Gone With the Wind

[Mladen]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

I suspect that you already know this, but it bears repeating because I see this word misused so much: one private entertainment company deciding not to stock it anymore is not censorship. The government has not prevented anyone from watching it.

Yeah, it was my mistake that I initially entered the debate solely on the news being translated to Serbian, which "lost" some facts  

 

[Freshwater Spartan]

I remember when my future wife and I watched it years ago mostly on the recommendation from my Mother. We appreciated the cinematography, acting and direction. We certainly could see the lost cause tropes on display but we're both educated so we could also see through and beyond them. It helps for me that I am a huge civil war buff with little southern sympathy.

The funny thing was that what stood out to us was not so much the racial attitudes but what a selfish bitch Scarlett was.  If you haven't seen it take my word she is horrible to everyone. Later we confronted my Mother and asked her how she could have possibly have liked this awful character. My Mom pointed out that for a long time this was one of the only movies she saw when she was growing up that depicted a woman unafraid to control her own destiny. Seeing the movie a second time was a different experience.

It's a good movie. I think it's likely in the future it will be deemed completely unacceptable for someone to watch this film (if we are not there yet). Perhaps we gain something then. But we'll lose something too.

[Vaughn]

15 hours ago, Mladen said:

I can't really argue with that. My objection was based that by censoring previous works future generations may not be aware of the past mistakes and sins, thus dooming them to repeat. I feel like GWTW has been slowly fading into oblivion and this literally resurrected it from the natural process of overcoming the terrible notions it represented.

but... why? Without GwtW we'll revert back to slavery? Or forget the Civil War was bad? In a lot of real ways, the South lost the war but won the cultural battle of the Civil War (there's a whole book just out on this theory) which is why you see confederate memorials in Union states. The presence of this movie does nothing about that deeper ingrained problem one way or the other, it's just a movie. Every three hour block that shows GwtW is an opportunity lost to show something else also, maybe something made by a more interesting or diverse voice.

 

 

[Mladen]

2 hours ago, Vaughn said:

but... why? Without GwtW we'll revert back to slavery? Or forget the Civil War was bad? In a lot of real ways, the South lost the war but won the cultural battle of the Civil War (there's a whole book just out on this theory) which is why you see confederate memorials in Union states. The presence of this movie does nothing about that deeper ingrained problem one way or the other, it's just a movie. Every three hour block that shows GwtW is an opportunity lost to show something else also, maybe something made by a more interesting or diverse voice.

I feel that GWTW should be the example of "how not to". And I think those lessons are important. I think discussions about movies from the past are important as they show us mistakes we made. Look, one of my favorite race-related movie from US had been "A time to kill". I watched it when I was 13, cried my way through it, considered it perfect. I grew up in Europe, 99% around me were white so the concept of racism was foreign to me. A decade and a half later, on a movie forum, I have found out that the movie is criticized for its white savior trope. I was literally outraged, as the movie held a special place in my heart (like all the childhood movies), so I watched it again. On the second watch, Samuel L. Jackson's reply to McConnaughey about them not being friends resonated more deeply than the closing argument. So, while it will always be one of the first dramatic movies I have seen, I understand many of its flaws now.

How different is Spike Lee losing to "Driving Miss Daisy" in 1990 at the Oscars from losing to "The Green Book" in 2019? How many movies and TV shows romanticized times that should have not be romanticized? GWTW was aired in 1939, Downton Abbey movie in 2019. I know there are differences between the two, but DA has romanticized British nobility and their relationship with their servants to the point that we claim it to be true just because of vintage clothes. The point is that we are Hollywood is learning nothing. And that is the bigger issue. 

For me, GWTW died long time ago. I watched it once, have no desire to watch it again. I was aware of its wrongdoings even in teen years. I am not sure this is as simple as "one private company removing one movie" How long before other streaming giants follow suit and then we start being unable to watch movies Hollywood execs don't want us to see. Is this a precedent that will become a norm and where do we draw a line?

Finally, I won't mind "special introduction" if it comes just to that. I will even salute that being done to a great number of movies. Heck, if someone in Hollywood wants funding for documentaries about past movies and political views in them, I would be willing to find it. I do believe we will need it. But I am against movies disappearing from all the major streaming devices that some Hollywood execs would like us to forget ever happened because it speaks ill of the industry, 

 

[Lord Varys]

I'm going to rewatch the thing in a couple of days, I guess, and will offer my thoughts then - just wanted to say here that it isn't 'censorship' when a private company owning screening rights chooses not to stream something.

Those companies stream things to make money and if they feel that doesn't work with certain things they won't offer them. A streaming service isn't a public library.

[DMC]

Found this article interesting:  10 Problematic Films That Could Use Warning Labels.  I agree with pretty much all the list.  The Searchers is probably my favorite western, but even the first time I watched it at ~13 years old the racism was shocking.  It should definitely have a warning label.  Thought Silence of the Lambs' inclusion was insightful too.

[Ran]

I can definitely understand the idea of providing critical commentary about the historical aspects of films, that's educational, and presumably would also contextualize why the thing is worth watching (people know so little about cinemat and cinematic history) but "disclaimers" are such weak sauce nothings, and feel condescending.

[litechick]

I found the inclusion of Forrest Gump and Silence of the Lambs to be confusing on that list.

In particular, they point out that the Buffalo Bill character is not trans but claim that people won't recognize the distinction and so...I don't know, I guess they are saying that the film is anti-trans even though there is not a depiction of a trans character at all.

With reasoning like that you can object to anything you want.

[Inkdaub]

In The Silence of the Lambs, Starling says that transsexuals are very passive and Lecter says that Bill isn't a transsexual but he thinks he is.  I'm not sure a trans person would be offended at the 'passive' generalization.  The character does kind of imply that trans people are exotic or even strange.  Bill is insane, though, and the caricature is his own creation.  As litechick says above...there is no trans character in the film.  I see it as a stretch but I am not trans and would rely on their feelings on the matter over my own.  

Spoiler

The Searchers should have a disclaimer that it has John Wayne in it.  All John Wayne movies should. 

 

[DMC]

On 6/20/2020 at 7:59 AM, Inkdaub said:

The character does kind of imply that trans people are exotic or even strange.

As the article notes, the depiction of the "crazy crossdressing serial killer" started with Psycho, was extended with Lambs, and even was mimicked in Billy Madison.  I think that's the issue that I hadn't really thought about until I read it.  Anyway, I agree it's kind of condescending to put warning labels on a bunch of films, but if we're gonna do it with GWTW, I think the candidates listed in that piece make sense as well.

Also, dunno why you felt the need to spoiler tag it, but LMAO at the John Wayne comment.  Searchers and Stagecoach are probably the only movies of his I can stand - and both are of course due to Ford.

[RumHam]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Also, dunno why you felt the need to spoiler tag it, but LMAO at the John Wayne comment.  Searchers and Stagecoach are probably the only movies of his I can stand - and both are of course due to Ford.

I haven't seen it in years but I remember liking The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance too. 

[DMC]

1 minute ago, RumHam said:

I haven't seen it in years but I remember liking The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance too. 

Yeah it's my grandpa's favorite.  Thought of mentioning it, but honestly never got too into it other than the novelty of Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne costarring in a movie.

[Ran]

True Grit is also quite good, though the Coen Brothers remake is better in almost every way (especially Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross). Rio Bravo and Red River are must-watches for fans of Westerns, and I think there's something quite poignant in Wayne's performance in The Shootist, though the other aspects of the film aren't great.

[Inkdaub]

On 6/22/2020 at 2:00 PM, DMC said:

As the article notes, the depiction of the "crazy crossdressing serial killer" started with Psycho, was extended with Lambs, and even was mimicked in Billy Madison.  I think that's the issue that I hadn't really thought about until I read it.  Anyway, I agree it's kind of condescending to put warning labels on a bunch of films, but if we're gonna do it with GWTW, I think the candidates listed in that piece make sense as well.

Also, dunno why you felt the need to spoiler tag it, but LMAO at the John Wayne comment.  Searchers and Stagecoach are probably the only movies of his I can stand - and both are of course due to Ford.

I was just being a goof because I can't stand John Wayne. 

I had honestly forgotten about Psycho.  Another parallel is in the Harris novel, Bill is obsessed with a woman he claims is his mother.  In Harris' Red Dragon, the killer is also obsessed with a matriarchal figure in a very similar way to Norman Bates.  Harris clearly was influenced by Psycho a great deal.

 

[Zorral]

Gee, did the Missouri Breaks with Marlon Brando in a dress get on that list? 

https://cinapse.co/the-missouri-breaks-1976-a-cult-western-that-never-found-its-cult-349b6cb2beae

Liberty Valance remains a fascinating western because Ford tried so hard, after years of making westerns, and toward the end of his career re-evaluating the value of the good single man fixing the problem of violence committed by bad men with justified violence.  The idea that violence could be defeated with non-violent means -- Ford himself ultimately couldn't imagine.  So he tried to have it both ways.  But printing the legend -- the very legend -- the very choice that peaceable lawyer-to-be-politician- mover and shaker frame character -- makes, to go up with a gun he isn't any good at using against somebody who is very good with a gun, negates Ford's ambition.  And then, of course the 'good' guy good with a gun with justified violence solves the problem. Even though he still gets the girl, and good guy with the gun doesn't.

A true failure of conviction and imagination.  And Jimmy Stewart mostly in an apron washing dishes -- a lot of people really don't like that!

Personally, the character I wanted to know far more about, and how he got hooked up with Wayne's character, was Pompey, Doniphon's African American right hand man, played by Woody Strode. Strode also played the gladiator who does battle with Kirk Douglas in Spartacus (1960).

 

[Ran]

Strode and Ford were really close, and I recall reading that Strode helped take care of Ford in his last months. They first worked together in the film Sergeant Rutledge, with Strode as the eponymous character (although sadly, but not unexpectedly, it's the handsome and milquetoast Jeffrey Hunter who is the film's traditional hero and focal character, as an officer trying to clear Rutledge's name).

Worth watching, even though it's probably one of the more obscure and less heralded of Ford's films.

 

[Zorral]

I have watched Rutledge at least twice, but not since 2005, I think.