A Spirited Dirty Dozen ...

[englanddg]

I think the main annoyance lots of people had is down to their own racism - a black man got an Oscar out of it, which wound people up the wrong way.

I really like Song of the South and think trying to ban it is far more racist than the movie itself - I wonder if some of the people who want it kept locked away haven't even seen it?

Well, outside of his acting and the animated sections, the movie isn't very good. In fact, it is rather boring at times...imho.

But, you make a good point. Of those who wish to toss it down the proverbial river, I truly do wonder how many have actually watched it.

 

[AEfx]

As a POC, Seen Song of the South is it offensive yes but its dumb to white wash history...some of the greatest works of film have been propoganda film and stereotypical in some sort of way...Disney should just do what Warner Bros does with their old cartoons mentions it reflects the views of the time however they still honor the contributions the creators provided to society even though today they do not agree with everything depicted. I mean some of the most offensive films and characters in film have made some huge strides in the film industry even outside Disney: nearly all Quentin Tarantino films, Long Duck Dong in Sixteen Candles, Birth of a Nation, Downfall (which lead to those hilarous Hitler ranting about MM+ clips people come to love today), etc...

That's the key though - outside Disney - this is Disney. It operates under different rules. By intention, design, and perception.

And the thing is - unlike some of those mentioned, this isn't really a modern perspective issue - the film has seen as offensive when it was originally released, as well.

I'm honestly not for hiding away films, again - I think it should be available as a historical document - but I can totally see why the Disney company doesn't want to promote it with a release among it's "classics" - I also just can't see a modern audience getting much out of it in terms of simple entertainment value. It's slow, plodding, and just has very little that could be considered "Disney" entertainment. The best parts of the film (a few songs) are already well-known and get their due respect - the only loss is to historians really, and even then - the film is available out there, just not in a modern consumer video format.

 

[englanddg]

That's precisely why some folks object to it. Presenting slaves as just "servants" who lived happy, cheerful, go-lucky lives. Essentially whitewashing slavery into "not that big of a deal - look, they be happy folk!" It does go beyond that, though - "tar baby" was once a racial epithet, along with other elements that just don't work in a modern context, particularly in a family oriented company like Disney.

I don't necessarily agree it shouldn't be seen; people lobby the same criticism at Gone With The Wind, for instance. I believe in viewing things with some historical perspective. That said, no, Disney wasn't expected to be making "Roots" or some serious commentary on slavery, but then again, it's not really a topic for a Disney film, to begin with. Imagine if Disney made a film that took place during the 1940's in Europe and presented Jewish camps as places of song and dance with animated animals.

Personally, while I think it should be available for viewing for historic purposes, I can't blame Disney whatsoever for not wanting to release it, not just because of the amount of people who would take offense to it, but because - it's just not a very good film, anyway. I can't see Disney promoting it as a big commercial release, it simply wouldn't be that popular and there are many more minuses than plusses to it's possible success. And it's not worth it to do a limited release (like through the DMC Exclusives program) which wouldn't make them much money compared to the risk of PR backlash. It just doesn't make sense from any angle.

Except, the movie doesnt really show that at all (happy go lucky slaves). Arguably, no, definitively, the two black leads have deeper charachter than anyone else in the film.

The whites in the film are presented as uncaring, emotionally obtuse, self centered, overall, not very good people.

Granted, the undercurrent of the story is rather dark (the hinted at, but never completely confirmed, parental separation/argument), but the story is also told from the emotional viewpoint of the child, for the most part, with a few exceptions where adults have expository scenes between themselves.

The animated scenes have nothing to do with slavery whatsoever...so that's a bit if a stretch. And, the tar baby comes directly from the lore, and takes its roots from african and island lore.

In fact, shocker, it is a rather obscure slur. One that seems to reflect more in the individual who takes offense to it, thinking they have some great sociological insight, when they really just show their ignorance of the lore.

That said, it reminds me of people who use the term "Uncle Tom" in a derogatory manner...which implies to me they've never really understood the story. Tom was a hero who let himself get beat to death by an abusive drunk to protect two runaway slaves.

Hardly the image portrayed in the vernacular of the past few decades...but, hey, the bandwagon is fun!

There is a rather revisionist version of history that is trendy today that is disturbing. For example, I noted the term was used in Roots (the reboot). It, along with many parts of the rework of the series, are extreme examples of grossly negligent historical truth.

Now, granted, it is a TV series looking for emotional impact first (actual history can be rather...dry...at times), so I don't fault it. I do, however, fault those that are quick to rush to the defense of it as being a wholly accurate portrayal.

Likewise, neither is Song of the South.

The sad truth, however, is that some will look at one as the actual factual truth, and the other as complete fiction...take a guess which is which. (grin)

And, again I note, it doesn't touch much on slavery because it wasn't about slavery. It does, however, touch on social classes...and, loosely on race (it doesn't portray whites in a very good way at all, with whites being the antagonist characters with the exception on the little girl), but certainly not in the jibbed up manner that people seem to think it does.

As has been noted, I think a lot of people think the movie is racist because they have read somewhere that they should think that way. I mean, the last major release was what, in the 80s? Then it went foreign video release only and off to the vault. But, with the internet, you can find it if you really want to...

It isn't a racist movie.

It isn't, however, a very good movie (imho)...and I would be perfectly happy if it stayed in the vault, but they released a cut version of just some of the Remus dialogue, the song in the kitchen where she's baking, and the animated bits.

 

[AEfx]

There is a rather revisionist version of history that is trendy today that is disturbing.

That's an odd statement to me, as the very criticism the film gets is that of being revisionist in and of itself. It also may not address slavery, but that in and of itself is the issue I think you just can't see - it can't NOT comment on slavery, given that the characters featured are in fact former slaves even though it's whitewashed from the story.

In any case, it's clear you have strong feelings about this - which seem to go beyond the film itself - so I'll just leave it with again, no matter what one's opinion of how racist or not the film is, I completely see why the Disney company has no interest in adding it to their Diamond Line of Classics.

 

[englanddg]

That's an odd statement to me, as the very criticism the film gets is that of being revisionist in and of itself. It also may not address slavery, but that in and of itself is the issue I think you just can't see - it can't NOT comment on slavery, given that the characters featured are in fact former slaves even though it's whitewashed from the story.

In any case, it's clear you have strong feelings about this - which seem to go beyond the film itself - so I'll just leave it with again, no matter what one's opinion of how racist or not the film is, I completely see why the Disney company has no interest in adding it to their Diamond Line of Classics.

If you read on, you'll see I say "Likewise, neither is Song of the South.", so, I'm not sure what is confusing about it.

Neither is historically accurate, both are tales. And, with respect of Song of the South, it doesn't even portend to BE historical in any sense, aside from setting a plausible stage for the actual meat of the film, the folklore.

 

[AEfx]

If you read on, you'll see I say "Likewise, neither is Song of the South.", so, I'm not sure what is confusing about it.

Neither is historically accurate, both are tales. And, with respect of Song of the South, it doesn't even portend to BE historical in any sense, aside from setting a plausible stage for the actual meat of the film, the folklore.

And that folklore itself (which was interpreted by white people) is seen as racist by many in the "Uncle Remus" tradition as a whole.

Perhaps this is a location thing - you are in the UK, are you not? Cultural sensitivities are obviously going to differ based on your country of origin.

I can tell you, in the US, "Uncle Remus" is akin to "Uncle Tom's Cabin" - written by white people as defense of slavery in the south. In fact, the author himself called it a "a sympathetic supplement" to the "wonderful defense of slavery as it existed in the south" portrayed in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the forward to one of the books SotS is based upon.

Sure sounds like he meant it to be about slavery.

 

[ford91exploder]

"Rush jobs" and entertainment "thrown together at the last minute" are WDW's new version of an E ticket. But its cool. They keep talking about building new stuff years down the rode so that means they still care about our experience!..., maybe one day we will see some shovels moving dirt.

Or not as long as people keep coming to the cut kingdom...

 

[Quinnmac000]

And that folklore itself is seen as racist by many in the "Uncle Remus" tradition as a whole.

Perhaps this is a location thing - you are in the UK, are you not? Cultural sensitivities are obviously going to differ based on your country of origin.

I can tell you, in the US, "Uncle Remus" is akin to "Uncle Tom's Cabin" - written by white people as defense of slavery in the south. In fact, the author himself called it a "a sympathetic supplement" to the "wonderful defense of slavery as it existed in the south" portrayed in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the forward to one of the books itself.

Sure sounds like he meant it to be about slavery.

.....you mean She meant it. And it wasn't written in the defense of slavery. If she was pro-slavery, she wouldn't have assisted fugitive slaves escape during her time in Ohio. She also never experienced slavery growing up in the north.

 

[AEfx]

.....you mean She meant it. And it wasn't written in the defense of slavery. If she was pro-slavery, she wouldn't have assisted fugitive slaves escape during her time in Ohio. She also never experienced slavery growing up in the north.

No, I meant "he" - the writer of the Uncle Remus stories. I am aware Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a female.

In any case, you can argue with Joel Chandler Harris - the man who wrote the Uncle Remus stories, he is the one I quoted above saying it was a "wonderful defense".

That said, there is a difference between "pro-slavery" and "defending the practice" of slave owners, which is more accurately what the works are about. Basically, defending slave owners, the "it wasn't all that bad" mentality to assuage the guilt and perception of slavery by trying to paint it as a class system as opposed to the human bondage it was.

 

[BrianLo]

Don't use wait times as a measure of volume or success. Because you can incorrectly assume capacity is at full vs being held back for operational reasons. Ultimately it's the guest spend that rings home on success...

That's very true, but it's still a metric that holds some value, and one of the few we actually have. As you said, there are other factors at play as we've seen at WDW this summer. It's not a pure indicator of 'success', but it's an indicator they aren't failing miserably at their attendance goals, thus far.

Staffing and capacity haven't been pulled yet for SDL, so the waits remain mostly accurate that there are decently large volumes.

 

[AEfx]

I really like Song of the South and think trying to ban it is far more racist than the movie itself - I wonder if some of the people who want it kept locked away haven't even seen it?

There is a huge difference between a "ban" on something and a company simply not re-releasing something on newer media.

Let's say you are Disney. Make a Pro/Con list. How many Pro's do you see to releasing the film on modern home media? How many Con's? You will find far more reasons, financially or otherwise, on the Con list than the Pro list.

Given the small amount of folks who actually want to watch it, and the ways which it is indeed available (if not through Disney) - it does seem as if anyone who really wants to find it can do so.

 

[englanddg]

And that folklore itself is seen as racist by many in the "Uncle Remus" tradition as a whole.

Perhaps this is a location thing - you are in the UK, are you not? Cultural sensitivities are obviously going to differ based on your country of origin.

I can tell you, in the US, "Uncle Remus" is akin to "Uncle Tom's Cabin" - written by white people as defense of slavery in the south. In fact, the author himself called it a "a sympathetic supplement" to the "wonderful defense of slavery as it existed in the south" portrayed in "Uncle Tom's Cabin" in the forward to one of the books itself.

Sure sounds like he meant it to be about slavery.

I am not british, and I am from the US.

To say that the Remus stories, or especially Uncle Tom's was "written by white people as defense of slavery in the south" is one of the most preposterous things I've ever read. Especially considering the role that the abolitionist movement in the north (fueled, largely, in social terms, by Uncle Tom's Cabin) played in the politics of the mid 1800s which eventually led to the election of Lincoln and secession.

And, you don't even support it well, you just infer it with a cherry picked (and highly edited) quote. Lets take the whole quote, with context, shall we?

"Each legend has its variants, but in every instance I have retained that particular version which seemed to me to be the most characteristic, and have given it without embellishment and without exaggeration. The dialect, it will be observed, is wholly different from that of the Hon. Pompey Smash and his literary descendants, and different also from the intolerable misrepresentations of the minstrel stage, but it is at least phonetically genuine. Nevertheless, if the language of Uncle Remus fails to give vivid hints of the really poetic imagination of the Negro; if it fails to embody the quaint and homely humor which was his most prominent characteristic; if it does not suggest a certain picturesque sensitiveness - a curious exaltation of mind and temperament not to be defined by words - then I have reproduced the form of the dialect merely, and not the essence, and my attempt may be accounted a failure. At any rate, I trust I have been successful in presenting what may be, at least to a large portion of American readers, a new and by no means unattractive phase of Negro character - a phase which may be considered a curiously sympathetic supplement to Mrs. Stowe's wonderful defense of slavery as it existed in the South. Mrs. Stowe, let me hasten to say, attacked the possibilities of slavery with all the eloquence of genius; but the same genius painted the portrait of the Southern slaveowner, and defended him."

What he was speaking to is the characterization of the "southern" slaveowner, he's referring to the sympathetic plights of the Shelby family, as compared to the northern transplant, Legree. And, the Shelby family, in the book, are portrayed as largely good people. But, hardly, does the book portray slavery as either a noble or strong institution.

Furthermore, it is a very small part of his longer forward, where he spends most of it, not defending his choice of what he considers "accurate prose", but rather defending that the stories are unique to african/southern culture, even though there is evidence of parallels to other N. American (and S. American, and W. Indian, and African, he covers them in his forward) folklore.

And, this is exactly the sort of revisionist nit-picking that I was referring to.

Culturally, yes, there is a southern culture. And, black culture (a lot of it afro-indian) is a massive part of that culture, even in modern terms. It's never been any different. The vast majority of strife in the south isn't racial, that's the excuse. It's socio-economic. Frankly, the same as everywhere else, but with a largely agrarian plantation based economy, the destruction of the power structure post civil war didn't help matters (not saying reconstruction was a bad thing, nor implying anything else, aside from the fact that carpetbaggers were a real thing...and had quite an impact on the south that resonated for decades...good and bad.)

Song of the South was a reflection of a large portion of life in the south. The south wasn't always "burn down their houses" blind klan level hatred, and it's inaccurate, and bordering on foolish, to think that it was. There was, however, economic tensions. You really should read up on it sometime, outside of the few paragraphs dedicated to reconstruction in a general history book...it's quite interesting, and, speaking for myself, not at all what I expected.

 

[Quinnmac000]

No, I meant "he" - the writer of the Uncle Remus stories. I am aware Uncle Tom's Cabin was written by a female.

In any case, you can argue with Joel Chandler Harris - the man who wrote the Uncle Remus stories, he is the one I quoted above saying it was a "wonderful defense".

That said, there is a difference between "pro-slavery" and "defending the practice" of slave owners, which is more accurately what the works are about. Basically, defending slave owners, the "it wasn't all that bad" mentality to assuage the guilt and perception of slavery by trying to paint it as a class system as opposed to the human bondage it was.

Joel Chandler Harris didn't write Uncle Remus stories, he plagiarized them for the slaves and sharecroppers and made them popular for general populace. Those were old folk stories the elders would tell the young folks to teach them lessons along in a simple way.

 

[englanddg]

There is a huge difference between a "ban" on something and a company simply not re-releasing something on newer media.

Let's say you are Disney. Make a Pro/Con list. How many Pro's do you see to releasing the film on modern home media? How many Con's? You will find far more reasons, financially or otherwise, on the Con list than the Pro list.

Given the small amount of folks who actually want to watch it, and the ways which it is indeed available (if not through Disney) - it does seem as if anyone who really wants to find it can do so.

I certainly think you are right in this point, our other discussion aside.

There is a very short pro list (well, only one item I can think of...it's interesting film trivia)...the rest is all con.

And, as you and I've both noted and agreed upon, it's not like the film was even that great, aside from a few scenes and the animated parts. The plot is terrible, and that little white kid makes me want to smack him through the screen he's so whiny.

 

[AEfx]

Song of the South was a reflection of a large portion of life in the south.

And that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever read, so I guess we are even on that count, ROFL. Though this does conflict with your earlier statements regarding it's authenticity.

You keep telling me to do research - it seems as if you've done too much and have rationalized this all to such an extent, I wouldn't even know where to begin, except that you seem to mistake white people rewriting black history/folklore in the post-Civil War era as somehow definitive, which I just can't wrap my head around.

In any case, it's been a good 70 years or so since folks have realized the purpose of these works, this isn't some new "Social Justice Warrior" invention - and I still see no good reason for Disney to release it, aside from making it available to historians and researchers - because frankly, most others wouldn't care less, because it's just not a quality work to begin with save for birthing a few classic songs.

 

[englanddg]

And that is one of the most preposterous things I have ever read, so I guess we are even on that count, ROFL. Though this does conflict with your earlier statements regarding it's authenticity.

You keep telling me to do research - it seems as if you've done too much and have rationalized this all to such an extent, I wouldn't even know where to begin, except that you seem to mistake white people rewriting black history/folklore in the post-Civil War era as somehow definitive, which I just can't wrap my head around.

In any case, it's been a good 70 years or so since folks have realized the purpose of these works, this isn't some new "Social Justice Warrior" invention - and I still see no good reason for Disney to release it, aside from making it available to historians and researchers - because frankly, most others wouldn't care less, because it's just not a quality work to begin with save for birthing a few classic songs.

I didn't say it was authentic. In fact, I've repeatedly stated it was not, nor was it intended to be.

I said it was a *reflection*.

There is a difference, you know. EPCOT's Mexico pavilion, for example, isn't authentic, but it is a reflection (though, I still wish they'd add a good chicken and mole dish there). That said, it's certainly not AUTHENTIC. See the difference now?

But, just because something is a quasi-positive reflection doesn't mean it's defense of the social order. It's a reflection of it.

Especially when the crux of the movie has nothing to do with that topic, but is merely the backdrop to tell the larger story, and furthermore, as I've noted, the white characters aren't exactly made out to be heroes in the story in any way...with the possible exception of the low class sharecropper girl...and the interaction between Remus and the grandmother is quite telling, especially when the context is added later in the film that he doesn't quite agree, but doesn't see it as his place to argue. And, that isn't because it "isn't his place" due to her social status alone, that is because it also is NOT his place, as the child isn't his to rear.

This is partially why he states, time and again, "the child needs his father".

Anyhow, I digress. SotS is just that. A reflection of part of southern culture during that period.

Storytelling has a long history in the south. It's lost on younger people, but even those in Gen X can remember having a family member or friend of the family who wove great tales. Their own version of "Uncle Remus". These morality plays are very american, and very southern.

As far as reading the history, you don't have to turn to "white authors". W.E.B. Dubois and Booker T. Washington both have excellent writings on what the culture and situation was like post civil war and during reconstruction.

 

[culturenthrills]

I know inflated wait times were discussed earlier in this thread. This week I've seen wait times from 15-20 minutes over the actual time. Sure, a couple of rides were pretty accurate, but it was frequent enough that I found myself skeptical of all the wait times.

Also saw the Star Wars fireworks show at DHS. I don't know what the consensus is, but I thought it felt very uneven. There were some creative uses of the Chinese Theater as a projection surface -- the best thing we've seen Disney do with Star Wars since the Lucasfilm purchase, I daresay. But the show on the whole is narratively all over the place. At least, I couldn't follow the sequencing.

It doesn't help that the fireworks aren't integrated into the projection show. They're off to the side and while they give you something to look at when you get bored with the projections, I don't see how it's all supposed to tie together. I'm hoping it was an entertainment rush job and better things await especially if we're going to be treated to a decade of Star Wars nighttime shows.

The fireworks show was better. Projections just have a tendency to get boring and the new fireworks launch site sucks. The fireworks are to off center and it felt more disjointed and dragged compared to the fireworks show.

 

[Cesar R M]

Only new.

http://www.snopes.com/netflix-disney-collection/

thank you!

 

[Cesar R M]

A Tarantino remake of Song of the South?

I'd pay money to see that.

"Bloody Song of the South" Filmed by Tarantino, featuring.. Samuel Jackson as Uncle Remus, Christoph Waltz, Kurt Rusell, Tim Roth, and Leonardo DiCaprio as random racist plantation owner.

 

[Cesar R M]

Joel Chandler Harris didn't write Uncle Remus stories, he plagiarized them for the slaves and sharecroppers and made them popular for general populace. Those were old folk stories the elders would tell the young folks to teach them lessons along in a simple way.

I dont know why this also reminds me of the brothers grimm. Who a lot of people claim they wrote all the stories, which is BS.
Pretty sure he simply took folk tales and expanded them to have a very anti-female ending lol.

There is a difference, you know. EPCOT's Mexico pavilion, for example, isn't authentic, but it is a reflection (though, I still wish they'd add a good chicken and mole dish there). That said, it's certainly not AUTHENTIC. See the difference now?

I remember watching people eating some strange mole there last time I seen. Still, why so many dishes in that place are actually texmex? Mexico hardly uses yellow sweet corn, and I see that used a lot in "Mexican" (aka texmex and little to do with mexico) dishes in the Disney WDW resort restaurants.