Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
TopBilled

Check in if you think TCM should keep GONE WITH THE WIND off the schedule

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, MerryPickford said:

Unfortunately, I've heard the "N" word thrown around by white people in anger and paranoia in the last two weeks( 5-10 times in person just yesterday, maybe over 50 times on television/social media, and 100s of times in written posts/threads the last 3 weeks) than what I ever really heard in the last 20 years so I am not sure if you've been living under a rock lately or what. Racism, or blatant racism that you may be referring to usually stays hidden nowadays until a civil rights uprising occurs like what is currently going on regarding BLM and the opposing ALL LIVES MATTER banner that white people shout. Unfortunately, white populations respond defensively as though they are being attacked personally, becoming enraged and feeling it's finally appropriate to shout racist rants that may have been internalized for a long time. 

Wow, Merry! If all this is true, and I have no particular reason to doubt you, then you have successfully disheartened me here.

Sure, I've known ever since a certain inarticulate man-child parked his fat butt in the White House, these sorts of creeps have felt emboldened to crawl out of the woodwork and spout their vile rhetoric from every avenue available to them, but because I seldom if ever venture into the realm of social media which allows these creeps a platform to do this, I suppose in this regard one could indeed say I have been "living under a rock".

(...still though and after having said this, I will once again state with a measure of certainty that in 1939 and when GWTW was made, racism in these United States was more prevalent than it is today, and both in systemic terms and within the general culture itself) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MerryPickford said:

What other viewpoint is there? That the antebellum south was totally justified in starting a Civil War to retain slavery for their precious plantations, and the Mammy(Mammy, Prissy) and Uncle Tom(Pork) stereotypes are totally accurate and appropriate? 

No, of course stereotypes are not appropriate.  Your post does tend to indicate your bias though.  Also, the movie has very little to do with causes of the Civil War per se, but more about the people who lived through it and the aftermath.

What about the stereotypes of the white people?

The other viewpoints are that all white Southerners were not evil; all slave owners were not evil; and so forth.

Also, primarily that while slavery was the major reason for the Civil War, it was not the only reason.  It was not even the reason many, many people supported the war.  At that time, the United States were just that, a collection of states.  It did not really become one unified country with a supreme government in Washington DC until the war ended.  Many Northerners fought for the Confederacy for reasons totally unrelated to slavery.  Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Southerners. 

In the 1830's, the South almost seceded, not to protect slavery, but to prevent the central government from enacting tariffs.  This was a purely economic reason.  Even the New England states had considered secession over the "over reaching" power of the Federal government.

May be extreme, but you could even say wraparounds are needed for Film Noir to explain that majority of people during the 30'-50's were not criminals.  That robbing banks, assaulting people and murdering people is wrong.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was my understanding the main reason for the Civil War is that the North could not let the South secede for economic reasons. 

Anyone know what the %percentage% was of Southerners who had enough money to own large amounts of property and have slaves?  I've no idea.  I'll guess 5%.  Otherwise, most white folk were just po' white trash.  → Now I have to go and get me some back-alley chew, a bucket of Cheez Whiz and some beer pretzels from the local drive-up Puke Mart.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the correct solution would have been to clean house. Hang as traitors every last confederate officer and politician, and occupy and sort of re-homestead  and re educate the South. Obviously, the North didn't finish the job.  The old Romans knew how to take are of business, lol. 😉

You don't see many monuments or any monuments to Loyalist officers after the American Revolution, they (the loyalists) all didn't stick round either, having the option to relocate to Canada. 

Here is one sort of monument to the wound that Gen. Benedict Arnold suffered at Saratoga.

Boot Monument - Wikipedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

It was my understanding the main reason for the Civil War is that the North could not let the South secede for economic reasons. 

Anyone know what the %percentage% was of Southerners who had enough money to own large amounts of property and have slaves?  I've no idea.  I'll guess 5%.  Otherwise, most white folk were just po' white trash.  → Now I have to go and get me some back-alley chew, a bucket of Cheez Whiz and some beer pretzels from the local drive-up Puke Mart.  

 

Search it and find vast differences between sources.  Probably less than 1% were the stereotypical plantations with 50 or more slaves.  Many people (1/3?) would have owned 1-5 slaves.  Most would have owned none.  Many free blacks owned slaves. 

It definitely would have hurt the North if the South have separated.  The South produced very little in manufactured goods and therefore imported almost everything from the North or England.  This is what led to the Nullification Controversies of late 1830 period.  The precursor to secession.  Northerners in Congress kept trying to raise the tariffs on imported goods.  More money for Federal government and more sales for Northerners.

Also, while some of the plantation owners were very wealthy, many were land (and slave) rich and money poor.  They owed huge sums to factors, banks and others.  Some of these probably in the North.

Only some of the rest were "poor white trash."  There were the small farmers, merchants, employees of businesses and so forth.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, at least in hindsight, many of the seceding states in their various secession

documents stated very clearly that the fear of slavery being abolished was the reason they left

the U.S. Everything else was secondary. Since Lincoln was not likely to abolish slavery in

the near term, slavery would have existed longer if the southern states had not seceded.

There were northerners who fought for the Confederacy and there were southerners who

fought for the Union. I doubt there were many who did so.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Unfortunately, at least in hindsight, many of the seceding states in their various secession

documents stated very clearly that the fear of slavery being abolished was the reason they left

the U.S. Everything else was secondary.

This is absolutely the case in my state.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vautrin said:

Unfortunately, at least in hindsight, many of the seceding states in their various secession

documents stated very clearly that the fear of slavery being abolished was the reason they left

the U.S. Everything else was secondary. Since Lincoln was not likely to abolish slavery in

the near term, slavery would have existed longer if the southern states had not seceded.

There were northerners who fought for the Confederacy and there were southerners who

fought for the Union. I doubt there were many who did so.

But, but, I've heard from some quarters (usually from some southern apologist) that the REAL reason was because of federal government overreach, you know that whole "States Rights" thing, and thus the overreach of those damn Yankees tellin' and even forcin' those poor ol' southern boys who held slaves that owning slaves and treating them as less than human just wasn't the Christian thing to do!

And whereas I've ALSO heard that it states right there in the Bible somewhere how one should treat their slave, and so obviously GOD didn't have any problem with it, RIGHT???!!!

(...man, how I dearly love playin' the sarcastic devil's advocate sometimes)

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sewhite2000 said:

This is absolutely the case in my state.

I'm sure it was the case in most of the states that seceded, perhaps in all that did.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dargo said:

But, but, I've heard from some quarters (usually from some southern apologist) that the REAL reason was because of federal government overreach, you know that whole "States Rights" thing, and thus the overreach of those damn Yankees tellin' and even forcin' those poor ol' southern boys who held slaves that owning slaves and treating them as less than human just wasn't the Christian thing to do!

And whereas I've ALSO heard that it states right there in the Bible somewhere how one should treat their slave, and so obviously GOD didn't have any problem with it, RIGHT???!!!

(...man, how I dearly love playin' the sarcastic devil's advocate sometimes)

 

Yeah, something to do with Ham seeing his daddy Noah's jingle bells. Yikes!

Of course the common reply to the states rights argument is, sure they were

interested  in states rights or rather one state right--the right to own black people. 

And that's the right they were afraid they were going to lose.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dargo said:

But, but, I've heard from some quarters (usually from some southern apologist) that the REAL reason was because of federal government overreach, you know that whole "States Rights" thing, and thus the overreach of those damn Yankees tellin' and even forcin' those poor ol' southern boys who held slaves that owning slaves and treating them as less than human just wasn't the Christian thing to do!

And whereas I've ALSO heard that it states right there in the Bible somewhere how one should treat their slave, and so obviously GOD didn't have any problem with it, RIGHT???!!!

(...man, how I dearly love playin' the sarcastic devil's advocate sometimes)

 

It was a very complex issue and yes slavery was the prominent reason, but NOT the only one.  The Southerners feared (rightfully so) that if the North could restrict slavery from new states and territories, they would eventually outlaw it in existing states.  

In 1783, the South dominated Congress, but by 1850's, the North dominated Congress.  The South saw itself losing control of the nation and becoming subjected to Northern dictates.  There was also the huge difference between the industrializing North and the agrarian South.  The tariffs were another issue.  Southern states imported most of their manufactured goods and Northern states wanted to keep raising the tariffs to protect Northern industries.  Most Southern cotton was sold to England and if US raised tariffs on English goods, England would probably raise tariffs on imported cotton.

A whole host of other reasons as well.

Back to original post:  TCM should keep Gone With the Wind on the schedule and there is no reason for lengthy wraparounds to discuss the evils of slavery.  Just point out slavery was evil and movie was a romantic drama made in 1939.

I'm done with this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arteesto said:

Interesting:

https://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436

Now there can be a remake of Gone with the Wind and employ all the historical facts.

I would instead recommend a remake that had NONE of the historical facts;  Instead move the entire setting to another era,  country,,,,  any place BUT the American South in the years represented in the novel.

People have said that the story is around a young women that grows-up during difficult times becoming the leader of her family.     That the issues of the South, Confederacy,  slavery,, are not central to this story-of-a-women.        No historical facts are necessary to tell that story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/16/2020 at 5:09 PM, MerryPickford said:

Unfortunately, I've heard the "N" word thrown around by white people in anger and paranoia in the last two weeks( 5-10 times in person just yesterday, maybe over 50 times on television/social media, and 100s of times in written posts/threads the last 3 weeks) than what I ever really heard in the last 20 years so I am not sure if you've been living under a rock lately or what. Racism, or blatant racism that you may be referring to usually stays hidden nowadays until a civil rights uprising occurs like what is currently going on regarding BLM and the opposing ALL LIVES MATTER banner that white people shout. Unfortunately, white populations respond defensively as though they are being attacked personally, becoming enraged and feeling it's finally appropriate to shout racist rants that may have been internalized for a long time. 

Again, thanks for sharing your experiences. Sorry you've had to endure that. It's reprehensible.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

I would instead recommend a remake that had NONE of the historical facts;  Instead move the entire setting to another era,  country,,,,  any place BUT the American South in the years represented in the novel.

People have said that the story is around a young women that grows-up during difficult times becoming the leader of her family.     That the issues of the South, Confederacy,  slavery,, are not central to this story-of-a-women.        No historical facts are necessary to tell that story. 

Hmmm, then what you're suggesting here sounds to me like any generic TV movie that the Lifetime or the Hallmark channel could produce on a much smaller budget.

Okay, so then how about changing the setting of, say, the love story dynamics in Dr. Zhivago to, say, present day Albuquerque NM, and seeing as how these sorts of movies about tangled relationships as you suggest "don't require historical facts to tell that story"?

Hmmm, but then on second thought, would doing that sort'a thing have not only have made THAT story JUST a little less interesting, but also might not have garnered it the popularity it would have in both book and movie form?

(...nope, sorry James, but setting  love stories such as Rhett's and Scarlett's or Yuri's and Lara's against the backdrop of great social upheaval will always make for JUST a little more interesting a story AND the possibility of it being told in epic form and a grander cinematic scale than they could be told otherwise, wouldn't you think?!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Hmmm, then what you're suggesting here sounds to me like any generic TV movie that the Lifetime or the Hallmark channel could produce on a smaller budget.

Okay, so then how about changing the setting of, say, the love story dynamics in Dr, Zhivago to, say, present day Albuquerque NM, and seeing as how these sorts of movies about tangled relationships don't require "historical facts to tell that story"?

Hmmm, but then on second thought, would doing that sort'a thing have not only have made THAT story JUST a little less interesting, but also might not have garnered it the popularity it would have in both book and movie form?

(...nope, sorry James, but setting  love stories such as Rhett's and Scarlett's or Yuri's and Lara's against the backdrop of social upheaval will always make for JUST a little more interesting story and the possibility of it being told in epic form than they could be told otherwise, wouldn't you think?!)

I agree about how "the backdrop of social upheaval" will make for a more interesting story;  But where is it written that such social upheaval has to be based on specific historical facts.    I.e. the social upheaval could be generalized  and based on a historical era.       (and yes,  I'm now saying "specific" so one could  say I just moved the goal post!,  ha ha).

Anyhow,  my post was mostly cracking-wise based on all of the supporters of GWTW that have tried to argue that the setting, the South,  slavery etc..  are NOT central to the story being told in the film.      I don't believe that,   but hey,  I never said it!

 I did get this item from watching Wagon Train;    Most of the stories are age-old well known 'tales' that were originally NOT set in the American west  and clearly NOT part of any wagon train adventure.       The writers are clever making these stories 'work' within the setting and characters of the show.    Being a fan of those crazy-old-movies,   one of the new 'games' I'm playing is trying to find what prior film \ play \ book,   the writers based the episode on.      ONE key theme that just came to light in the last few days:   The political system of a wagon train;    Like those on a ship  out at sea,   this is a closed-political-system;   With it own set of laws,  power structure and enforcement protocols.     I came to realize such a system allows a writer a lot of flexibility.      (sorry this last paragraph is a tangent!).

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dargo:  Hast thou forgotten GONE WITH THE WIND was remade, more or less, in a low-budget way in 1979 when the television film LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY was unleashed on the small screen? 

I think LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY is ripe for re-discovery by modern audiences!

TCM can contact me and I will let them borrow my PRISM VHS release for a nominal sum.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

Dargo:  Hast thou forgotten GONE WITH THE WIND was remade, more or less, in a low-budget way in 1979 when the television film LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY was unleashed on the small screen? 

I think LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY is ripe for re-discovery by modern audiences!

TCM can contact me and I will let them borrow my PRISM VHS release for a nominal sum.  :D 

LOL

Ya know, I think I vaguely remember that one, Mr. G.

And after now researching it, it seems it starred my gal (and the nine-timed married and screwed up in the head...well, before she found Jesus that is)Jennifer O'Neill.

I particularly loved the following single trivia note in its very short Wiki page:

Jaclyn Smith was meant to star but she pulled out after reading the script.[3] Filming started March 22, 1979.[4]

(...and so I'd say its quality or lack thereof might speak volumes if even as lousy an actress as Jaclyn Smith turned it down because of its script)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Mr. Gorman said:

Dargo:  Hast thou forgotten GONE WITH THE WIND was remade, more or less, in a low-budget way in 1979 when the television film LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY was unleashed on the small screen? 

I think LOVE'S SAVAGE FURY is ripe for re-discovery by modern audiences!

TCM can contact me and I will let them borrow my PRISM VHS release for a nominal sum.  :D 

On my hike yesterday I came up with another era for the setting of GWTW that to me would work well;   It is the years from 1750 to around 1790 and set in Boston.     

Scarlett is oldest sibling of a rich,  land owning  family that are Tories.     They have really strong ties to all-things-England.      Instead of slaves they have many indentured servants (I got the idea of such servants from Dark Shadows which is currently set in a similar era (via a time-warp!).       

As one can see many parts of the GWTW film would 'work' in the above revised setting \ era;        There would be the papered Tories wishing to retain their lifestyle and strong ties to England.    Of course the war, and then the aftermath;   how defeated Tories rebuilt their wealth and regained the trust of their now fellow Americans etc....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

On my hike yesterday I came up with another era for the setting of GWTW that to me would work well;   It is the years from 1750 to around 1790 and set in Boston.     

Scarlett is oldest sibling of a rich,  land owning  family that are Tories.     They have really strong ties to all-things-England.      Instead of slaves they have many indentured servants (I got the idea of such servants from Dark Shadows which is currently set in a similar era (via a time-warp!).       

As one can see many parts of the GWTW film would 'work' in the above revised setting \ era;        There would be the papered Tories wishing to retain their lifestyle and strong ties to England.    Of course the war, and then the aftermath;   how defeated Tories rebuilt their wealth and regained the trust of their now fellow Americans etc....

That's great! When you finish the screenplay, let us know! :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

On my hike yesterday I came up with another era for the setting of GWTW that to me would work well;   It is the years from 1750 to around 1790 and set in Boston.     

Scarlett is oldest sibling of a rich,  land owning  family that are Tories.     They have really strong ties to all-things-England.      Instead of slaves they have many indentured servants (I got the idea of such servants from Dark Shadows which is currently set in a similar era (via a time-warp!).       

As one can see many parts of the GWTW film would 'work' in the above revised setting \ era;        There would be the papered Tories wishing to retain their lifestyle and strong ties to England.    Of course the war, and then the aftermath;   how defeated Tories rebuilt their wealth and regained the trust of their now fellow Americans etc....

 

I can see one flaw in this scenario, James.

The O'Hara family where Irish Catholic, and thus their family history probably wouldn't have been aligned with "all-things-England". I assume you know how those in Ireland weren't exactly fond of being controlled at the time by the dictates of the Protestant King in London, right?!

This assuming that Scarlett's surname would still be "O'Hara", of course.

(...but either way, your scenario is still placed within the setting of a social upheaval)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gone with the Wind is available again on HBO Max together with an introduction by Jacqueline Stewart.

With the HBO Max application you can watch the introduction by itself, or if you try to watch the film the introduction will play before the film starts.  Along with the introduction, there's also a supplemental video with a panel discussion of the film recorded at the 2019 TCM Film Festival with Donald Bogle, Stephanie Allain, Molly Haskell, and Jacqueline Stewart.

Here's an article on USA Today describing the return:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/06/24/gone-wind-returns-hbo-max-disclaimer-videos/3254546001/

I had not seen the TCM Film Festival panel discussion on GWTW before - would highly recommend it for those who have seen the film.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, cmovieviewer said:

Gone with the Wind is available again on HBO Max together with an introduction by Jacqueline Stewart.

With the HBO Max application you can watch the introduction by itself, or if you try to watch the film the introduction will play before the film starts.  Along with the introduction, there's also a supplemental video with a panel discussion of the film recorded at the 2019 TCM Film Festival with Donald Bogle, Stephanie Allain, Molly Haskell, and Jacqueline Stewart.

Here's an article on USA Today describing the return:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/movies/2020/06/24/gone-wind-returns-hbo-max-disclaimer-videos/3254546001/

I had not seen the TCM Film Festival panel discussion on GWTW before - would highly recommend it for those who have seen the film.

Thanks for the update.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will TCM risk the potential backlash and schedule GONE WITH THE WIND when they do a memorial tribute for Olivia de Havilland?

screen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/26/2020 at 11:13 AM, TopBilled said:

Will TCM risk the potential backlash and schedule GONE WITH THE WIND when they do a memorial tribute for Olivia de Havilland?

screen

The answer is 'yes'.  TCM has swapped out the Bette Davis Summer Under the Stars schedule on Aug. 23 for a tribute to Olivia de Havilland.  Gone with the Wind is the prime-time leadoff at 8 pm ET.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...