I racconti dello zio Tom

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.

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.

Let me start by saying I'm surprised I found this movie. I didn't even think copies online of this film existed but here we are. It must've just been hard copies. Anyways, I grew up hearing the classic song of "Zippity Doo Da" and knowing of Song of the South because of Splash Mountain and so on, but I of course never saw the film since it's been banned due to controversy. Not many films are banned unless it's for a good reason. After I finally saw Song of the South, I'll finally come out and say that this movie should not be hidden. It doesn't deserve to be and here's why: Song of the South was really the first Disney movie to pioneer the live action/animation hybrid that made Mary Poppins so famous. The acting is charming, the songs are among the most classic of Disney, and the characters are fairly memorable. Now to address the hard part of this film. This film is not so much racist as it is insensitive. The Walt Disney Company had actually made this film to celebrate African American culture while racism was still very prominent in America (the lead actor for Uncle Remus wasn't even allowed to see the film). It depicted slaves as being treated fairly equal and living a life that they seemed to be fairly content with, and that's something that is definitely bound to cause heated controversy. There were also some animated characters that very much fell into the category of African-American stereotypes, and that can definitely offend people. Yet, the movie was not malicious in its intent. This movie continues to be hidden because of its controversy but for some reason, the 1915 film "Birth of a Nation", which unapologetically celebrates the Ku-Klux Klan is available to all? Better yet, literal Nazi Propaganda Films such as "Triumph of the Will" and "The Eternal Jew" are also available for all to see but an insensitive children's cartoon isn't? A 1970s drama film called "Pretty Baby" that features actual exploitation and sexualization of a minor is available to all but this fairly insensitive but mostly harmless film, which just so happens to be a film for families isn't available? If anything, Song of the South says volumes about censorship and controversy in film. It's an insensitive, sometimes painful look into history for people but it's an important milestone that shouldn't be hidden, especially when the filth that I just mentioned is free game for anyone to watch.

C.

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.