Should we ban GONE WITH THE WIND? (1 Viewer)

[Rob Willey]

We'll also need to ban all of Lynyrd Skynyrd's music, especially that Sweet Home Alabama one.

 

[Sam Posten]

Politics guys

 

[Mike Frezon]

Okay.


Time for me to step in and say be careful.



As of this moment, I will leave this thread remain intact--even though there have ALREADY been a couple of statements which straddle the line. They certainly are liable to provoke responses.


As soon as this thread derails into topics like generalities about people and their racism...or guns, for example...is when this thread will be closed.


Consider yourselves forewarned.


Lumenick started a discussion which will find little traction at a website like the HTF. So let's not find the need to take it to other places.

 

[Dave Upton]

I am moving this topic to the After Hours Lounge. It's too political in nature to belong in this area.


Keep the discussion civil, and I have no problem keeping it open. If the thread degrades, we will lock and delete it.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

So I have to say my piece. First about the film, and then about the flag (I deleted what I wrote of that). And truthfully, the comments are intertwined.


Gone With The Wind is a cultural treasure. Of course we view it today through our experiences today, but it would be a mistake to judge the art only using that lens. It was a period piece when it was made, and so it reflects both 1860s and 1930s sentiments. That is part of its beauty. Like all relevant art, it should be celebrated. That doesn't mean it needs to be embraced completely. We should know where we came from, where we fought, and why. Art reflects that in a way history cannot. Banning films and burning books are cultural failures equally. And we seem more and more eager to judge our past (though often not ourselves) through modern perception, to devalue what came before, to make sure everyone "feels" okay. But we live in a pretty challenging culture today. It is good we wrestle and we examine.

 

[Steve_Pannell]

Okay.


Time for me to step in and say be careful.



As of this moment, I will leave this thread remain intact--even though there have ALREADY been a couple of statements which straddle the line. They certainly are liable to provoke responses.


As soon as this thread derails into topics like generalities about people and their racism...or guns, for example...is when this thread will be closed.


Consider yourselves forewarned.


Lumenick started a discussion which will find little traction at a website like the HTF. So let's not find the need to take it to other places.

The only thing I take issue with is when someone states that disagreement equals hatred.


That's all I've got to say about that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I'm not in favor of banning Gone With The Wind any more than I'd be in favor of banning Birth Of A Nation. I think there are some portrayals in GWTW that are problematic, but I think as a snapshot of where the culture was in 1939, as well as for its artistic and technical qualities, it has historical merit.

I don't know that I agree with Lumenick's idea that the movie and the flag carry the same meaning or weight or that they should be treated equally. I think there's a difference between the flag flying over government buildings and this movie being available. The flag carries meaning (and different people have different feelings about what that meaning is), but when it's part of a government institution that's supposed to represent the voices of everyone, and some of the people being represented feel that flag isn't representative of them or feel it is offensive to them, it has the potential to cause pain and a sense of division, and that to me goes against the sense of inclusiveness I think our public institutions should strive for.

On the other hand, GWTW is a movie that people can choose to watch or not watch as they desire. If someone is hurt or offended by the content of the film, they can choose not to watch it. And I think that's the difference between the two.

I also think it's possible to appreciate a work of art without agreeing with some or all of the philosophy behind it. (For instance, I love "The Honeymooners" but I would never speak to my girlfriend the way Ralph speaks to Alice.) And maybe there's some value in those works of art being available to today's audiences because of the discussions they provoke.

I don't mean to be provocative or offensive in my comments and if I've crossed a line with the mods I would be happy to remove my post. I think there's great value in civil discussions and I genuinely hope I've added to that rather than taking away from it.

 

[The Obsolete Man]

I also think it's possible to appreciate a work of art without agreeing with some or all of the philosophy behind it. (For instance, I love "The Honeymooners" but I would never speak to my girlfriend the way Ralph speaks to Alice.) And maybe there's some value in those works of art being available to today's audiences because of the discussions they provoke.

Too many people today don't seem to be able to realize that old movies, books, whatever were products of their time, and put them into that context. Everything has to conform to today's standards or it's BAD. It's why Looney Tunes DVDs and DC Archives have disclaimers. It's why Sesame Street classics DVDs have a warning about not meeting the "Educational standards" of today. It's why there's even a conversation about whether Gone With The Wind should be sent down the memory hole along with Song of the South.


Too many people are either willingly ignorant of history, or don't want to face it.

 

[Raul Marquez]

What should be banned it's the critic. Just ignore the guy and his comments will fade away.....

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Too many people today don't seem to be able to realize that old movies, books, whatever were products of their time, and put them into that context. Everything has to conform to today's standards or it's BAD. It's why Looney Tunes DVDs and DC Archives have disclaimers. It's why Sesame Street classics DVDs have a warning about not meeting the "Educational standards" of today. It's why there's even a conversation about whether Gone With The Wind should be sent down the memory hole along with Song of the South.

Too many people are either willingly ignorant of history, or don't want to face it.

Interestingly, there was an article in today's New York Times about the PBS show "Finding Your Roots" which examines the family trees of celebrities. PBS is suspending the show as its come to light that Ben Affleck pressured the producers (who apparently gave in to that pressure) not to reveal what they found, which was that some distant and unknown relative of his owned slaves. I understand how finding that out might not be my favorite bit of family trivia if it were me, but I also don't think I'd feel threatened or defined by something that happened nearly 200 years before I was born. Similar history in Benedict Cumberbatch's family, and his father was an actor who didn't use the family name because of that association. I don't know a ton about my family history going back that far, but I'm sure somewhere at some time one of my ancestors did something I wouldn't be proud of. But for me, as far as I'm concerned, it's what I do with my life in the time I'm given that defines me, and not what some unknown ancestor who might share some DNA did centuries before I was born.

I think that we're able to have a civil and respectful conversation about these ideas, even if we don't all agree with each other, is more important than whether or not this film or any other be banned.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Given that someone being offended is now reason to ban something, I propose:


1. All films of any type be banned. Every single one offends someone somewhere.

2. All books of any type be banned. See above for reason.

3. Performance of all plays be banned. Ditto.

4. All music be banned. Ditto.

5. All speech of any kind be banned. Ditto again.

6. Anything that makes a sound be banned. Another ditto.

6. All silence be banned. Ditto yet again (I am offended by silence!).


That should cover it. No one will ever be offended again! Let's all sing "Kumbaya"!


Wait a minute -- "Kumbaya" offends me!

 

[Michael Elliott]

We've discussed certain issues long before this one. I've said countless times that there's a reason Disney doesn't release SONG OF THE SOUTH. There's really no point. After this latest round of debate I said it's clear that more and more films are going to be sitting in the vault next to it. GONE WITH THE WIND is a prime example but I honestly wouldn't be shocked if even more films get added to the list. Banned is a strong word but I think there's certainly a chance that things just sit in a vault to where they can't be viewed. The biggest difference here is that GONE has already been released in so many formats that it would be impossible for it to disappear.


Film buffs mean very little compared to bad press. I believe TCM showed GONE WITH THE WIND on the big screen last year. Now, if that title was set to show next week, I'd be willing to bet everything I own that it would be canceled.

 

[DaveF]

What does the thread title mean, "Should we ban GONE WITH THE WIND"?


Who is "we"?

What does it mean to "ban" a movie?

How does this relate to the opinion piece, which does not suggest anyone ban anything?

 

[Mark Mayes]

While we're at it, let's censor those Coppola "Godfather" movies too! The glamorization of the Mafia and Family Honor at the expense of lack of regard for human life is justified as a noble truth for too many. It perpetuates Italian cultural stereotypes and insidiously has audiences siding with murderers.


Then there's "Breaking Bad" which has too many people identifying with meth users...


This silliness has been churned up by a hack newspaper trying to stir up readership on its usual sensationalistic level. Their stories are generally an insult to the intellect.


Lumenick has never been a GWTW fan, but his biggest beefs are with its popularity. This rag just gave him a tragic national event to vent his annoyance at its fame and, perhaps-in his head, deflate its public favor.


I have never heard of a hate crime that was inspired by GWTW. Does that murderer in S.C. look like someone who sits around watching LONG classic films to anyone? Time will maybe tell. But it's doubtful.


In fact, when the film was released, many complaints came from white people who protested the intimate language between the black and white people. So it was, amazingly now, too liberal for some in its day.


If all those bleeding and dying men behind the ironic flag at the Atlanta station galvanize anyone today to want to join a dead cause, I daresay they're going to find a reason to make nutty decisions without GWTW.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

We haven't had much luck in this country with government-banning of things. Recall the success we had with the XVIII Amendment.

 

[classicmovieguy]

We can't go back with an eraser and pretend the past never happened. This is just ridiculous.

 

[Carabimero]

If someone wants to fly the rebel flag in their front yard, that's their right. But when flown officially I can see how it would be just as offensive to descendents of slaves as the Nazi flag would be to descendents of the holocaust.

 

[Mark-P]

Firstly, nowhere in the article does Mr. Lumenick actually say the movie should be banned. The title of the piece of course says just that, which is just the sort of bait-and-switch headline that newspaper editors use to get people to read the article. His first sentence is "If the Confederate flag is finally going to be consigned to museums as an ugly symbol of racism, what about the beloved film..." and then he goes on to demonstrate why GWTW fails the political correctness test. The article is more a diatribe against the current frenzy over the Confederate battle flag than a serious call to ban GWTW.

Spoiler

Furthermore, no one is advocating the banning of the Confederate flag. To forbid the sale or display of the flag would most certainly violate the first amendment. The only thing that is happening is that state governments are being pressured to remove the flag from government property.

 

[Steve Christou]

12 Years a Slave is an important film and I respect it but I would much rather watch Gone With the Wind, does that make me evil? If we must ban films lets start with Uwe Bolls.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Thanks everyone for carrying on a respectful conversation here and playing by our rules. it is much appreciated.


But, Steve, you had to go ruin it with a Uwe Boll reference?!?


What's next? Banning Manos: Hands of Fate?