Movies We've Just Watched discussion
Dramas
>
Gone With the Wind Again
date
newest »
newest »
yes, of course GWTW is racist down to the core. it's at its essence, The Lost Cause revisionist text for the big screen, happy slaves, brave peasant farmers. Cavalliers vs Roundheads, Greeks vs Romans. agrarian beauty laid low be merchantile interests. a beautiful culture and civilization destroyed in the fires of war, albeit largely brought about by its own hubris even in the movie. those nasty brutish Yankees vs the noble defenders of God and Country. I despise everything it stands for, but have always enjoyed watching it in spite of myself, damn it. I try to limit my viewings though.
Elaine, that's some interesting information about the Germans doing Civil War recreations, and about Hitler et al being such fans of GWTW. But prefacing it with a reference to that series of posts on GWTW is interesting, too. Are you suggesting that those of us who disagreed with your take on GWTW are as clueless as those Germans who seem to identify with the Confederacy?To be clear: I'm the guy who asked you politely to give more information on the scene in GWTW where Mammy looks disapprovingly at "bad" slaves who have run from their masters, and on the idea that GWTW shows a society in which slaves want to be slaves. I asked you for more information on that particular scene in question because I didn't remember it being in the film, and you could only tell me to check for myself. And it turned out that it wasn't really in the film at all, at least not the way you kept describing it, this being confirmed by both myself and Alex when you couldn't/wouldn't provide any further information about the scene. And you never went into any detail at all about exactly how GWTW depicted slaves as wanting to be slaves.
well, i hate to be the first to break the news, but we live in a racist society. countless american films have racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic constructs. the list of american phobias and hateful obsessions regarding "the other" would sink the titanic, if it wasn't already at the bottom of the sea. and cinema is a straight shot in the mirror of our consciousness. and of course, america is not alone in this condition - travel anywhere in the world and racism will be there to greet you. these guys hate those guys and those guys hate them back along with hating these other guys as well - its' a wonder we're not at war all the time ... oh, i forgot - we (human beings) are at war all the time.i dislike gone with the wind because i think it's an endless, overblown yarn with characters i can't stand. end of story.
i actually appreciate it, as a native american, that countless westerns depict all sorts of rude and brutal narratives about the native - white conflict. it would be dishonest to sanitize that stuff. the searchers - and many other john ford films in particular don't flinch in depicting the racist arrogance of white pioneers. red river is another example (hawks, not ford) ... john wayne's character shows up, kills a few mexicans and calls the land he is standing on his own. that's how it went down - why lie about it?
Phillip wrote: "i dislike gone with the wind because i think it's an endless, overblown yarn with characters i can't stand. end of story."[nods]
I'm sure I could get worked up about the racism if I could get past the fact that the entire second half of the movie turns on my single least favorite media trope of all time: two hours of the film could have been trimmed given a two-minute conversation between the main characters.
That's just lazy, flabby screenwriting. (Given my lifelong hatred of the film--which I didn't sit down and watch all the way through until a couple of summers ago, but have been seeing pieces of for forty years--I haven't read the novel, but I'm assuming that bit's faithful given how important it is to the plot.)
The point of view was of Southerners and how they coped and loved. Can't have them revisionist at the time the story is taking place. Actually the point of view was probably accurate and that isn't a bad thing. Better than having so enlightened Southerners, we don't know how they could have done the things they did. Scarlett had very little education and the men in her life seemed to think that was charming to some extent. They loved the ignorance she had until it ran against what they were trying to do. She was so heavily locked in to Southern life that she had no supporters when she wasn't successful. Ultimately she had to use men to get ahead. Slaves and former slaves have little to do in this world except be on the peripheral which is what was desired by the dominant Southerners. Reconstruction was viewed very negatively like they would have in real life.
Phillip wrote: "well, i hate to be the first to break the news, but we live in a racist society. countless american films have racist, homophobic, sexist, anti-semitic constructs. the list of american phobias and ..."Here, here, Phillip! Nicely said! I also dislike GWTW because I hate sappy, over the top romances. Hattie McDaniel actually won an Oscar for her portrayal of Mammy & this film used black actors at a time when Hollywood was still often giving roles of black characters to whites or hispanics that they would dress as a blacks. Yes, there's still that ugly undertone where all the black characters are depicted as ignorant but we must not forget that most (almost all) slaves were seriously uneducated and some states even made educating them illegal so I'm sure in real life that many slaves would seem almost childlike in comparison to people today. The slave owners believed if you keep them ignorant it will prevent uprisings and make it harder to form an escape plan. (How could they write it? Other slaves wouldn't be able to read it and a good escape plan would involve complex strategy and calculations which are impossible without even a basic education.). This is history and we must remember the ugly aspects of our past so that we won't be doomed to repeat it!
Spike Lee is one of many successful people who collect minstrel and blackface memorabilia. Is it because he's racist against his own race? No, it's because he knows the importance of remembering even the ugly side of history. I have distant relatives who died in the Holocaust but I still have read much of Hitler's writings and have seen the films of Leni Rifenstahl. I would be more upset if GWTW had depicted slaves as educated people like everyone else because it's ignoring a vital part of the past in order to not offend anyone. That same logic is why people try to ban books like "The Adventures of Huck Finn"! I'm all for being respectful to one another & looking for ways to bring people closer together & trying to end racism, misogyny, homophobia and the like, but there is such a thing as getting "too P.C." about things.
For the record, there are films much more racist than GWTW ("Birth of a Nation") and I even sometimes enjoy film that embraces the taboo to the point of causing severe uncomfortability ("The Night Porter"), but avoiding historical fiction because of...well, history....is just silly and very Orwellian "1984" of you. Also, it seems like a lot of generalizations were made in your post about German people. I would be willing to bet these reenactment people are a small segment of the population and the ones doing it because they're neo-Nazis or racists are an even smaller subgroup. However your post seems to say that almost ALL Germans feel this way. I'm hoping it was just the way it was worded and that wasn't what you meant to imply. Making broad generalizations about an entire group of people of a certain race, nationality or color is exactly the kind of thing you rally against in GWTW!
Tom,I refused to watch the damned movie again, but I did tell you what the scene was. And you responded something like "Oh," and that it was a small expression. But in a movie, it is the small visuals that get to your unconscious. Mammy's disapproving look and mouth movement as the group of former slaves march by was enough.
I never said or implied that any movie should present African-Americans during slavery as being educated. In fact, I sincerely doubt if a Mammy could have existed. Who would keep a slave who dictated how their owners should behave? Maybe it happened, but I suspect it was Margaret Mitchell's attempt to show that slaves weren't just downtrodden tools.I never said all Germans take part in these re-enactments. I pointed out, as the article did, that Hitler and Goebbels loved the movie and it was a big hit in Germany and is still well-loved, as it apparently still is in the U.S.
And, Tom, instead of dissing me, if you or Alex wanted to know how the movie showed that slaves liked being slaves, it was incumbent upon you to watch it again--carefully.
When I taught this movie, umpteen years ago, I showed my students frame by frame just what noises were made and what facial expressions were used to get across this message.
If you like the movie, that's your business. But it is racist and sexist. Or, don't you recall what Rhett said to Belle, the prostitute?
Joanna, I own "The Wonderful Horrible Life of Leni Riefenstahl" and appreciate her brilliant cinematography. I have read a good chunk of Mein Kampf and found it just too badly written to bother finishing--and I mean 'badly written in German.'
I would suggest to you all Bruce Chadwick's The Reel Civil War. The historian James McPherson has pointed out that it is assumed that the victors write the histories, but that isn't what happened with the Civil War. It is the Southern version--that it was all about States Rights--that has been taken as truth.
As for Ford's movies, yes, he did depict the disgusting attitude of whites towards Native Americans, but he never said the Native Americans liked it. GWTW, reflecting I am sure many Southern attitudes of the time, says that slaves liked to be slaves.
I am old enough to have been involved in the Civil Rights movement. At that time, Southerners said that the Blacks liked segregation and being told what to do, and it was only because Northerners were stirring Blacks up that they were demanding equal rights. That's why White Mississipians (not all of them, just a couple) murdered 3 young men who were helping African Americans register to vote.
Mammys had high status and since they dealt with children were supposed to raise them right. They existed and were well loved. Given that they were slaves and had to trod carefully. I doubt they had any education or more would have written memoirs.
Yes, Elaine, you did say what the scene was, and it took Alex and myself watching the film to finally nail down exactly which scene you were talking about, and it turned out to bear little resemblance to what you remembered. The exchange is easily found, for those interested, in one of the threads on INGLORIOUS BASTERDS."And, Tom, instead of dissing me, if you or Alex wanted to know how the movie showed that slaves liked being slaves, it was incumbent upon you to watch it again--carefully."
Actually, Elaine, I'd have thought that it was rather incumbent upon you to back up your claims with those hard facts your website claims you demand. Is it "dissing" to ask someone to support their assertions? Or is that asking too much? And I have to point out that you're in something of a glass house when it comes to suggesting that people watch a movie "carefully" -- no one who has watched the film "carefully" would assert that Mammy sees a group of former slaves marching by.
"If you like the movie, that's your business. But it is racist and sexist. Or, don't you recall what Rhett said to Belle, the prostitute?"
No problem with finding the movie racist or sexist. Airing opinions and discussion is part of the fun of this group. Everytone's entitled to their opinion of course.
And no, I don't recall what Rhett said to Belle, the prostitute. What did he say to her? And please, don't tell me to watch the movie myself to find out.
The culture that is being depicted in the movie was racist and sexist in the terms of 2011. Actually the movie actually modified some scenes and language in the book and I am willing to bet if the book had been written in the 1870s it would have more objectionable attitude and language in it. The main characters are the Southern elite who benefited from owning slaves and had their world turned upside down by war in which they lost. They believed in black inferiority and woman being confined to the home. Scarlett is a character who does challenge the white woman's role and pays for it. Her character is born of the woman's suffrage movement and flapper era of the 20s, when Margaret Mitchell originally wrote the book. It was also an era of the revival of the Klan and surge in Jim Crow laws and anti-immigrant sentiment. Many Southerners began coming out of the last vestiges of Reconstruction and the creation of Jim Crow laws that they were right and that idea was popular in books, movies and plays during the early 20th Century.
Tom wrote: "Yes, Elaine, you did say what the scene was, and it took Alex and myself watching the film to finally nail down exactly which scene you were talking about, and it turned out to bear little resembla..."He admiringly told her that she knew how a woman should behave--he was aluding to Scarlett running the lumber business or whatever male domain she was invading.
I admire Alex's reviews immensely. I have a link to his blog on mine and have referred many people to it. In fact, before I buy a movie, I checck Alex's blog to se if he's reviewed it. I don't know your qualificationsa allsince we've rarely if ever corresponded. I'm sure you've seen many more movies than I have and I'm sure you have interesting things to say about them--more than I do.
However, a sociolinguistic point? when you start a comment with "What scene? Where>" or whatever blunt questions you threw at me, it sounds belligerent. Had you asked, "Where is that scene? I never noticed it." or something to that effect, I wouldn't have felt as if I were being dissed out of hand. And, I did tell you to the bst of my memory what scene it was in.
That we both consciously saw something differently is a natural phenomenon. I am trained to automatically note facial expression and I might just be more sensitive to it consciously than you are, but that doesn't mean you didn't necessarily get the message of the facial expression.
More to the point: different transfers of a film to another medium often are not identical to each other. I last saw and taught GWTW on videotape. You watched it on DVD or Blu Ray. The scene might have been cut by a few seconds. Unfortunately, I no longer ccan play VHS tapes and I've long since given away my tape library and I don't own the disk and have nno intention of buying it. So, you are at liberty to think I'm a dotty old lady who doesn't know what she's talking about.
When I taught GWTW to my film class--at their request--we went over the scene several times with Mammy making a disapproving cluck at the men marching by, the kids themselves said it meant that good slaves want to be slaves. As I recall, and my recall may be faulty, doesn't she say of the faithful butler (not Rhett, the slave) or of some other loyal slave that "he knows how to behave" or words to that effect, I think in the scene when Scarlett goes back to Tara and finds out who has run off and who hasn't. If it's not in the movie, then it probably is in the book which I read when I was about 10 years old.
Elaine wrote: "Tom wrote: "Yes, Elaine, you did say what the scene was, and it took Alex and myself watching the film to finally nail down exactly which scene you were talking about, and it turned out to bear lit..."IIf your read the book, there are many references to the good slaves really wanting to be slaves and be with their loving owner families. The ones who desired freedom were shiftless and and lazy and didn't want to work. The Yankees were using blacks to fix elections and keep themselves in power and former Confederates down. Cartoon editorials and literature at the time indicate that is exactly what many white Southerners thought and their point of view held sway in the early 20th century. Just because you taught a film course means you know what you were talking about. You seem to missing a lot. Did you want the filmmakers and author to make former plantation owners not racist and sexist?
Neither the book nor the movie were the real South. They were nostalgic images of a South the author wanted to remember, but largely didn't exist. It's a powerful image that the Lost Cause folks find very attractive. Including all those folks who maintain over and over that the war wasn't fought over slavery, which wasn't all that bad anyway, and if it hadn't been for the war, slaves would have been freed shortly anyway and would have been much better off. No, I don't particularly want an invalid portrayal of slavery, plantation owners, etc, whether it veers to the left or the right. all the emotion in the various comments is rather interesting though.
Yes that is true and that is the way many of these Southerners thought and "remembered" this life. It was good for those on the top and they benefited from it. The South had a strong belief in a stratified society and this was evident in their love of Greek and Roman architecture in the plantation house building. The also emphesized manners and gentry more than the North. The wanted to believe that blacks were better off enslaved and no more than children. Public education was introduced after the Civil War as part of Reconstruction. Education was not a priority and since birth and sex determined your life prospects, education was parsed out sparingly. The point of view was very prevalent at the turn of the 20th Century and really didn't begin changing until WWII and the Civil Right movement. The entire nation was more inclined to this view which made lynching, Jim Crow laws, sharecropping and other signs of outright discrimination mainstream and accepted as long as Northerners didn't get it forced in their face.
I presume you meant that "just because I taught a film course doesn't mean I know everything." I certainly agree with that and I mentioned my class only in the context of their wanting to discuss the film and their ready perception of the racism. I don't know what you think I missed. I certainly know about Southern attitudes. I'm a Civil War buff and was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's. I wanted the film to portray slavery more honestly. I think they could have portrayed Southern politeness and refinement without pretending that slaves wanted to be slaves.
None of us were there at the time but this is the point of view of the Southerners who were planter class and were white. This is the point of view of the time period the book was written in and the time period the movie was made. The story is essentially a love story which takes place in during the war and after. It is not an intellectual treatise on the war. Confederates were still alive at this time and their children and they were surging in power and influence during this time. Reconstruction was long gone and Southerners had a lot of power and influence in the country if you were white. It is ridiculous to ask this movie or the book to live up to beliefs and attitudes that were far out of the mainstream and almost non-existent at the time. How is that to teach a film course? Or a history course? Films weren't made to be auteur films then where every little scene counted as art. Victor Fleming was hired to the get the film moving and make it a melodrama and the more character based parts of the movie were George Cukor's who was fired. Gone with the Wind was treated with more care than most films but the priorities and the idea of "getting it right" was very different. The film actually did purposely not mention the Klan and Butterfly McQueen refused to be seen on screen cutting a watermelon. The filmmakers were nervous about appearing to be like Birth of a Nation. Their ideas of racism or dealing with the South was more appeasement rather than confrontation. FDR chose not to deal with it while Eleanor was far more likely to deal with it. In fact about the time GWTW came out Roosevelt were beginning to speak out after lynchings got out of control. Southern ideas of how they treated slavery involved that this was a natural order and that they were taking care of people who otherwise couldn't take care of themselves. This is the background that the film and novel portrayed with probably a gentler touch than would have been true at the time.
"However, a sociolinguistic point? when you start a comment with "What scene? Where>" or whatever blunt questions you threw at me, it sounds belligerent. Had you asked, "Where is that scene? I never noticed it." or something to that effect, I wouldn't have felt as if I were being dissed out of hand. And, I did tell you to the bst of my memory what scene it was in."Sorry you found my straightforwardly worded requests for more information “belligerent.” There was no belligerence intended. If I'd used words like "dotty old lady" or "What the FUCK are you talking about?!" I'd see your point. And a basic courtesy point? When you assume that people are being belligerent and treat them accordingly, they tend to assume the qualities that you are projecting upon them.
The general points about the film’s racial and sexual politics are well enough taken. I’m becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the film’s complicity in presenting the Old South as a land of grace and beauty. It had always seemed to me that that position was usually espoused by people whose opinions on the matter I wasn’t going to take seriously anyway, like Ashley. That opening crawl about “Knights and their Ladies Fair” only gets more revolting. I’m finding myself more disturbed by Big Sam’s eagerness to dig holes for the South -- his evident pride in working to support the organization that keeps him a slave is really appalling.
The fantasy was the glue that held the concepts of slavery together. The fact that the North was steadily eliminating slavery and it was becoming increasingly unacceptable during the Industrial Revolution caused the laws of the 1850s to be more stringent in supporting slavery and the idea of benevolent slavery became stronger. The fantasy had to be maintained long after slavery was ended and after a generation began to reassert itself. Law became more tolerant of persecution of blacks, lynchings and separation of race , etc. The North became more accepting of the ideas as Southerners got more influence in the federal government and they were needed to hold the Democratic Party together and the Republicans became weaker.
Thanks for reminding me about Big Sam. That was one of the scenes in which slaves were portrayed as liking to be slaves. That arrrant propaganda in GTWT was a factor in the Civil Rights movement, only with Southerners saying Blacks liked segregation and being told what to do. It was Jewish Yankees who were riling them up. Movies unfortunately can't be innocent. On the other hand, I don't believe they should be censored, so the only remedy is to have people criticize them and not laud them because they're pretty.
The propaganda didn't stem from Gone With The Wind. Actually GWTW played the beliefs down a bit. The movie/book was the perspective of white slave owners. It was common in the South to believe blacks were inferior and the justification that blacks liked slavery or white supremacy was a theme that had gone back for a century or more. When black slaves began coming to Fort Monroe during the Civil War, there was great debate on whether to keep them as contraband in war. If they were war contraband, then the Union should only keep the able bodied who could help the South with their war effort. Old people and children would have to be returned because they weren't useful and property of their owners. The Major in charge of Ft. Monroe questioned the slaves and found no one who didnt' want to be free or be a slave. Discussions through the government began and Northerners who had partially believed the South's claim that people were happy to be slaves began to question the philosophy. Slowly the debate came to treat blacks as people and deal with the consequences of declaring them so. During the Civil Rights Movement, a lot of literature and movies that hadn't been questioned before became the subject of derision and questioning. GWTW, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and Birth of a Nation were pointed out. Those works didn't create the beliefs held but reflected them.
Carroll wrote: "I respect all opinions. They're just opinions.Speaking of Gone With The Wind, I am getting ready to watch it again tonight.
I have COMPANY on its way with a pizza and a bottle of red wine.
..."
All opinions?! Come on! But enjoy! I'm doing Game of Thrones without friends and in peace and quiet!
Lynn wrote: "The propaganda didn't stem from Gone With The Wind. Actually GWTW played the beliefs down a bit. The movie/book was the perspective of white slave owners. It was common in the South to believe b..."No, the propaganda didn't stem from Gone With the Wind, but that, along with Birth of a Nation and other works certainly helped shape public opinion. The Klan enjoyed a massive resurgence after Birth of a Nation came out. So, I don't see these works with quite the same sense of innocense you seem to. Selznick probably didn't care or think that much about the Civil War, but the book's author certainly did. The studio just wanted to capitalize on a best seller, which they did in grand style. The author wasn't simply reflecting the views of white slave owners, but attempting to reshape American attitudes on life in the South before, and well after the war.
I don't think that prior to the Civil War many folks in the North assumed that most black slaves enjoyed their position, or there would have been no abolition movement, or escaped slaves running North, no slave catchers or Dred Scott decisions.
Having said all that, I hope you enjoyed Game of Thrones. I've only caught it in pieces so far. I'll have to pick it up on DVD at some point.
Did you see the article in the NYT Magazine a few weeks ago? Whether people really believed the position about slaves being happy, it was about as ubiquitous as denial of global warming and the Union officer at Ft. Monroe. I do see GWTW as actually mellowing some beliefs and trying to play both sides. Movie studios were acutely aware of segregation and the response of Southern movie goers and politicians in the South. Like the politicians in Washington many were active in placating the Southern whites just as they had done before the Civil War. GWTW had a huge impact on societies trying to rebuild their societies after World War II. Giving hope to places that needed to rebuild and hope that life could get better.
Birth of a Nation and the book The Klansman did motivate the Klan to regroup and spurred a lot of the anti-immigrant/ anti-Jewish/ Anti- Black violence. It was there before and was spurred on by the rise of Jim Crow after Plessy vs. Ferguson and the election of James Garfield but it did become more popular. The criticism of A Birth of a Nation spurred the making of Intolerance of D.W. Griffith but that didn't end up being popular at all.
I just watched Game of Thrones. Dragons, simply dragons.
Well, Intolerance is a bit of a well intended mess, the plot is just too complicated, zooming around between various historical events. But, Birth of a Nation deserved all the criticism it got and then some. I'm sure there were folks who did believe slaves were happy, but I hardly think that opinion was ubiquitous. It certainly wasn't widespread among the slave owners themselves after events like the revolt in Haiti or the Nat Turner rebellion.
I'm just glad I didn't live in that era. That being said, I must admit that I enjoyed Gone With The Wind, both the book and the movie. It was really captivating. I was upset when Scarlett had the nerve to turn on her friend Melanie (who was almost too good to be true). But overall I thought it was a romantic story of a spoiled brat who, in trying to have every man, foiled her own chance at love.
Many parts and dialog of this movie make me wince, but I still enjoy looking at it every few years.Im always shocked by people who cite this movie in their historical arguments about pre Civil War society and about life during Reconstruction. Yes its an interesting yarn set in the South, but hardly anything based on reality. I think people initially liked the film because they wish life was like that depicted in the movie (especially white Southerners)
GONE WITH THE WIND is entertainment (some would argue, not very good entertainment) but in the end only a fantasy.
Robert wrote: "Phillip wrote: "i dislike gone with the wind because i think it's an endless, overblown yarn with characters i can't stand. end of story."
[nods]
I'm sure I could get worked up about the racism if I could get past the fact that the entire second half of the movie turns on my single least favorite media trope of all time: two hours of the film could have been trimmed given a two-minute conversation between the main characters.
That's just lazy, flabby screenwriting. (Given my lifelong hatred of the film--which I didn't sit down and watch all the way through until a couple of summers ago, but have been seeing pieces of for forty years--I haven't read the novel, but I'm assuming that bit's faithful given how important it is to the plot.) "
The movie IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to being faithful to the spirit of the book. It overemphasized the Rhett-Scarlett Romance takes up less than 10% of the book and is at best a subplot rather than a main plot story.
I assume you're referring to the second-half?Its INCREDIBLY WEAK and in the book that same second half of the story is not even focused on Rhett and Scarlett until the last 100 pages. It actually focuses on the death of the Old South and its rebirth as a new society and Scarlett's growth into a hardened shrewd business women who gets outcasted by Atlanta society for her wickedness (the Movie only shows a small conversation between Scarlett's relatives and does not show all the horrors Scarlett has done after marrying Kennedy).
I agree the Rhett-Scarlett romance can easily be summed by two conversations but the movie chose to focus the last half heavily on the last 100 pages turning it into a Soap Opera. Well in fact the book goes deeper than that and even the final scene where Rhett leaves Scarlett is more than just about the end of their romance but a scene of philosophical analysis of morality and a commentary about social conventions and being accepted into society. It also shows Scarlett as a 3-Dimensional character as opposed to her portrayal in the book and gives off why Scarlett has remained in love with Ashley for years.
The Movie just cut out most of the lines of the book and concentrated exclusively on the Romantic aspects of that scene.
REALLY the book's version is really one of the most thought-provoking scenes I ever read (esp. on morality and society) and the movie fails absolutely on Margaret Mitchell's point of her story's themes when its revealed in that scene.
Read the book even though you hated the movie. Its not a mere romance but a deep story about human nature and a commentary on society and morality. Or at least read the final chapter. You'll understand why the book was such a masterpiece and grow to appreciate Gone With the Wind even though you (understandably) hated the movie.
"Lynn wrote:GWTW had a huge impact on societies trying to rebuild their societies after World War II. Giving hope to places that needed to rebuild and hope that life could get better.
This is VERY true fo much of Europe after the war especially the United Kingdom. Scarlett's struggle to survive inspired millions of European women the hope needed to continue on their lives of rebuilding their war-torned country no matter how hopeless things became.
[nods]
I'm sure I could get worked up about the racism if I could get past the fact that the entire second half of the movie turns on my single least favorite media trope of all time: two hours of the film could have been trimmed given a two-minute conversation between the main characters.
That's just lazy, flabby screenwriting. (Given my lifelong hatred of the film--which I didn't sit down and watch all the way through until a couple of summers ago, but have been seeing pieces of for forty years--I haven't read the novel, but I'm assuming that bit's faithful given how important it is to the plot.) "
The movie IS NOT EVEN CLOSE to being faithful to the spirit of the book. It overemphasized the Rhett-Scarlett Romance takes up less than 10% of the book and is at best a subplot rather than a main plot story.
I assume you're referring to the second-half?Its INCREDIBLY WEAK and in the book that same second half of the story is not even focused on Rhett and Scarlett until the last 100 pages. It actually focuses on the death of the Old South and its rebirth as a new society and Scarlett's growth into a hardened shrewd business women who gets outcasted by Atlanta society for her wickedness (the Movie only shows a small conversation between Scarlett's relatives and does not show all the horrors Scarlett has done after marrying Kennedy).
I agree the Rhett-Scarlett romance can easily be summed by two conversations but the movie chose to focus the last half heavily on the last 100 pages turning it into a Soap Opera. Well in fact the book goes deeper than that and even the final scene where Rhett leaves Scarlett is more than just about the end of their romance but a scene of philosophical analysis of morality and a commentary about social conventions and being accepted into society. It also shows Scarlett as a 3-Dimensional character as opposed to her portrayal in the book and gives off why Scarlett has remained in love with Ashley for years.
The Movie just cut out most of the lines of the book and concentrated exclusively on the Romantic aspects of that scene.
REALLY the book's version is really one of the most thought-provoking scenes I ever read (esp. on morality and society) and the movie fails absolutely on Margaret Mitchell's point of her story's themes when its revealed in that scene.
Read the book even though you hated the movie. Its not a mere romance but a deep story about human nature and a commentary on society and morality. Or at least read the final chapter. You'll understand why the book was such a masterpiece and grow to appreciate Gone With the Wind even though you (understandably) hated the movie.
"Lynn wrote:GWTW had a huge impact on societies trying to rebuild their societies after World War II. Giving hope to places that needed to rebuild and hope that life could get better.
This is VERY true fo much of Europe after the war especially the United Kingdom. Scarlett's struggle to survive inspired millions of European women the hope needed to continue on their lives of rebuilding their war-torned country no matter how hopeless things became.
I just read an article on German Civil War re-enactors, and, by German I mean people who live in Germany, speak German, and are of German heritage. Apparently, in their re-enactments, although their uniforms are correct down to the buttons, they speak German. Now, here's the rub: most Germans want to be Confederate soldiers, not Union. They love GWTW because it exalts a master race dominating an inferior one, and shows that the inferiors love being dominated. That, of course, is what I hate about that movie.
The article says that GWTW was a favorite of both Hitler and Goebbels, as well as with the German public in Nazi Germany.
It's interesting that white American males, very knowledgeable about movies missed that entirely, but Germans in 1939 up to now get the point just fine.
The article is on the app Pulse, which I get on my ereader.