IMDb user comments for
Song of the South (1946) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

208 comments in total

---

267 out of 278 people found the following comment useful :-
The erroneous spin of the censors, 24 May 2002
Author: mmarshal

O.K., enough already. Several comments regarding this movie (most, but not all from those who argue it should be censored, ergo not released again by Disney in any form) contain erroneous so-called "facts" about the movie. Here is the truth:

There are NO slave characters in the film. Several comments about this movie go on and on about it containing "slaves." Wrong, wrong, WRONG. The movie is set AFTER the civil war. That is fact. The African Americans at Miss Doshy's plantation are working employees, NOT slaves. Yes, the film is set during the Jim Crow era, and one can argue that the general quality of life (in terms of housing and education in particular) of the African Americans shown was not much better than that of pre Civil War slaves, but to imply the African Americans in Song of the South are chained, whipped and ordered around by nasty white "owners" is ridiculous. Are there one or two situations in the film where an African American shows a certain level of "servitude" to a "white manager"? Yes, but to define that as "slavery" is erroneous spin.

The words "massa" is never used by anyone, much less Uncle Remus. Several comments here state or imply African Americans in the film refer to the whites as "massa." That is completely false. That term is NEVER heard anywhere in the entire 93 minute film.

Uncle Tom is NOT "ignorant." He is defined that way in several comments. Why, I don't know, but how anyone can sit through this wonderful film and be completely ignorant of the intelligence, compassion and common sense shown by the Uncle Remus character (at a level frankly higher than that of any white character in the film) is completely beyond me.

Bottom line: the minority that attacks this film is running with a PC agenda that depends upon on your buying spin and erroneous "fact." Don't fall for that - it's a classic film that overall provides a positive message to any honest viewer with an open mind.

---

161 out of 170 people found the following comment useful :-
A Silenced Song, 2 August 2004
Author: BornJaded (BornJaded@aol.com) from United States

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.

---

143 out of 158 people found the following comment useful :-
Think it over before you react, 3 May 2003

Author: zetes from Saint Paul, MN

This film will never receive a clean bill of political correctness, but neither will any film made before the 1960s. In fact, Song of the South presents some of the least offensive portraits of African Americans you can find from the time. If you really need to compare, go find any other film starring Hattie McDaniel – start with Gone With the Wind – and note how much more dignity she has in the Disney movie. Uncle Remus (James Baskett, who is utterly, utterly exceptional) is perhaps the most charming character you'll find. He's much more stereotypical of an elderly man than a black man. A smart man with strong morals and a clever way of delivering them, he seems to see things more clearly than anyone else in the film. No, Uncle Remus is a kind man who loves humanity, and this love is infectious. The movie made me very happy to be alive. A more politically correct version of the film would have him rebelling against white society with violence. It's kind of sad that we can't abide blacks and whites actually getting along, preaching brotherhood. The live action bits are very good (although I think Bobby Driscoll is a bit weak in the lead), but it is the animated pieces (and the live action/animation sequences) that make Song of the South great. Br'er Rabbit, Fox, and Bear are wonderful characters, and these three segments represent some of the best animation Disney ever did. The mixed scenes are amazing (was this the first time it was done?). I especially liked when Uncle Remus went fishing with Br'er Frog. Uncle Remus lights his pipe with an animated flame, and blows an animated smoke ring that turns into a square (which is, of course, also politically incorrect). I suspect that the biggest reason this film stirs so many negative emotions is the black dialect used in the film. I think that bugs people a lot. Really, though, blacks from the rural South have and have had their own accents and ways of speaking just as they have and have had in any other region. While the accents in this film are somewhat fabricated, I'm sure, I think that it would be a far cry to think of them as harmful to anybody. The hurt that people feel over this movie is the real fabrication, induced by PC thugs who seem to want to cause rifts between peoples. I think that a re-release of Song of the South could possibly have a beneficial effect on race relations in the United States, as it does depict dear friendships and respect between the races, something that I think we quite need at the moment.

---

136 out of 146 people found the following comment useful :-
Wow, what a shame. One of Disney's BEST films. Period., 20 August 2004

Author: Tom_Powers30 from Raleigh, NC

I recently viewed 'Song of the South' after not having seen it for at least 15 years if not longer. The last time that I had seen this wonderful family film was when I was around nine years old during one of its several theatrical re-issues in the early 1980's.

OK, some say that this film is politically incorrect. No, it isn't. Let me explain and let's look at the positive messages before jumping to conclusions please: This film is not ABOUT SLAVERY. It is a film that has slavery in it, yes, but it is not the subject of the film. The subject of the film is the friendship between an elderly kind man (he's a African-American!!!!) and a nice little boy (he's Caucasian!) This little boy looks up to Uncle Remus as if Remus is god-like. For a 1946 film to treat a subject in this way is commendable. Tell you what if you want to get angry at a film try a myriad of other 1940's films and see the negative portrayals of black actors in them; you'll find none of that here. At all. My opinion and quite frankly a truthful one. Now, enough with the 2004 cynical comments and on with the show.

I will say this right now: It is deplorable that Disney has not released this film when movies like 'Gone With The Wind' and 'The Charlie Chan Collection' are being released by major studios with disclaimers, etc. dealing with the views of some political groups who get their shorts in an uproar over the most benign issues and should focus their powers elsewhere and leave a beloved family film with a great message alone.

This film has several genuinely touching moments that culminate in the innovative technique of combing animation (the amazing 'Brer Rabbit sequences) with live-action actors. Disney was the George Lucas of his day and he has managed to do what some have thought lacking in the recent Star Wars films; connect to an audience with animated characters! There's heart and soul in this film.

Bottom line--Disney, a good company, is depriving itself of a goldmine because people are still paying to get copies of this film from outside resources and would gladly plunk down hard-earned ca$h for an anniversary edition, with as many disclaimers as Disney would like to stamp on it, make it a net-exclusive or something...it's depressing to think that this will never be released on video here in the United States. Really, what is the worse that would happen? There'd be a minor stink and then guess what? I'd have 'Song of The South' on my DVD shelf along with other lovers of great films and we'd all move on to the next thing and have a zip-a-dee-doo-dah Day!

---

94 out of 101 people found the following comment useful :-
Censorship: It's A Dirty Job, But Everybody Wants To Do It..., 15 December 2004

Author: tostinati from United States

...Or, Queuing Up At The Outlaw Cinema.

In China and Saudi Arabia, the government has absolute and frightening authority to bury whatever films or music or publications it considers unacceptable. In the dollar-driven U.S., we let cowardly mega-corporations (which either can't blow their nose without ten rounds of focus groups pummeling the life out of what may have been a decent idea once, or are run by megalomaniacs who attend to every detail of everything, whether they are capable or not) suppress our art for us. So while I guess it's par for the course that the studio that financed Song of the South is scared to death to touch this film, and in fact refuses to acknowledge that it exists, this situation leaves me wondering whether this means that those focus group studies held in South Central L.A. didn't turn out like they planned. – Or is the "they" who buried this film The Big E himself? Anybody?

Let me spell out the specifics of this despised and incendiary censored object: It is good-hearted and sweet in the extreme. It was lovingly crafted to be a sentimental family film in a time that was far more hospitable to sentimental, family-oriented entertainment than we are today. But the acid test that it passes, for me, is that as you watch it, you find yourself wanting to be Remus. – Or to be a person with the stature, the imagination and the moral strength of Remus. He's lovable, wise, good, and possessed of immense natural wit. He has the smartest way with words of any film character of the 40s. James Basket is absolutely brilliant. His Remus is fully endowed with dignity, warmth and depth, even more so than most characters in mainstream films of this period.

Oh the humanity! How dare they put out something like this!?

Seeing it for the first time in 2004, you will likely be stunned that some bumbling corporate bureaucrats have decided that you shouldn't see this. The part that gives these people a problem is, I am guessing, that ex-slaves ('ex' because this is well after the Civil War) are shown here as (outwardly) well-adjusted people. This is kept off to the side, depicted (or really NOT depicted) by mostly dark, atmosphere-setting, long shot scenes of itinerant laborers ambling toward the work field, group-singing or sitting around fires, singing and telling stories. The fact that they are not on-their-sleeve embittered revolutionaries/guerrillas is apparently the deal-breaker for the PC inclined.

I give this film ten stars. (For the record, I got my copy of this film from on line, in a sparkling-clean D.V.D. transfer. They're out there, and well worth your bargain dollar. Just watch who you buy from.)

---

97 out of 108 people found the following comment useful :-
Political Correctness at Its Worst, 31 October 2003
Author: Brian Washington (Sargebri@att.net) from Los Angeles, California

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.

---

77 out of 86 people found the following comment useful :-
This Disney Classic Deserves To Be Re-issued!, 29 September 2001

Author: Gazzer-2 from USA

I think it's a great shame that the 1946 Walt Disney classic, "Song Of The South," has been banned in the U.S. because some civil rights groups **15 years ago** complained that the movie was racist and they did not want it to be shown anymore. And Disney, not wanting to offend anyone, bowed down to their demands and yanked the film from public viewing in North America, where it has not been seen since. The only way you can watch "Song Of The South" now is if you still own a laserdisc player and you're willing to spring for a costly Japanese import disc, OR if you manage to track down a UK VHS copy of the film released in 1997 and have it transferred. Well, having viewed a transferred VHS copy of "Song Of The South" recently, I can honestly say that this is a marvelous Disney movie that is NOT racist and does NOT deserve to be hidden away.

While I can certainly understand the concerns of the civil rights groups over "Song Of The South," the fact that the movie is set during the turn-of-the-century South when many blacks served subservient roles is NOT a good enough reason to hide the film away from the public. This is not an issue of racism, it is simply a historical fact. Furthermore, the black characters in "Song Of The South" are all treated with respect. They are not treated badly, nor are they spoken to badly. Further still, are we going to destroy all copies of "Gone With The Wind" just because it features a black maid? Think about it.

What also upsets me about the shunning of "Song Of The South" in the U.S. is that most Americans will now never get to see anymore the marvelous performance of James Baskett as the loveable storyteller Uncle Remus (and Baskett DID win an Honorary Oscar for his fine work in this film, lest we forget). Nor will Americans ever get to see again the wonderful Disney artistry on display in "Song Of The South" that perfectly blends live action with animation (the very first film to do so, if I'm not mistaken). They won't get to enjoy the hilarious adventures of Brer Rabbit ever again. Nor will they be able to sing along with the Oscar-winning song, "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah" anymore. All of this, in my opinion, is very, very shameful.

I strongly implore Walt Disney Productions to reconsider re-issuing "Song Of The South" in North America, if *only* for a limited time on home video, so anybody Stateside who wants the film can finally have it. And with all due respect to the civil rights groups who complained about "Song Of The South" back in 1986, I strongly implore them to seriously rethink the ban that they had Disney place upon the film. On the Grammy telecast this past year, just before mega-controversial rapper Eminem took the stage to perform "Stan," the Grammy president came onstage to give a little pep talk about freedom of speech & freedom of expression. He said that we cannot ban certain artists and their work just because it makes certain people uncomfortable. The EXACT same thing can be said for Walt Disney's "Song Of The South."

---

81 out of 94 people found the following comment useful :-
Segregation Disney-style, 10 August 2004
Author: bartman_9 from Belgium

When the marriage of his parents goes through a crisis, Johnny (Bobby Driscoll) moves with his mom to the Southern mansion of his grandmother. Distraught over the absence of his father, he strikes up a friendship with Uncle Remus (James Baskett), an old black man who tells him stories of rabbits, foxes and bears.

Driscoll is obnoxiously cute, but James Baskett delivers a fine performance as Remus and the animated sections with Br'er Rabbit are fun.

But is it racist? Well, it has no overt depictions of racism and therein lies the problem: Song of the South presents life in the Southern states after the civil war as idyllic and harmonious, a place where white people live in their mansions, black people in their cabins, everybody knows their place and is happy in it. "Yes sir, things are lookin' mighty satisfactual" says Uncle Remus and his Br'er Rabbit stories convey the same social conservatism: leaving your home (to a non-segregated North for instance) is pointless because "You can't run away from trouble. There ain't no place that far." This movie can't imagine a single reason why a black man living in the post-slavery South wouldn't be happy with the way things were.

Yet, these are the gripes of an adult and Song of the South is a children's film. With our modern-day knowledge of American history, it's obvious that the film is far removed from harsh reality, but can you really blame a kiddie-movie for presenting a fantasy-world? It is a musical with animated sequences, does it make sense to demand or expect realism? The stories and songs, however sanitized and Disney-fied they may be, are based on Afro-American folk-tales and music, which means that the movie at least acknowledges the existence of an Afro-American culture. That's actually an improvement over Gone With the Wind.

Song of the South certainly has its faults, but I find Disney's self-censorship misplaced: at its simplest, most basic level, this is a movie about a white kid befriending a black man who is portrayed as intelligent, compassionate and kind. How harmful could that be?

---

65 out of 70 people found the following comment useful :-
Enough already. Release the film., 6 January 2005

Author: philip plowe from United States

Song of the South is a beautiful piece of film art. I acknowledge that some of the scenes are ignorant towards the plight of African Americans in the Civil War and Reconstruction era but I can't imagine a child who loves this movie coming away feeling racial prejudice or insensitivity towards African Americans. We should remember that this is a children's film and generally, people are happy in Disney movies. Should Birth of a Nation be banned because it champions the KKK? Of course not. We learn from our mistakes in the appreciation of our past. This isn't Nazi Germany. It was an Oscar winning film for petes sake. Please release Song of the South now.

---

56 out of 61 people found the following comment useful :-
A very effective blend of live-action and animation that is sadly unavailable in the US., 5 March 2001

Author: Robert Reynolds (minniemato@hotmail.com) from Tucson AZ

I saw this on one of it's re-releases when I was very young and it has stayed with me. It is one of Disney's best efforts and I'd love to see it again. Unfortunately, Disney is loathe to offend anyone and it therefore seems that this film will be consigned to the vaults because Disney is unwilling to risk any heat. It's too bad, because the film teachs tolerance among other lessons. Recommended, if you can see it at all.

---

---

Page 1 of 21:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Parents Guide
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history