"Gone With the Wind" - going to get the "Song of the South" treatment?

[Guinastasia]

I only watch it for the costumes. Gorgeous, gorgeous costumes.

[Gatopescado]

@JoseB

Tried to watch “Gone with the wind” once. Once. Couldn’t finish it. “Boring” doesn’t even begin to describe the effect it had on me.

I guess that some decades from now it will end up being like other films that are praised in film classes but actually are almost never shown to the general public due to disinterest.

You might call it, “The Citizen Kane of Boring Movies”, if “Citizen Kane” didn’t already hold that title.

[Smapti]

@DSYoungEsq

It’s not an academic question: MSN

You’re right. It’s a business decision. You believe in capitalism, right? You’re not some sort of filthy Commie who wants to shut down the free market, are you? In this case, the business, which exists for the purpose of making money, decided that showing the film would cause them to experience the opposite of making money, otherwise known as “losing money”.

That’s the free market for you. What are you going to do? Force theaters to show movies their customers don’t want to see? Force people to buy tickets for movies they don’t want to see? Ban people from voting with their wallets or expressing their distaste for a form of art they don’t like? I thought this was 'merica!

[Reddy_Mercury]

@Baker

It remains one of the favorite movies of my mother. But she used it to teach me something. The first time I watched it with her, at a small theater in the late 70’s, she made one comment about a particular scene that has stayed with me.

It’s right when Scarlett has brought Melanie, the baby, and Prissy back to Tara. It’s devasated. Pork, the butler for Mr. O’Hara, tells her about what has happened. They have one cow, and Scarlett says he will have to milk the cow for the baby. He replies, in consternation, “But Miss Scarlett, we’s house servants!” Mom told me it was sad when someone could be conditioned like Pork, was, to accept such a place as he had.

Mom loves the movie, but that didn’t mean she liked all the people in it. And the movie itself soft pedaled some of the incidents in the book.

When Hattie McDaniel won Best Supporting Actress I heard a story she had been shunted off to a corner of the dining room where the awards were held. Anyone know if that’s true? Of all the characters in the movie, I liked her best. Most of the roles she had were those of servants, but she was quoted as saying she’d rather make $150 a week playing a maid, than $5 a week actually being one.

I don’t know about the Oscars, but I do know this:

[Extensive quoting of copyrighted material about Clark Gable’s efforts to desegregate GWTW movie set deleted at request of copyright owner. Deleted material may be viewed at:

https://reelrundown.com/film-industry/Clark-Gable-Desegregates-Gone-With-The-Wind-Movie-Set -EZ]

[kaylasdad99]

If it does, I think they should make Scarlett O’Hara look like Jessica Rabbit.

Rrowr.

Oh, wait; that isn’t what you’re asking about, is it?

Has anyone said “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn” yet?

[VinylTurnip]

In a contemporary sense, yes.

[madmonk28]

I prefer Django Unchained; it’s about as historically accurate and a lot funnier.

[HumbleThinker]

@Okrahoma

People have a right to be stupid, ridiculous, and immoral. Still doesn’t mean they should be stupid, ridiculous or immoral.

If you don’t like a show on TV - don’t watch it. If you don’t like a movie - don’t go see it. You don’t like a book - don’t read it. But agitating against the TV network, movie theater or a book publisher is advocating censorship. No, it is not government censorship, so it is not against the first amendment, but censorship nonetheless.

You would be the first one to say it is stupid and ridiculous for the “moral majority” people to agitate against movie theaters that are showing let’s say “Fifty Shades of Gray”. You’d say “don’t like it, don’t watch it” right?

At the most benign level, do you not suggest to your friends to watch things you find enjoyable and you think they would find enjoyable? And on the other hand, do you not suggest to your friends to not watch things you do not find enjoyable and you think they would not find enjoyable? I know I do, and I would not qualify that as censorship.

So when does agitation qualify as advocating censorship? When I tell a bunch of my friends they shouldn’t bother watching a show because they wouldn’t like it? When I tell all my followers on social media they shouldn’t bother watching a show because they wouldn’t like it? When I tell these same groups of people they shouldn’t bother watching any show a company makes because they wouldn’t like it? When I tell these same groups of people they shouldn’t bother watching a show because it advocates racism? When I tell these same groups of people they shouldn’t bother watching any show a company makes because one or more of their shows advocates racism? When I tell these same groups of people they shouldn’t bother watching any show a company makes because the CEO is racist? When?

And isn’t your position advocating censorship of the agitators? If so, why should their censure be acceptable but not the censure of a business?

And to answer your last question, I would both tell them “don’t like it, don’t watch it” and I would accept any legal attempts they make to speak against whatever product they find offensive. That is their right, and it’s how capitalism works. As in a democracy, the power in capitalism should lie in regular people, not institutions (in this case businesses). Where the moral majority folks overstep their bounds is when they seek government sponsorship of their censorship.

Enough people being convinced not to buy a product by fellow consumers is one thing; the government forcing a product not to be sold in the first place is another.

[Just_Asking_Questions]

I like the movie - I wish it were longer. I get wrapped up in the depictions of the South. I think Rhett and Scarlett are…interesting characters.

But I don’t like them. I don’t want to be them or even know actual people like them. But they are fascinating to watch in a movie. This movie is a great movie about horrible people.

Should The Godfather get the same reaction? it, too, is a great movie about horrible people. Does The Godfather glorify criminality, extortion, corruption and murder? (Maybe it does, actually, for some viewers. There sure seem to be a lot of people that are envious of or emulate mobsters.)

[Lemur866]

“Gone With the Wind” isn’t getting the “Song of the South” treatment. The movie is available to watch, you can buy a copy, it’s shown everywhere. Unlike “Song of the South” which the publisher has withdrawn from the market and you can’t legally buy a copy or watch it anywhere.

Is “Gone With the Wind” racist? Sure, like a lot of things from the 1940s it’s racist. I mean, just watch it. Lots of movies and books from the Olden Times are racist, or have racist elements. But GWTW doesn’t just have offhand racially jarring elements. It depicts masters and slaves, and the slaves are background characters. Any such depiction of antebellum plantation life from the 1940s is bound to whitewash things, and GWTW certainly does.

On the other hand GWTW isn’t a straight-up defense of the Lost Cause. The characters in the book certainly believe in the Lost Cause, but they’re not paragons, they’re morally flawed people, and their vanity and hypocrisy and foolishness is shown clearly.

[RTFirefly]

@DSYoungEsq

In addition, it should be noted that the Civil War acts mostly as back-drop for the real story.

Up to the burning of Atlanta, anyway, the Civil War was a backdrop.

Reconstruction, not so much. Once the war ends, Reconstruction is very much in the center of things, in the book at least. (Haven’t seen the movie in decades.) In her narrative voice, Mitchell avers that Reconstruction was far worse than the war itself, which is quite a thing to say, given that the war left hundreds of thousands dead on both sides, and devastated a (formerly) healthy swath of the South.

At any rate, the alleged evils of Reconstruction confront the main characters, and therefore the reader, at every turn, once you’re into that part of the book. It’s anything but a backdrop.

[CalMeacham]

@Lemur866

“Gone With the Wind” isn’t getting the “Song of the South” treatment. The movie is available to watch, you can buy a copy, it’s shown everywhere. Unlike “Song of the South” which the publisher has withdrawn from the market and you can’t legally buy a copy or watch it anywhere.

.

It’s not true that you “can’t buy it anywhere”. Disney has only withdrawn it from the US market, as far as I know. You can still buy Song of the South VHS from Amazon UK, for instance.
Actually, if you look online you can find US region DVDs of it available, as well.

The full-length film has been released in various European, Latin American, and Asian countries. In the UK, it was released on PAL VHS tape in 1982 and again in 1991. In Japan it appeared on NTSC VHS, Beta, and LaserDisc in 1985 then again on LaserDisc in 1990 with subtitles during songs. (Note: under Japanese copyright law, the film is now in the public domain.)[38] A NTSC LaserDisc was released in Hong Kong for the Chinese rental market by Intercontinental Video Ltd which has been the exclusive distributor of Walt Disney Studios since 1988. This release appears to have been created from a PAL videotape, and has a 4% faster running time because of its PAL source, and thus also suffers from “frame ghosting”.[39][40] While most foreign releases of the film are literal translations of the English title, the German title, Onkel Remus’ Wunderland, translates to “Uncle Remus’ Wonderland”, the Italian title, Racconti Dello Zio Tom, translates to “The Stories of Uncle Tom”,[41] and the Norwegian title Onkel Remus forteller translates to “Storyteller Uncle Remus.”[42]

Song of the South

I agree with you that it’s not a “straight-up defense of the Lost Cause”. It’s story set in the Civil War told from the point of view of the southern characters. It is, of course, going to be slanted in its depiction. It would’ve been more acceptable to modern sensibilities if there had been more rebellion 9and less loyalty) among the black slaves, but Mitchell wasn’t built that way,

[DSYoungEsq]

@Smapti

You’re right. It’s a business decision. You believe in capitalism, right? You’re not some sort of filthy Commie who wants to shut down the free market, are you? In this case, the business, which exists for the purpose of making money, decided that showing the film would cause them to experience the opposite of making money, otherwise known as “losing money”.

That’s the free market for you. What are you going to do? Force theaters to show movies their customers don’t want to see? Force people to buy tickets for movies they don’t want to see? Ban people from voting with their wallets or expressing their distaste for a form of art they don’t like? I thought this was 'merica!

You will please note that I made no statement regarding how I view the matter. I simply offered a link to a relevant story. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make assumptions that are unwarranted. :dubious:

[DSYoungEsq]

@RTFirefly

Up to the burning of Atlanta, anyway, the Civil War was a backdrop.

Reconstruction, not so much. Once the war ends, Reconstruction is very much in the center of things, in the book at least. (Haven’t seen the movie in decades.) In her narrative voice, Mitchell avers that Reconstruction was far worse than the war itself, which is quite a thing to say, given that the war left hundreds of thousands dead on both sides, and devastated a (formerly) healthy swath of the South.

At any rate, the alleged evils of Reconstruction confront the main characters, and therefore the reader, at every turn, once you’re into that part of the book. It’s anything but a backdrop.

Sorry, I should have clarified I was discussing the movie, where the “evils” of Reconstruction are still mostly backdrop to the character plots.

[RTFirefly]

@DSYoungEsq

Sorry, I should have clarified I was discussing the movie, where the “evils” of Reconstruction are still mostly backdrop to the character plots.

You may be right about the movie. My memories of it are pretty fuzzy at this point.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@DSYoungEsq

You will please note that I made no statement regarding how I view the matter. I simply offered a link to a relevant story. I’d appreciate it if you didn’t make assumptions that are unwarranted. :dubious:

Hey, if you want us to infer your opinion because you don’t feel like stating it, don’t get huffed when we infer the opinion we think reflects your actual intent.

[Guinastasia]

@Lemur866

“Gone With the Wind” isn’t getting the “Song of the South” treatment. The movie is available to watch, you can buy a copy, it’s shown everywhere. Unlike “Song of the South” which the publisher has withdrawn from the market and you can’t legally buy a copy or watch it anywhere.

Is “Gone With the Wind” racist? Sure, like a lot of things from the 1940s it’s racist. I mean, just watch it. Lots of movies and books from the Olden Times are racist, or have racist elements. But GWTW doesn’t just have offhand racially jarring elements. It depicts masters and slaves, and the slaves are background characters. Any such depiction of antebellum plantation life from the 1940s is bound to whitewash things, and GWTW certainly does.

On the other hand GWTW isn’t a straight-up defense of the Lost Cause. The characters in the book certainly believe in the Lost Cause, but they’re not paragons, they’re morally flawed people, and their vanity and hypocrisy and foolishness is shown clearly.

“Racially jarring elements”? Pixy’s character made me cringe, big time. The only way I could stomach it is if I pretended to myself that she was retarded.

[Lemur866]

I meant the opposite of that, the racist elements in GWTW go clear down to the bone. Some works of the time have a little interlude that is racist by modern standards, but you could just clip that little racist bit out and what you’re left with is fine. So for example, the pickaninny centaur from “Fantasia”. Yeah, that’s super-racist, but it’s just a weird racist one-off that they kinda crop out nowadays. It’s gratuitous racism tossed into a work that is otherwise not super racist. And note that they have “exotic” negro zebra centaurs that are…racially problematic maybe, but not horrifyingly and blatantly and gratuitously racist.

Gone with the Wind isn’t like that, with one tossed in racially jarring element thrown in gratuitously. It has the antebellum south, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, all shown from the point of view of wealthy plantation owners. The racist stuff is all through it.

[Reddy_Mercury]

@Lemur866

I meant the opposite of that, the racist elements in GWTW go clear down to the bone. Some works of the time have a little interlude that is racist by modern standards, but you could just clip that little racist bit out and what you’re left with is fine. So for example, the pickaninny centaur from “Fantasia”. Yeah, that’s super-racist, but it’s just a weird racist one-off that they kinda crop out nowadays. It’s gratuitous racism tossed into a work that is otherwise not super racist. And note that they have “exotic” negro zebra centaurs that are…racially problematic maybe, but not horrifyingly and blatantly and gratuitously racist.

Gone with the Wind isn’t like that, with one tossed in racially jarring element thrown in gratuitously. It has the antebellum south, the Civil War, and Reconstruction, all shown from the point of view of wealthy plantation owners. The racist stuff is all through it.

To be fair, it isn’t shown to take either side politically. It’s not told from the viewpoint of the generals or political leaders, but from the POV of people on the ground, who did indeed watch their way of life as they had known it disappear. We know their way of life was wrong, but still, the terrors of Sherman’s March were likely not fun for those on the lower strata of Southern society who experienced it. The War, the Aftermath and such are the backdrops of it.

[DSYoungEsq]

@Bryan_Ekers

Hey, if you want us to infer your opinion because you don’t feel like stating it, don’t get huffed when we infer the opinion we think reflects your actual intent.

Why do I have to have an opinion? :dubious: