Song of the South (1 Viewer)

[Edwin-S]

The New York Times article you linked to that spoke of Mary Poppins further blackening her face just never...ever...spoke to me as being any form of racism.

Why? Because it is a movie that you enjoy and find to be a "classic" so, all of a sudden, it gets the soft shoe treatment? Racist stereotypes are racist stereotypes. If they grounds to eliminate access to one film then they are grounds to eliminate access to any film that contains them. In fact, there are greater grounds to eliminate access to "Mary Poppins" than "SoTS", because it contains images of White actors with connections to blackface which goes back to a long history of Minstrel performance, unlke "SoTS" that at least had a Black actor and Black voice actors as leads.

So, it is okay for Disney to banish a film with actual Blacks in lead roles as racist while continuing to release films that show Whites parodying Blacks and then having the gall to claim that they are doing it on some moral grounds? Frankly, the only people who should have a say on whether "SoTS" is buried is the descendants of the actor and voice actors that worked on the film. I could at least respect their wishes if they decided that they wanted the performances of their ancestors to disappear once and for all, but for Disney to take a holier-than-though position regarding release of the film because...their reputation.....while continuing to re-release films that contain "racist" elements is the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Malcolm R]

I didn't think they were trying to portray blacks or blackface in MP. They're chimney sweeps, who naturally get dirty and sooty doing their jobs. I've never seen anything racial about that scene. Just a dirty job done by people who naturally get dirty while doing it.

 

[Dick]

I didn't think they were trying to portray blacks or blackface in MP. They're chimney sweeps, who naturally get dirty and sooty doing their jobs. I've never seen anything racial about that scene. Just a dirty job done by people who naturally get dirty while doing it.

Exactly.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The Mary Poppins references bring up an interesting point. The original print run of the original series of novels featured some very racist material that was very derogatory towards black people. While I don’t think the Mary Poppins film itself is racist, some of the original books are.

The books were revised, I believe within the author’s lifetime and possibly by her own hand, to remove the racist material. I suppose you could call it a case of not throwing out the baby with the bath water. If only the racist original versions of the Poppins novels remained in print, who knows if Disney would have been touched them in the first place. Clearly a decision was made that it was better to adjust the text rather than having it swept into the dustbin of history by indifferent or offended audiences.

 

[MatthewA]

It still glorifies a shameful period in English history: one where male homosexuality was illegal (but not female homosexuality, interesting enough). That period hadn't ended until 1967, four years before Bedknobs and Broomsticks came out and two years before the US saw the Stonewall riots. I agree with Edwin-S and I wish I could like his post a million times. That Woman has gotten off the hook for far too long, and that part of the reason for withdrawing Song and cutting the two 70s hybrids (after restoring one but not the other) is to prop this one up artificially. If it could stand on its own merits (which are nonexistent), this wouldn't be necessary. It and it alone deserves the kind of criticism the others got because it is far more racist, far more derivative, and just not very good when you consider the level of hype surrounding it. It didn't just steal from SotS, but from Alice In Wonderland, Dumbo, Gigi, and Babes in Toyland. And it also gave the sugar industry free publicity you just can't buy. That stuff fueled the slave trade.

And as for "quirks," Miss Price was quirky. Her predecessor was a sociopath.

So, it is okay for Disney to banish a film with actual Blacks in lead roles as racist while continuing to release films that show Whites parodying Blacks and then having the gall to claim that they are doing it on some moral grounds?

This.

It does not help when they are constantly chanting "step in", which sounds like Stepin Fetchit, a black caricature of the 1930s now similarly discredited. Except he was actually black, too.

 

[darkrock17]

It still glorifies a shameful period in English history: one where male homosexuality was illegal (but not female homosexuality, interesting enough). That period hadn't ended until 1967, four years before Bedknobs and Broomsticks came out and two years before the US saw the Stonewall riots. I agree with Edwin-S and I wish I could like his post a million times. That Woman has gotten off the hook for far too long, and that part of the reason for withdrawing Song and cutting the two 70s hybrids is to prop this one up artificially. If it could stand on its own merits (which are nonexistent), this wouldn't be necessary. It and it alone deserves the kind of criticism the others got because it is far more racist and far more derivative. And they also gave the sugar industry free publicity you just can't buy.

And as for "quirks," Miss Price was quirky. Her predecessor was a sociopath.



It does not help when they are constantly chanting "step in", which sounds like Stepin Fetchit.

When it comes to Mary Poppins, the Edwardian period is what people love most about the Brits, especially more than ever since Downton Abbey premiered almost 10 years ago. That period is heavily romanticized, just like the Antebellum South is in Gone With The Wind. In reality both of those time periods were anything but, except for those who were wealthy enough.

The reason why Mary Poppins is so popular 55 years later is that Disney has constantly made her aware to public where as BedKnobs and Pete's Dragon have since been basically locked up, with only being allowed a few outings here and there.

I don't know if I would call Mary a sociopath, she's a magical person that can't be labeled as such since she is not a human being per say. Miss Price on the other hand is human, and her character is more relate-able because she's not perfect like Mary is. She knows she's in way-over her head when it comes to witchcraft, but she's willing to keep trying at again and again to accomplish what she wants to do. Where as Mary can do it the right way all the time every time, because that's the type of person she is.

 

[MatthewA]

Song of the South is locked up.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon got time off for good behavior.

So Dear to My Heart served its sentence.

That Woman is the only actual criminal. She killed all the other applicants for the job, she gaslights and threatens the children over a rigged horse race she cheated at, and she only exists to put back together a family whose whole livelihood depends on usury. And her relationships with other adult women are less than cordial. It is a crime that that film has been put on a pedestal for so long, especially when Disney has slighted every other hybrid in one way or another. It never should have been made. If anything, it prejudiced others who disliked it against subsequent (and superior) works the Sherman Brothers created.* The books were just as bad; I read one chapter and promptly burned them. Terrible, terrible writing from a woman who treated Walt poorly and expected the red carpet treatment for it. And I have been bullied BY ADULTS AS AN ADULT for criticizing it. Disney would be better off without it. Four years after its initial home video release (20 years after its initial theatrical release), they were still fighting with corporate greenmailers for their existence, so it did precious little to stop Disney from near financial ruin.

In Song of the South, Johnny is not to blame for the iniquties of the society he was born in because he and Ginny are the only ones — at least among the film's white characters — trying to do something about it. It's easier to care about them, or the Rawlins children or Pete who have no family at all and have to find one.

*There are other parallels to this film in their other works. In Summer Magic, Hayley Mills can wear pants to do housework, but much like Johnny, her little brother must get a haircut or be bullied by other boys. That's a switch from the original Parent Trap where both Susan and Sharon could have short hair, except that was not a period piece. John Lawless in The Happiest Millionaire is the closest thing to a white Uncle Remus as the studio ever got. In The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band, Grandpa Bower, a former Confederate soldier, almost gets thrown off the family farm, just like Uncle Remus, but this time for interfering in his granddaughter's love life. The Sailor Bear in Bedknobs and Broomsticks is basically a white version of Br'er Bear. Even after the Shermans left Disney, the studio didn't stop; the Gogan brothers of Pete's Dragon are basically older, more brutal versions of the Favors boys. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit is self-explanatory: a white rabbit in the same postwar Hollywood that created Song of the South.

 

[JohnMor]

When it comes to Mary Poppins, the Edwardian period is what people love most about the Brits, especially more than ever since Downton Abbey premiered almost 10 years ago. That period is heavily romanticized, just like the Antebellum South is in Gone With The Wind. In reality both of those time periods were anything but, except for those who were wealthy enough.

The reason why Mary Poppins is so popular 55 years later is that Disney has constantly made her aware to public where as BedKnobs and Pete's Dragon have since been basically locked up, with only being allowed a few outings here and there.

I don't know if I would call Mary a sociopath, she's a magical person that can't be labeled as such since she is not a human being per say. Miss Price on the other hand is human, and her character is more relate-able because she's not perfect like Mary is.

And, of course, Mary Poppins is a much better film. Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a pleasant entertainment but essentially a pale imitation of Poppins with none of the creators functioning at the level they had on the earlier film. Lansbury really shines and brings it up a notch higher than it would have been with anyone else.

 

[darkrock17]

And, of course, Mary Poppins is a much better film. Bedknobs and Broomsticks is a pleasant entertainment but essentially a pale imitation of Poppins with none of the creators functioning at the level they had on the earlier film. Lansbury really shines and brings it up a notch higher than it would have been with anyone else.

Bedknobs And Broomsticks came very close to being made in 1963, because Walt was having problems trying to convince PL Travers to let him adapt Mary Poppins. While he was waiting on Poppins, Walt was already working on Bedknobs. Both films are equally enjoyable in their own ways, I love them both, but BedKnobs is my all time favorite live action film.

 

[Mysto]

Bedknobs And Broomsticks came very close to being made in 1963, because Walt was having problems trying to convince PL Travers to let him adapt Mary Poppins. While he was waiting on Poppins, Walt was already working on Bedknobs. Both films are equally enjoyable in their own ways, I love them both, but BedKnobs is my all time favorite live action film.

Well I can't say it's my all time favorite but I do think it is underrated. The uncut version is far superior IMHO.

 

[darkrock17]

Well I can't say it's my all time favorite but I do think it is underrated. The uncut version is far superior IMHO.

And yet Disney gives us the theatrical cut on Blu and probably will do the same on Disney+.

 

[JohnMor]

And yet Disney gives us the theatrical cut on Blu and probably will do the same on Disney+.

One of their myriad mind-boggling decisions. While I don’t rank it as high as MP, I would have upgraded to the blu-ray had it been the restored cut.

 

[Mysto]

And yet Disney gives us the theatrical cut on Blu and probably will do the same on Disney+.

I doubt probably enters into it. But I would love to be amazed and surprised.

 

[darkrock17]

Song of the South is locked up.

Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Pete's Dragon got time off for good behavior.

So Dear to My Heart served its sentence.

That Woman is the only actual criminal. She killed all the other applicants for the job, she gaslights and threatens the children over a rigged horse race she cheated at, and she only exists to put back together a family whose whole livelihood depends on usury. And her relationships with other adult women are less than cordial. It is a crime that that film has been put on a pedestal for so long, especially when Disney has slighted every other hybrid in one way or another. It never should have been made. If anything, it prejudiced others who disliked it against subsequent (and superior) works the Sherman Brothers created.* The books were just as bad; I read one chapter and promptly burned them. Terrible, terrible writing from a woman who treated Walt poorly and expected the red carpet treatment for it. And I have been bullied BY ADULTS AS AN ADULT for criticizing it.

In Song of the South, Johnny is not to blame for the iniquties of the society he was born in because he and Ginny are the only ones — at least among the film's white characters — trying to do something about it. It's easier to care about them, or the Rawlins children or Pete who have no family at all.

*There are other parallels to this film in their other works. In Summer Magic, Hayley Mills can wear pants to do housework, but much like Johnny, her little brother must get a haircut or be bullied by other boys. That's a switch from the original Parent Trap where both Susan and Sharon could have short hair, except that was not a period piece. John Lawless in The Happiest Millionaire is the closest thing to a white Uncle Remus as the studio ever got. In The One and Only Genuine Original Family Band, Grandpa Bower, a former Confederate soldier, almost gets thrown off the family farm, just like Uncle Remus, but this time for interfering in his granddaughter's love life. The Sailor Bear in Bedknobs and Broomsticks is basically a white version of Br'er Bear. Even after the Shermans left Disney, the studio didn't stop; the Gogan brothers of Pete's Dragon are basically older, more brutal versions of the Favors boys. And Who Framed Roger Rabbit is self-explanatory: a white rabbit in the same postwar Hollywood that created Song of the South.

So Dear To My Heart got released, when?

Matthew, it is just a movie remember that.

Why did you make your foot note so small, almost need a magnify glass to read it.

 

[MatthewA]

So Dear to My Heart has been on DVD for quite some time and has been on some of the same streaming/online venues in HD where other back catalog titles also were, but not Blu-ray.

The footnotes are at a size 2. They used to be at size 1 because that was considered too small for information I didn't want to forget but that was only related to the main subject indirectly. Making them bigger would take the focus off of it.

The uncut version is far superior IMHO.

That's the only version that ever should have existed in the first place. Disney stacked the deck by cutting it and every other musical released after Walt's death, but even in a cut version Bedknobs and Broomsticks was still a much more entertaining and substantially less annoying film than its predecessor, which is just plain vile beyond belief. It is not a pale imitation; it's an upgrade from a downgrade. Even then you could tell there were the remnants of a masterpiece and that there was much more to it that somehow got left out.* The 97-minute version, which used to be what broadcast TV got, is painful to watch; even the Sherman Brothers couldn't bring themselves to do so. Luckily, we don't have to anymore, but for them to deprive us of an option to watch it uncut is unforgivable. They cut the film three times, reverting back to the cut version after restoring the uncut version, and even then with the film footage for one song still at large. Spite is the only reason for that. Sabotage to prop up an inferior film. Deep down they know this is the better film, that's why they cut it. They were afraid if it was too good, people would forget about Walt and what he created; nothing could be further than the truth. They did to it exactly what Cinderella's stepsisters did to her dress. There need to be criminal penalties for the desecration of Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

None of that changes the fact that all of these films are copying Song of the South. The same "but Disney is a business" excuse used to justify the butchery of its most artistically accomplished successor is the same one used to take this off the market.

Matthew, it is just a movie remember that.

No, it's not. It's in the theme parks, on live stage, a making-of movie, and a sequel. They are intent on shoving it in your face in as many media as they can. It's got to stop. The New York Times was right. Not only that, they didn't go far enough. The books and the movie and everything related to them are offensive enough on an artistic and moral level to justify banishing them forever. Some things are worth more than money. And if Disney is serious about improving race relations and doing something about childhood obesity, they will. The world would be a better place without it and with Song of the South. The latter's only real crime was enabling the former. Read this out loud:

So, it is okay for Disney to banish a film with actual Blacks in lead roles as racist while continuing to release films that show Whites parodying Blacks and then having the gall to claim that they are doing it on some moral grounds?

 

[Dick]

So Dear to My Heart has been on DVD for quite some time and has been on some of the same streaming/online venues in HD where other back catalog titles also were, but not Blu-ray.

The footnotes are at a size 2. They used to be at size 1 because that was considered too small for information I didn't want to forget but that was only related to the main subject indirectly. Making them bigger would take the focus off of it.



That's the only version that ever should have existed in the first place. Disney stacked the deck by cutting it and every other musical released after Walt's death, but even in a cut version Bedknobs and Broomsticks was still a much more entertaining and substantially less annoying film than its predecessor, which is just plain vile beyond belief. It is not a pale imitation; it's an upgrade from a downgrade. Even then you could tell there were the remnants of a masterpiece and that there was much more to it that somehow got left out.* The 97-minute version, which used to be what broadcast TV got, is painful to watch; even the Sherman Brothers couldn't bring themselves to do so. Luckily, we don't have to anymore, but for them to deprive us of an option to watch it uncut is unforgivable. They cut the film three times, reverting back to the cut version after restoring the uncut version, and even then with the film footage for one song still at large. Spite is the only reason for that. Sabotage to prop up an inferior film. Deep down they know this is the better film, that's why they cut it. They were afraid if it was too good, people would forget about Walt and what he created; nothing could be further than the truth. They did to it exactly what Cinderella's stepsisters did to her dress. There need to be criminal penalties for the desecration of Bedknobs and Broomsticks.

None of that changes the fact that all of these films are copying Song of the South. The same "but Disney is a business" excuse used to justify the butchery of its most artistically accomplished successor is the same one used to take this off the market.




No, it's not. It's in the theme parks, on live stage, a making-of movie, and a sequel. They are intent on shoving it in your face in as many media as they can. It's got to stop. The New York Times was right. Not only that, they didn't go far enough. The books and the movie and everything related to them are offensive enough on an artistic and moral level to justify banishing them forever. Some things are worth more than money. And if Disney is serious about improving race relations and doing something about childhood obesity, they will. The world would be a better place without it and with Song of the South. The latter's only real crime was enabling the former. Read this out loud:

So, what, Matthew...you don't like MARY POPPINS?

 

[RobertR]

So, what, Matthew...you don't like MARY POPPINS?

Um, I suspect he's being sarcastic to make a point....

 

[FatherDude]

Except nothing has been erased.

For Dumbo, the original camera negative remains intact at Disney.

This doesn't rise above the level of hearsay, but I stumbled upon this, which suggests in the case of FANTASIA that the censored frames might have been excluded from any internal restoration effort. If they are deliberately letting the 35mm elements for censored material rot away, then erasure is not too strong a word for the eventuality that points to.

I'm more confident in DUMBO and SONG OF THE SOUTH being preserved in 4K, as it was reported back in 2011 that this is exactly what happened to those films along with much of the Disney library as part of a broader effort to future-proof the cataog.

 

[Dick]

Um, I suspect he's being sarcastic to make a point....

So was I.

 

[TJPC]

So the film was available on LaserDisc in Japan and VHS in Europe. Britain showed it on television recently enough. I never have understood, if something is deemed racist, why is it available in other countries outside the U.S.? Is it not also racist there?

I first saw the film at the Chinese Theatre when they showed it for a week; I believe it was 1989, but not entirely certain. What all of this censorship or cultural sensitivity is doing is making people see evil in things. I mean, should we eliminate all those scenes of those gay servants who were made fun of in Astaire/Rogers musicals?

Call me Mr. Insensitive but that is something I have never noticed at all in my 60 years of watching and loving these musicals. I really don’t know what you are referring to.