Gone With the Wind pulled from Memphis theater due to its racially insensitive content

[jcmaine72]

I'm not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, it seems a little excessive. On the other, however, it's difficult to fault the theater's management for being sensitive to their community, especially considering it's primarily African-American.

If anything, perhaps old films like this should be seen as an opportunity to educate people about the nature of white supremacy and racism in society then, and now. Perhaps a guest speaker could introduce the film and place it in historical context.

The opportunity to educate people should never be passed up. Simply removing the film isn't good enough. It needs to be replaced with something, so why not knowledge?

.............................................

‘Gone With the Wind’ pulled from Memphis theater due to its racially ‘insensitive’ content

RACHEL DESANTIS AUG 27, 2017 3:55 PM

Frankly my dear, the theater-goers certainly give a damn.

After 34 years, a historic Tennessee theater has shown "Gone With the Wind" for the last time following backlash in the wake of Charlottesville.

The Orpheum Theatre in downtown Memphis announced Friday that it will not screen the 1939 classic in its summer movie series after facing criticism from viewers who took issue with the film's "insensitive" racial content.

Full Article:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nydailynews.com/amp/entertainment/movies/wind-pulled-theater-due-racial-content-article-1.3446989

[Purveyor]

1. That'll certainly garner some indie voters to the liberal cause...NOT. eom

[dchill]

2. If movies are not allowed to reflect the times...

of the period they represent, then we are obscuring the essence of change.

And that's a bad thing.

I love "Gone With the Wind." It is a great movie.

[oberliner]

17. This is just one theatre in downtown Memphis deciding not to run the movie

There is no reason why this movie needs to be screened in this theatre every year if they no longer wish to do so - lots of other great movies out there.

[melman]

21. Yeah deciding not to run it

Because they were bullied out of it by assholes on social media. The reason they're not showing is not because 'they no longer wish to do so'. Get real.

[oberliner]

26. They weren't bullied

They said they had considered dropping it before.

They actually are getting more bullying on social media for deciding not to show the film, it seems.

[csziggy]

65. "Gone With the Wind" reflected the racism of the period in which the movie was made

And the book was written. It was not accurate as to the reality of the antebellum South and romanticized slave owners and how emancipated blacks reacted during and after the war.

The lead white characters were self centered and obnoxious - they would fit perfectly in Trump's circle of oligarchs. The lead black actors did brilliant jobs of portraying racial stereotypes - but their characters were single dimension cartoons of oppressed people.

I hated the movie when I watched it as a child and while as an adult I can appreciate the craft that went into its production, I still do not like it and will never watch it again.

[murielm99]

3. I think this is silly. nt

[Warpy]

4. It's a museum piece

and should be shown as such since it's a view of the Old South's rich people and their oh-so-happy enslaved work force through extremely dusty rose colored glasses. It does show a little of how much contempt the poor whites were held in. The destruction of the tiny landed aristocracy by the war benefited them most of all.

I knew it was a crock of shit, historically speaking, when I saw it in a theater in an early re-release. Maybe a disclaimer would help, saying that people wrote the screenplay that way because that's how they wish people had been treated. They were not.

It's been overexposed on TCM. Maybe a few years of retirement might do it some good.

[grossproffit]

12. No. We don't need disclaimers. If people are so easily triggered they shouldn't leave the house.

[leftynyc]

34. 100% agree

This is beyond stupidity.

[Moostache]

60. Free speech is antithetical with "triggers". A fine line exists and is being ignored.

To me Free Speech is inviolate. I despise those who preach hate and vile crap, but their right to do so is something that MUST not be suppressed. No one is required to agree with anyone else's speech, but the converse of that is no one is to be able to muzzle someone else's speech either.

Free Speech is NOT free of consequences. THAT is where protests and opposition to someone's thoughts and expressions truly belongs. NOT in silencing debates or excluding opinions by decree or by calling it a "trigger". I will go to my grave willingly defending the right of people I despise to have the same right as myself to speak their mind freely and without repression from the government or those who would deny them the right to speak. I will at the same time do all that I can to ensure that an opposing view is available and equally protected.

If people self-identify with horrific causes and groupings, then that is also their right. I personally find the Christian faith as odious and offensive as many find the Nazis and KKK....but I believe firmly in each groups' right to exist and to air their positions. I recognize that I am in a distinct minority in my views of 'faith', but that makes me hypersensitive to the calls to silence views of others.

Either all speech is free or none is truly free. We should ALL be on the right side of that decision...

[Warpy]

79. Yeah, I agree. That film might help them understand the silly romanticism

about the Old South, a place that might have been truly wonderful if you were born rich and male, but which was hell for everybody else.

As I said, the giveaway was the contempt for poor whites.

[hlthe2b]

25. Yes. there are problems with it, but I might add that Hattie McDaniel became first African American

(of either gender) to win an Oscar--yet because it was for a demeaning role, her win was not celebrated, to the point that when Halle Berry won decades later, she refused to even mention McDaniel's achievement among all the black icons she chose to acknowledge having come before her. Something, I am to this day still astonished did not receive more attention. That night really saddened me. Hattie deserved better, whether her roles were deemed demeaning or not. It was the strength of performance that should have been (and actually was at the time, but not now) celebrated.

Movies reflect the times when the source material was written. To understand that is both to KNOW history and to LEARN from history. So, no. No disclaimer needed---just plenty of discussion afterwards and an acknowledgement of how far we've come, and how very far we have to go.

[oberliner]

27. She wasn't allowed to sit with her co-stars at the Oscars

In fact, a special dispensation had to be granted to allow her to attend at all since the hotel in LA where the Oscars was being held was "whites only" at that time.

[leftynyc]

36. That's the part Ms. Barry should have

mentioned.

[hlthe2b]

48. Yes. I recognize that.. Nonetheless, her achievement was and should STILL be acknowledged

Halle's 'political correctness' in failing to mention McDaniel, was anything BUT. It was disgraceful.

[oberliner]

49. Agreed

She was very talented and gave an excellent performance in that film.

[Warpy]

78. Hattie McDaniel and Butterfly McQueen were always portraying maids

but they both also stole every single scene they were in, film after film. They were smart women and strong advocates. Neither of them did the shuck and jive in real life. They were activists.

Halle Berry showed her ignorance when she refused to acknowledge whose shoulders she was standing on. They had to play maids in movies, those are the only roles written for black women at a time when other employment was closed to them---and largely closed to white women. When the cameras went off, they were strong activists who campaigned for better roles in movies and in life.

Without those two women lighting up the screen, the rest of the movie would have been remembered for some of the special effects like the burning of Atlanta, but the rest would have been a yawn, a costume romance.

[oppressedproletarian]

89. Thank you, agreed n/t

[hlthe2b]

93. Yes.. they sure did...

Butterfly McQueen died a particularly tragic death in '95, but it was the first time I'd seen any kind of interview with her publlished:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-12-23/news/mn-17061_1_butterfly-mcqueen

Butterfly McQueen, who played Scarlett O'Hara's young, scatterbrained servant Prissy in "Gone With the Wind," died Friday after suffering critical burns when a kerosene heater caught fire. She was 84.

McQueen told firefighters her clothes caught fire when she was trying to light one of two kerosene heaters in her one-bedroom cottage just outside Augusta. She was lying on the sidewalk when firefighters arrived.

She was taken to Augusta Regional Medical Center with second- and third-degree burns over 70% of her body and was listed in very critical condition before her death, said Butch Dorman, nursing director at the hospital's burn center.

McQueen's career spanned Broadway, the movies and television. But for better or worse, her immortality rested on her small role in the 1939 film that became an enduring phenomenon--by some measures the biggest movie hit ever. --snip--

I didn't mind playing a maid the first time because I thought that was how you got into the business," McQueen once said. "But after I did the same thing over and over I resented it. I didn't mind being funny, but I didn't like being stupid." more....

[democratisphere]

5. History cleansing is never a good idea.

Why must everything be overdone to the extreme?

[sarisataka]

6. Great idea

If we ignore and forget history it never happened.

[ExciteBike66]

53. Is GwtW actually historically accurate

in its portrayal of antebellum life in the South? I was under the impression that the movie totally glossed over the brutality of the slave-owning regime.

[sarisataka]

63. The movie itself is history

And although it has no glaring factual historical errors it definitely gives a rose-colored view of Southern life.

That Hollywood had a greater issue with the word damn than the content of the movie is an insight to that period

[ExciteBike66]

67. So your concern is that theatergoers will be missing out on art history? nt

[sarisataka]

73. In part,

As long as it is, imo it should be preceded by a 15 min documentary To Help place the film in context

[ExciteBike66]

85. I guess I just can't get myself worked up over the possible lack of art history

in privately-owned cinemas. All such businesses respond to the tastes of their clientele, and so the criticism of the showing of GwtW is nothing more than the free-market in action.

Perhaps if a public museum devoted to cinematic history stopped showing GwtW for similar reasons, it would be more of a problem for me, but this was a private venue making a business decision.

[PurgedVoter]

7. I may not remember it that well, but I don't think it says what people think it says.

As far as I can recall, the only really ethical and competent characters in the story were black. There where ethical white characters and competent white characters, but none that were entirely both.

[raccoon]

19. Great post. I never thought of it that way, but you're right. MT

[RobinA]

35. I Feel The Same

I never felt that the Hattie McDaniel role was "demeaning." She was the wisest person in the movie. GWTW generally had some very strong female characters.

[oberliner]

47. What about Prissy?

Butterfly McQueen has said she found the role to be demeaning to African-Americans.

[Pope George Ringo II]

68. I think I agree

ISTR Ashley Wilkes being a decent guy, but that may just be because I'm a Leslie Howard fan, and I believe his relationship with Scarlett was really flavored by that difference.. Scarlett's father also wasn't too bad, IIRC.

Otherwise, as pointed out upthread, the white characters were obnoxious and self-centered. Rhett's famous final line is exactly what Scarlett deserved. Racial issues aside, I've always viewed the novel/movie as one spoiled, pampered, self-centered, obnoxious, inhuman, prissy little stuck-up @#$*%&! getting exactly what was coming to her.

[chillfactor]

8. oh my goodness...that movie

is a classic.....what a stupid thing to do.

[Raine]

9. Ridiculous! nt

[radius777]

10. Stupid, we can't censor history and art.

There's a huge difference between monuments/flags that were erected to glorify the confederacy and cement jim crow - and art set in a historical timeframe that has uncomfortable elements, as all do, since the times and values change.

The right is going to have a field day with something like this.

[oberliner]

16. There's no censorship going on here

Any theatre is free to show the movie. This theatre has just decided not to, which is their prerogative.

[radius777]

94. sure, but it's still a censorship mindset

which seeks to sanitize art/history, and imo is not in the spirit of free thought and expression that western democracy was founded upon.

if a conservative theatre owner decided not to host a classic movie/play that had liberal themes (like say, 'Inherit the Wind'), we would all be crying about it.

surely they could do what they want, but they would have to suffer the public criticism of such a choice.

[grossproffit]

11. Hatie McDaniel (Mammy) won an Oscar for her performance. We gonna erase that too?

This is bullshit.

[oberliner]

15. No one is erasing the movie

Last edited Mon Aug 28, 2017, 08:43 AM - Edit history (1)

It's just one theatre deciding not to show it (as part of a summer film series).

[VOX]

13. No! No to censoring of art, film or literature.

I understand the sensitivities of others, but once you start banning art because it offends somebody, well, that's kind of the end of the line for any well-informed understanding of ourselves.

I'm all for taking down the Confederate statues and banning the battle flag in public areas, but am fine with placing those relics of the bloodiest chapter of American history in the proper context of museums.

So, should all prints of, say, 1915's "Birth of a Nation" (original title: 'The Clansman') be destroyed because of it's incredibly outlandish, stereotyped depiction of African Americans (many of whom were actually white actors in blackface)? And its complete glorification of the white Christian KKK? Message-wise, it's absolutely racist.
What complicates all this is that D.W. Griffith was an early master of moving pictures. "Birth of a Nation" is a virtual textbook of film grammar, with everything from tracking shots, dolly shots, the equivalent of a zoom (iris-down on one figure on the screen), melodramatic cross-cutting, the works. I've seen the film twice, both times on college campuses (once for content, in an American History course, once for camera use in a Film class lab). Both times, there were lengthy discussions before and after the screenings, with plenty of time devoted to the god-awful message. In this context, controversial films like this (i.e., Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will') SHOULD be seen and talked over, and not buried away.

[oberliner]

14. Nobody is censoring or destroying the movie

This is just a theatre decided not to run it - partially, it seems, due to declining audiences.

[VOX]

90. I understand that. Was just thinking in broader terms. n/t

[HAB911]

18. Gone With the Wind

Better than Ambian and melatonin combined

It should stay in the can

[ProfessorGAC]

28. What HAB Said!

Dreadful movie. Easily one of the 3 most overrated movies ever.

[HAB911]

29. My SIL took me to see it in the famous FOX theater in Atlanta

when I was about 14. I lasted for almost an hour before I was sound asleep. Many years later tried to watch it on TV, same effect. Dreadful movie.

[joeybee12]

44. Boy are you ever wrong

The greatest movie in the craft of story telling. Jebus. Do you have any taste ?

[kwassa]

86. No. It sucks.

tedious and unlikeable.

[ProfessorGAC]

92. Yes. The Movie Is Crap (eom)

[ucrdem]

20. Better late than never eh?

Agree with OP's sensible suggestion. IMHO it won't hurt to yank it this time and run it next year with a warning label, which is what it needs at the least. Showing it as a straight-up classic, without warning audiences of racist content that exhibitors have been made aware of, would be offensive. Today's audiences simply don't expect it.

[Ghost of Tom Joad]

22. Film is art

If you don't want to see a film don't go, but don't stop others from seeing it. I've been waiting years for Disney to release SONG OF THE SOUTH, but no we're not adult enough.

[hlthe2b]

23. Goodness gracious... Think of ALL the films that reflect the ugliness of very different times.

including, I might add, so many about the times and life of Christ.

This is not where we need to go.

[no_hypocrisy]

24. GWTW isn't Birth of a Nation.

I think it's obvious that the O'Hara family would have perished without their former slaves. And Scarlet learned more about motherhood, life, reality from "Mammy" than from her own mother. Even Rhett appreciated "Mammy" in his own life.

If Memphis had a problem with screening GWTW, a local professor could have been employed to lead a discussion before and after the movie.

[leftynyc]

30. Tired of this stupidity

It's a fucking movie - and a great movie at that. Don't want to see it? Stay fucking home. What the fuck is wrong with people these days?

[oberliner]

38. They've shown this movie every year for over three decades

If they want to retire that tradition and show something else, I don't understand why that is objectionable.

I don't really get why anyone who doesn't live in Memphis would care one way or the other. Anyone who wishes to watch this movie is free to do so.

There is no reason why this theatre needs to show it every year if they don't want to.

[leftynyc]

40. It's a tradition for a reason

People were obviously going year after year. I'm just getting sick and tired of delicate little flowers having to have their attack of the vapors catered to. When did Americans become so sensitive that we have to watch every word out of our mouths and worry constantly that someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended. Comedians all over are refusing to perform on college campuses because of PC police. It's madness.

[oberliner]

42. That's true

But they said it hadn't been as popular as it used to be. Maybe a different movie would generate more ticket sales. They could even maybe choose a movie that they feel like would bring the community together, or get people talking. They said they had considered pulling this movie for the last couple of years. I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to show whatever movies they want to show and be responsive to the local community if they so choose.

If they had quietly switched the movie out for something else next summer, I doubt anyone would have even really noticed, except, perhaps locally.

[leftynyc]

50. With social media,

nothing is local anymore. And there always seems to be people who will whine whenever their delicate sensibilities are offended.

[oberliner]

52. That's also a good point

Personally, I think either response from the Orpheum would have been appropriate.

They could have said that they are going to continue to show Gone With The Wind next summer in spite of the concerns because it is a classic film, and I would have respected that decision also.

However, I think it is equally appropriate for them to say that they are going to select a different movie to show next summer instead. There are lots of classic films out there - they can start a new tradition if they want to.

[sarisataka]

55. Indeed had they pulled it

without any special announcement or citing declining attendance it would have been, maybe, a small local interest story. Had they pulled it sighting requests of people actually attending their series it probably wouldn't have received any notice at all as they would have put a more desired movie in its place. Had they pulled it because the KKK announced they would start holding an annual meeting at the theater during at showing they would have been applauded.

But they specifically cited the reason for pulling it is over reaction on social media. That does make it a story and it smacks of censorship.

[oberliner]

59. Your point is taken

My position is that this is a summer film series. They can show whatever movies they want to show. They should not be required to show the film if they don't want to. If they got a lot of negative responses to showing the film from the local community this summer, then they can switch to a different movie next summer. It seems less like censorship and more like a company being responsive to the local community. They had already said that they had considered switching the movie out in past years.

[Mariana]

70. Is there a theater in your area showing the movie? nt.

[leftynyc]

71. I own it

What's your point?

[Mariana]

88. Support the theaters that show the movie.

If there's a theater in your area showing the movie, go buy a ticket and watch the movie there. If the theaters that show this movie consistently make money doing so, most of them will continue to screen it.

[grossproffit]

76. Passive aggressive, much?

[Croney]

31. What about the book?

Should we burn it? (Sarcasm)

That said, I see nothing wrong with one theater not showing it. It's always available on TV anyway.

[WinkyDink]

32. Absolutely asinine, to the point of bizarre. How about removing movies for SEXISM? The business

would DIE.

[oberliner]

41. This is a summer movie series

We are talking about a once a year showing of this film as part of a summer festival - along with screenings of about a dozen other movies. Every year they change up which movies are shown - except Gone With The Wind which has been screened every year. Not sure what the big deal is about switching it out after 30+ years and including something else instead.

I think they should consider retiring "Breakfast at Tiffany's" as well, to be honest.

[Demsrule86]

33. I have to say I know the book and movie is BS in terms of racial equality, but I

both read the book and watched the movie as a kids and have a soft spot for it. My Mom gave me scarlet, Melanie and Rhett dolls Whet was a child which I have in a doll collection. After Annabelle and Chucky my kids hate the dolls. the collection is in the upstairs hall in a cabinet...and the kids swear the dolls move and their eyes follow them. OK kids. None of my three daughters like the movie (nor does my son) and can't believe I ever liked it...my oldest girl rolled her eyes and said tolerantly...' old people'.

[MrScorpio]

37. I love it! Nt

[inanna]

39. When my daughter was still a teenager

I came home one Saturday after running some errands. She pointed out to me that the cartoons she'd been watching earlier that day were racist, and depicted African-American people working (and singing) in the cotton fields in the deep south. I believe this was an old Bugs Bunny re-run, c. 1940's.

I vaguely recall seeing some of this as a kid myself - when watching the Merry Melodies on Saturday mornings - but had forgotten until she mentioned it.

That she noticed it - and thought it offensive enough to mention it to me - shows that the younger generation recognizes blatant racism and stereotyping when they see it.

Pretty certain those episodes wouldn't run now....

[treestar]

43. That's silly

Do too much like this, and we allow white people to forget slavery existed.

[haveahart]

45. I know how I feel about this: I don't like it! It is art. It was a stunning movie for its time.

Some people are really ignorant and intend to remain that way.

[joeybee12]

46. Equally stupid is that they wouldn't show it during the 1984 Olympics stupidity reigns!

[Paladin]

51. GWTW continues to prop up neo-confederate fantasies. To hell with it. (nt)

[csziggy]

62. +10000000000000000000 nt

[underpants]

54. Hated that movie. Scarlett was a horrible unlikeable character

[LisaL]

57. And that was her charm.

I thought she was an amazing character.

[csziggy]

64. Yes, Scarlett was an air head narcissist who really didn't care about anyone else

Charming.

[Luciferous]

56. I live in the Memphis area and I think it's silly.

[Blue_Adept]

58. it's all acceptable until it's a movie you like!

Not a fan of this film but hope that it continues to make its way theatrically as it's an important piece reflective of a time, and understanding film within the context of its origins is important.

With the advent of digital cinema I'm loving that we're getting more one-night only showings (yes, this is a summer series thing, I'm talking in general) for anniversaries and the like. There are going to be cringy things about every movie ever and older movies more so.

No pardon me while I get excited for the 40th anniversary release of Close Encounters of the Third Kind this weekend, which means my teenage daughter will get to see it on the big screen for the first time. And what a difference films make when seen on that canvas - and that includes GWTW.

[Iggo]

74. My guess is they'll skip it this year and then start back up again next year.

It feels to me like it's an overreaction, but if they're getting complaints from the people who actually go to that theater, I understand why they pulled it. I mean seriously, why push it if you don't have to? Put it away 'til next year.

[maryellen99]

80. A company called Fathom Events shows old films like this in multiplexes in conjunction with TCM

They usually show ones in their Anniversary year if it ends in 0 or 5. They are presenting Star Trek II next month(35th Anniversary) The Princess Bride (30th) in October and Casablanca(75th) in November.

[Iggo]

82. I saw their 50th of West Side Story like that.

Since me and Barack are about the same age as that movie, the 55th should be (or should have been) this year.

[Blue_Adept]

83. Yup, I take my kids to a lot of them

Film education history, understanding the context of when films were made, and all that. They've seen a lot on home video but they're also really just fascinated by how different it is when seen on a big screen in darkness.

[maryellen99]

84. Yep I'm going to see Princess Bride and Casablanca nt

[Takket]

61. This is going to far

The goal is to stop glorifying and supporting hate, not to pretend it never existed in history. This is why Robert E Lee should be remembered in our textbooks but not in statues.

[alarimer]

69. I don't think we should learn history from popular culture

"Gone with the Wind" is clearly false in at least some aspects, both the book and the film. But it was fiction.

I also find more modern films about true stories sometimes do not tell the whole truth. Film makers often combine real life people into composite characters ("Hidden Figures" did this) for storytelling purposes. Even documentaries have a point of view. This is not really problematic. The Tudors, on the other hand, completely changed events from history to tell a more compelling story (to them, anyway).

Old movies are often hard to watch because of the racial or sexual politics of the era in which they were made. Some are clearly racist- the original "Birth of a Nation" which lionized the birth of the KKK, or "Song of the South" based on the tales of Uncle Remus, clearly racist in intent and form, and never even put on video.

A movie theater is under no obligation to show anything. So I don't really know what the answer is except to view them in context.

[grossproffit]

75. Breakfast at Tiffany's was just shown in June. Maybe that one will be cancelled next year.

[fishwax]

77. now nobody will EVER get to see it. And people will forget Rhett Butler even existed.

[Orsino]

81. People see the film when they want nowadays.

That one theater manager won't hold his nose for it seems insignificant. This movie is yet another monument to the Confederacy that is out of favor.

[kentuck]

87. Democrats need to jump on this wagon immediately.

Ban this movie.

<sarcasm>

[stopbush]

91. What about the scene where Rhett rapes Scarlett?

He carries her up the stairs, to rape her, and she fights him all the way. Back then, "no" meant "wink-wink," it's a game we play so the male can show his dominance. Ain't it romantic? He's going to teach her how a wife should act in the sack. The fact that he two-steps it up that grand staircase on the way to the bedroom has always been seen as cinematic gold. Really?

Today, "no" means no. Yes - a husband can be found guilty of raping his wife, according to the courts.

[Retrograde]

95. It's also a film with strong women

Scarlett, Melanie, Mammy (and in her way Prissy, who in the book is a child at the beginning of the war). I think it actually passes the Bechdel test. I have to disagree with the poster upthread who called Scarlett an airhead: poorly educated, true, but she sets herself the goal of preserving Tara and her family, and does that by any means possible, ethical or not.

One of my fantasies for when I have more money than I know what to do with is to remake closer to the book, which while biased isn't as sugar-coated as the film.