PDA

View Full Version : Song of the South [Merged Threads]



Jshiddy
01-20-2007, 12:29 PM
I would really like a copy of Song of the South. I guess the hot rumor is that it's not available in the US because of NAACP. Does anyone know if this is true? I found numerouos copies on ebay, but really want to know why I can't find this anywhere else. Does anyone know where I can get a DVD copy?

Strmchsr
01-20-2007, 12:51 PM
I've PM'd you a link, but there are no official copies. Whether because of the NAACP or whomever Disney has decided the movie is too "sensitive" to release and have no plans to do so any time soon.

LibertyTreeGal
01-20-2007, 01:03 PM
Too bad, James Baskett deserves better than that, he did an incredible job (which is why he got an honorary oscar for it) and he has a voice like velvet. Zip-a-dee-do-dah won best song too :(

I picked up a copy of the tales of Brer Rabbit at Splash Mountain last year and my boys love to listen to the stories.

jray21
01-20-2007, 02:34 PM
You can get it in online. you just have to internet search song of the south. I did get one and the quality and sound is equivalent to VHS or worse. I wish they would release it. Personally I feel that current movies are more discriminating than song of the south. It is great movie.

Paradise Pier Pinocchio
01-20-2007, 07:17 PM
There was talk a while back that the studio was finally going to release the DVD with a disclaimer by Bill Cosby. But then he got into "trouble". Then it was going to be Whoopi, but haven't heard anything about it in a long time.

DizneyFreak2002
01-20-2007, 08:09 PM
Unfortunately this great movie will not see the light of day, for a long while anyway.

DizneyRox
01-20-2007, 10:16 PM
There was talk a while back that the studio was finally going to release the DVD with a disclaimer by Bill Cosby. But then he got into "trouble". Then it was going to be Whoopi, but haven't heard anything about it in a long time.
Last I heard it was Kanye West... Just kidding...

SotS will NOT be released any time soon. There are a million rumors as to why not, it all boils down to not wanting to offend a particular race. Most that have seen it would probably agree that it's not as it's made out to be. But, whoever is in charge of making those decisions obviously doesn't feel that way.

If you want a copy, search the net, they are very easy to come by. Reasonably priced I might say as well. It was recently shown on TV in the UK and copies of that have been circulating on the net as well.

kai2234
01-20-2007, 10:21 PM
Last I heard it was Kanye West... Just kidding...


hhahahahahhaa

mickeyd
01-20-2007, 10:28 PM
This issue came up at last yearís Disney Annual General Meeting. Someone at the meeting asked Robert Iger about Song of the South and when it might be released. Iger answered that he had viewed SOS shortly after taking over as CEO, and had decided that at this time it was inappropriate to release the film on DVD. He did not rule it out in the future, and in fact was quite apologetic about the Ďnoní release. (SOS was supposed to be released in late 2006 to celebrate itís 60th anniversary.)

Somehow, I donít think Disney will release it on DVD any time soon. Which is a shame. I thought it would be perfect as part of the Disney Treasures DVD series Ė especially given an appropriate introduction by Leonard Maltin

NotaGeek
01-20-2007, 11:28 PM
from snopes.com:
Song of the South, a 1946 Disney film mixing animation and live action, was based on the "Uncle Remus" Song of the South Video Cover stories of Joel Chandler Harris. Harris, who had grown up in Georgia during the Civil War, spent a lifetime compiling and publishing the tales told to him by former slaves. These stories -- many of which Harris learned from an old Black man he called "Uncle George" -- were first published as columns in The Atlanta Constitution and were later syndicated nationwide and published in book form. Harris's Uncle Remus was a fictitious old slave and philosopher who told entertaining fables about Br'er Rabbit and other woodland creatures in a Southern Black dialect.

Song of the South consists of animated sequences featuring Uncle Remus characters such as Br'er Rabbit, Br'er Fox, and Br'er Bear, framed by live-action portions in which Uncle Remus (portrayed by actor James Baskett, who won a special Oscar for his efforts) tells the stories to a little white boy upset over his parents' impending divorce. Although some Blacks have always been uneasy about the minstrel tradition of the Uncle Remus stories, the major objections to Song of the South had to do with the live action portions. The film has been criticized both for "making slavery appear pleasant" and "pretending slavery didn't exist", even though the film (like Harris' original collection of stories) is set after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Still, as folklorist Patricia A. Turner writes:

Disney's 20th century re-creation of Harris's frame story is much more heinous than the original. The days on the plantation located in "the United States of Georgia" begin and end with unsupervised Blacks singing songs about their wonderful home as they march to and from the fields. Disney and company made no attempt to to render the music in the style of the spirituals and work songs that would have been sung during this era. They provided no indication regarding the status of the Blacks on the plantation. 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.

Kind old Uncle Remus caters to the needs of the young white boy whose father has inexplicably left him and his mother at the plantation. An obviously ill-kept Black child of the same age named Toby is assigned to look after the white boy, Johnny. Although Toby makes one reference to his "ma," his parents are nowhere to be seen. The African-American adults in the film pay attention to him only when he neglects his responsibilities as Johnny's playmate-keeper. He is up before Johnny in the morning in order to bring his white charge water to wash with and keep him entertained.

The boys befriend a little blond girl, Ginny, whose family clearly represents the neighborhood's white trash. Although Johnny coaxes his mother into inviting Ginny to his fancy birthday party at the big house, Toby is curiously absent from the party scenes. Toby is good enough to catch frogs with, but not good enough to have birthday cake with. When Toby and Johnny are with Uncle Remus, the gray-haired Black man directs most of his attention to the white child. Thus Blacks on the plantation are seen as willingly subservient to the whites to the extent that they overlook the needs of their own children. When Johnny's mother threatens to keep her son away from the old gentleman's cabin, Uncle Remus is so hurt that he starts to run away. In the world that Disney made, the Blacks sublimate their own lives in order to be better servants to the white family. If Disney had truly understood the message of the tales he animated so delightfully, he would have realized the extent of distortion of the frame story.

The NAACP acknowledged "the remarkable artistic merit" of the film when it was first released, but decried "the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship". Disney re-released the film in 1956, but then kept it out of circulation all throughout the turbulent civil rights era of the 1960s. In 1970 Disney announced in Variety that Song of the South had been "permanently" retired, but the studio eventually changed its mind and re-released the film in 1972, 1981, and again in 1986 for a fortieth anniversary celebration. Although the film has only been released to the home video market in various European and Asian countries, Disney's reluctance to market it in the USA is not a reaction to an alleged threat by the NAACP to boycott Disney products. The NAACP fielded objections to Song of the South when it premiered, but it has no current position on the movie.

Perhaps lost in all the controversy over the film is the fact that James Baskett, a Black man, was the very first live actor ever hired by Disney. Allegedly, though, Baskett was unable to attend the film's premiere in Atlanta because no hotel would give him a room.

By using the search function I found this post in one of the other several Song of the South threads and thought it was really interesting and provided information that I had never read. It seems this is a popular topic, even though Disney Execs. have stated emphatically that the movie will not be released any time soon in the USA. So I figured I would throw in my two cents.

As a minority, even though this movie is a milestone in cinematic history, its themes and characters DO NOT represent a positive part of American History. Please keep this in mind, because this film shouldn't just offend "people of a certain race" it should offend EVERYONE. Slavery was not a good old song and dance time with cartoon rabbits and foxes in the South. It was a matter of life and death for a HUGE number of people and the remnants of the racial tension caused by it's practice can still be felt through this century. Slavery was a horrible part in the social evolution of our country and should be portrayed accurately for our present society.

That being said, I love Splash Mountain, Brer Fox and Brer Bear as much as the next person on this site. But, I do remember being shown this film in elementary school every holiday and even as a child it made me feel uncomfortable. So I will be completely fine if no other child has to see this film as I don't believe it serves a good purpose or gives ANY good Magic message that Disney wants to re-live.

Off my :soapbox: .

DizneyRox
01-21-2007, 08:37 AM
... As a minority, even though this movie is a milestone in cinematic history, its themes and characters DO NOT represent a positive part of American History. Please keep this in mind, because this film shouldn't just offend "people of a certain race" it should offend EVERYONE.
While I do respect that people have different opinions, using this logic, movies like Schindler's List should not have been made, etc...

While slavery may not be a shining moment in American History, IT IS AMERICAN HISTORY. It would be a shame to pretend it didn't happen. I don't think people want this movie released so they can see sharecroppers in action.

NotaGeek
01-21-2007, 10:50 AM
While I do respect that people have different opinions, using this logic, movies like Schindler's List should not have been made, etc...

While slavery may not be a shining moment in American History, IT IS AMERICAN HISTORY. It would be a shame to pretend it didn't happen. I don't think people want this movie released so they can see sharecroppers in action.

You missed the entire point that I made. Schindler's List was a perfect example of what happened during the Holocaust, it didn't show Jews and Nazi Soldiers coexisting in a made up world where Jews were just really happy to have a place to sleep, it showed the truth and is a wonderful way to show the historical facts of a terrible part of world history, you can't compare Schindler's List and Song of the South as historical memoirs.

Sharecroppers and slaves are not the same thing.

JRocker
01-21-2007, 12:22 PM
I for one just don't get it. It is a movie, a FICTION movie at that. No it doesn't accurately display the treatment of the majority of slaves in the south before, during, or after the war between the states. But, then again, it's not a documentary, so it doesn't have to.

There are literally hundreds of films from the same era of production that give the wrong impression of slavery being shown on the classic movie channels every single day. There are a couple of Shirley Temple movies that come to mind, heck lets ban those. :thumbsup:

I don't think Disney is doing the right thing by not releasing it. But then again, the U.S. is getting extremely proficient at sweeping the garbage under the rug, so that nobody has to come face to face with it........and maybe even learn from it.

NotaGeek
01-21-2007, 12:44 PM
I for one just don't get it. It is a movie, a FICTION movie at that. No it doesn't accurately display the treatment of the majority of slaves in the south before, during, or after the war between the states. But, then again, it's not a documentary, so it doesn't have to.

There are literally hundreds of films from the same era of production that give the wrong impression of slavery being shown on the classic movie channels every single day. There are a couple of Shirley Temple movies that come to mind, heck lets ban those. :thumbsup:

I don't think Disney is doing the right thing by not releasing it. But then again, the U.S. is getting extremely proficient at sweeping the garbage under the rug, so that nobody has to come face to face with it........and maybe even learn from it.

I think the point here is that DISNEY doesn't feel that the movie is appropriate to their image in the US market.

I am not saying there aren't other movies that can be just as offensive, but we are discussing one specific movie made by Disney. In our culture "Disney" movies hold some other credibility.

Shirley Temple movies aren't in the same ball park historically. BUT, when's the last time you saw a Shirley Temple movie shown on ANY channel either? I have no idea what lessons can be learned from these movies, maybe I am naive in my belief that positive themes would be better for the world in which we live.

bob6572
01-30-2007, 08:00 PM
The platinum edition of Alice in Wonderland has a 10 minute section from Song of he South that feature Br'ear Rabbit. Probably the most of SOTS you will see

Stevadore
01-30-2007, 10:39 PM
It could be the Disney Co.'s PC image concerns go beyond the company and are aimed at the image of Disney the man. This movie and screenplay was a project that Walt was personally involved in. It was the beginning of a reocuring theme that runs through many of the moralistic tales that are his legacy. Specificly; the "Laughing Place".
Weather misunderstood or proof of racisim, it is a hot-potato that is too delicate for a fortune 500 company to deal with in the latter decades of the 20th century and aparently at least the first decade of the 21st .
One thing is sure, as witnessed on this site time and again, it will always stimulate discussion. That alone makes it viable.

DocWeeks
01-30-2007, 10:54 PM
I think it should be clarified that Song of the South takes place after Slavery has been abolished... so that argument is empty to me.

The film should be released for no other reason than it is a part of film history. As someone who is a bit of a cinemaphile, I hate that I can't legally own this film.

DREAMADREAM93
01-30-2007, 11:57 PM
Yes, its true. The NAACP prohibits the mass selling of Song of the South in the United States. It has something to do with it promoting slavery and being offensive to the african race. I dont see that in SotS, so I don't quite see their reasoning but to each their own i guess...

I for one, do have a copy. You would NOT believe where i got it from though ... my grandpa was walking through a flea-market one day and there it was.

But since my luck is SO wonderful, it turns out that my little sister has lost it. I could really have used a Zip-a-dee-doo-da Day after she dropped THAT bomb shell.

- Jordan

DREAMADREAM93
01-30-2007, 11:58 PM
I think it should be clarified that Song of the South takes place after Slavery has been abolished... so that argument is empty to me.

The film should be released for no other reason than it is a part of film history. As someone who is a bit of a cinemaphile, I hate that I can't legally own this film.


I agree completly! if only people would open their eyes and maybe do a little reasearch! Why dont these people listen to us !?!

- Jordan

NotaGeek
01-31-2007, 12:21 AM
I agree completly! if only people would open their eyes and maybe do a little reasearch! Why dont these people listen to us !?!

- Jordan

Just wondering what "people" you would be referring to? I doubt seriously that Disney would take such a stance on this controversial film without doing some serious research.

By the way, no one ever said this film was supposed to reflect the life of a slave but the actual stories told in the film are slave stories. It actually is never clarified WHAT actual year the film was supposed to be reflect. But, considering that in the a large portion of the South of America, less than equal treatments of African Americans (and most other minorities) continued well into the 1900's, thus causing the Civil Rights movement, integration, Martin Luther King, Jr (and his assassination) ... which is probably why Good Old Uncle Remus isn't what Disney sees as a good example of the History of their film making they choose to relive.

NotaGeek
01-31-2007, 02:47 AM
The film should be released for no other reason than it is a part of film history. As someone who is a bit of a cinemaphile, I hate that I can't legally own this film.

You can legally purchase this video from the UK side of partner Amazon.com by clicking HERE for Amazon.co.uk. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Song-South-Ruth-Warrick/dp/B00004RO2K/sr=8-1/qid=1170228718/ref=pd_ka_1/202-9931096-5708661?ie=UTF8&s=video). It's VHS PAL format, so you will either need to make sure you VHS player is PAL format compatible as most US VHS players are NTSC only. Just an FYI I have purchased UK VHS tapes and had them converted to NTSC format at a local multi media store for $10. I believe they can also convert them to DVD as well, and as long as you only use them for your own at-home viewing it's NOT illegal. It seems like a lot to go through, but for anyone that is truly dedicated to owning this film, it might be worth it.

Grizz16
01-31-2007, 10:04 AM
Yes, its true. The NAACP prohibits the mass selling of Song of the South in the United States.
The NAACP can't prohibit anything unless there's been a lawsuit or court order against it. Until then, Disney could release Song of the South should they choose to.

DocWeeks
01-31-2007, 05:08 PM
You can legally purchase this video from the UK side of partner Amazon.com by clicking HERE for Amazon.co.uk.. It's VHS PAL format, so you will either need to make sure you VHS player is PAL format compatible as most US VHS players are NTSC only. Just an FYI I have purchased UK VHS tapes and had them converted to NTSC format at a local multi media store for $10. I believe they can also convert them to DVD as well, and as long as you only use them for your own at-home viewing it's NOT illegal. It seems like a lot to go through, but for anyone that is truly dedicated to owning this film, it might be worth it.



I have no interest in paying for a VHS transfer that is probably pan & scam. Full treatment, or nothing. Sorry. No go.
I'm not just picking on Disney about this either. George Lucas has still yet to release the original Star Wars trilogy in 5.1 widescreen with a decent treatment. Again, sorry. No go.
The same thing goes for The African Queen...

Melanie
01-31-2007, 05:13 PM
I have no interest in paying for a VHS transfer that is probably pan & scam. Full treatment, or nothing. Sorry. No go. Like NotaGeek stated, if you are truly dedicated to owning this movie and want to do it legally, this is an option. Just getting it out there for folks who didn't know this was available. :thumbsup:

Mickey'sApprentice
02-04-2007, 04:59 PM
It can also be bought on ebay.

Ian
03-09-2007, 06:39 AM
From Jim Hill's review of the Disney shareholder meeting ...


... news that might interest all you hardcore Disneyana fans out there is that the company is now revisiting its decision not to release "Song of the South" on DVD. When quizzed by Carol Koster about the current status of this 1946 Walt Disney Productions release, Iger still expressed his concerns about the film. Wondering aloud if it would actually be possible for today's audiences to put this picture in the proper context.

But -- that said -- Bob (while making no promises) then went on to say that " ... we will look at ("Song of the South") again. And Dick Cook (Chairman of Walt Disney Studios) would be in charge of that effort."

kaylamag
03-09-2007, 07:32 AM
I really hope they put it out on dvd, i've been wanting this movie to add to my collection for a long time. I can't believe Disney is hiding it away.

Ian
03-09-2007, 08:18 AM
:ditto:

You know part of me wonders if this entire thing hasn't been a ploy on Disney's part to just hype the movie up to the point that, when they finally do "decide" to release it, the sales will be just through the roof.

Michigander
03-09-2007, 08:24 AM
I see no differance in this movies display of the times then the movie Gone With The Wind and thats shown on tv all the time. These movies tell a tale of what it was like in our world during those time. Even if we don't like to think about it it's how it was. Maybe by showing these things todays children will learn not to let it happen again.

Vigan
03-09-2007, 08:52 AM
You can't change history and you cannot make it go away. It happened. BUT, the good thing is that we have come a long way since 1946 to make things different - that's what's important.

It was shown on television in the UK not long ago - no-one shouted, no-one complained. It is an entertaining film with lovely songs.

Come on Disney - release it on DVD and let those who wish to enjoy it do so - we are capable of making our own decisions about the background to it. Those who strongly disagree don't have to buy or watch it - it's like the TV - if you don't like the programme - turn it off! :judge:

prttynpnk
03-09-2007, 08:55 AM
These movies tell a tale of what it was like in our world during those time. Even if we don't like to think about it it's how it was. Maybe by showing these things todays children will learn not to let it happen again.

Well said. A lot of our history is not particulary charming, but to sweep it under the rug and not learn from it will only hurt us.
Also, it's a very well done piece of cinema history with an Oscar winning song- we shouldn't have to miss that. :mickey:

Strmchsr
03-09-2007, 09:17 AM
These movies tell a tale of what it was like in our world during those time.

Well, actually, the big knock against "Song of the South" is that it doesn't show what things were like during that time. The movie has a very idealized version of slavery. The complaint has never been that the movie shows slavery, but the light in which slavery is portrayed. That said, the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to watch a movie and put it in perspective. Iger isn't giving the average person much credit.

Ian
03-09-2007, 11:03 AM
Well, actually, the big knock against "Song of the South" is that it doesn't show what things were like during that time. The movie has a very idealized version of slavery. The complaint has never been that the movie shows slavery, but the light in which slavery is portrayed. That said, the vast majority of people are intelligent enough to watch a movie and put it in perspective. Iger isn't giving the average person much credit.You're correct in spirit, but the misconception is that this film depicts slaves at all. SotS is actually set in the post-reconstruction South ... after slavery has ended.

The knock, though, is that it shows African Americans in that time period as happy-go-lucky folks who wander around singing and dancing all day. Which, of course, isn't the case. It was a real struggle to survive for most.

I'm not implying that this means the film shouldn't be released (I think it most definitely should be), but I just wanted to clarify what the general issues are.

Also I agree with you that Iger is really selling the average American short. Although, I suspect he's not at all concerned with how well people are able to "view this film in the proper context."

What he's concerned about is the uproar they'll hear from the NAACP and other civil rights groups if they announce the film's release.

Nascfan
03-09-2007, 12:33 PM
What he's concerned about is the uproar they'll hear from the NAACP and other civil rights groups if they announce the film's release.

Bingo!

Strmchsr
03-09-2007, 02:17 PM
You're correct in spirit, but the misconception is that this film depicts slaves at all. SotS is actually set in the post-reconstruction South ... after slavery has ended.

Yes, of course, you're right. It's been so long since I've seen it I forgot it was sharecroppers, not slaves.


The knock, though, is that it shows African Americans in that time period as happy-go-lucky folks who wander around singing and dancing all day. Which, of course, isn't the case. It was a real struggle to survive for most.

And SOTS isn't unique in this. Pretty much every film released during that time used African-Americans for slapstick comedy or music. Gone With The Wind had pretty much the same depiction. Disney is just the biggest kid on the block and, therefore, the biggest target. Being white, I realize I'll never "get it" (as South Park correctly pointed out this week) as to why this subject is so sensitive, but I REALLY wish we could get past it, realize the movie is fun but does not portray that culture in an accurate light and stop being so politically correct.

thrillme
03-09-2007, 02:55 PM
Politically correct...not politically correct...SIGHH I really think I'm feeling PC'd to death. More and more it seems like I'm finding out by OTHER people that "I" had been "offended" and I never even knew it. Uhhh...OK...sure...I'll make a note of it...:confused:

Until people started squawking about that there may be some "inappropriate" material in it, I had absolutely positively "NO IDEA" that there was "anything".

To me...it was a sweet old man with a bluebird on his shoulder and a beautiful smile telling a story about a rabbit and all his adventures. He was definately a gentleman I would LOVE to sit down with and get to know. I truly failed to see all this political "gobbldegook" that was supposedly there.

Uncle Remus was a joyful dude with tales to tell and people who loved to listen. That is considered "offensive"??? Somebody hasn't seen MTV lately.

I do hope they make the RIGHT decision and release it soon. It was a lovely story that everybody should hear.

PirateLover
03-09-2007, 03:44 PM
Glad to hear about this slight change in position. I would love to have an official copy of Song of the South. I still think they should make some new cartoons featuring Brer Rabbit, Bear, Fox etc. It really is an untapped market, considering how popular Splash Mountain is.

Ian
03-09-2007, 06:20 PM
Amen, thrillme ... I agree 100%.

I swear ... if a segment of the population spent as much time on positive things as they do on finding things to be "offended" about, I believe this country would be a much better place in which to live.

And I do NOT mean that in the sense of the minority segment of our population ... I believe that, by and large, very few of them care a whit about this ...

It's just a very few loudmouths (white ones, African American ones, blue ones, green ones ... doesn't matter) who ruin it for everyone else.

Which is pretty much the way of the world ...

Auntie
03-09-2007, 07:37 PM
Glad to hear about this slight change in position. I would love to have an official copy of Song of the South. I still think they should make some new cartoons featuring Brer Rabbit, Bear, Fox etc. It really is an untapped market, considering how popular Splash Mountain is.

I've been following this PC dilemma regarding the release of this film for a while now. I have often wondered..WHY if they were reluctant to release it would they base entire theme park attraction depicting the characters from the film. The Zipidee doo dah song..is a Disney staple. I'm quite sure the film was researched and designers were aware of the content and time period of the film. I agree Disney shouldn't sell the public short. They are drawing more attention to it by "keeping it in the vault!"....I think I agree that just might be the entire point. All the drama..then finally a release where everyone runs out and buys it. Hmm..something to think about, that's for sure.

Stevadore
03-09-2007, 10:27 PM
The debate is ponderous at this point. I have commented almost every time it has been addressed here. I think the time has come to ask the question;
What Would Walt Do?
I for one think he would NOT hesitate.
Re-release it.
Any discussion is better than the silence bred by political correctness that stymies the true human condition these days, good or bad.

NotaGeek
03-09-2007, 10:48 PM
We had such a fun and informative discussion the last time this topic came up I decided to merge the threads.

MODERATOR ALERT

Please keep in mind, Song of the South is one of the most sensitive films in the Disney Vault. INTERCOT Staff does not tolerate any sort of insensitivity between the members of our community. Please keep this in mind while we discuss this and all topics. Remember, even through we all have Disney in common, we ALL come from very different walks of life, have fun and keep your hands and arms inside this thread at all times. :mickey:

DisneyGiant
03-09-2007, 10:49 PM
Went to Wikipedia - and found this interesting comment:



When the film was first released, the NAACP acknowledged "the remarkable artistic merit" of the film, but decried the supposed "impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship" (even though the film was set after the American Civil War). Today, the organization has no position on the movie. In 2003, the Online Film Critics Society ranked the film as the 67th greatest animated film of all time.

Also, the movie's star, James Baskett was unable to attend the premiere of the movie.


The film was completed and premiered on November 12, 1946 in Atlanta, GA. Baskett was reportedly unable to attend the premiere as no hotel within reach of the theater would rent him a room. Baskett won an honorary Oscar for his portrayal.


I can't even imagine what it was like to live like that.

As for what would Walt do? I'd like to think if he felt a group of people would be hurt by the re-release, he wouldn't do it.

I still think we have a long way to go to repair race relations, and if this movie could help - I say - release it.

NotaGeek
03-09-2007, 10:57 PM
I still think we have a long way to go to repair race relations, and if this movie could help - I say - release it.

I am not sure how this would help race relations, the whole issue is the fact that this film can be considered highly offensive to African Americans and any other minority, or person that has felt the loss of civil liberties. Releasing the movie would be like Disney saying, sorry this might not be nice, but deal with it.

Personally, I wouldn't hate to see this movie again, just to see if it was as bad as I thought it was in my childhood. But my personal desires don't outweigh the desire I have for Disney to remain positive in public light.

DisneyGiant
03-10-2007, 06:49 PM
I am not sure how this would help race relations, the whole issue is the fact that this film can be considered highly offensive to African Americans and any other minority, or person that has felt the loss of civil liberties. Releasing the movie would be like Disney saying, sorry this might not be nice, but deal with it.

I totally agree - I guess I was trying to say if people felt it could help, by showing us historically how things were...... like I said, I can't even imagine people not being able to stay at a hotel because of the color of their skin!


Personally, I wouldn't hate to see this movie again, just to see if it was as bad as I thought it was in my childhood. But my personal desires don't outweigh the desire I have for Disney to remain positive in public light.

Right - agree here too. I've never seen it - only heard about it - which is why I went to research it. I would definitely not want it released if it were to hurt anyone.

I wish Disney could make it over, using same stories, songs - but without the stereotypes of the past......

TinkRocks
03-10-2007, 08:01 PM
Also I agree with you that Iger is really selling the average American short. Although, I suspect he's not at all concerned with how well people are able to "view this film in the proper context."

What he's concerned about is the uproar they'll hear from the NAACP and other civil rights groups if they announce the film's release.

A few thoughts crossed my mind while reading everyone's comments.

Is it just North America that does not have the opportunity to buy / watch SotS?

From what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong / misinformed), but Disney has a history of conducting research prior to making every film they produce. Yes, some facts / stories have been slightly off, but only to make a better movie / storyline.

Songs used in SotS are considered classic songs, and I think it would be a great opportunity for kids to know where these songs came from. If someone hears 'When You Wish Upon a Star,' I'm sure people think of Pinocchio.

Splash Mountain is a popular attraction based on SotS and, like other Disney theme park attractions, would help tie in with movie sales. Why did Disney build this ride in DL & WDW if SotS has never been released in North America? Yes, people can buy the movie on PAL, but why go through the trouble of buying the movie, only to convert it to NTSC format?

I have been very fortunate to have lived in three countries now, and have noticed that, IN GENERAL, this country's population loves to pick on every detail that could be offensive to anyone. People sue each other for anything. I'm not saying that this is true for everyone - this is a general comment. What I love about this country is that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and are free to speak their mind. We should be respectful of everyone's opinions and not slam them. Open discussion should be a positive thing - if people disagree on an issue, fine. Agree to disagree. Move on to the next topic.

I'm glad Disney has not given a definite yes or no to releasing SotS on DVD and I hope they do consider / discuss this issue at length. If they feel that the release of the movie would raise a stink from certain groups (eg NAACP)- why doesn't Disney invite these groups for a discussion and work on a solution together. Why not put a segment on the DVD that explains the issues that the movie deals with, etc. Disney could set up a foundation that explores and educates the public on the issues of the film (like Spielberg did with Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation).

Ok - off my :soapbox:

JPL
03-11-2007, 12:08 AM
The film is a part of cinematic history and is considered a classic and yet it is hidden away from film fans. I'm sure they can release in a historical context that would be satisfactory to most people. Of course some people will still be offended by anything and use it to advance their cause.

LibertyTreeGal
03-11-2007, 12:26 AM
I have such mixed emotions about this. I don't desire for anyone to be hurt, but I also hate seeing a very talented man, James Baskett, sidelined by history. He was wonderful, not just as a black actor, but as an actor period. Gone With the Wind was far more offensive, truly, and my goodness, on my Chronological Donald Vol II the racial stereotypes were blatantly offensive to the modern viewer and were prefaced by Leonard Maitlin, who made no bones about it. I think that they could turn this into a positive, saying, "The way African American slavery/sharecropper life is depicted in this movie is obviously completely outrageous, and an affront to anyone who is the least bit knowledgeable about history, but we hope that you can appreciate and enjoy the stories of Brer Rabbit -- stories that are a rich part of the African American history of oral storytelling. The stories themselves are worthy of repetition, even if history has proven the original format to be ridiculous and short-sighted. Times have changed a lot since the movie's original release, but the tales of Brer Rabbit are timeless classics."

Anyway, that's how I would like to see it done. I read my kids the book of the Brer Rabbit stories we bought at WDW. They LOVE them. I teach them about the people who came up with those stories, and the history of the oral traditions of Africa. They think it's pretty neat that a lot of someone's were that creative and funny.

Just my 2 cents....

JPL
03-11-2007, 12:47 AM
What still baffles my mind is the amount of money Disney loses dailly not releasing this with all the bootleg copies out there.

NotaGeek
03-11-2007, 01:04 AM
What still baffles my mind is the amount of money Disney loses dailly not releasing this with all the bootleg copies out there.

It might actually send a different message if you consider that Disney doesn't release the movie, EVEN THOUGH they would make quite a bit of money, because they don't want to offend the millions upon millions of minorities that are Disney fans, friends and revenue generating park goers.

Everyone keeps comparing Song to Gone With the Wind, but realistically they aren't comparable. Gone with the Wind is placed during the Civil War, and there are no minced words that slaves were slaves and are portrayed like all slaves were during that era in Hollywood. Although neither is intended to be a historical account of anything, it's not the same thing as Goe with the Wind isn't a Disney title.

JPL
03-11-2007, 01:32 AM
I just think it can be released in a way that it is put in historical context with an explanation and disclaimer to be less offensive. I realize it is a sensitive issue but it can be handled in a proper manner. A proper introduction and history of the film and it's stories could allow the film to be released.

NotaGeek
03-11-2007, 03:41 AM
I think the real problem is that the real historical context in which the movie was made reflects a time when Hollywood made movies with complete disregard to historical conditions and how they portrayed oppressed minorities. We are taking about a recent time when there was no thought or consideration given to how anyone might find offense to they way people portrayed minorities because minorities had no voice, no power and no say-so in Hollywood.

That is no longer the case and t does make sense that since it's a much different world now, regardless of how one views political correctness as a necessity in our world, it is a fact that it's not a good business practice to ostracize and entire group of people that are part of the community in which Disney operates.

crazy4disneyworld
03-11-2007, 06:40 PM
I wonder how anyone can possibly think Song of the South is offensive, when they seem to be perfectly alright with all the profanity in the movies and on TV (e.g. MTV)...

NotaGeek
03-11-2007, 10:36 PM
I wonder how anyone can possibly think Song of the South is offensive, when they seem to be perfectly alright with all the profanity in the movies and on TV (e.g. MTV)...

You will have to read the whole thread to get an answer on this one ... it has nothing to do with profanity. And I am not sure to which "THEY" you are referring, but assuming you are talking about minorities, it has nothing to do with modern music and images on television or movies and how minorities view them. Disney doesn't own MTV and doesn't make modern movies with offensive themes.

alphamommy
03-13-2007, 09:28 AM
I remember seeing SotS a couple times on TV as a child. My dad told the Br'er Rabbit stories (from memory) from the time I was a small child, and I have told them to my own DD.

As for SotS itself, I understand that we live in different times from when it was made. Yet I need to relate a story. My extended family is from the South, and many of them remain racist to this day. My sister, who is much older than I, can remember the "Whites Only" signs when visiting down South. She loves SotS because, when she saw it as a small child, it humanized the people that some of our relatives said horrible things about. She thinks that Uncle Remus' character could do the same for children today.

I can't say it's the greatest movie ever made, but there are parts of it that I really loved. Wish I could get a DVD of it!

LibertyTreeGal
03-13-2007, 09:33 AM
Here's something interesting ( to me, anyway). I was thinking -- how about they remake the non-animated parts and keep the Brer Rabbit stuff. I thought, hmmm.....

But then I remembered that the music is more about James Baskett and his beautiful voice and performance than it was about the actual words. So remaking the rest to be more PC would ruin one of the most remarkable parts of the movie. :(

goofysbabe
03-13-2007, 10:07 AM
I got a copy off ebay and it's kinda dark, but we were still able to enjoy it. It is a copy of a copy and it is in DVD format. The artwork-cover-jacket (whatever it's called) is a color copy. I purchased it because I love the movie - have fond memories of seeing it as a child and I wanted my children to be able to experience such a wonderful movie and by the way they love the songs. Hope this info. helps

(EDITED PER TOS. Please Review the INTERCOT TOS)

Ian
03-13-2007, 01:07 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is that Disney appears to have had no issue releasing some of the World War II era shorts that were extremely, actively offensive to Asians and Germans.

And I'm not talking about the passive offensiveness of Song of the South ... I'm talking about films called "Donald Nips the Nips" and other gems like that.

Not that I don't understand them in the context in which they were created ... I do ... my point is, why did Disney think these films were okay to release and not SotS?

DizneyRox
03-13-2007, 04:54 PM
What doesn't make sense to me is that Disney appears to have had no issue releasing some of the World War II era shorts that were extremely, actively offensive to Asians and Germans.

And I'm not talking about the passive offensiveness of Song of the South ... I'm talking about films called "Donald Nips the Nips" and other gems like that.
Touchť

Good point! For some reason I totally forgot about that.

LibertyTreeGal
03-13-2007, 07:38 PM
OOOH yeah... I watched those on my Chronological Donald Vol II. Jaw dropping offensive caricatures of the Japanese, Germans and Italians, and it was only 60 years ago that Japanese Americans were placed into camps in this country, as opposed to slavery 150 years ago. Der Fuhrer's Face is another. They weren't hiding the hatred back in WWII....

NotaGeek
03-13-2007, 08:42 PM
Good point! Maybe it's because those movies are depicting our "enemies" ... and not people that would be considered fellow Americans. Very good point nonetheless!

kaylamag
03-13-2007, 10:07 PM
I actually saw SotS at Disney World. It was 1991, i was only about 10 years old. My family was staying at Fort Wilderness. We went to the campground movie and the movie that was playing was SotS! I guess when i take my family on vacation to Disney in January, we won't be seing this film at the campground!

Disney Babe
03-13-2007, 10:08 PM
It would be nice to see another movie done. Not in order to replace the Disney musical version, but to enhance the understanding of the oral tradition of these tales and the way of life of the real storyteller.

This could be a family film, yet aimed at adults and and young adults. No animation. Focus on the genius of the storyteller and show the condition of his life as a back drop. Disney should be the studio to do this, but I would like to see it done, respectfully and thoughtfully, by any good studio. After reading early on in this thread the origination of the stories, I am actually interested in seeing them in a more serious movie than the SOTS.

This would be a good way for Disney to offer an "apology" and afterwords offer a double DVD with an additional portion that explains how each movie reflected the times. It would require sensitive marketing so as not to look like just making money off the controversy.

I've never been able to see the SOTS - not that I can remember. I definitely think it should be released. I agree that it is part of cinematic history. I also think that further cinematic exploration of the tales and storyteller would be great.

JPL
03-17-2007, 02:11 AM
Good point! Maybe it's because those movies are depicting our "enemies" ... and not people that would be considered fellow Americans. Very good point nonetheless!


To add to this point they were our enemies but have long been considered allies and friends. We have strong ties with all the countries depicted as well as people who have immigrated to America. I'm sure that some of these groups do find them offensive as well.

The Donald Films as well as the the other War Era films were released in a limited capacity under the Walt Disney Treasures Collection and were put in Historical context by Leonard Maltin. The context emphasized for the Disney on the Front Lines DVD was The Disney Studios war effort. They were release in limited quantities and were marketed to hardcore Disney fans. I think the demand for SOTS far exceeds this type of limited release which is partially what contributes to Disney's Dilemma.
There is no doubt SOTS have historical significance since it was the first feature film to combine live action with animation.

DizneyFreak2002
03-17-2007, 12:58 PM
If and when Disney releases Song of the South, why not include a brief summation by Roy E. Disney explaining the context of how the characters are depicted and explaining the time period the movie takes place in.... I'm sure there are some loud mouth bitter people who will open their mouths and say something, because their names haven't been in the media for a while, but, it will pass... SOTS will sell like hotcakes.... I know I would buy a copy...

Disney Babe
03-17-2007, 07:13 PM
I'm wondering if Song of the South can truly be said to be the first feature combining live action and animation. MGM's Anchor's Away was released a year earlier (1945) and combined live action with animation to allow Gene Kelly to dance with the cartoon mouse Jerry, from the Tom and Jerry cartoons. Interestingly enough, MGM wanted Mickey instead of Jerry, but Disney did not want Mickey working for MGM! The studio system limited the roles of animated stars as well as human ones! In any case, the use of this technique is more widely used in Song of the South than in the other film.

DisneyOtaku
03-17-2007, 10:06 PM
Personally, I find it odd that people in general are more upset about the happy-go-lucky image SOTS gives than James Baskett not recieving the credit he deserved when awards were being handed out.

I also find it wrong to say that Gone with the Wind is a more accurate protrayal of the time it was set in than SOTS. Seeing how less then 10 percent of white Southerners lived like that, and Scarlett O'Hara is the idealized Southern belle that never really existed...yes, there were Southern belles, but none that lived up to the ideal like she did.

And, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Uncle Remus character based on a book...writen by a white man? Can you still find these stories in a bookstore? If so, doesn't that give off the same impression as the movie?

I dunno...I think it's more hurtful to hold the movie back than to release it, hiding it like it never happened to not offend anyone. I agree that there should be special features on the disk that talk about the issue, and say how the film is not an accurate protrayal of the time. But this is just my 2 cents.

crazy4disneyworld
03-18-2007, 10:19 AM
You will have to read the whole thread to get an answer on this one ... it has nothing to do with profanity. And I am not sure to which "THEY" you are referring, but assuming you are talking about minorities, it has nothing to do with modern music and images on television or movies and how minorities view them. Disney doesn't own MTV and doesn't make modern movies with offensive themes.
I guess I wasn't too clear with my post.

I was saying that all the politically correct people are opposed to anything that may be (even slightly) un-PC, but they seem to be alright with all the sex and profanity that people call entertainment these days. Hypocrites -- that's what they are.

(P.S. I know Disney doesn't own MTV or make offensive movies.)

Disney Babe
03-18-2007, 08:22 PM
I understand what the previous poster means.

And I would further make the argument that Disney owns ABC and produces Desparate Housewives, which is a show that is too sexual and immoral for the Disney name, IMHO.

NotaGeek
03-18-2007, 09:15 PM
I understand what the previous poster means.

And I would further make the argument that Disney owns ABC and produces Desparate Housewives, which is a show that is too sexual and immoral for the Disney name, IMHO.

Well, technically ABC doesn't operate under the Disney name, nor does Disney produce Desperate Housewives. I don't personally think that Desperate Housewives and Song of the South can be compared for offensive qualities in the context of this discussion, but that's just me.


I guess I wasn't too clear with my post.

I was saying that all the politically correct people are opposed to anything that may be (even slightly) un-PC, but they seem to be alright with all the sex and profanity that people call entertainment these days. Hypocrites -- that's what they are.

(P.S. I know Disney doesn't own MTV or make offensive movies.)

Actually, I would assume that being PC and being offended by sex and profanity in the entertainment industry would be considered completely different things since acting politically correct towards the context of movies such as Song of the South is completely different than modern day offensive TV or movies. We are talking about a movie that can be viewed by some as completely "racist" vs. certain shows/movies that are considered merely "racy".

I think the real point is, Song of the South is a classic movie with founding technical merit that made way for a lot of present day television and movies. There are lots of people that want to see SOTS, but Disney believes that it's too offensive to minorities here in the USA to release and take the chance at tarnishing their image since it's an ACTUAL Disney production, albeit a classic.

Disney Babe
03-19-2007, 12:15 AM
People know who owns ABC regardless of Disney not putting the Disney name to it.

IMHO, some things on ABC are taking our society in the wrong direction and modeling behavior to our young people that, if they follow, can affect their lives and morals adversely. Watching Song of the South is certainly not going to do that.

That's all I'm saying.

NotaGeek
03-19-2007, 12:47 AM
People know who owns ABC regardless of Disney not putting the Disney name to it.

IMHO, some things on ABC are taking our society in the wrong direction and modeling behavior to our young people that, if they follow, can affect their lives and morals adversely. Watching Song of the South is certainly not going to do that.

That's all I'm saying.

Unfortunately, I think you put a little too much influence in the programing of ABC. There is one power that you and EVERY viewer has over the television networks. The OFF SWITCH. IMHO television should not be controlled by anyone but a kids parents or the individual that owns the television.

I would HATE to be forced to watch anything because some one person or group can dictate what they think is offensive. If I had control there would be NO sports programing, NO religious programing, only musicals and reality TV with the occasional TV drama and reruns of 80's movies like Pretty in Pink on television. And I KNOW people would hate that!

I don't believe that anyone in this forum actually thinks that if Disney releases SOTS it will magically reverse The Emancipation Proclamation. But it is clear that with everyone's differing views just in this thread, it's a good picture of why Disney doesn't just go for it.

BrerSchultzy
03-19-2007, 04:08 PM
I don't believe that anyone in this forum actually thinks that if Disney releases SOTS it will magically reverse The Emancipation Proclamation. But it is clear that with everyone's differing views just in this thread, it's a good picture of why Disney doesn't just go for it.

I have to say, I have followed the posts on this topic, and agree with this statement the most. I remember watching Holiday Inn this past Christmas, and being appalled at the blackface scene in it...I couldn't believe what I was watching. Same with the portrayal of the slaves in GWTW...

BUT, you're right...they aren't Disney. Now, I have seen SOTS recently (just last night, in fact), and I saw it through the eyes of a storyteller...since that's what my wife and I are...storytellers. From that perspective, James Baskett is BRILLIANT...Burl Ives himself must have said "I want to be like him some day"...but like I said, that's through the eyes of a white storyteller.

I love Disney...I can't imagine how I would react if they took something that may offend me, and released it without any sort of apology attached to it. I would be crushed. Imagine if Disney pulled a William Shatner, and came out with a statement picking on Intercot, and other Disney blogs. That would crush us all.

This is a hot-button issue...for now, Disney doesn't seem to be going after the bootleggers and importers...and that to me speaks volumes. They won't release it, but they won't "ban" it either. It's just in limbo.

And by the way...NOBODY can say the movie is not offensive...because somebody HAS taken offense to it...whether you agree with them or not, it's the truth. Just because it is not offensive to you, doesn't mean it's not offensive to me, or anyone else, for that matter. By its very nature, the word offensive is arbitrary, not definitive. I know that some of you out there who claim SotS is not offensive, claim that MTV is (the argument has been made in this very thread). Well, I am not offended by MTV, but I understand that you are. But MTV is about making noise...Disney is about making joy...

and if Disney had released this 20 years ago, THEN you can use the "just don't buy it" defense. But since the action of releasing it at all will be a major news event, they have decided to hold back. The only way to make the release less of an event is to counter it with what JPL is talking about (documentaries and intros), or by making some other gesture to those who would be offended.

just my .02

notcorrupt1
03-19-2007, 04:53 PM
In 1996 I had the same Question when I was asked " daddy who is Brer Rabbit ?" I was able to get a PAL copy of the movie from Disneyland Paris and had it converted to VHS cost around $100. but well worth it.
Dads go to the ends of the earth sometimes.:mickey:

Ed
03-24-2007, 04:25 PM
Despite controversy, Disney could unlock 'Song of the South'

Travis Reed
The Associated Press

March 24, 2007

Walt Disney Co.'s 1946 film "Song of the South" was historic. It was Disney's first big live-action picture and produced one of the company's most famous songs -- the Oscar-winning "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah." It also carries the story line of the Splash Mountain rides at its theme parks.

But the movie remains hidden in the Disney archives -- never released on video in the United States and criticized as racist for its depiction of Southern plantation blacks. The film's 60th anniversary passed last year without a whisper of official rerelease, which is unusual for Disney, but President and CEO Bob Iger recently said the company was reconsidering.

The film's reissue would surely spark debate, but it could also sell big. Nearly 115,000 people have signed an online petition urging Disney to make the movie available, and out-of-print international copies routinely sell online for $50-$90, some even more than $100.

Iger was answering a shareholder's inquiry about the movie for the second year in a row at Disney's annual meeting in New Orleans. This month the Disney chief made a rerelease sound more possible.

"The question of 'Song of the South' comes up periodically, in fact it was raised at last year's annual meeting ..." Iger said. "And since that time, we've decided to take a look at it again because we've had numerous requests about bringing it out. Our concern was that a film that was made so many decades ago being brought out today perhaps could be either misinterpreted or that it would be somewhat challenging in terms of providing the appropriate context."

"Song of the South" was re-shown in theaters in 1956, 1972 and 1986. Both animated and live-action, it tells the story of a young white boy, Johnny, who goes to live on his grandparents' Georgia plantation when his parents split up. Johnny is charmed by Uncle Remus -- a popular black servant -- and his fables of Brer Rabbit, Brer Bear and Brer Fox, which are actual black folk tales.

Remus' stories include the famous "tar baby," a phrase Republican presidential hopefuls John McCain and Mitt Romney were recently criticized for using to describe difficult situations. In "Song of the South," it was a trick Brer Fox and Brer Bear used to catch the rabbit -- dressing a lump of hot tar as a person to ensnare their prey. To some, it is now a derogatory term for blacks, regardless of context.

The movie doesn't reveal whether it takes place before or after the Civil War, and never refers to blacks on the plantation as slaves. It makes clear they work for the family, living down dirt roads in wood shacks while the white characters stay in a mansion. Remus and other black characters' dialogue is full of "ain't nevers," "ain't nobodys," "you tells," and "dem days's."

"In today's environment, 'Song of the South' probably doesn't have a lot of meaning, especially to the younger audiences," said James Pappas, associate professor of African-American Studies at the University of New York at Buffalo. "Older audiences probably would have more of a connection with the stereotypes, which were considered harmless at the time."

Pappas said it's not clear that the movie is intentionally racist, but it inappropriately projects Remus as a happy, laughing storyteller even though he's a plantation worker.

"Gone with the Wind," produced seven years earlier, endured the same criticism and even shares a common actress (Hattie McDaniel, who won an Oscar for "Gone" for playing the house slave "Mammy").

However, Pappas said he thinks the movie should be rereleased because of its historical significance. He said it should be prefaced, and closed, with present-day statements.

"I think it's important that these images are shown today so that especially young people can understand this historical context for some of the blatant stereotyping that's done today," Pappas said.

From a financial standpoint, Iger acknowledged last year that Disney stood to gain from rereleasing "Song." The company's movies are popular with collectors, and Disney has kept sales strong by tightly controlling when they're available.

Christian Willis, a 26-year-old IT administrator in San Juan Capistrano, Calif., started a "Song" fan site in 1999 to showcase memorabilia. He soon expanded it into a clearinghouse for information on the movie that now averages more than 800 hits a day and manages the online petition.

Willis said he doesn't think the movie is racist, just from a different time.

"Stereotypes did exist on the screen," he said. "But if you look at other films of that time period, I think 'Song of the South' was really quite tame in that regard. I think Disney did make an effort to show African Americans in a more positive light."

Though Willis is hopeful, there's still no telling when -- or if -- the movie could come out (beyond its copyright lapsing decades from now).

For this story, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Disney's distribution arm, issued a statement: "Song of the South is one of a handful of titles that has not seen a home distribution window. To this point, we have not discounted nor committed to any distribution window concerning this title."
Copyright © 2007, Orlando Sentinel

crazy4disneyworld
03-25-2007, 09:39 AM
NotaGeek, SOTS was not intended to be racist in any way, and I don't see how anyone could take it that way. I'm aware that there are some blatant inaccuracies in the film, especially since we don't know if the story takes place before or after the Civil War. But racist? Absolutely not.

But, sometimes people just need to accept that's the way films were made back then, and, if they think it's offensive, they don't have to watch it.

That being said, I think if they release it, they should give the Walt Disney Treasures treatment (documentaries and intros on controversial subjects, as suggested earlier) just so Disney can say, "Don't say I didn't tell you so."

NotaGeek
03-25-2007, 12:16 PM
NotaGeek, SOTS was not intended to be racist in any way, and I don't see how anyone could take it that way. I'm aware that there are some blatant inaccuracies in the film, especially since we don't know if the story takes place before or after the Civil War. But racist? Absolutely not.

But, sometimes people just need to accept that's the way films were made back then, and, if they think it's offensive, they don't have to watch it.

That being said, I think if they release it, they should give the Walt Disney Treasures treatment (documentaries and intros on controversial subjects, as suggested earlier) just so Disney can say, "Don't say I didn't tell you so."

I am not an advocate of it being held from released. I honestly don't care. I just "get" why they haven't. Racism is tricky. It's most often times decided by the minority group that feels the racism, not by the people that aren't part of the minority. It's not fair for Disney Lovers to merely say "No, it's not racist at all" just to satisfy a personal need we have to watch the film. We can't exist within a Disney Bubble, and I think that's what the big wigs at Disney are trying to do.

Technically we can't claim this film wasn't intended to be racist because racism didn't exist in the same light when the film was released in December 1946. The Civil Rights movement officially started with Brown v. The Board of Education in December of 1955 and the now infamous Rosa Parks refused to take a seat in the back of the bus on December 1, 1955, and her act officially LAUNCHED the movement with the Bus Boycott starting. These events helped to mold modern views on what IS racist.

mjaclyn
03-26-2007, 11:16 AM
I really hope they release the film. I love Disney movies and would like to add this one to my collection. IMO there are many movies that were made decades ago that projected stereotypes but no one seems to be offended by them*...not sure why SOTS is constantly frought with controversy.

(*In most of the Shirley Temple movies she's happily dancing with actors who look and act like stereotypical 'slaves' - that doesn't seem to spark as much controversy as SOTS)

crazy4disneyworld
03-26-2007, 06:37 PM
It's not fair for Disney Lovers to merely say "No, it's not racist at all" just to satisfy a personal need we have to watch the film.
I agree with you 100% on this point--that would not be a good reason at all. But the fact is that the film is not intentionally racist, and people won't accept that historical inaccuracies were in this film and other films of the era. Inaccuracies mislabeled as racism is what's keeping SOTS and other films locked away.



(*In most of the Shirley Temple movies she's happily dancing with actors who look and act like stereotypical 'slaves' - that doesn't seem to spark as much controversy as SOTS)
Good point, why does SOTS get all the heat?

Boost
03-27-2007, 06:12 PM
We, as a nation, need to start work on being less politically correct, see history for what it was, and just stop worrying about stuff that we shouldn't be worrying about.

Bring back Song of The South....

cvzdesign
03-28-2007, 12:45 PM
I wouldn't be surprised to see them using this as a "foot in the water" test for their upcoming southern princess movie.
If they are expecting possible backlash about the voodoo and southern characters from a historical picture, they certainly wouldn't want to release something that the NAACP is going to boycott and make a huge stink about, rather than teaching people about something that happened in our history. :rolleyes:

crazy4disneyworld
03-28-2007, 07:13 PM
We, as a nation, need to start work on being less politically correct, see history for what it was, and just stop worrying about stuff that we shouldn't be worrying about.

Bring back Song of The South....
Amen to that!

MarkC
07-05-2008, 11:53 PM
I'm sorry if this is a frequent topic here, but here goes............

I just finished watching Song of the South on DVD. A friend of mine has what has to be a bootleg copy on DVD. The quality is actually pretty good. I can see why it hasn't been re-released officially. Still, there was a trailer for a tv showing in 1972.

I enjoyed the movie. It did have some stereo-types from the South in the Gone with the Wind era, but wasn't mean-spirited against anyone. And the bottom line for me is, it did give me a good explanation of Splash Mountain, which is one of my all time favorite rides. I guess I can see both sides of this movie, and there was even one scene where Uncle Remus lights a pipe with one of the cartoon characters. That would definitely never make it in a Disney movie now.

Again, not trying to stir anything up but I finally got to watch this after many years of wondering what all the fuss was about. Mark

NotaGeek
07-06-2008, 01:42 AM
Here are some past discussion about what's wrong with this movie and what Disney has to say about it:

Song of the South (http://www.intercot.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=94596&highlight=song+south)

Song of the South (http://www.intercot.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=127525&highlight=song+south)

Moderator Alert

Threads on this topic never go well for obvious reasons. Please, remember that this site is home to people from every walk of life, and all threads must respect the melting pot that makes up the INTERCOT family or discussion will be closed.

DizneyRox
07-06-2008, 07:28 AM
I really wish they would just release it. IMHO, they have already tarnished their image enough with all the penny pinching, outsourcing, etc in pursuit of the almighty dollar. I can't imagine they don't look at SotS as a true revenue stream, and it would be.

Although, the problem is, people seem to live in the past, so it can't be accepted for what it is, a movie made in a different age. You know, they say, any publicity is good publicity, and Disney doesn't appear to be too concerned with where the dollar comes from, as long as they come.

Ian
07-06-2008, 09:34 AM
I guess what I don't get is that there are literally hundreds of classic movies out there that are shown and re-shown dozens of times over that have the same types of oudated sensibilities depicted in SotS.

What makes this film so different from those?

NotaGeek
07-06-2008, 11:32 AM
I guess what I don't get is that there are literally hundreds of classic movies out there that are shown and re-shown dozens of times over that have the same types of oudated sensibilities depicted in SotS.

What makes this film so different from those?

The name Disney, and what Disney tries to stand for makes them different.

Ian
07-06-2008, 11:38 AM
The name Disney, and what Disney tries to stand for makes them different.Eh ... maybe, maybe not.

Honestly, I think the hype is just that ... hype. I think eventually they'll "re-evaluate their decision not to release this classic piece of Disney history ... " and, by creating such a decade long, pent-up demand, cash in like you wouldn't believe.

I don't believe Disney is as pure as the driven snow. They're in it for the cash.

NotaGeek
07-06-2008, 11:50 AM
Eh ... maybe, maybe not.

Honestly, I think the hype is just that ... hype. I think eventually they'll "re-evaluate their decision not to release this classic piece of Disney history ... " and, by creating such a decade long, pent-up demand, cash in like you wouldn't believe.

I don't believe Disney is as pure as the driven snow. They're in it for the cash.

There is no debating that Disney is in it for the cash. I read through the dozens of other posts going back and forth on this topic IMHO this whole discussion remains completely in the eyes of what individuals want vs. what Disney views as how their name would be affected by releasing a movie with such potential backlash.

Even though most Disney lovers would give anything to own SOTS on DVD, there are millions upon millions of people that spend just as much money as we do on Disney that might turn their backs or be offended by SOTS -- and it never makes sense for a company to alienate an entire market to satisfy another.

I believe that Disney releasing SOTS would make a very large statement -- that they don't care as much about offending people as they do about making money. This is such a hard thing to explain if you have never been in the situation where judgment was passed on you for something as uncontrollable as the color of your skin. I have said it many times, although I would love to watch SOTS again, I respect why Disney won't release the movie to a DVD market.

Ian
07-06-2008, 01:39 PM
Oh, don't get me wrong ... I would respect their decision to not release the movie if I really believed it was done out of a real sense of altruism.

But I don't. I think it's profit motive, plain and simple. And I think it's ephemeral. Sooner rather than later, they'll release it.

Wells
07-06-2008, 02:51 PM
I belive that you can purchase a Disney branded DVD of Song of the south at DLP (in PAL format) ....this film has long been avaiable in Europe and Asia, just not in the USA.....

NotaGeek
07-06-2008, 03:26 PM
I have merged the 2 open threads about SOTS so anyone interested can read the past discussion.

RocknBev
07-06-2008, 07:49 PM
I see both sides of the discussion. Working in public education in the Atlanta for over 20 years, I can value the different opinions...those for the sensitivity of the miniorities and those for the value of the art itself.
I, myself, saw the film at the Fox Theatre when it was released in 1972. I was 9 and I thought it was the most spectacular movie (well....not counting Snow White...I am still a girl you know!). I do not own a copy at this time because I will not go to the trouble you have discussed in this tread.
I also think that eventually Disney will release it. Regardless of how wonderful we think Disney is (and they are)....they are still about making money. It is all about timing and marketing (including a little damage control). When they feel they have it right, I believe they will release it.

Young@Heart
07-09-2008, 02:24 PM
I look forward to the day when this movie is officially released. It is the first Disney movie I remember from my childhood and I think we are really underestimating the American people to think such offense would be taken by this movie. Isn't SplM based loosely on SotS? I don't see people refuse to ride SplM b/c they were offended by the movie it was based on. :mickey:

DizneyRox
07-09-2008, 05:04 PM
Actually, I don't think they are concerned with the majority of the American people, they are worried about a few squeaky wheels that will blow this up into more than it is, which is a movie made in a different time with different thoughts and ideas.

ransam
07-15-2008, 02:07 PM
My question is more about the movie itself, but i didn't know where to post it...
I understand why SOTS was never released, but does anyone know if there are plans/discussions to relesae it? It is one of my all time favorites. it's kind of strange that Splash Mountain is one of the most popular rides at disney, and it's based on a movie, that a lot of people have never seen. Maybe Disney could remake it, don't you think james earl jones, with that booming voice, would be a perfect uncle remus?
anyway, just wondering if anyone knew of any plans to officially release the movie.

kbean
07-15-2008, 03:14 PM
I got a copy off of ebay. There is no way they will re-make that movie because Disney executives believe the, "content would be construed as racially insensitive." It's too bad.

Strmchsr
07-15-2008, 03:22 PM
No plans right now, though there's been tons of threads about the topic here on Intercot. Just do a search and you'll find plenty of discussion.

MarkC
07-15-2008, 03:22 PM
I recently saw the movie as well. A friend had a bootleg DVD-- it had to be because there was a Warner Brothers cartoon on it as well.

It did give me a good explanation of Splash Mountain. The movie was ok with some great songs and some very good special effects for 1946.

CaptainJessicaSparrow
07-15-2008, 03:27 PM
SOTS will never be rereleased.

Unfortunately, with the times today, people are too sensitive about issues that were perfectly acceptable in another time.

The problem with SOTS is that a lot of people believe that it portrayed slavery in a positive light. It's sad that people can't accept the facts of the past and allow such wonderful characters like Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox, and Brer Bear to die because the younger children aren't familiar with them. I think it might become the next Mr. Toad.

You'll have to either get hired to work at Splash Mountain or get it off ebay to see SOTS.

KAJUNKING
07-15-2008, 03:42 PM
i dont think its tough to get a copy off of ebay but im not sure about quality of what you get off ebay

msc_idiot
07-15-2008, 04:12 PM
I bought a copy off of eBay, a DVD, and the quality was fine. It even had extras on it, like a section that has each of the songs you can listen to in their entirety.

I remember reading these stories and more like them in a book called something like Uncle Remus's Storybook. I loved Uncle Remus and the tar baby story. I had no idea that race might have been a factor, but that was just good parenting on my parents' part. Infact it was only a few years ago that it was pointed out to me that the tar baby was supposed to be a black child. I might have been a bit dense, but in this case I think that was a good thing.

I think it might do well if they re-released the movie with only the cartoon portions, but I probably wouldn't watch it. I have a lot to say about this, so I won't even start (or I'll never stop). All I will say is that people are better than this. We can see beyond what is on the surface. Everyone knows slavery is wrong in every way - there is no other reasonable point of view. But I can't stand it when people say "We're too smart for this ****, but burn all the copies just to make sure." But Disney is doing what they believe is best, atleast for themselves.

As long as the lines always are at Splash Mountain, it will not be going anywhere anytime soon. It's not so much the story as it is the nostalgia and the big splash that draws everyone in.

Heather

Jasper
07-15-2008, 04:25 PM
I also saw the movie a few years back when a friend got a copy from e-bay. I have to say that I think it would be tough to remake this movie in a way that would basically keep the story intact and still get rid of the racist/slavery issue. Maybe there are people out there who are smarter/more creative than I am who might be able to do it but I have a hard time seeing it.

ransam
07-15-2008, 05:22 PM
Yea, I have a copy of the dvd i bought off E-Bay. the quality is fine considering the movie is so old and it's also a bootleg copy.
I remember it' was the first movie i ever saw w/ my mom. I must have been 6 or 7. and everytime it wsa released to the theatres i went to see it. I think the last time it was released for the public in the theatre was 1988. not sure.
i really can't judge whether or not it's insensitive to slavery or not. i am a midwestern white boy, so i'm not going to pretend to have any idea how others may view it. If it offends them, who am i to say get over it? It's easy for me to say it's no big deal, that as a society we should be bigger than that, but i've never walked in their shoes. My best friend is black, and he loves the movie. But if it does offend others, then Disney may be right in not releasing it. who knows? but i do think you could have the charm the orignal had in a remake. Maybe set it in a modern time, take slavery out of the equation. where instead of Uncle Remus being a slave, he's the old man that lives alone, and at one time everyone loved him, but now he's kind of the out cast of the city. then just take the basis of the story where Johnny befriends him, and Uncle Remus tells him stories.....etc....
just an idea.
I would love for the charm, the stories to be brought back to life.

Mickey91
07-15-2008, 05:40 PM
I have to say that there are a lot more racist movies out there without the wholesome message this picture sends. I think the NAACP should sue Disney for keeping such a fine African American performance from being shown. James Basket is just a delightful and loveable character and the stories and wisdom he shares are priceless. I do not even think of slavery when I watch this movie. You're not suppose to think of slavery. Oh, maybe that's because it is set after the war!:secret:

maxrebo77
07-15-2008, 06:06 PM
Be carefull if you get a copy of SotS online. I bought one and it was not only a rip, but only contained the first few minutes of the movie and then went on to gibberish. the seller very quickly took themselves off the site with no way for anyone to get their $ back.
I also hear that it was not so much Disney, but someone else that did not wish for the movie to be released. IMHO they should do as with any movie and know the public gets how things were the time it was made.
Does anyone remember SotS being played at the Campfire Program?

Marceline
07-15-2008, 06:06 PM
This film isn't about slavery it's about the sharecropping era. Not a ideal moment in history but part of American history none the less.

I remember seeing SOTS in theaters with my mother as a child. Was it re-released at the movies in the late 70's?

I recall it as a cool mixture of live action and animation with great music. The negative racial undertones went waaaay above my head as a little kid.

I really don't think it's something Disney should keep on the shelf forever.

Mrs Bus Driver
07-15-2008, 07:17 PM
As a minority, even though this movie is a milestone in cinematic history, its themes and characters DO NOT represent a positive part of American History. Please keep this in mind, because this film shouldn't just offend "people of a certain race" it should offend EVERYONE. Slavery was not a good old song and dance time with cartoon rabbits and foxes in the South. It was a matter of life and death for a HUGE number of people and the remnants of the racial tension caused by it's practice can still be felt through this century. Slavery was a horrible part in the social evolution of our country and should be portrayed accurately for our present society.

That being said, I love Splash Mountain, Brer Fox and Brer Bear as much as the next person on this site. But, I do remember being shown this film in elementary school every holiday and even as a child it made me feel uncomfortable. So I will be completely fine if no other child has to see this film as I don't believe it serves a good purpose or gives ANY good Magic message that Disney wants to re-live.

:ditto:
Every time this topic comes up I cringe. I know most people on this site don't get it, and there is no way to make you get it. Maybe if you would talk to some friends of yours that are black maybe they can help you understand why this movie is offensive. Speaking for myself I saw this movie as a kid and didn't like it, not because of the race issue, but because it really isn't that good. Then I grew up met and married my husband a black vietnam vet. Trust me he doesn't like the movie either. We have 2 grown children, in this country they are not mixed, half black/half white they are black. Please don't get me wrong our kids have friends of every color and race. My DD's present boyfriend is white. And I am glad that they have not seen "Song of the South"!
:soapbox: I'll get of my soapbox now

MadisonvilleMouse239
07-15-2008, 07:51 PM
We recently bought Song of the South on DVD off the internet for about $12. I don't remember the website,( I think we typed in old movie favorites, but don't quote me on that) but we ordered it and three days later we had it.

I personally don't see what the big fuss is about. It was an excellent movie.

PharmD
07-15-2008, 07:51 PM
I found an original copy still in plastic wrap from a company in england called Blackstar video. It cost me $13. It was in PAL format and I had to send it to california to have it converted. While I am white I can somewhat understand how some people can be offended by it but I like to watch it for the stories that Uncle Remus tells. I have taught both my boys that what makes a person is what is inside and not what they look like. My 7 yr old loves the movie and he like me loves the parts where Uncle Remus tells his stories. The rest of the movie is a little slow and not very interesting. But even when he gets older he has been taught that a persons looks; race, size, etc are not what make a person so it will still be ok because he knows better. But back to the movie I feel very lucky to have found it. I went back to the site to buy another copy and they were sold out. It was officially released on video tape in Europe.

maxrebo77
07-16-2008, 12:39 AM
With all the movies made this day, this time. I'm amazed this one causes this much hurt. I was just at my daughter's today, and we remember seeing it together at the Campfire. I'm so sorry, but neither one of us understands.

thrillme
07-16-2008, 09:02 AM
I feel bad for people that are "hurt" by this movie but "my oh my..." there are so many movies out there that are directly more insulting...not to mention RAP songs and general TV.

I saw this movie when I was a kid several times...the songs and stories stuck in my head. Heck I didn't even have a CLUE what a slave was back then. As I grew older and learned in school the "history" I STILL did not put any connection to this movie. Everybody says Uncle Remus was a freed slave or sharecropper...well uhh...ok :confused: not sure what that had to do with the movie from "my" stand point.

Even today the only thing I see is a kindly old man walking down the road singing some cheerful songs and telling some amusing stories to a young boy and girl. I really can't seen anything else.

This movie won all sorts of awards and commendations of its time and it's locked away. Today we have some pretty AWFUL movies that are winning academy awards (maybe whether they're awful or not is a matter of opionion but...their "themes" are not exactly family-styled wholesome) and we're concerned with "zippety doo da"?

Mickey91
07-16-2008, 04:36 PM
I have to say that with all the mega offensive material out there where you can't listen to the radio or even watch the commercials during family hour on TV, I cannot believe that we, people in a FREE country, can't buy a legal copy of Song of the South. IT IS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!! IT IS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. People all over the world are able to buy a copy of this (when it is in print) but here in the land of the free. I cannot believe it is more offensive to people than a lot of the material out there today.

It should be released. If you don't like the movie or find it offensive, don't watch it.

NotaGeek
07-16-2008, 11:03 PM
I feel bad for people that are "hurt" by this movie but "my oh my..." there are so many movies out there that are directly more insulting...not to mention RAP songs and general TV.

I saw this movie when I was a kid several times...the songs and stories stuck in my head. Heck I didn't even have a CLUE what a slave was back then. As I grew older and learned in school the "history" I STILL did not put any connection to this movie. Everybody says Uncle Remus was a freed slave or sharecropper...well uhh...ok :confused: not sure what that had to do with the movie from "my" stand point.

Even today the only thing I see is a kindly old man walking down the road singing some cheerful songs and telling some amusing stories to a young boy and girl. I really can't seen anything else.

This movie won all sorts of awards and commendations of its time and it's locked away. Today we have some pretty AWFUL movies that are winning academy awards (maybe whether they're awful or not is a matter of opionion but...their "themes" are not exactly family-styled wholesome) and we're concerned with "zippety doo da"?


I have to say that with all the mega offensive material out there where you can't listen to the radio or even watch the commercials during family hour on TV, I cannot believe that we, people in a FREE country, can't buy a legal copy of Song of the South. IT IS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY!! IT IS AFTER THE CIVIL WAR. People all over the world are able to buy a copy of this (when it is in print) but here in the land of the free. I cannot believe it is more offensive to people than a lot of the material out there today.

It should be released. If you don't like the movie or find it offensive, don't watch it.

Disney does not presently release movies with themes that might be considered offensive to MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of potential guests. This movie might infact NOT offend you, but there might actually be a considerable number of other fans of Disney (and members of our community) that would consider this movie offensive. I am asking everyone in this thread to consider the fact that even addicts of Classic Disney we can not live in a bubble. People are different, and have different life experiences. Please Post with that consideration in mind.

The strong feelings in this thread are no doubt the reason that Disney hasn't released the movie and has not given any indication it will be released in the future.

Scar
07-17-2008, 08:49 AM
... I cannot believe that we, people in a FREE country, can't buy a legal copy of Song of the South.Freedom works both ways. Disney is free to not release it if they don't want to.

(Although personally, I wish they would.)

Mrs Bus Driver
07-17-2008, 06:18 PM
Thank You Michael :thumbsup: :mickey:

Mickey91
07-17-2008, 10:33 PM
Freedom works both ways. Disney is free to not release it if they don't want to.

(Although personally, I wish they would.)
I might see your point of view if they hadn't released it at all. But to release it to part of the world and not release here??? I hope one day we can all accept the past as it was and start working together. Not as blacks and whites but as Americans.

NotaGeek
07-18-2008, 03:48 AM
I might see your point of view if they hadn't released it at all. But to release it to part of the world and not release here??? I hope one day we can all accept the past as it was and start working together. Not as blacks and whites but as Americans.

I don't think that the possibility of blacks and whites working together as Americans makes this film any less offensive. Yes, this film is NOT supposed to take place during slavery, but immediately after during the time when the majority of slaves became share croppers. There is no history book written that claims share croppers were treated any better than slaves. IMO the whole offensive part has more to do with how Uncle Remus was portrayed, which was in large part due to he era the film was made, which would have never happened in the present Disney market.

Disney releasing SOTS in other markets probably has more to do with the fact that other markets don't have the frame of reference to the long history of Slave Trade in the USA and how African Americans were portrayed in early films, regardless of their freedom status.

Dixie Springs
07-18-2008, 12:46 PM
:thumbsup:

One of Disney's best - I have a video cassette copy. It reminds my of my favorite MK attraction - which somehow eludes this controversy.

maxrebo77
07-18-2008, 06:01 PM
Again. I''m sorry, but no. the fact that this movie is unavailable in some places is part of what makes this hard. i was always just trying to complete my collection of disney movies. And I'm a tough sell> I fight for many causes. This movie should be like any other.

NotaGeek
07-18-2008, 08:44 PM
Again. I''m sorry, but no. the fact that this movie is unavailable in some places is part of what makes this hard. i was always just trying to complete my collection of disney movies. And I'm a tough sell> I fight for many causes. This movie should be like any other.

We are all entitled to our own opinions. As is Disney, and at this point Disney doesn't think it should be released.

Mickey91
07-20-2008, 11:20 PM
I have no idea what lessons can be learned from these movies, maybe I am naive in my belief that positive themes would be better for the world in which we live.

How much more positive can you get than a man of simple means giving a rich little boy love and understanding that all the money in the world can't buy? And, he does so knowing that it could anger those in a position over him and cause him dire consequences. He is honorable beyond a fault! His stories are so much a wonderul part of Disney history that there is an attraction built around them at both US themeparks. It is a shame that most children today won't be able to hear those wonderful stories or be able to relate to any of the stunning, hilarious scenes in the ride.

NotaGeek
07-21-2008, 01:04 AM
How much more positive can you get than a man of simple means giving a rich little boy love and understanding that all the money in the world can't buy? And, he does so knowing that it could anger those in a position over him and cause him dire consequences. He is honorable beyond a fault! His stories are so much a wonderul part of Disney history that there is an attraction built around them at both US themeparks. It is a shame that most children today won't be able to hear those wonderful stories or be able to relate to any of the stunning, hilarious scenes in the ride.

The positive spin you are putting on this movie doesn't change what is intrinsically wrong with how Uncle Remus is portrayed. The "Uncle Tom" type character is offensive and not a high point of American cinema.

Mickey91
07-21-2008, 05:51 PM
I just think it is a shame that some people can turn even the most simple and heartwarming stories into an offense.

Mrs Bus Driver
07-26-2008, 10:07 AM
The positive spin you are putting on this movie doesn't change what is intrinsically wrong with how Uncle Remus is portrayed. The "Uncle Tom" type character is offensive and not a high point of American cinema.
07-21-2008 03:20 AM
:ditto:

I find it hard to answer the posts that say this movie is heartwarming. Should the world revolve around one little boy? Does he lean to give to others who have spent so much time giving to him? Or is he the only one that matters? The movie seems to say that blacks are okay with being treated as less then whites and that poor white girls can go to rich kids parties and not be treated like poor white trash. Having grown up poor white trash I know that doesn't happen.

As my children have grown up I've had to explain the black crows in Dumbo and other things shown usually in older cartoons (not always Disney). I had my DD come home crying saying she wished she was white like me. My son had his own identity crisis trying to be more black then anybody until he found out that didn't really work for him. My children have had to learn to be themselves in a world that wants to stereotype them.

Most people don't notice the black crows or other things that happen everyday but it is there. Song of the South is more offensive then the black crows because you really can't overlook it.

RAIDER
07-28-2008, 07:12 AM
All i can say on this matter ...
How very sad the PC brigade stick their noses into for what it is ,
As this film that was made a very long time and made with love and care ,where basically the majority of like minded people see this as a good story with a good message for all :twocents::soapbox::shake:

ChipnDaleGal
07-28-2008, 08:22 AM
All i can say on this matter ...
How very sad the PC brigade stick their noses into for what it is ,
As this film that was made a very long time and made with love and care ,where basically the majority of like minded people see this as a good story with a good message for all :twocents::soapbox::shake:

I don't see it as a PC Brigade. Regardless of the songs or how much love it was made with, it still revolves around a theme that is offensive. It makes me cringe, and I am a middle aged white woman. I can only imagine what uncomfortable feelings it would bring up for people of color. It is one of my mother's favorite Disney movies, she just loves the music, but she understands and supports why it would never be released.

RAIDER
07-28-2008, 10:12 AM
I don't see it as a PC Brigade. Regardless of the songs or how much love it was made with, it still revolves around a theme that is offensive. It makes me cringe, and I am a middle aged white woman. I can only imagine what uncomfortable feelings it would bring up for people of color. It is one of my mother's favorite Disney movies, she just loves the music, but she understands and supports why it would never be released.

I hear what your saying ...but its part of history that happened, and at some point nearly all affluent countries had a slave trade in their history . You cant just sweep that under the carpet .

For me a film such as this one can only have a positive AND if a youngster asks why there was slavery then you can explain the right from wrong whatever race they are ;).....

and again as many have voiced like
"Mickey91 I just think it is a shame that some people can turn even the most simple and heartwarming stories into an offense. "

NotaGeek
07-28-2008, 11:30 AM
The end of the story is that this movie is not being released by Disney any time soon. We can all agree that there are differing view points on whether or not Song of the South is offensive, and the only real opinion that matters is the Disney Legal department This topic has been discussed in full, and to prevent any offense to anyone in our INTERCOT family, I am closing this thread.

If new developments occur, the film gets released, or there is any official Disney news released we can open up the forum again, but in lieu of those happenings the moderators of this forum have agreed that at this point there is nothing more that can be added to the quality of this discussion since SOTS is sealed in the Disney Vault.

dntccc
02-16-2009, 05:30 PM
For those that visit WDW quite often, have any of you heard any news about a possible DVD release of the movie Song of the South?

bob6572
02-16-2009, 06:04 PM
Been told it will most likely never happen due to the racial sterotypes. The Alice In Wonderland DVD has some selected scenes from a holiday episode of Wonderful World Of Disney.

Stu29573
02-16-2009, 06:16 PM
The Disney Treasures DVD "Disneyland USA" also has some of Song of the South, albeit in black and white...

GrumpyFan
02-16-2009, 06:20 PM
This has to be one of THE MOST frequently asked questions concerning Disney. It was asked a couple of years ago at the shareholders meeting, and they pretty much side-stepped it. I think it's a movie that none of the execs at Disney really know what to do with. So, they just leave it sitting in the vault. I guess they figure the endless questions of when/if it will be released are better than the potential boycotts, threats and lawsuits that might follow. :(

thrillme
02-16-2009, 06:56 PM
Funny...When I watched it as a little girl all I saw was a kindly old gentleman telling some rather amuzing stories about a rabbit, a bear and a fox. He told this story to a young boy and girl whom he happened to meet on a path. He had a beautiful smile and a wonderful "zippidy do dah" song.

Even today that's all I see.

Disney is doing themselves quite a disservice by blocking this release.

NotaGeek
02-16-2009, 08:08 PM
Song of the South is not being released, and this topic has been discussed at length in previous threads. We have merged them all here, and if you read through, there are high emotions about this movie ... which is precisely why Disney doesn't release it. If the movie is released or there is any news about it we will open discussion.