History on film, redux!

In recent weeks Time Warner announced that they were going through their library of Tom and Jerry and Flintstones cartoons and cutting out any scenes that show the cartoon characters smoking. No word as of yet as to the fate of scenes graphically depicting falling anvils and violent blows to the head with extremely large hammers. All this nonsense reminded me of something that happened in the first few weeks that I began working in video retail almost twenty years ago to the day. In 1986 Walt Disney re-released it's 1946 classic, Song of the South to movie theaters. In those days it took about 8 to 12 months following a theatrical release for a film to come out on videotape. But Song of the South would be different. That would mark the last time Song of the South would be released commercially in the US. Around that time Jesse Jackson and other notable African Americans along with the NAACP had voiced their objections to the racial stereotypes presented in the film. I had not seen the film at that time and was not aware of the controversy. I was aware however of the fact that the majority of customers looking for Song of the South on videotape were black. Some time later a similar circumstance arose concerning the release of the 1950s TV series Amos and Andy. Again complaints were made by prominent African Americans, the tapes were pulled and again a majority of black customers were asking for the films. This lead to discussions with many of the customers which in turn lead me to believe that at times the leaders of the black community may be out of touch with the people they are said to represent. I am not defending the racial stereotypes put forth in some of these dated programs, but do these guardians of the public good have such little faith in us the average viewer and our abilities to decipher what is offensive and to make judgments of our own? I can remember my father often telling me of his youth spent in a movie theater on Saturday afternoons watching three or four different films in a row for only 12 cents a ticket! One of his favorite movie series were the Charlie Chan films of the 1940s. He didn't go to see Sydney Toler or Warner Oland - the two actors who portrayed Chan on film - but rather to see the films' "real" star, Mantan Moreland. Moreland portrayed Birmingham, the befuddled chauffer to Charlie Chan, and although his dialogue and takes were at times politically incorrect to say the least, he was also very endearing and funny. My father swore that his name was presented larger in the credits than either actor portraying Chan. And although I can easily see why his work could upset those who objected to his subservient "manservant-like" portrayal in these films, why wasn't anyone upset about the character of Chan himself? Neither actors portraying Chan were of Asian ancestry. Oland was Russian and Toler of Scottish descent. Weren't they putting forth racial stereotypes? I happened upon a late night showing of one of the Chan films some years ago, and I'll be damned if my father wasn't correct. Mantan Moreland was the only reason to watch the movie. The story was predictable and at times more offensive towards Asians then Africans, and his name was bigger in the credits at the start of the film. So what are we supposed to do, edit out all three of these actors from the films? What would we be left with? Why can't we as viewers be trusted to figure out these things for ourselves and make judgements as to their merits today . Do we now go back and rewrite the Bible passages dealing with slavery and pretend it never happened? And in closing for the record, I never once wanted to smoke a cigarette because a cartoon character was doing so on screen. And as for racial and religious stereotypes, I learned everything I need to know about them from Mel Brooks.