The History of “Song of the South” You Haven’t Heard
Song of the South was released by Walt Disney Studios in 1946, the first feature length film released by the studio to combine live-action and animated segments (discounting the Alice Comedies which were shorts created by Walt Disney before the creation of the formal studio). The film in American culture has become synonymous with racism, and mentions of it are quickly dismissed, as it has become so ingrained that most people assume its racist intent even without ever having seen it. It was so controversial, the film has never seen a VHS or DVD release in the United States, with only a handful of theatrical re-releases after the Civil Rights Era.
The general disdain for this film most haven’t seen is so widespread that few have ventured into the history of the film, and accept at face value its racism. The point of this article isn’t necessarily to disprove that, since given the time it was made, it is not without problems. However, most would accuse Song of the South of having no merit whatsoever, of being entirely white-washed, and of putting on nothing progressive or positive within the context of when it was produced. In actuality, there was a lot of careful planning to the film specifically to try and alleviate some of the most questionable parts of the original Uncle Remus stories, and many of the accusations of racism in the film are based on misconceptions of the setting, characters, and intentions.
Production for the film began like many of Disney’s projects — the man Walt Disney enjoyed the stories of Uncle Remus, and wanted to depict them on film, deciding that it would be most fitting to have Remus depicted by a live actor, rather than an animated character. Disney hired two lead writers for the project — Southerner Dalton Reymond, and progressive Maurice Rapf. The hiring of Rapf in particular is important to note, as Disney reportedly told him he wanted him on the project specifically because Maurice didn’t like the idea of the film, and found the Uncle Remus stories to be racist depictions. Disney wanted Rapf to counterbalance this, and try and make the depiction as fair and non-stereotyped as possible. Rapf and Reymond had conflicting personalities however, and Rapf was taken off the project, though most likely at least some of his changes and suggestions were kept in tact. Aside from those writers, Disney sent the script throughout the studio, and to outside sources, for advice and suggestions.
The casting of James Baskett, the actor who plays Uncle Remus as well as voicing Br’er Fox, among other character, is key to understanding the history of the film. After auditioning for the role of a minor character, Disney asked to personally meet Baskett, and decided he wanted him to play the leading role. This made Baskett the first live action actor to ever be cast by Disney Studios. After production was finished, he remarked that Baskett practically invented the role himself and that he was the “greatest actor to be discovered in years”, and even campaigned for him to win an Academy Award for the role. Baskett did go on to win an honorary Oscar in 1948. After Baskett’s death, his family wrote to Disney expressing their appreciation for how much Disney helped promote his career. There is rumor that Baskett was barred from the Oscars the year after the films release, when in actuality, he was invited, but could not find a hotel to give him a room so he could attend. These types of situations are important to note to remember that at the time this film was made, overt racism was still widely used and accepted. Disney’s fondness for Baskett transcended that. Baskett was however barred from the Atlanta premier of the film, because at the time, Atlanta was racially segregated, which meant Baskett wouldn’t be able to stay with the rest of the cast. Disney also did not attend the showing.
This history of the film is important to understanding the intentions. The idea that Walt Disney himself was a notorious racist is highly embedded in how people view older Disney films, and while Disney was certainly a product of his times, his actions demonstrate a sort of progress not commonly found in Hollywood, exemplified by his actions, not only in hiring Baskett as his first live-action performer and insisting the role be fulfilled by a live-action actor, but by his hiring of the first major black animator, Floyd Norman, and hiring the Jewish Sherman Brothers to work on Mary Poppins, a film he was very personally invested in. In fact, most of the problems with racism in the film, as commented by the NAACP, came from attempts to not offend, not any explicit racism. Whatsmore, fear of offending black Americans and progressives was not the only fear during production, as there was also a backlash expected from Southern racists who objected to the positive portrayal of a black actor.
So what is racist about the film? One of the major criticisms is largely based on a misconception, though not entirely without merit. Most claim the film portrays slavery as no big deal, supposedly by portraying black slaves as happy with their lives. The issue with this complaint is that none of the black characters in the film are slaves. This is because the film, as well as the original Uncle Remus stories, take place during the Reconstruction Era, after the abolition of slavery. The role of the characters is more likely that of sharecroppers, people who live on the plantations and work for the owner, but also own their own shares of the land which they can make their own profit off of. While some argued this was unclear, it seems an assumption could be made either way, and the fact of the matter is, that was the context of the film, evidenced by the fact that Remus and other characters can freely come and go as they want, and rarely receive any direct orders, seeming to act on their own autonomy. Slavery had been depicted in popular media before, largely literature, much more realistically, so the argument that people may misunderstand and assume the characters to be slaves isn’t a fair assumption to make, since obviously this was the first exposure the American people had to its portrayal.
People have largely complained that the black characters in the film are completely subservient to the white owners, but except for some mild statements by the NAACP, it’s mostly ignored that the white characters in the film are mostly unsympathetic. Whereas the black characters are portrayed as intelligent, caring individuals, the white characters are portrayed as irresponsible and neglectful. Contrary to popular belief, this doesn’t fulfill the common stereotype of the “magical negro”. Remus as well as the other characters clearly have an established past and character, and seems less subservient to the white family as much as he just cares for the children who they neglect. Remus rarely interacts with the white adult characters, who are mostly portrayed with incredibly negativity. As well, the cliche itself didn’t truly exist at the time the film was made, since this was one of the first feature films of its kind to have a black actor in a leading role at all (and a film can’t retroactively fulfill a cliche). He’s also not the only black character in the film, which is usually a requirement of the cliche.
Some of the criticism is even contradictory, with some early complaints saying the songs weren’t realistic or reflective of the black community, with others saying they were so reflective they became more stereotypical. There were even criticisms of the use of AAVE in the film, which today people argue are a cultural norm to be celebrated.
Most of the racial issues in the film stem less from any explicit racism and more from a desire to make a Disney film. The cliches describes as offensive are found at the same rate in others films made around the same time — the character Uncle Remus, who’s portrayed as cheery and helpful, despite not living in the best of conditions or with the most wealth, is similar to portrayals of Snow White, the princess who remains kind and caring despite being raised as a servant by her stepmother, the mothers in Bambi and Dumbo, both of whom undergo great hardship but remain affectionate. The father in Pinnochio who is understanding and loving. This is not a racist trope in the context of Disney, it is simply an early Disney trope. Every film made prior and many after Song of the South had characters similar to Uncle Remus, who were meant to be moral focus points. While today, such an idea would be dismissed immediately, at the time it was accepted and celebrated in childrens films.
The animated portions often go overlooked by people who mostly focus on the live action story, but they’re not simply unrelated bookends. The stories told by Uncle Remus were not random stories, but actually based on African folktales that carried over to the United States, and were characterized by Robert Roosevelt. It’s hard to speak to how accurately Roosevelt’s dictations and the film represents these folktales, largely because they’ve gone almost completely unexamined, because most of the focus lies on the live-action portions, and because few people have gotten to see the film since it hasn’t been re-released since the 1970s. It is by a margin of several decades though, the first if not one of the only mainstream depiction of African folklore in film.
Song of the South is largely considered the most racist thing ever created, to justify why it has stayed mostly in hiding since its release. But the worst crime commited is that it succumbs to cliches that didn’t exist at the time, and complaints about the setting that are innaccurate. It’s strange that the first Disney film to feature a black actor is the one shelved when portions of many of their other animated movies remain unscathed with far more overtly offensive subjects, such as the Native American stereotypes in Peter Pan, and the crows in Dumbo. In fact only one other film has ever faced mild censorship for racism within the Disney library, when a highly offensive scene from Fantasia featuring a black servant centaur was cut from re-releases. These all exemplify far more explicit film racism that was common at the time, and with the possible exception of Dumbo, where the crows were not only protagonists but a few of the only useful characters in the film, are mostly negative and degrading. Why is it those are allowed to stay, yet one of the first children’s films with a black leading actor scrapped for racism?
There is a purpose to Song of the South. While most assume it was critically panned, some black reviewers welcomed it, saying it may help alleviate racial tensions, especially with its premier in a part of the country still highly segregated. The statement most commonly used from the NAACP at the time was by a person who at the time had not even yet seen the film, and most of the panning seems to come from the assumption that ill-intent was had. And while by todays standards, it’s much more problematic, at the time it was made, you could almost argue it was progressive. Many people judge past works based on a present day attitude. But as evidenced by the atmosphere surrounding the film, where segregation was still commonplace and black actors incredibly rare, it’s obvious Song of the South was trying to bridge a gap, even if by accident. Walt Disney was not a highly political person, and mostly just wanted to tell stories because he enjoyed them, which is why, in large part, his hiring practices were non-discriminatory in terms of race. So most likely, his intentions were just that: to tell a story. Not to promote white supremacy nor to try and fix racism in the United States. But just as a person can intentionally do something offensive, they can also unintentionally do something good. Song of the South is, more likely than not, a mix of both. But more than anything, it’s an important historical film. The first Disney film to feature live-action, the first to feature a live-action black actor, and a depiction of folklore and settings rarely seen in film. Other studios have released compilations and films criticized for racism, simply prefacing it with a reminder of the history and reality that the film was made in. Why can’t Song of the South receive the same?
