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

Does anyone find SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946) offensive...?


TopBilled

Recommended Posts

Bears repeating:

 

 

Did someone say "Bears repeating" here???

 

Well then, okay. Here ya go...

 

2140416768_1ee92bcd95.jpg

 

(...though sorry, these look like Grizzly Bears here, not Br'er Bears...close enough though, don't ya think?!) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I felt this thread had run its course but something tells me it will live on!    

 

Well James, I suppose we COULD help increase the chances of THAT happenin' IF say we could now segue to some talk about how large Uncle Remus' rear end was(a la Mr. Brent, of course), OR say if we could SOMEHOW fit into this thread some reference about "ME TV"!!! YEAH, maybe somethin' like positing the thought that "IF you squint your eyes enough, Uncle Remus looks a LOT like Svengoolie, but only a little whiter"!

 

LOL

 

(...yep, I'm thinkin' somethin' like that could DEFINITELY help this baby live on a long long time...don't you TOO?!) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to get over thinking that people who tell Br’er Rabbit stories are “Darkies”. This is an offensive term to a lot of people.

 

They are men and women who tell folk stories that are traditional in their culture and that came from their ancestral past in the 19th Century. The Uncle Remus stories were first published in the 19th Century, and made into a famous drama and fantasy film in 1946 by the Walt Disney company. The actor who played Uncle Remus was a fine intelligent man who received a special Academy Award for his outstanding work.

 

See this:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Song_of_the_South

 

“Walt Disney liked Baskett, and told his sister, Ruth Disney, that Baskett was "the best actor, I believe, to be discovered in years." Even after the film's release, Walt stayed in contact with Baskett. Disney also campaigned for Baskett to be given an Academy Award for his performance, saying that he had worked "almost wholly without direction" and had devised the characterization of Remus himself. Thanks to Disney's efforts, Baskett won an honorary Oscar in 1948. After Baskett's death, his widow wrote Disney and told him that he had been a "friend indeed and [we] certainly have been in need."

 

I say again, TIME HAVE CHANGED and Uncle Remus stories are becoming more famous and more popular all the time, thanks to the original 19th Century book and that 1946 Walt Disney film that is available around the world now, on the internet, on DVD, and on video tape.

 

I realize this modern revival of the Uncle Remus stories must burn you up and make you fume, but with widespread media the way it is today, people can think for themselves today and they can find many sources of the film. You can see some of these people in YouTube clips, even imitating Uncle Remus’ movie voice from the Disney film as they tell their own versions of the stories, while other people are happily adding to the Br’er Rabbit story tradition by making up their own new Br’er Rabbit stories.

 

I don't believe I used the term "darkies" to define the modern-day griots who take pride in the African tales that inspired the Uncle Remus stories. For all we know, the slaves who retold the tales enjoyed them because all of the foes of Br'er Rabbit were stand-ins for their slave masters.

 

The problem stems from what happened when whites -- Joel Chandler Harris and Walt Disney included -- got their hands on the tales. In effect, they helped perpetuate the myth of happy-go-lucky darkies during an era when there was little or no context about positive African-American role models and achievements. You could laugh at "Amos 'n' Andy" and find it funny. But when you had few balanced depictions of black people in the media, it wasn't funny. It was demeaning.

 

One of Spike Lee's greatest moments was his three-minute long remembrance of things past at the end of his 2000 film satire "Bamboozled." Imagine all of the impressionable African-American children who were bombarded by these images throughout the years.

 

http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=A2KLqIUCqhpUowUAdub7w8QF;_ylu=X3oDMTB2MjRyZmNxBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDdmlkBHZ0aWQDVjE3NgRncG9zAzE-?p=youtube+bamboozled+ending&vid=e33090eb695efc99badfc748ddc62ca4&l=3%3A17&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DVN.607995012365680859%26pid%3D15.1&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DC45g3YP7JOk&****=Blackface+Montage+from+Spike+Lee%26%2339%3Bs+%3Cb%3EBamboozled%3C%2Fb%3E&c=0&sigr=11aja366k&sigt=11omjvjt7&age=0&&tt=b

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem stems from what happened when whites -- Joel Chandler Harris and Walt Disney included -- got their hands on the tales. In effect, they helped perpetuate the myth of happy-go-lucky darkies during an era when there was little or no context about positive African-American role models and achievements. You could laugh at "Amos 'n' Andy" and find it funny. But when you had few balanced depictions of black people in the media, it wasn't funny. It was demeaning.

 

That's a point that can't be emphasized enough.  It's one reason I wish TCM would dig a bit deeper and try to come up with more films by black directors like Oscar Micheaux, and feature them in prime time instead of in the wee hours of the morning.  Because until you get to Intruder in the Dust and No Way Out, it's clear that mainstream Hollywood had little interest in portraying black people who weren't servants or cartoon figures who were put on Earth solely for the amusement of whites.

 

One of Spike Lee's greatest moments was his three-minute long remembrance of things past at the end of his 2000 film satire "Bamboozled." Imagine all of the impressionable African-American children who were bombarded by these images throughout the years.

 

http://video.search....jt7&age=0&&tt=b

 

Totally agree.  The cumulative effect of that three minute video compilation is devastating.

 

And again, the answer is NOT to censor or suppress these movies, but to see them for what they were in their totality, and not simply as harmless little snippets of "entertainment".  What's really being "suppressed" are pre-World War II films that depict blacks as ordinary human beings along the lines of the many thousands of "white" movies that we see every day on TCM.  In terms of priorities, we need to see those movies on our favorite channel a lot more than we need to see Song of the South.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points--

 

First, Spike Lee (like the NAACP) does not represent the views of all blacks in America. (Notice I am saying blacks in America as opposed to African Americans, because not all blacks in America are U.S. citizens and not all blacks come to America directly from Africa.) Lee's versions of race relations, as depicted in his films, bring his own heavy-handed not infallible interpretations of the issues. 

 

Second, it does seem like some well-meaning white have been guilt-tripped. That they would feel bad if the tiniest fiber of their being happened to like SONG OF THE SOUTH. And that is unfortunate.

 

Third, why have we read comments that blacks were not prominently displayed in Hollywood films until INTRUDER IN THE DUST or NO WAY OUT? Clearly, Disney had beat both those films with SONG OF THE SOUTH, by a few years. So what that means is the well-meaning whites have to go back to their earlier statements and amend them, to say that it wasn't until INTRUDER IN THE DUST that they found what are to them acceptable depictions of blacks. But that implies the only worthwhile representations of blacks are ones that must show them as poor laborers that are victims of racism or else living in a slum and the victim of racism. Obviously, a happy-go-lucky black cannot be seen in a film, because that would not show enough suffering or send a strong enough message that the descendants of slave owners in America must continue to pay and feel sorry for history.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points--

 

First, Spike Lee (like the NAACP) does not represent the views of all blacks in America. (Notice I am saying blacks in America as opposed to African Americans, because not all blacks in America are U.S. citizens and not all blacks come to America directly from Africa.) Lee's versions of race relations, as depicted in his films, bring his own heavy-handed not infallible interpretations of the issues.

 

Whatever you may think of Spike Lee's films in general, those clips in that compendium in Bamboozled speak rather eloquently to his point.

 

Second, it does seem like some well-meaning white have been guilt-tripped. That they would feel bad if the tiniest fiber of their being happened to like SONG OF THE SOUTH. And that is unfortunate.

 

One can both enjoy and  at the same time be aware of the larger implications of films like SONG OF THE SOUTH.  The two reactions aren't necessarily contradictory so much as complementary.

 

Third, why have we read comments that blacks were not prominently displayed in Hollywood films until INTRUDER IN THE DUST or NO WAY OUT? Clearly, Disney had beat both those films with SONG OF THE SOUTH, by a few years.

 

Sure, and The Birth of a Nation beat SONG OF THE SOUTH by 32 years on top of that, as if that has anything to do with the overall point.

 

So what that means is the well-meaning whites have to go back to their earlier statements and amend them, to say that it wasn't until INTRUDER IN THE DUST that they found what are to them acceptable depictions of blacks. But that implies the only worthwhile representations of blacks are ones that must show them as poor laborers that are victims of racism or else living in a slum and the victim of racism.

 

This is completely false, which is why I raised the point about Oscar Micheaux and other black directors, who depicted blacks in all their splendor and all their deviousness, much like white directors depicted whites in the movies we see every day on TCM.  Some people are noble. Some people are evil.  Some are brilliant.  Some are borderline feebleminded.  Some are rich.  Some are poor.  And most of them are somewhere in the middle.  This goes for both blacks and whites, but you'd never know that about blacks from watching "Golden Era" Hollywood films.  What part of this is so hard to understand?

 

The point is that black directors depicted the entire range of human character and emotions among their black characters in their repertories----completely the opposite of the one-dimensional depiction of blacks by Hollywood in its so-called "golden" age, which only began to turn around with Intruder in the Dust and No Way Out.

 

Obviously, a happy-go-lucky black cannot be seen in a film, because that would not show enough suffering or send a strong enough message that the descendants of slave owners in America must continue to pay and feel sorry for history.

 

Again, this is NOT what I'm saying.  I'm NOT saying to censor or suppress those "happy-go-lucky" films that you seem to love so much.  Why do you keep injecting that implication into what I've written, when I've repeatedly said that those films should be released and shown?

 

What I am saying, and have been saying all along is this:  Show those "happy-go-lucky" films, but also show those films that portrayed blacks as multi-dimensional human beings, not merely as "entertainers" who were put on God's Earth to sing and dance for whites.

 

Seriously, is that really too much to ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Whatever you may think of Spike Lee's films in general, those clips in that compendium in Bamboozled speak rather eloquently to his point.

 

I think they speak to your point and others who share your point of view. Let's be realistic about this, please.

 

One can both enjoy and  at the same time be aware of the larger implications of films like SONG OF THE SOUTH.  The two reactions aren't necessarily contradictory so much as complementary.

 

Okay, I will agree with that statement.

 

...I raised the point about Oscar Micheaux and other black directors, who depicted blacks in all their splendor and all their deviousness, much like white directors depicted whites in the movies we see every day on TCM.  Some people are noble. Some people are evil.  

 

I do not think you are seeing the error in your comments. You are assuming that black directors are most qualified to tell stories about blacks and white directors are most qualified to tell stories about whites. Sometimes a stronger story is shown when someone from the outside is looking in objectively. Also, what about bi-racial or multi-racial directors? Does a DNA test have to be run to determine which amount of their genetic makeup makes them most qualified to tell certain kinds of ethnic or race-related stories? 

 

I'm NOT saying to censor or suppress those "happy-go-lucky" films that you seem to love so much.  Why do you keep injecting that implication into what I've written, when I've repeatedly said that those films should be released and shown?

 

I have never said you individually want those films suppressed. You are taking it a bit personally in my opinion. And please notice that I am kindly refuting many of your claims without resorting to derogatory remarks about what you 'seem to love so much.' I am showing a great deal of respect to you and where you are coming from even if I find the error in much of what you are saying. I would hope that you can return a similar courtesy.

 

What I am saying, and have been saying all along is this:  Show those "happy-go-lucky" films, but also show those films that portrayed blacks as multi-dimensional human beings, not merely as "entertainers" who were put on God's Earth to sing and dance for whites.

 

Now, it seems like you are saying blacks shouldn't sing and dance, because it will appear that they are singing and dancing for whites. I am sure there are plenty of black and multi-racial children who have watched SONG OF THE SOUTH and enjoyed the song-and-dance numbers just as much as the white children and their parents have. People who sing and dance in films can be multi-dimensional too.

 

It sounds like you have a bias against the musical genre. That only serious dramas or film noir/crime stories that feature blacks count.

 

Again, I think you are making more broad gestures instead of really looking at all the specifics. And this is something I feel Spike Lee makes the mistake of doing, too. It is too easy to over-generalize about race in America, and point out the stereotypes, without actually examining the specifics and seeing where multi-culturalism in art can occur without any hint of intended racism.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Whatever you may think of Spike Lee's films in general, those clips in that compendium in Bamboozled speak rather eloquently to his point.

 

I think they speak to your point and others who share your point of view. Let's be realistic about this, please.

 

I'm pretty sure that most people who actually take the time to watch Lee's three minute compendium would have much the same reaction as I did.  Here it is again for anyone who hasn't seen it: http://video.search....jt7&age=0&&tt=b

 

One can both enjoy and  at the same time be aware of the larger implications of films like SONG OF THE SOUTH.  The two reactions aren't necessarily contradictory so much as complementary.

 

Okay, I will agree with that statement.

 

...I raised the point about Oscar Micheaux and other black directors, who depicted blacks in all their splendor and all their deviousness, much like white directors depicted whites in the movies we see every day on TCM.  Some people are noble. Some people are evil.  

 

I do not think you are seeing the error in your comments. You are assuming that black directors are most qualified to tell stories about blacks and white directors are most qualified to tell stories about whites. Sometimes a stronger story is shown when someone from the outside is looking in objectively. Also, what about bi-racial or multi-racial directors? Does a DNA test have to be run to determine which amount of their genetic makeup makes them most qualified to tell certain kinds of ethnic or race-related stories? 

 

That may well be true in theory, but then tell me why these non-black directors failed to present these multi-dimensional black characters in ANY  Hollywood feature movie up through World War 2 and beyond?  Give me one example that doesn't involve a servant or a singer.

 

I'm NOT saying to censor or suppress those "happy-go-lucky" films that you seem to love so much.  Why do you keep injecting that implication into what I've written, when I've repeatedly said that those films should be released and shown?

 

I have never said you individually want those films suppressed. You are taking it a bit personally in my opinion. And please notice that I am kindly refuting many of your claims without resorting to derogatory remarks about what you 'seem to love so much.' I am showing a great deal of respect to you and where you are coming from even if I find the error in much of what you are saying. I would hope that you can return a similar courtesy.

 

Point taken.

 

What I am saying, and have been saying all along is this:  Show those "happy-go-lucky" films, but also show those films that portrayed blacks as multi-dimensional human beings, not merely as "entertainers" who were put on God's Earth to sing and dance for whites.

 

Now, it seems like you are saying blacks shouldn't sing and dance, because it will appear that they are singing and dancing for whites. I am sure there are plenty of black and multi-racial children who have watched SONG OF THE SOUTH and enjoyed the song-and-dance numbers just as much as the white children and their parents have. People who sing and dance in films can be multi-dimensional too.

 

But in that very passage you just responded to, I specifically said "also", not "instead of".  Asking for inclusion of the one isn't the same thing as demanding exclusion of the other.

 

 

It sounds like you have a bias against the musical genre. That only serious dramas or film noir/crime stories that feature blacks count.

 

Again, my point is addition, not subtraction or substitution.

 

Again, I think you are making more broad gestures instead of really looking at all the specifics. And this is something I feel Spike Lee makes the mistake of doing, too. It is too easy to over-generalize about race in America, and point out the stereotypes, without actually examining the specifics and seeing where multi-culturalism in art can occur without any hint of intended racism.

 

Whether or not that compendium that Lee compiled is evidence or intentional racism, unintentional racism, simple cluelessness, or humor that "just happens" to depict blacks in one demeaning role after the other----that's for everyone to decide for himself.  But that's a whole separate topic.  All I'm talking about is showing the whole story from multiple points of view, not JUST from the point of view that Old School Hollywood depicted.

 

Again, is this really too much to ask of TCM?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying, and have been saying all along is this:  Show those "happy-go-lucky" films, but also show those films that portrayed blacks as multi-dimensional human beings, not merely as "entertainers" who were put on God's Earth to sing and dance for whites.

 

Seriously, is that really too much to ask?

 

Have you looked at tonight's schedule?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you looked at tonight's schedule?

 

Sure, but movies didn't begin in 1949, and I wasn't referring to films that were made after that.  I'm talking about those that were being made contemporaneously with GWTW, SOTS, The Green Pastures, etc. but which seldom make an appearance on TCM.

 

I'm not saying that they never show up.  Over the past five years I've seen  Within Our Gates, The Duke Is Tops, Princess Tam Tam, and a handful of other pre-WW2 movies like that.  But the percentage of those movies on TCM, even allowing for their relative overall lack of easy availability, is rather shamefully low compared to the endless showings of GWTW, The Green Pastures, The Jazz Singer, and countless other movies with blacks (or whites in blackface) depicted as servants and dancers.  Even when we get days that are primarily devoted to African Americans in films, it always seems to be little more than the same old collection of Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte, with the occasional nod to a handful of later movies from the 70's and later.  But almost nothing from pre-World War 2.

 

And (sigh) once again:  Is this really the best that TCM can do?

 

Here's a positive suggestion:  Let Donald Bogle be the guest programmer for ONE 24 hour day, and give him a free hand to choose any film he can obtain.  And then take it from there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious, owing to the enormous popularity of this topic.

 

Do those who think SOTS was offensive expect to convince those who didn't find SOTS offensive otherwise?

Of course not.  The only original point was to get a few people to acknowledge that some other people might sincerely find it offensive, and to further acknowledge that those who find it offensive aren't merely acting out of some sort of "political correctness".  What I've seen here from a handful of people is that only those who say they enjoy the movie are capable of being honest or sincere.  That's the only thing some of us have been pushing back against, this assumption that anyone who finds SOTS offensive is just trying to be "PC".

 

So don't fret.  Nobody's trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy the movie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always said the "founding fathers" were a-holes.

 

LOL

 

That's one of the things I've always enjoyed about you, dark ol' buddy...you don't mince words!

 

(...and according to the movie "1776", and at least according to the way actor William Daniels plays a very snarky John Adams, you might have a point here!) ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course not.  The only original point was to get a few people to acknowledge that some other people might sincerely find it offensive, and to further acknowledge that those who find it offensive aren't merely acting out of some sort of "political correctness".  What I've seen here from a handful of people is that only those who say they enjoy the movie are capable of being honest or sincere.  That's the only thing some of us have been pushing back against, this assumption that anyone who finds SOTS offensive is just trying to be "PC".

 

So don't fret.  Nobody's trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy the movie.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

 

So don't fret.  Nobody's trying to tell you that you shouldn't enjoy the movie.

 

Fret?

 

What, Me Fret? :lol:

 

Nobody tells me what to do, ever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in the thread there were some comments about white characters in blackface, with the understanding that this practice did not continue after the production code ended.

 

Of course I am no expert on the subject of what may have been the last mainstream Hollywood film to do this, but I know for sure it did happen in the 1980s.

 

Charter cable's on-demand service usually provides films airing on FLIX and those titles are separated by decade. Last night I selected the menu for the 80s, and I came across the Neil Diamond version of THE JAZZ SINGER, from 1980. Since Dr. Goldman had recently selected the 1927 and 1952 versions without even mentioning this later, more modern one-- I decided to watch it. I had never seen it before.

imgres-16.jpg

Early in the picture, after Diamond's character starts to go off on his own and sing pop music, he is traveling with his band to a club. On the way there, he finds out it's a black club (which is what he says in the movie). All the guys in his band are black, except for him. When they get to the club and go backstage to get ready, someone has the idea of putting him in blackface so he will blend in with the rest of them. We cut to them performing on stage and Diamond is indeed in blackface for that number. The camera pans to the crowd and all the patrons are black and they are digging the music. At some point, a guy in the audience realizes Diamond is Jewish, not black, and he is exposed for being 'different.'

 

Personally, I did not find this scene to be offensive-- and I thought it was a rather clever way for the writers to come up with keeping that portion of the Jolson version in the story. I can't remember if Danny Thomas appeared in blackface in the second film, but I don't think he did. 

 

Neil Diamond's THE JAZZ SINGER was not a huge commercial hit, but it made $27 million at the time of its release ($78 million dollars today using an inflation calculator) and it earned another $4 million with domestic television broadcasts. So obviously a lot of people at the time saw Diamond in blackface, and it wasn't enough for the project to fail. The soundtrack went multi-platinum, too. So in a way, this version did have a significant cultural impact, long after the days of Martin Luther King and the civil rights era-- but of course, before our current stranglehold of political correctness.

 

If THE JAZZ SINGER (1980) is available for people to watch at home, then why isn't SONG OF THE SOUTH...? How can one be more offensive than the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If THE JAZZ SINGER (1980) is available for people to watch at home, then why isn't SONG OF THE SOUTH...? How can one be more offensive than the other?

 

You need to talk to people that have seen both The Jazz Singer and Song of the South,  and also find SOTS offensive and ask them.

 

BUT I really don't think you're asking a question you want an answer to,  instead you're pretenting to ask a question, but really making a statement;    That is that you don't find either movie offensive.    Like we couldn't have guessed that! 

 

Also The Jazz Singer isn't owned by Disney.   The company that does own the rights to The Jazz Singer decided to release it while Disney has decided, at least at this time,  to not make SOTS available in the USA (but as Fred has pointed out one can get access to it here if they try).

 

Multiple people at this forum have explained mulitiple times WHY Disney decided did what they did.   So I find it hard to believe you dont know the answer to the WHY question.      The question I want to know is why do you continue to ask a question you already know the answer to?      Hey,  I don't agree with Disney.   I feel they should make the movie available,   but of course I know WHY they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Earlier in the thread there were some comments about white characters in blackface, with the understanding that this practice did not continue after the production code ended.

 

Of course I am no expert on the subject of what may have been the last mainstream Hollywood film to do this, but I know for sure it did happen in the 1980s.

 

Charter cable's on-demand service usually provides films airing on FLIX and those titles are separated by decade. Last night I selected the menu for the 80s, and I came across the Neil Diamond version of THE JAZZ SINGER, from 1980. Since Dr. Goldman had recently selected the 1927 and 1952 versions without even mentioning this later, more modern one-- I decided to watch it. I had never seen it before.

imgres-16.jpg

Early in the picture, after Diamond's character starts to go off on his own and sing pop music, he is traveling with his band to a club. On the way there, he finds out it's a black club (which is what he says in the movie). All the guys in his band are black, except for him. When they get to the club and go backstage to get ready, someone has the idea of putting him in blackface so he will blend in with the rest of them. We cut to them performing on stage and Diamond is indeed in blackface for that number. The camera pans to the crowd and all the patrons are black and they are digging the music. At some point, a guy in the audience realizes Diamond is Jewish, not black, and he is exposed for being 'different.'

 

Personally, I did not find this scene to be offensive-- and I thought it was a rather clever way for the writers to come up with keeping that portion of the Jolson version in the story. I can't remember if Danny Thomas appeared in blackface in the second film, but I don't think he did. 

 

Neil Diamond's THE JAZZ SINGER was not a huge commercial hit, but it made $27 million at the time of its release ($78 million dollars today using an inflation calculator) and it earned another $4 million with domestic television broadcasts. So obviously a lot of people at the time saw Diamond in blackface, and it wasn't enough for the project to fail. The soundtrack went multi-platinum, too. So in a way, this version did have a significant cultural impact, long after the days of Martin Luther King and the civil rights era-- but of course, before our current stranglehold of political correctness.

 

If THE JAZZ SINGER (1980) is available for people to watch at home, then why isn't SONG OF THE SOUTH...? How can one be more offensive than the other?

What was amusing was the scene that took place in the police station when Diamond, in blackface, was waiting for his Father to come bail him out and Olivier, playing the Rabbi father, sees his son in blackface and asks;  "It's not tough enough---being a JEW?"  The only good part of that hash!

 

My take is that if someone finds SOTS offensive, then I don't think it was Disney's intention.  Probably more a case of simply not knowing any better, or knowing the target audience at the time wouldn't be offended. 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I see Song Of The South as much more offensive than Gone With The Wind or the 1980 Jazz Singer. There are a lot of modern era movies with questionable content but they are not directed at children or are a waste of time to worry about.

 

Disney has over 170,000 employees, and I would bet that some/many of them do find SOTS objectionable. Since they control it then they have to right not to distribute it. The is not a censorship issue as it is not the government enforcing things, it is just a realization that SOTS should not have been made as it was.

 

Had Disney not put the tbaby and the slave dialect voices for the cartoon characters in this I bet it would be released. They even could have changed the story a bit to make it anti-slavery had they wanted.  As it is SOTS has not aged well like some other movies have. It is filled with stereotypes already by the time of its release and now looks even more ancient.

 

I would imagine Disney has comtemplated redubbing the thing and cutting a scene or two but maybe find it unsalvageable as it is for the US market. Clever people can still access it if they want to see it, it's not like they are hiding a Picasso or something, lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but I see Song Of The South as much more offensive than Gone With The Wind or the 1980 Jazz Singer. There are a lot of modern era movies with questionable content but they are not directed at children or are a waste of time to worry about.

 

Disney has over 170,000 employees, and I would bet that some/many of them do find SOTS objectionable. Since they control it then they have to right not to distribute it. The is not a censorship issue as it is not the government enforcing things, it is just a realization that SOTS should not have been made as it was.

 

Had Disney not put the tbaby and the slave dialect voices for the cartoon characters in this I bet it would be released. They even could have changed the story a bit to make it anti-slavery had they wanted.  As it is SOTS has not aged well like some other movies have. It is filled with stereotypes already by the time of its release and now looks even more ancient.

 

I would imagine Disney has comtemplated redubbing the thing and cutting a scene or two but maybe find it unsalvageable as it is for the US market. Clever people can still access it if they want to see it, it's not like they are hiding a Picasso or something, lol.

 

Disney's reasoning for limiting DVD distribution is easy to understand;  Risk verses Reward.       Why take the risk of push back, boycotts, bad press \ media coverage , etc...  for such little reward (revenue from selling the film).     Anyone that understands how CNN picks what "news" stories to feature should be able to understand the WHY behind Disney's decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...