Song of the South (1946) User Reviews

This Disney Classic Deserves To Be Re-issued!

[Gazzer-2 · 8/10 · 29 September 2001]

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."

Politically "banning" this movie makes no sense

[robert3750 · 7/10 · 29 April 2019]

The black people in this movie aren't depicted as lazy or stupid or criminal. Uncle Remus is depicted as a wise and caring man. It's true that the black people are depicted as subservient, but what movie from this period doesn't portray them as such? It would be historically inaccurate to depict the opposite. Should EVERY movie from this period with black people in it be banned? Disney is run by politically correct buffoons. Ironically, the song Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah. is played at Disneyland. The animation in Technicolor is beautiful. Some of the acting is rather stiff, but it's a warm hearted tale, and the Bre'r Rabbit stories are fun.

A Silenced Song

[MichaelCarmichaelsCar · 2 August 2004]

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.

Think it over before you react

[zetes · 9/10 · 3 May 2003]

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.

Worth seeing for history

[BandSAboutMovies · 7/10 · 13 July 2021]

If you ever ride one of Disney's Splash Mountain rides, you're seeing the characters from this movie, which has remained locked in the Disney vault - at least in America, as it has been released in Japan, Germany and the UK on VHS and DVD - because in the words of executive chairman and former CEO Bob Iger, Song of the South is "not appropriate in today's world."

Let me explain to you how wrong the world once was and pretty much still is. A special Academy Award was given to James Baskett "for his able and heart-warming characterization of Uncle Remus, friend and story teller to the children of the world." He was the first African-American to ever win any type of Oscar. But when the movie premiered in Atlanta, the actor was prohibited from attending because the city was racially segregated by law. This wasn't during the Civil War. This was during your parent's or grandparent's lifetimes.

When the movie was released, Walter Francis White - the executive secretary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) - sent newspapers a statement that said, "The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People recognizes in Song of the South remarkable artistic merit in the music and in the combination of living actors and the cartoon technique. It regrets, however, that in an effort neither to offend audiences in the north or south, the production helps to perpetuate a dangerously glorified picture of slavery. Making use of the beautiful Uncle Remus folklore, Song of the South unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts." He had not seen the film nor realized that it was set after the end of the Civl War. Perhaps a more balanced view came from his fellow NAACP member Norma Jensen who remarked that the film was "so artistically beautiful that it is difficult to be provoked over the clichés, yet it has all the clichés in the book."

The major issue is that the film features the subserviant status of black characters, the way they dress, their exaggerated dialect and other archaic depections of black people. The stories come from Uncle Remus by Joel Chandler Harris, who was a racial reconciliation activist writer. That doesn't help the film's overall tone.

The major thrust of the movie is that a white child named Johnny is inspired by the tales of Bre'e Rabbit, Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear that are told by Remus. His mother doesn't understand and thinks that the stories are making her son - who is already dealing with the seperation of his parents - too much of a rebel. Uncle Remus attempts to leave the plantation as a result, but when Johnny is hit by a bull, only his the stories and songs of the old man can save his young friend.

The funny thing is that as dated as the movie's attitudes seemed in 1946, it was still re-released in U. S. theaters as late as 1986, when it seemed incredibly wrong. And while Disney has never released the film on home video in the U. S., it eventually will. That's because the film will go into public domain in 2039 and Disney will lose all copyright to the film if it is not physically released in theaters, on hoem video or via Disney+.

That said - who knows? I recently watched the film and can see the issues, but when Whoopi Goldberg was made a Disney Legend, she said that she hoped that the movie would be reissued so that people could start a dialogue about it.

Today, characters and songs from the film appear in various Disney media yet children never associate them with this film, which would never be seen if it weren't for the internet and convention DVD sellers.

I wish there could be an assessment of this film and a discussion of what is wrong about it, while understanding that many of Uncle Remus' lessons could teach us plenty. But this fim remains a media landmine and even the whispers of a home release in 2007 led to controversy and threats of legal action.

You should see it for yourself, make up your own mind and treat everyone with the dignity they deserve. But you already knew that.

Wow, what a shame. One of Disney's BEST films. Period.

[Tom_Powers30 · 10/10 · 20 August 2004]

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!

This is what people were upset about?

[cgearheart · 6/10 · 23 July 2022]

Let me start by saying I'm surprised I found this movie. I didn't even think copies online of this film existed but here we are. It must've just been hard copies. Anyways, I grew up hearing the classic song of "Zippity Doo Da" and knowing of Song of the South because of Splash Mountain and so on, but I of course never saw the film since it's been banned due to controversy. Not many films are banned unless it's for a good reason. After I finally saw Song of the South, I'll finally come out and say that this movie should not be hidden. It doesn't deserve to be and here's why: Song of the South was really the first Disney movie to pioneer the live action/animation hybrid that made Mary Poppins so famous. The acting is charming, the songs are among the most classic of Disney, and the characters are fairly memorable. Now to address the hard part of this film. This film is not so much racist as it is insensitive. The Walt Disney Company had actually made this film to celebrate African American culture while racism was still very prominent in America (the lead actor for Uncle Remus wasn't even allowed to see the film). It depicted slaves as being treated fairly equal and living a life that they seemed to be fairly content with, and that's something that is definitely bound to cause heated controversy. There were also some animated characters that very much fell into the category of African-American stereotypes, and that can definitely offend people. Yet, the movie was not malicious in its intent. This movie continues to be hidden because of its controversy but for some reason, the 1915 film "Birth of a Nation", which unapologetically celebrates the Ku-Klux Klan is available to all? Better yet, literal Nazi Propaganda Films such as "Triumph of the Will" and "The Eternal Jew" are also available for all to see but an insensitive children's cartoon isn't? A 1970s drama film called "Pretty Baby" that features actual exploitation and sexualization of a minor is available to all but this fairly insensitive but mostly harmless film, which just so happens to be a film for families isn't available? If anything, Song of the South says volumes about censorship and controversy in film. It's an insensitive, sometimes painful look into history for people but it's an important milestone that shouldn't be hidden, especially when the filth that I just mentioned is free game for anyone to watch.

C.

A very effective blend of live-action and animation that is sadly unavailable in the US.

[llltdesq · 9/10 · 5 March 2001]

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.

Zippity Doo Dah!

[pollitomanilo · 7/10 · 27 June 2000]

I remembered seeing this film when I was a child. I don't remember when but it had to be a reissue in the 60's (I wasn't born until the late 50's and the movie was released in '46). I remembered Brer Rabbit and Brer Fox but not the movie in whole. I was determined to find a copy of this movie knowing that it had been released in Europe on VHS (Disney pulled all overseas tapes in 1997). So it was a challenge to find one. I now have a copy and recently have seen it again. WOW, WHAT A MOVIE! This is the best Disney movie ever made! It is extremely wholesome and quite a shame the youth of today will never have a chance to view it. It's double the shame that Disney has no plans to release this film in the U.S. because of political pressure. One of the few films that plays on all emotional levels.

An embarrassment for the Disney people, but not to anyone who enjoys great movies

[moonspinner55 · 8/10 · 6 September 2005]

Political correctness having been pounded into our heads by the media, I can understand the underlying racial issues that have blunted this Disney film's reputation--no one really wants to be reminded of this particular era (the post-Civil War) when rich Southern white folks called the shots and the black folk did all the hard work--but I can't imagine any film-goer of any color passing up the chance to see James Baskett as Uncle Remus (this was his swan song, dying about a year after this film's original release and just a few months after winning a special Oscar for his contribution). I saw this in the 1970s at a drive-in theater and the experience was magical, it stuck with me for years. It's an emotional, lovely movie about childhood, the friendship between kids and adults, and the confusion about right and wrong. There are no issues here about white and black, but then, this isn't the proper film to address those issues. It is the South at the turn of the century, and in that regard it's not much different from "Gone With The Wind". There are beautiful animated interludes and a handful of terrific songs, Brer Bear is a riotous Disney character, and the live-action youngsters (Bobby Driscoll and Luana Patten) are wonderful--the scene where he gives her his fancy collar is quite poignant. Driscoll and Patten were later teamed in Disney's "So Dear To My Heart", which is also worth finding. "Song of the South" is a film with a great big heart that needs to come out of the vaults. Let viewers judge for themselves.

Classic Disney Melodrama From Uncle Remus & Brer Rabbit Stories

[ShootingShark · 7/10 · 21 August 2005]

In the deep Georgia countryside of the late nineteenth century, a young boy whose parents are living apart is befriended by the kindly Uncle Remus, who entrances him with stories of the countryside and the critters that live there.

This is a charming, evocative adaptation of the Brer Rabbit stories of Joel Chandler Harris, brilliantly adapted for the screen with their wonderful patois. It is simply dripping with the atmosphere of the American south, and brilliantly photographed in colour by the great Gregg Toland. The animation sequences, directed by Wilfred Jackson, are funny and terrific (the tar-baby story is particularly memorable) and are melded beautifully into the live action. There is an incredible moment when Uncle Remus shares his pipe with a frog, and as he strikes a match and casts his fishing-rod the action flares from reality to fantasy. The movie is also full of wonderful music; the classic Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah number, but also a plethora of traditional negro melodies - no less than ten songwriters are credited. Baskett is simply unforgettable as the big-hearted Remus (he also does the voice of Brer Fox), and the kids (Driscoll, Leedy and Patten) are great. This movie has some narrow-minded detractors who would cite it as racist. They are completely wrong - this is a movie set in a time of racism, but which transcends bigotry with its story of friendship, love and compassion.

Not overtly racist, but indeed an ignorant and naive look into that time in US history

[maxdragon26 · 3/10 · 20 August 2005]

The film has been criticized both for "making slavery appear pleasant" and "pretending slavery didn't exist", even though the film (like Harris' original collection of stories) is set after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery. Still, that time period in U.S. wasn't as rose colored and happy go lucky as the movie portends.

As folklorist Patricia A. Turner writes, The days on the plantation located in "the United States of Georgia" begin and end with unsupervised Blacks singing songs about their wonderful home as they march to and from the fields. Disney and company made no attempt to render the music in the style of the spirituals and work songs that would have been sung during this era. They provided no indication regarding the status of the Blacks on the plantation. Joel Chandler Harris set his stories in the post-slavery era, but Disney's version seems to take place during a surreal time when Blacks lived on slave quarters on a plantation, worked diligently for no visible reward and considered Atlanta a viable place for an old Black man to set out for.

Kind old Uncle Remus caters to the needs of the young white boy whose father has inexplicably left him and his mother at the plantation. An obviously ill-kept Black child of the same age named Toby is assigned to look after the white boy, Johnny. Although Toby makes one reference to his "ma," his parents are nowhere to be seen. The African-American adults in the film pay attention to him only when he neglects his responsibilities as Johnny's playmate-keeper. He is up before Johnny in the morning in order to bring his white charge water to wash with and keep him entertained.

The boys befriend a little blond girl, Ginny, whose family clearly represents the neighborhood's white trash. Although Johnny coaxes his mother into inviting Ginny to his fancy birthday party at the big house, Toby is curiously absent from the party scenes. Toby is good enough to catch frogs with, but not good enough to have birthday cake with. When Toby and Johnny are with Uncle Remus, the gray-haired Black man directs most of his attention to the white child. Thus Blacks on the plantation are seen as willingly subservient to the whites to the extent that they overlook the needs of their own children. When Johnny's mother threatens to keep her son away from the old gentleman's cabin, Uncle Remus is so hurt that he starts to run away. In the world that Disney made, the Blacks sublimate their own lives in order to be better servants to the white family.

That is why people who have a problem with the movie have a problem with it. It reinforces the subtle and not so subtle messages about Blacks that have plagued this nation since slavery was introduced. Ask yourself this, would the film still be a memorable classic (among white people in this country at that) if it starred an ALL black cast? What if Toby was the central child in the story? As a white person myself, I don't think so and I wish other white people would open their minds up and try to see things from the other side. Just because the movie might make us feel good doesn't mean it's not offending others. Blacks were still being lynched during that period yet this movie is heralded as a period piece?

A Victim of Political Correctness!

[Reb9 · 7/10 · 7 August 2001]

This charming film, full of humor and love, will never be released in the United States as long as Michael Eisner heads Disney. There is noting evil in this lovely story of an old man and a young boy, neither of whom see skin color as a reason not to care deeply for each other and to reach out to each other. As long as people bend to those who would impose their politically correct views on the rest of us we will live in a society where popular culture is censored. One has only to review a catalog of Touchstone Films to realize that Eisner's fastidious sensibilities don't extend to all segments of our society. Song of the South is a wonderful film but it is being held hostage. That is a real tragedy!

Beautiful, moving, compassionate and wise

[skoyles · 10/10 · 9 June 2005]

I have just seen "Song of the South" for the first time in 35 years. I first saw it when I was a young child and loved it. I was one of the fortunate to be raised "colour-blind" and indeed seriously considered joining the busing protests of the 1960s. Having seen this wonderful motion picture again on DVD today it certainly affects me on different levels from the viewings of long ago. Uncle Remus reminds me more than anything else of the wise Chinese sages epitomized by "Kung Fu"'s Master Po. He has wisdom far beyond that of all around him yet is human; his protégé adores him; he is misunderstood by significant other characters; he possesses a praeternatural wisdom, sagacity, compassion and love. James Baskett richly deserved his Oscar for his performance. Technically "Song of the South" prefigures the far less moving "Roger Rabbit" by decades: the melding of live action and cartoon was amazing at the time and is impressive even today. The supporting cast is very good to excellent. The musical score stands up even today, and the songs not only please and stay in the mind - for a lifetime. For adults and children, even in these cynical times, there can hardly be a better motion picture. But above it all stands the majestic James Baskett as the Eternal Sage, Uncle Remus. Would that we could all open our hearts to learn from him!

It's the truth. It's actual. I found this film to be satisfactual.

[cricketbat · 7/10 · 7 July 2021]

Maybe it's because I grew up reading stories about Br'er Rabbit, Br'er Fox, and Br'er Bear, but I enjoyed Song of the South. The animated sequences are definitely the highlight of this movie, but I thought the live-action sequences weren't too bad, either. James Baskett and Bobby Driscoll each give noteworthy performances, and the story kept my children engaged. It's the truth. It's actual. I found this film to be satisfactual.

An unjustly maligned film

[saint_pat · 8/10 · 3 June 2002]

I am really annoyed by Disney's decision to withhold Song of the South from release. They seem to think that by banning this film they could appease the charge of spreading racism. In fact, by banning this film they have given the false impression that Song of the South is a racist film that would corrupt children.

As a previous viewer pointed out, the film does NOT depict slavery. It takes place in the years following the civil war. Yes, it shows blacks as servants of whites, but this did indeed occur didn't it? Nor does it depict blacks as entirely submissive servants to whites. Look at the way Uncle Remus defies Johnny's mother by covering for him. Uncle Remus has his own subtle ways of rebelling against his white employers. What's more, Uncle Remus is not a racist caracature. He is a kind and smart man with a lot of common sense.

The film even takes on race relations in the friendship Johnny strikes up with Uncle Remus and a black boy. We end of disapproving of Johnny's mother's narrow minded attitude toward their relationship. This is probably the closest the non-political Disney studios could come to making a liberal film.

It's incredible therefore that it is the NAACP that protested this film whenever it was released instead of the KKK. The NAACP reminds me more of little Johnny's white prejudiced mother than campaigners for racial equality.

I am even more angered by Disney's decision to keep this film off the video shelves. They probably could have gotten Song of the South out on video after it's 1986 release with minimal controversy. Instead, by banning this film they have helped to harden opinions on both sides between those who want to keep this film off the video shelves (many of whom probably haven't even seen it), and those who want it released. They have made a political firestorm of their own creation.

You can't run away from trouble. There ain't no place that far.

[film-critic · 6/10 · 24 September 2006]

I will be the first to agree that Disney is slowly loosing its grasp on the pulse of children's cinema with their recent flops and horrid strands of marketing, but after watching Song of the South I don't think they need to worry about any backlash with this film. I agree that the vision of slavery is extremely skewed, with the truths hidden and the darkness completely removed, but this Disney animation/live-action film is no different, no more racist, than Gone with the Wind. There I have said it. I recently had the opportunity to watch Gone with the Wind and completely disliked it because it is such an American favorite, yet it is utterly racist. Those that argue that it depicts honesty for the time, I will agree with, but it doesn't have to be such a staple to our film community. With this film constantly getting new DVD face-lifts and awards, I cannot help but wonder why Song of the South continues to be the poster child of evil. When I watched Song of the South I saw nothing different than what I saw when I watched Gone with the Wind (sans the animated characters). So is it "alright" to like Gone with the Wind and not Song of the South?

While I do admire films that challenge me, I do find myself a bit more indulgent in children's films because they are a step away from the overbearing nature of adult cinema. As I watched Song of the South, I was impressed with the steps that it took in the direction and imagination in creating live-action with animation. It wasn't until really Cool World and Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (and maybe Puff the Magic Dragon) that we saw this combination again. So, on the side of creativity I have to give this film credit. I also liked the stories that Remus today and enjoyed how it seemed that Johnny connected with these stories to use in his own life. In future Disney films, I don't think that this would be such a big point because they tend to focus a bit more on the animation than the supposed story, but it was a breath of fresh air in this one. I also enjoyed the stories that Remus told. They were uplifting, honest, and simple. No convoluted tale to frighten or upset just simple stories that could relate to anyone's lifestyle. I believe the stories that Remus told in this film could be relevant in today's society, the idea of using your mind instead of your brawn is again, a lesson not taught often enough in cinema. Song of the South was creative, but it also felt a bit bland. It is due to the film's inability to stand fully up during its songs or core characters, that I couldn't fully admit that this was Disney's best.

What upset me the most about this film, again, wasn't the racism, but the sporadic scenes, flat acting by everyone outside of Remus, and the choice of actors to put behind the words of the animated critters. Don't get me wrong, I liked the animated bits, but I just didn't like the actors chosen to voice Br'er Rabbit, Fox, or Bear. I believe this is the core of the racism discussion. For me, they just didn't seem to fit the personalities of the animated characters. There wasn't enough separation between Remus' real life at the plantation to that of the animated segments. I wanted to be taken away from the plantation and away from the debacle of slavery, but I just didn't get it with this film. The animated characters sounded too much like Remus, and that bothered me a bit. The next issue surrounds the actors like Bobby Driscoll, Ruth Warrick, Lucile Watson, and Erik Rolf who never quite congealed into a family dynamic at all. Bobby Driscoll felt like he had taken ten years a Julliard by the age of four, and I continually felt that when the director yelled "CUT", Driscoll would curse, bring out a huge cigar, and have a deep raspy voice. He was good, but overly good. At times Driscoll's Johnny made me sick to my stomach. Then there were the scenes between Hattie and Remus which hinted towards something, but never quite developed. The conflicts between Ginny, Johnny, and the Favers boys just seemed too cliché and completely overdrawn, especially for a children's film. There wasn't enough reason for the two boys to constantly harass Johnny … again more development would have been nice. It was just these smaller segments of this film that transformed this Disney cult classic into a mediocre film.

While I utterly agree that slavery is the darkest cloud in this nation, this film is not going to suddenly bring people up in arms. I will also agree that it paints a false picture of slavery for those watching it, but I don't think it is going to confuse children. What I believe needs to happen is that groups need to look past the fake-slavery/plantation owner moments and see this film for what it truly is … one that could have the potential to educate children to use their minds instead of their brawn. I believe there are even deeper meanings in this film that children would enjoy more than the big car chases, explosions, and bathroom humor allowed in so many other films deemed "quality" children's cinema. Song of the South fails at painting an accurate portrait of the south, but honestly people, can we not agree that Disney has never painted an accurate picture of anything in their films. This is just another glossed image of reality that Disney has maintained throughout the course of its film career.

Overall, I thought it was a fun film to watch, but don't know if I could watch it again.

Grade: *** out of *****

Song of the South

[jboothmillard · 5/10 · 7 July 2005]

When I was a kid this used to be one of my favourite animated musical films from Walt Disney Pictures. A little boy named Johnny has his Dad go away for a while and he obviously didn't want him to go. Johnny runs away and meets up with a new friend, Uncle Reemus (Honorary Oscar winning James Baskett). He tells Johnny many wonderful stories about a magical place where Br'er Rabbit lives. He tells him all the adventures that Br'er Rabbit has escaping from Br'er Fox and Br'er Bear. Johnny obviously keeps going back to him with his friends. Johnny's Mother obviously doesn't like Uncle Reemus being with Johnny. A good film with some good cartoon sequences and quite a good ending. The guy that plays Uncle Reemus is really good, he also does Br'er Fox pretty well too. It was nominated the Oscar for Best Music for Daniele Amfitheatrof, Paul J. Smith and Charles Wolcott. It was number 47 on 100 Years, 100 Songs for the Oscar winning "Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah". Worth watching!

A film that deserves to be seen.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 26 June 2013]

"Song of the South" has been unavailable in the United States for many years. Apart from a re-release in the mid-1980s, Walt Disney has not released the film in the US on video or DVD. I was only able to see it because it was released in Japan on laser disc. Why you might wonder. Well, because there are a lot of offensive themes due to changing sensibilities. Back in the 1940s, showing happy blacks living like slaves in the South was quite acceptable—now folks naturally see these sorts of portrayals as racist. Still, because the movie is so good, I really wish Disney would release it and provide some sort of prologue (such as the ones Leonard Maltin has done with some of the offensive Disney shorts in their recent DVD releases) explaining changing times, attitudes and how the film can be appreciated despite its flaws.

The film's star is clearly Uncle Remus (James Baskett). The acting of Basket Is terrific and he provided the voices of the animated characters (Brer Fox, Rabbit and Bear). And, his singing was just wonderful. Because of this alone, it's a darn shame Disney his sitting on this film.

Uncle Remus is a happy ex-slave (the film takes place around 1870) and he regales a lonely boy (Bobby Driscoll) with wonderful folk tales meant to cheer him up and teach important life lessons. When he tells these tales, they come to life through colorful animation. The best parts, in my opinion, are when Remus himself enters these animated scenes—long before this was done with "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?". I also adored the animation in general, as the characters were hilarious. In addition, you have a nice supporting performance by Hattie McDaniel as Aunt Tempe as well as Fay Bainter as the boy's grandmother.

So is the film worth seeing? You betcha—provided you can find a copy. My attitude is that by shelving the film, you neglect a fine, fine performance by James Baskett and also ignore an important part of our heritage. After all, films on Turner Classic Movies or Shirley Temple DVDs are widely available and they often contain terribly dated and more offensive stereotypes. Plus, in the case of the Temple films, if you shelve them because one might have an offensive performance by Steppin Fetchit, you'll also lose the WONDERFUL dancing of one of the great dancers, Bill 'Bojangles' Robinson! Disney….re-release this film!

"Everybody's got a Laughing Place."

[utgard14 · 7/10 · 16 September 2014]

A young boy (Bobby Driscoll) goes with his mother to live on his grandmother's plantation in Reconstruction-Era Georgia. There he is befriended by a warmhearted old man named Uncle Remus (James Baskett), who teaches the boy life lessons through stories about a wily rabbit that gets in (and out of) trouble with a fox and a bear.

The most controversial Disney movie ever made. It's never been released on home video in the US due to Disney's cowardice. When you actually see it, you'll probably wonder what all the fuss is about. There are no racial slurs, no violence against blacks, no hate anywhere to be found. The racism charges are mainly due to the black people in the film speaking with a dialect that is offensive to some and the lie that the film portrays "happy slaves." The film actually takes place after slavery has been abolished. The people in the film working as servants and laborers are allowed to come & go as they please and are treated respectfully. Most definitely not slaves. Uncle Remus in particular is shown great respect by all the white people in the movie, excepting for the two little kids who are villains and the main boy's mother who wrongly worries Remus' stories are having a bad influence on her son. I'm not saying that there is nothing a modern viewer might find offensive. I'm sure some will be offended; some always are. Rather than release the movie and allow people to make up their own minds, Disney is withholding it and allowing rumor and hearsay to distort the film's reputation as something on the level of Birth of a Nation depicting the KKK as heroes. Disgusting and a real disservice to all those who worked on the film, especially James Baskett. This was the role of his career (he died just two years later) and he deservedly received a special Oscar for his wonderful performance.

Controversies aside, it's a simple, warm family film with an upbeat tone and positive message. The songs are fun and the animated segments nice. It's not currently easy to find this if you live in the US but maybe someday soon Disney will pull its head from its rear and release it. But considering this is the company that still removes cigarettes and guns from its old cartoons, I wouldn't hold my breath. If that day ever comes, it will be mighty satisfactual.

Whistling Dixie...

[butta-4 · 3/10 · 11 May 2009]

I have a VERY hard time separating a film's content with its message. While Brer Rabbit morphs into the beloved Bugs Bunny, Uncle Remus is left behind as an artifact of America's past. It is difficult to NOT see the references to slavery in this film; however, the stories are intricately coded with messages unique to the African American oral tradition. Joel Chandler Harris was inspired by slaves and based his characters on such people. Still, the stories have value. The problem is that the DIXIE the folks are singing about during the opening credits is one that is CONFEDERATE, i.e. pro-slavery. Therefore, the film is problematic because it presents an idyllic myth and fallacy about the slavery institution as benevolent and kind. The "happy darkie" or contented slave is one of those mythical characters. "Happy darkies" like Uncle Remus are the myth, not the reality of chattel slavery. Plantations were not fun places to live and work, sing with animals and play with children. Uncle Remus is akin to Bojangles; both were black male characters who were only capable of befriending white children.

Hmmm... I think any film that portrays slavery in a positive light is a problem, such as Gone with the Wind. Hattie McDaniel is a SLAVE, not just a mere maid. Downplaying the historical, political and social subtext of these films only adds more controversy to an already very sensitive issue that began with Africans' arrival in the New World in the 17th century. Granted, most child viewers will not ever interpret the deeply-packed subtext; further, there are many white Americans who do not want to address or even acknowledge issues of race and slavery. You see, then, how Uncle Remus becomes such a problem for those who are sensitive to topics of race, racism and slavery.

I wonder, though, if the film were entitled Song of Aushwitz, whether the Jews depicted in their ghettos and camps (sans plantations) would be as beloved. An old rabbi will tell tales of Herr Rabbit evading Herr Fox and Herr Bear (Herr = mister in German). No one would ever refute whether that portrayal was anti-Semitic or bigoted. However, when browner people are involved, somehow things are not racist, bigoted, etc. Very interesting indeed. The South never had a song to sing in the Post-Civil War era, unless they were still whistling Dixie, but then, we are back where we started.

Messy. Quite messy indeed.

Political Correctness at Its Worst

[Sargebri · 31 October 2003]

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.

Walt Disney's Great Forbidden Classic

[vitaleralphlouis · 10/10 · 16 December 2006]

When I was 8 years old, Walt Disney created this great and enduring classic, his first picture to include live actors and to mix them with animation. It was one of the very few pictures in that era to employ Black actors, and the undisputed hero of the film was a Black man. The film portrays a pervasive tone of positive values, and incidentally the best portrayal of interactions between Whites and Blacks of any film I've ever seen. There are no "slaves" in the movie, and I doubt Walt Disney gave any thought to slavery since there weren't any slaves in the post-Civil War South. Still, Michael Eisner and other latter-day Disney executives have relegated this classic to the vaults.

Easily one of Walt Disney's top 5 movies, anyone ought to acquire this wonderful picture for their family library. Since the film was on the market in the UK for a few weeks before being pulled-off forever, you can buy one on eBay (from other sellers, not me). Mine cost me over $100; a small price for Freedom of Speech; a small price for a true classic not otherwise available.

Enjoyable and at least 10 times less racist than 'Norbit'

[mrtimlarabee · 7/10 · 27 December 2007]

Song of the South was a groundbreaking film in terms of its production combining live action and animation. That alone makes it a technical marvel. In terms of the film itself, it centers on universal themes of friendship, honesty, and family while demonstrating the value of storytelling. There's also a historical element to how stories are passed on from person to person. Indeed, these original stories were likely culled from Joel Chandler Harris's life. They're told very well on screen combining animation and James Baskett's wondrous performance, incredibly taking on the role of several characters. That its beauty can not be seen in present day is something of a tragedy, but perhaps a necessity in a once again ignorant age.

The charge of racism in Song of the South is sadly correct, as it depicts an all too comfortable relationship between slaves (or sharecroppers in post civil war) and their masters. Its true that this relationship was hardly the norm (though by some accounts, did exist). Its true that Uncle Remus is clearly subservient though admired by the white people in the film (something of a paradox there). While Harris clearly supported slavery, the film has merits that should be able to be viewed by modern movie-goers.

When I watch the film, some of it does unnerve me, but it is a product of its time. But if we can tolerate Mickey Rooney doing an Asian in a classic like Breakfast at Tiffany's, then a more enlightened age should be able to enjoy the wonderful storytelling in Song of the South, looking past some of the timely elements. But as we are the country that turned Norbit into box office gold, we might not be quite that enlightened by any means.