Disney Plus Streaming will not offer 'racist' Song of the South film

[DrZoidberg]

Pulling films like this because of racism is just Nazi book burning all over again. It's pure evil. We've created an Orwelian dystopia where we are our own secret police. It's truly a horrifying world we've created.

What film has been "pulled"? If you owned a copy of this movie yesterdsy, you still do today. They haven't removed the film from their streaming service, they just haven't republished it in the new format. How is this anything remotely like a book-burning?

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Pulling films like this because of racism is just Nazi book burning all over again. It's pure evil. We've created an Orwelian dystopia where we are our own secret police. It's truly a horrifying world we've created.

What film has been "pulled"? If you owned a copy of this movie yesterdsy, you still do today. They haven't removed the film from their streaming service, they just haven't republished it in the new format. How is this anything remotely like a book-burning?

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

So just how many films do you think are available for streaming from the 30s to 50s?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

So just how many films do you think are available for streaming from the 30s to 50s?

TCM has a streaming service. I guess that answers that. It won't be long until every single film in existence will be on a streaming service somewhere.

 

[Politesse]

Pulling films like this because of racism is just Nazi book burning all over again. It's pure evil. We've created an Orwelian dystopia where we are our own secret police. It's truly a horrifying world we've created.

What film has been "pulled"? If you owned a copy of this movie yesterdsy, you still do today. They haven't removed the film from their streaming service, they just haven't republished it in the new format. How is this anything remotely like a book-burning?

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

Nothing has been "pulled", it just hasn't been released. These are not the same thing.

No publisher publishes and constantly re-publishes every work they hold copyright to. That's just not how these things go.

Do you hate George Lucas for trying to squelch the infamous Star Wars Holiday Special? It is, in a similar vein, never released, re-released, or discussed by Lucasfilms at all if they can help it, and for years could only be seen via bootlegged videotapes that fans had nicked from the original broadcast.

 

[James Brown]

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

Nothing has been "pulled", it just hasn't been released. These are not the same thing.

And the film is easily available on the internet, just not on Disney's new service.

I think Dr. Z was being sarcastic there.

 

[TSwizzle]

The most important thing to keep in mind is that it is a musical. Musicals are by their very nature twisted and sugar coated versions of reality. So in context the racism is actually fine here. It's so racist that it turns into a parody of racism. Which I think is fun. In the same way as it's fun to see Brent suffer in Ricky Gervais' Office.

It does sound interesting. I wonder what the intent of the creators was. Walt Disney was a bit of an oddball as most artistic people are and had some strange ideas. I understand that Whoopie Goldberg has been trying to convince Disney to make it available.

 

[Sarpedon]

Disney's record is well enough known so as to make wondering what his intent was unnecessary.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pulling films like this because of racism is just Nazi book burning all over again. It's pure evil. We've created an Orwelian dystopia where we are our own secret police. It's truly a horrifying world we've created.

Holy crap!

Please, nobody punch Mickey.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

Nothing has been "pulled", it just hasn't been released. These are not the same thing.

No publisher publishes and constantly re-publishes every work they hold copyright to. That's just not how these things go.

In the streaming paradigm the whole concept of releasing stuff is moot. Since it'll all be out there. In the streaming world "releasing" just means, films that get pushed by advertising and which will be found on front pages. But everything will be perpetually available. There's a problem where distribution rights were sold back in the day with the old paradigm in mind. So it can be a bit of a jungle. But nothing subscribing to a VPN can't solve.

Do you hate George Lucas for trying to squelch the infamous Star Wars Holiday Special? It is, in a similar vein, never released, re-released, or discussed by Lucasfilms at all if they can help it, and for years could only be seen via bootlegged videotapes that fans had nicked from the original broadcast.

Yes, I do. I have zero sympathy for that attitude. While copyrights grants the creator the right to control it, once something has been released it's part of our shared culture, and withholding it is a dick move. This is a reason I'm for drastically reduced copyright time. I think it also would be fine to put laws in place makes content creators to lose their copyright if they don't make it available somehow. I see art creation as a collaborative process where the public is part of this process, so they have a right to it as well. Not just the guy holding the pen.

Back in the day there was a cost attached to making things available. Now there's none. So there's no reason to tolerate copyright holders from withholding it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The most important thing to keep in mind is that it is a musical. Musicals are by their very nature twisted and sugar coated versions of reality. So in context the racism is actually fine here. It's so racist that it turns into a parody of racism. Which I think is fun. In the same way as it's fun to see Brent suffer in Ricky Gervais' Office.

It does sound interesting. I wonder what the intent of the creators was. Walt Disney was a bit of an oddball as most artistic people are and had some strange ideas. I understand that Whoopie Goldberg has been trying to convince Disney to make it available.

Disney was a card carrying Nazi. He seriously believed in white supremacy. I think that may explain it.

I love Whoopie Goldberg. She's a shit actress. But fuck I admire her brain. She says so many clever things all the time... and she's funny as hell. Anyhoo... she gets it. Stephen Fry is another gay activist who understands the importance of not whitewashing history. If we hide it we risk forgetting the carefree and jolly racism that led to the holocaust and KKK lynchings.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Get back into your cave, troglodyte. Who, with hair on their heads, owns physical copies of films today? I don't. It's all streamed today, or electronic formats. We use the Internet as our library. So pulling a film from a streaming service is, today, totally analogous to book burning.

So just how many films do you think are available for streaming from the 30s to 50s?

TCM has a streaming service. I guess that answers that. It won't be long until every single film in existence will be on a streaming service somewhere.

Not really seeing they actually don’t. But I suppose it is possible a decent number of films will be digitized. But all?

 

[DrZoidberg]

TCM has a streaming service. I guess that answers that. It won't be long until every single film in existence will be on a streaming service somewhere.

Not really seeing they actually don’t. But I suppose it is possible a decent number of films will be digitized. But all?

Why wouldn't they? Today the moderating role and the library role is baked in together for the providers. But there's no technical limitation to decoupling these. The only reason people still tolerate it is because we've just come from the cable TV paradigm and are used to other people telling us what we're allowed to watch. But that's going to change. I have Netflix. But I search things less and less. If I don't instantly find exactly what I want I'm just going to pirate it. I'm not going to let Netflix (or anyone) dictate to me what I'm allowed to watch or not. The boat has sailed since long. As the culture will shift towards this, I can't see the old model being sustainable. I want to pay for stuff I watch, but there's a very stiff and low limit to the degrading hoops I'm willing to jump through.

If the providers have the options getting "some money" vs "getting no money" from the people watching it, they'll obviously go for "some money".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

TCM has a streaming service. I guess that answers that. It won't be long until every single film in existence will be on a streaming service somewhere.

Not really seeing they actually don’t. But I suppose it is possible a decent number of films will be digitized. But all?

Why wouldn't they?

Demand? Condition of the film? Amazon and Netflix exist, yet there is plenty of media that isn't available to stream. The creators have decided not to give it away under the current set up.

Today the moderating role and the library role is baked in together for the providers. But there's no technical limitation to decoupling these. The only reason people still tolerate it is because we've just come from the cable TV paradigm and are used to other people telling us what we're allowed to watch. But that's going to change. I have Netflix. But I search things less and less. If I don't instantly find exactly what I want I'm just going to pirate it. I'm not going to let Netflix (or anyone) dictate to me what I'm allowed to watch or not. The boat has sailed since long. As the culture will shift towards this, I can't see the old model being sustainable. I want to pay for stuff I watch, but there's a very stiff and low limit to the degrading hoops I'm willing to jump through.

If the providers have the options getting "some money" vs "getting no money" from the people watching it, they'll obviously go for "some money".

And there is plenty of objectionable material out there from Gone with the Wind to The Littlest Rebel to Breakfast at Tiffany's to It Happened One Night (nothing like getting that whip near the end with Gable saying, 'She needs a man that'll hit her good even if she doesn't deserve it' *eegh!*). You need not put all of your hopes on a single film. Song of the South isn't remotely a classic.

Hopefully Jerry Lewis's holocaust film also never gets released, and he wasn't even trying to be offensive!

 

[thebeave]

Why wouldn't they?

Demand? Condition of the film? Amazon and Netflix exist, yet there is plenty of media that isn't available to stream. The creators have decided not to give it away under the current set up.

Today the moderating role and the library role is baked in together for the providers. But there's no technical limitation to decoupling these. The only reason people still tolerate it is because we've just come from the cable TV paradigm and are used to other people telling us what we're allowed to watch. But that's going to change. I have Netflix. But I search things less and less. If I don't instantly find exactly what I want I'm just going to pirate it. I'm not going to let Netflix (or anyone) dictate to me what I'm allowed to watch or not. The boat has sailed since long. As the culture will shift towards this, I can't see the old model being sustainable. I want to pay for stuff I watch, but there's a very stiff and low limit to the degrading hoops I'm willing to jump through.

If the providers have the options getting "some money" vs "getting no money" from the people watching it, they'll obviously go for "some money".

And there is plenty of objectionable material out there from Gone with the Wind to The Littlest Rebel to Breakfast at Tiffany's to It Happened One Night (nothing like getting that whip near the end with Gable saying, 'She needs a man that'll hit her good even if she doesn't deserve it' *eegh!*). You need not put all of your hopes on a single film. Song of the South isn't remotely a classic.

Hopefully Jerry Lewis's holocaust film also never gets released, and he wasn't even trying to be offensive!

This focus on "objectionable material" seems kind of weird in that context that we routinely watch TV and movies where people are killed in horrible ways and no one batts an eye. Aren't those far more objectionable than Jerry Lewis and Clark Gable saying/doing stupid shit?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Almost all depictions of black characters in studio era films are unthinkable today. The same is largely true of Asians, Native Americans, and a number of other groups. Anyone who thinks Song of the South should stay in the vault could, rather easily, make the case that John Wayne's westerns, the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan films should be padlocked. Let's get Gone With the Wind back in the vault and take it off the library shelves while we're at it. Our Gang, the Three Stooges...they better be quarantined as well. And -- damn!! -- most of Oscar Micheaux better get red-tagged. All of our culture comes with historical baggage. Who doesn't get this? (I'll admit that the old-style, casual racism evaporates my appreciation of some films. There's a scene in Broadway Bill (1934) where, I think, Warner Baxter kicks Clarence Muse in the backside over the treatment of a horse -- and the implication is that he's entitled to do this, and that it doesn't need to be discussed or redressed. It's a scene I hate, and I haven't revisited the film for years. But to me, there's no question that the film should be seen, preserved, kept for future generations. Let's all see where we were and where we've gone.)

 

[Politesse]

Almost all depictions of black characters in studio era films are unthinkable today. The same is largely true of Asians, Native Americans, and a number of other groups. Anyone who thinks Song of the South should stay in the vault could, rather easily, make the case that John Wayne's westerns, the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan films should be padlocked. Let's get Gone With the Wind back in the vault and take it off the library shelves while we're at it. Our Gang, the Three Stooges...they better be quarantined as well. And -- damn!! -- most of Oscar Micheaux better get red-tagged. All of our culture comes with historical baggage. Who doesn't get this? (I'll admit that the old-style, casual racism evaporates my appreciation of some films. There's a scene in Broadway Bill (1934) where, I think, Warner Baxter kicks Clarence Muse in the backside over the treatment of a horse -- and the implication is that he's entitled to do this, and that it doesn't need to be discussed or redressed. It's a scene I hate, and I haven't revisited the film for years. But to me, there's no question that the film should be seen, preserved, kept for future generations. Let's all see where we were and where we've gone.)

Again, no one is talking about destroying any films. They are all still just as available as they ever were.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Almost all depictions of black characters in studio era films are unthinkable today.

There are exceptions. The Petrified Forest has a white couple with their black servant, who is quite dependable if not too obedient. His character is offset by a black gangster working for the main mobster. There is an interaction between the two that was interesting dealing with their competing statuses.

In This Our Life, you have a black student who wants to be a lawyer and his mother (Hattie McDaniel) gets a chance at straight up dramatic acting. McDaniel often was usually comic relief either as the bombastic black maid (Gone with the Wind) or clueless maid (Alice Adams or The Male Animal).

In general, if you were a black character in a movie for several decades, you weren't going to be important.

The same is largely true of Asians, Native Americans, and a number of other groups. Anyone who thinks Song of the South should stay in the vault could, rather easily, make the case that John Wayne's westerns, the Mr. Moto and Charlie Chan films should be padlocked. Let's get Gone With the Wind back in the vault and take it off the library shelves while we're at it.

There is baggage and then there is baggage baggage. Disney gains almost nothing by putting Song of the South out there. In fact, they likely create a liability.

 

[Toni]

Saw it long ago as a kid, when the controversial stuff would go over my head. Do remember the tar baby scene, which I’m sure is definitely out today

Br'er Rabbit is a trickster figure whose origins come from African folklore and whose stories were surely brought over with slaves. Here's this:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Brer-Rabbit

The tar baby story might be problematic for today's culture which mostly remembers tar baby as a racial slur but it has other roots: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar-Baby

Also see: http://blog.press.princeton.edu/2017/08/08/bryan-wagner-on-a-controversial-folktale-the-tar-baby/

But the real issue with Song of the South is that Uncle Remus seems mighty happy to be working along with the other black folk on a southern plantation that managed to survive the Civil War (Disney sidestepped the nasty issue of slavery by claiming that it was set in the Reconstruction era--but it looked an awful lot like a happier version of the pre-Civil wary Tara of Gone with the Wind to my eyes.

I know that I saw it as a kid because I saw all of the Disney movies when I was a kid. What I remembered most were the Br'er Rabbit stories and Zippity Do Da--so much so that I purchased the LP of Disney movie songs for my toddler, but I didn't actually remember anything else--nothing that would have been noticed by a young child--or not by me, anyway. When my kids were really young, Disney re-released it in the '80s sometime and we took the kids to a matinee showing. I was really dumbstruck by the racism of the situation: black people who appeared to be slaves (but by Disney's sleight of hand, were actually paid employees of the plantation, although pay was never mentioned), with good ole' Uncle Remus who was able to just up and leave when his feelings got hurt. In fact, I only realized that it was supposed to be in the reconstruction era and not pre-Civil war by reading about it years later on the internet.

So, that's the objection: black people who look an awful lot like slaves hard at work picking cotton while the white folks ran the show.

 

[Sarpedon]

The best solution would be simply to change the rating of these films. A lot of these old films are rated "G," simply because they have no violence, swearing, or sexual content. Change all the ratings of these racist films to PG-13, and get them off the streaming lists that are approved for kids. If a 13 year old can handle Mola Ram tearing a guy's heart out, he can also handle the questionable ethnic stereotypes that appear in the film. Films that are nothing but racist, like the Birth of a Nation (original) should get an R.

I, for one, love the Marx brothers, but I hate the racism in their films. I think they'd be fine as a PG-13 films. And, of course, this should apply to new films as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The best solution would be simply to change the rating of these films. A lot of these old films are rated "G," simply because they have no violence, swearing, or sexual content. Change all the ratings of these racist films to PG-13, and get them off the streaming lists that are approved for kids. If a 13 year old can handle Mola Ram tearing a guy's heart out, he can also handle the questionable ethnic stereotypes that appear in the film. Films that are nothing but racist, like the Birth of a Nation (original) should get an R.

I, for one, love the Marx brothers, but I hate the racism in their films. I think they'd be fine as a PG-13 films. And, of course, this should apply to new films as well.

Marx Brothers, racism? I can only think of one film, At The Circus I think, where a black man gets what I'll call 'black scarred' of an animal... which then transitions into a musical number. I could be wrong, but I don't recall anything else.