Not Going To Release Song of the South!

[kodiak]

Its just about people getting all hot and bothered over something that needs to be taken at face value and enjoyed. I say enough. the movie isnt even about slaves. but people assume it is before even seeing it. they also get offended by the humble, happy, down to earth way of the characters. if its an old white prospector saying things like howdy folks, telling stories, its ok. but if we have a happy old black guy telling white kids stories... now thats a big deal. people need to get over it. I dont own a slave. I havent ever owned a slave. neither have any of you. none of us have ever been slaves. nor our parents or grandparents. we say that we want equality so... ready... here... take it. we are equal. so leave it be already! why, if we are equal, do certain groups expect special consideration? do white guys get to protest deliverance? do indians get to protest last of the mohicans? I think we all just need to get over ourselves and try to enjoy a really classic, really touching film. its a shame that it may never be seen in out country again.

[ShrunkenNed]

Originally Posted by daddyb

Take a look at this:

http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=141716
The Adventures of Brer Rabbit

Wayne Brady
Danny Glover
D.L. Hughley
Wanda Sykes
Debra Wilson

Now, I haven't seen THIS movie yet (although it's added to my Netflix queue) but it seems like an awful lot of african-americans have contributed to this retelling of Uncle Remus' tales... so it probably isn't the tales themselves that are so objectionable (as was previously argued), is it?

The tales themselves, from what I understand anyway, are tales of Brer Rabbit (the black man) overcoming and tricking Brer Fox and Brer Bear (the oppressive white man). The contreversy comes from the portrayals in the live action sequences.

Too bad - I'd really like to see it again and watch it objectively. But not through piracy.

[PeoplemoverMatt]

^ If that's true then that's racism just as bad. It can't be slammed one way and honored the other way, that's really screwy.

-- PMM

[Chatterbug]

I have a John Lennon Song stuck in my head now. "Imagine all the people
living for today..."

[ShrunkenNed]

Originally Posted by PeoplemoverMatt

^ If that's true then that's racism just as bad. It can't be slammed one way and honored the other way, that's really screwy.

-- PMM

Ahhh.... But I didn't say all white people, now did I???? I said the OPRESSIVE white man, meaning those who were racist and predjudiced. Not all whites were racist, but many still were, and this was directed towards them. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my statement, and for that, I apologize.

Originally Posted by chatterbug200021

I have a John Lennon Song stuck in my head now. "Imagine all the people
living for today..."

[CoryTheRaven]

People writing and telling stories about resistance to their oppressors is a valid and time-honored tradition. The best example of it is the Bible, an overwhelming majority of which is the writings of slaves against the power structures that dominate them (the Torah, the Psalms, and the whole New Testament especially).

The problem that crops up with accusations of reverse racism is that, while indeed we should all be equal, the fact is that we're not all equal. White Euro-North American males are still "more equal" than anyone else... We still get the best opportunities for the best jobs with the best pay in the most affluent society that has ever existed. In the case of slave literature like the Uncle Remus stories or the Psalms, that inequality is so thuroughly blatant that it not only invites, but I feel demands, literary protest.

This doesn't mean that every criticism of whitey is devoid of racism, but I think we should be careful about whining "reverse racism", lest people stop paying attention when a real wolf is stalking the flock. As everyone keeps noting: consider the context. Is it wrong for an oppressed group to write literature and/or tell stories that undermine the power of their oppressors?

[DaddyB]

What does "living for today" have to do with racism and "song of the south"???

"Living for today" means living with the moral, ethical and personal standards that you've chosen for any given moment. It has nothing to do with all men being created equal...
--------------------------------------Double post added here.

Originally Posted by ShrunkenNed

The tales themselves, from what I understand anyway, are tales of Brer Rabbit (the black man) overcoming and tricking Brer Fox and Brer Bear (the oppressive white man). The contreversy comes from the portrayals in the live action sequences.

Brer Fox and Brer Bear are not portraying white men to brer rabbits black man. If you were able to watch the movie again, you'd see how far off that is. Many have a problem with how Brer Bear and Fox are portrayed and say that those roles are the most perversly stereotypical and bigoted in the movie.

[ShrunkenNed]

Originally Posted by daddyb

Brer Fox and Brer Bear are not portraying white men to brer rabbits black man. If you were able to watch the movie again, you'd see how far off that is. Many have a problem with how Brer Bear and Fox are portrayed and say that those roles are the most perversly stereotypical and bigoted in the movie.

OK... I get your point. I was talking more about the stories than the movie. And I was citing information on those from David Koenig's (Not really a historian), "Mouse Under Glass."

This is why I stated that this is my understanding of the tales.

[Ezra]

The movie doesn't portray the Br'er charachters along racial lines, but the Harris' original Remus stories certainly do. They're really thinly veiled commentaries on racial divisions and how to get along in them. These stories really are morality tales.

It's not a totally one-sided affair, either. Br'er Rabbit doesn't always come out on top in those stories. On the one hand Rabbit is a wiley trickster, always finding ways to stick it to the man. On the other hand, because he's got nothing to loose, he also has a careless attitude and tends to be lazy. He's not clearly always in the right.

And while Br'er Fox represents the worst the man has to offer, Br'er Bear is somewhat more sympathetic. He's in collusion with Fox because he's just too complacent, dim, and ignorant to do anything else. He's an Uncle Tom (of either race) who just doesn't see how wrong the situation really is. But he's stronger than the Fox, so there's always the hope that he'll wise up and put an end to all this nonsesne. This world has alot more Bears than Foxes.

Anyway, the movie does not portray it that way at all, but the books do. Most critics of the movie attack it because downplays the racial tension too much. The movie seems to imply that the racial tension just magically disolved right after the Civil War. In the movie, all the conflict between Johnny's mother and his friends is about materialism and class, not race. Johnny, don't you hang out with those poor people!

That's not how things were in 1946! That's how they are today! Now it's all about who's tendy and who's trashy. Who's got class and who is just so ghetto.

When did ghetto become an adjective?

[Kileli]

i have been wanting to see that movie forever, but i cant find it and i am not happy it will not be realeased. anyone know where i can find the movie on video?

[Chris]

This thread is now closed as we've gotten off-topic and the debates are getting heated. If you have a question or concern, please contact me privately. Thank You.