against and all of them voted for it, although one of the lame duck switchers was james english from kektconnecticut, and in th sort of exchange over the complaint, courtney wanted a formal apology from the filmmakers. horowitz defended the historical accuracy of the movie. he said the 13th amendment passed by a two-vote margin in the house of january 1865 because president lincoln decided to push it through using persuasion and patronage to switch the votes of lame duck democrats all the while fending off a serious offer to negotiate peace from the south. none of the key moments from the story our film tells arei/?ét ño altered, nun of them, heklkók/r. i guess it depends on what the definition of key is. i think there are a lot of key moment that are altered. the roll call is one of them, but the other one is in the

climactic scene on the floor of the house on the day of the vote, january 1st, 1865, they have james spader and john hay running to the white house to get the note from lincoln. none of that happened. the note, we think, is real, though we don't have the original of it. it's a recollection from james ashley, but james spader's character, william bilbo, was in new york at the time, at the st. nicolas hotel. the lobbyists were in new york in the final weeks of the fight working the press. the race scene is just a hollywood chase scene. it's no different than the airport race scene in "argo" and i have no problem with that, like i said, but key moments in this story are altered. and they're altered for dramatic reasons. we need to understand that if we're going to teach it and appreciate it. i call it fiction and i don't mean it as an insult, but i do think people need to appreciate the difference betweenviction and the record. the record is far more

complicated. i think it's just as interesting, but it is messier. so with that, i wanted to wrap up my presentation and open it up for questions. i know a lot of people have seen this movie. i hope if i didn't cover a topic you wanted to talk up, you feel free to raise it now. thank you. [ applause ] >> yes, um, whether you're talking about ken burns and the civil war or godzilla, movies and television are first and foremost about entertainment. if it's not entertainment, it fails. >> right. >> this obviously didn't fail. my question, though, has to do with what do you think about daniel day-lewis' portrayal of lincoln as a person, not necessarily historically accurate words, but his portrayal? i think that's why the movie is called abraham lincoln and not

the fight for the 13th amendment. spielberg wanted to give us lincoln. did he? >> well, i was mesmerized. i have studied lincoln for over 20 years and for me, the movie felt like five minutes. you know, so that's hollywood magic. that's what it does. i cannot do that in my books. mike wrote a great book about the 13th amendment. it's not as magical as spielberg's lincoln, and he knows it and i know it, and there's magic involved. what i tried to do today is show you behind the curtain, magic involved deception. there's deception in daniel day-lewis' performance and there's a lot of assumptions or premiseses that are wrong or shaky, and people who watch the movie and don't realize that might be confused. i don't think daniel day-lewis' lincoln is a real lincoln, but i think it's a really powerful lincoln. >> i thought it was the best filmed lincoln i had seen, but the man himself despite all i

have read, still remains in many key ways a mystery. so i do have two brief questions. the first is, thaddeus stevens who well into the 1960s was the image, if you had an image at all, was this man who whatever his moderate origins was traumatized by the burning of his factory and filled with a hatred of the south and buried in a black cemetery. this may be cut out of whole cloth, that is even more fictitious than the movie, but the other is i have heard other talks about this and there was a scene with lincoln slapping robert, his son, and someone said this could never happen. the movie presented it as the deposition of something that had never happened before and would never happen again. my larger question is isn't any historian, however objective he or she may aspire to be, should they not have their own internal spielberg that leaves scenes out

that do not conform with their image of their character just as some of jefferson's biographers until quite recently dismissed any notion of a liaison with sal sally hemings because this is not something their thomas jefferson would ever do? >> we all make mistakes and we all interpret. however, we have footnotes and there's a transparency to our work that i don't always think script writers or screenwriters like tony kushner acknowledge. whether or not they acknowledge it, too many of my students get confused. it seems so real. i guarantee you, they're going to remember abraham lincoln saying he is selling himself cheap about that congressman more than anything else, or that scene in the white house right before the vote where he says, i am the president of the united states. clothed in immense power. that's probably something he never said. it comes from a recollection

from a congressman. he certainly didn't say it before those people in that moment in that way. in the script, they say he rises to what seemed like 8 feet tall. i'm studying him and appreciating him as a party leader, boss lincoln. i understand he has a gritty side, but that depiction to me seems off note. you know, historians have off notes, too. but i think the difference is that we at least try to be transparent about how we got there. >> i just want to add one footnote to all of your wonderful work and you've done all of us an enormous favor by giving us this paper, but next time you give it, there is the scene where the lobbyists drop the money on the floor. having spent eight years in albany, new york, i can promise you the fixers from albany dropped the money on the floor.

>> well, i'll yield to paul finkelman as the expert on corruption. you know, there's so many details like that that are hard to convey, but all of those lobbying scenes, every single one of them, that's all fiction. none of that comes from the record. there are accounts of bribery. none of those accounts are in the movie. every single one of those scenes is pure invention from tony horowitz. i think that's legitimate artistic license to a degree, but people need to realize what it is. >> hey, matt. as a teacher, i mean, we have an important duty to our students. and it's movies like lincoln and gettysburg that draw that desire to learn more. and for us the teachers, we have to give them the tools. >> right. >> to help them depict what is fact and what is not fact. but i think lincoln will have a

better -- i think it's more of a positive in that it will hopefully draw people to want to learn more about lincoln. >> sure, but you agree with me, right? at the heart of the movie, there is this depiction of bribery that lincoln is not only aware of but he condoned. >> true. >> yeah. >> that's pretty dark. >> i know, it's very dark, and you compare it to modern-day politics where, you know, you have congress that's been doing insider trading for years. >> yeah. >> and all of these other things that lends to support what this movie unfortunately is saying. ñ puts your finger right on it because everyone including tony horowitz and steven spielberg are comparing this to modern-day politics. it's a lesson more about modern day politics in some ways than 19th century politics. 19th century politics were corrupt, but it was different. there's a scene on the day of

the vote where fernando wood is waving papers saying i have affidavits. that's not 19th century congress. that's what you realize when you see a movie like lincoln. or think about mr. smith goes to washington, almost all of what we think we know about past politics comes from movies. and popular culture, and we absorb it so much, we think it's real. that's why it's so important to try to sort it out. i don't want to be one of those scholar squirrels that gore vidal used to make fun of, but that's what i have been doing, digging around in the script and pointing out the small differences, but ultimately, they matter. as much as i think you're right, the lincoln movie will produce good things, when we teach it, teachers need to be aware of how it departs from what we know about the record. greg. you need to wait for the microphone. >> sorry, how does it skew in terms of younger audiences? because my experience, which

could be -- which is only anecdotal, when i poll my question classes. many more have seen django and vampire hunter than lincoln. they see lincoln as a movie for not even their parents, for their grandparents. that could be puculiarities of my students. >> my line about the vampire hunter is, it's not all true. i went to see the lincoln movie in the theater three times, and each time i was the youngest one in the room, which i think proves your point, but i do think that even if the kids didn't see it in the theaters, i don't know what the demographics are of the audience, but they're going to see it in the classroom for a generation if not two. it's going to be powerful and they're going to get it that way. i teach it and i'm going to continue to teach it and many others will and it's really important that we focus on how

they perceive it in the classroom more than anything else. one more question, paul? okay. >> if i were you, i would be champing at the bit to try to get the early drafts of the script to see how it developed. i don't think you'll get it but it would be really interesting because i bet you anything that those scenes that are less historically accurate were the ones that evolved most. >> you're probably right. you know, there's no doubt that the script evolved. according to all the reports we have, it started out as a sweeping narrative of the whole war and i think it was spielberg who said we have to focus on thas moment. that's why he's such a great story teller. i'll be honest, in my classes, i have had a tendency in the past to pass over the 13th amendment

narrative and focus more on the emancipation proclamation. now because of the movie and because of other works, you know, i feel like i'm aware in a way that i wasn't of the dramatic potential of the story, even as i note the discrepancies between the record and the film, but that's what great story tellers do, they show you drama and moments some of us miss because we don't have those skills. that's another thing hollywood got right about the 13th amendment, even as they got some things wrong. so thank you very much. [ applause ] this weekend on american history tv, we'll take a look back 200 years ago this week when british military forces set the white house and u.s. capitol on fire. we'll also hear about how british admiral george coburn used washington's waterways to invade and burn the city. here's a preview.

coburn's idea is to make use of several different waterways in an attack on washington. if the british force simply sealed up the potomac, everybody would know that washington was the ultimate target. coburn decides that, or recommends that the force be split up, that one squadron sail up the potomac river and threaten the capital in the city of alexandria. the main force is going to go up the putuxen river into southern maryland, and the advantage of the putuckson is it would shield the ultimate british intention. it could mean many things. it might mean an attack on washington, but it also could mean an over land attack on baltimore or an attack on annapolis or it could mean that the british were simply chasing

after commodore joshua barney who was the american commander of the chesapeake flu toa who had a flatoa of shallow draft barges that were perfect for navigating the shallow waters of the chesapeake and the rivers feeding into it. barn barney, by the summer of 1814, had been trapped in the river. he was in the further up river than the british, and the british could use barney's presence in the river to more or less shield their movement toward the capital. and that's exactly what coburn recommends and it's what the british commanders general ross and admiral alexander cochran who is in charge of the entire fleet here in north america agree to do. >> this weekend, live coverage of a panel of authors and

historians as they discuss the 1814 british burning of washington. it's live at 1:00 p.m. eastern. then more from author steve vogel on how the british utilized washington's waterways during the invasion. that's sunday at 6:00 and 10:00 p.m. eastern, all right here on c-span3. sgloop next, jeffly mcclurken evaluates "gone with the wind" looking at how it became the source on southern culture in the civil war and reconstruction in light of the depression era in which it was created. this is part of a course on u.s. history in film at the university of mary washington in fredericksburg, virginia. it's an hour, 20 minutes. good morning. as we prepare to talk today about the classic 1939 movie "gone with the wind" i'm going to review our discussion from last time.

i'm going to talk a little bit about the making of the film, and then we'll turn to your comments and questions that you posted to the class wiki. our goal here is to evaluate gone with the wind as a secondary source about the past and a primary source about the time in which it was made. so our last class, we talked about the historical context within which this film operates. we talk about the old south or the antebellum south, which despite a fair amount of diversity and agricultural crops was dominated politically and economically by elite son-in-law planters using slave grown cotton. we talked about how most antebellum whites didn't own slaves but they placed whites above blacks, a system that reduced to some extent the social tensions that existed between slave holders and nonslave holding whites in the south. we also talked about violence

and the threat of violence that was inherent in slavery. yet many sounch whites in this context believed slavery was some kind of reciprocal relationship between whites and blacks in a concept discussed as paternalism, and how surprised slave holders were to find out during and after the civil war african-americans didn't feel the same way. we talked about the experiences of soldiers and civilians in the civil war, a conflict that engaged millions of men and women on both sides. the war killed hundreds of thousands, perhaps 750,000, according to a new study done by j. david hacker, and wounded or otherwise damaged likely millions. we talked about the important roles that women played, important varied roles running farms and businesses, making war supplies and uniforms. teaching, nursing, spying, stealing, even fighting. we talked specifically about the battle for atlanta and sherman's

march to the sea in 1864 and the ways that affecting the union war effort, the way it guaranteed the election of 1864 for abraham lincoln and its impact on southern civilians. moving on to the post-war years, we looked a the struggles between black and white southerns about what economy, society, and political system would emerge. we explored the many ways former slaves worked to establish themselves as independent members of society and their efforts to separate themselves from whites while earning a living in share cropping. we talked about the long term consequences on society of the deaths of nearly 20% of white men of military age and the physical or psychological consequences for many more and efforts by southern white women to rebuild them, and we examines the resurgence in the '70s and

'80s to retake control often in opposition with groups. we looked at the ways white southern writers began to rewrite the history of the war into a version commonly known as the lost cause. and finally, we introduced margaret mitchell's book "gone with the wind" in 1936, and its run-away popularity that became the basis for this movie. now, as we talk about the movie itself, it's not a stretch, it's not a stretch to argue that "gone with the wind" is the most popular american historical film ever made. polls culted by afi, by the american film institute in the 1990s, indicated it was the favorite film of most americans. and afi itself in its top 100 films of all time ranked it as fourth overall. until recently, gone with the wind ranked in the top 20 money making films of all time, and by

some estimates would be first if inflation were taken into account. avatar at $2.8 billion is the current leader with actual money as opposed to inflated money. now, the film first opened in the second week of december 1939 and by january 1st had sold over a million dollar worth of tickets and in the midst of the great depression. it received 13 academy award nominations and won 8 oscars. it played for an amazing 232 weeks in london with 110 million viewers in 1976 tv premier was the highest watched prod cast to that point. something like 90% of americans had seen the movie at least once. historian jim cohen has noted it became a worldwide phenomenon as well. the book was banned by the nazis while the french resistance saw it as a symbolic representation

of strength. the movie was one of two films requested by vietnam's liters as part of a cultural exchange between the u.s. and vietnam. anyone know what the other film they asked for was? king kong. in japan, the movie was turned into a successful all female musical. all right, the movie is probably the most single most influential interpretation of the civil war in 20th century popular culture. the film premiered appropriately enough in atlanta, and thousands of fans came to see it and margaret mitchell herself who praised the film and the actors for, quote, the grand things they have done. now, mitchell was killed by a drunk driver in august 1949, leaving her next book unfinished. that book was not a sequel, all right. she refused to write one. she refused to even comment on whether rhett and scarlet would

get back together. when her estate approved the writing of a sequel, both the sequel and gone with the wind were once again best sellers. mitchell's book has sold tens of millions of copies and it's never been out of front, yet the movie has reached millions more people than the book as. as a movie, gone with the wind was intended to unify two genres of hollywood films, the male oriented war film and the woman's picture. what do people call the woman's picture today? chick flicks, right? it was intended to unify a guy film and a chick flick. by combining rhett butler and scarlet o'hara. the producer created one of the most popular movies of all time. the scale of this movie is unprecedented and it was the most expensive film made to this point. he paid mitchell $50,000 for the screen writes, which doesn't sound like much, but if you

adjust for inflation, it's about $800,000. the cast had nearly 60 leading or supporter roles, 2,000 extras. they built 90 sets which consumed a million board feet of lumber. production exceeded $4 million, adjusted, it would be $62 billion, and the initial cut was six hours long, so be grateful. lots of money was spent to make the movie sets and costumes conform to margaret mitchell's extremely detailed and supposedly well researched book. she actually paid attention and tried to research what the weather was like when sherman :q invaded atlanta, right? incredibly, it got many of the details right. not all of them, as we'll talk about. so they wanted to pay attention to the details of the sets and costuming, in part, because many of them would have read the book, and partly because she was

standing there. she insists on authenticity from the film, and sellsnic himself stated over and over again, he wanted complete historical accuracy for gone with the wind, at least in some areas. so he hired a southern dialogue coast and etiquette adviser, an expert on civil war artecture and art. the costume designer spent time in atlanta museums collecting pieces of cloth that he then had duplicated by a textile mill. ultimately, the women's costumes cost $100,000 to make and another $10,000 to wash during the filming. it's amazing this movie ever got made. it had three different directors, two of them working on the project at the same time. it had 17 different screenwriters. even an elderly f. scott fitzgerald pitched in at one point. it had conflicts between seemingseeming ly everyone on set, including vivian lee and clark gable, the two lead actors who really hated

each other. it also faced a great deal of pressure from roy wilkins and the actor who played mamie and the actor who played prissy on the characterization of black actors in the film. it's slightly less racist, classest, and feminist than the book. most people loved the film when it came out, but one film scholar noted even then a few of the reviewers had concerns with its historical portrayal. one viewer noted gone with the wind needed to be focused on simply because, quote, it's an overinflated example of the usual false movie approach to history. sounds like my kind of guy. and the film does indeed have some issues as a secondary source about the civil war. so let's begin there. let's start a discussion there with what the film gets wrong. all right?

now, as a number of your commented on the wiki, the thing that stands out more than perhaps anything else is the portrayal of race relations in general and of african-americans in particular. as usual, i have gone in and highlighted particular comments and parts of comments to frame the discussion of the film. so a number of you talked about the way that people addressed -- the way that african-americans were portrayed, the way in general african-americans were portrayed. why don't we start by talking about the character of prissy? sighs. frustration. groans, right? what bothered you about the portrayal of prissy in this? in this movie? >> yes. >> yes, okay. the entire portrayal. fair enough.

>> it was a total caricature of every stereotype at the time of what a black woman was like. >> okay. >> hysterical voice. >> very high pitched, squeaky. >> not a romantic voice. >> it is not. >> also i thought that you said that the actress that portrayed her was voicing some concerns about the character. >> she was, absolutely. butterfly mclean expressed a number of concerns about the way her character was portrayed. >> then why did she do it? >> a good question. a good paying time at a time when most african-american actresses and actors were not given those roles. we're not far away from the birth of the nation where most black actor s were not black. they were white actors in black face. and there was some thought part of what they were doing was working from within to make it better than it was. i understand your skepticism. yeah.

here. >> with her voice, with it being hysterical, it was also very simple-minded, like she couldn't understand a lot of what was going on. >> okay. certainly played as a fool, really. yeah, sam. >> i think, yeah, she and a lot of the other actual black actors and actresses in this film were almost portrayed as comedic relief at times, really sarcastic. >> okay, so that is one potential explanation that we might see as not so bad, right? they're being used in a particular way, right? i think we still have problems with that, but i think -- >> [ inaudible ] >> right, right. other comments about prissy? yeah. >> she said that she knows how to rear a child, when she knows nothing about it. and she says, i have gone and talked to this person, when she

hasn't. it's kind of silly. >> right, so i don't know nothing about birthing no babies is this famous line, but she doesn't actually know anything. all right, what about, so we've got -- what about big sam? a number of you commented on big sam. especially that scene where big sam and a number of other conscripted slaves are going to the lines, right, to dig ditches effecti effectively, to create the confederate fortifications. >> they played into that whole puturnalist mentality. big sam is almost concerned about scarlet's well being, almost paternal towards her in lack of her father being there, and very much like, oh, big sam. like i'm so concerned for you. it's like, really, they're sending him to the front lines. it's dangerous. >> right. okay. other comments about big sam. yeah, jeremy. >> they were all awfully happy to be going. >> they were exceeding lee happy. they were thrilled to being good

to the lines. >> almost like a musical, marching in unison. it reminded me of the blindside when big sam would talk to the other characters, where you have portrayal of a character who was just grateful to be there when that's not really the way it was at all. i thought it was interesting because you said the movie was a little less racist than the book was. >> hard to believe, i know. yeah, no, so i mean, we'll talk about this a little more later, but in some ways the book, there are ways that the book is much more explicit in its terms and its terminology, so the book fairly extensively used the n-word, and that was a decision that was made to take that out of the film, but yeah, no, it's still slightly less racist, still racist. right. yeah. okay. so we've got big sam, and we've got prissy, right? by the way, there was a study

done in which people were asked basically about how they felt about scarlet smacking prissy, and the vast majority of people said that was completely appropriate and warranted. right? it made her such an annoying character that that seemed somehow appropriate. okay. what about mamie? right, because i think mamie complicates our notion of these stereotypes a little bit. how does she complicate our notion of the stereotyping of african-americans here? >> she stayed forever. >> okay. all right, so she is incredibly loyal. she's always there. right? you would never know that emancipation happened. there's no sense of that. and you know, even big sam comes back, right? pork sticks around, prissy is still there. they're still around, but mamie is a constant presence.

how else does mamie complicate our notion? yeah? >> the mamie character -- she cared for her so much, and i feel like in reality, they probably wouldn't have cared. >> okay. all right. >> i think the respect that scarlet gave back to her was interesting because scarlet would listen to her and value her input, and sort of be like whatever and ignoring her. >> mamie occupied an unusual rule because she's listened to. she's seen in some ways as a positive influence on scarlet. yeah. >> i think the film made more of an effort to portray her as a little more of a three-dimensional character than some of the other african-american characters. rhett said she's one person whose opinion he values. >> she stands out. i think you're wright.

well put. three dimensional character in what are mostly two and one-dimensional characters, right? okay. okay. so -- mamie in some ways represents, i think, a larger, a larger nuance to southern white understandings of african-americans, right? because the name mamie was not an incidental one, right? the name mamie that was chosen by margaret mitchell in part because many elite southern antibellum families had a black woman who took care of the children and cared for the children and was integrated into the family, right? but i think we have to be careful about how necessarily those women would have seen it. did they care about these white

children? they may have. but it was still a relationship of a power relationship. it was still a relationship in which any sort of infraction could result in punishment. it was a relationship in which there was a long-term, long-standing threat of violence if something went wrong. i guess i want to -- rachel raises a question here about the notion that this is an almost equal relationship, right? and i'm curious because does it come across that way as an almost equal relationship between mamie and scarlet and mamie and rhett? yeah? >> my initial inpulse is impulse is to say now. she doesn't always listen to

her, and she's kind of nasty to her, but scarlet is kind of nasty to everyone. >> i would say at the very least, it comes off as reciprocate. >> you get closer to that perhaps ideal of a southern white perspective of how these relationships worked, right? okay. jeremy. >> it's almost in a way mother and child because you don't always listen to your mom when she talks to you, and mamie seemed to have like a really good, i'm looking out for your best interests here. she got to yell at the entire family, she could give people funny looks throughout the film and people were like, that's just mamie. to me, the almost equal relationship is correct. whether it's a good one and why i question her given a academy award for that makes me question the hollywood academy, but i think it is almost equal because she could get away with so much more than anyone else personified in the film. >> yeah? >> i think the scene where

scarlet is putting on the dress to go to the party at 12 oaks and mamie is like, you can't wear that until 12:00, and she's pulling the dress down and she's pulling it back up, that's a good scene to say, no, you have these rules. you have to follow these, and scarlet, she's not -- they're struggling, you know, like mamie has some power and scarlet has some power and scarlet's not really a child anymore, so mamie is not so much a mother figure as maybe she has been. it's a very cochicated dynamic that i think would have been hard to portray, especially during this time period. >> yeah, jason. >> on tuesday, you mentioned that the structure of race and how it played and how even the poorest white person would have been scene as better than any plaque pers black person, and mamie gets away with saying white trash this, white trash that, and she's not punished for it or anything like that. >> yeah. >> i think mamie represents that the comfort of the old life, especially after scarlet's

mother dies and i feel like scarlet looks to mamie as the thing that she can hold on to, what she's comfortable with. >> a surrogate for ellen o'hary, so she continues to play that role. and representative of her mother, and representative of the antibellum world that is lost, right? she gets to be that point of continuity for tara and for scarlet. okay. okay. so we don't really -- we don't really talk much about the fact that we know that something like 25% of all slaves run away to union lines during the war and afterwards, almost everybody else leaves as well. you don't get much sense of that. that's not surprising, i think. right? given the type of movie this is and the goals of the movie, but it is something that the movie misses out on. now, i mean, there's certainly more slaves at tara than there

are free blacks at tara after the war, but they sort of disappear, right? brook brought up three points here that i think are worth talking about. one is about the mamie image that is still around us today, right? that that concept of the mamie, right, is an incredibly powerful advertising concept, right? and even someone like aunt jemima you could see evolving over the years was until relatively recently looked an k:c lik film. that i think is one important point. the or thing that -- the other two things brooke brings up is she challenges our ability to keep this movie because it's not based on history. it's based on a book of romantic fiction, right? and she challenges the notion that the black characters in

this are not smart, right? so let's take each of those things in turn. do you agree with her contention that the movie isn't based on history? and the second part of that is, if it's not based on history, does that matter in our evaluating it? >> amanda, go ahead. >> i thought it was, like, because they tried to make it so historically accurate, they are trying to make an historical film. if they had just taken it as a romantic fiction story and not tried to get all of the facts right, you might say, oh, that's fantasy, but because they tried to make it so historically accura accurate, they have a responsibility to then be accurate, and they're not. >> okay, mary quinn. >> i would argue that the film is attempting to base itself on history because even in the film, it's explicit about attempting to sketch this image

of a dying age. it's extremely romanticized, but they're pretty obvious about what it is they're trying to do. >> carrie? >> they opened the entire movie with a story of the old south, so they really set themselves up from the beginning to play what you were saying, the moonlight magnolias image, but they took pains to be accurate. even though they're basing it off fiction based off history, they clearly made an attempt, so they did have a certainly amount of responsibility, but, you know, it's a complicated character, a complicated representation. >> i think unlikepatriot, it's a family story set against the backdrop of the american revolution, the proximity of time in which this was made in comparison to the actual event makes it much more historically relevant and important that they are attentive to historical accuracy than the patriot, which

was what, 230 years later? 225 years later? >> all right, jeremy. >> i think brooke made a good point, based on a romantic fiction but based on the memory of the south. that to me is important because it's a very nostalg nostalgic p. it's based on a memory so you have different ideas of what's going on. that's like the most important part of it because it is a memory of a time long ago that we're very nostalgic about. >> that's my point, because it is so close to the time that it's portraying that it is a warped sense of the south, i guess is what i was trying to get. because they do remember the south, they can't accurately portray it how we would do it now. we don't have that memory. we don't talk to our grandfathers. >> they're looking at it emotionally and from firsthand memories as opposed to academic

reconstruction. >> yeah. >> okay. >> we're going back to the opening text of the movie, they kind of set this whole public memory thing up because they say how it's a land of knights and cavali cavalierness. >> it reminds me of the discussion of the birth of the nation how they were basing it on, they thought they were making a historically accurate film or wilson said it was, anyway. >> right. >> but it was still playing towards the prejudices of the time which i'm sure we'll get to soon. >> yep. >> so, i mean, it's what they had to work with. >> okay, all right, to some extent, this was the general belief of at least the people who were in power, the people making decisions about these things. this was the general sense of how things actually were. brooke's point about not being

far enough away from it, this was something that southern whites in some ways were still living in and with, is a really important one. it's difficult to get that di distance here. >> not just the southern whites. i have read that patty, was that her name, mamie, was a daughter of a slave. >> right, so it has a particular resonance to her, right? which is part of why, perhaps, you can imagine why she would be frustrated with a particular characterization. yeah, mary quinn? >> speaking of like the individuals, i believe civil war veterans were alive at the time. some confederate veterans were present at the premiere of the film. >> very old, but yes. >> it was still a memory when the film was released. >> okay. and then what about the second contention here, or at least the third contention here, was that

african-american characters in this film are smarter and more sensible than many of the whites? and the second part of that, which is that's on purpose, right? that's an intentional. okay. what do you think about that? >> i kind of bring up spike lee's point of the magical negro comes in and tells the white characters how wise they are but don't do anything and are passive observers of the white characters who will go and do things and get married and the black characters are static. they don't do anything with their lives even if they are wiser in a way. >> you see that role in lot of other films as well. okay. other comments on that idea? again, mami is the complicating

factor here. i don't think anyone would make the case that prisy is smarter, right? she's just not being played that way. certainly pork is not being played that way. big sam is not being played that way. right? again, mamey is that complicating factor. what are some other cexamples o caricatures and slavery in this film? >> the little girl -- >> absolutely. these young slave girls fanning the daughter of slave holders while they take their beauty rest in the afternoon, right? can't stay up for the picnic. >> yeah. >> there's like black politicians coming in after the war oppressing the white people.

taking all the power. wearing suits. being superior to everyone else. >> right. so there's that scene right after the war where you have joan us wilkerson who gets fired at the beginning riding in this carriage with this well dressed black man. there's the implications with these veteranss staggering home >> we talked about the happy slaves going off to fight the yankees, right? >> what about the moment where pork gets the one of jerald oherra, right? ties the white family and black family together. oh, i can't take that, i can't take that, right? or the moment in atlanta, right, where, you know, you have these

former slaves sounding foolish, sounding ignorant. almost mincestral like in the language they are using. easily being manipulated by that slimy carpet baggers promise of 40 acres and a mule if you vote as your friends do. this easy troep of manipulation. the movie doesn't address any of the real problems of slavery or racial reconstruction or the development of share cropping. instead we see african-americans as infalallized and loyal to southern whites unless they had been corrupted by northern whites. certainly it's different than the images of african-americans as animals. it's not necessarily better, right? other stereotyped white characters?

yeah. completely useless. others. >> hannah. >> there's ashley. the true gentleman. live for honor. don't disgrace your family kind of person. >> yeah. in some ways ashley is almost one dimensional, right? there's not a whole lot to him. what about bell watting, right. so this is a trope. julia roberts made her career on that stereo type. pretty woman -- that notion of the prostitute with the heart of gold is this incredibly powerful but stock character.

>> i felt like it was trying to skoez this hypocrisy within the white community. there's all of these useless wealthy white elderly women floating around the wilfilm as well. i felt like it definitely was not trying to make the white characters look good. >> plenty of useless white characters. >> it was interesting they didn't seem to have any poor whites at all. >> right. >> they talk about what's her face at the beginning who's the white trash but you never see her until she turns up after the war and marries re-up. so there's no real portrayal of anything accept the rich plantation owning elite.

even bell wattling she's rich. >> jason. >> before the war you don't see anybody that's struggling. it's only because the northern aggression and everything they've done. they've ruined everything and now people are making clothes out of drapes and stuff like that. >> you have the poor white people because how much they are oppressed. the blacks call them white trash. they actively push them away and the blacks are actually higher than that. >> in some ways you see mamey get away with talking about white trash the way she does. you do have some of that sense which is a turnabout in the way

that it would have worked in southern society. >> what about melanie hamilton wilks. is she a one dimensional character or three dimensional character. >> i think she's there to be loyal to scarlet. she's too good to be true. there's no personal live that could forgive the stuff she does. i think it's just -- i think she's a literary device for scarlet. just a foil. >> anybody else? >> i kind of disagree because there are times in the movie where she frustrated me because i was like you can't be that happy all the time but at the same time i think she was a strong character because she changed the way that red thought about things and then she also -- at the end when melanie was dying and scarlet was crying, i felt like some of that

might have been real but then i feel like even though she had the same perspective throughout the whole movie she did a lot more other characters so i think she was a little bit more than just before. >> just a foil. kenned kendra. >> to me she was the strength cause. she was always behind it and they had to be strong for it where scarlet hated it but melanie was the one -- the justness of it. that sort of thing. >> she set herself that melanie was the real heroin. the real roamantroamant, romantd southern bell. she's the old symbol of herself in doing so she plays a foil for scarlet. scarlet is very much a product of the new south. i want to talk about later how

we think that works out for her and what the implications of that are. are there -- i want to talk a little bit about gender relations. i want to raise the question about mr. ohara because he doesn't seem to be the one in charge of the plantation, right? why do you think that is? how does he come across? is he -- what does this say about masculinity and male authority during this time ç >> it's hard to decide -- being portrayed as masculine but it's hard because after his wife died he kind of loses it. >> right. >> so it's kind of different in that way. i wish we could have seen another type of male figure like

him portrayed so i could decide how -- >> we see him -- i mean, yeah. before he snaps like we only see a little bit of him, right. >> even in that snap, he didn't have the authority. it was his wife walking up to him saying fire this man because of something he had done. he really didn't have the authority. it was his wife so maybe that was how scarlet saw that households were run but he never really had authority. >> but just think about what you just said, right? his wife went to him and told him to fire someone, right? she couldn't fire the overseer, right? he had to do that. >> he had to do that but it's still his wife -- >> no. but i'm not trying to take away from that but i think that's important. ultimately it is still a society in which the father, the husband, is the one to make that ultimate decision he could have said no. it might have been very

unpleasant for him if he did but he could have said no. >> we talked about in class the other day where women were in charge of the household. they had a lot of power themselves as far as taking care of the household and the slaves and in charge of it i didn't see it as that much of a stretch where she would go to hill and tell them if it was part of the household that was run and affecting that. >> what are the grounds on which he is fired. >> she goes to deliver the mistress's baby who we get is a lower class person so i thought her role was in the social aspects, not in the actual running of the plantation itself. >> all right so in this case it's about morality. she's making this decision on moral grounds. she's something that women would

have aub salubsolutely had the r role in. >> doesn't he also repeatedly say we're going to wait for mrs. ohara. she says it beforehand, too. >> ellen ohara is a very strong wom woman. i want tubialk about her in a little bit. there's no question that she stands out but let's come back to that. >> what about the nursing scenes, right? brooke brings up that the nursing scenes didn't necessarily fit what we learned in class. what is the role between the interactions of women and men in those hospitals. >> i think brooke put in our comment too that the women weren't really around the ben changing bandages but scarlet was all up in there. she's was literally watching what withas going on.

women usually removed from that because they were that pure for that. >> another thing to think about is that all of the hospital scenes that are portrayed are in the south at the end of the war so there are very few men around to help as nurses anyway. so there was a greater chance that women would take up these roles as acting as nurses whether she would do it in gash to do it is an entirely different matter but it is certainly possible to have women filling those roles in hospital. >> in the south it is more likely to see this in extreme circumstances would women would step in. anybody else? okay. what about scarlet owning a mill, running a mill and

gavelanting, right? does that stand outside of your understanding of gender norms at this time period. >> i think after the war it would have been a little bit more acceptable because of some of the things that i've read post war for women they did have a little bit more control in finding jobs. maybe not finding the fill amil owning the mill but i'm surprised her husband didn't have a little bit more power in that. >> she married frank kennedy first to get his money and then she used his money in order to build this sort of lumber empire that she has. but she has to marry him in order to get his money to use it. it does still belong to him to some extent. i get the feeling that legally his name is on the power on things but she's the one yielding the power in a social

relationship. that's how she gets her business power. >> part of what we're getting to is the difference between the law and daily practice. there's no question. it's absolutely the case that frank kennedy owns that mill. now, frank kennedy is not running that mill, scarlet is running that mill. it's unusual that she would have been so dominate that way but not completely unthinkable but we're right to sort of keep in mind that what we see is not necessarily what would have been in the legal situation. >> would it have transferred to brett when kennedy died? >> depending on the specifics of inheritance law at that time and whether there was anything -- it depends on what frank kennedy's will said but yeah scarlet likely would have inherited it because they didn't have any children and then when he married her it would have been gone to him.

>> there's another aspect of gender relations that i just want to mention because i think there's a promotion of a particular kind of gender violence in this film. >> all along i thought they are all kind of rude to each other but the scene where they are living in their really nice house at the end and both scarlet and her are thinking and they get into an argument and he takes her upstairs and rapes her and she wakes up all happy and perky in the morning so thanks 1930s. >> there's no question. domestic violence certainly existed at this time but the way this gets filmed. you're absolutely right. her waking up with a big smile on her face the next morning has all kind of problems for what it

means about raipe and consent ad an appropriate marriage. let's talk a little bit about costuming and sets. i'm going to allow laura michael and mary quinn to talk about why they are so annoyed by especially one person scene. what scene was most traumatic for you? well, the wildly famous scene where scarlet is lacing her courset and manning is tugging away at her is. if i were being really kind and forgiving i would argue that she's trying to look period. it represents an extremely fashionable ideal. most women did not lace their

coursets like this wbecause it' not practical. they needed to breathe. i think this scene has contributed to the misunderstanding that a lot people have about 19th century fashion thinking it was this restricting impractical thing which it really wasn't. i'm not saying it wasn't an uncomfortable garment to wear but it's not like it was made out in this film. >> well, scarlet was always -- she had this little tiny waist. you can see in the scenes a lot of times when she had her dress unbuttoned and you can see there's skin. these are pretty large under garments that they are wearing and the sill oe hhouette she ha the scenes where she's taking her nap and wearing her courset and drawls is very different from the silhouette you see at

parties and things. you can't wear a period correct courset and look the way that she does. she did he some things ---ed this a lot of trim that started on the solders and came into the waste which makes your solders look broader but the setting for the sleeves during the instance. the shoulder sleeves during this time were very far down because it helped to widen your shoulders to wake your waist took smaller and they had lots of modern seams that have narrow shoulders which are much more characteristics of the 30s. >> so part of what we see is an idolization of not the fashion of the 1850s through the 70s but a 1930s version of the 50s through 70s. >> page. especially in movie that's are made in this period of time in the early mid-90s. a lot of the accessories, a lot

of some of the articles clothing that these women are wearing and even the musketts, some of those are probably original. from a preservation standpoint and every time because the morning broach that scarlet wore was most certainly they would have just bought an original somewhere rather than making it with the hair and everything. just seeing that from a preservation standpoint makes me want to break the tv. >> carry they did sort of fudge a lot of the period under garments. it doesn't change your waist size but the way you carry yourself of it's designed to make you hold your shoulders back. when it wasn't convenient they

didn't bother. if you look carefully you see she's wearing a 1930s bra under the nightshirt. so they clearly are like no one is going to notice. i will just wear a bra, no big deal. >> at this point people couldn't pause the movie while they were watching it. this is before. so they can get away with things that they can't get away with today. a couple of other things with the set. tara entirely too big to be a georgia house. 12 oaks is oddly styled for an upcountry georgia plantation. architects say it looks more like something in virginia during this time period. all of this may be wouldn't matter accept that he said he wanted historical accuracy and claimed he used a number of

historical consultants. the film implies a sort of historical auj ent i, authenticity. in the film's opening scene, the slaves are out in the fields picking cotton. the problem with that is that we know it's april of 1861 because of the news of fort sumter arrives. you don't pick cotton in april it's very early in the growing process. let's talk about the readings that you all did. we looked at articles and journals of southern elite women like mary chest nut and by

southern defenders of slavery and northern observers like carl sures an the mayor of atlanta and general sherman. having read all of that how does the movie align or disagree with the readings of the era. what do our readings under to our understanding of this time period that our movie doesn't. >> in the film slaves are very happy. >> so when we see that in hairiot jacob's stuff. we get a sense of a very different experience. how about -- go ahead. >> in the reading, i forget if

it's harry jacobs or james stuart but when the girl was raped everyday and she said she cot tell her grandmother because she would be look down upon that really surprised me because i thought -- later on in the reading she said her grandmother suspected it when she became -- when she was maturing she knew something would happen to her from the master so they surprised me when she was actually pregnant from being raped. the grandma looked down upon her. it kind of confused me because since the grandmother expected it because she knew this was sadly the nortrjrjrj>x and thet she -- it just really surprised me. >> this is heariot jacob's story, this story is very complex about how to deal with

these assaults by whites on blacks. >> marry chest nut's diary brings up the possibility about slavery that slavery isn't such a good thing, right? he calls it a monstrous system. so you do get some sense but there's no question of slavery that occurs in the film. let's move onto talk about the movie as a primary source. about the time and people who made it. how does the great depression affect this film? how is it reflected in this film? amanda. >> -- talked about how scarlet's story is similar to what people went through in the great depression. she's wealthy or at least well off and then because of the north all her wealth is taken away and i kind of connected that to like new york city as being the stock market so people could blame them. even if you weren't wealthy you had a lifestyle and then you

became poor and then it showed when some finally gets all the when it may be ends . so those parallels create the people who saw it and the great depression that's being depic depicted. >> i just want the comment that the story has pairrallels from stories that i used to hear from my grandmother. he was the youngest of eight. he group up during the great depression. >> i think many people would have felt that parallel. scarlet's line as god asç my witness i will never be hungry again deeply resonated with the

film audience. what does the film have owe sto about land? >> that it's the most important thing and the only thing that can't be taken away from you. i quoted when he is talking to scarlet at the beginning about what tara should mean to her. did you going to tell me that i'm almost going to the irish accident. if you goisee land is the only thing worth dying for because it's the only thing that lasts. just before the intermissi inte when she falls on her knees before tara and swears as god as my witness i will never go

hungry again. that's very much tied to the location and at the very end she says, tara, home, i will go home. right? so that's going to fix it. that's an incredibly powerful sense. >> i think this adds an element that these people weren't fighting so they could keep people in subjugation. this is where they grew up and had a right to fight for their homes. it makes them feel more look crusaders rather than the version that they wanted black people to keep working for them so they could keep sipping their tea. >> what are some of the other ways that we see the time period

affecting this particular version of history? so paige points out when the premier emerges, there's actually actual kinds of confederate flags and veterans show up at the premier, right? it is very explicitly about a celebration of the confederacy and of confederate heritage, right? there's no question that that's part of it. both hannah and germ jeremy ta about the portrayal of the north in this. how much do you think this fits into it's being made at the time period that it was? hannah. >> apparently during the 1930s that's what historians thought of the civil war.

that's the war of aggression. it's this very clear notion that it's the north's fault. >> there's the notion that the south never caught up. they say they are still finding bodies in 1992 in the south and civil war. i think the reference made earlier is that the north caused the great depression in some people's minds because they crashed the stock market and no one else was doing this sort of nonsense. when you look at the film and the locations that are very hard hit and trying to recover from the civil war. it's a very good parallel. >> right. okay. what about gender relations. i want to return to this notion of scarlet in terms of how she fits within the gender relations of the time and kendall suggests that scarlet is a ruthless money

loving woman who defies traditional gender roles, right? what is the moral of this story? what are women supposed to take from gone with the wind? >> ke in,the way i saw it was tu had scarlet who was never going to go hungry again so she will do what she can he to make it so when she does depend on men she manipulates them like kennedy and runs a business and all of that. she eventually marries for the money. he makes her a deal. that's why she marries women. but then there's melany who marries ashley and has the kid and supports the cause. everyone loves her. but everyone hates scarlet so you have the ruthless almost mannish scarlet who everyone

hates but the mto the melanie w everyone loves. >> melanie dies at the end of the movie so i mean, i'm not sure what to take away from it to be honest. >> it's complicated. fair enough. >> she's very much i'm going manipulate to get whatever i want. but every time that slick red guy shows up she literally swoons with him and begs him to stay so it's this huge conflict of you're very independent and try to get what you want or you really need a man in your life which both are very bad things so -- >> paige. >> in portions of the movie you kind of get a sense that you need a man to get what you want because if scarlet didn't marry -- i can't remember his name but the lumber baron,

kennedy, then she wouldn't have the money to start her lumber business and get what she wanted with that. >> there's no question it would be very difficult for a single won or widow to survive in this environment entirely on their own so -- anybody else on this particular issue. >> so she was widowed twice in the film? >> yes. >> would people have stopped marring her after a while? >> not red. >> well, i think, you know, i don't know of anything -- i mean, you might say there's bad luck. you might say that there's something going on but i don't know of anything that would have prevented someone from marring with her amount of wealth. there would be somebody willing to take a chance. one last thing about why it was so popular in the 30s and 40s.

why do they sell a million dollars worth of tickets in a a few weeks. >> it is this beautiful romantic image of a time that never really was. it's beautiful and exciting and they can get away from how much their lives absolutely suck. >> that's why the movie industry does incredibly well during the great depression for exactly that reason. so we are to the point where we talk about what the movie does right. 12 minutes left. >> how does the movie measure up historically speaking when dealing with some of the elite white characters and their lives, better or worse than how