"Gone With the Wind" pulled from HBO Max library for now

[groundloop]

Source: CBS News

"Gone With the Wind" is generating controversy once again. The once-acclaimed 1939 Civil War drama has been temporarily pulled by HBO Max from its slate of streaming options amid outcries over the film's dated depictions of slavery and racism, according to multiple reports.

<snip>

The film -- which has long been revered by film critics and is the highest grossing movie of all time when adjusting box office totals for inflation -- was recently decried in a high-profile op-ed in the Los Angeles Times penned by "12 Years a Slave" screenwriter John Ridley.

Ridley called on HBO Max to pull the film -- which tells the story of a tumultuous love affair between two wealthy Southern aristocrats and is set against the backdrop of the end of the Civil War and the destruction of the Confederacy. Ridley argued that the movie "doesn't just 'fall short' with regard to representation. It is a film that glorifies the antebellum South."

"It is a film that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color," Ridley wrote. "It is a film that, as part of the narrative of the 'Lost Cause,' romanticizes the Confederacy in a way that continues to give legitimacy to the notion that the secessionist movement was something more, or better, or more noble than what it was -- a bloody insurrection to maintain the 'right' to own, sell and buy human beings."

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gone-with-the-wind-pulled-from-hbo-max-library-for-now/

---

However, a spokesperson for HBO Max explained that the film would eventually return to their streaming catalog, along with additional content that would contextualize the controversial historical depictions and elements of the story.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. I always got the feeling that GWTW was Mitchell's response to

Uncle Tom's Cabin (Harriet Beecher Stowe), to tell the world that the "Old South" wasn't all that bad.

[LisaL]

3. In Mitchell's view, Old South was really good.

But pulling the movie? Is that really the thing we want done?

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Maybe it's temporary and when it returns, the movie will be paired with

other like and contrasting movies about the "Old South" and "New Old South". Like The Help.

[LisaL]

6. How are they going to make people to watch the other movie if that move is not

the one they want to watch?

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Return GWTW and run the other movie before or after it.

A teaching moment.

[thucythucy]

12. They'll also have to run something to belie the scene

where Rhett Butler, fed up with Scarlet's bitchiness, rapes her. It's what red blooded men do to keep their womenfolk in line, don'tcha know. Besides, it's all good, since in the next scene she has a big post-orgasmic smile on her face, which just goes to show when women say "no" they really mean "yes."

I'll add this just so there's no misunderstanding:

[csziggy]

60. GWTW is already far too long

Putting it with another movie would make for a marathon session - sort of like trying to watch all of the Lord of the Rings movies in one sitting!

GWTW deserves to be put in the same category as The Birth of a Nation - a pro-Southern propaganda film pushing racist memes. In another thread I post excerpts from Margaret Mitchell's Wikipedia entry. She was brainwashed from a child to believe the crap she spewed in the book - and she glorified The Birth of a Nation, playing one of the main characters in a play during college, making her own KKK robe to wear for the production. No wonder so many of her themes fit with that piece of garbage.

[bucolic_frolic]

2. Sometimes I think we were better off before

the advent of VCRs, DVDs, streamed media, 24/7/365 whenever you want it. Instant availability magnifies it, and multiplies it. What were vicarious cultural venues and events are now ubiquitous. Monied interests inject content into our lives and minds.

But I would feel this way. I grew up youngest in a household where everyone liked something different creating lots of noise and controversy, and no one would take the time to explain what all the hubbub or the noise was all about. A cultural vacuum in an ocean of media. Today it's everywhere.

[melm00se]

5. This quote

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. - George Orwell.

This applies to all aspects of history, both fiction and non-fiction.

[thucythucy]

10. Well, i don't hear anyone advocating having the government destroy all copies of GWTW.

Besides which, GWTW isn't "history." It isn't even fictionalized history. It's a two hour propaganda piece for white supremacy, with some sexist "romance" thrown in for good measure. You might recall the scene where Rhett Butler rapes Scarlet O'Hara--but it's all good because, you know, it turns out she--an uppity woman--ended up enjoying the rape.

If people want to find this reactionary crap there will always be ways, just as there are ways for people to track down "Birth of a Nation" or "Triumph of the Will." It isn't incumbent upon any business to offer either of these as some form of obeisance to "history" or "freedom of speech."

[melm00se]

15. disagree

the re-writing of history can take many forms.

Bans (by public or private entities)
Applying modern day norms to historical events/people (presentism)

I could go on but there are too many who willingly march off this cliff singing praises and celebrating these actions.

[edhopper]

19. GWTW

was a re-writing. It was a large part of the anti-historical move to make the Civil War a "Noble Lost Cause" rather than a fight to keep slaves.

That it is a well made piece of propaganda, like The Birth of a Nation, doesn't make it any less propaganda.

[thucythucy]

26. If there's any "rewriting of history" being done here

it was done by the writers of GWTW and their contemporaries.

David Blight's, "Race and Reunion" is an excellent exposition of how the actual history of the Civil War and Reconstruction was all but suppressed by southern apologists, beginning almost immediately after the war ended. By the 1940s the genuine story of Reconstruction--including the white terrorism that essentially re-enslaved emancipated blacks--had been totally expunged, not only from mainstream media, but from most every library and private bookshelf. The actual causes of the war--and the brutality of white supremacy--were misrepresented to such an extent that popular historians such as Bruce Catton swallowed it all hook line and sinker. That's a genuine instance of "the re-writing of history" which wasn't challenged--except by a very few black scholars--until well into the 1960s, a good hundred years of communal amnesia.

And GWTW is hardly in danger of being tossed down a memory hole. Unlike the actual history of racism in this country, which in fact HAS been suppressed. The consequences of said suppression are manifest today in how African Americans continue to be treated by society in general, and white cops in particular.

I see GWTW as a high budget, glossy piece of white supremacist propaganda. I place it in the same category as "Birth of a Nation," "Triumph of the Will" and "The Eternal Jew." I wouldn't want government to take measures to suppress any of these slanders, but I sure as hell don't mind if they aren't offered as "entertainment" by major media outlets such as HBO.

[DeminPennswoods]

40. Thank you

IMHO, this is a slippery slope we are on now. This is akin to book-bans or book-burning because someone or some faction objects to the content.

[killaphill]

35. So I take it you are in favor of keeping Confederate statues in the public square?

Time moves on. Certain depictions of history become outdated and / or proven inaccurate and misleading. HBO Max isn't doing away with GWTW. It still exists. They are just saying it's not proper for their particular platform.

[thucythucy]

7. The book is even worse than the movie.

In the movie, Scarlet is attacked by "white trash" and so the brave aristocrats ride out to avenge her.

In the book the would-be rapist is black, and as I recall it's the KKK that rides out to "avenge" her.

And isn't there a line in the movie where one of the characters reminisces about hearing "the happy darkies singing" in their happy slave quarters, or words to that effect.

And to think, wasn't it Gone with the Wind that shut out the Wizard of Oz for that year's Academy Awards? Ugh!

[Talitha]

41. Glad you brought this up.

Yes, the KKK was definitely glorified in the book. The 'political meetings' they mention in the movie were actually Klan rallies.

[kacekwl]

8. How ridiculous.

What's next ?

[Politicub]

16. Watching it on DVD?

Removing it from a streaming service is not a big deal.

[Blasphemer]

11. I don't support this at all

Hattie McDaniel won the Oscar for that movie so I think it should be seen. Also, just about every movie from Hollywood's golden age is racist. The depiction of African Americans and other people of color is consistently horrendous.

[rockfordfile]

13. I agree

[thucythucy]

17. Are you saying HBO is obligated to offer GWTW?

It's a private company, and entitled to decide what products to offer.

GWTW is particularly egregious, in my humble opinion, not only for depicting African Americans as borderline moronic and happy being slaves, but also for glorifying white vigilantism. Remember the scene where Rhett and the others ride out to "avenge" the attack on Scarlet? In the book Scarlet is attacked by a black man, and as I recall the "avenging" night riders are pretty explicitly meant to be the KKK.

The film is also a hugely offensive exemplar of rape culture. There's a scene where Rhett rapes Scarlet. She's shown resisting, but by the next morning all is good because she clearly ended up enjoying the rape.

Ugh.

[Blasphemer]

23. Certainly, they are not obligated. It's clearly their right.

And, I totally understand the arguments against the movie. I just don't agree with the decision not to offer it. Even without additional context of other movies, anyone watching it in the current moment is likely to reflect on all of the things you mentioned in ways they may not have before. Instead of just seeing at a bad racist movie maybe someone watching today will realize that the representation of people of color in movies is a manifestation of institutionalized racism and will look at ALL movies more critically. So, while I understand the impulse, I think it may be shortsighted.

[Auggie]

36. +1. There are hundreds of films, perhaps thousands, that could arguably be pulled ...

start now, but stop ... where?

[CountAllVotes]

18. +1

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2020, 10:28 AM - Edit history (1)

This is one of my favorite movies of all times.

[edhopper]

21. They are not offering it

as a part of streaming.

And that movie is pro-slavery propaganda.

[thucythucy]

27. Not to mention also pro-rape.

[edhopper]

31. That too!

[RobinA]

49. Funny

As a child, pre-teen, and young teen I read this book 20 times. I never once thought it was pro-slavery or pro-rape. I liked it because it was a story about a woman who went from being pretty helpless to well able to take care of herself in a hostile environment. And this was in the '60's and '70's. I knew slavery was bad before I read the book, while reading the book, and after I read the book. I never knew Rhett supposedly raped Scarlett until a couple years ago.

[CountAllVotes]

32. I liked it for different reasons

The costumes and Clark Gable! That is the reason I liked this movie so much.

The book tells a very different story btw.

I suggest everyone read the book if they have the time to do it.

[Devil Child]

29. +1 Blasphemer n/t

[CTyankee]

44. IIRC, McDaniel wasn't allowed at the Atlanta premiere of the movie.

White audiences alone could see it because of legal segregation laws.

[edhopper]

53. Nobody is stopping you from seeing it

Should HBO be forced to show it?

[Calista241]

68. Agree. Hattie McDaniel won the first Oscar for an African American in this film. n/t

[Skittles]

76. this seems stupid to me

celebrating racist crap is one thing, hiding it is entirely another

[Politicub]

14. It was an artifact of its time

From a technical point of view, it is interesting. The scale of the production was massive.

If it wasn’t for the over-the-top visuals, the movie would have sunk by now. The storyline was thin and drawn out. The film could have used a better editor. The runtime was indulgent.

There are so many troublesome movies. I don’t care if a copyright owner makes the decision to pull it from a streaming service. That’s a powerful statement, imho, and tells people a lot about the values of an organization.

[honest.abe]

20. A review by Cass Sunstein in The Atlantic from 2015 gives a somewhat different point of view.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/gone-with-the-wind-confederacy/398663/

"Gone With the Wind should not be mistaken for a defense of slavery or even the Confederacy. Mitchell is interested in individuals rather than ideologies or apologetics. She parodies the idea of “the Cause,” and she has no interest in “States’ Rights.” She is elegiac not about politics, but about innocence, youth, memory, love (of all kinds), death, and loss (which helps make the book transcend the era it depicts)."

Cass Sunstein was the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012 and is now a Professor at Harvard Law School.

I never read the book but clearly from excerpts I have read, it depicts the racial situation erroneously but I don't think Mitchel intended her book to be a commentary on racial injustice in the Old South. It was a novel not a documentary. I personally enjoyed the movie and never thought it was necessary to have been more accurate about the horrors of slavery. To me it gives a fascinating insight into the mentality of the Old South and why to this day many in the deep south still miss it. That is the value of the book and the movie, despite its inaccuracies.

[RobinA]

55. Thank You

I've never read the Atlantic article, but I read the book many times and what the article states about the book is exactly why I read it many, many times in my younger years. The personification of the Old South, Ashley Wilkes, dies and the personification of the new south, Scarlett, lives to fight another day. There are plenty of polemics about slavery out there, this book never set out to be one of them.

[PatrickforO]

22. May be for the best. Mitchell certainly did his part in perpetuating the 'noble lost cause' myth.

And that's all it was - a myth. A miserable, slave-based, brutal society where the top 1% sucked up most of the wealth and slaves had to keep lifting them up.

Last time I watched GWTW, I was offended at its depiction of black people. Sure, it was well made, well acted, etc, but maybe now time for the old dust bin, along with other disgustingly racist films.

[edhopper]

25. True

but "did her part". Margaret Mitchell.

[PatrickforO]

69. Ah, I stand corrected!

Thanks

[edhopper]

24. People the title is

"Gone With the Wind" It is about a better time, when people could live a genteel life free from strife. All brought to an end by the Civil War.
What the fuck do you think made that all possible. It is pro-slavery propaganda.

[Devil Child]

28. Thanks HBO for protecting me from the insidious threat of GWTW

[DeminPennswoods]

42. That made me laugh

nt

[Steelrolled]

30. I guess we've found the modern version of banning books

I wonder if libraries will be following suit. Unfortunately the libraries have a lot more books than HBO has movies - they are going to be busy.

This sounds interesting:

However, a spokesperson for HBO Max explained that the film would eventually return to their streaming catalog, along with additional content that would contextualize the controversial historical depictions and elements of the story.

Can HBO trust their viewers to fully understand this additional content? Sounds risky. /s

[edhopper]

33. ferchistsake

nobody is banning it. One streaming service has pulled it. You can still see this pro-slavery propaganda from other outlets.

[Steelrolled]

37. True

and when libraries ans schools ban books, it doesn't mean that ALL libraries and schools have banned it. Why the fuss?

[edhopper]

52. more BS

Libraries and schools are PUBLIC institutions. HBO is private, they decide what to show. You are comparing apples to toasters.

[Steelrolled]

73. True

There is always an excuse.

[edhopper]

75. why do they need an excuse to not

Stream an 80 year old movie?

[npk]

47. HBO is making a decision based off profitability

Part of me says, is there really even a market for Gone with the Wind. I mean I am a writer and majored in Film and so I see the need to watch GWTW from a historical perspective, just like I have watched and studied other films that I find reprehensible. But HBO is a business and they exist to make money, and they must structure their library to what people want. I see no problem there. GWTW will still be available to rent or purchase and seriously I honestly have to ask is there really even that strong of a market these days for this movie anymore. It really does feel like a relic of past. Not sure there was a strong market for it anyway.

[LisaL]

56. They are not claiming they are pulling it based on profitability.

They are claiming they are pulling it because of context.

[npk]

59. My point is that they are business

I wasn't questioning their motivations or trying to infer that they were not removing the film in its current context because they did not feel it was also the right decision. I was just pointing out in this sub thread that they also are a business and this doesn't equate to "book banning" and again like any business they exist to make money. Having a film like GWTW, that glorifies the "lost cause" of the Civil War and whitewashes slavery and the sheer brutality of that time period, could cause people to abandon HBO's new streaming platform, which could in turn lead to a drop in subscribers. I think HBO is just making a smart business decision. They are just getting out ahead of what very likely could become a divisive issue. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact it's smart business decision.

[marie999]

38. I don't think you can call it censorship

because HBO is not the government but I feel that the only reason not to show it would be if not enough people wanted to see it. In high school, I did an oral book report on The Catcher in the Rye even though it was banned at my school. The only reason I did it was that I really enjoyed the book. I would not have done a book report on a book that espoused my beliefs if I felt it was badly written. I like Gone With the Wind even though I do not agree with the way that it portrays slavery. You don't like the way it portrays the South, fine, don't watch it. How many times have you heard a conservative say that a certain show should not be on TV and you said, if you don't like its message, change the channel?

[beachbumbob]

39. ridiculous, I equate this with book burning

[groundloop]

48. Did you notice my note the says HBO will eventually return it to the lineup .....

with additional content which will "contextualize the controversial historical depictions and elements of the story"?

I admit that I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand we're talking about a classic film, on the other hand this same film seems to glorify a group of traitors to the United States who wanted to continue enslaving people.

The side of my brain that's winning out right now is the one that says we'll be better getting rid of artifacts of our past that glorify slavery and hatred, or at the very least ensuring that we put those things in the proper context. Continuing to glorify the 'old south' will, in my opinion, do nothing other than perpetuate hatred toward an entire race of people who were brutalized for the economic benefit of others.

[LisaL]

58. How would they work in that content?

Are there going to be inserts into the movie explaining why this or that was racist? They don't think people can figure it out for themselves?

[LanternWaste]

72. One option...

When a cable company re-ran the Young Indiana Jones series about ten years ago, they followed each episode with two or three documentaries about the people, places and activities relevant to that particular episode.

Hell, I purchased the DVD set simply *for* those documentaries (and I really doubt too many people watch documentaries because "they can't figure it out for themselves" ).

And that's simply one of so many different ways to allow additional context and content without reducing or even editing the original content.

[LanternWaste]

70. Yeah... just like when CBS cancelled Gilligan's Island in 1967.

But I agree... your equation is ridiculous, and I'll take it a step further and says your premise lacks rational thought, and is without merit or objectivity, predicated wholly on hyperbole and melodrama.

But thank God you get to raise your fist in the air and self-righteously scream "book burning!!!" But as I've deleted pdf formatted book and and audiobooks before to make room on my hard drive, I suppose I'm lining up at the bonfire as well.

JFC.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. That and "Birth of a Nation" need to be relegated to the dust bins of film history

The have been glorified for decades as the "greatest films of all time" while ironically continuing to perpetuate the marginalization of the very people who have had enough and protest. The marginalization is so ingrained that it permeates the very fabric of every sector of this country.

[npk]

45. So what you're saying is "Gone with the Wind" is Gone with the Wind

[sarcasmo]

46. This is the kind of insanity that helped Trump win the electoral college.

Last edited Wed Jun 10, 2020, 01:37 PM - Edit history (1)

[moonseller66]

50. I don't like someone telling me what I can watch, read or listen to.

Some worry too much if they feel something isn't what they like because it's wrong or objectionable or whatever, in their opinion, that they need to watch out for all the others who may be too ignorant (unknowing) to understand what they're watching, reading or listening to or to have it banned or shelved.

Rather than censor...educate. But let them choose.

Like Carlin said, you can turn the item off or change the channel. It shouldn't be for others to decide, within reason (have at it), what the rest of us can watch, read or listen to.

Just a thought. Which means others can decide for themselves whether to accept this comment or not.

[LanternWaste]

71. Who specifically is telling you you can't watch the film?

Or is that empty bit of sanctimony simply an effort to tell a cable company they cannot choose what to air? If the latter, you seem to be just as guilty of what you indict others for.

The film is still available on thousands of other platforms... the choice is still there, and the implication that choice is denied to anyone is, at it's best, both simplistic and absurd.



Just a though, Part II, Revenge of the Thought.

[Bayard]

51. This is stupid

Its one person's opinion of history that you can agree with or not, but the costumes alone are worth seeing. Make up your own mind of the content.

There are many different versions of holy books, including the Bible. Who says one is better than another? The Bible tells stories of rape, incest, human sacrifice, and outright insanity. Again, for each chapter, its one person's version of history. Agree or not. Make up your own mind.

I kinda see the current state of affairs regarding protests in the same way. You can really agree, or violently disagree, but make up your own mind. The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. ... It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government. It doesn't take sides. Whether you agree with an opinion or not, the beauty of it is you get to make up your own mind.

[edhopper]

54. So all you who think this is terrible

that it is somehow censorship for a private company to decide not to show a racist movie that is 80 years old. A movie available in plenty of other places. HBO also decided to not have Adult films on late at night, is that censorship, are you equally outraged?

What do you want? To force a private company to show a movie they don't want to?

[moonseller66]

57. Just a basic question, not any hidden meaning...

Edhopper,

Would you be outraged if HBO decided to show adult films late at night, or anytime for that matter?

Just asking.

[edhopper]

63. No

they used to, then stopped when AT&T bought them recently.

They have the right to do so, or not.

Why do you ask?

[Polybius]

61. This is disgusting

It's a piece of history. Republicans feed in these type of things and get stronger because of it.

[LiberalLovinLug]

62. And the Taliban and ISIS destroyed forever their own historical wonders.

I would argue that it is imperative to NOT destroy (or ban) the cultural record of a country just because there comes a point when some aspects of a certain work of art are now deemed regressive to modern day sentiments.

In fact the cultural offerings of a time period can reflect the greater society. We need our dry history books as well, but that doesn't give a complete picture. Having examples of the time period's accepted cultural biases is also important to understand history.

[CTyankee]

64. As I said above, why not teach it as a cultural artifact and as a means of oppression of people of

color? We do teach kids about slavery in American history classes.

[Paladin]

65. Never have understood the ongoing popularity of that movie.

1939 saw so many better flicks.

[Chemisse]

67. It gives a glimpse into a piece of history - with all its terrible warts.

I enjoyed the movie when I was a girl. And it gave me a frame of reference for that time period in the South, for slavery and deep-seated racism. It shows us what it was like, at least from the view of white plantation owners in the South during the Civil War.

Why would we want to hide that away? We should be illuminated by it. It should provoke thought.

[Steelrolled]

74. Haven't you heard?

We are too unsophisticated to understand that not all movies are purely factual and free of bias. The age of social media, cable news, and Trump, has lulled us into believing everything we see is true. HBO is just trying to protect us.