What should be done about Gone With the Wind?

[Giovenith]

afaik, Warner brothers puts this disclaimer before some of their older cartoons on dvd or whatever.

(Image)

So why not a similar thing on DVDs for gone with the wind ?



The other extreme would be to destroy all negatives and masters, and deny that the film ever existed. Always been at war with Oceania style.

I like the way that WB handles it, unlike Disney shoving Song of the South into the vault never to be seen again...

To be fair, Song of the South was considered kind of iffy and gross even during the time period it was released. Not as much as the general audience considers it today, but even then, quite a few critics were voicing that Disney probably didn't make the wisest choice with that one.

[Auristania]

Gone with the Wind is an excellent movie. It is super doper entertaining.
Bad news it is pro-slavery propaganda.

Ivan the Terrible is an excellent movie. It is super doper entertaining.
Bad news it is pro tyranny propaganda.

Casablanca is an excellent movie. It is super doper entertaining.
Bad news it is anti-nazi propaganda.

Just slap a government health warning on propaganda movies and let us see them all,

[Zuvon]

Gone with the Wind is a classic film released in 1939 that adapts the 1936 novel of the same name by Margaret Mitchell. The novel/film tells the story of Scarlett O'Hara, the daughter of southern planters in antebellum Georgia, and covers her story throughout the antebellum era, the Civil War, and Reconstruction. Now the movie is considered one of the greatest films every produced, but it is fraught with a number of issues with its story and content. Of course when I say this I refer to how both the film and novel propagate the myth of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy(Basically the idea that the south fought for states rights, honor etc and was only defeated due to overwhelming power.) Not only that but the film also implies that slavery was a benign institution, as evidenced by how the slaves within the film seem to be content/how the film never portrays slavery in an explicitly negative light. Now my question to you NSG is as follows: Given that in recent years there has been a push to remove/reevaluate confederate memorials, monuments, southern history etc...What do you think should be done about Gone with the Wind? Do you believe that it should be banned from sale/public showings/do you think the film is southern propaganda? Or do you feel as if the movie should remain freely available/is fine as it is? Personally I feel that the film should be recognized as an important piece of cinema, but should perhaps be reevaluated for some of its more controversial elements.

Haven't watch it, but I think I'll get a copies now. Or the novel.

[Rostavykhan]

^This.

It's the best damn line in cinematic history.

I might have slept through it in Georgia History, but this line...this line I do remember.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Revisionism blows. Take the movie in the historical context. There’s really no need to over analyze it.

This, I completely agree with this opinion. It sucks that we're removing all these parts of history just because they're offending us, people need to stop this nonsense and just ignore it if they're so offended.

It’s not about ignoring things. It’s about recognizing the context in which they were made. “Gone With The Wind” didn’t exist in a vacuum. Removing offending or perceived offensive parts does not change that the situations depicted happened. If there’s a compelling worry, just attach some sort of a disclaimer with educational highlights regarding some of the topics that will be shown. No need to do more than that.

[Scomagia]

This, I completely agree with this opinion. It sucks that we're removing all these parts of history just because they're offending us, people need to stop this nonsense and just ignore it if they're so offended.

It’s not about ignoring things. It’s about recognizing the context in which they were made. “Gone With The Wind” didn’t exist in a vacuum. Removing offending or perceived offensive parts does not change that the situations depicted happened. If there’s a compelling worry, just attach some sort of a disclaimer with educational highlights regarding some of the topics that will be shown. No need to do more than that.

Even the disclaimer is unneeded. We don't need disclaimers telling us that novels are...fictional.

[Nova Cyberia]

Nothing. What is anyone supposed to do? It's an old movie and a piece of history. Leave it alone.

[Hanafuridake]

Honestly wish people would bring up the marital rape scene instead of just the idealized plantation life.

I honestly wish people would stop finding things to get their panties in a twist over. It's not as though the novel is ever presented as anything but fiction.

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean that it is free from having objectionable content, such as a scene where a husband rapes his wife and is presented as being in the right. Especially considering how until recently, it was legal in the United States to force your wife to have sex and this film showcases a common conception where a woman who won't put out is just leading a man on and needs to be seized aggressively.

[Loftegen 2]

I honestly wish people would stop finding things to get their panties in a twist over. It's not as though the novel is ever presented as anything but fiction.

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean that it is free from having objectionable content, such as a scene where a husband rapes his wife and is presented as being in the right. Especially considering how until recently, it was legal in the United States to force your wife to have sex and this film showcases a common conception where a woman who won't put out is just leading a man on and needs to be seized aggressively.

Try not being stupid as fuck. It suits you better.

[Scomagia]

I honestly wish people would stop finding things to get their panties in a twist over. It's not as though the novel is ever presented as anything but fiction.

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean that it is free from having objectionable content, such as a scene where a husband rapes his wife and is presented as being in the right. Especially considering how until recently, it was legal in the United States to force your wife to have sex and this film showcases a common conception where a woman who won't put out is just leading a man on and needs to be seized aggressively.

And? "Oh no, objectionable content!"

It doesn't matter in the slightest.

[Hanafuridake]

Just because something is fictional doesn't mean that it is free from having objectionable content, such as a scene where a husband rapes his wife and is presented as being in the right. Especially considering how until recently, it was legal in the United States to force your wife to have sex and this film showcases a common conception where a woman who won't put out is just leading a man on and needs to be seized aggressively.

And? "Oh no, objectionable content!"

It doesn't matter in the slightest.

I disagree, presenting rape in a positive light absolutely does matter. Films and novels don't exist in a vacuum.

[Katganistan]

afaik, Warner brothers puts this disclaimer before some of their older cartoons on dvd or whatever.

(Image)

So why not a similar thing on DVDs for gone with the wind ?



The other extreme would be to destroy all negatives and masters, and deny that the film ever existed. Always been at war with Oceania style.

I like the way that WB handles it, unlike Disney shoving Song of the South into the vault never to be seen again...

Except it's been released overseas (Song of the South).

[Scomagia]

And? "Oh no, objectionable content!"

It doesn't matter in the slightest.

I disagree, presenting rape in a positive light absolutely does matter. Films and novels don't exist in a vacuum.

And the audience is perfectly capable of seeing what's wrong with such content. Just because a film or novel fails to portray something in a negative light doesn't mean it is implicitly endorsing it, either. Not everything that is depicted in fiction is meant to be applied generally to real life, you know.

So, I really couldn't care less about the "objectionable content". I do care about revisionism and treating audiences like they are morons who might think slavery or rape are good because Gone With The Wind didn't show them in darkest possible light.

[New haven america]

Honestly wish people would bring up the marital rape scene instead of just the idealized plantation life.

Yeah, even 10 year old me was kinda disturbed by that scene

I guess back then rape was ok as long as you knew your victim or something. Glad we don't think that way (as much) anymore

Marital rape didn't exist back then, and continued to not exist until the mid-late 1900's.

Being married was seen as an open invitation to do whatever your spouse wants regardless of whether you want to do it or not. (Except for cheating, or threesomes, or cucking, bringing in other people into the sexual relationship was viewed as the worst thing you could possibly do)

[Cedoria]

The movie is honestly historical revisionism and ought be disclaimed as such.

Also, I never thought it was a great film, which is by far it's worse crime.

But I'm not going to go up in arms and say ban it or stop people watching it. People like trash films all the time, I like some trash films too. Doesn't mean the film shouldn't exist.

[Scomagia]

The movie is honestly historical revisionism and ought be disclaimed as such.

Also, I never thought it was a great film, which is by far it's worse crime.

But I'm not going to go up in arms and say ban it or stop people watching it. People like trash films all the time, I like some trash films too. Doesn't mean the film shouldn't exist.

Fiction doesn't need disclaimers.

[The Two Jerseys]

I like the way that WB handles it, unlike Disney shoving Song of the South into the vault never to be seen again...

Except it's been released overseas (Song of the South).

I feel robbed...

[Kenshiri]

The movie is honestly historical revisionism and ought be disclaimed as such.

Also, I never thought it was a great film, which is by far it's worse crime.

But I'm not going to go up in arms and say ban it or stop people watching it. People like trash films all the time, I like some trash films too. Doesn't mean the film shouldn't exist.

Fiction doesn't need disclaimers.

Everything's a fiction. That doesn't mean it's not true.

Religion is a fiction, yet I am a Christian. Language is a fiction, but I speak English. Likewise, if a fiction needs a disclaimer, like we put on Nazism, Communism, and as some people say Islam, then that is a disclaimer then we should put on there. Likewise, if we need to put a disclaimer on Gone With the Wind, then we should.

[Scomagia]

Fiction doesn't need disclaimers.

Everything's a fiction. That doesn't mean it's not true.

Religion is a fiction, yet I am a Christian. Language is a fiction, but I speak English. Likewise, if a fiction needs a disclaimer, like we put on Nazism, Communism, and as some people say Islam, then that is a disclaimer then we should put on there. Likewise, if we need to put a disclaimer on Gone With the Wind, then we should.

No. We don't need to patronize people.

[Kowani]

Fiction doesn't need disclaimers.

Everything's a fiction. That doesn't mean it's not true.

Religion is a fiction, yet I am a Christian. Language is a fiction, but I speak English. Likewise, if a fiction needs a disclaimer, like we put on Nazism, Communism, and as some people say Islam, then that is a disclaimer then we should put on there. Likewise, if we need to put a disclaimer on Gone With the Wind, then we should.

I feel like you don’t understand what fiction is...

[The Sherpa Empire]

Nothing needs to be done about it. It's a work of fiction.

If it's shown in an educational setting, the accompanying lessons should discuss what's realistic/accurate and what's not.

Also, I don't think it made the Confederates look particularly glamorous. Some parts just make the CSA look stupid. The depiction of slavery is definitely the best-case scenario, ignoring a lot of abuse, but hey, it's not a documentary.

[Cannot think of a name]

I disagree, presenting rape in a positive light absolutely does matter. Films and novels don't exist in a vacuum.

And the audience is perfectly capable of seeing what's wrong with such content. Just because a film or novel fails to portray something in a negative light doesn't mean it is implicitly endorsing it, either. Not everything that is depicted in fiction is meant to be applied generally to real life, you know.

So, I really couldn't care less about the "objectionable content". I do care about revisionism and treating audiences like they are morons who might think slavery or rape are good because Gone With The Wind didn't show them in darkest possible light.

Eh, I'll go sort of halfway on this. This will seem obscure but it kind of makes a point that's been festering in my head, maybe not fully formed.

There's this old Kenny Rogers movie, I think it's Six Pack since the only reason I'd be watching a Kenny Rogers movie is if it was about racing, but I can't be sure. Doesn't really matter. Anyway. 80s. I'm a kid. In the 80s. Rogers and the lead woman get in some sort of argument about something...maybe he's not giving enough of a shit about the titular six pack of kids or whatever. He says something shitty, she slaps him or maybe doesn't, I'm certainly not watching this movie again to make a half assed point on a forum, he grabs her wrists and pins her against the wall and kisses her. Smash cut, fucking.

It's not an uncommon scene. "I hate you" "Fuck you, I'm going to kiss you until you stop struggling" "We're a couple now."

I guess my empathy was still in place at the time and I was still learning societal norms but it stuck with me. Like, really stuck with me because I don't remember exactly why I was watching a Kenny Rogers movie or even which one or what it was about...I think Six Pack is about a race car driver ending up with six kids somehow? But that one scene is vivid in my memory. Because all I could think was, "Man, that's fucked up. You can't just kiss someone. And, like, you're wrong in this scene in almost every way. She has every right to be mad at you and now you're doing this?"

Of course the subtext of the scene was that the only reason she would be this mad at someone who was being predictably bad in a situation he was obviously not equipped for nor wanted any part of is if she had feelings for him and so he was cutting the proverbial Gordian knot and getting at the core of what she was feeling...but it still seemed wrong. A Something You Shouldn't Do. But no one seemed to have a problem with it. Narratively, it worked out for him. Kiss angry chick, get sex even if you're Kenny Rogers. And I carried this around...too this day, kind of bothered by it.

There were others, the now famous scene from Revenge of the Nerds where the hero rapes by deception a sorority chick and since she came it was okay. Didn't sit right with me at the time, but he was the hero. I thought in my head, "There's no way. No way a chick could find out she's been fucking the wrong dude and be okay with it." But narratively things worked out for him and no one said anything.

And the thing is, if you're particularly obsessed with media and society and you spend, say, sixteen years on a specific forum you end up seeing more than a few people discuss norms and practices that they 'see every day' and realize they're talking about the movies and tv shows they watch.

As much as we want to picture ourselves as islands of intellect, even when we are individually bothered by a portrayal of Kenny Rogers forcing a kiss on an angry woman, the culture at large might take another thirty years and massive social movement to finally scream at the top of their lungs, "No, that's not okay. Even if the subtext of her anger is romantic feelings, that's not the way to access them."

Which is not to say that I think Six Pack should be banned (I think being a largely forgettable movie staring Kenny fucking Rogers did that work all on its own) or no one should ever watch Revenge of the Nerds...even though these are by most metrics kind of bad movies all on their own, and certainly not that we should stop watching Gone With the Wind...we still watched Birth of a Nation in film school. But we put the movie in its context. We say something. That little kid (I don't know what kid is sitting through Birth of a Nation or Gone With the Wind, but go with me here) who thinks, "He can't just do that, right? I mean, Scarlet is awful but no one deserves that" or "Wait, weren't the slave owners the bad guys?" (the one bug I had hanging in me while still watching as much Dukes of Hazzard as I could) can go, "Oh, okay. I was right." or the person who is maybe making these decisions gets another shot at the issue.

Some shit is done, only exists as a historical curiosity to know who we were and the dumb shit we deemed appropriate, like pickaninny jokes in Warner Brothers cartoons. Or the impact on the art form has to be couched in the politics and norms of its time like Birth of a Nation. With things like Gone With the Wind, just give it its context and have the discussion. Which isn't even a stretch, more often than not with a movie as historic and significant as that film is, it's 'presented' with some expert introducing it and talking about it.

Essentially the answer to 'what do we do about Gone With the Wind' is 'what we're already doing.'

[Pacomia]

afaik, Warner brothers puts this disclaimer before some of their older cartoons on dvd or whatever.

(Image)

So why not a similar thing on DVDs for gone with the wind ?



The other extreme would be to destroy all negatives and masters, and deny that the film ever existed. Always been at war with Oceania style.

I like the way that WB handles it, unlike Disney shoving Song of the South into the vault never to be seen again...

To be honest, Disney’s sort of corrupt.

[First American Empire]

I think it is just fine. It represents the motives of the people at the time. Most people were of the opinion that they were fighting for states rights and honor. Most of the big slaveholders didn't even fight. And the lives of a lot of slaves were not bad lives. In the majority of cases, they were treated almost as part of the family. Just because this movie doesn't show the worst of slavery and the bad motives behind some people, doesn't mean it is bad. These slaveholders were a small minority, and I don't think it is fair to only show the side of the story that is generally promoted by the north( i.e. that most southerners were cruel, slave owning people who only fought to keep others in bondage). Now, don't get the wrong idea here. I am very glad the north won. The south was wrong in their cause and they should not have rebelled. But to only show half the story is a very bad thing and borders on propaganda.

WTF?! Slavery in the South was so brutal and cruel that even other slaveholding societies would have been horrified.

[New haven america]

I think it is just fine. It represents the motives of the people at the time. Most people were of the opinion that they were fighting for states rights and honor. Most of the big slaveholders didn't even fight. And the lives of a lot of slaves were not bad lives. In the majority of cases, they were treated almost as part of the family. Just because this movie doesn't show the worst of slavery and the bad motives behind some people, doesn't mean it is bad. These slaveholders were a small minority, and I don't think it is fair to only show the side of the story that is generally promoted by the north( i.e. that most southerners were cruel, slave owning people who only fought to keep others in bondage). Now, don't get the wrong idea here. I am very glad the north won. The south was wrong in their cause and they should not have rebelled. But to only show half the story is a very bad thing and borders on propaganda.

WTF?! Slavery in the South was so brutal and cruel that even other slaveholding societies would have been horrified.

Eh, the Arab Slave Trade's gonna have to get back to you on that.