Just finished Gone with the Wind... What was your reaction to its end?

[ohaimark]

Even though Scarlet was an absolute ass I was still rooting for Rhett to stay with her.

At the same time, I resolved to not completely screw up my love life like her. Rhett wasn't exactly an angel, but he came around eventually. If Scarlet had left her pride behind for even a second she might have had a happy life with something other than the land of Tara to keep her company. The same goes for Rhett's pride and shenanigans.

I was expecting the movie to be a bore, and at times it came close to delivering. The beautiful cinematography, even if it is a bit saccharine, saved the movie from its dull moments.

I never understood why the phrase... "frankly my dear, I don't give a damn" was so famous until now. What a cold, uncaring, calculated, yet lively and dashing slap in the face. I managed something similar once, but it wasn't nearly as effective or punctual.

Random rant over.

[fohat]

I was glad that Rhett left. Although he was a cad and a roue, he was still that "dashing rogue" that you had to like, because he was willing to do the right thing at the critical moment.

Scarlet was just a petty nasty cunt through and through.

[ohaimark]

That's a fair opinion. I tend to wish for the happiness of most people, even if I find them despicable.

On the other hand, if they make poor decisions, they deserve whatever consequences stem from them. Scarlet made many poor decisions. I sort of respect her drive and selfishness, though. "I'll never go hungry again . . . If I have to lie, steal, cheat, or kill." By golly, she meant it. A woman of personal integrity in all the wrong ways.

[vivalarevolución]

I first watched the movie when I a teenager. Didn't have the patience for it and found it to be way too long, although i did like the Civil War element of the story. Now I sort of brush off the movie as stuff white people like, so i'm inclined to not watch it.

When it comes to prolonged love stories set during a tumultuous time of conflict, my all time favorite is Dr. Zhivago, even with the movie ending being significantly different than the book.

[ohaimark]

"Stuff white people like" is an insulting generalization. I'm not offended because a lot of white people do like it for the wrong reasons, namely the glorification of an awful time in U.S. history and the vilification of Union forces. Rapine, violence, desertion, and rape was committed by soldiers on both sides.

The story itself is horrendous in terms of racial interactions and glorification of Southern plantation ownership. At the same time, that was a complex and nuanced culture that can't be erased from the annals of history. It should be studied academically and with a full understanding of all people involved, just like other historical periods.

The movie itself has brilliant cinematography, adequate acting, a "meh" story, and a lavish set. It's slow paced as all get out, and I agree it's too long, but movies weren't as concerned with time when it was produced.

I'd say it's a movie that film buffs appreciate more than modern viewers.

[kbdfr]

Rapine, violence, desertion, and rape was committed by soldiers on both sides.

May I object that "desertion" has nothing in common with such vile things like "rapine, violence […] and rape"?

[ohaimark]

True. I only included it because a deserted Union soldier was looting (rapining?) the Tara plantation in the movie; it was conflated with those actions, so I thought it was relevant in the list.

[fohat]

I'd say it's a movie that film buffs appreciate more than modern viewers.

I disagree. I think that "film buffs" recognize it as overblown fluff.

Its rank as "One of the Greatest Movies of All Time" derives from popular culture, rather than the film-appreciating sub-culture.

[ohaimark]

The story and set are most certainly overblown fluff. The camera work isn't.

Edit: and I only said that they appreciate it more than modern viewers, not that they don't think it's overblown fluff.

Edit 2: find me a credible consensus in the film buff subculture that the movie's cinematography (not its story and acting) is less than masterful and I'll eat a keycap.

Edit 3: and I'll videotape myself eating said keycap.

[HAL]

When talking about 1939 I prefer the movie with the cool dudes

Three cool dudes in Oz
probably proud keyboard owners: MX Brown, MX Green, MX Blue

wizard_of_Oz.jpg (162.66 KiB) Viewed 4401 times

[ohaimark]

Their vestments are jagged, uncomfortable, and scratchy looking... Just like Cherry switches!

(I actually don't mind Cherries, but the joke had to be made.)

[fohat]

Those things on their heads are reminiscent of wingnuts, too.

[ohaimark]

Maybe a clip of Oz will make the Ping awards next year.

[vivalarevolución]

"Stuff white people like" is an insulting generalization. I'm not offended because a lot of white people do like it for the wrong reasons, namely the glorification of an awful time in U.S. history and the vilification of Union forces. Rapine, violence, desertion, and rape was committed by soldiers on both sides.

The story itself is horrendous in terms of racial interactions and glorification of Southern plantation ownership. At the same time, that was a complex and nuanced culture that can't be erased from the annals of history. It should be studied academically and with a full understanding of all people involved, just like other historical periods.

The movie itself has brilliant cinematography, adequate acting, a "meh" story, and a lavish set. It's slow paced as all get out, and I agree it's too long, but movies weren't as concerned with time when it was produced.

I'd say it's a movie that film buffs appreciate more than modern viewers.

For the time period it was made, the film was indeed an achievement on many levels, which you mentioned. I am entranced by a good bit of cinematography. But I don't think modern viewers have the attention span to enjoy such a film.

I encourage you to reconsider the your viewpoint on the idea of "stuff white people like". Rather than being an insulting generalization, I find the idea to be a stroke of clever, satirical genius about a population of the United States that historically has been the leader in oppression and stereotyping. In a sense, it is applying the same methodology of generalization, stereotyping, and prejudice to the historical leaders of such behavior.

I find that some individuals seem incapable of understanding another person's experience in this world unless they are subject to a similar experience (please note that I do not accuse you of such behavior). For example, if you are a white American, and you may not understand the harm of saying all [group of people] tend to [exhibit certain behaviors] after making a few selective observations. Lumping a person into a group in the same way that they are doing it to others may help them realize the error of their ways.

Obviously, to achieve a post-racial world (which may not be possible due to tribalistic human nature), ideas such "stuff white people like" are harmful and insulting generalizations. Yet, I find the idea very relevant in a world still fraught by racial conflicts and injustices, in which so many white people are unaware or adamant about their racial prejudices.

Regarding the less savory parts of the film, it was a historical film and it had to be depicted in a certain way to be representative of the historical setting. Some these depictions were insulting when the film came out and continue to be so. I actually don't find this to be that controversial or believe these ideas should be scrubbed from the record, we are aware of the dangers of being selective about which history we choose to acknowledge. However, it's important to understand how these historical depictions might affect another person's viewing or reading experience:

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/31/151061186 ... h-the-wind

[ohaimark]

For the time period it was made, the film was indeed an achievement on many levels, which you mentioned. I am entranced by a good bit of cinematography. But I don't think modern viewers have the attention span to enjoy such a film.

I encourage you to reconsider the your viewpoint on the idea of "stuff white people like". Rather than being an insulting generalization, I find the idea to be a stroke of clever, satirical genius about a population of the United States that historically has been the leader in oppression and stereotyping. In a sense, it is applying the same methodology of generalization, stereotyping, and prejudice to the historical leaders of such behavior.

I find that some individuals seem incapable of understanding another person's experience in this world unless they are subject to a similar experience (please note that I do not accuse you of such behavior). For example, if you are a white American, and you may not understand the harm of saying all [group of people] tend to [exhibit certain behaviors] after making a few selective observations. Lumping a person into a group in the same way that they are doing it to others may help them realize the error of their ways.

Obviously, to achieve a post-racial world (which may not be possible due to tribalistic human nature), ideas such "stuff white people like" are harmful and insulting generalizations. Yet, I find the idea very relevant in a world still fraught by racial conflicts and injustices, in which so many white people are unaware or adamant about their racial prejudices.

Regarding the less savory parts of the film, it was a historical film and it had to be depicted in a certain way to be representative of the historical setting. Some these depictions were insulting when the film came out and continue to be so. I actually don't find this to be that controversial or believe these ideas should be scrubbed from the record, we are aware of the dangers of being selective about which history we choose to acknowledge. However, it's important to understand how these historical depictions might affect another person's viewing or reading experience: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/31/151061186 ... h-the-wind

Opinion reconsidered:
I don't think satire has a place in formal academic arguments, and I was in academic argument mode there. Silly of me, as this is a cynical and wonderfully self-aware online forum. In a less formal setting, like this one, such a comment is entirely appropriate and quite poignant.

As a white guy who strives to be egalitarian and nondiscriminatory, being lumped in with discriminatory white people is bothersome. It certainly motivates me to differentiate myself! I can try to influence people who are around me, but many of them were raised to be passively racist in a way that prevents rational confrontation. My grandfather is absolutely awful. A pet peeve when dealing with certain people is their stubborn refusal to recognize the role that white people had in creating the cultural stereotypes they mock.

Tribalism is unfortunate. I don't have the knowledge or training to discuss that issue with the depth it deserves.

I agree that the influence of media is an important consideration. I think Warner Bros. took a good tack with their cartoon disclaimer. Unless such a disclaimer exists, and without reinforcement that certain media sends an unhealthy message, many negative things can occur. Especially in impressionable populations like children. The populations portrayed in a negative light also end up with a different experience, clearly.

[vivalarevolución]

Nice disclaimer. We should put it in the airports or on the border whenever someone enters the country.

Academic arguments: I gave up on those on the Internet long ago. They take too much work for an internet forum! Trying to convince people to change their mind is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks when dealing with other people. Good luck!

[chuckdee]

Nice disclaimer. We should put it in the airports or on the border whenever someone enters the country.

Academic arguments: I gave up on those on the Internet long ago. They take too much work for an internet forum! Trying to convince people to change their mind is perhaps one of the most difficult tasks when dealing with other people. Good luck!

I never thought these discussions were about getting someone to change their mind... it's just more information and discussion.

[ohaimark]

Eh. I always go into arguments with an intention to defend my position until it is proven wrong. If it's proven wrong, I'll admit it and convert to the better idea.

Sometimes I try to change minds by defending a position, as the two are pretty difficult to separate.

[fohat]

I always go into arguments with an intention to defend my position until it is proven wrong.

If it's proven wrong, I'll admit it and convert to the better idea.

Any reasonable person operates this way. What I have never been able to work with, and after decades of trying it only seems to get worse rather than better, is the intractable disconnect between those modes of thought based on reason and those based on emotion.

I have come to believe that there are some people who are simply "wired" to operate in a world of facts and logic, and some people who navigate the world based on an "internal compass" that is not necessarily influenced by deduction.

One of my wife's favorite phrases is "But it just doesn't `feel' right." and there is no response that can adequately address her emotions, since they are internal.

[chuckdee]

Eh. I always go into arguments with an intention to defend my position until it is proven wrong. If it's proven wrong, I'll admit it and convert to the better idea.

Sometimes I try to change minds by defending a position, as the two are pretty difficult to separate.

You're not the norm. That's how I did it before, but I realized that most people don't operate on that level. So I just glean what information that I can from the other side, and keep an eye out for that point where it becomes a circular argument, and get off the merry-go-round.

Most people have no appreciation for the art of debate, and how to discuss without denigrating, and how to respect others opinions and stances, while arguing against them. Knowing that, trying to discuss on the ideal level is a pretty futile endeavor.

[vivalarevolución]

Most people have no appreciation for the art of debate, and how to discuss without denigrating, and how to respect others opinions and stances, while arguing against them. Knowing that, trying to discuss on the ideal level is a pretty futile endeavor.

I am often in the situation that people tell me I think or analyze too much, or have a dark view of life for pointing out the less-than-feel-good aspect of something, or some other ad hominem evolution that turns the discussion into a defensive insult festival.

I argue for the sake of argument, with no intention of winning or losing or influencing, simply to share viewpoints on a subject, gather another person's opinion that I value, and maybe they will change my mind, and I will change theirs. I simply like the process. When having a discussion with someone, the style of communication and how you make a person feel matters more than what actually is said.

[ohaimark]

This all comes as no shock to me. I have many, many ex girlfriends for a reason.

Many people have called me machinelike or robotic.

I very much enjoy debate for the sake of debate. I often play the devil's advocate so well that people mistake my stance for my opinion.

[vivalarevolución]

But Gone with the Wind! What a film!

I was relieved when it was over. Long film.

[ohaimark]

You just brought an off topic topic back on topic.

[vivalarevolución]

You just brought an off topic topic back on topic.

The off topic discussion became too mentally trying for me, I couldn't keep up anymore.