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 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!

Political correctness having been pounded into our heads by the media, I can understand the underlying racial issues that have blunted this Disney film's reputation--no one really wants to be reminded of this particular era (the post-Civil War) when rich Southern white folks called the shots and the black folk did all the hard work--but I can't imagine any film-goer of any color passing up the chance to see James Baskett as Uncle Remus (this was his swan song, dying about a year after this film's original release and just a few months after winning a special Oscar for his contribution). I saw this in the 1970s at a drive-in theater and the experience was magical, it stuck with me for years. It's an emotional, lovely movie about childhood, the friendship between kids and adults, and the confusion about right and wrong. There are no issues here about white and black, but then, this isn't the proper film to address those issues. It is the South at the turn of the century, and in that regard it's not much different from "Gone With The Wind". There are beautiful animated interludes and a handful of terrific songs, Brer Bear is a riotous Disney character, and the live-action youngsters (Bobby Driscoll and Luana Patten) are wonderful--the scene where he gives her his fancy collar is quite poignant. Driscoll and Patten were later teamed in Disney's "So Dear To My Heart", which is also worth finding. "Song of the South" is a film with a great big heart that needs to come out of the vaults. Let viewers judge for themselves.

The black people in this movie aren't depicted as lazy or stupid or criminal. Uncle Remus is depicted as a wise and caring man. It's true that the black people are depicted as subservient, but what movie from this period doesn't portray them as such? It would be historically inaccurate to depict the opposite. Should EVERY movie from this period with black people in it be banned? Disney is run by politically correct buffoons. Ironically, the song Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. is played at Disneyland. The animation in Technicolor is beautiful. Some of the acting is rather stiff, but it's a warm hearted tale, and the Bre'r Rabbit stories are fun.

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.