Song of the South (1946)

This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Sorry, this movie sucks

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

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.

OK, so it's obvious that "Song of the South" is NOT a movie to take seriously. It's not exactly racist as much as a whitewash of the post-Civil War era. A realistic look at the era would show the reign of terror visited on the black population by the Ku Klux Klan.You may recall a certain scene in "Fletch Lives" where the title character (Chevy Chase) imagines that the south will be exactly like the "Zip a-Dee Doo Dah" scene. Once he arrives in the south, he finds out that the region's a dump.Since the movie might give one the impression that Ruth Warrick was simply the type who only appeared in Disney flicks, I should note that she wrote a song in memory of the Kent State students killed by the national guard in 1970.The point is that there's nothing to recommend about this movie.

I believe it has been about 30 years since I've seen this film. One may think this banned Disney feature with only some portions of it animated would have a cult status. The ban is by Disney itself, and it is not a cult film because on it's own it is just another nice children's film. Watching for the first time as a grown adult, I could identify the signature weepy music and somewhat adult undertones. The animation was fine, the rabbit reminded me of the rabbit in Winnie the Pooh.The happy tone is what you expect for a children's film, offset by upsets, such as a Mother denying a child's wish to have a puppy. But the absence of this film in recent memory left a hole in my childhood recollections. Having been able to view a great transfer recently, I could appreciate the innovative mix of live action and animation (for only half of the running time). The effect looked very clean for the time period, and this digital copy made all the live characters very vivid.The character Uncle Remus won the actor an Academy Award, portraying a gentle and caring man, who becomes a surrogate father while the boy is staying at a southern plantation. That warm feeling is part of what the Disney 'magic' was all about back then. Ultimately, this film is geared for too young of an audience to be as solid of a classic as their many more popular films. But it has a right to be a part of our memories, and banning the film dishonors the performances and the art of this classic.

"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!