Walt Disney's "Song Of The South" being remastered from the original negatives*

It's also not as if people who REALLY want to see "Song of the South" have no way of doing so, either. So to speak.

 

You've got a point there, but it's the kind of historical document us Thermians love...

 

Disney aren't the brightest lights, sometimes, when it comes to their own product.

Here is what they tried to do, just a week before the premier of IRON MAN 3...and it backfired.

Thursday, April 25, 2:31 PM ET

Disney (DIS -0.1%) settles its dispute with exhibitor AMC Entertainment in a deal which will allow advance tickets for next week's debut of Iron Man 3 to be sold at AMC theaters. Cinemark Holdings (CNK +0.6%) and Regal Entertainment (RGC+0.9%) are reported to close to finalizing a deal with Disney. The issue cropped up when Disney tried to flex its muscles and grab a higher share of the box office for its films with an eye on a long string of Star Wars movies slated for the future. Which side blinked first hasn't been disclosed yet. ​

​

What will be interesting to see, is their revisionism of it's STAR WARS properties, when they are reissued, and produced.​

 

Yep, that's really very true. The movie has moments, but it's not one of those great classics you think of when you think of movies on the calibre of Pinocchio, Fantasia, and so on.

 

Ya never know. Disney has done some strange things on occasion.

Me personally, I'd hire somebody like Korkis to do a 1-hour documentary on the show, plus have a discussion by racial leaders about the movie, and release it that way. If the discussion could place the movie in historical context, then I don't think it would necessarily be racially insensitive to a mass audience.

On the other hand, then there's a TV show like Amos & Andy, which I suspect will never be legitimately released in our lifetimes...

 

I think it's open to conjecture what happened. Either way, everybody's gonna make tons of money on Iron Man 3, especially Disney. The film has already set records in several countries around the world, and some are already predicting it'll be the biggest movie of the year.

Disney has driven a hard bargain with theaters in the past, and I don't expect them to stop in the near future.

 

That they didn't know their own timing on this "hard bargain" shows Stupidity, and looks amateurish.

And their cozy relationship with China isn't heartening, either...but then most of the big studios are only doing this to save money and put American artists out of work.

DISNEY's general "touchy feelyness" gets in their way, on bedrock, day to day management policies also !

 

And IF they could, they would totally erase it from our collective psyche's...at least the movie is being preserved in some condition.

 

That's the other thing, we all think there is this huge market for this film. I doubt many people care, it would be this huge outcry and PR campaign over a film that really not many people are going to see or buy.

 

People could care less...NOW.

But when it is proposed to be released, the proverbial, hue and cry, of Jerks you haven't heard of before, with a political agenda, come out of the woodwork, and will exploit this, to make an issue out of it.

Then of course Iger will put on his knee-pads.

 

The question is will they censor it.

 

Censor what? I don't think there's anything in the film that's particularly objectionable - it's the (IMO incorrect) image of the film that stirs up controversy.

Seems like people have this idea that "SotS" is some constantly degrading picture of blacks, but I don't believe that's the case - especially not compared to other films of the era like "Gone with the Wind" or "Holiday Inn".

I've not seen "SotS" in a long time, but I don't recall hearing anything about it that's "censorable", really - if there are any specific scenes that could get the boot, I'd be curious to hear what they'd be...

 

The most racist Hollywood studio film I can think of is the Fox musical with Shirley Temple, The Littlest Rebel, where she and slave Bill Robinson are tap-dancing around a giant old Southern plantation before the Civil War. Some of that movie is jaw-droppingly stupid and weird... even though it's a classic of a sort. I actually mastered that one for Fox, and it's a hard movie to watch because of the inherent racism, especially seeing how much Robinson -- who was a great actor and dancer -- had to kow-tow to the little girl in all his scenes.

To me, this movie is 100 times more racist than Song of the South. I think the problem is, "Uncle Remus" kind of became a symbol of racism -- just like Steppin' Fetchit, or the "Lightning" character from Amos & Andy -- so that makes it hard to play to modern audiences, especially outside of historical context.

 

I just saw the film a few days ago after reading since the early 2000s about how "racist" it was. I really didn't find anything in the film to be offensive. The part where the workers are going to the fields and are singing (only potentially offensive part) is actually historically documented to have happened (many slaves had hymns to keep their spirits and energy up). Lets not forget that the film takes place after the slaves were freed, and many were jut working low pay jobs at this point because they weren't able to transition to anything else, but they are not slaves in this movie. The workers weren't treated as well as they should have been but were treated far better than when they were slaves. The character of Uncle Remus is charming and was created in the late 1800s to provide comfort and hope for blacks in post-civil war life.

As for the entertainment value. I enjoyed the movie and the actor who played Uncle Remus was great. However it wasn't a great film in my opinion. I think they should just release this as a small home video release for hardcore Disney fans.

 

It takes very little for the Fake and Phony forces of "Political Correctness" to latch onto, and make "hay" out of ANYTHING, these days.

Here's one analysis of the film, from a place of higher learning.

 

You really have to examine black stereotypes going back to the minstrel shows, and vaudeville.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/jackson/minstrel/minstrel.html
Jim Crow--Mr Tambo--Zip Coon

These three stock characters were among several that reappeared in minstrel shows throughout the nineteenth century. "Jim Crow" was the stereotypical carefree slave, "Mr. Tambo" a joyous musician, and "Zip Coon" a free black attempting to "put on airs" or rise above his station. The parody in minstrel shows was often savage.

These three were the male stereotypes. The bits as found on early recordings usually featured Jim and Zip, with Zip usually trying to swindle the slow Jim Crow.
After the turn of the century the fourth stereotype emerged, the wise older black man who dispensed wisdome in a folksy way.
Amos and Andy were a variation on the first, and Remus was the achetype of the latter.
Then there was Charlie Case, who over a hundred years ago spun stories on record like Bill Cosby, and most never knew he was black.
http://www.loc.gov/jukebox/recordings/detail/id/1627

 

I just want to enjoy the entertainment value of the movies, and leave it at that.

 

I haven't seen it for a quite a while now, but I do recall it as being pretty uncomfortable to watch. Even if not overtly "racist", it sure feels unenlightened while seeming to pine for a period which most of us (i hope) feel should be long gone.

I also am somewhat saddened when people use the tactic of blaming people for being offended by something (not just this film). Sometimes things really are offensive (or hurtful) to people, and we should be sensitive to that, not blame them and call them "politically correct" in a sneering way just because they are hurt or offended and you aren't. (And I don't direct this to any individual commenter, but this theme seems to crop up constantly here, and I cringe every time I see it.)

 

The problem is people try to use "i'm offended" as the basis of an argument when it holds no water, and is no more than just whining. The thing is there is yet to be a good argument that holds water as to why this film shouldn't be released. The ironic thing is the people that seem to complain about this type are think are white men, who are in no way affected by this film.

 

Never saw the Temple movie - now I'm curious!

The funny thing about the racism in "Holiday Inn" is that I bet it was regarded as progressive 70 years ago. Now the treatment of blacks makes us cringe - never mind the extended blackface sequence! - but as I mention in my review, the movie at least treats the freeing of slaves as a good thing - that's better than "Gone With the Wind"!

 

Holiday Inn is a great, entertaining film, that I will continue to enjoy.

 

I agree that it's a fun, entertaining movie - I never said it wasn't. It's a holiday favorite for me.

But that "Lincoln's Birthday" production number... yikes!

 

We are starting to head down the path to getting this thread closed. I recommend we get back on topic.

 

OK, I think Disney should release Song Of The South despite of it portraying White people in a lesser light.... I think Walt Disney devised the film as a vehicle to get work and exposure for black actors. I believe the film was well-meaning and Disney should just get off the pins and needles and release it. I'd like to frame my LD of it!