Gone With the Wind (1939)

[Dejana]

I disagree. The lack of outcry with most of this is not about how far removed in time we are, but how they are portrayed realistically. As you say, their pain and suffering is little importance to the protagonists. This would have been accurate to a time when slavery existed. The people of a higher status likely wouldn't have cared about their pain and suffering much.

 

The problem with how it's portrayed in GWTW, for example, is that it isn't portrayed realistically. Not that they keep slaves, but that they are portrayed as being happy, willing participants. And otherwise better off with their masters than free.  The issue is that the book/movie portrays that fantasy of the happy slave to actually be the case.

 

I guess it's a question of whether it's better for a film set in a time/place with slavery to depict it in a "neutral" way (showing the slaves as emotionless background players) that doesn't at all delve into the horrors of such a system, or if the story acknowledges the sizeable role that slaves play in the lives of slaveholders, but trades in ugly stereotypes which imply that the slaves really enjoy their "station" in life. I think with the former, the slaves end up being portrayed with more individual dignity, and maybe it's not as dehumanizing for an actor to play, but the slavery itself often ends up coming across as being not much different than voluntarily servitude. It's a way to divorce the heroes from the reality of them owning fellow human beings, to make them more palatable for modern audiences. I think to portray slavery like that has the effect of minimizing/erasing the devastating impact of the institution, but in a different way than using inflammatory imagery to put a happy face on it like GWTW did.

 

 

I can only comment on my own perspective, as someone who read the book in th 70s, when I was 12 or 13.  Not in school either, I've never seen it discussed there.

 

Maybe Mitchell intended it to romanticize the period but I didn't take it as such, then or now.  In adult terminology, I can enjoy Scarlett as a heavily flawed person but a great character; she's allowed to be underhanded and ruthless in ways that were typcially reserved for male characters, though granted she embodied some nasty "typically female" traits as well.  I love the fact that she is who she is...just because!  She wasn't traumatized as a child, abused,etc - the opposite, she was coddled, spoiled, given every material thing she wanted.  Restricted intellectually yes, but not give the usual "abused woman" background by writers who feel the need to justifiy that fact that she's, to put it reallllly simply, not a nice person. 

 

For me, the book reads as a condemnation of her way of life, where lies are supposed to be taken as truth and people are treated as less than human because of their color.  Nearly everyone wants to live in the past and they suffer for it.  Honestly I don't know if Mitchell was a blatant racist or what - a quick Wiki look shows me that she was raised as a Southerner, told wistful stories of that time period by her grandmother, probably had it romanticized.  According to Wiki (so it must be true! lol) she didn't act anything like a "Southern belle", she collected erotica and was described as "flamboyant" - there are other examples in the article.  She sounds like an interesting person actually.

 

 

That may be, but for me I never accepted it as reality.   The caricatures are front and center and always were.  If anything, I looked more closely at the representations.   The behaviors and language of the slaves were not realistic to me; heck, that of the white people were not always realistic either.  The whole thing was almost an alternate reality that I never accepted as truth.  I don't know how it was accepted in the 30s and I never had a class discussing it, could it be that in such classes only brief acknowledgement is given to the ugly parts of the story because they are so well known?  With discussions centering more on the structure, etc as you say?  I'm just spitballing, but to me the depictions of the slaves are so OTT, common sense would say they shouldn't be accepted as absolute truth, nor the portrayal of all Southerners or Northeners, they are so generalized.

 

I mean, I'm sure there were, then and now, people who longed for the way of life; I think for some it's natural to want to lord over others, or to be raised to feel privileged to do so, that it's your right.   I just don't think they got those feelings validated by reading or watching GWTW.   Personally I never accept absolute truths are generalites about anything - some Northern soldiers were monsters but not all, etc. 

 

I think both are revered for when they were published/premiered, with the book being such a monster read, so detailed, with characters you don't always root for, telling a pretty good story and written by a woman.  The move is visually beautiful, with the best aspect IMO being the Leigh/Gable chemistry; TBH I don't know if I could sit through the whole movie now, the soapier aspects become tiresome.  I do enjoy gorgeous costumes, and the movie has that. 

 

Mitchell may have portrayed it as reality but I personally don't know anyone who accepts it as such.  People who do probably wouldn't have their minds changed anyway when they find out it's not. 

 

 

 

I think Mitchell put a lot of suffragette and flapper in Scarlett, in her rebellion against demure ladyhood and desire to pursue worlds and behaviors usually reserved for men.

 

A good point I remember from reading The Hemingses of Monticello was that if there were really a huge difference in how all slaves and all white people inherently spoke (as GWTW seems to imply), then the slaves who fled and "passed" would have been given away the moment they opened their mouths to speak. Yet, there are not many accounts of escaped former slaves ever being exposed this way. Excellent book, BTW, would highly recommend if the history interests you.

 

I also don't have this experience of GWTW being something that ever came up as something to study in school, as a film or book. Maybe it was too inflammatory, not esteemed for its literary merits, or just too old by then. In the real world, maybe in the 1990s, I do remember there being a push for plantation tours and places like Colonial Williamsburg to actually mention the roles of slaves and slave labor in building it all. There were criticisms that some places were purposefully letting the slave quarters fall into disrepair so they'd eventually fall down, and then the guides wouldn't have to point them out on the plantation tours. Things like that make me think that perhaps plantation tours attract a not-small percentage of people who are really there for the architecture, hoop skirt exhibits and stories of Antebellum glory.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Dejana

[Inquisitionist]

What's even creepier is that it was pretty clear that O'Hara was clearly meant to have married up to a woman who didn't love him but whose family needed the money.

 

I don't recall the Robillards needing money.  In the book, Ellen was in love with her first cousin, Philippe, and when the family objected to their union, he went off somewhere and ended up being killed in barroom brawl.  Ellen blamed her family for his death and married Gerald O'Hara partly out of spite, and partly to put distance between herself (moving to inland northern Georgia) and her family (in coastal Savannah).  You can read this chapter online here. 

[caracas1914]

The one thing that does stand out even more in the movie than the book, is that Scarlet is stronger, smarter, more capable and more resilent than any of the male characaters in the film.

Plus for it's day the sexual chemistry in a couple of the scenes between Scarlet and Rhett jumps off the screen, the scene between them in the bridge while Atlanta burns , and of course the infamous "rape" scene where Rhett sweeps her off her feet and carries her up the stairs to their bedroom.

I don't care about censors of the day, the look on Scarlet's face the next morning after a whole night of fucking is priceless and left nothing to the imagination.

Edited July 31, 2015 by caracas1914

[BatmanBeatles]

 

The one thing that does stand out even more in the movie than the book, is that Scarlet is stronger, smarter, more capable and more resilent than any of the male characaters in the film.

In the book when Scarlett realizes this, she's confused because all her life she was told men were naturally smarter, stronger...etc than women.

[Rick Kitchen]

They downplay it, but the O'Haras are Catholic, but that didn't seem to stand in the way of Scarlett and any of the local boys.

[backgroundnoise]

That may be, but for me I never accepted it as reality.   The caricatures are front and center and always were.

I agree.  I've never considered it very flattering at all to the South.  The delusions of all those rich, white, Southern gentlemen and how stupidly they came across at times wasn't much more flattering than the raping, pilaging Northerners.

 

One thing I've always liked about Scarlet was her ability to see the war, the cause, and its aftermath much more clearly than others.  Ashley, strangely, comes next in my opinion of accepting the reality of the post-war world--he recognized he had no place in it (and he wasn't gung-ho about it in the first place).  It's the Melanie's with their Glorious Cause stuff who come off looking delusional and sad.

 

Anyway, it's a hell of a story.

[caracas1914]

I think Ashley saying he would have freed Twelve Oaks slaves if the war hadn't happened, ie he knew the system he fought for was wrong so I don't know if that makes him a bigger fool than the rest of them.

Ashely was a tricky character because he was insightful enough to have self awareness, yet lacking the internal fortitude to do things his own way. The book (and movies) shows he sold his soul when he caves in and runs Scarlet's lumber mill as opposed to transplanting up north. He blinked and lost himself.

[Scarlett45]

I think Ashley saying he would have freed Twelve Oaks slaves if the war hadn't happened, ie he knew the system he fought for was wrong so I don't know if that makes him a bigger fool than the rest of them.

Ashely was a tricky character because he was insightful enough to have self awareness, yet lacking the internal fortitude to do things his own way. The book (and movies) shows he sold his soul when he caves in and runs Scarlet's lumber mill as opposed to transplanting up north. He blinked and lost himself.

Ashley isn't a stupid man, or an evil man but he is a coward. He'd rather stay safe under Scarlett's umbrella (even worse for a man of that time), than branch out on his own. Rather than use his privelge to make a place for himself in the new world he wallows in the last hopeless, going through the motions thinking of the past. He's weak.

[anna0852]

I adored the novel and like the movie, if only because the movie can only go so far in establishing a character's internal motivations.

 

What I like best about both though was that the best, most flesh-out and interesting characters were Scarlett and Melanie. For two such diametrically different women to both embody strength and fortitude far beyond the men around them is amazing. MM did an astounding job with all of her notable (as in named, with dialog character). The old ladies that run Atlanta, Aunt Pitty, Ellen, the sisters, etc... Each has her own voice and personality. It's really the men that become one-note characters. For a novel written not 20 years after women got the vote and set in a time when women were decorative bits of fluff, the depth and success is truly something to behold.

 

I don't personally like Scarlett but I do admire her. She was so much a victim of her circumstances, even before the war. Her formidable intellect was constrained from nearly day one. Had she been a boy, she'd have probably been another Rockefeller or Vanderbuilt in terms of business savvy and success. In an odd way, the war gave her enormous amounts of freedom she'd never have had otherwise. Her biggest mistake ultimately was marriage and motherhood. Had she not married when she did, she probably would have remained single for her lifetime. As a spinster, she would have been able to do whatever she wanted.

[harrie]

Just in case anyone who's interested doesn't already have it on DVD/Blu Ray at home, Gone With the Wind is on TCM tomorrow night at 10:15.  At 8pm is a thing about the making of GWTW, featuring interviews with cast members (who were alive c. 1983).

Edited August 18, 2015 by harrie

[Inquisitionist]

I highly recommend the "Making of..." program.  Fascinating stuff!

[kassa]

Olivia de Haviland had the right temperment for Melanie, hard to explain. There's a ladylike vibe to so many of her performances( not in a bad way mind you)

 

 

Which makes it even more amusing that Vivien Leigh could not for the life of her manage the wretching noises just before the "As God as my witness..." scene.  Olivia de Havilland stepped in and happily nailed the vomit sounds ;)

 

Others have pointed out that in the book Scarlett hero worships her sainted mother.  I don't think they actually come out and compare Melanie to her, but it's certainly understandable that as much as she rolls her eyes and dismisses Melanie for much of the book/film, Melanie has pretty much all the qualities she idolized in her mother.  And she helped her cover up a murder.  Those are no small things when it comes to bonding.  

[Inquisitionist]

Of the 43 principal cast members listed at IMDb, only 2 are still alive:  Olivia de Havilland, who turned 99 on July 1, and Mickey Kuhn, who played her son, Beau Wilkes (turning 83 next month).  While several cast members lived well into their 80s and 90s, I was surprised by how many passed on before the age of 60.  I was particularly sad to read to that Oscar Polk, who played Pork, died at 49 after being struck by a car.  This is the same way that Margaret Mitchell died, at age 48.

[caracas1914]

Olivia de Havilland, who turned 99 on July 1

 

Not to be morbid, but is she the only name actor left from the 30's?

Edited August 20, 2015 by caracas1914

[Inquisitionist]

Not to be morbid, but is she the only name actor left from the 30's?

 

Maureen O'Hara just turned 95.  She made Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1939, but isn't really a star of the '30s, per se.  Same for Kirk Douglas (98) whose first screen credit is from the mid-40s.

[Inquisitionist]

An interesting bit of trivia from an obituary for Bud Yorkin, who passed away on Tuesday:

 

His first cousin was David O. Selznick, who produced the 1939 classic "Gone With the Wind."

[caracas1914]

Vivien's screen tests are pretty amazing, she really does stand out from all the other aspirants.

Lana Turner... oy!

[harrie]

Vivien's screen tests are pretty amazing, she really does stand out from all the other aspirants.

Lana Turner... oy!

 

Yeah, some of those screen tests were pretty bad.  And while I think Paulette Goddard is one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen, Leigh by comparison  made her look rough and kind of coarse - words which I would never normally use to describe Ms. Goddard.

[Rick Kitchen]

Not to be morbid, but is she the only name actor left from the 30's?

 

Luise Rainer is 105.

[caracas1914]

Louise Rainer died in 2014 at the age of 104.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/double-oscar-winning-actress-luise-rainer-dies-at-104-1201389329/

Edited August 21, 2015 by caracas1914

[Inquisitionist]

I was fascinated by the languorous pacing in the screen test between Vivien Leigh and Melvin Howard.  Too many of the scenes in the finished movie feel rushed to me, with Vivien Leigh almost racing to get the words out so they get move on to filming the next scene.  How lovely it would have been, IMO, for GWTW to get the mini-series treatment.  There were some great scenes between Scarlett and Rhett -- actual conversations -- that just didn't work for the nearly frenzied, "get to the heart of it" script treatment.  Reading Chap. 19, for instance, I still feel the electrical charge between the two of them. 
 

“Don’t giggle,” he said, and taking her hand, he turned it over and pressed his lips into the palm. Something vital, electric, leaped from him to her at the touch of his warm mouth, something that caressed her whole body thrillingly. His lips traveled to her wrist and she knew he must feel the leap of her pulse as her heart quickened and she tried to draw back her hand. She had not bargained on this — this treacherous warm tide of feeling that made her want to run her hands through his hair, to feel his lips upon her mouth.

 

She wasn’t in love with him, she told herself confusedly. She was in love with Ashley. But how to explain this feeling that made her hands shake and the pit of her stomach grow cold?

 

The realities of war expressed by old Uncle Henry (a character excised from the film ) in this chapter are also moving.  Heck, you could make several interesting movies about the lives of deleted characters, starting with Grandma Fontaine.

[caracas1914]

Supposedly David O. Selznick was hesitant to cast Paullette Goddard as Scarlet because there were still some debate as to whether she was legally married to Charlie Chaplin (they claimed to have married in China) , however his eventual Scarlett, Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier were openly living together when they were both legally married to other spouses.

My guess is that Selznick was holding out hope for his ideal Scarlett, and while Paullette was the best of the rest in his eyes, he wasn't completely sold on her ever. Why start production (the burning of Atlanta) when you haven't even cast your pivotal leading character unless you are still genuinely searching for the perfect candidate.

[Rick Kitchen]

Louise Rainer died in 2014 at the age of 104.

http://variety.com/2014/film/news/double-oscar-winning-actress-luise-rainer-dies-at-104-1201389329/

 

dammit.  Thanks for correcting me.  :)

[SmithW6079]

Got sucked into watching "Gone With the Wind" tonight on TCM. As many times as I've seen it, I always enjoy it. Of course, as a propaganda piece that southerners were benevolent lords and ladies and not slave-owning traitors, it is magnificent. True, though, it does also portray southern men as vainglorious fools, and the women as "steel magnolias."

It occurs to me that the strongest scenes are actually with Olivia de Havilland -- whether she's opposite Vivian Leigh or Clark Gable. I absolutely love the one when Melanie is in labor -- the cinematography is fantastic, with the two women in shadow and profile.

Those dresses may have been cumbersome, but I love watching the women move in them during the dancing at the fundraiser.

Amy scene with Rhett and Melanie is wonderful too. You really believe that Clark Gable as Rhett holds Melanie in the highest regard. I reread the book not too long along, so the complete story is still fresh in my head, and Rhett's genuine affection and respect for Melanie is stated explicitly several times.

I love the tension at Melanie's house when Ashley and Frank are at their "political meeting" (go, Ku Klux Klan or Knights of the Camellia).

And even if she is a stereotype, Mammy does have some of the greatest lines. Before the barbecue: "I ain't noticin' Mister Ashley askin' fer to marry you." Or when the widow Scarlett plots to go to Atlanta: "And you be settin' there jes' lak a spider."

I think the cast is great, with the exception of Leslie Howard. Not only was he too old, he seemed so detached from the rest of the cast.

The little actress who played Bonnie was so annoying, I'm always glad when she died.

When I saw the movie for the first time, I wanted Scarlett and Rhett to get back together, but know I realize the ending is just as it should be -- Scarlett is, ultimately, a horrible person who destroys everyone in her orbit. I think that's why none of the sequels work -- they try to make Scarlett into something she's not. At least Margaret Mitchell is under no such illusions, and Scarlett is far worse in the book than the movie.

Aargh! I hate autocorrect and finding typos after I've posted.

Edited January 15, 2016 by SmithW6079

[methodwriter85]

Supposedly David O. Selznick was hesitant to cast Paullette Goddard as Scarlet because there were still some debate as to whether she was legally married to Charlie Chaplin (they claimed to have married in China) , however his eventual Scarlett, Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier were openly living together when they were both legally married to other spouses.

My guess is that Selznick was holding out hope for his ideal Scarlett, and while Paullette was the best of the rest in his eyes, he wasn't completely sold on her ever. Why start production (the burning of Atlanta) when you haven't even cast your pivotal leading character unless you are still genuinely searching for the perfect candidate.

 

I thought Paulette Goddard's color screen test pretty much showed why she didn't get the part. She was close, but I think what she lacked was Scarlett's girlish charm. Or to put it more bluntly, she had a hard face, as Selznick kept saying, which wasn't right for the part of Scarlett. She would have been great as Survivor Scarlett, but 16-year old debutante Scarlett? No.

 

 

I think the cast is great, with the exception of Leslie Howard. Not only was he too old, he seemed so detached from the rest of the cast.

 

Leslie Howard seemed to hate every minute of being in that film. I still don't get how he was the best possible Ashley- the guy was 40 and looked 50, but the other two Ashley's weren't really right, either.

Edited January 15, 2016 by methodwriter85

[caracas1914]

In all fairness, I don't see how any actor from the 30's could have made Ashley all that palatable , it's really an impossible role; He's both passive and yet leading Scarlet on.

[methodwriter85]

It's kind of a shame that Montgomery Clift wasn't a contemporary of that time period...pre-troubles he would have rocked the shit out of that part.

[Sarahsmile416]

Got sucked into watching "Gone With the Wind" tonight on TCM. As many times as I've seen it, I always enjoy it. Of course, as a propaganda piece that southerners were benevolent lords and ladies and not slave-owning traitors, it is magnificent. True, though, it does also portray southern men as vainglorious fools, and the women as "steel magnolias."

It occurs to me that the strongest scenes are actually with Olivia de Haviland -- whether she's opposite Vivian Leigh or Clark Gable. I absolutely love the one when Melanie is in labor -- the cinematography is fantastic, with the two women in shadow and profile.

Amy scene with Rhett and Melanie is wonderful too. You really believe that Clark Gable as Rhett holds Melanie in the highest regard. I reread the book not too long along, so the complete story is still fresh in my head, and Rhett's genuine affection and respect for Melanie is stated explicitly several times.

I love the tension at Melanie's house when Ashley and Frank are at their "political meeting" (go, Ku Klux Klan or Knights of the Camellia).

And even if she is a stereotype, Mammy does have done of the greatest lines. Before the barbecue: "I ain't noticin' Mister Ashley askin' fer to marry you." Or when the widow Scarlett plots to go to Atlanta: "And you be settin' there jes' lak a spider."

I think the cast is great, with the exception of Leslie Howard. Not only was he too old, he seemed so detached from the rest of the cast.

The little actress who played Bonnie was so annoying, I'm always glad when she died.

When I saw the movie for the first time, I wanted Scarlett and Rhett to get back together, but know I realize the ending is just as it should be -- Scarlett is, ultimately, a horrible person who destroys everyone in her orbit. I think that's why none of the sequels work -- they try to make Scarlett into something she's not. At least Margaret Mitchell is under no sick illusions, and Scarlett is far worse in the book than the movie.

That's funny you say that because I have always felt more sympathetic towards Scarlett in the book than I have in the movie.

Her behavior in the book is despicable, no doubt. But some of her more sympathetic moments - especially when they are at Tara after the war ends are only in the book, particularly her moments with the Fontaines. I also think because you are more privy to her inner thoughts in the book than you are in the movie, for me, that elicits more sympathy. For as many failings as Scarlett has, when she loves someone, she loves them deeply and without reservation (like her father, mother, etc...heck, even Melanie, though it took her forever to realize it.)

But then, part of why I love Scarlett is because she is a truly nuanced character. She is capable of the most horrific things, but she is also capable of heroic things and caring moments. Though maybe I just love to hate her!

[SmithW6079]

That's funny you say that because I have always felt more sympathetic towards Scarlett in the book than I have in the movie.

Her behavior in the book is despicable, no doubt. But some of her more sympathetic moments - especially when they are at Tara after the war ends are only in the book, particularly her moments with the Fontaines. I also think because you are more privy to her inner thoughts in the book than you are in the movie, for me, that elicits more sympathy. For as many failings as Scarlett has, when she loves someone, she loves them deeply and without reservation (like her father, mother, etc...heck, even Melanie, though it took her forever to realize it.)

But then, part of why I love Scarlett is because she is a truly nuanced character. She is capable of the most horrific things, but she is also capable of heroic things and caring moments. Though maybe I just love to hate her!

I agree that the book gives you more insight into what drives Scarlett, and while I appreciate trying to understand her, it still doesn't elicit sympathy from me. After all, as several characters point out, other people in Atlanta are doing well without doing business with the scalawags and carpetbaggers -- I believe Mrs. Merriweather and her son-in-law and their pie business are mentioned.

 

I know that by necessity events in the book are compressed for the movie, but it seems as though Bonnie's death is followed immediately by Melanie's. I once tried to figure how long the book covers, and I think I arrived at about 12 years -- Scarlett is 16 when it begins and she is 28 when it ends. (I believe Rhett finally asks her her age and she says "28.") 

 

Ashley may have been a difficult character to portray -- he's passive-aggressive, who wants to live an unchallenged life with delusions of wanting passion -- but surely there were younger actors than Leslie Howard. Olivia de Havilland and Vivien Leigh were in their 20s, and Clark Gable was 38, which fits the characters' ages. Howard was 46. Isn't Ashley supposed to be 21 or 22? He did a Grand Tour of Europe, which I believe most rich young men did right after school.  

[BatmanBeatles]

 

I agree that the book gives you more insight into what drives Scarlett, and while I appreciate trying to understand her, it still doesn't elicit sympathy from me. After all, as several characters point out, other people in Atlanta are doing well without doing business with the scalawags and carpetbaggers -- I believe Mrs. Merriweather and her son-in-law and their pie business are mentioned.

A good thing about the book is that it points that out. Scarlett couldn't have it both ways. The town's respect while running her shady business.

[Inquisitionist]

I've ranted above about how wrong Leslie Howard was for the role of Ashley, who should indeed have been in his 20s at the start of the film (in the book, he'd been back for two years from a 3-year grand tour of Europe, and I think he had been to university as well).  Mitchell described Scarlett's infatuation with him this way in Chapter 2 of the book: 

 

It seemed strange now that when she was growing up Ashley had never seemed so very attractive to her. In childhood days, she had seen him come and go and never given him a thought. But since that day two years ago when Ashley, newly home from his three years’ Grand Tour in Europe, had called to pay his respects, she had loved him. It was as simple as that.

 

She had been on the front porch and he had ridden up the long avenue, dressed in gray broadcloth with a wide black cravat setting off his frilled shirt to perfection. Even now, she could recall each detail of his dress, how brightly his boots shone, the head of a Medusa in cameo on his cravat pin, the wide Panama hat that was instantly in his hand when he saw her. He had alighted and tossed his bridle reins to a pickaninny and stood looking up at her, his drowsy gray eyes wide with a smile and the sun so bright on his blond hair that it seemed like a cap of shining silver. And he said, “So you’ve grown up, Scarlett.” And, coming lightly up the steps, he had kissed her hand. And his voice! She would never forget the leap of her heart as she heard it, as if for the first time, drawling, resonant, musical.

 

She had wanted him, in that first instant, wanted him as simply and unreasoningly as she wanted food to eat, horses to ride and a soft bed on which to lay herself.

 

For two years he had squired her about the County, to balls, fish fries, picnics and court days, never so often as the Tarleton twins or Cade Calvert, never so importunate as the younger Fontaine boys, but, still, never the week went by that Ashley did not come calling at Tara.

 

True, he never made love to her, nor did the clear gray eyes ever glow with that hot light Scarlett knew so well in other men. And yet — and yet — she knew he loved her. She could not be mistaken about it. Instinct stronger than reason and knowledge born of experience told her that he loved her. Too often she had surprised him when his eyes were neither drowsy nor remote, when he looked at her with a yearning and a sadness which puzzled her. She KNEW he loved her. Why did he not tell her so? That she could not understand. But there were so many things about him that she did not understand.

 

He was courteous always, but aloof, remote. No one could ever tell what he was thinking about, Scarlett least of all. In a neighborhood where everyone said exactly what he thought as soon as he thought it, Ashley’s quality of reserve was exasperating. He was as proficient as any of the other young men in the usual County diversions, hunting, gambling, dancing and politics, and was the best rider of them all; but he differed from all the rest in that these pleasant activities were not the end and aim of life to him. And he stood alone in his interest in books and music and his fondness for writing poetry.

 

And so on... I've always pictured Ashley as resembling Cary Elwes in The Princess Bride, even before I knew who Cary Elwes was. 

 

 

[BatmanBeatles]

Oh that's a perfect description!

[Julia]

I'm not clear that Scarlett's unforgiveable sin was doing business with carpetbaggers, but whatever it was, an awful lot of 'respectable' society was more than happy to take her tainted money as long as they made a point of spitting in her hand afterwards. The dowager dragons were actually headhunting her kid for their grandsons while they high-hatted her.

All that gentility was bought with the labor of slaves, and that genteel society was more than happy to ignore a great deal of distasteful reality to perpetuate itself (like, say, the domestic terror all their klansman husbands and sons were getting up to in nice white sheets Scarlett's dirty northern money paid for).

I don't like Scarlett, and I think she was a terrible person in many ways, but she was far from the most contemptible person in the book or the movie.

[Athena]

I'm not clear that Scarlett's unforgiveable sin was doing business with carpetbaggers, but whatever it was, an awful lot of 'respectable' society was more than happy to take her tainted money as long as they made a point of spitting in her hand afterwards. The dowager dragons were actually headhunting her kid for their grandsons while they high-hatted her.

All that gentility was bought with the labor of slaves, and that genteel society was more than happy to ignore a great deal of distasteful reality to perpetuate itself (like, say, the domestic terror all their klansman husbands and sons were getting up to in nice white sheets Scarlett's dirty northern money paid for).

I don't like Scarlett, and I think she was a terrible person in many ways, but she was far from the most contemptible person in the book or the movie.

I find Scarlett an interesting character especially in the book. She is fascinating and there's a plethora of gender issues in the book too. If Scarlett were a man, no one would have batted an eyelash of what she was doing with her business. She was the best business person in the book with the exception Rhett. However, the one thing that did bother me about Scarlett's mill was that she exploited convict labour and allowed Gallagher to beat and whip t hem because it doubled their productivity. I would still have been irked if she had been a man, but then again, it's a modern sensibility reading a book. Still, Scarlett was enraged, but she allowed it to continue because of her profit margins.

[Julia]

However, the one thing that did bother me about Scarlett's mill was that she exploited convict labour and allowed Gallagher to beat and whip t hem because it doubled their productivity. I would still have been irked if she had been a man, but then again, it's a modern sensibility reading a book. Still, Scarlett was enraged, but she allowed it to continue because of her profit margins.

Oh, absolutely. I think that was one of the truly unforgiveable things she did. The thing is, though, if Ashley had stepped up and pulled his weight instead of taking a paycheck and pallidly disapproving from the sidelines, he could have affected working conditions, so he was soiled by that too, JMO. And their social circle affected to disapprove of what she was doing, but essentially what they were offended by was that she was allowing [exactly the kind of person they had overseeing the slaves] to oversee convicts, who may have been killers and thieves and bad people, but they were white.

So, yeah, that situation was incredibly distasteful, but if someone had written the story of Scarlett O'Hara as a satirical indictment of the world she lived in, I don't know how different a story it would have been.

[Iseut]

And so on... I've always pictured Ashley as resembling Cary Elwes in The Princess Bride, even before I knew who Cary Elwes was.

"..With eyes like the sea after a storm..." :)

 

And even if she is a stereotype, Mammy does have some of the greatest lines. Before the barbecue: "I ain't noticin' Mister Ashley askin' fer to marry you."

Scarlett's glare and Mammy's slow downward look and tiny smile after this line are priceless. Mammy's expression says "OK, I may have pushed it too far with that one. I'll pretend to be chastened but girl you know I'm right."

[ulkis]

I don't like Scarlett, and I think she was a terrible person in many ways, but she was far from the most contemptible person in the book or the movie.

 

I agree. Or at least, Scarlett definitely doesn't deserve all the blame for Rhett leaving. She's accused of throwing him away and not seeing what was right there in front of her but he his his feelings as well. He stated he didn't want to give her power over him by telling her he loved her first. He already has all this power in the relationship by being a man, rich, much older than Scarlett, but he didn't even want to give her that much. Basically, he didn't want to be the one to expose his vulnerability first. Maybe if he had Scarlett would have realized she loved him earlier.

[revbfc]

The likability of most of the characters is very low. It says quite a bit about the movie that the most likable person in it hits women and hangs out at the brothel.

[Julia]

The likability of most of the characters is very low. It says quite a bit about the movie that the most likable person in it hits women and hangs out at the brothel.

Mammy did all that?

;)

[revbfc]

Mammy did all that?

;)

She did hit people. ;P

[SmithW6079]

On 1/14/2016 at 11:49 PM, SmithW6079 said:

Got sucked into watching "Gone With the Wind" tonight on TCM. As many times as I've seen it, I always enjoy it. Of course, as a propaganda piece that southerners were benevolent lords and ladies and not slave-owning traitors, it is magnificent. True, though, it does also portray southern men as vainglorious fools, and the women as "steel magnolias."

It occurs to me that the strongest scenes are actually with Olivia de Havilland -- whether she's opposite Vivian Leigh or Clark Gable. I absolutely love the one when Melanie is in labor -- the cinematography is fantastic, with the two women in shadow and profile.

Those dresses may have been cumbersome, but I love watching the women move in them during the dancing at the fundraiser.

Any scene with Rhett and Melanie is wonderful too. You really believe that Clark Gable as Rhett holds Melanie in the highest regard. I reread the book not too long along, so the complete story is still fresh in my head, and Rhett's genuine affection and respect for Melanie is stated explicitly several times.

I love the tension at Melanie's house when Ashley and Frank are at their "political meeting" (go, Ku Klux Klan or Knights of the Camellia).

And even if she is a stereotype, Mammy does have some of the greatest lines. Before the barbecue: "I ain't noticin' Mister Ashley askin' fer to marry you." Or when the widow Scarlett plots to go to Atlanta: "And you be settin' there jes' lak a spider."

I think the cast is great, with the exception of Leslie Howard. Not only was he too old, he seemed so detached from the rest of the cast.

The little actress who played Bonnie was so annoying, I'm always glad when she died.

When I saw the movie for the first time, I wanted Scarlett and Rhett to get back together, but know I realize the ending is just as it should be -- Scarlett is, ultimately, a horrible person who destroys everyone in her orbit. I think that's why none of the sequels work -- they try to make Scarlett into something she's not. At least Margaret Mitchell is under no such illusions, and Scarlett is far worse in the book than the movie.

Aargh! I hate autocorrect and finding typos after I've posted.

[tabularasa]

"Rhett a hypocritical jackass", can you elaborate? To be honest, I'm back obsessing over the ending, who was more at fault.

[Silver Raven]

On 1/27/2016 at 2:53 PM, revbfc said:

The likability of most of the characters is very low. It says quite a bit about the movie that the most likable person in it hits women and hangs out at the brothel.

What's wrong with Melanie?

[Queena]

On 7/20/2015 at 12:07 AM, Captain I0 said:

By chance, I took it upon myself to rewatch Gone with the Wind this weekend, in it's entirety which is something I haven't done in probably 25 years when I was a kid.

I am left with a number of disturbing thoughts

First off... Scarlette O'Hara? I realize that we look at life through a much different lense today, but she is simply an absolutely horrible person throughout. I find it hard to fathom that she could be found likeable (or root-for-able) in any era. Even in the reimagined fantasy Old-South that's portrayed, people still tell her she's a cruel, horrible person. She literally beats a horse to death, giving it the killing blow while within 100 yards from Tera, while saying "move Beast!" I know, I know. Horses were beasts of burden then, but the inclusion of that scene is simply strange and can only be seen as a way to further cement her as ruthless and horrible.

And yet, she's the "heroine" of the story and I have to believe you are supposed to root for her on some level. I just never could. There is a slight hint of female empowerment with her character, but it's so greatly overshadowed by everything else negative about her as to make it nearly worthless in that regard. And with how much of her gain is taken at the expense of other women, it's hard to see much redeeming there even in terms of any female empowerment.

I had a ton of other thoughts about it, but most are related to this main point. It's anti-American, confederate propaganda. I find it fascinating and disturbing that we allowed it to be such a wildly herralded piece of Americana(from a cultural standpoint, not a freedom of speech one).

Just imagine how present day flag waving conservatives talk about various pieces of art, or fiction, or speech that paints any kind of negative light on things America has done in the past.

This piece literally paints General Sherman as a monster, while holding up those that took up arms to try and end our country as heroes. It shows our country's enemy combatants as folksy, well mannered gentlemen and the Union soldiers (otherwise known as American soldiers) as rapists, murderers and thieves. Try to imagine how conservatives (or conservative southerners) would feel about a movie that gave the same treatment to Iraqi soldiers, or Iranian or one of our enemies, while portraying American attacks as destructive slaughter.

And the thing is, this type of confederate propaganda has worked. They introduce the carpetbaggers with a literally singing "Uppity Darky", portray the freed slaves as idiots that have their votes bought by free handouts from the Union government, and propagate the idea that the slaves were too stupid to make it on their own, and were happier and better off with their white masters who knew better.

Considering the modern political "Southern Strategy", really the undercurrent of this is that this type of propaganda has managed to keep the idea of the Old South alive and the same fallout from the Civil War and many of the same attitudes about the Confederacy and blacks going strong 150 years later. Many people today still support political ideals based on believing in the fantasy of the "Old South" that was portrayed in this movie, whether they do so conciously or not.

I would like to see GWTW as a simple piece of fiction, with a backdrop set around the Civil War, like I did when I first saw it. However, i can't... and it's not. It's not "Birth of a Nation", but it may have been more harmful because it is seen as so harmless for so many people that it was so reviered for so long.

I wonder if this movie were never made would the south and slavery be so revered today? I would if we would have loser participation trophies, or white people sitting on the porches of plantations wishing that they could have a darky like Prissy there to fan them (true story, I overhead this in Nashville at a plantation). I wonder if the history books wouldn't today try to paint slavery as voluntary, or even worse the Civil War was about state rights. I just wonder how much GWTW has played into the romancing of the south. Great movie once I can get pass the racism. 

I do love Clark Gable because of this movie. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 3/9/2019 at 7:50 PM, Silver Raven said:

What's wrong with Melanie?

Nothing, provided that's even a serious question.  Being naive, as I think she was, still puts her several notches above Scarlett, who spends most of the movie being jealous of her over boring Ashley and thinking of her as a simp just because she's a good person. The real tragedy isn't Rhett finally deciding he's had enough, it's that it takes Melanie dying to make Scarlett realize she's been wasting her time over someone who isn't worth it.

[TigerLynx]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2015 at 6:00 PM, caracas1914 said:

I think Ashley saying he would have freed Twelve Oaks slaves if the war hadn't happened, ie he knew the system he fought for was wrong so I don't know if that makes him a bigger fool than the rest of them.

Ashely was a tricky character because he was insightful enough to have self awareness, yet lacking the internal fortitude to do things his own way. The book (and movies) shows he sold his soul when he caves in and runs Scarlet's lumber mill as opposed to transplanting up north. He blinked and lost himself.

Ashley was weak and stupid.  Apparently, he didn't realize freeing a slave wasn't as simple as giving them their freedom.  It actually cost a lot of money to free even one slave.

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 5:12 AM, Queena said:

I wonder if this movie were never made would the south and slavery be so revered today? I would if we would have loser participation trophies, or white people sitting on the porches of plantations wishing that they could have a darky like Prissy there to fan them (true story, I overhead this in Nashville at a plantation). I wonder if the history books wouldn't today try to paint slavery as voluntary, or even worse the Civil War was about state rights. I just wonder how much GWTW has played into the romancing of the south. Great movie once I can get pass the racism. 

I do love Clark Gable because of this movie. 

Oddly enough, despite the conflict between the slave and free states, the abolitionists, and the election of Abraham Lincoln, what really go the ball rolling on the Civil War was human greed.  The manufacturing North had to pay their employees, not much, but they still had to pay them.  They wanted to impose a tax on the South's goods and produce because the South had slaves or free labor.  Lincoln didn't get around to freeing the slaves until a couple of years into the war.  There were a lot of people in the North who wanted out of the war and were perfectly fine with the Southern states seceding from the Union.  That's when Lincoln put forward the notion that the USA was founded on equality (insert major eyeroll here), and if that freedom wasn't extended to everyone than we were failing as a nation, and were no better than the countries in Europe (you know like England and France who got around to abolishing slavery before the USA did).

On ‎4‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 2:43 PM, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Nothing, provided that's even a serious question.  Being naive, as I think she was, still puts her several notches above Scarlett, who spends most of the movie being jealous of her over boring Ashley and thinking of her as a simp just because she's a good person. The real tragedy isn't Rhett finally deciding he's had enough, it's that it takes Melanie dying to make Scarlett realize she's been wasting her time over someone who isn't worth it.

Melanie is a good person, but Scarlett saved her life.  I wrote my own ending, and decided the person Scarlett ended up missing the most was Melanie, not Rhett or Ashley.

[Blergh]

Interesting thread and I have to say it's gotten me to think differently about these characters. Ironic that Rhett was the one who regretted and seemed to feel downright shameful about having participated in the attack on the shanty town (not just the fact that Scarlett's 2nd husband Frank had died in that disaster) while Ashley only seemed to have been relieved not to have been caught- even if it meant faking being a whoremongering adulterer in the process. 

[Neko]

I think this description of the character of Melanie is pretty interesting.  I found it on another site:
 

Quote

It's not just that Melanie is so pure and sweet and good that's the problem, though; it's that, in the context of the novel, her pureness and sweetness and goodness isn't actually so pure and sweet and good. The novel clearly wants us to see her as a moral paragon… but she's a moral paragon who says things like this:

Oh, Scarlett, it was these same people who robbed us and tortured us and left us to starve that you invited to your party! The same people who have set the darkies up to lord it over us, who are robbing us and keeping our men from voting! (49.83)

Speaking as a great lady and as a selfless beacon of kindness, then, Melanie uses the racist term "darkies" and laments the fact that black people have managed to gain a voice in their own government. Kindness here means racism; being a great lady means being firmly, deeply, absolutely committed to the subjugation of black people.

The characterization of Melanie is, then, an extreme example of the problem with all the characterization in the novel. The book is committed to racism. Therefore, all its heroes are racist. All its morality—the bravery of the KKK, for example—is evil. Melanie is supposed to be the epitome of goodness and virtue, but goodness and virtue in the novel is in fact injustice and cruelty. The novel makes a great effort to get you to admire Melanie. Plenty of people have clearly been able to imagine it—the book's really stinking popular—but we just can't.

Agree, or disagree, with this assessment?

Edited June 25, 2019 by Neko

[ruby24]

Well, it's true. The book itself (I've read it twice) is deeply, inherently racist. The movie is less plainspoken about that in terms of its white characters but the depictions of the slaves are incredibly racist. And the whole movie is about glorifying the "Old South" and the Confederacy.

I think the thing that saves it (if it does, and there may come a day when this isn't enough anymore) is the inherent selfishness of the characters of Rhett and Scarlett, who end up turning the story into a melodramatic soap opera about themselves and their relationship rather than any sort of wider depiction of southern life and commitment to slavery. Especially in the second half. You can appreciate the incredible acting, production values of Old Hollywood and the entertaining nature of it aside from the abhorrent values of the society it's trying to endorse.

You can't escape that in the book. 

[VCRTracking]

I've always been more interested in the making of GWTW and that era of Hollywood history than the actual movie itself. I saw the TV movie "The Scarlett O'Hara War" more than a decade after it first aired in 1980. You can find it on YouTube. It starred Tony Curtis as David O. Selznick as he searches for the right actress to play Scarlett. All the leading ladies of the day Joan Crawford, Carole Lombard, Jean Arthur, Katherine Hepburn, Talullah Bankhead, Miriam Hopkins vie for the coveted role. Selznick goes through many trials and tribulations trying to find the right actress. Finally at the end of the movie just as they begin production by filming the burning of Atlanta first, Selznick's brother introduces him to a young actress from England by saying "Meet Scarlet O'Hara." and it's Vivian Leigh(played by Morgan Brittany) and Selznick smiles.

Leigh was the perfect choice not just because she was so startingly beautiful(especially for the then new technicolor with those green eyes), but also half Irish and grew up in India during the British Raj, so acting like a member of a more privileged class and race wouldn't have been hard.

Edited June 25, 2019 by VCRTracking