I've heard argument that some people could be offended by something within the animated portion: the tar baby. No matter that it was originally an Anansi story, the idea that an African American (i.e. Br'er Rabbit) could mistake molded tar for a person is a bit offensive, if you're easily offended.

And if you're easily offended, I'd suggest you stay away from Drawn Together (particularly the Br'er Foxxy episode. That s__t naaaaasty!)

I think that 'Song of the South' can also be seen in a positive manner. Uncle Remus' character is the hero of the story. Uncle Remus' character is a main character. That wasn't often seen on the big screen back then, it could be seen as empowering in that way. But I do see how the stereotypes of these former slaves being happy and singing songs post-slavery can be seen as offensive.

The attraction opened in July 1989. The last US theatrical re-release of SotS was in November 1986. So, it was a mere 2 1/2 years from the last US release of the film to the opening of the atraction at Disneyland. I would suspect that children of the mid-80's still had a bit of familiarity with the story when the attraction opened.

But, contemporary audiences have been caught by the PC police and the fear of the Mouse.

My dad took me to see Song of the South in the theater. I remember there being some big deal about it and not getting what that big deal was.

The big irony is that Song of the South really isn't all that good of a movie. It has some charming momens but overall is has more than its share of sucktitude.

The smart thing would be to just relesae it on DVD, let the hardcores have it, overprice it so it fails in the marketplace and then put it back in the vault saying "we released it and nobody bought it" and then they can pretend the reasons for not releasing are fiduciary and not controversy.

Wow, I thought it was a lot older than 1986!

Alex, your idea is interesting, but because there is so much controversy and Disney has held back so long, I bet they'd fly off the shelf at any price. Plus it would be hard to over-price them too much with out getting into fair practices trouble.

I thought it couldn't be shown because of the whole Prophet Mohammad in the briar patch part.

Or am I mixing up my ethnic outrages?

It seems to me that the Disney company is motivated in equal parts by profit and controversy-avoidance (recent ABC mock-u-mentories notwithstanding). While the lure of DVD sales may seem appealing, the risk of causing a racial ruckus is far too great to even contemplate. Didn't some politician recently get skewered for using the term "tar-baby"? It's much more PC to use a term like "third rail" - which describes the effect of using "tar-baby" in a sentence.

It would be nice if you read the thread before posting. :p

Try again.

I doubt it. The pool of people clamoring for this film to be released is pretty small, though very loud. Put it out there at $29.99 and with little marketing and it'll sink as a general release (though be very successful within small niche markets).

I'm not sure what "fair practices" trouble would be. Just as they don't have to release the movie if they don't want to, they can release it and give it any price they want. If they put it out at $199 I doubt you'd have any angry speeches on the Senate floor demanding investigations into price gouging.


As a side note, I do have a copy of Song of the South on DVD. When I was in Singapore last year they were selling it in a major international grocery store and I figured they wouldn't be selling bootlegs in such a place and that there must have been an Asian DVD release I was unaware of. When I got home with it and could look it up I learned that in fact the major international grocery store was selling bootlegs.

I remember showing that late eighties release of SotS back when I was a projectionist. There was a lot of press at the time about the potential for controversy, but the matinee-hungry public, including more than a few African-American patrons, ignored it and came to see the movie anyway.

When I started working at the Disney-MGM Studios back in 1989, I used to get asked about the video release of this movie a lot. I had several black guests tell me it was a favorite movie of theirs when they were kids.

So true about Holiday Inn. I almost fell off my chair during the Abraham Lincoln number. There's nothing even close to that level of lunacy in SotS.

There is one quick bit in which Uncle Remus sings an off-the-cuff song (Who Wants To Live Like That?) in which he defends laziness as a lifestyle. ("When other folks is worryin', I'm sleepin' all day long) This struck me as the closest the movie gets to the "Sleep N' Eat" stereotype.

I suppose one possible criticism is that the movie makes attractive an image of blacks that ought not to be. It worked on me. I saw this movie as a kid and I wanted to live with Uncle Remus. I wanted to go raid Hattie McDaniels kitchen and hang out at the fireside with all those singing, jolly people. (Of course, all the mean-spirited characters in the movie are white - the two bullies and the boy's horrible mother.) Those simple, happy folk, romanticized to the point of abstraction, were mighty appealing. It was an attractive fantasy, especially to a kid without any reference points to reality.

Then, a couple of years later, ROOTS came along, and my little idyll was vanquished.

ADDED NOTE - LSPoorEeyorick is right. You will notice that there is no Tar Baby in Splash Mountain.