Africanamericans. Hard to be worse than the treatment of arvfricanamerican so then better. So Laura Michael and brooke at the beginning talk about, i think, sort of overall southern white perceptions of race. And brooke makes the argument both of them make the argument that this is an accurate depick of the way that whites perceived the way things went or slavery persisted. So again to it aagaagain not ba capturing that moment in time. They have a right to critique th that. Scarlet scarlets parents how historically accurate do you think they were. He was irish. Really irish. Knew to the south. The ieshiearish, especially in north were being seen as the lowest of the low just above africanamericans. How likely would it have been for him to own this huge plantation. Hes too rich but there are a number of scotts and irish immigrants who go to the upcountry part of the south, the back country south and are able to get land and in some cases are table table to attain slave i thought i rread mare that had actually won tara in a book. In the book he has to flee ireland actually because he has killed somebody. Theres a whole different narrative that goes on that we dont see in the film. What about ellen . We talked about how she tells her husband what to do. Whats her role in it . We done see much her all in the movie. Keh kendall. Shes pious. Shes the care taker. Shes what scarlet is not, motherly. Its kind of she could also be the foil to scarlet. The southern model for womanhood. Shes the idealize tdidealiz. Shes everywhere. She helps out with the ill in the neighborhood. She holds the family in the plantation to a higher level of morality. The most elite women couldnt handle all of the things and spent most of their lives fainting. She may have depicted the ideal but not the reality. I think the general war time experience of the oharas was not out of the recommend of possibility. The way that ellen dies of disease and her death forces her to take on more responsibilities. We talk little scarlet stepping outside of the boundaries of gender roles at the time. It is possible that she could have transformed from southern bell to overpower dominate force. Certainly the idea of being forced into mirages we havent. jf intimating and smooth he is. How historically accurate is butlers character is. Hes clark gable. He does play a good clark gable. I take Brookes Point that dpgae is such a presence that he sort of overpowers the role. Having a character who wasnt super patriotic who said i am going to go out and join the cause for four years. I was mad when he went and joined the war though. Why . Its one of the few times i actually felt bad for scarlet, right. I didnt see that coming either. Right. Ana. It seems not realistic. The south doesnt have any factories how are you supposed to win this. You think its a gentlemans war but they have more stuff than we do. There arent many southern moderates but he does a good job of chan heing their complaints. Was he also an idealistic man. I will say that rett shows up in this suit immediately for us and i call him slick because hecome moments and disappears. I think hes a roama aromant motion. Full of honor, right. The problem is especially the post war period, ashley is useful. He suffers from post traumatic stressed and receipt is the successful new south. The roguish new south. How is ashley suppose to be honorable one the entire time he cant make up his mind about scarlet or melanie. He doesnt act on those things and scarlet would certainly do so. Doesnt he kiss her a couple of times. He tripped and kissed her. I think those things happen sometimes. Hes supposed to be this honorable guy. Hes supposed to be, right . Part of the movie does sort of put him in an awkward position. Where is an honorable guy in the post war south . In the beginning we think that hes like hes like the bad guy but you know no one rally wanted hill. He facing his way in a skacarle life but he also loved his daughter. At the beginning i didnt like him. At the end he loved his daughter. I think that also goes with someone and how this appeals to women and obviously it draws women in as well. So where does all of this leave us . Were almost out of time. Where does all of this leave us . I think in some ways red and scarret are potentially the most historically accurate actors. They are appealing figures both j of them. In 1939, millions of americans who might think that they would be marching off to war before long as well. Scarlets rather heady mixture of flawed, passion, endurance, determination, experiences did peeled to many people. The story in review of the film pointed out one of the earliest reviewers the novel noted its one of the virtues of her book that she presents the myth of the lost cause without being taken in by it or asking us to accept it. That she makes cheer reasons for the vitality and ultimate demise. We can see this is not true of the movie. It overindulges and wallows in lost cause roamanticism. She also describes reconstruction as a never 18ing picnic for lazy and dangerous kneeing oe negros. There was a land of cavaliers and cotton. The prologue sets the viewer up for a theme that pervades this film. A theme of confederate roamanticism. That theme is the real problem with this movie about antebbel um south. History her is the back drop for a soap opera. Its an idealized portrait of the oidealized south as if it were reality. The plantation maj certified that the old smith mentioned in the prologue had been a unique place where all white southerners were educated plantation owners romantic and refined were they loved their slaves and their slaves involved them where the north began the war forcing the south to go to far. This confederate the authors picture is really the product of the pervasive writings of earlier 20th scholars and his students on plantation slavery and africanamericans most notably that the south was full of kind masters who had the loyalty of the happy slays. It was a way that was dominated in the earliest half of the 20th century. To be fair, they were focused on capturing white audiences who had shown great interest in showing plantation epics like birth of the nation in the 1900s. The movie is extremely useful for us as a primary force of what whites, immigrants born wanted to believe about slavery and slavery society. Its not surprising that there are no attempts of the racial struggles of the era or use of blacks as caricatures or is there any reflections of the attempts by black americans to challenge then. Segregation laws preconvenieven from being there. Popularity came from a racialized desire from a Race Relations were simpler. That was a time that never existed. That doesnt min ipize the adeal. The movie never addresses the real prob lelems of slavery. The movie is an homage to the p perspective of the confederate apologists. If it wasnt so popular it wouldnt be a problem. We could just leave it as a relic of its time. But thats not the case. As long as it continues to be so important to some people, it is screeria nigeria. Senate, here on cspan we compliment that coverage by showing you the most relevant congressional hearings and Public Affairs events and on the weekends home to American History tv including six unique series. The civil wars 150th anniversary. American artifacts, touring museums and Historic Sites toat discover what artifacts reveal about americas past. History book shelf an the presidency, lectures in history with top College Professors delving in americas past and our new series real america, featuring archival government and educational films from the 1930s through the 70s. Cspan 3, created by the the university of alabama, native of atlanta and author of the book, citizen coke. Thank you for being with us. Thank you very much. While congress is on break this month, were showing programs normally seen weekends here on cspan3 during American History tv. Coming up the history of the civil war and slavery, as seen through hollywoods depictions. We begin shortly with a panel of history professors and their review of films since the 1930s, including the movies man dingo and amistad and 12 years a slave. And then matthew pinskar evaluates lincoln and then gone with the wind got. Its 150 years since the u. S. Civil war and a number of countre are under way this year and next to mark the occasion. Over the next new hours, were going to take a look at hollywoods perception of the issues. Now, a panel of history professors traces slavery as depicted in films in the 1930s. This hour and a half event is from the society from civil war historians bihandle meeting in baltimore. In the past two years, three feature filmses who focus is american slavery and emancipation have been released to positive and often glowing reviews and all of them were profitable. Django unchained made 160 milli million. Lincoln made 182 million. 12 years a slade made 26 million but only cost 26 million to make. Roughly the same. This mini upsurge has provoked a lot of debate and discussion about the depictions of slavery and freedom of film and other forms of media, visual media and television and documentary, youtube shorts and different series. We are continue iing that conversation today. All our panels are fierce scholars of the American South and gender and they have written and reviewed, taught courses on and consulted on films about slavery. Kathryn clinton has been teaching at Queens University belfast since 2006 but will be coming back to the United States this fall to be the professor of u. S. History at the university of texas san antonio. Shes the author of numerous books about gender, race and the American Civil War including biographies of mary todd lincoln, Harriet Tubman and mary kimball and Susan King Taylor and mary chestnut. Professor clinton serves on the Virginia Commission and an Advisory Board member of civil ward history the fords theater in washington d. C. And the civil war times and she also serves as historical consultant to Steven Spielbergs lincoln. I imagine we will hear about some of that experience today. John inscoe is professor of history and University Professor at the university of georgia. He is the author of mountain ma masters slavery and the sectional crisis in Western North carolina. Race, war and remembrance in the appalachian south and coauthor of heart of confederate ap latch thctch app. And currently editor of the new encyclopedia and georgia historical association. He recently completed a book of riding the south and currently working on a book on ap latch that and film. Brenda stevenson is history of professor at ucla where she serv served in the department of history and africanamerican studies, award of life in blackandwhite family in the slave south and justice and gender and origins of the l. A. Riots which just won the oa hrh 2001 rolle prize and what is slavery will be published in 2015. She has received awards from the melon foundation, ford foundation, Smithsonian Institution and American Foundation of university women. So, clearly, a group of slackers. So, we will start with john inscoe and move down the table with the comments from the panel panels. Thank you, megan. I think im here because i teach a course on slavery, fact, film and fiction. We start with birth of a nation, move through several plantation mellodramas of the 1930s. Jezebel, Shirley Temple epics, the little colonel and gone with the wind. Showing clips of these and move to walt disney song of the south after the war of 1946. And 1990s saw another spurt of movies about slavery, Steven Spielbergs am ma stastad andy Oprah Winfrey and others and Django Django unchained and 12 years a slave. Measuring 12 years of progress or lack thereof in the popular culture, hollywood in the 1930s was very much entrenched in the lost cause approaches to slavery. Slaves are background figures, they are supporting casts, they are often mere comic relief who are gladly serving their masters and mistresses for the most part are very benign and wellmeaning but also firm and authoritative. Sometimes frustrated at the ineptitude of their slaves. Think of scarlet and prissy for example. Not much had changed by 1946 when walt disney took on uncle remiss in remis in song of the south and is banned or not distributed by walt disney in this country and there was controversy when it came out and shows us how sensitive race was in the post war era than 1930s. It took until the early 70s before it was ban. It was the early 70s walt disney finally gave in to pressure of its political incorrectness. What i have to use now is a video smuggled to me by a former student of mine who lives in japan where it is very popular, where you can see it with japanese subtitles and multi culture georgia as well and works very well to look at song of the south with japanese subtitles. Japanese intrigued with all things southern. Gone with the wind as well as song of the south. The subtitles only appear when they sing. They can understand the singing but you can get zippitydoda translation under the song. It is a milestone of sorts. As politically incorrect as it is in many way, it is also the first film to take a black character and make him the central character around which the plot revolves. It also makes him the most sympathetic and wisest character. He outsmarts all the white adults in the film. Nevertheless he is a contended slave there or ex slave, as it may be. The film is very ambivalent whether or not its set before or after the civil war. It is interesting to teach that with students and look at some of the ways it add vanses the cause as well as prominence of slavery and putting the slave center stage. Still, some of the old guard assumptions about slavery its very comfortable in perpetuating. By the 50s and 60s, hollywood was producing more socially conscious and cutting edge films based on race. Things like pinky, the defiant ones in the 1960s guess whos coming to dinner, in the heat of the night. It pretty much steered clear of slavery and 1960 Race Relations in any significant way. It was a real leap into the modern films. I dont deal with roots or that great film of the 1970s, man dingo with students. With these modern films from the 1990s, on up until the very recent films weve seen last year, i thought id throw out a couple of things that strike me as worthy of discussion. One is the gender discussion. With this panel gender might not get much play and i better cover it. [ laughter [ laughter ] its interesting these other films, its totally desexualized. You never see slave couples. You never see men and women together in any sort of romantic or household context. Theyre usually very single asexual figures. You never see them as parents in any sort of role. Theyre definitely supporting casts in all issues avoided. Also relatively nonissues in films like glory, amistad and lincoln and either central themes or important subplots with women. Two put slave women front and center. Beloved and the journey of august king. The journey of august king is set in southern and North Carolina and by an author who has done a whole span covering southern appalachian history. Set in 1815, very early. Deals with the escape of a slave girl who is abused by her owner, who it turns out in the course of the film is also her father. And a yoman farmer on his way to market, encounters her, be friends her and aids her in her escape. Newton plays in it and jason patric plays august king, the yoman who helps them out and a strong attraction between them that remains chaste. This father owner lover is determined to get this girl back and goes to no end to mount a manhunt to go after her. I think in many ways, its the most interesting and in some ways nuanced and sophisticated treatment of klaclass distincti and class attitude not only towards slaves and slave holders and tremendous resentment at a time and place slave is far more an anomaly than the norm in the mountains of North Carolina in that early frontier era. The other is beloved adopted from Tony Morrisons novel. Its a gulf coast story of sorts dealing with the long term psychic stars of slavery, set in 1873, in cincinnati. It is based very much on the abuses that are only seen in brief flashbacks inflicted on the films heroine, seth, played by Oprah Winfrey, who when cornered by slave catchers in cincinnati murdered one of her own children and tried to kill another based on the real life case of market garner in 1856 in cincinnati. Then, in this 1873 post emancipation period she continues to be haunted by a version of the infant girl she murdered decades earlier. Shes also played by andy newton. Its a clunky film, not a great film but fascinating it was made in a film. I have students read the novel and we watch parts of the film. Then, we come to 12 years a slave and even django unchained. I think part of what they do so well is feature female characters who take on as much or more abuse as do their male protagonists. In django, Quentin Taran tango, the most macho western spaghetti and racial revenge fantasy. Its over the top as in so many plots and an attempt to rescue djangos much tormented slave wife played by Kerry Washington makes for its most poignant moments and absurdly happy ending as they blow up the plantation and everybody in it and ride off in the sunset. In 12 years, its the harassment, both physical and mental abuse inflicted on patty by her master and mistress that gets far more attention unfortunately in the film than in the narrative. This is somethingjjffn9g expanded on by the screenwriters and as you know earned an Academy Award for the actress who played patsy. Its one of the few films other than roots, i cant think of another one that dramatized separating mothers from their children and when saul is sold, the mother and her two children. She is separated from her two children and he becomes the means that tries to comfort this woman and is paralyzed by grief at the l