Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======
This movie works very poorly as a secondary source about Civil War, the antebellum south, and slavery. The film plays heavily into the Lost Cause myth of the war, imagining the tragedy of the war being the “loss of a whole civilization”. As a result, the antebellum south is romanticized, ignoring or dismissing the fact that this supposed wonderful civilization was built on slave labor. The film excuses this by showing the slaves happy or being treated as family, which is wholly a myth white slaveowners made up to justify their actions. The movie plays into this notion, that slaves were part of their owners’ families and losing the war took away the south’s way of life. A way of life which is implied to be peaceful and perfect; that is the central tragedy of the film, that a life of “noble gentlemen” and southern belles was destroyed by the Civil War. The idea that the antebellum south was a civilization worth preserving is what I take issue with. Because this film is so immensely popular, this is the interpretation of events known by most people, and it is a false one. To view the south’s loss in the Civil War as a “Lost Cause” is extremely damaging because it implies that a society built on slavery was one worth preserving.  - Maris Tiller

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 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

This movie doesn’t work super well as a secondary source about the Civil War, as I think that many of the events are over exaggerated and there are many deviations from reality. However, I think that the portrayal of the attitude of the Confederacy was fairly accurate. As we talked about in class, many of them thought that they were doing the right thing by fighting/seceding. Despite the ideas that we may now hold, people in the Confederacy were fighting because they believed it was right. I don’t necessarily think that this attitude is portrayed in the correct way in this film as it frames the Union as the people who destroyed their way of life. But I think that there’s some insights about some Southerners attitudes that can be drawn from the film. -Margaret Jones

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 hite 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 reminsine 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? ======
Probably the most egregious historical error in this film is it’s treatment of slavery. Putting aside the fact that the black characters in this film are given very little depth, the film’s portrayal of their enslavement generally goes for a paternalistic route, acting as if the slaves are part of the family, so much so that when they are emancipated there is no mention of their leaving the family.  In reality, many slaves left the plantations they had previously been enslaved on, because they were free to. This is because they were not “part of the family”, but enslaved people without any right over themselves. Once they had the opportunity to have authority over their lives, they obviously took it. - Maris Tiller

I think the main error that everyone notices is the portrayal of enslaved people in the south. The fact that they portrayed their experience as positive and that they loved the family that they worked for. It was a survival instinct, not something that they enjoyed or loved. The scene where Big Sam runs into Scarlet on the street and is so excited to see her does not make sense. The scenes with the enslaved people and them being inaccurately portrayed was very uncomfortable to watch. -Sophie Weber

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

====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

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

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? ======

Gone with the Wind was made in 1939. It purported to portray the 1860’s, chronicling the change from the Antebellum Period through the Civil War and later on to the Reconstruction Era. While not particularly accurate to the history it claimed to convey, the film was extremely good at underlining American views about the Old South and its legacy. The film continuously glorifies the Old South, with characters taking scenic respites from the plot to wax poetic about their fallen ‘civilization.’ There is a lot of time spent commenting upon the nobility, chivalry, and gallantry of the Southern Landed Elite. The character of Ashley Wilkes typifies this ideal of the noble southern gentleman; the sort of man that women like Scarlett desire and men like Rhett Butler both envy and aspire to be. This idealization of the Old South, of moonlight and magnolias, serves as an excellent example of the way southern writers and historians tried to rewrite history after the war. When characters like Ashley talk about their ‘fallen civilization,’ they’re not talking about the real culture of the South; a culture based on the enslavement and hideous mistreatment of human beings, a culture of grief and tears, of lashings and bleeding backs, of the selling of children and sexual assault of black women; they talk about the myth of the South, about beautiful women in silks, dancing gracefully with their gallant gentlemen in grey. Gone with the Wind is not a story about real history, it’s about a myth, about the myth of the Old South; a dangerous myth propagated by criminals, traitors to their country desperately trying to grapple with the loss of their power and influence. It’s terrifying to think about this film as a commentary on the culture of the 1940’s, a world where this myth had overtaken the popular image of the Civil War. –Lucca Crowe

This movie as a primary source during the time it was made was obviously problematic when feeding into racial caricatures and giving a sentimental view of the Antebellum South as a more tragic loss to culture than it was; but it does pose an interesting contrast when considering the book, written only a few years prior to the making of the movie. Mitchell seemed to have a genuine admiration for the Antebellum South, and several of her characters join the KKK, and Rhett Butler murders a Black man for being "rude" to a white women and suffers no consequences. The producer chose to omit both of these scenes, along with many more like them, after pressure from the NAACP, but it is also significant to note that the advisors he hired to ensure fair representation of Black characters were both white. https://www.grunge.com/217672/the-messed-up-truth-about-gone-with-the-wind/ -- Jane Michael

This movie came out in December of 1939, a couple of years after the book the movie is based on came out. The way this movie portrays slave holders, and especially the way this movie portrays slaves, freed people, and carpetbaggers speaks volumes about the late 1930’s. This movie would not have been able to be made in today because it is viewed as unacceptable to glorify slave holders and to portray slaves as silly cartoonish characters. It’s not historically accurate to the 1860’s that slaves were happy to be slaves, that is what white slave holders of the time felt. To portray characters, such as Mammy, to be happy to serve the O’hara’s and to dislike the Yankees and the freed people shows that at the time the movie was made they glorified slave holders and believed slaves to be as they portrayed them in the movie. Just the blatant racism present in the movie shows that the racial values of the time were vastly different than they are today. -Teresa Felipe

The movie says a lot about the time that it was made. It was a time where people were reminiscent of the past and they wanted history to be rewritten. It portrays this made up version of the south where they partied and lived a life of luxury. It's what people wanted to remember the past as. It also shows the racist ideas and rhetoric that was happening at the time because of the Jim Crow laws. It shows that people still had the racist ideas as they did in the Civil War. -Sophie Weber

This movie was released in 1939, during the Great Depression and as World War II was brewing in Europe. As such, the escapism of remembering the "good old days" definitely made sense, even if it was historically inaccurate. It makes sense for the average white American of the 1930s to invest in this romanticized tale. The audience could relate to the struggles and poverty. -- Logan Kurtz

Gone With the Wind was released in December 1939, towards the end of the Great Depression. This movie is about two things, glorifying the myths of the old south, and people who are able to financially recover from severe economic hardships (from the Civil War). The romanticized racism is incredibly insidious because of how it shaped twentieth-century views on the antebellum era/the Civil War/Reconstruction, but unfortunately fitting for the time. It isn’t surprising that people would flock to a story about being able to recover from severe economic hardships during the Great Depression, however, it would’ve been nice if the story in question didn’t glorify inhumane, racist, traitors who are the only characters the movie allows to be characters and not god-awful stereotypes. It also would’ve been nice if the movie didn’t reward those awful traitors for their racism, but that would be too much to ask from the 1930s. -Katherine Rayhart

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

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

The first time I watched this film, I had a very interesting experience watching a particular scene, an experience I have now had a second opportunity to observe. Near the end of the first act of the film, as Scarlett is living in Charleston while the northern army approaches, her sister-in-law Melanie goes into labor. Not being able to leave Melanie’s side, Scarlett sands her slave Prissy to fetch the doctor. It is a surprisingly tense scene as the scared and inexperienced Scarlett tends to her sister while anxiously waiting for Prissy’s return. When we finally see Prissy walking back, she is slow and meandering, absentmindedly singing to herself. Scarlett is suitably angry at Prissy for being so late, and anger that is heightened when she discovers that Prissy has neither brought the doctor nor attempted to track him down in a suitably proactive manner. The anger is heightened even more when Scarlett discovers that Prissy did not infect, as she had previously stated, have any experience dealing with childbirth. Scarlett is livid, striking Prissy and proceeding to shake her and threaten to sell her “down South.” when first watching this scene, I distinctly remember myself feeling anxious and angry with the character of Prissy. The anxiety of the scene, mixed with Prissy’s lollygagging and ditziness, evoked a strong feeling of anger and frustration in me. When Scarlett slapped and threatened Prissy, I was completely onboard. Melanie, scarlet's almost angelic sister-in-law, was in mortal peril and time was of the essence. Prissy had wasted that time, apparently without a care in the world. I wanted to see my frustration played out in the film, to see Scarlett punish Prissy for endangering a character I had come to like. I wanted Scarlett to hit her again… then I caught myself. I remember pausing the movie and sitting back in my seat, wondering how and why exactly I was having such an intense reaction. It didn't take more than half a second to realize the scene was extremely racist. No real human being acts the way that Prissy did, it was cartoonish. Then it struck me, one of the underlying facets of this entire film; The black characters aren't real characters, they are cartoons, stereotypes of African Americans created by white racists. From Prissy and Mammy to Big Sam, every black character was a cartoon, a caricature or stereotype. They were all simpleminded and happy, children too infantile to be left to their own devises. Prissy acted in a way one might expect from a five-year-old, leaving Scarlett, the resident white person, to use her superior mind to fix the problem. It was terrifying to me how easily the film had sold me on this idea. I had turned my brain off and focused on the real characters taking center stage. But that’s the thing about stereotypes, about subliminal messaging, it's not always what the main characters are doing or where the focus of the story is aimed. The most damaging and pervasive ideas are often conveyed in the background, in characters we are told not to look at. I can only think with horror at the effect this massively popular film had on the American consciousness; and what's scarier is that this film wasn't an outlier, it was nothing new, this was the norm for African American depictions in film and literature. The simplification of characters in story is normal, it's a byproduct of trying to boil down the enormous scale of reality into a simple narrative format. But when we stray too far, simplify people to the point of stereotype and cartoon, we can do serious damage to the real world. People's understanding is shaped by story, it governs the way we perceive our reality. When we simplify characters or people groups to the point of stereotype, we can lose track of the real human beings surrounding us; we lose track our fellow man, we lose track of our own humanity. This is why films are so important, not merely because they can affect our understanding of the past but because they can affect our understanding of the present. 
–Lucca Crowe

I watched this film on HBO Max, and I thought the disclaimer message in the beginning was interesting - it recognized the racist stereotypes and the mistreatment of Black actors, and also acknowledged the fact that the film should not be erased, just not watched in a vaccuum. (Obviously this is a good thing.) However, I thought it was more interesting that following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, HBO actually removed Gone With the Wind from their platform, and only reinstated it after adding the disclaimer and extra content talking about the treatment of the Black actors during shooting and awards for the film. It's just interesting that it took this long to do it. -- Jane Michael

Gone with the Wind promotes an idealized and romanticized version of the “Old South” that shaped generations. It is surprising when talking to even my parents, who still remember and talk about the movie fondly. This movie fulfills this white fantasy of the “good old days” and paints the Civil War period in a nostalgic glow. It fuels the “Lost Cause” narrative that many Southerners, even today, still strongly believe in. The rhetoric in this movie was very strange to me, especially because every Civil War movie I have seen before this one, always told the narrative from the Union’s perspective. I have not ever seen a Civil War film that told the story from the South’s perspective, and that is not surprising given the era that I have grown up in. Any movie post this period would never dare make a “Lost Cause”-esque Civil War movie in Hollywood anymore. I found myself having mixed emotions while watching this film, and definitely falling into its trap of nostalgia. The heroine, Scarlett O’Hara, offers an entertaining female lead with an interesting life and character arch. At times I found myself enjoying her character and enjoying the dress and settings she was in in the antebellum period of the film. I think these emotions I had speaks very much to the filmmaking itself of the movie, not the message of it. And it makes sense how people of older generations fell so in love with the nostalgic feelings that this movie invokes, and it also highlights the dangers of the messaging of this movie in promoting a false narrative about slavery and the Confederacy.--Olivia Foster

Gone with the Wind is such a culturally significant movie. The film won an Oscar for Best Picture as well as several other Oscars for its release in 1939. It is clear that when this movie came out it was widely loved, however, it continued to be widely loved for the following several decades. This movie is very much a product of its time, glorifying the antebellum south and slave holders, as well as just being incredibly racist. A major problem with this is that since it was such a widely loved movie and glorified for decades, so many people have been influenced by its racist themes and views. -Teresa Felipe

I had never seen this movie before but I knew it was a type of film that the older generation enjoys. I was surprised to see the disclaimer before the movie and was impressed with that but this movie was still so shocking to watch. There were many times throughout the film that I was left so surprised. It was difficult to hear the way that they talked about things that today we know to not be true or appropriate. -Sophie Weber

This movie is one of the highest grossing films of all time, and won many Oscars, including Best Picture. This movie illustrated and further popularized the mythos of the "Old South." While it has definitely aged, it is an important historic and cultural artifact. While it impressively depicts the horrors of the Civil War, it also depicts of the Old South as the victim of the Civil War, which is a horribly dated and awful standpoint that is still being seen today. -- Logan Kurtz

I have never seen this movie before so I had no idea about it but when I told her I needed to watch this for a class she said she wanted to see my reaction of it. It was definitely something to watch. I watched it on HBO max and it also came with a warning/disclaimer and it made me anticipate more for my thoughts on this movie. This movie is more of a drama than an actual record of a historic event. It was made to be more entertaining in the aspects of the characters, how Scarlett loves a man who she cannot have, and  Bulter chasing after her. I felt it this movie wanted to be more but it didn’t pull through. At least for how I am watching it now, it probably did so much at the time it was made, earning a variety of awards like we know today. - Paula Perez

I think that this movie is important to watch in order to understand the different views that people once had (or even still have) on the Civil War and race. However, there are some deeply problematic racist themes as well as the portrayal of the South as getting their culture ripped out from underneath them, which are really harmful to have on screen. I did find this movie entertaining at points, especially the character of Scarlett who was a very strong female lead. I was really entertained by her actions at points, but also quite disappointed in her words/actions towards enslaved people as well as others. I think that there’s a place for this movie in history, but it should be looked at through a critical lens. -Margaret Jones

Gone With The Wind set //several// extremely obnoxious precedents, some of which have stuck around in media til today. As other people have mentioned, the movie glorifies the old south and created racist stereotypes for the portrayal of African Americans in film. Thankfully, movies don’t try to glorify the old south and slavery like that anymore. I know next to nothing about how minorities have been portrayed in film since Gone With the Wind came out, but I think that the stereotypes the movie presents have been mostly phased out of modern media. The obnoxious precedent that I know has stuck around to this day has to deal with corsets and how movies choose to portray them. I want to establish three things: 1. Corsets and stays have been used as undergarments for hundreds of years. They were basically used as bras with back/torso support. 2. Tightlacing was //incredibly// uncommon in general, specifically in the 1800s. 3. The majority of women who wore corsets laced their corsets themselves. Got that? Cool. Now onto the main point of this post. Gone With the Wind established the trope of a female character getting tightlaced into a corset by another woman. The specific scene I’m referring to is when Mammie is getting Scarlett ready for a party at the beginning of the movie. In the book, Scarlett specifically requests to be tightlaced into her corset because she wants to be seen as incredibly fashionable with a tiny waist. This comes into play again later on in the movie, after Bonny is born. She gets pissy once Mammie tells her that her waist will never be as small as it used to be when she was 16 due to having a child. (In the book, she has multiple children and complains a lot more about her “ruined” figure). As a wealthy young woman on a plantation, she would’ve had slaves, like Mammie, help her get dressed. Both scenes play into Scarlett’s vanity and how she wants the world to see her as fashionable. The scenes make sense in the context of the movie and its vain, spoiled brat of a protagonist. However, other movies took this idea and ran with it. In most movies, the only time the audience sees a corset is in the context of a tightlacing scene. Don’t believe me? Pirates of the Caribbean, Titanic, and Meet Me in St. Louie all have scenes where the main character gets tightlaced into her corset by someone else. And those are just examples off the top of my head. This Karolina Zebroska video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhN0XOyHO5g) goes into more detail about corsetry scenes in movies. She also discusses how historically accurate the corsets in these movies are. The corsets (and costumes) in Gone With the Wind aren’t as accurate as you may think. Wow, who could’ve guessed that a movie that glamourizes slavery isn’t as historically accurate as it pretends to be 🙄. -Katherine Rayhart

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

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International