Film Review: Gone with the Wind (Revisited)

"Gone with the Wind"
**** (out of ****)

After more than 80 years "Gone with the Wind" (1939) is still a romance capable of sweeping us away.

I decided to revisit this iconic  American film, winner of eight  Academy Awards (including best picture), in the midst of the controversy concerning the on-line streaming site HBO Max and their decision to remove the movie from their line-up. It was in reaction to the social environment created by the death of George Floyd and police brutality protests and an op-ed John Ridley, the screenwriter of the film "12 Years a Slave" (2013) wrote, criticizing the film. "Gone with the Wind" is back on HBO Max, with an introduction (that I have not seen) explaining how the movie does not address the issue of slavery.

For years  "Gone with the Wind" has been a target of token social justice warriors who feel the movie is racist and perpetuates racial stereotypes and therefore should be forgotten. In these arguments  "Gone with the Wind" is unfortunately lumped together with D.W. Griffith's epic silent movie, "The Birth of a Nation" (1915). It is unfortunate because Griffith's movie is an instrument of hate (I will revisit that movie as well). It is unfair to describe "Gone with the Wind" the same way and / or put it in the same category.

It is true "Gone with the Wind" does not provide an accurate account of slavery. It also doesn't tackle a great many other important social issues; abortion, gay marriage, immigration, transgender rights or why people are so adverse to using their turn signals  while driving. What's my point? It's not a story  "Gone with the Wind" could tell within its time period. Expecting a historically accurate depiction of slavery from a movie made in 1939, at the very least, shows an ignorance of film history. Between 1934 - 1968 there was a motion picture production code put in place, known as the Hays Code. Its purpose was to enforce guidelines showing American decency and morality. One of the guidelines prohibited "perversion", which was defined, among other things, as dealing with homosexuality and interracial relationships. Within this environment, how on Earth was Hollywood going to make a movie depicting slavery in a realistic light?! How many movies made in the 1930s or 1940s present an accurate depiction of slavery? Even "Santa Fe Trail" (1940) about abolitionist John Brown doesn't do that. (Don't worry kids, it's not streaming on HBO Max).

Since token social justice warriors want to discuss accuracy of time periods, lets put aside film censorship and mention societal conditions of 1939 America. It was an America deep in racism and segregation. Heck, America 2020 is divided and racist. If there is much room for improvement today (despite whatever good ol' Southern boy, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may say) how much better do you think things were in 1939? The African - American actors in the cast weren't even allowed to attend the movie's premiere. In this environment, what kind of appetite would there be for a movie depicting slavery accurately?

Does the movie perpetuate racial stereotypes? Yes. Unfortunately that is a scar on American cinema, the representation of all minorities. African - American characters in particular were often placed in menial jobs. Many movies left their presence out entirely. It is a sad reflection of the times. That is not an excuse but a reality. To only place blame on  "Gone with the Wind" for this sin is not fair. If historically accurate introductions are required for this movie than they should be required of all American movies from the 1930s onward. Is that what we want? Do movie lovers really need to be reminded of the time period and social conditions that existed during a movie's release? Or was HBO's decision a knee-jerk reaction forced on by pressures of political correctness?

Watching "Gone with the Wind" again, it is unquestionably a story with strong Southern sympathies, preserving the myth of the "Lost Cause" - a belief that glorifies the Confederacy's defeat as heroic and honorable. That by itself however doesn't make the movie "racist". I think that is a misnomer. I can't believe I have to do this but racism is defined as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race".  A more accurate description would probably be the movie engages in Confederate or Southern propaganda. Observe the movie's opening quote, which describes the "Old South":

"Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow..Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and Slave...Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind..."

Though remnants of this way of thinking exist today, (what did you think Confederate monuments represent? Don't we still perceive Southerners as being chivalrous?) its sentiment may feel foreign to today's younger generations. The matter-of-fact quality of the statement seems rather audacious. It can make "Gone with the Wind" a bewildering experience. It truly does represent a mindset gone with the wind and creates a dichotomy in our perception of the South - Southern hospitality clashes with a defense of slave ownership.

It is perhaps these elements of Confederate propaganda token social justice warriors object to the most. Essentially movies like "Gone with the Wind" and "The Birth of a Nation" (and the novels they were based on by Margaret Mitchell and Thomas Dixon Jr. respectively) contend that the Old South was a place of tranquility. Master and Slave had an agreeable arrangement. One, dare we say, based on mutual respect and friendship. Of course this is all poppycock (excuse my language) but again I ask, what were you expecting? Society was not ready for a gruesome depiction of slavery. Some people today may not be prepared to watch such a movie.

Why should we differentiate between  "Gone with the Wind" and "The Birth of a Nation"?  Because  "Gone with the Wind" is about more than the Civil War. At its heart the movie is a romance. It uses the old cinematic device of having a historical event merely serve as a back drop for the two lovers, i.e. "Casablanca" (1942), "Doctor Zhivago" (1965). Whereas  "The Birth of a Nation", while it does have a love story, is first and foremost a story about the Civil War and the following Reconstruction era. It deliberately skews history to fit into its revisionist narrative. Both romanticize the South but  "The Birth of a Nation" is the one with the racist political agenda.

"Gone with the Wind" is very much a story of its time (1930s) as much as the Civil War's. The movie had its premier in December of 1939 as  America was beginning to come out of the Great Depression. War had begun in Europe in September of '39. Here is a movie where characters speak of an inevitable war. Although the Depression led to great unemployment, women in the workforce actually grew 24%. In many ways this is reflected in the movie's lead female character, Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh).

In fact, if  "Gone with the Wind" is anyone's story, it is Scarlett's. While Hollywood couldn't tackle issues like slavery, it did take on social causes. For example a few years after this movie, Hollywood would release  "A Gentleman's Agreement" (1947), an Academy Award best picture winner, which addresses anti-Semitism. In  "Gone with the Wind" we get an independent, strong, complex female character. That wasn't always the norm. With an increase in female participation in the workforce, marriages declined. There were a lot of Scarlett's in the Depression, single women that had to fend for themselves. Female audiences could probably relate to Scarlett. Does any of this matter to token social justice warriors?

As  "Gone with the Wind" begins, Scarlett is a young and innocent coquette. She has no shortage of beaus to choose from yet she has an obsession with Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). Ashley never tells Scarlett he loves her but he never tells her he doesn't either. Even after it is revealed he is going to marry his cousin, Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). Scarlett interprets Ashley's cowardly indecisiveness as encouragement. Her time will come with Ashley if only she waits her turn. The inevitable war breaks out, upending Scarlett's life as  Ashley enlists.

Scarlett quickly becomes the object of Rhett Butler's (Clark Gable) affection. However the lingering thought that one day Ashley will be hers, causes Scarlett to miss out on a life of happiness with Rhett or any man. She marries three times though never for love (once out of spite and twice for money). While the title, "Gone with the Wind", may refer to Margaret Mitchell's delusional interpretation of the South, it can also refer to Scarlett's childhood and innocence. Scarlett proves to be a survivor. In a man's world she is able to take charge of her life. Vowing to never go hungry again (a sentiment Depression era audiences could relate to), she becomes a successful businesswoman by any means necessary. For those looking for historical accuracy, bear in mind, a woman like Scarlett couldn't have functioned as she does in 1860 America. Remember, women didn't have equal rights to men at that time (they couldn't vote or own land). She is absolutely a "modern" woman.

Scarlett can also be a symbol of American entrepreneurship. One interesting scene comments on the employers relationship to labor and the cockeyed Southern justification of slavery. Scarlett decides to get cheap labor by hiring convicts. Ashley objects to this because the men (all white) will be exploited. Some are old and sick, while others will be denied food until their work is done. Ashley would rather hire free slaves. Scarlett calls him out. asking, how is this type of free labor any different than the slaves Ashley's family owned? All Ashley can say is it was different, and he would have freed them after his father died if the war hadn't first. You see, Scarlett has no romantic ties to an old Southern way of life. She has no great affection for the days when she could own a slave. If she desires to go back in time, it is only for personal selfish reasons, such as reclaiming her figure.

Although however progressive Scarlett's character may seem, there is one area that the production code and social norms could not allow to be too advanced: sex. Scarlett may commit the indignity of marrying three times, but two of those marriages are loveless. However strong Scarlett's desire for Ashley may be, the two never have an affair. "Gone with the Wind" is as much about sexual repression as anything else. Scarlett and Ashley don't give in to their carnal desires. Melanie is seen as a saintly figure. The child she and Ashley have may have been an immaculate conception.

The movie must treat Scarlett's desires the same way it would any other sinful behavior. She must be punished. "Gone with the Wind" engages in some gender stereotypes token warriors don't seem to care much about now (both presidential candidates have been accused of sexual harassment thus making it awkward for token warriors to discuss). One scene has Rhett telling Scarlett she needs kissing, badly. "You should be kissed and often, and by someone who knows how." Later in the movie, during a drunken nighttime argument, Rhett carries Scarlett in both of his arms, up several stairs to a bedroom, before cutting to the next scene. We know what happened. Rhett had his way with her and his earlier remark was a variation on the old belief that all an unhappy woman needs is a strong man to sleep with her. And wouldn't you know, in the very next scene Scarlett is in bed happy, singing to herself.

What really makes  "Gone with the Wind" the magnificent masterpiece it is, and one of the greatest cinematic achievements of the 1930s, are the two performances given by Gable and Leigh. No other actors could have played the starring roles. Has Gable's commanding screen presence and charisma ever been more effectively used and integrated into one of his roles? Has Leigh's beauty been more radiant? Leigh displays a great emotional range.

The supporting roles are filled with some well known character actors and some actors that would go on to fame.Thomas Mitchell as Scarlett's father, Ann Rutherford as Scarlett's sister, George  Reeves (TV's first Superman) as one of Scarlett's beaus, Harry Davenport as a family friend and doctor, Victor Jory (whom I personally shall always remember from the 1940 movie serial, "The Shadow") and Hattie McDaniel as Mammy, the O'Hara family servant. It was of course the role McDaniel won an Academy Award for in the best supporting actress category, making her the first African - American actor to win an Oscar.

The movie also has some memorable visuals. One of the best may be when Scarlett walks among the dead and injured soldiers from the Battle of Atlanta. It seems to be an endless parade of bodies, as the camera pans further and further back ending with the image of the Confederate flag flying in the left hand corner of the frame, signifying the death of the Confederate. Then there is the burning of Atlanta sequence, which still remains thrilling. And finally some bookend images of the O' Hara plantation, Tara. All of these images filmed in glorious Technicolor.

If one name can be associated with  "Gone with the Wind", as the driving creative force behind it, it would have to be producer and studio executive, David O. Selznick. While the movie is exceptionally well made and photographed, it doesn't have the distinctive touch of a particular filmmaker's hand. That is due to many directors being brought on to the project. The first director attached to the movie was George Cukor. Allegedly Cukor and Gable clashed on-set, causing Cukor to be replaced by Victor Fleming, who was working on "The Wizard of Oz" (1939) at the time. Fleming received the solo directing credit for the movie however Sam Wood also directed scenes. It has been said it was Cukor who got the most out of Leigh and de Havilland.

That  "Gone with the Wind" portrays an inaccurate view of the South and doesn't represent today's values, may have something to do with the men behind the camera. While I am not comfortable hurling out accusations calling people racist, what I can tell you is the men that made this movie were Republicans (Selznick, Fleming, Wood and Gable). If the Republicans of yesterday were anything like the Republicans of today it would explain a lot.

Whatever one may feel about the movie's plot and handling of its characters, I find the movie has a sweeping effect that always manages to captivate me with its effortless ability to intertwine humor, romance, action and melodrama. It feels like a complete story. I also have a sentimental attachment to it. My grandmother loved it. She would tell me how she worked as an usher in a movie theater when this was released. She saw it countless times and would repeatedly tell me about the crush she had on Clark Gable. I heard my grandmother say more nice things about Gable than my grandfather.

Right now the prevailing wind is against  "Gone with the Wind". That wasn't always the case of course. Yes it received 13 Academy Award nominations, winning eight in competitive categories and two honorary, but it is also the highest grossing American film of all time when adjusted for inflation. The film was on both lists, compiled in 1998 and 2007, by the American Film Institute celebrating the 100 greatest movies. I would say it is among four perennial classic American movie favorites, with the others being "Citizen Kane" (1941), "Casablanca" (1942) and "Singin' in the the Rain" (1952). In time the controversies will subside and it won't seem like an act of defiance to admit you like the movie. If anything, the controversy may have brought more eyeballs to the movie. I have no fear the movie will retain its place as an iconic piece of American filmmaking. When it was reported HBO Max pulled the movie from its site, sales increased on Amazon, placing it at #1. True movie fans are able to acknowledge any historical inaccuracies and enjoy the romance and adventures of Rhett and Scarlett. We didn't need the controversy and the new introduction. That was the work of token social justice warriors and Bandwagon propagandists. To them I say: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

See A Movie, Save The World - Token Liberalism In The Age Of Modern Propaganda

If I were to ask a group of Americans, is there such a thing as "American Propaganda", I believe a majority would say no. Propaganda is a dirty word. It is an evil word. It is something other countries engage in. Here in America, we are the "truth tellers". To say America is the greatest country on Earth is just good ol' plain spoken truth.

When we think of propaganda in movies, what comes to mind? If you are a film student or devoted cinephile, you will point to Soviet propaganda and movies by Sergei Eisenstein ("Strike" and "Battleship Potemkin", both released in 1925), or Nazi propaganda in German cinema and documentaries directed by Leni Riefenstahl ("Triumph of the Will" (1935) and the short film "Victory of the Faith" (1933). What about propaganda in American movies? Do you think that exists?

Lately I have been thinking about propaganda, the state of cinema and what exactly the objective of cinema is. Social unrest and recent protests reacting to the death of George Floyd initially sparked these thoughts, then the decision by HBO Max streaming site to remove "Gone with the Wind" (1939) and a new diversity requirement set forth by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences provoked me further.

If you read my blog often, you will notice that I have discussed trends in cinema usually when compiling my year end top ten lists or best of the decade lists. I have increasingly written about the politicization of film within the last 15 years plus. Ever since 2004 and the box-office success of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11", movies have been political tools used to critique George W. Bush, the War on Terror, the Iraq Invasion, failings of the Capitalist system and now Donald Trump. It has gotten to the point that in order to analyze movies, one must keep up with current events. Sometimes I fear my movie reviews come off as political essays. Everything is politics.

When you add it all up - Removing "Gone with the Wind" from streaming sites, diversity requirements, political documentaries and social / political "message" movies, aren't these a form of weaponizing movies, using them as propaganda? Before we answer that question, first lets answer what is propaganda? Propaganda is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions". But because of the villainous nature of the word "propaganda" we have replaced it with other terms or descriptors. No one wants to be accused of using propaganda, but what do the terms "left-wing media" or "right-wing media" mean? We may not use the word "propaganda" but what does the political right and Donald Trump mean by "fake news"? What does the political left mean by "corporate owned media"? Corporate owned media means that a corporation owns a media outlet. By itself that isn't nefarious. The implication for all of these terms is media manipulation - purposely presenting information in a flattering way to one particular viewpoint. Donald Trump may cry "fake news" when something negative is written about him, but notice how quickly he will bring to his follower's attention to media praise. Media isn't "fake" or bad when it is positive towards Trump.

And media manipulation isn't bad when movies champion political and social causes we care about, right? But isn't that propaganda?

My fear is that we are entering a time when movies are becoming merely propaganda tools. What should the objective of cinema be? There have always been "message movies" and their intent was largely to hold a mirror to society and allow the viewers to walk in the footsteps of other people. That cinema showed us the world we live in. It's objective was to make us change our behavior by confronting our flaws. I am afraid now movies are showing us the world we want to live in and present it as our reality. That is a significant difference. I'm not just talking about art-house "message movies" either. It is also your Hollywood "popcorn entertainment". Most recently, I wrote a review of the latest Star Wars movie, "The Rise of Skywalker" (2019). I wrote that it was a movie for today's woke millennial generation. For the first time it featured a lead female Jedi, a matriarchal society, racial equality, zero race tension, and even sexual orientation diversity. A token liberal's dream! If you are reading this and your reaction is, "So what? That is what society should strive for!" Fine. But is it the responsibility of movies to guide us in that direction? Isn't it an example of social conditioning and propaganda?  We hold our movies to a higher standard than we do our politicians.

I am not arguing the societal objectives, only the means to reach them. I believe cinema is important. It is the greatest of all art-forms, but I am slightly bothered by this political trend in our movies and our inability to acknowledge what is happening.

Perhaps we do acknowledge what is happening but don't say it out loud because it suites our interest. The power of movies and the influence they can hold over the masses doesn't merely date back to 2004. I have already referenced Soviet and 1930s German film examples. On a minor scale, I'll give you an example of movies' influence on our lives. In "It Happened One Night" (1934) there is a scene where Clark Gable takes off his dress shirt and is not wearing a t-shirt underneath. Allegedly, after men saw this, sales of t-shirts plummeted. On a more serious note, the U.S. government realized the persuasive power of movies during WW2 with the prime example of the U.S. commissioned, Frank Capra-directed documentary series, "Why We Fight" (1942 - 1945). Why did Charlie Chaplin make "The Great Dictator" (1940)? Why were songs like "Hot Time in the Town of Berlin" sung by Bing Crosby in 1943? I'll give you a one word answer, propaganda.

So I ask again, what should the objective of cinema be? Should it be to promote socially liberal causes? If you believe so, why? HBO Max removes "Gone with the Wind" because it doesn't reflect today's values. It promotes racial stereotypes, its critics shout. Film schools won't even screen "Birth of a Nation" (1915). I know because I was a film major in college. The instructors say they won't screen it because it is racist. Some students are fine with that and couldn't care less about seeing it. People who have never seen these movies will cite them as examples of Hollywood's racist past. So we banish the movies to the dustbin of history by allowing them to go out of print. Erasing our film culture.

The original intention of my blog, twelve years ago, was to introduce college film students, and other younger people, to the history of cinema. I believed younger people would love the Hollywood classics, if only there was someone to bring the movies to their attention. After all, you can't watch a movie if you don't know it exists. But I always had to deal with murmurs of my generation's claims of sexism and racism in those movies. "Why should anyone watch them? Why waste my time writing and talking about them? They are out of date. They don't reflect our values of today." True. They don't reflect the values of today, but film majors should still watch those movies because the cinematic techniques used in them are still used today. Many movies of today repeat plots from movies of the 1920s - 40s. To know those movies, gives you a deeper, richer understanding of cinema. As for the values, how can a movie from 1928 reflect the values of 2020, 2021, 2022...etc? We can, however, look at the movies and arts from those eras as time capsules, telling us the way we were. Their existence should not be banished.

That is not the approach of today's generation. Because they don't know much about life before the time of their birth, they are amazed, horrified even, to discover unpleasant truths about  America's past culture. Last year, the woke millennials went after deceased singer Kate Smith, wanting her rendition of Irving Berlin's "God Bless America" banned from sporting events. Why? They discovered she sang a song from 1931 called "That's Why Darkies Were Born". The song most definitely does not reflect today's values and should not be recorded by any singer in our modern era, but it was a popular song back in the day and many artists recorded it. I won't tell you who because I don't want anymore dead artists to be the targets of token liberalism. The song was forgotten and faded from pop culture, but oddly, because of the controversy, young people looked it up. And that puts me in an awkward position. I kind of feel like a gatekeeper. I grew up with my grandparents and watched movies from the 1920s - 40s. I listened to the music of that era too. I know things about that culture many of you don't and never will. I am now afraid to tell you about them and have considered ending this blog. Everything you find unpleasant can't be eliminated. You weren't aware of the existence of these things and the world kept on turning and you lived your life completely unaffected by it.

What gets my goat is political corrective measures (eliminating past pop culture and left-wing propaganda in movies) has seemingly replaced demanding social change from our politicians. Case in point, what the heck is Joe Biden going to do to right the wrongs of our current problems? The man actually told donors that there would be no fundamental changes. People had the opportunity to vote for a candidate that spoke of revolution. A candidate that spoke of dramatically changing the system as we know it. What happened? People voted for Joe Biden or didn't vote at all.  Media propagandists said the goals of Bernie Sanders were either not achievable or too expensive or both, and it was parroted by the public. So there you have it. It is easier to damn "Gone with the Wind" for not representing today's values than it is to demand significant change to our political system.

Going after movies from the 1930s, to me, is like going after low hanging fruit. The current approval rating for Congress stands at 31 percent, up from 17 percent in August 2019. Do you know what the re-election rate is for members of congress? It has been as high as 98 percent and usually hasn't dropped below 90. Instead of demanding change from our representative leaders, lets go after the movies of the 1930s! Instead of demanding gender pay equality, lets make movies with strong female leads! Instead of more female CEO's, lets put a woman's face on a twenty dollar bill! (Which, did you hear, is not going to happen during the Trump administration?). Instead of confronting institutionalized racism in our system, lets pull "Gone with the Wind" from HBO Max. Lets make movies pushing the left-wing agenda the politicians won't enact. In short, lets perpetuate propaganda that appeases the masses enough to stop them from making serious change.

If we want to have a national conversation about past culture not reflecting today's values (which is rather obvious), that's fine, but that's not the deeper conversation to have. Values are ever shifting - movies and TV shows from five or ten years ago don't even live up to today's standards. (Hell, Herr Chancellor Trump is in the White House.) I don't see the value in lambasting Hollywood movies from the 1930s, and then not demanding social and political change today. People are protesting in the streets, but contrast that with Joe Biden as the Democratic Party's nominee (nothing will fundamentally change). I understand the need for minorities to be represented in the media, but that doesn't solve the deeper problems. Cinema today is propaganda, and is used as a tool to promote societal changes that our current political system is not enacting. We're eliminating the culture past that contradicts our current beliefs to solve problems, letting a trip to the movies replace political action. Is this what cinema is? Do we care? At least today, Super-Man can be played by a woman since we haven't elected a female president.