Song of the South

maxime29 · Post by **maxime29** » Sep Fri 23, 2005 7:43 pm

I was disappointed with the quality of video I got myself after downloading the movie. found a DVD ISO online and retrieved that instead. (Don't bother asking for it, because it's no longer a file on my computer

). I surprisingly enjoyed the movie. I still don't know what all the fuss was about the movie. I've seen movies of Tom Sawyer that depicted close to the same thing.

swarlock · Post by **swarlock** » Sep Sun 25, 2005 2:26 am

SpringheeledJack wrote:Yeah, same here. But it would be nifty to see how the package comes together. My vote is for an introduction from Danny Glover. Hopefully, Disney uses it as an opportunity to show the black community that the theme of blacks perservering during hardship overshadows that of theme of slavery. The tales of Uncle Remus are some of the best in the history of "children" books, in my opinion.

True. But even so I kind of have mixed feelings about it for the reason given above.

From what I've read in my history books that was a very terrible time. But then again if any person of any color can rise above the negative side of their history and try to make a postive difference without resorting to violence or using force says a lot.

Fantasrick · Post by **Fantasrick** » Sep Sun 25, 2005 2:23 pm

It is dated considering the film is 60 years old.

As far as I know Disney still plans to re-relaease this film in '06.

bigboodah71 · Post by **bigboodah71** » Oct Thu 20, 2005 3:38 am

I Love Song of the South, but I doubt that disney will release it. The last time they tried to release it in the USA, I remember Jesse Jackson talking about the inappropriateness of the "tar baby" scene.

Alas we could wish...

Blackie Pueblo · Post by **Blackie Pueblo** » Nov Tue 01, 2005 1:12 pm

Sadly, with the death of the civil rights hero Rosa Parks, any plans to release this film are pushed even further than before.

ericpabear · Post by **ericpabear** » Feb Sun 26, 2006 3:48 pm

Here is my two cents worth. First Uncle Remus was a free man of color. He was not a slave. He was free to go, which he was doing when the young boy got gored by the bull. The movie is historic. But there are people who would like to re-write history, and make the civil war seem like it just about slavery. These same people make a living preaching hate, so Disney may face a tough time. I also heard Disney is bringing in some big named black actors, like Glover, and Raven to talk Black history, and show the black programs Disney has produced as a naritive.
I saw this movie as a child. I also got a bootleg copy from over seas (whitch I loaned out and never got back) to show my kids. No one was able to see what the comotion was all about. If anything, it made the little boy's mom look stupid.

SpringheeledJack · Post by **SpringheeledJack** » Feb Sun 26, 2006 6:13 pm

I have it, and I can honestly say that it's pretty horrible in terms of stereotyping, and almost painful to watch. At first I didn't know what the commotion was about (having not seen it in decades), but after seeing it as an adult I can understand the problem. That, and the movie's actually pretty freakin' boring apart from the excellent animated portion that retells the Brer Rabbit story.

As for "Uncle Remus", I'm pretty sure he was a fictional "narrator" invented by a white man to retell stories that he overheard slaves telling when he was a child. Don't quote me on that, though.

Cheshire Cat · Post by **Cheshire Cat** » Feb Sun 26, 2006 6:32 pm

They could at least release the animated portions

MouseMan · Post by **MouseMan** » Feb Mon 27, 2006 11:49 am

The animation is obviously the best part of the film, but they are the stories Uncle Remus is telling to teach the boy lifes lessons. So you can't very well do away with the live action parts. I think Remus is obviously a slave, but is far past his usefullness as a laborer, therefore, he can appear to be leaving, but we know he's not really going to let the boy run away. Is it stereotyping? Of course, but that was the way Hollywood was in the '40's.

SpringheeledJack · Post by **SpringheeledJack** » Feb Mon 27, 2006 1:30 pm

Yes, and at the level of a peek into Hollywood thinking at the time, it's very interesting. But in terms of present-day entertainment, it falls very, VERY flat. It's like they tried to PC the whole piece during the 40's, but still fell into their own stereotyping in the process.

My suggestion? Redo the live action scenes in their entirety. The Brer stories definitely work on a level of how blacks perservered during slavery, and they've got some FANTASTIC messages that still hold true today. Like a more modern Aesop.

Just add those to a more socially conscious storyline and it would be golden. Otherwise, I could understand why the movie would be considered offensive to some. At minimum, I'm hoping they'll include so excellent commentary on the subject, which will help lift the piece up a bit from its current state.

Esmeralda · Post by **Esmeralda** » Feb Mon 27, 2006 3:38 pm

Would it be possible to release the film again with a major disclaimer? It would have to say something about how people did not understand what they put in the film was insulting so many years ago. And of course that the people of the Disney company no longer agree with the offensive parts of the film.

Anyhow, I've always been intrigued, perhaps just because it isn't available to see. That and the fact that I heard recordings of the Brer stories as a kid and can't get enough of Splash Mountain.

SpringheeledJack · Post by **SpringheeledJack** » Feb Mon 27, 2006 3:59 pm

I'm sure they could put a disclaimer in there. But at the same time, it's sort of like admitting that they, as a company, had a seedy history, which would likely cause some minor PR problems that they would like to avoid. Simply by NOT releasing it, they sort of sweep that history beneath the rug, and continue being the worldly, friendly company that people have now made them out to be.

The cartoon portion really is fantastic, though, and I'd actually just like to see that released, if nothing else. Like I said, the live action stuff is boooooring. But the cartoon is right on with the spirit of the tales.

ericpabear · Post by **ericpabear** » Feb Mon 27, 2006 10:15 pm

Wait a minute! Have any of you read the story of why it was banned to start off with. A small group caused an uproar. Not the majority. Don't change anything! It is a classic movie. Don't try to change history to please a few. Stop trying to be politically correct. The original story written by Joel Chandler Harris, was during the civil war. Disney's movie is set after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Uncle Remus WAS a free man. So were all the others. After the war, when slaves were given their freedom, some stayed on the plantation, and continude to work there. That is also what the white family was doing who lived in the shack along side the others. The child was gored while running accross the field to catch Uncle Remus, who was leaveing the plantation. This movie was re-released acouple of times. 1956,1972,1981 & 1986. Read, PLEASE, inform youselves. Don't let others tell you what to say and think. Those who don't learn from history are condemed to repeat it.

Sarah Turp · Post by **Sarah Turp** » Feb Tue 28, 2006 8:24 am

I've been wanting to see the movie for ages, but maybe thats just because I love splash Mountain. I'm a little worried now that it wont live up to my expectations. None the less, I hope the rumour of its release prooves to be accurate.
I think Disney has to be very careful about its release beacuse it soesn't sound to be very politically correct, but I dont thinm that it should stop the rerelase of the film. We don't stop printing books That are now deemed to be not politcally correct.

SpringheeledJack · Post by **SpringheeledJack** » Feb Tue 28, 2006 11:26 am

IRT ericpabear:
But I DO think there's cause for concern. In Disney's point of view, it's the equivilent of saying that it's okay to be entertained by something that's pretty racist in its view of Blacks. It's altogether different when you have a piece of literature that is a sort of picture of the world view at the time of its writing. But Disney isn't really a publisher with no concerns for public relations. It's an entertainment industry that has to do its best to appeal to everyone, and minimize any problems with that good-for-everyone image. They would suffer no losses by keeping it tucked away, but very probably suffer some image issues with its release. They have to carefully weigh the pros and cons, and do whatever they can to make sure EVERYONE is happy over its release. Couple that with the fact that the movie just isn't that good to begin with, and I imagine that it's a tough decision for them.