It is next to impossible to buy or rent Disney’s 1946 film Song of the South, through regular retail channels, in the US. Rumors are that Disney has “encouraged” video rental chains to pull it from their shelves. It is not sold anywhere in the US (excluding private transactions between private parties, of course). Never mind that Disneyland and Walt Disney World each have an attraction based on the movie (Splash Mountain, in case you didn’t know).
Why the Walt Disney Company is censoring its own history is beyond me. This Snopes Page gives a good overview into the history of the film, and objections to it.
Bottom line, however, is that the film is a part of our history, and it tells the story in a way that is consistent with the attitudes of the time in which it was made. BFD. So what if some of those attitudes were bad. History is history, regardless of how we feel about it today.
Tangent to this conversation is the fact that TV networks are censoring old cartoons (such as Looney Toons and whatnot) from the past that include Speedy Gonzalez, the black maid from some of the Tom & Jerry shorts, etc. Good God, people! Are we Americans really so sensitive that we don’t want to see how less-enlightened people, from two or three generations ago, portrayed some of us? Cry me a river.
Please make your case either way, as I look forward to reading diverse opinions about the subject.
Disney is so gun-shy about possible controversy that we’ll probably never see an official video release. This is a shame because I think, with the right approach, a video release could satisfy collectors and naysayers alike.
First, they should give the licensing rights to a third party video company like Criterion who has released several other Disney DVD titles. Criterion is well respected within the home video community for its scholarly approach and the quality of its releases. They would do a proper restoration of the movie and could approach the material with supplements and/or documentaries that deal with the issue of slavery. Another documentary could then go further and put the movie in the historical context of its release in 1946 and how much has changed since then. The tradtional Disney marketing should be avoided at all costs (no Br’er Rabbit Burger King cups) but rather go upscale to grab serious collectors and maybe even educators. Also, don’t forget that the tales of Uncle Remus are based on actual Black Folktales of the period that, otherwise, have had little media exposure.
I lament that Disney has taken the easy route of self-censorship but, considering the likely vocal opposition in some corners to this movie, I’m not terribly surprised at their stance.
I should note that Disney has only surpressed the release in North America and legitimate videos are available in Europe as well as a laser disc release in Japan.
I vaguely recall reading that Turner had ordered Speedy pulled from its US stations to avoid offending Hispanics. Meanwhile, Turner was showing Speedy in Mexico, and Speedy was one of the most popular shows in that region.
So either Hispanics get a lot more sensitive when they’re north of the Rio Grande, or Turner is a big ninny. I vote option two.
Speedy Gonzales is banned! No way! I’m a frequent visitor to Cartoon Channel, Tex Avery is tres cool and I know I’ve seen him a couple of times lately.
Saw Song when I was a kid, and my memory isn’t all that clear, but the film centered around a wise, gray avuncular black man who is clearly to be revered and loved, kind of like an Aesop. The dialect can’t be offensive, because Chandler made most of it up, “B’rer” as a contraction of “brother” was, IIRC, entirely his own invention. If you didn’t already know the background, there is no way you would connect the characters with American blacks.
I don’t think releasing to theaters is a good idea, that just provides ammunition to the Al Sharptons and others who make a darn good living being oppressed. But it might well offend the black community at large, and it’s not that great a movie to begin with. Bugs Bunny is funnier.
But released for videotape/DVD. Sure, why not? If I got kids over to see it, and one is of AfrAm derivation, I might check with his folks to make sure they’re cool with that, but thats just being respectful of people’s feelings. I would expect the same consideration if they feel like telling a joke that starts “So this genius walks into a bar…”
I’m confused. Are you saying that you’re a genius or a drunk?
As to the OP, my personal opinion is that the movie will be released in the US within the next 5 years or less. I can find Amos and Andy tapes at my public library right now. And no one has complained. I grew up with the movie and the written stories and it didn’t cause me to have negative sterotyped opinions of Blacks. Rather, any stereotyped opinions were picked up from my grandmother and my parents. I resisted them successfully. I know this is anecdotal, but I think the times are a changing.
An important thing to know when talking about Song of the South*: It’s set in the post-Civil War era. The African Americans in the story are servants, not slaves. This point seems to have been lost on most people who debate the movie’s virtues and faults.
Last Christmas, I got my brother a copy of Song of the South. It wasn’t cheap; I had to buy a British version of the tape from a UK retailer, then pay to have the PAL video converted to NTSC. Net price, over $70 for one videotape. As of December 20, 2001, apparently Disney has decided to pull “Song of the South” even from overseas markets, which means that the same tape today will cost you $230. But, some of you might have that kind of cash lying around, so if you want to do it, you can get the video here.
Disney is known for altering their past, trying to keep everything “family friendly”. I’m still pissed that my DVD of Fantasia says that it’s the “original theatrical version”, yet they’ve trimmed a number of black centaurs out of the “Rite of Spring” portion of the program. What makes their blacklisting of Song of the South so disappointing, though, is that it’s a damn fine movie, and “Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah” is a damn fine song. Hell, the song won an Oscar, and yet they choose to leave it on the shelf. The 50th anniversary passed in 1996 with no fanfare or release, so the situation today looks very grim indeed.
Most objections, even in this thread, seem to be that the movie sugarcoats slavery. The thing is, it’s supposed to be set in the 1870s, though they don’t make that very clear in the movie; a title sequence that would have made the date abundantly clear was cut.
But oh well, who cares, can’t risk offending someone. I can’t wait until they put pants on “David”.
Now I don’t know this movie well enough to comment about it specifically.
But to answer in the more general … there is a difference between presenting a kid’s movie to adults, or older children, as an illustration of what values were just a few decades ago, and how stereotypes were pervasive and accepted. That is history and the study of it. It is quite another to rebroadcast movies that contain blatant stereotypes inappropriate by today’s standards outside of such a context, to broadcast those stereotypes today in a venue that is marketed as children’s entertainment.
So, broadcast during “Adult Swim” or as an adult hours special on the history of animation or of stereotypes in popular media, sure. But broadcast or marketed as a kids movie for mindless consumption by young developing minds, no.
I still have my Disney storybooks, I’ll bet, and there were quite a few featuring Br’er Rabbit and company. Those were always my favorite. I don’t know if they count, but they don’t mention the storyteller.
If that’s the case, I think that the cartoon channel will be cutting more than half of their fare soon. And how does South Park do it? While you might argue that’s it parody, young kids(and yes, they do watch) are being to treated to stereotypes that they might not realize are false.
How do you feel about Amos and Andy videos being available at my public library? Amos and Andy shows would have to be more blatantly stereotypically negative towards Blacks than Song of the South IMHO. I mean, you actually get to see real people making fools of themselves. Not unlike Chester Riley, Ralph Kramden or Ed Norton.
I bought a video copy of Song of the South a few years back, for my kids. I have fond memories of the movie from when I was growing up.
For the life of me, I cannot find what would be so offensive, even for a kids’ audience. The worst stereotype (I agree that it is serious - not trying to make light of it) is that blacks were servents and whites were affluent. However, that is also accurate for the period.
The movie portrays black families in a very positive, human light. While the white adults tend to not consider the blacks their equals, the two young white kids, unprejudiced, are befriended by Uncle Remus and the other blacks. The black characters show wisdom, respect, and high moral standards.
It seems to me that the movie was intended to illustrate the hypocracy of racist attitudes. While I cannot refute the portrayal that Patricia Turner lays out on the snopes page linked in the OP, I find it a bit nit-picking, and only seeing a few trees, totally missing the forest.
What do you mean “bring it into action”? I don’t think we can genetically engineer talking Brer rabbits yet. But I DO think they should bring this movie back into circulation in the United States. I find it saddening that in a country that supposedly values free speech, there is still much censorship going on.
Slavery is part of our history also. And it should be taught in schools. We can’t close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears humming “LA LA LA LA” and pretend that bad things never happened.
Huckleberry Fin is a great book about how a poor southern kid and an escaped black slave became friends. Yet in this modern day and age, there are people who want to ban it from libraries because it has the word “nigger” in it. Obviously that makes it evil, even though that’s the way everyone talked back then. Burn that book!
Censorship is wrong. Even if the things being censored are considered racist by todays standards, they still can give us a valuable lesson about how much our society has progressed over the years.
South Park is not marketed to the preteen crowd. Sure, they watch, and they turn on Dad’s porn channel too, but it aint comparable to being next to Muppet Babies in the TV line-up.
Available in the library also aint marketed to the kids crowd for casual entertainment. Now where in the library is it? In the first grader section? I’d object. 5th grade and over section? It should be available there. As should be Huck Finn, of course.
Not a question of censorship but of appropriate venue. (Again, not specific to this movie, which I have no specific recollection of.)
And then a profit/loss analysis by the business. Is that audience large enough to justify a rerelease? Are the potential negative consequences (in this world where peole get in trouble for using the word “niggling”) worth the amount of potential revenues generated? Not censorship, just a calculated business decision. Despite their recent performance, that is what they are … a for profit business.
Don’t know what planet you’re living on, Bla; however, on the one I grew up (Earth), the history classes in my schools in Virginia (of all places!) actually taught about Slavery.
