Gone With the Wind Musical- Page 4

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:17pm

Wow! You're right, Fenchurch! GWTW's propaganda never managed to reach me, but yours definitely has! Imagine that...I condone slavery!

SO good to get that off my chest. Thank you so much for opening my eyes.

***

(Reality-check sidebar: Has a thread about a potential GWTW Broadway musical really come to accusing people of condoning slavery just because they like the movie?? It's arguably the most popular movie ever made, and one of the best-selling novels of all time. Are you really under the dilusion that anyone who likes GWTW can't tell the difference between fiction and reality? Are you really saying we've all been duped into believing that the way slavery in GWTW -- and any other topic in movies and novels, for that matter -- is depicted is the gospel truth? Does anyone else find this entire line of thinking as utterly ludicrous and offensive as I do?)

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:25pm

Very Amusing. And VERY telling.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:30pm

What I think is fairly obvious that MYB has twisted my words.

But as you so astutely asserted previously, I don't remember addressing that to you, MYB.

As I stated before, as entertainment, GWTW is one of my favorite films and an even better book, but it is historical fiction, and as such an icon of the American South, it often eclipses the reality of the situation, even if people don't believe it is really true, they still romanticize it.

It's like Santa Clause (SPOILERS AHEAD)...most people know he doesn't exist, but isn't it a downer when someone actually says it?

It's a pleasant bucolic tableau that Mitchell paints, and people cling to it. It's much more palatable (to most people, and certainly to the dominant part of our culture) to handle this view of our history rather than the truth. That's why there's no musical of "Roots" yet.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:34pm

"If one romanticizes the story and clings to it, for whatever reason...then one has to really think about whether or not one is passively condoning the attitudes inherent in it."

True. How could I possibly twist that into you implying that I condone it? *eyeroll*

WalkOn...it's "telling" of what, exactly? Or you also accusing me of passively condoning slavery?

[Shawk]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:37pm

Is it really so impossible that someone could enjoy at least some portions of Gone with the Wind while simultaneously viewing it through the lense of historical context? I think most people are capable of reading/seeing Gone with the Wind, liking the romantic (or whatever they like about it) aspects of it while also recognizing that at times it represents attitudes that are not acceptable.

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:40pm

EXACTLY, Shawk...thank you! That's all I'm saying.

I have to confess, in all sincere, humble honesty, that this entire conversation has me baffled. I've clarified/retracted my "historically-accurate" terminology, so what part of anything I said are people clinging to that makes it sound like I condone slavery?

[broadwaylover423]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:40pm

I've been a fan of GWTW for years. Yes, the treatment of slaves is romanticized. But the main appeal is the characters. Rhett, Scarlett, Ashley, and Melanie have all become somewhat iconic. The slaves are not the main issue in this book. Scarlett and Rhett are, to me at least, what make the story great.

Now for the musical. I really think it could work. Now that I've thought about it, I can kind of see Jackman as Rhett. However, I don't think Paice would make a great Scarlett. I see her as more of a Melanie. My ideal Scarlett would be Haviland Stillwell. She's from Georgia, has a striking resemblance as to how I picture Scarlett, and has a beautiful voice. I'm also all for Patrick Wilson as Ashley.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:45pm

Mother's

It is telling, I believe, of your mammoth ego to assume I was addressing you.

I actually wasn't. I was not addressing anyone in particular. I was responding to an idea someone (NOT YOU) had posted. If you read the thread carefully, you can figure out what idea and who posted it.

I have directly addressed you only ONCE before on this thread. I asked you a question that you refused to answer.

...

Shawk,

Possibly. I did for while. I LOVED GWTW growing up.

But I discovered that I had to actively ignore the truth of slavery to continue enjoying it.

With the civil war backdrop, the slaves portrayed as wanting the south to win and Scarlett's husband joining the KKK, it becomes harder and harder for me to ignore such issues. I had to make a choice: continue to convince myself that slavery wasn't THAT bad and keep enjoying this story.. or leave it alone and move on.

Updated On: 2/23/07 at 04:45 PM

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:48pm

I often find the same people who say that the general public is intelligent enough to view art through a historical lens and weed out what is not acceptable are usually the same people who condemn the general public for being too stupid not to know to talk back to the movie screen or holler in the theater or eat candy too loud or understand why people start singing in the middle of a story.

So which one is it? Is the general public idiots or geniuses? Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in between, maybe, just maybe, some people will view this story with a critical historical eye and some won't.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 4:52pm

What I think is interesting is that most of the black people I know have no issue with GONE WITH THE WIND as a piece of fiction, while I often hear the moral dilemma arguement from friends who are white, under 40 and not even from the south(i.e. descendents of possible slave owners). Not a judgement of right or wrong - just an interesting observation.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:00pm

I've noticed that to some degree too, Michael Bennett.

- incidentally - for anyone who cares, I'm not white.

My feeling about the book and movie were something akin to what Alice Randall felt before she wrote THE WIND DONE GONE.

She loved the story. As a young black woman, she identified with Scarlett. But as she grew older the story was no longer about entertaining and uplifting her, but negating and demeaning her.

[Shawk]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:01pm

So which one is it? Is the general public idiots or geniuses? Or maybe the truth lies somewhere in between, maybe, just maybe, some people will view this story with a critical historical eye and some won't.

Er, no kidding. Some people are smarter and/or more critical and aware than others and I don't see that changing. Does this mean that all literature and art that does not meet current PC standards should be altered for modern consumption? I think that's a bit condescending.

It's sort of like banning the "Little House" books for racism. I think it would be much more valuable to read the books with children and discuss the historical background and attitudes and how they have changed, rather than pretending that it never happened and oh God, protect the children, it's too dirty to touch because some people might not get it or want to get it.

[broadwaylover423]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:02pm

MB, that is a very interesting observation. Generally, it does tend to be that way, doesn't it? Most people I know don't see slavery as an issue in GWTW. Mainly because it doesn't hurt or help the plot in any way.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:06pm

I actually think a musical of THE WIND DONE GONE would be more interesting and probably more viable than a musical of GWTW, which even if you didn't have a slave character in sight is a sprawling epic story that would probably cost about 30 million and six hours to stage well.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:12pm

broadwaylover423, the issue of slavery doesn't hurt or help the plot in anyway?

WOW!!! I'm rubbing my eyes in disbelief.

...

As for a musical version of THE WIND DONE GONE. I'd be interested in that story too. The whole GONE WITH THE WIND told from the perspective of Scarlett's half-sister. I'd buy a ticket.

[Fenchurch]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:14pm

My eyes were rolling more than being rubbed, but the astonishment wasn't lost on me, either WalkOn.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:15pm

Well, I think you could argue that GWTW is fundamentally not about slavery. You could certainly do a cliffsnotes version and eliminate all the slave characters and still be able to tell the basic plot of the story. I think thats what broadwaylover means.

[WalkOn]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:20pm

True. It is not fundamentally about slavery.. but the issue of having or not having slaves weighs into the plot a wee bit with the whole civil war thing.

I suppose you could reset it in France during one of their revolutionary wars. Call it LES MIS 2.

Wait... didn't the French already do that?

Updated On: 2/23/07 at 05:20 PM

[Fontybell]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:27pm

Jill Paice would make a wonderful Melanie. Melanie should be very sturdy, kind, soft - all of which Jill embodies.

Hugh Jackman would be a GREAT Rhett.

Patrick Wilson would be a really fantastic Ashley - or possibly someone like Robert Hunt? (actually, he would also make a great Rhett)

I'm still all for Haviland Stillwell to do Scarlett.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:30pm

This is already doomed to fail. It sounds like the producers have no idea what they want. They want to tell the story from the slaves point of view, but cast Hugh Jackman?

I've always liked GWTW. I think that Mammy is one of the smartest characters in literature. She knows how to work inside the confines in which she's been placed. For example, in the book, Scarlett does something that Mammy disapproves of. Mammy knows it would be difficult to go straight to Mrs. O'Hara, so during family prayer, Mammy stands in the hallway and prays loudly telling God what Scarlett did, knowing Mrs. O'Hara will hear. Mammy is one smart lady.

[broadwaylover423]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:36pm

Thank you Michael Bennett! That's exactly what I meant. You put it better than I could. Yes it's about the Civil War, but if you did a basic summary of the plot, you wouldn't need to include the slaves.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:38pm

Well, of course, slavery was not the only issue involved in the war between the states, Walk On - so hypothetically, you could tell the story, keep it during the Civil War and not include slavery at all. And I agree with Goth - the black characters in GWTW are among the smartest and most rational in the entire book. They have a lot more dignity than a lot of the white characters.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:51pm

GWTW is a piece of fiction with a real life setting for whatever it is worth. It is not a real story. It is fiction

[Mother's Younger Brother]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:54pm

WalkOn,
Please forgive me. I admit that I felt a little ganged-up-on from the start; after that, being accused of condoning something as horrific as slavery definitely got to me even more, and my temper was raised fairly quickly. I didn't want discuss something as potentially sensitive as political-correctness under those conditions. Without trying, I ended up discussing racism and slavery instead. Oh well, so much for trying to avoid sensitive subjects while already in a bad mood.

So, I'm going to attempt to answer your question, or at the very least, write the post that I should have written instead of the lame, hurried response I initially posted: I was originally responding to the notion of the musical telling the story from the slave's perspective. Like many other people here have already stated by now, I simply feel that's not what GWTW is about. It's about Rhett and Scarlett, and more specifically, it's written/told from her perspective. I for one am offended by Scarlett's treatment of her slaves, but that not only adds to her character by showing us her priorities and attitudes, but it also serves to reinforce my own personal distaste for slavery. As Michael Bennett just said, it illustrates the owners' lack of dignity, and only serves to elevate that of the slaves.

My point is simply that I'm not a fan of altering authors'/creators' intent. You, yourself said the idea of telling the story through the slaves' eyes was "painful"...and I'm agreeing with you.

ANYWAY, I have no idea if I've just dug myself a deeper hole and acquired an enemy, or not. But I do know I was angry and offended, and that definitely influenced my ealier posts.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/23/07 at 5:59pm

"It's a pleasant bucolic tableau that Mitchell paints, and people cling to it. It's much more palatable (to most people, and certainly to the dominant part of our culture) to handle this view of our history rather than the truth. That's why there's no musical of 'Roots' yet."

What about Dessa Rose?

Anyway, my two cents:

I always viewed Gone With the Wind as a romantic tale using the Civil War as a backdrop for a story of a spoiled rich girl whose rose-colored glasses are ripped from her eyes as the "perfect" little world she has known crumbles around her, forcing her to learn to make her way in a new world that wishes to erase her past and her history. The film is told from Scarlett's perspective, so it makes perfect sense that it would be a skewed perspective rather than an accurate historical representation. No doubt Scarlett was shielded from the atrocities of slavery and her personal attendants seemed jovial and maybe slightly mischievous. That is how they were expected to behave around her. It is not a story of slavery or the realities of the Civil War. It is the story of selfish Scarlett and her perception of the events that surrounded her.