Yeah, it’s a Harlequin-cover vibe. I don’t know what women actually fantasize about because I’m not a woman.
It was the number one box office film for decades even without adjusting for inflation, and after adjusting it still is. So that scene didn’t appear to come close to hurting it in any way.
Neither did the scenes that depicted slavery as a more-or-less benign institution viewed through a nostalgic lens, of course.
I think Gone With The Wind is an amazing film in many ways, but it has its issues to the modern eye.
If we are going to get into hypotheticals, one might wonder what would have happened to MLK if his alleged sexual behavior was exposed.
She’s done this character a few times, even before the Weinstein news broke.
Well, consider a few things.
In 1939, Gone With The Wind was a book, more than it was a movie. The popularity of the book meant lots of people were familiar with it.
And in that scene, Margaret Mitchell has Scarlet being shy and unsure and a little frightened of Rhett…but also very much with the hots for him. And so in the book it describes how she reluctantly kisses him at first, but then reciprocates and what happens from then on is, ah, extremely consensual.
So I would imagine that audiences at the time took that scene within that context.
Taken outside that context, or even with that framing in mind, it’s a clumsy way that they worked it to get around the rapiness of it all, by having Scarlet wake up the next morning with a big ol’ smile on her face.
Meanwhile in WY.
Exactly. It’s like asking how one should react to the first-degree murder committed by Han Solo.
Rhett and Han are sympathetic scoundrels, which largely exist only in fiction.
They did have to cut that scene where Rhett masturbates into a potted plant in front of Scarlet.
Seattle recently had a mayor by the name of Ed Murray, and he had a bunch of his own pecadillos. What’s with politicians named Ed Murray?
:) 345
I thought most were going public, but I can see why some would choose not to do so.
Yes, times change.
A lot has changed over the decades for many of us, but not all of us. We don’t have to apply today’s morality to the past even if I can’t stand some of these classics for reasons that are not so hidden. But while I expect 12 year olds not to know the difference between obsession, lust and love, one the reasons we don’t allow them to give consent; I demand that young men do. All men should know what fantasy is and not try and equate it with reality. I think most women, even young women, do know the difference, and they can still have their fantasies.
Why didn’t all of them speak out…
I don’t think they knew for sure, they only had suspicions. After, no one was going to say, “Harvey blackballed you”. And even if told, what evidence did they have?
That’s not the point. They refused and Weinstein used his influence to punished them for it. You think if they refused AND they came out things would have been better, people would have believed them. I don’t think so.
That might be true, but most of these predators are legendarily ugly and/or fat. I’d be surprised if anything came out about Eastwood or the next generation of Eastwood, say Clooney or Pitt. As Moe says, I’m guessing they had to fend off women with a pointy stick.
Sorry, I don’t understand your response at all. The original poster asked why they didn’t say something earlier. I said that they did not know for sure, they only had suspicions. So they had nothing to speak out on. What would have happened If they had known and spoken out is irrelevant since they did not know enough to speak out.