Dear Mick LaSalle:Do you have any comments aboutthe recent situation regarding “Gone With the Wind” (being dropped by HBO)? There has been controversy that it gives a glamorous picture of the South.
Jerry Mccarthy, San Mateo
Dear Jerry Mccarthy:My Chronicle colleagueTony Bravo写了智能。所有我添加is that I have been saying this for years and writing this for at least 17 years, that the deification of the Confederacy is a national psychosis; that these Confederates were, essentially, the Nazis of America; and that Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis were traitors who almost destroyed their country and deserve historical ignominy. I just never understood why everyone didn’t agree with that, and then, just in the last decade, most people suddenly do.
There was“Django Unchained,” one of the first feature films to show that slavery was a horrible thing — not an unfortunate thing, but a crime against humanity. Then there was“12 Years a Slave”and“The Free State of Jones,”pop culture manifestations of the shift that had happened in scholarship over the last generation.
When I was in school, we were taught — in New York, not Alabama — that most slave owners were nice, that the Civil War was not caused by slavery, that Reconstruction was an unjustified abuse of the South, and that Ulysses S. Grant was a disaster, both as a general and as president. This miseducation was a holdover of the revisionist history, pushed by Southern historians, that took hold in the 1890s and lasted for at least 80 years. “Gone With the Wind” was the popular movie version of that revisionist propaganda.
It’s still a great movie, albeit a great movie with bad ideas. As someone who has written two books about how much I hate censorship, I don’t thinkanymovie should be censored or re-edited or transformed in any way to suit the changing, or evolving, thinking of the present day. But HBO isn’t talking about censorship, but about presenting a cultural context for viewers preparing to watch the movie. That meansmoreinformation, not less. That means letting peopleknowthings, not refusing to let peopleseethings. I have no problem with that.
Think about it: That movie has been fooling people for 80 years. It romanticizes something wrong and celebrates the nobility of the ignoble. It’s a persuasive artistic document, but it’s largely a crock. Most people who see that movie are never going to read a book by a Reconstruction scholar, such as Eric Foner. Unless someone tells them the truth, they’re going to believe the lie. So give them some truth.
Dear Mick LaSalle:I’m a pretty computer-literate senior citizen who often wants to watch films reviewed in Datebook, preferably on my TV. I would love articles about the pros and cons of different streaming alternatives. And with each film review, I’d appreciate more information than “available on many streaming platforms.”
Nancy Harrison, Castro Valley
Dear Nancy Harrison:The first thing to do, if you want to see a particular title, is press the “On Demand” button on your remote control, assuming you have either cable TV or a satellite dish. Most movies we review in The Chronicle are available as video on demand. If it’s not there, go towww.justwatch.comand look up the title there. It will tell you every streaming service the movie is available on.
As for watching it on TV, some newer televisions are internet ready, so you can access many services (including Netflix, YouTube and Amazon Prime) directly through the television. Or you can buy a Roku and access them there. Or you can buy a new Blu-ray player and access them there. There are no pros and cons to talk about. All the streaming services look the same, though YouTube and Amazon Prime are probably easiest to use in my opinion.
Have a question? Ask Mick LaSalle atmlasalle@sfchronicle.com. Include your name and city for publication, and a phone number for verification. Letters may be edited for clarity and length.