One of this issues in the film is that Scarlett and Melanie's roles as nurses is more interactive then it would have been in actuality. Scarlett is asked to help amputate a soldiers leg which would not have been done. Women are also shown bandaging and moving dead bodies activities far out of the duties given to rich white women. Meanwhile Melanie’s active role as a nurse is used to humanize her and women taking care of the men. Oh the other hand Scarlett’s role as a nurse emphasizes the gore and violence of the war with her reluctance to be surrounded by the war. However the film does get it right for some of the aspects of nursing at the time. Some women are shown reading to patients, talking with them, and dictating letters which was how they actually served as nurses. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/10/04 18:29

The film got wrong on how they portrayed house slaves in the film because house slaves were supposed to assimilate to white culture. In the film, the house servants talk in a stereotypical lower class way and the character Mammie, also criticized family members and even a Union captain which she would have severely been punished for due to slaves were seen as lower than even the poorest white people. House slaves were constantly supervised and expected to act a certain way with white people which the film did not accurately show. This change clearly illustrates on the movie was trying to romanticize the old south to make it seem that slaves were not treated as badly. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/10/04 21:24

The portrayal of the “darkies” as being happy with their masters is something I can almost forgive, as this was a film told through the point of view of the South, and as we discussed, slave owners genuinely believed that their slaves were happy living with them. What bothers me is the fact that they are all portrayed as naïve, if not flat-out unintelligent, which we know from the reading cannot be said, as many slaves knew how to read and write. Malcolm X wrote in his own biography the shame he felt, particularly with the performance of Butterfly McQueen as Prissy. http://www.sparknotes.com/film/gonewiththewind/section4.rhtml. Scarlett’s job as a nurse was a bit more of an actual nurse than we discussed. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/10/04 22:20

The slaves in the film were much too happy to be working for Scarlett and the O'Hara family. As Lauren mentions above this is a good view of the Paternalistic belief of Southern slave owners at this point in history. The planters believed that they were helping a less capable race and that the slaves were content with this arrangement. — Callie Morgan 2016/10/05 14:02

I agree with you Callie, I felt as though Mammy had the most common sense out of all the characters. also, the slaves were often portrayed in a stereotypical manner, including using them as comic relief. and finally, I am assuming that most if not all of this was shot is L.A — Natalie Sciadini 2016/10/05 5:37

Obviously since this movie was made in 1939 the portrayal of slaves is going to be vastly simplified and from the southern perspective of nice and loyal. However, I want to look at the burning of Atlanta scene. The fire was realistic because the film makers set fire to the real set and others, but the way it was portrayed made it seem like the invading Union forces were setting fire to the town. I don't know if anyone else thought this, but that is what I got from it and Sherman's forces did not burn Atlanta, they actually put out fires. — Nicholas T Houff 2016/10/05 22:05

So I think that it’s fair to say this movie is incredibly problematic as a historical piece. First off, there was little to no talk about slavery at all apart from the character Mamie and the other supporting roles, and Ashley saying, “I would have freed them once father died.” The movie only does one thing well aside from winning the award for ‘most women to faint over literally nothing,’ and that was completely romanticizing the south both in geography and luxuriousness, but also in humanity. We talked about how slaves were treated and how drastic mortality rates were. We talked about what masters felt that they could do to these humans if they felt they were not being productive enough, and yet the movie only makes it appear as though Tara’s hardship was the destruction of the farm to war, nothing about the loss of a labor force. Granted, this was the 1930s/40s so they had not come far in changing their stance on race, but to completely erase that aspect of the Civil War when it was that subject that led to the war in the first place is entirely unjustifiable. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/10/05 22:33

One of the things the movie got wrong was the willingness of the slaves to help the confederacy. While in Atlanta Scarlett runs into “Big Sam” and some other slaves she knew. Big Sam talked about willingly digging trenches for the Confederate army in order to oppose the North. Although this is possible, it seems very unlikely that a slave would oppose the same people who are offering him freedom. -Christian Trout

Another thing the movie got wrong was a slave lecturing a white person. Mammie lectured and scolded Scarlett on her attire and her choice not to eat before the ball. Her admonishments were heard by Scarlett’s mother, who did nothing to discipline her slave, something which seems preposterous knowing what we now know about the time. -Christian Trout

Something that the film does get right is the way the men behave after the war. You first have her father whose mental stability declines as the war reaches Tera plantation. Then there is Ashley who returning from war who is unable to figure out how to try and support his family or anyone else. When Ashley does try to stand up and take a job in New York, Scarlett and Melanie override his decision. Ashley even goes into business with Scarlett after she tells him too. With Ashley being less in power in this dynamic the film also correctly shows the ways that southern white women had expanded roles while the men were gone. Scarlett is taking care of Tara when Ashley and the rest of the men come back, and continues to take care of business when she marries Frank. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/10/04 20:02

Many historical facts were accurate, particularly around the dates and details of the Civil War. Southerners really did believe the war would be easily fought and won. The confederates were also the ones who burned Atlanta. The South was incredibly short on supplies. There were bandits who would raid everything on the front lines. The South was in tatters by that Christmas when Ashley comes home. During Reconstruction, Southern men did take the law into their own hands as shown, especially at even the slightest threat of hurting a white women (or crossign racial or class lines of any kind). –Julia Peterson

I do think the panic in Atlanta felt genuine, and they did refer to Sherman as the Invader. I thought Rhett’s guilty conscience was a nice touch too. The women being active as heads of households and working the fields was accurate, (though Scarlett doing all that she did was a bit of a stretch.) But she even became a prostitute, I think. Granted, she married the man, but she didn’t love him, she only did so because his money would make it so she could keep her family’s home. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/10/04 22:21

The film made a fairly good effort to either directly or indirectly reference many of the different events or of the Civil War, most notably through the impressive “burning of Atlanta” scene with Scarlett, Rhett, and Melanie escaping into the night. Some of the indirect references took place through dialogue: the doctor telling Scarlett there is nothing to give the men for the pain refers to the blockade, and Rhett's guilt about not joining the war illustrates the challenge the war posed to the conventions of masculinity (which is more of a concept and a struggle than an event). I appreciated being able to see times in the movie where a lot of thought was clearly given. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/10/05 10:5

In the movie, a lot of people are absolutely mortified that Scarlett is dancing at the ball. This would have happened back then. Widows were expected to be in a state of mourning when their husbands passed away. To be jolly and rigorously active during such a tragedy would be unthinkable. Take, for instance, Queen Victoria; she was in a state of mourning from Prince Albert’s death all the way to her death. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/10/05 15:57

Facial hair, dark jackets, bright waistcoats, and tight fitting trousers held up by suspenders for the men. For the women, Regency gowns, corsets, elaborate hats, and petticoats. Both men and women wore slippers and shoes on formal occasions, and more durable shoes everyday.— Natalie Sciadini 2016/10/05 5:42

Although this movie has its inaccuracies I do believe, if its goal was to portray a southern perspective of the time period, than it did a great job in doing so. From the Antebellum South to the post war disasters and hardships this movie showed the audience a personal, and specific, viewpoint of the post Antebellum south. I thought the gender roles in particular developed greatly in the film. Even with some of the history being off like little things here and there, the Nursing practices and some of the “Blackies” relationships I do think the movie portrayed the emotion and psychology of the time (especially for a G rated movie). — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/10/05 19:26

One of the things that I liked that was accurate was how Rhett explained the South's disadvantages in the scene with all the men talking about how the South was gonna whip the North. Rhett said that the South didn't have the factories and cannon production to compete with the North. All they had was “cotton, slaves, and arrogance”. Which was an accurate depiction of the South at the time. — Nicholas T Houff 2016/10/05 22:24

I felt the film accurately portrayed the attitudes of most wealthy Southerners at the time, who could not conceive of losing their way of life to a civil war. The film also clearly (if not frequently) stated that the plantation owners wanted to keep their slaves at all costs and all of the luxuries they lived with as a result of plantation slavery. The film also did not shy away from showing what would have been pretty graphic depictions of death and violence. In one scene, when Scarlett shoots the raiding Union deserter, the filmmakers chose to show blood spattering his face, and (although the purpose was to stir sympathy for the Confederates) there were a few scenes showing tattered and bloody bodies, as well as explosions and fires that accompanied warfare. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/10/05 23:01

Rhett raping Scarlett in the latter half of the movie always bothered me. The act itself was bad obviously, but each time I watch the movie, I still find it completely out of character for Rhett. In the book, it’s extremely vague, but in the film, as the screen goes black, Scarlett is still clearly fighting him. Why do you think the filmmakers decided to do this? — Frey Lauren E. 2016/10/04 22:21

My question goes a lot with what people have already discussed, but I think it’s important to address. Why did the slaves, especially Mammy, go on without questioning authority? What do you think were their thoughts on the war and its aftermath? And most importantly, were they ever paid after being officially emancipated? Scarlett isn’t kind to them in the slightest when she becomes the head of the household, and everyone knew it. So what was the movie trying to say when it didn’t even give the black characters a chance to so much as voice their opinion on their treatment? What would the movie be like if the black characters were given a more realistic voice? — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/10/05 18:07

If the film, Gone with the Wind, bears any resemblance to author, Margaret Mitchell’s telling, one could seriously contemplate how bitterness in the South had been projected towards post-Civil War generations, even today. The story clearly has a bone to pick with the union beyond investing readers/viewers through the perception of our Southern characters. This theory was strengthened after discovering Mitchell had lived her entire live in Atlanta, GA. Throughout the film, the Southerners are depicted as innocents in the war, and the Union as vicious invaders who kill, rape, pillage, and burn everything in their path. They destroyed the southern economy, taxed them out of their homes, and essentially, killed Pa O’Hara. Not to say this wasn’t true to a degree, but the strife in this Georgia community can be seen on their defeated faces and so I believe, this film closely resembles Confederate propaganda. — Blount, David M. 2016/10/05 19:59

I’m going to be completely honest, why did they depict the north as this horrible place? I get it the north and the south did not like each other, but was this movie an accurate interpretation of it? I just want to know because from what I was taught, it was never that hostile. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/10/05 21:47

I watched Gone With the Wind with the understanding that the film is rooted in nostalgia for the Old South. That being said, as I watched the film I questioned Hollywood's representation of slaves. If the film romanticizes aspects of the Old South, it may just as well dramaticize other aspects, such as slave characters (or caricatures). I am curious as to the racialized stereotypes that Mammy, Big Sam, and Prissy portray from the era, and the influences that guided the producers to create these characters (i.e. were they composite characters rooted in historical memory/figures?). — Milroy, Nancy E. 2016/10/06 00:07

I think showing that some of the slaves did not leave after the Civil War reflects the time period in which the film was made because I think a lot of people in the 1930’s believed or wanted to believe that slaves were not treated horribly. If this film was made today, slaves would be shown in the actual terrible conditions that they lived in. However, the filmmakers during the time period made a choice to show slaves as content in their positions and I think it has to do with some of the research that southern historians published before the film was made- essentially rewriting history to make it seem that slavery was not a problem when indeed it was. I think in more modern times there are more historians that accurately portray the way slaves were treated and how they felt, thus if the film was made today, there would have a more accurate portrayal of what slaves went through, regardless of what was published in the book. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/10/04 21:24

In 1939, the United States had just been through a decade of the Great Depression. The Great Depression altered gender roles much in the way that the Civil War did. Women had greater control over the household as men were short on jobs and money. Women were responsible to keep the household going, figure out how to cut corners, and keep the morale of their worn-down men up, while still not emasculating their husbands. To see a woman declare, “With God as my witness, I’ll never go hungry again!” would have been an inspiration to people. At the same time, the movie makes clear that, whiel women should take charge and help when needed for “the cause,” they should step back and allow their men to take charge again when the time comes.

While Scarlett is a strong character, her strength and dismissal of marriage is her tragic flaw, as she brings a trail of death wherever she goes (her first husband, her second husband, her unborn baby, her daughter (and Melanie, but in a different way)). She is left alone at the end of the movie, because, by the time she realizes that she needs her husband, he is gone. (There is a trail of hope left as she clings to Tara, but I would argue that that theme has much more to do with the triumphant South than the triumphant Southern woman.)

So, although there is strength and positive—even feminist– traits to be found in Scarlet’s character, especially considering it is a product of the 1930s, ultimately the message is against her character if viewers take the whole movie into account. –Julia Peterson

The 1930s were a golden age for the film industry, as many people used movies as a form of escapism from the effects of the Great Depression. Even though Gone with The Wind was released towards the end of the Depression, the whole “Moonlight and Magnolias” depiction of the Old South, as well as the emphasis on the accompanying glitz and glam overflowing in Act 1, catered to viewers' fascination with the glamorous world of Hollywood that they could experience through going to the theater and seeing their favorite big names like Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh. The metaphor of Rhett, and the Old South, being “gone with the wind” and out into the fog can be relevant for the people of that time, too, as they similarly experienced much of their previous lifestyle escaping with one single, cataclysmic event. [http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe30s/life_16.html]— Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/10/05 10:44

I believe this movie is perhaps the pinnacle of a product of its time. For one, the movie hugely shows the difference and separation of gender roles particularly in the South. Scarlett O'Hara represents the “Southern Belle;” she is charming, witty, feminine, and most importantly submits to the white patriarchal society in the South. While Scarlett converses openly with men and flirts, she remains chaste and never truly bends gender lines because she knows her “place.” Rhett is cast as the Southern gentleman, who protects her and is her knight in shining army, saving her from Atlanta and always coming in the proper time. While Scarlett does exercise some freedom with managing the plantation after the war, she does so in the absence of her father or a male authoritative figure. Southern Belles, as Scarlett embodies, are pure and legitimize men's violence towards black men as aggressor. In the 1930s, the depression lingers but the South holds onto its falsified past. The South in this time holds onto a blip in history, as shown in the beginning of the film. The beginning of the film shows the romanticism of the South's “way of life” in the antebellum period. However, the experience the film portrays is rare, most Southerners did not own slaves and did not live in the luxurious mansions shown in Tara. The South celebrates the Southern belle and Southern gentlemen as superior and therefore maintains white supremacy. In this time, lynchings were frequent and often defended by protecting the Southern belle's “honor.” Black characters in the film, such as Prissy and Mammy clearly show the two lasting stereotypes in the South: the Mammy and the young “simple minded” help. — James, Emily B. 2016/10/05 12:04

I think that it is important to look at this film through the time period it was made. During the Great Depression, the film industry thrived because people wanted to escape their financial worries by watching movies. This film depicts a well of Southern woman living in a big home and slaves working for her. Not that people during the depression wished they had slaves, but they probably wished that they were that affluent. This film made viewers think of the “good old days” in the romanticized South. — Callie Morgan 2016/10/05 14:14

In many ways, Gone With The Wind is a primary source of its time. In other ways, it’s a little ahead of its time. Usually in films from this era, even when the protagonist is female, it is always the man, who is charming, comes in and saves the girl. The film turns this on its head, and has the man, though still charming, not save the girl, and leaves him as an antagonist. In fact, the film has most if its male figures either weak, stupid, or just plain mean. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/10/05 16:09

Though Gone with the Wind was made 75 years after the Civil War ended, the film was still very much a product of its time in regards to Southerners perception seceding from the union. Since the film’s release in 1939, an additional 75 years has passed and the older it gets, the more racist and sexist it might appear to younger generations. Of course at the time (1939) organizations like the Klu Klux Klan were not only prevalent, but socially accepted in many regions. This film predates the Civil Rights Movement and a number of feminist movements that clearly don’t apply within the context of this film, seen throughout as gender roles, a degree of spousal abuse, young women wedding much older men, the liberal use of the word “negro”, and even interbreeding between two of our main characters. All the while these men frequently refer to themselves as “gentlemen” but at no point in the film are any of these mannerisms deemed misappropriate. One can only assume that Rhett Butler was an example of standard for men around this time but to model one’s self after the character in present day, might result in a prison sentence. — Blount, David M. 2016/10/05 19:29

Gone With the Wind, is a great primary source looking into the time the movie was made, 1939. As stated above the movie was made near ending the Great Depression. It almost seems as though this movie acted as a metaphor to the lives of the 'Old South' to that of the American Great Depression. I could only imagine the importance this movie had in connecting to people of the 1930's and 40's. Also the depiction of the racial relationships reflect highly of the time, and segregation at the time. The movie took the old south and rewrote history to portray a greater memory that was the “​Antebellum”​. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/10/05 20:46

The film definitely reflected the major social attitudes of Americans in the late 1930s. At the tail end of the Depression, as other people have said, women took a more independent role in the workplace and in supporting the American economy, which was in some ways reflected by Scarlett's ventures into the lumber business and supporting her plantation right after the war. But the film certainly reinforced gender and racial stereotypes prevalent in the day. African Americans were either nowhere to be seen or heard, or were depicted as semi-civilized, “simple” people. Very little seemed to change in the film in its depictions of African Americans as slaves before and during the war, and as servants after the war (which reflected 1930s Hollywood's attitudes about race). In terms of gender relations, the film stretches the boundaries a bit with what was considered proper (as happened in the late 1930s), with Rhett and Scarlett both embodying a sort of rebel spirit compared to their peers, but women are nonetheless depicted as emotional, vindictive, irrational, incompetent, and weak, while men are strong (if sometimes cruel), honorable, and moral. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/10/05 23:07

The way I read the “Letter from Female Slaves” by Susan and Ersey, I got the vibe that they felt immense ties to their master, and after learning about the paternalism that existed between the white slaveholders and black slaves, that matched up with the readings. That paternalism translated to the movie fairly well, where Mammy gave Scarlett her dedicated work, and she was assured protection and survival by being able to travel with Scarlett to safety during the war. I tend to confuse paternalism and think of it more emotionally in the same way I read the letter, like Scarlett cares for Mammy on a level that a mother cares for her child. However once I remembered that it was more based on reciprocity, I realized that the movie actually compared pretty well to that bit of the reading. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/10/05 10:28

In Mary Chesnut’s diary, she opposes slavery as a horrid thing, shuddering when she sees a slave sale going on in town. We see a similar scene in the movie, when Rhett buys a slave in honor of Scarlett at a festival in Atlanta. The women are shocked by the event, but they quietly accept its occurrence. Also like in Chesnut’s diary, the women expect their “servants” to remain loyal and be there for them no matter the situation. Chesnut, despite her clear disdain for slavery, condemns any slave who would go against the whites they served. The movie hardly even lets this sort of action occur; Mammy and the others remain fiercely loyal to the whites no matter what happens. Chesnut, like Scarlett, also shows disdain for her new role as the head of the house while her husband is gone. She feels like she's hardened over the months of responsibility, just as Scarlett does. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/10/05 18:07

So, this isn't really a question, just facts that I'd like to pass on because it does have a lot to do with the time in which the movie was made. A piece of history the film has is Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) being the first African American to be nominated for and awarded the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. Of course, it being 1940, segregation was in effect, and the movie executives had to beg the Academy to allow her to attend, and even then she had to sit at a table in the back of the room. She also was not permitted to attend the premiere of the film, a fact that enraged Clark Gable so much that he had initially refused to attend himself, which also would have been a violation of his contract. It was only at McDaniel’s own urging that he did decide to go. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/10/04 22:23

If I had to give this movie one compliment I think it would be how it managed to portray southern pride from the beginning to the end of the war. Men at the beginning were jumping around talking about how they couldn’t wait to beat the Yankees if war ever came. Once it struck, they sprinted to sign up and register. Once it was over, they refused to do business with them, hated the carpetbaggers, and tried to maintain their old way of life. Meanwhile, the film shows how chaotic the war was and how destructive it was to towns, plantations, and the psyche of those who bore witness to it. While the movie is incredibly historically accurate when it comes to the facts, I think that this movie enables us to see the southern perspective- a story that so many refuse to listen to because of the infamous economic labor system of the south. I think that we maintain the notion today that those who wave the Confederate flag are ignorant and sore losers, unwilling to admit that the south was wrong, but this movie, whether it was intentional or not, works to enable its audience to at least attempt to understand the South’s ‘side,’ even if it is remembered incorrectly. It is about how the south identifies itself and the way they talk about how they remember their past is just as much of a historical source as reading about it in text books. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/10/05 22:43

Gone With the Wind remains perhaps as the most watched and celebrated historical film nearly eighty years after the release date. For many Americans, the history embedded in the film is the closest they will get to touch a historical books or primary source accounts. While Gone With The Wind does have a sprinkling of historical accuracy, the vast majority of the film highlights the falsification of South history. The film celebrates the “Old South” and “The Cause.” However, the celebration of a South that wasn’t there is damaging. For one, the film veils the horrors of slavery and perpetuates black stereotypes through the characters of Big Sam, Prissy, and Mammy. The film highlights the war’s damage to the South, particularly in Atlanta, but largely exaggerates and further demonizes the Union. “The Yankees are coming” is particularly quotable and further shows the demonization towards the Union soldiers. By glamorizing the South and painting slavery as “not that bad” with a benevolent planter further shows a South that wasn’t there. The film completely takes away the struggles and horrific practice of slavery while painting African Americans as passive and even agreeable to slavery. This falsification of the South ignores black voices in order to further legitimize white supremacy which the “Old South” capitalized and profited off of. (PS-Gone With the Wind is one of my favorite movies because of the dresses and Scarlett's sass, but history wise it's a train wreck). — James, Emily B. 2016/10/05 12:00

This ‘so what’ question really comes into play, at least for me, because I have never seen the movie before. When we talked about it in class how it is one of the most watched movies and the how many people view the south I felt completely lost. As I was watching it I would get offended by the whole Yankee scenes when the southerners would get pissed because that is honestly not how I viewed the Yankees. If anything my views were completely flipped from what the movie portrayed. I also understand that the Civil War is still viewed in multiple ways and this is just one of the many interpretations of it. So what if this movie portrays the south as if it will rise again? So what if the Yankees are only portrayed as thieves and murders? Who cares that if any of this is accurate? It speaks to southern pride right? It does, but it also speaks of the north in a negative way as if emancipating slaves and keeping the union together was a horrible thing. I feel like it speaks highly of how ALL Americans need to reevaluate how we view this time period especially the Civil War because obviously something is wrong if people have split views about it. — Mary-Margaret McMaken 2016/10/05 21:40