It’s a movie that glorifies the KKK and their heroic efforts to prevent blacks from voting and reinfoces the Lost Cause narrative of a Southern culture of white supremacy as the ideal. A white audience in 1939 would have understood the message.
Both BoaN and GWTW are about the America that produced them more than the America they depict. A nation entering the global stage but not yet having its internal house in order, and resorting to the quick fix of suppressing its underclass
In 1915 the US had started and won its first international war (and, tellingly, its soldiers called their Philippine opponents the n-word), and was on a shaky course of entering another huge one. How to display that we were up to the task? By handily putting our negroes in their place.
In 1936 when GWTW was written, the entire US was on its knees as the South had been after the Civil War: finally y’all kin understand us now! In 1939 when filmed, another World War was in the offing. We’d better pull ourselves up, like Scarlet O’Hara, to meet the challenge. And let’s not take up any fool notions that the best way would be with civil rights. No, we do our best work with sharp white minds running things while strong Black backs hauled the loads.
I wonder why that is…
Anyway, let’s get back to the completely unrelated discussion of the greatness and importance of GWTW and BoaN, and why we should still consider these racist works as critically important to one’s understanding of modern popular entertainment.
A specialist’s understanding of the craft and art of filmmaking, yes.
An average person’s understanding of entertainment generally, no.
Let’s keep our boundaries clear.
A movie doesn’t have to be “promoting the cause of racism” to be racist. It just has to portray people of one race as being inferior to members of a different race.
It is very different from The Godfather, in that The Godfather recognizes that its protagonists are bad people doing bad things. Gone with the Wind doesn’t have that self-awareness: it’s presenting its “bad” protagonists as correct and justified in their attitudes.
Of course not. There’s a huge difference between making a movie about racism, and making a movie that is racist.
Agreed.
Racist works of art —> here
Celebrated works of art —> here
One issue I have with that is it puts every almost single black actor who portrayed a significant role in a widely seen movie prior to say the late 50s in the “uncelebrated” category. Institutional racism (and regular old racism) ensured the only roles available were bit parts servicing the needs of the white main characters, or racist stereotypes like Mammy in gone with the wind (or bit parts servicing the white characters that were also racist stereotypes).
Also it “rewards” movies (which lets face it is the majority of Hollywood movies before like 1970 at the earliest) that completely ignore the fact non-white people exist. If your entire cast looks like they can trace their ancestors directly to an occupant of the Mayflower, and never so much as hints people who look different exist. Yup you can be celebrated as a great movie maker
If you include Black people in your cast in a way that you (as a white filmmaker who has grown up in a very racist society) think is ok, but actually looks very racist from a 21st century point of view. Nope, no matter how amazing your film is, you can’t celebrate it.
I would argue, yes, a blatantly racist (or sexist, or homophobic, or whatnot) film can be considered great if it excels at various merits.
If it has a fantastic soundtrack, for instance, then it should be considered a good film by music standards. If the special effects, CGI, cinematography, costumes, etc. are great, then it would be a good film by those metrics. Etc.
Where does Breakfast at Tiffany’s go?
In his autobiography, Malcolm X has this to say: “I remember one thing that marred this time for me: the movie ‘Gone with the Wind.’ When it played in Mason, I was the only Negro in the theater, and when Butterfly McQueen went into her act, I felt like crawling under the rug.”
Exactly. Everyone here saying that “well, it wasn’t considered racist at the time” is just forgetting that the experience of Black people back then. They just weren’t part of the discourse.
One can recognize a thing’s importance without celebrating it. Jesus.
What’s racist about Scarlett’s non-stop pining for Ashley?
I tend to agree with this sentiment. It deals with people who lived in an overtly racist culture. But must we consider “not great” all works set in such environments? Weren’t there slaves at the time of Julius Caesar? But Shakespeare could still write movingly about people in that culture. The fact that someone exists within a flawed culture does not IMO mean that that culture’s flaw describes the entirety of that person, and outweighs any possible personal attributes. Or that that person’s thoughts, actions, and aspirations are not worthy subjects of film/literature.
And sure Butterfly McDaniel was a ridiculous character. But comic relief characters are not unique to GWTW. And I’m not sure Mammy or the male slave were presented without at least some measure of dignity and respect.
As others have suggested, racism is only one -ism. Do we disfavor all film/literature concerning cultures which do not respect and value women/different religions/different sexual orientations?
I’m not a student of film, so I’m unqualified to assess GWTW’s “greatness.” But my impression is that it is impressively filmed with some pretty good performances. Heck, that scene outside the train station alone is worth mention. I’d also suggest that the fact that it can inspire discussions such as this might count towards it being - if not great, certainly worth note.
BTW - the whole damned film is unfair to Rhett for losing social standing due to being a war profiteer. Hell - these days, that would just make one an upstanding Republican - if not a vice president! 
You’ve conflated Butterfly McQueen with Hattie McDaniel. Butterfly played Prissy ("I don’t know nothin’ about birthin’ no babies!). Hattie won the Oscar for playing Mammy.
Thanks. Should looked it up/typed more carefully.
Putting something #6 in a list of “100 greatest of all time” is celebrating it. It’s inviting people to watch it so they can appreciate its greatness.
Putting something in the curriculum for Cinema History 101 at the Tisch School of the Arts is recognizing the thing’s importance to Cinema. Nobody cares what movies are considered important at Tisch.
It is identical to the difference between recognizing Robert E Lee’s importance to history, and putting him on a list of history’s 100 greatest men.
It’s like they haven’t even seen the film.
Melanie’s arc, Scarlett’s arc, Rhett’s arc, basically have nothing overtly racist. Yes, they all live in a racist slave society. But Scarlett is a product of her time, and young and naive. Even Rhett only joined the confederacy fighting not due to being pro-slavery or even pro-the mythological “state’s rights”, but because he is a sucker for the underdog.
Scarlett’s not upset because slavery is ending, but because her privileged way of life is ending. She’s racist (and stupid) because she never realized at what cost her privileged way of life was funded. She was young and simple, and grew later, forced by the war.
The film is also sexist, in that Rhett has to tame this wild filly instead of embracing her strengths. His basically raping Scarlett is seen as character strength rather than the assault it was. But, like GH’s Luke and Laura, Rhett and Scarlett overcame this to actually be a good couple. For a while.
According to google: The scene that shows the black centaur that is in a slave grooming a white centaur’s hooves was modified for the remastered version. In the remastered version the camera zooms in on the white centaur.
I read a lot of older books, and I’ve had my eyes popped open by how often and casually the n-word was used in the early 20th C (and earlier, too, I’m sure). Even in a 1930s book about decorating where a color was referred to very off-the-cuff as n-word brown.
This may not fit all your criteria, but the Barbara Stanwyck pre-code movie Baby Doll featured a Black woman (played by Theresa Harris) who was an equal and a friend of the Stanwyck character. I found it very refreshing for such an early film. Harris was also a smart cookie who invested in real estate and had a very comfortable life.
You are implying I hold a position I do not hold, and I’m starting to get resentful.
Go back up and carefully read my post where I established the distinction between a popular-entertainment concept of “greatness” and a more specialized viewpoint, and very clearly said that movies like those we’re discussing qualify for the latter but should be excluded from the former. I also clearly said that “great” is a shitty label because it’s so imprecise.