Old Ass Movies: The Delightful Racism of ‘Song of the South’

Posted by Dr. Cole Abaius (cole.abaius@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 20, 2009

OAM-SongoftheSouth

Every week, Film School Rejects presents a movie that was made before you were born and tells you why you should like it. This week, Old Ass Movies presents:

Walt Disney’s Song of the South (1946)

Last night I got into a discussion with fellow Reject Brian Salisbury about how having a character with a southern accent in a movie puts you at an inherent disadvantage. Even if the accent is done well, it still seems cartoonish and silly. For the record, Brian disagrees, which should lead to a duel of epic proportions or at least a discussion in cultural sensitivity, but ultimately the Makers Mark-fueled verbal fisticuffs made me think about a classic film that gets almost no recognition.

That’s because Song of the South isn’t a great movie.

Normally I’d be selling you on how an ancient movie is still enjoyable today or that a modern audience can still be moved by pictures made over half a century ago, but I’m not so sure Song of the South really deserves all that much praise for its own artistic merit. Sure, it’s become a cultural touchstone. It was the first true live-action film created by Disney, it shared a group of stories with a new generation, it launched an amusement park ride where you sit in a plastic log and splash water over people standing on a nearby bridge. This triumph cannot be ignored.

But still, the movie itself isn’t all that moving or impressive. It’s not bad by any means – it’s a strange sort of yarn about a young boy named Johnny who is visiting his grandmother’s plantation during a period of marital strife between his parents. After running away, he meets Uncle Remus, the kindly old storyteller that can weave a morality tale out of any situation. Those stories involve the cunning Br’er (Brother) Rabbit, the ruthlessly hungry Br’er Fox, and the functionally retarded Br’er Bear. The latter villains continually try to eat the former, but he has to use his brain to get out of trouble.

Remus is basically a slave incarnation of Aesop with his fables or Jean de La Fontaine with his poems written in that impossible gibberish language that some call “French.” The most famous of those stories is one of Br’er Fox’s ingenious use of a human-shaped bit of tar to trap Br’er Rabbit in a literal sticky situation. Br’er Rabbit uses reverse psychology to get out of it, and the little children learn that lying to bullies is totally fine. Strangely, there’s no story about Br’er Rabbit’s parents getting a divorce and him having to deal with it.

However, there are only three true morality stories in the entire film. The bulk of the movie involves Johnny’s friendships on the farm, his run-ins with the two bullies down the road and his mother’s growing frustration with Uncle Remus and his nonsense tales.

The film is set shortly after the end of the Civil War, but the stereotypes are still alive and well in the Deep South that we’re singing about. Perhaps the main problem is that the source material comes from Joel Chandler Harris – a well-known apologist for slavery and a controversial figure that either shared black culture with the world or stole it to gain his own fame depending on how you look at it. Perhaps that’s the issue, but the far more obvious one is that the view of black relations during the time is a fantasy land which displays the former slaves happily singing and laughing and smiling their days on the farm away. It gives a ridiculously idyllic look at servitude-post-slavery while saddling all of the black characters with laughable dialects. Uncle Remus himself is a patronizing portrayal of an Uncle Tom figure that would make Michael Bay’s Skids and Mudflap blush, and once you hear the accents of Br’er Rabbit and his animated pals, you’ll probably be left wide-eyed and slack-jawed. Coincidentally, it’s difficult to sing “Zip-a-dee-doo-dah” when you’re slack-jawed. Trust me. I’ve tried.

So why watch it? Because it’s not without elements to celebrate and because it holds a special place in history. It’s a lens into the past of race relations that we’d do well not to forget. Plus, it’s controversial because it creates differing opinions – there are many who feel that the cartoon is harmless and not at all racist. Still others feel that the stereotypes used within it aren’t necessarily harmless. As a cultural landmark, it’s important to see for yourself which side you fall on.

You also might simply want to be aware of the context of singing the Academy Award-winning “Plenty of sunshine coming my way!/Zip-a-dee-doo-dah! Zip-a-dee-yay!” while riding Splash Mountain at Disneyland.

Song of the South is an average film that Walt Disney seemed obsessed with creating. The technological advance with blending animation and live-action was a turning point, and Disney was finally able to bring the Uncle Remus character to life in the only way he saw fit: as a real life actor, not as a drawing. If you’re looking for a Disney film from before 1960, there are many superior choices, but none that have the outer cultural importance or impact of this film. In fact, Disney has never released the full movie on video for the United States although several other countries have their PAL encoded versions ready to be purchased for your all-region DVD player. You can also see the entire film on Youtube if you don’t mind seeing it in ten minute segments.

There may be more manifest reason to watch the film (instead of just enjoying it as a movie), but it still stands as a strange entry into a gray area in our country’s history, a time when we were still struggling to understand each other on the most basic of levels, a time almost a century beyond slavery but still decades before the Civil Rights movement. If nothing else, it’s interesting to see what one of the most beloved film companies of all time considered completely acceptable entertainment for the time while questioning whether we can find it actual or satisfactual.

My, oh my, what a wonderful day.

Check out more Old Ass Movies.


Read more articles by Dr. Cole Abaius

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Did you know that at the premiere in Atlanta, they wouldn't let the actor who played Uncle Remus into the movies because of Jim Crow laws? Zip-a-dee do-da indeed.
  • Cole_Abaius
    I was also not allowed into the premiere because I hadn't been born yet. Calumny!
  • Criticizing movies from time periods like this for being racist is kind of stupid. It'd be like saying you can't appreciate Gothic literature because its too dark and depressing. Or you're not a fan of Shakespearean tragedy because its too sad or you don't like the romantic period because love is over-rated.

    When you go into a movie like Song of the South or the other prime example, Birth of a Nation, you go in knowing that it was made at a time when racist policy or thought was not only normal, but accepted. If you can't get past the idea that this is going to paint slavery as something awesome (because at the time period, that's how lots of people thought), you won't appreciate the movie. But if you can suspend disbelief...

    It's like Hitler as a painter. Sure, Hitler is among the Top 10 worst people to ever live, but he wasn't a bad painter. He was a far better painter than me. His paintings aren't worse because he's a genocidal maniac with a humorous mustache.
  • Christopher_M
    it's film and animation history...good or bad it needs to be kept to show what that period was like...it's like ignoring all the racist propaganda that was added to the Looney Toon/Disney shorts involving Germans and the Japanese during WW2...many of these episodes and films have been banned only because they look bad nowadays...granted they are awful examples of intolerance but ignoring that it happened only helps the next generations repeat the mistakes...racism is large part of American history, ignoring it almost is like trying to rewrite it...
  • ladyofthelake
    You make a good point. But those Looney Toon/Disney shorts that are banned today about Germans and the Japanese are really propaganda films of the time. I don't totaly agree about banning them because we don't ban all those hollywood movies that had the same themes. The mindset back then, with WW2, I can't even imagine. As for The Song of the South, it's toaly racist. I thought so as a kid and felt really uncomfortable watching it. I don't think I've ever seen the uncut version though. But then again, there are some old hollywood films that are truly racist, a product of the time they were made in, are not banned.
  • I have to disagree with RobertFure. Both this film and "Birth of a Nation" were considered racist when they were released, and many groups protested the films. They were not considered the normal products of their time. Having said that, I do think that this movie should be accessible to people because there are a lot of people who saw it as kids and retain a fond nostalgia for the film, claiming "it's not all that bad." I was one of them. When I got my hands on a copy, I lasted no more than 15 minutes -- it's full of awful racial stereotyping that completely eradicated my childhood nostalgia.
  • djjeffhall
    Well, once again Robert Fure beat me to it. I was going to make an analogy between Soug Of The South and Birth Of A Nation. Both films are products of their time and what was accepted in America during those times. (You could also toss Triumph Of The Will into that catagory if you want to stretch the anaolgy to culture in general instead of limiting it to the U.S..)

    I've seen both films (And Triumph Of The Will) and while I can't imagine watching them for entertainment, they were in their own ways landmarks and should be acknowledged as such. No matter how painful that acknowledgement is.

    Oh, if you want to talk about racist films don't forget Gone With The Wind. I saw the 50th anniversary reissue and by the third time Clark Gable used the term "darkie" I was ready to jump out of my seat and smack the crap out of him. lol
  • ladyofthelake
    I kinda forgive GWTW for that, it's one of the greatest films ever made. First it was made in 1939, but it was a story set in the south during the civil war, that's how it was during the civil war in the south, that's how the book is. Certain movies that are made today and are period films don't make sense because they try to make them to pc. It's unrealistic. Watching GWTW, even though Rhett uses the term darkie, I never felt like Rhett Butler was a raciest. GWTW is my second favorite book, and I didn't feel that when when I read it either. Does it have raciest moments, yes, but so do alot of other films made in 1939, before 1939 and after. Intresting topic.
  • Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabbadoo
    I've recently watched this film, also. My reaction was "wow, this is not as bad as everyone has made it out to be." What I mean by that is that I was expecting Uncle Remus to be running around wide-eyed yelling 'Massah, massah!' but he is the more charming of all the characters. Imagine if the character, instead of a slave was simply some poor white trash, same dialogue, same delivery, etc. Would there really be this much discussion about it? No way. This movie, by the simple fact that it takes place after the Civil War, has become a sensitized issue unto itself and mostly by people who've never seen the movie. Would this movie be made, today? Who knows. If it was and Morgan Freeman was in the role of Uncle Remus, would the character really be played that different?

    As far as racist portrayals of blacks (Bay's Autobots has already been mentioned), I think that people like Chris Tucker and Martin Lawrence do an equal amount of damage to perceptions of blacks as Birth of a Nation ever could. They're not the serial rapists like Griffith had, but isn't playing the wise-cracking fool just as detrimental?
blog comments powered by Disqus