Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Why do People say that Walt Disney is so Evil?
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
dri



Joined: 16 Mar 2003
Posts: 1177
Location: minneapolis
 Reply with quote  

well then you have the censored version or somthing. i feel like going and watching it right now. just cuz im right and your wrong.


haha clearly i win. [/quote]
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:24 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Wordsmyth wrote:
MF TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON PLEEEEEEEEEASE....

how do you come across saying that i've never seen the film?....

Uncle Remus was a black man; a slave, who depicted slvaery in a 'not that bad' manner.

Not that bad manner? It's a Disney film, a children's movie... would it be less racist if Uncle Remus was beaten senseless and called a nigger? What kind of argument is that... I'm sure not ALL slaves were treated horribly, Im sure some might have actually gotten along with their families....

REGARDLESS...

The Civil War had ENDED in this movie... it is more than likely that Uncle Remus was NOT even a slave at all, and that he was actually being paid and enjoyed the company of these people. Plus, Ginny's family lived in just as poor conditions as the African American people in this film. There is no underlying evidence of slavery in the movie at all. The boy's Mother and Grandmother are the only ones in any authority positions that are shown.

The problems of prejudice and racism did not just dissapear when slavery was abollished, was it easy for black people to find work during the depression once the Civil War had ended? Perhaps Uncle Remus made friends with the family and decided to stay and work for them in exchange for food and board or pay... Not everyone in America was racist just because slavery existed. It is apparent that this family was NOT racist. They all got along very well.

REGARDLESS this is all trivial... the movie was released theatrically in 1946... this is reflective of it's times! You cannot judge a movie like this based on the context of modern day cinema... its ridiculous. Do you criticize silent Chaplin films in such regards? It obviously has to be put into historical context...



The movie had scenes of slaves dancing from the feilds, singing about how much they loved their home, In Georgia, i think.....
aaaaw, ain't slavry the mos' wonduful thang?....well at leasts wez happy....

Black people werent allowed to be happy in the 40's?

What does singing have to do with slavery...

The same could be said about the dwarves in Snow White, though mining was a gruelling, dirty occupation with a high fatality rate, with no reason for songs and jest...

AGAIN there isn't even any blatant proof that these people were slaves... are slaves allowed to sing and dance... NO! They are forced to work and we see very little of that taking place in this movie though...

I personally don't think anything in "Song of the South" is offensive - certainly not more so than other films like "Birth Of A Nation", "So Dear To My Heart" and "Gone With The Wind"...



the NAACP hs been quoted on the film, upset with "the impression it gives of an idyllic master-slave relationship"

Good for them, fuck the NAACP but the rumor about the NAACP boycotting or protesting the film is totally false, supposedly they have no current position on the film.

in the film, blacks are shown as hard working people, living in slave quarters, with no reward for their time and hard work.

We don't see if they are rewarded in any ways... they have a good relationship with the family, they seem to get along and be good friends...

Do we see any of them taking shits or jerking off in the bathroom... why should we see them getting paid, thats totally frivolous to anything and again your focus is so misdirected - its got NOTHING to do with slavery! By that sense, we might as well say that The Patriot and Schindler's List and every other modern film which features racial context should be banned and considered offensive.



in respect to MFTOON, maybe it was not completely racist, BUT it wass ignorant....

How?

see this is where i am stuck.....i dont know if this film was written to anger balcks, hide the fact that slavery occured - OR it was just written by ignorant southern white flok who did think a plantation was a dandy place for blacks to live.

Are you serious... do you really believe that because Im being respectful to your opinions here but that is more ignorant than anything portrayed in this film...

FURTHERMORE... who was really angered by this movie anyway? Do you know the background behiond this film because I do, I know about the controversy and how it came about and Id be happy to explain it but in all honesty... black people were not offended by any stereotypical portrayals of the characters in this film, nor was anybody... really.

This movie was based on the stories of Brer Rabbit collated after the Civil War by Joel Chandler Harris, a Georgian journalist, but they have their roots in African-American folklore. The characters represent the two races, with Brer Rabbit a symbol of black ingenuity in the face of white thuggery and aggression.

Harris heard the stories from slaves as a boy, though Remus was his own addition.



and why is that during 'the little white boy's' birthday party, his good friend Toby (little black boy, son of uncle R.?) is absent?....maybe a little black boy isn't fit to be in the same household of a richer white boy, and his new friend, Ginny who he knows nothing about.....

You are making assumptions and formulating biased opinions based purely on your one dimensional perspectives of this film... so the black kid wasnt at the party... EVEN if that was a racial thing, THIS MOVIE WAS MADE IN THE 40'S, DURING THAT TIME RACISM EXISTED... THAT DOESNT MAKE THE MOVIE RACIST, IT DOES PUT IT INTO HISTORICAL CONTEXT THOUGH...
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 1:45 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

my green guitar wrote:
well then you have the censored version or somthing. i feel like going and watching it right now. just cuz im right and your wrong.


haha clearly i win.
[/quote]

Sorry my friend but that word was NEVER used, ever in this movie....

The only reason there is any controversy behind this film is due to the fact that Michael Eisner is a little bitch who feels as though he has to conform to everyone in the same pc vein that he edits and censors classic cartoon features like Melody Time and Fantasia, etc. That and one ignorant woman is the reason why Buena Vista has refused to release this film in North America and Disney has apparenblty placed it on "permanent moratorium", although there are talks of a future dvd release for this title...

Anyways, this has built up the hype surrounding the film yet Disney's Song of the South has been readily available for purchase in the Orient for years now. (Why else do you think that all those video versions of Song of the South that sell on eBay have Japanese subtitles? That's because they're direct dubs off of the SOTS laser disc.)

Why exactly would Disney make Song of the South available for sale in Asia but not in North America? Basically BVHE's international arm believes that there aren't many African-Americans there who would complain about the film's portrayal of blacks...

Which is kind of a two faced policy, don't you think? That Disney pretends to care about the feelings of its black customers here in North America ... then abandons that pretense in the Orient.

But this sadly has become standard operating procedure with the modern Walt Disney Company: to give the impression that the company actually cares about something, rather than actually caring.

This actually reminds me of the last time that Walt Disney Studios put Song of the South out in theaters here in the U.S. That was back in 1986. Just two years after Michael Eisner took control of the Mouse House.

If the Walt Disney Company is really so concerned about the feelings of African Americans, then why did the studio put this allegedly offensive film back into theaters?

Well, actually there's kind of an interesting story associated with that particular re-release of Song of the South. You see, Tony Baxter and the Imagineers who were working on "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah River Run" (a new flume ride that was being proposed for construction at Disneyland in the late 1980s) were leaning heavily on Eisner to allow them to use the characters and settings from Song of the South to help theme this attraction.

And Uncle Michael actually liked the idea of adding a flume ride to Disneyland. It's just that Disney's CEO was somewhat squeamish about the attraction's proposed subject matter. Eisner was worried that a ride that was built around Uncle Remus might unintentionally offend African-Americans. Which might result in Disneyland being picketed by the NAACP.

Still the Imagineers persisted, insisting that this proposed Disneyland flume ride wouldn't work unless they were allowed to build "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah River Run"'s storyline around the Song of the South characters and settings.

This is why -- as sort of a litmus test for this attraction -- Eisner ordered that "Song of the South" be put into an extremely limited release in the Fall of 1986. If I'm remembering correctly, the film was only out in theaters for two weeks. Three weeks max. Before "SOTS" was quickly pulled and put back in the vault.

Given that not a single person wrote to the Walt Disney Company while Song of the South was playing in theaters here in the U.S. to complain about the film's portrayal of its black characters (and--more importantly--given that SOTS actually did pretty well at the box office during its limited re-release), Eisner finally gave the Imagineers the okay to use the movie's characters and settings in their proposed Disneyland flume attraction.

However, just to play it safe, Uncle Michael ordered that all references to Uncle Remus be removed from the ride; that's why the narrator in the queue area is clearly identified as Brer Frog. Eisner also asked that--to further distance this thrill ride from the somewhat controversial Song of the South--that WDI drop the name "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah River Run" in favor of something a bit more generic. Which is how Disneyland's flume ride ended up being called "Splash Mountain."

Anyway... as recently as three years ago--Buena Vista Home Entertainment was actively exploring ways they could release SOTS on home video and DVD here in the U.S.

Of course, in order to make this title palatable to the general public during these increasingly politically correct times, BVHE knew that it had to package this film just right. Which is why (for a time) Disney toyed with the idea of selling a version of Song of the South that would have been preceded by a showing of Walt Disney Feature Animation's new short, John Henry.

You see, Buena Vista Home Entertainment's idea was to persuade a prominent African-American like James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman or Dr. Maya Angelou to serve as the MC on this DVD / home video. Someone who could introduce Song of the South, explaining the film's historical significance as well as re-enforcing the idea that SOTS was a product of a less enlightened time in Hollywood.

Then--once Song of the South finished being shown--the film's host would then introduce John Henry. Which (hopefully) would demonstrate the great strides that the Walt Disney Company had made in its depiction of and attitudes toward African-Americans.

It seemed like a pretty fool-proof scheme. Using the device of a prominent African-American narrator to help put Song of the South in proper perspective. A framework which would (hopefully) make SOTS more palatable (or--at the very least--less distasteful to) African American consumers.

The only problem was... Buena Vista Home Entertainment reportedly approached the wrong African American first. The way I keep hearing this story, the very first person that BVHE went to in their quest to recruit a narrator / host for their Song of the South / John Henry home video and DVD project was poet Maya Angelou. Angelou supposedly loved "John Henry" when WDFA screened the short for her, but was deeply offended by SOTS. The noted author then allegedly told the reps at Buena Vista Home Entertainment that--if they ever dared to put "Song of the South" up for sale in the United States--that she personally would take part in the protests.

That threat was reportedly enough for the Walt Disney Company to order Song of the South back into the vault... never to see the light of day again.

And that framing device that Buena Vista Home Entertainment dreamed up for its proposed Song of the South / John Henry combo release? That concept actually ended up being used on BVHE's American Legends release. That home video and DVD (which was released back in 2001) featured James Earl Jones as its host/narrator. In which the noted African American actor introduced John Henry, Johnny Appleseed, Paul Bunyan and Casey Jones, The Brave Engineer.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Wordsmyth
Guest




 Reply with quote  

MFTOON

i did not say the movie should show the slave aspect more hard-lined....
i said it shouldn not have depicted salvery, if they were trying to portray something peaceful....
yes this was after the civil war, but people still lived on plantations, and in slave quarters...
im not saying the MOVIE itself is RACIST
im saying that racism peeked it's nast little face around the corner from time to time....
yes, this was made in the 10's, a very controversial time for black-white reltaions, and this movie in no way improved those relations...
the first black actor in a disney movie had to be a slave.....

tell me....why couldnt an african american living off in the hills tell these stories?....

some shit was just not neccesary
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 5:33 pm
 
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Wordsmyth wrote:
MFTOON

i did not say the movie should show the slave aspect more hard-lined....
i said it shouldn not have depicted salvery, if they were trying to portray something peaceful....


But that's the way life was in those times, and it wasnt about portraying something peaceful, it was about making an honest and entertaining movie from the writers and directors positions. Why do you feel that your opinion should validate restraining another persons artistic direction? Has there ever in the history of modern cinema, existed one single film which didnt excercise cliche and exagerrated stereotypical profiles of their characters? The answer is no, because that is how personality and life is assimilated into something as dissembling as movie acting, it ads sincerity to an otherwise erroneous concept of reality.


yes this was after the civil war, but people still lived on plantations, and in slave quarters...


Which is why the movie was depicted in such a context.


im not saying the MOVIE itself is RACIST
im saying that racism peeked it's nast little face around the corner from time to time....


But see, those are strong allegations to make, and while you might not feel that this movie holds up in terms of today's cultural and sociological standards of correctness, what is portrayed in this film is FAR from being racist. There is a thick border here which you are aimlessly and carelessly treading. In fact, it's pretty inane that you would express such exagerrated and adamant logic in contingency to the modern media which we are exposed to in today's generation through movies, music, etc. You seem to rest comfortably negligent to the fact that you have been sucked into this corporate media hype... you have become a victim of this trivial controversy which, if you really pay close attention, doesn't even exist. I'm sorry, but if we are watching the same movie here than I have to say that this is not a factor which is or can be opionated, this movie bears no racial or prejudice connections at all, whatsoever.


yes, this was made in the 10's, a very controversial time for black-white reltaions, and this movie in no way improved those relations...
the first black actor in a disney movie had to be a slave.....


The glass is half empty here... not the FIRST BLACK actor, the FIRST LIVE ACTOR period. The first live action Disney actor, a black man, in an emmy award winning role. How did this not "improve" cultural relations between the white and black community, why was it Disney's role to do so? They are obligated to provide nothing more than family entertainment, and this movie delivers just that.


tell me....why couldnt an african american living off in the hills tell these stories?....


Why should it have to be compromised in any way, that would change the whole script and creative direction. These tales were based on the stories of Brer Rabbit told by actual slaves and have their significant roots in African-American folklore, there is no reason for any depiction of these characters to be manipulated in any form. Do you call up recording artists to complain when they sing a lyric that doesn't appeal to you??? Do you think that all of the actions, decisions and cultivated directions conceived in our society should flow in direct accordance with your ideal beliefs? Nobody has to conform to your or anybody's generic standards, learn to respect and accept people's positions and realise that your principles and views can graciously differ from others... It didnt matter that Uncle Remus lived on a plantation, that is one minor etch on the canvas. The movie was about his stories and compassion, your focus is totally misguided.


some shit was just not neccesary


Not trying to be harsh but you are in no position to make such a statement. It was Walt Disney's movie, it was necessary to him. I dont want to pull this cliche card but for someone who is obviously inspired by the type of messages expressed in the music that brings us all to these forums, I would expect you to come with a little more ground... Our generation is afraid to express itself honestly, we are subjected to "political correctnes" at the sacrifice of artistic creativity and innovation through all channels of ingenuity, all because of such trivial and unnecessary comments as the ones you frivolously make... this is the reason why we are censored, our books, movies, information is edited and we are treated like delicate feeble minded children. This film is historically significant and in context to the times it was produced, there is nothing that can be derived which would seem the least bit offensive... let's hop in my time machine and travel back to the dark ages, you can bring your book of etiquettes and your best table manners and see how far they get you dude... maybe than you'll consider the very significant relation.

PEACE.

Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 7:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
FoJaR



Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Posts: 1534
Location: VA.
 Reply with quote  

dont tell amo1ne his shit. his name is MF TOON. this kid is a cartoonologist. back the fuck up all yall.
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 8:03 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
Wordsmyth
Guest




 Reply with quote  

hey, i went into my Colleg eLibrary, and you know that dude that said he had a intro to Walt disney class?....well i found it....hahaha.....i seriously thiought he made that shit up....


Song of the South -
there is an actual apology made by Walt Disney for any stereotypes portrayed in the film.....signed n all....
after reading some shit, i kinda feel MFTOON was right....BUT, i still think there could have been alternatives....maybe have the black n white kids hang out at the parties, and show african americans as people with some sort of pride, or class.....
i know this depicted the times, but why engrain ideas such as these in the minds of kids...


now...

1940's cartoon by a cartooning group owned by disney, and played numerous times on television : Coal Black An De Sebben Dwarfs -




"Taking Coal Black an de Sebben Dwarfs as an example, we see a short that speaks of white contempt for blacks, enhancing every stereotype and using them as an object of ridicule. Coal Black is Bob Clampett's parody of Disney's Snow White - using black stereotype and caricature. The characters' names, So White and Prince Chawmin', along with the title, ridicule black speech through the ear of whites. Their appearance - the exaggerated, oversized lips on every character but So White, missing teeth (or teeth replaced by dice, in the case of the Prince), and big feet play into the lens of racist sight, making the blacks the 'other.' So White is considered beautiful because she conforms to the drawn style of white characters - thin lips, small feet in high heels, hourglass figure -- not the style of the black characters. The Queen even attempts to fake a smaller mouth by painting a small kiss-like mouth in the center of her own with lipstick."
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:06 pm
 
Wordsmyth
Guest




 Reply with quote  

..
Post Wed Aug 20, 2003 10:44 pm
 
firefly



Joined: 27 Sep 2002
Posts: 3990
Location: Montreal
 Reply with quote  

Something that people need to understand is that back then, black people were always portrayed as servants or simple people on television and movies. That doesn't make it right obviously, but I does mean that people shouldn't hate Walt Disney any more then other producers/writers.
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 5:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

'Coal Black An De Sebben Dwarfs' was not made by a cartooning group owned by Disney, it was a masterpiece Merry Melody short from 1943 directed by the legendary Bob Clampett for Leon Schlesinger Studios and is possibly one of the greatest, most energetic Warner Bros cartoon shorts ever produced...

Clampett, one of the most talented and rambunctious directors in the Warner stable, possibly at the height of his imaginative powers at the time he produced this work, took his animation unit (including Rod Scribner, Virgil Ross, and Mike Sasanoff) out to Central Avenue in Los Angeles to one black jazz nightclub after another with this in mind.

After absorbing the studies of Harlem as Seen by Hirschfeld in 1941, the expressive caricatures in that book fused with his love of jazz, manic energy and the wartime zeitgeist that united America during a grim struggle against the Axis powers manifested itself into this concept for a cartoon.

Bob sought to capture some semblance of the vitality of black culture and nightlife, intending to parody Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, he developed these experiences into the short "So White and de Sebben Dwarfs". In order to avoid confusion (or perhaps lawsuits), the 7 minute short was retitled "Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarfs", even though the lead character refers to herself as "So White" early in the film.

In order to stay true to his original idea, Clampett managed to round up an all-star black cast for his opus including Vivian and Ruby Dandridge, Zoot Watson and Eddie Beals who composed the period jazz stylings premeating throughout the short. Although this cartoon is controversial and rather politically incorrect by today's standards, it is a landmark contribution to black culture more than it is offensive by any means and overall is a hillarious catoon with an amazing musical score.

Unfortunately, in 1968, United Artists (owners of the A.A.P. library) compiled the cartoons they considered to be too racist to be shown on television and witheld them from distribution. This is one of the pre-48 shorts that I referred to earlier in this thread as the Warner Bros "censored 11".

Still, even before then United Artists decision, those cartoons had been yanked by stations in more politically charged markets, like WNEW in New York, and some of the WWII B&W Looney Tunes also were first banned by some stations in the late 1950s and early 1960s -- cartoons like "Tokyo Jokio" for their racial charactures and cartoons like "Scrap Happy Daffy" because it was believed to a lot of people (post-Holocaust revelations) that Hitler was no longer something to joke about (which is also why Mel Brooks' "The Producers" was so funny when it came out in 1968, but that's another story...).

Unfortuantely, When Ted Turner took over ownership, he continued the ban and refused to allow any of these cartoons to be shown or released on video. Since than, I believe a number of these have fallen into the public domain as I am certain I have seen the uncut versions of "Jungle Jitters" and "Coal Black" with full title cards, on a number of my cheap pd videos.

Still "Coal Black" remains a cartoon masterpiece and should be seen by animation fans and anyone else interested in the evolution of our cultural mythos. While many are quick to pull the race card, I would argue that this cartoon struck a blow against the inherent racism of 1940's Hollywood. The concept of black men (though in caricature) wearing US Army uniforms while performing heroic deeds has been lauded in some quarters as one of the few depictions of blacks in that sort of role during the war years. Because the country adopted racist attitudes, it has been reasoned, cartoons carried these images forth, as did radio, stage, and movies. For good or bad, such were the times.
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 6:29 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Wordsmyth wrote:
"Taking Coal Black an de Sebben Dwarfs as an example, we see a short that speaks of white contempt for blacks, enhancing every stereotype and using them as an object of ridicule. Coal Black is Bob Clampett's parody of Disney's Snow White - using black stereotype and caricature. The characters' names, So White and Prince Chawmin', along with the title, ridicule black speech through the ear of whites. Their appearance - the exaggerated, oversized lips on every character but So White, missing teeth (or teeth replaced by dice, in the case of the Prince), and big feet play into the lens of racist sight, making the blacks the 'other.' So White is considered beautiful because she conforms to the drawn style of white characters - thin lips, small feet in high heels, hourglass figure -- not the style of the black characters. The Queen even attempts to fake a smaller mouth by painting a small kiss-like mouth in the center of her own with lipstick."


Not sure if you've ever seen this short, but they do not "ridicule" black speech and your perception is very misguided. If this is what you've taken from it than you've missed the entire concept. From what i undertsand the entire cast, which consisted exclusively of prominent black voice actors, was very enthusiastic about the production and outcome of this cartoon. As I've said numerous times, those steretypical exagerrations were common in pre-war shorts of those times. The only real "racial" content was the aggression towards the Japanese which is understandable in context to the times of when this cartoon was released, which just so happened to be one year after the bombing of Pearl Harbor...
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 6:36 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

Wordsmyth wrote:


now...

1940's cartoon by a cartooning group owned by disney, and played numerous times on television : Coal Black An De Sebben Dwarfs -





Sorry to keep pullin your card dude but as I've stated... this was never shown on network television (to my knowledge) since it's theatrical release and unfortunately, probably never will air again...
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 6:42 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Reggie



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 5765
Location: Queens, NYC
 Reply with quote  

Heh, MF TOON takin' 'em to school.

Everything in its proper context people. You need to chill with the indignancy at everything, you'll live longer.
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 7:10 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
MF TOON



Joined: 08 Aug 2003
Posts: 3611
Location: la plančte sauvage
 Reply with quote  

werd
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 7:16 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
squirtisblow



Joined: 12 Mar 2003
Posts: 1587
Location: SFV
 Reply with quote  

alright ill disregaurd what my professor said and listen to mf toon from now on...starting.....now
Post Thu Aug 21, 2003 2:14 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Oct 25, 2014 9:20 am
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon