Song of the SOuth announcement


lilgerm

New Member
Maybe this has been discussed before, but the announcement of Song of the SOuth not being released anytime soon based on Iger's reaction to viewing it made me think of a few questions:

What scenes disturbed him?

And can't a tar baby be just that............................................a buch of tar with eyes that looks like a baby.

If people can't see just see that simplicity(I mean after all....it's just a cartoon)...then they have there own issues and distortions on how they see the world and their own thoughts of prejudice. Let them deal with that on their own and not rely on a movie studio to teel them how to live.

Believe me.....even it's worst critics want to see it again!
 

MrSmee

New Member
In general, the elements of the film are a bit touchy. While no racial slurs are uttered, the African-American characters are portrayed in a very derogatory manner. While some may argue that history can't be changed, that slaves were in fact owned on plantations; the characters all speak with poor knowledge of English grammar and diction. Not only do characters say things that don't make much literal sense, but it's often very difficult to understand them. Even Uncle Remus, kind as he may be, is pretty much a horrific stereotype.
In Remus's stories, the characters are pretty much the same as the African-Americans in the real word; they all speak broken, uneducated English.

It's worth noting that the black cast, while speaking stereotypically, sing with the harmonics and vocal styles of a trained Caucasian chorus of the 1940s...

And no, a Tar Baby really can't just be a baby made out of tar. While many people may not be familiar with the definition of this racial slur, there are more that probably are. Taking a derogatory name literally doesn't really take away its connotations. Note the change from film to attraction while riding Splash Mountain when Br'er Rabbit gets stuck in the honey instead.

On another note, fans of the story will be glad to hear that Br'er Fox should be returning to the parks after a long hiatus to greet guests and sign autographs.

-J
 

Dirk

Member
Let me try to word this cautiously - if The Walt Disney Company through its CEO decided not to release Song of South due to its racial "problematic" content and the way afro-americans are depicted, how can The Walt Disney Company explain that it has released the same movie with the same content and the same stereotypes outside the USA and has licensed it e.g. in Germany for TV broadcast?

If one thinks that a movie must be censored because of its content as derogatory toward a certain etnic group, I do not really see why it would be OK to showcase the same movie somewhere else, only because the audience there might not as easily pick up some of the references in the movie.

To me this pretty much still looks like a business decision. While no major backlash from lobbying groups is expected if the product is offered outside the US, a backlash which could hurt the image and the bottom line is feared in the US.

In the end a decision based on the later reasoning is nothing to be opposed after all the management is supposed to keep the economic future of the company in mind and not only the interest of fans. BUT would the lobbying groups really attack TWDC for issuing the movie on DVD if appropriate documentary material is included? After all it is the product of its times and not made nowadays.



Yours
Dirk
 

X-S Tech

Active Member
Well it's not that Disney thinks that the portrayal IS derogotory (sp?), so much as they are just realistically aware that there will be problems with releasing it in the US. Just because people get mad about something doesn't mean the something they get mad about is worth getting mad about.... see? Simple.

But what do I know. I'm a white male age 18-35. Nobody listens to me anymore.
 

X-S Tech

Active Member
What is derogotory (I'm just not gonna spell that right), about depicting blacks speaking with poor grammar when they spend their whole lives working on a plantation? I doubt any plantation workers, white or black had much education back then. Showing that in a film, is by no means mean spirited or poor taste.

Uncle Remus may be a Stereotype, but "horrific"?
 

Dr. Know

Member
Its a good thing Disney doesn't own the publishing rights to Huckleberry Finn, or Mark Twain's novel would be out of print and unavailable -- at least in the U.S.A. Sure these works are loaded with ethnic stereotypes, but they are of historical importance, and should be made available at the very least so younger people can understand how such themes and characters infiltrated American literature and film culture well into the 20th century.
 

lilgerm

New Member
I wonder what the The Walt Disney Company says when a child asks their parents where the characters on Splash Mountain came from.

I am of Italian-American descent and view shows like the Sopranos with the notion that some Italian-Americans DO act like they are portrayed.

Even though it shows them being liars and murderers...
 
I would love to hear what somebody like Oprah thinks about the movie. More people seem to value her opinion then probably anybody else in this country. If she came out and said it was ok to release the movie it would probably be the number one selling DVD of the year.
 

MrSmee

New Member
As far as language goes, there is nothing wrong with showing the plantation workers as uneducated. It's simply the way it's handled.
In order to convey this difference of class to the film's viewers, it wasn't enough to simply use the word "ain't" and slur one's diction. A lot of the potentially offensive stereotypical dialogue comes from Toby (I believe that's his name,) the young boy. Pretty much everything he does or says is played for comedic value; and thus his language is completely over the top.

Consider the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction debate from years ago. People were upset that Disney showed the pirates chasing the women. Everyone else argued "But that's what pirates DID!" However, the counter-argument made sense as well: "True, but why does Disney need to showcase and glorify that?"
Had Song of the South's dialogue been written by someone who actually had an understanding of how the ethic minorities talked back in those days, the whole thing might've seemed a little less silly.

I'm not saying the only issue with the film is the stereotypical language. But apart from the blatant racism (Tar Baby, for instance,) it's one of the things that stands out to me as a potential problem.

Lilgerm asked what happens when children ask their parents where the characters on Splash Mountain come from. While a large portion of the population has heard about this mysterious Disney movie that's never been released in the states; a larger portion probably hasn't. In fact, most theme park visitors don't really even think about the fact that most of the attractions, shows, and characters are actually inspired by a Disney creation. Splash Mountain is thus often no different from Carousel of Progress: an attraction with animatronic characters that no one's really familiar with. Perhaps many guests assume that Splash Mountain is just an original creation for the parks.

-J
 
I think it is a dumb decision of Disney not to re-relase this movie. if they're going to NOT re-release things with "conotations" in them, then they should go back and look at every one of their films released before the 1980's. I'm sure there are similar references made in more movies than just Song Of The South.
 
Ok, here's my 2 cents on the subject. Song of the South should indeed be released on dvd in the USA. Things to consider... It was made in such a very different era depicting a time of an even different era... society was the way it was when the film was made and its part of history...good or bad. The same arguement can be made for ...dare i say it...the Amos and Andy Tv show. CBS basically locked it up and threw away the key....all for fear of how re releasing such a show in this day and age... might backfire against them and show them as racist. Lets look at another example... Al Jolson in black face at the end of the movie the jazz singer. Here you have a historic first "talking" picture with a ending sequence that would not be dare shot today. Jump ahead 10 years or so... Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney doing blackface in Babes on Broadway..... Jump ahead another couple of years... Song of the South.... Jump ahead again...Amos and Andy.... and then.... BOOM the door shut. The Civil Rights movement was beginning...and the times were changing... History changes at this point as to how Hollywood would portray black americans... no more was it stephen fetchit. ... it was Shaft...It was Lady Sings the Blues...... Many a strong line of black entertainers proved that color....was no longer relevant in the modern day and age.... a struggle that you have to agree they still are in. Don't get me wrong...Great strides were made... but it will always be a struggle ...especially in the USA when history.... prior to the 1950's shows them..thanks a lot to hollywood... depicted stereotypically....and thanks to true history ...as slaves foreceably brought to this country. This is a foundation as to why Song of the South is so looked down upon. Even though characturing african americans in the film....or having them singing as if in a white chorus.... is not PC .... it is history.. cant be changed. Good or bad i dont think any film or tv show should be self censored by the studios... if you dont want to watch it... dont buy it. ... dont go see it in the theaters .... but let us decide. .. it is our choice...

ok im off my soapbox
 

Top