Thank you for this. I'm a black man who has always loved this film. I do have issues with it( at times its uncomfortable to watch) but the story still entertains me. Its important that we don't erase the past so thank you for helping me understand a little more about its history.
As someone from overseas, I learnt about slavery as a teenager because of this movie. It led me to watching Django and The Colour Purple and now I have made connections to current child slavery in the middle east and Asia. It is a great starting point to educating oneself.
The fiction in "historical fiction" should be the drama, the romance and the plot, not the history. Gone with the Wind doesn't sell itself as an alternative-history but as a faithful depiction of the Old South. It fails miserably in this regard. One of the key elements of the film is to transport you in time back to the antebellum era. When it completely scrubs the true experiences of slavery and the conditions of the slaves it badly mars the film. For many people it's hard to forget what we know about slavery in the US. It's hard to forget the damage the Lost Cause narrative has had on our country. More people should appreciate these points.
@@route99 It depends on what kind of movie your making. "it should be," is a phrase that just puts a halt on creativity and stops great films from being made. Unless it's a more grounded, "realistic" say Contagion or something maybe getting as many facts right as possible is granted, but in an epic sweeping romance, some cinematic liberties can be taken. It's a cinematic romanticized version of life. You can still appreciate these points, again it's not a documentary. Your not suppose to look to gone with the wind to appreciate these points, maybe we can use our efforts to make history books, which purpose is to document history accurately, to more accurately reflect history, instead of editing fictional stories to fit our needs.
@@route99 you're making way to much out of this movie. It is at for most a story of survival followed closely as a romance. Nothing of this film is ment to be a documentary of slave life in the South. Calling a work of fiction out because of what you think it should be is not realistic. And you certainly cannot judge a film from the 1930s by the standards of today.
@@itsallgood4093 right, you get it. More people need this mindset. Though I feel like most people do, it's the people that don't that are loud and demand the changes of course.
@@thewatcher8573 Praise should be tempered for a film that feeds into the racist Lost Cause narrative. If that makes me a loud person who wants change then so be it. Your romanticization of whitewashing racism is a problem. Again, nobody has ever claimed it was a documentary. But that doesn't mean a period piece film can be flagrantly and deliberately unfaithful to the history it sets itself in. Few people in 2020 would watch Gone with the Wind if didn't have a great reputation. I think it's reputation should be reconsidered for all the reasons I've outlined. You can bury your head in the sand but quit making bad faith arguments.
Keep in mind GWTW is told from the perspective of a spoiled insensitive brat who is caught up in a whimsical mirage in which she is startled to learn is not sustainable.
Great point. I would also add that Gone with the Wind is about a way of life (the antebellum South) disappearing for good, and slavery (which was part of it) as well.
The tough part now though is people won't be able to watch it and determine it for themselves. Hollywood is now going to tell people how to feel about movies before watching them. This is still a thoughtful and good idea, to me more ideal in settings where people are going into it for a reason such as in a school setting.
@@Your-BestNightmare Yeah, because there's no possible way to fast-forward through this, turn the sound off if you don't want to hear it, or ignore the decades of writings and commentary that pervade our culture which have already commented on this film for generations.
First, know that the book is far, far better. Second, Margaret Mitchell does write with rose-colored glasses in parts with regards to African-Americans, however Mitchell spares no one with her pen. Yankees are tarred and feathered as are Southerners. Mitchell was an outcast in 1930's Atlanta. She would not conform to the pecking order imposed on Atlanta society in spite of her father being a leading attorney in Atlanta society circles. I read a book about Mitchell's research on dialects and if I remember correctly, Mammy's accent in the book was Gullah from around the Charleston area. This is one of the many reasons Rhett Butler admires Mammy. Remember, this is a work of fiction and must be treated so.
Mammy was the smartest, most grounded and intelligent character in the whole movie! The writers were certainly ahead of their time if you ask me. However it is an abomination how she was treated at the oscars. Even when she actually won it! Disgusting
True, regarding how she was treated. Initially she and other blacks were not to attend; Academy rules. But Gable threatened to boycott if she was not allowed in. After winning her award, Gable and Louis B Mayer congratulated her, one hugged her and the other gave her a kiss...too bad TV was not around back then; such gestures might have had an affect on the viewers.
This has long been my favorite novel and my favorite movie. I am 60 years old and white. I was surprised to learn that the some of the young black women I work with who are only in their 20s and 30s love this movie as well. I thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the subject with them. I asked them if they were offended by The point of view represented in the movie. One girl said she always looked at it as a story about Scarlet‘s life and her general self centered approach to most things. Another girl said that there were things that bothered her, especially the way that all the slaves were presented as loving their life, but she still enjoyed the movie. And one girl said she hated how Scarlett slapped Prissy, ( also, she could never bring herself to watch the full movie, it made her angry for what her ancestors had to endure) but her friend said “who DIDNT Scarlett slap?! Melanie, Prissy, Rhett, her sisters,” It was a good to have an open discussion like that, it gave me food for thought.
I would like to see Song Of The South again. I loved it as a child. I saw the red headed neighbors as the bad guys. I had no idea anyone was a slave. I guess that's what is wrong with it. I loved Uncle Remus! Such great stories he told.
I was studying at UCLA when a Disney Archivist just blatantly said Song of the South will never be released and we can't ask questions about it. It's hard to understand why you come to an archival class of students when you don't want to promote access to a film that clearly everyone is going to ask about. Song of the South definitely deserves a screening but it needs to be contextualized and thats fine. Just release it for us researchers.
@@tlw1950 Hell yeah! I'm Left as it can get, and I love Song of the South. It's a magical, and fun film. Disney needs to grow some testicular fortitude.
Melissa Skillens “just release it for us researchers”. Why? What makes you so special that you would be “permitted” to see it while others cannot? Release it for everyone that wants to see it!
I actually think its important to preserve this film, because it honestly helps us understand how revisionist history works, and how it seeps into story telling and mainstream culture.
Gone with the Wind was not meant to be about slavery or that perspective. There are plenty of slavery films. It is about the posh lifestyles that white people built, unfortunately on the backs of slaves. If it seems romanticized, that is because plantation owners did try to create a life of lush luxury -- and then it rightfully came tumbling down because it was founded on oppressing a race of people as slaves. It is fascinating to see this world and its signature pampered princess Scarlett O'Hara come tumbling down and follow the saga of a Scarlet having to rebuild her life. This was the reality for many. I do not see this movie as racist. There should be a depiction of this historical shift. I know people would prefer to forget the plantation lifestyle but it existed and should be faced not hidden.
It was championed by the KKK and Alt-Right and depicted its slave characters as enjoying life on the plantation. Its also very revisionist and portrays the Confederacy / the South as “fancy gentlemen” as a means to ignore its troubling issues with race.
This was a well balanced introduction to a classic film. I hope it helps to add some context to the film and how it was made for viewers. It's important to preserve and contextualize art by the era and style it was made. The first black woman Oscar winner and she can't even sit with the whites. Jesus. That's depressing.
Seth-Separation among blacks & whites was not a Southern policy...it was national law. Even in the 60s, Sammy Davis Jr couldn’t walk into a hotel lobby w Frank Sinatra, even though he was entertaining there every evening...and that was 30 years after Hattie McDaniels was not allowed to sit with the from the white stars of GWTW... We’ve come a long way & I imagine MLK would look favorably on the progress but not the violence across the country.
Many things wrong with this lecture. Ms. Stewart ignores several significant things. 1. The NAACP were not "ignored" as Ms. Stewart says in the film. David worked closely with them. They made at least 2 suggestions that Mr. Selznick implemented in the movie. One, the N word was not used in the film. It's in the book. Two, Scarlett is nearly raped. In the movie, it's a white man. In the book, it's a black man. In an ironic way, Selznick made the movie PC. He also said he did not want the film to deingrate blacks, so he took extra steps, consulting with the NAACP about it. 2. Many black papers at the time did like the movie very much. 3. The film was made in 1939. America was still in the depression, which would explain why the film is ultimately escapism. Audiences would not have paid to see a graphic depiction of slavery for four hours, nor would they have watched a 24 hour documentary on it. There was no way a long ass documentary could be shown in cinemas in those days anyway. 4. There were actually four directors on the film. Selznick himself directed some scenes.
While all that information is good to know, I feel that Ms. Stewart did a very good job, and I believe that had she said more, it would have not felt as concise and to the point.
@Seth Byrnes I know she's a film scholar. In fact, she's a very good one. I've seen her intros on TCM. She knows her stuff. She is not an "affirmative action hire", like some on the right have suggested. However, this time I feel she purposely left information out to push a PC/woke agenda. She should know better. She does know better. However, I think she was told by HBO Max to make the intro short and very PC.
I just like Gone With The Wind just for the costumes and Scarlett's strong will because she reminds me of myself when it comes to hardships and what one would do to survive by any means necessary.
I’ve just seen this for the first time, I have to say for the first 5 minutes my jaw was on the floor, wow, but once I got used to all the nostalgia tinted ‘out of date depictions’, I enjoyed the story and spectacle, and as a film buff all the many beautiful matte paintings, too, so I’m glad I got to see it. Historically, I get it’s importance better, now, so I hope it stays available to all.
My family kept watching this movie back home years ago via VCD, and today, my brother and I rewatched it again via HBO Max. It is indeed a timeless movie! One of my favorite of all time, along with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, GBU, Once Upon a Time Trilogy, Stanley Kubrick Films, Waterfront, Wonderful Life, Chinatown, Citizen Kane, Casablanca etc. I may be just 24 years old, but I really love Old Classic Movies and Music!
Very glad to see such a young person who likes old classic movies. I don't like all the movies you mentioned but you mentioned some very good ones. In my opinion though GWTW is the greatest movie ever made!! I also LOVE other movies (Meet me in St Louis, Sound of Music etc) but no movie, no matter how good, can beat GWTW
Being 38 going on 39 years of age, I had the privilege of being indoctrinated in classic films by my parents and grandparents. Funny how growing up surrounded by older folks than my own generation helped shape my general view on life. Like films, there are sad and cringeworthy moments in life. Scary moments, horrific ones. But funny and enthralling moments, too. Many of TCM's fans appreciate great storytelling, especially when acted out and visualized with such love and care. As a fellow fan, may I introduce you to a few of my favorites? Next time you have a chance, catch these personal favorites: 1) Sergeant Rutledge 2) A Face In The Crowd 3) Something Wild (1961 version) 4) Sweet Smell Of Success 5) Rosemary's Baby 6) Citizen Kane 7) The Great Dictator 8) The Pawnbroker 9) A Clockwork Orange 10) The Exorcist 🇵🇷🇺🇸😎
Same. I’m 19 years old. Some of my favorite classic movies are Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan, Heat, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, North by Northwest, Rebel Without a Cause, Doctor Zhivago, 12 Angry Men, etc.
providing context is just fascism trying to tell the audiences that you are too stupid to see what you are seeing and do not enjoy enjoy the film unless you see what i see and feel what i tell you to feel. films dont need context or instructions. dont need labels or controllers
This is an excellent, though too brief, intro. Contrary to what some commentators are saying, it's not a "trigger warning," or a "warning label," or "woke scolding." Movies have immense power to shape distorted views of the past that continue to inform our present day politics. An entire industry grew up around romanticizing a "Lost Cause" view of the antebellum South, and that mythology was used to justify Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and systemic economic exploitation. I'm betting a lot of commentators here have no idea that the NAACP mounted a sustained campaign to protest some of the blatantly ridiculous depictions at the time the movie was made. Great choice to have a history professor put this cultural artifact into perspective.
This is our unfortunate history and I want to thank TCM for noting that this film may be uncomfortable, even so ,I have always loved it. Fortunately no one in the USA today in 2020 lives a life like Scarlett O"Hara or owns slaves. It is a shameful part of our past and thank God it will stay in the past. The Romans and the Greeks also owned slaves, again that was history, not today in 2020. Most educated people can tell the difference between 1865 (and earlier to the beginning of this country) and 2020. We all need to work towards equality and hopefully now is the time. Thanks again to TCM for this excellent introduction.
Jennifer Lee beautifully said and THANK YOU! My mom dragged me to this movie when I was 7. I didn’t want to go because I didn’t want to see any beatings of slaves. THANKFULLY, the core of the film wasn’t about that. It was a fictional story set in true historical events in American HISTORY. Still though, how sad I find it that a disclaimer has to be placed on a film like this when in 2020 it seems so painfully obvious that it’s history and Hollywood. Though when it comes to reality, rarely the two shall meet. Plus....it was the first time a black woman (the amazing Hattie McDaniel) won an Oscar. THAT cannot be taken away.
@@theman36 The point is a lot of the film is NOT history of 1865--it's history of how 1939 nostalgically remembered 1865. The harmonious plantation depicted is B.S. and not historically accurate, except that plantations based on slavery existed.
Margaret Mitchell wrote characters with blood in their veins. Scarlett had gumption and the book sold us on that quality as the driving force of survival. Scarlett intuitively knew the depth of her own greed and I believe she sought out Ashley to tame her wild Irish soul as her father had with her elegant, French mother. To her mind Ashley brought dignity and redemption. Her refusal to accept that loss was the same blinding force that got her through the war and reconstruction. The tenderhearted Christian, Melanie, understood that Scarlett's gumption was necessary and she forgave her everything because they needed her and she trusted Ashley's honor. Melanie spent her moral capital defending Scarlett because she had enough self awareness and security to understand and appreciate Scarlett's value. It is a great story. The book takes it to another level.
IMO, Jacqueline Stewart does a wonderful job explaining the story of the novel and movie without resorting to bias, emotion, or politics. She lays it out very well, its detriments, inaccuracies as well as the film itself as an asset to American cinema. Well done !!
A warning was posted at the beginning of Gone with the Wind stating the movie's depictions of race relations - I am Italian and want a warning placed on all 3 of the Godfather movies stating Italians are not murderers. The Italian race contributed to the world with art, architecture, fashion, opera, literature, design, and films. Not having a warning is a insult to all Italians .
How about a warning on every Golden Age Hollywood depiction of Irish, Italians, Jews, and Russians? As an East Slav, I'm offended by Ninotchka and Silk Stockings (not truly offended). But that's how ridiculous all of this has become.
Actually, Talia Shire did record just such an announcement, which was broadcast just prior to the showing of The Godfather on television. ruclips.net/video/Bm6-Ss6BmHI/видео.html
I'm a mixed black woman who has always loved this movie despite its overtly uncomfortable depictions of the Antebellum South. Thank you for this context.
I often find TCM's introductions more interesting than the films themselves for their contextualization within the broader culture. I haven't seen GWTW but this gave me the flavor of what I would find it I watched. I have to laugh when people write this off as a trigger warning as if TCM doesn't always provide an intro before their films!
So happy they did this...I remember Whoopi Goldberg did something similar for Tom and Jerry, and her quote from there rings true here "These prejudices reflect a part of our history that cannot and should not be ignored. To do otherwise, is pretending it does not exist."
I see nothing wrong with having a frank introduction that places the film in the context of it's time. The South had spent years spreading revisionist history both North and South to rewrite and deny what the Civil War was really about. I also see the entire movie as a melodramatic, big budget soap opera, where almost ALL of the major characters are written and acted as stereotypes. Only Rhett and Mammy sees Scarlett for who she really is ---a narcissistic, spoiled, rich brat.
I agree with your points And one thing I'm glad this movie does in Scarlett father first line is admit that it wasn't the war of northern aggression but the civil war was in fact though over slavery the line goes "we let those Yankees know we keep our slaves no matter what" and that was the main reason for secession which Confederate apologists will straight up deny so I'm glad the movie points out the main reason for secession.
@Dr. killpatient I wasn't referring to GWTW in particular but other past events. GWTW is a movie, not an event. Your name says it all. As a conservative Republican, Snowflake doesn't apply. Duh.
What a great introduction. I'm glad to see TCM is committed to confronting the troubling content in this and other great Hollywood classics and recognizing the pain broadcasting them brings to Black Americans. GWTW is a truly great film, but also bears much responsibility for popularizing the romantic storybook myth of the antebellum South that too many Americans still cling to.
@@GoblinGirl - Just a juvenile crush. I understand her, I had an Ashley in my life, when I was a twenty-something. Looking back - thank God I didn't have a thing with him!
Admire this topic, Jacqueline Stewart is amazing! To hear her explain the experience of this title in a very poetic manner, influenced my desire to learn more of films created during the 1930.
I know some people in may have already pointed this out but David O Selznick did not intend for the film to be racist, in fact I think he actually changed or outright removed a lot of the vulgar racial slurs that were in the script that were and probably still are in Margaret Mitchell's book. Not only that one of the African-American actors won an Oscar for her work in the film
Turner Classic Movies is releasing "The Quiet Man" for its 70th Anniversary, a film that normalizes domestic violence. There is a scene in which John Wayne physically drags Maureen O'Hara along a dirt road while the men and women of the town literally cheer him on. One old woman even hands Wayne a stick saying "Here's a good stick to beat the lovely lady." No disclaimer. Clearly TCM agenda is not to call out heinous human rights violations of the past, but to pander for profit.
Thank you for this excellent point. While I think that Ms. Stewart did an excellent job on this intro, no one mentions Rhett's rape of Scarlett, when he drags her up the stairs. And yes, when The Quiet Man was rereleased, no disclaimer is provided.
Thank you so much for speaking on this. When I was a kid, I read the book and was taken more with the story of Scarlet as opposed to the racial implications of it. Same thing with the movie. I fell in love with the strong women, an image we didn’t get much of in books and movies. To me this is a movie about women which includes Hattie’s character and her relationship with Scarlett. Although I understand the anger at the bad image of slavery, I think the characters in this movie were better than some images of black people in the 1930s except for Butterfly McQueens character. I think we need to see this movie so we see what we were and how far we’ve come. Thanks again!
These kinds of disclaimers and explanations really are necessary. It is often claimed that “we know it’s not a documentary,” but sadly this is not the case for everyone. Look at the current restrictions on African-American studies, the rewriting of textbooks, and the banning of numerous books in Florida. With restrictions like these, there will inevitably be a chunk of Americans who NEED disclaimers like this in order to know the truth about the era depicted in this film. We need to continue to have conversations about films like these, acknowledging their flaws while also justifying the genuine need to preserve them all the same. And sadly, until the aforementioned unjust educational restrictions are eradicated, these very conversations will be the only source of historical truth for some Americans.
What melodramatic drivel you write. Who exactly NEEDS to be informed in such a manner that isn’t already aware of America’s past? Children? Cave-dwellers? Someone who spent their formative years in a coma? I know, foreigners escaping an authoritarian regime who grew up with restricted access to books and the internet. Simply knowing the release date of this extremely famous movie is more than enough information for the average person to appropriately contextualize its content and themes.
YES, thank you for uploading this contextual introduction and I will continue to contextualize the film to every screening I do because it needs it. I just refuse to believe a whole entire work needs to be completely erased because I don't think that does any good to civil rights or black history. It needs to be addressed, it needs to be understood for its time and yes its offensive and has been offensive since its inception. We must also just acknowledge its artistry and performance, because these performers probably were too ignorant to think, "I'm doing such a racist part, great because I'm a racist." They did a part and thought highly of it as essential a great piece of work they can put into the studio system. It's pretty much ignorance on their part and I wouldn't exactly call it inexcusable, it's just part of the way they were brought up. However, this film absolutely needs context before screening and TCM staff does such a wonderful job with its academics and journalists that come to bat for them to insure that these classics are still shown without censorship and yet have a good context.
But was it imperative context? In other words, who precisely is TCM speaking to in these “reframe” introductions. The whole conversation around GWTW seems redundant at this point.
Completely unnecessary. The movie doesn't have to showcase the horror of slavery just because it takes place in the South during the Civil War. Mammy clearly has more common sense than anyone in the movie. Why the heck do we have to see her suffer? Good Lord, we all know slavery was wrong. Those days are long gone... GONE WITH THE FREAKIN' WIND!!!
I posted above that audiences wouldn't have watched a four hour, realistic depiction of slavery in 1939. It was the depression. People needed escapism.
@Trey - Says the one commenting that disclaimers will somehow fall down the hole of censorship. Ever watch Tom & Jerry, Wartime Disney, and the Looney Tunes on dvd
This is a master piece that is part of america, why those people are trying to get rid of it....get a life, slavery is part of america but not only, what we going to to take away western? How can it be uncomfortable or painful, this is a movie
I never saw any pro-Confederacy propaganda in the movie, or any downplaying of slavery. It shows a plantation owner family who are, it seems, mostly benevolent masters. Something that did exist in the South. Nowhere did I see the movie as implying that as being the norm. The movie even shows that slavery was a topic of moral controversy at the time, with Ashley, probably the most honourable Southern gentleman shown in the movie, acknowledging as much and saying that he intends to free his family's slaves when he gets to inherit them. Which is, I think, more than enough mention of slavery for a movie whose subject isn't that in the first place. It isn't a movie about the social dynamics and social struggles of Southern society. It is a movie about the downfall of Southern upper-class society in the flames of war.
@@iago07 How does it romanticize enslavement when it barely shows it? This movie isn't about slavery, it's about love and a girl who is playing hard to het. Simple. This isn't a history documentary.
This was so perfect. So perfectly said. Everything that needed to be said with perfect accuracy and Grace. I’ll admit, I was so worried TCM wouldn’t be able to fill Robert Osborne’s titanic shoes, but they’ve done very well.
Actually I just watched Robert Osborne's original intro to this film (in fact, the first film ever shown on TCM).....and he said none of this PC nonsense.
You people are ridiculous. GWTW is a STORY... told from the perspective of characters who have their own biases and obvious prejudices entirely exempt from the need to proselytize about the ills of slavery. They were in the deadliest war our country has ever seen and they were all trying to survive -- which is what the movie is about: survival. Virtue signaling wasn't on their radar when there was really no food to eat, and Selznick produced a movie entirely authentic to the story that Margaret Mitchell told (and Margaret Mitchell was entirely loyal in her narrative to the selfish, conniving Scarlett. Scarlett wasn't concerned about slavery; Scarlett was concerned about Scarlett. THAT is the whole point of the movie!). The movie is told from the ruthless Scarlett's perspective, and to her it WAS a gracious life gone with the wind. Thank you for your condescending, insipid primer for a movie that we all have the good sense to know depicts a deplorable time in racial history. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but exceptional writers don't betray their characters with anachronistically inaccurate telegraphing of things not authentic to their circumstances. I find this preening to be insulting, frankly, to intelligent human beings. Cue the SJWs descending up on me in 3, 2, 1... if TCM even allows this comment to remain, because that the other thing this nauseating culture does (no voices but our voices).
@@jimcadena8533 Is that the best you've got? Ignorant because I can think and reason and am not influenced by moronic social justice movements financed by oligarchs? Sure thing, buddy.
Ironic that 'trigger warnings' by "SJW's" are so quick to trigger "SIE's" (Social Injustice Enablers.) They troll desperately for anything remotely resembling empathy and consideration so they can tear it down in disgusted fury. How enraged they become when they find that there are others who do not see the world the way THEY do. How scornful their tone, in attempting to 'educate' ignorant humans whose greatest sin is in trying to see the world through the eyes of people of varying backgrounds and experiences. Hey, Ian, in the words of your Lord and Savior (that would be Jordan Peterson, obviously): no one is forcing you to watch. You don't like it? You find contexualization offensive and insulting? Then fast forward through it. Practice what you preach, bro. Trigger warnings are part of the "freedom of speech and expression" that you guard with such rabid and condescending energy. Now...go forth and troll! There are feminists and trans-allies out there who desperately need to hear your message of white, hetero male superiority and here you are, wasting your scintillating brilliance on a bunch of classic movie nerds. The world needs YOUR version of censorship, Ian...go, man, GO!!!
I find this to be extremely unneeded. The fact someone decided they needed to tell people that a film from 1939 does not hold up to modern standards makes me highly dissatisfied. I’m sick of media treating us like we are stupid and unable to tell right from wrong. Just my opinion but I do respect people who support this. As long as we are given the ability to skip these warnings I think I will be fine with them.
Not really possible. Every movie was made for it's time. The only reason they need intros like this are decades after they were made. When societal norms have changed to the point where people have a hard time comprehending that societal morality of the past is not the same as societal morality of the present. We used to understand that we can't judge the past by present day standards. That relics of history have to be understood in relation to the era to which they belong. But apparently now we're all incapable of doing that and so ignorant to history that we need a quick history lesson prior to anything dating back more than 10 minutes ago so we can understand the context in which it was made.
Great job. This is the right way to do it. It's important to acknowledge the wrongs of the past, but still let viewers watch and learn from a classic film, despite its faults. Disney should take a page out of your playbook and release Song of the South with a similar disclaimer at the beginning.
Love how she lays out the statistics and the trivia tidbits and the controversies. And the choice of spotlighting young slaves (the babies!) was spot on. Also the indignities Hattie McDaniel went through (and she was a terrific actress, so was Butterfly McQueen, and I loved seeing Oscar Polk and Eddie Anderson again in "Cabin in the Sky" and Eddie in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World").
You'd think the Coconut Grove would have had a different attitude; I can't believe how ridiculous things were. Hattie didn't deserve to be treated that way. So much crazy stuff used to go on. One of my neighbors told me that when her parents first got married and were looking for an apartment (they were Irish) one of the buildings actually had a sign in the window that said "No Dogs or Irish Allowed"! My aunt had a friend who was from a wealthy family and her boyfriend couldn't go to her debutante party because the place didn't allow Italians there! (this was sometime in the 60's.) Unbelievable! African Americans got the worst of it, but there was so much prejudice for so many people.
What you need to know about watching this little slam on GWTW. It's a movie. It will always be a movie. When you look this explanation it falls flat. Devotion to their white masters? Has she never seen the movie? Gerald who gets his pocket watch? Polk. Who runs things in the house when it's all said and done, Hattie McDaniel. Who comes to Scarlet's rescue at the sawmill? The black workers. It depicts a time that probably never existed. Why not have an explanation of the Wiz? Or a Raisin in the Sun?
In the book, Prissy is only 12 or 13 or 14. She's basically a child who has never been away from her mother when she travels with Scarlett to Atlanta. I get the impression from the book Prissy was kind of sheltered. I've heard people single the character out because of how immature she acted. But she was young and maybe that might explain why she immature at times. One major problem the book is facing now is Ashly Wilkes being in the Ku Klux Klan and participating in the burning a town full of ex slaves. This happens in the book after Scarlett is almost robbed and assaulted. The men seek revenge for her. Most people in real life during that time were racist. Even Lincoln was a racist. But some people practice a more evil form of racism than other people. Rhett Bulter was a racist, but his racism was tame compared to Ku Klux Klan. I think Ashley is more racist than Rhett. Rhett was respectful to Mammy in the book and in the film. There's a very sweet moment between Rhett and Mammy. While on honeymoon, he asks Scarlett what she's going to buy Mammy. Scarlett says she won't buy Mammy anything because of badly Mammy acted about their marriage. Rhett scolds Scarlett and tells that would break Mammy's heart and says a heart like Mammy's should never be broken. He says he's going to buy Mammy a red petticoat to wear because that's what his mammy always wanted. Later when Scarlett is in giving birth to Bonnie, Rhett asks Mammy what that rustling is he hears. She laughs as she tells him he's bad, then she lefts up her skirt a little to show off the red petticoat he bought her. Later, he gives Mammy money to go home to Tara when Scarlett refuses her. Mammy is old and tired by that time. She wants to go home to Tara, but Scarlett doesn't want to let her go. Mammy tells Scarlett she's free and she can do what she wants now. Rhett pays her way back to Tara.
As someone who grew up in the South and has extended family members that still own land that was part of the plantation that my ancestors were enslaved on, I say both the Novel and Movie adaptation of Gone With The Wind should be labeled as Fantasy. There was no such thing as a content happy slave. Slavery is the very definition of Tyranny. Slaves lived under the constant threat of either Murder, Rape, or Mutilation at the hands of the plantation owner, or one of his family members. Margret Mitchell belonged to a Group called (Sons and Daughters of Confederate Veterans). This group's purpose was (The Lost Cause, starting in the 1880s) which was the revisionist history, meaning the cause, purpose, and motivation of the pre-civil-war Antibelum States & later Confederacy through Textbooks and Novels like Uncle Remus, His Songs, and His Sayings: The Folk-Lore of the Old Plantation and Gone With The Wind. This is the group responsible for 90% of all Confederate monuments and statues in parks, town squares, and in front of courthouses in the South. So again, Gone With The Wind should be labeled Fantasy because it has as much to do with actual history as the Wizzard of Oz does.
I LOVE the movie, have done since I first saw it aged 11, and I love the book. Honestly, this introduction is kinder than it deserves. I'd have gone at least three shades saltier about its legacy.
It’s history. It is what it is. People need to realize culture has improved for the better, but you can’t erase history by not watching or, worse, editing out parts of a movie because someone may find it offensive. It happened and nothing can change that. It needs to be taken in context for the time it was made. During WW2, the Japanese were portrayed horribly, but that’s because we were fighting a war with them that they started. And some Blacks were made to play terrible, degrading roles in movies during the 1930s and 1940s. It doesn’t make it right, but you have to think about the social mores that existed at the time. Context.
@@Ajourneyofknowing That's the entire point: GWTW isn't real life. People are smart enough to make that distinction and think for themselves. We all know it romanticizes the Antebellum South. Who needs additional context to know that? The reframed series was pandering to trends, not trying to enlighten an already enlightened viewership.
Impressive. I'm listening to a book on Vicksburg and Grant's crushing of that city. The author notes how GWTW and Absalom, Absalom were published the same year and the latter is a much more realistic accounting of life in slave states.
This lady is very elocuent and the soft, elegant way she presents the movie is great . I don't mind it even though i didn't think it needed introduction.
I love Jacqueline. She is the much needed representative of a largely ignored, invisible group: Black cinephiles who adore classic films. I cut my teeth on the classic films shown on a show called 'Million Dollar Movie" ( Channel 9 in New York in the 60;s and 70's)whose opening theme song was "Tara's Theme " from Gone with The Wind! That is where I fell in love with James Cagney, Jimmy Stewart, Katherine Hepburn, Vivien Leigh et.al....all the stars of the classic Hollywood era. Yes, it was painful to be watching a Fred Astaire movie with great joy and suddenly he's in blackface doing the " Bojangles of Harlem" number. You learned to put those scenes out of your mind...but never completely able to forget them. I am glad that the powers that be at TCM have decided to put these "problematic " films into a historical context ....particularly for folks under 50, These films must always be shown because they are a true reflection of the times in which they were made...Truth must alway trump political correctness...or should!
I read this book over two in a half year's because I started in December my only complaint with the DVD/ bluray is "I wish we got to see the fathers story before Scarlett,s
First, slavery was minimized because the film was not a visual discourse on the issue. In that way, Selznick kept his promise to the NAACP. Second, regardless of arguments of the morality of slavery, it was legal. Third, Hattie McDaniel is the bulwark against the dishonest, deprived characters in the film. She is in fact the most stable and morally redeeming character in the movie. Why not shine a light on those commendable traits?
At first, I cringed because I thought it would be patronizing but it's actually quite fascinating. I forgot that we're dealing with some of the best. Love TCM!!! THANK YOU FOR NOT CANCELING IT AND HAVING COMMON SENSE!!
Great job. Seriously. Thank you for this erudite vital background. Now, I want her to do Birth of a Nation. The politics of THAT film are shocking and inflicted terribly damaging effects on society. Yet it was the most popular film of its era by a great filmmaker. Its treatment of African Americans is repulsive. And yet it was the first great epic film, with editing and production values that practically invented every film that came afterward. It’s a brilliant film. But a horror show when viewed from a humanistic modern standpoint. Same thing can be said with Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl the first great female film director. In fact, TCM should do a whole festival of these films and let’s discuss them openly, having voices like Stewart’s. Let’s learn. Censorship is never a good choice. Not in America.
@Trey Huh. I said censorship is never a good choice, not in America. And you say I'm fragile? Why? I want these films to be watched, studied, discussed, and faced head on. Opposite of fragile.
I completely agree with you about Birth of a Nation. Its treatment of African Americans was grotesque. But GWTW is in a class of its own. I remember seeing it for the first time when I was 10 years old back in the 1960s and the scenes of the little girl fanning the southern belles and Scarlett slapping Prissy really bothered me. But that didn’t preclude my love for the movie. It was and still is one of my favorites.
Movies are, and always have been made for entertainment. To expect a "vital message" in every film is to be disappointed EVERY TIME... Sorry, but that's my opinion...
A bit of the historical info is nice but this is legitimately just a well spoken trigger warning. Apparently the snowflake offended at everything culture that needs trigger warnings that we all made fun of when they were on college campuses has grown up and now needs trigger warnings on everything. All I can think of when I see something like this is South Parks Mr. Garrison coming out and saying "Remember kids, slavery was bad mmmkay" Why this trigger warning was needed is beyond me. Who here will admit that they were so stupid that they needed someone to tell them that a romantasized portrayal of southern slavery overlooks the actual brutality of slavery. Go ahead, who was that dumb they needed to be told?
I know I’m getting really annoyed that I can’t escape the whole racism is bad. Literally if I put on a movie to watch I’m forced to sit and listen to it. I don’t know why more people aren’t annoyed the media treats all like we are cartman. Also they removed 5 episodes of South Park on hbo max for being problematic.
I have a black daughter . We sit and watch this movie a few times a year. We love it..and are not offended. It represents a time… not for a wish for a future..
It’s important to view this movie with the knowledge that usually producers take dramatic license to make things more interesting. I view it as a story, made up stuff. If I want more historical accuracy I look to documentaries.
I think it's interesting that perhaps the two most popular and impactful Hollywood films of the prewar era, "The Birth of a Nation" (which basically defined the feature film as we know it) and "Gone with the Wind," are both romanticized views of the antebellum South, followed by negative views of the Reconstruction era, with highly circumscribed depictions of their African American characters. Why this particular subject matter and not another?
Thank you for this presentation. Thank you to all black actors/actresses who worked/work so hard to portray life as it was in that era. It helps us understand what horrors slave life endured for most slaves. Hattie deserved her award and others should have been awarded. For movie making it is an era that is long gone. They just don't make them like they use to. Gone With The Wind was the first movie my parents allowed me to go to the theater to watch. That was when it came back around in the sixties. I am now 73 and could probably count the number of times I've been back in a theater on one hand. Close to it I'm sure.
I think people kind of miss the point about GWTW. Yes it does, to a certain extent, glamorize the Old South and yes it does view that world through a nostalgic lens. But make no mistake, with some limited exceptions, the people in the Old South in the movie (and even more so in the book) aren't very bright or insightful. In the very first chapter of the book, the Tarleton twins almost brag about getting kicked out of their third college only to have their asses blown off at Gettysburg. Clearly they were stupid, ill-equipped sods. I don't think the film glamorizes the gentleman who claims in Ashley's parlor that one gentleman can lick ten Yankees. I think the film makes him look like an ignorant moron, who looks even more foolish when contrasted with Rhett Butler's pragmatic truth. These were very flawed, foolish idiots who were unable to adapt to a world that no longer existed and I believe the movie (and the book) portray their stupidity as powerfully as it portrays the nostalgia. I think GWTW, both movie and book, effectively reflect that this way of life, back in the Good Old Days, that we yearn for, was obsolete and foolish and no place to be.. Just my two cents
Do we really need someone to tell us how to think or how to view the contents of a movie? Where is the 'opinion' from another person with a different point of view? Two sides to every story = equality.
@C C The fact it is important to consider this film and the context around it. Simply giving context to a film is not censoring it. She never tells you how to feel. It is a fact that this movie is down plays slavery and younger audiences my not have an understanding of this. I am a history student so i 100% agree we should not censor the past. We have to see everything for a more clear picture of how the past was, this at the beginning simply fills this puzzle in for somebody.
@@lilyhendrie She never tells you how to feel.'' She stated that "racial inequalities persist in the media". If that was true, would the media have allowed her to voice her opinion? Her opinion doesn't have anything to do with the movie, and it's leading others to "feel" as she does. Gone With the Wind is FICTION; it was NOT meant to be a book/movie about slavery. (We all agree that slavery was evil.) IMO it's a movie about war, how it changed the South, and how war changes lives. During the Civil War, many whites fought and died for another races freedom, and not all white people in the "Old South" lived in big mansions or owned slaves.
@@beverlyjett9155 it is known that not everyone in the north had that much of a problem with slavery. Obviously they were more against it than the south. Your point about many white people dying for another race doesn't really stand. I mean look at what we're going through now in the world, how many black people had to loose there lives because of racism before the most recent protests took place. I agree that this is a based on a book that isn't historically accurate but that is why it is important people know the history of what they're seeing. Even if it is a quick run down as mislead visions of the past can lead to a toxic future. Racism does persist in the media I would argue however it is no where near as obvious as it once was and of course this being shown shows the movement forwards against racism within the media.
@@lilyhendrie "... racial inequalities ... persist in ... society today.” Another off-topic, one-sided opinion; it is distracting and not revelant to the context of the movie. Today, in the U.S., everyone has 'equal opportunity', and they are allowed to hold positions in any profession if they qualify for the job. What makes 'life matter' is everyone working together and striving to make a better future for ALL lives regardless of our skin color. If you want to learn about the real "RACIAL INEQUALITIES" that persist in our society TODAY, read articles about the billion dollar industry "Human Trafficking", where little girls/boys/women are being sold as sex slaves. Look up "Modern-Day Slavery" and "Todays Slave Markets" [in Libya].
I’ve watched this movie many times and have never felt offended in anyway. As a classic movie fan, I keep in mind that some of these films were made by studio heads and filmmakers who held their own racist views and you have to look at the historical aspect of when these films were made. In 1939 , you had Jim Crow laws still heavily enforced throughout the south . Black Americans hadn’t too long been freed from slavery. These aren’t excuses for how the black characters were portrayed in the film , it’s how the writers perceived these characters and wrote dialogue for them that’s the issue. Let’s keep in mind three of the most important characters in this film were black. It’s a disservice to edit the film in anyway because it takes away from the overall story. Nor should this film be withheld from the public. It’s a great film for entertainment and the performances throughout are outstanding.
Thank you for this. I'm a black man who has always loved this film. I do have issues with it( at times its uncomfortable to watch) but the story still entertains me. Its important that we don't erase the past so thank you for helping me understand a little more about its history.
I couldn’t have said it better, I’m a black woman who also loves this movie despite its faults. I also own this movie
@@ShecallsmeSusan Me too, I have the special Edition blu ray. Its the best soap opera ever!!
I black and i Love the Movie i Never had Problem with this what this Lady Talking about is dumb
@@AnthonyJones-ev4bp thank you
As someone from overseas, I learnt about slavery as a teenager because of this movie. It led me to watching Django and The Colour Purple and now I have made connections to current child slavery in the middle east and Asia. It is a great starting point to educating oneself.
Also, lets not forget, these are movies, not documentaries. This was well explained.
The fiction in "historical fiction" should be the drama, the romance and the plot, not the history.
Gone with the Wind doesn't sell itself as an alternative-history but as a faithful depiction of the Old South. It fails miserably in this regard. One of the key elements of the film is to transport you in time back to the antebellum era. When it completely scrubs the true experiences of slavery and the conditions of the slaves it badly mars the film.
For many people it's hard to forget what we know about slavery in the US. It's hard to forget the damage the Lost Cause narrative has had on our country. More people should appreciate these points.
@@route99 It depends on what kind of movie your making. "it should be," is a phrase that just puts a halt on creativity and stops great films from being made. Unless it's a more grounded, "realistic" say Contagion or something maybe getting as many facts right as possible is granted, but in an epic sweeping romance, some cinematic liberties can be taken. It's a cinematic romanticized version of life.
You can still appreciate these points, again it's not a documentary. Your not suppose to look to gone with the wind to appreciate these points, maybe we can use our efforts to make history books, which purpose is to document history accurately, to more accurately reflect history, instead of editing fictional stories to fit our needs.
@@route99 you're making way to much out of this movie. It is at for most a story of survival followed closely as a romance. Nothing of this film is ment to be a documentary of slave life in the South. Calling a work of fiction out because of what you think it should be is not realistic. And you certainly cannot judge a film from the 1930s by the standards of today.
@@itsallgood4093 right, you get it. More people need this mindset. Though I feel like most people do, it's the people that don't that are loud and demand the changes of course.
@@thewatcher8573 Praise should be tempered for a film that feeds into the racist Lost Cause narrative. If that makes me a loud person who wants change then so be it. Your romanticization of whitewashing racism is a problem.
Again, nobody has ever claimed it was a documentary. But that doesn't mean a period piece film can be flagrantly and deliberately unfaithful to the history it sets itself in.
Few people in 2020 would watch Gone with the Wind if didn't have a great reputation. I think it's reputation should be reconsidered for all the reasons I've outlined. You can bury your head in the sand but quit making bad faith arguments.
Keep in mind GWTW is told from the perspective of a spoiled insensitive brat who is caught up in a whimsical mirage in which she is startled to learn is not sustainable.
Great point. I would also add that Gone with the Wind is about a way of life (the antebellum South) disappearing for good, and slavery (which was part of it) as well.
+1
The tough part now though is people won't be able to watch it and determine it for themselves. Hollywood is now going to tell people how to feel about movies before watching them. This is still a thoughtful and good idea, to me more ideal in settings where people are going into it for a reason such as in a school setting.
@@Your-BestNightmare Yeah, because there's no possible way to fast-forward through this, turn the sound off if you don't want to hear it, or ignore the decades of writings and commentary that pervade our culture which have already commented on this film for generations.
First, know that the book is far, far better. Second, Margaret Mitchell does write with rose-colored glasses in parts with regards to African-Americans, however Mitchell spares no one with her pen. Yankees are tarred and feathered as are Southerners. Mitchell was an outcast in 1930's Atlanta. She would not conform to the pecking order imposed on Atlanta society in spite of her father being a leading attorney in Atlanta society circles.
I read a book about Mitchell's research on dialects and if I remember correctly, Mammy's accent in the book was Gullah from around the Charleston area. This is one of the many reasons Rhett Butler admires Mammy. Remember, this is a work of fiction and must be treated so.
Mammy was the smartest, most grounded and intelligent character in the whole movie! The writers were certainly ahead of their time if you ask me.
However it is an abomination how she was treated at the oscars. Even when she actually won it! Disgusting
someone said that a group of "Black Brothers" stole her oscar and threw it into the river in Washington dc.
True, regarding how she was treated. Initially she and other blacks were not to attend; Academy rules. But Gable threatened to boycott if she was not allowed in. After winning her award, Gable and Louis B Mayer congratulated her, one hugged her and the other gave her a kiss...too bad TV was not around back then; such gestures might have had an affect on the viewers.
@@julianmarsh1378 It was the premiere in Atlanta that Gable threatened to boycott, not the Oscars. She convinced him to attend anyways.
@@MediaLover194 I stand corrected.
Actually well said. Much prefer this over the original film being altered in any way.
I watched Gone With The Wind this weekend. It was excellent.
@@heartshaped.crescent treating black Americans like children I’m sure is something you enjoy.
This has long been my favorite novel and my favorite movie. I am 60 years old and white. I was surprised to learn that the some of the young black women I work with who are only in their 20s and 30s love this movie as well. I thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the subject with them. I asked them if they were offended by The point of view represented in the movie. One girl said she always looked at it as a story about Scarlet‘s life and her general self centered approach to most things. Another girl said that there were things that bothered her, especially the way that all the slaves were presented as loving their life, but she still enjoyed the movie. And one girl said she hated how Scarlett slapped Prissy, ( also, she could never bring herself to watch the full movie, it made her angry for what her ancestors had to endure) but her friend said “who DIDNT Scarlett slap?! Melanie, Prissy, Rhett, her sisters,” It was a good to have an open discussion like that, it gave me food for thought.
EXCELLENT. Disney if you're listening...THIS is how you do it.
Liberate Song of the South!
I would like to see Song Of The South again. I loved it as a child. I saw the red headed neighbors as the bad guys. I had no idea anyone was a slave. I guess that's what is wrong with it. I loved Uncle Remus! Such great stories he told.
I was studying at UCLA when a Disney Archivist just blatantly said Song of the South will never be released and we can't ask questions about it. It's hard to understand why you come to an archival class of students when you don't want to promote access to a film that clearly everyone is going to ask about. Song of the South definitely deserves a screening but it needs to be contextualized and thats fine. Just release it for us researchers.
@@tlw1950 Hell yeah! I'm Left as it can get, and I love Song of the South. It's a magical, and fun film. Disney needs to grow some testicular fortitude.
Melissa Skillens “just release it for us researchers”. Why? What makes you so special that you would be “permitted” to see it while others cannot? Release it for everyone that wants to see it!
I actually think its important to preserve this film, because it honestly helps us understand how revisionist history works, and how it seeps into story telling and mainstream culture.
✅
Gone with the Wind was not meant to be about slavery or that perspective. There are plenty of slavery films. It is about the posh lifestyles that white people built, unfortunately on the backs of slaves. If it seems romanticized, that is because plantation owners did try to create a life of lush luxury -- and then it rightfully came tumbling down because it was founded on oppressing a race of people as slaves. It is fascinating to see this world and its signature pampered princess Scarlett O'Hara come tumbling down and follow the saga of a Scarlet having to rebuild her life. This was the reality for many. I do not see this movie as racist. There should be a depiction of this historical shift. I know people would prefer to forget the plantation lifestyle but it existed and should be faced not hidden.
It was championed by the KKK and Alt-Right and depicted its slave characters as enjoying life on the plantation. Its also very revisionist and portrays the Confederacy / the South as “fancy gentlemen” as a means to ignore its troubling issues with race.
This was a well balanced introduction to a classic film. I hope it helps to add some context to the film and how it was made for viewers.
It's important to preserve and contextualize art by the era and style it was made.
The first black woman Oscar winner and she can't even sit with the whites. Jesus. That's depressing.
Seth-Separation among blacks & whites was not a Southern policy...it was national law. Even in the 60s, Sammy Davis Jr couldn’t walk into a hotel lobby w Frank Sinatra, even though he was entertaining there every evening...and that was 30 years after Hattie McDaniels was not allowed to sit with the from the white stars of GWTW... We’ve come a long way & I imagine MLK would look favorably on the progress but not the violence across the country.
Many things wrong with this lecture. Ms. Stewart ignores several significant things.
1. The NAACP were not "ignored" as Ms. Stewart says in the film. David worked closely with them. They made at least 2 suggestions that Mr. Selznick implemented in the movie. One, the N word was not used in the film. It's in the book. Two, Scarlett is nearly raped. In the movie, it's a white man. In the book, it's a black man. In an ironic way, Selznick made the movie PC. He also said he did not want the film to deingrate blacks, so he took extra steps, consulting with the NAACP about it.
2. Many black papers at the time did like the movie very much.
3. The film was made in 1939. America was still in the depression, which would explain why the film is ultimately escapism. Audiences would not have paid to see a graphic depiction of slavery for four hours, nor would they have watched a 24 hour documentary on it. There was no way a long ass documentary could be shown in cinemas in those days anyway.
4.
There were actually four directors on the film. Selznick himself directed some scenes.
Stewart doesn't say the NAACP was "ignored."
While all that information is good to know, I feel that Ms. Stewart did a very good job, and I believe that had she said more, it would have not felt as concise and to the point.
@Seth Byrnes I know she's a film scholar. In fact, she's a very good one. I've seen her intros on TCM. She knows her stuff. She is not an "affirmative action hire", like some on the right have suggested. However, this time I feel she purposely left information out to push a PC/woke agenda. She should know better. She does know better.
However, I think she was told by HBO Max to make the intro short and very PC.
I just like Gone With The Wind just for the costumes and Scarlett's strong will because she reminds me of myself when it comes to hardships and what one would do to survive by any means necessary.
I’ve just seen this for the first time, I have to say for the first 5 minutes my jaw was on the floor, wow, but once I got used to all the nostalgia tinted ‘out of date depictions’, I enjoyed the story and spectacle, and as a film buff all the many beautiful matte paintings, too, so I’m glad I got to see it. Historically, I get it’s importance better, now, so I hope it stays available to all.
My family kept watching this movie back home years ago via VCD, and today, my brother and I rewatched it again via HBO Max. It is indeed a timeless movie! One of my favorite of all time, along with One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia, GBU, Once Upon a Time Trilogy, Stanley Kubrick Films, Waterfront, Wonderful Life, Chinatown, Citizen Kane, Casablanca etc. I may be just 24 years old, but I really love Old Classic Movies and Music!
Very glad to see such a young person who likes old classic movies. I don't like all the movies you mentioned but you mentioned some very good ones. In my opinion though GWTW is the greatest movie ever made!! I also LOVE other movies (Meet me in St Louis, Sound of Music etc) but no movie, no matter how good, can beat GWTW
Being 38 going on 39 years of age, I had the privilege of being indoctrinated in classic films by my parents and grandparents. Funny how growing up surrounded by older folks than my own generation helped shape my general view on life. Like films, there are sad and cringeworthy moments in life. Scary moments, horrific ones. But funny and enthralling moments, too. Many of TCM's fans appreciate great storytelling, especially when acted out and visualized with such love and care. As a fellow fan, may I introduce you to a few of my favorites? Next time you have a chance, catch these personal favorites:
1) Sergeant Rutledge
2) A Face In The Crowd
3) Something Wild (1961 version)
4) Sweet Smell Of Success
5) Rosemary's Baby
6) Citizen Kane
7) The Great Dictator
8) The Pawnbroker
9) A Clockwork Orange
10) The Exorcist
🇵🇷🇺🇸😎
Same. I’m 19 years old. Some of my favorite classic movies are Fight Club, Saving Private Ryan, Heat, Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, North by Northwest, Rebel Without a Cause, Doctor Zhivago, 12 Angry Men, etc.
Providing context takes more effort than censorship, so good job TCM.
No português
Não falo inglês
providing context is just fascism trying to tell the audiences that you are too stupid to see what you are seeing and do not enjoy enjoy the film unless you see what i see and feel what i tell you to feel. films dont need context or instructions. dont need labels or controllers
This is a great intro. This is a way of honoring a classic film and still talk about the issues with it.
This is an excellent, though too brief, intro. Contrary to what some commentators are saying, it's not a "trigger warning," or a "warning label," or "woke scolding." Movies have immense power to shape distorted views of the past that continue to inform our present day politics. An entire industry grew up around romanticizing a "Lost Cause" view of the antebellum South, and that mythology was used to justify Jim Crow, lynching, segregation, and systemic economic exploitation. I'm betting a lot of commentators here have no idea that the NAACP mounted a sustained campaign to protest some of the blatantly ridiculous depictions at the time the movie was made. Great choice to have a history professor put this cultural artifact into perspective.
This is our unfortunate history and I want to thank TCM for noting that this film may be uncomfortable, even so ,I have always loved it. Fortunately no one in the USA today in 2020 lives a life like Scarlett O"Hara or owns slaves. It is a shameful part of our past and thank God it will stay in the past. The Romans and the Greeks also owned slaves, again that was history, not today in 2020. Most educated people can tell the difference between 1865 (and earlier to the beginning of this country) and 2020. We all need to work towards equality and hopefully now is the time. Thanks again to TCM for this excellent introduction.
If this film is uncomfortable to you than how can you watch anything??
Jennifer Lee beautifully said and THANK YOU! My mom dragged me to this movie when I was 7. I didn’t want to go because I didn’t want to see any beatings of slaves. THANKFULLY, the core of the film wasn’t about that. It was a fictional story set in true historical events in American HISTORY. Still though, how sad I find it that a disclaimer has to be placed on a film like this when in 2020 it seems so painfully obvious that it’s history and Hollywood. Though when it comes to reality, rarely the two shall meet. Plus....it was the first time a black woman (the amazing Hattie McDaniel) won an Oscar. THAT cannot be taken away.
@C C Slavery actually exists right now as we speak in Africa of all place.
@@theman36 The point is a lot of the film is NOT history of 1865--it's history of how 1939 nostalgically remembered 1865. The harmonious plantation depicted is B.S. and not historically accurate, except that plantations based on slavery existed.
Margaret Mitchell wrote characters with blood in their veins. Scarlett had gumption and the book sold us on that quality as the driving force of survival. Scarlett intuitively knew the depth of her own greed and I believe she sought out Ashley to tame her wild Irish soul as her father had with her elegant, French mother. To her mind Ashley brought dignity and redemption. Her refusal to accept that loss was the same blinding force that got her through the war and reconstruction. The tenderhearted Christian, Melanie, understood that Scarlett's gumption was necessary and she forgave her everything because they needed her and she trusted Ashley's honor. Melanie spent her moral capital defending Scarlett because she had enough self awareness and security to understand and appreciate Scarlett's value. It is a great story. The book takes it to another level.
So appreciate your thoughtful and insightful analysis.
IMO, Jacqueline Stewart does a wonderful job explaining the story of the novel and movie without resorting to bias, emotion, or politics. She lays it out very well, its detriments, inaccuracies as well as the film itself as an asset to American cinema.
Well done !!
A warning was posted at the beginning of Gone with the Wind stating the movie's depictions of race relations - I am Italian and want a warning placed on all 3 of the Godfather movies stating Italians are not murderers.
The Italian race contributed to the world with art, architecture, fashion, opera, literature, design, and films. Not having a warning is a insult to all Italians
.
How about a warning on every Golden Age Hollywood depiction of Irish, Italians, Jews, and Russians? As an East Slav, I'm offended by Ninotchka and Silk Stockings (not truly offended). But that's how ridiculous all of this has become.
Actually, Talia Shire did record just such an announcement, which was broadcast just prior to the showing of The Godfather on television. ruclips.net/video/Bm6-Ss6BmHI/видео.html
I'm a mixed black woman who has always loved this movie despite its overtly uncomfortable depictions of the Antebellum South. Thank you for this context.
Michelle Bradley singing "He's Got the Whole World in his Hands" ruclips.net/video/B5jjqEyQzsU/видео.html
@C C , movies usually send a message though.
Gone with the Wind is one of the most important historical films ever made. It does not need to be censored nor have a disclaimer.
I so agree with this comment!!!
It definitely needs to be put in the historical context though…
I often find TCM's introductions more interesting than the films themselves for their contextualization within the broader culture. I haven't seen GWTW but this gave me the flavor of what I would find it I watched. I have to laugh when people write this off as a trigger warning as if TCM doesn't always provide an intro before their films!
Jacqueline Stewart is outstanding in her conciseness. She is another jewel at TCM.
She's destroyed Silent Sundays and has somehow gotten a mediocre film such as Sounder more airplay than it ever deserves.
So happy they did this...I remember Whoopi Goldberg did something similar for Tom and Jerry, and her quote from there rings true here "These prejudices reflect a part of our history that cannot and should not be ignored. To do otherwise, is pretending it does not exist."
We should not ignore racial crime statistics.
I see nothing wrong with having a frank introduction that places the film in the context of it's time. The South had spent years spreading revisionist history both North and South to rewrite and deny what the Civil War was really about. I also see the entire movie as a melodramatic, big budget soap opera, where almost ALL of the major characters are written and acted as stereotypes. Only Rhett and Mammy sees Scarlett for who she really is ---a narcissistic, spoiled, rich brat.
I agree with your points
And one thing I'm glad this movie does in Scarlett father first line is admit that it wasn't the war of northern aggression but the civil war was in fact though over slavery the line goes "we let those Yankees know we keep our slaves no matter what" and that was the main reason for secession which Confederate apologists will straight up deny so I'm glad the movie points out the main reason for secession.
People always say that but I feel like everyone can see through Scarlett. She isn't neccesarily supposed to be nice
Well a lot of people must love it. Look at how many copies were sold.
Even though painful, to watch and acknowledge, certain past events should not be discarded or erased but discussed. That is how we will evolve,
Agreed! Speech and discussion is powerful.
@Dr. killpatient I wasn't referring to GWTW in particular but other past events. GWTW is a movie, not an event. Your name says it all. As a conservative Republican, Snowflake doesn't apply. Duh.
@@Noah-lo9vb and freedom to chose is even more so
Thank you this introduction, commentary, and context. Very much appreciated.
What a great introduction. I'm glad to see TCM is committed to confronting the troubling content in this and other great Hollywood classics and recognizing the pain broadcasting them brings to Black Americans. GWTW is a truly great film, but also bears much responsibility for popularizing the romantic storybook myth of the antebellum South that too many Americans still cling to.
Read the book! It's a movie about THAT book. Believe me, it is toned down from the book. I love the movie and the book.
The movie is toned down considerably.
Ashley was miscast. Too wimpy from the start.
I’m glad that other people are realizing how toned down it is from the book.
@@NJtoTX Never understood what Scarlett saw in him.
@@GoblinGirl - Just a juvenile crush. I understand her, I had an Ashley in my life, when I was a twenty-something. Looking back - thank God I didn't have a thing with him!
Admire this topic, Jacqueline Stewart is amazing! To hear her explain the experience of this title in a very poetic manner, influenced my desire to learn more of films created during the 1930.
Jacqueline Stewart is PHENOMENAL! I love her insights into our most influential art form
@@robbiefl58 Absolutely****
And now Turner Classic Movies is....gone with the wind.
Perhaps they should a warning intro with all Adam Sandler movies " Please note this film will be shit & two hours of your life will be wasted " 😁
I like his movies except like maybe two
Best movie ever made
Uncut gems
Except for Punch Drunk Love, The Meyorwitz Story, and Uncut Gems.
GONE WITH THE WIND Is The GREATEST Movie Ever Made! 👍👍
I know some people in may have already pointed this out but David O Selznick did not intend for the film to be racist, in fact I think he actually changed or outright removed a lot of the vulgar racial slurs that were in the script that were and probably still are in Margaret Mitchell's book. Not only that one of the African-American actors won an Oscar for her work in the film
Turner Classic Movies is releasing "The Quiet Man" for its 70th Anniversary, a film that normalizes domestic violence. There is a scene in which John Wayne physically drags Maureen O'Hara along a dirt road while the men and women of the town literally cheer him on. One old woman even hands Wayne a stick saying "Here's a good stick to beat the lovely lady." No disclaimer. Clearly TCM agenda is not to call out heinous human rights violations of the past, but to pander for profit.
Thank you for this excellent point. While I think that Ms. Stewart did an excellent job on this intro, no one mentions Rhett's rape of Scarlett, when he drags her up the stairs. And yes, when The Quiet Man was rereleased, no disclaimer is provided.
Can we please just get a screenshot of the disclaimer already?
Thank you so much for speaking on this. When I was a kid, I read the book and was taken more with the story of Scarlet as opposed to the racial implications of it. Same thing with the movie. I fell in love with the strong women, an image we didn’t get much of in books and movies. To me this is a movie about women which includes Hattie’s character and her relationship with Scarlett. Although I understand the anger at the bad image of slavery, I think the characters in this movie were better than some images of black people in the 1930s except for Butterfly McQueens character. I think we need to see this movie so we see what we were and how far we’ve come. Thanks again!
These kinds of disclaimers and explanations really are necessary. It is often claimed that “we know it’s not a documentary,” but sadly this is not the case for everyone. Look at the current restrictions on African-American studies, the rewriting of textbooks, and the banning of numerous books in Florida. With restrictions like these, there will inevitably be a chunk of Americans who NEED disclaimers like this in order to know the truth about the era depicted in this film. We need to continue to have conversations about films like these, acknowledging their flaws while also justifying the genuine need to preserve them all the same. And sadly, until the aforementioned unjust educational restrictions are eradicated, these very conversations will be the only source of historical truth for some Americans.
What melodramatic drivel you write. Who exactly NEEDS to be informed in such a manner that isn’t already aware of America’s past? Children? Cave-dwellers? Someone who spent their formative years in a coma? I know, foreigners escaping an authoritarian regime who grew up with restricted access to books and the internet. Simply knowing the release date of this extremely famous movie is more than enough information for the average person to appropriately contextualize its content and themes.
YES, thank you for uploading this contextual introduction and I will continue to contextualize the film to every screening I do because it needs it. I just refuse to believe a whole entire work needs to be completely erased because I don't think that does any good to civil rights or black history. It needs to be addressed, it needs to be understood for its time and yes its offensive and has been offensive since its inception. We must also just acknowledge its artistry and performance, because these performers probably were too ignorant to think, "I'm doing such a racist part, great because I'm a racist." They did a part and thought highly of it as essential a great piece of work they can put into the studio system. It's pretty much ignorance on their part and I wouldn't exactly call it inexcusable, it's just part of the way they were brought up. However, this film absolutely needs context before screening and TCM staff does such a wonderful job with its academics and journalists that come to bat for them to insure that these classics are still shown without censorship and yet have a good context.
I find it offensive that a black lady thinks she needs to explain things to me.
Men's Success Bible 🤢
This is an exemplary introduction that addresses history honestly.
But was it imperative context? In other words, who precisely is TCM speaking to in these “reframe” introductions. The whole conversation around GWTW seems redundant at this point.
@@fuchsiaswing8545 Redundant to whom?
If there is any Civil War movie that is historically accurate, I wouldn’t know it. Even “Glory” from 1989 had inaccuracies
Completely unnecessary. The movie doesn't have to showcase the horror of slavery just because it takes place in the South during the Civil War. Mammy clearly has more common sense than anyone in the movie. Why the heck do we have to see her suffer? Good Lord, we all know slavery was wrong. Those days are long gone... GONE WITH THE FREAKIN' WIND!!!
But those days have legacy in America.
Thanks, because I can't think for myself anymore.
Gone with the wind was my first move i ever saw a the drive in an still my favorite movie of all times
Also the physical and sexual violence against Scarlett that was supposed to be sexy and romantic is sickening.
Yes! Too few people mention this, and it's so true.
Of course, Gone with the wind is unrealistic. I thought that was common knowledge. No need for a disclaimer.
I posted above that audiences wouldn't have watched a four hour, realistic depiction of slavery in 1939. It was the depression. People needed escapism.
I've found that common knowledge, like common sense, isn't very common.
@@KnightMage not anymore it isn't
@Trey - Says the one commenting that disclaimers will somehow fall down the hole of censorship. Ever watch Tom & Jerry, Wartime Disney, and the Looney Tunes on dvd
It's nice to hear from someone who could put this movie into its proper, historical context.
It was a movie made in 1939 portraying life in the South of 1865 so how else should they have portrayed the treatment of blacks?
This is a master piece that is part of america, why those people are trying to get rid of it....get a life, slavery is part of america but not only, what we going to to take away western? How can it be uncomfortable or painful, this is a movie
So was "Birth of a Nation", and that film plaued a firm role in popularizing the Klu Klux Klan for the 20th century.
I never saw any pro-Confederacy propaganda in the movie, or any downplaying of slavery. It shows a plantation owner family who are, it seems, mostly benevolent masters. Something that did exist in the South. Nowhere did I see the movie as implying that as being the norm. The movie even shows that slavery was a topic of moral controversy at the time, with Ashley, probably the most honourable Southern gentleman shown in the movie, acknowledging as much and saying that he intends to free his family's slaves when he gets to inherit them. Which is, I think, more than enough mention of slavery for a movie whose subject isn't that in the first place. It isn't a movie about the social dynamics and social struggles of Southern society. It is a movie about the downfall of Southern upper-class society in the flames of war.
The idyllic plantation is the issue. The Antebellum South was not idyllic, especially during the War. Romanticizes the brutality of Enslavement.
@@iago07 How does it romanticize enslavement when it barely shows it? This movie isn't about slavery, it's about love and a girl who is playing hard to het. Simple. This isn't a history documentary.
@@iago07 If you don't like the movie, don't watch it.
This was so perfect. So perfectly said. Everything that needed to be said with perfect accuracy and Grace. I’ll admit, I was so worried TCM wouldn’t be able to fill Robert Osborne’s titanic shoes, but they’ve done very well.
Actually I just watched Robert Osborne's original intro to this film (in fact, the first film ever shown on TCM).....and he said none of this PC nonsense.
You people are ridiculous. GWTW is a STORY... told from the perspective of characters who have their own biases and obvious prejudices entirely exempt from the need to proselytize about the ills of slavery. They were in the deadliest war our country has ever seen and they were all trying to survive -- which is what the movie is about: survival. Virtue signaling wasn't on their radar when there was really no food to eat, and Selznick produced a movie entirely authentic to the story that Margaret Mitchell told (and Margaret Mitchell was entirely loyal in her narrative to the selfish, conniving Scarlett. Scarlett wasn't concerned about slavery; Scarlett was concerned about Scarlett. THAT is the whole point of the movie!). The movie is told from the ruthless Scarlett's perspective, and to her it WAS a gracious life gone with the wind. Thank you for your condescending, insipid primer for a movie that we all have the good sense to know depicts a deplorable time in racial history. Maybe you didn't get the memo, but exceptional writers don't betray their characters with anachronistically inaccurate telegraphing of things not authentic to their circumstances. I find this preening to be insulting, frankly, to intelligent human beings. Cue the SJWs descending up on me in 3, 2, 1... if TCM even allows this comment to remain, because that the other thing this nauseating culture does (no voices but our voices).
I applaud your comments. Thank you!
Wow. You are ignorant, aren't you?!
I agree!
@@jimcadena8533
Is that the best you've got? Ignorant because I can think and reason and am not influenced by moronic social justice movements financed by oligarchs? Sure thing, buddy.
Ironic that 'trigger warnings' by "SJW's" are so quick to trigger "SIE's" (Social Injustice Enablers.) They troll desperately for anything remotely resembling empathy and consideration so they can tear it down in disgusted fury. How enraged they become when they find that there are others who do not see the world the way THEY do. How scornful their tone, in attempting to 'educate' ignorant humans whose greatest sin is in trying to see the world through the eyes of people of varying backgrounds and experiences. Hey, Ian, in the words of your Lord and Savior (that would be Jordan Peterson, obviously): no one is forcing you to watch. You don't like it? You find contexualization offensive and insulting? Then fast forward through it. Practice what you preach, bro. Trigger warnings are part of the "freedom of speech and expression" that you guard with such rabid and condescending energy. Now...go forth and troll! There are feminists and trans-allies out there who desperately need to hear your message of white, hetero male superiority and here you are, wasting your scintillating brilliance on a bunch of classic movie nerds. The world needs YOUR version of censorship, Ian...go, man, GO!!!
I find this to be extremely unneeded. The fact someone decided they needed to tell people that a film from 1939 does not hold up to modern standards makes me highly dissatisfied. I’m sick of media treating us like we are stupid and unable to tell right from wrong. Just my opinion but I do respect people who support this. As long as we are given the ability to skip these warnings I think I will be fine with them.
they think we are children
My favorite book and film.
Well done intro. I'm glad it's being aired uncut.
I wish every movie had an introduction like this
Not really possible. Every movie was made for it's time. The only reason they need intros like this are decades after they were made. When societal norms have changed to the point where people have a hard time comprehending that societal morality of the past is not the same as societal morality of the present.
We used to understand that we can't judge the past by present day standards. That relics of history have to be understood in relation to the era to which they belong.
But apparently now we're all incapable of doing that and so ignorant to history that we need a quick history lesson prior to anything dating back more than 10 minutes ago so we can understand the context in which it was made.
We don’t need a 4-minute disclaimer before the film, there is already a disclaimer at the beginning of the film!
That’s an tribute, not a disclaimer.
Stewart needs to cover up in her latest interview this is TCM not the Playboy Channel.
Great job. This is the right way to do it. It's important to acknowledge the wrongs of the past, but still let viewers watch and learn from a classic film, despite its faults. Disney should take a page out of your playbook and release Song of the South with a similar disclaimer at the beginning.
Love how she lays out the statistics and the trivia tidbits and the controversies. And the choice of spotlighting young slaves (the babies!) was spot on. Also the indignities Hattie McDaniel went through (and she was a terrific actress, so was Butterfly McQueen, and I loved seeing Oscar Polk and Eddie Anderson again in "Cabin in the Sky" and Eddie in "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World").
What Hattie McDaniel went through is no the topic!
You'd think the Coconut Grove would have had a different attitude; I can't believe how ridiculous things were. Hattie didn't deserve to be treated that way. So much crazy stuff used to go on. One of my neighbors told me that when her parents first got married and were looking for an apartment (they were Irish) one of the buildings actually had a sign in the window that said "No Dogs or Irish Allowed"! My aunt had a friend who was from a wealthy family and her boyfriend couldn't go to her debutante party because the place didn't allow Italians there! (this was sometime in the 60's.) Unbelievable! African Americans got the worst of it, but there was so much prejudice for so many people.
What you need to know about watching this little slam on GWTW. It's a movie. It will always be a movie. When you look this explanation it falls flat. Devotion to their white masters? Has she never seen the movie? Gerald who gets his pocket watch? Polk. Who runs things in the house when it's all said and done, Hattie McDaniel. Who comes to Scarlet's rescue at the sawmill? The black workers. It depicts a time that probably never existed.
Why not have an explanation of the Wiz? Or a Raisin in the Sun?
Brilliant commentary, thank you.
What's " brilliant" about it ?
Thank you TCM for adding context instead of censoring the past.
In the book, Prissy is only 12 or 13 or 14. She's basically a child who has never been away from her mother when she travels with Scarlett to Atlanta. I get the impression from the book Prissy was kind of sheltered. I've heard people single the character out because of how immature she acted. But she was young and maybe that might explain why she immature at times. One major problem the book is facing now is Ashly Wilkes being in the Ku Klux Klan and participating in the burning a town full of ex slaves. This happens in the book after Scarlett is almost robbed and assaulted. The men seek revenge for her. Most people in real life during that time were racist. Even Lincoln was a racist. But some people practice a more evil form of racism than other people. Rhett Bulter was a racist, but his racism was tame compared to Ku Klux Klan. I think Ashley is more racist than Rhett. Rhett was respectful to Mammy in the book and in the film. There's a very sweet moment between Rhett and Mammy. While on honeymoon, he asks Scarlett what she's going to buy Mammy. Scarlett says she won't buy Mammy anything because of badly Mammy acted about their marriage. Rhett scolds Scarlett and tells that would break Mammy's heart and says a heart like Mammy's should never be broken. He says he's going to buy Mammy a red petticoat to wear because that's what his mammy always wanted. Later when Scarlett is in giving birth to Bonnie, Rhett asks Mammy what that rustling is he hears. She laughs as she tells him he's bad, then she lefts up her skirt a little to show off the red petticoat he bought her. Later, he gives Mammy money to go home to Tara when Scarlett refuses her. Mammy is old and tired by that time. She wants to go home to Tara, but Scarlett doesn't want to let her go. Mammy tells Scarlett she's free and she can do what she wants now. Rhett pays her way back to Tara.
I totally agree
Gone with the wind is what it is...marvelous 😘
This is very well done-- thank you
As someone who grew up in the South and has extended family members that still own land that was part of the plantation that my ancestors were enslaved on, I say both the Novel and Movie adaptation of Gone With The Wind should be labeled as Fantasy. There was no such thing as a content happy slave. Slavery is the very definition of Tyranny. Slaves lived under the constant threat of either Murder, Rape, or Mutilation at the hands of the plantation owner, or one of his family members.
Margret Mitchell belonged to a Group called (Sons and Daughters of Confederate Veterans). This group's purpose was (The Lost Cause, starting in the 1880s) which was the revisionist history, meaning the cause, purpose, and motivation of the pre-civil-war Antibelum States & later Confederacy through Textbooks and Novels like Uncle Remus, His Songs, and His Sayings: The Folk-Lore of the Old Plantation and Gone With The Wind. This is the group responsible for 90% of all Confederate monuments and statues in parks, town squares, and in front of courthouses in the South.
So again, Gone With The Wind should be labeled Fantasy because it has as much to do with actual history as the Wizzard of Oz does.
I LOVE the movie, have done since I first saw it aged 11, and I love the book.
Honestly, this introduction is kinder than it deserves. I'd have gone at least three shades saltier about its legacy.
Very well done!
I wish our TCM in the UK is just like your TCM in the US!!
It's a work of fiction and the slaves were treated with respect in the movie.
You don’t know what your talking about. Just because the slaves were respected in the movie doesn’t mean that in real life
It’s history. It is what it is. People need to realize culture has improved for the better, but you can’t erase history by not watching or, worse, editing out parts of a movie because someone may find it offensive. It happened and nothing can change that. It needs to be taken in context for the time it was made. During WW2, the Japanese were portrayed horribly, but that’s because we were fighting a war with them that they started. And some Blacks were made to play terrible, degrading roles in movies during the 1930s and 1940s. It doesn’t make it right, but you have to think about the social mores that existed at the time. Context.
@@jill7111 - These people are almost the same the would also defend The Littlest Rebel 1935 & Gods and Generals 2003
You don't no rthat they went either
@@Ajourneyofknowing That's the entire point: GWTW isn't real life. People are smart enough to make that distinction and think for themselves. We all know it romanticizes the Antebellum South. Who needs additional context to know that? The reframed series was pandering to trends, not trying to enlighten an already enlightened viewership.
Impressive. I'm listening to a book on Vicksburg and Grant's crushing of that city. The author notes how GWTW and Absalom, Absalom were published the same year and the latter is a much more realistic accounting of life in slave states.
Better watch this movie now before it's banned and all copies are ordered burned
Just like Alladin's opening song. Thank God I have the original VCT and cd.
Ffs it’s a movie from 1939 .... And I doubt the kind of person who’s watching it needs to be reminded of that .
This lady is very elocuent and the soft, elegant way she presents the movie is great . I don't mind it even though i didn't think it needed introduction.
I love Jacqueline. She is the much needed representative of a largely ignored, invisible group: Black cinephiles who adore classic films. I cut my teeth on the classic films shown on a show called 'Million Dollar Movie" ( Channel 9 in New York in the 60;s and 70's)whose opening theme song was "Tara's Theme " from Gone with The Wind! That is where I fell in love with James Cagney, Jimmy Stewart, Katherine Hepburn, Vivien Leigh et.al....all the stars of the classic Hollywood era. Yes, it was painful to be watching a Fred Astaire movie with great joy and suddenly he's in blackface doing the " Bojangles of Harlem" number. You learned to put those scenes out of your mind...but never completely able to forget them. I am glad that the powers that be at TCM have decided to put these "problematic " films into a historical context ....particularly for folks under 50, These films must always be shown because they are a true reflection of the times in which they were made...Truth must alway trump political correctness...or should!
I read this book over two in a half year's because I started in December my only complaint with the DVD/ bluray is "I wish we got to see the fathers story before Scarlett,s
If you’re offended, don’t watch. Change the channel. Simple
YOU RUINED A CLASSIC WITH A TRIGGER WARNING
THIS MOVIE WAS THE FIRST IN COLOR MOVIE, IT WAS A PRODUCT OF ITS TIME.
First, slavery was minimized because the film was not a visual discourse on the issue. In that way, Selznick kept his promise to the NAACP. Second, regardless of arguments of the morality of slavery, it was legal. Third, Hattie McDaniel is the bulwark against the dishonest, deprived characters in the film. She is in fact the most stable and morally redeeming character in the movie. Why not shine a light on those commendable traits?
That bookshelf tho 😍😍
At first, I cringed because I thought it would be patronizing but it's actually quite fascinating. I forgot that we're dealing with some of the best. Love TCM!!! THANK YOU FOR NOT CANCELING IT AND HAVING COMMON SENSE!!
Great job. Seriously. Thank you for this erudite vital background. Now, I want her to do Birth of a Nation. The politics of THAT film are shocking and inflicted terribly damaging effects on society. Yet it was the most popular film of its era by a great filmmaker. Its treatment of African Americans is repulsive. And yet it was the first great epic film, with editing and production values that practically invented every film that came afterward. It’s a brilliant film. But a horror show when viewed from a humanistic modern standpoint. Same thing can be said with Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl the first great female film director. In fact, TCM should do a whole festival of these films and let’s discuss them openly, having voices like Stewart’s. Let’s learn. Censorship is never a good choice. Not in America.
@Trey Huh. I said censorship is never a good choice, not in America. And you say I'm fragile? Why? I want these films to be watched, studied, discussed, and faced head on. Opposite of fragile.
I completely agree with you about Birth of a Nation. Its treatment of African Americans was grotesque. But GWTW is in a class of its own. I remember seeing it for the first time when I was 10 years old back in the 1960s and the scenes of the little girl fanning the southern belles and Scarlett slapping Prissy really bothered me. But that didn’t preclude my love for the movie. It was and still is one of my favorites.
Erudite, vital background? ROFL.
Movies are, and always have been made for entertainment. To expect a "vital message" in every film is to be disappointed EVERY TIME... Sorry, but that's my opinion...
Don’t like it, don’t watch it. But you can’t stop other ppl from liking it
A bit of the historical info is nice but this is legitimately just a well spoken trigger warning. Apparently the snowflake offended at everything culture that needs trigger warnings that we all made fun of when they were on college campuses has grown up and now needs trigger warnings on everything.
All I can think of when I see something like this is South Parks Mr. Garrison coming out and saying "Remember kids, slavery was bad mmmkay"
Why this trigger warning was needed is beyond me.
Who here will admit that they were so stupid that they needed someone to tell them that a romantasized portrayal of southern slavery overlooks the actual brutality of slavery.
Go ahead, who was that dumb they needed to be told?
I know I’m getting really annoyed that I can’t escape the whole racism is bad. Literally if I put on a movie to watch I’m forced to sit and listen to it. I don’t know why more people aren’t annoyed the media treats all like we are cartman. Also they removed 5 episodes of South Park on hbo max for being problematic.
I have a black daughter . We sit and watch this movie a few times a year. We love it..and are not offended. It represents a time… not for a wish for a future..
It’s important to view this movie with the knowledge that usually producers take dramatic license to make things more interesting. I view it as a story, made up stuff. If I want more historical accuracy I look to documentaries.
I think it's interesting that perhaps the two most popular and impactful Hollywood films of the prewar era, "The Birth of a Nation" (which basically defined the feature film as we know it) and "Gone with the Wind," are both romanticized views of the antebellum South, followed by negative views of the Reconstruction era, with highly circumscribed depictions of their African American characters. Why this particular subject matter and not another?
Thank you for this presentation. Thank you to all black actors/actresses who worked/work so hard to portray life as it was in that era. It helps us understand what horrors slave life endured for most slaves. Hattie deserved her award and others should have been awarded. For movie making it is an era that is long gone. They just don't make them like they use to. Gone With The Wind was the first movie my parents allowed me to go to the theater to watch. That was when it came back around in the sixties. I am now 73 and could probably count the number of times I've been back in a theater on one hand. Close to it I'm sure.
Michelle Bradley singing "He's Got the Whole World in his Hands"
ruclips.net/video/B5jjqEyQzsU/видео.html
I think people kind of miss the point about GWTW. Yes it does, to a certain extent, glamorize the Old South and yes it does view that world through a nostalgic lens. But make no mistake, with some limited exceptions, the people in the Old South in the movie (and even more so in the book) aren't very bright or insightful. In the very first chapter of the book, the Tarleton twins almost brag about getting kicked out of their third college only to have their asses blown off at Gettysburg. Clearly they were stupid, ill-equipped sods. I don't think the film glamorizes the gentleman who claims in Ashley's parlor that one gentleman can lick ten Yankees. I think the film makes him look like an ignorant moron, who looks even more foolish when contrasted with Rhett Butler's pragmatic truth. These were very flawed, foolish idiots who were unable to adapt to a world that no longer existed and I believe the movie (and the book) portray their stupidity as powerfully as it portrays the nostalgia. I think GWTW, both movie and book, effectively reflect that this way of life, back in the Good Old Days, that we yearn for, was obsolete and foolish and no place to be.. Just my two cents
Do we really need someone to tell us how to think or how to view the contents of a movie? Where is the 'opinion' from another person with a different point of view? Two sides to every story = equality.
Sorry what other side are you suggesting? I think you need to rewatch this and really listen to what she said.
@C C The fact it is important to consider this film and the context around it. Simply giving context to a film is not censoring it. She never tells you how to feel. It is a fact that this movie is down plays slavery and younger audiences my not have an understanding of this. I am a history student so i 100% agree we should not censor the past. We have to see everything for a more clear picture of how the past was, this at the beginning simply fills this puzzle in for somebody.
@@lilyhendrie She never tells you how to feel.''
She stated that "racial inequalities persist in the media". If that was true, would the media have allowed her to voice her opinion? Her opinion doesn't have anything to do with the movie, and it's leading others to "feel" as she does.
Gone With the Wind is FICTION; it was NOT meant to be a book/movie about slavery. (We all agree that slavery was evil.) IMO it's a movie about war, how it changed the South, and how war changes lives. During the Civil War, many whites fought and died for another races freedom, and not all white people in the "Old South" lived in big mansions or owned slaves.
@@beverlyjett9155 it is known that not everyone in the north had that much of a problem with slavery. Obviously they were more against it than the south. Your point about many white people dying for another race doesn't really stand. I mean look at what we're going through now in the world, how many black people had to loose there lives because of racism before the most recent protests took place. I agree that this is a based on a book that isn't historically accurate but that is why it is important people know the history of what they're seeing. Even if it is a quick run down as mislead visions of the past can lead to a toxic future. Racism does persist in the media I would argue however it is no where near as obvious as it once was and of course this being shown shows the movement forwards against racism within the media.
@@lilyhendrie
"... racial inequalities ... persist in ... society today.”
Another off-topic, one-sided opinion; it is distracting and not revelant to the context of the movie.
Today, in the U.S., everyone has 'equal opportunity', and they are allowed to hold positions in any profession if they qualify for the job.
What makes 'life matter' is everyone working together and striving to make a better future for ALL lives regardless of our skin color.
If you want to learn about the real "RACIAL INEQUALITIES" that persist in our society TODAY, read articles about the billion dollar industry "Human Trafficking", where little girls/boys/women are being sold as sex slaves. Look up "Modern-Day Slavery" and "Todays Slave Markets" [in Libya].
I’ve watched this movie many times and have never felt offended in anyway. As a classic movie fan, I keep in mind that some of these films were made by studio heads and filmmakers who held their own racist views and you have to look at the historical aspect of when these films were made. In 1939 , you had Jim Crow laws still heavily enforced throughout the south . Black Americans hadn’t too long been freed from slavery. These aren’t excuses for how the black characters were portrayed in the film , it’s how the writers perceived these characters and wrote dialogue for them that’s the issue. Let’s keep in mind three of the most important characters in this film were black. It’s a disservice to edit the film in anyway because it takes away from the overall story. Nor should this film be withheld from the public. It’s a great film for entertainment and the performances throughout are outstanding.
This intro was very well done. They should have done this years ago. 👏👏
I wonder if you put the same kind of detailed disclaimer when showing a film like 'Out of Africa'