Tiana's Bayou Adventure: Disneyland Watch & Discussion

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

An Oscar is an Oscar. Doesn't matter if you consider it a "participation trophey" because not everyone has one of these "participation trophies". To try to downplay the importance of an Oscar to an actor is absured. What was he supposed to decline it because he wasn't in competition for it with anyone? Should Charlie Chaplin not have accepted his lifetime achievement Oscar?? Give me a break.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

It's my understanding that he wasn't banned from the premier, the theater enforced segregation (which is absolutely disgusting) and he would have had to sit in the balcony. So he chose not to attend- and I respect him for sticking up for himself.

Should Disney have hosted the premier at a theater the cast could attend with equal rights? Yes. But having an African American lead in a film in the 1940s has got to be at least somewhat of a bold move.

Two things can simultaneously be true- The treatment of the cast and the depiction of African Americans needed to be far better than it was, but the film was also a progressive piece for its time. It just wasn't progressive enough.

and the name of that theater- The EL CAPITAN. Nah I'm just messing with ya.

 

[Californian Elitist]

People often bring that up as a point against the film. And as terrible as that was, wasn’t that just an oversight on blissfully ignorant Walt? Didn’t he set the premiere in Georgia for themeatic purposes, didn’t find out about the segregation laws there until it was too late, and then got P.O’d that he did the opening speech and left right away?

Again, it’s bad, but is it really a knock against the film? To me, it just shows how messed up the country and the state were at the time period.

I’m actually not sure. It made sense to have Georgia host the premiere, I will say, for thematic purposes.

I wouldn’t say it’s a knock against the film. I think we were just talking about Baskett.

 

[Brer Oswald]

There's a difference between "this is so revolutionary that we want to go out of our way to honor it with something special" and "well, I guess Walt wants him to get an Oscar, and he'll die soon anyway, so why not?"

Does it say anywhere that the reason he got it was because of his death? I always figured it was because he was a lead in a “corny Disney flick”,not a REAL Film, but he still put on a great performance worthy of something.

Regardless, that would be a knock against the Academy and 1940s Hollywood. Not Walt or the Film.

 

[Brer Oswald]

I’m actually not sure. It made sense to have Georgia host the premiere, I will say, for thematic purposes.

I wouldn’t say it’s a knock against the film. I think we were just talking about Baskett.

Yeah that’s fair.

 

[Californian Elitist]

It's my understanding that he wasn't banned from the premier, the theater enforced segregation (which is absolutely disgusting) and he would have had to sit in the balcony. So he chose not to attend- and I respect him for sticking up for himself.

Should Disney have hosted the premier at a theater the cast could attend with equal rights? Yes. But having an African American lead in a film in the 1940s has got to be at least somewhat of a bold move.

Two things can simultaneously be true- The treatment of the cast and the depiction of African Americans needed to be far better than it was, but the film was also a progressive piece for its time. It just wasn't progressive enough.

I personally don’t find the film progressive, especially considering the roles of the black actors and actresses. That’s me. You’re welcome to think otherwise.

My point was that he and the cast were not treated with the same respect. I wasn’t trying to somehow connect that to the film.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Does it say anywhere that the reason he got it was because of his death? I always figured it was because he was a lead in a “corny Disney flick”,not a REAL Film, but he still put on a great performance worthy of something.

Regardless, that would be a knock against the Academy and 1940s Hollywood. Not Walt or the Film.

It has been heavily implied by many of the pieces I've read that he got the Oscar because Walt thought he was doing something PROGESSIVE and IMPORTANT and so lobbied hard. (But, as has been stated by many people in many threads, even in 1946 there were people who DID NOT see the film as progressive.)

I imagine knowledge that his death was imminent probably made the powers that be more willing to acquiesce. What can I say? Hollywood was/is full of horrible people.

If it was just because he was a lead in a corny Disney film, wouldn't there be many more people so awarded? Instead of Julie Andrews (who did win Best Actress competitively) and....no one else, really?

 

[Brer Oswald]

I personally don’t find the film progressive. That’s me. You’re welcome to thinking otherwise.

My point was that he and the cast were not treated with the same respect. I wasn’t trying to somehow connect that to the film.

I don’t find it progressive either. But I also don’t find it regressive. It’s just not a political film.

It has been heavily implied by many of the pieces I've read that he got the Oscar because Walt thought he was doing something PROGESSIVE and IMPORTANT and so lobbied hard. (But, as has been stated by many people in many threads, even in 1946 there were people who DID NOT see the film as progressive.)

I imagine knowledge that his death was imminent probably made the powers that be more willing to acquiesce. What can I say? Hollywood was/is full of horrible people.

If it was just because he was a lead in a corny Disney film, wouldn't there be many more people so awarded? Instead of Julie Andrews (who did win Best Actress competitively) and....no one else, really?

I wasn't really making a claim that it was progressive. It’s not a political film. It doesn’t need to be a political film. It’s a Disney film from the 40s. Disney’s 2016 film Zootopia tried to be a political film.

As for the lead actor thing, I think it was more about his singing and performance. The fact that the film was treated as “a corny Disney film” would’ve been what held him back from an official award like they’d have given with Gone With the Wind.

I really think we should stop the SotS Talk here and create a dedicated thread on Politics. There’s adamant detractors and adamant fans, but I feel like we’re all civil and reasonable enough to have a good discussion.

 

[mickEblu]

I don’t find it progressive either. But I also don’t find it regressive. It’s just not a political film.

I wasn't really making a claim that it was progressive. It’s not a political film. It doesn’t need to be a political film. It’s a Disney film from the 40s. Disney’s 2016 film Zootopia tried to be a political film.

As for the lead actor thing, I think it was more about his singing and performance. The fact that the film was treated as “a corny Disney film” would’ve been what held him back from an official award like they’d have given with Gone With the Wind.

I really think we should stop the SotS Talk here and create a dedicated thread on Politics. There’s adamant detractors and adamant fans, but I feel like we’re all civil and reasonable enough to have a good discussion.

The film may not be progressive (although I think you I can argue certain aspects were) but I think it was progressive for Hollywood.

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

It’s a Disney film from the 40s.

Which is an awfully long time ago. I'm embarrased by things I did yesterday, but I can't take it back. That's life. We are all products of our time.

 

[SuddenStorm]

I honestly don't care what happens to Song of the South or its legacy. Bury it, burn every copy, never let it be seen by anyone again.

Just don't get rid of Splash Mountain.

 

[Brer Oswald]

The film may not be progressive (although I think you I can argue certain aspects were) but I think it was progressive for Hollywood.

I think certain aspects tried to be, but they refrained from making it too loud to not make it political.
Trying to imagine myself being in the shoes of a black American in the 40s, I can see myself being disappointed that Disney’s adaptation of the empowering Brer Rabbit tales didn’t do much to stand up for racial inequality. But nowadays? There’s so much media that has; I just don’t see a reason to criticize SotS for that.
I totally understand the problems with the dialect, and some of the stereotypes. But why are we focusing on what it doesn’t have as our major complaint?

 

[George Lucas on a Bench]

It wasn't meant to be interpreted in this way. They weren't setting out to make a movie with any political subtext at all. Walt wanted to make the Uncle Remus stories but unfortunately they chose to attach them to a very boring live action movie set around a southern plantation.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

I personally don’t find the film progressive. That’s me. You’re welcome to thinking otherwise.

My point was that he and the cast were not treated with the same respect. I wasn’t trying to somehow connect that to the film.

What does any of that have to do with Splash Mountain? Nothing.

 

[Californian Elitist]

What does any of that have to do with Splash Mountain? Nothing.

Where did I say this had anything to do with Splash?

 

[Brer Oswald]

I’ll suggest it again. If we still care to discuss SotS, let’s make a thread in Politics, and cut any remainder of it from here.

 

[Californian Elitist]

An Oscar is an Oscar. Doesn't matter if you consider it a "participation trophey" because not everyone has one of these "participation trophies". To try to downplay the importance of an Oscar to an actor is absured. What was he supposed to decline it because he wasn't in competition for it with anyone? Should Charlie Chaplin not have accepted his lifetime achievement Oscar?? Give me a break.

What do Oscar awards and Charlie Chaplin have to do with Splash Mountain?

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

What do Oscar awards and Charlie Chaplin have to do with Splash Mountain?

I was counter arguing your point that because the actor got a "honorary oscar" it doesnt count. It does count.

 

[1HAPPYGHOSTHOST]

Where did I say this had anything to do with Splash?

Exactly. the movie has nothing to do with splash so there is no reason to change it. thanks for proving my point.

 

[Californian Elitist]

Exactly. the movie has nothing to do with splash so there is no reason to change it. thanks for proving my point.

I proved nothing, as the ride is still connected to the film, whether you want it to or not.