Onkel Remus' Wunderland

This film will never receive a clean bill of political correctness, but neither will any film made before the 1960s. In fact, Song of the South presents some of the least offensive portraits of African Americans you can find from the time. If you really need to compare, go find any other film starring Hattie McDaniel – start with Gone With the Wind – and note how much more dignity she has in the Disney movie. Uncle Remus (James Baskett, who is utterly, utterly exceptional) is perhaps the most charming character you'll find. He's much more stereotypical of an elderly man than a black man. A smart man with strong morals and a clever way of delivering them, he seems to see things more clearly than anyone else in the film. No, Uncle Remus is a kind man who loves humanity, and this love is infectious. The movie made me very happy to be alive. A more politically correct version of the film would have him rebelling against white society with violence. It's kind of sad that we can't abide blacks and whites actually getting along, preaching brotherhood. The live action bits are very good (although I think Bobby Driscoll is a bit weak in the lead), but it is the animated pieces (and the live action/animation sequences) that make Song of the South great. Br'er Rabbit, Fox, and Bear are wonderful characters, and these three segments represent some of the best animation Disney ever did. The mixed scenes are amazing (was this the first time it was done?). I especially liked when Uncle Remus went fishing with Br'er Frog. Uncle Remus lights his pipe with an animated flame, and blows an animated smoke ring that turns into a square (which is, of course, also politically incorrect). I suspect that the biggest reason this film stirs so many negative emotions is the black dialect used in the film. I think that bugs people a lot. Really, though, blacks from the rural South have and have had their own accents and ways of speaking just as they have and have had in any other region. While the accents in this film are somewhat fabricated, I'm sure, I think that it would be a far cry to think of them as harmful to anybody. The hurt that people feel over this movie is the real fabrication, induced by PC thugs who seem to want to cause rifts between peoples. I think that a re-release of Song of the South could possibly have a beneficial effect on race relations in the United States, as it does depict dear friendships and respect between the races, something that I think we quite need at the moment.

I am really annoyed by Disney's decision to withhold Song of the South from release. They seem to think that by banning this film they could appease the charge of spreading racism. In fact, by banning this film they have given the false impression that Song of the South is a racist film that would corrupt children.

As a previous viewer pointed out, the film does NOT depict slavery. It takes place in the years following the civil war. Yes, it shows blacks as servants of whites, but this did indeed occur didn't it? Nor does it depict blacks as entirely submissive servants to whites. Look at the way Uncle Remus defies Johnny's mother by covering for him. Uncle Remus has his own subtle ways of rebelling against his white employers. What's more, Uncle Remus is not a racist caracature. He is a kind and smart man with a lot of common sense.

The film even takes on race relations in the friendship Johnny strikes up with Uncle Remus and a black boy. We end of disapproving of Johnny's mother's narrow minded attitude toward their relationship. This is probably the closest the non-political Disney studios could come to making a liberal film.

It's incredible therefore that it is the NAACP that protested this film whenever it was released instead of the KKK. The NAACP reminds me more of little Johnny's white prejudiced mother than campaigners for racial equality.

I am even more angered by Disney's decision to keep this film off the video shelves. They probably could have gotten Song of the South out on video after it's 1986 release with minimal controversy. Instead, by banning this film they have helped to harden opinions on both sides between those who want to keep this film off the video shelves (many of whom probably haven't even seen it), and those who want it released. They have made a political firestorm of their own creation.

I am a lifelong Southerner. No one can gainsay that slavery was a terrible thing. It is our great national sin. But to dump all of that on these delightful folk stories seems to me a bit much.

I saw Song of the South as a small child. I didn't once think how dumb Uncle Remus was; I thought how dumb the smart aleck fox was! According to the foreword in my copy of Joel Chandler Harris' volume, these stories came from Africa originally where the characters were the lion, the jackal and whatever else they used. They are the Aesop's fables of a whole culture and they deal with how one who is weak and powerless--say a slave or a small child trying to survive his parents' problems--can deal with a world and come out with a whole skin. The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong is the whole theme of the Uncle Remus tales. And everybody's gotta have a laughing place if they want to stay sane in this old world.

Good on you, Uncle Remus! Good on you!

For its time, a time when segregation was still aggressively enforced in the United States, 'Song of the South' was likely a progressive film, a major family film many of whose main characters were black, and whose animated characters were voiced by a black performer. Now, of course, 'Song of the South' is considered problematic due to its depiction of black slaves as happy and complacent, and its portrayal of them as Uncle Tom stereotypes.

Look closer, however, and you'll see a fine family film, warmhearted and gentle, both a technical landmark and a dazzling series of fables as told by Uncle Remus, the movie itself serving up a number of its own morals -- like the fact that a parent's good intentions can unwittingly stifle their child, or that storytelling is key to one's moral and social development.

None of this matters, of course. Walt Disney has now chosen to ignore the film on the basis of its reportedly offensive depiction of African-Americans in the post-Civil War era. For one, this film was not intended as propaganda or considered offensive at the time, and was merely the product of American perceptions of the 1940s; it's not any worse than the scores of westerns that depicted Native Americans as savage Injuns. Of course, Native Americans were and continue to be a marginalized group while African-Americans have maintained a desire to assimilate and have. Being that African-Americans have been far more vocal in their rejection of the injustices committed against them, it goes without saying that white-on-black bigotry is a far more sensitive issue than white-on-Indian bigotry (despite the fact that the Native Americans have suffered just as greatly at the hand of The Man as African-Americans), and therefore, we're less willing to excuse movies like 'Song of the South' than we are films like 'The Searchers.'

But then why is 'Gone With the Wind' still given the green-light and not 'Song of the South'? Well, the answer is simple: The Walt Disney Corporation. Walt Disney will go to any length to keep its reputation clean, and 'Song of the South' is construed as a serious threat to it -- therefore, placing the film on moratorium and making it unavailable simply deters controversy. They can't undo it, but they can certainly hide it. It matters not the value of the film. In a heartbeat, Disney would withdraw something as beloved as the 'The Little Mermaid' if it were one day decided that the film was unfair or offensive in its depiction of mermaids. In 'Song of the South,' one sees an innocence and warmth. In current Disney films, one sees a lot more of the cynicism and calculation of a soulless capitalistic corporate entity.

The depiction of blacks in current cinema is a lot more shameful and offensive than anything in 'Song of the South.' Consider personalities like Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence, and films such as 'Phat Beach' and 'Friday,' which depict African-Americans as lazy, dope-smoking ne'er-do-wells who treat women badly and have no morals. I guess the fact that these films are largely created by African-Americans for African-American audiences gives them a dubious seal of authenticity, being that African-American entertainers are, ostensibly, no longer being exploited by the white man and have developed their own independent voice. If that's true, why is it so much more difficult for black filmmakers such as Charles Burnett and Julie Dash, filmmakers with a truly independent voice, to either find financing for their films, or be met with commercial acceptance? 'Song of the South' might be inaccurate in its depiction of slavery, but it never makes a point of being *about* slavery, and it's no more inaccurate than hundreds of Hollywood's historical epics and costume dramas.

By making 'Song of the South' unavailable, Disney is doing a disservice to those involved in the film and, more importantly, to the millions who harbor fond memories of it.

I saw this on one of it's re-releases when I was very young and it has stayed with me. It is one of Disney's best efforts and I'd love to see it again. Unfortunately, Disney is loathe to offend anyone and it therefore seems that this film will be consigned to the vaults because Disney is unwilling to risk any heat. It's too bad, because the film teachs tolerance among other lessons. Recommended, if you can see it at all.