Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TopBilled

Disney's SONG OF THE SOUTH: a truly offensive musical?

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, Fearless Freep said:

For the record, I love Splash Mountain, at least the one at Disney World (I haven’t been to Disneyland), and, from what I understand, the animated portions are not considered as controversial as the live-action portions. However, the animated scenes do contain the infamous “Tar Baby,” so it’s not as though these segments are devoid of racial insensitivity and audiences probably will question where the characters came from, so having the rides with these controversial characters as the central theme seems confusing.

I went to Splash Mountain at Disneyland a couple of years ago. It didn't make sense to me either. I wondered if the average rider would know what the theme refers to or even if they did, whether they cared or not. I would have thought Disney would have taken down the ride by now since the movie source is deemed controversial and isn't available so the average Disney customer wouldn't even be able to make the connection. They're in the process of tearing down old rides and areas of the park right now in order to put in more modern rides to connect with the more recent films. Its affecting Fantasyland as a whole with their classic traditional rides and Splash Mountain is sort of between Adventureland and Fantasyland-the more traditional areas of the park. They could remove it (and from Disney World too) and it wouldn't make a difference except the ride itself being an iconic and still extremely popular ride like It's a Small World. Not because of the content of the source material. 

Granted, earlier this year or sometime last year, Disney announced they were removing scenarios and characters from Pirate's of the Caribbean- the wenches being sold I believe sue to heighten gender stereotype awareness and the #MeToo era awareness on sexual assault. Now, the inclusion of these scenes and characters make sense historically and I never connected it to the larger contemporary cultural movements or climate. But Disney is a corporation concerned first with money and if their customers are beginning to question images and come to new conclusions on gender in their media/culture and wish to complain/boycott, Disney will follow the money and get rid of the offense. I'm guessing not enough people have complained about Splash Mountain because the source isn't even spoken of available to the wider audience. Much less the Harris stories Song of the South is based on. I don't know if younger fans even know "Zippide Doo Dah" either. 

2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

, but about how films that were not originally considered offensive might now be no longer appropriate

I would be careful about saying this and going down this line of thinking. When you say "were not originally considered offensive" you have to remember that the movie companies didn't take into consideration the feelings of minorities. So you have to ask, to whom were the movies considered not offensive too? Because what a white audience perceived as innocent (you used this word above) or fun or harmless (if they were even thinking in any terms of racial sensitivity) would most likely have been totally different from what a black audience perceived about images, depictions, etc. I doubt the average white audience member in the 1940s  didn't even think on terms of offensiveness/racist because they probably didn't see a problem with it, they could have believed in the stereotypes themselves, or if they even thought something was stereotypical, simply didn't care.

A corporation like Disney or any other major movie corporation of the era both consumed stereotypical and/or racist imagery in media as well as perpetuated it in their media/film output. You even posted a photograph of African American picketers protesting the movie outside of the movie theater.  They apparently found the movie offensive. The movie was definitely deemed controversial and offensive then by African Americans. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this movie as a child. I thought it was a wonderful family movie. It is hard to believe that it would be so offensive to people. I have seen some great all African American movies on YouTube. They had wonderful actors and singers, and some good western movies. The African Americans help to settle the west and were great cowboys, horse wranglers along with other talents. It is my opinion that this was the way to introduce the African American in the true state of other people who are good and caring and were willing to be caring friends to children who needed some. As a child I never saw the color of the skin, I felt if I could trust that person or not and respected them. I had some wonderful African American child care persons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Brittany Ashley said:

I went to Splash Mountain at Disneyland a couple of years ago. It didn't make sense to me either. I wondered if the average rider would know what the theme refers to or even if they did, whether they cared or not. I would have thought Disney would have taken down the ride by now since the movie source is deemed controversial and isn't available so the average Disney customer wouldn't even be able to make the connection. They're in the process of tearing down old rides and areas of the park right now in order to put in more modern rides to connect with the more recent films. Its affecting Fantasyland as a whole with their classic traditional rides and Splash Mountain is sort of between Adventureland and Fantasyland-the more traditional areas of the park. They could remove it (and from Disney World too) and it wouldn't make a difference except the ride itself being an iconic and still extremely popular ride like It's a Small World. Not because of the content of the source material. 

Granted, earlier this year or sometime last year, Disney announced they were removing scenarios and characters from Pirate's of the Caribbean- the wenches being sold I believe sue to heighten gender stereotype awareness and the #MeToo era awareness on sexual assault. Now, the inclusion of these scenes and characters make sense historically and I never connected it to the larger contemporary cultural movements or climate. But Disney is a corporation concerned first with money and if their customers are beginning to question images and come to new conclusions on gender in their media/culture and wish to complain/boycott, Disney will follow the money and get rid of the offense. I'm guessing not enough people have complained about Splash Mountain because the source isn't even spoken of available to the wider audience. Much less the Harris stories Song of the South is based on. I don't know if younger fans even know "Zippide Doo Dah" either. 

I would be careful about saying this and going down this line of thinking. When you say "were not originally considered offensive" you have to remember that the movie companies didn't take into consideration the feelings of minorities. So you have to ask, to whom were the movies considered not offensive too? Because what a white audience perceived as innocent (you used this word above) or fun or harmless (if they were even thinking in any terms of racial sensitivity) would most likely have been totally different from what a black audience perceived about images, depictions, etc. I doubt the average white audience member in the 1940s  didn't even think on terms of offensiveness/racist because they probably didn't see a problem with it, they could have believed in the stereotypes themselves, or if they even thought something was stereotypical, simply didn't care.

A corporation like Disney or any other major movie corporation of the era both consumed stereotypical and/or racist imagery in media as well as perpetuated it in their media/film output. You even posted a photograph of African American picketers protesting the movie outside of the movie theater.  They apparently found the movie offensive. The movie was definitely deemed controversial and offensive then by African Americans. 

Thanks for the reply. But it was not deemed controversial or offensive by all African Americans in 1946 or else Baskett and McDaniel would have turned their roles down and would not have done it.

It feels to me as if you're over generalizing things. When you tell me to be careful I will try not to feel scolded. LOL Though I don't think you need to caution anyone about anything, really.

I included the photo of the picketers to show the different sides of the issue. I am not on any one side of it. But yes I do think there was an innocence in 1946 that seems hard to believe now. Disney definitely felt the NAACP was making too big a deal of it and it did not stop him from getting the movie out to the public for decades. I also think he pushed Baskett for an Oscar to show the NAACP there was merit in the film and in Baskett's work, and by honoring the picture in that way, it was something good which did not need to be pulled. Was Disney wrong? That's part of the debate obviously. There were several things at play simultaneously.

Now Brittany, one major thing you are failing to take into account is that some audience members, then and now, are biracial and multiracial. That's why I say you are over generalizing because it seems to me you are making this a black and white issue. But it's a mixture of black and white, literally, with a lot of gray in the middle.

I find it annoying how there are people in today's society who cannot talk about race without getting emotional. I really feel in my gut there is no real discussion about race going on anywhere because it's become such a polarizing topic thanks to the media's bastardization of the issues. And so what we have is a society where paranoia, extreme sensitivity and a lack of objectivity are occurring and solutions about race-related problems are not being found. My opinion. 

I thought about Larry's earlier comment where he said the film should be made available. Perhaps Larry is saying that as a way of countering censorship, I don't know. In my view of this, SONG OF THE SOUTH should be made available because it's a form of entertainment. Pure and simple. And each person should decide for himself or herself without these socio-political encumbrances whether or not it's entertainment they want to pay to see.

That should not be dictated by groups putting economic pressure on the company to ban or suppress the product. Banning or suppressing SONG OF THE SOUTH in 2018 is just a present-day form of trying to put the production code back into effect. In this case the product was already made but we have people trying to enforce a "code" about it retroactively.

Also once the individual has watched it, then he or she should be able to judge it on its own merits and not be made to feel like a racist if they happened to like it. As I said earlier in the thread, it was very liberating for me to finally watch this "forbidden" Hollywood movie.

I watched it then judged it and applied my own critical thinking skills on it without any one else's terms infringing on my space as a viewer. That's how it should be for everyone. The NAACP did not stop my library for making it available and the NAACP did not stop me from seeing it. Roger Ebert's concerns that my brain might be made to hate black people by seeing it did not stop me from seeing it.

Flipping it around and looking at it from the reverse angle-- people who enjoy the movie did not encourage me to see it. I saw it because it's a part of motion picture history that I should be able to access. I am the one who stops myself from seeing a film if I start to watch something and find that what's on screen goes against my values. That's my power as a viewer and I don't give that power to anyone else. I reserve it for myself for every single film that's ever been made. I would never caution anyone on what they can see or what they can say about what they've seen. Children get cautioned. Adults do not need to be cautioned. It's not my place to caution any other free thinking adult about anything related to a piece of Hollywood entertainment. Thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

But it was not deemed controversial or offensive by all African Americans in 1946 or else Baskett and McDaniel would have turned their roles down and would not have done it.

This is true. With anything there will be difference of opinion. However,that doesn't negate the fact that both McDaniel and Baskett were criticized for their performances and decisions to take roles in Gone With the Wind and Song of the South respectively. I would suggest looking into that because there was debate and controversy among people within the African American community over both films and the performances. I agree with you that things definitely have shades of gray and there are various sides to any issue. But it does sound like you are dismissing valid criticisms many people within the community made at the time. Critique has to be considered too.

3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

I find it annoying how there are people in today's society who cannot talk about race without getting emotional. I really feel in my gut there is no real discussion about race going on anywhere because it's become such a polarizing topic thanks to the media's bastardization of the issues. And so what we have is a society where paranoia, extreme sensitivity and a lack of objectivity are occurring and solutions about race-related problems are not being found. My opinion. 

And I find it condescending, if not insulting, to just sum up racial discussions being annoying. It is very dismissive and doesn't take into consideration the feelings of others. And its a very entitled attitude to only think of yourself when giving your opinion about racial discussion.Yes the topic of "Race" will always be emotional and sensitive because race and issues surrounding it affect individuals deeply. I don't understand how you can be so flippant about that reality, even if you are not affected emotionally by it. And dismissing human emotion is a poor suggestion for engaging or beginning any serious conversation regarding race and history. Race has always been a polarizing subject because of the way race and racism has been used either to privilege or oppress groups of people. The very fact there was legal and literal separation between black and white people for decades speaks to this. This isn't my opinion but rather the hard truth of history. Acknowledge that for what it is.So this isn't anything new which is why I disagree with your use of the word "become". Before any solutions can be made, you (the general you) need to understand fully why there is/was a race problem in the first place and place concepts and reality in their historical accuracy. You don't have to agree, however don't just dismiss someone's emotion because you feel they're not being objective enough for your liking. Listen to them with empathy first. 

By the way, I fail to see how sensitivity regarding race and discussing it, is (and is perceived to be) a negative thing. 

 

3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

In my view of this, SONG OF THE SOUTH should be made available because it's a form of entertainment. Pure and simple. And each person should decide for himself or herself without these socio-political encumbrances whether or not it's entertainment they want to pay to see.

That should not be dictated by groups putting economic pressure on the company to ban or suppress the product. Banning or suppressing SONG OF THE SOUTH in 2018 is just a present-day form of trying to put the production code back into effect. In this case the product was already made but we have people trying to enforce a "code" about it retroactively.

I agree with you that the individual consumer has the right to decide whether they want to watch something and form their own opinion on it. And since you brought up the Production Code, the movie studios censored the films themselves and circulated internal industry censorship guidelines themselves so that outside forces couldn't dictate the content. They figured that if there was mounting backlash from customers and the government getting involved then they would be better off doing it themselves. They were trying to protect their investments and control their own product and protect their corporate reputation because they still needed people to buy from them. If the industry did not change the content of movies, then profits would have been affected negatively which was happening.  

Same thing with Disney. The company understands the force of the market and what they could lose profit by wise releasing it because they know the reaction it would receive. Consumers drive the culture as well as decide what to accept or reject. Businesses have to follow the demands of their customers so they can survive. With SOTS its not about enforcing any code. Because like with the studios of the '30s, they're trying to stay in business and not do anything that could affect their wallets. Its the nature of business whether you agree/like it or not. 

Besides, as far as Disney goes, they're branding themselves as a company which prides itself in progressive values, diversity and inclusion. They're not stupid. The current executives know very well the history and the criticisms that have been lobbed at Disney movies over the years not just about racial stereotyping but gender roles (the princess stuff). They see this is the mood of the culture and what customers and Disney fans want and have come to expect from the company. Recent movies like Coco and Moana are culturally sensitive depictions of Mexican and Polynesian culture and heritage respectively. Frozen isn't the traditional fairytale romance of olden days and Elsa is seen as a feminist role model for little girls. Zootopia is an allegory about prejudice and racial (in)tolerance using animals to appeal to kids but with subject matter that appeals to adults. All four films were major hits, critical faves and Oscar nominated in their years. Disney knows where their bread is buttered. 

My point is a company that wants to brand themselves as culturally aware because fans demand products that reflect their values precisely because the same company has faced criticism in how people were represented, ignored or portrayed is not going to do anything that affects their profits.Being seen as going backwards (which releasing SOTS will be seen that way) will affect them negatively Releasing SOTS now would seem hypocritical and the controversy alone is something they want to avoid.

Think like an executive of a billion dollar corporation, not just yourself with your personal views. Again,I agree that adults have the right to decide what they want to watch and have the intelligence to form their own opinions.  But you're not taking into consideration the nature of business in your arguments. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think there’s anything in Song of the South that’s potentially offensive moreso than in Gone with the Wind, The Jazz Singer, or certainly the (to me) unwatchable Birth of a Nation. And these are all widely available to enjoy or analyse or be offended by and to form your own opinion about. I think you are right in that the issue is that it’s a Disney movie. If you get mad at David Selznick or MGM or WB, who cares? But that Disney name is everything to that company and it can’t be associated with anything even borderline offensive. Think of the brief edits (less than 1 minute) to remove racially stereotyped characters in Fantasia. So we won’t be seeing SOTS anytime soon. I saw it in the theater when I was a kid, and it seemed charming and pretty juvenile to me then. And the Technicolor photography was eye-popping. I don’t know how I’d feel today since I haven’t seen it since 1972. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would hope at some point they would release this film. Other countries have so I was able to get a laserdisc of it many years ago. I love this film with the live action and the animation mixed in. The actors and actresses did such a marvelous job it is a shame that people will not be able to see their wonderful performances. The songs are delightful and available in Disney sing along videos. Disney please think about the performers and what they did in the film. They deserve to have their works viewed.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a valid question would be “Whether the film was seen as offensive at the time it was produced and released?”  If not, why all the gnashing of teeth in present time.  One should view almost everything in the context of the time past, not by standards of the current day.  I feel the same way about black face and minstrel performances.  Right before the War Between the States, minstrel shows were very popular in both North and South, probably moreso in the North, and not viewed as particularly controversial, even though white performers made fun of black characteristics and blacks did the same of whites.  At the end of the day, it was what it was, and it serves no legitimate purpose to either suppress or apologize for the art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some guy made a Youtube article on the 15 most racist films of all time (which I recently watched because of the discussion we had on blackface in films), and this was one of them.  Walt Disney a racist?  C'mon.  The black actor James Baskett, who played Uncle Remus, was given an honorary Oscar for the warmth he brought to the role. Stereotyping isn't always racist, or sexist.  It can be an accurate portrayal.  I'm not saying this film is or isn't (as I haven't seen it), but when speaking of racism you need to consider intent.  Sometimes claims of racism, using today's politically correct values, go too far.     

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alicia Malone's Filmstruck podcast brought up this film. A month or two a ago she had a panel discussing art versus artist and how we view view films in the #metoo era. The podcast also turned to issues of race and depiction of race in film, and Song of the South was discussed.  The panel largely agreed that the film is incredibly offensive, but some panelists mention the necessity of seeing such films to see how and why such art is created.  I haven't listened to the podcast in a while, but I believe they drew parallels to Birth of a Nation.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the NAACP has objected to the film's stereotyping since its initial release, and the film has not been suppressed -- Disney chose to withdraw it from its American market.  I think it is problematic for white audiences to determine what is offensive and hurtful to minority people (I really don't mean to point fingers here, just to voice a general opinion).  I think it is important to respect the feelings of minority groups, but I do not think censorship is the solution (though as I mentioned above I don't think this film has been censored or suppressed).  It seems to me that this film and others like it could provide good talking points to understand where we have come from, our values today and how we deal with it when things we enjoy conflict with our values.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the ongoing comments. I appreciate the thoughtful ways each person has expressed himself/herself in relation to the film. 

I especially like MarkH's comment that SONG OF THE SOUTH has an added problem because it's a Walt Disney film, not a David Selznick film. The Disney name has a specific definition for modern audiences.

Are there other musicals we find offensive, or just this one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Thanks everyone for the ongoing comments. I appreciate the thoughtful ways each person has expressed himself/herself in relation to the film. 

I especially like MarkH's comment that SONG OF THE SOUTH has an added problem because it's a Walt Disney film, not a David Selznick film. The Disney name has a specific definition for modern audiences.

Are there other musicals we find offensive, or just this one?

I brought up South Pacific elsewhere because I was surprised it wasn't on the viewing schedule or syllabus for the Mad About Musicals class (I asked to be corrected if I was wrong and no correction was given).  Because we've explored Cabin in the Sky and Hallelujah's depictions of race and because South Pacific is overtly about fears of miscegenation in a way unlike the previously discussed films, I would like to discuss it in the context of the course. Our instructors almost exclusively picked Black American culture to explore, but Asian American tropes have gone untouched (I love Auntie Mame, but I cringe at Ito). I know South Pacific includes stereotypes of Asians I find offensive, but it does so post-WWII -- after so many GIs and WACS of Western Europe and the U.S. had been in Asia and were having to reexamine their assumptions. The play/movie is attempting to reconcile what has been inculcated into Nelly and Lt. Cable's views of non-whites. I've had people tell me they are offended that I like South Pacific. I can see why Asian Americans or Asians wouldn't want to watch or listen to it, but "Carefully Taught" is about as powerful a rejection of racism and a statement of how racism is passed along as one can find. Nelly rejects her ingrained values after thoughtful exploration in South Pacific. I am certain I am not ignorant of tropes used as an educational device or for comical/entertainment purposes.  I think some of both happens in South Pacific, but I open this up to folks to determine whether one should be shamed publicly for enjoying it (I won't be shamed even if people argue I should be).  

Also, allow me to preemptively note as I did already that I brought this up elsewhere.  Threads do pick up themes previously discussed elsewhere -- especially as folks are going through a course and the content is programmed onto TCM. 

Edited by MotherofZeus
corrected spelling
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Song of the South, I would argue, yes, it is truly offensive. That does not mean it should not be available or banned.  I've seen the movie. I learned the songs when I was young. I think I can straddle multiple viewpoints and for myself conclude that the merit of the film doesn't outweigh its offensive aspects. However, like the movies we have watched in Mad About Musicals already, it is no more offensive than they are. Thus, having it not accessible to examine for oneself negates the kind of cultural opportunity to explore past representations of race as well as how they inform the present. 

That's my two cents. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2018 at 8:52 PM, janey said:

I saw SOTS as a young kiddo and as a young adult, each time with my parents and each time on the big screen. Before each viewing, we had conversations about race and the time in which the film was made -- keeping both in context. I recall enjoying it as a youngster, singing along with "Zip A Dee Doo Dah" and being charmed by Uncle Remus. Upon my second viewing, I understood much more about race issues and appreciated it as perhaps a sign of the times. I was fortunate to have parents who laid the groundwork for intelligent viewing. Taking it in context helps when viewing, I think -- and allows one to appreciate the delightful performances.

I've only seen it twice that I can remember -- once as a child and once when I took my own child to see it, which was over thirty years ago.  So I honestly don't recall too many details about the film.  My fondness for it revolves around the music, Zip-A-Dee-Do-Dah stands out, and the character of Uncle Remus, whom I loved. It would be interesting to be able to watch it again, just to see if my impression of the movie would be any different. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Thanks everyone for the ongoing comments. I appreciate the thoughtful ways each person has expressed himself/herself in relation to the film. 

I especially like MarkH's comment that SONG OF THE SOUTH has an added problem because it's a Walt Disney film, not a David Selznick film. The Disney name has a specific definition for modern audiences.

Are there other musicals we find offensive, or just this one?

This whole discussion reminds me of The ProducersSpringtime for Hitler ... LOL

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Charlie's Girl said:

This whole discussion reminds me of The ProducersSpringtime for Hitler ... LOL

That's one way of looking at it. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MotherofZeus said:

I know South Pacific includes stereotypes of Asians I find offensive, but it does so post-WWII -- after so many GIs and WACS of Western Europe and the U.S. had been in Asia and were having to reexamine their assumptions. The play/movie is attempting to reconcile what has been inculcated into Nelly and Lt. Cable's views of non-whites. I've had people tell me they are offended that I like South Pacific. I can see why Asian Americans or Asians wouldn't want to watch or listen to it, but "Carefully Taught" is about as powerful a rejection of racism and a statement of how racism is passed along as one can find. Nelly rejects her ingrained values after thoughtful exploration in South Pacific. I am certain I am not ignorant of tropes used as an educational device or for comical/entertainment purposes.  I think some of both happens in South Pacific, but I open this up to folks to determine whether one should be shamed publicly for enjoying it (I won't be shamed even if people argue I should be).

To me, South Pacific is a strong play about racism that is still meaningful today.  Nelly becomes aware of racist attitudes she didn't know she had, and circumstances force her to face them and deal with them.  In fact, she finds she is not judgmental about Emile's having killed a man, but she cannot forgive him for fathering two children with a Polynesian woman.  Speaking only for myself, discovering attitudes I was taught as a child and working through them is very difficult and painful, and it is easy but not productive to fall into feelings of guilt.  But difficult as it is, it is something that we as a nation must do.  Acknowledging that separating children from their parents is part of our heritage and not just a current event is not easy.  South Pacific probably does not speak to all races and cultures, but it certainly resonates with white America.

There is a story about "Carefully Taught" that I will try to paraphrase here.  During the show's out of town tryout (I think it was in Boston--it will be here), the theatre owner told Rodgers and Hammerstein that "Carefully Taught" would not fly in Boston and they had to remove it or find another theater.  R&H responded that "Carefully Taught" was the heart of the show, what the play was all about, and if the theatre couldn't do the show with the song, then they couldn't do the show.  The theatre relented.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Are there other musicals we find offensive, or just this one?

I have heard many people cite Annie Get Your Gun for the number where Betty Hutton sings about becoming a Native American. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brittany Ashley said:

I have heard many people cite Annie Get Your Gun for the number where Betty Hutton sings about becoming a Native American. 

What problem do they have with it-- do they think it's degrading to native culture?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TopBilled said:

What problem do they have with it-- do they think it's degrading to native culture?

I haven't seen the movie in a while but I guess its the whole fact that there is a white woman singing about "becoming" Native American when actual Native Americans were marginalized in real life and weren't fully or legitimately represented in popculture/media without being stereotyped or were totally ignored. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Brittany Ashley said:

I haven't seen the movie in a while but I guess its the whole fact that there is a white woman singing about "becoming" Native American when actual Native Americans were marginalized in real life and weren't fully or legitimately represented in popculture/media without being stereotyped or were totally ignored. 

 

Interesting. A lot of TV western shows in the 50s and 60s had episodes where white women were kidnapped by natives and "became" native. And in the 1957 motion picture TROOPER HOOK this very thing happens to Barbara Stanwyck's character. Nobody complained about that.

Was the offensive part in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN also in the stage production? Or was it added for the movie? Originally Judy Garland was assigned by MGM to do this role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Was the offensive part in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN also in the stage production? Or was it added for the movie? Originally Judy Garland was assigned by MGM to do this role.

I have not seen any criticism about the stage show, so I can't really answer that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Brittany Ashley said:

I have not seen any criticism about the stage show, so I can't really answer that

Okay, fair enough. Perhaps someone who's seen the stage show will come along and comment.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Was the offensive part in ANNIE GET YOUR GUN also in the stage production? Or was it added for the movie? Originally Judy Garland was assigned by MGM to do this role.

Yes, it was in the original stage production.  And the original and movie were not to kind to women either.  No matter how good Annie was as a sharpshooter, she was not complete until she had a man.  And to get her man, she had to come in second.  

When they revived Annie Get Your Gun for Bernadette Peters, they reworked the script so it was more respectful of Native Americans and to make Annie more of a twentieth century woman.  And they dropped "I'm an Indian Too" altogether.  Instead they took a subplot that was in the original but not in the movie and turned it into a romance between a Native American and a white woman.  I don't think they are licensing the original script anymore.  If you see it on stage today, you will see the new version.  Here are a couple of clips from the new version with Reba McEntire, who replaced Bernadette Peters.  The first is her version of "You Can't Get a Man with a Gun", and the second shows how they doctored the final scene.

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...