Dunno if he had a girlfriend like Scarlett, but a wealthy man in my West Texas hometown loved the movie so much that he built a replica of Tara for his home, not far from our house. It was eventually turned into a fancy restaurant.
It’s just a movie. People sure do get worked up over a lotta stuff.
While I’m not disagreeing on the basic oppressiveness of the social code in question, it can’t really be understood quite as simplistically as that. I’m sure there were plenty of relations and acquaintances prepared “to take Rhett and the girl at their word” that “nothing untoward had happened”, but it was considered far too grave a matter for the local society simply to “take people at their word” about such a drastic breach of the conventions.
To take what might be a comparably shocking situation in our own day: Suppose a nationally known politician’s teenage daughter was found to be dating a prominent member of a violent drug cartel south of the border and vacationing in Acapulco with him and his highly criminal family and associates. There is no proof that the girl herself is involved with or supporting illegal activities in any way. Nonetheless, do you think public opinion would tolerate simply “taking the girl at her word” about her lawabidingness and allowing the situation to continue? I very much doubt it.
Really scandalous breaches of social decency are so serious that it becomes almost irrelevant whether or not the transgressors actually committed the specific acts that the dictates of social decency are supposed to prevent. The point is that even the appearance of being involved in such a situation is enough to compromise you and reflect badly on your associates.
We moderns have long forgotten what it was like to think of premarital sexual activity in that category of appalling immorality, but back then the shock and horror were sincere. Heck, even as late as 1922, sixty years after antebellum Charleston, the consequences of such a mishap were still taken rather seriously:
Moses and Aaron on a stick, we’re talking about Gone With the Wind, not Star Trek!
Fan wanking! Oye!
Yep.
Causing all the zaps? What does it mean, “zap”?
:rolleyes:
I learned some new things while looking up references for this thread. One of the most (it should be the least at this point) surprising things is that there is such a thing as ‘Windies’ as they are known. They are the Gone With the Wind Equivalent of Trekies and just as geeky. They have costumes, special language, conventions, parties and re-enactments just like the best of the other types.
? What’s “fan wanking” about the description I gave of a fictional situation set in a real society?
Remember, folks, the antebellum South described by Margaret Mitchell did actually exist once upon a time, and AFAICT my explanation of how people in that society generally reacted to a girl’s being “compromised”, even inadvertently, by a man in an unchaperoned situation is accurate.
Special language? You mean “y’all”, “soda pop” and “Youins”?
Perhaps I’ll go to a convention, just to see women in period dress.
I apologize again for all my shortcomings.
>bows<
I find it to be very relevant wrt to state of film making in 1939.
Given that it was made in 1939, the direction and the nature of the film production both seem to be first class - even though we know (or should know) there were 3 different directors used to make this film and I’m afraid I can’t even spot the three different styles - let alone acknowledge which style belongs to which director.
You would think that is something that most lay people should be able to figure out. So, it strikes me kind of funny that anyone (I’m referring to myself) who can’t spot the different styles of the directors would still feel qualified to claim that certain elements of this film are better than others. I’d love to be able to make those kind of claims. But given that I can’t tell which parts of the film are directed by which people, I really must not make those kinds of claims. Making claims like that is just silly. Isn’t it? Well, I certainly feel silly when I do that.
Wow, I have to say I’m surprised at some of the forcefulness of the posters in this thread.
It’s okay to say that a character, or even a chunk of the movie, hasn’t aged well. I recently re-watched “Coming to America.” Great actors, absolutely timeless classic storyline, was hugely popular at the time-- and it’s hard not to cringe through the whole thing. I’d imagine showing it to a modern 15 year old, who may have African students in their classroom, would yield some puzzled looks. Not because it’s a terrible movie or has no value, but it just hasn’t aged well, and it relies on stereotypes that may have made sense to the audience then but don’t make sense to today’s audience.
And this happens all the time- just look at the Merchant of Venice. Yeah, maybe Shylock was just doing what Jewish people at the time had to do, or maybe he’s deeper than he may seem, or maybe he reflected contemporary perspectives on Jewish people. But in the end, he really is just an anti-Semitic character that was there because that played well at the time and nobody considered not making him a clumsy stereotype.
Personally, I find GWTW pretty much like Titanic-- Great for what it is, but not anything more than what it is.
Having the Last Visited time immediately reset upon login, thus marking everything as Read and rendering clicking on New Posts useless. It’s occurring for quite a few of us.
Interesting discussion re Margaret Mitchell and GWTW here
While I’ve got you all here…
I first saw Gone With the Wind at the Arkansas Arts Center in the late 1970’s. I would swear that I have seen Rhet jump over the concrete post fence when Bonnie falls off her pony.
Does anyone else remember this?
A few years back Historic Arkansas Museum in Little Rock had a GWTW exhibit about the influence the movie had on perceptions about the late unpleasantness.
You mean, you’re remembering something in that scene that the standard cut of the movie doesn’t show?
THREE quickies:
One: There’s a GONE WITH THE WIND museum in Atlanta. It’s located in an apartment that Mitchell lived in while writing it. It is easily the most overpriced and disappointing museum I’ve ever been in- avoid it. Nothing to see here, move it along.
Two: I go to Dragon-Con, a big (~60,000 attendees) sci-fi/fantasy/cosplay convention in midtown Atlanta each year at Labor Day. I’m always disappointed at the lack of GWTW cosplay, because it lends itself so well: zombie Scarlett, steampunk Rhett, Scarlett-in-drapes-dress-as-Dalek, etc., but never gets done.
Three: The set that was used for Atlanta in GWTW was also used for, among many other things, Mayberry in ANDY GRIFFITH SHOW, several episodes of STAR TREK (including the City on the Edge of Forever), and numerous other movies, and you can recognize the buildings. The ruins of Tara and the train depot were on a hill above and visible from the Main Street set.
[clap, clap] well played, sir.
Thanks.
The thing I find most objectionable by far occurs in the first few seconds of the movie. It’s the title card:
That is puke inducing and the movie would have been better without it. It does not appear in the book and it is not the spirit of the book. I can only assume it was written by some purple prose writer who was shagging Selznick and wanted a screen credit. I can see how it would be an instant turnoff to somebody watching the movie.
But, it’s there.
That jumped out at me as well, when I watched last night. Gag.
Compare and contrast “knights and ladies fair” with a viewing of Django Unchained or 12 Years a Slave.
btw, just to be pedantic, the title comes from the poem “Non sum qualis eram bonae sub regno Cynarae”, by Ernest Dowson.