HF Gone With the Wind, a Review

Historical-Fiction
Wow - that's take on Elizabeth Bennet I've never seen!! Right or wrong, Jane Austen's novels and characters significantly pre-date Scarlett O'Hara.
Really!! I just literally said out loud when I read the original post, "unscrupulous and backstabbing??? Lizzie???" I can't think of what or who the OP possibly had in mind.

Someone else posted that Scarlett compromised herself to get what she wanted. I always saw it that she would ultimately do or give up anything NOT to compromise on keeping Tara. Nothing meant as much to her as that. Spoiled? Maybe at first. But she was willing to work in the fields herself in order to keep it. That's not spoiled.
 
She took her sister's fiance, because he had a successful lumber business. Then she married a man she barely cared about, because he had stashed his fictional blockade profits in London. The contrast to the prostitutes and the madam who ran a brothel, was one of status only, not of intent.
The same myth, with different costumes, that a woman succeeds by getting a man to fall for her seductions.
 
These are my thoughts too and I hadn't see the movie until about 4 years ago, when I was in my 30s.

Everyone who admires Scarlett for being strong-willed seems to pay little attention to what she does with that will.

She would gladly steal her best friend's husband if she could.

If it's reprehensible for men to manipulate and use women I don't see how it's admirable for women to manipulate and use men.

A person, regardless of gender, who would do whatever it takes to get whatever they want, with no regard for morality or other people, is called a sociopath.
I 100% agree with your assessment here. I have said before Scarlett fits the template of a narcissist.

She lacks empathy (any empathic actions are forced on her in order to maintain her facade, which she doesn't maintain very well at times), is entitled (Ashley is her beau, whether he likes it or not), ignores boundaries (forget Miss Melanie's feelings in all this) and sees herself as superior (she will have what she wants, when she wants and how she wants - this is not possible without an attitude of superiority), amongst other things.

The strong will observed is the trampling over everyone else, so it can be misinterpreted. Not the kind of strong will to admire.

Manipulation also forms an enormous part of the narcissistic character. Also not something to admire. In fact, it is reprehensible.

And yes, these behaviours, when pushed to their limits, can certainly be called sociopathic.

This is not 'feminism', it is 'narcissism'. Important to recognize in the context of this movie.

Margaret Mitchell had the observant eye of the writer. She has carved out one of the most memorable film versions of a narcissist we will ever see. And Rhett Butler assumed the best response of the narcissistic victim ever given - "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a ****."
 
I 100% agree with your assessment here. I have said before Scarlett fits the template of a narcissist.

She lacks empathy (any empathic actions are forced on her in order to maintain her facade, which she doesn't maintain very well at times), is entitled (Ashley is her beau, whether he likes it or not), ignores boundaries (forget Miss Melanie's feelings in all this) and sees herself as superior (she will have what she wants, when she wants and how she wants - this is not possible without an attitude of superiority), amongst other things.

The strong will observed is the trampling over everyone else, so it can be misinterpreted. Not the kind of strong will to admire.

Manipulation also forms an enormous part of the narcissistic character. Also not something to admire. In fact, it is reprehensible.

And yes, these behaviours, when pushed to their limits, can certainly be called sociopathic.

This is not 'feminism', it is 'narcissism'. Important to recognize in the context of this movie.

Margaret Mitchell had the observant eye of the writer. She has carved out one of the most memorable film versions of a narcissist we will ever see. And Rhett Butler assumed the best response of the narcissistic victim ever given - "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a ****."

I read a quote from Margaret Mitchell - about Scarlett ... "Scarlett was a hussy. I am not"

Scarlett was a strong character, albeit not a noble one. I read that Vivian Leigh, when asked what she thought became of Scarlett, said that she thought Scarlett became a much better person but never got Rhett back. Margaret Mitchell simply said that she "didn't know" if Scarlett would have ever gotten Rhett back.
 
I read a quote from Margaret Mitchell - about Scarlett ... "Scarlett was a hussy. I am not"

Scarlett was a strong character, albeit not a noble one. I read that Vivian Leigh, when asked what she thought became of Scarlett, said that she thought Scarlett became a much better person but never got Rhett back. Margaret Mitchell simply said that she "didn't know" if Scarlett would have ever gotten Rhett back.
OOps =- I mispelled Vivien's name. Its with an "e" not an"a". Unforgiveable error!
 
For all of the revisionist historians around here who want to ignore, revise, distort and/or dispute over 250 years of detailed, thorough and learned research and discourse on American and CW history, I submit that by pretending, posturing, looking the other way and deliberately refusing to support the enforcement of the rule of law, the equivalent result is to condone the nefarious conduct, and thereby to encourage it to continue and spread, for which there will be consequences, as thousands of years of history has taught and proven, much to the surprise, disbelief and shame of those who otherwise want to selfishly feel good about themselves by supporting the supposed "enlightened" and purported "political correctness" of it all.

What is perhaps most disturbing, troubling and disappointing is the self-serving silence of all of the "revisionists" around here who most assuredly dislike it whenever there is any sort of pushback against them....eh?
 
I love it back then and I have always loved it. It’s not a story about the Civil War, but a timeless, dysfunctional love story

I don't see the appeal in a dysfunctional love story, with an unhappy ending to boot. Plenty of those in real life.

Gone With The Wind would be incredibly depressing film if I actually liked either of the two main characters.
 
I don't think Margaret Mitchell expected her readers, (or viewers), to believe Scarlet was a saint, or Rhett either. It's just a fictional story about two people caught up in the Civil War. We don t have to like or admire them to enjoy the movie, at least I dont.

My take on the two main characters is that Rhett is a dashing, devil may care kind of guy who is going to live life to the fullest and doesn't care who likes it. Scarlet, on the other hand, is a selfish little conniver, who is also a passionate, sexy woman that really does "need to be kissed often and by someone who knows how", (that would be Rhett, of course).

As to appeal, there are people who cannot understand the appeal of studying the Civil War, or any war for that matter. I know one who finds my interest in it "disgusting". But then, any appeal is all in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

To me the movie will always be great fun, kinda like Gunga Din or Treasure Island.

John
 
Sorry you feel that way, tn_writer. As a sometimes editor myself, I find the characterizations hyperbolic by modern standards, but they seem right on for the Cult of Domesticity or Victoriana -- or at least our impression of it. Some of the figurative pillars of “Old South Culture” can make readers cringe: aristocracy, bigotry, secession, confederacy, and, of course, slavery. But these are no more unrepresentative of the period than the grossly overwritten salient features of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s historically significant Uncle Tom’s Cabin. It is not just Scarlett’s tragedies and triumphs that make Gone with the Wind a masterpiece — it’s also the transformative journeys of Mammy, Melanie, and the other women (even Prissy) who loved, lost, and sacrificed during the Civil War. With the exception of Rhett Butler (who seems a bit too sensual), the other male characters are plasterboard silhouettes. Clearly a women's book written for a 1930s female audience.
 
Last edited:
You're right about the two left feet though. I heard both Gable and Leigh were on that round platform (hydraulic, I think) to give the appearance of them dancing. She was "light on her toes" but Gable could't dance. It always amused me how that ballroom in that dancing scene seemed so large. I've been in several antebellum mansions but none had rooms that big.
 
Friends-
Recent reactions to Gone With The Wind reveal the most widespread and deep rooted systemic sin of the dominate culture of post modernism in 21st​ Century America. That structural and systemic sin is not racism. It is presentism. Presentism is the complete destruction of history itself. That is the sin of presentism. It is utterly revolting and prideful arrogance of an all pervasive dominate culture that believes that this present moment puffed up of it’s own time, own moral presuppositions, views, media, way of dress , music, social imperatives and method of communicating makes all human cultures of the past from Rome to Great Britain —because they are not of the present— ipso facto , evil crude,stupid, and simply not “woke to the present”

Presentism best visual art is tatoos on on the skin of young present firm bodies of 28 year olds that at 68 will scream back their follow of the moment. Then they will understand history.
It’s not racism of Gone With The Wind that makes it evil. The eveil is that it was not made last week. or this second.
The film is among the best of all time unless you are a presentist. The film is an interpretation by movie makers only one or two generations removed from the burning of Atlanta. Most of the actors, promotors, directors, and bankers involved with the film had grandmothers and grandfathers that lived through the war. My parents saw the film and each had Grandfathers fight for the Union at Shilo, Vicksburg, Chancellorsville, and Fredericksburg. We watch it at home on national TV and my parents in 1962 told us children of the the tragedy and pain of the slave life . We children grew a passion for the past ---its human epic of sin, nobility, pride, goodness, defeat and indeed---compassion. The film is a part of our history because it shows how film makers just two generations after the war saw, felt and experienced the conflict. Beyond that, many of the freedom fighters —the white Christians that worked in the civil rights movement of the early 60’s were young people that were moved by the injustices of slavery that they could have only learned from the film Gone With The Wind. But presentist can’t allow that. No discussion of history has relevance. Unless it affirms the present.
Systemic Presentism desires to crush all the past because it does not fit the narrative of the moment. MY MOMENT, my present shall crush all the past and there is no value in history, save that which reinforces my feelings at this very second. My nano second.

It may be time to remove the the Southern General icons from our public square . They that threw the nation into a violent civil war. The losers have now had their honor and recognition of their lost cause in town squares and public places for 155 years. There is nothing unreasonable about that. Yet presentism is not about reason. It’s about ripping from memory every library, art muesum, historic battle ground, film, book, song, twitter feed that does not reinforce this present magic moment. It wants no past because it has to future.
Crush Gone with The Wind and mass book burning of the Confessions of St Augustine will be next. It’s not of the present you see.
Gone With The Wind is treasure of the art of film.
 
Said it before and I will say it again - the movie was not supposed to be ABOUT the slavery system, or directly ABOUT the Civil War era.. It was about a spoiled rich white girl who lived on a plantation before she lost it all in the war.. It was about HER and her reactions to things around her. It was not supposed to be a "Ken Burns" anthology about the Civil War.
Good observation. That was it's powerful subtext. Thank you.
 
Good observation. That was it's powerful subtext. Thank you.
In reality, the story is quite good at underscoring flaws in the Confederacy.

Scarlett is a bit of a phony and a scamp. She imagines herself a highborn lady of a superior culture, but she will compromise herself to get what she wants. She chases after Ashley Wilkes who symbolizes the plantation society but is also weaker than his symbol. Despite being married to a virtuous lady he draws Scarlett along thereby betraying the nobility he is supposed to represent. In short, the movie shows that Ashley and Scarlett both fail to be what they seem at first, indirectly revealing faults in the foundation of plantation life.

Rhett is a blockade-running rouge. Unlike Ashely and Scarlett he does not pretend to be something else. Since he lives by an independent code, which he will not break, people trust him. Although he is physically drawn to Scarlett he repeatedly mocks her phoniness until their young daughter dies, breaking his last bond to the dishonest Scarlett. Beauty alone was not enough to hold a man who was true to his code.

Meanwhile the story portrays slaves and ex-slaves as compassionate and level-headed. Contrary to criticisms, it undeniably shows them building the foundations of Southern society and its defenses. Yet, in the end Rhett joins the fight to defend it because he is a part of the South. Ultimately, his loyalty is to his own people, despite their flaws. In that sense, they are much like a family.

Much of the movie's message is missed by modern critics because they are unable to detect nuance, a skill they falsely believe to be uniquely theirs. While we can all cringe at moments of black characterization, the movie is generally critical of the South in its original 1939 context. It needs no additional "contextualization" by "experts" who cannot discern anything beyond their narrow field of vision. Finally, nobody should ignore that GWTW actually advanced race relations eighty years ago by awarding the first Academy Award to a black.
Agreed. So very well stated. Yet,the film makers could have place the same tragedy in ancient Greece, the French Revolution or Pagan Rome. So why the Civil War? Is the story line the sub-text or the grand narrative? Is the film with Gabel the same story as Grease with the male being so true to his "screw you guys" core and the ever adaptive Sandy changing her values to grab what she wants-- or is the film about recording (the soon to be lost) oral narrative and tradition? One thing is certain, neither you or I know some one that knows some one that spoke to a person that lived through the war. The author did and so did the film makers and all the actors. Remember there were thousands of 77 year old people North and South that bought a ticket to watch that film. They were 12 years old when the war ended. Think about that. Were is the historic written record of their objection to the film?
 
Agreed. So very well stated. Yet,the film makers could have place the same tragedy in ancient Greece, the French Revolution or Pagan Rome. So why the Civil War? Is the story line the sub-text or the grand narrative? Is the film with Gabel the same story as Grease with the male being so true to his "screw you guys" core and the ever adaptive Sandy changing her values to grab what she wants-- or is the film about recording (the soon to be lost) oral narrative and tradition? One thing is certain, neither you or I know some one that knows some one that spoke to a person that lived through the war. The author did and so did the film makers and all the actors. Remember there were thousands of 77 year old people North and South that bought a ticket to watch that film. They were 12 years old when the war ended. Think about that. Were is the historic written record of their objection to the film?
Yes, I agree.

That is one reason I often compare older accounts of the Civil War and Reconstruction with those of modern historians.
 
No discussion of history has relevance. Unless it affirms the present.
Systemic Presentism desires to crush all the past because it does not fit the narrative of the moment. MY MOMENT, my present shall crush all the past and there is no value in history, save that which reinforces my feelings at this very second. My nano second.

First off, presentism isn't systemic. It's by no means universal on the side of the political spectrum it's typically found on; it's mostly limited to the radical elements.

From knowing a few such people I offer this as what I think is a more accurate definition of presentism (or "privileging the present" I usually hear it called): Everyone before now is terrible because they were ignorant, backward racists.

Such people have views diametrically opposed to those who wish to celebrate the Confederacy yet the two groups usually have one thing in common: they've let emotion cloud their reason.

One can also watch Gone With The Wind and acknowledge it's portray of the past is inaccurate, yet still like the film. I don't regret watching it - it's a famous film and the cinematography is impressive, especially for the 1930s. I have no desire to ever watch it again, but that says more about the story and characters than the depiction of slavery.

I don't see any problem with people who find the false depiction of the South too troublesome to enjoy the film. I no desire to read the memoirs of historical figures who are infamously inaccurate and there are many modern films I dislike because I find them unrealistic to a fault.

The Patriot is another movie that has been heavily criticized for its depiction of history, including slavery. Yet I like that movie more than GWTW. It's simply more entertaining to me.
 
I read a quote from Margaret Mitchell - about Scarlett ... "Scarlett was a hussy. I am not"

Scarlett was a strong character, albeit not a noble one. I read that Vivian Leigh, when asked what she thought became of Scarlett, said that she thought Scarlett became a much better person but never got Rhett back. Margaret Mitchell simply said that she "didn't know" if Scarlett would have ever gotten Rhett back.

I also find Scarlett a strong character, but not a noble one. I've had disagreements with almost everyone about this. My personal take is that her arc turned her from a naive child to a more cynical woman. I think the greatest moment is where she does work hard to save Malerie from the maelstrom around Atlanta and get back to Tara, but that scene where she is in rags and hungry and swears she will never be hungry again is what turns her into a cynic. Then in the latter half of the film she becomes manipulative and conniving all to ensure she never falls to the same low she did in 1864.

This what makes her such a fascinating figure IMO, that very clear - and frankly relatable - arc of hers.

"Shrimp" was too strong of a word and you are correct, many descriptions do list him at 6'1" but others suggest he may not have been Here is an intersting link offerring no indisuputable truth, but just interesting on the height question. https://www.celebheights.com/s/Clark-Gable-737.html

Amusingly when I was doing research for my review of Lawrence of Arabia I found out Peter O'Toole is 6'2" while the real Lawrence was only about 5'6", so you get a bit of a different view of Lawrence being imposing from the film than you might if you met him in real life! Clark Gable being called a shrimp seems similar in that vein!
 
Movies back then presented things in a more idyllic fashion compared to the realism of today's films. People wanted to see it that way.


It's the only movie of the time period (30s/40s) where you will see a black woman call a white woman a "spider" (as in black widow). The only one where you will see a black coachman call a white woman "trash."
...and the only one where a black man ("Big Sam") beats up a white man.

1593178685282.png
 
I say they should remake "Gone With The Wind" and have all the white characters played by black actors and all the black characters played by white actors.

Only if you remake it as a Broadway musical.

Then in the latter half of the film she becomes manipulative and conniving all to ensure she never falls to the same low she did in 1864.

Scarlett is manipulative right from the beginning. She manipulated a man she didn't care about at all into marrying her (her first husband who dies in the war).
 
Back
Top