Basically, what Iger said was that they're not putting it out in protest-prone markets. They have no problem selling it in ones that still produce blackface characters.

I'm 21, and have never seen it. I would mostly like to see it, so that when I ride splash mountain, I have a background story to go from. Imagine riding Peter Pan without having seen the movie... wouldnt be as exciting.

Its sad that we have people waiting for movies like this to come out, just so they can play a racism card and make life difficult for those of us who just like to watch movies.

As far as I'm concerned, if Disney can put out half the stuff they've included on the Walt Disney Treasures titles (most notably on the wartime set) by presenting the material while also contextualizing it, they should be able to put out Song of the South, accompanied by the same type of contextualizing.

However, unfortunately, the name has outgrown the film; too many people have simply heard that it is racist, without having the actual film available to make a judgment.  As a result, it wouldn't be surprising to see protests spark about the film being released on DVD, or to see chains like WalMart forbid the sale of it.  By repeatedly putting this film back in the vault, Disney has done itself a disservice- they let people know that it exists, but they tell people they can't see it; this makes people more curious, and curious minds will go to curious places.

Oddly enough, I was in a class last year, studying American literature, and the Joel Chandler Harris stories were a part of the curriculum.  The teacher had a vast knowledge of the stories, but looked puzzled when I started to discuss Song of the South in class.  Soon, I was basically giving a lecture from my seat, discussing the film and how it presents the Brer Rabbit tales, and some of the common misconceptions about the film (i.e. how the film is set during Reconstruction, so it doesn't depict slavery, etc.).  The teacher was very interested in seeing the film, as it clearly could become a valuable tool for his lessons, but alas, that could not be.

And, as last discussed (back when this turned up on the forums, before the new site), from the transcripts, Bob didn't seem to have too many facts ready at hand:
"Uh, well, there was bad stuff.."  Yes, thank you, Bob--Can we say off the top of our head whether Remus was a slave or a sharecropper?  Did someone at the meeting mention the "black history" context-intro the 1996 revival was going to use?  Did we know that Howard was making a mistake when he said "Disney Classics", and not "Disney Treasures", as most everybody ELSE at BVHE had been assuming up to this point?  Well, for right now...we'll never know.
Which could explain his, "Of course, uh, this isn't a permanent decision", with the rare ambivalence of someone who might have been improvising an answer while on the firing line.

For now, this is all speculation, but until Symbolic Animation Exec Lasseter, or someone in a more specific home-video department can pin down and blow whistles on what the top brass Does or Doesn't Know, any debate on the real merits of the movie is still going to be left in the hands of nosy JHM Disney fans like us.  :)

Iger sure seemed to not know what he was talking about.  All the "um"s and "uh"s.  Geesh.  And, "and there were some... [long pause] depictions that I mentioned earlier in the film that I think would be bothersome to a lot of people."  Like what, Mr. Iger?  Please elaborate.  He probably doesn't know the historical context of the stories (like when they take place).  I'm sure the real sharecroppers weren't singing "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah", but I'm sure that no one's pet has sang, either; Disney is allowed soem creative license.  I've read online statements of many African Americans who said they loved this movie as a child.  I'm assuming Iger was thinking of them when he said some people would think that these "depictions" would be "bothersome".  Disney needs to stop speculating and go out into the public, and ask people what they think.  

Anonymouse, you're exactly right about how they have released some "Disney Treasures" sets that are more prejudiced and hurtful.  I'm sure that there are some German Americans who are upset by some of the cartoons.  I'm sure that there are some Native Americans unhappy with "Pocahontas", or "Little Hiawatha".  You're going to upset a few people no matter what you do.

I know that there are some African American employees working for Disney.  I know it.  Why aren't they asked about their feelings, and their families' feelings?  I also know that, whether or not you are African American, you have some friends who are.  Ask them!  Get some feedback.  Please.  

Unless there is an official Disney release of this film, people are going to continue getting illegal copies like the one sitting on my bookshelf.  This is censorship to the extreme.  20 years ago, you saw fit to rerelease this film., for it's 40th anniversary.  Maybe try and rerelease is for its 60th.  Nothing worse will happen than when you released it before.  Out of all the people who would complain and protest, how many of them would have actually seen the film?  Not too many.  Disney loves getting attention, and "positive" press by not rereleasing this film, but they don't pay attention to the "negative" press by people like us.  The consumers.  If people had the movie readily available to watch, this backlash would subside.  Plus, think of all the $$$ you'd make.  I can feel it being the best selling title ever.

Good article, Wade. I particularly liked your introduction, though I don't see those of us who have copies as "illegal poachers," but rather animal lovers who are just trying to set the critters free. :-)

As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I think a good interim step would be to produce some animated D2DVD sequels featuring the Brer Rabbit characters. There's a lot of unused material with which to work (ever hear of Brer Wolf?), and that would certainly help calm the "forbidden fruit" aspect of the characters and give SotS fans a little of what we want. I'd much rather see that than Hunchback III or yet another Pooh movie.

oh, just release the damn thing, already!!!!
lol..
but seriously folks. I've owned the japanese laserdisc of SONG OF THE SOUTH for years and all I have to say about is......put it out there! Let the public decide. While SOTS may appear rascist and "troubling" to some more sensitive people, in this humble film fans opinion there is nothing more controversial in this film then there is in, say, GONE WITH THE WIND, or Disneys' own DUMBO for that matter.
It makes me laugh to think that the "Brer Rabbit" characters are merchandised pretty consistently, but the film in which they appear is hidden away, while "jim crow" and the rest of the um... "symbolic" crow gang from DUMBO are allowed to fly freely, so to speak.

(Sigh) Disney should release the thing - if for no other reason than just to end all the fuss over a film that's been blown WAY out of proportion. I mean, people's agitation and expectations over this film seem to be so high that the film would have to be better than "Snow White", "Mary Poppins", and "Fantasia" combined to meet them.  

Bob, let everyone buy a copy of the thing, watch it, realize it's only a good if not spectacular effort, and then we can all move on to arguing about something else. Anything else.  

Release the film with minimal promotion.
Use ESPN, ABCNEWS, 20/20 and Nightline to discuss the film.
The can interview people from all walks of life from these shows. But, make a requirement to watch the show before they are interviewed.

I own a 'copy' on dvd. It is a good show.

What gets me is they have a ride- Splash mountain- that celebrates the movie- in part.  Was there a big uproar over that when it opened???

Why don't they just get Whoopie Goldberg to give her disclaimer, just like the WB DVD?  I'm sure she'd do it.

And just for the record--I learned it on JHM--before the NAACP embarked on a more aggressive campaign against the movie (fueled by a certain disgruntled ex-Disney animator), representatives from the group had screened the film before its original release and found "little offensive" about it--
Except, they noted, for some obligatory musical numbers where workers sing faux-spirituals while returning from the fields (which they felt was "a bit of a negative stereotype"), and three guesses where most of the rampaging "They're happy slaves!" misinterpretations have likely come from since.

...There's no experience quite so satisfying as telling someone (let alone a generation of mainstream non-fans) that they happen to be WRONG, and Disney has that rare opportunity in their hands.  :)

I watched the movie not too long ago, after a Disney animator was kind enough to send me a copy. I hadn't seen it since I was a little kid, so really didn't remember much. I braced myself for a picture rife with racial stereotyping, but came up empty. After watching it, I honestly couldn't understand what anyone would complain about.

Let's hope Disney doesn't opt to pull the plug on Peter Pan (lyrics like, "What makes the red man red?" and "Why does he ask you 'How'?" don't seem to have ruffled too many feathers).

I was inspired by this article to make a "YTMND." Maybe it'll stir up a little support? Yes, I'm aware that petitions really aren't going to cut it but I had to do something!

Still waiting for that DVD...

RogerRmjet said:

"As I mentioned in a previous discussion, I think a good interim step would be to produce some animated D2DVD sequels featuring the Brer Rabbit characters. "

It appears that Universal beat them to the punch:  <a href=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000E6V07W/qid=1146088016/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4001130-3948123?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130>The Adventures of Brer Rabbit</a>

FWIW...  I've had the Japanese DVD since the early '90's and have *gasp* shown it to my children.  We discussed the movie, and I believe all they took out of it is that there was a white kid who was best friends with a black kid, and that said white kid looked up to an older black gentleman for advice.  We discussed the importance of treating all people with dignity and respect.  It was a good learning experience, IMHO.  A lot better learning experience than Cinderella 3, Hunchback 7, or Lilo and Stich 27...

Hmmm...  obviously didn't need to put that html code in that previous message...  ;)

I've seen SOTS as a child and twice as an adult, and I have to say that considering SOTS''s central theme centers around the friendship, love and affection between an elderly black man and a young white boy, IMHO, the only people who could find this film offensive or controversial would be those who like to wear sheets and burn crosses.

As I real live *product of a free’d slave* I thought I should chime in! :: wink ::

I saw the movie in the 80’s and LOVED IT. I think White America forgets that Black America realizes these images exist. And don’t really care. It’s a greater injustice to pretend that it never happen. Case in point, 2 summers ago i did a tour of Monticello. It was going fine until the guide in formed the group and me that “the dumbwaiters on either side of the fireplace were used by the servants to being up wine from the storage beneath the house.” Yes the Guide at Thomas Jefferson’s house called the slaves “severants”, she thought she was being PC, but I called her on the historic accuracy of that, cause believe you me, it is offensive to have your known history mangled.

While I know every movie studio has there own comfort zone, but it didn’t seem to bother the folks over at MGM. They seem to have no issue with releasing Judy Garlands’ 1941 classic “Babes on Broadway” with the blackface scenes in the last 20mins of the movie.

The point is this. We should embrace these elements of our history, not reject them. When I wait in line for Splash Mountain I always think back to the “folk tales” being depicted. I think it’s easy to forget in the time period these stories take place, a whole lot of folks we’re poor in the south, not just Uncle Remus.

"We should embrace these elements of our history, not reject them."

Simonbg, thanks for posting. I really appreciate your insight and agree with you 100%. Thanks for speaking up, especially to the Guide at Monticello.

I said this in a previous posting. If you buy the PAL version from ebay and get it copied in this country to our format, NTSC, you are not poaching or bootlegging. It's completely legal to make a copy into our format. It won't be digital quality, but it's not a bootleg.
I find it odd that it was legitimately released in the UK, but not here.

PingBack from http://bullfrog117.wordpress.com/2006/04/27/star-trek-11-rumors-off-base-history-of-song-of-the-south-and-how-oil-in-iraq-isnt-saving-us-money-at-the-pump/

PingBack from http://bullfrog117.wordpress.com/2006/04/27/star-trek-11-rumors-off-base-history-of-song-of-the-south-and-how-oil-in-iraq-isnt-saving-us-money-at-the-pump/

Seems I recall that James Earl Jones had been approached once about filming a preface in a possible re-release. It's all about context, and understanding the history of both the U.S. and how films reflect the period of their release. I agree that there is nothing more offensive in SOTS than there is in the hallowed classic Gone with the Wind, and certainly no more stereotypical than in Dumbo ... man alive, if you just listen to the soundtrack of Dumbo, you jaw will drop.

Put it out there in a limited edition DVD, with all the appropriate footnotes and historical vignettes, and it'll do quite well ... and help today's riders of Splash Mountain understand what the attraction is all about, and understand where the Disney anthem "Zip-a-dee-do-dah" came from.

Well, like we said--Blame it partly on the dope:
If Howard Cromer, or some  actually knowledgeable Disney fan, had brought up the question at the meeting and said, quote, "Why haven't you released SotS on your Disney *TREASURES* DVD?", we'd probably be having a different discussion today.
Not that Bob would likely have had more facts on his index cards at that speech, but he would have been more instantly familiar with the context, had more to say about how they judge collector material vs. mass-market, and probably filled us in on a few stories about how they didn't expect those WWII disks to sell so well, etc., etc.

...Oh, well--There's always next meeting.
And let's hope somebody a little less dopier gets the specific terms RIGHT this time.  :(

Speaking of the next meeting . . . this is our company, dang it.  Has anyone ever considered making a SOTS DVD release shareholder resolution?  There'd be lots of grass roots support, both from the Disney fans (who want a copy) and the investors (a release would obviously improve the company's profitability--the thing's been mastered already for cryin' out loud).  Plus, look at it from Iger's perspective . . . such a resolution at the next meeting would stir up all of the controversy he's trying to avoid (and then some), with none of the profits.  Just the threat of that might pry those vault doors open.

While normally I am against the tampering of any classic film, I'm willing to make an exception in this case. I own a copy of Song of the South and I have watched many times with my son when he was young. It seems to me, that  a few cuts, mostly involving the 'spiritual' songs, plus an added title card in the begining clearly stating the year in which this story takes place, would go a long way to deflecting most of the usual criticism. As for the "tar baby" sequence,a few edits involving that name(there are a few lines of narration where this would be impossible, but for the most part it could be reduced in other spots)  

PingBack from http://www.bullfrog117.com/unfiltered/?p=186