My thoughts on "Song of the South"

DisneyManOne

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Hello, everyone. I'm DisneyManOne. I normally frequent the Imagineer section of the forums, but tonight, I've come here to address my opinions on a certain film.

A couple days ago, I was on YouTube and I had the opportunity to watch a film that I've always wanted to see. And that film was Walt Disney's "Song of the South".

"Song of the South" has become one of Disney's most infamous films, because due to controversies over its portrayal of race, it's been locked away in the Disney Vault ever since the 80's. But yet, I was able to find a copy on YouTube, and I watched it. And I must say...it was pretty good. I am not kidding. I found it really enjoyable--the songs, the characters (I didn't find them racist at all), the story--it was all a ton of fun.

For those of you who have never seen this movie, I'll give you a brief synopsis. The time is the Reconstruction Era. The place is a plantation in Georgia. The story revolves around Johnny (played by Bobby Driscoll), who moves to a plantation owned by his grandmother (Lucile Watson). There, he meets up with a wise old African-American man named Uncle Remus (played to perfection by James Baskett). Throughout the course of the film, Remus tells Bobby, as well as his new friends Ginny (Luana Patten) and Toby (Glenn Leedy), tales about Brer Rabbit (voice of Johnny Lee), and how he uses his mind--instead of his body--to thwart his enemies, Brer Fox (also Baskett) and Brer Bear (Nick Stewart).

But, however, a couple of misunderstandings arise, and his mother (Ruth Warrick) doesn't like her son hanging out with Uncle Remus. But when Johnny gets in a tragic accident, it may be up to Uncle Remus to help the boy out...

Now, let's get the elephant out of the room right off quick. Is the portrayal of African-Americans racist? Honestly, I couldn't see it. It may be my general naïveté talking, but I couldn't see anything racist about the African-Americans in the film. They aren't shown working, no one's remotely racist towards them (the mother doesn't like Johnny hanging around Remus due to the aforementioned misunderstandings) and they all seem very happy and laid back. In the end, it's pretty obvious that the moral of the story is don't be prejudice, people come together, listen to one another, so the lesson certainly isn't bad.

Now, one thing that could be considered racist is the story about the "Tar Baby". Basically, in an attempt to catch Brer Rabbit, Brer Fox and Brer Bear set up a dummy made of tar on the side of the road. Brer Rabbit, angered at the dummy's lack of manners, attempts to knock some sense into it...literally. But as soon as he punches, he's stuck to the tar, and has to use reverse psychology to escape his captors. The term "tar baby" is viewed as having a negative connotation towards African Americans. But you gotta remember...this story actually goes all the way back to Africa, and was translated fairly well by Joel Chandler Harris, author of the original Brer Rabbit stories.

Now, let's discuss a major issue: was Walt Disney racist? The answer: HELL NO. Heck, Walt even knew that the movie could be viewed as insensitive, and he went as far as to hire Maurice Rapf as a screenwriter. Rapf was Jewish, and a well known liberal and was hired precisely to ameliorate any possible racism in the film. Walt apparently said to Rapf “I want you to do it because I know that you don’t think I should make the movie. You’re against Uncle Tomism, and you’re a radical.”

And you know, considering how deeply ingrained this idea is, and how many jokes have been made about Disney being racist and anti-semitic, I was actually surprised about just how little evidence there really is to support these accusations. Now, I’m not an investigative journalist, I’m just a guy with a search engine like the rest of you. But I haven’t really been able to turn up anything concrete. There is a famous Donald Duck cartoon called "Der Führer’s Face" (named after the famed Spike Jones song) depicting Donald having a nightmare about living in Nazi Germany where he squawks the words “Heil Hitler!” around forty bajillion times which has led to some claiming that Disney was a Nazi sympathizer. But the short is a quite vehemently anti-Nazi piece of propaganda (again, the short is a nightmare Donald's having, and at the end, he wakes up thankful to be living in the USA) and those are obviously people who don’t understand the concept of satire.

Was he an anti-Semite? Well, the B’nai B’rith named him Man of the Year in 1955 and a great many Jews worked in the studio during his time there so we must conclude that if he was an anti-Semite he was a very lazy one. (And we must also conclude to never trust Meryl Streep.)

Was he racist? Well his friendship with and support for James Baskett certainly doesn’t mean that he couldn’t be a racist, but it’s still compelling circumstantial evidence that he wasn’t, no? In fact, do you know how far his support went? He went to great lengths to make sure that Baskett got an honorary Academy Award for his portrayal of Uncle Remus, making him the first black man to win an Oscar (coincidentally, the first black woman to win an Oscar, Hattie McDaniel (for her portrayal of Mammy in "Gone with the Wind"), is his co-star, playing Aunt Tempe).

Looking at the current world views, Disney has every right to be aware of the movie's problematic nature. BUT...by refusing to release the film, Disney have done the exact opposite of what they intended. Instead of making people forget it ever existed, it’s now notorious. This is now “the racist Disney Movie”, which leads people to expect some kind of hate filled atrocity. Which, frankly, it’s really not. This film is simplistic and naive, and insultingly so, but it does not come from a hateful place.

Honestly, Disney shouldn't have to hide it. They should be able to share it with the world. Go all out. Release the movie on DVD with commentaries from historians and black academics. Put it in its historical context. Talk about the damn thing. Talk about the good. James Baskett won an Oscar for this. That was a huge step forward for black actors. Talk about the bad. He couldn’t go to the premiere because it was in segregated Atlanta. Have like a special introduction done by Leonard Maltin or Whoopi Goldberg or some other well know historian or black academic, where they talk about the racial insensitivities and how it wasn't right then, it's not right now; all that stuff.

But, if you still think this movie is offensive and racist there is certainly merit to your argument. However...if you think this movie is so offensive and so racist that it should be sealed away, never to be seen by human eyes again, I lay down this challenge.

I defy you to watch this movie on its own terms and honestly tell me that in it’s portrayal of it’s African-American characters it is more racist than Skids and Mudflap, or "Norbit", or "The Love Guru", or "White Chicks", or even worse..."Birth of a Nation". (Horrifying fact, folks: "Song of the South", the film that merely implies slavery is swept under the bed, while "Birth of a Nation". the film that glorifies the KKK IS AVAILABLE ON DVD!!! Think about that, would you?)

In short, take "Song of the South" for what it's worth, see if you can find a copy yourself, and draw your own "zip-a-dee-doo-dah" conclusion. I know I have.

And if you want to watch it for yourself...here it is:


Well, I guess that just about does it. And I know this is sort of gutsy, talking about Song of the South on a Disney forum. But, I really just had to talk about it upon seeing it for the first time. I found it rather enjoyable, and I'm sure there's other Disney nerds out there who like this movie. And I really wish that Disney could find a way to release this on DVD or something that would appeal to those who find it racist. Anyways, I guess that's it for now. Thanks for reading, everyone.
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Now, let's get the elephant out of the room right off quick. Is the portrayal of African-Americans racist? Honestly, I couldn't see it. It may be my general naïveté talking, but I couldn't see anything racist about the African-Americans in the film. They aren't shown working, no one's remotely racist towards them (the mother doesn't like Johnny hanging around Remus due to the aforementioned misunderstandings) and they all seem very happy and laid back.

This the precise reason as to why some people find the film racist.
 
Last edited:

Magenta Panther

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the question is: should Walt have made the film WITHOUT Uncle Remus? Should he have simply focused on the stories Remus told about Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox, etc. and left Remus and all of the humans out of the film altogether?

I think he could have. And maybe the film, as such, could have been successful. But I think Walt thought of Remus as being just as important as Brer Rabbit, that Remus was an iconic fictional hero like Paul Bunyan and John Henry, and a part of Americana, and that it would be false to Joel Chandler Harris' stories to leave Remus out. And personally, I think that the very fact that Remus himself, as a black man in that era, was in some ways powerless against superior forces, gave him the impetus to create a Brer Rabbit - a lowly, disadvantaged victim "without much strength" who refused to act like one. Without Remus, "Song of the South" would have lost its moral resonance.

People who criticize this film because its portrayals of sharecroppers and the South are relatively benign are being deliberately obtuse, IMO. Walt Disney might have WANTED to make films like "To Kill A Mockingbird", but they weren't his forte, and he knew it. So he adapted the Uncle Remus stories for a family audience as best he could, and tried to do it in a way that was respectful of the characters AND to African-Americans. James Baskett's Uncle Remus is a FAR cry from the way any of the blacks in "Gone With The Wind" were portrayed. And that's to Walt's credit. If it weren't for his innate good taste and general compassion towards all people, "Song of the South" could have been MUCH worse. Just take a look at some of the banned Warner Bros. cartoons from that same era if you want proof of that.
 

216bruce

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the post and I completely agree.
It's been my experience that a lot of the folks that criticize this movie have never seen it (some for obvious availability reasons)...they just 'heard it was racist' and many of them also need a cultural whipping boy, they choose Disney for that role. I honestly don't blame Disney for not releasing it. The political climate these days is way too volatile and the financial gain would be greatly outweighed by the hammering that the company would take over it.
The movie contains some of the best character animation ever done by the Studio, some of the best songs and the effects are spectacular and seamless.
It would be a wonderful commentary on our culture and society if the movie could be released and discussed in a civil and intelligent manner. Sadly, we aren't anywhere near there these days.
 

ShoalFox

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Perhaps the question is: should Walt have made the film WITHOUT Uncle Remus? Should he have simply focused on the stories Remus told about Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox, etc. and left Remus and all of the humans out of the film altogether?
The funny thing is, Disney has released the animated segments from the movie independently of the movie, which is essentially what you've just suggested.
 

ShoalFox

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
I remember seeing this on YT a couple years ago and while I don't really remember the movie itself, I do remember thinking it wasn't very racist at all, like you said. I'm surprised that Iger has allowed morals to get in the way of Disney's releasing the movie given that fact that Disney has become an even bigger cash cow under him than it was under Eisner. I know Bob is all about making money for the company, and many people want to see the movie, so it really doesn't make sense for him to keep SoS locked in the vault. (Or any movie locked in the vault for that matter, but that's a different topic)
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
I remember seeing this on YT a couple years ago and while I don't really remember the movie itself, I do remember thinking it wasn't very racist at all, like you said. I'm surprised that Iger has allowed morals to get in the way of Disney's releasing the movie given that fact that Disney has become an even bigger cash cow under him than it was under Eisner. I know Bob is all about making money for the company, and many people want to see the movie, so it really doesn't make sense for him to keep SoS locked in the vault. (Or any movie locked in the vault for that matter, but that's a different topic)

Unless Iger wants a lot of negative attention from the NAACP and from the media, he's not going to have the film released. That chances of that happening are slim to none. The NAACP raised hell when Splash Mountain opened at Disneyland in 1989. Doubt Disney wants that again.
 

216bruce

Well-Known Member
Intelligent (to a fault) article with some solid ideas for dealing with a release (love the Criterion idea) but ultimately, unlike the article's researched, rational and largely academic response to SOTS, most people who view any film respond to it emotionally, not intellectually, and in the context of their life experience. You'll get entirely different responses in viewing this film from a kid than you will someone my age. Kids won't view it as racist, probably have no idea what a 'tar baby' is other than it's sticky and have a much less informed idea of the background of the film, Civil Rights marches, protests, etc. If you show this film to someone in Europe or Japan, it'll mean much, much less socially than it will in the US.
The only way this particular movie is offensive and racist is if it is chosen to be so and analyzed into being that by a viewer. The stereotyping (if it exists) has to searched out. There's no eye-rolling, watermelon eating, "yassuh boss" Stepin Fetchit going on in SOTS- just a woman who is baking....really! Yup, Remus is dressed shabbily...and, the point is? He's poor? Doesn't read GQ? Seriously....? It is by no means on the same level as "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves" or "Birth of a Nation"- both of which can be found readily.
Again, the emotional response to this film is 1) Remus is the hero of the movie, the most human character and the centerpiece of the film. Period. 2) The whites are presented in a less than flattering fashion and come off mostly 'poorly'. 3) Like most "Our Gang" episodes, kids are seen as getting along, blind to race problems and best when adults leave them alone.
I totally get why Disney doesn't want to release this movie, but the film is so 'lightweight' at worst in being offensive that you really have to search it out, analyze and amplify your finding to justify that decision.
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the post and I completely agree.
It's been my experience that a lot of the folks that criticize this movie have never seen it (some for obvious availability reasons)...they just 'heard it was racist' and many of them also need a cultural whipping boy, they choose Disney for that role. I honestly don't blame Disney for not releasing it. The political climate these days is way too volatile and the financial gain would be greatly outweighed by the hammering that the company would take over it.
The movie contains some of the best character animation ever done by the Studio, some of the best songs and the effects are spectacular and seamless.
It would be a wonderful commentary on our culture and society if the movie could be released and discussed in a civil and intelligent manner. Sadly, we aren't anywhere near there these days.

But the light shines in the darkness.

There may be a tempest started if they release it again, but the light of truth would shine through the darkness.

This is fundamental to our freedoms and values -- traditional American values around freedom that Walt Disney believed in and espoused so wholeheartedly, and now, if not before, we can see why. He espoused them not simply because they were "American" but because he saw them as universal values that American patriots fought for and put into our founding documents as fundamental human values. ("We hold these truths to be self-evident," as the Declaration of Independence says.) His theme parks heralded, yes, the future and fantasy (a form of freedom of thought), but also the fundamental importance of understanding our past... both to entertain AND to learn from it.

Why, you say, does this have anything to do with "Song of the South" and whether or not to release it?

It does because, as the original poster suggests, it can and should speak for itself. Yes, there might be a tempest at first, largely driven by people's prejudice without having seen it, or by some folks' honest disturbance by something in the film; but overall, the light of truth is the best arbiter of peace and understanding.

Let it be seen. Put it out there and let it be a part of the marketplace of ideas, and over time the truth will win out. The truth with "set it free," as it were. Over time, the freedom to understand it on its own terms is better than partial truth and restriction. Let it be a part of an honest discussion, rather than in the awkward place it has been -- hidden in "the vault" yet with pieces of it (songs, still pictures, facts about winning an Oscar) constantly in public view, like just so many glimmers of a mysterious stone shining through the openings between the boards of a footlocker in which it is stored.

As for my own opinion of the movie, I do think it would be a great discussion piece -- a starting point for understanding among people. It did teach stories with good morals to them. And as to the presentation of "no one working," the interpretation of that is in the mind's eye. Uncle Remus was clearly of retirement age, and many people of any background can remember a fatherly or grandfatherly figure taking time with children to tell them stories of value.

It is also valuable to remember more of history than to ignore it -- and the same is true of various interpretations of it. Let it be a part of the discussion, while at the same time releasing a masterpiece of animation and film. (Even the mixing of live action and animation 20+ years BEFORE "Mary Poppins"!)

Again, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness shall not overcome it.
 
Last edited:

networkpro

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Instead of attempting to sanitize the past to conform to whatever "modern" sensibilities are at the moment, why not recognize what the movie was based on (Joel Chandler Harris 183 collected oral tradition teaching stories from African roots) and the realities of its temporal settings ?
 

216bruce

Well-Known Member
If anyone should be upset about the movie it was the poor kid (Bobby Driscoll)that had to wear what amounts to 'most sissy looking' outfit ever. Ugh....Now THAT'S cause for protest.
YooniqImages_102327245.jpg
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
There's a lot Disney could do with Brer Rabbit. In my opinion a TV series, or a series of shorts like the recent Mickey Mouse ones, could work pretty well.
 
The biggest offense is the Trope of the "Magical Negro", which is inherently racist.

And as pointed out, the fact that any racial turmoil is non-existent in a period where it was anything but is in itself also racist.

However, it is a children's film, so challenging social constructs isn't always pushed by major producers.

For the sake of Film History and perspective, Song of the South should be released. Maybe with little fanfare, but it should be available for those who want it. I'm sure you could include several documentaries about the controversy surrounding the film, so that audiences could have a great appreciation for the piece as Art and also grow in our cultural understanding.
 

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
The biggest offense is the Trope of the "Magical Negro", which is inherently racist.

And as pointed out, the fact that any racial turmoil is non-existent in a period where it was anything but is in itself also racist.

However, it is a children's film, so challenging social constructs isn't always pushed by major producers.

For the sake of Film History and perspective, Song of the South should be released. Maybe with little fanfare, but it should be available for those who want it. I'm sure you could include several documentaries about the controversy surrounding the film, so that audiences could have a great appreciation for the piece as Art and also grow in our cultural understanding.

I agree with this entire post.
 

216bruce

Well-Known Member
Pretty much anything that contains 'race' can be viewed as 'racist' when you want to find it or choose to assign that tag to it. Lumping SOTS into the same representation of 'racist' films with "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves"" or "Birth of a Nation" etc. without any distinction between how race is portrayed does a great disservice to SOTS. There are certainly degrees of offensiveness, or whatever you want to call it, in films and television.
For those who have never seen it...Coal Black
Now, after watching that, can anyone fairly say that SOTS is as racist as Coal Black is? Calling them both 'racist' implies they are equally bad, much as calling a jaywalker a criminal in equal terms to an armed robber.

Folks in this country love to tag and label things/people because it just makes things simpler to understand and deal with. Ludicrous Example: I consider "Julia" and "The Cosby Show" racist because they portray a false example of true life for urban blacks in mid-century America. They, in essence, lied to whites about racism being over by representing that by the examples on the show that it was over. So, "Song of the South", "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs", "Cosby"...all equally racist? Come on...seriously.

Tagging and labeling things 'racist' will only increase the problem and continue to divide people.
 
Last edited:

Californian Elitist

Well-Known Member
Pretty much anything that contains 'race' can be viewed as 'racist' when you want to find it or choose to assign that tag to it. Lumping SOTS into the same representation of 'racist' films with "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarves"" or "Birth of a Nation" etc. without any distinction between how race is portrayed does a great disservice to SOTS. There are certainly degrees of offensiveness, or whatever you want to call it, in films and television.
For those who have never seen it...Coal Black
Now, after watching that, can anyone fairly say that SOTS is as racist as Coal Black is? Calling them both 'racist' implies they are equally bad, much as calling a jaywalker a criminal in equal terms to an armed robber.

Folks in this country love to tag and label things/people because it just makes things simpler to understand and deal with. Ludicrous Example: I consider "Julia" and "The Cosby Show" racist because they portray a false example of true life for urban blacks in mid-century America. They, in essence, lied to whites about racism being over by representing that by the examples on the show that it was over. So, "Song of the South", "Coal Black and De Sebben Dwarfs", "Cosby"...all equally racist? Come on...seriously.

Tagging and labeling things 'racist' will only increase the problem and continue to divide people.


Cartoons like the one you posted are definitely far more insulting than Song of the South, without a doubt. In saying that, Song of the South is still racist and insulting to many people, including myself, though the film as a whole doesn't bother me. I don't think anyone here said the film is just as bad as cartoons like the one you posted, but it still has issues and is still racist.

The jaywalker vs. a thief argument doesn't work, since their punishments would differ.
 
Last edited:

Tony Perkis

Well-Known Member
The film isn't outwardly hateful or demeaning in its portrayal of African Americans and race. It does, however, enforce a number of stereotypes that have been proven untrue and defeating to a number of people. The film is largely out-of-date in how it portrays the Uncle Remus character, and I really don't see how it can be considered anything but racist.

It's a fascinating study on a film that simply is stuck in a less-informed and ignorant time.
 

Brer Panther

Well-Known Member
Somewhat related: Louis Armstrong was gonna voice King Louie in "The Jungle Book", but they thought an African-American voicing an ape would be considered racist, so they had Louis Prima did the voice instead. People still considered the character racist.

Also, I think that it Bob Iger ever saw "Coal Black", he'd give not releasing "Song of the South" second thoughts.
 

ShoalFox

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
Also, I think that it Bob Iger ever saw "Coal Black", he'd give not releasing "Song of the South" second thoughts.
This may be a dumb question, but I wonder if Iger has actually seen Song of the South himself or was just told about it by his predecessors and colleagues?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom