Song of the South

Features, Shorts, Live-Action and Direct-To-Video
Post Reply
AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7897
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » March 1st, 2005, 7:09 pm

What about that guy who plays Urkel?
I don't know if a lot of young kids nowadays would even remember Family Matters. *feeling old.* :?
“I want it all—the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles!”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1419
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Macaluso » March 1st, 2005, 7:30 pm

Erkel = Voice of Sonic the Hedgehog.
Family Matters owned, and damnit. I want a machine that turns me into a sexy hunk like Stefan.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Christian » March 1st, 2005, 8:24 pm

For all the negative, there are also a lot of positive, even innocent things about the film. It can be a learning experience.
I just watched it about a week ago and couldn't find anything negative about it, racially speaking that is. Except that it made some of the white folks look pretty stupid.

Banned
Banned
Posts: 143
Joined: October 26th, 2004

Post by Special_Ed » March 1st, 2005, 11:59 pm

I have a question for you, Animan. To many of us "white guys" it always appears that the minority groups like NAACP want to segrgate themselves from all other groups because they're always the first to slap these PC names on themselves instead of medling with everyone else. Does it seem that way to you too as being part of that community? I had this class in college where the proffesor was completely like that and he even griped about good things. For example he said every time a black person wins and Oscar it's a slap in the face to their community. Do most black people really feel that way or is that just the very noisy minority?

Song of the South not only makes white people look stupid, but Uncle Remus is portrayed as the wisest man on the plantation. All the white folks respect him and they all go to him for advice. I think it's a shame there are people who find this offensive. They say the black people in the film are slaves but the film clearly takes place after that period. And being historically accurate, many former slaves did stay on at their plantations if they were treated well and it's clear that the people in this film are. I think it's all just complaining over nothing and by this point the film has this huge reputation that when people actually see it that are expecting this big racist parade will be very disapointed.

I also think it's funny how anal Disney gets about PC stuff. They actully have a disclaimer on a Mickey cartoon where the lights go out and you see his face and he yells "Mame!" That's all he does! But they give it a 2 minute intro for fear it will offend. I have a friend who studies the old cartoons and you know what? Most of those old early B&W characters were supposed to be black characters. I bet Disney would cringe at the thought of that becoming public knowledge. The early Mickey was fun loving, naughty, and at times edgy. Then he just became a boring white guy.
Jesus is Lord! :)

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 165
Joined: January 24th, 2005
Location: New Hampshire

Post by AniMan » March 2nd, 2005, 11:18 am

Special_Ed wrote:I have a question for you, Animan. To many of us "white guys" it always appears that the minority groups like NAACP want to segrgate themselves from all other groups because they're always the first to slap these PC names on themselves instead of medling with everyone else. Does it seem that way to you too as being part of that community? I had this class in college where the proffesor was completely like that and he even griped about good things. For example he said every time a black person wins and Oscar it's a slap in the face to their community. Do most black people really feel that way or is that just the very noisy minority?

Song of the South not only makes white people look stupid, but Uncle Remus is portrayed as the wisest man on the plantation. All the white folks respect him and they all go to him for advice. I think it's a shame there are people who find this offensive. They say the black people in the film are slaves but the film clearly takes place after that period. And being historically accurate, many former slaves did stay on at their plantations if they were treated well and it's clear that the people in this film are. I think it's all just complaining over nothing and by this point the film has this huge reputation that when people actually see it that are expecting this big racist parade will be very disapointed..
Well, you've got part of it right. No, I don't think the NAACP self segregates or even puts PC names on themselves; the latter is actually something that a few self-imposed "leaders" of the black community imposed on the larger black community (i.e. the term African-American..who determined it was bad to be called black??). The problem the NAACP has now is that they haven't changed with the times. The U.S. is different from what it was in the 50's, 60's, and 70's. The problems we face are different and more subtle now. But I will stop short of discrediting an organization that has fought for the civil rights of American citizens through the years valiantly. They just lost direction in recent years. And your college professor is daft! I can tell you first-hand that people in the black community, as a whole, rejoice everytime a black person wins an Oscar. It means our recognition as equals by the majority has moved that much closer to being realized.
Now, with Song of the South, I understand what you're saying and hear where you're coming from. It's just that it is almost impossible for you to understand where people of my race are coming from on this. What has many upset is the stereotyping of race. Good ol' Uncle Remus, he so wise and kind, yassuh! It's like a favorite pet or something. To many, he is just a step up from the caricature of Amos 'n Andy (I don't agree, but I understand why someone would feel that way). I'm not saying this was what the Disney people were trying to perpetrate when they made Song of the South, I'm just saying that when you are part of a group that has been subjected to hundreds of years of demeaning, degrading, and outright cruel treatment, it's a little hard to get over :? . It makes you suspect of things, even, sometimes, the innocent things. Like I said though, I think a movie like this is a part of our heritage, good or bad, and it should be preserved and unedited. People should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.
Do. Or do not. There is no try.
---[i]Master Yoda[/i]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 7897
Joined: October 25th, 2004
Location: Binghamton, NY

Post by ShyViolet » March 2nd, 2005, 12:06 pm

I understand a lot of what you're saying Animan. Also, it's worth pointing out that even though SOTS is set AFTER slavery, it's during RECONSTRUCTION, which was in many ways a very oppressive time for African-Americans. There were laws preventing them from voting, they didn't receive the land they were supposed to, and this was also right duirng the birth of the Klu Klux Klan. SOTS makes it seen as though it is an idyllic, peaceful time. (which it wasn't)
“I want it all—the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles!”

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Christian » March 2nd, 2005, 12:37 pm

The big question for EVERYONE is: what could Song of the South have done in order not to offend anyone ever? Everyone's attitude seems to be: "Sure there's nothing wrong with it, but on the other hand there is something wrong with it. But we're not going to say exactly what's wrong with it. We just want to hold something against it and if all we can come up with is vague arguments like 'They shouldn't have made black people look so happy' then we can always make Disney out to be the villain and there's nothing they could do that could ever fix it."

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 165
Joined: January 24th, 2005
Location: New Hampshire

Post by AniMan » March 2nd, 2005, 12:41 pm

ShyViolet wrote:I understand a lot of what you're saying Animan. Also, it's worth pointing out that even though SOTS is set AFTER slavery, it's during RECONSTRUCTION, which was in many ways a very oppressive time for African-Americans. There were laws preventing them from voting, they didn't receive the land they were supposed to, and this was also right duirng the birth of the Klu Klux Klan. SOTS makes it seen as though it is an idyllic, peaceful time. (which it wasn't)
Congratulations! You are among the few who definitely get it! :D

I think SOTS can be best appreciated if one takes into account a) the year the film was made and b) the time period it appears to be set in.
That is why I am not at all offended by it. I look at it as a whole.
Do. Or do not. There is no try.
---[i]Master Yoda[/i]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Christian » March 2nd, 2005, 12:53 pm

Most animation enthusiasts realize the movie is set in the period of time shortly after the Civil War ended.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 165
Joined: January 24th, 2005
Location: New Hampshire

Post by AniMan » March 2nd, 2005, 12:56 pm

Christian wrote:The big question for EVERYONE is: what could Song of the South have done in order not to offend anyone ever? Everyone's attitude seems to be: "Sure there's nothing wrong with it, but on the other hand there is something wrong with it. But we're not going to say exactly what's wrong with it. We just want to hold something against it and if all we can come up with is vague arguments like 'They shouldn't have made black people look so happy' then we can always make Disney out to be the villain and there's nothing they could do that could ever fix it."
You're grossly exagerrating and generalizing here. I haven't heard anyone here say,"Sure there's nothing wrong with it, but on the other hand there is something wrong with it." What I said was that it may not be offensive to me, but I can see why it may be to others. You're attempting to trivialize people's valid arguements by dismissing them as "vague". Listen to what people have to say: you could learn something.
There is nothing that can be done to make something totally inoffensible to all. That is why I have repeatedly said that the film should be left alone and released, unchanged, without apology. It is what it is. Simple.
Do. Or do not. There is no try.
---[i]Master Yoda[/i]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 1934
Joined: October 22nd, 2004

Post by Christian » March 2nd, 2005, 1:08 pm

I was only referring to ShyViolet's comments and I should've pointed that out. She brought up the usual argument of "The film makes blacks look happy, which they weren't at that time." (And we all know that there ARE people who think this movie should never see the light of day again because of this line of reasoning.) But nobody who brings up that argument suggests what should've have been done for this Disney film. They must know that "Disney" (the man? the company?) did about the best they could but still want to hold something against them (everyone loves a conspiracy theory and Disney is an easy target: Disney is racist; Disney is sexist; Disney puts hidden messages into their movies and tells good teenagers to take off their clothes). I recognize that there are many people who do view the movie correctly and don't get up in arms about it.

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 165
Joined: January 24th, 2005
Location: New Hampshire

Post by AniMan » March 2nd, 2005, 1:38 pm

Yeah, I hear you on the conspiracy theory thing. It's ridiculous how there are some who will find a conspiracy in anything, regardless of whether it be real or imagined.
Do. Or do not. There is no try.
---[i]Master Yoda[/i]

AV Forum Member
AV Forum Member
Posts: 260
Joined: October 29th, 2004
Location: UK

...and maybe it'll happen

Post by JustinWilliams » March 2nd, 2005, 2:01 pm

So who thinks this amazing Jim Hill news about a DVD in 2006 is true?

Image

User avatar
Animated Views Admin
Animated Views Admin
Posts: 18712
Joined: October 22nd, 2004
Location: London, UK

Post by Ben » March 2nd, 2005, 3:00 pm

You know, Roy's not going to sign those tins! ;)

Banned
Banned
Posts: 143
Joined: October 26th, 2004

Post by Special_Ed » March 2nd, 2005, 3:07 pm

I'll amend what I said, I think the NAACP has become misguded in recent years. They just had a meeting over the weeknd and attacked Collin Powell and Condi Rice as selling out to the white man ways that's why they succeeded. I find such talk to be very odd and very strange.

"a few self-imposed "leaders" of the black community imposed on the larger black community (i.e. the term African-American..who determined it was bad to be called black??)"

But the mainstream community has adopted that term. That's what I'm saying.

"And your college professor is daft! I can tell you first-hand that people in the black community, as a whole, rejoice everytime a black person wins an Oscar. It means our recognition as equals by the majority has moved that much closer to being realized. "

That's what I thought. He's one of those guys who chose an African name because "his given name was imposed on him by his white slave opressors"

" It's just that it is almost impossible for you to understand where people of my race are coming from on this."

I can understand where any arguement is coming from, I just see some of them as silly.

"Also, it's worth pointing out that even though SOTS is set AFTER slavery, it's during RECONSTRUCTION, which was in many ways a very oppressive time for African-Americans. There were laws preventing them from voting, they didn't receive the land they were supposed to, and this was also right duirng the birth of the Klu Klux Klan."

And what does this have to do with Song of the South? If you want to point out Klan activities, just look at today. Several congressmn have been Klan members -- The guys making our very laws! The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court who started this entire Church and State nonsense (Hugo Black) was a leader of the Klan community! People need to look at things that really impact their lives and stop worrying about a silly movie.

"SOTS makes it seen as though it is an idyllic, peaceful time. (which it wasn't)"

For some people though it was. Not all slaves and former slaves were abused. That's a act often overlooked by most people. There were even (GASP) white slaves!



Yeah I think Christian has it pegged.


I love how everyone either attacks WAlt for being sexist, racist, tc. or they try to claim he was the biggest bleeding heart liberal that ever was. I think the truth is in the middle of the two extremes. Yes, some off color jokes have been attrbuted to Walt, but back then everyone did it and few people took offense. Look at the TV shos of the 1970's, they said words you'll never see on TV today but it was all in good fun, no one was offended, and it stripped those words of any power they had. In the 90's people got way to sensitive and armed these words with power they neverhad before...
Jesus is Lord! :)

Post Reply