Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

A film we don't talk about, a film TCM will never be able to air?


Recommended Posts

OK GGGGERALD  Let's get to the "facts"

 

The fact was, I never said anything about history books teaching about the "kindly old man always grinning".  I recall my history textbooks informing us about slavery in early American history, and connotated that with slavery shown in many movies seems to offend some people.

 

 

The"point" about the "Christmas spirit" is that it's typically thought of as "the spirit of giving"  and thus IN that "spirit"  NBC should be magnaminous enough to "give" other networks permission to show it as well.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

GGGGerald wrote:

 I would love to see this history book article about the kindly old man

who was always grinning, happy to be poor living in a shack. Not quite sure what school teaches that.

 

Well, gee, Gerald, all you had to do was ask! Because the textbooks being used by public schools statewide in Texas were teaching that very thing as recently as this year! Here you go!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/opinion/how-texas-teaches-history.html

 

Revisionist history much?? LOL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sharecropper in the south at that time weren't much better than slaves. They still couldn't just up and leave at will. They still had to sneak away in the middle of the night. Its not as if conditions changed the moment the civil war was over.

 

That is simply an era many do not wish to revisit. Its not really a political correctness issue. its simply a business decision. People look to classic film to be entertained. Not too many are tuning in to be depressed.

 

Warner Bros. caught a lot of heat when they released a box set of Bugs Bunny cartoons. And didn't notice all the older, rarely seen episodes with very negative stereotypes. There were lots of complaints and they ended up pulling the box set back and editting out those offense episodes then rereleasing them.

 

So to go along with the thread, those offensive episodes will probably never be seen on TCM or anywhere else for a while.

SOTS offensive? it's nothing but uncle remus interacting with two white children, some folksy stories illustrated with some animation and live-action.

 

and that's it!

 

 

if anything it's a happy children's film.

 

imo there is nothing in it overtly denigrating to african-americans at all.

 

 

the film is harmless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SOTS offensive? it's nothing but uncle remus interacting with two white children, some folksy stories illustrated with some animation and live-action.

 

and that's it!

 

 

if anything it's a happy children's film.

 

imo there is nothing in it overtly denigrating to african-americans at all.

 

 

the film is harmless.

 

I don't know about right now, but there used to be a website about 6 or 7 years ago that sold a compatible international DVD version of this movie to Americans.  The core problem I see is that this is an American movie, enjoyed by Americans in theaters in its time, people still watch it today, and Americans are about the only ones knowingly being deprived of it.  Talk about a conundrum.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about right now, but there used to be a website about 6 or 7 years ago that sold a compatible international DVD version of this movie to Americans.  The core problem I see is that this is an American movie, enjoyed by Americans in theaters in its time, people still watch it today, and Americans are about the only ones knowingly being deprived of it.  Talk about a conundrum.

I think most copies you find of the film come from a Japanese Laserdisc release via Disney....they are out there still, but you have to act fast if someone is selling it on say, ioffer or ecrater, Disney will find out quickly and shut them down...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most copies you find of the film come from a Japanese Laserdisc release via Disney....they are out there still, but you have to act fast if someone is selling it on say, ioffer or ecrater, Disney will find out quickly and shut them down...

 

So in certain cases, movie collecting has come down to a game of Whack-a-Mole.  Nice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So in certain cases, movie collecting has come down to a game of Whack-a-Mole.  Nice.

 

That is clearly the case with Song of the South as it relates to Disney;  they want this film to be forgotten.  

 

I understand why Disney would have this POV stickily based on risk assessment;  little to gain,  much to lose.   

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most copies you find of the film come from a Japanese Laserdisc release via Disney....they are out there still, but you have to act fast if someone is selling it on say, ioffer or ecrater, Disney will find out quickly and shut them down...

 

A library I used in Wisconsin when I lived there a few years ago had SONG OF THE SOUTH. I asked the woman at the reference desk how on earth they ever obtained a copy. She said they bought it from an Australian company that was legally licensed by Disney to sell it in Australia. She ordered it online, and the Australian company shipped it to Wisconsin. She said a lot of people had been asking to see it, so they used money to purchase a copy. She also said it was highly requested from other libraries in the county wishing to borrow it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

SOTS offensive? it's nothing but uncle remus interacting with two white children, some folksy stories illustrated with some animation and live-action.

 

and that's it!

 

 

if anything it's a happy children's film.

 

 

 

imo there is nothing in it overtly denigrating to african-americans at all.

 

 

the film is harmless.

 

I think if a particular ethnic group or race is offended by something, then they have the right to State what offends them.

 

Everyone has freedom of speech - - but unless you are in that particular race or ethnic group, you are not an authority on what would offend those particular people. Because you're not a member of that group.

 

 

Every ethnic group or racial entity has a right to be able to speak for themselves.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if a particular ethnic group or race is offended by something, then they have the right to State what offends them.

 

Everyone has freedom of speech - - but unless you are in that particular race or ethnic group, you are not an authority on what would offend those particular people. Because you're not a member of that group.

 

 

Every ethnic group or racial entity has a right to be able to speak for themselves.

 

Generally speaking, I agree. However I don't think one person can represent all the views in a single race or ethnic group, because not everyone who is a certain race feels the same way on each issue.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if a particular ethnic group or race is offended by something, then they have the right to State what offends them.

 

Everyone has freedom of speech - - but unless you are in that particular race or ethnic group, you are not an authority on what would offend those particular people. Because you're not a member of that group.

 

 

Every ethnic group or racial entity has a right to be able to speak for themselves.

 

Of course everyone has a right to say they have been offended,  to complain,  to even boycott;  I just wish the media companies would ignore them. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course everyone has a right to say they have been offended,  to complain,  to even boycott;  I just wish the media companies would ignore them. 

 

Ever notice that either one or more of the first four or five stories you see or hear on/in the news now days is/are comprised of somebody getting their feelings hurt by something someone else has said within the last 24 hours?

 

Yep! "News" sure travels fast now days, don't it?!

 

(...yeah, I hear ya, James...BOY, do I hear ya!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have guessed the first four stories are all police blotter stories, with the mug shots released by the police to try to embarrass the arrestees.

 

(Except on the rare occasion a cop gets arrested.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, I agree. However I don't think one person can represent all the views in a single race or ethnic group, because not everyone who is a certain race feels the same way on each issue.

TB-- I absolutely agree with you, but I was talking about something different.

 

 

I thought I Stated myself clearly. But I will try and be even more clear.

 

What I'm saying is that anybody in any particular race or ethnic group can speak for that race or ethnic group from their Viewpoint.

 

 

However, people who are NOT in that race or that ethnic group have NO right to speak for that race or ethnic group. As if they know more about that race or ethnic group, than the people who are actually in that race or ethnic group know about themselves.

 

In America everyone has freedom of speech.

 

 

 

However, if you are not a member of that race or that ethnic group, then you really don't know what it's like to be that person, and have their feelings or their historical background-- even if you have a PhD in the subject.

 

So, I think that it's insulting for people who are outside of these groups to think they know more about being in the groups than those group members themselves--i.e. what members in the group might find personally reprehensible.

 

 

I would say it's a form of bigotry- - denigrating the experiences of a people as not being significant or unique or individual enough for self-expression.

 

I bet we've all had a friend or relative who thinks they know more about you than you know about yourself, or they want to tell you what you are or what you should be doing when you haven't even asked for their advice.

 

Nobody likes that, do they?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course everyone has a right to say they have been offended, to complain, to even boycott; I just wish the media companies would ignore them.

I think the only reason they pay attention has to do with money. If the group that has been offended is one of their top customers then they have to pay attention.

 

I think the model was Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks's bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955.

 

I'm sure they were boycotts before that, but this is so famous and taught in the public schools that almost everybody is aware of it.

 

Of course, another reason might be fear of a lawsuit. But if that's the case, they must be doing something wrong anyway.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be great if we could ask TCM management (and they would reply) if there is some specific reason why those Monogram films are NOT shown. 

 

I really hope it isn't because of PC reasons;  But if TCM feels those are legit concerns have an intro that shows that TCM is sensitive to such concerns.  BUT SHOW THE FILMS! 

I'm pretty sure the Monogram Charlie Chan films were actually on earlier this year, in prime time even. I believe it was part of a day or month long series of serials and B film series (it may have been around the day they showed a lot of old comic book serials, it was in March or April I believe.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a re-release of Song of the South sometime in the early '70s before attitudes about the film changed to the point where they decided it was necessary to bury it forever. Disney used to constantly be reissuing their famous films back into theaters in those years. I also saw Mary PoppinsThe Jungle BookDumboPinocchioBambiThe Swiss Family Robinson, Sleeping BeautyCinderella, Herbie the Love Bug and maybe a couple of others that way before there was such a thing as home video. All films that came out when I was an infant or before I was born, but I was lucky enough to be a child in an era where I could see them in the theater anyway. Seemed like there was always at least one Disney film playing at the larger of the two theaters in my hometown (it had a whopping six screens, the other theater only two) between oh about 1973-1978. And that's in a addition to all the live action new Disney product that was simultaneously being released, all your 70s Herbies and Tim Conway/Don Knotts stuff and Gus, etc. I would say maybe one out of every two movies I saw in the theater was a Disney movie until Star Wars came out and almost overnight I decided I was too sophisticated for that kiddie stuff.

 

Anyway, being no more than six or seven years old when I saw Song of the South and never seeing it again, I have pretty fuzzy memories of it. I enjoyed the film enough that soon after my parents bought me a story-picture book of the film, and I have clearer memories of it than the actual film, since I'm sure I re-read it a thousand times over a handful of years. 

 

Could anyone with clearer memories of the film than me shed some light on what specifically Disney fears people will find so controversial about it? It surely can't just be the fact that slavery once existed. Nipkow says there's nothing offensive at all, but there must be something. How do the animated characters talk? Do they all sound like Amos n'Andy? I was thinking maybe that was part of the problem. I don't really remember now from my childhood if the animated characters just have stereotypical Southern voices or the kinds of specifically black affectations that make us cringe now when we see blackface numbers on TCM.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to Disney World years ago...and it seems like all the rides or areas of the theme park are taken from a famous Disney character,or movie.

 

I don't remember ever seeing anything to do with Uncle Remus at Disney World.

 

I was just wondering if maybe somebody has seen something about Uncle Remus at Disneyland or Disneyworld?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a re-release of Song of the South sometime in the early '70s before attitudes about the film changed to the point where they decided it was necessary to bury it forever. Disney used to constantly be reissuing their famous films back into theaters in those years. I also saw Mary PoppinsThe Jungle BookDumboPinocchioBambiThe Swiss Family Robinson, Sleeping BeautyCinderella, Herbie the Love Bug and maybe a couple of others that way before there was such a thing as home video. All films that came out when I was an infant or before I was born, but I was lucky enough to be a child in an era where I could see them in the theater anyway. Seemed like there was always at least one Disney film playing at the larger of the two theaters in my hometown (it had a whopping six screens, the other theater only two) between oh about 1973-1978. And that's in a addition to all the live action new Disney product that was simultaneously being released, all your 70s Herbies and Tim Conway/Don Knotts stuff and Gus, etc. I would say maybe one out of every two movies I saw in the theater was a Disney movie until Star Wars came out and almost overnight I decided I was too sophisticated for that kiddie stuff.

 

Anyway, being no more than six or seven years old when I saw Song of the South and never seeing it again, I have pretty fuzzy memories of it. I enjoyed the film enough that soon after my parents bought me a story-picture book of the film, and I have clearer memories of it than the actual film, since I'm sure I re-read it a thousand times over a handful of years. 

 

Could anyone with clearer memories of the film than me shed some light on what specifically Disney fears people will find so controversial about it? It surely can't just be the fact that slavery once existed. Nipkow says there's nothing offensive at all, but there must be something. How do the animated characters talk? Do they all sound like Amos n'Andy? I was thinking maybe that was part of the problem. I don't really remember now from my childhood if the animated characters just have stereotypical Southern voices or the kinds of specifically black affectations that make us cringe now when we see blackface numbers on TCM.

 

African American activist group have complained about the film since it was released.   As Princess of Tab said,  one can't say what should offend someone or not;  I.e. we need to take people at their word when they say they are offended (even if we don't understand why or are NOT offended ourselves). 

 

Disney is a major corporation that markets a lot of different products like movies and their theme parks and they want to market to the African American community.     Why take the risk of negative press by releasing the film and making a few dollars verses the vast marketing opportunity of Disney's current products to the African American community.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like people are interested in discussing SONG OF THE SOUTH. In my original post, I was focusing on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But I guess this discussion includes a variety of films TCM cannot air. 

 

Another one is MGM's precode classic LETTY LYNTON. The Joan Crawford - Robert Montgomery picture has been tied up in the courts for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like people are interested in discussing SONG OF THE SOUTH. In my original post, I was focusing on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But I guess this discussion includes a variety of films TCM cannot air. 

 

 

Well, that's because the IAWL question was answered early on--Paramount.  Pretty much.

There were more questions to ask about the "forbidden" films and whether or not they show.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

TB-- I absolutely agree with you, but I was talking about something different.

 

 

I thought I Stated myself clearly. But I will try and be even more clear.

 

What I'm saying is that anybody in any particular race or ethnic group can speak for that race or ethnic group from their Viewpoint.

 

 

However, people who are NOT in that race or that ethnic group have NO right to speak for that race or ethnic group. As if they know more about that race or ethnic group, than the people who are actually in that race or ethnic group know about themselves.

 

In America everyone has freedom of speech.

So, are you saying "we" have or don't have freedom of speech?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like people are interested in discussing SONG OF THE SOUTH. In my original post, I was focusing on IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. But I guess this discussion includes a variety of films TCM cannot air. 

 

Another one is MGM's precode classic LETTY LYNTON. The Joan Crawford - Robert Montgomery picture has been tied up in the courts for years.

 

It's funny, but other films whose rights were tied up forever, like The Story of Temple Drake were cleared up (I assume money fixed that rights issue) but Letty Lyton and Bulldog Drummond Strikes Back (which you can find, and sadly it's a terrible movie, IMHO) still are in limbo....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...