I racconti dello zio Tom

When I was about five years old, I saw this film with my older cousins who were in their twenties at the time and I don't remember hearing them saying anything negative about it. This is ironic, because I am African-American. Everyone must remember that this film was released in the 1940's before the civil rights movement and before "Roots". Now because of political correctness, we have all but forgotten this classic film, which was one of the first to combine live action and animation. Even though I do agree that this film does show slavery in a positive light you also should look at the fact that it dared to show the friendship between an African-American and a Caucasian, something that would never have even been thought about in those days. Next thing you know, someone might get the bright idea to ban "The Cosby Show" because it supposedly doesn't portray how the average black person really lives.

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.

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.

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.