Do y'all really not get it? - Song of the South (1946) Discussion

[–] cabal24 14 years ago

OK so the objection is over the portrayal of slaves?

If that's really the case, you have no objection. They were not slaves in this movie. This is proven when Remus leaves for Atlanta. They were sharecroppers and this was post Civil War during reconstruction.

reply

[–] eminges 14 years ago

First, Joel Harris got ALL his material in the slave quarters while working at Turnwold Plantation before the end of the Civil War. That's what he knew to write about.
Second, it's NOT the Reconstruction. The South was devastated during the Reconstruction. The plantation in Song of the South was wealthy, orderly, and in full operation. Sally was dressed only in the finest and everyone was well-fed and content.
Third, Remus could easily have been "runnin' off."
Unless you have some specific reference to sharecroppers to point to, they were slaves.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.

This was 1946. The country had just finished an exhausting war, and African-American men were returning from combat, where they had fought in combat and even been permitted to fly actual airplanes against the enemy. Now Song of the South, under the aegis of a heart-warming classic for the whole family, wants to talk about how wonderful things were back in the day. The bad guy wasn't the plantation owner or the overseer, it was those nasty white-trash boys.

No, not on your dam' life. You don't open a nostalgic musical in Jerusalem in 1949 about how much fun it was to play in the streets in the golden days of the Warsaw ghetto. You don't make a movie FOR CHILDREN about how great it was to be a kid in the city in 1931 because Daddy could spend so much time at home and not have to go off to work every day in that nasty factory.

And I fully recognize how important it was to collect the B'rer Rabbit stories for future generations from a cultural standpoint. But you don't present a skit with kindergarteners built around the Signifyin' Monkey.

reply

[–] cabal24 14 years ago

Froom Wikipedia

Plot
The setting is the Deep South, shortly after the American Civil War.

reply

[–] eminges 14 years ago

That's the uncited opinion of the author of the Wiki article.

Google the phrase from the NAACP's objection to the movie, "the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship," which you'll find further down in the Wiki article. It's endlessly repeated, but the original source isn't cited. At one point, according to the TCM article, Disney was advised to clearly state at the opening of the movie that it took place in the 1870's.

But Joel Harris, as I said, did ALL of his gathering of the B'rer Rabbit stories in the slave quarters of the plantation where he worked during the Civil War. Moreover, the South in which it takes place is wealthy, orderly, and unmarked by the ravages of either the War or Reconstruction. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MOVIE TO INDICATE THAT IT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE WAR, despite the repeated assertions of many of the people posting here.

Think about it--if Disney HAD injected an artificial reference, outside what Harris wrote, to the ravages of the Civil War being nothing but a painful memory, that would have made the idyllic world of Song of the South even more unrealistic.

Sorry. This was a bad call. Harris had bunches of B'rer Rabbit stories, and Disney could well have done a full-length cartoon feature of nothing but the eternal battle of Trickster and his strong but stupid nemeses.

Face it, the animated segments are the only thing worth looking at anyway.

reply

[–] cabal24 14 years ago

BTW I really do respect your opinion even though I disagree with it.

From songofthesouth.net

Q. Is the movie set before or after the Civil War?

A. AFTER. Just as the original Uncle Remus stories written by Joel Chandler Harris, Song of the South is set in a time period after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. This is evident by the fact that in the movie Uncle Remus is able to freely leave the plantation.

reply

[–] eminges 14 years ago

Without attribution, again. ALL the B'rer Rabbit stories were collected by Harris from slaves before and during the Civil War. There is ONE remark made by Remus about "goin' to Atlanta," and I have no idea whether that's from Disney or from Harris (and I'm not going to read all of Harris to find out!), or if "goin' to Atlanta" means he's walking down the road.

One mo' time--THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. If anyone COULD fix this as being post bellum, that'd make it even more unrealistic and fanciful: the South, *particularly the South within walking distance of Atlanta* (I refuse to keep using caps for emphasis) was torn up beyond recognition, and this would have been a complete (sorry) whitewash of conditions at the time. Whether the happy dusky folk are slaves or free, it's NOT right to present this fantasy to children. Again, we wouldn't stand for a happy kiddie musical set *either* at Buchenwald or in the ruins of Dresden in 1946.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Huge_Ego_sorry 14 years ago

fanciful: the South, *particularly the South within walking distance of Atlanta* (I refuse to keep using caps for emphasis) was torn up beyond recognition,

I doubt it was in walking distance, Uncle Remus told Johnny that it was a long way to walk, to allow him to go back to the cabin for grub, giving him enough time to use a stroy to make him realise that there is no where far enough away to run from your problems. When Uncle Remus was headed to Atlanta it was on a horse and buggy.

The children treated each toher as equals, they saw no color.
Slavery or post war? Not sure, but in the way the slaves and recently freed slaves were treated, not much difference actually.

Was it racist to show a slave or recently freed man who had been a slave all his life as being subservant to the plantation owner? I think not, that would have been factual.

I think as history shows use that slaves and share croppers, used stories and songs to keep their spirits up, during these horrific times.

Uncle Remus while speaking as an uneducated man,( which he would have been), he was the wisest person in the film.

The animals in the stories, having the dialect of Uncle Remus,the story teller, had dumb, mean, and wise, crafty traits, just as people of all races vary and have members with those traits.

I do not think it is/was racist. That is MHO. I recognize that people see things different based on thier backgrounds and life experiences.

What the book protrayed as the time period or what Disney was advised to tell is irrellevant. Only what is in the movie applies when discussing the movie. And while it was my thoughts that is was after Civil War, (based on Uncle Remus having his own cabin, and appearent freedom to leave at will) it does not cleary state the time, and leaves it up to the audiences own interputation.

The same as Johnny's fathers writings that had so many people angry. I think he was writing how it was time to move past the war and accept the former slaves as people worthy of respect and dignity.

I do wonder how many people that are stating opinons on how racist it is or is not, have seen it at all or at least recently enought to have a fair memory of what was on the film.

I read many of these post recently and not having seen the film since 1986, held off on commentting until after I rewatched the film last night.

reply

[–] bayowolf 14 years ago

Actually, the SOTS takes place in a parallel universe--a universe where elephants fly and single young women live with 7 men (albeit short men).
In this parallel universe, Lincoln gets elected and, in response, Senator Davis (D-Mississippi) introduces the XIIIth Amendment to the Constitution; all of the States except Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware ratify this amendment. SOTS takes place during the Reconstruction...of Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware.
The rest of the former slave States have freed their slaves and switched to sort of a sharecropping type of economy. However, they changed their principal cash crop from cotton to a certain green leafy crop formerly grown by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. This explains the singing of "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah" and the generally weird happiness that goes on in this movie.

~~Bayowolf
I see the fnords!!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] randyj420 12 years ago

best comment on the topic - thanks for the lol and the truth - This is a Disney film - it's not a chapter in a History book or Encyclopedia - it's the first film they made with a live actor in it - previously, everything was completely cartoon animation - far from reality - what Disney is good at - an escape. I loved this film as a child and I believe many children can still enjoy this film - it just may need an addendum (when they get old enough) to understand it's context and portrayal of "history" within an early Disney film.

reply

[–] eind-eind 13 years ago

I get where your getting at but the "problem" with the movie your talking about is made up by looking to far in it, its a kids movie, and another thing that bothers me with your argument, your saying uncle remus represents ALL black people in the south at that time or what? He hes ONE person, regardless of color dealing with his own situation.

"Freedom means nothing if you are a slave to regular programing" - Kumar

reply

[–] lunnsworld 12 years ago

You have some deep issues...and you sound very brainwashed to the tune of the ACLU and/or NAACP.....GET OVER IT...the entertainment business was a whole different league back then, you cannot compare it to today's political correctness. Thats what makes this movie and any other of its time priceless...this is the American history...you cant deny it...it happened...get over it and get on with your life...if you dont like the movie...dont buy it....dont watch it...we will respect that, its your choice...so leave everyone else alone when we want to see it...Im proud this movie is part of our history...it proves and shows the changes we've gone thru....its also good old fashioned entertainment.

reply

[–] EffOne 11 years ago

Well said. It's idiotic that this movie hasn't been released on DVD or Blu Ray because of the ridiculously over-the-top PC state the world is currently in.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/FULL_TRUTH_Forums/index.php?

Join our forum now!

reply

[–] talada17 11 years ago

Last time I saw this movie I was 4.....I'm 44 now and I finally got to watch it last night, thanks to a "not for sale" copy from Britain showing up on YouTube (what that means, I have NO idea).

It does occur to me that when Uncle Remus tells the kid they can leave the plantation together, although I knew nothing about the history of slavery at the age of 4, that kid certainly would've, and had it been set during the war, he might have said "but Uncle Remus, if you try to leave they'll sic the dogs on you and chop off your foot!"

I'm not exactly qualified to argue with the NAACP when they'll know better than I what they take offense to and what they don't; but there are some key points known by ME to have been overlooked in the banning of this film:

* James Baskett was the first live actor EVER hired by Disney; he was also the first African-American to receive an Oscar. History records this - but his legacy has been buried in shame, instead of receiving the proud celebration it deserves.
* There are NO positive white role models for the little boy in this movie (except maybe his grandmother, who rarely appears onscreen); his best friend is a black boy (as was mine in kindergarten the year after I saw this film), and his only joy in life is attention from Uncle Remus - a black man. When the boy outwits the little white bullies who want to drown his puppy, it is because of lessons learned from Uncle Remus. It's Uncle Remus who talks the boy out of running away from home. When the boy is lying at death's door, it's Uncle Remus who is able to revive him - seemingly through the power of love and compassion - and the boy's tiny hand reaches out not to either of his parents, but to beloved Uncle Remus.
* Walt Disney himself hired a known left-wing, liberal Jewish writer to co-write the screenplay to keep Uncle Remus from becoming "Uncle Tom" - and so was doing his best to demonstrate some social conscience in presenting an African-American main character from (whatever era this is).

On a side note, as far as the interpretation by children; this movie MAY be the reason that shortly after when I met my first black man, I was excited and ran to him (at my mother's job) and wanted to hang with him! "Song of the South" certainly didn't infect my developing pre-kindergarten mind with negative stereotypes of African-American people. Psychologically, it's even possible that this movie left me totally open to suggestion from Bill Cosby and Morgan Freeman, whom I credit with teaching me the joy of reading around this time.

I don't really care much for the complaints of adults about any implications of this film; as has been pointed out repeatedly, it's a children's movie - and children love their Uncle Remus!

reply

[–] Gizmo386 9 years ago

"* James Baskett was the first live actor EVER hired by Disney; he was also the first African-American to receive an Oscar."

You're utterly and completely wrong. The first black person to win an Oscar was Hattie McDaniel in 1940 for "Gone with the Wind"..

He was the first black MAN to win an Oscar, but that is not at all what you said.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dolly_the_ye-ye_bird 12 years ago

eminges says:

"But Joel Harris, as I said, did ALL of his gathering of the B'rer Rabbit stories in the slave quarters of the plantation where he worked during the Civil War. Moreover, the South in which it takes place is wealthy, orderly, and unmarked by the ravages of either the War or Reconstruction. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE MOVIE TO INDICATE THAT IT TOOK PLACE AFTER THE WAR, despite the repeated assertions of many of the people posting here."

emiges also says:

"Without attribution, again. ALL the B'rer Rabbit stories were collected by Harris from slaves before and during the Civil War. There is ONE remark made by Remus about "goin' to Atlanta," and I have no idea whether that's from Disney or from Harris (and I'm not going to read all of Harris to find out!)"

I HAVE read Harris. And there may be nothing in the MOVIE to indicate that it took place after the war, but a quote from my copy of 'Uncle Remus: His Songs and His Sayings', by Joel Chandler Harris, 1911 edition, reads as follows:

"I'm gwineter bounce in on Marse John and Miss Sally, en holler Chris'mus gif' des like I useter endurin' de farmin' days fo' de war, w'en ole Miss wuz 'live."

For those of you not up on your Remus-ese, he's telling the little boy he's going to come in the house and surprise Master John and Miss Sally on Christmas morning like he USED TO DO when he was a slave on their farm BEFORE THE WAR.
There are also other places in the book that lead you to believe it MUST be after the war, for instance, some stories in the 'His Sayings' section mention Blacks who were selling pies and cakes as their living, buying their train tickets and traveling alone, visiting from other cities, etc.

As for the stories themselves, I have to agree with emiges that SOTS could have easily stood just on the wonderful folk tales about the animals. They're the most entertaining part of the film and the book. The sidelines of Uncle Remus and the boy are really only needed to transition between the stories themselves and could have been treated, for lack of a better example, like the kid and his grandfather in the Princess Bride. But I'm sure it was done as it was to be truer to the 'Arabian Nights' feel of the book.

But for all of the controversy surrounding a lot of little things in this film and the book, I think many miss the most important issue entirely. That is that Harris, whether intentionally or not, preserved much of the folklore of the slave communities. Those communities were changing and it was a distinct possibility that many would be forgotten if not written down. I liken it to the Foxfire series where students in Georgia in the 1960s gathered stories from elderly people who were the last of the true mountain people.
Because of Harris and Disney, some of those stories are still known by more people today than they would have been if not for the books and the film. And no matter how you look at it, THAT is a good thing.

The bee hunts in pairs....and other fruits...

reply

[–] Riverstone 11 years ago

Thank you for you intelligent comments, dolly! I, too, have read these stories (in an early 1900s copy written in dialect) and the movie definitely takes place AFTER the Civil War. It may not be made clear in the movie, but in the stories, Marse John was a Yankee soldier. He was a sniper who was shot by Uncle Remus because John was about to shoot Sally's brother, a Confederate Soldier. Uncle Remus then took John back to the main house where he was nursed back to health by Miss Sally, whom he eventually married. Therefore, the movie takes place after the Civil War was over.

reply

[–] robbwolf 11 years ago

In the opening scene Johnny asks, "Why is everyone so angry about what Daddy writes in the papers?" This could definately be taken to mean that the film takes place in the slave days as it suggests that Johnny's father is an abolutionist. As for Uncle Remus leaving the plantation on hos own, he's an old man. I suspect if an elderly person who could no longer perform hard labor decided to bolt from the plantation, there would be few objections from the Big House.

reply

[–] krspas2 11 years ago

I would believe the NAACP as far as I could throw them. They killed this
and "Amos and Andy" (but you can get every episode of "Amos and Andy" on
many sites on the web) I loved "Amos and Andy" on TV in the 50's and found
them very funny. I didn't even notice skin color because they were so darned
good and funny.

reply

[–] krspas2 11 years ago

cabal24, you can not argue with a person like eminges because he. like many others. make up their own facts. You can not change their minds because of
the false facts that they absolutely believe. They don't care what reliable
sources you quote, they have their own imaginary sources to argue with anyone.

reply

[–] goodsmartman 14 years ago

Lol, your useless anger makes me laugh.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 12 years ago

They are sharecroppers. It is the Restoration. Apart from that, it is history. Perhaps not the history of the Civil War era South, but certainly it is a history on the nature of the way we viewed Black Americans and race relations in the late 1940's; the (IMO somewhat failed, as Disney has proven to be inherently racist) attempt to show that Blacks are not scary nor are they 'different'. Many people today seem to have a issue with context, you sound like one of them.

Are you also one of those people who thinks that Huckleberry Finn is a 'problematic' text?

Personally I'd welcome an animated film based on the Signifyin' Monkey, delivered in Rudy Ray Moore style. For kindergarteners. But that's just me, I guess.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] jinx_malone 14 years ago

i really don't get it. because i saw it in the seventies at what was probably one of its last theater screenings and as a kid, i just loved it. newsflash: even as a kid, i thought the white people in it were dull and boring and stupid compared to cool-ass uncle remus and his stories of br'er rabbit and br'er fox.

does this make remus a magic negro and therefore another stereotype? maybe. then again, i'm just a stupid honky, so what do i know. the way i see it, people could actually look at the live-action sequences as a history lesson i.e. 'those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it' but if people want to pretend this type of thinking never existed, along with stuff like the little zebra centaur girl in fantasia, go for it.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] lrb5 13 years ago

Jinx, when you talk about actually using the live action sequences as a "history lesson" thats exactly the reason this movie is a problem. It inaccurately portrays history. Life was not that happy and joyous between African Americans and white plantation owners in antebellum south. The issue I have with the movie as a social studies teacher, is if you're teaching in a predominately white area, and if this movie was the first and really only experience a 7th grader has with images of plantation life during and directly after the civil war, then they are going to take it as a "history lesson". As a teacher it is then that much more difficult to break these false images, and create a real picture.

Think about it, remember when you were learning about the piligrims and "indians" in first grade? Remember how much more difficult it was then to get a grasp on the real horrors the Native Americans experienced? The same is true in regards to this film.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 13 years ago

my quoting 'those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it' means that this movie, although politically incorrect and not in any way in touch with modern thinking means 'see how stupid people were about blacks in the forties? let's not be that stupid again.'

my following that up with 'if people want to pretend this type of thinking never existed, along with stuff like the little zebra centaur girl in fantasia, go for it' should have clued you in to my opinion. i still don't see a problem with showing this film. disney was racist, no doubt. so show it. don't sweep it under the rug. besides that, i still enjoy the folklore because there's no way in hell i would ever have known about it were it not for the film, flawed as it is.

i personally had no trouble believing that the pilgrims and the native americans weren't best buddies because i don't believe people are inherently good.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] rc_lrd 13 years ago

Do y'all really not get it?
It's NOT A 'HISTORICAL DOCUMENTARY'!
It's a FANTASY.
That was Disney's speciality - the creation of fantasies, set in the world of imagination, not in the mess we call "reality". I saw this movie in 1947 and the joy it gave me stayed in my memory. I've just downloaded it from the internet and watched it again today. It's a delightful movie. Lighten up all of you!

Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah...

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rexblueriband 10 years ago

The film isn't totally banned; you can purchase it from non-US entities. It just isn't available for general release in the US. Let people watch it, but it should be difficult for them to have access to it.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 10 years ago

How very noble of you.

It's widely available in the US, actually, just not via Disney. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=buy+a+copy+of+song+of+the+south Why should it be difficult for anyone to have access to any piece of art? Are you one of those people who has the censored version of Huck Finn on their shelf so as not to offend?

People are ridiculous about this topic and it's swung from a healthy concern about taking a long hard look at ourselves and our behavior as Americans to flat-out censorship because someone out there has decided something irritates them.

Look at the film in the context of the time in which it was made and actually marvel at the fact that a black man is shown as a friend and a protector to a white child. A racist isn't going to stop being a racist *beep* because he or she watched Song of the South 24/7 or whatever it is you think you'll accomplish by 'protecting' the tender sensibilities of those who can't deal with history.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] rexblueriband 10 years ago

So long as they keep the official ban.

At least Twain's message in Huck Finn was about how evil slavery was, and the "n" word was not used in a derogatory fashion, but used as simply the way people spoke at the time. SOTS is useless as a social tool, unlike Huck Finn.

reply

[–] jinx_malone 10 years ago

"SOTS is useless as a social tool"

in your opinion, which is worth little to me. Have a great day.

-------------------------
"It's better not to know so much about what things mean." David Lynch

reply

[–] rexblueriband 10 years ago

"in your opinion, which is worth little to me."

Then why respond? Just put me on ignore.

reply

[–] atlasmb 10 years ago

Jinx, you just hit upon the crux of the matter: SOTS is a work of art. You can learn any lesson from art that you wish to learn. But the only societies to ban or burn art are despotic.

And art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. People are allowed to see what they want in any film.

Have you ever thought how many movies produced over the years have contained what might be considered prejudicial messages or misrepresentations of the truth? Consider all of the propaganda movies made during WWII. Did some of them glorify war? Of course. Should we burn them? Of course not. Should we try to make people feel bad for watching them? No, it is enough to mention their shortcomings and move on.

reply

[–] odessey_2343 12 years ago

I wasn't aware of slavery when I watched SOTS.

Of coures, I was a child (from Australia where we didn't have slavery, born in the 1980s) and had no concept of people not being equal.

I just remember that Uncle Remus told great stories about a cheeky rabbit that was chased by foxes and maybe bears, worked for the little boy's grandmother and he got fired for being too chummy with the boy. There was a puppy and also a nasty lace collar somewhere in there too, but really, it's got to have been about 20 years so my memory is more than a little patchy.

It wasn't until a few years ago when I was trying to look for a DVD of a movie I loved watching in my childhood that I was even aware Uncle Remus may have been a slave (I'm not getting into whether it was set before or after the Civil War).

Regardless, I would like the chance to buy a legitimate copy of this movie so I can watch it again and make my own grown-up assessment of the content. If that means I let my future children watch the movie, so be it. If that means it lives on my DVD shelf gathering dust until the end of time, so be it.

Personally, I find putting the responsibility of adult concepts on children (and, from my memory, a child's story) very sad.

reply

[–] bpmct 12 years ago

Perhaps we're of the opinion that it's a great film, and those who don't like it don't have to watch. This is a much better alternative then being a bunch of nazi's and keeping it from people because it offends YOU! I can't stand the mentality. You want to ban this, ban Tyler Perry too. What he does is FAR worse! What I see in SOTS, and what my 6 year old nephew see in this picture is a story of a troubled boy who finds friendship and learns life lessons. You are of the type that would find racism in anything, and that is a sad way to be.

Check out my blog: http://briantheoldmovieguy.blogspot.com

reply

[–] charles-simmons-503-58637 12 years ago

"What I see in SOTS, and what my 6 year old nephew see in this picture is a story of a troubled boy who finds friendship and learns life lessons."

If only everyone could look past blatant Jim Crow nostalgia and the master-slave relationship to see the good in all!

reply

[–] Boricanator 12 years ago

As far as other movies being racist, GWTW was ABOUT the Civil War, for godsake. Comparing Song of the South to Gone with the Wind is like comparing Tobacco Road with Grapes of Wrath. One degrades with its stereotypes, one tries to tell the truth.

Tell the truth? Are you serious about that? GWTW was never, in any shape or form, an intent of showing the truth about the Civil War or the Reconstruction era.

It was full of stereotypes of blacks as good submissive servants and portrayed people of the Union as totally evil, while saying that the white plantation owners treated the blacks nicely. It was an attempt to romanticize the south.

That being said, that is still no reason for not rereleasing this film. I believe it should include some disclaimers and Parents and Teachers should be careful when showing this film to kids.

I took a college course on films about Native Americans. Some of them ranged from the early 20th century to the 1990s. Many of them were full of stereotypes like: "Good indian, bad indian" or the fatal attractions between a girl indian and a white man.

None of those films have been band. Instead we studied those films to learn about these stereotypes. Some of them were easy to pick up since I had seen similar stereotypes in a Chicano film course.

This film should not be hidden from the world.

reply

[–] cgrill8 12 years ago

Funny thing is... history. When I was in school we were told that the Civil War was about States Rights... slavery was just the political issue of the day. Many slaves were taken away to the North during that time. Some loved the freedom, some weren't and wanted to go back to the South, but not as a "slave", but because it was there home. Now think about Beauty and the Beast... the song were the servants are singing about a "servant that's not serving is not being happy..." forgot which song it was... but anyway, back to SotS. Part of history not mentioned about was the amount of slaves that STAYED where they were after they were freed. Not all plantations/farms were equal. The more money you had the more slaves you had. If you and your family AND if you had slave also helping with the land be it cotton, or otherwise... after a while... sweating in this God forsaken area during the Summer down here... it's HOT...I'd bet many of the smaller farms, the slaves ended up becoming "family" to those after a while. After slaves were freed, it just even helped matters, it just also meant the help could leave and was no longer obliged to work THERE anymore, but if that's all you knew how to do...why leave it? It was hard on everyone back then. The plantation owners, slaves, kids... bouts of TB, chicken pox, etc... killing babies and kids alike of any color... There was no A/C back then either! No electricity either. Life wasn't easy for anyone back then. But this movie is just based off of someone's stories that were written down a long time ago. And Walt Disney tried to come of a way to bring some of the stories together using THAT era from where the stories came from, and thus the Johnny character and his situation was "created". Johnny was NOT apart of the original stories Harris wrote.

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MadamFleur 12 years ago

This is a movie made for CHILDREN, not a scholarly documentary, faithfully depicting the horrors of slavery, which would definitely NOT be appropriate for kids who want to watch and hear about the Br'er Bunch. Maybe it MIGHT possibly be a very simple start to discuss the basics of white people and black people, but I would NOT be political nor would I bring it up, but simply answer if they should ask or bring it up themselves. For the love of everything holy, THEY ARE LITTLE KIDS. They have plenty of time to learn about the Civil War (and during what years it occurred). They'll learn about Reconstruction - would they have understood the movie better if the plantations lay in ruins, their owners starving, Carpetbaggers coming through with empty promises for the newly-freed slaves, who received little in the way of a cogent plan on what to do with their new status. Many were left homeless and died of disease- historically accurate but I imagine that THAT movie would be rated PG-13 and no longer fit for the moviegoers it was originally planned to entertain.

Movies are about escapism and fantasy, unless stated otherwise. Let the little ones have their delight at Uncle Remus and his stories. The TRUTH isn't going anywhere any time soon. I appreciate that you don't want to support revisionist history, and I think I can state with conviction that SOtS isn't going to have any historians throwing scores of years of painstaking research out the window, now or ever. So please, for your own health, let this go and see it for what it is - a fantasy film for little kids from another era that has some pleasurable moments.

In conclusion, I want to ask if you've ever seen any of these movies you mention, because it sure doesn't seem so. GWTW is a 3-way love story about a spoiled Southern Belle that plays out with the Civil War as a backdrop that occasionally comes to the forefront; comparing it in any way to The Grapes of Wrath, set in the Depression-era Dustbowl about desperate people, is ludicrous and an insult to John Steinbeck. You display little to no real knowledge about the reality of the film SOtS. Tobacco Road is DEFINTELY not a kid's movie but a lurid steamy soap opera, absolutely nothing at all like SOtS. I hope your kneejerk anger will not prevent you from future serious critical thinking.

Peace out.

reply

[–] smirkingdevil 12 years ago

Would it be alright if you let me see the movie for myself and make my own judgements? Thanks!

reply