Page 1 of 2

Disney's Song of the South on DVD?

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 2:48 pm
by brendonconnelly
Is Bob Iger afraid of Black America?

I have just blogged about Disney's planned re-issue of Song of the South getting canned. One of the links I included was the full audio of a Disney shareholder meeting.

You might be interested to download it.

Iger has cancelled the re-release after watching the film. What were his real motivations?

And is the film even racist anyway? Even if it is, is that any reason to not release it?

I would love to know what people think.

Re: Does Disney CEO Bob Iger have racist fear of Black Ameri

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:00 pm
by MasterWhedon
brendonconnelly wrote:And is the film even racist anyway? Even if it is, is that any reason to not release it?

I've never seen the film, but yes, yes it is.

If Disney looks to its past and sees projects it now believe to be a blight on its reputation, then it of course has every right to choose not to cast public attention on said projects. If I'm reading the situation correctly, Iger choosing not to re-release this film is more a sign of his respect for the black community than his fear of it.

There is validity in re-releasing something like Birth of a Nation, which had such a tremendous impact on the world of filmmaking while being completely, utterly racist, as long as it's shown in a historical context.

I don't know that Song of the South is nearly as important.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:25 pm
by brendonconnelly
From the audio, it is clear that he is concerned about protests. He not once talks about being offended by the film, or finding it offensive himself.

But that he is operating in a culture where people protest when offended.

I think that, maybe, it is suitable to not release a film because it is racist. We agree there.

A whole load of my local video shop would have to be sent back to the suppliers if everybody followed that rule, though.

At least we'd never have to put up with Spike Lee's Malcolm X again...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:44 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
Zipa Dee Doo Dah. (youtube)

Tar Baby. (youtube)

This has long been (well, since I realized Disney hadn't released any editions of the film since 1986) a fascinating topic for me.

MasterWhedon wrote:If Disney looks to its past and sees projects it now believe to be a blight on its reputation, then it of course has every right to choose not to cast public attention on said projects.


fair enough, can't really argue that.

MasterWhedon wrote:If I'm reading the situation correctly, Iger choosing not to re-release this film is more a sign of his respect for the black community than his fear of it.


by how, ignoring past sins? This is to protect Disney's precious reputation, nothing more. I don't think it's a "fear" of the black community per se, but it's got nothing to do with respect either. I would read it more as Disney trying to avoid a black (heh) eye, and as someone who appreciates film history, I disagree with them not releasing it. But yeah, it's their company, they've got the rights, they can do what they want. One can, if interested, obtain a region 1 or region free copy of the film (I know my video store has it).

MasterWhedon wrote:There is validity in re-releasing something like Birth of a Nation, which had such a tremendous impact on the world of filmmaking while being completely, utterly racist, as long as it's shown in a historical context. I don't know that Song of the South is nearly as important.


true again, BUT, James Baskett
was the first live actor to be hired by Disney (Song of The South).

Won a special Academy Award for his performance as Uncle Remus in Disney's Song of the South (1946).

First African-American male actor to be awarded an Academy Award.

His portrayal of Uncle Remus in "Song of the South" was the crowning achievement of his career, for which he won an honorary Academy Award. Ironically, his performance cannot be seen in the United States as Wat Disney Co. will not release the film on the home video market due to the controversial nature of the film, which was denounced as racist by the NAACP when it was premiered in 1946. a further irony is that the NAACP currently has no public stance on the film.

He was reportedly unable to attend the premiere of "Song of the South" in Atlanta because no hotel would give him a room.


I'm of the opinion that discussing past racism is a far better way of working out racial slights than ignoring them, and not releasing this film is, to steal a South Park bit, Disney simply burying their collective heads in the sand, and robbing us good folks a chance to discuss and explore the history of racial stereotypes that is so prevalent in our film history.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:51 pm
by brendonconnelly
I've given it careful consideration, and can honestly say, there's no reason I can see why Birth of a Nation deserves "special dispensation" where Song of the South does not.

In fact, I'd be tempted to sa South shows the better craftsmanship, filmmaking and wit.

I never did swallow the D W Griffith line at all.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:53 pm
by brendonconnelly
I haven't seen it in almost 25 years.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:55 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
brendonconnelly's blog wrote:I think that the Song of the South can be said, in all fairness, to contain some stereotyped characters. Race is part of the stereotyping, and as such, the film might be considered very offensive.


have you seen it?

the racism doesn't really extend to the characters (that comes down to how one views the minstrel tradition) but rather the setting.

Snopes.com article.

Fascinating stuff, imho.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 3:56 pm
by brendonconnelly
Snopes always come up with the goods.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:07 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
brendonconnelly wrote:In fact, I'd be tempted to sa South shows the better craftsmanship, filmmaking and wit.


whoa, back up.

D.W. INVENTED, in terms of cinema, cross-cut editing and action with Birth. No one, I repeat, NO ONE, had done this before. I don't think one can possibly appreciate how significant that was in adding to film language. Not only that, but a color scene? Being the first "blockbuster" film ($2.00 for a ticket)?

hell, here's a list of FIRST for Birtth...

the use of ornate title cards
special use of subtitles graphically verbalizing imagery
its own original musical score written for an orchestra
the introduction of night photography (using magnesium flares)
the use of outdoor natural landscapes as backgrounds
the definitive usage of the still-shot
elaborate costuming to achieve historical authenticity and accuracy
many scenes innovatively filmed from many different and multiple angles
the technique of the camera "iris" effect (expanding or contracting circular masks to either reveal and open up a scene, or close down and conceal a part of an image)
the use of parallel action and editing in a sequence (Gus' attempted rape of Flora, and the KKK rescues of Elsie from Lynch and of Ben's sister Margaret)
extensive use of color tinting for dramatic or psychological effect in sequences
moving, traveling or "panning" camera tracking shots
the effective use of total-screen close-ups to reveal intimate expressions
beautifully crafted, intimate family exchanges
the use of vignettes seen in "balloons" or "iris-shots" in one portion of a darkened screen
the use of fade-outs and cameo-profiles (a medium closeup in front of a blurry background)
the use of lap dissolves to blend or switch from one image to another
high-angle shots and the abundant use of panoramic long shots
the dramatization of history in a moving story - an example of an early spectacle or epic film with historical costuming and many historical references (e.g., Mathew Brady's Civil War photographs)
impressive, splendidly-staged battle scenes with hundreds of extras (made to appear as thousands)
extensive cross-cutting between two scenes to create a montage-effect and generate excitement and suspense (e.g., the scene of the gathering of the Klan)
expert story-telling, with the cumulative building of the film to a dramatic climax


I walked out the first time I tried to watch it...it absolutely sickened me. And I still couldn't get beyond the message when I did watch the whole thing through, but that proved to me, unequivocally, how powerful film can be.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:32 pm
by brendonconnelly
I don't buy it.

Rescued by Rover had cross-cutting before Birth of a Nation - its just not canon. Poor Rover.

Some of your points are contentious due to their use of subjective language too:

the definitive usage of the still-shot
many scenes innovatively filmed from many different and multiple angles
impressive, splendidly-staged battle scenes with hundreds of extras (made to appear as thousands)
expert story-telling, with the cumulative building of the film to a dramatic climax

I never walked out... it just seemed so... leaden.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I'm afraid. But mark my words, the canon will change and Griffith will be revealed, slowly, as rather less special than he is held to be now.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:56 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
heh, second thing I learned today...nice reference, gotta try to hunt down some copy of Rescued by Rover now.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 5:09 pm
by Pacino86845
Yeah, what about freedom of speech LOL!

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:03 pm
by brendonconnelly
Let me know if you find a copy of Rescued by Rover because I've never had my own and would love one.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:05 pm
by brendonconnelly
I just found this

Looks like the tide is starting to turn for Rover and against Griffith already, just a little.

Man, I love this film.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 8:06 pm
by brendonconnelly
And here it is on DVD

I'll be getting me one of these come pay day.

PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2006 9:22 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
dagnamit, first of all, I'm not in the UK so no go on watching the first link.

and I don't have an all region dvd player, yet, so #2 does me no good as well.

and use the URL tag!

thanks tho'.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:14 pm
by Brocktune
if anyone wants to watch "song of the south" come on over to my house, i have a great copy.

song of the south is not racist beyond its historical context. birth of a nation is one of the worst, most offensive, and patently insulsting films to ever be produced. technical advancements be damned. birth of a nation is just as bad, if not worse then riefenstahl's truimph des willens.

if there is any negativity in song of the south, it is aimed at kids, not black people. the movie is a harrowing tale of one poor abused boy's struggle to come to grips with a world that just plain sucks. his only escape being his frendship with, and the stories of uncle remus. i understand how the film could be viewed as racist, but ultimately, the slaves are the most positively depicted out of anyone in the film. remus in particular. ok, some of the dialog is a little rough, (i.e. uncle remus asks little johnny "is you brung some grub?") but i suppose the argument could be made that historically speaking, that could have been an acurate portrayal.

ultimately however, it bothers me not that disney wont re-release this film domestically, as it keeps the japanese laserdisc i own quite valueable indeed!

PostPosted: Thu Apr 20, 2006 7:45 pm
by BuckyO'harre
~

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:13 am
by brendonconnelly
That dang japanese laserdisc. I am so tempted to chase one down.

Not that I have a player.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:22 am
by Chairman Kaga
Wasn't the crux of the NAACP's disdain for the film in 1946 because they stated it showed slavery in a positive light? Odd considering the film is set after the civil war and the abolishment of slavery.

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:21 pm
by DinoDeLaurentiis
BUMP, anna moving out of a the Shameless Promotion Room (which it looks like it was a perhaps unna'fairly lumped inna'to back inna the day, eh?)

Looks like a the Disney, they're re-thinking the 60th anniversary DVD release of a this a film yet again, eh? Prolly thanks to a the Don Imus flap, no?

LINK

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:27 pm
by godzillasushi
:roll:


It's just to bad that people can't at least experience it in their own homes on DVD because the country is so sensitive. They don't really need to advertise this as a huge deal or anything, just release the DVD under the radar and let it be. I doubt it has any relevancy with the general public anyway. I for one would like to see it, just because it's so old. And because it's this peice of animated history that has been blacked out of the timeline.

And when will the real version of The Black Couldren come out too....Disney really sits on this stuff.

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 4:33 pm
by wonkabar

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:28 pm
by minstrel
You used to be able to order it from

www.songofthesouthdvdremastered.com

but they seem to have disappeared.

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:43 pm
by Evil Hobbit


such brilliant animation.

Frankly, I think it's more offensive to not release this film then the reasons why they don't wanna release it. I mean, by not releasing it you are basicly talking about black people as if they are all a bunch of kiddies that can't speak for themselfs or are unintelligent to judge the film for the time it was made in. 9 out of 10 cases it are the white people that start raving. Like in the rescent OMG you can't call the film the Frog Princess!! It's offensive against the Frenche! Merde we can't have that so Disney changes it into the Princess and the Frog. Oh the girl who's playing the lead! OMG she's called MADDY. You can't call a black girl MADDY, it's offensive it sounds to much like MAMMY!!!! So now she's called Tiana.

She will no longer be seen as a chambermaid working for a rich, white spoiled Southern débutante. In a statement, Disney, which said that it ordinarily does not comment on its animated films in the early stages of production, observed: "The story takes place in the charming elegance and grandeur of New Orleans' fabled French Quarter during the Jazz Age. ... Princess Tiana will be a heroine in the great tradition of Disney's rich animated fairy tale legacy, and all other characters and aspects of the story will be treated with the greatest respect and sensitivity."


I mean that first concept is offensive for the white débutante, not the girl. She'll get the sympathy of the viewers. Disney should have just said, fuck you guys, wait till it's done. And they ought to release Song of the South and say, fuck you guys, it was made in a different time period. Put a Maltin introduction to it and voila. A classic piece of animation available for generations to watch, enjoy, study and explore.

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 6:56 pm
by The Ginger Man
I remember really liking the film as a kid. The Live Action meets Cartoon stuff always got me excited. And I know I sang Zipa Dee Doo Dah all over the house for many a year. So I'd certainly like to see the film again.

I grew up in Louisiana. I've visited (on numerous occasions) the plantation where slaves are believed to have originated the Br'er Rabbit stories. We even read the Br'er Rabbit books in school...and I'm only 25, so it wasn't that long ago.

Funny thing is, we were always taught that these were historical pieces of African American heritage, similar to spirituals (slave songs, for those who may not know). Yes, they came from a dark part of our country's past...but they were a testement to the strength and perseverance of African American slaves. All of which makes me wonder...why is this film considered racist?

I'm also curious to see, from an academic stand-point, how the representation of African Americans in Song of the South compares to accepted representations of African Americans in modern film and television...see what factors make one more kosher than the other. It's all very interesting to me. Anyone got any ideas on this one?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 7:40 pm
by Brocktune
you all know that "Song of the South" was Walt Disney's interpretation of the biblical tale of Jobe, right?

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:35 pm
by Lady Sheridan
And yet for all the outcry, no one has a problem with Splash Mountain being based on "Song of the South." Sure, it's all about the happy animals and there's no plantation or Uncle Remus, but it's still using this we-won't-admit-to-it movie as a basis. Especially since many of the characters could be construed to be negative African-American stereotypes.

I've always wanted to see it, ever since riding Splash Mountain...the ride clearly has some story tied in with the movie that I've never completely gotten. The part where Br'er Rabbit is tied to a stake used to freak me out as a kid.

The Br'er Rabbit stories are even studied in mythology classes--he's a trickster figure. I would even venture to guess he's descended from original African folktales. So it's a shame the movie is hidden as it would expose children to the stories which I doubt are readily available at your local Barnes and Noble.

The movie's a piece of historiography as well and that's something that needs to be in the open. Frankly, it could be used in valuable ways--I wouldn't hesitate to show it to a young history class and then discuss what was wrong and inaccurate about it. It's made for kids and they could walk away with a much richer understanding than if that stuff is kept away from them.

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:37 pm
by Will Scarlet
The Ginger Man wrote:I remember really liking the film as a kid. The Live Action meets Cartoon stuff always got me excited. And I know I sang Zipa Dee Doo Dah all over the house for many a year. So I'd certainly like to see the film again.

I grew up in Louisiana. I've visited (on numerous occasions) the plantation where slaves are believed to have originated the Br'er Rabbit stories. We even read the Br'er Rabbit books in school...and I'm only 25, so it wasn't that long ago.

Funny thing is, we were always taught that these were historical pieces of African American heritage, similar to spirituals (slave songs, for those who may not know). Yes, they came from a dark part of our country's past...but they were a testement to the strength and perseverance of African American slaves. All of which makes me wonder...why is this film considered racist?"



HERE HERE! I totally agree! I've traveled throughout the South, and the general attitude toward this sort of thing is so different in that part of the country. Its as if here it, this is a really horrible part of our nations history, but also a we are proud of having come from it as well. Slavery is a very openly and importantly discussed part of history whether you are visiting George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, or old plantation homes along the Mississippi. I was embarrassed to find "Mammy" and "Butler" knick knacks of every description, and dolls that looked like Buckwheat from "Our Gang proudly sold everywhere, right in the gift shops on plantations whose soul job was to educate the public on that part of our nations history.

I don't think the movie would be as badly received as Disney believes, but the whole world is so afraid of being anything but "politically correct" that the fear of reprisals outweighs any other thought. Disney should be looking instead to what our other member pointed out, the Black actor in the film (see quote below)

Seems there is much more to be proud of in this film than to be afraid of, and an important part of literary history to be remembered. The world watches Shirley Temple tap dance in The Little Rebel, and I think another film, with a very famous Black dancer, over and over and never stops loving it. Shirley herself has mentioned working with him, and how important it is to remember him and his talent...

"Won a special Academy Award for his performance as Uncle Remus in Disney's Song of the South (1946).

First African-American male actor to be awarded an Academy Award.

.."His portrayal of Uncle Remus in "Song of the South" was the crowning achievement of his career, for which he won an honorary Academy Award. ...He was reportedly unable to attend the premiere of "Song of the South" in Atlanta because no hotel would give him a room..."[/b][/i]

PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2007 8:41 pm
by Keepcoolbutcare
Lady Sheridan wrote:The Br'er Rabbit stories are even studied in mythology classes--he's a trickster figure. I would even venture to guess he's descended from original African folktales.


'tis true!

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:08 am
by DinoDeLaurentiis
Yes... essentially the Brer Rabbit, he's a based onna the god Anansi from a the African folklore, eh? Anansi is a usually portrayed as a the trickster spider inna the African setting, but a the concept, she was adapted inna'to a the American setting inna the Uncle Remus stories by a the Joel Chandler Harris, anna the spider character change to a the cute little bunny, eh? Many of a the tales, like a the Tar Baby anna Brer Rabbit going to see a the witch doctor, they taken right from a the original source, eh? Anna that's a why you gotta the elephants anna the lions appearing inna some of a the Harris' stories, no?

Disney's Song of the South on DVD?

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:33 am
by bastard_robo
Good old fashion family racisim...

Re: Does Disney CEO Bob Iger have racist fear of Black Ameri

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:58 am
by silentbobafett
MasterWhedon wrote:
brendonconnelly wrote:And is the film even racist anyway? Even if it is, is that any reason to not release it?

I've never seen the film, but yes, yes it is.

If Disney looks to its past and sees projects it now believe to be a blight on its reputation, then it of course has every right to choose not to cast public attention on said projects. If I'm reading the situation correctly, Iger choosing not to re-release this film is more a sign of his respect for the black community than his fear of it.

There is validity in re-releasing something like Birth of a Nation, which had such a tremendous impact on the world of filmmaking while being completely, utterly racist, as long as it's shown in a historical context.

I don't know that Song of the South is nearly as important.


Well it mihgt not be important to you, or any one else who decides "whats important" but maybe its important to someone. Maybe some one likes it, not because it may or may not have racist overtones, but becasue they like the film. It has good memories for them. There are lots of films I want that aren't on DVD, I suspect because people feel they are not important. Well I think they are, and if enough people feel that way, then it becomes marketable.

Song of the South should be released because IT WAS MADE, it is part of history by the mere fact it was made, so unless its real life footage of black people being hung from trees by a lynch mob, then release the fucking thing already! :-)

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:17 pm
by sonnyboo
Notice that no one is banning historical cinema with much more blatant, actual racism in BIRTH OF A NATION. SONG OF THE SOUTH was made, and I'd be far more upset at the ignorance of banning it's release because of alleged racism. It's a depiction of a time done long ago.

I also want to see the documentary by Sting's wife on the making of the one feature, affectionately titled THE SWEATBOX on all the political correctness and other crap involved in making a modern Disney animated film...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0332422/

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:47 pm
by minstrel
Nobody bans Gone With The Wind. Why should they ban Song Of The South?

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 12:58 pm
by Cha-Ka Khan
minstrel wrote:Nobody bans Gone With The Wind. Why should they ban Song Of The South?


Well, to be clear, it's not that it's BANNED... it's just that Disney has chosen not to re-release it.

Which is too bad, as it really does have some wonderful character animation.

I have Golden Book's "Walt Disney's Uncle Remus Stories" that my parents gave me back in 1974 when I turned 7, and I've hung onto it all these years. I've been reading them to my daughter (she's 6) and she loves them.

Of course, she's oblivious to the historical settings, and the brief introduction to the book entitled "Who was Uncle Remus?" simply states that he was an old man who lived in a cabin near Johnny's home and that Johnny enjoyed listening to the stories about Brer Rabbit and company, and that he enjoyed the "old-fashioned" way Uncle Remus spoke.

Walt Disney even provides a forward where he talks about why he feels the stories should be preserved and why they chose to write in the vernacular of the time (i.e. "So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!"

Good stories, and lots of good lessons to be learned as well. True american fables, I suppose.

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:08 pm
by so sorry
Heres the thing: we can all babble on about the historical importance that Song of the South may have with regards to race relations yadda yadda yadda, but if and when Disney releases the DVD is isn't going to be sold in the History section... it'll be in the CHILDREN'S section. Do you want your young child watching this and mimicing what is blatently racist talk?

Perhaps the only way around this sticky situation is to have some kind of Documentary on the DVD release that explains how this movie is percieved in today's culture etc.

But that'll never happen, becuase its a CHILDREN'S movie!

I think Disney has every right to do what they want with this regardless of what their reasons may be (fear, respect, somewhere in the middle).

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:23 pm
by Cha-Ka Khan
so sorry wrote:Do you want your young child watching this and mimicing what is blatently racist talk?


How is speaking in the vernacular of the times racist?

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:29 pm
by so sorry
Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
so sorry wrote:Do you want your young child watching this and mimicing what is blatently racist talk?


How is speaking in the vernacular of the times racist?


OK, you technically got me there, but you know what I mean.

If your girl walks around her kindergarden classs saying "So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!" I'm pretty sure she'll be visiting the principle's office!

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:32 pm
by The Vicar
so sorry wrote:
Cha-Ka Khan wrote:
so sorry wrote:Do you want your young child watching this and mimicing what is blatently racist talk?


How is speaking in the vernacular of the times racist?


OK, you technically got me there, but you know what I mean.

If your girl walks around her kindergarden classs saying "So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!" I'm pretty sure she'll be visiting the principle's office!


Well, not yet anyway.

I'll keep you 'all posted.....

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 1:37 pm
by Cha-Ka Khan
Yeah, I know what you're saying. I guess I'll cross that bridge when I come to it!

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:11 pm
by Chairman Kaga
I think Disney has every right to not re-release the film for their own reasons but I completely disagree with their decision.

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 2:12 pm
by The Vicar
Chairman Kaga wrote:I think Disney has every right to not re-release the film for their own reasons but I completely disagree with their decision.


Chicken shits.

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:02 pm
by Lady Sheridan
so sorry wrote:Heres the thing: we can all babble on about the historical importance that Song of the South may have with regards to race relations yadda yadda yadda, but if and when Disney releases the DVD is isn't going to be sold in the History section... it'll be in the CHILDREN'S section. Do you want your young child watching this and mimicing what is blatently racist talk?


Movies like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind aren't in the history section either. "The Littlest Rebel" isn't in history either, it's in Family or Classic and it is as myopic in its portrayal of slavery as "Song of the South."

And, like I pointed out earlier, Splash Mountain uses the movie as a basis and the characters talk exactly the same. I don't see anyone boycotting the ride because of racist talk. A kid could come off the ride mimicking that language too, but Splash Mountain isn't going anywhere, and no one seems to have an issue with it the way they do with the movie.

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:08 pm
by sonnyboo
Lady Sheridan wrote: Splash Mountain isn't going anywhere


I said the same thing about Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, but that went away too...

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:12 pm
by bluebottle
Lady Sheridan wrote:
so sorry wrote:Heres the thing: we can all babble on about the historical importance that Song of the South may have with regards to race relations yadda yadda yadda, but if and when Disney releases the DVD is isn't going to be sold in the History section... it'll be in the CHILDREN'S section. Do you want your young child watching this and mimicing what is blatently racist talk?


Movies like Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind aren't in the history section either. "The Littlest Rebel" isn't in history either, it's in Family or Classic and it is as myopic in its portrayal of slavery as "Song of the South."

And, like I pointed out earlier, Splash Mountain uses the movie as a basis and the characters talk exactly the same. I don't see anyone boycotting the ride because of racist talk. A kid could come off the ride mimicking that language too, but Splash Mountain isn't going anywhere, and no one seems to have an issue with it the way they do with the movie.


Doesn't make it right. I think the Splash Mountain thing is an oversight, and I'm sure if enough people pointed out it's connection to Song of the South, Disney would alter the ride (if they haven't already... who knows what it was like 20 years ago).

I loved this movie as a kid, and would probably buy it if it was released on DVD, but So Sorry's right, Disney wouldn't release it in the proper context.

Context is everything with this stuff, and most parents just assume that anything released under the Disney brand is ok to show to their kids.

I wouldn't trust many parents to sit down with their children and explain to them how race relations have changed over the years, and this movie is reflective of peoples attitudes years and years ago... (or depending on where you live, yesterday).

It's a shame, because I also think that the censored versions of the old Tom & Jerry cartoons are a travesty, but what can you do?

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:16 pm
by Lady Sheridan
sonnyboo wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote: Splash Mountain isn't going anywhere


I said the same thing about Mr. Toad's Wild Ride, but that went away too...


Only in Florida, which is inferior to Disneyland in every way. Toad Hall still exists in California, thankfully.

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:19 pm
by The Ginger Man
so sorry wrote:If your girl walks around her kindergarden classs saying "So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!" I'm pretty sure she'll be visiting the principle's office!


This is what I mentioned earlier...about comparing SotS to African American's in modern film. Why would it be more offensive for you daughter to quote SotS than it would be for her to quote a movie like B*A*P*S or Superfly or hell, Gone With the Wind?

"Lawzy, we got to have a doctor. I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies."

"So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!"

"Man, you white around the nose as a Georgia mule."


What is it that makes one of these lines racist and the other two acceptable? Best I can figure is GWtW is a widely accepted classic and Superfly was created by African Americans. Other than that, I don't know...

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:25 pm
by so sorry
The Ginger Man wrote:
so sorry wrote:If your girl walks around her kindergarden classs saying "So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!" I'm pretty sure she'll be visiting the principle's office!


This is what I mentioned earlier...about comparing SotS to African American's in modern film. Why would it be more offensive for you daughter to quote SotS than it would be for her to quote a movie like B*A*P*S or Superfly or hell, Gone With the Wind?

"Lawzy, we got to have a doctor. I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies."

"So by-m-by, Brer Rabbit, he gets hissef all stuck up in de tar like he ain't never gonna come unstuck!"

"Man, you white around the nose as a Georgia mule."


What is it that makes one of these lines racist and the other two acceptable? Best I can figure is GWtW is a widely accepted classic and Superfly was created by African Americans. Other than that, I don't know...


BAPS(what the hell is that?), Superfly, and Gone with the Wind aren't children's movies, so my baby girl isn't going to be watching them!

PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2007 3:26 pm
by bluebottle
The Ginger Man wrote: Why would it be more offensive for you daughter to quote SotS than it would be for her to quote a movie like B*A*P*S or Superfly or hell, Gone With the Wind?


I don't want to sound like a prude, but if i had a young child, i probably wouldn't want to rush out and get her Superfly.

I think it's an age thing. When a person is old enough to watch something with proper context, then it's ok for them to see it.

Doesn't that apply to all sorts of things, like sex and violence? when they're old enough to realize that it's not "real" is when they're old enough to watch it.

I dunno, I don't have kids.

I let my dog watch all sorts of horrible things, though.