Stupid Guest Tricks

Amphigorey wrote:Let's just be clear here.

Are you actually saying that you don't see racism in "Song of the South," and that I only see it because I want to see it? Because that's what it looks like you're saying.

There's a difference between a film that is itself racist, and a film *about* racism, and one that merely *includes* the racism appropriate to the time and place of the story.

I think SotS is in that third category. It wasn't produced to promote racist opinion (if it was, it did a piss poor job of it, given that the bad guys were white). It also wasn't a story *about* racism, though that did play a part in the social dynamics.

I'm no expert on either the period of the film or the period when the film was made, but from what I do know it would appear that SotS was quite progressive for the 1940s. Indeed, it was the first film to feature a black in a leading role, a point recognized by the Academy by granting James Baskett an Honorary Oscar -- as far as that organization's racism permitted them to go in 1948. (It was another decade before the Academy granted their first Oscar for Best Actor to a black man -- former Disney Corp. Director Sidney Portier.)

So look at the film for what it was when it was released, shortly after WWII. Look at it for the mirror that decade offered to life in the 1880s. Does it portray racism? Certainly, for it was common in both those decades (as it is today, though to lesser degree). But that isn't the same as calling it a racist film. It was a film that, like this year's Wall-E, shines a light on society, and sometimes shines it on the places we're least proud of.

Sorry, preaching again. I'll try to stop. </soapbox>

Wild applause for the wise Zazu. You have summed it up completely.

Amphigorey, since the Drcorey kindly provided a link to most of the film, you might want to take a peek. Keep in mind that that wisest, kindest person in the film is Uncle Remus. (and I think he has the best singing voice as well)

Hattie McDaniel was the first African American performer to win an Academy Award, for supporting actress in "Gone with the Wind" in 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattie_McDaniel


Interesting entry about James Baskett, who auditioned for a small role as the voice of an animal in SotS and ended up with the lead role:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Baskett

I've only just started to watch the film from that youtube link, but as a sidenote, I have to say, THANK GOODNESS that comments have been disabled.
I can only imagine all the fights and name-calling that there would have been. This IS after all, the Internet.

Gack! The other night, watching the news, I was reminded that racism isn't dead. I can't find the link on Google News, but for the past few nights the Orlando stations have reported on some racist whackjob who apparently vandalized her own condo. The girls who rent it had a black friend over to visit, so whacko drew black crosses all over and wrote ranting slurs in marker. Cuckoo....cuckoo....

We happen to have a pretty diverse group of friends, so I'm glad we don't live near that nutjob. Sadly, last I heard, I don't know if the police can even do anything since she vandalized her own property.

Not even disturbing the peace or, since her graffitti was making racial slurs, making terrorist threats against her roomies?

Zazu, I have looked at SotS. It's been a long time, so I'm fuzzy on details, but the issue isn't so much about whether the black people or the white people are the villains, but how much whitewashing (er, so to speak) is present in the movie. Now, we don't expect gritty historical realism a la "Deadwood" from a 1946 Disney film, but surely we can take an honest look and talk about how lifestyles were portrayed in the movie.

Again, I strongly suggest that instead of defending SotS as an appropriate depiction of race relations in the 1880s, you do some research into what black historians actually have to say about it. Or just look around online - go to http://www.racialicious.com and have a look around, or petition Elon James White of http://www.thisweekinblackness.com to do an episode about movie
portrayals of black people.

I do not think you can seriously argue that the depiction of race relations in Song of the South, in which the black people are portrayed as poor but basically happy, are in any way realistic and representative of the situation in the 1880s.

Zazu wrote:There's a difference between a film that is itself racist, and a film *about* racism, and one that merely *includes* the racism appropriate to the time and place of the story.

I think SotS is in that third category. It wasn't produced to promote racist opinion (if it was, it did a piss poor job of it, given that the bad guys were white). It also wasn't a story *about* racism, though that did play a part in the social dynamics.

I'm no expert on either the period of the film or the period when the film was made, but from what I do know it would appear that SotS was quite progressive for the 1940s. Indeed, it was the first film to feature a black in a leading role, a point recognized by the Academy by granting James Baskett an Honorary Oscar -- as far as that organization's racism permitted them to go in 1948. (It was another decade before the Academy granted their first Oscar for Best Actor to a black man -- former Disney Corp. Director Sidney Portier.)

So look at the film for what it was when it was released, shortly after WWII. Look at it for the mirror that decade offered to life in the 1880s. Does it portray racism? Certainly, for it was common in both those decades (as it is today, though to lesser degree). But that isn't the same as calling it a racist film. It was a film that, like this year's Wall-E, shines a light on society, and sometimes shines it on the places we're least proud of.

Sorry, preaching again. I'll try to stop. </soapbox>

felinefan wrote:Not even disturbing the peace or, since her graffitti was making racial slurs, making terrorist threats against her roomies?

Fox News just ran an update. Crazy landlord just got a high powered lawyer who says she has the full right to pray and bless her own property and that the words in the grfitti are blessings, not racial slurs (even tho', among other things, one refers to the "pure white light" that combats the black and the grafitti only appeared after the black friend visited). It's actually a house, not a condo, and the crosses are scrawled all over the windows in marker.

She might be charged with harrassment and stalking but no charges yet.

Really, really bizarre.

Amphigorey wrote:Zazu, I have looked at SotS. It's been a long time, so I'm fuzzy on details, but the issue isn't so much about whether the black people or the white people are the villains, but how much whitewashing (er, so to speak) is present in the movie. Now, we don't expect gritty historical realism a la "Deadwood" from a 1946 Disney film, but surely we can take an honest look and talk about how lifestyles were portrayed in the movie.

Again, I strongly suggest that instead of defending SotS as an appropriate depiction of race relations in the 1880s, you do some research into what black historians actually have to say about it.

I think you misunderstand my point. I was not arguing that SotS offered an accurate portrayal of race relations in 1880s Georgia. I *was* trying to suggest that it was a reasonably honest *attempt* to portray such *through the eyes of 1940s animators and writers*, who wore the blinders peculiar to *that* decade.

I'm certainly no film historian, but I would be curious to hear what one would say about the portrayals of the post-bellum South in films of the 1940s. I honestly don't know how much whitewashing was done in general, so simply can't know if SotS did a better or worse job of it.

I *can* say that we should not judge a 1946 film -- on any topic -- by the standards of 2008.

I do not think you can seriously argue that the depiction of race relations in Song of the South, in which the black people are portrayed as poor but basically happy, are in any way realistic and representative of the situation in the 1880s.

I'm not trying to. I'm only asking that you judge the film with an awareness that it was set a generation beyond the end of slavery, and with due appreciation for the racial sentiments in the decade when it was made.

I spent a decade living in the South (and no, Orlando doesn't qualify). Race relations there still aren't as peaceable as people of both races deserve, and some folks aren't ashamed to say they prefer it that way. I was disgusted by every example of such behavior that I observed, and it was one of the reasons I moved away (maybe not as big a reason as it being too far from WDW, but a reason nonetheless).

Therefore, it's pretty obvious to me -- and I assume to the rest of those reading here -- that things weren't very pretty 120 years ago, either. For that matter, Jim Crow was still the law of the land in 1946. James Baskett wasn't able to attend the premier of his film because it opened in Atlanta.

Do I think SotS accurately portrayed race relations in 1880s Georgia? Of course not. Do I think it accurately portrayed race relations in 1946 Burbank? Not even. However, I do think the film was made as accurately as might be expected given when it was produced and the constraint that perfect social realism not infringe on the storytelling. And most importantly, I think the film is still worth viewing -- though an introduction to acquaint modern viewers with its history would be a most welcome addition.

Zazu wrote:
Do I think SotS accurately portrayed race relations in 1880s Georgia? Of course not. Do I think it accurately portrayed race relations in 1946 Burbank? Not even. However, I do think the film was made as accurately as might be expected given when it was produced and the constraint that perfect social realism not infringe on the storytelling. And most importantly, I think the film is still worth viewing -- though an introduction to acquaint modern viewers with its history would be a most welcome addition.

Actually, I'd love to see SotS released with extensive commentary given by black historians and social scientists. However, I don't think it could be released with no comments, as doing so would decontextualize it, or with insufficient comments. A single introduction by Leonard Maltin wouldn't cut it, I'm afraid.

What I am arguing against is this notion put forth by several other posters that I am only seeing racism in SotS because I somehow want to see it, that I'm bringing my own racism with me, and the further implication that Disney is only not releasing it because they have caved to "politically correct" pressure. That's a nonsense argument.