Why Can’t You Watch Disney’s Song of the South?

[ganzfeld]

Good. The thing is, I don't see how it could be done for the OP movie. Build another movie around the movie, maybe... A few extra tracks on the DVD just isn't going to do it.

[Ryda Wong, EBfCo.]

Originally Posted by Furienna

Maybe I'm not African American, but how does that make me unqualified to have an opinion?

It doesn't. That's not what I wrote at all.

I'm sure there are black people out there, who don't consider this movie as the most evil thing, that Disney has ever done.

Who is suggesting it is seen as the most evil thing Disney has ever done?

Many people have watched "Song of the South" and rather see it as boring and sackarine than as racist.

They'd have to be pretty dense to miss the racism.

If I've understood it correctly, they don't even use the "stereotypes" as jokes, like many cartoons did in the same era.

So what? Racist stereotypes are fine if not used as jokes?

And even if it has stereotypes, shouldn't we just see this movie as a product of its time?

OK. But that doesn't make it any less racist or offensive.

So really, what did you expect from it?

I expect nothing from it. That doesn't make it any less racist or offensive.

[musicgeek]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

Good. The thing is, I don't see how it could be done for the OP movie. Build another movie around the movie, maybe... A few extra tracks on the DVD just isn't going to do it.

There's been some serious discussion of this, seemingly every few years when a possible video rerelease is discussed by Disney. A fairly comprehensive look at Joel Chandler Harris' history, the reconstruction era, minstrelsy, etc. could certainly be an extra feature, but there could be a briefer, unskippable preface attached to a DVD rerelease - this would, at bare minimum, explain the provenance of the stories and provide some cultural context, as well as providing the caveat that the depiction of post-Civil War southern life seen in the film is a product of the film's time, and is rightfully criticized as racist and historically disingenuous today. It could (should?) be sold only as a special edition, preferably with an accompanying print book, video interviews with relevant scholars, discussion of Br'er Rabbit's link to traditional African folklore tricksters such as Anansi, etc.

[Furienna]

That's what I've been thinking as well. I believe WB has released several old cartoons with old stereotypes, which feel weird today, but they provided it with a preface. So why can't Disney too do something like that, instead of just refusing to release "Song of the South"? Just denying the past like this, even when it might be painful to some people, won't do anybody any good. And I have to watch that movie one of these days, so I can see for myself if it really is that bad anyway...

[Lainie]

What's their incentive to do so? It's much easier and less controversial to simply keep the thing under wraps.

[Furienna]

Well, it would give more people a chance to see this movie for themselves. Of course, I don't know how many would buy it, but people would at least get a chance to do so. And I don't think "keeping things under wraps" is such a good idea.

[Lainie]

Perhaps I should have said "what is their business incentive to do so?" Disney is a for-profit corporation, not an educational foundation.

And although the movie is kept under wraps, the history with which it is associated is not. If people don't know about it, it's not because Disney or anyone else is keeping it from them.

[musicgeek]

I'd hazard a guess that they'd manage to make money on it.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Even if they didn't, they could probably organize it in such a way that they'd generated some good publicity (like if they donated part of the sales to an African American heritage group).

[ganzfeld]

Not releasing a movie is not "denying the past". I wish people would stop making it as if Disney has the freaking Mona Lisa hidden in a vault. Even if they did and it was a racist piece of spit then the world could live with a photo and a caption in a textbook rather than putting it on display in the Louvre. Most old art dies. Get over it.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Furienna

I believe WB has released several old cartoons with old stereotypes, which feel weird today, but they provided it with a preface. So why can't Disney too do something like that, instead of just refusing to release "Song of the South"?

Because Song of the South has no princess, and thus no prime marketing opportunities for modern children.

[RealityChuck]

Those who will get upset over any rerelease will probably never watch the film, nor will they read any material putting it in context. That's what always happens. So there's no way to avoid a media uproar, which Disney is always careful to avoid.

[ganzfeld]

Unfortunately, in this case and many others like it, "putting in context" sometimes just means making excuses for disgusting ignorance rather than really coming to terms with it. And I don't blame anyone for not watching a rerelease. Why should people reward this kind of thing? If it hadn't been for this kind of reactionary "OMG PC people are ruining our memories!" BS then no one would even care about this movie.

[Vramin]

I remember seeing it a long time ago and I didn't find it that good of a movie anyways. So even if they did release it it might not be good for Disney just because of the dollars.

[Auburn Red]

I saw it on Youtube. I thought the live action parts were rather dull, myself. However the line about you can't run away from trouble, there's no place that far always sticks with me. But I loved the animated sequences with Brer Rabbit. Now as for the controversy, I can see why there continues to be problems with it. It is set post-Civil War, but except for a few lines of dialogue here and there, the viewer wouldn't know it. It still appears to be set during the Antebellum South and gives a false impression of happy slaves living under their masters (as opposed to free people who have every reason to be happy) It does have many stereotypes of African-Americans that were so prevalent in Hollywood at the time.
But personally, I don't think that Disney should deny its existance. I think they should use it, almost as a teaching tool to show what people thought back then. Perhaps include it with documentaries about the production's troubled history or a history of African-American actors. To deny a thing only makes it larger. You can't change the past, the only thing that you can do is learn from it.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Disney isn't denying its existence, they're just not selling it.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by Auburn Red

It still appears to be set during the Antebellum South and gives a false impression of happy slaves living under their masters (as opposed to free people who have every reason to be happy).

So you don't think there ever was a slave, who was happy with his/her life? That's really overgeneralizing it, isn't it? Before anyone gets the idea, that I support slavery or something, of course I don't. But I bet there were many slaves, who weren't miserable every day of their lives.

[Furienna]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

Disney isn't denying its existence, they're just not selling it.

They're denying the existence of the black centaur in "Fantasia".

[Aimee Evilpixie]

Originally Posted by Furienna

But I bet there were many slaves, who weren't miserable every day of their lives.

No, if you were a kept house slave with an owner who didn't beat you, your life probably didn't suck too much.

Except for, you know, the fact that you were treated as property instead of people and literally had no rights and could be sold away from your friends and family at any time.

Other than that I'm sure it was awesome.

Here's some watching for people who would like to know more about how slavery worked.

[Aimee Evilpixie]

Originally Posted by Furienna

They're denying the existence of the black centaur in "Fantasia".

Are they? Or did they just remove her from the prints and don't mention it? Not mentioning it isn't the same as denying it.