Song of The South Disney Web Page & discussion on why this film needs to be released (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Ulmer]

Why must we erase the attitudes that came from a certain period of time that no longer exist in

the present?

That may be going a little far - these attitudes most certainly exist these days, perhaps not as blatently or openly, but they do exist - which is all the more reason NOT to censor or, by omission, make these films go away. It is only through education that prejudice against any group can be eliminated.

I agree that including an introduction, or commentary or other educational means of explaining that the attitudes expressed in the past don't reflect the studio's attitudes of today is a much more positive approach to simply erasing history.

 

[Justin Lane]

I can see Ebert's points regarding this film, if it were released as a family classic and mass marketed, but that's not what we are asking for. Kids are not going to be requesting this film, or new bed spreads with pictures of Uncle Remus and company.

Give us an adult oriented release with historical perspective and issues in the film, and skip the usual Disney roll-out. If parents want to show this to their children hopefully they would be responsible enough to explain the history behind the film. Regardless most first graders I know don't have cars, credit cards, or free choice of what they purchase. If the parents don't buy the release how the hell are they going to see the film!!

J

 

[Steve O]

Very eloquently put, Ron! That's exactly how I felt when I heard Ebert's editorial aired for the first time.
Everyone, ... please vote for Song of the South so that we can send a "loud and clear" message to Disney (see first page of this thread for links). Film preservation on DVD should take precedence over catering to the PC knee-jerk crowd.
If we get Song of the South on DVD, ... well, ... "my, oh my, what a wonderful day!"
(I couldn't help myself)

 

[Ike]

I sent this, if for no other reason than for the sheer principal (I'm not a Disney-phile, nor would I have any interest in this title.)

Disney has a chance to show that they care about film enthusiasts with the release of Song of the South. Though viewed under current standards it may appear dated in it's view of minorities, a thoughtful release explaining that just because we've evolved out of these mindsets doesn't mean we should suppress the art that was tainted by them. I think marketing the film to children may not be the best, but a Criterion release, or a more expensive and lower key release for film enthusiasts would be just right. Include some supplements explaining the differences of time, and the change of perpective that has occured. You could release a thoughtful, mature, and groundbreaking (for Disney, at least) animation DVD for those that want it. And please, no more censorship!

 

[James Miller]

With a very few exceptions, if Ebert likes it I steer clear and vise-versa.

I kept my "vote" comments to Disney pretty short and sweet.

to paraphrase: "if you elease it un-edited, un-censored and un-altered I will buy it... if you edit, censor or alter it I will not" (you have to be careful picking your words.. the "zooming" of Fanstasia may not be "edited" or "censored" in their mind, but they have to asmit it is "altered".

To this day I have not bought a single Disney release (well, Snow White, but can you blame me???) so as not to support their PC attitude and actions.

 

[Brian W.]

Hmm, I voted for it, too, but don't get too excited -- ALL out-of-print Disney videos on their site have this "vote button," even those that are part of their Platinum Collection, which supposedly will release only one title per year. Which is great (I can now vote for "Scarecrow of Romney Marsh," aka "Dr. Syn," a Walt Disney TV movie from the early 60s), but I'm just saying it may not be an indication of an imminent release of "Song of the South."

 

[James Miller]

I agree with Brian... I don't expect, at all, ever, an unedited/uncensored/unaltered version of SOTS. We don't live in a world that allows it anymore. (only SOMETHING to do with 9/11)

In addition, I think an edited version of SOTS is only POSSIBLE at best... and likely 2-3 years down the road.

 

[Rollie]

I've never seen this film before, but I intend to, on glorious DVD. If Disney listens to their fans, it will be difficult to ignore the requests for this piece of history.

And yes, political correctness has gone way too far.

 

[Brad Vautrinot]

Ike, we don't need Criterion or Anchor Bay or anyone else other than Disney to release this little gem. They are capable of doing it themselves.
To quote an acquaintance:
"Anyone pick up the doube-disc "Disneyland USA?" The first program is all about the opening festivities of Disneyland. They had Davy Crockett talking about how he had to massacre a tribe of Indians to get to Frontierland, and then there was a little square dance sequence featuring a big black woman who was identitifed as Aunt Jemima. If these kinds of things can slide past the Politically Correct Radar, I don't see why Song of the South can't."
On the Silly Symphonies Treasures disk the "offending" part of the Three Little Pigs cartoon was removed from the theatrical release around 1937-1938 as some Jewish viewers said it was defaming toward Jews and accused Walt of harboring anti-semetic beliefs. Disney's Jewish employees quickly denounced this as untrue but the scene was removed. The scene IS shown on this wonderful 2-disk set and Leonard Maltin gives an explanatory introduction as to what this was all about. Film history was served instead of political correctness.
I believe that Disney Studios are going to be surprised and overwhelmed by a huge response from people wanting this wonderful family gem released.
With the above two examples of recent releases from Disney forgoing pc and preserving film history, I feel we are going to be surprised by seeing an uncensored Song Of The South in the very near future.

 

[Neil White]

I rarely respond on such politically slanted threads (call me apathetic if you wish) but I just read Ron's post (#35) and thought I was reading my own views. Ron, I don't always agree with your views (which of course is fine) but I felt compelled to respond here and say how much I agree with you on this occassion.

I too am sick of this "politically correct" world we're in now. When There's Something About Mary was released, I remember going into the office after seeing it at the cinema and explaining how I thought it was a breath of fresh air given that the comedy was far from politically correct. Please note, I am far from insensitive to folks with disabilities etc. but I just enjoyed the free-flowing nature of the comedy. You wouldn't believe the barrage of remarks I got at work. Several folks were disgusted at me and hastely explained to me that they had to leave the cinema during the movie and they couldn't understand why I didn't too. I realize this is different from Ron's point in that this is modern-day non-PC stuff and he is referring to history but it all points to today's apparent need to stay PC in everything.

Sorry, this is a SOTS thread but I feel better now... I'll tell you this much, all I've ever seen from this movie is the Zip-A-Dee-Do-Dah clip but I have great desire to see the whole movie now. Thanks folks.

Peace

N

 

[James Miller]

As I said, I doubt VERY much that Disney will ever release an un-altered version of this film. (on dvd or vhs)

I think our ONLY hope for an un-edited version is Criterion.

That being said, Disney knows that Disney will be associated with this film, regardless of who distributes it.

Therefore, I don't anticipate (we'll see) ANY un-edited version of this film, ever, on any lable.

If the film is ever released it will be BY Disney and WILL be edited.

(all specualtion of course, but if they chop up- zoom up?- Fantasia they will have no qualms about doing it with SOTS)

 

[Greg_S_H]

Good ole snopes to the rescue again for some information on SOTS.

Maybe it's not important, but their statement that James Baskett was the first live actor hired by Disney is totally false. Almost nightly on the Disney Channel, you can see an interview with a woman who starred in a very early Disney movie (maybe even in the silent era) where she was placed into a cartoon. She was the only live-action element in the film, I believe. They show parts of the film as an accompanyment to the interview.

 

[Damien Montanile]

Maybe it's not important, but their statement that James Baskett was the first live actor hired by Disney is totally false. Almost nightly on the Disney

Channel, you can see an interview with a woman who starred in a very early Disney movie (maybe even in the silent era) where she was placed into

a cartoon. She was the only live-action element in the film, I believe. They show parts of the film as an accompanyment to the interview.

But it wasnt a Disney Full length feature film. Disney had made several animated/live action shorts (the first I believe was a little girl that beats up an animated lion in a cave if memory serves I think it might ahve been either Diane or Sharon Disney (his daughters) though I could be mistaken about that.

I think what snopes is getting at was that James Baskett was the first african American prominately cast in the starring role of a feature presentation.

-D

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Folks,

I realize that voting on the webpage may

be a mute point. It looks pretty generic

and the numbers may never show anything.

However....

I have drawn attention to this cause and

thread by placing an ANNOUNCEMENT at the top

of the page.

I know the folks at Disney read this forum

all the time. At the very least, it will get

their attention.

So, I urge everyone to cast a vote (no matter

how insignificant you feel it is), and write

your ideas in this thread.

Happy New Year, everyone.

 

[Henry Gale]

I don't want you to have a copy.
A few years ago I paid BIG money for the Leon LD. Now anyone with a sawbuck can watch it.
Last week a buddy asked me for a VHS copy of my Song Of The South LD.
He even offered me money!
I don't want to lose that exclusivity.
Jim

 

[Doug Pyle]

It seems what is "PC" on the HTF lately is to trash Roger Ebert for being sensible and sensitive to the real effect that racist images have on young minds, and discounting the tragic and painful real-life experiences of racism in the present day.

Look, Ebert did NOT say to ban the movie, but to present it in a proper context - such as 'film school' - but not to children unless there is some context to balance the stereotyping.

I strongly agree with many who suggest releasing it unedited as a Criterion or Disney Treasures release, with comments to put things in context. It should be released (I forget most of the film and want to see it again). I do strongly oppose censorship.

But I equally oppose racism and ignorance about it. I have only read a few comments in this thread that show some reality and awareness on this. Resentment about racism being a problem doesn't make racism stop being a problem. I won't cite "PC" ideology, but list some direct experience of my own or my family, that clearly show racism is alive and dangerous today (and I wonder where these ideas transfer in our culture, perhaps including film and literature?):

1) In "liberal" San Francisco I'm crossing a street with my wife, when a car careens dangerously close by, and a college-age kid leans out the window shouting at me "Get a White girl friend!" and flips me off.

2) My ex (Singaporean) had eggs thrown at him in Oregon while walking along the sidewalk; the attackers yelling "go back to Japan."

3) A co-worker of mine (an M.D.) was brutally beaten and injured by a patient while the attacker shouted 'nigger' and other offensive racist epithets.

4) A friend of mine was attacked by a group of high-school kids with baseball bats, breaking his nose, when he exited a gay bar. Homophobia rather than racism in this case, but related in its evil spirit.

Just a few recent examples. It's incredible to read so many comments suggesting racism is a matter of ancient history. I'd be more comfortable with a broad release of SOTS if this thread had a greater number of comments at least acknowledging racism is something more real today than some "PC" ideological "complaining." Would you rather I take the eggs, baseball bats in the face, and co-worker beatings with a smile?

I love films but hate racism. It really hurts. Disney - release the film intelligently, not to the general audience but to a film-lover audience. Criterion, Disney Treasures, but please, save me from your PG fans!

 

[Harry E]

I would like to refer to some of the comments that have been

made about racism and any other forms of discrimination.

They are wrong!

That's it.

But this film or any other film will not make it worse or better.

There are going to be stupid people and race problems even

if movies did'nt exist.

This film is a work of art. I saw it as a child in 1972 or

73. There were quite a few black people in the theater as well.

They did'nt seem to have a problem with it.

 

[george kaplan]

that clearly show racism is alive and dangerous today

I don't think there's any doubt about that, but what does that mean for Song of the South?

If, and I'm just supposing here, there are racist images in SOTS that would have a bad influence on today's kid, then while such a film shouldn't be released and geared towards kids, such a film still should be released, unedited for adults.

However, I don't agree with the above supposition, that there is anything harmful in this film. Without getting too political (and risking a shut-down of this thread), I'm about as liberal as you can get, and I get worried that so-called 'political correctness' is used by some people as an excuse to do inappropriate things. However, that doesn't change the fact, that sometimes the 'politically correct' thing is too extreme, and this is, in my opinion, such an instance.

So please, expound on what exactly is in this film that would be harmful for a five year old to see, and also tell me what other films need to be similarly kept from children? Gone With the Wind, Holiday Inn and Swing Time are just three examples of films that I'd be a lot more reluctant to have my son watch than Song of the South.

 

[Harry E]

In the post above I did'nt mean to say the comments were wrong(I dsiagree with some of them however) but I intended

to say that racism and other discrimination were wrong.

 

[Brad Vautrinot]

Doug,

Song Of The South is NOT racist. Period. It doesn't matter what studio releases this - Criterion, Treasures, whatever, as the name and picture on the cover will still attract buyers of all ages and stripe. I grew up watching this movie and it didn't make myself or any of my childhood friends become racist. I've shown this to kids of all ages and colors with no adverse effects on them. If people become racist it's due to their upbringing and peers but not movies or books. As the song in South Pacific says regarding prejudice, "you have to be carefully taught." Song Of The South does NOT teach this and Ebert is way off base with his remarks. People on this forum are more intelligent than I and certainly more wordly in the movie community but I don't recall seeing any howls of protest over the release of Triumph Of The Will from the Jewish population, or any hue and cry over Gone With The Wind or Birth Of A Nation. Perhaps a good start would be to encourage black people to stop calling each other "nigger" thereby setting an example. Were you equally vociferous when Reginald Denny was beaten almost to death (and permanently disabled) by blacks during the L.A. riots because he was white? No one here said racism isn't still a problem and, sadly, is something that will always be present in some form in the world. Nothing in SOTS would even remotely trigger any of the events that you listed that happened to you or planted seeds of intolerance in children's minds and it seems that you are taking this opportunity to vent about some past misfortunes.

No matter what subject anyone brings up, from orange juice to Al Jolson's blackface routines to Christmas, there will always be someone who will find a reason or excuse (real or imagined) to protest or criticize it or be offended.

Would you rather I take the eggs, baseball bats in the face, and co-worker beatings with a smile?

No, and no one is suggesting that you do this but keeping SOTS away from a general audience and children will not make the above go away or prevent it from happening in the future. I'll stop here as I don't want to see this thread change into something from its original intent.

I've never had much use for either film or book critics and find them generally full of shit. Ebert's excoriation of SOTS reflects his own narrow-mindedness and hypocrisy. This is a delightful family film that has some wonderful songs in it that, along with the crows and the tar baby, should be given to us in its original form.