Webster4Eva 12: It's Webster5Eva Now!

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I believe a certain number of former slaves stayed on with the former  masters as tenant farmers and/or share choppers. What could you really do? It's not like today where there's fairly east mobility and communication across distances. 

But the movie very much romanticizes the situation. And Rhett's charm.

And really Melanie and Ashley too. They're so precious I wanna gag.

 

[Jackie3]

Of course they did! I would have too, probably.

Let's see--The war's over and i am free. I can't read or write (it had been against the law). I have rarely or never been off the plantation. I have no money (in fact, I've never purchased anything.) I have little or no knowledge of the geography outside the planation. I know no one off the plantation. The area is filled with KKK and other racists.

If my former owner had been even reasonably nice, staying seems like the best option.

[neuroticcat]

My guess is the Websters have never read the book or seen the movie. I am in my 40s and saw the movie as a kid but never read the book (thanks for posting those racist excerpts - now I never will) 

I do not have a sense that it’s popular beyond name recognition anymore but that could just be generational? 

[CanadianMamam]

4 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

My guess is the Websters have never read the book or seen the movie. I am in my 40s and saw the movie as a kid but never read the book (thanks for posting those racist excerpts - now I never will) 

I do not have a sense that it’s popular beyond name recognition anymore but that could just be generational? 

It has had a lot of theatrical re-releases, the most recent being a special two-day release in 2014 for the 75th anniversary. I can't think of another movie that has returned to the theater so many times (I counted 10).

[neuroticcat]

4 hours ago, CanadianMamam said:

It has had a lot of theatrical re-releases, the most recent being a special two-day release in 2014 for the 75th anniversary. I can't think of another movie that has returned to the theater so many times (I counted 10).

Wut. That is WILD. What in the world?

[Kiki03910]

On 2/13/2023 at 11:55 PM, Jackie3 said:

It's not complicated, it's racist. Here's a description of a Black character.

And he loves being obedient, it's a relief to him.

Most importantly, he knows his place and is uncomfortable with Northerners who try to treat him like an equal

A book like this is not complicated. It is racist. The movie was almost as bad.

It's a towering example of the Lost Cause myth, and no doubt the Bateseseseses fucking love it. It's also not actually that well-written, though I guess YMMV. Even if it were, you couldn't pay me to read it again. Please don't read the spoiler if you don't want to see a redacted slur. I didn't like to include it, but for anyone who harbors any fond thoughts about GWTW, this should stop you in your fucking tracks. NOT. COMPLICATED.

Spoiler

Scarlett turning the n-word into an adjective was beyond sickening.

 

[Nothing if not critical]

59 minutes ago, Kiki03910 said:

It's a towering example of the Lost Cause myth, and no doubt the Bateseseseses fucking love it. It's also not actually that well-written, though I guess YMMV. Even if it were, you couldn't pay me to read it again. Please don't read the spoiler if you don't want to see a redacted slur. I didn't like to include it, but for anyone who harbors any fond thoughts about GWTW, this should stop you in your fucking tracks. NOT. COMPLICATED.

  Reveal hidden contents

Scarlett turning the n-word into an adjective was beyond sickening.

 

It is probably a lot worse than I remember it. As I said, I read the book and watched the movie as a kid / young teen, when most of the more subtle racism went right over my head and I put down the rest of it to "that's just how people talked back then". You may judge my 13-year-old self for that, if you want, but we really were a lot less aware in the 80s. Plus, I probably read and watched it in German, and some things may have been (thankfully) lost in translation. I did think Rhett was hot (again, different standards back then), and Scarlett was an interesting character.

But yeah, knowing what I know today, I fully agree that it's racist AF, and rapey to boot. Thanks for reminding me that I let my nostalgia get in the way of looking at things clearly.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Nothing if not critical

[SamanthasMom]

Rhett was the name of the Boston Terrier mascot at Boston University, and it was changed due to racism in the book and movie. I don’t think that name will age well.

I also think there is a mismatch with the girls’ names, and if their brother has a full formal name they should too. Alyssa could always use the nicknames anyway, and they would have the formal names for adult life. Sadly, I don’t think Alyssa conceptualizes an adult professional life for them.

[Satan'sFortress]

I read GWTW when I was a teenager in the 80s. One of the things I remember was that Scarlett had a kid with each of her husbands---but in the movie, she only had a child with Rhett. I guess that was too scandalous to include in the movie? 

[CanadianMamam]

21 minutes ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I read GWTW when I was a teenager in the 80s. One of the things I remember was that Scarlett had a kid with each of her husbands---but in the movie, she only had a child with Rhett. I guess that was too scandalous to include in the movie? 

I think the movie tried to make her more likable and Scarlett is an awful and disinterested mother. Plus the movie was already 3 hours long and didn't need more characters. 

[postscript]

20 minutes ago, Satan'sFortress said:

I read GWTW when I was a teenager in the 80s. One of the things I remember was that Scarlett had a kid with each of her husbands---but in the movie, she only had a child with Rhett. I guess that was too scandalous to include in the movie? 

I think it was more a question of deleting unnecessary characters and subplots to condense a 1000-page book into a movie that didn’t go on for days. 

I first read the book as a teen in the 1970s, and have reread it about once a decade since. Currently listening to it on Audible, though with books of that length, I have to take periodic breaks. Each time I read it, I pick up on different passages. Never been a fan of Rhett (in part because Clark Gable does nothing for me. Cary Grant or Errol Flynn, on the other hand. . .). Scarlett herself frequently makes me want to shake some sense into her head. 

Not a huge fan of the movie, either. It’s well made, but loses many of the nuances of the book. And yes, both book and movie are incredibly racist and borderline rapey. Hollywood produced a ton of “Southerns” in that era, all of which depict the antebellum South as a magnolia-laced paradise. See also Jezebel, The Birth of a Nation, and a whole host of others, plus a startling number of musicals in which top stars show up in blackface numbers for no apparent reason. What’s scary is that the racism in all of these is incredibly casual, to the point where an uninformed viewer would just take it for granted.  

[Johannah]

Just chiming in to say I agree that GWTW is unequivocally racist. As are other classics like Huck Finn. They should be read through that lens. With a focus on how they are racist and what that signifies. There are movements to ban both of these books due to their racism, which I find concerning. Confronting and discussing racism head on are essential to addressing it. Banning these books seems to me akin to denying the racism inherent in many American classics. 
 

disclaimer: I’m not saying anyone here is advocating to ban GWTW, just that there are movements to do so

[Kiki03910]

12 hours ago, Nothing if not critical said:

It is probably a lot worse than I remember it. As I said, I read the book and watched the movie as a kid / young teen, when most of the more subtle racism went right over my head and I put down the rest of it to "that's just how people talked back then". You may judge my 13-year-old self for that, if you want, but we really were a lot less aware in the 80s. Plus, I probably read and watched it in German, and some things may have been (thankfully) lost in translation. I did think Rhett was hot (again, different standards back then), and Scarlett was an interesting character.

But yeah, knowing what I know today, I fully agree that it's racist AF, and rapey to boot. Thanks for reminding me that I let my nostalgia get in the way of looking at things clearly.

No judgment at all, and everything you said makes sense.

[WatchingTheTireFireBurn]

I thought Scarlett's kids mostly cut due to time. Plotwise they didn't do much.

Based on my experience as a Southern woman, I can say the n word is used quite a lot in daily conversation of the white generation above me. So I imagine it might have been ever more commonly used 100 years ago. So perhaps Scarlett's use was typical to the author's experience? I dont know. 

There's a whole blackface chapter in one of the little house on the prairie books. It's an interesting thing to consider that those books were purposefully written for children with many disturbing true events left out. But that racist bit was included and took up a chunk of story with illustration. Sort of shocking it wasn't all that long ago this was considered appropriate content for small children.

 

[Expectopatronus]

I didn’t understand the blackface bit as a child. I had no idea that the men were trying to mock Black Americans and I thought based on the illustration that they were pretending to be marionettes just with black instead of white face paint. Apparently I wasn’t the brightest child. Now, I cringe that I didn’t get it. 

[neuroticcat]

I watched the film at age 5 or 6 while staying with relatives (thanks grandma - what the heck) I remember being terrified of the "war" in the GWTW film - the fire and fleeing. I also thought Rhett's violence and other parts were scary, including the scene with the Mammy character crying. I never liked Scarlett and hated the scene with her child. I also was confused by the romantic elements and Scarlett's responses to the men. I don't think I watched it again after that, but my memories are all disturbing, like I can still feel tense in my body when I think about it. I've never understood why people thought it was a classic and reading what is being said here about the layers of racism and hate? Wow.

[Jackie3]

7 hours ago, Johannah said:

Just chiming in to say I agree that GWTW is unequivocally racist. As are other classics like Huck Finn. They should be read through that lens. With a focus on how they are racist and what that signifies. There are movements to ban both of these books due to their racism, which I find concerning. Confronting and discussing racism head on are essential to addressing it. Banning these books seems to me akin to denying the racism inherent in many American classics. 
 

disclaimer: I’m not saying anyone here is advocating to ban GWTW, just that there are movements to do so

GWTW literally says slavery was good, and Huck Finn says the opposite.  The books are radically different.  I don't know how anyone could lump them together. 

GWTW says slaves had good food, good clothing and were cared for when they were ill and old. Huck Finn proves this was not the case--it demonstrates the humanity of a slave and the fear and horror they lived every day.

 

 

[mango_fandango]

I’ve never seen or read it, but obviously have heard of GWTW. I also agree it shouldn’t be banned, like another person said it would be like pretending attitudes like that never existed. I read a book published in the 30s once where a character’s belt was described as “n-word brown”. Definitely side-eye to that. I’m surprised it wasn’t changed to something else eg chocolate or chestnut. Like with the film The Dambusters, where modern showings change a dog’s name to Trigger.

Even without the connotations, it’s an unusual name choice. The girls’ names are relatively common these days whereas Rhett isn’t. Brett has a similar sound, although with the middle name Alan that’d be too similar to Cap’n Bret.

[OHFL2009]

1 hour ago, mango_fandango said:

Even without the connotations, it’s an unusual name choice. The girls’ names are relatively common these days whereas Rhett isn’t. Brett has a similar sound, although with the middle name Alan that’d be too similar to Cap’n Bret.

According to the US Social Security website, Rhett actually ranks higher in the most recent year available (148th most popular in 2021) than Allie, Lexi or Maci did in their birth years (or since). Only Zoey was more popular. If Alyssa had used Allison instead of Allie, that would have ranked higher, and either Alexandra or Alexis for Lexi would have been about the same as Rhett. Brett, on the other hand, wasn't even in the top 1000 names given to boys in 2021. 

 

 

[mango_fandango]

Oh, interesting. It’s much less popular here in the UK. 

[CanadianMamam]

1 hour ago, mango_fandango said:

Oh, interesting. It’s much less popular here in the UK. 

UK names and US ones have some pretty big differences. And Rhett is definitely a Southern name.

[Jackie3]

If I had to guess, Alyssa and John have both seen the movie (I doubt they read the book!). The racism either didn't bother them or went over their heads. In the story, Rhett Butler is portrayed as a manly man and John did want a manly name. The fact that Rhett was in the KKK didn't bother the Websters (Ashley was too!)

This is interesting. The actor who played Ashley had a very "girly" name--Leslie. I doubt "Leslie" was on the Webster short-list of names.

Despite his girly name, Leslie Howard  fought in WW1 and got shell-shocked, which is what they called PTSD at the time. He took up acting as a part of his cure, and won the part of Ashely Wilkes. Although he was Jewish, Leslie tended to get roles playing aristocratic upper-class Christians.

A few years later, the US entered WW2 and poor Leslie was back in combat. This time, he was not lucky.  He died when his plane was shot down by the Germans.

So "Lesley" was a real war hero, twice over. "Rhett" was a member of the KKK. John needs to learn that it's not a name that makes the man.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Jackie3

[Jackie3]

Well, I'm surprised to say that the internet can sometimes be wrong. lol

Leslie Howard was on a civilian plane during WW2 that the Germans shot down, for unclear reason.  Leslie did do war work for the British, but was not in combat during  WW2. 

[JDuggs]

If I had to bet on whether or not Alyssa and John have seen “Gone with the Wind” I would bet no. I’ve seen it exactly once in my life over 45 years ago. I don’t think young people would be that interested in it. I still think of the association to Rhett Butler, but it’s not a strong enough reason to dislike the name. As a suburban Midwesterner, the name just screams “country” to me, but in a neutral way. I guessed the name Rhett for the Websters’ baby back in September.

Spoiler

 

[formergothardite]

I would be shocked if they hadn’t seen Gone with the wind. One of the strictest IBLP families I knew had that movie on their approved list. It was right up there with Sheffiey and Treasures of the Snow. The reason is because it presented such a glorified version of the Old South. The Bates are excessively racist and in love with anything that will rewrite history to make the South be the good guys. John’s dad seems to also be into revisionist history. 
 

The Bates are good at acting all wide eyed and innocent, so if questioned I expect Alyssa will deny any connection.