Possible Release of Disney's "Song of the South"? (1 Viewer)

[Joe Lugoff]

Exactly! If there's anything I can't stand it's when someone says or writes the absolute obvious truth, and someone drops down from Fantasy Land to debate it.

I'll say it again. It deserves three showings: Most people couldn't care less about how African-Americans are portrayed in 60-year-old movies. (And it's not just that most people don't care about 60-year-old movies; most people don't care about six-year-old movies.)

 

[TonyD]

you know right above my post i see google ads for tsots on dvd for purchase so since htf is against the whole bootleg thing these ads should be removed too.

anyhow, if people actually saw this movie they would love the music.
they would love the little animated sections and they probably would really like the movie.

but while some would say this shouldnt be seen by people, most would say.
"this is what all the hubbub was about? it isnt that big a deal after all."

i'm still thrilled to have my old laser of the movie

edited to say the ad appears below the last post of this page not above my post.

 

[MatthewA]

That's exactly the point.

It's time Disney allowed people to judge the movie for themselves, and let it sink or swim on its own merits.

 

[Michael Reuben]

We block such ads whenever we become aware of them, but Google constantly includes new ones. We are always grateful when members report them in a way that's useful, i.e., by sending a copy of the offending link in a PM to a moderator or (preferably) directly to Parker Clack.

M.

 

[TonyD]

i understand that michael, i probably would have dione that normally.
it was nearly 2 am when i posted that and was just about asleep.

 

[Mark-P]

It's good to know that HTF cares about this and actually does something about it. There is another predominant Disney forum site that is littered with Google ads for bootleg SOTS. And their position is basically - We can't control what google chooses to advertise. I know if it were my website, and I didn't have the option to block certain ads that I didn't want my site to endorse, I would be all over google, telling them if they didn't remove these ads, I would no longer use them as a sponsor!

 

[Rex Bachmann]

David_B_K wrote (post #332):



Quote:



Am I correct that your opinion is that the film isn't very good, . . .?




Correct.


Quote:



. . . and that if it offends some mother's son it should not be released?





Definitely incorrect.


Quote:



. . . such trivial subjects as SOTS.





Tell it to the others here! SOTS, as you label it, is trivial, in my opinion. The sociopolitical controversies surrounding it (and other, like programming), however, are not.


Joe Lugoff wrote (post #334):


Quote:



Rex B., your lack of logic negates your argument. I said we'll only hear from the most offended and the most vocal . . . .

But I said we'll only hear from the most offended and most vocal. According to you, we'll also hear from those we don't hear from -- for that's exactly what you're implying here.





Sorry, I misplaced the statement in the final version of my post, so that "it does not follow", as they say. I apologize for the confusion, but I stick by the claim.

I think you are, in fact, incorrect, and my retort was aimed at distinguishing the "the most vocal" from "the most offended" in your statement. I don't know about you, but I take them to be two semi-distinct categories of reäctants. And, my point is at least as "sound" as yours: just because a great part of the public may not be demonstrative or "activist" in an immediate and knee-jerk way ("the most vocal") about its offense over something, it does not follow that there is no offense taken or that those who demonstrate are necessarily unrepresentative. The latter may just be the tip of the proverbial iceberg (or they may not, as the individual case may be). Eventually, though, if such resentments exist and are deep-seeded enough, they will manifest themselves in some way. Hence, the example of Nixon's supposed silent-majority electorate.


Mike Frezon wrote (post #333):


Quote:



. . . I suspect Rex' verbosity is simply intended to obfuscate his real mission to challenge posters in this thread without staking his own claim re: the film.





Wrong again. But, what "claim" would that be?


Quote:



Neither Joe nor I ever claimed that viewing SotS would give an audience an accurate representation of life in a post-Civil War South. You are making argument for the sake of it.





Not so.

(post #316):


Quote:



. . . "Song of the South" . . . is probably a fairly accurate representation of most African-Americans at that time and in that place.





If not for this statement I would probably never have commented here.



Quote:



If you had read more of this thread, I believe you would have found your assertion that "Americans have not been deprived of an invaluable piece of their inalienable birthright" with the lack of release of SotS is a charge that has not been made.






Not explicitly, perhaps. The tone of the plaints says different. Many (not all, by any means) read of whiny "entitlement" denied.



Quote:



Some may see [any (given) work of art] as offensive . . . others may praise it. Regardless, the art should be viewed and discussed . . . to stimulate, educate and enjoy.





I agree wholeheartedly. I do, however, believe that Disney's decision to withhold the film from the public probably may have made sense from a public-relations, corporate-image point of view during the heyday of the Civil Rights movement and the immediate aftermath period, say, from 1955 to about 1975. By the beginning of the '80's I would think those arguments had lost whatever merit or validity that might have previously attached to them.



Quote:



I can't prove it . . . but most people couldn't care less about how African-Americans were portrayed in 60 year old movies.






Again, which people did you mean? People you know?!?


Quote:



While you may deride the majority of posts in this thread as simply "preaching to the choir" and not attempting to understand the sensitivities to the racial concerns of others . . . well, then, you are mistaken.





I think not.


Quote:



Can you (for my sake) state your opinion about the proposed release in a nutshell without debating every single phrase of every poster that replies to you?





I can. As a general rule, I'm for any information (of a general nature)---which includes entertainment materials---being freely available---that is, "freely" in the sense of 'without undue social constraints'. Period. This movie is no exception. In fact, I welcome its release, if for no other reason than to put a stop to all this unseemly whining about it and the sense of false aggrievement over the circumstances of its nonavailability.

However, the best reason, over all, in favor of the availability of any general information is that it undercuts the liars and deniers, of whom there all too many among us.

 

[TonyD]

wow.

rex you are amazing.

i love to read your posts.

 

[Jeffrey Nelson]

I find this bit from David a most incisive observation:


Rex seems to be hell-bent on disproving his own assertion. Just a thought...

I do agree with Rex and many others on the point that this film should be released, and I would welcome its release. Because it exists, it's a great film, and it would be nice to see it in remastered quality for a change. People who are offended by it need not buy it, as I have refrained from buying PETER PAN, not to make a statement mind you, but because that section ruins the film for me, and it's not worth the $$.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Rex, why do you continue to make the claim the film isn't very good when you've admitted to never having seen it?


are probably less valid than anyone else's. In fact, I'd say the former was childish ("I'll let you play with my dollie if it'll make you stop crying") while the latter implies (and I've already asked you to be more specific so there's no misunderstanding) that the others who want the same thing have negative agendas for wanting to see the film released on DVD. That is not the case.

 

[Parker Clack]

If anyone see's a link from a Google ad that contains any site that offers bootleg DVDs on it let me know via email, using the contact us link at the bottom of any page and I will add it to the list of banned links from Google to this site. I will need to know the url of the web page that you see advertised in Google.

Parker

 

[MatthewA]

This release might just be dead in the water due to (absurd) outcries over Disney's upcoming 2009 animated release:

http://jimhillmedia.com/blogs/jim_hi...-the-frog.aspx

 

[Stephen_J_H]

Now that I have seen SOTS (I'm not saying how), I feel I can fairly comment on it. Any negativity about this film would seem to me to be the PC police run amok, looking for any portrayal they can pull out of its context within the film or historical and say, "It's racist." This is not a minstrel show, neither is it "a realistic portrayal of African Americans at the time. " It rests somewhere in between and with proper handling (I'm thinking in the Treasures line) is viable as a DVD release. It is certainly less offensive than the propaganda cartoons contained in "Disney on the Front Lines" or the Asian stereotypes in "Lady and the Tramp" or "The Aristocats". I am offended by neither of these, being a white man of European descent, but I can see how people could get offended.

EDIT: Went over and read the blog at jimhillmedia.com. Anyone who is concerned about how SOTS would play to modern audiences should read the comments posted there; he might be pleasantly surprised. (Using my God-given right to use the word "he" to describe the third person of non-specific gender)

 

[rob007]

I am posting this because I figured some people might be really interested to read it. I'm not a huge Disney fan and couldn't care if the movie was ever released. Personally, i'm holding out for Monster Squad (which may have just been announced). Anyways, this article ran in one of our Canadian mags called Maclean's and I thought i'd present it here just to help out some of you and interest you. I love this site and appreciate people bringing me news on upcoming DVD's so I thought i'd help back by posting this for Song of the South lovers:


Text deleted by moderator; as per HTF Rules, please supply a link rather than quoting full text. - MR

 

[oscar_merkx]

Hi Robert

Thanks for posting this.

Sure makes interesting reading.

I never knew that about Peter Pan.

I would love to own this

 

[Stephen_J_H]

I would gladly buy SOTS with an introduction by either James Earl Jones or Sidney Poitier (a name not mentioned, but a possibility worth looking into). Someone needs to put a positive spin onto this, because SOTS does at least pay lip service to the subject of racism.

 

[Corey]

great read. thanks for posting. i don't know why someone would try to boycot a 60 year old film. WHV release the Jolson pix too please.

 

[Matt Hough]

Didn't George announce at one of the Warner chats that THE JAZZ SINGER was coming?

I am SO glad I still have that laserdisc set of eight Jolson films. They're primitive and dated beyond belief, and I wouldn't give anything for that set!

 

[Corey]

yes, i know about the jazz singer coming, but it's the other films i'm worried that won't get released.

 

[Joe Lugoff]

What exactly is the fear here? Is it that children viewing SOTS will get the idea that African-Americans are inferior and begin practicing racism? Could someone connect these dots?