whoopigoldberg_songofthesouth whoopigoldberg_songofthesouth
Disney

In Her First Act As A Disney Legend, Whoopi Goldberg Tells Disney To Stop Hiding Its History

Whoopi Goldberg was named a Disney Legend at the D23 Expo in Anaheim, California yesterday, and she made the most of the opportunity by telling a news reporter that she wants the Walt Disney Company to make available its groundbreaking 1946 effort, Song of the South.

The live-action/animation hybrid, set in the Reconstruction Era following the end of the American Civil War and the abolition of slavery, was taken out of circulation by Disney following its 1986 theatrical re-release, due to the perception that it was racially insensitive toward African-Americans.

There’s a good deal of hypocrisy in the Disney Company’s stance toward the film. Though it has hidden the film in the States, Disney has continued to make Song of the South available in foreign countries, which is even more bizarre considering that its subject matter is so deeply rooted in American history. Further, Disney continues to promote various characters from the film, most notably in its Splash Mountain theme park rides, and the song “Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah” from the film continues to remain an iconic part of the Disney musical canon.

Goldberg believes that it’s time the film was made available again to American audiences in its entirety. “I’m trying to find a way to get people to start having conversations about bringing Song of the South back, so we can talk about what it was and where it came from and why it came out,” she told Yahoo Movies.

In the same interview, which can be seen below, she goes on to say that she wanted to see new merchandise featuring the jive-talking crows from Disney’s 1941 classic Dumbo. “I want people to start putting the crows in the merchandise, because those crows sing the song in Dumbo that everybody remembers [“When I See an Elephant Fly”]. I want to highlight all the little stuff people sort of maybe miss in movies.”

It’s not inconceivable that Goldberg’s involvement could someday pave the path for an American release of Song of the South. Goldberg is a well known fan and advocate of classic Hollywood animation (including certain cartoons that are now considered racially insensitive), and she has previously helped clear the way for other corporations, like Time Warner, to release classic cartoons that may have otherwise been edited or kept out of circulation.

A little over a decade ago, Goldberg appeared at the beginning of Looney Tunes dvds, to deliver the message that it’s possible to enjoy the Warner Bros. cartoons, without necessarily endorsing their outdated characterizations. In that video, she says:

“Some of the cartoons here reflect some of the prejudices that were commonplace in American society, especially when it came to the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities. These jokes were wrong then and they are wrong today, but removing these inexcusable images and jokes would be the same as saying they never existed, so they are presented here to accurately reflect a part of our history that cannot and should not be ignored.”

"Song of the South" theatrical poster.
  • It’s about freaking time that some associated with Disney spoke up about this!!

  • Frank Coufal

    I wonder somebody has the guts to convince Warner Bros. to get its act together and finally release the Tom and Jerry shorts “Mouse Cleaning”, “Casanova Cat” and “His Mouse Friday” uncut and uncensored. These shorts cannot be ignored any longer!

    • Bill “Danger” Robinson

      Well, then YouTube is you friend.

      • Mesterius

        Not for seeing them in restored HD. We want them on official Blu-ray.

  • Pedro Nakama

    There’s a room somewhere at Disney Studois where the animatronic auctioneer pirate and the animatronic wenches along with the settler shot by the Indian’s arrow are sitting around watching Song of the South.

    • Valjean

      What a funny thought! Thanks for posting it, it brightened my morning.

  • Elsi Pote

    So who is afraid of the song of the south now?

  • sasquatchiscool

    Agreed. It was in the past. You can’t ignore the past. It is part of history and should be recognized.

    • Ilpalazzo

      it’s a great film

    • mpiercearrow

      Then bring up ALL the past. About the 20 million slaves that never reached dry land after being stolen. About rapes and castrations and legalized homicide by reiterations of white swindlers. Of lie after lie after lie after lie. Zip a do my ass

      • Cpt_Justice

        Would you be OK with a disclaimer on the video? (I am not trying to ask you to “like” the video; I, myself, can understand why it should never see the light of day again. I’m just wondering if you think there might be a “teachable moment” we can attach to it.)

      • MrSitcom

        With that logic, every movie featuring a black person in North America should have a disclaimer that mentions the slavery.

  • Alan Smithee

    I have the Japanese laserdisc, when I first watched it I expected some outrageous racial stereotypes but it’s really nothing compared to a lot of other old cartoons.

  • Marc Hendry

    Song of the south is definitely pretty insensitive, but it’s not AS bad as its reputed to be, especially by 1940s cartoon standards. The live action segments are terribly boring, but the animated segments have some of the best broad animation I’ve seen.
    I don’t think Disney will do it, but if they’d released song of the south back when they were doing collector DVDs like Victory through Air Power, I don’t think anyone would have cared too much

    • MrSitcom

      Well it sounds like you are one of the few here who have actually seen this film. Can you list the scenes or lines in the movie that were “pretty insensitive”. Not looking to pick a fight. I honestly want to know and understand why some think this. Because I just don’t see it. And yes…I know I’m white. That doesn’t mean I don’t want to know.
      Help me understand. I never intend to be racist. I’m against anything close to racism. But I just don’t see anything like that in this movie. Help.

      • Marc Hendry

        Likewise I’m Scottish so I’m a bit removed from American race relations/history. I think it’s insensitive, but not mean-spirited. Basically it wasn’t a good move to make a rosy Disney version of such a troubled period, and they way the cartoon characters behave is a bit reminiscent of minstrel acts (although they’re voiced by black actors). There’s also the “tar baby” scene, but I think the “tar baby” racial slur is actually named after the metaphor, rather than the other way around.
        On the other hand you could admire Disney for putting out a movie with black and white characters holding hands on the poster. And I’ve even read Floyd Norman defending the movie on his blog. I think a lot of people who haven’t seen it think it’s like a feature-length “Scrub me mama with a boogie beat”

        • MrSitcom

          If I were going to pick out anything that was a tad cringeworthy…it was be the voice slang/accent and the tar baby…like you mentioned. But as you said, there is nothing mean spirited or racist about it. And it is a reflection of the time. I still stand by my original post…I think it’s a sweet movie (although not the most exciting) with a good message/lessons to be learned with no racist intentions.

  • Ilpalazzo

    I agree with releasing it! Then you can see how ridiculous it is that the NAACP has been condemning it, since Uncle Remus is probably one of the most likeable and generous characters in Disney history. Use your head, not your feets!

    • Joshua Efron

      I can find nothing reputable on the Internet stating the latest the NAACP has any position on the film since it’s release.

  • Dot Beech

    Whoopi is exactly right. Additionally, suppressing the movie means that the performances of James Baskett and Hattie McDaniel are also suppressed. It implies that these two fine African-American actors are somehow guilty of supporting racist claptrap and that neither had the good sense to avoid it. In fact, they are the first two black actors to be awarded Oscars. They persevered in a racist society, built notable careers, and did outstanding work. Hiding their work from the world is terribly disrespectful of them both.

  • MrSitcom

    The stupid thing about it all is…at least in my opinion…there is nothing wrong with this movie. Two white kids showing love and respect for an elderly black man who teaches morality with his fun stories. The horror.

    • Devon L Jackson

      It’s two white kids showing love to an old black slave. Same for their little slave friend. I’m sure you realize that Uncle Remus, Uncle Ben and Aunt Jemima weren’t actually relatives. So whilst it may not seem ostensibly bad to some, it is foolish to suggest it isn’t actually bad. One must consider the power of perspective. The world looks a lot different when you’re standing in front of the gun…

      • Bill “Danger” Robinson

        Two white kids showing love and respect for an elderly black slave doesn’t sound like a problem. I think the problem is more complex. There are myriad transgressions to consider if “Song of the South” was a contemporary film but it is a reflection of a different era and should be available.

        • mpiercearrow

          It normalizes antebellum beliefs and furthers it in the 20th century.

        • MrSitcom

          He wasn’t a slave in this movie.

      • otterhead

        They aren’t slaves. They’re sharecroppers, free men. The movie takes place in the Reconstruction era. This is the kind of stupid rumor that starts when you can’t actually see a movie and just make assumptions.

        • VicLaz10

          Look up Southern Romantacism. They are former slaves who decided to stay on the plantation because they were happy. It is insidious because it attempts to rewrite history and remove the white supremacy aspect of the civil war. NOTE: I think it should be made available, but it is a racist film.

          • kimc

            What if they rereleased it with a disclaimer, explaining that it is old and has some outdated attitudes in it, but was great work by some black actors that shouldn’t be lost?

          • EB

            I have no problem with a disclaimer, but I’d love to believe that we Americans are smart enough to reach this conclusion on our own accord.

          • Pammer

            Have Whoopi do this. she can explain just like she did with the cartoons.

          • Brent Donoho

            I think that’s exactly what happened with the Looney Tunes stuff. Whoopi Goldberg was the one who provided the opening remarks.

          • otterhead

            I’m not arguing that it doesn’t romanticize plantation life; it’s definitely a product of another time with what we see now as racist attitudes, yes. But complaining that it features slaves is simply a lie.

          • MrSitcom

            I disagree. It’s not a racist film. If you showed this to a child that had no idea that there were slaves and had no idea there was a Civil War…there would not be any racist messages received from a viewing of this sweet movie.

      • yendor1152

        How odd. Racial insensitivity never stopped Gone with the Wind from having revivals, showings, and a presence on the home video market.

      • Robert Santa Maria

        “Set in the Reconstruction era after abolition.”

        So, what they’re really doing is respecting former slaves who are now part of the whole in the South and listening to their wisdom and what they have learned from being slaves in an institutionalized racism setting.

        It’s all a matter of perspective. And this is what Whoopi means, we need to have these discussions and disagreements in order to set records straight, realize that the institution of slavery was wrong, was unjust, and that slaves and former slaves learned to adjust, survive, thrive within this institutional slavery.

        It would be like banning “Born a Crime” by Trevor Noah, which gives insight into his life raised in the institutional racism of apartheid. In many ways Trevor shows us he was the “stereotype” and the “exception” to the rule.

        Discussions like this erase the artificial outrage and let us deal with the impact of what we’ve done in the past and how to rectify it in the future.

        Allow the film back in the states. Let’s discuss.

        Let’s not hide.

        • MrSitcom

          I agree.

        • mpiercearrow

          NO. Those African Americans who want to see this happen also should not be arguing to have Confederate monuments removed from historical sites.

          • Cpt_Justice

            You are conflating two separate issues. the statues are honoring traitors. This film is not being suggested for any such equal honors as those statues are receiving now. NO ONE ants us to stop talking about the Civil War; we just want the traitors who fought for the preservation of slavery to NOT be honored for it!

          • Gabb

            [Comment removed by editors. Per our commenting guidelines, “It is OK to post with a nickname or alias, but your email address (which we will NEVER share publicly), must be a real, permanent email address. Comments with fake or non-permanent emails will be deleted.”]

      • MrSitcom

        Yes, I do realize Uncle Remus wasn’t a relative (along with the food related characters you mentioned that had nothing to do with this movie). That’s a point that only makes my statement stronger. Non related white kids showing love to a non related black man they feel close enough to call their Uncle and their mother is okay with them learning lessons from him about morality. And you are wrong about one thing…Uncle Remus was not a slave in this story. This was post Civil War. There were no slaves in this film and nothing that even hinted at it (I’m sure he was at one time, but in this film he is a sharecropper…a free man that is choosing to be there). Not sure about the rest of your post…you are all over the place. Sorry “my perspective” saw love and respect. I guess you want me to see hate. I do have a question for you…and would love an HONEST answer. Have you seen this movie? Because it doesn’t sound like you have if you thought he was a slave in it.

      • “It’s two white kids showing love to an old black slave” — He’s not a slave. The film takes place AFTER the Civil War during the Reconstruction. Uncle Remus is a freed slave who is now a sharecropper who works on the plantation. And this is exactly why the film needs to be released. People don’t even know what it is about anymore.

    • VicLaz10

      No there is A LOT wrong with the movie. But Gone With the Wind plays all the time, and that is worse than Song of the South. Still shouldn’t be suppressed.

      • MrSitcom

        What’s wrong with this movie? Please make a list. Seriously. If you’ve seen it, and you have this opinion, then you should be able to easily list A LOT. Go for it. I have watched it…and don’t see a damn thing wrong with the film filled with love and morality teachings.

        • mpiercearrow

          It fits the white narrative, so I understand why you see nothing wrong with it.

          • MrSitcom

            Since you cannot answer the question…I take you haven’t even seen the movie and don’t actually have a reason…you just think you should. So unless you can back up what you are saying, it sounds like you are the one that’s not filled with love. This movie is. Nothing wrong with this movie. Your posts mean nothing unless you’ve actually seen it and can explain why you have these angry thoughts. Done with you.

          • JohnnyWalker2K1

            He answered the question. Believe it or not the lives of those freed from slavery generally got WORSE for a good while after. It’s incredible ignorance to think “Hurrah, he wasn’t a slave anymore, everything was fine.”, but that’s apparently what a lot of people believe, and they’re using that as a reason to release the film(!).

          • MrSitcom

            He did not answer the question, and none of what you are saying is in the movie. I asked what part of the movie was offensive. He has yet to mention what parts were. If you see those examples from the movie…tell me. I sure don’t see them. I asked an honest question. You guys are talking about racism in general post Civil War. You aren’t talking about this movie. This is a cartoon mixed with live action. The main character teaching kids morality with fun stories with cartoon characters. The stories are good. You haven’t seen the movie. There are no examples. You are just trolling. Be gone with you.

        • Cpt_Justice

          To keep shouting that “He was a sharecropper,a freed slave, so it’s ok!” shows colossal ignorance about the sharecropping system, which was pretty much a continuation of slavery. Read up on it.

          • MrSitcom

            Not really. I have read up on it. And I have watched this movie. I think you are completely wrong. There is nothing but love in this movie, and if you see something wrong with that…I kind of think you are the one with problem.

          • Cpt_Justice

            Thank you for proving me correct, on many levels.
            Free Clue: please
            educate yourself on what “sharecropping” actually was, as an
            institution, how it functioned & specifically how it affected “freed
            slaves”.
            Or you could just be more harshly defensive – I’m sure that’s easier.

    • Ernest Ernedits Ford

      of course you wouldnt look in the mirror

  • Tony

    Song of the South is an important part of the studio’s legacy as their first live-action narrative film, as well as having some of the best animation of their transitional postwar period. A general release is long overdue, but it’s probably best to market it to serious collectors and film buffs rather than to families, and have the special features address its thorny legacy. Whoopi could do an introduction similar to the one she did for the Looney Tunes and Tom & Jerry sets. (I know some people didn’t like those, but as a serious animation buff, I appreciated them.)
    As for merchandising the Dumbo crows, I think the stereotypes related to them are far enough removed from modern society, and the character designs themselves so abstract, that it can be overlooked. Again, it would be better to aim at an older, savvier audience rather than an all-ages audience. And modernizing them in hip-hop outfits is probably not a good idea.

    • mjb784533

      Leonard Maltin recorded an introduction and analysis 10 or so years ago when it was almost issued in that tin can packaged series. So it is really ready to go.

    • WanderPony

      When I was a kid, I didn’t see the crows as black stereotypes. I just saw them as fun likable characters who made funny puns and helped Dumbo fly. And I’m sure that’s how most kids nowadays will see them.

      • Axolotl

        Anyway, if you sweep the Crows and SOTS characters under the rug, you end up with virtually no black characters in Disney until the 2000s, which also looks bad. The crows are great (and a lot more fleshed-out as characters than the cartoonishly mean society matron elephants.)

        • Morricone1900

          It’s worth noting that only the crows and the mouse are actually NICE to Dumbo. It’s a film with quite a subtext of class distinctions, between the “privileged” animals vs. the working class. It’s not accidental that Dumbo finds his first compassionate support group from the crows, who are also “outsiders” of the privileged class.

          • [email protected]

            Yeah…The crows don’t make fun of Dumbo’s ears…Mostly they make fun of Timothy Mouse for being in a tree with a hangover. (I mean…the mouse had a hangover…not the tree…=p)

    • Inkan1969

      I think “So Dear to My Heart” preceded it. And “The Reluctant Dragon” did have a nominal narrative.

      • Tony

        So Dear to My Heart came out in 1949, three years after Song of the South.

        • Inkan1969

          Sorry, then. Thanks for the correction.

  • MsSideswipe

    It’s the politically correct stance that got them yanked and now it’s suddenly politically correct to bring them back out? Make up your mind.

    • supermamabear

      The whole point is to be thoughtful and to try to do good without taking advantage….. And to NOT be stagnant.

    • DSL

      Considering that the definition of “politicallly correct” is “reflecting the current dominant political opinion” — then yes, you’re right in a way most people who deride what they think is “political correctness” don’t understand.

  • ip247365

    A few ways to solve this. 1) have a similar disclosure on the release that the Looney Tunes DVD had. 2) make sure all the proceeds don’t go to Disney and go to groups that promote historic Black arts. 3) Every copy of the film contains an extensive documentary that explores the good and the bad of the film.

    • DMK

      The movie makes more fun of poor whites than anyone else. But in any case, taking it as historically accurate is absurd. It’s no more insensitive, whatever that means, than any other old Civil War era film. Is Gone with the Wind any better? That’s never been taken out of circulation, and has always been highly lauded.

      • ip247365

        Precisely, however since this is targeted toward kids than Gone with the Wind, it needs a little more care with the release. Warner did the smart thing with the Looney Tunes DVD.

  • disqus_45rp1qSR5H

    I watched The Color Purple last night. Whoopi’s first film, over 30 years ago. She has ALWAYS stood up.

  • Marco R Rosato

    I have been waiting for this for a long time now. FINALLY! That’s why I love you, Whoopi! XO

  • poohbear

    Thank you Ms Goldberg. I have always loved “Song of the South”. I’m so tired of some groups wanting to erase every bit of history that might offend someone. This movie is an icon. Thank you.

  • RCooke

    Behind the scenes footage, including the only known footage of cinematographer, Gregg Toland (Citizen Kane, The Little Foxes, The Grapes of Wrath) working on what must be his earliest color films. Samuel Goldwyn, one of Walt’s closest friends in Hollywood, lent him a lot of his crew to shoot the film.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJeRNsjoZv8

  • lecole

    I could maybe see the Disney argument if they’d suppressed the film altogether, but if it’s being shown in some places but not others, that’s just plain *wrong*.

    • kimc

      Americans of today may not be smart enough to deal with it? :-)

      • Fried

        Considering the outrage over a piece of concept art in the newest Steven Universe art book that led Sugar to having to apologize for it and announcing they would be removing it from future prints… Maybe we’re not.

  • Guest

    First, why is Whoopi Goldberg of all people considered a “Disney. Legend”?

    Secondly, in that DVD intro, she should’ve added that the viewers shouldn’t judge people today based on the attitudes of past generations.

    • Tony

      Goldberg actually has a long history with Disney. Many of her hit films were for the studio under its Touchstone Pictures banner. She did voice work on The Lion King and Toy Story 3. And of course, there’s her current stint on ABC’s The View. Whether that qualifies as legend status is doubtful, but at least she’s more qualified than Carrie Fisher, who got inducted with her for the Star Wars films, most of which were made before the sale of Lucasfilms.

  • otterhead

    Good. Their bizarre ongoing ban has just made the film seem more and more toxic and caused people to assume that it’s far more offensive than it actually is. Put it out there, clear the air, and move on.

  • tojohndillonesq

    So how does this philosophy apply to historical monuments and place names that some find offensive? When to suppress history and when to recognize it? The difference between remembering the past and glorifying the past? Nuance and texture matter.

    • Cpt_Justice

      Glorifying traitors is not the same as remembering the way things were & learning form it.

  • David Hamburger

    The film is ridiculously racist in its stereotyping of supposedly ignorant black people and the way they talk in it. Never mind the whitewashing of slavery.

    The irony is that it seems clear that the filmmaker was trying to put firth a string positive black role model in Uncle Remus, something relatively unheard of in its time. But they did so in a racist, stereotyping way.

    What exactly is to be gained by Disney releasing this? They’re going to piss off a lot of people. Far more than they minimal profits they’d make. While some like to pretend that it’s censorship, Disney has every right to make active decisions on the products that they want to be seem promoting and profiting off of. And it’s an insanely stupid decision to be seen promoting and profiting off of a racist movie. Why is that so difficult for some people to understand? Does anyone truly believe that this is going to start some intelligent discussion about racism in 2017? Or that there aren’t MILLIONS of other places to start that important discussion that don’t involve re-releasing racist movies that people might unwittingly buy and not want to see or show their kids if they had known about it?

    If you want to see it that badly, there are lots of places you can find it on the net. Google is your friend. I really don’t think Disney’s going to get all in a huff if you download or stream a pirated movie they won’t release anyways! But why is it so important for some people that this racist movie be officially released and promoted by Disney in 2017? You don’t actually have the right to see anything you want, if they owners of it don’t want to sell it to you.

    Just because a black actor says it’s ok doesn’t actually make it ok. Or a smart move for the company.

    • Have you actually seen the film? It’s set in the Reconstruction Era. Uncle Remus isn’t a slave in it. Disney has released all there WWII proganda shorts with introduction explaining the context in which they were made. They should do the same here. Completely ignoring something done in the past and pretending it didn’t happen is not the solution. History isn’t always pretty.

    • skent

      The film should have lapsed into the public domain by now.

      If that were the case, Thunderbean or others would be able to track down the best prints (if not original negatives) and do HD or 4K scans and release it in a form that reveals the full extent of the artistry in the film.

      The Disney Company should not enjoy a government-enforced monopoly in perpetuity on cultural works which they refuse the public access to. Can you imagine if the complete works of William Shakespeare were the intellectual property of TimeWarner ? The film has long since made its money back; the creators are long dead. It’s time to shift to a ‘use it or lose it’ model for copyright extension.

  • Mister Twister

    Sadly, Disney values its “wholesome reputation” (whatever that means) more than it values the truth.

    When is the company releasing all of their 80s/80s TV shows? Maybe partial releases, but all of them? Uncut? Never.

    • Mesterius

      Which TV shows from the 80s and (?) 90s are you thinking about, specifically? In any case, I don’t think any of those are held back for the same reasons as Song of the South.

  • A. marshall

    I don’t much care for Ms. Goldbergs politics but i sgree with her on this issue. I grew up and saw ALL the animated cartoons she speaks of. They played in all the movies in the 50’s & 60’s and were great even with the racial overtones. But it does not take away from the quaility OR performances of the black actors (voice-overs) that were in them. Reluctantly, I agree with Ms. Goldberg. (Shivers down my spine!)

  • Miguel DeLeon

    Whoopi is correct. I acquired this movie on DVD bootleg some years back and, although I’m not a person of colour, I have to say I don’t find it racist at all — it reflects a time in US history, no doubt — and the characters portrayed by Mr. Baskett & Ms. McDaniel were dignified.

  • Martin Cohen

    “Song of the South” is available. Search for it.

    • MrSitcom

      Not officially in the USA. They are talking about an official release.

  • Cynthia Farr Kinkel

    Frankly, there was never a more positive role model than Uncle Remus.

  • They should release it but as more a collectors set like the tin sets they used to have with lots of context added.

  • Balabanto

    Not only that, but frequently these cartoons would use racism to make fun of racists, the same way that Mel Brooks did in Blazing Saddles. You can’t conceivably tell me that Bugs Bunny mocking Yosimite Sam when he’s a confederate doesn’t show that southern racists are idiots.

  • TalonsofIceandFire

    Is Song of the South racially insensitive? Yes. Racist? Eh…maybe. But at the same I think it’s just shows an incredible lack of respect for the intelligence of kids and even adults for that matter. Not unless you go really super theoretical like talk about the statistics and internalized oppression and all that bull.

    • MrSitcom

      Please list the scenes and lines that are racially insensitive. I’m honestly curious. I’ve asked this several times over the years, and nobody can ever answer it. When they try, they just quote generalities that aren’t in the film. Since you are claiming the film is racially insensitive, I’m hoping you can tell me what part of the movie to watch for and what to listen for.

      • TalonsofIceandFire

        Honestly, I can’t say. Just the generalities you’ve mentioned earlier and the comments you’ve responded from earlier. I am not disagreeing with you that’s all these accusations of the movie being racist is bull. But if say it’s racially insensitive, I’m not going to argue with them. But given the historical context in that the film is from the 40’s, something racially insensitive or is far far better than something flat out racist. Sadly in this day and age, people are really trying to find things to get upset by, even if they have to go into super subtle implications and really abstract and highly theoretical ideas. Like power dynamics, privilege, appropriation, progress, etc. I know it’s all BS, but I’m not one to confront these people.

  • Barbara A Malley

    I was 12 when this film was showing and pretty naive about finding the underlying stereotypes. I’d LOVE to see Whoopi as the MC of the intro to this fiim WHEN it is revived. Whoopi is one smart woman who could enlighten a lot of us. So here’s hoping she gets the revival done soon.

  • Pammer

    she is absolutely right. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

  • Kurt Hugger

    While there doing that they can release the unaltered version of Fantasia!

    • Cpt_Justice

      Oh, I don’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon! (& I actually saw the original version in a theater about 30 years ago – I was *shocked*!)

  • Larry Grey

    Whoopi is correct…Lets stop hiding and avoiding and watch and re read and start discussion…Lets talk about where we were and where we need to be. Our History is real. And if we hide it, we cannot learn from it.

  • Agree with Whoopi and Dot Beech’s comment. I’ve always thought it was unjust and unfair that the significance or James Baskett’s and Hattie McDaniel’s presence as top billed actors and Oscar winners was treated as something irrevocably horrible. In the light of the times, they were groundbreaking, not shameful. Give them their due, along with the other actors who might have chosen to refuse to be in the film because of the place they were given.

  • Jen

    It’s frustrating because I think that the hype/outrage around this film has blown up unnecessarily than if they had just quietly released it along with some of their other more controversial works (i.e. WWII propaganda) with disclaimers, in a collection that’s a bit more geared at collectors, like those sets that came in tins. Preface that it might not be suitable for today’s audience, but don’t bury it. Will be interesting to read the comments on here…

  • Cpt_Justice

    I guess I’m dumb, because I always saw the Crows as *positive*! They took care of Dumbo when no one else would – which I suppose is playing off “Mammy” stereotypes – but that made them *heroes* to my eyes, not servants!

    • RowMan

      My caucasian father-in-law was a jazz trumpet player back in the day. He once told me that the way the crows spoke in Dumbo was based on how almost ALL of his fellow jazz musicians spoke regardless of ethnicity at that time. He and I had never related them to being specifically black. But even if they were, they were very cool fellas that looked out for Dumbo.

  • Mark

    SPOILERS:
    Watching this with my young daughter years ago, I remember the scenes with the little girl as being some of the most heart-breaking I’ve seen on film. Ginny spends the movie getting bullied by her idiot brothers, simply wants to attend the party later in the film, is excited about her new dress, gets shoved into the mud by her brothers and in very realistic acting, bursts into tears as all her fun and dreams are being shattered. It’s only at the end when her father returns that you see her in the distance happy about being reunited with him. I wish they had left the camera on this touching scene longer. As for the rest, I remain totally baffled why this movie gets run through the wringer when the Bette Davis movie “Jezebel’ released around the same time had scenes like grown men as happy slaves dancing in front of her like infantile fools. And that was definitely set pre-war.

  • Tyler

    It should’ve always been available. It was a great film. It should’ve been re-released ages ago. If they release it today, they’ll be riots and people having tantrums on social media. You know those people well. They’re the same ones that get touchy over every little thing.