Song of the South (1946)
Song of the South is a film that the Walt Disney Company would prefer we all forget was ever made. After re-watching this film recently, I can’t understand why. This is a film of it’s, and an earlier era, but even with that caveat, it isn’t so overwhelmingly racist or sexist as to be painful. None of the White people in the movie are mean or dismissive to any of the Black characters. Are we supposed to be upset because of the manner in which Uncle Remus speaks? He is a former slave living in post-Civil War Georgia; OF COURSE he is going to talk that way!
Let’s start at the beginning. Song of the South is the story of seven-year-old Johnny who accompanies his mother to his grandmother’s plantation for an extended stay, while his parents work out their marital issues. Johnny befriends Uncle Remus, an elderly worker on the plantation, and takes joy in hearing his tales about the adventures of Br’er Rabbit, Br’er Fox, and Br’er Bear. The film is also best known for some rather catchy songs that we hear during the animated segments, which is the only time we see the animal characters. Otherwise, we follow Bobby as he makes friends with Toby, a little Black boy on the plantation, and Ginny, a little White girl who lives nearby and learns to deal with Ginny’s brothers who bully her and Bobby, using the lessons imparted by Uncle Remus and his stories. I am calling out the race of Bobby’s friends to make a point; they are innocent children who don’t care what someone looks like or how much money they have; Bobby has fun with Toby and Ginny and that is all that matters to him. The movie doesn’t shy away from making it clear though that this sentiment isn’t shared by everyone. Ginny’s brothers don’t like Bobby; they think he is too fancy and girly because of how his mother dresses him. Even though we don’t see them interact with Toby, it isn’t a stretch to believe that they wouldn’t have been his friend because even though they were as poor as Toby, that wouldn’t have bonded them because he was Black; they would have rejected him on that mere fact alone.
Some say the reason this film is racist is because it portrays plantation life as pleasant and enjoyable for the Black people living there, which was unrealistic for the time and setting. I don’t know if this is fair however. Considering what this film is actually about, would those critics have preferred that we were shown Uncle Remus and the others being beaten every day or to have them talking about getting away and making a life for themselves elsewhere since the war was over? None of that had a place in this particular story. Is the story a 100% accurate representation of plantation life during this period? Of course it isn’t, but it isn’t meant to be either. It isn’t telling the story of a real person or actual events. It is a story featuring cartoon animals, for heaven’s sake. On that basis alone we can’t expect complete accuracy. I understand why some people would argue with my reasoning since it seems to discount the harsh realities faced by former slaves, but that isn’t my point. My point is that while I recognize inaccuracies, I don’t mind them in this context. If this were a story that was aiming for historical accuracy, but ignored it to tell a lighter story, I would have a lot of problems with it and it is for this reason that I agree that having a ride based on the film was in poor taste and needed to be replaced. This is because the ride glorifies a certain period of time in a false manner, but the film doesn’t do that. It re-tells folk stories in an engaging way, which isn’t the same thing as what the ride did. This is a distinction that not everyone will agree with, but it is my take.
Song of the South doesn’t offend me; I think it is an entertaining enough story that Disney would be wise to add to Disney+ with a forward similar to that which has been appended to showings of Gone with the Wind, to explain what the film is about, what it is based on, and why it is considered problematic by some. Context is so much more important than censorship. Without the proper contextualization, essentially scrubbing this film from existence makes any criticism of it come across as wokeness and sensitivity, rather than what it could and should be, which is a reasonable conversation about the film’s place in history. Regardless of how you feel about it, that is how the film should be treated, so we can understand it, rather than pretending it never existed.
