DVD Review HTF REVIEW: Gone With The Wind - Four Disc Collector's Ed. (VERY HIGHLY RECOMMENDED). (1 Viewer)

[DeeF]

Peter,

The character Alice played by Ellen Burstyn sings "Gone With The Wind" in her act, in the movie Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, directed by Martin Scorsese.

It isn't a bad song at all, but I did think it was funny to try and sing those words to the Tara theme.

 

[Rob_Ray]

I know we're seriously off-topic here, but let me just add that Margaret Mitchell, while certainly the product of her time, was active in various "Negro" advancment causes of the day, especially in the area of education and scholarships.

Her book makes no attempt to comment on the morality of slavery. By the 1930s, it was generally agreed by all educated people that slavery was an abomination, so no condemnation was deemed necessary. What her book does attempt to do is put the reader in the mindset of the characters of the period depicted. While written in the third person, all viewpoints expressed, political or otherwise, are the viewpoints, morals and etiquette of the various characters and of 1861-1872 North Georgian society in general. On rare occasions within the book, she even expoused the viewpoints of the Yankees and Negro characters. And, again, those viewpoints were decidedly Civil-War era in their prejudices, which they should be in any honest recreation of the time.

 

[Chad R]

This is actually a common mistake when analyzing literature of any kind, and something that most literature students have to learn to not do. You can't conflate Ms. Mitchell's feelings with that of her characters.

Like Rob describes above, she may have been writing in the 30's, but her book took place in a time period when slavery was not only accepted, but an economic system and way of life that a large group of people were dying to protect. The attitudes expressed were those of the characters, not the author.

Want some fun facts? Margaret Mitchell based the character of Melanie on a relative of hers who was just as morally upright as the character, which was befitting a nun.

However, she became a nun because she couldn't marry her one true love, a cousin of hers. So, she became a nun and he went out west to find his fortune.

He never settled down, never being able to find a woman he loved as much as her, and actually became quite famous. His name...

Doc Holdiay.

 

[DeeF]

I could be off-base here, since I haven't read the novel, but it does seem that the overall tone of the story is a sadness for the loss of a very dignified and beautiful way of life, that the South was destroyed by the North, and Mitchell and her co-horts are nostalgic for that extraordinary time. In other words, nostalgia for a time and a people whose very livelihood came from the slavery of others. It's an implied racism.

 

[Rob_Ray]

No, that's not the point of her story at all and that is why she detested Selznick's and Ben Hecht's opening prologue describing a nostalgic era of "cavaliers and cotton fields."

She was trying to write a story about how different people react to turbulent times. How those with "gumption" to use her word, survive and at what cost to their character. Ashley epitomizes old-world nobility which crumbles when society is upended and Scarlett epitomizes the survivor who can be unscrupulous when survival dictates the need and has no patience for those who look back.

Rhett is the unscruplous survivor, who, at the end of the story, finally succumbs to society's code of honor and decides to return to Charleston to find peace and dignity once again.

The era in which the tale is set is almost beside the point. She could have told her story against the French Revolution or any turbulent era that saw a way of life dissolve. She chose the Civil War era because she was thoroughly familiar with it.

 

[Alejandro]

You must have been reading a different book!

Rob, I'm not talking here about the story or characters, I'm just saying that the vision of those events are contaminated by the ideas of the author. And of course they are the result of a racism upbringing, but does it make it any better?



But, If I write a novel about it, wouldn't it feel suspicious that I don't condemn the unjustice?

I know that after all this it is impossible to close down the subject, but...I JUST RECEIVE MY DVD SET

And I'm so exited I want everybody to forgive me if I said something inconvenient. I know that when you love something with such passion, it is hard to accept any criticism. Thank you Dee for your post, at least someone understood what I was talking about.

 

[Elinor]

No one can know how people in the future will feel.

In 100 years, it may be unconscionable for humans to eat mammals. Would you want to be mocked and considered a barbarian and species-racist because today you choose to eat meat? Of course not, because today most people in Western society consider it perfectly acceptable to eat meat.

It is very foolish to judge people in the past by today's standards. It shows not "advanced thinking" but an inability to think abstractly and to comprehend societal evolution.

However ... anyone is perfectly free to judge others from the past by today's standards. God help then when future humankind looks at THEIR behavior, though.

Rob, I think you nailed the point of the novel. I still would add that there was a larger theme too ... the loss of the way of life of the South. True the basic story could have been told in any turbulent timeframe ... but she chose the one she did for specific reasons, even beyond familiarity; and that is the undercurrent beneath all that happens.

 

[DeeF]

But Elinor, I suggested that "loss of the way of life of the South" too. If Mitchell is sad or nostalgic about the way of life of the South before the war, then this suggests racism to me. If one is sad, or nostalgic, for a specific time in the past, this implies one would be happy for the return of such a time.

Rob, I certainly don't think Mitchell could have written her book about any other time. She wasn't writing the book to make a point about resilience in the face of dire circumstances. She was writing about a specific time in her history and America's history, and she came up with interesting and resilient characters to illustrate the time.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Beautifully said. I think that says it all.

 

[Elinor]

"But Elinor, I suggested that "loss of the way of life of the South" too. If Mitchell is sad or nostalgic about the way of life of the South before the war, then this suggests racism to me. If one is sad, or nostalgic, for a specific time in the past, this implies one would be happy for the return of such a time."

I know that Dee. I agree with that part about what you said, but I've beeen pondering whether it denotes racism. You may well have an excellent point ... I just haven't fully explored it all ....

 

[DeeF]

I think the discussion of oppression in aesthetic projects, like racism or chauvinism, is fraught with difficulties and conundrums.

Let's say, as a given, that GWTW, the novel, uses words that are highly denigrating of the African slaves. Is this...racist, or is it displaying the racism of the people of the time?

Now let's say, as a given, that the movie of GWTW softens the stance taken in the novel, and the black slaves as portrayed are softer, kinder, and the actions of the "masters" kinder too. Is this better than the novel? One could see this as a kind of reverse racism, by not portraying events as they really occurred.

It's a conundrum. It doesn't help, either, that these characters (and story) are fictional.

 

[Peter Kline]

DeeF,

Understand.

Peter

 

[Alejandro]

And no, Roland, I don't think it says it all.
I'm honored to be part of this forum but if I'm risking my membership for saying what I feel is right, be it.

If you watch the making of doc (which is great BTW) there is a wonderful chapter in which this issue is discussed and it is Selnick in a letter to Whitney who addreses the complaints of black people and he compares the situation to the discrimination of the jews in Europe. So, I'm not making this up.

I think it's incredible that in this century we should feel the need to protect something that was wrong, even if it is historical, but with fiction and the work of an artist, we have the right to say what we think whatever the consecuences.

Gosh, you are almost ruining my day, happy as I was with my lavish DVD set:frowning:

 

[DeeF]

Alejandro,

Hear! Hear! I give you permission to go ahead and LOVE your new movie set. I did.

 

[Elinor]

"I can't believe what I just read!
Can't I judge Hitler for what he did to the jews just because in his time and place it was well accepted by the germans? Of course I can. And racism was as wrong then as it is now by "today's standards".
It's insane."

Ok Alejandro.

First of all, most Germans did NOT support Hitler, they supported not being shipped off to the camps themselves. Everyone knew what he did was wrong. So did he, that's why he blew his brains out before they could capture him.

Still, let's all feel all superior over everyone in the past who ever held stupid or unpopular (by today's standards) opinions.

PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED THE EARTH WAS FLAT WERE IDIOTS !!! hahahah

PEOPLE WHO FOUGHT AMERICAN INDIANS WERE DEMONS AND MONSTERS !!! Except, there would be no USA without them....
Those same righteous generals who believed slavery was an abomination, went off and wantonly slaughtered Indians. They should have known better. After all, people 150 years later have realized it !!

PEOPLE WHO BURNED AND HANGED WITCHES IN THE PAST SHOULD HAVE KNOWN IT WAS LIKELY A FUNGAL INFECTION FROM THE RYE GRAIN GROWN IN THE REGION THAT CAUSED THE CRAZY BEHAVIOR ATTRIBUTED TO WITCHCRAFT AND DEMON POSSESSION !!! They should have invented modern microbiology before they decided to judge their crazy peers !! Thing is, they were frightened by behavior they didn't understand ... they found it threatening, and they dealt with it the best way they could.

THE CONQUISTADORS SHOULD HAVE HUGGED THE INCAS AND ASKED FOR DONATIONS OF GOLD !!! Much less racist than killing them and taking the stuff. But ... they didn't really perceive people living in STONE AGE conditions as their equals ... and did not convey upon them equal rights.

I sure hope your life is perfect Alejandro, that you can stand up to the future scrutiny that you are so eager to use upon people of the past.

Most of us, can't even IMAGINE what living conditions of the past were like. Foolish, and arrogant to judge what those people thought, felt, and did, from the comfort and safety of our era.

And I submit, you do not know what Margaret Mitchell thought or felt, so you should stop speaking FOR her.

 

[Haggai]

Any further discussion of this will surely stray into the realm of politics, and far removed from anything having to do with the extraordinary GWTW DVD, but I must say that I completely dissent from the opinions expressed in this quote.

 

[Seymour Uranowitz]

It's probably true that many Germans secretly opposed Hitler. But this book documents a lot of evidence to the contrary.

 

[Elinor]

And no doubt some of those folks were horrible and racist ... but there is simply no doubt that when you live in a police state, where there is always the danger of a "knock on the door" and that knock can mean you go away on a train and never return ... that many ordinary people who otherwise possess no malice toward any particular race or group, will say, do, or let others believe that they do hate that group.

How many of us today would vocally and outspokenly criticize Hitler had we lived then? Not many. Those who did, went away and never came home.

How far does your self-righteousness go, to judge them? There were indeed Jews who "helped out" in the concentration camps ... are they despicable, or do we try to understand how the terror in which they lived, made them do things they too found deplorable?

I do not exempt nor indemnify nor praise those who have done horrible things, racist things. I try to understand their motivation. It is very very easy to judge when you are warm and safe and well fed, and are protected by laws and courts.

And to get back on topic, if the movie indeed had greater impact as a movie than the book did (as a book), then you must consider that there is a much smaller "pool" of films in which to manifest greatness. Literature encompasses virtually every culture on earth throughout recorded history ... from Homer to Tom Clancy. Film has been around about 100 years now, not quite, and in just a few dozen countries. Still, if you confine GWTW to American Literature, and not throw it into the pool of "all literature for all time," then I think this novel holds up as having as great an impact in its category as the film does. It was until recently (or is it still) the best selling printed book next to the Bible ... maybe Harry Potter has beat it out. Still, to remain the best selling book for several decades ... this is a tremendous achievement.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Ok folks....this has been interesting conversation
but I think it's time to return to the topic at hand.

Let's turn our attention back to the DVD.

Thanks

 

[Alejandro]

Right! Thank you Ronald

Well, I had a chance to make an overall look at the DVD's cause, believe it or not, I'm recovering from a flu that has weaken me a little bit (not to mention the hostilty in some posts:b ) and I have to say that it looks stunnig!
The colors, the textures, the skin! You can almost feel the make up on the actors. When Scarlett is wearing mourning dresses I can see shapes and textures that were hidden before (I just saw a big black spot).

The commentary, something I was most eager to listen to, seems to be very interesting. Pity it doesn't have subtitles, although Belhmer seems very comprehensible.

And Melanie remembers! Wow, Sure she talks funny but what a lady.
If I can put myself together I'll watch the whole thing in the next few days.