There will always be people in the world that will nitpick something to death and take something insignificant and blow it way out of proportion because of something they don't like. I just don't understand why a great movie has been banned just because a group of people whine about an inaccurate portrayal. Anyone with half a brain can see that. But what they, and others seem to forget is that it's a kid movie. Not only a kid movie but a DISNEY movie. Would you rather your child watch this movie that, while it does have a misguided view of the south post-slavery, does try to teach a child morals and that people of different skin colors can be friendly towards each other? Or, would you rather your child see a movie, children or otherwise, that portrays a more realistic view of the post-slavery south that shows some violence? Honestly, I'd always choose the former over the latter.
If you think about it, When has Disney really portrayed accuracy in anything? Yes they do try, but the things they think parents don't want their children watching is what gets changed to a more kid-friendly version. If it's a bit fabricated, will it really hurt the child? Especially as some earlier poster pointed out, around middle school is when children begin to learn about what really went on during slavery and after. Yes, it would be confusing when they're used to seeing something as portrayed by Disney and then what actually happened, but it's the parents responsibility to inform the child of why Disney would "lie" about something like this.
It's not like that's the only thing Disney fabricates. Look at all their Princess movies. In each Princess movie, most of the Princesses, with a few exceptions, want to be with a man and they want it to be for love. The love of a man is the only thing they need to have a happily ever after. Or so that's how it appears. But we should (keyword should) know that love isn't the only thing that one needs to be happy and love isn't the only thing to keep a relationship together. It takes much more than that. But we've been spoon-fed this "love only" idea our entire lives since childhood, so all we need to do is wait for Prince Charming to sweep us off our feet and ride into the sunset. With the boys, well, Aladdin is the first Disney Princess movie to show from a male POV and it kind of gives the wrong impression saying it's okay to tell lies because as long as the girl loves you, you'll always be forgiven. Now I can't speak for any man and say that that's the message they took away from the film, but it makes you wonder if any did.
It's just like the people that complain that it was Rapunzel's hair in Tangled that broke their suspended belief because it didn't look realistic enough. They said it looks blobbed together because they couldn't see any strands parting it. Well, it's like that for other Disney Princess movies. They only add strands when they feel it's necessary but the rest of the time it appears "like a blob" because nothing's separating it. Honestly, if they want to complain about something not looking realistic they should have gone with the part near the end of the movie when Flynn is stabbed by Mother Gothel. When she removes the dagger, there's no blood stain from where he's stabbed and there certainly isn't any blood on the dagger. I know, Disney kid movie so they're not going to show that, but at least they could have made the action more convincing.
Or it's like when the people complain that Aladdin wasn't realistic because of the outfits Jasmine wore baring her midriff and her top looked like a bra and that's not how people dressed back then. Yeah, I think we all know that. But like I said before, it's Disney! They're not always going to accurately portray something. Another example is The Princess and the Frog. It takes place in the 1940s, or I assume it does. Not just the 1940s, but New Orleans in the 1940s. It's way after slavery is abolished, but do you really think Tiana, a black girl from the lower class and Charlotte, a white girl from the upper class would really be best friends? I admit it's a sweet sentiment that they are but the reality is a friendship like that would most likely never be back then. Do blacks/African-American/Afro-Americans try to demonize Disney for this? No, because they're happy with the fact that Disney finally made a black princess which hey, is a good thing to be happy about. But if we're looking at it from an accurate/realistic stand point, then for the sake of argument, the black audience should not like PatF because of the friendship inaccuracy the way they demonize SotS for painting an unrealistic view of the post-slavery south.
------------
The internet is my only escape to reality in Arcata.
reply
share
happyreflex
13 years ago
The problem here, again, is that the black people are portrayed in hurtful stereotypical ways. The way they use their eyes is the biggest part of it. Watch the way black people tend to be portrayed in most old films: eyes held wide all the time, stupid expressions on their faces. That was the stereotype of the day. Even modern actors who do stuff like this — portraying characters who proclaim with every gesture, "I don't need no brain, dog! I am buh-lack!" — are embodying negative racial stereotypes and should be ashamed of themselves.
But I'd also like to dispute your contention that this is a great movie. It really isn't. Even if you ignore the racist stereotypes as a product of their time, the thing that really sinks this movie is the clichéd story elements that are just in there to make the movie stupid. The mother who Doesn't Understand, in capital letters because it's such an overused convention. Oh, woe are the poor children, because the parent Doesn't Understand! Why doesn't she understand? Not because of any genuine motivation, but because a hack screenwriter thought those were the rules, and why should he question the rules? He's not an intelligent man, after all.
"Uncle Remus, your stories give my boy hope in this difficult time when his father and I are getting divorced. Because this movie has to be excruciatingly conventional, I'm going to Misunderstand and forbid you to tell my boy any more of your stories."
"Yes'm."
The pointlessness of this convention is only highlighted by the mother's sudden, unexplained decision near the end that she will not Misunderstand anymore. Why does she just stop Misunderstanding out of the blue? Because it was a stupid plot point to begin with, and the rules say the authority figure who Doesn't Understand must Learn the Error of His/Her Ways, in capitals again. Because for hack writers like these, the boy's struggle with his parents' divorce isn't enough conflict; there has to be more conflict, and it has to be as painfully conventional as possible. We need people whose actions are clear-cut wrong, because we can't have moral complexity, now can we? Mother needs to be in the wrong. What if the parents were getting a divorce and nobody misunderstood? What if we had to deal with the reality that parents sometimes get divorced and nobody is in the wrong? What if the movie centered on the boy's personal growth in the face of an upsetting divorce rather than on some big injustice by his mother against him? We can't have a movie like that, now can we? That might actually be (gasp) a good movie!
Ere this night does wane, you will drink the black sperm of my vengeance!
reply
share
13 years ago
[deleted]
Taags
13 years ago
The black organisations always plays the victims card, it seems they are ashamed of there own history. But i guess its there problem not ours.
reply
share
ObieReturns
13 years ago
Here's hoping that Disney continues the unofficial ban. Thank you Disney.
reply
share
jinx_malone
13 years ago
I have a pristine copy from Ebay. Disney may not have released it since they made Splash Mountain, but it's ridiculously easy to purchase. Shame too, since it's a great film. Where else would one have learned Gullah folklore?
-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch
reply
share