Gone With The Wind Revisited

[selenak]

I first read Gone With the Wind when I was nine, and saw the movie later that same year. I don't know how many times I watched it since then. Last week, I brought the special edition DVDs (four in all), and let me tell you, no matter how often one has seen this film on TV or in the cinema during one of the periodic reruns, the way they went digital with it is a minor miracle. The startling clarity of the colours is as if the thing had been shot last year.


Of course, the viewing experience changes with the years anyway. When I was nine, I had no idea about American history, let alone the Civil War, outside of the mythical Wild West I had read about in Karl May (for non-Germans: the man single-handedly responsible for us sympathizing with the Indians and their tragic fate long before we ever get to see a John Wayne movie; mind you, this might change with the next generation, but the three before me plus mine own sobbed for the invented Apache chief Winnetou). Consequently, I had no problem with "the Yankees" (who they were supposed to be, I didn't know, either - I knew the whole story took place in the US, but that was it) being the bad guys. Or slavery as a benevolent institution, whose right of existence wasn't questioned except in the exchange between Scarlett and Ashley re: using prisoners for labour post-war. Or with the presentation of the Klu-Klux-Klan (which didn't make it into the film; David Selznick, somewhat more sensitive on this topic than Margaret Mitchell, removed all references to the Klan, and the male characters belonging to same) as a Robin-Hood-like organisation determined to protect the local population against unsavoury "Yankees", "carpetbaggers" and, of course… Oh, and if Scarlett hadn't reflected at one point that her mother had never wanted her to use the term "nigger", I wouldn't have known that this had a negative connotation, either.

Fast forward to my teenage years, and it had dawned to me that Gone With The Wind was, shall we say, very partisan as far as the historical background was concerned. At that point, I hadn't just read Uncle Tom's Cabin, I had read Roots. And had learned some history in school. This did not stop me from enjoying the story, though. As I now could test again, it still doesn't. I don't know why the ideological subtext of films like Hero spoils my viewing experience, no matter how beautiful the aesthetics and performances are, but I can take the positions in GWTW without a stride. I'm not completely sure why.

Back in the day, Scarlett O'Hara was the first flawed heroine I had encountered. In all novels I had read up to that point, Melanie would have been the heroine, and Scarlett would have been the evil Other Woman. They certainly wouldn't have ended up as friends. There wasn't a question of identification with Scarlett (or Melanie, for that matter) when I read the book, and then watched the movie, but I was fascinated by her. Selfish, manipulative, passionate Scarlett who still kept her promise to look after Melanie and Melanie's baby (and it never seemed to occur to her to rid herself of Melanie during childbirth) and her vow that neither she nor her folk would ever be hungry again. Scarlett whose flaws I was invited to recognize (they were listed by Rhett on a regular basis, after all), who went from spoiled brat to tough survivor, and had a train wreck of a love life not for the reasons that the other heroines had done (i.e. because of evil outside interference), but mostly due to her own fault. That was completely new to me then.

Decades later: my sympathy for Scarlett has rather grown than diminished throughout the years, despite all the other flawed heroines I've encountered since then. With Rhett, the reverse is true. As a child and teenager, I just couldn't understand why Scarlett didn't recognize at once they were made for each other and thought he was irresistible myself. In the next fifteen years, it started to occur to me, when rereading the novel rather than rewatching the film, that Rhett was something of a hypocrite. Daring Scarlett to be unconventional and true to herself early on and then condemning her for those same things once they're married and Bonnie is born. Leaving her, Melanie and the children between two armies because he wants to fight for the South after all. (I'd have slapped him, too.)

This problem of a lack of sympathy for Rhett is somewhat solved for me when watching the film due to the tried and true Clark Gable charisma. Gable was on the height of his popularity at that point, the first star to be called "the King", oozing male sexiness from every pore. It still works. But he's not the one who carries the movie.

There is the minor matter of Scarlett being described as "not conventionally beautiful" in the book (something that would get copied over and over again), and Vivien Leigh being breathtakingly beautiful in every sense of the word, but who cares? As one of the documentaries in the special edition puts it, her beauty only kept a lot of critics at the time from noticing her acting talent. Scarlett was the most sought after female role of the era, and no doubt many of the actresses in competition of the role would have given good performances in it. But we were ever so lucky the ambitious young woman from England got it. She could do so much with the expression of her eyes alone - for example in that shot when Scarlett watches Ashley and Melanie ascend the stairs. The quick mood changes, the gestures resulting from it, as when Mammy makes her "I didn't notice Mr. Ashley asking to marry you" jab and Scarlett goes from upbeat and teasing to angry (and eating, which was Mammy's purpose), complete with that gesture of throwing her umbrella away - it could have so easily seemed staged, or over the top, in a diva fashion. When I watch it on screen, it's nothing but a tempestuous young girl (Scarlett is sixteen when the film opens), and it's Vivien Leigh making it so. She has a wonderful comic timing in scenes like a tipsy, hiccupy Scarlett accepting Rhett's proposal, and a great subtlety in the tragic or dramatic scenes, as when Scarlett realizes her father Gerald has gone mad and that everything and everyone depends on her now. No dialogue tells us this, it's just her change of expression after Gerald says "we'll ask Mrs. O'Hara".

The other person carrying the movie to me is Olivia de Havilland as Melanie. Melanie is so much the embodiment of goodness that she could come across as syrupy, or too good to be true, or as stupid in her faith in Scarlett. (A short aside here: as has repeatedly been observed, Scarlett and Melanie owe something to Becky and Amelia in Thackeray's Vanity Fair. But Thackeray had no true narrative sympathy for either woman, and so Becky is just a cold bitch, and Amelia an insufferable useless twit. They certainly never have a real bond.) Not so here, neither in the book nor in the film. Olivia de Havilland makes Melanie's saintliness believable and appealing, and really conveys that quiet strength that enables Melanie to go on. In the scene just after Scarlett has shot the deserter and we see Melanie, who has also heard the noise, came with her brother's old sword, you know that she would have used it, too, if necessary, and the look between her and Scarlett is really the moment where their relationship shifts and cements. It's said relationship that frames the film as much as the one between Scarlett and Rhett, or Scarlett and Ashley, and so of course it's Melanie's death that heralds the end of the story.

Other observations upon rewatching and starting some of the documentaries:
- Lesley Howard doesn't look quite as the 46 years he was at that point, but he's still far too old for Ashley, who is supposed to have grown up with Scarlett
- Watching Hattie MacDaniels accepting her Oscar for best supporting actress and seeing her in tears saying she hopes she'll always be a credit to her race brings up a lump in my throat and massive being a white Caucasian guilt
- That famous shot moving from Scarlett up and up and up to show all the wounded soldiers lying on the ground moaning is still as effective as ever
- For a film that was entirely shot in the backlot, they managed to convey the illusion of being outdoors beautifully
- David Thomson wrote the narration for the "Making of" documentary, and one can tell. His David Selznick biography is the one of his works I like best, as he spares us all the self-inserts and judgments on whom he finds and doesn't find attractive which (dis)grace his biographies of Laurence Olivier and Orson Welles, and he does convey a lot of Selznick's and the others personalities here, too.
- I can see why they got cut out (time!), but I always regret the lack of more Tarletons and Fontaines
- This must be the only Civil War story without a single battle scene, choosing to portray the civilian pov instead
- Ah, the joys of censorship; am not surprised David Selznick had to fight to keep the famous "I don't give a damn" in (a curse in the days of the Hays office being a forbidden thing)
- They managed to convey Belle Watling was a prostitute without once using the word or a synonym, too
- Ben Hecht, you might not have read the book, but adding "Frankly" was a masterful touch
- Four directors all in all, hundreds of rewrites by various sources and never, till the last retake, a single "final" shooting script - this film sounds like a recipe for a disaster, and it's still a miracle the result is so good instead of the 30s equivalent of Batman and Robin .

Comments

[lynnb.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed your observations, as they are much like mine. I think I saw the movie first, in the early 70's on the big screen during one of it's many revivals, then read the book when I was 11 or 12. Time does change one's perspective on the historical aspects of the story, but as you pointed out, they were a backdrop to the dramas on the home front, which are always more personal, and therefore easier to keep the same opinion on.

I've gone back and forth on Scarlett, but I've always admired her courage and determination to survive. It's supposed to be in all humans, but as we see in the book, many people didn't, or had to rely on those stronger than they. And I agree that the central relationship was between her and Melanie; it was this relationship that truly changed her for the better, not the one with Rhett, or Ashley.

You are right about Clark Gable, too :) His performance is more comtemporary than the others, and therefore less dated, which is why I think modern audiences love it so. You are also right about Rhett Butler being a hypocrite, or, maybe more to the point, a typical man when it comes to needing to prove himself in the conventional way, such as finally deciding to fight, or conforming to society for his daughter's sake. I forgive him for that, as Bonnie was the first person he ever cared about more than himself. Whatever he did, he did for her, so I can't say it was a bad thing. He called himself on his own selfishness as well.

I had resisted buying the new DVDs, but maybe when I'm working again I will check them out, as I love all that behind the scenes stuff.

Have you ever seen any episodes of the old Carol Burnett Variety Show, from the 70's? She used to do great send ups of classic films, and the one she did on GWTW is a classic in itself, called Went With The Wind :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Buy the DVDs! I was only waiting for a special edition. The colours and clarity are really better than in any version before.

No, I haven't seen it, alas...

[lynnb.livejournal.com]

It is tempting - the colors were so beautiful, even on the old prints, I can only imagine what they look like now.

I think the Carol Burnett thing is on video, or it was years ago. It is hilarious.

[estepheia.livejournal.com]

I hated this movie when I saw it years ago - with a passion. But your analysis is so interesting, I feel tempted to watch it again.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Give it a try. But then, sometimes we just have different tastes (Spander *g*). So who knows? In any case, if you do give it a try, then I really recommend the new DVDs because of the beauty of the image.

[estepheia.livejournal.com]

If one of our friends buy it, then I may take a peek. :-)

[cereswunderkind.livejournal.com]

The strength of the old three-strip Technicolor process is that its colours don't fade the way they do with later one-pack processes. The weakness of it is that you have to get the registration spot-on when creating the interpositive. Get that right, and the reward is a pin-sharp picture with bright, clear colours.

I've seen the flat-format (cropped) GOTW. It's perfectly foul (poor colour and all), as are most Academy Ratio films that have been converted to 1.88:1.

[cereswunderkind.livejournal.com]

I meant GWTW. What was I thinking?

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

Three-strip is basically the Ives process, which is still giving good results from stills negatives made in the 19th century. See my web site for an 1897 article about the 3D version

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/forgottenfutures/krom/kromskop.htm



The quality of this one isn't wonderful since it was scanned from a magazine picture of the original photo, but with the original plates the results can be superb; I think the Smithsonian had an exhibit of pictures of Imperial Russia from the same period a year or so ago.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Fascinating. shezan posted several of the Imperial Russia photos, btw, and magnificent they were! (My present default icon is taken from one of them.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

The commentary which I'm listening to at the moment goes in detail about the technicolour process, too. The difference between the tv repeats I remember, and even the cinematic outings, and this new DVD version is remarkable, and uses those colours to their full advantage.

[ponygirl2000.livejournal.com]

I first read the book when I was 9 too! My rereads over the years have been amazingly illustrative of how the reader's perspective alters the experience of the novel. When I first read it, the book seemed like a fantasy of an alien world, early teens I was very into the romance, with Scarlett as very much undeserving of Rhett. Later the politics of it were too much for me to get past. Finally I read it again in my mid-twenties and fell in love with it again for the characterization, and especially for Scarlett as a flawed and proto-feminist heroine. I wonder what I would get out of it now - subtextual slash? Socio-economic pressures? Hmm. Thanks for a great review!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I wonder what I would get out of it now - subtextual slash? Socio-economic pressures?

I've seen at least one Scarlett/Melanie fanfic.*g* And yes, one responds to the story differently with each passing age.

[merrymaia.livejournal.com]

I saw the film many years ago. Didn't like it much. But you make me very much want to see it again.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Give it another try. Though of course we don't always have identitical tastes. Speaking of tastes, check out the Jayne (of Firefly) essay ever at idol_reflection - I think you'll like it!

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

Note to self: make a Rhett/Melanie-icnon and shock everyone because they are *so* OTP in my book! Movie!Rhett and movie!Melanie, of course. diddn't you have the feeling that Melanie was even "better" in the movie than in the book. I can remember the scene where she talks to Belle Watling, and in the book she does feel a certain repugnance to what the woman is and stands for- which she overcomes for the good of the cause, of course. Still, in the movie we perceive no such misgivings, she's completely sweet and adorable and insists whe will greet Bell whenever they meet on the street. I am not sure the Melanie of the book would have done that. Movie!Melanie comes out stronger, too. Just my impressions.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'll have to look it up again but yes, I think she does feel a little repugnance. Anyway, movie or book, I suspect that Rhett's enormous respect and admiration for Melanie would be counterproductive for a romantic relationship; he seems to be attracted by arguing, and he wouldn't argue with her.

As for Melanie, Book!Melanie finds him physically intimidating (that's mentioned in the scene where she sees him after Scarlett's miscarriage), and while both in book and film she likes him and always seees him in the best light, methinks it would be a marriage like the one between Scarlett's parents. (Melanie is much like Ellen anyway.) A harmonious one, to be sure, but not a passionate one, and one in which the two partners don't really know each other.

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

*spoiler for "Scarlett", just in case*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
My idea about Rhett/Melanie is also influenced (I admit it) by having read "Scarlett", the "continuation" to GWTW. In that book (which was ok-ish, as far as I remember, no great work of litarature and not as good as GWTW but well) Rhett marries a girl who looks and acts exactly like Melanie. This is expicitly mentioned, that he marries her *because* she remind him so much of Melanie, and is, of course, madly in love with him. Being a Menalie/Rhett shipper, this made go all w00t!! Of course, the damsel dies of consumption (yeah, I know), so the way back to Scarlett is open again for Rhett. Still, it gave me a measure of satisfaction that I am not the only person to think along these lines.

I suppose it would not be a passionate marriage, as you say, but then, it is also said that passion is not one of the main ingredients for a lasting, successful marriage. Besides, as for melanie, I do think there's fire under that prim exterior! She's certainly as strong in character as Scarlett ever was, it's only a different character. About knowing each other, well, I don't know, they are both intelligent and good psychologists ("Scarlett loves you a great deal, captain Butler, more than she knows"!). They could come to understand each other pretty well I think, though they would never see completely eye to eye in some matters.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

thanks for the fascinating discussion -- I have mixed feelings about this film (obviously -- I'm a Southerner, and I'm laboring not only under the flawed presentation of the civil war, but the knowledge that the film was heavily protested by civil rights groups at the time -- so it's harder for me to succumb to the "product of the times" excuse. Also, being from Virginia, guess how many "Tara"'s I know, and guess why.

my strongest impression of seeing the film when I was young (I'm not sure how young -- maybe 12 or 13; I think I'd seen bits of it before then on television since, in the States, it's practically unavoidable) -- anyway, my strongest impression was almost abject terror at the scene that comes right before intermission. Scarlett alone at Tara, totally responsible for her family, crying "As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again!" I remember that I had every confidence that Scarlett (being pretty much the exact opposite of me in every way) would pull through, and that *I* if I were thrust into that position, would starve to death along with everyone in my family. Based on that early impression, I've always had enormous healthy respect for Scarlett.

And, yes, Rhett-love. (Yes, please, tell me you're surprised I've got a soft-spot for the scoundrel). At least up to a point -- I do think there's a part in the second half of the movie where it goes irretrievably south. Maybe the point where Rhett and Scarlett start fighting about sex. I don't know how much of this I picked up at 13 -- probably most of it, but I didn't really understand the implications of the "life before birth control" dilemma. Reading the book (I think I was 16) really clarified this for me -- Scarlett having already been through childbirth twice, and having seen what happened to Melanie, I completely understood why she might want to avoid sex. (And really, did people not know about the kinds of sex that don't get you pregnant? were they just too sinful to consider? My youth is showing here, I guess, but when you grow up taking the pill for granted, it's a little hard to, um, conceive the sexual politics of the situation). But in the film, she never has a child in her first two marriages, and it's implied that she doesn't want to have a child solely because she doesn't want to lose her tiny little waist. And that's pretty much the point when it loses me. The first half of the movie is so damn good, though, that I can recognize its brilliance, and Scarlett as a heroine will always resonate with me. I really like what you say about the Scarlett--Melanie bond. (Which makes me think Scarlett/Melanie and other thoughts on that line. . . oh slashfic, how hath thou corrupted me?)

Re: Vanity Fair -- I've never read it and only saw the recent film, which I understand was fairly inaccurate to the source. But I noticed some pretty overwhelming GWTW parallels. Not just Becky/Amelia to Scarlett/Melanie, but Rawdon to Rhett, and the whole way the story was set up. I couldn't decide how much of that was Mira Nair ripping off Selznick (as Bollywood certainly has a connection to GWTW) and how much was due to the sources. I haven't read much Thackeray, but you've confirmed my general impression that he and Mitchell were using similar kinds of stories to very different ends.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Scarlett alone at Tara, totally responsible for her family, crying "As God is my witness, I'll never be hungry again!" I remember that I had every confidence that Scarlett (being pretty much the exact opposite of me in every way) would pull through, and that *I* if I were thrust into that position, would starve to death along with everyone in my family. Based on that early impression, I've always had enormous healthy respect for Scarlett.

Oh, same here. It also connected for me with the tales my grandmothers told about rebuilding after the war (WWII in that case). The hour zero, etc. I always hoped there wouldn't be another war, because I didn't feel myself equipped to handle a mad father, broke household, and no food.

Scarlett having already been through childbirth twice, and having seen what happened to Melanie, I completely understood why she might want to avoid sex. (And really, did people not know about the kinds of sex that don't get you pregnant? were they just too sinful to consider? My youth is showing here, I guess, but when you grow up taking the pill for granted, it's a little hard to, um, conceive the sexual politics of the situation.)

A woman with Scarlett's background would definitely not have known about methods of birth control via varied sex (or, for that matter, via the early versions of condoms, which existed and had done for a while at that point). The book as far as I recall makes it pretty clear that she had zilch idea about sex to begin with when she married Charles Hamilton; her mother definitely hadn't told her anything. And her first two husbands were of course not exactly candidates for sexual experimentation, either. Rhett, of course, is another matter; he would have known, so make up your own mind why he never suggested it. (Other than: He wanted another child, and was ticked off anyway because he assumed she was doing it because of Ashley.)

Novelist Stefan Zweig, in his memoirs "Die Welt von Gestern", describes the Vienna pre-WWI very intensely and one dimension is the absolute and deliberate ignorance all middle and upper class women were kept as far as sex was concerned. (They also weren't expected to enjoy it - remember, that's where the "lie back and think of England" maxim comes from.) It really was another world.

I haven't read much Thackeray, but you've confirmed my general impression that he and Mitchell were using similar kinds of stories to very different ends.

That's about it. Plus Thackeray was writing a satire. The fact that Bad Girl Becky isn't utterly crushed, bereft and disfigured at the end as was a Victorian bad girl's wont is part of the satire, as is going over the top with Amelia's Good Girl helplessness and dependency and making her happy ending one where he as the narrator says that her faithful loving husband, after finally winning her, doesn't want her anymore.

Which makes me think Scarlett/Melanie and other thoughts on that line. . . oh slashfic, how hath thou corrupted me?

There is at least one Scarlett/Melanie story in existence.*g* Not badly written, either. Want a link?

do I? do I?

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

There is at least one Scarlett/Melanie story in existence.*g* Not badly written, either. Want a link?

Do I? Um, that is. . yes.

I have a friend whose mother grew up in Russia after WWII -- she was a big GWTW fan (book and film) and said it was very popular there with women of her generation -- not sure at what point it would have been available, but anyway, there was a lot of love. I hadn't made the connection to recovering from WWII, but it makes sense. My friend considered herself too intellectual for GWTW, and engaged in a lot of non-surreptitious eye-rolling as her mom and I waxed poetic about Cap'n Butler.

voila...

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Scarlett/Melanie (http://prillalar.com/fic/stories/000288.php).

I've known women of my grandparents' generation who took the idea of the curtains as dress material for inspiration.*g*

[bhadrasvapna.livejournal.com]

I remember that I had every confidence that Scarlett (being pretty much the exact opposite of me in every way) would pull through, and that *I* if I were thrust into that position, would starve to death along with everyone in my family. Based on that early impression, I've always had enormous healthy respect for Scarlett.

for me it was the opposite. I felt a kinship with her and that I would do just as she did, mistakes and all. Even now I still say "I can't think about that right now. If I do, I'll go crazy. I'll think about that tomorrow." I said it this week. Scarlet is me, she's what every women is capable of. She is potential realized.

I don't think it is quite fair to label Rhett as a hypocrit. To me, he has been and always will be the rogue southern gentleman. I know quite a few of them myself. They aren't simple creatures that can easily be labeled. I love them for that complexity. Rhett wasn't just trying to get Scarlet to be unconventional. He was trying to prod her into doing what she wanted. Sometimes what we want is conventional. Rhett does what he wants. When that clashes with what Scarlett wants fireworks ensue.

I think it is interesting how Mitchell uses childbirth/pregnancy/children in her story

[janewt.livejournal.com]

It's a funny coincidence--I was just thinking this morning about "learning about" racism in first grade. Learning about Martin Luther King Jr., specifically, but I very clearly remember going home to Mom annd telling her in astonishment about how people used to have different water fountains.

I think I first read GWTW when I was around 12ish, and never saw the movie until a couple of years ago. But by the time I read the book I was already quite familiar with flawed heroines--namely Becky Sharpe. Mom had read Vanity Fair out loud to me when I was, I dunno, 8 or 9. I've always felt like Thackeray did have sympathy for Becky. Am I utterly wrong?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I think Thackeray got a great kick out of Becky and writing her sarcastic comments. But he puts too much emphasis on her being a BAD MOTHER (though later not above fleecing her adult son) and made a strong implication that she poisoned poor hapless Joe in the end (which makes no sense other than as a reminder Becky is supposed to be bad, btw) for me to believe that he truly loved her.

Hm... perhaps one should consult a medium and ask him?

[janewt.livejournal.com]

Yes...the literary medium would be handy.

Granted, it's been a few years since I've read it and I only remember books if I read them every other year....but I always felt like both the Bad Mother and the impossible-to-believe poisoning were more Thackeray reminding himself that he shouldn't like Becky. They had that tacked-on feeling...I mean, the whole not-liking-children thing is just such a standard 19th c. shorthand for "this is not a good woman" that I've never really paid much attention to it as a real character trait.

I dunno. To whom is he entirely sympathetic in Vanity Fair? It's so much about satire that being fond of writing a character seems like as close as you'll get to being fond of the character.

[vilakins.livejournal.com]

I've never seen the film, but you make me want to.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion, if you do get around to watching it!

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

got parcel?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Not yet, alas!

[suzcat.livejournal.com]

Hi, I came here via a link from Karabair, and reaaly enjoyed your comments. I have loved GWTW as long as you have I rhink, and the Special Edition is definitely going on my wish list.

I just wanted to mention that however partisan Margaret Mitchell was, (and I'm not quite sure I think she is quite as partian as you do), there was an enormous difference between the first version of the klan (which is portrayed in GWTW), and how it was later reived. Even the people originally responsible for creating the organisation, condemned later incarnations of it. So even though MM portrayal of the Klan might seem unrealistic, she is not as far 'off' as you might think.

And please don't think that I in any way condone ANYTHING the klan stands for. I don't. I just once wrote a paper on women, values and symbology in the klan...

Ok, sorry if that turned into a rant... Will now go read GTWT again....

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

I have too much to say about Gone With the Wind to say anything that makes any sense.

This is a movie which could never be made today -- in large part because American movie makers have pretty much abandoned the idea of presenting history as history.

One of the things that's both charming and challenging about Scarlett is she never sees anything further than the tip of her nose, or sees any reason why she should. Why should a 16 year old girl care why the war is fought? Why should she care whether or not particular politicians are right? All she cares about is the impact on her and the people she cares about. If it hurts her, it's bad.

And that's the way it is for almost everyone in the world, really, truly. A few people debate issues, and everyone else wonders whether or not it will hurt them, and if it does, it's bad.

My family had stories like Scarlett's. My grandmother's grandfather was a blockade runner. His ship, the Santa Maria, ran in and out of Albemarle Sound and the Outer Banks to the French and British colonies in the Caribbean. He was stopped and boarded by the USS Ohio off Currituck Island -- only they had to let him go, because they couldn't find any contraband aboard, just the load of British furniture that the ship's manifesto said he had. He made port with vials and vials of morphine sewn into the upholstery of every single sofa and chair!

I think all of us girls growing up in the South at some time or other measure ourselves against Scarlett and say "could I do that?"

Oh yes. If I had to. Whatever I had to.

Whether that's right or wrong.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Presenting history as history: not with all the sympathetic characters acting politically correct with magic 20/20 foresight, you mean?

And yes, Scarlett's attitude makes perfect sense, as does her post-war pragmatism. (I love the scene early in the novel when she looks at the portraits of various Southern heroes and judges them by their looks.*g*) And her impatience when either Ashley or Rhett get into a speech about the greater meaning of it all.

All this being said, GWTW is partisan, and if I were a teacher assigning it to my class, I'd tell them to read, say, Roots in tandem, in order to get both povs.

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

All this being said, GWTW is partisan, and if I were a teacher assigning it to my class, I'd tell them to read, say, Roots in tandem, in order to get both povs.

I think that's a great idea. Because it really is both sides and both experiences.

While in no way minimizing the horrors of slavery or the crimes of some slave owners, I do think that when you read the slave narratives like Harriet Jacob's Incidents in the Life of A Slave Girl, that it's complicated. People had very complicated relationships, slave, owner and freed, and very complicated feelings about things. And it can't really be reduced easily into Bad Guys vs. Good Guys.

I suppose the thing that irritates me to death is how in the US all Southerners have become the Bad Guys. A Southern accent on TV is a tip off that it's the villain. Manipulative, stupid, bigoted, or just plain fat and comic, the Idiot Bigoted Southerner (TM) is the rest of the country's stereotype. And here, in the aftermath of the election, I'm hearing a lot of "Well it's your stupid people being evil again, but what can one expect from inbred whip-wielders like you?"

I suppose it gets on my nerves the way Evil Strutting German (TM) gets on yours -- we're the local villains of the piece.

Gone With the Wind is about the only story left that doesn't do that -- whether well-meaningly or not. Which is not to say that I don't think that slavery is bad or wrong.

But I suppose it accounts in some inner way with my eternal sympathy for the devil!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Re: Southerners on TV: see, that's where the dubbed versions come in handy. They all talk Hochdeutsch here.*g*

More seriously: I can imagine how you feel. Also, yet another thing that makes the X-Men extraordinary! You have sympathetic Southerners (Rogue and that fellow Gambit I keep hearing about), and good guy Germans (Kurt)!

[artaxastra.livejournal.com]

see, that's where the dubbed versions come in handy. They all talk Hochdeutsch here.*g*

I suppose they must! Something of a nuance missing.

I think the apt comparison is Hogan's Heroes=Dukes of Hazzard. *g*

Yes, sympathetic Southerners and good Germans! What is the world coming to!

btw, in real life yahtzee63 sounds just like Rogue!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

She does? And here I imagined her sounding like a Californian.

Btw, rewatching GWTW I tried to discern the accent variations you indicated, but alas, I'm not nearly Henry Higgins enough and failed miserably.