Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_6_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/29 01:30] – [V. The "So, what?" question] steifman_burke
+++ 329:question:329--week_6_questions_comments-2022 [2024/10/03 04:03] (current) – lbicknel
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I think that the way the movie portrayed how the women were left at home when all of the men went to fight in the war was very accurate. It did a great job of showing how these wealthy, white women who were only ever used to their enslaved workers taking care of their homes, meals, and themselves were now left alone to fend for themselves, but also to take care of others. Scarlett O’Hara went from a spoiled, wealthy woman to having to deliver babies and take care of her home plantation Tara. I also liked when the Union soldiers were coming to Atlanta and Scarlett, Prissy, and Melanie were fleeing, Scarlett’s hair and dress were no longer glamorous and put together. The disarray of her appearance did a great job of reflecting the hardships and difficulties of war time. If Scarlett had looked put together and cleaned the entire time, it definitely would not be accurately reflecting history. Scarlett’s objection to working in the hospital in Atlanta demonstrated her inability and lack of knowledge of taking care of others and being able to work. --Olivia Foster
+I don’t believe this movie would be a great secondary source, but it did get some details right about history. The treatment of women seemed historically accurate. Men saw women as dependents and fragile. Scarlet was blamed for being attacked when she left by herself on a carriage because she didn't have a man with her. She was also blamed for the death of her second husband, Kennedy, because he went out looking for the men who attacked her and got shot. Women also only really worked on their homes or as nurses, which Scarlett was doing while the soldiers got hurt. -Leah B.
 I do not think this movie works as a secondary source. At least in the way of being historically dependent and not having a bias towards it. I do think the movie could work as a gain in perspective though. I feel that there could have been many different perspectives of the fear the War can cause them while others believe it had nothing to do with the. The individuals in the movie refuse to take notice in the War while the others are more than ever to fight. I also think the movie did a decent job in showing how women had to take over when the men left for the war. Did it do a great job? No not necessarily but it helps spark a conversation of the role women did in the War. Another thing would have to be the dynamic between the enslaved people and their “masters”.  Their dynamic was buffered about what actually occurred with them. - Paula Perez
@@ Line 11: / Line 14: @@
 Although it has a few generally accurate aspects to it, I think that Gone With the Wind is a terrible secondary source and I do not think that it should be used in any scholarly setting. Slaves are portrayed like they are mentally handicapped and treated like they are part of the family, when in fact they were not. In addition to brutally stereotyping the people of color, some of the slaves even act like they idolize the white characters. This is not even stereotyping; it is simply falsifying history. Obviously, the film is 80 years old and was made in a vastly different time. But even if you don’t hold the stereotypes against the film, I still do not think that it provides any valuable perspectives on history. -Burke Steifman
+Gone With the Wind is not a good secondary source. Compared to the ways in which we know enslaved people were treated and punished by their captors, to the real causes of the Civil War, Gone With the Wind fails to put any real historical weight onto the tables. The treatment of enslaved people in the movie is very mild, almost like they are included into the family. Enslaved people would have never been treated like this. They could not have, as they were being oppressed by those they were working under. The Lost Cause tone in which the Civil War is talked about also creates an issue for this as a secondary source. There is a lack of mention of the real causes of the war, the major one being slavery. This movie should not be used as a secondary source about the Antebellum, Civil War, or Reconstruction periods, as it is a highly biased and soft film. -Sarah Moore
+This movie is probably one of the worst “secondary” sources we have watched. From the moment the movie started with the beginning text saying something along the lines of “a dream remembered” I knew it was going to be a historically inaccurate viewing experience. The way that enslaved people and how slavery is depicted is insulting and diminishing to what they actually did in the war or how they interacted with slaveowners. In the movie, they are shown as part of the family, a sentiment that is used as a defense to make white southerners feel better about their owning of people. In addition, the enslaved people are depicted as being far less intelligent, using shortened speech and sounding dumb compared to people like Scarlett. The main aim of the story is to glamorize and reminisce on Old South culture, and I think it perfectly achieved that aim at the expense of glaringly inaccurate aspects to the story. - Taylor Coleman
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 18: / Line 25: @@
 A problem with historical accuracy was the extreme stereotyping of enslaved people during this time period. I think mostly of Prissy, who is portrayed as childlike and stupid which furthers the stereotype that enslaved people were un-intelligent. I think that it’s really harmful to perpetuate these stereotypes, as it gives false pretense to how things actually were and how people really are. Other problems I saw with accuracy was how happy they portrayed the enslaved people working, and that was not the case. Another point of inaccuracy that I saw was that when Scarlett was briefly working as a nurse, she seemed to actually be performing medical duties, whereas women would’ve been more focused on bedside manner and keeping them comfortable. -Margaret Jones
+I think that there are many errors with the historical accuracy. The ridiculous way that the enslaved people were depicted is something else. The acting reminds me of the way that racist vaudeville productions represented black people in the productions, always as less than. The historical accuracies are not just with the depiction of enslaved people (of which there are many inaccuracies) But also of the social behaviors of Scarlet. They way she acts is just…. childish and annoying. Also, she seems like a floozy at times, I figured the outdated word would fit considering the source context. It was painful how many boys and men she was flirting with, I find it hard to believe that would’ve been acceptable behavior in the time period. It wasn’t uncommon to have multiple suitors, but I highly doubt she could’ve gotten away with acting like that.  -Michaela Fontenot
+The movie really dramatizes and enflames the characters of Scarlett and her enslaved members, pushing a more familiar relationship between them. There are many historical errors, but I think the focus on the treatment of the enslaved people might go too far. As we talked about in class, there were two different kinds of slaves: house and field. Mammy and Prissy were house slaves, Big Sam was a field slave. Scarlet grew up with Mammy taking care of her, and when Prissy does something wrong during the birth scene Scarlet threatens to send her to the south. These actions may be accentuated because of the movie, but they don’t seem altogether out of possibility. When Scarlet gives Joe(?) her father’s watch it seems completely out of touch with reality, however, some of that relationship might not have been forced. He choose to stay and help her with Tara when he did not have to and she grew to rely on him. Similarly, her relationship to Big Sam was clearly overstated, but it is not out of the question for Scarlet to get excited to see a familiar face, especially in the throes of battle. Lastly, Scarlet shows any feelings she may have for enslaved people stops with her own after she uses slave labor in her lumber mill. This goes back to Scarlet's character and her vow to take care of the people she calls "hers". -Annika
@@ Line 23: / Line 36: @@
 Both the class lecture and readings spoke in depth on how many enslaved peoples began to leave once the war started, taking advantage of the chaos, and if they didn't leave, they demanded better treatment at least. One of the more significant points of this was that after all enslaved people were formerly freed at the end of the war, none stayed with their original masters. The South had a huge shock when they saw that their former slaves had not been happy and were not willing to remain and labor for them out of loyalty - something this film does not touch on, as the characters of Mammy and Pork stay of their own free will, happily, even as the character of Scarlett treats them so poorly. -- Jane Michael
+The way this film portrays slavery is extremely unrealistic. They would receive harsh punishments for small mistakes. In the movie, they were forgiven unless they had done very wrong. The film portrayed African Americans as incompetent. They also portrayed slaves as very loyal to their owners. For example, after the civil war, Mammy seemed to have enjoyed staying with Scarlett, and didn’t receive too harsh of a punishment after disagreeing with her marriage to Rhett. After calling them donkeys or something of the sort, Scarlet just didn’t want to give her a present for Christmas. This was extremely inaccurate for the time as slaves received very harsh punishments for their actions. -Leah B.
+This movie depicts slavery completely differently from the reality. It paints the domestic enslaved people as lazy and stupid, as if they would not have been severely reprimanded for talking back, not completing their work, or wasting time. They are also always happy to see the white characters, and generally seem happy with their situation. This fully feeds into the belief that enslaved people did not want to be free and enjoyed being enslaved. Having the white characters believe that would not have been incorrect to historical interpretations, but portraying the African Americans like that is incredibly harmful. This movie feeds into many stereotypes about Black people that existed in the 1860s, still existed in the 1930s, and were perpetuated when this movie came out among generations that have watched since, even if subconsciously. Even though Scarlett is criticized for being harsh a couple times, even that is sanitized. The romanticism of the “good old days” in the South, especially Ashley’s line about the sweet singing of enslaved people, are completely incorrect in portraying a nice, happy vision of a world that was really full of terror and brutality.  — Sasha Poletes
 ====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
@@ Line 39: / Line 58: @@
 The film says a lot about the time and the creators of the story (Margaret Mitchell’s novel and Victor Fleming’s film). In other films we have viewed in this class, I noticed a tendency to gloss over uncomfortable topics from the past. In this film, the past is often reinvented as a whole, especially with its portrayal of slavery. In addition, the film shows how authors and directors decades later still reminisced about the Old South, and how consumers of the film did as well. Personally, that was the most eye-opening aspect of this film: that people at this time still sided with the South and viewed the North as the enemy.  -Burke Steifman
+During the Great Depression, the book the movie was based on became a best-seller, selling at $3 a piece. According to in2013dollars.com, $3 in 1936 is worth $63.92; this means that people would spend more money than an Amazon Echo for this book, just showing its' importance. However, what's inside the book/movie really prove how it works as a primary source. In the book, it glamourizes slavery and defends the "Old South" and the manners within it. These provide the people going through the Great Depression with an escape to the 'good ol' days' of gentlemanship and away from the poverty and suffering of the time. - Zack Steinbaum
+I think that it accurately portrays the attitude of society in the 1930s. Considering racism was still raging unbridled, a lot of questionable scenes in the movie don’t surprise me. Systemic racism is systemic for a reason…. Meaning it’s been around for a long time. In the 1930s there were still people around who had lived through the civil war, albeit the much older generation. Most American people were only one or two generations removed from the Civil War. The memory and the loss were still fresh in a way, especially for the very proud south. I think that many people looked at (and may still look at) the old south with rose tinted glasses. They hear the old stories and look back with a fondness and nostalgia, even if they themselves didn’t experience it. The stereotypes depicted in the movie add to the overall narrative, the misguided judgements of an ignorant generation.
+-Michaela Fontenot
+This movie works well as a primary source, as it depicts the Lost Cause attitudes that were prevalent then (that still exist today). The way in which the characters talk about the Civil War and its causes, as well as the way in which slavery is depicted both lend themselves to this. -Sarah Moore
+The film speaks to a primary source of the time it was made, during the Great Depression and WWII. The themes on how women need to buck up and take care of business during wartime, but also be in love and care for their men really goes to the period of time the film was made. Of course, filmmakers would want to encourage independent girls who would wait for their men no matter how long it would take. -Annika
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
@@ Line 63: / Line 92: @@
 Despite its flaws, this film is a huge part of American history. Being the most popular film of its time and one of the most popular of all time means that it should at least be used as a historical artifact. Whether or not the film is enjoyable or accurate, its importance cannot be denied, as it helps us understand how film effected past generations. -Burke Steifman
+Before watching this movie, I discussed with my grandparents how important this movie was in their upbringing. Although they were both born 5-10 years after the movie was made, they still felt the impacts of it, which allowed me to appreciate the importance of the movie that much more. Although this film is extremely important historically, the glamorization of slavery shows that the movie is from a different era and must be viewed critically. - Zack Steinbaum
+This movie was so atrocious that I don’t know where to start. Everything about it was just so incredibly wrong. I had never seen it before this class, and though I knew of its reputation, I did not know details. That this movie has been so widely watched that 90% of Americans had seen it in 2000 (a statistic I am still coming to terms with), I cannot even begin to imagine the cultural impacts this movie had and continues to have in the US. As mentioned above, I think that this movie is important to watch in settings where it is being examined as a primary source about the time it was made (and never as a secondary source about the civil war). I almost never advocate for the banning of media, and I will not say that this movie deserves to never be seen again, but this movie has so many problems that I almost wish no one ever watched it again for entertainment. The incredibly racist depictions of Black people, the historical revisionism, and the (incredibly sexist and toxic) interactions between Scarlett and Rhett are so harmful to show people without an explicit critical lens. Even despite all its flaws I didn’t like this movie. I didn’t like the acting and I found all the characters unlikeable, though it seems I am in the minority given that this movie did so well (though I can imagine it was in part so successful at the time because of its take on history). Watching this movie without critically analyzing it every step of the way is a terrible idea, and I think this movie absolutely needs to be approached with caution. Yes, it is an important part of our history and culture, but that does not mean it should consumed willy-nilly. It terrifies me that young children watch this movie and never give it a second thought. — Sasha Poletes
+This movie is important to analyze and criticize because of its immense impact on American pop culture. It remains one of the most widely seen movies, and one of the most profitable movies in American history. So, with all of those eyes on it, the way it depicts history matters. It is a fictional story, but it is a fictional story that beses itself in the actual reality of the most polarizing conflict in America’s history. A debate that continues to be a hotbed for people, despite the very clear indication of who lost and why their loss was a good thing. People watching it will take what it says as fact, especially since it is a movie that has been around so long. Generations of people have been raised on this film and so the movie has been able to shape the perceptions of the Old South according to how this movie shows it. The glamourization of the Old South is one effect of the movie that carries through today. Plantations are used as wedding venues for their beauty and the past they represent, the idealistic Antebellum period. But the notion of getting married at a place where countless people suffered is just weird and ignored by so many it’s sick. It represents the profound effect of movies like Gone with the Wind on romanticizing the past and shaping the public perception of that past. People want to celebrate history when it is romantic, even if it is avoidant of the issues. The Old South is something that was, something should be celebrated, something that is a dream when it was anything but a nightmare for many. - Taylor Coleman
+How film works as secondary source:
+The film works very poorly as a secondary source due to it romanticizing the South. The film portrays the slaves being “happy” and somewhat part of the family. This has disastrous consequences for the audience watching the film because it gives a wrong notion of what the South really was like for the enslaved people. Additionally, there were many exaggerations throughout the film. Although I do believe that the film worked successfully in representing the women during the war and the roles that they had to take on while the men were away fighting, specifically the nursing roles that were portrayed.
+Problems with Historical Accuracy:
+Once again, the portrayal of enslaved people during the film was very wrong because it did not go into the depth the pain that the enslaved people suffered. On the contrary, it made their lives seem somewhat content working for the White people and being somewhat part of their family. Additionally, the portrayal of Prissy made enslaved people seem unintelligent which I think is very disrespectful to African Americans.
+How does the Film work as a Primary Source if it’s time:
+I do believe the film works very successfully in showing the racism and beliefs during the time it was created. In class we spoke about how one of the main actresses who was black was not allowed to sit with the white people even during the Oscars. This goes to show that during the time it was created, racism was very common and this goes into the stereotypes and romanticizing of the South that is seen. Overall, during this time there were many people and films who made the Antebellum South out to be a “Lost Cause” which has very devastating consequences for the people who were involved and harmed during this time.  - Erika Lambert