unforum

[IllusionOfLife]

Do you really think a film from 65 years ago with fairly tame racial stereotypes will seriously cause adults to stop purchasing Disney products or visiting the Disney parks? I get your argument, but to be honest, I don't think it's any worse than the non-black stereotypes in other Disney films that have not been censored (What Makes the Red Man Red in Peter Pan, anybody?)

You're right, because of the civil war, the civil rights movement, and the fact that our nation took longer than many other 'western' cultures to give black citizens equal rights it's a bigger controversy here than it is everywhere else in the world, and there will be a number of people even after release who will stand up and say how offended they are by this film, and how irresponsible Disney was for releasing it. However, I bet you anything, it will be more controversy for the sake of controversy, and out of these people there will be very few who are legitimately offended and more who are just trying to make a scene.

There are stereotypes in this film, but none are derogatory, and I don't think there's any legitimate justification to keep this movie under wraps so long. Give it a PG rating, release it through Touchstone rather than Walt Disney Pictures, get every black actor to ever work in a Disney film to do a disclaimer at the beginning of the disc, I don't care, but it's far more damaging to hide a piece of history away than it is to release something that may not be considered politically correct now.

[MrV]

[MrV]

[IllusionOfLife]

The thing is though, that these people wouldn't be saying it's ok, or that it's right, they'd merely be stating the obvious that while this is a wrong way of thinking it was part of our history as a nation.

Also, consider the fact that Warner Bros. has released the entire collection of Looney Tunes cartoons on DVD, several of which contain elements that are far more overtly racist, not to mention sexist, than Song of the South, and they didn't receive any major public fallout. Each disc has an introduction by Whoopi Goldberg advising the viewers that some of the cartoons on the set may contain content distasteful or offensive to modern social sensibilities (particularly the racial stereotypes), but will be shown because "removing these inexcusable images and jokes from this collection would be the same as saying these prejudices never existed. So they are presented here to accurately reflect a part of our history that can not and should not be ignored."

Sure, you can make the argument that there's people who will make a big stinking deal about it simply because it's popular to pick on Disney, but when has that ever stopped the vast majority from supporting the Disney brand?

[MrV]

[IllusionOfLife]

Equating this to Horizons is like comparing apples to oranges. Yes, Horizons was a beloved attraction, and there are many people who miss it, but it's in the nature of the Disney Parks to change, sometimes replacing classic attractions if they feel it's necessary. The parks change, if every attraction Imagineering had designed stayed permanently in the parks then each park would easily be double or triple the size and that's simply not practical.

Song of the South is different, I'm not waxing nostalgic for it, I've already admitted I think it's an extremely mediocre movie. My biggest issue is that starting with Eisner's run at Disney, the company has been too focussed on being politically correct and sacrificing the integrity of some of their earlier works because of it. It's like the Pope deciding that the Michelangelo's paintings in the Sistine Chapel are obscene and indecent and white washing it. Granted it's not necessarily on the same level, but the principle is the same. You have a new generation of management at the company deciding something from it's history is inappropriate and doing everything they can to cover it up. That's censorship, it doesn't have to be a government thing, the company has censored several of the works in their library, most notably Song of the South, but also Fantasia, Saludos Amigos, and a few others.

I realize on this particular point we'll probably just have to agree to disagree, but I have not seen any historical evidence to support the idea that releasing Song of the South would have any significant amount of fallout as a result. As I mentioned before, Disney, perhaps because of their success, is the favorite Hollywood whipping post. People go out of their way to find ways to try to dig up dirt on Disney, everything from supposed hidden sexual messages in the 90s Disney films to ridiculous urban legends about Disney willing the company to the first man to become pregnant, and the funny thing is that Disney still manages to be the largest and most successful media and entertainment conglomerate in the world. Any blowback that would come from Song of the South's release would come from the loud minority, while the silent majority, I believe, would have enough sense to understand that all things considered this film really isn't worth all the controversy.

If it happened I suspect there would be shouting and outrage for a couple months, in which time sales will skyrocket due to the controversy, then everything will settle down and there won't be any long term negative effects of this. It's history, condemning Disney for something that was created by people who aren't even living now is absolutely absurd, and I think most people, adults especially have enough historical context to understand that. Besides, the civil rights movement is so hammered into kids in the US public school system that even children should have enough historical context to understand, at least in a broad sense, how this relates to history.

Again, it's not the movie I care about so much as it is the principle of the thing.

[MrV]

I'm not sure how close you follow them, but it is a very similar argument. Fans of attractions like Horizons, the Peoplemover, various former versions of attractions, etc. have used similar arguments saying how it's important to put them back, Walt made them, etc.

With Fantasia, it appears the edit was in place long before Eisner came in (1969 apparently), and it was a change that was seen as a change for the better.

The mantra of the company from the start is to be a happy place for everyone. If the world truly wanted to see it, and there wouldn't be an uproar over it, then they will release it.

As for evidence, look at the shirt I posted earlier, the fallout of that is now they have been labeled a "racist" company, had to pay out loads of cash, and now are under intense scrutiny over their practices.

Disney had a similar problem recently when they wanted a middle eastern employee to remove her headscarf and wear a hat, it led to a lot of bad press, and right now it's apparently cool to hate muslims.

I totally agree that we will probably never come to a happy medium on this as there is no middle ground.

Going on principal, I feel that they are fully within their rights to do what they please with it in regards to how it would affect their buisness and public image. If they wouldn't release it when times were great and they didn't have to offer deep discounts on vacations and what not, they probably won't rleease it now when people aren't going in the same numbers as before.

[IllusionOfLife]

I'm also an active participant in one Disney Parks forum and a lurker in several others with Disney discussions so I'm well aware of the "bring back the Peoplemover/Skyway/Horizons/Country Bears" arguments, but I still think it's very different. Like I said, these attractions, however beloved, were outdated and replaced, but their legacy still remains and Disney honors it (besides, Walt himself said that one of the fundamental aspects of Disneyland was that it would be constantly in a state of change). It's not as if Disney was trying to hide something away, but they were just moving on to bigger and (in most cases) better things. With Song of the South they're hiding it out of fear of a public backlash, and ignoring it's legacy rather than honoring it.

Also the thing with Abercrombie & Fitch is different because there's no historical or artistic significance to the shirt. If Fantasia was a new movie being released today, those scenes would be absolutely inappropriate and unforgivable, but with the historical context, they are still inappropriate but they're also a product of the time. Same with Song of the South, it portrays the whole issue in a naive and misleading way but unfortunately that's how a lot of people of the day justified it. To deny that those attitudes existed is a dangerous way of acting.

You're right though, there's no middle ground here, any censorship is still censorship, whether that's cutting and cropping like Fantasia and Saludos Amigos or complete removal from the public like Song of the South, it's still in my, and many others', opinion wrong, even if it is for the best intentions. I understand the reason why Disney is afraid to release the film, and why they won't release these other films in unaltered states as well, but it doesn't make me any more happy about it. Unfortunately, though there's not a whole lot I can do.

As a small aside, the issue you mentioned with the Muslim cast member, I'm not sure if you've followed the story very closely, but that was in no way Disney being racist. Employees of the Disney Parks agree upon hiring that they will abide by the dress code (one that is actually quite strict). This woman had worked there for two years without making any complaints and then asked for permission to wear the headdress. Her request was declined due to the dress code violations, unless she opted to work in a back stage position. She however deliberately broke dress code and violated company policy after having it clearly explained to her and she was asked to go home. I don't know about you but if I deliberately violate company policy at my job, especially after being informed of the policy by a supervisor I would be fired on the spot. They wouldn't be going out of their way to make accommodations, they'd just look for someone else who's not going to pull crap like that. However, because this issue was so racially charged Disney bent over backwards to try to work out a reasonable compromise, while this women threw a big public fit, and even got everyone's favorite bunch of union whiners Unite Here: Local 11 to support her, and she's not even a member. Bottom line is, Disney didn't do anything remotely out of line in that case.

[MrV]

With the argument that "it was a different time" it doesn't make it acceptable though. Other companies had, what would be considered, racist adverts and mascots. The ones who changed don't bring back the "retro" version or offer them.

I think the heart of the issue with it being locked away is that it has a fatal element/theme that "Being a slave isn't terrible". There is no way you can get away with trying to sugarcoat slavery. Yes, some houses may have been kinder, yes, some people did buy their way to freedom, etc. but at the heart of it they were property and had no rights and were considered less than human. Could you imagine a politician (outside of certain areas) noting anything positive about slavery? He would probably be forced to quit by his own party.

I know corporate censorship exists, but in a case like this I do question if it truly can be the same. Unlike another movie/documentary they didn't release (one of Mike Moore's films), where part of the point is to stir up controversy, this movie was made to entertain. Back when it was released it was fine with society to say that slavery was acceptable as the civil rights movement was starting up. But now it's different, the movie on it's own is considered wrong.


If the movie had some deep cultural impact then it might stand a chance at release as "Banned movies" or "Movies that shouldn't have been made" but considering it was a light hearted film with no serious look at slavery in the US, it will probably be in the (ok hyptethical since this is a different company) vault next the completed unedited Dick Tracy cartoons, and WB's entire library,

There were actually 2 cases for the Muslim women and scarves if I recall. I knew about the one that many peopled labeled as a a troublemaker (going back to it being cool to hate muslims). If someone wearing a cross were told to remove it there would probably be an outcry there and the claims that Disney hates jesus.

[IllusionOfLife]

I do understand your points, but as someone with a great deal of interest in the art of animation it saddens me that these works of art, however controversial or inappropriate by today's standards, are doomed to be restricted to shoddy bootlegs and low quality YouTube uploads.

I still stand by the fact that because of the time period certain things have to be taken for granted in order to appreciate the work, it doesn't make it right, but it's a historical part of not only the work of art but of our nation's history. It's similar to the fact that George Washington owned slaves; yes, slavery is wrong, it's absolutely abhorrent and should not be encouraged, but to devalue all of Washington's great accomplishments and his status as a great man because he owned slaves back then does history a disservice. Yes, there are things as a nation, and as a race that were wrong, things that should never have been ok, but to retroactively tear out pages of history that we find embarrassing is a dangerous practice. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it and all that.

The main problem here is the issue of children, and impressing upon them the idea that this is ok when it really isn't, and to be honest I don't know what to do about that. I think most responsible parents would be able to explain to their children the faults of picture, but I'm well aware that most parents wouldn't give this issue a second thought. However, I think that through other means the impact of slavery and the civil rights movement is impressed upon kids in a way that would vastly outweigh any ideas of happy singing slaves they saw in an old Disney movie, besides, all things considered the slavery aspect of the film isn't really that large a part of the film. It's much more focussed on the relationship between the boy and Uncle Remus which is a very positive one.

Also, as to your comment at the end, I would be saying the exact same thing if a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Mormon, or any other person of religious affiliation decided to willfully disobey an order from management at their job. The dress code is explained as a condition of hiring, if you can't abide by that dress code for whatever reason you need to look for another job. It's not a matter of hate, it's a matter of practicality; if the rules were changed every time someone challenged them there would no longer be any rules. When being hired at a company you must sign a contract saying you agree to abide by the company rules, if you break that contract the company is completely within their rights to take issue with it. The management wasn't discriminating against a Muslim employee, a Muslim employee was using religion as an excuse to violate a company policy which she had agreed to as a condition of the job.

[MrV]

With Washington, Jefferson, etc. we know they did own slaves but a lot of history we teach our kids also whitewashes it. A sad truth is that the state of Texas and the state of California (usually more texas though) dictate what is in our textbooks, and in Texas they make no bones about being pro-revisionist history.

Too bad there isn't a way to just hammer into people, while they view the movie, that what is going on is wrong and that we did learn and got better. Sadly I have a feeling many people would take away "see, slavery wasn't all that bad!".

I wasn't so much talking about your views, I assume you're rational as you haven't wrapped yourself in the american flag and started screaming the national anthem, but I was giving the more general statement of the news/fans of 24 hour news.

Which headline looks sexier (if it were about a cross not a headscarf)?

"Woman is dismissed from her occupation for violations of corporate dress code"

or

"Anti-jesus company fires a woman because she loves jesus"

We've moved past it having to be honest now since you can ruin a company with claims and then say "My bad" weeks later.

[IllusionOfLife]

I don't have too much to say in response to that except that I completely agree.

The news media especially drives me nuts because there are not ethics involved any more. They'll write whatever sensationalized piece of "news" in order to get more traffic to their site or more viewers on their station without thinking twice about the consequences. And as you said, the rare occasions there is a public apology it's usually hidden as much as possible and is already too little too late.

[Broklynite]

Uh...I can't seem to get the stream to work. Suggestions?

[IllusionOfLife]

[EDGECRUSHER]

At the next meeting, when someone asks a question related to bellhops, the correct answer is "Watch 4 Rooms and you'll be fine"

I swear if my bellhop acted like Tim Roth I'd tip him a hundred :p

(I know this is way off topic from what you guys are talking about, but I thought a little laugh might help)