The Tales of Brer Rabbit

[Tonichelle]

I think I brought this topic up last summer when Disney came out with a final announcement that "Song of the South" would not ever be rereleased on DVD or VHS because it was considered offensive and racist.

Now Universal is coming out with their own cartoon version of the Tales of Brer Rabbit. No doubt we won't have the original writing/dialogue that the "slave stories" were told/written in. I've seen clips and they are much more "educated sounding" (meaning they're not backwards hill-billies when they talk, which is how I see the original Song of the South/Brer Rabbit stories... I never equate it with the "uneducated black population" which is how it was always described [edited with correct spelling, *puts on dunce cap*] to us in the history books).

So because they clean up the dialogue and don't make it about African-American slave history, the stories are now "okay" to be told again? Why do I think that's wrong, and not the original? Isn't that sort of ERASING or CENSORING history?

 

[SeaniBu]

I couldn't agree more with this, I think. History. People are quick to "jump on" - I should know I am guilty of this quite commonly as of late. It might just be safe then sorry for Disney, and a chance for Universal to cash in at the same time they try to establish themselves as a "better, wiser with a cleaner background" while in doing so points out that Disney is not all that PC in it's history by bringing it back into light. But I think more in the "cash in." I am noticing a great deal of "remake / reinterprets" coming out these days.

Good thoughts!

 

[Mathman]

Toni, I think you are confusing "history" with "pop entertainment."

If your concern is with the historical accuracy of the original Brer Rabbit tales, that has nothing to do with a Walt Disney cartoon from the 1940s.

Here is a link where you can read the actual stories. I'll give an excerpt:

Why the negro is black​

""Way back yander. In dem times we 'uz all un us black; we 'uz all niggers tergedder, en 'cordin' ter all de 'counts w'at I year fokes 'uz gittin 'long 'bout ez well in dem days ez dey is now. But atter' w'ile de news come dat dere was a pon' er water some'rs in de naberhood. w'ich if dey'd git inter dey'd be wash off nice en w'te, en den one un um, he fine de place en make er splunge inter de pon', en come out w'ite ez a town gal. En den, bless grashus! w'en de fokes seed it, dey make a break for de pon', en dem w'at wuz de snopless, dey got in fud' en dey come out w'ite: en dem w'at wuz de nex' soopless, dey got in nex', en dey come out merlatters; en dey wuz sech a crowd un um dat dey mighty nigh use de water up, w'ich w'en dem yuthers come 'long, de morest dey could do wuz ter paddle about wid der foots en dabble in it wid der han's. Dem wuz de niggers, en down ter dis day dey ain't no w'ite 'bout a nigger 'ceppin de pa'ms er der han's en de soles er der foot."

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~UG97/remus/selections.html

 

[Tonichelle]

no I'm not totally confusing them...

what I'm saying is they're getting rid of the original dialogue entirely in this new film, and IIRC they're even changing the stories. They don't credit where the stories originally came from at all...

my biggest problem is Disney is so busy being offended for people, they're letting my generation and the ones to come miss out on a great film that ISN'T about one "race" being less than another. The film was made in a time when there was a lot of white vs "the other races"... but I don't think releasing this film will take us back 40-50-60 years ago and have the south rise again.

I'm not saying Disney was completely accurate in the telling of the story, I'm sure they cleaned up some of the "language" (though I'm not sure, I've never seen the whole film)

but as far as film history I think it's very important that this film survives, and is shown. I can think of far more offensive films that have been released in the last 10 years and no one got upset, I just don't understand what is so "wrong" with Song of the South?

 

[SeaniBu]

I was under the impression that Tonichelle meant the History of "Stories / movies" as such.

 

[Piel]

Here is the thread from last year where this was discussed. My feelings haven't changed.http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9286&highlight=song+south

 

[SeaniBu]

Thanks Piel

 

[Mathman]

OK, let me translate this charming story that we don't want to deprive children of. (Uncle Remus is speaking to the little white boy, in response to a question.)

"Way back yonder, everyone was black -- we were all niggers together.

"Then someone discovered a magic pool. If you dipped yourself in the water, you would turn white.

"Naturally everyone wanted to be white -- who wouldn't? So the clever folks all rushed down to the pool and turned themselves white.

"Then the slackers came following behind. But there wasn't much water left in the pool, so they became the mulattoes.

"Finally on the third day the laziest and stupidest people came around. But there was only enough water to put their hands and feet in.

"And that, Billy, is why the only white part of a nigger is the palms of his hands and the soles of his feet."

To me, these stories are more suitably studied by professional scholars who are interested in American folklore. Or by linguists whose field of expertise is African-based creole languages. IMHO we can find other materal for school children.

The Walt Disney film, of course, cleaned up the original stories (thus pretty much depriving them of any historical interest), and brought us up to what was considered PC in 1946. (BTW, how do you like the crow characters in Dumbo?)

Despite that, I don't have any strong feeling one way or the other about the movie. Where I hold Disney more greatly at fault is their sponsorship of gangsta rap music. (Sorry, Kwanfordwife, LOL, gotta tell the truth.)

To me, this is nothing more than Steppin Fetchit all over again. Black people mocking their own culture and making fools of themselves for the entertainment and profit of white people.

MM

 

[SeaniBu]

Excellent MM, good summery. brings to mind - "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."

Very much along the same derogatory standard as Deliverance, I would HOPE that it was more a "Let's address this issue" when it was released. And I was not alive that long ago, but I hope that it encouraged the truth to be told by using such outlandish mythology as a catalyst for showing the necessity of equal rights, PMA.

As far as a rerelease, I think it is not necessary, and Universal trying to "erase / rewind / redo" is wrong. You should not censor history no matter how pathetic it was. Yet haven't seen their story board and they could just be trying to make something like the issue explained above, I don't know - but I am getting sick of remakes.

 

[Tonichelle]

I guess this stupid back woods white girl doesn't get it then...

I don't see black people "making fun" by continuing to tell the stories.

as far as black history in film, they aspired to be on the same plane as the whites, unfortunately hollywood was just as hypocritical THEN as they are NOW. Screaming for equality, while in the deal room still treated the black community like fools. However, stardom is stardom, and as today's celeb as well as back then prove. They'll do anything for it.

I guess I just don't see the offensiveness of the film at all, nor do I find the offensiveness of the stories. I think what's being drilled in to everyone's heads now is - even if someone is not offended, and you think they should be, you should get offended for them. I'm just as guilty as anyone, but that's basically what I was taught from kindergarten on.

Anyway I'm getting back into what I ranted on last time... I was really trying to see what everyone thought/felt about Universal hitting up the stories again...

 

[Mathman]

Now you've got me interested in seeing what Universal will come up with. Will the tar baby morph into a Pilsbury dough baby?

 

[milanessa]

but as far as film history I think it's very important that this film survives, and is shown. I can think of far more offensive films that have been released in the last 10 years and no one got upset, I just don't understand what is so "wrong" with Song of the South?

The film does survive - it's been reissued 4 times and is readily available to buy. Do you mean you want it to run in theaters again? Why?

gerry

 

[SeaniBu]

Now you've got me interested in seeing what Universal will come up with. Will the tar baby morph into a Pilsbury dough baby?

I think it would be interesting to see them all be white folks - "a reversal from Universal." Or the "magic pool" would turn the "caveman mentality" into "the Business man." Tar Baby becomes Bill Gates.

Also interested, and think it is fine, but as a part of History. I guess I am bias due to disliking all the redos, and think this is possibly one of the least interesting thoughts on what to redo. Sticking with leave it as history, and not try and rewrite history.
Granted I like Kurt Russell Better than Ernest Borgnine, still would rather see a take on it then it being even named the same thing - that just promotes lack of creativity.

I was unaware of the re-releases, but that makes since in a money driven market - could it be any other way?