Just watched "Song of the South"......

[Ceila]

So the zombies who ran away from questions they were asked (such as "precisely what did you find offensive about SOTS?") will be reminded that their flight was noted and not forgotten.
You can run and try to hide
but that will be noted

Well that's, um, interesting. My advice is to let it go. Seriously.

 

[CandyMandy]

My advice is to let it go. Seriously.

Thank you, but fortunately, the prosecutors of the killers of Medgar Evers ignored that sort of "advice" when it was given to them. As did the investigators who were searching for John List.

And so will I.

 

[Ceila]

Thank you, but fortunately, the prosecutors of the killers of Medgar Evers ignored that sort of "advice" when it was given to them. As did the investigators who were searching for John List.

And so will I.

So, you're equating yourself, raising a long-dead thread about a controversial Disney movie on an annonymous, inconsequential Disney chat board, with those who legitimately brought murderers to justice? Ok, then, have fun with that!

 

[Carl]

Unfortunately Candy is fighting a losing battle. Disney has been concentrating most of their efforts recently on recruiting minorities, and since there will always be a few of them that object to Song of the South, there is no future for it being brought back.

 

[SaraJayne]

So, you're equating yourself, raising a long-dead thread about a controversial Disney movie on an annonymous, inconsequential Disney chat board, with those who legitimately brought murderers to justice? Ok, then, have fun with that!

 

[CandyMandy]

So, you're equating yourself, raising a long-dead thread

This thread is less than a year old. We've all seen scores of threads that have been "dormant" much longer re-opened with nary a complaint. So one senses this situation is being singled out because of either the subject matter and/or a particular position being taken on it.

about a controversial Disney movie

Controversial? Only in the eyes of those with a certain viewpoint.

on an annonymous, inconsequential Disney chat board

Yes, so inconsequential that is has has been referenced numerous times as a source of insight on Disney subject matter by the likes of the New York Times and USA Today.

with those who legitimately brought murderers to justice?

Only relative to the issue of accountability, in this case for statements made about information presented by others. Specifically, someone completely dismissed a position as having "many flaws" but didn't specify a single one. And you are surprised by and critical of the fact they are simply being asked to support their generalization?

Good luck with that!

 

[robinb]

Well that's, um, interesting. My advice is to let it go. Seriously.

I think we should all take this excellent advise . (I admit that bumping the thread while saying that we should "let it go" is inconsistent.)

 

[eliza61]

This thread is less than a year old. We've all seen scores of threads that have been "dormant" much longer re-opened with nary a complaint. So one senses this situation is being singled out because of either the subject matter and/or a particular position being taken on it.



Controversial? Only in the eyes of those with a certain viewpoint.


Only relative to the issue of accountability, in this case for statements made about information presented by others. Specifically, someone completely dismissed a position as having "many flaws" but didn't specify a single one. And you are surprised by and critical of the fact they are simply being asked to support their generalization?

Good luck with that!

Ok so a quick question: obviously you haven't gotten the specifics you want, so are you planning on bringing this back to life once a year? sort of like the anniversary of 9/11

Here's a few scenerios.
1) said people really don't care
2) said people have left
3) said folks are simply not answering your question for whatever reason.
4) Disney still has no plans (that I've heard) of releasing this dvd. for whatever reason.

So my next question is, doesn't it become a bit like arguing with yourself?

I'm out.

 

[DizBelle]

Ok so a quick question: obviously you haven't gotten the specifics you want, so are you planning on bringing this back to life once a year? sort of like the anniversary of 9/11

Here's a few scenerios.
1) said people really don't care
2) said people have left
3) said folks are simply not answering your question for whatever reason.
4) Disney still has no plans (that I've heard) of releasing this dvd. for whatever reason.

So my next question is, doesn't it become a bit like arguing with yourself?

I'm out.

There's nothing wrong with resurrecting a valid and interesting discussion. Who knows? Maybe someone who's joined in the last year and was not part of the original discussion might be interested and have something to add.

Any one who falls into any of the 4 categories above can just bypass the thread.

 

[metalis4ever]

Love this movie, it was one of my absolute favorites growing up. A few years ago I was able to get my hands on a VHS copy of it which I had made into a DVD!

I can see how some would find it controversial or even offensive, but given the historical context of the film I don't find it to be either. Like I said I love this movie and it's one of my all time favorites!!!

 

[CandyMandy]

I watched it on Youtube yesterday after reading this thread. Question: why did the dad have to go away? I see references to pre-civil war but I thought it was post.

The Father is established at the very beginning of the film (during the carriage ride to the plantation) as an editor at an Atlanta newspaper. He apparently has/is taking "controversial" positions and states he has to go back to his role (for unspecified reasons, but which are implied to be "I'm needed to man the ramparts") after his wife and son are dropped off at the plantation.

As for the time period the film covers, it has been inarguably proven it is during the reconstruction period, perhaps sometime in the mid 1870s. Much of the attire shown is of the New Victorian era (examples below) which did not start until the mid 1870s; the fieldhands at the plantation are referrred to as sharecroppers and as others have noted, Uncle Remus is clearly a free man given his announcement late in the film that he has decided to leave the plantation

Illustration from 1874 magazine of "New Victorian Era" women's fashion:

Johnny's mother ("Miss Sally") in a scene from Song of the South. Note the bustle on her dress, a distinct feature of New Victorian couture:

There's nothing wrong with resurrecting a valid and interesting discussion. Who knows? Maybe someone who's joined in the last year and was not part of the original discussion might be interested and have something to add.

Any one who falls into any of the 4 categories above can just bypass the thread.

Very well stated and a sterling example of the fact that in the end, civility always wins!!!

“Song of the South can speak for itself. Accusations of Uncle Tomisms and quibbles over it’s syrupy storyline are ultimately defeated by the film’s sheer entertainment value. It has some of the most delightful moments Disney ever captured on film…and that’s what really counts.”

Leonard Maltin

 

[CandyMandy]

Unfortunately Candy is fighting a losing battle. Disney has been concentrating most of their efforts recently on recruiting minorities, and since there will always be a few of them that object to Song of the South, there is no future for it being brought back.

Most of their efforts recently? Can you please explain how the following were specifically concentrated on "recruiting minorities?"

The Alunai Resort
Announcement of the Grand Floridian DVC resort
The expansion of the DCL fleet
Fantasyland Expansion
Addition of Cars Land at CA

And please, no generalizations, we want specifics. And going in, if the best you can do is cite some general advertising on Univsion for WDW or ads for the Princess and Frog Designer Series Dolls being placed in Ebony, no, that is not "most of their efforts." That is generic diversity targeting and a very small component at that of their overall promotional spend. Frankly, What Disney is really concentrated on is getting as much available cash flow as possible from anyone. They are truly an equal opportunity vaccum cleaner of all wallets.

And we won't even get into the issue of what a North American release of SOTS would mean in terms of impact on the Disney brand. Unfortunately, that would become a tanget full of speculative boogeyman talk of supposed massive boycotts, flaming editorials and "negative PR"....with of course no response being offered when it is pointed out none of that happened when SOTS was previously re-released, as recently as 1986).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Ndf7X486o

Frankly, if one wants to really understand the Disney motivations for witholding North American release of the film, you will find some interesting observations on that here:

http://micechat.com/forums/movies/163427-song-south-6.html

 

[CandyMandy]

Apparently, the crows in Dumbo (one of whom is named "Jim" and all of whom talk in jive) are not offensive enough not to keep that movie from being continually re-released.

And practically every western made from the 40's and 50's contains truly horrific, racist depictions of Native Americans as "savages", yet they show up on TV time and time again. And even Disney got a bit into that act, but no one objects to the celebrated film that "outrage" appears in:

The 1936 film version of Showboat is chock full of "happy darkie" stereotypes, but that hasn't kept it from being continuously lauded by many sources (including the New York Times) as "one of the finest film musicals ever made."

But one never sees the SOTS haters going after any of these films. Ever. No, their vitrol is saved solely for use against only specific, single Disney movie.