Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20140825

Theyre really quite intelligent, very intelligent, but are trained in a way that theyve been trained differently from the way we have so that they are interested in, you know, the impact visually and what people hear. And the overarching story or theme or thesis they want to put forward. And so whenever they come to historians, its not as theyre writing the work. It is usually after theyve already worked out in their mind what the opening scene is going to look like and the rest of it. And the story holds together well for them, for what they like to portray in one way. And then on the other side of it is working with the producers to find out whether theyll finance so you have to take into consideration what the producers want to see in this film, too. So they kind of are very collaborative and were only one piece, a small piece of the collaboration because they do come in with this. And its interesting because i want to know whether or not Steve Mcqueen actually shot the opening sequence for 12 years a slave which i really found horrific, because there is nowhere in okay the woman is okay using solomon northrup to masturbate herself. That is totally in somebodys imagination. But i do know most opening sequences are not filmed by the there are companies that do only opening scenes for them and closing scenes for them. They used to just do the titles and credits, but now they actually do the opening sequence. And of course the director has to say okay, check that off or whatever and the producer too. I wonder if he himself shot that sequence because usually theyre no longer shot by the directors. Surely he would have to approve it, though, wouldnt he . Hed have to check it off you know but i wonder if that was something that he in terms of thinking how its going to open that he is going to open in this kind of way, or somebody who was in this who does sequences and sort of gets the audience, really draws the audience in says have you thought about putting a scene in like this . They have to get approval for doing it, but no longer have actually complete control over the opening sequence. Seems to me one advantage he had is he is drawing entirely on a single source. Right. Single narrative. Single voice, perspective narrative in e zhe lifts whole scenes. He does. The book. Its remarkable whereas spielberg and amistad and lincoln are drawing on so much more complex, multifaceted, multi dimensional issues and events where the input of historians, i wonder, would matter more either to spielberg or any film maker trying to do something. Well, i know Steve Mcqueen is visually driven so people think about his other films. They talk about him as a visual artist behind the camera and that is more important. I think spielberg is much more interested in accuracy than a lot of directors are, and that he is, in some ways, much more like a historian, i think, in the way in which he decides to depict something on screen than i think Steve Mcqueen is, who is really also just about the art of making a visually stunning film, roo, or mostly along with an important story. So recently spielberg was given an award by the lincoln and Soldiers Institute because his film is storytelling, his film is history. And the speaking and showing of amistad has been a lot of debate ive been involved in i point out that i remember taking my younger son to see amistad and the moment in the film where, which is certainly taken from the case. They throw them over board. The slaves are shackled and thrown overboard is one of the most visually powerful, arresting scenes. And when i went to the International Museum of slavery in liverpool, they had their own version of that. So it is something that we deal in words and powerfully in telling stories. But its something that we now in the 21st century back to media have to grapple with. Is it going to be streaming . Whos going to look at it . How is it going to feel . I think we have to bring our students and public to understand stories can be told in many different dimensions. And i think the power of some of these scenes, maybe we can deal with clips rather than the full film and deal with the powerful medium of historical film as something that can bring slavery to a modern audience. Well, that seems like an excellent place to conclude. Thank you all so much for coming and thank you very much to our panelists for their very thoughtful and incisive comment comments. This week, special prime time programming on the cspan network. Tonight, a debate over scottish independence. On thuz, issue spotlight on irs targeting of conservative groups. Wednesday, educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds, thursday, a hearing on profrty programs. And friday night, native American History. An cspan two this week, book tv in prime time. Tonight at 8 30 eastern, a discussion about school choice. Tuesday night at 8 00, writer john brie i cant on how the poor can saifl capitalism. An wednesday, a biography about kneel armstrong, thursday night, a tour of the headquarters of publisher simon and shoeser. And on friday, indepth with former congressman ron paul. On American History tv on cspan3, tonight, the reconstruction era and civil rights, tuesday, the ends of world war ii and the atomic bomb, wednesday night, the fall of the berlin wall, thursday, a look at how americas attitudes about world war i change, and on friday, a nasa documentary. Find our Television Schedule one week in advance at cspan. Org and let us know what you think about the programs youre watching. Call us at 2026263400, fine find us on twitter. Like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. Our next speaker is matt y. Pinsker the associate professor of history and holds the chair in American Civil War history at Dickinson College of course theg alma mater of both president buchanan and chief Justice Taney for what thats worth. Matt is the author of a number u of books and articles, including lincolns sanctuary, which is a history of the soldiers homed where lincoln would go during the summer and he is the authork of a forthcoming book which i think will radically force us tl think about lincoln in a new way. To its hard to imagine anything s that could force us to think about lincoln in a new way sincn there is so much on lincoln that what else is there to say . His new book will be called k at boss lincoln and he is actually going to look at lincoln as a party and president ial leader. Pins im going to turn the podium over to matt pinsker and also let him talk to us about mr. Spielberg and lincoln goes tow hollywood. Well, thank you very much. Its to paul and to don and to everyone here, it is an honor to be at a symposium like this. And to speak about spielbergs d lincoln is important for us to d do. No this is a movie that is now about a year and a half old and not just a biopic about abrahamc lincoln but a really fascinatint study of congress. For those of us who care about the history of congress, this is a welcome event for Popular Culture to celebrate congress. Although in the title of my tal i connected to mr. Smith goes to washington because i feel there is a dark connection there is a dark connection clas between them in the sense that both of these classics, a spielbergs lincoln is an instant american classic and mr. Smith is and instant classic. Both of them depict congress in a very dark way. On i think we should acknowledge that. In spielbergs case i want to explore it deeper. Rong it is a year and a half since the movie came out and the to historical reception from people in my profession was generally very positive. There were criticisms, important ones, but some of them were large as if the subject matter was wrong. Uch it was the wrong subject or the wrong people to feature in a movie about the abolition of slavery. F that is fair but such a big criticism it is hard for a filmmaker to address. Came f there were a lot of small ro potatoes criticisms some of which came from capitol hill itself over things like whether or not the congressman from tedr connecticut voted for or against the final amendment. You know, and those criticisms are fair but very precise. However now as a classroom becu teacher as i prepare to teach this movie, and i have to teach it because its such a vivid portrayal of the period, ive been compelled to think a littlm more deeply about the nature of the narrative itself. And in doing so, you know, i cant escape the conclusion tha at the end of the day in this movie about the passage of the 13th amendment, the abolition on amendment in congress in januarr of 65, at the heart of that it narrative there is a conclusion passedpassed with bribery. That not only was it passed wito bribery, but that it was passedd with bribery that abraham concl lincoln knew about and condoned. And i find that a very disturbing conclusion because t theres been a lot of scholarship on this question, and the scholarship addresses this question although its far, far more cautious about reachine the conclusions the movie ed it. Reaches. I dont think people have realized and i dont think the historians who commented on the movies release in the almo immediate months after it came t out really addressed this in great detail. I think thats because almost all of them, from what i can tell, watched the movie. Pt. They didnt read the script. Th the script wasnt readily available to Academy Award repag voters and it was hard to get ahold of it. Now that i am preparing to teach it and worked with the script is great detail i find examples of other connections to movies likt mr. Smith in that i see the fiction that is at the heart of this narrative. This is a work of historical fiction. I dont think anybody should be. Shocked by that and i dont mea it as an insult but i wanted tot talk about that today and sort of diagram it for you. Because the fictions in the ale movie are very sweeping. Even the spoiler alert. The amendment did pass and slavery was abolished. All of that is true. To get there from the opening oo the movie they had to arrange a lot of movies. Art im going to go through that hp now. D you should be aware it is part of my effort to help teach thisa movie and i think we should teach it and study it and use it. P ive created an unofficial guide, a teachers guide to thet movie thats part of something e we call Dickinson College the house divided project which i lead, the emancipation digital n classroom. So if you google the s emancipation digital classroom,n you will be able to see an unofficial teachers guide to lincoln that includes links to everything im about to talk about with primary sources and h images and even links to the script so you can explore this u issue for yourself. So let me remind you, if you cant remember, how the movie e begins. Li of course there is that great cinematic frame. Youve got the kind of seated lincoln in the Washington Navy yard and the black soldier and white soldier recite the gettysburg address to him. A this is part of the poetic framh of the movie, a cinematic one lincoln memorial. Seated lincoln with the the gettysburg address on one side d and at the end of the movie thee second inaugural. The heart of the movies narrative opens with him yo describing a dream to his wife. Y in that description of the dream you realize in early january ofs 1865 that he is preparing to shr push for an abolition amendment to the constitution during the d lame duck session of congress. And this is a shock. Mary lincoln opposes it. Youll waste your popularity, ps she warns him. When he explains to William Seward and congressman james ke. Ashley on capitol hill, theyre worried and shocked. This is a dramatic and sort of surprising move. Okay. That is all fiction. You know, the reintroduction ofe the amendment that had been nten defeated the previous spring is real. He but it was all telegraphed out e in the open. Electi this is not a surprise and y he something lincoln comes up with in a way that was shocking to people. Oasted in his annual message in december of 1864 after he won that sweeping reelection n aftr victory he telegraphed it to the public and boasted about it you might say. Im reading from the annual sa message the state of the Union Address they delivered back then when congress reassembled for ue its session after the election s in december, 64. He says to congress, the next congress will pass the measure if this does not. So then he says, it is only a s question of time as to when thet proposed amendment will go to the states. I read the next line almost as e taunt. You might read it differently. He says, may we not agree the t sooner the better . Lets get this done. Endment the telegraphing of this reintroduction of the amendmentl during the lame duck session was done earlier than the post election annual message. The vote in the house, the previous june in 1864, that hadt been a vote that was supported by all of the republican membere of congress. Ecause it failed because they requiredy the super majority and the super majority that they required eque meant that they needed democratd to vote for it. They and they didnt have enough democrats to vote for it. But in order to reintroduce th reassemble again measure later in the session, presumably after the election because they dont reassemble again until december, james ashley, the amendments sponsor, switched his vote at the last ln minute so that he voted no. The he is the only republican who voted against it in the house. In order that he could bring itl back up in january. Wn all and when he recalls, after the war, his strategy he makes it clear, right, that they had n known all along this would be e something that they were making a platform of the now union supi party in the election of 1864. They were supporting an roduce abolition amendment. They were going to fight for itn during the campaign, and that if they won a sweeping victory as they hoped to do they would reintroduce it in a lame duck session. He spent the next several months after the defeated measure in the house, and it already passed the senate, that they were going to pinpoint, target, wavering o democrats in the north, try to r persuade them to switch their votes, and then go after them iy december. This is what lincoln is telegraphing in his annual ancis message. It is now all out in the open. This is not the impression the movie gives. It gives the impression the ri republicans are bitterly divided over this and early on you get introduced to Montgomery Blair e and his father Francis Preston blair. Ns. Bitt you know, the blair family are opposed. Of none of thats true, right . There were conservative 1865 republicans and there were radical republicans. Arg they argue bitterly over a lot of stuff. But by january of 1865 they were not arguing necessarily over the abolition of slavery. There were differences in tactics. He i so one of the speakers of the e. Symposium is michael bornberg. F he is sitting right over there. His book the final freedom ys which came out a number of yearo ago offers great detail about ho the nuances of the debates overf how to abolish slavery and how the republicans came to it. E but by january of 65 the abolis Republican Party was essentially united in the idea slavery had to be abolished and they were more or less agreed it had to be abolished by constitutional or s amendment. t and even those who objected to the exact amendment or its language, they werent willing to vote against it. The only votes they were targeting were democratic votes, not conservative republicans. Ce the conservatives and radicals were arguing over ha reconstruction. P they were arguing over what happens next after the union has reconciled. Er rad those arguments were fierce and bitter and theyre real. Mi but when the movie portrays this tension between conservative and radical republicans with lincoln in the middle, its conflating two different issues that shoule be separated. Plays you know, this plays out in a host of different ways. I dont have time to go into all of it. But i do remember one scene, and i think if you saw the movie, youll remember it too. Classic scene, arguably the mosl teachable scene in the movie, at least for a college professor. So there is this meeting of the cabinet where Abraham Lincoln defends his emancipation policy and explains to some skeptical cabinet officers why they need to push for this abolition ci and it is like a cinematic fr version of the famous painting by francis carpenter which you see on the senate side of the capital on the cover of the book the team of rivals and this i teachable, Abraham Lincoln brahm bringing to life complicated constitutional arguments. Is. And ive seen historians thrilled in their reviews celebrating this. And we should. Okay . That scene, circa summer of in 1862, that has nothing to do with the politics of the moment in january of 1865. So what theyre talking about in the summer of 62 is about the threat of the Supreme Court which is still, at that point, controlled by roger taney and the votes they need arent clear. But by january of 65 taney is l dead. Simon chase is the next chief justice, the fugitive slaves lawyer. He this is a court they now have the votes to control. Ed they are still worried about the ultimate legality of the emancipation proclamation and ti the slaves there but the dynamic has shifted dramatically. Ca there is a lot thats changed. For example, in january of 65 o maryland has abolished slavery l by popular vote. Missouri is about to by constitutional convention. Es are the confederates are talking t e about offering limited emancipation for service in the army. Army things have changed. T this is not a debate they would have in the cabinet in the way that Steven Spielberg envision it and portray it. It is such a wonderful thing to see. Ou a film, you know, addressing is such complicated issues. A but the timing is all wrong. Theyve conflated everything. An now, the reason theyve done that from a dramatic perspective, from an artistic a license perspective, is totally understandable. Up tensi right . They need to create drama and tension and set up conflict. Act one. Screen writing 101. You set up tension a know then resolve it. Do ge i give them all the license they need to do that. Reonflict but in getting to the resolutioh of this conflict between the conservatives and the radicals, they have to introduce something that doesnt actually appear ine the book thats the basis for to the film. So so the film is supposedly builtm around the team of rivals. Doris kearns goodwins book. But in the team of rivals, the socalled seward lobby doesnt appear. These are the lobbyists that were hired by secretary of state William Seward to help secure ia passage of the 13th amendment and theyre not even in the ie team of rivals. Theyre in the book final freedom and in other books. Udi. There is a really terrific, the detailed depiction shun of the seward lobby in an old book by john cox, politics, principle, and prejudice. If you want to read it the chapter on the seward lobby is. Masterful and freely Available Online through the internet ader archive. A this lobby was real. Tenn the characters depicted in the movie are real. James spader the actor plays the tennessee attorney, real guy. Okay . Ell. There is Robert Lathum and richard shell. Bu these are real figures. But the actual behavior of the b seward lobby is totally different from the portrayal on screen. So for example you remember if you saw this movie these are like shakespearian characters. Fy this is james spader is fallstaff, funny guys, drinkerss gamblers, seedy. You theyre at this squirrel w, infested hotel in these dark st rooms, bribing congressmen, the worst kind of, you know, the worst stereotypical or lobbyists. But in reality, okay, in reality bilbo, straight out of the cox. Chapter, he was known for his elaborate waist coats, long side burns and elegant manners. You remember james spader in o s that movie. He did not have elegant manners. Bilbo was this prominent wig p attorney from tennessee who switched sides in the middle ofo the war. He is interesting and elusive and nefarious in some ways, but also not obscure. He knew Abraham Lincoln. We have letters in the lincoln papers. Str they had met each other and discussed strategy in november and december of 1864. In he didnt live in a was squirrelinfested hotel. Ro when he was in washington he roomed with another congressmanf and when he was in new york where he spent most of the time in january of 1865, he stayed ae the st. Nicholas hotel, the finest hotel at the time in manhattan. Bert Robert Lathum and richard sell were old friends of william werd seward. They have a long history with him. Theyre prominent businessmen and investors. A little shady, ill admit, but who in wall street isnt or wasnt . Amiliar but, nonetheless, theyre ged prominent, familiar guys. And when they were engaged in the lobbying effort, you know, y the work they did was almost exclusively in new york, not in washington. And when you read books like ws mike warnbergs or the coxes, you realize what they were doin was mostly influence the democratic press in new york. Da because if you could influence the democratic press in new ns f york, through the operations of, the governor, you could affect s those swing votes, those swing e democratic votes in the state oa new york. T it turns out at the end of the day the lame duck democrats theyre going to switch going over, 2 3 of them are going to e come from new york and pennsylvania. And what theyre trying to do is january of 65 is affect the climate that allows democrats ia states like new york and pennsylvania and connecticut to switch their votes. E point, now, in the movie, you know, theyre bribing these guys. Abou you know, in the worst possiblee way. You know, james spader says at a one point, congressmen come cheap. He makes all of these jokes about it. Very in practice we dont really know. We dont really know. If you read scholarship on this question theyre very reluctantp to draw conclusions. You know, at one point Robert Lathum one of the seward of t lobbyists writes in a letter we actually have where he says, l about the passage of the says amendment and the targeting of the lame ducks, he says, money will certainly do it if patriotism fails. Ney wi money will certainly do it if a patriotism fails. Now, that is a line that should have been in the movie. Y of course it wasnt. I dont understand why not. I cant tell from the letter lt whether he was kidding or not. You know, it is quite possible its tongue in cheek and also possible he was serious. Poi you know, the scholars who a looked at this will point out ee that there is all kinds of and evidence that they had money. Available. And, of course, we know there was corruption in the 19th century congress. But at the end of the day they denied they were bribing congressmen. There is this letter from ward richard shell after it was all over. Accoun he gets approached by somebody who is sent from secretary of state sewards office to get an accounting of their expenses. And he responds indignantly to e this in a letter that we have te Frederick Seward the secretarys son and top assistant. He says, a gentleman called to a have me give an account of expenses which amount to nothing, he said. At any time i could be of e sai. Service to the honorable or secretary of state or yourself, i will do all i can but at my t own expense. He goes on to talk about the ouh importance of the issue of the t patriotism at the moment. F th it could mean he bribed people out of his own pocket. At we dont know. Almost all of the stories of th bribery that allegedly occurred in january of 65 are accounts. That are recollected years aftem the fact. And i, frankly, dont give themw most credit. Ar its certainly not clear at all that any of them were apparent to Abraham Lincoln. Itiative the seward lobby that seward had activated is actually in motions in new york on his own. Initiative in many ways. Hat im not clear lincoln was involved much at all in that business. R he was lobbying border state vee representatives like james rollins, who doesnt appear in o the movie but was one of the swing votes. Seward is operating in new york at this moment without even the apparent partnership of weed. He thought this was a mistake. N, not clear at all he was involvei even in this much of the seward operation. Hat a now, i think theres Something Else going on with seward, and ill talk about that a little bit later. But this is not the impression the Lincoln Movie gets. Ward you remember in the Lincoln Movie, the seward lobbyists are hired and they operate w independent of lincoln and at a certain important, he meets witd them in their squirrelinfested seedy attic of a hotel room, and he makes a comment on how to get things done, and later when he hears about their efforts to o bribe a congressman from ohio ot named clay hawkins, he says this is the guy who goes bird hunting with james spader. Hes got this dopey look on his face through most of the movie, sort of young, foolish pos congressman from ohio whos bribed with a postmastership from millersberg, ohio. Thats the deal, hes going to. Be a postmaster. Lincoln says in the movie, he is selling himself cheap, aint het selling himself cheap. This is the impression my to students are going to have of o, Abraham Lincoln for years to come. But, you know, theres no congressman named clay hawkins. E theres a congressman from ohiol a lame duck democrat who switched his vote on the amendment. His name was wells hutchens. Ande he was not a fool. Bribe and he wasnt bribed, as far as i can tell. Theres no patronage position for him after he switches. This is a very independent minded tough democrat, kind of a hero in some respects in the wars, from ohio. Hes votes to abolish slavery in the District Of Columbia in 1862. And he supports the suspension of ot habeas corpus. Thats why he was a lame duck. He had principles and he acted o on them and thats why he was leaving office. But hes not a fool who goes bird hunting with james spader d or William Bilbo and gets bribed to the postmastership, and certainly nothing lincoln knew about, but yet thats the impression the movie leaves them. You know, like i said, its at understandable that they take pe Artistic License and have comic relief. I can appreciate that as long as people realize what it is. Its also true that thats why the tension between the radicals and the conservatives is really. Hammered home with their very me memorable depiction of Thaddeus Stevens. Nes tommy lee jones. You know, tommy lee jones, as Thaddeus Stevens, is one of theh stars of the movie. I, in particular, was have been riveted by the scene you might remember in the middle of the movie, stevens and lincoln end up in the white house kitchen after a reception where. Mary lincoln has a confrontation heth him. The reception is real. Ted. You know, this is in the middlee of january. A but the scene in the kitchen ist all invented. Ctics. The scene in the kitchen, the script writer has lincoln and nl stevens engage in a debate about tactics. Well a for me, this is in a nutshell what you see hollywood do so his well and also do so wrong. About so in the scene in this debate about tactics, theres a profound insight that lincoln offers to stevens, a kind of lesson about the difference pram between pragmatism and radicalism. And theyre debating tactics and lincoln says to him, a compass,z i learned when i was surveying, it will point you true north from where youre standing, buto its got no advice about the. Swamps and deserts and the ay. Chasms. You know, thats true. Okay. But i dont think thats anything that lincoln and ot stevens would have said to each other. You know, we have this and cartoonish view of stevens in fr the Popular Culture from moviese like the birth of nation and i now from lincoln that depict d him as this radical, wildeyed figure, but he was a pragmatic politician just like Abraham Lincoln. Fromer, he doesnt come from the new england states. Co he comes from lancaster, mason pennsylvania, where hes hat representing a Congressional District near the masondixon line that had produced james buchanan. This is not a place where hes immune to popular pressure. In the movie he says, i shit onr the people, he says that. He wouldnt do that in real life. Lincoln and stevens had known each other for years. I could document that in a way that would be really special atc a symposium like this because e they first met in the summer of 1848, and they met when abrahamm lincoln was a congressman. You know, he served in congress for one term, and during that zr one term he spent almost his eld entire service in congress is trying to get Zachary Taylor elected as president. That was his ambition. Iona and he goes to the whig Nationa Convention in philadelphia and e he meets Thaddeus Stevens who at the time was a lawyer from lancaster, but who was about to become a candidate for congress and about to Enter Congress as a whig, and lincoln writes him a letter in september, right before hes about to leaves. Ab its so revealing and it shows them, i think, in such a rich light that its worth reminding ourselves about. , he writes him on september 3rd, 1848. Dear sir, you may possibly remember seeing me at the ossiby philadelphia convention, introduced to you as the lone ce whig star of illinois. Since adjournment i have ument remained here so long in the ngo whig document room. Now, there are people in the ful room who know what hes talking about, but this is such an insightful reference. Hes been in the whig document room in the summer of 1848. What is he doing . I hes literally sitting in a small room here in the capitol, signing his name to political pamphlets that theyre frankingn out at taxpayer expense for the whig campaign operation. Of he is the workhorse of the whige Congressional Committee which ia run by a congressman from t and lincoln as the firstterm o congressman from illinois, the only whig from illinois, the lone star, hes proving his 15,0 worth to the national operatorss by being their workhorse. He sits in the document room and franks out 15,000 pamphlets. Sers hes got to sign his name to all of them. He is the most or one of the most frequent users of the franking privilege burg that session of congress. Ssio thats why hes rising as a political operative, because a hes a workhorse. Hes writing articles for the campaign newspaper, correcting mistakes in the general whig newspapers across the country. He writes Horace Greely from the new york tribune and corrects one of his mistakes and hes reaching out to people, they didnt have rolodexes, but hes working his rolodex, reaching out to people he met. Asks he asks stevens, he says, im about to start for home. I desire the experienced opinion of a politician as to how the vote of that state for governor and president is likely to go. And listen to how smooth this f is. Yo in casting about for such a man, i have settled upon you. This and i shall be much obliged if you could write me in i springfield, illinois. This is Abraham Lincoln workingr his network. And stevens responds just as fluidly. Lincsking he responds by calling abraham o lincoln the wise one and askingi for him about information for i his state. And stevens, at that time, was a abolitionist, a supporter of th underground railroad, but his advice was utterly pragmatic. We have to reach out to the know nothings, the nativists, the anticatholics and infuse with them. By the way, this is just a footnote, but its worth wher mentioning. Thadd 1848 is this wonderful moment where people like Thaddeus Stevens, Abraham Lincoln and Alexander Stevens are all young, rising whigs who are supporting taylor and working together. He you remember from the Lincoln Movie, it was stevens who was one of the confederate peace commissioners lincoln is dealing with in the end. When we thing of the civil war in military terms, we talk about the mexican war as a precursor, a prelude, but the congress thac lincoln served in has Horace Greely and Alexander Stevens and, you know, Thaddeus Stevens. Lurking on the sidelines waitins to enter. This is part of lincolns storyw its a preview for him of what t is to come. Now, you know, i dont imagine that tony kushner or Steven Spielberg could have worked alle this background in somehow to d the movie. But im not complaining that they ns didnt, but all this background is important to understand what is really going on. Deta and the details matter. De they know the details matter. If you look back at the Lincoln Movie, youll realizeg the purpose of the scene in the kitchen is to give lincoln credit for changing stevens st mind. They have this debate in the kitchen and argue over tactics r and talk about compasses and maps and stevens is talking ter, about shitting on the people. Bg but then a week later, and hes being race baited by democrats s about what would happen after abolition, stevens says he onlys supports equality under the laws now, thats a powerful scene. Ht and mary lincoln points out who would have thought this old man would have ever come around in t that fashion. But the problem with that scene from the historical record is it never happened. Onal gl thats all invented. We have a congressional globe and we see the passages from the debate. That scene isnt there. Stevens did Say Something just h like that on january 5th, 1865, after they got the official report of the annual message when theyd come back from the christmas break and hes rophec responding to the debates over t lincolns prophecy in december, that they would, you know, debate this new amendment. Co and the republicans on capitol b hill are trying to actually its complicated, but theyre to trying to sort of play for a e o time for a day while they wait for the members show up, and th next day, ashley is going to introduce into the record the abolition amendment. And stevens is race baited on o. January 5th and he responds, ale i support is equality under thes law. He did that without prompting by lincoln. In the movie, lincoln is the kig hero. Anyb in the movie, stevens is, you ou know, an important foil. Ls, he has more speaking parts thanr anybody else but lincoln. Ndex if you go back to team arrivals, theres only four index entries for Thaddeus Stevens. If you look at mikes book, stevens is there more evens frequently, but far less frequently than the Senate Author or james ashley. Senat he doesnt play the same pivotal role. A or if you look at a new book, stevens is a marginal figure in that book. He you know, we all acknowledge hi importance. He but in the narrative of the movie he is so central, becauseg hes straight out of hollywood t central casting. You know, with the wig and the club foot and the crusty demeanor and even the black ti mistress. Youve got it all working. Its perfect. But thats why hes there. Kitcn and thats why this is there. Nor you know, i think the kitchen scene has another profound truth in it. Alk a and i wanted to point this out and maybe if someone wants to te follow up, we can talk about it more in questions. You know, the kitchen scene is i really about the politics of reconstruction, and i think thats an underlying theme in k the movie that they bury,m s they cant really address because theyre talking about the abolition of slavery. Thats why the peace negotiations seem so important,i although i think of them more as a side show, unimportant to the final narrative of the war. Disar there are historians who disagree with this. But the reason why i think the abolition amendment is a story of reconstruction is because you have to remember the rules. And this is so important. Right . In order for an amendment to as become part of the constitutiony of course, it cant just pass both houses of congress by a s f supermajority. It has to be ratified by the th states, by threefourths of the state. There are 36 states at that n, time. Ded threefourths of them would be 27. Of course, thats the question, do you count them all . What about the seceded states . F what about the confederates . Theyre not counted in the voteo for congress, so should they bel counted in the vote for d ratification. And this is what the politics ot january 1865 is about because this is where Abraham Lincoln in pressing his advantage as a party leader where hes building a union party, not just a re Republican Party, for the postwar period. Take thi because he knows that hes going to be able to take this abolition amendment and press is down the throats of the radicalh on the basis that they have to count all 36 states in the math in order to get it as part of the constitution. Ech, because, as he says in his fina speech, the one on april 11th, 1865, its the only way this will seem legitimate, if we cont the Confederate States in the equation. Equation so in order to count them, in order to get the 27 votes they need, theyre going to have to o have some of those former Confederate States restored to the union on his basis, right . S on the lower threshold, speedier process for restoration. Old, the not the wade davis process for restoration, not the higher uuthshold, the one stevens was supporting that would punish the south and revolutionize it. Linc lincoln is saying to the xoz. . Z radicals in effect, if you want abolition of slavery to be written into this constitution and irrevocable, then were iatt going to have to pursue a policd of reconciliation that goes hand and glove with it. This is what he was fighting f over in the final months of the war. The movie doesnt have a chancer to convey all of that, and, you know, i dont blame them for spr that and i understand what hollywood has to do. N i think spielberg does, too. N again and again hes been very i gracious and modest about hist pointing out the difference between historical fiction and history, right . His work in lincoln is writ historical fiction. Sometimes the script writer hasnt been quite as gracious s about that. And there is, you know, an exchange he had after the movieh came out with congressman courtney from connecticut over this question of how the how congressman from connecticut voted on the amendment. In the movie, one of them votesh against and all of them voted me for it, although one of the lame duck switchers was james englis, from connecticut. And in the 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 two passed by a twovote margin in o the house in january 1865 because president lincoln decided to push it through usin persuasion and patronage to of switch the votes of lame duck democrats all the while fending off a serious offer to negotiati peace from the south. Key none of the key moments from thy story our film tells are altered, none of them, he says. I guess it depends on what the definition of key is. Ne o i think there are a lot of key moments that are altered. Tic sc the roll call is one of them, but the other one is in the climactic scene on the floor of6 the house on the day of the vote, january 1st, 1865, they have james spader and john hay, the actor playing john hay, running to the white house to get the note from lincoln. Was none of that happened. The note, we think, is real, rke though we dont have the original of it. Its a recollection from james ashley, but James Spaders character, William Bilbo, was in new york at the time, at the st. Nicolas hotel. The lobbyists were in new york h in the final weeks of the fightu working the press. The race scene is just a hollywood chase scene. You know, its no different than the airport race scene in argo and i have no problem with that, like i said, but key moments ine this story are altered. And theyre altered for dramatio reasons. Nd and we need to understand that. If were going to teach it and t appreciate it. I i call it fiction and i dont n mean it as an insult, but i do think people need to appreciatei the differences between fiction. And the record. The record is far more complicated. I think its just as up 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 that if i didnt cover a topic you wanted to talk up, that you feel free to raise it now. Thank you. [ applause ] w yes, um, whether youre ing u talking about ken burns and the civil war or godzilla, movieso and television are first and foremost about entertainment. If its not entertainment, it et fails. Right. This obviously didnt fail. My question, though, has to do t with what do you think about daniel daylewis portrayal of lincoln as a person, not necessarily historically accurate words, but his portrayal . K that i think thats why the movie isi called Abraham Lincoln and not the fight for the 13th amendment. Spielberg wanted to give us or 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 thats hollywood magic. Thats what it does. I cannot do that in my books. Mike wrote a great book about. The 13th amendment. Its not as magical as spielbergs lincoln. And he knows it and i know it, n and theres magic involved. Volvd what i tried to do today is shoe you behind the curtain, magic y t q tion. Theres deception in daniel of daylewis performance and nr theres a lot of assumptions or premiseses that are wrong or moi shaky. Ght be and people who watch the movie and dont realize that might be confused. Tdaniel i dont think daniel daylewis lincoln is a real lincoln, but l think its a really powerful lincoln. I thought it was the best i filmed lincoln i had seen, but the man himself, despite all i i have read, still remains in many key ways a mystery. Do so i do have two brief questions. The first is, Thaddeus Stevens, who well into the 1960s was thet image, if you had an image at all, was this man who whatever r his moderate origins was traumatized by the burning of his factory and filled with a hatred of the south and buried d in a black cemetery. May this may be cut out of whole t w cloth that is even more fictitious than the movie. Other and then the other is i have heard other talks about this ana there was a scene with lincoln slapping robert, his son, and wh someone said, this could never p happen. The movie presented it as the ad exception of something that hade never happened before and would never happen again. My larger question is, isnt anb historian, however objective he or she may aspire to be, shouldn they not have their own internal spielberg that leaves scenes ou that do not conform with their image of their character, just as some of jeffersons until qu biographers, until quite recently, dismissed any notion of a liaison with sally heming y because this is not something ei their Thomas Jefferson would ever do . We all make mistakes and we . All interpret. L m however, we have footnotes and we hold ourselves accountable. And theres a transparency to m our work that i dont always think script writers or yconfusd screenwriters like tony kushner acknowledge. Whether or not they acknowledgee it, too many of my students gete confused. It seems so real. Aham i guarantee you, theyre going to remember Abraham Lincoln hes saying he is selling himself cheap about that congressman re more than anything else. Or that scene in the white house right before the vote where he e says, i am the president of the united states, clothed in immense power. Thats probably something he never said. It comes from a recollection from a congressman. He certainly didnt say it at before those people at that moment in that way. In the script, they say he rises to what seemed like 8 feet tall i dont think lincoln acted likm that at all. Im studying him and appreciating him as a party leader, boss lincoln. Ty i understand he has a gritty side. But that depiction to me seems off note. You you know, historians have off notes, too. 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 youve done all of us an enormous favor by r giving us this paper, but next time you give it, there is the p scene where the lobbyists drop e the money on the floor. Havi having spent eight years in can albany, new york, i can promise you the fixers from albany the o never dropped the money on the floor. Well, ill yield to paul yi finkelman as the expert on corruption. You know, theres so many details like that that are harde to convey, but all of those lobb lobbying scenes, every single l one of them, thats all fictionl none of that comes from the co record. There are accounts of bribery. None of those accounts are in the movie. Beryevery si every single one of those scenes is pure invention from tony c horowitz. Like i said, i think thats legitimate Artistic License to a degree, but people need to realize thats what it is. Hey, matt. Te as a teacher, i mean, we have ao important duty to our students. And its movies like lincoln and gettysburg that draw that desire to learn mored. Fo and for us the teachers, we have to give them the tools. Right. T to help them depict what is fact and what is not fact. But i think lincoln will have a better i think its more ol a positive in that it will to hopefully draw people to want to learn more about lincoln. Sure, but you agree with me, right . Is at the heart of the movie, therf is this depiction of bribery that lincoln is not only aware of but that he condones. True. Ver yeah. And thats pretty dark. I know, its very dark, and you compare it to modernday ou politics where, you know, you as have congress thats been doing Insider Trading for years. Yeah. And all of these other things that lends to support what this movie unfortunately is saying. Your response actually puts your finger right on it becauser etch, including tony horowitz, and Steven Spielberg, they are i comparing this to modernday politics. Tiy pol its a lesson more about modern day politics in some ways than 19th century politics. 19 19th century politics were corrupt, but it was different. Theres a scene on the day of t the vote where Fernando Wood is waving affidavits, i have the vo affidavits here. Thats straight out of angels in america and the mccarthy era. That is not 19th century congress. Thats what you realize when yol see a movie like lincoln or think about mr. Smith goes to washington. Almost all of what we think we d know about past politics comes from movies and Popular Culture. And we absorb it so much, we think its real. Trat thats why its so important tod try to sort it out. I dont want to be one of those scholar squirrels that gore vidal used to make fun of, but thats what i have been doing, digging around in the script ant pointing out the small differences, but ultimately, they matter. Matter as much as i think youre righty the Lincoln Movie will produce e od things, when we teach it, teachers need to be aware of how it departs from what we know hw about the record. Greg. You need to wait for the microphone. O sorry, how does it skew in n terms of younger audiences . Because my experience, which could be which is only onl anecdotal, when i poll my classes, many more of them have seen django and vampire hunter than lank. They see lincoln as a movie for not even their parents, but for their grandparents. That could be peculiarities of who i teach. Did young people see it . My line about the vampire hunter movie is, its not all true. I went to see the Lincoln Moviea in the theater three times, andh each time i was the youngest one in the room, which i think proves your point, but i do thin think that even if the kids didnt see it in the theaters, i dont know what the demographic are of the audience, but theyre going to see it in the classroot for a generation if not two. T its going to be powerful and i theyre going to get it that way. Oing to i teach it and im going to continue to teach it and many n others will and its really e fu important that we focus on how they perceive it in the classroom more than anything else. One more question, paul . On okay. E if i were you, i would be champing at the bit to try tothe get the early drafts of the of script to see how it developed. I dont think youll get it but it would be really interesting s because i bet you anything that those scenes that are less historically accurate were the t ones that evolved most. Youre youre probably right. You know, theres no doubt thato the script evolved. According to all the reports wes have, it started off as a sweeping narrative of the whole war and i think it was spielbere who said we have to focus on this moment. Thats why hes such a great hs storyteller. Ill be honest, in my classes, t have had a tendency in the past to pass over the 13th amendment narrative and focus more on the emancipation proclamation. On now because of the movie and because of other works like james oaks Freedom National or mikes earlier book, i feel lika im aware in a way that i wasne of the dramatic potential of the story, even as i note the discrepancies between the record and the film, but thats what wt great storytellers do, they sho you drama and moments that somes of us miss because we dont have those skills. So thats another thing hollywood got right about the g 13th amendment even as they got some things wrong. So thank you very much. [ applause ] American History tv in prime time tonight features lectures in history, programs that take viewers into classrooms around the country. Beginning at 8 00 p. M. , melvin ely compares reconstruction and civil rights to the lasting changes brought about by these eras. Then remembering the civil war. Robert wolf examines how the memory of that conflict has changed from the 50 and 100year anniversaries to present day. And at 10 30, the war on poverty as Oregon State University professor Marissa Chappelle discusses antipoverty and entitlement programs that arose from president johnsons initiative. Thats all coming up tonight on cspan3. With live coverage of the u. S. House on cspan and the senate on cspan2, here on cspan3 we complement that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and Public Affairs events. On weekends cspan3 is home to American History tv with programs that tell our nations story, including six unique series. The civil wars 150th anniversary, visiting battlefields and key events. American artifacts, touring museums and Historic Sites to discover what artifacts reveal about americas past. History bookshelf with history writers. The presidency looking at policies and legacies of the nations commanders in chief. Lectures in history with top College Professors delving into americas past. And real america featuring archival government and educational fims from the 1930s to the 70s. Cspan3 created by the cable tv industry and funded by your ole cable or satellite provider. Watch us in hollywod, like us o facebook, and follow us on twitter. Next, university of Mary Washington professor Jeffrey Mcclurken evaluates gone with the wind looking at how it became the source on southern culture during 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. Is its a hour 20 minutes. Good morning. As we prepared to talk about the classic 1939 movie gone with the wind, i will are he view the discussion from last time and talk about the making of the film and then well turn to your comments and questions that you posted to the class wiki. Again, remember the goal is to evaluate gone with the wind as a secondary source about the past and 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 will 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 southern planters using slave grown cotton. We talked about how most southern whites didnt own slaves but how all of them were invested in system of racially based slavery. 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 southern whites in this context believed that slavery was some kind of reciprocal relationship between whites and blacks, a concept discussed often as paternalism. And we also talked about how surprised slave holders were to find out during and after the civil war that africanamericans didnt feel the same way. We talked about the experiences of soldiers and civilians during 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 shermans march to the sea in 1864 and the way that is that affected the union war effort, the way that it guaranteed the election of 1864 for Abraham Lincoln and its impact on southern civilians. Moving on to the post war years we looked at the struggles between black and white southerners about what post emancipation economy, society, and political system would emerge. We explored the many ways that former slaves worked to establish themselves as independent members of society and their efforts to separate themselves from whites while earning a living in the emerging system of share cropping. We talked about the longterm consequences on southern White Society of the deaths of nearly 20 of white men of military age and the physical or psychological consequences of war for so many more, including the undermining of southern white mens traditional independence and efforts by southern white women to rebuild them. And we examine the resurgence of southern white men in the 1870 and 1880s to retake control offer in association with violent white supremacist groups like the kkk. We then looked at the ways white southern writers beginning with former confederates themselves began to rewrite the history of the war into a version commonly known as the lost cause. Finally, we introduced margaret mitche mitchells 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;p;p;p itself, its not a stretch, its not a stretch to argue that gone with the wind is the most Popular American historical film ever made, all right . Polls conducted by afi, by the American Film Institute in the 1990s indicated that gone with the wind was the favorite film of most americans and afi itself in the top 100 films of alltime ranked it as fourthoverall. Until recently it ranked in the top 20 money making films of all time and by some estimates would be first if inflation was 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 1 million worth of tickets and had done so in the midst of the Great Depression, all right . It received 13 Academy Award nominations and it won eight oscars. It began running in london in 1940 and played for an amazing 232 consecutive weeks there. With 110 million viewers, its 1976 american tv premiere has the highest rated Single Network program ever broadcast to that point. By one late 20th century estimate, 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 amid occupation. The movie was one of two films requested by vietnams leaders after the vietnam conflict 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 allfemale 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 years later approved the writing of a sequel scarlet my alexandra ripley, both the sequel and gone with the wind were once again best sellers. Her book has sold tens of millions of copies and its never been print and yet the movie reached millions more people than the book has. Now, as a movie gone with the wind was intended to unify two genres of hollywood films the male oriented war film and the womans picture. What do you call the womans picture today . Chick flicks. Its intended to unify a guy film and chick flick. By combining the hero role of rhett butler and the passionate story of scarlet ohara, prothe 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 rights which doesnt sound like very much but if you adjust for inflation its about 800,000. The cast had nearly 60 leading or supporting roles. It had 2,000 extras. They built 90 sets which consumed a million board feet of lumber. Production and advertising costs exceeded 4 million. Adjusted would be 62 million. And the initial cut was six hours long. So be grateful. Now, lots of money was spent to make the movie sets and costumes conform to Margaret Mitchells extremely detailed and supposedly well researched book. She actually paid attention and tried to research what the weather was like when sherman invaded atlanta, right . Incredibly got many of the details right, not all of them as well talk about. So wanted to Pay Attention to the details of the sets and the costuming in part because many of them would have read the book, many fans would have, and partly because Margaret Mitchell was standing there right there watching them as they did this. She insisted on authenticity from the film. And sells nick himself stated over and over again that he wanted complete historical accuracy for gone with the wind. At least in some areas, all right . So he hired a southern dialogue coach, an etiquette adviser, an expert on civil war architecture and art. The Costume Designer spent time in atlanta museums collecting pieces of clothe that he then had duplicated by a textile mill. Ultimately the womens costumes cost 10,000 to make and another 10,000 to wash during the filming. Its amazing this movie ever got made, all right . It had three different directors, two of them working on the project at the same time. It had 17 different screen writers. Even an elderly f. Scott fitzgerald pitched in at one point. It had conflicts between seemingly everyone on set including vivian leigh and clark gable, the two lead actors who really hated each other. It also faced a great deal of pressure from roy wilkins of the naacp on the outside and from Hattie Mcdaniel who played mammy and Butterfly Mcqueen who played prissy on the characterizations of black figures in the film. As jim cullen has noted, ultimately the movie that emerged is slightly less racist, slightly less classist, and slightly less feminist than the book mitchell wrote. While most reviewers loved the film when it came out but film skoler Bruce Chadwick noted that even then a few of the reviewers had concerns with its historical portrayal. One of the reviewers at the time went to far as so note gone with the wind needed to be focused on simply because it is 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 lets begin there. Lets start a discussion there with what the film gets wrong. All right . Now, as a number of you commented on the wiki, the thing that stands out more than perhaps anything else is the portrayal of Race Relations in general and of africanamericans in particular. As usual i have gone and highlighted particular comments or particular parts of your comments as a way to help frame our discussion of the film. And so a number of you talked about the way that people addressed the way that particular africanamerican are por tayed. Why dont we start by talking about the character of prissy. Sighs, frustration, groans, right . What bothered you about the portrayal of prissy in this movie . Yes. Okay. The entire portrayal. Fair enough. A total caricature of every stereotype of what a blowoman w like, hysterical, her voice. High pitched, squeaky. I dont know if thats her natural voice. It is not. Also i thought you said that the actress that portrayed her was voicing some concerns about that character. Butterfly mcqueen expressed a number of concerns about the way that her character was portrayed. Then why did she do it . Well, thats a good question. It was a good paying job at a time when most africanamerican actors and actresses werent given those roles. Were not that far away from birth of a nation where, in fact, many of the black actors were not black, they were white actors in black face, and so and there was some thought that part of what they were doing was working within to try to make it better than it was. I understand your skepticism. Yeah. Yeah . Going off of her voice, with it also being very hysterical, it was also very simpleminded. Like she couldnt understand a lot of what was going on. Okay. Certainly played as a fool really. Yeah, sam. I think, yeah, that she and a lot of the other actual black actors and actresses in this film were almost portrayed as comedic relief as times. They were really sarcastic, that sort of thing. Okay. So that is one potential explanation that we might see as not so bad, right, that theyre being used in a particular way, right . I think we still have problems with that. But i think [ inaudible ] right. Other comments about prissy . Lies a lot. She says she knows how to rear a child when she knows nothing about it, and she says that i have talked to this person when she hasnt. Its kind of silly. I dont know nothing but birthing no babies is this famous line when it comes out, that she doesnt actually know anything. What about so weve got what about big sam . A number of you commented on big sam and especially that scene where big sam and a number of other conscripted slaves are going to the lines, right, to dig ditches effectively, to create the confederate fortifications. They really played into that whole paternalist mentality. Big sam is almost very concerned about scarlets wellbeing, almost paternal towards her in lack of her father actually being there and it was very much like, big sam, im so concerned for you. And its like really theyre sending them to the front lines. Its dangerous, you know. Okay. Other comments about big sam . Yeah, jeremy. They were all awfully happy to be going they were exceedingly happy. They were thrilled to be going to the lines. It was like a musical, theyre all like marching in unison and going forward. I kind of was in mind of the blindside when big sam would talk to other characters. Just grateful to be there when thats really not the way it was at all. And i thought it was interesting because you said the movie was a little less racist than the book was which im hard to believe, yes. So i mean, well talk about this a little bit more later but in some ways the book there are ways the book is much more explicit in its terminology, so the book fairly extensively uses the n word, right . And that was a decision made to take that out of the film. But, yeah, no, its still slightly less racist, still racist. Right, yeah. Okay. So weve got big sam and weve got prissy, right . By the way, there was a study done in which the that 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 seemed somehow appropriate. Okay. What about mammy . Because i think mammy mammy complicates our notion of these stereotypes a little bit, right . How does she complicate our notion of the stereotyping of africanamericans here . She stayed forever. Okay. So she is incredibly loyal, shes always there, right . Youd never know that emancipation happened, right . Theres no sense of that. And, you know, even big sam comes back, right, pork sticks around, prissy is still there. Theyre still around but mammy is a constant presence, right . How else does mammy complicate our notion . Mammy cares for her a lot. In the beginning [ inaudible ]. Mammy was like, no, no, you have to eat. She cared for her so much and in reality they probably wouldnt have cared. All right. I think the respect that scarlet gave back to her because like scarlet would listen to her and value her input instead of being like whatever and ignoring her. Mammy occupies a major role because she is listened to. She is seen as in some ways as a positive influence on scarlet. Yeah . I think the film made more of an evident to portray her as a little bit more of a threedimensional character than some of the other africanamerican characters. I think the part where rhett says shes one person whose opinion he values. So she stands out. I think youre right, thats well put. Threedimensional character in what are most lly two or even o dimensional characters, right . Okay. So mammy in some ways represents i think a large r nuance to southern white understandings of africanamericans, right . Because the name mammy it was not an incidental one, right . The name mammy was chosen by Margaret Mitchell in part because many elite southern antebellum 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, all right, 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 longterm, long standing threat of violence if something went wrong. Wa raises a question here about the notion that this is an almost equal relationship, right . And im curious, does it come across that way as an almost equal relationship between mammy and scarlet and mammy and rhett . Yeah. My initial impulse is to say no because, you know, she does take into account mammys opinions but doesnt always listen to her and shes nasty to her but scarlet is kind of nasty to everyone. So is it because okay. I say at the very least it comes off as reciprocal. You get closer to that perhaps ideal of a southern white perspective of how these relationships worked, right . Okay. Jeremy . Also in a way it was like mother and child because you dont always listen to your mom when she talks to you and mammy seemed to have like a really good, im 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, well, thats just mammy, you know. So to me the almost equal relationship i think is absolutely correct, whether its a good one and why i question her getting an Academy Award for that kind of thing makes me question the hollywood academy. But at the same time i think its almost equal simply because she could get away with so much more than anyone else who is personified in the film. I think the scene where scarlet is putting on the dress to go to the party at 12 oaks and mammy is like you cant wear, that you cant wear that until 4 00 and scarlet is pulling the dress down and mammy is pulling it back up, i think thats a good scene to show how mammy is saying you have these rules, you have to follow these, and scarlet, shes not theyre struggling like mammy has some power and scarlet has some power and scarlet is not really a child anymore so mammy is not so much a mother figure as she maybe has been and its a very complicated dynamic i think that would have been very hard to portray, especially during this time period. Jason . I thought it was interesting on tuesday you mentioned that the structure of race and how it played and how even though the poorest white person would have been seen as better than any black person, and mammy gets away with saying things like, you know, white trash this and white trash that and they accept it and shes not punished for it or anything like that. Yeah. I think mammy represents like the comfort of the old life, especially after scarlets mother dies and i feel like scarlet looks to mammy as that thing she can hold on to, what shes comfortable with. Shes a surrogate for ellen ohara, so she continues to play that role. And representative of her mother and representative of the antebellum world thats lost, right . Mammy gets to be that sort of point of continuity for tara and for scarlet. Okay. Okay. So we dont 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 that afterwards almost everybody else leaves. As well, you dont get much sense of that. Thats not surprising i think, right, given the type of movie this is and the goals of this movie, but it is something that the movie misses out on. Now, i mean, there are certainly more slaves at tara than there are free blacks at tara after the war, right. They just sort of disappear, right . Brooke brought up three points that i think are worth talking about. One is about the mammy image that is still around us today, right . That that concept of the mammy, right, is an incredibly powerful advertising concept, right . And even Something Like aunt jemima who you can sort of see evolving over the years was until relatively recently still looked an awful lot like mammy in this film, right . So that i think is one important point. The other thing that the other two things that brooke brings up is she challenges our ability to critique this movie because its not based on history. Its based on a book of romantic fiction, right . And she challenges the notion that the black characters in this are not smart. So lets take each of those things in turn. Do you agree that with her contention that the mo offy isn movie isnt based on history and the second part of that is if its not based on history, does that matter in our evaluating it . Amanda, go ahead. I just thought it was because they tried to make it so historically accurate, they are trying to make it a historical film. If they had just taken it as a romantic fiction story and didnt try to get any of the facts right, then you might just say, oh, thats fantasy but because they tried to make it so historically accurate, they have a responsibility to then be accurate. And theyre not. Okay. Mary . I would argue that the film is attempting to base itself on history because even within the film its pretty explicit about attempting to sketch this image of a dying age, the whole moonlight magnolias, the cavalier image. Its extremely romanticized but theyre pretty obvious about what it is theyre trying to do. Okay. Carrie. They even open the entire movie with gone with the wind the story of the old south. They set themselves up to play into what you were saying, the moonlight magnolias image but at the same time like you were saying, they did try to take pains to be accurate. Even though theyre bases it off fiction based off history, they clearly made an attempt and so they did a certain amount of responsibility, but its a complicated character, a complicated representation. Sarah . I think unlike the patriot, what was said about the patriot, its 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 more historically relevant and important that they are attentive to historical accuracy than the patriot which was, what, 230 years later. Jeremy . I think brooke made a good point. She said it was based on romantic fiction but based on the memory of the south and so to me i think thats very important. Its a very nostalgic picture. So its kind of complicated because in a way its not going to be historically accurate because its based off a memory. So you have different ideas about whats going on. And i think thats the most important part of it because it is a memory of a time long ago that were nostalgic about that we remember in a very specific way. Okay. All right. Brooke . Thats my point is it is because it is so close to the time that it was that its portraying that is at warped sense of the south i guess is what i was trying to get because they do remember the south, they cant accurately portray it how we would do it now. We dont have that memory. We dont talk to our grandfathers so theyre looking at it emotionally and from firsthand memories as opposed to academic reconstruction and yeah. Thats how i view it. Okay. Paige . Going back to the opening text of the movie, they kind of set this whole public memory thing up because they say how its a land of knights and ladies fair and cavalier and a civilization that was gone with the wind. Yeah. [ inaudible ] how they were basing it on like they thought they were making a historically accurate film or wilson said it was anyway, but it was still playing towards the reg dprejudices of time which im sure well get to soon. So its what its what they had to work with. Okay. 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, right . I think Brookes Point about not being far enough away from it, that this was something that southern whites in some ways were still living in and with is a really important one. Its difficult to get that distance here. Not just the southern whites. Right. I read that hattie mccdaniel was that her name . Was a daughter of a slave. 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. Mary quinn . Speaking of resonance for individuals, i believe even some civil war veteranses were still alive at the time. If i remember correctly some confederate veterans were present at the premiere of the film. Very old, but, yes, they were there. So it was still in living memory when the film was released. Okay. And then what about the second contention here or the third contention here was that the africanamerican characters in this film were smarter and more sensible than many of the whites and then second part of that which is that thats on purpose, that thats intentional. What do you think about that . I mean, i kind of bring up like spike lees point. Comes in tells the white characters how wise we are but never really does anything with themselves, they are just passive observers of the white characters who will do things and get married and the black characters are all static. They dont do anything with their lice. Theyre wiser in a way. So mammy especially i think fits that role, right . And we see and you see that role in lots of other films as well. Okay. Other comments on that idea . I think, again, mammy is the complicating factor here. I dont think anyone would make the case that prissy is smarter than right . So shes just not being played that way. And certainly pork is not being played that way and big sam is not being played that way, right . But, again, mammy is that complicating factor. Okay. Are there i mean, what are some other examples of chair coutures of africanamericans and of slavery in this film . The little girls fanning. Absolutely. The big fans fanning the daughters of slaveholders while they take their beauty rest in the afternoon, right . Cant stay up for the whole picnic, right . Yes. Theres like a black politicians coming in after the war, seemingly oppressing the white people and taking all the power, wearing suits, being just superior to everyone else. Right. Theres that scene right after the war where you have jonas wilkerson, the northern overseer who gets fired at the beginning, riding in that carriage with this very well dressed black man and theres sort of implications as they go by all these veterans, these confederate veterans who are sort of staggering home. What else . Other stereotypes or caricatures. Certainly talked about the happy slaves going off to fight the yankees, right . What about that moment where pork gets the watch of gerald ohara, right . That sort of, again, sort of ties the white family and the black family together, right . I cant take that, i cant take that, right . Or the moment in atlanta, right, where you have these former slaves sounding foolish, sounding ignorant, almost minstrel like in the language that theyre using, being easily manipulated by that slimy carpetbaggers promise of 40 acres and a mule, assuming you vote as your friends do, right . Again, this sort of trope of easy manipulation. Movie doesnt address any of the real problems of slavery or of racial reconstruction or the development of sharecropping, right . Instead we see africanamericans as infan tallized and depicted as always loyal to southern whites unless they had been corrupted by northern whites. So certainly its different than the image of africanamericans as near animals that we saw in d. W. Griffiths birth of a nation but its not necessarily better. Other stereotyped white characters . Yeah. Aunt pittypat. Aunt pittypat, right. Swooning, hysterical, upper class white southern woman. Completely useless. Others . Theres ashley. Hes like the true gentleman, lived for honor, dont disgrace the family kind of person. In some ways ashley is almost onedimensional, right . Theres not a whole lot to him. What about Belle Watling . The hooker with the heart of gold. Thats right. This is a trope we see in other i mean, Julia Roberts made her career on that stereotype, right . Pretty woman, thats that notion of the prostitute with the heart of gold that is absolutely this powerful but stock character, right . Yeah, go ahead. I was going to say, i almost felt like the film for all its portrayals of slavery was almost trying to expose some hypocrisy in the White Community as well. Theres the hooker with the heart of gold and ashley who is an honorable man but at the same time hes leading scarlet throughout the entirety of the movie while eats married with a child and then theres all these useless wealthy white elderly women float agree around the film. I felt it was not making some of these characters look very good. Plenty of useless white males simperring after scarlet, all of them. Right. Absolutely. Obj . I thought it was interesting, they didnt seem to have any poor whites like at all. Right. They talk about whats her face at the beginning who is the white trash but you never see her until she turns up after the war and has married way up. Right. The overseer is sort of middle class. Hes actually a northerner, played as a northerner who comes down. Right. So theres no real portrayal of anything except the rich plantation owning elite. Even Belle Watling even though shes not necessarily reputable shes very rich. So you dont get that sense of a diversity of white economic classes there. Yeah. Jason . Before the war you dont see anybody thats poor struggling and then its only because of the northern aggression and everything they have done, they have ruined everything, and now people are poor and dressing making clothes out of drapes and stuff like that. Right. Yeah. I think that the slaves in the mo offy were like the poor white people because how much theyre oppressed they actively like push them away. It seems like theyre the lowest of the low in gone with the wind where the blacks are actually higher up than that. In some ways they do certainly you see mammy get away with talking about white trash the way that she does. You do have some of that sense, which is a turnabout of the way that that would have worked in southern society. Okay. What about melanie hamilton is she onedimensional character . Is she a threedimensional character . Yeah. I think shes just there to be a foil to scarlet. Shes too good to be true. Shes too good to be true. Theres no personal live that could forgive the stuff that she does and i think its just i think shes just a literary device for scarlet. Okay. Shes just a foil. Anybody else . Actually i kind of disagree because there are times in the movie where she frustrated me because im like you cant be that happy all the time and at the same time i think that she was a strong character because she changed the way that rhett thought about things and then she also i mean, at the end when melanie when melanie was dying and then scarlet was crying, i feel like some of that might have been real, but then i feel like even though she had the same like perspective throughout the whole movie, she did a lot for other characters. I think she was a little more than just there. Kendall . To me she was like the strength of the cause. The purity of the cause kind of. She was always behind it and they had to be strong for it where scarlet, she hated it, but melanie was the one like the trustness of it. Margaret mitchell herself said that melanie was the real heroine. She was the real romanticized southern belle. Shes the one that keeps her honor throughout. She is that symbol of the old south, right . I think in doing so she absolutely plays a foil for scarlet, and scarlet is very much a product of the new south, right . And i want to talk a little bit later about 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 and the question was raised about mr. Ohara because he doesnt seem to be the one in charge of the plantation, all right . You know, why do you think that is . How does he come across . How does this what does this say about masculinity and male authority during this time period . Its hard to decide if hes portrayed as masculine, but its hard because after his wife died, he just kind of loses it. And so hes kind of different in that way. I wish we could have seen another type of male figure like him portrayed so that i could decide like we see him just yeah, before he snaps, like we only see a little bit of him. Even in that snapshot, he didnt have the authority. It was his wife walking up to him and saying fire this man because of something he had done. You know, so he really didnt have the authority. It was his wife, and so maybe that was how scarlet saw that households were run but he never really had authority. Okay. But just think about what you just said, right . His wife went to him and told him to fire someone, right . She couldnt fire the overseer, right . He had to do that. He had to do that but its still his wife no, no. Im not trying to take away from that but i think thats 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. Kendall . We talked in class the other day about how women were in charge of the household, like they had a lot of power themselves as far as taking care of the household and the slaves and in charge of it. And i didnt see it as that much of a stretch that she would go to him and tell him that if it was part of how the household was being run and affecting them. And what particularly are the grounds by which she is having him fired . Amanda . She goes to deliver his like mistresses 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 its about morality, right . She is making this decision on moral grounds, and thats something that women would have absolutely had the superior role in. Yeah . Doesnt he also repeatedly say, well, were going to wait for mrs. Ohara, were going to wait for mrs. Ohara. No, right. He says it before hand, too. But ellen ohara is a very strong woman, all right . I want to talk about her in a little bit. But, yeah, theres no question that she stands out, but lets come back to that. Okay. There is what about the nursing scenes . Brooke brings up that how the nursing scenes didnt necessa necessarily fit what we learned in class. What are the role the interactions between women and men in those hospitals. One thing that you mentioned, i think brooke put it in her comment, the women were around changing bandages and scarlet was all up in there and she was like literally watching what was going on. I guess we had said that women usually were removed from that because they were too pure for that sort of thing and she seemed kind of like a traditional stereotypical war nurse that you would think of and it wasnt what it was like. Another thing to think about is all the hospital scenes portrayed are in the south at the end of the war. There were very few men around. There was a greater chance women would take up these roles acting as nurses whether or not they would do it in full garb in their hoop skirts to do it but it was possible to have women filling those roles in those hospitals. There is certainly in the south it was more likely to see this in extreme circumstances where women would step in. Anybody else . Okay. What about scarlet owning a mill, running a mill, and gallivanting . I mean, does that stand outside of our understanding of gender norms of this time period . I think that after the war it would have been a little more acceptable because of some of the things that i have read postwar for women. They did have a little bit more control in finding jobs. Maybe not running the mill and owning the mill. Thats a little stretch, but probably having a little bit more say. Im surprised her husband didnt have more power in that. Yeah. Technically she married i cant remember his last name. Frank kennedy. Yes. She married him first to get his money and then she used his money in order to build this sort of lumber empire she has but she has to marry him in order to get his money to use it. So it does still belong to him to some extent and i get the feeling that legally his name is on the papers and things but shes the one wielding all the power again in sort of a social relationship. Thats how she gets her business power. Part of what were getting at here is the difference between the law and daily practice, right . And theres no question, right, its absolutely the case that Frank Kennedy owns that mill, right . Now, Frank Kennedy is not running that mill. Scarlet is running that mill, but thats certainly its unusual she would have been so dominant in that way, but not completely unthinkable. So i think but were right to sort of keep these keep in mind that what we see is not necessarily what it would have been in the legal situation. Would it have transferred to rhett then when kennedy died . It depends on the specifics of inheritance law at that time and whether there was anything depends on what Frank Kennedys will said, but, yeah, so scarlet likely would have inherited it because they didnt have any children, would have inherited it, and then, yeah, when rhett married her, it would have gone to him. You know, theres another aspect of gender relations that i just want to mention because i think theres a promotion of a particular kind of gender violence in this film. Do you want to yeah. You know, all along i thought, okay, theyre all kind of rude to each other, but the scene where, you know, theyre living in their really nice house at the end and both scarlet and rhett are drinking and getting into their argument and he roughs her up and then takes her upstairs and rapes her and she wakes up all happy and perky in the morning. Thanks 1930s. Right. So theres no question, look, Domestic Violence certainly existed at this time but the way that that gets filmed and youre absolutely right her waking up with a big smile on her face the next morning has all kinds of problematic implications for what it says about rape and consent and an appropriate marriage. Okay. Lets talk a little bit about costuming and sets, right . And im going to allow Laura Michael and mary quinn to talk about why they are so annoyed, and kari, why they are so ann annoyed by especially one particular scene. What scene was most traumatic for you . Well, the scene where scarlet is being laced into her corset and shes hanging on the bedpost and mammy is tugging on her. If i was being kind, she was trying to look pretty but its not something anybody would do. Its an extremely fashionable ideal. Most women did not lace their corsets tightly like this because its not practical. Because you need to breathe. Yes, you need to breathe. It was just simply a fashionable ideal. I think this scene in particular has contributed to the misunderstanding that a lot of people have about 19th century fashion and it was this very restricting like sexist impractical kind of thing which it really wasnt. Im not saying its not an uncomfortable garment to wear but its not nearly as bad as its made out to be in this film. Do you want to comment on costuming . Scarlet was always had this little tiny waist and you can see in the scenes a lot of times like she had her dress sort of unbuttoned and you can see lake theres just skin. Theres no i mean, these are pretty large undergarments theyre wearing and the silhouette that she has in the scenes like where shes like taking her nap and shes just wearing her corset and her drawers and stuff is very different from the silhouette that you see when shes like at parties and things. Its just you cant wear a corset a period correct corset and look the way she does and they did some things that were correct like they had a lot of trim that started on the shoulders and came into the waist which makes your shoulders look broader and your waist look smaller in comparison but there are also like Little Things they didnt do. The setting of the sleeves, for instance, the shoulder seams during those time were very far down because, again, it helped to widen your shoulders to make your waist look smaller and they had lots of modern little shoulder seams up here that have narrow shoulders which was much more characteristic of the 30s ideals. Part of what we see going on is a kind of idealization not of the fashion of the 1850s through 70s but of a 1930s version of the 50s through 70s. A lot of especially movies made in this period of time in the early mid90s, a lot of the accessories, a lot of some of the articles of clothing that these women are wearing and even the muskets and even some of like the can teeteens and thing like that, some of those are probably original. From a preservation standpoint the mourning brooch that scarlet wore was most certainly they would have just bought an original somewhere rather than making it with the hair and everything. So just seeing that from preservation standpoint just makes me want to. Carrie . They did sort of fudge a lot of the period undergarments. She wasnt wearing that corset properly. Im sorry, you would have passed out. Because they werent designed to squish you in. It doesnt change your waist side. It changes the way you carry yuz. Its designed to straighten your back up, hold your shoulders back. When this wasnt convenient they didnt bother. The scene where she shoots the yankee in the house and melanie takes her night dress off, if you look carefully, you see shes wearing a 1930s bra under the night shirt. So they clearly like no one is going to notice. Just wear a bra, no big deal. To be fair at this point people couldnt stop the movie and couldnt pause the movie while they were watching it, right . This is before. They can get away with things they cant get away with today. A couple other things with the sets. Tara entirely too big to be an upcountry georgia house. Those columns on the front of tara were the source of great controversy during the filming. Finally sells nick just said this is the way i want it. Make it up. 12 oaks is oddly styled for an up country georgia plantation. Architects say that it looks more like something in virginia during this time period. All this maybe wouldnt matter except that sells nick claimed he wanted historical accuracy. He used a number of historical consultants and the film i think implies a kind of historical authenticity with the various dates and letters and orders that they use as transitions between scenes. But the history isnt really all that great, and we see that from the very beginning as historian cath lynn clint Katherine Clinton pointed out. In the opening scene the slaves are picking cotton. The problem with that is we know that its april of 1861 because the news of fort sumter arrives, right . You dont pick cotton in april, all right . Its very early in the growing process. All right. All right. Lets talk a little bit about the readings that you all did. In what way did the readings that we did this week, and we looked at, you know, we looked at articles and army orders and letters. We looked at items written by former slaves like Harriet Jacobs. By southern defenders of slavery like george fits hue, northern observers, and even the correspondence between the mayor of atlanta and general william sherman. Having read all of that, how does the movie align or disagree with these the readings of the era . What do the readings add to our understanding of this time period that the movie doesnt . Jeremy . In the film, slaves are very happy, obedient and loyal. In the readings they spoke about the abuse endured and the way families were treated on the plantations, which thats a juxtaposition. Its just wrong. Right. We see that in Harriet Jacobs staff. We see that in mrs. James stewarts letters. We get a sense of a very different experience. How about go ahead. In the reading, i forget if its harry jacobs or James Stewart but when the girl is raped every day and she said she couldnt tell her grandmother because she would be looked down upon. That really surprised me. 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, she, you know, the grandmother looked down upon her. It kind of confused me because i thought that since the grandmother expected it because she knew this was sadly the norm and the fact that she still i dont know, it just really surprised me. This is Harriet Jacobs story, diary of a slave girl. This is an incredibly powerful account and it gets at some of the complexities within the Africanamerican Community in the south about how to deal with these assaults by whites on blacks. Mary chestnuts diary brings up the possibility about slavery, that slavery isnt such a good thing, right . Calls it a monstrous system. So you do get some sense, but theres no questioning of slavery that occurs in the film. None at all. Lets move on to 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 scarlets story is similar to what people went through in the Great Depression. Shes wealthy or at least well off and then because of the north all her wealth is taken that to like new york city as being the stock market so people could blame them. Even if you werent wealthy you had a lifestyle and then you became poor and then it showed when she finally gets all the money that theres hope for when it maybe ends. So thosenr parallels the peoe saw from the Great Depression and the time its being depicted. I just want the comment that the story has parallels from stories that i used to hear from my grandfather because he grew up he was the youngest of, i believe, eight. He grew up during the Great Depression. I found many parallels watching the movie as with his stories. I think many people would have felt that parallel. Scarlets line, as god as my witness i will never be hungry again, would have resonated in deep, meaningful ways with the depressionera audience, right . What does the film have to say about land . What does the film have to say about land . Yeah. That its the most important thing and the only thing that cant be taken away from you. I quoted when he is talking to scarlet at the beginning about what tara should mean to her. Do you mean to tell me, i almost want to do the irish accent. Im not going to. Do you mean to tell me katie scarlet ohara that land doesnt mean anything to you . That land is the only thing gh the world worth working for, fighting for and dying for because its the only thing that lasts. Thats right smack in the beginning of the movie we see that. Then another link to land and tara. Just before the intermission when she falls on her knees in the dirt before tara and swears, as god as my witness, i will never go hungry again. Thats very much tied to the location where she is at. And then at the end when rhett leaves her, before another famous line, she says, tara, home. Ill go home. Right . So thats going to fix it. Thats an incredibly powerful sense. I think this adds an element that these people werent fighting just so they could keep black people in subjugation. They just wanted their land and their farms. This is where they grew up and had a right to fight for their homes. It makes them feel more like crusaders rather than the alternate view of them which is that they wanted to keep black people working for them so they could sip their tea on their porches. This version is a much more palatable version to share. A more powerful part of the lost cause myth. Okay. 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 premiere emerges, theres actually all kinds of confederate flags and veterans show up at the premiere, right . It is very explicitly about a celebration of the confederacy and of confederate heritage, right . Theres no question that thats part of it. Both hannah and jeremy talk about the portrayal of the north in this. How much do you think this fits into its being made at the time period that it was . Hannah. [ inaudible ]. Apparently during the 1930s thats what historians thought of the civil war. Its the war against the northern aggression. Its very portrayed in the film. Its this very clear notion that this is the norths fault. Theres also this idea that the south never really caught up afterward. I read this book by president of harvard, drew he said they are still finding bodies in 1992 in the south and civil war. I think she made reference earlier. The north caused the Great Depression in some peoples minds because they crashed the stock market. 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, its 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 . The way i saw it was that you had scarlet who was never going to go hungry again so she will do what she can 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 rhett for the money. He makes her a deal. Thats why she marries them. But then theres melanie who follows the marrying ashley and has a 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 melanie who fits into the gender roles and everyone loves her. What are people supposed to what are women supposed to take from this . I thought scarlet was portrayed as a survivor. She survives the war and clearly will live to see another day. Melanie dies at the end of the movie. Im not sure what to take away from it, to be honest. Its complicated. Fair enough. Shes very much im going manipulate to get whatever i want. But every time that slick rhett guy shows up, she literally swoons with him and begs him to stay. So there is this huge conflict of youre 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 didnt marry i cant remember his name but the lumber baron, kennedy, then she wouldnt have the money to start her lumber business and get what she wanted with that. Theres no question it would be very difficult for a single woman or a widow to survive in this environment entirely on their own. 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 rhett. Well, i think, you know, i dont know of anything i mean, you might say theres bad luck. You might say that theres something going on, but i dont know of anything that would have prevented someone from marrying 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 two weeks