MovieChat Forums > Song of the South (1946) Discussion > A simple question for people who LIKED t...

A simple question for people who LIKED this film...

posted 17 years ago by ken68imdb
17 replies | jump to latest

I think the reason so many Black people are offended by this film can be summed up by 1 fact listed on James Baskett's IMDB bio page:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0059934/bio

"He did not attend the premiere of "Song of the South" in Atlanta because as an African American he would not have been allowed to participate in any of the festivities in that racially segregated city."

HERE IS MY QUESTION:

How can any reasonable person (Black or not) think Black people should NOT feel passionately about a film that portrays them as happy with their circumstances during reconstruction (circa 1870) when those circumstances remained so restrictive over 70 years after the film was supposed to have taken place?

A film that romanticizes an era that was so obviously inhumane to Black people, while trying to portray plantation owners as noble and virtuous?

I don't believe Disney himself was a bigot. He probably wouldn't have bothered making the film if he were. Also, he campaigned for Baskett to receive a special Academy Award and stayed in contact with the Baskett family for many years after the film, clearly the actions of someone who regarded Baskett as more than just a one-time employee. But all films, well-intentioned or not, should be meet with FAIR and EDUCATED criticism. And people shouldn't automatically be expected to enjoy a film (even a musical!) that clearly sends an ambiguous and troubling message regarding the mental capacity of Black people to suffer.

The only word that all interested parties might use to describe this film is 'naive.' I've seen it and can personally attest to the charming performances, catchy songs and innovative photography. But how else can you attempt to produce a children's musical shortly after the slave period while removing every negative reference to it?

If this film had been based in the north during 1946 (the year of its theatrical release), it would've been deemed implausible by almost every critic. To expect people to mindlessly enjoy such a film taking place in the south around 1870 is pretty unreasonable.

Maybe if the affection and genuine concern the characters displayed toward each other was seen more often in modern American society, instead of the rumbling volcano of bigotry and resentment and anger we have now, we might be able to sit down and simply enjoy this film one day.

Whatever you wish for me, I hope you have twice as much.

[–] Mr_Saturday_Night 17 years ago

I saw this film as a kid and absolutely loved it. Of course, that was way before the PC Police was dispatched by the Democratic Party to place us all within marketable racial categories and to force us to believe that black rage and white guilt explain why we can't live in peace. Somehow Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder got along so well that they wrote a song about it called "Ebony and Ivory". Talk about being unbelievably politically incorrect!

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mr_Saturday_Night 17 years ago

So simple that even a delicate genius like yourself would make such a presumptuous comment.

Please, enthrall us simple folk with your incredible acumen.

[–] bjlevine 14 years ago

Its funny. A lot of spirituals can be traced back to the slavery era, yet I don't see anyone lining up to ban them.

[–] nufsaid16 (685) a year ago

The film got taken out of circulation before the '80s----long before being PC came into vogue. I actually saw it when I was little myself, when it had what was probably its last revival showing. The fact is, the film sentimentalized slavery, and had some questionable stereotypes in it. All that nonsense you spewed about the Dems is ridiculous. White people who still perpetuate racism to this day is why some of us can't live in peace, period.

[–] BoomerMovieFan 17 years ago

I feel about SOTS the same way as I feel about Gone With The Wind. Yes, they both have elements of racism in them, both because of the times they represent and the way the black characters are represented.

HOWEVER, I don't think the way to honor black artists is to suppress their work. It should be celebrated and the racism openly discussed, which is exactly what we're doing here.

[–] dmedinacooper 16 years ago

A very reasonable argument, Ken, that went right over their heads! I'm sure those who enjoy Song of the South would not understand the racial overtones at play in Imitation of Life either. Sad!

[–] vegetable99 16 years ago

Ken, you basically said that this film romanticises the turmoil between blacks and whites. Well, it's a Disney film. Look at all the other films he did, they weren't true or realistic in the slightest, but they were still brilliant movies. It's so sad to see this whole board being taken over by politically correct, ignorant fools. It's a film for goodness sake. And a bloody brilliant one at that. We should be hailing the director and actors instead of arguing about it. And by liking this film does not make you a simple person. This film was a part of peoples childhoods and it means something to them.

Like zombie RPGs?http://livingdeadrpg.proboards56.com/index.cgi/

[–] lrb5 16 years ago

I don't think Ken was implying that the people that enjoy this film are simple. I agree with the poster a few posts up. I don't think that the film should be locked away and hidden. I think that it would be a great piece to use to discuss the different portrayals of African Americans through out history, compared to the reality. With that said however, you have to remember that it is a Disney movie, where Gone With the Wind is not. It was intended for families. That part is actually what concerns me.

I would worry about the child whose first experience with learning about slavery and the periods immediately following slavery is from this movie. It does gives a false impression of what life was like, and I think it can foster in sensitivity to the subject. As a teacher I can attest to the fact that its a lot harder to break these wrong impressions than it is to teach it fresh. Just think back to your own education. For years and years and years, for Columbus day we're taught to think of Columbus as a hero. Then we get to high school and we learn the truth. Its a lot harder to break our original hero impression than it would be to actually learn the truth.

[–] amaarthi 15 years ago

Hmm. I've never seen SOTS and am only recently looking up this controversy. I read the Wikipedia summary on the article, however, and I'm surprised at how *not* bad it is (previously it had been referred to as a "racist movie", you would have thought it portrayed slaves singing and dancing while being whipped). As the poster below me commented, "I would hope, however, that they would be just as passionate in noticing that the film depicts a black man as the only real source of wisdom and love to a little boy whose world is falling apart."

It seems every portrayal of Uncle Remus is positive, far moreso than say, Johnny's parents or Ginny's brothers, all of whom were white. This reminds me of a conversation I had with someone on a Mulan message board. They were angry that Disney's Mulan didn't accurately depict the historical "Mulan" story, and it oversimplified Chinese culture. However, as I noted there, children add to their knowledge of a certain thing or a certain culture as they grow older. If children watch SOTS and believe that black men post-Civil War era were kind, wise, trustworthy, loving father-figures who would take care of a white boy as if he was his own child, without question, and later learn that that isn't all there was, that it was a lot dirtier and grittier than the Disney portrayal, is that so bad?

If anything, the fact that Johnny's mother treated Remus so unfairly, and was shown to be wrong (by the fact that her son cared so much about Uncle Remus and needed him so), will show children that they shouldn't judge people that way, that even adults do that and still it is wrong.

And, how is this different from any other glossing-over, simplifications that occur in other Disney movies and don't scar children?

Cinderella- she bears the burden of abuse (that's really what it is) with a smile and a song, and eventually a man saves her
Mulan- unlike the real Hua Mulan, Disney's Mulan is celebrated, not killed
Tarzan- a child left alone in the jungle is easily cared for by apes and does not suffer due to lack of human contact
Hunchback of Notre Dame- Quasimodo is disfigured and shunned from society, but he sings and makes friends with stone statues

Mostly I think it's sad that the movie that created one of the first black leading-roles, for which the actor won an Oscar, being the first black man to do so, is rejected as being racist, when for its time, it was actually pretty progressive.

[–] nufsaid16 (685) a year ago

Black people actually starred in some films before then, just do the research.

[–] satterwh 16 years ago

How can any reasonable person (Black or not) think Black people should NOT feel passionately about a film that portrays them as happy with their circumstances during reconstruction (circa 1870) when those circumstances remained so restrictive over 70 years after the film was supposed to have taken place?

A reasonable question and deserves a reasonable answer. First, anyone has the right to feel passionately about any work for any reason. I would hope, however, that they would be just as passionate in noticing that the film depicts a black man as the only real source of wisdom and love to a little boy whose world is falling apart. As that is the real focus of the film, it deserves at least the same attention as what is - at most - a backdrop to the story.

[–] fan4ad 15 years ago

I do think that the film represents an idealized South, and the representation is naive. However, with all films, they should be seen through the context of the time. To hide films from the public makes things worse because people do not understand what once was seen as offensive. I would like all film (even offensive ones) to be released fully for the audience to make up its mind about. As someone mentioned, it is like Gone with the Wind, which I just rewatched. Yes, it is idealized; yes, it has offensive elements (Queenie is highly offensive). Yet, it was a landmark film that awarded the first Academy Award to an African-American. It broke some barriers. Mammie is also more of a mother than Scarlett's actual mother. As a film instructor I show films that have non-PC elements, but I also talk about why they are offensive. When I saw Song of the South, I did not think it was that offensive--compared to many other films that I have seen. I think that it is seen as a children's film though, and that concerns many. I would like to see a documentary placed with the film that allows the viewer to understand the controversy.

BTW, because of the complaints by the NAACP, it actually hurt African-Americans from getting many roles. Criticism about Gone with the Wind actually stopped roles going to prominant characters in films, and many characters were eliminated. Let's talk about this stuff, but let's also acknowledge the greatest of certain films. My view is that Gone with the Wind has only three great performances: Vivian Leigh, Clark Gable, and Hattie McDaniel.

On a personal note, as a gay man, I can tell you that there have always been bad portrayls of gay people (and continue to be). Movies like Philadelphia are seen by the gay community like African-Americans see Song of the South. Yet, while I find the portrayl offensive, I also think it shows more of an acceptance and a changing society. I would never want it hidden from public view.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] skipfoto 15 years ago

Joel Chandler Harris a native of Eatonton, Georgia and an American Journalist, fiction writer, and folklorist authored in 1881 during the post-Civil War and during the Post-Reconstruction period in Atlanta, Georgia a collection of Folk tales based on African-American oral traditions and Cherokee folk tales. The compilation of these stories was titled "Uncle Remus". Some chide Harris other praise Harris for his observation of what I have come to view as the plight of slaves under the boot of slave owners in the pre-civil war period. Folk tales have always been a way to pass on knowledge and a way deal with and overcome difficult situations and these stories are parables in the most traditional sense. I have never heard anyone consider that Walt Disney may have produced “Song of The South” as a protest against Segregation. Social change was in the wind and rapidly coming and the Release by Walt Disney and Howard Hughes and RKO Pictures on November 12th 1946 of “Song of The South” cannot be coincidental as only a year and a half would pass before President Harry S. Truman on July 31, 1948 desegregated the military. I remember seeing “Song of the South” as a child and found it to be a wonderfully delightful animated feature film. As an adult and with what I can remember about the movie I am now inclined to believe that Walt Disney was advocating social change and in reality actually poking fun at racism but especially southern racist, he himself having grown up in the segregated southern racist city of Kansas City Missouri, living in what is considered today part of the Black Community and in Mr. Disney’s day what may have been considered part of a mixed race area of Kansas City and/or at the very least the Black Community. Walt Disney grew up at 3028 Bellefontaine about six blocks East and nine blocks South or about a mile and one- half from the home field of the World Famous Kansas City Monarch’s baseball team from 1923-1950 and the pride of the Baseball Negro League the stadium being located at 20th and Prospect Ave the heart of the Black Community. Given the place that Mr. Disney grew up he must have had a lot of exposure to the black community and he must have been socially conscious and keenly aware of the social injustice associated with Kansas City and its segregationist policies and the inequality of equal rights between blacks and whites.
It make me sad to think that the film vaults remain closed to probably one of the first socially conscious anti-segregation films made at a time that preceded President Truman’s Desegregation Policy change directed at the Military and Jackie Robinson’s career in Baseball . It preceded “Brown vs. Topeka Board of Education”, it preceded “Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus, it preceded the sit-ins at the crown room at Emery Bird Thayer yet it somehow has been viewed as a film that is politically incorrect. I disagree. The Film is a protest against racism, if you can get past the film setting and get to the stories within the story.
Correct me if I am wrong but did not Uncle Remus tell stories that were based on the black experience and weren’t they parables much as Aesop’s fables are parables, don’t they have a moral lesson, don’t they have an African tradition and origin. If in fact they were stories told by a black man then it follows that the stories are also told from the black man’s perspective and if they are truly coming out of the black experience, tradition, and history then surely they must have been told in the frame of mind that the hero or protagonist was black and if the hero was black than the antagonist must have been white because white was the only antagonist the slave knew. With that in mind if we examine the characters of the stories then our Protagonist Br’er Rabbit is our hero and I believe Uncle Remus’s alter-ego, while Br’er Fox and Br’er Bear were the antagonist of the stories. I remember Uncle Remus as a wise old sage and his stories captivating using humor, wit, and irony weaved into his stories to make a point and maybe even poking fun at whitey and with whitey being to self-absorbed, egocentric, myopic, and the one stupid enough to never get the joke.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2187) 2 years ago

Actually Johnny's mother was pretty mean and Uncle Remus dealt with her as best he could within the social restrictions under which he was forced to live. It doesn't necessarily make him an Uncle Tom, just someone coping as well as he was allowed. As far as the ex-slaves, sharecroppers or however one would refer to the African Americans in this movie, appearing happy, it was a coping mechanism. Read what Frederick Douglass says about slave songs--they didn't necessarily sing because they were happy but to relieve their mostly melancholy feelings. I heard both upbeat and mournful songs from the people of African descent in this movie. My friend and I watched expecting to hate this movie from all the things we have heard about it and were pleasantly surprised. Perhaps the movie should be shown with some sort of disclaimer.