Talk:Gone with the Wind (film)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Image

I've never seen this film and don't know much about it, but an image of an old mill that was apparently in the movie was recently uploaded to the Commons: Image:North Little Rock mill.JPG. I leave it to people who are actually qualified to decide whether or not the image would be useful to this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The mill appears among several scenes shot in the South that appear under the opening credits. Nice photo, picturesque scene, but a trivial component of the movie. — Walloon (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"Adjusted for inflation"

I ask for the millionth time, if we are going to put the claim that "adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind is the top grossing film of alltime, we need a legitimate source. People keep posting the boxofficemojo list, but there are two problems here. Firstly, you'll notice it only covers domestic grosses, which doesn't mean you can use the words, "Top grossing film of all time" because you're leaving out international box office receipts. Secondly, boxofficemojo (and others) adjust all the money the film has made over the year to 1939 dollars. Yet GWTW has made most of its money on releases: it's had about a dozen. 69.215.149.73 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Behind The Scenes

The making of movie says two complete opposite things about the casting of Vivien Leigh, altho it was shot in 1988: it was not David who arranged to meet her while filming the burning of Atlanta, it was M who brought her there, and David was not impressed by the movies he saw of hers before. Who wrote the bit on the page here, where did you get the info? Dollvalley (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The stills photographer responsible for the set and action stills on GWTW, Fred Parrish, used a Leica IIIa 35mm camera. This was probably the first time that a 35mm camera was used for this purpose. Fred retouched 35mm film by hand using a magnifying glass and a very tiny brush to add the flames for the Burning of Atlanta stills. Fred showed me his original negatives (with the directly applied retouching) in 1979. They were probably destroyed when he died a few years later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

IMDB

This is the IMDB link -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/ ; current link takes you to an actors page. I do not know how to properly embed the link, can someone help? 67.82.35.217 (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

what were Scarlett's exact words when she went back to Tara and tried to clean up the estate

oh..well..I am not going to think about that today? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.209.187 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Racial Politics (section moved pending citations)

Since this section deals with issues of race and politics, and is therefore controversial by nature, it should have sources. It has been placed here pending improvement. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Some have criticized the film for romanticizing, sanitizing, or even promoting the values of the antebellum South, in particular its reliance on slavery. For example, syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts has likened it to "a romance set in Auschwitz."

The character of Mammy, played by Hattie McDaniel, has been linked with the stock character of the "happy slave", an archetype that is said to implicitly condone slavery. But Helen Taylor, in Scarlett's Women: Gone with the Wind and Its Female Fans argued that Mammy's character is more complex than this, that her character represents someone who cared for others, despite the racism and oppression she suffered.

On the other hand, Mammy frequently derides other slaves on the plantation as "field hands," implying that as a House Servant she is above the "less-refined" blacks. It is most apparent in a scene in which Mammy and Scarlett walk down a street and Mammy passes by a Yankee carpetbagger who promises a group of ex-slaves "forty acres and a mule." The ex-slaves are excited, but Mammy glares at them disapprovingly.

Responding to the racial critiques of the film, Selznick replied that the black characters were "lovable, faithful, high-minded people who would leave no impression but a very nice one." While Mammy is generally portrayed in a positive light, other black characters in the film are not so fortunate.

The character of Prissy, played by Butterfly McQueen has been accused of perpetuating the stereotype that black slaves were stupid and childlike. In one scene, as Melanie is about to give birth, Prissy bursts into tears and admits she lied to Scarlett: "Lawzy, we got to have a doctor. I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies!" (In response, Scarlett slaps her).[1] In The Autobiography of Malcolm X, the former civil rights leader recounted his experience of watching this particular scene as a small boy in Michigan: "I was the only Negro in the theater, and when Butterfly McQueen went into her act, I felt like crawling under the rug." It should be noted that as the story begins in the book, Prissy is only twelve years old.

The role of Prissy catapulted Butterfly McQueen's film career, but within ten years, she grew tired of playing black ethnic stereotypes. When she refused to be typecast that way, it ended her career.

Members of the African-American community criticized many black actors for agreeing to play a role in the film. Oscar Polk, who played the role of Pork, wrote an op-ed in the Chicago Defender — a prominent newspaper in the black community — to respond to that criticism. "As a race we should be proud," he said, "that we have risen so far above the status of our enslaved ancestors and be glad to portray ourselves as we once were because in no other way can we so strikingly demonstrate how far we have come in so few years."

After the Civil War, Gerald O’Hara (Scarlett’s father, who owns the plantation Tara), scolds his daughter about the way she is treating Mammy and Prissy. “You must be firm to inferiors, but gentle, especially darkies,” he advises her. While Scarlett was criticized for being too harsh on the house servants, Gerald’s premise that black people are “inferior” is not questioned, however “inferior” could be interpreted as their social status as workers, just as one’s boss is referred to as his “superior.” In the novel, author Margaret Mitchell made a point of the importance of social hierarchy in the Antebellum South.

Some scenes subtly undercut the apparent romanticization of Southern slavery. During the panicked evacuation of Atlanta as Union troops approach, Scarlett runs into Big Sam, the black foreman of the O'Hara plantation. Big Sam informs her that he (and a group of black field-hands who are with him) have been impressed to dig fortifications for the Confederacy. But these men are singing Go Down Moses, a famous black spiritual that slaves would sing to call for the abolition of slavery.

The Shantytown Raid scene was changed in the film to make it less racially divisive than the book. After Scarlett is attacked in a Shantytown outside Atlanta, her husband Frank, Ashley, and others leave to raid the Shantytown that night to avenge Scarlett's honor. In the book, there are two attackers, one is black and one is white, and those who raid the Shantytown after her attack are identified as members of the Ku Klux Klan (although Scarlett herself disdains the Klan).[2] In the film, no mention of the Klan is made. In both the film and the book, a black man, Big Sam, who was the O'Hara's old foreman, saves her life during the attack.

Racial politics spilled into the film's premiere in Atlanta, Georgia. As Georgia was a segregated state, Hattie McDaniel could not have attended the cinema without sitting in the "colored" section of the movie theater; to avoid troubling Selznick, she thus sent a letter saying she would not be able to attend. When Clark Gable heard that McDaniel did not want to attend because of the racial issue, he threatened to boycott the premiere unless McDaniel was able to attend; he later relented when McDaniel convinced him to go.[3]

At the costume ball during the premiere, local promoters recruited blacks to dress up as slaves and sing in a "Negro choir" on the steps of a white-columned plantation mansion built for the event. Many black community leaders refused to participate, but prominent Atlanta preacher Martin Luther King, Sr. attended, and he brought his 10-year-old son, future civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., who sang that night in the choir.

The film also resulted in an important moment in African-American history: Hattie McDaniel won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, the first time a black actor received the award.

The next section was a verbatim repetition of this one, probably due to some glitch. I have deleted it. B00P (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

cast order descriptive

Resolved

what order is the cast listing? by order on the "end credits"? by order of appearance? some wikpedia editor's "order of importance"? some external source? clearly not alphbetical by actor or by character. whatever the order, there should be descriptive language explaining presentation.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.231.108 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reordered the listing. For those actors whose roles were also given, it is now in the same order that appears in the film. (Note that the four principals are listed immediately after the film's title, and again in the location lists. Thus Gable is not only listed first, but is also mentioned again as "a visitor from Charleston" in the "Twelve Oaks" listing. For this article, I took it that the first listing was sufficient.)
Three actors who did not get the name-and-role acknowledgement in the film's credits were also included in the old table. As I try to avoid deleting information, I just moved them to the bottom of the table.
I added a Note to explain all this, and to cover the Tarleton twins credit mixup.
On a technical subject: the old table was three columns across, this one is only two. Nevertheless, this one is vertically shorter. This is not as paradoxical as it might seem. Yes, with all other things equal, putting three names per line would require fewer lines than two per line. However, all other things are not equal. Each column was so narrow that every entry wrapped onto a second line. The result was that two lines contained three complete items. With the wider columns of the revised table, each entry fits in one line, and thus, two lines contain four items. "Olivia de Havilland as Melanie Hamiliton" is the only item so long that it still wraps. Seems okay to me. I also threw in the blank line to separate the stars from the riff-raff. ;-) B00P (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

People who turned down GWTW

Jean Arthur

The brilliant star screen-tested for the role of "Scarlett O'Hara." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Lucille Ball

One of many actresses considered for the part of Scarlett. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Tallulah Bankhead

Bankhead was considered to play Scarlette but the producers were reluctant to hire her. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Diana Barrymore

Diana Barrymore was tested for the part of Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Lionel Barrymore

Was considered to play Dr. Meade. Actor who got the part: Harry Davenport


Louise Beavers

Tested for the role of Mammy. Actor who got the part: Hattie McDaniel


Joan Bennett

The popular and vivacious star screen-tested for "Scarlett." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Jane Bryan

Bryan was considered for the role of Melanie Hamilton. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Billie Burke

Was the first choice for Aunt Pittypat Hamilton, but was considered to be too thin and would have had to be padded even in her face. Instead she played Glinda the Good Witch in The Wizard of Oz that year. Actor who got the part: Laura Hope Crews


Marguerite Churchill

Marguerite Churchill was another actress considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Claudette Colbert

Claudette Colbert was considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Ronald Colman

A favorite contender for the role of "Rhett Butler." Actor who got the part: Clark Gable


Gary Cooper

Gary Cooper was seriously considered for the part of Rhett Butler. Actor who got the part: Clark Gable


Joan Crawford

One of many actresses considered for the part of Scarlett. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


George Cukor

George Cukor left the production as director. There are numerous versions as to why, including Cukor's friction with producer David O. Selznick, and star Clark Gable. Actor who got the part: Victor Fleming


Bette Davis

Bette Davis was considered to play Scarlett O'Hara but Warners would not allow it. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Frances Dee

Tested for "Scarlett." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Billie Dove

The star nicknamed the "The American Beauty" reportedly declined an offer to play Belle Watling. Actor who got the part: Ona Munson


Ellen Drew

Ellen Drew was another actress considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Irene Dunne

Irene Dunne was considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Errol Flynn

The great star was a prime contender to play "Rhett Butler." Bette Davis refused to play "Scarlett" if Flynn were cast. Actor who got the part: Clark Gable


Joan Fontaine

According to her 1978 autobiography, Miss Fontaine was offered the role of Melanie but turned it down, suggesting her sister, Olivia De Havilland who played the role and was Oscar nominated for her performance. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Judy Garland

Judy Garland was briefly considered for the role of Scarlet O'Hara's youngest sister Careen. the role would eventually be played by Garland's co-star from the Andy Hardy films, Ann Rutherford. Actor who got the part: Ann Rutherford


Janet Gaynor

Gaynor was considered for the part of Melanie Hamilton, but she would not reduce her salary requirements. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Lillian Gish

Lillian Gish was one of a few actresses considered for the role of Ellen O'Hara, Scarlet's mother. Actor who got the part: Barabara O'Neil


Paulette Goddard

The smart, sexy Goddard tested for the role of "Scarlett O'Hara." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Jean Harlow

Jean Harlow was considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Julie Haydon

Julie Haydon tested for the role of Melanie Hamilton. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Susan Hayward

The fiery redhead tested for the role of "Scarlett O'Hara." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Katharine Hepburn

Katharine Hepburn was considered to play Scarlett but producers felt that she didn't fit the role at that time. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Miriam Hopkins

Miriam Hopkins was an early contender to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Marsha Hunt

Hunt was one of the many actresses considered for Melanie Hamilton. However, de Havilland was always the first choice. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Priscilla Lane

Priscilla Lane was considered for the part of Melanie Wilkes. Actor who got the part: Olivia de Havilland


Andrea Leeds

The Oscar nominated actress tested for the role of Melanie Hamilton. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Carole Lombard

Carole Lombard was considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Anita Louise

The beautiful and elegant Louise screen-tested to play "Scarlett O'Hara." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Boots Mallory

Boots Mallory was another actress considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Groucho Marx

Margeret Mitchell, the author of the book, felt that Groucho would be perfect as Rhett Butler. She was ignored. Actor who got the part: Clark Gable


Victor Mature

Victor Mature auditioned for the roles of Brent and Stuart Tarleton at a time when it appeared likely that the twins would be played by a single actor, using trick photography. Eventually this was deemed impractical and the producers sought a pair of actors who could believably play brothers. Actor who got the part: George Reeves & Fred Crane


Maureen O'Sullivan

O'Sullivan was one of many starlets considered for the pivotal role of Melanie. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Tyrone Power

20th Century Fox head Darryl F. Zanuck foolishly and selfishly denied the makers of this Civil War classic epic the chance to borrow Power from Fox so that he could play Ashley Wilkes. Actor who got the part: Leslie Howard


Vincent Price

Vincent Price said on a TV interview that he had tried out for the role of Ashley Wilkes. It's speculated that they wanted someone smaller and less masculine so viewers would wonder what she saw in Ashley Wilkes. Actor who got the part: Leslie Howard


Basil Rathbone

Margret Mitchell was quoted as saying Basil Rathbone was her ideal choice for the role of Rhett Butler. Actor who got the part: Clark Gable


Jo Ann Sayers

Jo Ann Sayers was another actress considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Randolph Scott

Several fan polls chose Randolph Scott as the favorite to play Ashley Wilkes, but producer David O. Selznick was concerned that Scott had recently appeared in another Civil War film, "So Red the Rose," which had flopped. Actor who got the part: Leslie Howard


Norma Shearer

Norma Shearer turned down the role of Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Anne Shirley

One of the numerous actresses screen-tested for the part of Melanie. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland


Margaret Sullavan

Margaret Sullavan was considered to play Scarlett O'Hara. Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Lana Turner

The major MGM star screentested for the role of "Scarlett O'Hara." Actor who got the part: Vivien Leigh


Loretta Young

According to her daughter's biography, the one role Young most wanted and did not get was that of Melanie Hamilton. Actor who got the part: Olivia De Havilland

Mr Hall of England (talk) 11:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent post! But I do think this heading should be something more like "People Who Were Turned Down for GWTW." To my knowledge, only Gary Cooper apparently actually did not want to play the role that he was considered for (along with Clark Gable, who was practically forced into it--ironically the re-releases kept him on top for the rest of his life; he later noted that every time his career would dip in subsequent decades, a GWTW re-release would immediately revive it. Accubam (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

HBO viewers

I have removed the following sentence from the article:

Very few, if any, households had cable TV in 1976, so they were not able to see the film as telecast on HBO that year.

In fact, more than 400,000 U.S. households watched GWTW on HBO in June 1976. ("Pay TV Is Giving Filmmakers Reason to Pause", The New York Times, Nov. 7, 1976, p. D27.) — Walloon (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

the norm?

"Most of the audience [at the preview] begged that the film not be cut shorter and many suggested that instead they eliminate the newsreels, shorts and B-movie feature, which is eventually how Gone with the Wind was screened and would soon become the norm in movie theatres around the world."

I remember going to movies in the 50s and 60s and seeing "newsreels and shorts". Newsreels died gradually as TV news reporting expanded, and shorts disappeared as the studios declined and shorts (both live and animated) became too expensive to make. This took about 25 years. It did not begin with, nor was it caused by, GWTW.

This should rethought and rewritten. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree strongly. I removed the inaccurate comments. Markhh (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Opening section

I suggest that the rather hyperbolic second paragraph of the opening section be moved to the "Legacy" section, or perhaps to a section of its own ("Popularity"?). This very long list of records and recognitions seems inappropriate for the opening and might be replaced here by a simple statement that it was the winner of ten Academy Awards. Thoughts? Markhh (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Tomato Tomoto

So far today I've read three classic movie articles which do not have Rotten Tomato or Metacritic scores recorded in them. The first was "Casablanca," the second was "The Sound of Music," and this movie goes down as the third. How could three of the greatest films in Hollywood history not have a Rotten Tomato or Metacritic scores put down in them!!! I found this a little bit offensive. Oh sure we can put down Rotten Tomato scores in "The Brady Bunch Movie," article but when it comes to "Gone With the Wind," why bother. You'd think that somebody would notice these sort of things. Ahh well it was a mistake. Look if there's no reason why you shouldn't go ahead and record those scores. I think a lot of people would be interested in hearing about how contemporary critics rate this movie. Please add information!!! A message from -James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.164.245 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Because older films such as this do not benefit from a modern critic aggregate score. Reviews that were written at the time of the film's release is preferred over reviews written 70 years later. —Mike Allen 00:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Do you seriously think that films like these would get a good score on websites like that? I find that highly doubtful, considering the emphasis on fast-paced movies these days. Yes, they may get good ratings, but they also may not due to the nature of the modern day audience. It's unnecessary in any case. Regards, SAULGNRFAN (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Racial Politics Criticisms

It is inaccurate to say that criticisms of Gone With the Wind as racist are "recent." While it's true that the vast majority of viewers in 1939 expressed no concern about the racial politics of the film, there was a small but vocal minority at the time who did. The NAACP, for example, urged Hattie McDaniel not to take the role of "Mammy." Oscar Polk, who played the role of "Pork," felt compelled to write an op-ed in the Chicago Defender (a well-read African-American newspaper) after the black community likewise criticized him for agreeing to play a slave.

Continuous showing

When I arrived in Atlanta in 1987 the film was shown every day at the CNN Center theater downtown. Supposedly this was going to be done in perpetuity, although the showings stopped at some time during the 1990s and eventually the theater closed down too. Does anyone have a more detailed timeline on this?

Academy Awards

I am putting the Oscars on a table by starting with the Big Five

Winner of 10 Academy Awards. The first eight received the "Oscar" statuette:

Five additional nominations:

Also:

Taking to WP:GA level?

I see the work you are doing on the article, Betty Logan. Are you building the article up for a WP:GA nomination? Flyer22 (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the gameplan. I reckon in another week or two it will be ready to be nominated. It's perhaps the most iconic film ever made, so I figured it was about time we had an article that reflected its stature. Betty Logan (talk) 10:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
You're obviously doing a great job on the article; good luck with the WP:GA process, not that you'll need it. Flyer22 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on WP:GA promotion

I'm obviously late in stating this, but congratulations, Betty. I just noticed that the article is of GA status when, from my watchlist, I saw you archiving the talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Just came to echo the above sentiments – looks like a great piece of work. Congratulations on getting it to GA status! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Why pageviews dropped so low in April 2013

The tabulation of page-requests, into the Wikipedia Internet data logs, was changed after 25 March 2013, to supposedly improve handling of https-prefix requests, but those https views (and IPv6 views) were no longer counted by stats.grok.se and other page-count tools in April/May 2013 (until 15 May). Also, when Google links to an article by secure-server "https:" prefix, some browsers ask the user to confirm access to the website. In the case of "Gone with the Wind (film)" the Internet Explorer browsers might ask a series of 18 confirmations, for the initial article page, plus images or icons displayed on the page. Many people might have been surprised to see the secure-server questions, or perhaps became frustrated by up to 18 confirmation steps, and just closed the page. It is possible that their browsers did not talk with Wikipedia long enough to log a formal pageview, when asked for confirmation. However, it is also possible that there is a restriction in pageview counting which excludes the https views from the typical pageview counts formerly reported. Either way, with the page renamed, then Google can allow users to click a typical, simple "http:" link to see the page+images and log pageviews as in the past, hopefully, over 4,500 pageviews per day, as in March 2013. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:43, 9 May, 12:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed slight rename for Google access

As discussed for weeks at wp:PUMPTECH (new thread), the link from Google Search as an https-protocol, secure-server SSL format, has hindered viewing of the article from a Google search-results page, due to many browsers which ask for security certificate confirmation. Instead, with an altered title, this article could be easily accessed from Google by typical http-prefix, if the article were renamed, for a few weeks, as:

The renaming with "1939" would keep the current title as the redirect "Gone with the Wind (film)" to support access by prior wikilinks or navboxes. Then during the subsequent weeks, Google would list the new title "~(1939 film)" with typical "http:" prefix, to allow any browser, even at a public library, to view the article without needing secure-server access to Wikipedia. The https-link in Google has thwarted access by over 60% lower, down from average 4,900 pageviews per day in February/March (see: pageviews-201303), to only 1,880 pageviews/day in April/May 2013 (pageviews-201304). Those numbers indicate that over 3,000 potential users per day are not viewing the article, where the https-prefix causes many browsers to ask a series of 1-to-18 security-access questions about the browser's security certificate. Those eighteen (18) secure-server questions are likely to cause potential viewers to click "no" and skip viewing of the page. A similar https-link in Google for article "Hyperbola" (27 April 2013) has recently dropped 66% of average pageviews for that page as well (see: Hyperbola pageviews-201304). Instead, if the film were renamed with suffix "(1939 film)" then the page would be listed by Google with typical "http:" prefix and allow direct access, without 18 security-alert questions. So, the estimated 3,000 more people per day would have easy access to the page from a Google search. Meanwhile access from Bing.com has retained the typical http-prefix link and is not affected. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

But disambiguating like that makes it seem like there is a different Gone with the Wind Wikipedia article, and that readers would likely be searching for the 1994 television miniseries sequel (I mean, as much as the 1939 film). Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I presume this has something to do with me reporting the drastic fall in page views? Let's stick to layman terms though, Wikid, you believe that the article will become more searchable by simply modifying the disambiguator which will have the knock-on effect of resetting Google's index or something? And when you say for a "few weeks", do you mean that the article will be moved back to this page after a month or two? Even though it violates WP:NCF I would not object to the move on experimental terms as a temporary measure if it would help get the page views back up. The article would have to be move protected for the duration though otherwise it is probable that someone would move it back. Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree as temporary rename and move-protected afterward: The intention is to rename for a temporary period with "1939 film" (while the original title is still wikilinked by redirect), because the recent drastic 66% drop in pageviews for article "Hyperbola" (after 27 April 2013) indicates a direct effect of Google https-prefix link to deter over 60% of pageviews. If the April drop in pageviews does, in fact, indicate thousands of readers, per day, who do not access the page, then we no longer allow "free access to the sum of all human knowledge". I think this rename is worth a try, and if pageviews do not increase the following week, then we will have revealed evidence of some other problem in access to a major Wikipedia article. Either way, the temporary rename will provide a valuable result, about reader access to major Wikipedia pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Interesting background to all this! Barring any compelling reason not to give this a trial, I'm fine with doing the temporary move. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support We need to get to the bottom of the problem and this article is a prime candidate given how badly affected it is. Betty Logan (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I also support the temporary move. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
  • DONE. I have renamed as "Gone with the Wind (1939 film)" with the plan to have that temporary name, for a few weeks, to allow more people to read the article with just typical "http:" prefix in Google, without extra settings in browsers which ask for security certificate validation with "https:" protocol. It might take days, or over a week, before Google will list the new title when searching "Gone with Wind". However, other redirect titles have been outranked in Google by new renamed titles. More below, under: #Why pageviews dropped so low in April 2013. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:43/16:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
  • REINDEXED - RESOLVED. The article is now available, to all viewers, from Google by simple, typical "http" link when searching "gone with wind" showing new title "Gone with the Wind (1939 film)" as renamed. Based on the one-fifth day Google listing of the new title, the readership stats, tonight, can be compared to the prior title as 1,880 per day:
However, as of 12 May 2013 (3 days after renaming the article), a Google Search for full title "Gone with the Wind" still matched to the https-prefix title (redirect) in Google, which was still not counted for pageviews with stats.grok.se. So, even though searching with other words caused Google to list the new title ["~(1939 film)"], a search for the full title continued to link the https-prefix old title (not counted). Meanwhile, Bing.com would show the new title with "(1939 film)" but internally still link the old title (redirect), although with typical "http" prefix. After several more days, the new title is expected to supplant the old title, in search-engine lookups. Then, on subsequent days, the average pageviews should return to over 4,700 pageviews/day. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:09, 9 May, 12:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • GWTW film re-renamed with Google http link (not https): As the final planned step (to stay in sync with Yahoo/Bing and prior usage), the film page was re-renamed back to original "Gone with the Wind (film)" at 05:32, 14 May 2013‎ by User:Anthony_Appleyard (rev345), leaving redirect "~(1939_film)" and Google has created a new link with "http" prefix. However, now there are 2 Google links for the old title, where the prior https-protocol link shows the soft-redirect version, "See: Gone..(1939 film)" while the new http-prefix link has the current film article. Hence, there is a battle for rank, of https-versus-http, where the original title will likely slip back to the Google https-protocol link. Over the next few days, Google was expected to list the original "http" title for gone/wind searches, but the https-protocol link has returned, and the 1939-film redirect title should fade in the search-results list (while pageviews shift to original title). Meanwhile, Bugzilla ticket Bug 48402 has been filed to address the system-wide fix for those thousands of Google-https pages (see: "wp:Village_pump (technical)#No canonical link when editing https pages"). There is still a chance for Google to re-garble the http-linked GWTW with a "https" link again, but I think that would take several days, during which we might see the true (http) pageviews again (stats-201305), as a sanity check that over 4,000 people view the GWTW film page daily. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

WP fixed for https/IPv6 pageviews

The future stats.grok.se pageview counts are hopefully fixed now, and will, today, be re-including views via https-protocol links or any views by IPv6-format IP addresses. As promised, on 10 May 2013, by Diederik (User:Drdee) of the Analytics Team @WMF, the logged page requests were studied, and several software changes were made, to restore the pageview entries and fix related problems on 14 May, within just 4 days. I thanked him for the quick fix, as expecting a 2-week delay for some software-update cycle. Plus, note how two major populations of readers had been omitted from counts, not just https-protocol viewers (of the bogus Google-https links), but also anyone reading pages over an IPv6 address had missing pageviews.

Recent pageview tests confirmed other "missing" pageviews were not due to https-protocol omissions, because the totals were still hundreds too low after https-views had been discounted. With the recent fix to GWTW, renamed temporarily as "Gone with the Wind (1939 film)", the various pageviews reported by stats.grok.se totalled only 3,600-3,800/day, as compared to former levels over 4,500/day for the GWTW film. The mystery remained about hundreds of missing readers, because we did not realize IPv6 pageviews had also been omitted. However, tonight, at 01:00 UTC, the 15-May-2013 pageview counts should return near March-2013 levels for many of the 300+ major articles which still have Google-https links (such as "Parabola" at 2500 not 600/day), plus the thousands of other pages/images wikilinked from those articles. Meanwhile, the Google-https links remain firm (but counted) in search-results, while some Mobile-site pages "en.m.wikipedia.org/*" are still listed separately in Google, confusing many people, plus who has time to think about all these mega-problems even if they were simple, rather than intertwined complexities. I think the overall confusion explains the 2-month delay in fixes, and reveals where to focus more attention. -Wikid77 16:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The marital "rape" in the plot summary

I see an anonymous IP has attempted to remove the reference to rape and refer to the incident as a consensual encounter (see [1]) and User:Flyer22 considers it open to debate (see [2]). I would like to get further input on this and see what other editors think. For the record I wrote the plot summary so I will come to my reasons in a moment, but here are the facts:

  1. No sexual encounter is actually seen in the film, although this is largely due to the restrictions of the Hollywood Production Code in place at the time. No-one really disputes the fact that a sexual encounter occurred.
  2. It is explicitly clear in the book that Rhett rapes Scarlett, and the film depicts the incident fully to the extent that it is permitted by the censorship laws of the time.
  3. In the film we see a drunken Rhett clearly indicate his intent to Scarlett (something along the lines of "Nothing will keep me out of your bed tonight"). We see Rhett overcome the struggling Scarlett and cart her off to the bedroom. We next cut to Scarlett in the morning, although admittedly she doesn't exactly look like she needs to visit a rape crisis center. Rhett arrives and apologizes for his behavior and blames it on being drunk.

The purpose of the plot summary in film articles is not self-serving, it is supposed to support the analysis i.e. the article discusses the marital rape in those terms, so it should be clear from the plot summary at which point in the film this incident occurs and the narrative context of that incident. I disagree with Flyer22 that the nature of the scene is open to "debate". I checked several sources while writing the Depiction of marital rape section and I didn't come across any account that regarded the event to be consensual. I would say that the incident is "much discussed" rather than "much debated", since there seems to be very little debate about the nature of the scene. If there was another valid interpretation of the scene then that should also be covered in our analysis section and the plot summary would be altered to reflect the open nature of the analysis. As it stands, I believe the scene should be readily identifiable in the plot summary to anyone who reads the analysis section, otherwise the plot summary would not be doing its job. In view of that I would be against using the IP's language that Rhett "make passionate love to her" for a number of reasons: it doesn't adequately identify the marital rape scene to the readers, it doesn't adequately describe the broadly accepted interpretation of what occurs, and I'm not ok with describing forced sex as "passionate love". At the same time I accept there is a slight problem with the wording since we don't actually see a rape/sex scene no matter how much it is implied, so if anyone has any suggestions for wording that can reconcile these conflicting concerns then I would be more than happy to consider them. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Betty, the scene is highly debated, as is even clear by this section you created in the article. I mean that aspects of it are what you call "much discussed," and there is a lot of disagreement in such discussions. I think that many people see the incident as rape; but there clearly are a significant portion of people, especially women, who don't or refuse to see it as rape; that section you created notes this. So I stand by my WP:Dummy edit summary comment that relays: "I've been thinking that we probably should not include the term 'marital rape' in the Plot section, though, since the film doesn't consistently portray it as that, doesn't call it that, and it is quite a debated matter." And as seen with this editor whose text you disputed and here where I told an editor (before a followup note), "There is no 'alleged.' It's rape, as most reliable sources say. And your wording of 'Here's an example' is unencyclopedic.", it's clear that the recent IP dispute over calling the aforementioned matter "rape" is not limited to that IP.
I'll alert WP:FILM to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
When I say it is "not debated" I do not mean by editors; I mean by legitimate academic or informed sources, since editorial opinion does not matter a jot. All of the sources I consulted regard it as a rape, or if they did not refer to it in those terms they did not consider it to be a consensual sexual encounter ("marital rape" is anachonistic). Margaret Mitchell wrote a rape scene. The producers filmed it as a rape scene (Rhett clearly states his intent and that Scarlett doesn't have a say in the matter). Academic writing on the scene regards it as a rape scene. There seems to be no serious debate about whether a rape occurs. We simply don't see it due to the restictions of the Production Code, which is where the problem lies: what the scene implies is not under dispute but it falls short of what we actually see. Betty Logan (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It is doubtful that a term such as "marital rape" is appropriate in being used here. I do not think that concept even existed at the time depicted in the movie. A mention of what one sees in the movie is OK (Rhett carrying a struggling Scarlett up the stairs, etc.) Even though it is pretty clear what the sequence is about, anything more alluded to in the plot summary, in this particular article, would be Wikipedia:Synthesis. Thanks. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I think SYNTH is a bit if a red herring in this instance, because we can easily source a plot description that refers to the incident as "rape". The AMC Filmsite refers to the incident as "conjugal rape" in their recap, so any SYNTH issues are easily resolved. I think the issue is a bit more double edged: the events that obviously occur are not actually seen on screen, so do we simply relay what we see and make the summary less clear, or do we describe an event in the film that occurs but is not shown? Can the summary be worded in such a way that somehow does both? Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
It probably could be done. However, to simplify this situation, without injecting bias, it's probably best that the scene be described as what is actually seen on the screen, and then the reader can (and, in the case of an encyclopedia, should) make up their own mind. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 04:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem is it's pivotal to the plot: Scarlett gets pregnant again and suffers a miscarriage, so we'd be ommitting a major plot detail if we obsfucate the fact there is a sexual encounter. So however we describe the scene, regardless of whether we use the term "marital rape" or not, I think we need to be clear that i) a sexual encounter occurs (otherwise how does the pregnancy come about?) and ii) it is not a fully consensual encounter (at least in terms of what we see). Betty Logan (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Betty, notice that I stated "I mean that aspects of it are what you call 'much discussed,' and there is a lot of disagreement in such discussions." Whether or not a rape occurred is not the only way that the scene is debated, including among scholars. I was not only referring to the "whether it was rape or not" aspect when I mentioned "debated." And I was not only referring to Wikipedia editors; if I were, the two encounters noted above would hardly qualify as "highly debated." I made sure to mention "there clearly are a significant portion of people, especially women, who don't or refuse to see it as rape; that section you created notes this." To me, that is a debate as well because these women don't view it as "Yeah, that's rape." Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
How exactly would you word it then? Presumably you don't agree that it should say they "made passionate love" (that much we both agree on) since you reverted the IP who changed the wording to that. Betty Logan (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
What has been suggested by you and GenQuest above -- to make it clear that he carries her upstairs against her will to "punish her" with sex. Perhaps also inject his quote that implies this. I don't think that making it explicitly clear that a sexual encounter occurs between them on this matter is WP:Original research/Wikipedia:Synthesis. Flyer22 (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I have altered the wording and tried to account for your concerns. I've tried to make it clear that i) what we see is only the beginning of a sexual encounter, ii) that we do not see Scarlett consent to it from the part we see, and iii) that Rhett is physically violent towards her. Hopefully it better captures what we do actually see without losing clarity. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that gets the point across well. Beware of anyone trying to add in the fact that Scarlett was glowing afterward, however. Flyer22 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
One thing: Is the "sexually assaulting her" part "forcing a kiss on her"? I can't remember the scene well (will have to rewatch it again), but I think forcing a kiss on her is the only sexual assault that was allowed onscreen back then. If it's a forced kiss, I think it's best that we state that, especially since people usually think of something more sexually explicit when they think of sexual assault; at the Sexual assault article, whether forced kissing counts as sexual assault, was even addressed. And as you can see, it's now sourced in the lead of that article. Flyer22 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have clarified the exact nature of the assault so hopefully everything is clear now. Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. I would have simply worded it as "by forcing a kiss on her," but your way is fine. Flyer22 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
What you have done seems fine. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 05:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ wav file
  2. ^ Mitchell, Margaret, Gone with the Wind, Ch. 38 (1936) MacMillan
  3. ^ Harris, Warren G. Clark Gable: A Biography, Harmony, (2002), page 211.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)/Archive_2&oldid=1083514146"