Roy Disney supports Song of the South release - Eisner does not (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ulmer]

Aryn, you are entitled to your opinion, but I simply find the idea that kids shouldn't see SOTS as very narrow minded. Kids SHOULD see what has gone on in our history, and the way people were portrayed and stereotyped. If they are not allowed to learn from the past, they are bound to repeat it.

I think that much could be done to market this for adults, much in the same way the Vault Disney line was done (and which should be reinstated IMO). An introduction by Maltin explaining the controversy over the film could be very educational, and when seen in context, provide an opportunity to demonstrate how times have changed, at least in theory. Unfortunately, reality has yet to catch up to the moral high ground on racism.

 

[Aryn Leroux]

I agree with you there. But you gotta look at it both ways too. The way i see it if song of the south is marketed towards kids and is gonna have the cutesy character artwork, kids are gonna see it and want it and some parents are gonna buy it without thinking or in alot of cases won't even be aware of the controversial content.

Sure, if it's the decision of the parent's that they don't think there is anything wrong with the movie and want to allow there kids to see it that is fine by me, who am i to raise your kids for you. But all to many times parents just buy there kids videos/dvds thinking its just a cartoon and don't bother to know the content.

If they can release it like someone mentioned as they did the disney treasures collections and stay away from that cutesy artwork they will be tempted to use i will have no problem with a release. My concern is the disney marketing machine and there goal usually is to make every penny they can.

 

[Eric Paddon]

The ultimate hypocrisy is how Eisner is willing to totally suppress "Song Of The South" as part of Disney history, yet he's not averse to having the popular ride "Splash Mountain" be based on that movie in all of the Disney theme parks.

 

[Joshua_W]

Even if "Song of the South" contains certain racial stereotypes, wouldn't they be meaningless to today's children?

Just consider that all children have been born after 1990. This environment informs their worldview. They've grown up seeing successful African-Americans all around them -- from sports figures to actors (and the characters they portray) to musicians to newsanchors to businessmen to artists to politicians to scientists.

I would wager that if "Song of the South" were shown to a modern child, any "racist" elements would go right over their heads. It's just something that they wouldn't pick up on.

 

[John Sparks]

Aryn


Have you ever seen this film?

Maybe you're thinking of "Debbie Does Dallas?"

 

[Aryn Leroux]

I wouldn't be commenting on something i haven't seen. I take offense to your question. some people i tell ya.

 

[Malcolm R]

Well, that's a defect in their parenting skills and they're likely doing far more damage to their children by other means than would ever occur by viewing this film.

 

[WillG]

I'm surprised that Ebert would be in favor of keeping a film buried because of some content that may be considered stereotypical. Maybe he just thought the film was awful period. I wonder if he believes that films of historical importance with controversial subject matter should be buried as well such as "Birth of a Nation" or "Triumph of the Will" etc.

 

[GlennH]

Since you say you've seen the film, perhaps you can elaborate on exactly what elements of Song of the South are "hateful" or would engender hatred in anyone who viewed it.

Are you suggesting that a child of say, 8 or 9 years old, could watch this movie and form some kind of derogatory or hateful opinion of another race?

Make no mistake, those who disapprove of this movie are overly sensitive adults who somehow feel that it is demeaning or perpetuates a negative stereotype, a stereotype that is long dead. Kids today (or yesterday) would never see it that way.

Further, Disney's reluctance to acknowledge this movie has little to do with their moral outrage and everything to do with not wanting to risk any kind of negative publicity of any kind.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

..unless of course, Roger Ebert's actual position on the film is different than portrayed above.

If the film were released in a package oriented towards collectors (such as the Disney Treasures tins), it would be fine. While I don't necessarily think it would fit as a title to be mass marketed to children with Happy Meal tie-ins like a lot of other Disney films and videos, it is a part of the company's history, it has a gentle, if misguided, soul, and is certainly not going to cause offense or discomfort on the level of "Birth of a Nation" or even "The Jazz Singer".

Regards,

 

[Jeff_HR]

The sooner Eisner is gone the better. I'll buy SOTS if it is released.

 

[Robert Anthony]

Aside from "Tarbaby" is there anything about the movie that's really "Racist?"

That's the only thing that I can think of, the term "Tarbaby." which used to be slang for black children. As a matter of fact, I think the reason Brer Rabbit becomes a tarbaby was to be seen as a "clever" writing of the origin of the derogatory word. Other than that, It seems most of the characterization would be seen today as typical cartoon overacting, just with a southern accent.

Am I forgetting anything else?

It's certainly not as bad as the black centaurs giving the white centaurs pedicures and waiting on them in Fantasia.

 

[Mark-W]

I recently saw Song of the South and I am not entirely comfortable with all of the content, but as they did with the "3 Little Pigs," short and the Jewish stereotyping, a simple introduction by Maltin on the film's historical backgroud and topics parents might want to discuss with their childern after viewing the film is all it would take to make this film PC enough for a DVD release.

Besides, aren't we all too busy freaking out because gay people want to be in legally recongized marriages to worry about protesting an old film where an African-American man seems a little to happy to put the needs of WASPs ahead of his own?


Mark

 

[Brandon Conway]

For those wondering what it was that Ebert said, here ya go:


Link

 

[WillG]

I think Ebert is a bit off on this one. First of all, SOTS is not a new Disney film. Second the phenomenon he is describing applies more to the animated films like "The Lion King" "Aladdin" etc which are marketed extremely aggressively. Third, there have been some animated features by Disney that did not reach that statosphere of success. I think if SOTS was quitely released by Disney, there would be few, if any problems.

 

[DanFe]

In 50 years even Aladdin will probably be determined as racist as it portrays Muslims.

 

[Damin J Toell]

It didn't even take 50 years. The film's title song was protested upon its original release and subsequently changed for home video.

DJ

 

[Casey Trowbridg]

I'll agree with those that say you put this thing in a Disney treasures tin, have a brief introduction from Lenard Maltin to provide some context and you'll be alright. I've never seen this film, but I would really like to see it.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Fear of the past paints us on a dangerous path for repeated failures in the future.

SotS is a Disney classic, and it deserves to be released. I know many that look back and remember Uncle Remus fondly as a positive childhood figure.

Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah, Zippity-Day! My-oh-my, what a wonderful day...

 

[TonyDale]

Let's see, R$oger Ebert, that upright, moral man who gave us BENEATH THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS is gonna talk to us about racism in SONG OF THE SOUTH?! ?! ? Gimme a break. (BTW - I don't have much against BtVotD, except for its misogynistic streak).