reclaiming it by exposing how ridiculous the thought-police have become. PC forgets one great lesson of life - you can't please everyone all the time.

SOTS should be released because it is art. Otherwise, let's put the entire Disney collection in the vault because:

Lilo is an orphan and is sad so that implies that being an orphan isn't a good thing. Pack it up!

Milo wears glasses and isn't respected by anyone which implies that people wearing glasses are geeks. Lock it away!

Pumba has a gas problem and is a pig which implies that fat people have gas and should be shunned. How dare Disney release this!

Entertainment tends to play on stereotypes because it sometimes helps the audience understand the characters and the situation quickly.

Casual Observer

 

[mikeymars]

>>it is a bogus argument to say "Gone with the Wind" is worse for stereotypes than SotS<<

I strongly, strongly disagree.

The first hour of Gone With The Wind is textbook ante-bellum southern fantasy, full of "happy darkies" who are are shown working for their owners from dusk to dawn with a smile on their faces. While Hattie McDaniel appears in both films as a "Mammy" character, she's much more of an order-taking "yes, massa" character in Gone With The Wind than her Aunt Tempy character in Song Of The South.

Also, there isn't a single scene in Song Of The South where a white person physically punishes an African American. Not one. However, there is an ugly scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett gets so angry at Prissy (a slave) that she gives her a huge, hard slap right across the face, a classic example of the "keep 'em in their place" stuff the PC types love to imply was business as usual in the Old South.

>>What I said was that there are people out there who ARE old south revisionists who believe in a glorified fancifal version of an old south that never was. <<

Fine, but you went further, implying (perhaps unintentionally) that getting Song Of The South back into distribution is somehow part of their larger "the South will rise again" agenda (and as a result, the film should NOT be put back into retail print). If that's the case, then again, I don't understand why we aren't also censoring Gone With The Wind, Amos and Andy, etc.

Or stated differently, why does the politically correct gang fixate on Song Of The South? Just what is it about THAT particular film that frightens them so ?

Actually, I suspect there is nothing about the film in particular that really, really bothers them, but rather, this is part of a bigger story, that of the totalitarian nature of the left.

Specifically, this is one of our few successes the left has had in bullying a studio to censor a film. As such, it's a flag they can wave, and they desperately want to hold onto that flag.

That totalitarian mentality is also readily apparent here in posts that repeatedly refer to so-called "outdated stereotypes" (which is just code for "we want re-write history to meet our 20th century norms; the only history that is appropriate is our revisionist version ") and the related demands that any "new" release of Song Of The South must include so-called "teaching materials" for the young (which is code for "our propoganda is necessary, because we don't trust families to raise their children properly.")

But I won't lose sleep over that, because like all other totalitarian ideologies, this one is failing. The attempt to censor Song Of The South is collapsing, because the market (as it always does) has found a way around the left wing bullies who want to control culture and art.

 

[crusader]

PC forgets one great lesson of life - you can't please everyone all the time.

SOTS forgot one great lesson in life - slavery and black oppression was not zippidy do dah! It is not entertaining for an entire race of people who continue to feel its effects. I fail to see how these other examples of PC are remotely relevant - unless I missed the one which also took a civil war to abolish. Here we are more than a century later and there remains such a disparity in racial equality you simply cannot ignore the obvious here.

The subject matter is entirely too controversial. Leave it alone!

 

[CasualObserver]

The book is called "The Language Police" by Diane Ravitch.

Some examples:

You can't say: "Busboy", "Founding Fathers", "Heretic", "Cult".


Hmmm....



Casual Observer

 

[CasualObserver]

Originally posted by crusader
SOTS forgot one great lesson in life - slavery and black oppression was not zippidy do dah! It is not entertaining for an entire race of people who continue to feel its effects. I fail to see how these other examples of PC are remotely relevant - unless I missed the one which also took a civil war to abolish. Here we are more than a century later and there remains such a disparity in racial equality you simply cannot ignore the obvious here.

The subject matter is entirely too controversial. Leave it alone!

I never said that slavery was zippidy do dah. However, should we remove everything that offends anyone? Should we burn books?

I would argue that there is not "such a disparity in racial equality". I would argue that we are approaching parity - a good thing. There are studies that put racial wage difference at less than 20%. Not equal for sure, but not a great disparity.

Casual Observer

 

[d-r]

>>it is a bogus argument to say "Gone with the Wind" is worse for stereotypes than SotS<<

I strongly, strongly disagree.

Dude. Please go back and read what I said. Here is the actual quote of what I said that you only copied 1/2 of, please read it again:

First of all, it is a bogus argument to say "Gone with the Wind" is worse for stereotypes than SotS, so they should release SotS."

I said the ARGUMENT that 'since GWTW is worse for stereotypes than SOTS is and so SOTS should be released' is BOGUS, and I listed reasons why I think this is a bogus argument. I made no point that GWTW didn't have stereotypes or wasn't worse than SOTS. I am not going to argue with straw men.

DR