Song of the South (1946)

So sad that the child actor Bobby Driscoll lies in a paupers grave. Come on Disney do the right thing! He was also Peters voice in Peter Pan.

Disney's Song of the South has long been a problematic film because of its portrayal of African Americans in the post-Civil War American South. Hollywood films at this time still used clichés of ethnic minorities, even though things were starting to change. One must take that into consideration when viewing this film. In actuality, this film is progressive in terms of race relations. The black characters are still subservient, but only to the elderly plantation owner. Uncle Remus takes on the role of a mentor to the young Johnny, whose father is absent. He is also shown scolding the two troublesome white children, who act as the villains of the picture. The fact that Disney had African American actors to voice the animated characters, despite stereotyped dialect, is commendable for that time period.I believe another factor as to why Disney hasn't made this film available, is to avoid exposing children to the ethnic clichés that are no longer acceptable in today's society. Unlike "Gone With The Wind", which also has controversial depictions of African Americans, the audience for Song of the South was the entire family, which includes children. Although, in the 2000's, Disney did make available all of their cartoon shorts to collectors, which included controversial material, but with contextual introductions. Fans at the time said that that was the best way to put out the film, but Disney declined. In my opinion, all films from this era should be made available, at least for film buffs and historians to view and study.Race controversy aside, the film isn't particularly very engaging nor interesting as some of the other Disney films are. The only parts worth watching multiple times are the animated segments. The combination of live action and animation was perfected in this film and is very believable. The character animation is top notch; Among the best animation of the 1940's. Like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" 40 years later, this film nicely conveys the notion of a cartoon world tucked away within our own world and that's what the film's greatest strength. Most Disney fans know already that this film has never been released on any video format in the United States because of the controversy. Although it was officially released in other countries in the 80's and 90's, likely because the controversy doesn't extend to other cultures. The only legal way to see this film has been to import a VHS or laserdisc from Asia or Europe. Ironically, lots of production art has been published in various Disney art books over the years and merchandise of the characters is still produced. Even more ironic is that one of the biggest attractions at Disneyland, Splash Mountain, is based on this film.Hopefully the day will come when Disney makes some provision for this film to become accessible.

Disney has chosen not to release this film for good reason. For the most part the animated sections are very endearing and free of racism but the rest of the film is certainly not. I can't believe how people can't see that this is racist. Probably because they are at least somewhat racists themselves even if they don't realize it.The film portrays slavery in an almost positive light, which is an obvious rewriting of history and an injustice. It also depicts black people as mostly unintelligent lick-spittles who desire nothing more than to serve their masters well and who are endearingly stupid and jolly. Black slaves sometimes acted like that as a disguise to help protect them from their enslavers' hatred and wrath, not because they actually were like that. It was an act they put on out of necessity for survival. The film also perpetuates the racist archetype of the "magical n*gger or negro". If you don't know what that is or why it is a bad thing to perpetuate you should google it.I somehow managed to see this film as a child when I was very young, I think in Disney World itself, and I honestly feel that it gave me a biased view of black people for the first few years of my life. It is a film that can very powerfully affect children. I would have thought that most adults could watch it and see it for its shortcomings without being negatively influenced by it in their attitudes but after reading some of the above comments I am not too sure about that anymore.Not showing this film to young children under the trusted auspices of the Disney brand, which is exactly what would happen if it was released, is an act of decency, not an act of political correctness run amok as many of the apparently ignorant and racist people reviewing this film would have you believe.There is no doubt that this is NOT a film that should be viewed by young children as entertainment and that is probably why Disney doesn't release it except for academic study by adults...thank God.

The sad truth is this movie is part of our American History and yet because of labeling for no legitimate reason the movie is not sanctioned by those like the NAACP. The irony is movies that are offensive to other Americans are granted free license for distribution because there is a double standard.Song of the South is merely a tale like many fairy tales told prior to the 1960s. This tale is told from a perspective of the South that is closer to the truth of our culture at that time than some want to reflect on. As a child I saw this movie and it did not skewer my ideas about any people in the movie at all. It was the animals and the music that are the true entertainment. I hope some day everyone of every color will appreciate that and stop censoring anything they don't think reflects them as perfection throughout history.