Isn't Princess and the Frog offensive?

Status
Not open for further replies.

denyuntilcaught

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
That's not evidence. That is Disney making a decision based on a witch hunt. All I haver ever seen and YOU have ever seen when leaving the ride is smiles as people look at the photo op pics and point out who is making what funny face and talk about how soaked they got as they walk away laughing and smiling as I have done and you well know you have done. No one, in the history of Disneyland has EVER seen someone get off Splash Mountain with a look they are contemplating their entire life and existence.

Do not undermine the effort to shine a light on representations of cultural insensitivities as a "witch hunt." That goes back to my earlier point about how those who fail to see where SotS is problematic are choosing not to see it, and instead are calling the effort "political correctness gone wild" or a "witch hunt" are meager attempts to minimize and marginalize the message.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
That's not evidence. That is Disney making a decision based on a witch hunt.

I changed my mind: I think you should take the time to understand the why, but as I doubt you will be willing to accept it from anyone here, it's something you are going to have to research on your own. If you don't want to understand why they are removing Splash, you are going to have an awful time being a Disney fan over the next few decades.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
You're not wrong. I can absolutely see some problems including a Mardi Gras celebration. Princess and the Frog isn't perfect. At this point though, I feel like we have to weigh whether the positive outcome of removing Song of the South outweighs the negative aspects of Princess and the Frog, and I feel it does.

I certainly think there is room to have a broader discussion over promoting certain stories that may be positive for one community but negative for another, but I don't necessarily know if it should be Disney's responsibility to solve those problems.

But to be honest, it wouldn't surprise me if we are all back here in thirty years having the se discussion in the removal of Princess and the Frog.
How is that not a contradiction? Splash Mountain is not a problem for a large community but is being removed because it is negative for another. Is that not why other elements are being reviewed?
 

1HAPPYGHOSTHOST

Well-Known Member
I changed my mind: I think you should take the time to understand the why, but as I doubt you will be willing to accept it from anyone here, it's something you are going to have to research on your own. If you don't want to understand why they are removing Splash, you are going to have an awful time being a Disney fan over the next few decades.
I understand. I just think its stupid and non sensical
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
How is that not a contradiction? Splash Mountain is not a problem for a large community but is being removed because it is negative for another. Is that not why other elements are being reviewed?

Exactly.

It also doesn't bode well for the future of storytelling. Princess & The Frog is only 12 years old but is "not perfect" and already being criticized for its imperfections surrounding race and gender.

Can you imagine trying to tell a story in a movie now that must be "perfect", not only by the standards upon its release in 2021 but then also stand up to changing versions of perfection 10 years from now, 20 years from now?

There's not much left for storytelling if every character, every line of dialogue, every visual cue and non-verbal communication must be "perfect".

In fact, the entire Disneyland mission statement is inexcusably bad; "Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America, with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world."

My God, when the Twitter mob discovers those hateful and racist words are sitting on the plaque in the Town Square, their heads will explode. 💣
 

britain

Well-Known Member
It’s implied that the brothers selling Tiana the old sugar mill turn her down for racist reasons.

“A little woman of your... background.”

So I wouldn’t say it’s fantastically idealized.

(Apologizes if this point has been brought up already.)
 

Minnie1976

Well-Known Member
I watched Song of the South today. I am sorry and maybe because I am a southerner, but I don’t see the problem. To me Uncle Remus was the hero in the show. At the end he was who the little boy was calling for. The black and white children were friends and played together.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I watched Song of the South today. I am sorry and maybe because I am a southerner, but I don’t see the problem. To me Uncle Remus was the hero in the show. At the end he was who the little boy was calling for. The black and white children were friends and played together.
That's the problem... It was this idea that race relations were better when white control was more explicit, that this was the natural way of things and better for all.
 

el_super

Well-Known Member
How is that not a contradiction? Splash Mountain is not a problem for a large community but is being removed because it is negative for another. Is that not why other elements are being reviewed?

It's not a contradiction to try to be more inclusive, even if you realistically know you will never achieve 100%. I still think for the larger community, the theme of Splash Mountain doesn't matter.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
I watched Song of the South today. I am sorry and maybe because I am a southerner, but I don’t see the problem. To me Uncle Remus was the hero in the show. At the end he was who the little boy was calling for. The black and white children were friends and played together.

Don't worry. I'm a Northerner who spent most of my formative years with Swedes in Seattle, literally 3,000 miles away from the South and the most opposite of that culture. And I've watched Song Of The South a few times, and I still don't get what all the fuss is about. I was raised to believe that the racists 3,000 miles away in the South were wrong, often uneducated, but always wrong.

Song Of The South is clearly set during Reconstruction, as Uncle Remus is a free man. Reconstruction was not perfect, but it was a happier and better time than The Civil War or Slavery Era that preceded it, that is simply a fact. The Blacks and the whites in the film all get along and respect each other. Uncle Remus comes off as not only the wisest of the human characters in the movie, but also the kindest and most likable. He's the movie's hero.

Is Song Of The South as a perfect movie? No, of course not. Does it's circa 1946 depictions make you cringe just a bit in spots? Yes, of course. Pick any movie from 1946 and it's easy to tear it to shreds by the We're Better Than You! perfection standards of 2020. Almost every representation in movies or any popular culture from 1946 is subject to 2020 judgment and condemnation for being "Problematic"; women, racial minorities, The Gays, the disabled, the poor, the Jews, the Catholics, the unattractive, etc., etc. Mostly those folks were ignored entirely by 1946 popular culture, so at least the Blacks got recognition that they actually existed in 1946, unlike a few other groups.

Heck, pick any movie from 1990 and try to hold it up to the lofty Twitter standards of 2020 and it fails just as easily as Song Of The South.

Princess & The Frog from 2009 is also "problematic" by 2020's lofty Twitter standards.

But here we are. 2020. And a log ride with singing chickens is the worst thing to happen since the Freedom Riders were beaten to a pulp by the Alabama State Police as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in March, 1965, and that log ride deserves to be cancelled and splattered in blood red paint along with that statue of Abraham Lincoln. And if you dare question any of that, you are racist.
 
Last edited:

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
It's clearly set during Reconstruction, as Uncle Remus is a free man. The Blacks and the whites in the film all get along. Uncle Remus comes off as not only the wisest of the human characters in the movie, but also the kindest and most likable.

But here we are. 2020. And a log ride with singing chickens is the worst thing to happen since the Freedom Riders were beaten to a pulp by the Alabama State Police as they tried to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in March, 1965, and deserves to be torn down and splattered in blood red paint along with that statue of Abraham Lincoln.

It really isn't clear that it's reconstruction if you can't read between the lines.

It would have been very, very easy to do so-there's even a title card at the end of the credits-but at no point is a year given or any telltale words like "sharecropper" or "employee" used. Nothing is said that clearly sets it as taking place at the end of the Civil War. Walt was apparently even told that this was the case and it was important to add a date but chose not to do so. Had he it's possible this controversy would have been greatly lessened.

If you feel that awfulness of the movie is being exaggerated, it seems unsporting to exaggerate in your own final paragraph. No one is arguing that in the slightest.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
It really isn't clear that it's reconstruction if you can't read between the lines.

It would have been very, very easy to do so-there's even a title card at the end of the credits-but at no point is a year given or any telltale words like "sharecropper" or "employee" used. Nothing is said that clearly sets it as taking place at the end of the Civil War. Walt was apparently even told that this was the case and it was important to add a date but chose not to do so. Had he it's possible this controversy would have been greatly lessened.

I fully understand that most folks under the age of 40 have no idea what the Civil War was, why it was fought, or even when it was fought. Thus, they would have no idea what Reconstruction was and when it took place and how it differed for the life of a Black man compared to his life in 1860 or earlier.

But for those of us who have only a basic high school education from the mid 20th century like I do (I never went to college, I enlisted after high school), the plot elements in Song Of The South make it very clear that Uncle Remus is a free man and is not living in the pre-Civil War South, nor is he living in the Confederacy of 1861 to 1865.

But it's my understanding that high schools don't even teach about the Civil War any longer. And many kids in college couldn't even pin down the century it took place, much less the decade, nor could they explain what happened socially and politically during Reconstruction.

Back on topic, what's fascinating about Princess & The Frog is that it takes place in the Jim Crow Deep South of the 1920's. The 1920's were even more repressive than the brief yet refreshing reprieve of Reconstruction. Yet the Frog movie just glosses over all that and pretends that a young Black woman like Tiana in 1925 Louisiana could just glide through life with a smile and a song, and find everlasting happiness with a 5 star Yelp review for her restaurant by the end of the third act.

Tiana could also convince the local courthouse to grant her a marriage license for her illegal mixed marriage in 1925.

Funny how that works, isn't it? :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

George Lucas on a Bench

Well-Known Member
LOL!

Song of the South is a huge misfire, but you're right about Uncle Remus, TP. He is clearly the most sympathetic character in the movie. However, I believe he is also what 2020 Social Justice Film Critics would refer to as a "Magical Black" character, a slightly more politically correct version of a term popularized by Spike Lee. I'm not sure, but Uncle Remus may be the definitive example of this.

SOTS will always exist as an oddity because of its setting and subject matter, not to mention its shabbily dressed blacks in an implied but unclear master/slave relationship with the irritating aristocratic white family, but from my recollection of watching it in the early days of internet piracy circa 2001, aside from the cartoon bits, I have to say, a part of my brain honestly wonders what all the fuss is about since the movie is otherwise so dreadfully dull. I get why it's controversial and I get the "mystique" of the banned Disney movie, but we can't possibly be giving it this much thought in 2020, the Summer of Love in the Year of Hell. Yet, here we are.

Disney absolutely doesn't help matters by refusing to acknowledge it other than a few choice words about it being "problematic." Of course, "banning" it, trying to sweep it under the rug adds this whole additional mystique about it and makes Disney look like they have something to hide. It's provocative. There's nothing wrong with looking at the movie objectively and pointing out its flaws, but also acknowledging its existence and trying to get across that it was ultimately a huge awkward misfire and also that we've come pretty far since those days, contrary to some belief. Also, hey, good songs, fun cartoons and amazing blending of animation with the live stuff. In terms of African American representation in Disney, I'm assuming this is where it started. Startup problems!
 
Last edited:

PiratesMansion

Well-Known Member
But for those of us who have only a basic high school education from the mid 20th century like I do (I never went to college, I just enlisted after high school), the plot elements in Song Of The South make it very clear that Uncle Remus is a free man and is not living in the pre-Civil War South, nor is he living in the Confederacy of 1861 to 1865.

But it's my understanding that high schools don't even teach about the Civil War any longer. And many kids in college couldn't even pin down the century it took place, much less the decade, nor could they explain what happened socially and politically during Reconstruction.

Back on topic, what's fascinating about Princess & The Frog is that it takes place in the Jim Crow Deep South of the 1920's. The 1920's were even more repressive than the brief yet refreshing reprieve of Reconstruction. Yet the Frog movie just glosses over all that and pretends that a young Black woman like Tiana in 1925 Louisiana could just glide through life with a smile and a song and find everlasting happiness by the end of the third act.

And could also somehow convince the local courthouse to grant her a marriage license for her illegal mixed marriage.

Funny how that works, isn't it? :rolleyes:
As a high school educator, I can state that, at least in Illinois, the Civil War is still taught. Now, since NCLB passed in 2001, the teaching of history has been largely gutted prior to High School, which definitely has a negative effect on the understanding of history and absolutely should be changed.

For the benefit of any youngsters who may not be schooled in Reconstruction, please illuminate the clear signs that it takes place during Reconstruction. So far as I can tell, the only thing that springs to mind is that Remus is treated better than he would have been treated prior to the end of the Civil War. I will grant you that starting around NCLB, the teaching of history was basically gutted at elementary and middle school levels, which has had an unforunate effect on our students' understanding of history.

I agree that PATF is not perfect, though it remains less bogged down by issues than SOTS.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
I learned about the civil war, and as a high school educator, can confim that, at least in the state of Illinois, the Civil War is still taught.

For the benefit of any youngsters who may not be schooled in Reconstruction, please illuminate the clear signs that it takes place during Reconstruction. So far as I can tell, the only thing that springs to mind is that Remus is treated better than he would have been treated prior to the end of the Civil War.

I agree that PATF is not perfect, though it remains less bogged down by issues than SOTS.

I unplugged my VCR over a decade ago, so I'm not going to try and go find it in the garage and rewatch this movie.

But as I remember it, Uncle Remus lived in his own home and had the freedom to socialize with whomever he wanted and do what he wanted. He also had the ability to wander the countryside of his own free will. He was clearly not a slave. And the movie was also clearly not taking place during wartime. Thus, we are left with the only option that Uncle Remus is a free man living in "old times" but obviously during Reconstruction.

There's dozens of these videos on YouTube, mostly conducted on college campuses, and while these 21st century college kids have smartphones and Twitter accounts, they have absolutely no idea about anything regarding American history.

This video is nice because it aims right in on the most basic Civil War question, and the answers from college undergrads are stunning...


These people are simply idiots. They were given a high school diploma and allowed to go on to a taxpayer subsidized state university. Just let that sink in.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Top Bottom