Stupid Guest Tricks

GaTechGal wrote: 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)

This is tangential, but I would like to point out that a stereotype doesn't have to be negative to be damaging or offensive. It can be patronizing, or positive but two-dimensional, as well. For example, there's the "Magical Negro" (that's the term for it; I didn't make it up) trope that pops up frequently. The MN is a character who exists solely to help the central (white) character; he have no life of his own. The MN isn't always black, but is from a minority or disadvantaged group, dispenses sage wisdom to the white hero of the story, and is sometimes portrayed as being "noble" or "closer to nature" than the white hero. Uncle Remus is a perfect example of the MN; so too is Guinan from "Star Trek," Whoopi Goldberg's character from "Ghost," and the Clock Worker in "The Hudsucker Proxy."

Anyway, my point here is that the Magical Negro isn't a bad stereotype in that the character is almost always portrayed as wise and helpful, but it's still problematic and damaging. It's still a stereotype, and it is almost always employed to help a central white character. If there were more central characters who a) weren't white and b) didn't have Magical Negroes helping them, this trope wouldn't be as worth commenting on. As it is, since it's a pattern with definite racial lines, it's worth noting when it comes up.

To summarize: Something can be positive, yet still be problematic.

Amphigorey wrote:Actually, I'd love to see SotS released with extensive commentary given by black historians and social scientists.

How do you feel about the rumor that James Earl Jones taped an introduction?

However, I don't think it could be released with no comments, as doing so would decontextualize it.... A single introduction by Leonard Maltin wouldn't cut it, I'm afraid.

I agree that it does need context that today's viewers don't have. The trick is to make the introduction painless enough that people will watch it.

No wait, what was I thinking? Last time it was rumored to be released the protesters started up before they even knew the release date. The knee-jerk antis will picket this film no matter what context it's placed in -- and without ever sullying their eyes with a viewing.

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....

As the song says, "We're all a little bit racist", so there is some validity to that point, but I think the difference is between seeing racism *in* the film and seeing the film as a whole as being racist. I am also arguing that what is racist today might well have passed muster in 1946 -- as the NAACP's initial approval suggests.

... and the further implication that Disney is only not releasing it because they have caved to "politically correct" pressure. That's a nonsense argument.

Agreed. Disney is not releasing it because they've determined that the money to be made won't be enough to offset the bad press (justified or not). The cost of adding an adequate (or even an inadequate) introduction just makes the equation come out worse.

I was encouraged by Bob Iger's comments on the film at an Annual Meeting a while back, but I can't fault the man if "let's look at that" doesn't automatically produce "let's do that". As a film historian, I think it deserves to be on the market. As a stockholder, no so much.

Zazu wrote:How do you feel about the rumor that James Earl Jones taped an introduction?

I agree that it does need context that today's viewers don't have. The trick is to make the introduction painless enough that people will watch it.

No wait, what was I thinking? Last time it was rumored to be released the protesters started up before they even knew the release date. The knee-jerk antis will picket this film no matter what context it's placed in -- and without ever sullying their eyes with a viewing.

As the song says, "We're all a little bit racist", so there is some validity to that point, but I think the difference is between seeing racism *in* the film and seeing the film as a whole as being racist. I am also arguing that what is racist today might well have passed muster in 1946 -- as the NAACP's initial approval suggests.

Agreed. Disney is not releasing it because they've determined that the money to be made won't be enough to offset the bad press (justified or not). The cost of adding an adequate (or even an inadequate) introduction just makes the equation come out worse.

I was encouraged by Bob Iger's comments on the film at an Annual Meeting a while back, but I can't fault the man if "let's look at that" doesn't automatically produce "let's do that". As a film historian, I think it deserves to be on the market. As a stockholder, no so much.

yeah, they will release it right after warner brothers releases coal black and de sebben dwarfs to dvd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiRU7l4EL94

Yes. I have finished watching Song Of The South thanks to those youtube links, and its true, I think it would be very difficult for Disney to release this.

On a side note, I have to say that after viewing this film, I think that the imagineers did a great job combining the Brer Rabbit stories and using the songs from the film for the ride.

Zazu wrote:As the song says, "We're all a little bit racist",

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLP ... re=related

Amphigorey wrote:he have no life of his own.

I think you are stereotyping African-American speech here.

Zazu wrote:How do you feel about the rumor that James Earl Jones taped an introduction?

I agree that it does need context that today's viewers don't have. The trick is to make the introduction painless enough that people will watch it.

No wait, what was I thinking? Last time it was rumored to be released the protesters started up before they even knew the release date. The knee-jerk antis will picket this film no matter what context it's placed in -- and without ever sullying their eyes with a viewing.

As the song says, "We're all a little bit racist", so there is some validity to that point, but I think the difference is between seeing racism *in* the film and seeing the film as a whole as being racist. I am also arguing that what is racist today might well have passed muster in 1946 -- as the NAACP's initial approval suggests.

Agreed. Disney is not releasing it because they've determined that the money to be made won't be enough to offset the bad press (justified or not). The cost of adding an adequate (or even an inadequate) introduction just makes the equation come out worse.

I was encouraged by Bob Iger's comments on the film at an Annual Meeting a while back, but I can't fault the man if "let's look at that" doesn't automatically produce "let's do that". As a film historian, I think it deserves to be on the market. As a stockholder, no so much.

Frankly, I think that people are just too thin-skinned. I grow tired of people looking for a fall-guy at every turn. Were race relations at the time the story was written good? Hell no! How about when the film was made. Same answer. Are they any better now? Maybe, though not everywhere. But I can think of a legion of better targets for scorn and derision than Song of the South.

TdcOgre wrote:Frankly, I think that people are just too thin-skinned. I grow tired of people looking for a fall-guy at every turn. Were race relations at the time the story was written good? Hell no! How about when the film was made. Same answer. Are they any better now? Maybe, though not everywhere. But I can think of a legion of better targets for scorn and derision than Song of the South.

I suggest you read this essay:

http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

Amphigorey wrote:I suggest you read this essay:

http://mmcisaac.faculty.asu.edu/emc598ge/Unpacking.html

I did. I find many of her points to be overreaching. Others are equally applicable to both races and some are simply specious. Additionally, I would hope the author, Peggy McIntosh PhD., would spend more time on her spelling and grammar. Amongst other things: it’s pattern not patter, college is spelled with an “e” and if you could explain what this sentence means I would be grateful:

“The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political surrounding privilege are the key political tool here.”

There are other examples involving sentence fragments and punctuation but I take it your point is that as a white male, I have no idea what I am talking about since I have, in effect, been born with “a silver spoon” in my mouth. I think that finding a bogeyman under every rock is not the way to solve the issue and that there are more egregious examples of the problem than those cited by Dr. McIntosh. I reiterate my original post.

TdcOgre wrote:I did. I find many of her points to be overreaching. Others are equally applicable to both races and some are simply specious. Additionally, I would hope the author, Peggy McIntosh PhD., would spend more time on her spelling and grammar. Amongst other things: it’s pattern not patter, college is spelled with an “e” and if you could explain what this sentence means I would be grateful:

“The silences and denials surrounding privilege are the key political surrounding privilege are the key political tool here.”

I agree. That essay made my brain hurt. I'm a Psy.D. myself, and that quality of writing in my degree program would not have earned me a very good grade to say the least. Hopefully I didn't loose my writing ability as soon as I graduated. I'm looking at it from the perspective of a white woman, and it had no impact on changing my mind or opening my eyes or lessening my disgust at rampant political correctness. There is plenty of racism and other -isms in the world, but Song of the South is NOT an example of those.