Scarlett O'Hara's Dresses In Need Of Repair

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

Understood, I was just predicting it would turn into a north vs. south thing when it comes to education, and I've never bought that. (What I do buy is good school vs. bad school.)

Oh I don't think it's North vs. South. My comment about friends in VA is based on fact, but I can't speak to the VA school system as a whole. But certain ideas are more common in the South, or the West, or the North East based on the history and culture of those areas. The teachers bring their biases (and so do the school boards and administrators) and those biases are influenced by their culture so patterns probably emerge that I'm not qualified to discuss as I don't study education the way I study mental health and other things.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yes.



I have.

That extends to people who don't know the history behind "redneck." These things are not taught in many schools and that includes the predominantly Black schools. Children are taught what the school districts want them to learn and that varies based on the area. My siblings and I learned most of the things that we learned because both of our parents are educators who believed that learning is what happens before kids leave for school and after the kids get back home.

I do not believe it is an issue limited to the south, and never will. It has more to do with "good school" vs. "bad school" though that is obviously over simplifying the issue.

I would say the majority of my friends/sisters/classmates in undergrad were from southern states (Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee) and I truly haven't met anyone that wasn't aware that there were social classes, even if they had a rudimentary understanding of said social classes.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Oh I don't think it's North vs. South. My comment about friends in VA is based on fact, but I can't speak to the VA school system as a whole. But certain ideas are more common in the South, or the West, or the North East based on the history and culture of those areas. The teachers bring their biases (and so do the school boards and administrators) and those biases are influenced by their culture so patterns probably emerge that I'm not qualified to discuss as I don't study education the way I study mental health and other things.

I see, sorry for jumping on that assumption...I probably do tend to be defensive about that, having spent time up north with a few people who don't understand that assuming all my relatives are inbred is ignorant.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Honestly, never seen it, not interested in seeing it, and frankly I don't care. (Sorry you thought I was going somewhere else with that.)

But really, I don't get the glamor of the "Old South" and can't separate it from the system that allowed it to exist.

I'd suggest reading the novel and/or seeing the movie before commenting on it. People's perceptions of them are often in stark opposition to what is really going on, in the movie and to a larger extent in the novel.

Scarlett is often misinterpreted as representing the Old South when in fact Margaret Mitchell meant her to represent the New South - the movie and novel both use Ashley and Melanie as symbols for the "old ways"; Scarlett, who often turns convention on its head and makes her way by adapting to society as it is as opposed to as it was, points to the necessity of the South to progress.

That reminds me - time to mail in my UDC dues.

eta - and love it or hate it, the costumes are an important part of cinematic history. I hope they get preserved.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Alumiyum

I do not believe it is an issue limited to the south, and never will.

It isn't limited to the South and you're the one trying to make this North vs South. This is a thread about an Old South movie and people in the South tend to highly regard that era more than other regions of the country do.

[Alumiyum]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I was being facetious. But plenty of people kind of ... forget... about poor people or minorities or how hard it was to be a woman during those time periods in favor of the mental image that is in their heads.

It's a bit like people who idealize the pioneer days when MEN WERE MEN and we killed our own food and claimed our own land.*

(*And women died in childbirth and families died from all sorts of things and we killed other people to take their land and cut all the trees down which reduced the ability of the soil to stay put in droughts, etc.)

Oh man I can't imagine idealizing the pioneer days. *Shudder*. Haven't these people played Oregon Trail?

[SWTXBelle]

I caught the tail end of a show featuring a woman who gave birth with no outside prenatal care or help - unexpectedly gave birth to breech twins. Her husband said she was just doing it "Like they did in the old days" - um, you mean when infant and maternal mortality rates were through the roof? They were lucky - it all turned out well - but it was LUCK. Old ways aren't always the best ways.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'd suggest reading the novel and/or seeing the movie before commenting on it. People's perceptions of them are often in stark opposition to what is really going on, in the movie and to a larger extent in the novel.

Scarlett is often misinterpreted as representing the Old South when in fact Margaret Mitchell meant her to represent the New South - the movie and novel both use Ashley and Melanie as symbols for the "old ways"; Scarlett, who often turns convention on its head and makes her way by adapting to society as it is as opposed to as it was, points to the necessity of the South to progress.

That reminds me - time to mail in my UDC dues.

eta - and love it or hate it, the costumes are an important part of cinematic history. I hope they get preserved.

I don't have any desire to read or see it, but I'm not really commenting on the content of the movie (or book) itself anyway. It's how people and society portray it. Even authors/directors/writers who have the best of intentions don't get to control how people react to their work.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I don't have any desire to read or see it, but I'm not really commenting on the content of the movie (or book) itself anyway. It's how people and society portray it. Even authors/directors/writers who have the best of intentions don't get to control how people react to their work.

You have never seen GWTW or read the book?

If that's the case then I agree that you should at least see the movie before embarking on such discussions.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You have never seen GWTW or read the book?

If that's the case then I agree that you should at least see the movie before embarking on such discussions.

*points to my original post*

It's not about the content of the movie, it's what people do with it. I'm comfortable in my point without having seen it.

ETA: Should I come across it, I might actually put myself through it (my understanding is that it's an effing long movie) but that's more about reading it or watching it for the sake of saying that I have. I think I posted in another thread about how I have little tolerance for a variety of "classics" that I find little more than inane time-wasters.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

*points to my original post*

It's not about the content of the movie, it's what people do with it. I'm comfortable in my point without having seen it.

What people do with it is related to the content. It's always a good idea to be informed firsthand and allow the actual movie to potentially shape your perspective.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What people do with it is related to the content. It's always a good idea to be informed firsthand and allow the actual movie to potentially shape your perspective.

Dammit stop editing! I'm trying to keep up.

As it's not a topic I have a lot of interest in, I'm not likely to seek it out for pleasure. Which means that I have to make myself watch it for the sake of saying that I have or purely for educational purposes and that ranks lower on my list than watching the first season of Battlestar Galactica right now. We all have our faults and foibles.

/Foibles is a fun word so I had to add it.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

ETA: Should I come across it, I might actually put myself through it (my understanding is that it's an effing long movie) but that's more about reading it or watching it for the sake of saying that I have. I think I posted in another thread about how I have little tolerance for a variety of "classics" that I find little more than inane time-wasters.

I think that's a good idea.

I like the movie but it isn't one of my favs and I wouldn't watch it more than twice.

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Dammit stop editing! I'm trying to keep up.

As it's not a topic I have a lot of interest in, I'm not likely to seek it out for pleasure. Which means that I have to make myself watch it for the sake of saying that I have or purely for educational purposes and that ranks lower on my list than watching the first season of Battlestar Galactica right now. We all have our faults and foibles.

/Foibles is a fun word so I had to add it.

LOL. Very fast typers and posters often need to add or subtract stuff when they re-read and think about what they posted.

As my previous signature stated "Everyone has something 'wrong' with them."

[33girl]

I think you need to see ANY movie before judging it. There's also the concept of saying something is a great cinematic achievement on a purely technical level even if the plot/viewpoint of the movie is repugnant (classic example: Birth of a Nation). GWTW definitely falls in this category for a lot of people.

I mean I love Barbra Streisand's singing but her politics leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. That doesn't mean I enjoy her singing any less.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think you need to see ANY movie before judging it. There's also the concept of saying something is a great cinematic achievement on a purely technical level even if the plot/viewpoint of the movie is repugnant (classic example: Birth of a Nation). GWTW definitely falls in this category for a lot of people.

Exactly and I thought "Birth of a Nation" when I first started reading your post. That is most often cited as an excellent cinematic achievement that also made people go crazy.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I think you need to see ANY movie before judging it. There's also the concept of saying something is a great cinematic achievement on a purely technical level even if the plot/viewpoint of the movie is repugnant (classic example: Birth of a Nation). GWTW definitely falls in this category for a lot of people.

I mean I love Barbra Streisand's singing but her politics leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. That doesn't mean I enjoy her singing any less.

I agree to a point. I know enough about The Last Airbender to know it's utter fail before I ever watch it. However I'm not judging GWTW itself beyond knowing that it is not the sort of movie I'm interested in for its own sake. But I can also say that about Eat Pray Love or Mamma Mia! or a lot of other movies.