Johann Hari: No wonder 'Gone With The Wind' has failed
Wednesday, 4 June 2008
Lordly lordy lord Miss Scarlett, this musical be one biiiiiig turkey! The Gone With The Wind musical in London – a thrilling experiment in singalong slavery and whoopin' white supremacy – is closing after six weeks. I sensed something was wrong when I settled into my seat and realised I was opposite a large sign saying "Negroes For Sale", with a group of black audience members sitting uncomfortably below. We watched – open-mouthed and gaping – for three-and-a-half hours as the Confederacy tap-danced and jazz-handed its way to defeat.
Yet there is something sweetly appropriate about the shuttering of this musical at the very moment when the world watches the closing acts of America's eight-year Scarlett O'Hara Presidency. Gone With the Wind is the demon twin of that other iconic Hollywood movie, Casablanca. Both are love stories about a couple that meet and dance and part during a war, but at their core they represent the two great clashing poles of the American personality: idealism, and narcissism.
Casablanca is the America the world loves. We all know its love story – the greatest ever told, for my money. In a Paris that is waiting for the Nazi hordes to invade, Rick and Ilsa lock eyes. They have both been resisting the foaming black tide – Rick by running guns for the republicans in Spain, and Ilsa by travelling underground with her husband until he was carted off to a concentration camp.
They waltz awhile, but as the Nazis march on the city, Ilsa hears that her husband is alive after all, and flees. Rick ends up drunk and disillusioned in Casablanca, running a bar. Then one day, of all the gin-joints in all the towns in all the world, Ilsa and her husband walk into Rick's Bar – where she needs his help.
But the great thing about Casablanca is not, ultimately, this romance. No: it is the fact that the characters decide that there is something more important than their own emotions.
"Ilsa, I'm no good at being noble," Rick says, "but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three little people don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."
They choose to part, making a sacrifice for the greater moral cause. There have been glorious moments when America did exactly the same: the abolition of slavery, the Second World War, the Marshall Plan. The world gaped and muttered: "Here's lookin' at you, kid."
Gone With The Wind is the opposite. Here is another war, and another love story. But this time, the heroes' cause is the Confederate side in the American Civil War – and the movie takes this vast and epic battle and shrinks it to a squalid little story that is about nothing but itself. Scarlett O'Hara is a spoiled white girl living on a Georgia plantation, obsessed with herself and a few fickle romances.
As the Civil War breaks out, she meets Rhett Butler, a smug mercenary fighting to save slavery because it's the side that pays him best. She decides she wants him. Scarlett becomes hardened – she watches Atlanta burn, and her Poppa go crazy – and inches closer and closer to having Rhett.
At every turn, the lovers show no awareness – none – of the larger, repellent cause they are working for. At one point Scarlett curses: "War, war, war – that's all I hear about!"
Well, fiddle-de-dee. Rhett is only in it for the money, while Scarlett doesn't seem to wonder even for a moment if her pet blacks would prefer to be free with a Yankee victory. ("Mammy – fetch me some water! Fast!") If Casablanca's greatest moments are about sacrifice, Gone With the Wind's are simply narcissistic whines – "I'll never be hungry again!"
George Bush has governed in the Deep Southern spirit of Scarlett, telling Americans incessantly it's all about them. For him, every cause can be solved with more self-indulgence: his first and only injunction to Americans after 11 September was to go shopping. He even watched inert and unhelping as a major American city became gone with the wind. The solidarity of Rick and Ilsa has been replaced by the mercenary smarm of Rhett Butler, fighting for a share of the spoils.
But in the current Presidential campaign, there are faint and gentle stirrings of "As Time Goes By", and the other America we miss so much. To figure out which side you're on in this election, you can ask yourself – would you would rather be singing La Marseillaise with the émigrés in Rick's Bar, or gossiping with the clucking white girls on Tara? Would you would rather smuggle visas for Rick, or run guns for Rhett? But I beg you: whatever you decide, do not set your answer to music.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited




Comments
24 Comments
QWell said exile, maybe you can reolace JOhann Hari as a writer at the independent.
Posted by Neil Murphy | 09.06.08, 18:10 GMT
Of course most people would choose to work with Rick - and for the same reason, most Americans will choose McCain in November. Who wants to support the defenders of an outdated and unsustainable social(ist) system?
Posted by MikefromBiggleswade | 06.06.08, 09:30 GMT
Incidentally, it seems a bit unfair to associate Rhett and Scarlett with the present US Administration. If GWTW includes any analogues to Bush and his supporters, these are surely the young hotheads at the beginning who cheer the attack on Fort Sumter, bragging of how the cowardly Yankees will run away (The Iraqis will greet us as liberators) and ostracising Rhett Butler for daring to inject realism into the proceedings.
If GWTW were set in this century, Rhett would be as dismissive of Iraq hawks as of secessionist hotspurs. Scarlett might be indifferent to the politics of it all, but if anyone she fancied was serving in Iraq, she'd want him home.
Posted by Mike Stone | 05.06.08, 08:32 GMT
Exile.
Agreed, but I think GWTW also wears well because in some ways it is a surprisingly modern film, despite its antediluvian racial attitudes.
Ashley Wilkes may be getting up to all sorts of derring-do, and a traditional war film would have followed his exploits. but in GWTW we never see them, or even Rhett's adventures as a blockade-runner. Instead, we focus on ordinary people struggling to survive events over which they have little or no control. Like Yuri and Lara in Dr Zhivago, they try to salvage some normal life from the devastation which others have inflicted in the name of this or that Noble Cause. As I said earlier, it's a disaster movie rather than a war movie.
This is why, I suspect, GWTW will endure better than the more politically correct Glory, with it's lines like Who will pick up the flag if this man falls?. Just imagine the sensible Rhett Butler asking such a question. Despite his lapse into patriotism toward the end, he is basically a modern man.
Posted by Mike Stone | 05.06.08, 08:16 GMT
Yeah... Just about wrong on every count.
The whole point about Gone With The Wind is that Scarlet doesn't love Rhett, but he loves her. By the time she realises that it is too late.
Rhett starts out as a mercenary, but goes off towards the end of the war into the army.
It is a timeless story of missed opportunities and duty to a homeland, set against great events.
That is why it is still read today.
Posted by Exile | 05.06.08, 07:01 GMT
Harper,
As far as I can see, there isn't too much difference between novel and movie as far as Scarlett and Ashley are concerned. In the movie, too, she was pursuing Ashley, and I was always a bit mystified as to what she saw in him.
He seemed perfectly matched with the wife he had, and would surely have driven Scarlett up the wall had they married. I can only assume she fancied him because he was someone else's. Seems a doubtful basis for a marriage.
Posted by Mike Stone | 04.06.08, 23:50 GMT
For God's sake!
Can't you liberal/lefties ever lighten up?
No wonder you've all got faces that look like you've been slapped with wet fish all the time.
Nice to see your triumphalism now that others have been denied the chance to see it, what a hypocrite.
Posted by Rob | 04.06.08, 22:46 GMT
[continued] But you should recognize that her novel was in fact subversive in its intent, that it came from her belief that the society she grew up in was saddled with the same old delusions about their past that caused the Old South to be destroyed in the first place. Thats why her book caused some controversy among Southern critics, churches, and certain political circles. Sorry for taking up 3 posts to reply to your thoughtful article.
Posted by harper | 04.06.08, 20:05 GMT
[continued] Mitchells intent was to challenge the nostalgia and romantic glow of the Old South so prevalent among her fellow southerners. Her intent was to show an Old South that was in fact was archaic, weak, delusional, stuck in a feudal system that was not worth saving. Her novels main thesis was that the grand Old South that her people were so proud of in fact not only deserved to be destroyed, but enabled its own destruction.
Thats why Scarlett and Rhett adapt so easily to the new economy capitalist, based not in the plantation. Theyre the ones who survive, not the likes of Ashley Wilkes, who are stuck in the past. They are the ones who will build the new south that will no longer depend on slaves and the plantation economy.
Mitchell did not write her black characters very well at all nor was she interested in the question of slavery, you are right to focus on that. She was a southern belle who grew up in white southern aristocracy.
Posted by harper | 04.06.08, 19:53 GMT
Johan, I agree with your essential point (certainly I prefer being with Rick in his cafe) but there are a few problems with your thesis. First off, Scarlett doesnt decide she wants Rhett when she meets him, she doesnt want anything to do with him. Its Rhett who decides he wants her. The whole novel tells the story about Scarlett being too stupid to see that shes chosen the wrong man and then realizes too late that Rhett is the man whos right for her.
Secondly, you dont know the novel, youre only working from the film. Mitchells novel is more complex than the film. The man that Scarlett chases throughout the novel is Ashley Wilkes, a weak-willed, spineless representative of the Old South that is dying in face of the stronger, more organized, more economically and technologically advanced North. Wilkes in fact wants Scarlett but is too weak to act on his desires. [to be continued]
Posted by harper | 04.06.08, 19:09 GMT
24 Comments