Date: Tue, 13 Aug 1996 00:14:16 -0400
Subject: COMMENT: GWTW Rape
From: Jane Beckman
In response to the title of this thread, I am tempted to say "Which one?"
The issues of sexuality that appear in GWTW are hopelessly murked by everything from the mores of the day to Margaret Mitchell's own experiences as a battered wife. I would NOT regard the *movie* as a reliable gauge of the original plot, as there were many and numerous sections where the plot was changed considerably from the original, or parts were ignored entirely.
Scarlett was essentially raped on her wedding night by her first husband, ineffectual puppy though he was. This was very clear in the book. Her shooting of the maurauder, whom she suspected was going to attempt to rape her, was interesting in this context, as well. At the same time, it was also clear that she had drives that were not considered "respectable," and took after her disreputable grandmother, who was of a bawdy temperament. She was torn with conflicts. When she needed money, she offered her body to Rhett in exchange (the green curtains-dress episode), and wondered dully if she was going to get pregnant, feeling essentially emotionally numb and null at this point, as if there were few things more that she could lose. He essentially turned her down, which angered her because she had offered "her all" to him, but he didn't even seem to appreciate the sacrifice. Failing to get money from Rhett, she threw herself at her sister's beau, essentially prostituting herself (especially in her own eyes) to get money to save Tara. It is at this point that she turns alcoholic (a factor that was heavily glossed over in the movie, with a single humorously-handled episode). Scarlett regards herself as ruined, and went through the emotionally dulled actions of pure survival, at considerable cost to her emotional welbeing. Her actions by the time she marries Rhett have an almost mechanical quality of pure survival, though the luxury he offers awes her.
She suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress and only finds herself through the actions of making money on her own, often through abusing her convict labor. One has the impression she enjoys sex with Rhett, and it scares her and makes her feel even more ruined---so she puts her foot down and settles on the excuse that she refuses to have any more children, to keep him away from her, using the pretext that having children has ruined her figure (after all, her waist is up to 20 inches---and one has an impression of an anorexic fixation of an earlier era). Consider also, that when she was attacked in the squatter's camp, the attack was sexual in nature. Everything that happens with men seems to involve sex being force on her. Rhett also forces her to wear a sexually inappropriate dress to a gathering of her friends, telling her she's essentially a slut. Think of mind games that begin to take root in, say, an S&M relationship. By the time of the rape by Rhett, sex causes her to do a passible imitation of a deer caught in the headlights.
At the same time, she nurtures a "courtly love" infatuation with Ashley, which sours about the time she realizes she really *could* run off with him, and then she's have to deal with the reality, again. And consider her idealization of his relationship with Melanie, whom he doesn't have sex with out of consideration for her need not to have more children. The idea that Scarlett could *have* Ashley, and might have to deal with the idea of a real relationship, is sufficient to kill it.
You could write a psych PhD about Scarlett. Because there are probably more than a dozen factors heavily influencing her actions, many of which were imposed by the societal outlooks of the day, and her position of sexual victim almost from the start.
Perhaps, as an incest/date rape survivor, I like Scarlett for this very reason; I understand where she's coming from, and the uphill fight it takes to try to find and reclaim oneself and triumph in the face of overwhelming circumstances. Often, we tend to put ourselves into situations where revictimization is not only possible, but likely, and it takes a lot of personal awareness and strength to break the cycle.
Jane Beckman
Sharon Wildwind wrote:
>
> The rape was actually in the book -- twice in fact -- but the
producer was
> not allowed to show it in the movie. It was considered an
inappropriate
> topic to the screen. Remember this was 1939.
>
Oh, it was shown in the movie, alright, simply through a romantic lense of cultural myth and fantasy of the "good girl" protesting so as to protect her reputation, but, in reality, it was what she wanted all along, because that's all any woman really wants and needs. THE classic rape defense myth, and still going strong. Get real. "Date rape", "Aquaintance rape" "Marital rape"; all terms referring to the ambiquity of rapes cloaked in fantasmagorical bullshit and myth. If she says "no", it's rape. If he carries her kicking and screaming up the stairs and puts it to her, it's rape. And the scene in the morning with the now-satisfied, satiated, gloriously-put-in-her-place little minx is a sickeningly perfect way that the myth is perpetuated. I believe GWTW is one of the most disgusting examples of bullshit in film history. And that goes for all those foot-shuffling, loyal old family retainers, too. The whole thing is a stomach-churning white fantasy viciously misrepresenting racism, slavery, marital rape, spousal abuse (on BOTH sides, by the way), and revisionist history typical of the gluttony of the American public for revering bullshit and ignoring reality.
Donna Dean
I have to agree with Donna Dean's assessment of GWTW. I read the book - once. I saw the movie - once. Recently I saw parts of it on TV, and had to leave. Both are awful!!!
Let me say, however, that I am Southern born, though Brat raised. On my bedroom wall, next to my own awards and decorations, is the medal given to my ancestor, Maj James Fish, CSA. I am proud to have served with the 111 Artillery (1st Virginia Artillery, Norfolk Light Artillery Blues, Richmond Howitzers) which gave artillery support to the infantry of the Army of Northern Virginia during the War Between the States.
GWTW gives a one sided picture of the Ante-bellum South, though perhaps Roots does the same in reverse.
But I wonder, in all of this about GWTW, are we using todays standards to judge the past? Somehow I think we are.
Gene Moser
Before we get too carried away about the protrayals of whites and blacks in GWTW, let us remember the times.
In 1939 when the movie was made the social structures which were accepted by most were pretty horrible with lynchings in the South, rapes of white women needing two witnesses before they could be prosecuted, poll taxes, and most women with few civil rights.
IN 1936 when GWTW was written the conditions were even worse and there were bread lines in our cities and farms were being confiscated for non payment of mortgages. It was a time of terrible social conditions.
IN circa 1860 the social structures were so different than 1996 that it's hard for us to project. No, all blacks did not want freedom maybe because they didn't know what freedom was. Not all women wanted the vote because they didn't know what self-reliance of any sort was.
Remember we are all the products of our enviornment and the enviornemtn of the South in 1860-1880 was a far cry from what it is for most of us today - but as one who has done a bit of traveling in the Delta and through the plantation of Louisiana in the 1970s and 80s, there are many there who don't know that Lincoln freed the slaves and that Catt got women the vote.
I remember reaching up to physically realign my brain in my skull when I was introduced to manor houses in the South where field hand slaves were kept in the attics of the main house, the next floor up from the maste's bedroom. I went through plantation "mansions" and reeled at what must have been sanitary conditions. I am a northener who has lived south for 35 years but will always be a northerner. And when I went back north, I was repelled by many things that I had accepted when I grew up with them. We accept what we are familiar with.
In New Orleans I lived in sumptuous apartments of our modern era made from slave quarters. In some houses I could feel the screams of past horrors.
Leaving the perfect insight of the past that we have in 1996, imagine the life of a Southern lady in all those skirts and bustles and corsets when the temperature in those cotton fields had to be 90 and above and humid for all that cotton to grow. Imagine the rough conditions of the tobacco farms where nicotine poisoning was common. Imagine the silence of a rural area where sounds of the night travel - and the day. Imagine a land where slaves were as valuable as our automobiles today. Yes, many were abused but many were not (which doesn't make up for slavery). It was a time when women could and were killed and raped with almost with impunity and there were no jobs for them to run to and escape from domestic abuse. If they were raped and impregnated, suicide or prostitution were usually their only options. Only a very small percentage of the South were slave holders. Most were dirt poor farmers on the ragged edge of starvation in any year. And there were free blacks in the South before war ...
Not all was bad then and not all was good. But to judge what went on in 1860-1880 in the South by what we know today is dishonest.
The only thing we can say is that it was better than 1600 which was better than 1300 - and that is what progress and the evolution of human dignity is all about.
Yes, I liked GWTW when it first came out and have liked it in its various reissues, but I KNOW it is a fictional movie.
Irene Stuber
-----------------------------------------
compiler and author of Women of Achievement and Herstory
http://www.imageworld.com/istuber.html for WOA archives
Go Donna! Right on, woman.
Val Eads
>GWTW gives a one sided picture of the Ante-bellum South, though perhaps
Roots
> does the same in reverse.
It's hard not to, when one considers both that the author was a product of a *very* different era of the South than our own. Not only were the mores of the '20's and '30's far different from ours, you had to add the South on top of it. Remember, the primary resistance to the ERA came from the South, where many attitudes about sex roles are *still* entrenched in the culture. There's a reason why it was such a fertile ground for Tennessee Williams plays. A former co-worker of mine, who was raised there, talked about her Mammy and the family servants in terms that would have corresponded nicely to GWTW, also (and could have been a Tennessee Williams character, herself). And she was only a few years older than myself, a child
raised in the '50's. Margaret Mitchell was a child of an even earlier era, and was writing primarily for herself, not for future psychological analysis. (If she'd know the novel would engender this sort of discussion, I suspect she would have burned it the same way she did her second novel.)
>But I wonder, in all of this about GWTW, are we using todays standards
to
>judge the past? Somehow I think we are.
How Mitchell did her research was by talking to old Civil War veterans. Not exactly an unbiased source. But realistic to the era. As a black historian friend once put it, when someone complained about the heavily supersitious character he portrayed for historic reinactment: "History isn't pretty. I'm trying to show the way people really were." His character was immaculately researched, but it made people uncomfortable because 1840's blacks "shouldn't" be superstitious. He could have portrayed a version of himself, the well-spoken historian with a PhD, but it would not have been an accurate image of an average man. Often, the images that make people of our era the most uncomfortable are those that *are* accurate portrayals of outlooks and mores of the time period, precisely because we wish that we weren't. (I do living history, and for several years a friend and I portrayed an 1840's couple in an overtly abusive relationship. Visitors were often shocked not only by our portrayal, but by the fact that other characters at the site would shrug and say "So?" to screaming fights and physical abuse. Our intent was to show the seamy side of life in an era of no divorce, where retreat from such a relationship was not seen as an option. A visitor asking why I didn't leave my "husband" would get a shocked reaction, and a tart lecture on "what would I do then? I'd be ruined and disreputable!"
>I am proud to have served with the 111
>Artillery (1st Virginia Artillery, Norfolk Light Artillery Blues,
Richmond
>Howitzers) which gave artillery support to the infantry of the Army
of
>Northern Virginia during the War Between the States.
Gene, hello! I feel like we have something in common, though your service was real and mine --is "fictional" the term? I am a Civil War reinactor, artillery gun sergeant, and my unit is the Norfolk Light Artillery Blues! We are quite proud of the fact that we portray a unit that is the oldest surviving unit still active with the U.S. military!
Jane Beckman
Gene Moser wrote:
>But I wonder, in all of this about GWTW, are we using todays standards to
judge the past? Somehow I think we are.
I am sorry to say that yesterdays past are no different today. Especially in the military.
Dorothy H. Mackey
GWTW is about subordination and exploitation -- of women, African
Americans, North v.South, and just about anybody or anything else. It is
an apalling example of subordination and exploitation reinterpreted as
"romance". Donna Dean, as usual, is so accurate in her evaluation of GWTW
as
>a stomach-churning white fantasy viciously
>misrepresenting racism, slavery, marital rape, spousal abuse (on
BOTH
>sides, by the way), and revisionist history typical of the gluttony
of
>the American public for revering bullshit and ignoring reality.
Gene Moser notes,
>But I wonder, in all of this about GWTW, are we using todays standards
to
>judge the past? Somehow I think we are.
Gene, I have to say that I hope we are doing so, especially if our standards have actually been elevated over those of the past. But while "we" express dismay at GWTW's rape-as-romance scenarios, that does NOT seem to be the case for the public at large. GWTW enjoyed a rousing revival a few years ago when it was re-issued on video in an enhanced, recolorized, and supposedly uncut version, and it is still amazingly popular among the least likely people, few of whom see much of anything wrong with anything that goes on in it.
One small example:
A brilliant, savvy, extremely well-educated and successful African American
woman in her mid-30s recently told me that GWTW was her absolutely favorite
movie. I responded (rudely, I'm sure) that GWTW is the most racist goddam
thing I'd ever seen, and she said "I know, I know, but it is SO romantic!"
And before raising an eyebrow at my friend, it's not a bad idea to look at our own individual and personal notions of what constitutes romance. Most of us just haven't been enculturated to find "mutual respect" all that exciting or romantic. We generally (myself included) have within us a weakness for the mildest versions of "love as a game", while GWTW is an extreme, bloody, horrid, life & death example of it.
Apologies in advance if I've offended anybody with this little commentary.
The rape was actually in the book -- twice in fact -- but the producer was not allowed to show it in the movie. It was considered an inappropriate topic to the screen. Remember this was 1939.
Sharon Wildwind
I was talking to a VA nurse who is in the psychology aspect, dealing with PTSD, and women sexually accosted, raped in the service. I told her about this question of GWTW. Did he or didn't he? I have never seen the movie all the way through. The nurse said she had seen it twice, the second time after changing fields into dealing with women's issues. She said it was amazing what the differences were once she saw it from a different perspective, understanding all the aspects of survivors. She stated it was rape all right.
As for Rhett, I don't give a damn, nor do I feel any higher desire to see a movie.
*****WARNING this next part may cause a trigger in some*************
I can speak from a personal point of view and share some other
facts...... The Accused with Jodi Foster, before my violations of
91-92, I thought this movie was a realistic film that potentially gave
an unaware audience a pointed glimpse into the life, dynamics and
emotions of a survivor. After 91-92 it all changed. A friend had The
accused on TV, unknowingly I walked in on the portion of the rape. I
immediately froze, then I turned in a panic, plugged my ears and went
into a bedroom. I still couldn't escape the memories....I ended up in
the adjoining garage with my fingers pressed hard in my ears and
humming loud enough to drowned out the memory. But it was too late, I
was no longer seeing what The accused showed, but instead my own
memories. Panicked, and numb but feeling all the fear as if it were in
surround sound. The memories were running like a freight train out of
control through my head. Me, in a dark garage, swearing if I press
into my ears much deeper with my finger tips they would surely touch.
It was as if a film had started in my head, at three levels, like
trifocals. At the lowest level of visual; reality being in the garage
in the dark. In the middle, Elmore and all the assaults over the year,
and at the top, Milam and all the abuse and assault for the year, But
it was no film, no fiction, I was reliving what I went through, my own
violation from these AF senior officers.
I have learned for me that these are flashbacks, I don't think one
ever gets use to them, I hate them. And I can feel them coming on
which is frustrating, I DREAD them, not being able to stop
them.....but just waiting, waiting, wondering where will they
happen....how many hours will I spend in a dark corner. Now with
dozens of flashbacks under my belt....all on the same subject AF 91
-92 I wonder how can I be ignored and denied by the Air Force, VA and
legal officials that it never happened? It is difficult to live a
shell of a life that has so many potential triggers to me. I can't
tell you how many times I've been to a movie that I thought would be
ok, safe, to be on the edge of my seat.....wanting to get sick, or
feeling the sweet roll down my arms, as I numb out and panic. Hey,
Walt Disney isn't even safe any more....and one can get pretty tire of
Winney the Pooh.
I am sure some will wonder why I go through all this, others may not
care. But still its Just a thought to ponder...........
Have a good weekend, where ever you are! Stay safe and healthy, we all deserve it!
Dorothy H. Mackey
Bonnie wrote:
>>>> Apologies in advance if I've offended anybody with this little
commentary.
Bonnie - if this is a discussion group and you don't offend somebody, what
have you done?
Now let me explain.
I don't mean offend by casting doubts on the marital status of parents,
suggesting the mother scratches fleas while lying under the front porch, or
suggesting that the author is going to be very miserable for a very long
time. I do mean offend by causing somebody to perk up hes ears and making a
comment back.
>>>>A brilliant, savvy, extremely well-educated and successful African
American
woman in her mid-30s recently told me that GWTW was her absolutely favorite
movie. I responded (rudely, I'm sure) that GWTW is the most racist goddam
thing I'd ever seen, and she said "I know, I know, but it is SO romantic!"
I've had the same comment from Black high school students. I did see part of the recent reissue and had to leave the room. On the other hand, I knew Blacks who, back when Wallace was running for President, who indicated that they might vote for him because "I know what to expect from him."
One of the saddest things in American society today is that decent, liberal, loving, religious (and all those other "positive" virtues) people cannot easily discuss race with a member of another race. I have two short stories (one published, one not yet) which deal with race in the '50's and '60's. It took me a long time to show them to a fellow Black teacher - I was scared that hesh would find the portrayal of the Black characters to be stereotyped, denigrated, or stupid. I was more relieved when the mine turned out to be an old piece of metal - but just barely.
>>>>Gene, I have to say that I hope we are doing so, especially if our standards have actually been elevated over those of the past.
Here, I have to disagree. I strongly believe that we must judge the members of a society by the mores and folkways of that society. You can't castigate the missionaries for destroying the beauty of Hawaii on the one hand, and say that Rhett Butler raped Scarlette (sp) on the other. You can, however, look at both and say, "we've learned from this".
Gene Moser
Gene Moser notes,
>But I wonder, in all of this about GWTW, are we using todays standards
to
>judge the past? Somehow I think we are.
I agree with Gene. GWTW is not a politically correct movie, and I suspect that this is why so many find it objectionable today. But I must say, that if GWTW was a politically correct representation of blacks and whites, women and men, it would be a damned boring story, and it would be historically unrealistic. (Not to say that the movie as it stands is necessarily historically accurate.) I find the movie to be instructive about cultural assumptions of the 1930's. I also find it's glorification of wealth to be quite symbolic of the Great Depression. (Perhaps Scarlett's descent into poverty, and the way she had to claw her way back out hit familiar chords with the movie's original audience.)
And when you consider that in most of the major motion pictures being made today, women are represented as sexual chattel, prostitutes, or recently murdered, GWTW seems tame in comparison. Especially when modern filmakers are supposed to be a part of the "enlightened" present. Perhaps so many women like GWTW because it features a live woman as it's heroine, a woman who is firmly in control of her destiny, whether or not we agree with her methods.
DeAnne Blanton
Return to H-MINERVA Home Page.