Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Don't listen to the negative reviews

A Masterpiece!

The acting in this movie is really good.

MAKING OR EVEN attempting to make a film that deals with or even depicts as a sort of sidebar the Plantation of the Antebellum South must be done with the highest degree of care and balance. This is much more of a problem in today's so politically correct scene.WHEN THIS MOVIE was made, attitudes were just a trifle more relaxed and dialed down, if you will. Everyone knew what he story was and that we all still had a long way to go to achieved a greater degree of harmony. But no one claimed all of this being "offended" business. It was much more a matter of "Live and Let Live." ALL OF THIS over scrutiny about re-releases and bringing the film to video makes for a highly exaggerated and unnecessary of demonetization. We find these attitudes to be immature, narrow minded and completely counterproductive to both a great film; but also to better relations between different peoples.AS TO THE story, we found it to be a well rendered working of a common enough domestic strife driving the story, all with little Johhny (Bobby Driscoll) caught in the middle. Irony in the person of Uncle Remus (James Baskett) enters the scene and his easy mannerisms and great storytelling both capture the boys imagination, but also prove to be a great tonic for the kid.IT IS WHEN Remus tells his Aesop-like tales that the animation kicks in and supersedes the live action. This is accomplished virtually seamlessly and consequently blending the two into one. In addition to the Disney animation crew, Photographer Greg Toland must share in the atta-boys! He was a staple at RKO Radio Pictures(then Disney's distributor), but also was highly favored by Orson Welles.THE ANIMATED SEQUENCES are not only energetic and imaginative but are also very funny and satisfying. Told in Southern Black dialect, the vignettes are very nearly the best work in the Disney Studio;s history. The anthropomorphic animals were voiced by Brer Fox (James Baskett), Brer Bear (Nicodemus Stewart) and Brer Rabbit, the protagonist (Johnny Lee).AS FAR AS the rendering of the story as an historical document, there is a situation here like no other. In watching the movie, it isn't clear whether or not if it is set before or after the Civil War; as it appears that there is much freedom of movement for Remus and others.

A gentle, family-friendly story about a boy's adventures in rural Georgia, "Song Of The South" blends animation segments with live action. Though the protagonist is a seven year old boy named Johnny (Bobby Driscoll), the heart and soul of the film belongs to an elderly Black man, named Uncle Remus (James Baskett). Animated characters include Br'er Rabbit, Br'er Fox, and the Tar Baby, and are used by Uncle Remus to teach Johnny truths about life. The most frequently mentioned truth, and the underlying theme of the film, is that "You can't run away from trouble".It's an unfortunate truth that the film itself can't seem to run away from trouble, as it has been branded racist almost from the beginning. Owing to pressure from the politically correct crowd, the Walt Disney Corporation still refuses a broad release of the film in its entirety here in the U.S., concerned as it is with its public image and its financial "bottom line".Such selfish censorship is deplorable. The story's setting is post-Civil War America, not the antebellum era. Further, the use of Black dialect is wonderfully genuine, and teaches us a truthful history. And the character of Uncle Remus is as admirable and magnanimous, or more so, as any contemporary story protagonist of any race.If I had to render a criticism of the film, it would be the sound and its visuals. On the copy I watched the sound was a tad muffled, probably due to antiquated sound equipment. And the color cinematography at times seemed blurry and had poor lighting contrast.Ideally, this film would be removed from Disney Corporation's control, and placed in the public domain. That's unrealistic. But, nevertheless, viewers can still find ways around the pious censorship.With its upbeat signature song. "Zip-a Dee-Doo-Dah" and its Oscar worthy performance by James Baskett, "Song Of The South" makes for great viewing by people from age 3 to 103 of all races.

I cannot understand why this movie is so despised by Blacks!?!?Besides being set in slavery times (as MANY other movies are), everything about this movie is lovely! The music is great; the performances by James Basket and Hattie McDaniel are both great and charming; the storyline is perfect; the animation is A++; and...everything else here is just so great!This movie has two Black actors who, at the time, were big stars - James Baskett became the first African-American male performer to receive an Academy Award; the very first African-American to win an Oscar was Hattie McDaniel for her performance in "Gone with the Wind" (1939). McDaniel also appears in "Song of the South" (1946).If I was either of these two magnificent performers, or, any other Black in this, and, my own race banned my movie...I'd be very, very upset!I just cannot understand what all the controversy is about!?!? "Roots" wasn't banned; neither was "Mandingo." Neither were all of the other slavery movies made over the years...not even "Birth Of A Nation" which was so racist that White actors portrayed Blacks.This movie never hurt anyone anymore than "The Teletubbies" when some clown claimed that the 'purple' Teletubbie is gay!?!? SO WHAT! Do children care about such trifles? NO! Only adults whine about such things!There have been a lot of movies I could belly-ache over -A.) Where the Vikings are all depicted as murderers (I'm Scandinavian);B.) Where the Germans are all thought of as Nazis (I'm German);C.) Where Christians are concerned as we orchestrated the Inquisitions and witch hunts that killed millions;and,D.) Where Christians were once treated by the Romans much as Blacks were by the slave owners...but, I don't whine - it's history that can never be changed!I love historically-based movies, and, this is one of my favorites...controversy be damned, as with "Blood Diamond;" "Zulu;" "Holocaust;" "Mark of the Devil;" "The Man Who Would Be King;" and, so many others. It's all part of history.What children see in this movie is a kind, storytelling and singing man who everyone seems to love, especially children and animals.

The bastard child of the Disney musical cannon Song Of The South has a history so littered with controversy that it is a rather difficult film to talk about. I mean, what is left to be said that hasn't already been said before?I suppose, however, a good place to start is to talk about why on earth I decided to spend my time watching it in the first place. Well, for starters I have to be honest and come right out with the fact that I threw this film into the player largely because it is so controversial. I mean, a movie that Disney has refused to release of home video within the United States, how could I go past that? Secondly, the movie does have a significant amount of historical value in the way in which it weaves live action footage (shot brilliantly in glorious Technicolor) together with animated sequences, and also in that it provides an interesting look at a particular part of society's revisionist version of the reconstruction period in the South.The plot itself is rather simple: a young boy (Bobby Driscoll) and his mother (Ruth Warrick) come down to Georgia to stay on a plantation where they meet Uncle Remus (James Baskett). Remus is a former slave and full- time story teller who throughout the film relates the old folk-tales of Bre'er Rabbit and Bre'er Fox to young Johnny in order to help the boy sort out his personal problems. Really, it's not the world's most interesting plot, but it serves well for the purposes of the film with Remus's stories sweeping from live action into animation with easy grace.The problems with this plot, however, arise quickly with the meeting of old Uncle Remus, who presents as an amalgamation of almost every racial cliché one could imagine. Not a good starting point to be sure. The other African-American characters too are presented in a very poor light, playing off the common prejudices around at the time. Their speech is hokey and sounds almost like it was torn straight from the script of a minstrel show, they sing traditional songs (with the director's showing no sensitivity to the cultural implications of such music) as they go about their work, and they are all costumed in the manner one would have expected from D.W. Griffith's The Birth Of A Nation (1915). The film also gives an incredibly naïve and revisionist view of black-white relations at the time, showing benevolent masters and servants contented with their roles of servitude.None of this is maliciously intended, I would wager, but nonetheless it is very problematic especially for an ostensible children's film, and I agree wholeheartedly with the NAACP's calls to boycott the movie when it was first released. I think the very fact that it not deliberately and maliciously offensive towards the people it marginalises makes it all ever worse. I mean, a child can easily be taught that hatefulness and overt racism are unacceptable, but to be shown such an insidious example from such a trusted source as Disney can provide a challenge for a parent to explain away. The movie contains no message or moral of equality, just a sly suggestion that 'certain people' should know their 'place'.I do not, however, agree with any calls to forget this film entirely. It has earned a place in the historical cannon of feature films and as such is deserving of study, analysis, and critical thought regarding its artistic merits. Song Of The South has a definite place in film libraries and the collections of students and historians, and I think that it is a place that needs to be preserved and not glossed over. I would just recommend that it be kept out of the hands of children.As an aside to this discussion of the film's problematic racial presentations I will also say that I have scored this film rather low for the simple fact that it is boring. It really doesn't quite reach the same heights of grand magic that Disney films often do. The story is fractured and episodic, making it hard to become invested in the plight of the characters, the songs (bar one) are not particularly memorable, and, to be honest, the primary protagonist is unlikeable. It's not poorly executed, in fact some of the location shooting and technical trickery is actually rather inspired, but it is poorly constructed as a film.So, in conclusion, I'm going to have to express my ambivalence towards this movie. It has some artistic merits, but these are tempered by a series of filmic shortcomings, and it has a definite degree of historical and cultural value, but that comes primarily from the fact that it is really rather racist.I suppose the only thing you can do is watch it for yourself and make up your own mind about how much value one can ascribe to this outcast from the Disney family.