Gone With the Wind - Is Gone ("Temporarily" from Some Streaming/Broadcast Services)

[Timshel]

I don't think that movies or books should be pulled.  Other posters have already stated and I agree that monuments/statues in public places that equal symbols of oppression to any ethnicity or culture should be removed in the United States of America.  'The land of the free and home of the brave.'  1814 Francis Scott Key

 

 

Edited June 15, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator
off topic

[sothereiwas]

On 6/11/2020 at 12:01 PM, stillafool said:

Temporary could mean sometime in the next 20 to 30 years.  I went to buy a copy of GWTW eBay and the bidding is high for the DVDs.  People are rushing to buy this film and have it on hand to show future generations. 

I have a copy. I also have Song of the South and a few other banned items. A Revell (IIRC) plastic model of the Dukes General Lee, complete w/ decal kit. I never liked the show, but I like culture cops less. 

[sothereiwas]

1 hour ago, Timshel said:

I don't think that movies or books should be pulled.

Anything produced since 2000, and actually probably later, should be PD anyway. 

[CaliforniaGirl]

3 hours ago, BC1980 said:

Because this thread is about some progressives/leftists (terms differ) that want to get rid of "Gone with the Wind." It's not about what conservatives want to get rid of though I'm sure we could start a thread on that if there is interest. 

No, the movie is being reexamined due to one editorial piece from one filmmaker, not "some progressives," and he even said in the piece is does not believe in censorship.

And yes, it was appropriate for me to answer assertions against "the left" and to point out the irony. I directly answered a post here. 

[DKT3]

Ultimately nothing will be banned...again it's just a distraction.  

In the late 1980's legendary Rap group NWA was "banned" from performing thier song F... the police, and was actually pulled off stage and arrested for performing the song anyways. The chaos surrounding this particular song or others that where promoting self defense violence against police violence that was seen in the black community,  lasted about a year and slowly went away. 

In the 1960's there was the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam that also promoted the retaliation of violence against police. We saw arrests,  assasinations, set ups and so on. 

In 1990's the riots.

All this messages failed in making lasting changes because of the distraction created to dilute the message.  Things got better after each but none were lasting. 

Point being,  all of this stuff is distracting from the message and is basically propaganda.  As I stated before,  if you want to watch gone with the wind, find it, download it and watch.  I'm confident no one will knock on your door to drag you off to jail...so why all this noise?

[sothereiwas]

2 hours ago, Timshel said:

Other posters have already stated and I agree that monuments/statues in public places that equal symbols of oppression to any ethnicity or culture should be removed in the United States of America.

That's fine, but what it means in practice, if carried out evenhandedly, is that we basically can't have monuments. Is that what we want? 

[Timshel]

30 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

That's fine, but what it means in practice, if carried out evenhandedly, is that we basically can't have monuments. Is that what we want? 

I think about it and on the surface the answer would be simple...I as many others have been to the National Mall and museums, my husband and I took the kids last summer.  I was born and raised in the deep south....though my education and circumstance were privileged. 

To answer your question directly, yes, I think so.  The reason is that no human should be idolized, we keep making that mistake.  In fact, aren't we doing what we have always done? 

The best of us I think do not deserve statues and probably wouldn't want one. 

Edited June 16, 2020 by a LoveShack.org Moderator

[basil67]

Going back to GWTW, I haven't seen anything about anyone wanting it banned.   I even went to Twitter and didn't find anything calling for it to be banned.  Granted, I am not a skilled Twitter user so I am open to being respectfully educated about hashtags which I may not have guessed at.    The only thing I have found  is that HBO temporarily removed it while constructing a disclaimer.  

More broadly,  on the topic of banning, a visit to Banned Books as discussed by the American Library Association discusses a great many books and banning.  What is apparent is that while a great many books get challenged, most only end up being locally removed from, say, some school libraries and correctional institutions.   While I'm sure there are a handful which have been prohibited from distribution in the country, almost all are still legally accessible.   

As someone who's "woke" or "leftie" and has many friends of the same persuasion, I honestly don't know anyone who is in favour of restricting books or movies.  I find it offensive to be dumped in with some other 'woke folks' who've apparently asked for things which I can't find them asking for.   If I could find a movement for banning GWTW which is bigger than some fringe nutters, I would gladly have a look at what they have to say.

Edited June 16, 2020 by basil67

[sothereiwas]

8 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Going back to GWTW, I haven't seen anything about anyone wanting it banned. 

It was pulled pending blah blah, which to me was a stupid way to do it. Probably far better to have just added the preamble when it was ready, one and done. Of course in terms of free marketing, brilliant, so in reality things are probably working out just as planned. 

[basil67]

Ah yes, nothing like "banning" something to get everyone buying it.

[sothereiwas]

3 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Ah yes, nothing like "banning" something to get everyone buying it.

Yes, a generalized form of the rule "never buy firearms after a progressive threatens to ban them."

[sothereiwas]

15 hours ago, basil67 said:

It's hardly like they've got the corner on the market when it comes to wanting censorship.  Plenty of conservative folk have also wanted particular books banned.  Books which contain diverse families, sex, swearing, blasphemy, and poor old Harry Potter with his spells.    

I think it would be fairer to lump all of those who want books, movies or art banned into the same basket and not take aim at any particular subset of people.  

I call them authoritarians, because that's what they are. I don't like what any of them do. Anyone who is a fan of bigger government has a good chance of being an authoritarian, whether the things they want to mandate happen to seem "good" or not. Whenever government strays from the task of protecting the natural rights of the taxpayers, they are on shaky ground. 

[basil67]

I catch your wink there

Seriously though, I know you're right wing, but I wouldn't use language which dumps you in with right wing nutters who do not represent the average right wing citizen.   And as a garden variety woke person, I don't like language which sees us dumped in with the left wing nutters.   Such generalisations only further exacerbate the divide.

 

[basil67]

7 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

I call them authoritarians, because that's what they are. I don't like what any of them do. Anyone who is a fan of bigger government has a good chance of being an authoritarian, whether the things they want to mandate happen to seem "good" or not. Whenever government strays from the task of protecting the natural rights of the taxpayers, they are on shaky ground. 

You raise a good point that both left and right can use 'government' to instil their own values on the greater community.  I don't like it either.

[sothereiwas]

4 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Seriously though, I know you're right wing

Check your privilege lady

When I take those "political spectrum" tests I actually end up just barely right of center, or even sometimes (rarely) microscopically left of center, but firmly in the liberty zone. It's just in this forum, and the world at large recently, most of the people who seem to be intent on taking away liberty also seem to lean hard left. In other places and circumstances I'm often accused of being a liberal. Never yet a leftist thank god. 

[basil67]

I'm moderate left, moderate libertarian.   Smack bang in the middle of the green square.

 

[basil67]

2 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

Check your privilege lady

When I take those "political spectrum" tests I actually end up just barely right of center, or even sometimes (rarely) microscopically left of center, but firmly in the liberty zone. It's just in this forum, and the world at large recently, most of the people who seem to be intent on taking away liberty also seem to lean hard left. In other places and circumstances I'm often accused of being a liberal. Never yet a leftist thank god. 

I stand corrected on my comment

Left and right can both be libertarian or authoritarian.   I'm pretty familiar with the things the right do which can be authoritarian,  but I'm curious as to what issues you see which make you say the hard left want to take away liberty.   Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of perhaps making it illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion or sexuality in the workplace could be one of the things.  

[Ellener]

18 hours ago, simpycurious said:

I do believe MOST can watch a film like GWTW and realize that slavery was BAD.

of course. It's the follow up which challenges human nature or intellect: so, what is like for descendents and people today?

“I'll think of it tomorrow, at Tara. I can stand it then. Tomorrow, I'll think of some way to get him back. After all, tomorrow is another day.”

 

[Highndry]

Welcome to cancel culture and deranged liberalism run amok.

[basil67]

16 minutes ago, Highndry said:

Welcome to cancel culture and deranged liberalism run amok.

The show hasn't been banned or cancelled.   Nobody is running amok with this.   

[Libby1]

3 hours ago, basil67 said:

I stand corrected on my comment

Left and right can both be libertarian or authoritarian.   I'm pretty familiar with the things the right do which can be authoritarian,  but I'm curious as to what issues you see which make you say the hard left want to take away liberty.   Off the top of my head, I'm thinking of perhaps making it illegal to discriminate on grounds of religion or sexuality in the workplace could be one of the things.  

Sorry to butt in, but your earlier post (re being garden variety woke, and getting annoyed about being dumped in with left wing nutters) caught my eye.  I used to get the same feeling years back when the internet felt like a far more virulently anti-woman place than it is now, and any attempt to challenge that would see a woman labelled as a Marxist jangling the keys to the gulags with excitement.  The mood of the internet has changed immeasurably since then, and feels like a far more woman-friendly place to participate in.  It's changed to the point where I've found myself moving away from a more feminist stance and sympathising with men when they complain about labels like "toxic masculinity" (a label which I'd probably have used myself maybe 10 years ago, on account of what I frequently encountered on the internet, but which seems less helpful now). I still see shades of the old misogyny here and there...but the big difference is that now I see it more on the left than on the right. 

For instance, when JK Rowling made her recent tweets about not liking the term "people who menstruate" it triggered a volcanic eruption of hatred which has bubbling away for her for quite some time.  There has been lots of talk about burning her books, but a lot of the verbal attacks on her have also involved threats of sexualised violence.  The media here has generally disapproved of JK's commentary in a kind of "mainstream woke" way.  It has also expressed horror about the tone of violence (physical and violence) in a lot of the threats.  That, for me, is where ordinary wokeness isn't awake to just how prevalent that kind of discourse is against women for the crime of just not being up to date enough about trans issues. Where there's maybe a failure to appreciate just what people have encountered online, from hardline activists on the left, which has pushed them towards a position that seems more right wing or reactionary.  It's not unlike the old days when men would talk about how they were friendly towards feminism until they started getting screamed at by women for acts of chivalry.  I used to read stories like that and think "yeah, right...as though that really happens in real life."  But now I'm not so sure.    

We've had a few cases in the UK where activists have called the police to report hate crimes after people misgendered somebody on Twitter.  The narrative is that people are likely to commit suicide or be murdered if somebody on Twitter misgenders them, and that this is what makes it a hate crime.  It's pretty dubious logic, but the police here (in Scotland at least) went through a phase of subscribing to that logic and encouraging people to report Twitter hate crimes.  That's when I started seeing the militant left as something more than just a bunch of crazies to be laughed off.  Suddenly it really didn't seem over the top to start referencing George Orwell. 

There seem to be similar purity tests going on just now with the BLM protests and the "are you doing enough to combat racism? Silence is violence" drive.  These are areas where it's extremely easy for the unwary to put a foot wrong,and expressing an opinion without very carefully running it through your mind and editing it first is dangerous.  These are moments that hardline activists seem to live for.  You could put them in the most enlightened environment imaginable and immediately they'd be searching around for somebody to demonise.  That's why I'd tend to see the left as more authoritarian than the right.  The policing of people speech, and the determination to ascribe malicious intent to all sorts of things.  The extent to which they seem to derive their sense of self worth from watching other people fail the purity tests they set.  It's too much, sometimes.  

To go back to Gone With the Wind, the poster who said most sub 30 people probably aren't aware of GWTW is probably right.  For that age group, it isn't relevant.  Harry Potter books are still very relevant as there's this ongoing fandom that involves writing fanfiction.  A lot of them are struggling with their desire to continue being part of that fandom but now hating the creator of the Harry Potter world with a vengeance. Some of them push theories, only half joking it seems, that Rowling didn't actually write the books.  Or they moot the idea of finding ways to get around copyright law and rewriting them. Generally there's a desire to eliminate the creator of this world that she created, because she isn't woke enough to deserve to be part of it. Eventually those books probably will be rewritten to reflect changing norms, as Enid Blyton's books have been rewritten. 

The series Anne with an E introduced some new storylines which took Anne of Green Gables in a far more modern direction and saw Diana Barry's spinster aunt hosting an LGBT party.  I can envisage this re-release of GWTW complete with critical analysis eventually leading to plans to rework the characters and storylines to create a new movie geared towards the audience of today in the same way that Anne with an E was.  

Edited June 16, 2020 by Libby1

[schlumpy]

Anne of Green Gables was a wonderful book to read and the series starring Megan Fellows was a gem.

If I know that a book has been rewritten to "bring it up to modern standards" I would decline to read it. I read to gain perspective, not reinforce opinion I hear daily.

I really find it troubling that a book would be rewritten like that. I suppose it's about money or maybe pressure from activist groups?

Anyway, wonderful post as always Libby. Gives me much to think about.

[Libby1]

24 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Anne of Green Gables was a wonderful book to read and the series starring Megan Fellows was a gem.

If I know that a book has been rewritten to "bring it up to modern standards" I would decline to read it. I read to gain perspective, not reinforce opinion I hear daily.

I really find it troubling that a book would be rewritten like that. I suppose it's about money or maybe pressure from activist groups?

Anyway, wonderful post as always Libby. Gives me much to think about.

Thank you, schlumpy.  I started out with a bit of a prejudice against Anne with an E as I have that sense of "how dare they meddle with somebody else's work?  They should write their own original book."  At times it went off course to a point that seemed ridiculous (for instance Gilbert Blythe went off to work on a steamer for no discernible reason other than to make a black friend he could take home with him)...but there were dark elements to it that really made sense.  The girl who played Anne was just sublime in the role, and there were some beautifully shot scenes.   If you can get past the fact that they took great liberties with the author's work, I'd definitely recommend watching it.

I think a reworked Gone With The Wind could be fascinating.  Not to replace the original, but to challenge it to a certain extent.  The problem with reworking anything like that, though, is that it could actually end up being far less realistic than the original it sought to add gritty reality to. 

[schlumpy]

13 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

I think a reworked Gone With The Wind could be fascinating.  Not to replace the original, but to challenge it to a certain extent.  The problem with reworking anything like that, though, is that it could actually end up being far less realistic than the original it sought to add gritty reality to. 

Nothing destroys a story faster then changing character details so that the reader is "taught a lesson." Whatever you put into the story has to have some bearing on the plot line to further the narrative. You can't have one of the characters just pop-off from outer space about gay rights if there is no foundation in the story to support it. It's like a wall for the reader to climb over.

The writers ideas have to be told through interaction between the characters. No Soliloquys allowed unless it's in the proper setting and connects with the story.

 

[Ellener]

PBS did an evening recently showing the movie Giant and a documentary Children of Giant including interviews from the surviving cast:

In the summer of 1955, it seemed as if all of Hollywood descended on the dusty West Texas town of Marfa as production began on the movie Giant, starring a legendary trio - Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, and James Dean - along with young actors Earl Holliman and Elsa Cardenas. Based on Edna Ferber's controversial novel, Giant was a different kind of western, taking an unflinching look at feminism and class divisions, and at the racial divide between Anglos and Mexican Americans in the Southwest. The movie earned ten Academy Award® nominations, with a win for George Stevens as Best Director.

It was James Dean's last movie, he died before it was released. A young Elizabeth Taylor is gorgeous! 

In 2005, the film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". ( WIKI )

@Libby1 author Geraldine Brooks wrote a book 'March' based on the Little Women father: An idealistic abolitionist, March has gone as chaplain to serve the Union cause. But the war tests his faith not only in the Union - which is also capable of barbarism and racism - but in himself. As he recovers from a near-fatal illness, March must reassemble and reconnect with his family, who have no idea of what he has endured. A love story set in a time of catastrophe, March explores the passions between a man and a woman, the tenderness of parent and child, and the life-changing power of an ardently held belief. I loved it because it revisited the whole world of these books which was real to me as a child ( Anne of Green Gables was too ) They were the places I learned to think about the issues of human relationships and unfairness and prejudice.