Gone with the Wind

[Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 302
Forum Member
Now, I don't agree with the people who say that it should be banned, or not shown, but, my God: it's so very, very long and so very, very racist. Nice cinematography though, you know.

Comments

  • lady_xanaxlady_xanax Posts: 5,662
    Forum Member
    indiekid76 wrote: »
    Now, I don't agree with the people who say that it should be banned, or not shown, but, my God: it's so very, very long and so very, very racist. Nice cinematography though, you know.

    It's set in the 19th century in the Deep South, made in the 1930s, and you're surprised it's racist? It's a Hollywood epic; the style of film has a long running time because there is a grander scope.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 302
    Forum Member
    lady_xanax wrote: »
    It's set in the 19th century in the Deep South, made in the 1930s, and you're surprised it's racist? It's a Hollywood epic; the style of film has a long running time because there is a grander scope.

    It came out a year before The Great Dictator, so I don't think that is a valid defence.
  • mgvsmithmgvsmith Posts: 16,452
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I understand the racial connotations of the movie but essentially it is a coming of age story with the American Civil War as a backdrop. As my dad always pointed out it has a number of great scenes, not least the Train Station scene where the camera pulls back to reveal the catastrophe which has befallen the Confederacy and shows a ragged Confederate flag fluttering in the breeze.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Would have expected the marital rape scene would be more problematic than any race issue for modern audiences, and while I am somewhat surprised the bbfc haven't moved it from PG to 12A.... there is no point judging Gone With The Wind by what is polite in 2015 standards. It was made in 1939.
    indiekid76 wrote: »
    It came out a year before The Great Dictator, so I don't think that is a valid defence.

    Chaplin was thrown out of America for his troubles.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    it showed coloured people. But what if it had shown black and white people?
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    Would have expected the marital rape scene would be more problematic than any race issue for modern audiences

    Such a bizarre thing to say.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Takae wrote: »
    Such a bizarre thing to say.

    Explain yourself sir.

    The hero of the film, Rhett Butler, clearly carries anti-hero Scarlett O'Hara off to bed while she protests. For modern audiences spoon fed one dimensional characters in the likes of Jurassic World, I'd imagine this might be hard to process.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    Explain yourself sir.

    The hero of the film, Rhett Butler, clearly carries anti-hero Scarlett O'Hara off to bed while she protests. For modern audiences spoon fed one dimensional characters in the likes of Jurassic World, I'd imagine this might be hard to process.

    It's open to interpretation. Some say it's a clear case of martial rape, and some say it isn't.

    Regardless, I don't understand why one has to view one more problematic than the other when one can view both equally problematic.
  • David WaineDavid Waine Posts: 3,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If I remember rightly, the very next shot shows her sitting up in bed the following morning and looking very happy. Perhaps this argument has been overstated.
  • LMLM Posts: 63,336
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's such a long film, that I normally watch it in 2/3 sittings these days.
  • BeenbagBeenbag Posts: 567
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Perhaps we should bare in mind that it started life as a book and as is well known with book to film adaptations, the only thing they have in common is the title.
    It would be by reading the book you would be able to see how the slavery/racist element was dealt with. As was posted else where, it's a coming of age story mainly.
    From what I remember of the film the servants in the home were treated like members of the family,but, bearing in mind my earlier comment the woman playing the maid pops up in different films of the era playing a similar role, so perhaps it was written with her in mind. Although I have watched the movie a couple of times,it does nothing for me.
    But, tomorrow will still be another day at Tara......
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    strangely topical. Racial discrimination and the confederate flag are issues in usa right now .......
  • Grabid RanniesGrabid Rannies Posts: 4,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Good grief. It's an 80 year old corny romance-fest, with a script motivated by nothing other than knowing the $$$$$$ to be made from being based on a gargantuanly popular bestseller. And as Hattie McDaniel readily said herself about the depiction 'mommies' and 'maids', she could make £30 dollars a week being one or £3000 dollars a week playing one.

    Oh well, roll on the how awful is the existence of 'Song Of The South' thread. ^_^
  • dellzinchtdellzincht Posts: 1,690
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Crap and overrated.

    (Just my opinion.)
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,201
    Forum Member
    indiekid76 wrote: »
    It came out a year before The Great Dictator, so I don't think that is a valid defence.

    As much as it likes to pretend it isn't the U.S. was behind the times then, still is now.
  • Paradise_LostParadise_Lost Posts: 6,454
    Forum Member
    dee123 wrote: »
    As much as it likes to pretend it isn't the U.S. was behind the times then, still is now.

    Someone from Australia might not be the best choice to pontificate on other countries historical race relations, no?
  • dee123dee123 Posts: 46,201
    Forum Member
    Takae wrote: »
    Regardless, I don't understand why one has to view one more problematic than the other when one can view both equally problematic.

    True.
  • stripedcatstripedcat Posts: 6,689
    Forum Member
    Do you know - it's still on my cinematic "to do list". Is that bad? I have it on DVD. The length is a bit off-putting. I have heard that it's quite racist for today's modern standards.
  • Conall CearnachConall Cearnach Posts: 874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    stripedcat wrote: »
    Do you know - it's still on my cinematic "to do list". Is that bad? I have it on DVD. The length is a bit off-putting. I have heard that it's quite racist for today's modern standards.

    I wouldn't say the movie itself is racist but certainly many of the characters are (in the book even the most sympathetic of the white characters is racist). It is set in the Deep South around the time of the American Civil War and the attitudes of the people, particularly the upper class, are pretty accurately portrayed in my opinion. Several of the black characters are portrayed as being ignorant but they are playing slaves and former slaves who would have had no education at all in the real 1860s and would have deliberately been kept ignorant. Most of the white characters are deeply flawed people so it is not as if the movie is saying one race or colour are inherently better than another.

    The heroine (if she is that at all) hates everyone who is not part of the same minute social set as herself i.e. everyone who is not an upper class, white, plantation owning, southern gentlewoman. She openly displays a greater hatred of people based on social class rather than race and her greatest insults are reserved for Yankees and White Trash.
  • Old EndeavourOld Endeavour Posts: 9,852
    Forum Member
    How and in what way is it racist? It's a film about a time when that is how black people were treated.

    What were they supposed to do re-write history and pretend it didn't happen.

    Talk about diminishing real racism.

    Not to mention that Hattie McDaniel was the very first black person to win an Oscar for her work in the film.

    I've heard some utter tripe before but this takes the biscuit.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Not to mention that Hattie McDaniel was the very first black person to win an Oscar for her work in the film

    And yet she wasn't allowed to attend the première of Gone With the Wind in Atlanta. One of the Jim Crow laws in the South banned black people like her to sit with white patrons in public venues. Those laws didn't end for another 24 years.

    She initially couldn't collect her Oscar because the hotel - where the ceremony was held - carry a 'no blacks allowed' policy. It took a studio to - putting it bluntly - bully the hotel owners into agreeing to let her in for one evening, but they still refused to let her sit with other actors in the main dining room. She had to sit at her table with her agent right at the back, next to the kitchen door.

    Half of national film magazines refused to acknowledge McHattie and her Oscar win. There were several letters of complaints in every national newspaper in the US about her winning the Oscar.

    Sidney Poitier - the second black person to win an Oscar - experienced almost all that himself when he won an Oscar for his performance in Lilies of the Field some 20 years later.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I wouldn't say the movie itself is racist but certainly many of the characters are (in the book even the most sympathetic of the white characters is racist). It is set in the Deep South around the time of the American Civil War and the attitudes of the people, particularly the upper class, are pretty accurately portrayed in my opinion. Several of the black characters are portrayed as being ignorant but they are playing slaves and former slaves who would have had no education at all in the real 1860s and would have deliberately been kept ignorant. Most of the white characters are deeply flawed people so it is not as if the movie is saying one race or colour are inherently better than another.

    The heroine (if she is that at all) hates everyone who is not part of the same minute social set as herself i.e. everyone who is not an upper class, white, plantation owning, southern gentlewoman. She openly displays a greater hatred of people based on social class rather than race and her greatest insults are reserved for Yankees and White Trash.

    Good post.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,031
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    stripedcat wrote: »
    Do you know - it's still on my cinematic "to do list". Is that bad? I have it on DVD. The length is a bit off-putting. I have heard that it's quite racist for today's modern standards.

    It's two distinct halves, the first is about 104 minutes, the second just over two hours, it'd probably be better to watch them separately than in one go.

    But yes, it's well worth seeing if you are interested in the history of cinema. The first half is better than the second in my opinion but when it's good it's amazing- none of the blockbusters of today can really hold a candle to it, it looks gorgeous and it does feel like you're watching history, a film from another time about another time.
  • Conall CearnachConall Cearnach Posts: 874
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    It's two distinct halves, the first is about 104 minutes, the second just over two hours, it'd probably be better to watch them separately than in one go.

    Yes, if done today it would definitely be two movies. If Peter Jackson got hold of it it would probably be 7 or 8.
Sign In or Register to comment.