I just watched “gone with the wind”

Post Reply New Topic

The one thing that struck me in this film, in a bad way, is that they used large number of dead soldiers as a way to represent defeat. I never thought of it that way. I always viewed the large number of dead soldiers as a representation of sacrifice, which is almost synonymous with effort, which in turn would lead to victory. Now, I am not denying history: the south lost, that’s a fact. But why, of all other ways of representing the defeat, they would choose this one?

Maybe part of it is cultural. Soviet Union lost 20 million soldiers in World War 2, and they won. In fact, the fact that they lost so many soldiers is the very reason that they won. And when they celebrate their victory on May 9, the number of dead soldiers is one of the main things they are remembering ... and take pride of. Pride, because it represents the sacrifice they were willing to take. That’s why watching this film and seeing the number of dead soldiers being synonymous of defeat really rubs me the wrong way.

Let me give you an analogy. Suppose you want to picture that John lost the race. Would you picture it by showing how tired John is after the race? I personally wouldn’t. Being tired is a sign of effort. An effort leads to victory. Do people that lose feel tired? I guess they might, since they just faced much stronger opponent. But the people that win get tired too, just for a different reason: they sacrificed a lot more in order to win.

Or let me give you another example, the one actually present in the film, too. I really don’t like picturing people in a hospital as a way of saying they are about to die. Maybe not. Maybe they are about to get cured. And similarly I don’t like picturing people sleeping as saying they are about to die. Maybe not. Sleep is a way of a body to heal itself.

However, now that I watched this film, I seemed to have discovered an answer to one of my other questions that I had. I was always puzzled as to why Americans credit themselves with “freeing the world from Hitler”, given that Soviet soldiers contributed a lot more towards the war? Well, now I think I have an answer. When I was thinking that Soviets contributed a lot more, I was mainly thinking of 20 million soldiers that Soviets lost in that war. But now I realize that American mindset is different. In Soviet mindset, dead soldiers is a sign of sacrifice. In American mindset, dead soldiers are a sign of defeat. So, from Soviet point of view, Soviets lost more soldiers, so they sacrificed more, and thus deserve most of the credit. But from American point of view, Soviets lost so many soldiers, so they “effectively” lost, and therefore it’s the Americans that deserve credit. See what I mean?

In any case, like I said, I can’t deny history. So the fact that south lost is a fact. I just don’t like the way they shown it. I wish they could pick some other way of showing a defeat. Such as a paper document simply stating that they lost (without mentioning dead soldiers).

On a separate note, while I can’t deny that south lost in the past, I do wish for them to win in the future (as slogan goes, “the south shall rise again”). If that were to happen, it would disprove that defeatist idea of what dead soldiers represent. Because even though we can’t do anything about the past defeat, it would only be temporary one (even if lasting over a century) which would then allow us to rename it and just call it temporary occupation. And this in turn will mean that dead soldiers represent a hardship to be overcome as opposed to any kind of finality.

what about the romance bit of the film

I wish there was a continuation to show if she will get back with Rhet or with Ashly. I mean she is perfectly set up to get back with Ashly except that now she doesn’t want to.

On a completely different note, it pisses me off how her reputation was restored just because Melanie didn’t ostracize her. Because that implies blame the victim type of thing. She is still a perpetrator just as much (she still hugged Ashly) but she is a bit less of a victim (at least she is not Melanie’s victim). And she is being better liked SOLELY on the basis of being less of a victim. That is unfair.

What happens to aspies is the other side of a coin of this phenomenon. Just like her reputation was redeemed because Melanie talked to her, aspie reputation gets damaged because people don’t talk to them. And that’s why it’s unfair: people ostracize the ones that others ostracize. If one gets ostracize then people should help them out. But nope they ostracize them even more.

The reason why you would show defeat by showing dead soldiers is that, for the defeated, that's all that's left. All the sacrifice was in vain. It doesn't matter how hard you fought, or what you fought for, if eventually, you lost. You write that "an effort leads to victory", but that's simply not correct. Only effort leads to victory, but not all effort leads to victory. You're being disrespectful to anyone who didn't win or make first place in a competition here, saying they didn't put in effort. But also to anyone fighting with a machete against someone with a machine gun. Or to infantry soldiers being bombarded or gassed from an airplane. Or anyone who got a nuclear bomb dropped on them.
Anyone who was fighting in the face of overwhelming challenge, but never had a chance. They put in the effort. They lost anyway.

There's an interesting war-film I like to talk about with my students: Saving Private Ryan.
It begins with half an hour of very realistic, brutal war. People getting their limbs blown off etc. - but then it changes mood, and eventually, you get Private Ryan returning home after the war and his mother hugging him.
I like this example, because you can sum it up in one sentence:
Though war is horrible, it is worth to fight for the people and their families.

But if you turn it around, putting death and destruction at the end, like in Gone wothe Wind, the whole meaning changes:
You can fight for people and family, but war means death and destruction.

Saving private Ryan, though infinitely more brutal in its depiction, is eventually a film to convince you that war can be honourable. Gone with the Wind is more nuanced (and not so singularly focussed on war, anyway).

Dead soldiers represent the futility of war.

I wuldnt mind watching it now so I can see what you mean.

It can’t represent the futility of the war since northerners are the ones who chose to attack while southern dead soldiers are the ones they shown.

Simply showing a sacrifice doesn’t imply that it’s in vain. Soviets showing their dead soldiers after World War Two are making the opposite point: that their sacrifice was for a great cause.

Put on YouTube “gone with the wind” but then it would direct you to a video that would require subscription to see fully. Then you get a chance to pay for the subscription, which isn’t that much. Then you watch it.

Melanie and Ellen were two of my favourite characters of all time.

They showed dead soldiers because that's reality. Soldiers die in war. It adds to Scarlett's character because she starts to realise how much her home means to her, instead of being a spoilt and petty child. She's willing to fight for her home and those she loves. Her determination leads to "As God as my witness", as evidence of the bildungsroman.

I'd recommend the book rather than the film though.

But then why did they only show dead soldiers at a point of losing instead of showing them at a point of winning?

Remember the episode where Scarlet went to a party, despite still mourning, and where Rhett danced with her. So at that party they were announcing how southerners were *winning*. They only began to lose later.

So why didn’t they show southern dead soldiers at *that* point? That would have also fulfilled a purpose of Scarlet realizing how much land means to her. *But* it would be a different connotation, as they died for a great cause. Showing dead soldiers in conjunction to winning is what I used to see when Russians celebrate victory of world war 2 on May 9.

So the kind of movie I would prefer is this. First, southerners are winning. And, while they still win, they show dead soldiers. That would raise their pride and patriotism. Then, later, they lose. When they lose, they don’t have to show dead soldiers. Just a simple declaration of defeat would be a blow, since the past victory (that used to be coupled with dead soldiers) is for nothing.

If they want to show dead soldiers at a losing stage, it better be in the context of remembering the winning. So they remember how they used to win and sacrificed so much, and in the context of their memory dead soldiers are shown. But then they are back to reality where they lose, and then they don’t show dead soldiers but just a humiliating document of defeat.

Melanie was also one of my favorite characters.

GwtW was one of my favorite books when I was growing up.

I love the cinematic score, though. It’s gorgeous.

We can only speculate on why Victor Flemming directed that scene the way he did; so I think it was likely because the Confederacy lost the entire war, and showing all of those corpses would have taken up the entire movie.

If the south shall rise again I hope it is nothing like the south that was defeated. Indications point the other way.

Again, the assumption here is that the losing side had more soldiers killed. That is simply not true. Soviet Union lost 20 million soldiers. Nazi Germany lost a lot less. Yet Soviets won the war.

Not quite. I am yet to meet anyone today who actually wants slavery. But there are plenty of people who want south to rise again. So south rising again doesn’t include bringing slavery back.

Similarly, back in the past, both sides were racist, just in different way. Union folk wanted to free blacks, and then ship them back to Africa. Confederate folks wanted to keep blacks, so they can be slaves. Union won, but blacks weren’t shipped to Africa since mentality changed. Similarly if Confederates were to win, blacks would have been eventually freed too, for the same reason.

Another interesting point: Democrats were the ones in support of slavery and Republicans wanted to give blacks more rights. Just goes to show how much things changed.