Song of the South (1 Viewer)

[Capt D McMars]

Blackface? I own the Japanese LD version of the film and I don’t recall any actors wearing blackface. Of course it’s been a few years since I’ve seen this enjoyable film, so perhaps I’m forgetting something

Nope there are no "Blackfaced" White People in this film....

 

[RobertMG]

Yes, Disney mercifully decided to leave Dumbo alone as far as censorship is concerned, but at the time of that post, it seemed like a distinct possibility. I’m not even sure how Disney would even begin to censor the crows for the reason mentioned in my earlier post.

As for Gone With the Wind, Mr. Feltenstein has said on The Extras that there is interest in doing a 4K UHD of the film, but that the holdup is less because of the racial issues and more that it would require an insane amount of work to do a new transfer (not the least because it’s a nearly 4-hour film in three-strip Technicolor).

Nope there are no "Blackfaced" White People in this film....

Off topic but on topic see kids just saw it as whatever the adults made the problems

 

[JoshZ]

Not your cup of tea, we get it!! But we're not talking Al Jolson or Eddie Canter movies here!! If all you're looking at is the color of the actors skin, you missed the boat completly!!
It's about small town, a village story teller and the children that learn from him and his life lessons in the form of tales of Brer Rabbit and his world. Knowing the back story could help too.

Brer Rabbit | American folklore

Brer Rabbit, trickster figure originating in African folklore and transmitted by African slaves to the New World, where it acquired attributes of similar native American tricksters (see trickster tale); Brer, or Brother, Rabbit was popularized in the United States in the stories of Joel...

www.britannica.com

Still no reason to toss the baby out with the bathwater!!

Even if it weren't for the racial issues, I still wouldn't like the movie very much. I just didn't think it was very good in general. Sorry.

Nope there are no "Blackfaced" White People in this film....

Let's not play coy. I'm sure you're well aware that when people talk about blackface in relation to this film, they're mostly referring to the animated "tar baby" sequence.

Much like the crows in Dumbo, it may not literally be a white actor in black makeup, but it's the animated equivalent of that.

 

[Edwin-S]

Much like the crows in Dumbo, it may not literally be a white actor in black makeup, but it's the animated equivalent of that.

I've never heard that before. How does someone come to equate an inanimate object made out of tar and meant as a trap as an analogue to a white actor in blackface? It never talks. It never acts. It does nothing but sit there while Brer Rabbit loses his mind at supposedly being ignored. People are just reaching.

 

[JoshZ]

I've never heard that before. How does someone come to equate an inanimate object made out of tar and meant as a trap as an analogue to a white actor in blackface? It never talks. It never acts. It does nothing but sit there while Brer Rabbit loses his mind at supposedly being ignored. People are just reaching.

Well, first off, Brer Rabbit sees this black - not brown-skinned, but literally tar black - mannequin on the side of the road and can't tell that it's not a real person, because in the culture of the day, that's what an animated depiction of an African person would look like.

Then of course Brer Rabbit gets stuck in the tar and wears it like blackface.

The phrase "tar baby" itself was commonly used as a racial slur by the time the movie was made.

I really don't have any interest in arguing this further. The movie's racial politics are problematic. That shouldn't even be debatable at this point. You can defend it as "a product of its time," and I won't disagree with that. It very much is. As I said earlier, I don't want the movie to be banned over this or anything. At the same time, pretending that its stereotypical depiction of Black characters and racial imagery aren't terribly insensitive is counter-productive.

As I've also already said a couple times, my issues with the film go beyond that aspect anyway.

 

[Capt D McMars]

Even if it weren't for the racial issues, I still wouldn't like the movie very much. I just didn't think it was very good in general. Sorry.



Let's not play coy. I'm sure you're well aware that when people talk about blackface in relation to this film, they're mostly referring to the animated "tar baby" sequence.

Much like the crows in Dumbo, it may not literally be a white actor in black makeup, but it's the animated equivalent of that.

I think people are reading far too much into this story...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar chief, LOL!!!

 

[RobertMG]

Well, first off, Brer Rabbit sees this black - not brown-skinned, but literally tar black - mannequin on the side of the road and can't tell that it's not a real person, because in the culture of the day, that's what an animated depiction of an African person would look like.

Then of course Brer Rabbit gets stuck in the tar and wears it like blackface.

The phrase "tar baby" itself was commonly used as a racial slur by the time the movie was made.

I really don't have any interest in arguing this further. The movie's racial politics are problematic. That shouldn't even be debatable at this point. You can defend it as "a product of its time," and I won't disagree with that. It very much is. As I said earlier, I don't want the movie to be banned over this or anything. At the same time, pretending that its stereotypical depiction of Black characters and racial imagery aren't terribly insensitive is counter-productive.

As I've also already said a couple times, my issues with the film go beyond that aspect anyway.

I think people are reading far too much into this story...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar chief, LOL!!!

Yes! You know Disney is making it worse by not just releasing it if people want it they will buy it if they are offended they won't and Disneys statement should say "To keep this work locked up is not the answer the answer is to let people who want it to be able to get it and those against it just do not buy it"

 

[Will Krupp]

Yes! You know Disney is making it worse by not just releasing it if people want it they will buy it if they are offended they won't and Disneys statement should say "To keep this work locked up is not the answer the answer is to let people who want it to be able to get it and those against it just do not buy it"

Disney has made it very clear they want no part of any narrative that would arise from such a move.

I don't know what else to tell any of you.

 

[RobertMG]

Disney has made it very clear they want no part of any narrative that would arise from such a move.

I don't know what else to tell any of you.

This thread has reached it end -

 

[Will Krupp]

This thread has reached it end -

Well, it reached it about 13 pages ago but that hasn't stopped anyone, lol

"WE WANT DISNEY TO RELEASE Song of the South!"

"Well, they're not going to."

Honestly, how many times can we rinse and repeat?

 

[LeoA]

For those upset that there's still people that would like to see this be released or are saddened by the loss of Splash Mountain, why exactly are you even in this thread for?

 

[Robert Crawford]

For those upset that there's still people that would like to see this be released or are saddened by the loss of Splash Mountain, why exactly are you even in this thread for?

I don't think anybody on this forum is upset that some people want this title released on Blu-ray or the loss of Splash Mountain. At least, they haven't expressed that emotion here. I think many of us have come to realize that Disney isn't changing their mind regarding those issues. It's over, whether we like it or not.

 

[roxy1927]

I still can't believe the got rid of 20,000 Leagues, Mr Toad and Snow White's Scary Adventures 3 of the best rides in the park, based on classic Disney films and the loss of which is why people say Fantasyland is better in CA. The Winnie the Pooh and Little Mermaid rides show you how lame the more recent Imagineers have been.

 

[ScottHM]

the vast majority of Disney Parks' target demo have never even heard of Song of the South.

That can be easily rectified.
---------------

 

[Robert Crawford]

That can be easily rectified.
---------------

Possibly, but it could be in a negative way.

 

[marcco00]

sad though, considering James Baskett was awarded a special Oscar for his performance

and generations have missed out on one of Disney's best songs 'Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah' another Oscar winner for them (at least you can see that clip on youtube)

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

So, I don't have a lot to say on this. I definitely think this and all films should be available to the public to see at their leisure. I would like to be clear about something though, pictures like this and The Devils that remain ignored by the companies that own them are not the result of what the public has to say nor the government, they are out of the public eye specifically because people that work in the industry do not want to release them. That's it. It is not really about the internet, nor cancel culture, nor the public throwing a fit. Companies like Disney have made the choice that removal is better for them because of who works at the company. It has nothing to do with us or anything outside of that. People that work for Disney find the picture offensive and that is that. Nobody cares about what the public thinks or wants, no government officials are telling them what to do, it is completely internal. Which is why people keep expressing here that nothing people say will change things.

Disney won't license it out, does not care about the history, does not care about what the public thinks, does not care about anything, except not offending the people that work at Disney. So, really, unless there is massive turnover in who works at Disney, and a whole new regime comes in that does not care about what the people that work there think, well, there will be no change. Disney at the moment has some of the most draconian policies in the business...and intend to appeal to a small fraction of the public rather than most of the public. They are feeling this financially and so, I won't say there is no hope, because it is money that matters most to shareholders, but I would not expect rapid change.

 

[RobertMG]

Well, it reached it about 13 pages ago but that hasn't stopped anyone, lol

Well, it reached it about 13 pages ago but that hasn't stopped anyone, lol

"WE WANT DISNEY TO RELEASE Song of the South!"

"Well, they're not going to."

Honestly, how many times can we rinse and repeat?

We know Robert Iger is on Twitter and he has never seen any of these posts - I will help

So, I don't have a lot to say on this. I definitely think this and all films should be available to the public to see at their leisure. I would like to be clear about something though, pictures like this and The Devils that remain ignored by the companies that own them are not the result of what the public has to say nor the government, they are out of the public eye specifically because people that work in the industry do not want to release them. That's it. It is not really about the internet, nor cancel culture, nor the public throwing a fit. Companies like Disney have made the choice that removal is better for them because of who works at the company. It has nothing to do with us or anything outside of that. People that work for Disney find the picture offensive and that is that. Nobody cares about what the public thinks or wants, no government officials are telling them what to do, it is completely internal. Which is why people keep expressing here that nothing people say will change things.

Disney won't license it out, does not care about the history, does not care about what the public thinks, does not care about anything, except not offending the people that work at Disney. So, really, unless there is massive turnover in who works at Disney, and a whole new regime comes in that does not care about what the people that work there think, well, there will be no change. Disney at the moment has some of the most draconian policies in the business...and intend to appeal to a small fraction of the public rather than most of the public. They are feeling this financially and so, I won't say there is no hope, because it is money that matters most to shareholders, but I would not expect rapid change.

Sadly as each new generation grows up and moves on the historic Disney will fade away - you know there is hope at WBs the new guy took J L Warners desk out of storage - he loves WBs history meanwhile Iger is scrubbing Disneys but rumors that Disney might have to sell ABC ESPN etc shows Disney is in a mess - lets hope they find new leadership to restore the legend that WAS Disney The GREAT SOTS site says that film is PD in 18 years

 

[Capt D McMars]

So, I don't have a lot to say on this. I definitely think this and all films should be available to the public to see at their leisure. I would like to be clear about something though, pictures like this and The Devils that remain ignored by the companies that own them are not the result of what the public has to say nor the government, they are out of the public eye specifically because people that work in the industry do not want to release them. That's it. It is not really about the internet, nor cancel culture, nor the public throwing a fit. Companies like Disney have made the choice that removal is better for them because of who works at the company. It has nothing to do with us or anything outside of that. People that work for Disney find the picture offensive and that is that. Nobody cares about what the public thinks or wants, no government officials are telling them what to do, it is completely internal. Which is why people keep expressing here that nothing people say will change things.

Disney won't license it out, does not care about the history, does not care about what the public thinks, does not care about anything, except not offending the people that work at Disney. So, really, unless there is massive turnover in who works at Disney, and a whole new regime comes in that does not care about what the people that work there think, well, there will be no change. Disney at the moment has some of the most draconian policies in the business...and intend to appeal to a small fraction of the public rather than most of the public. They are feeling this financially and so, I won't say there is no hope, because it is money that matters most to shareholders, but I would not expect rapid change.

 

[Will Krupp]

Disney won't license it out, does not care about the history, does not care about what the public thinks, does not care about anything, except not offending the people that work at Disney. So, really, unless there is massive turnover in who works at Disney, and a whole new regime comes in that does not care about what the people that work there think, well, there will be no change.

While I agree with the spirit of your post, I feel the need to correct the record on this part, with all due respect. It's less about not offending the people that work there (when did THAT become a bad thing, by the way?) as it is about the demographic they serve. As has been said before, Disney is a living, breathing company that caters to families and children. "Their" public is parents attempting to negotiate life with small children in the world of today, not classic film fans of a certain age. "Warning" on the box or not, all you need is one well meaning grandma to buy this for her grandkids and the narrative becomes "Disney is selling 'tar babies' and a story about 'happy slaves' to children." Disney has unequivocally said, like it or not, that they want no part of that narrative. All of the nuanced talk about whether or not it's really "cringe" is just noise. It does not matter in the least. The Disney name is the Disney name and they will protect it above all else.

Disney at the moment has some of the most draconian policies in the business...and intend to appeal to a small fraction of the public rather than most of the public. They are feeling this financially and so, I won't say there is no hope, because it is money that matters most to shareholders, but I would not expect rapid change.

WE are a small fraction of the public, not the other way around. Most people outside of forums like this couldn't care less one way or the other about Song of the South. I will not get political, but Disney's theme park troubles, quarterly earnings, and the sudden ouster of Bob Chopek have nothing whatsoever to do with any perceived political correctness on their part.

Let's put it in perspective. They just paid Scarlett Johansson $50 million dollars to withdraw her Black Widow lawsuit, do we really think they care about how much a blu-ray release of Song of the South might net?