Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)

Rape and revenge

Does Gone with the Wind belong in the categories "Films about rape" and "Films about revenge?" The film does feature rape and revenge, but I don't think that either of those things defines the film.

why do my comments keep getting REVERTED...and even a msg about "disruptive editing"?! they are reasonable comments and i've just BEGUN editing here! moreover, the ID which keeps doing this to me has their talk page LOCKED.

sorry for posting THIS here, but until that user unlocks the talk page, how else do i resolve this?

moreover, the reversions are SO fast, i wonder if some bot is doing it. is said user actually a real human? 66.30.47.138 (talk) 01:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a bot committing vandalism. Especially if no reasons are given for reversion. 2.31.164.112 (talk) 05:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

the movie is defined by a lot of things, and reduced to opinions that outweigh source material, including from wiki, itself. falsifying history, for example, is weakly defined, to justify it. so is adjusting for inflation, to claim that it still holds the box office record. you might as well go by international gut feeling and say that starwars from 1977, holds the record. considering academy award history, it is fair to say that african americans only get awards if they depict a role that satisfies racists, if they get an award, at all. this movie proves that. so, depending on your political position, you will state what defines this movie. that includes a man point of view vs a woman point of view, whether rape defines this film. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Listing of Cast

Contrary to what is written in the section entitled, "Cast," the four principal actors in the film are listed in traditional within the first two minutes after the opening credits come on screen. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pL2yPFxBQQ4 John Paul Parks (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

This an excellent and thorough article on the subject, particularly impressive in its summary of both what's amazing and what's reprehensible in this film. I've made some minor copyedits as I went for grammar and style; please feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Anything I couldn't immediately fix I noted below. And again, thanks for your hard work on this one! It's paid off well.

• The nota bene re: Brent and Stuart could use a source, since it's contradicting the official credits. Also, you might consider moving this to the same section as the other NBs.
  • Put into note format. Source included in the note.
• Cliff Edwards as voice of unseen reminiscent soldier
  • I can't recall if he's unseen or not, but the AFI credits him as the "reminiscent soldier" so have followed suit.
• Yakima Canutt as renegade -- should these two entries each have a "the"? (Like "the amputation case" or "the Yankee deserter"?) Or is this language taken verbatim from the credits?
  • All credits from "Yankee deserter" onwards just credit the actor, not the part. The roles for these "unnamed" parts are sourced through the AFI catalog (source #1).
• "Cukor knew of Clark Gable's early days in Hollywood working as a gigolo on Hollywood's gay circuit, so Gable used his influence to have him discharged" -- Is Gable's past as a gay gigolo absolutely factually established? This seems like a sentence that might benefit from an "According to Author X" in front of it.
  • As in he came out? Not likely, but it seems to be classic Hollywood's worst kept secret. As you can see from this Google search, lots of writers have covered it. We could attribute it to the writer, but in a sense it already is through the citation. This book claims that Joan Crawford supposedly discussed the affair between Gable and Billy Haines, while Barney Oldfield (pictured here with Gable) apparently confirmed the rumors to the writer. I don't really want to go into all this in the article because it is incidental to the topic, but it most likely played a part in why Cukor was fired so that's why it is included. That said I don't mind pulling it out if you are uncomfortable with it, readers can get a full account of his dismissal on the George Cukor article.
    • No, I think you've convinced me. This was news to me but you're right that it appears backed up by other sources, making a regular citation fine.
• "was the greatest moment of his life, the greatest victory and redemption of all his failings" -- is the "his" here Thomson or Selznick? I assume Selznick is meant, but Thomson is the last male referred to in the text.
  • This claim predates my involvement with the article and the source isn't available to me, but since Thomson was born in 1941 I think it's safe to assume he wasn't at the preview in 1939. I've square bracketed Selznick's name to settle any confusion.
• "As well as becoming the first color film to win Best Picture,[49] it also become the longest." -- slightly ambiguous -- the longest film or the longest color film?
  • It was the first color film, and the longest film to win Best Picture up to that point, or at least that's how I interpret the source anyway. It was the longest American sound film ever made at the time too, so that interpretation must be correct. I've reworded it as "As well as becoming the first color film to win Best Picture,[49] it also become the longest Best Picture winner too." If it's still not clear enough feel free to word it as you see fit.
• "went on to sell an estimated sixty million tickets across the United States—sales equivalent to just under half the population at the time" -- this seems like a small bit of original research. First, the 60 million figure is from the film's initial release, and subsequent two re-releases. More importantly, though, this comparison to the US total population doesn't appear in any secondary source provided here. I'd suggest cutting the "sales equivalent to" part.
  • During this period, the big films had tiered releases: the roadshows, general release and then the discount theaters. The 1941 "release" was actually the film's general release as opposed to a "re-release" (as confirmed by Schatz). Some sources (quite a lot actually) refer to the 1941 release as a re-release, but it was not what we would consider a re-release today, where a film is actively withdrawn and then put back into theaters, such as with Titanic last year. It was really just a phase in its overall release schedule. GWTW played until the end of 1943 when it was finally withdrawn from distribution, so I have clarified the 60 million figure to be from that four year period to avoid the confusion. Obviously if the source presents the figure as the result of three releases we shouldn't misrepresent what it says, but I think the information should be presented in a way that is consistent with what we mean by a re-release today.
  • I added the census/population figure to provide some context for the ticket sales, otherwise we are just throwing a figure at readers. I understand the potential OR problem here, but I believe I have stayed on the right side of the line, or at least the sentence could be worded to make sure it remains on the right side. A typical synthesis problem I had to be careful to avoid was to take the 60 million figure and the 130 million population figure and infer that half the population watched GWTW. The OR problem there is the assumption that there were no repeat sales which is why I used the term "equivalent to". Another possible way of wording this would be to say "sold 60 million tickets when the population stood at 130 million" or words to that effect, because I do think it is important to provide a context for the figure, otherwise it may as well be 6 million or 600 million to a reader not familiar with US demographics.
• "Despite being released twenty-five years later, inflation played a smaller part than it usually does in films breaking older box-office records: the top price of a ticket to see Gone with the Wind was $2.20,[59] whereas for The Birth of a Nation it was $2" -- I can't access the second source, but this seems like another small bit of original research. Are there any secondary sources that explicitly make this comparison and evaluation?
  • Yes, you are right, so I have removed this statement, and replaced it with an actual audience figure.
• " MGM earned a rental of $41 million from the release,[65] almost as much as that year's James Bond film, You Only Live Twice ($44 million)" -- another comparison that could use a secondary source
  • Like with the population figure above, I was trying to create some context. However, re-reading that section I think the context is spelt out enough, and this statement doesn't really add much. Indeed, it depends on the reader being familiar with the James Bond films, so as context it is vague, so I have removed the statement.
• "from Senator George of Georgia" -- is it possible to add the senator's first name? Looks like it's Walter F. George.
  • I've added his full name to the caption, on the assumption it is him.
• "where the audience is left in no doubt that she will "get what's coming to her"" -- which of the three sources is this a quotation from?
  • I have spread out the sources in this section so you can see where each specific claim comes from.

Nominator comments

Thanks for reviewing it. I don't have any complaints about the copy-editing, I always get to a point on these articles where I start to see what I think is there rather than what is, no matter how many times I read through. As for your concerns above, I will work my way through them and address each one directly. Betty Logan (talk) 09:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick responses. I'm happy with all the above and will start the final checklist.

I came here looking for a reference, long after the fact of this being written. I'd just like to put in my two cents about Cukor's firing, and that's all it is (and probably all it's worth), two cents. I've never believed that story about him and Gable. Cukor was going too slowly for Selznick, number one. Secondly, Selznick was so desperate to have Gable - if Gable knew Cukor was the director, why didn't he ask for another director or say he wouldn't do the movie? Why decide while they're filming that Cukor knew about his past? Gable and Cukor certainly knew one another before this; Cukor filled in on the film Manhattan Melodrama.Chandler75 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is excellent; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	File:Queen's Theatre 1941.jpg needs a tag for its US copyright status. Temporarily removed from article. Won't be restored unless cleared at Commons. It is a good image--hope we can clear permissions.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass

Rape scene

Saying Rhett intends to "Have sex with" Scarlett in the plot is inaccurate, and should be changed to rape. Stephanie921 (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No.198.161.4.52 (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Why not? Stephanie921 (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Because he does not actually say his intention is to rape her. He insists on his conjugal rights. The audience does not see the encounter itself. This has already been discussed in some depth at Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/Archive 2#The marital "rape" in the plot summary. As you can see from that discussion I have some sympathy for your point of view, but he emphatically does not say he will rape her, and the rape itself takes place offscreen, which introduces ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

"Insists on his conjugal rights" may have been how people put it in those days, but nowadays people would call it marital rape. PatGallacher (talk) 23:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I generally agree with @User:PatGallacher, although ofc women wouldn't have used the phrase 'insists on his conjugal rights' in those days. And @User:Betty Logan I think he does say he'll rape her. She says she wants him to leave her alone, he grabs her against his will and manipulates her (saying "It's not that easy Scarlett") before saying "you've always turned me down while you chased after Ashley Wilkes, while you dreamed of Ashley Wilkes. Well this is one night you're not turning me down!"before carrying her up the stairs in her arms. He clearly states that he think he's entitled to her, and that she should pay for "chas[ing] after Ashley". He says he's not going to listen to her even if she doesn't want to be romantic with him and carries her upstairs using a traditionally romantic position. The next morning she is euphoric - and not just in a good mood unlike the prior night. I don't think that's ambiguous Stephanie921 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to your interpretation, but without actually seeing the encounter play out then it is precisely that: an interpretation. Regardless of whether he "rapes" her or not, there are several problems in describing his intentions as "rape": the concept of marital rape is a modern day definition, and not one understood by 1939 audiences and certainly not by the characters at the time the film is set, and since the encounter is not seen then it is ambiguous anyway. The plot summary accurately relays what we actually see and hear, without imposing our own—essentially revisionist interpretation—on the sequence of events. The article discusses the interpretation of the scene in detail later on and does not shy away from the fact that its now often perceived as "marital rape". This issue has been discussed at length previously and an appropriate compromise was reached. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

i agree with you, Betty. i am sorry if i risk, a little, but it must be pointed out, that hollywood was then, and is now, run by men. and those in power tend to get the final word, and the source must be considered. rhett cannot demand something that scarlett does not want. it is that simple. so rape is the word. also, of course she will be photographed/depicted as having an afterglow. men directed this movie. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

to drive the point home, i must compare this movie to a 2020 ip that represents the total opposite of this movie, except in one sense. Bridgerton (which received far less awards from the male(one race)-run academy), also has a questionable scene. The production is run by a woman, and the scene is done on-screen. the woman tricks the man into impregnating her. he was insistent on not having children. that can be defined as marital rape. so we must have consistency with gone with the wind. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 11:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

i meant to say, i agree with Stephanie, not Betty, with clarification that, afterglow of scarlett is an interpretation selznick wanted us to feel, How Leigh felt about it, remains to be seen. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Betty is correct, the film did not follow Rhett and Scarlett up the stairs so the audience has no idea what occurred next. It would be original analysis to make a guess that he raped her and then include that guess in the text in Wikipedia's voice. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

sometimes evidence talks. her afterglow, women rebelling of a lack of female hollywood directors, is evidence of what happened. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The plot summary not only has a role in relaying the events of the film, but also in how those events are framed. We as an audience do not see a rape play out on screen, regardless of whether or not one occurred. The scene before Scarlett is carted off to bed suggests she is going to be raped, but the scene when she wakes up suggests that perhaps she was not. The article does not shy away from the issue: the plot summary summarizes the events we witness in the film and we have an entire section in the article that dissects the "rapey" nature of the scene, with appropriate sourcing. The purpose of a plot summary in an article about a work of fiction is to support the encyclopedic prose, so even if she was raped the ambiguous way in which the scene plays out is important context. Betty Logan (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

that is political. a movie can be directed to appease one political side, hence the gatekeeping against women and black studio heads. that is the non fictional part about it. If not, why not hire tons more women and black studio heads, instead of the rash of taking away jobs from them? The attempt towards objectivity is missed. To put it bluntly, if a man has sex with a woman, they, each, have a different assessment. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@74.109.247.243 I read your post 17 times and still don't understand what you're getting at 2604:2D80:560D:4900:84FB:109C:6133:56FC (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

People, it’s only a movie. But I understand the concern, rape is a serious issue. I think the context of the comment in 1939 was different. Lord knows, that was also the eve of the worst crimes against humanity ever recorded. 136.26.42.25 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Film credits

An IP editor has taken exception to the slaves being credited as "servants" in the cast listing. The cast section reflects the contemporary credits of the time and the film mischaracterizing the slaves as servants. I believe it is important to retain the integrity of the historical record but I was thinking of adding a footnote to clarify that they were in fact slaves. This is clearly established in the film and noted in the plot summary, but adding a footnote might make it a bit more explicit—indeed it might be helpful to readers clarify why we refer to Mammie as a slave in the plot summary but then refer to her as servant in the cast section. Does anyone have any objections to me doing this? Betty Logan (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

i think maintaining integrity of history has been weakened by a hollywood that has adopted the term, historical fiction. it seems integrity is only maintained when it is convenient, politically. time is not an excuse to hide the fact that the filmmakers were in favor of slavery. and that view has not changed, as this movie gets too much flattery, out of hollywood, today. 74.109.247.243 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

They very likely were slaves, but is the film clear on this? Could there have been a small number of free blacks in Georgia? PatGallacher (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

The film obfuscates the whole issue. The KKK becomes a "political club" and the slaves become "house servants", and so on. The fact that they are all gone apart from Mammy when Scarlett returns to Tara tells its own story. I don't have an issue with the article recognizing they were slaves, just with retrospectively altering the credits. I think it is important for the article to present the credits as they actually were, so readers are not misled. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If we want to omit the phrase "house servants" from the cast listing, we can; we can just call the characters Mammy, Pork, and Prissy. After all, there are other differences between our cast listing and the film's. For example, the film labels Brent Tarleton and Stuart Tarleton as "Scarlett's beaux" just a few lines above where it lables Mammy, Pork, and Prissy as "The house servants", yet we don't have "Scarlett's beaux" in the cast listing for the Tarletons. For the people playing "minor supporting roles", the credits just have the word "And" above their names and don't identify which character they play, as we do. (We also spell out Lillian Kemble-Cooper's first name, which the credits don't, calling her "L. Kemble-Cooper".) If we want to address the use of the term "house servants" in the opening credits, we can mention it in another section such as #Historical portrayal, saying something like "The opening credits euphemistically refer to Mammy, Pork, and Prissy as 'house servants' rather than slaves." (Compare [1], where Drew Gilpin Faust comments, "... servants was the kind of euphemism that was so often applied in these romanticizations of the old South.") --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The descriptions are taken directly from the film and help to provide some context for the role, euphemism or otherwise, so it wouldn't really be helpful to excise them. Such an editorial action would not be motivated by encyclopedic improvement in any case. We shouldn't be adding anything to the Historical Portrayal section unless it can be attributed to a secondary source; Wikipedia is not a platform for editorial virtue signalling, nor is Wikipedia's place to address the injustices of the past (certainly not in Wikipedia's voice at any rate). The characters are clearly described as slaves in the plot section and the rest of the article, and a note has been added to the cast list to clarify that the "servants" were in reality slaves. I think the issue has been clearly signposted to the extent that it would not be unwittingly overlooked. In fact, I think these attempts at historical revisionism actually achieve the opposite of the intended effect: while the film was progressive in some respects (especially in Mammy's characterisation for which Hattie McDaniel deservedly won an oscar) the film is a product of a time when racist attitudes were much more normalized than they are today. We are doing nobody any favors by trying to gloss over these elements—not modern readers who should learn about these things, and certainly not the people who lived through and had to experience such prejudice. Betty Logan (talk) 08:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Length in minutes

The article says, "... including the overture, intermission, entr'acte, and exit music, Gone with the Wind lasts for 234 minutes (although some sources put its full length at 238 minutes) ...". Why is the length of the film in minutes in dispute? I realize that WP:NOR means that we can't just get a stopwatch and time the film ourselves, but surely some reliable source has published a length which is the same number of minutes we would find if we did time the film ourselves. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Well you would think so, but unfortunately the discrepancy does exist. I suspect there could be a couple of reasons: i) the roadshow release may have had slightly longer musical elements; ii) the film has played in different formats (i.e. 35mm/70mmm) which may be a factor. But in short, I don't know. Wikipedia should avoid coming down on either side in a debate, but it would be helpful if we could answer this question directly in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In the similar case of Fantasia (1940), some of its theatrical re-releases were considerably shorter than the original version. They achieved this "by removing most of Taylor's commentary and the Toccata and Fugue". The 1946 re-release kept all of the animated segments, but shortened the live-action scenes involving "Taylor, Stokowski, and the orchestra". With a similar mentality, certain released versions of Gone with the Wind may have been edited to remove part of the music or other elements considered non-essential. Dimadick (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t realize the movie was almost 4 hours long! Maybe I should watch it again. 136.26.42.25 (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Box office

According to https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0031381/ the box office is $402,382,193 Pborri (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Nobody knows precisely how much it made. Different sources give different figures, but they are all over $390 million. Betty Logan (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)