saint_pat
Joined Feb 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews18
saint_pat's rating
I am really annoyed by Disney's decision to withhold Song of the South from release. They seem to think that by banning this film they could appease the charge of spreading racism. In fact, by banning this film they have given the false impression that Song of the South is a racist film that would corrupt children.
As a previous viewer pointed out, the film does NOT depict slavery. It takes place in the years following the civil war. Yes, it shows blacks as servants of whites, but this did indeed occur didn't it? Nor does it depict blacks as entirely submissive servants to whites. Look at the way Uncle Remus defies Johnny's mother by covering for him. Uncle Remus has his own subtle ways of rebelling against his white employers. What's more, Uncle Remus is not a racist caracature. He is a kind and smart man with a lot of common sense.
The film even takes on race relations in the friendship Johnny strikes up with Uncle Remus and a black boy. We end of disapproving of Johnny's mother's narrow minded attitude toward their relationship. This is probably the closest the non-political Disney studios could come to making a liberal film.
It's incredible therefore that it is the NAACP that protested this film whenever it was released instead of the KKK. The NAACP reminds me more of little Johnny's white prejudiced mother than campaigners for racial equality.
I am even more angered by Disney's decision to keep this film off the video shelves. They probably could have gotten Song of the South out on video after it's 1986 release with minimal controversy. Instead, by banning this film they have helped to harden opinions on both sides between those who want to keep this film off the video shelves (many of whom probably haven't even seen it), and those who want it released. They have made a political firestorm of their own creation.
As a previous viewer pointed out, the film does NOT depict slavery. It takes place in the years following the civil war. Yes, it shows blacks as servants of whites, but this did indeed occur didn't it? Nor does it depict blacks as entirely submissive servants to whites. Look at the way Uncle Remus defies Johnny's mother by covering for him. Uncle Remus has his own subtle ways of rebelling against his white employers. What's more, Uncle Remus is not a racist caracature. He is a kind and smart man with a lot of common sense.
The film even takes on race relations in the friendship Johnny strikes up with Uncle Remus and a black boy. We end of disapproving of Johnny's mother's narrow minded attitude toward their relationship. This is probably the closest the non-political Disney studios could come to making a liberal film.
It's incredible therefore that it is the NAACP that protested this film whenever it was released instead of the KKK. The NAACP reminds me more of little Johnny's white prejudiced mother than campaigners for racial equality.
I am even more angered by Disney's decision to keep this film off the video shelves. They probably could have gotten Song of the South out on video after it's 1986 release with minimal controversy. Instead, by banning this film they have helped to harden opinions on both sides between those who want to keep this film off the video shelves (many of whom probably haven't even seen it), and those who want it released. They have made a political firestorm of their own creation.
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is a very scary horror film about pods from space who take over a small town. It is also a great allegory, but what on? Some see it as an allegory on the spread of Communism. Others see it as an allegory on the spread of McCarthyism.
Certainly the portrayal of the pod people is how Americans perceived the Russians in the fifties, cold and emotionless. The way the pod people are put to work toiling in the greenhouses resembles how Russians were put to work during Stalin's five year plans. The way the new ideology starts among the neighbors and then spreads across the country certainly resembles how Americans saw the spread of Communism in their country. On the other hand...
Notice how right from the beginning, the police are in on the conspiracy. They are the force that rounds up all the non-conformers as enemies. Notice too how all the townfolk help the police round up anyone who shows an emotion or independent thought. This resembles the ultra-conservative force of McCarthyism that was sweeping the country in the fifties.
Which is the correct interpretation? I would love to hear any opinions.
Certainly the portrayal of the pod people is how Americans perceived the Russians in the fifties, cold and emotionless. The way the pod people are put to work toiling in the greenhouses resembles how Russians were put to work during Stalin's five year plans. The way the new ideology starts among the neighbors and then spreads across the country certainly resembles how Americans saw the spread of Communism in their country. On the other hand...
Notice how right from the beginning, the police are in on the conspiracy. They are the force that rounds up all the non-conformers as enemies. Notice too how all the townfolk help the police round up anyone who shows an emotion or independent thought. This resembles the ultra-conservative force of McCarthyism that was sweeping the country in the fifties.
Which is the correct interpretation? I would love to hear any opinions.