I couldn’t decide whether to post this under my political blog or my entertainment blog. I chose the latter because for me, the real question is about how art should be viewed. This post is in part a response to two articles (linked below) and a general ongoing effort across the nation to ban Gone with the Wind from public places, including television telecasts. [The Orpheum of Memphis, became one of the most famous cases of removal, dropping it from their annual summer movie series.] That said, while this post will discuss that movie, it is about many movies considered out of date for political reasons and will concentrate on the two articles in question.
The first article was written by Jeff Yang, a writer and biographer (he wrote part of Jackie Chan’s autobiography). The second article was written by Jacqueline Stewart, one of the hosts of TCM (Turner Classic Movies). Yang references Stewart’s article both in his and on his Facebook post about his article.
First, for my own opinion on Gone with the Wind. It is art. Some can argue it is not terribly good art, despite being the highest grossing movie of all time (with inflation) or despite all its Oscars. Some can argue that it is good art, as did TCM when the film became the fledgling network’s first movie to air, 35 years ago. Leaving aside the politics for the moment, as all art, good or bad, should attempt (unless existing solely as a political statement), I will admit that GWTW is problematic:
- It had multiple directors. While Victor Fleming got the credit, and while he may have done the lion’s share of the directing, other directors (notably George Cukor) were involved and any given one of them might have been responsible for a few of the more famous scenes. It is hard to have total cohesion in a film with that kind of problem.
- It had multiple writers, also a problem.
- It had a series of actors not all of whom took the filming seriously. Most famously, Leslie Howard (Ashley Wilkes) only took the role so producers would back a movie he did want to make. Performances can suffer when people don’t want to be there.
- It went over filming time (five months) and over budget.
- Some of the dialogue is hardly original and some of the characters are more stereotypes than real flesh and blood.
- The final product was not all it could have been, and there is undoubtedly an overly melodramatic quality to it, a three hour + version of someone holding the back of their hand to their forehead. Some of the dialogue is silly, some of it bad, some laughably so.
- There are other problems with it, but….
It is still art. And moreover, I think it pretty damned good, even if overly long. Its cinematography and color are beautiful, some of the performances are truly great, especially Vivien Leigh, Hattie McDaniel, and Butterfly McQueen. The music, while probably not as good as its reputation would suggest, is still legendary, and still oft played in orchestras and even high school bands. The editing is what saved it from the multiple writers and directors. The scene of the burning of Atlanta remains a classic scene in film shooting school and the scene of Scarlett walking among the bodies while the camera zooms further and further out, giving us a bird’s eye view, remains one of the most famous scenes in film history.
What should be done with art that has become questionable? That is a good question. For my own part, I believe that judging of racism or anything else must be determined in part by the era in which the art was made plus the era in which the story takes place. One cannot (or should not) judge something from the point of view of woke 2020 (or semi woke 2020, 2000, 1980…you get the idea). I am not a film historian by training, only by armchair passion, so I’m not an expert. But so far as I know, Margaret Mitchell did not write the story to suggest that slavery was right or that slaves liked being slaves. David O Selznick, the producer of GWTW, didn’t mean it to come across that way. The movie did offer a great many Black actors jobs in an era in which jobs for them were scarce, outside of the Black community. Most of them were grateful for it and continued to thank producers a lifetime after.
One should also look at history itself. What I’m about to say will be misconstrued by some readers, and many would say that the fact I recognize it that means I shouldn’t say it. But I am. First, I have to point out what is obvious: slavery was wrong. It is indefensible, unsupportable, monstrous in its total lack of human rights. That it went on as long as it did, from European colonists in general, to English colonists in particular. From our Founding Fathers to Southern plantation owners, it was supported. Those against it were either silent, or simply not very loud, until the Civil War was approaching. Our Constitution has as part of its wording the designation of slaves as only part of a human. Then, of course, there is that, aside from any slaves ability to walk away free and enjoy their own lives, is the actual treatment of slaves. Beaten regularly for any small infraction, working in the fields in sometimes horrible conditions (and often dying from overwork, heat, disease), etc.
Now for the controversial statements of the history. Only a tiny fraction of the slaves that came from Africa went to the United States. The vast majority went to the Caribbean, or Central and South America. The conditions in those places, the heat, the overworking, the disease, were far worse and most slaves had a short shelf life. Thus, for such plantations, slaves had to be replenished often. The United States may have been just far enough north to avoid the worse of that. Or—horrible as this is to think—maybe overall treatment in the US was not as bad. Certainly, part of the reason so few slaves overall came to this country was because slaves survived long enough to bear children. Our replenishment came from generations of slave families, rather than being brought from overseas. It is also true that some plantations had worse condition than others. Beatings were not equal. Murder of slaves was not equal. Being a house slave did not keep one from being beaten or killed, but it still was considered safer for a variety of reasons. And many of those house slaves helped raise the children of their White masters. The Stewart article mentions that Mamie in GWTW talks to Scarlett and her sisters in a way she wouldn’t have thought to speak to Mrs. O’Hara or Mr. O’Hara. She was respectful to them, loving and strict and teasing to the children (and as they grew up, continued to be somewhat, because she’d helped raise them). While stories abound of terrible conditions of slavery, which were far more common, there is ample evidence, often ignored, that what I’m talking about right now was to be found in a great many plantation households. It is almost a cliché for the Black maid to be disciplinarian. My family had a Black maid when I was very young, and she was babysitter and disciplinarian to us, and she loved us. My sister loved her in return. I was too young to really appreciate any of it but imagine Calpurnia in To Kill a Mockingbird. Is it really so difficult to imagine house slaves being the same toward the children of the house? Maybe some of those children, especially the men, would grow into horrible people. But as kids, they are still innocent. Slaves would certainly have rather been free. But many may have been too afraid, and rather just stayed on. In fact, after the Civil War, many did stay on. Pressured, threatened, etc. for some. For others, just fear of the unknown, or yes, even some out of loyalty and/or love.
I said those potentially controversial things to point out that Mitchell was speaking from a certain point of view. And the reality is, this is not a story about slavery. It is a story about a group of people (Southerners) who believed (rightly) that there way of life was being threatened by “outsiders” and wanted to maintain (wrongly but understandably) their way of life. It is a story of perseverance during difficult times. It is a love story. It is a story of survival. It is many other stories, too. It involved slaves. It shows slaves seeming happy to be slaves. Some scenes like this are more embarrassing than others, such as the “Quittin’ time” scene. As for Scarlett’s behavior toward Mamie or Prissy, Scarlett is a stereotype, an extreme, the “spoiled plantation daughter”, and she is not admired for her attitude. She is condescending to them, and the viewer is expected to be appalled at her. Other characters are also appalled and it helps contribute to her isolation at the end. Rather than glorifying slavery (despite making slaves look happy), this is about showing what slavery did to the White people who owned them. For every Melanie, there was a Scarlett. But that goes both ways. For every Scarlett, there was also a Melanie.
I asked above what should be done with such art once it becomes questionable. Should it be publicly banned? To me, no. That is a form of censorship. People can say all they want about how those that want to see it can simply buy a copy. Others could point out that anyone who does not wish to go the theater or watch on cable simply doesn’t have to. Again, it goes both ways. I think Stewart, and those like her, are right. It is better to use GWTW as an example. As discussion material. It can also be admired for its filmmaking (for those like me who think it is good) while still explaining why it hasn’t necessarily survived the test of time. That is allowed. It is also needed.
I want to move on briefly to Yang’s article and some of the movies he mentions. I’ve recently ranted on Facebook (regarding taking statues down) about how sometimes progressives get too enthusiastic in the opposite direction. Some men’s lives were ruined during the MeToo movement before people started taking a step back, remembering due process, and found out some of these men were innocent—or innocent of the specific allegations leveled against them. There is a systemic racism in this country that so many police are a part of, so now people want police departments to just go away. Statues are being toppled (both from vandalism and legally); name changes are under discussion. This stuff is all good but is in imminent danger of going overboard. Because again, one can acknowledge the good stuff of people while also saying hey this person was racist, or hated women, or whatever the case. GWTW and other movies have been under discussion and now, in the post George Floyd era, when progressives no longer have patience to do things either gradually or piecemeal, we are seeing that extremity enter the realm of art. And that can be seen in droves just in Yang’s article.
Among the films that Yang points out—some of which have been long under discussion, others never mentioned til now—are Gone with the Wind, The Jazz Singer, Fantasia, Tootsie, Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, Forrest Gump, West Side Story, Annie Hall, and a slew of Disney flicks other than the above-mentioned Fantasia. Yang seems to be under the impression that GWTW and Birth of a Nation are being newly looked at. But the truth is, they’ve been discussed for years as to their political longevity. Al Jolson wears blackface in The Jazz Singer. Fantasia has a servile black centaur with the “broad” featured caricature. All of these movies are over 70 years old, at least one over 100. Would they have been considered offensive then, or just being playful? This isn’t to excuse, but again, we must look at the era of creation and era of the story. Were enough people protesting Bing Crosby putting on blackface (Holiday Inn) that someone should have just canned that idea? Yang mentions West Side Story, in large part from the casting of Natalie Wood as a Puerto Rican, while ignoring the casting of Rita Moreno, who won an Oscar for her role. Hollywood has long had a problem with this, including White men who made entire careers playing Native Americans. That problem remains, as Scarlett Johannsen consistently wins roles she has no business playing and she is hardly the only one. But again, to ignore that this was many decades ago (60 years) is to suggest everyone from the beginning of time should just be woke or otherwise just be culture cancelled.
Yang gets into bizarre territory with some of his examples. Tootsie, considered one of the best films ever made, neither misrepresents trans women nor is even about trans women. Either Yang has never seen it and judges by the cover, or he lacks a certain ability to judge. Tootsie is about a male chauvinist pig (and yes, even male chauvinists can have women friends), who dons women’s clothes and identity in a desperate bid to get an acting job. When his contract forces him to stay in the role longer than he would have liked, forcing him also to perpetuate his female persona, he discovers his treatment of women was unacceptable, as he is now the recipient of it. His character’s character (as it were) grows from this experience. Where Yang gets the idea that this has anything to do with trans people, or demeans them, is nothing short of bizarre. Silence of the Lambs is also objected to because of its trans subject matter. This movie is also considered great art, but at least he is in part on point about the portrayal of a trans person. That said, it is silly to suggest that only cis gender become psychos. The whole point of the story, and why Hannibal Lecter knows who Buffalo Bill is, is that he (Bill) was refused surgery because of a defect in his character. However, certain scenes, including the ongoing dress made of human skin, is delicate enough material that it can be seen why some might be offended. Again, something to be discussed, not banned. His two disabled examples, Psycho and Forrest Gump probably need context. But again, by listing them, Yang suggest that no one who had multiple personality could be dangerous, and it isn’t as though the film plays it for laughs. It is a frightening movie. Forrest Gump is problematic, however. It is not clear whether Yang names it for the Lieutenant Dan’s physical disability or Forrest’s mental disability. Dan’s portrayal seems to be straightforwardly handled. And Forrest’s sweetness and simplicity also straight up. But this movie does what Psycho does not. It gets tons of laughs from Forrest’s disability, and other than Jenny’s defense of him when she is younger, there is no explanation or any real discussion of his disability within the context of the movie. It needs discussion. People can gain enjoyment from a movie without laughing at its hero’s expense.
There is one example in which I nearly (the important word there is nearly) without reservation agree with Yang. Breakfast at Tiffany’s features a White, Irish Mickey Rooney as a Japanese neighbor in one of the most racist caricatures I’ve ever seen. I wince every time I see the movie. Yet the movie as a whole is brilliant, and Audrey Hepburn gives a wonderful performance in what is one of her signature roles. This is not a movie to be banned, either, but discussed.
I saved Yang’s last specific example for last, because it is the most bizarre of all. He names Annie Hall, from what Yang calls the “multiply problematic” Woody Allen. The multiply I assume is not only in reference to the Dylan Farrow accusation (which I’ve never believed in) but Allen’s strange marriage to his former stepdaughter. But this post isn’t about Allen as a human being. The point is this culture cancellation, unlike the proposed others, is that the cancellation is all about him personally, rather than anything in the movie itself. Which would be okay, if Yang had not mentioned just a single movie—albeit what many consider Allen’s masterpiece. Wouldn’t it make more sense to just say all his movies should be questioned or banned?
Yang quotes Franklin Leonard saying that such is the racism surrounding GWTW, Hattie McDaniel wasn’t even able to attend the Oscars when she won (which he says she knew in advance), due to segregation. While it is true the McDaniel was not allowed to attend the Atlanta premiere due to segregation, and she was not allowed to sit at the main GWTW table during the Oscars, she was indeed there, and there is plenty of footage of her famous walk up and her speech. And her pride. Even Stewart’s article mentions that, an article Yang references twice. (I reached out to Yang to let him know Leonard either had it wrong or was misquoted. Nearly a week later, the opinion piece has not been edited to reflect the error. So much for facts in such an important discussion.)
I do feel it important to say that the thrust of Yang’s article, as with Stewart’s before him, was to say what I’ve been saying all along. My objection to Yang’s examples are that many are bad examples, and show he doesn’t understand the issues. But despite that, he does join the ranks of those who believe discussion is more important for art than banning it. The best quote is from author Rebecca Carroll, who says “the easiest thing to do is to remove it (bad content). It is not an act of courage”. The implication is that is IS an act of courage to keep it, to discuss it, to figure out what can be learned from it. And then to enjoy it, if it is otherwise good art.
Jacqueline Stewart article:
Jeff Yang article: