If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The hidden history of Disney's infamous Song of the South   (slate.com) divider line 50
    More: Interesting, Song of the South, Disney, souths, Fantasia, Clark Gable, movie screens, Walt Whitman, roadrunner  
•       •       •

10840 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 05 Jan 2013 at 6:20 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-05 04:48:41 PM
6 votes:
I've always found it interesting that the hero of the movie is vilified today. I saw the movie in the theater when I was a kid, and as a kid in the south I didn't see the racial overtones.  I still don't today.  I think of Uncle Remus as a wise old gentleman trying to  pass on that wisdom.  I know it depicts the south as rich whites and poor blacks, which is historically true at the time the movie was made. Still, Uncle Remus remains as a lesson in what good character means, despite your economic or social status. The life lessons of that could be learned from Uncle Remus are far more valuable than those to be learned from the movie persona of today.
2013-01-05 04:08:52 PM
6 votes:
I downloaded it as a zip-a-dee-doo-da file
2013-01-06 08:06:02 AM
5 votes:
It's strange that this movie, which provokes so much butthurt and outrage from the modern black agenda crowd and their conditioned minions, is originally from black tribal African characters. The writer, Joel Chandler Harris, grew up poor in rural Georgia because his father left his mother while she was pregnant in the 1850s. On his first job he was so ostracized by the local whites for being poor white trash that he spent his spare time hanging out with the local former slaves, who turned him on to these stories. He was so impressed by the wisdom and dignity of the African based stories that he used them as the main characters in his stories. For the rest of his life Harris was a champion of black rights, championing black education and frequently rebutting racist editorials through his position at the Atlanta Journal.

By the way, the town that these black story tellers lived in that Joel Chandler Harris's work was based on (Eatonton, Georgia) produced another great writer a century later---Alice Walker. Alice Walker's grandfather was also a great storyteller, and it is him whose life the main character in "The Color Purple" was based on.
2013-01-06 03:41:27 AM
3 votes:

oldernell: I've always found it interesting that the hero of the movie is vilified today. I saw the movie in the theater when I was a kid, and as a kid in the south I didn't see the racial overtones.  I still don't today.  I think of Uncle Remus as a wise old gentleman trying to  pass on that wisdom.  I know it depicts the south as rich whites and poor blacks, which is historically true at the time the movie was made. Still, Uncle Remus remains as a lesson in what good character means, despite your economic or social status. The life lessons of that could be learned from Uncle Remus are far more valuable than those to be learned from the movie persona of today.


It had poor white people in it, too. Johnny makes friends with a girl who is from a poor white family (and her brothers are evil little sh*ts). I torrented it and watched it a few months ago. I think people are overreacting about how racist it is.
2013-01-05 09:08:20 PM
3 votes:
I think Disney should release the movie, and then donate a majority of the profits to the United Negro College Fund. That way, a good cause is supported, people get to judge the film for themselves, and any redneck racists considering buying it to affirm their worldview will have to decide if it is worth "edjoocatin' darkies" to do so.
2013-01-05 08:02:42 PM
3 votes:
The Tar Baby is a great story. So is Little Black Sambo. When I read them as a child it never once occurred to me that was anything racist about them. I read them and laughed. Then I went out to play with my Black friends.

I'm a white guy who grew up dirt poor in Memphis. We were too poor to be racist. I had Black neighbors. I had Black friends. My Mama and her friend Eula Mae had a business together, doing rich folks' laundry.

I've never understood why writing characters who speak in Southern Black dialect is considered racist, but writing Hillbilly or Cajun or Aussie is not. I've seen TV commercials that would be twice as offensive as the Tar Baby if the same standard were applied.
2013-01-05 07:11:01 PM
3 votes:

hbk72777: "We're through with caviar," Walt Disney lamented. "From now on it's mashed potatoes and gravy." The company that bore his name was reeling from the disappointing box office returns of Pinocchio and Fantasia."

So people even back then knew Fantasia sucked?



Yep. I don't think Fantasia made a profit until it was re-released in the 60s and 70s to a much larger, much more stoned audience.
Drugs brought that movie out of the red.
2013-01-05 06:26:10 PM
3 votes:
First saw it in the theater with my mother back in the 80's and one of the biggest things I took away from it as a child was that the live action bits were boring to me.

when I found out years later that it was "banned" I made sure to find it and burn a bunch of DVD's of it to hand out to anyone that asked. I found it quite glarring that Disney would hide the movie in the US, but show and promote it all over the rest of the world and continue to captalise on it ( zip a dee doo dah all over the place, and the theme of Splash mountain to start ). if it's so shameful to you, bury it, your are friggin Disney, you have the power to do so!

Just own your past and deal with it.
2013-01-05 11:10:47 PM
2 votes:

rynthetyn: twotowner: I think Disney should release the movie, and then donate a majority of the profits to the United Negro College Fund. That way, a good cause is supported, people get to judge the film for themselves, and any redneck racists considering buying it to affirm their worldview will have to decide if it is worth "edjoocatin' darkies" to do so.

I agree that they should release it, but even if it's to donate the profits to something like the United Negro College Fund, they aren't going to do it because they don't want the public to be reminded of just how racist the film is. I just finished watching it and it's offensive on so many levels, far worse than anything I'd read about it had made it out to be. The fact that Disney last released it in theaters in the US in 1986 looks really bad for Disney. Even if I think it should be available, showing it in theaters to young children as late as 1986, with no apparent concern at the time for putting it in context of a more racist past is not something that Disney wants people to remember they did. If they hadn't shown it after the 1950s, they could write it off as a product of a more ignorant past that they'd decided to keep in the vaults when they became enlightened by the civil rights movement, but given the history of screenings into the mid-80s and releases overseas much after that, the negative PR when people see it and see just how racist it is isn't something Disney is ever going to allow.


They could release it on DVD only, have the full movie on one disc and have a second DVD talking about the context of the film, get a bunch of black actors, different historians, some writers and artists from that time(if any are alive) and get Ken Burns to direct it all talking about how racism has changed over the last fifty years in America.
2013-01-05 10:48:38 PM
2 votes:

GrizzledVeteran: TFA: "The whole film is like a test run for the immersive theme parks that Disney would eventually destroy acres of forest to build."

Really? Was Anaheim/1955 forested? I thought it was commercial orange groves...

What about Greater Orlando a dozen years later--can those of you from from these locales testify?

*****************************

/very, very tired of academic grousing and "layered readings" re Disney, past and present. Have any of you ever listened to any dry-as-dust conference papers about this?


Disneyworld was a mix of swamp and cattle land in the middle of nowhere. Not even that many citrus groves to contend with.
2013-01-05 09:50:47 PM
2 votes:

twotowner: I think Disney should release the movie, and then donate a majority of the profits to the United Negro College Fund. That way, a good cause is supported, people get to judge the film for themselves, and any redneck racists considering buying it to affirm their worldview will have to decide if it is worth "edjoocatin' darkies" to do so.


I agree that they should release it, but even if it's to donate the profits to something like the United Negro College Fund, they aren't going to do it because they don't want the public to be reminded of just how racist the film is. I just finished watching it and it's offensive on so many levels, far worse than anything I'd read about it had made it out to be. The fact that Disney last released it in theaters in the US in 1986 looks really bad for Disney. Even if I think it should be available, showing it in theaters to young children as late as 1986, with no apparent concern at the time for putting it in context of a more racist past is not something that Disney wants people to remember they did. If they hadn't shown it after the 1950s, they could write it off as a product of a more ignorant past that they'd decided to keep in the vaults when they became enlightened by the civil rights movement, but given the history of screenings into the mid-80s and releases overseas much after that, the negative PR when people see it and see just how racist it is isn't something Disney is ever going to allow.
2013-01-05 09:36:02 PM
2 votes:
i48.tinypic.com
2013-01-05 09:08:12 PM
2 votes:

MrEricSir: blue_2501: You honestly believe that Martin Martin guy is going to actually get any sort of acting gig outside of Disney? Real Hollywood hates that overacting bullshiat (as does most adults). They are profit generators... that's it.

You seem to have identified a lot of things, but not made any attempt to explain what's wrong with them. So what if Disney teen stars are attractive? So what if most of them are terrible actors? What's your point?


It's not the discardable teen actors that's the problem (heck, that's the same basic business model as college football). It's the covert exploitation of sexualization. The external context of these Disney shows is strongly sexual (have you seen Victorious, for instance?), while the internal content is about being attractive and dating and getting the boy/girl but not actually having sex. The goal is to generate desire without resolution: the ideal Disney viewer is masturbating to fantasies of their stars, then coming back to the show for fresh fantasies. It's essentially the same concept as pornography, which isn't intended to make you hungry for sex; it's intended to make you hungry for more pornography.
2013-01-05 07:32:18 PM
2 votes:

yarnothuntin: Weird, just watched this movie the other night. Whole family loved it, had to explain to my racially sensitive 13 year old son why this movie is "racist". He still didn't see it. Anyway, the article (and I'm assuming the book) makes the common mistake of placing the movie during the time of Southern slavery, that is incorrect, it actually takes place after the Civil War during the Reconstruction period.


Where did you get the idea that the article places the movie during the slavery era? The article specifically says, "Alone and depressed, he's comforted by the tall tales of Uncle Remus, an ex-slave living on the property. The era of the film's setting is purposefully vague; while it's implied that the black workers are no longer Johnny's family's property, they are still completely subservient, and happily so. "

That description fits it solidly within the post-Birth of a Nation view of reconstruction where the "good" negroes remained subservient to their white masters even in the absence of slavery, which anyone who has a working knowledge of film history should pick up on from reading the article.
2013-01-05 07:19:23 PM
2 votes:

Anderson's Pooper: Watched it last year on a questionably legal DVD borrowed from a friend. It really wasn't as bad as I expected given the infamy. My kids 18, 13, and 3 all know the music from various Disney Hits and Sing-a-long cds. I wonder if Disney still owns the rights to the Harris stories. Those, I think, would be palatable as a straight animated feature or series of shorts.


dunno about that, but that was the point of making the movie in the first place.


I wonder if the book mentions any thing about what became of the child star of the film.Bobby Driscoll chewed up and spat out. he died inn 1968, a homeless drug addict, buried in a paupers grave on Harts island. nobody really knew about it till the movie started making the rounds again in 1972.

but I'm sure the author of the book wants to focus on how racist the movie is.
2013-01-05 07:17:50 PM
2 votes:

BarkingUnicorn: It's all over The Pirate Bay.  So much for Disney's "vault."


I love that bittorrent is keeping Disney from burying the racist parts of their past completely.
2013-01-05 07:15:34 PM
2 votes:
Isn't their Splash Mountain ride based on Song of the South?
2013-01-05 03:39:43 PM
2 votes:
Invisible?

Not really. Found the entire movie on youtube a few years back & watched it.
2013-01-06 12:39:51 PM
1 votes:
Why is it Disney's fault that you're all a bunch of pedos? Just because they hire attractive teenagers for their shows aimed at teenagers doesn't mean they're sexualizing them. Should they only hire ugly kids so your pants don't get too tight?
2013-01-06 10:02:20 AM
1 votes:

LeafyGreens: I have a first edition of Little Black Sambo, and I always read it as a clever boy duping the mean tiger into get some pancakes.


It is, and has nothing to do with African Americans. Sambo is an (east) Indian.
2013-01-06 08:20:18 AM
1 votes:
Why aren't these same nitpicks applied to other old Disney movies? The portrayal of "injuns" in Peter Pan was probably the most racist thing in any of his movies, but no one ever peeps about that. But you can find racist stuff in Pinocchio, Dumbo, Snow White, etc, if you try. But it's also something that you see in all of the movies from those time periods. SOTS is unfairly crucified, IMO.
2013-01-06 03:52:17 AM
1 votes:

jimmythrust: To suggest that depictions of black people as inferior in any way in film, music, comedy, what-have-you is somehow defensible is entirely horseshiat. It was horseshiat then, and it's even worse horseshiat now.



www.peoplequiz.com Poor junk dealers
cdn.madamenoire.com  Social outcast nerd
www.tvshowsondvd.com Butler
www.joy105.com Maid
unknowncritics.com Driver
ecx.images-amazon.com Maids
2013-01-06 03:37:11 AM
1 votes:

jimmythrust: lohphat: jimmythrust: lohphat: rynthetyn: they don't want the US audience to see it and realize that they're all feeling nostalgia for a minstrel show.

Interesting how you can presume how people will and should think. Good thing we have people like you to protect our sensibilities.

Have you seen any movies more than 30 years old made in America? We ball when it comes to horrifically racist stereotypes. If that's your thing, Breakfast at Tiffany's needs immediate viewing.

[files.g4tv.com image 474x427]

[cockroachalley.com image 400x330]

And these aren't neo-minstrel horrific racist stereotypes?

I won't deny that there have been plenty of tv shows and rap songs that have played into horrific stereotypes, but the notion that slaves had it pretty good and that white folk were only looking after the best interests of blacks is, was, and will always be racist, stupid, and condescending. To suggest that depictions of black people as inferior in any way in film, music, comedy, what-have-you is somehow defensible is entirely horseshiat. It was horseshiat then, and it's even worse horseshiat now.


Also, Song of the South is part of a longer tradition of American movies--beginning with the grandaddy of all racist flicks, Birth of a Nation--that portrays "good" black people as those who remain in subservience to white people. Heck, in Song of the South, there's a little black boy who's shown acting as a servant to the little white boy, bringing in a fresh pitcher of water for the wash basin while the little white boy is still sleeping. The image of a child labor by a young black boy working as a servant for a white child is seriously messed up, as is Uncle Remus' absolute subservience to the white plantation folk.

/doubt lophat is going to see this, I think I landed on his ignore list because he's not replying to me
2013-01-06 02:50:41 AM
1 votes:

jimmythrust: lohphat: rynthetyn: they don't want the US audience to see it and realize that they're all feeling nostalgia for a minstrel show.

Interesting how you can presume how people will and should think. Good thing we have people like you to protect our sensibilities.

Have you seen any movies more than 30 years old made in America? We ball when it comes to horrifically racist stereotypes. If that's your thing, Breakfast at Tiffany's needs immediate viewing.


files.g4tv.com

cockroachalley.com

And these aren't neo-minstrel horrific racist stereotypes?
2013-01-06 02:00:50 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: rynthetyn: they don't want the US audience to see it and realize that they're all feeling nostalgia for a minstrel show.

Interesting how you can presume how people will and should think. Good thing we have people like you to protect our sensibilities.


Dude, you missed upthread where I said that I think Disney should release it. I said that they aren't going to because they don't want to remind people how racist their films used to be. It's all Disney. If you don't like it, take it up with them.
2013-01-06 01:54:50 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: they don't want the US audience to see it and realize that they're all feeling nostalgia for a minstrel show.


Interesting how you can presume how people will and should think. Good thing we have people like you to protect our sensibilities.
2013-01-06 01:53:45 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: rynthetyn: don't realize just how absurdly racist the film is.

That's your opinion. Fine. But that's no reason to block unpopular content via economic threats in a free and pluralistic society.


How dense are you? Nobody's blocking it, Disney's just choosing not to release it because they don't want to look bad.
2013-01-06 01:50:29 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: rynthetyn: Disney doesn't want to release it because everybody will realize how absurdly racist the film was and Disney doesn't want to hurt their image.

Funny, you can get it in other countries from Disney distributors.

Racist? Perhaps. But we have no problem watching Gone with the Wind and other films depicting the same era without issue.

I feel that rap music is racist, reinforces stereotypes and mysogeny but I'm not telling people not to consume it or block the market via economic threats.


So what that you can get it in other countries. Until recently, companies could sell different versions of something abroad and it would never make its way back to the US. Other countries that don't have the same cultural and historical background as the US and thus don't realize just how absurdly racist the film is.

Disney isn't releasing it in the US because they don't want the US audience to see it and realize that they're all feeling nostalgia for a minstrel show. People realizing just how racist Disney used to be is bad for Disney's image, and that's the bottom line.
2013-01-06 01:41:58 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: Disney doesn't want to release it because everybody will realize how absurdly racist the film was and Disney doesn't want to hurt their image.


Funny, you can get it in other countries from Disney distributors.

Racist? Perhaps. But we have no problem watching Gone with the Wind and other films depicting the same era without issue.

I feel that rap music is racist, reinforces stereotypes and mysogeny but I'm not telling people not to consume it or block the market via economic threats.
2013-01-06 01:36:16 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: rynthetyn: lohphat: rynthetyn: And you reach that conclusion how? There have been tons of people asking them to release it for years and yet they still won't.

Economics. They can't afford not to be PC and offend people.

A free society is not about protecting sensibilities.

So in your world, responding to market forces is not part of a free society? Adorable.

There's a difference between "market forces" and bullied by vocal gadflies.


Nobody's telling Disney they can't release it. Disney doesn't want to release it because everybody will realize how absurdly racist the film was and Disney doesn't want to hurt their image. That's not bullying that's keeping it in the vault, it's Disney not wanting to spoil their precious image.
2013-01-06 01:29:45 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: lohphat: rynthetyn: And you reach that conclusion how? There have been tons of people asking them to release it for years and yet they still won't.

Economics. They can't afford not to be PC and offend people.

A free society is not about protecting sensibilities.

So in your world, responding to market forces is not part of a free society? Adorable.


There's a difference between "market forces" and bullied by vocal gadflies.
2013-01-06 01:23:48 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: And you reach that conclusion how? There have been tons of people asking them to release it for years and yet they still won't.


Economics. They can't afford not to be PC and offend people.

A free society is not about protecting sensibilities.
2013-01-06 01:02:25 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: rynthetyn: lohphat: The larger issue is that in a pluralistic society some small number of people feel it's their job to censor content for other members of that society wherein we're presumed free and equal.

If I'm going to offended then I have to see it to make that determination for myself.

Nobody is censoring content, the movie is readily available. Disney just won't release it on DVD in the US, which is well within their rights as copyright holders to control how their copyrighted work is accessed. There are a lot of films that the studios who own them don't release for home viewing for all sorts of reasons.

They're not releasing it because of bullying by those who don't like it and are thus chilling the free flow of legal but uncomfortable content for others to judge for themselves.


And you reach that conclusion how? There have been tons of people asking them to release it for years and yet they still won't. I don't think they ever will, but not because of bullying, because they'd rather have people retain fond memories of a movie they loved as children than to have people watch it and realize that Disney made such a racist film and kept releasing it to theaters as late as 1986. It doesn't look good for Disney if people suddenly realize that one of the best known rides at their theme parks is based on what's essentially a minstrel show.
2013-01-06 12:56:59 AM
1 votes:

rynthetyn: lohphat: The larger issue is that in a pluralistic society some small number of people feel it's their job to censor content for other members of that society wherein we're presumed free and equal.

If I'm going to offended then I have to see it to make that determination for myself.

Nobody is censoring content, the movie is readily available. Disney just won't release it on DVD in the US, which is well within their rights as copyright holders to control how their copyrighted work is accessed. There are a lot of films that the studios who own them don't release for home viewing for all sorts of reasons.


They're not releasing it because of bullying by those who don't like it and are thus chilling the free flow of legal but uncomfortable content for others to judge for themselves.
2013-01-06 12:23:11 AM
1 votes:

Whiteston: Dude, Song of the South is a good movie. It's fun, entertaining and my family loves it. Lighten up people no harm intended - and if you think there was then you need to stop walking funny and get that 3 ton chip off your shoulder. You obviously are missing the point of the story.


You probably say the same thing about minstrel shows.
2013-01-06 12:22:24 AM
1 votes:

lohphat: The larger issue is that in a pluralistic society some small number of people feel it's their job to censor content for other members of that society wherein we're presumed free and equal.

If I'm going to offended then I have to see it to make that determination for myself.


Nobody is censoring content, the movie is readily available. Disney just won't release it on DVD in the US, which is well within their rights as copyright holders to control how their copyrighted work is accessed. There are a lot of films that the studios who own them don't release for home viewing for all sorts of reasons.
2013-01-06 12:18:08 AM
1 votes:
Dude, Song of the South is a good movie. It's fun, entertaining and my family loves it. Lighten up people no harm intended - and if you think there was then you need to stop walking funny and get that 3 ton chip off your shoulder. You obviously are missing the point of the story.
2013-01-06 12:13:24 AM
1 votes:
The larger issue is that in a pluralistic society some small number of people feel it's their job to censor content for other members of that society wherein we're presumed free and equal.

If I'm going to offended then I have to see it to make that determination for myself.
2013-01-06 12:09:02 AM
1 votes:
This thread makes me wonder: At what point does a movie stop being a "cult film" or a "secret" and become acknowledged as popular? Mind you, I wouldn't call Song of the South "popular", per se. But its existence is certainly no secret, and (as others have mentioned upthread) thanks to online piracy it is extremely easy to find and view if you are so inclined. I guess I'm thinking more of movies like Office Space and The Princess Bride- ones that everybody and their grandmother has seen but are still somehow "cult classics".

As for why Disney doesn't release Song of the South, my take is that it's like the USA's relationship with Cuba. There's really no reason to keep the embargo going, but the powers that be would look like idiots if the embargo was lifted tomorrow. Since it isn't a really huge deal and nobody wants egg on their face, things just stay the same.
2013-01-05 10:44:25 PM
1 votes:

GrizzledVeteran: TFA: "The whole film is like a test run for the immersive theme parks that Disney would eventually destroy acres of forest to build."

Really? Was Anaheim/1955 forested? I thought it was commercial orange groves...

What about Greater Orlando a dozen years later--can those of you from from these locales testify?

*****************************

/very, very tired of academic grousing and "layered readings" re Disney, past and present. Have any of you ever listened to any dry-as-dust conference papers about this?


I was told by someone whose grandfather owned the land where the Cinderella Castle is now that it was her grandfather's prime deer hunting land before Walt came in and bought up everything. So yeah, I'd say that the area where Disney World is now was once forested, as much of the undeveloped land in central Florida still is.
2013-01-05 10:35:52 PM
1 votes:
TFA: "The whole film is like a test run for the immersive theme parks that Disney would eventually destroy acres of forest to build."

Really? Was Anaheim/1955 forested? I thought it was commercial orange groves...

What about Greater Orlando a dozen years later--can those of you from from these locales testify?

*****************************

/very, very tired of academic grousing and "layered readings" re Disney, past and present. Have any of you ever listened to any dry-as-dust conference papers about this?
2013-01-05 09:35:30 PM
1 votes:

stoli n coke: hbk72777: "We're through with caviar," Walt Disney lamented. "From now on it's mashed potatoes and gravy." The company that bore his name was reeling from the disappointing box office returns of Pinocchio and Fantasia."

So people even back then knew Fantasia sucked?


Yep. I don't think Fantasia made a profit until it was re-released in the 60s and 70s to a much larger, much more stoned audience.
Drugs brought that movie out of the red.


Yeah, Fantasia was a complete failure as a full length theatrical film. Walt wanted all kinds of bizarre things to be done during the showings... including throwing water on the audience during the well known Sorcerer's Apprentice scene. It was never done as he wanted, and even if it had been it wouldn't have helped. Some of that kind of immersive experience has been used in other Disney theme park attractions (It's Tough to Be a Bug at Animal Kingdom is a pretty good example of this kind of thing).

Fantasia's scenes are neat on their own, but it's a bit much to put all together and watch all at once.
2013-01-05 08:45:33 PM
1 votes:
I like the remake of the film. way edgier

t1.gstatic.com

/I saw it under the "Street Fight" name.
//Pic is hot like a something or something
2013-01-05 08:40:04 PM
1 votes:

leviosaurus: It amazes me that people fixate on this movie when "The Littlest Rebel" still gets airplay on broadcast TV (and has an 88% positive score on Rotten Tomatoes to boot.) No matter what your level of sensitivity to racism, Song of the South isn't a fraction as offensive.


No one gives too shiats about Shirley Temple any more.  But Disney is now a bigger entertainment juggernaut then its ever been, and that makes them a big target.

Xaneidolon: "Not only is Song of the South a movie derogatory because of its 'Uncle Tomism,' it was made by people who were well aware of the stereotype, who knew others would be offended, and who clearly felt there was nothing wrong with that."


I think its hilarious that this paragraph in TFA comes immediately after a paragraph detailing everything Disney did to try and make it as in-offensive as possible.
2013-01-05 08:08:51 PM
1 votes:
It amazes me that people fixate on this movie when "The Littlest Rebel" still gets airplay on broadcast TV (and has an 88% positive score on Rotten Tomatoes to boot.) No matter what your level of sensitivity to racism, Song of the South isn't a fraction as offensive.
2013-01-05 07:55:52 PM
1 votes:

blue_2501: Considering how Disney is trying to sexualize its tween show stars


Right, teens never thought about sexuality until Disney came along. Perish the thought.
2013-01-05 07:51:26 PM
1 votes:
From tFA: As Sperb puts it: "Not only is Song of the South a movie derogatory because of its 'Uncle Tomism,' it was made by people who were well aware of the stereotype, who knew others would be offended, and who clearly felt there was nothing wrong with that."

Conceptually, there is nothing wrong with that. It would be a miserable world without art that didn't offend someone (think Hillsboro here). Plus, it's not possible.

And apart from Sperb's protests, it is a period piece that shows the views of at least some during that time in our history. We've never been homogeneous, thankfully.
2013-01-05 07:17:53 PM
1 votes:
I saw it, or large parts of it, when I was a kid, in the 70s. It was weird and dated then, but I don't remember it being nearly as offensive as, say, "Gone with the Wind," or the crows in "Dumbo."
2013-01-05 06:25:42 PM
1 votes:
It's not really hidden, Disney makes a ton of money off the music of the film.
2013-01-05 04:45:47 PM
1 votes:
Is (not so) hard to find Disney stuff any less lame?
 
Displayed 50 of 50 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report