Not Going To Release Song of the South!

[jbuck]

well its not quite the Song of the South but Disney is relesing "The Adventures od Brer Rabbit" soon :)

[SplashMountain]

Originally Posted by jbuck

well its not quite the Song of the South but Disney is relesing "The Adventures od Brer Rabbit" soon :)

I thought that was a different company releasing it?

[Brer Rabbit]

Universal is releasing The Adventures of Brer Rabbit, not disney.

[jbuck]

oh...well its getting released though :)

[The_real_simmer_3]

^Well, it's a lot different, I got an E-mail from SOTS Yahoo! Discussion Group Showing the date and artwork of said DVD, and, judging from my opinion, it looked horrible.

[emma15677]

Ok, who is current chairperson of The Walt Disney Company?

Bob Iger or Robert Iger?

[RollingBoulder]

^ Bob is just the short version of Robert, so it works either way. I usually hear him referred to as Bob though.

[emma15677]

How can Bob be short for Robert? I mean, they don't sound that similar.

I've been wanting to buy Song of The South from eBay, but the bids just get so high.

[RollingBoulder]

Originally Posted by emma15677

How can Bob be short for Robert? I mean, they don't sound that similar.

I'm honestly not really sure why it's like that. I'm sure there is some reasoning behind it, I just haven't looked into it.

[CoryTheRaven]

Well, I think there's a lot to be said for the fact that the film has been dogged by controversy since day 1.

As I recall (having seen it back in my youth) and as I have been reading up on it, the problem with The Song of the South's portrayal of slavery is the same with Disney's portrayal of anything: it is a watered down, politically correct, sanitized version of things. Disney isn't really at fault for having portrayed idilic master-slave relations in the Southern US, since Disney portrays idilic everything. Any relation a Disney product has to "hard facts" is almost coincidental.

The problem is that this idilic portrayal is grossly offensive to many people whose ancestors actually did suffer through that era (and who still suffer from social and systemic racism today). And white people telling these black people that they shouldn't be offended doesn't solve the problem. They have a right to be offended.

Personally, I think that they should just release the cartoon portions if they aren't particularly offensive portrayals of thinly-veiled African-Americans (as I recall, Brer Rabbit is kind of a Buckwheat sort of character). Otherwise, I would release the movie as a Walt Disney Treasures, with significant exposition as a cultural artifact. It doesn't deserve to be lost, but it shouldn't really just be left open to the uncritical gaze of children.

What I find really interesting about this is how other blatantly racist Disney movies fall under the radar because they are enshrined as "classics". Like, it's painful to say, but I would be extremely hesitant to show Peter Pan to a child because of it's ruthlessly racist portrayal of Native Americans. Yes even the creators acknowledge that the Native Americans in Neverland were blatant charicatures, but that doesn't excuse it. The children watching it or Song of the South won't know that, and don't have the critical thinking skills or the education to make proper judgements about it.

Ah, but then ow can I argue about the potential damage if it didn't affect me that baddly? I don't know... I actually never realized how racist Peter Pan was until I watched again for the first time about a year or two ago. I almost couldn't pick my jaw up off the floor when "What Made the Red Man Red" finished. But then, a post-secondary liberal arts education goes a long way.

[ShrunkenNed]

Originally Posted by CoryTheRaven

Well, I think there's a lot to be said for the fact that the film has been dogged by controversy since day 1.

As I recall (having seen it back in my youth) and as I have been reading up on it, the problem with The Song of the South's portrayal of slavery is the same with Disney's portrayal of anything: it is a watered down, politically correct, sanitized version of things. Disney isn't really at fault for having portrayed idilic master-slave relations in the Southern US, since Disney portrays idilic everything. Any relation a Disney product has to "hard facts" is almost coincidental.

The problem is that this idilic portrayal is grossly offensive to many people whose ancestors actually did suffer through that era (and who still suffer from social and systemic racism today). And white people telling these black people that they shouldn't be offended doesn't solve the problem. They have a right to be offended.

AAARRRGGHHH!!! Sorry Cory if I'm singling you out, because you're not the only person who's said it, but, for the benefit of those who have not read ALL POSTS on this thread:

SONG OF THE SOUTH TAKES PLACE POST CIVIL WAR!!! SLAVERY WAS ABOLISHED, AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO SLAVE-MASTER RELATIONSHIP!!!

Ok, I'll let everyone get on with their posts now...

[CoryTheRaven]

No worries.

The story takes place chronologically after the Civil War and the official abolition of slavery, but if a bunch of black people workin' away on a plantation in apparent servitude to white people isn't a portrayal of slavery, then I don't know what is. Ask yourself why people keep confusing that image for a master-slave relationship when at the time it is set, there "officially" is no slavery.

By the way, I did read all the posts in this thread, which is actually what prompted me to play Devil's Advocate. I saw the point about how it wasn't technically supposed to be a master-slave relationship. However, as a general rule, if it's technically not slavery, then it is slavery.

[Ezra]

Yes, it takes place after the Civil War, during The Restoration. The life of African Americans was far from idyllic, and there is resentment that Song of the South portrays no indication of that. There were former slaves who stayed on at their estates, continuing to work for food and shelter because they had no idea what else to do. The rough treatment they recieved previously did abate somewhat, because owners who couldn't afford to actually hire new help for pay, didn't want their former slaves to leave. It would spell economic disaster.

It was a tense, gruging relationship, followed soon after by the exploitative sharecropping arrangement. And when African Americans did have money, they had no idea what it's uses were. They were prey to carpetbaggers selling all sorts of useless snake-oil products. And there was always FEAR; of violent rebellion for the estate owners, and of lynching for the former slaves. Portraying even former slaves as happy is inapropriate.

While I agree with the criticism... c'mon people! this is a Disney film, it's not a documentary about The Restoration! Every awful detail possible about the aftermath of slavery doesn't have to be shoved into every film to make it appropriate. If I want to see a film loaded with all that baggage, I'll watch
To Kill a Mockingbird, or better yet Band of Angels (which is a great movie, by the way).

There were estates that had worked it all out amicably, those rich enough to afford to hire on all their workers for pay. This was very rare, but did happen. Maybe this was one of them? Of course there's nothing in the film to...
Wait, ...I don't want to start that whole trouble again! This is a Disney film! What more needs to be explained?!

[DaddyB]

I have the movie myself and it's no more racist than "Gone With The Wind". Possibly less so. To judge something on heresay (whether it's WDW's "Fantasmic!" or "Song Of The South") is in my book, foolishness.

Bob Iger was originally for releasing the movie onto DVD in the United States, but changed his mind after he actually watched the movie. And you might actually read his comments that were made at the shareholder's meeting before going off the deep end.

Statements like "I hate Bob Iger" over this seem to me to be just plain silly. Hate is a strong word that isn't used in my house. Neither is "stupid".

[Chatterbug]

Hmm...Who do we think of when we hear the words ..hard facts that created America?

Should we pave over the Civil War battle fields because we don't want to be reminded of slavery? There are many places all over the world that have brutal, embarrassing and other wise non- pleasant history. History is history, some good and some bad. Political correctness should not keep us from learning from the past. There are so many works of art, literature, music & architect that have reminders of tragic times should they be destroyed? Level the Pyramids? burn books of Tom Sayer by Mark Twain? I think not. There are times that I am glad people are concerned with political correctness other times it just doesn't make sense to me. I hope that in time this will not be an issue that Disney feels they have to be overly concerned with.