I think it was a wise decision to change the reason why Rhett was in jail from killing a black man for insulting a white woman in the book to the much more vague “trumped up charge”.
I wonder what the process was? Were there meetings about it? Was it a no-brainer for the screenwriter that it be changed?
I read the book after seeing the movie and I was shocked to discover why Rhett was in jail.
I never read the book, but I have a thought about Rhett.
Today, "enlightened" people everywhere love to say that GWTW is a racist movie, but I gotta tell you, it was my grandmother's favorite film (black woman born in the late 1800s). She loved how the white folks actually respected Mammy and how she was the strongest and most moral (along with Melanie) character in the movie. Today, enlightened people think it was racist to show Mammy that way but I think the studio was trying to make a movie that showed black people in the most human way up until that point. How Mitchell felt I don't have a clue, but saying a white family couldn't possibly be good to their slaves (other than owning them of course) is racist.
They also wanted Rhett to be a hero and while a character like Rhett in 1860s America might have actually killed a black man for merely insulting a white woman, they didn't want this in a 1930s movie and I'm glad they didn't include it. I agree with you that it was a wise decision because regardless of how the book was, the movie was a classic as is. While it might not have been inaccurate for Rhett to do this, it doesn't follow that *every* man like Butler would have.
GWTW was one of the few "white" movies of that Hollywood era that featured black characters that weren't simple buffoons but were featured as real human beings with good character (remember Big Sam saved Scarlett from the white trash who were attacking her).
Sure, Prissy was shown as a sniveler, but she might have been the "worse" black character and really, she wasn't bad at all - just immature.
I tell people all the time Mammy is the movie's moral center (and possibly main protagonist). She is always right and knows when and how people screw up.
IMO, Rhett is the second most decent main character (Mammy first) and he spends the entire moving trying to earn her respect.
I'm no fan of Melanie; she's too weak for me (room for debate, I know). Scarlett is a text-book sociopath. Ashley is a pathetic defeatist. The others are as dumb as Rhett tells them in the beginning.
To one of your points, the movie portrays white trash accurately.
I thought in the movie, Rhett wasn't in jail. He was a prisoner of war.
share
I don't think he was a prisoner of war - the scene where Scarlet visited him was after the Civil War was over and all POWs were released. He told Scarlett that he was being held because they thought they could get hold of his money.
Interesting, you should read the book strntz!
I’ve read it many times. It took several readings before I realized that Mammy, Pork, Dilcey (not portrayed in the film, she was Pork’s wife), and Uncle Peter were the most sensible, smart and decent people in the story.
Scarlett was intelligent but totally self serving. Rhett was definitely not the hero he was in the movie. He was always motivated by making money whether by legal means or shady means. Ashley was weak. Melanie was a lady, but she kept her blinders on about her husband’s hots for Scarlett.
I think they improved the story (at least for 1930s audiences) by improving Rhett's character.
Regarding Ashley - in the movie it almost made it appear that he was flattered by Scarlett's attention but wasn't ever in love with her. Was the book different in that regard?
I think they made Rhett heroic because screen idol Clark Gable was playing him! Just the way I see it.
No he never loved Scarlett. But he was flattered by all her attention. At the end of the book Scarlett realizes that Ashley only wanted her “the way Rhett wanted that Watling woman”, i.e. the madam who ran the establishment that Rhett owned
Rhett absolutely did love Scarlett. For 10 years. Too much had passed. The war. Her loving another man. Falling down the steps to miscarry. And the ultimate - the loss of his daughter. Scarlett has no redeeming value at this stage. Now at 43, he’s tired and broken. He’s turned the page. She’s in la la land.
Ashley admired Scarlett for her zest for life and realism. He was a dreamer. I don’t think he was weak. He just had a different temperament. I don’t think he lusted after Scarlett. She was beautiful but he was able to rein it in. He only loved Melanie. You can’t compare Rhett/Belle relationship to Ashley/Scarlett even tho she makes a comparison. I know they were caught kissing, but did those two ever have sex? Scarlett is wrong in her assessment of so many things.
Rhett was accused of stealing Confederate gold. Yankees wanted that gold.
share
Yep. I knew it was something dealing with money and not a prisoner of war thing.
Did the movie offer up a reason - for some reason I didn’t even question why he was in jail in the movie as there was a war going on. It’s been a long time since I saw it.
share
I'm ashamed to say that as many times as I've seen this movie, I don't recall the specifics because it wasn't really important to the story - only that Butler was being held about some sort of money issue and that the Union jailers generally liked him (they played poker with him).
X
shareRhett was a smuggler and blockade runner, often in and out of prison and made a lot of money. Despite holding a Captain's rank, Rhett is being held in the city jail in Atlanta by Union forces who are threatening to hang him unless he hands over his Confederate gold. Prior to the war, Rhett had moved all his wealth to banks in Liverpool, England where it would be safe. Aunt Pittypat might be right tho.
Is the reason he’s in yankee jail different in the book than in the movie?
It was Frank, Scarlett’s husband, who joined to KKK. He was shot and killed. Ashely was wounded. Scarlett was going to the mill unescorted and was attacked.
Rhett told Scarlett that he was given gold to deposit in a bank in England under his own name. He was to use it to buy guns and supplies for the Confederacy.
His reasoning was that since there was no more Confederacy, just who should he give the gold to? Maybe keeping that gold was not illegal. But it sure seems unethical. It should have been returned to the State treasury of whatever state that gave it to him.
He was acting as an agent of the government. The gold was not his to keep.
Of course he did not have the rumored millions in gold. But he sure kept what they gave him.
So, he didn’t steal it but he kept it? People were starving and in need. It would just seem very unethical. Did it ever say if Rhett gave back gold to help out (see below). It’s been a long time since I read this novel. Probably a lot of things I didn’t realize. But you’ve read the book. I doubt I will ever pick up this book again.
But does it go like this:
Rhett: Do you remember telling me, years ago, in Frank’s store, that it was dishonest for me to keep the Confederate gold? At last I’ve come to agree with you and the Confederate gold is being spent to get the Confederates back into power.”
Scarlett; “You’re pouring money down a rat hole!”
Rhett: “What! You call the Democratic party a rat hole?” His eyes mocked her and then were quiet, expressionless. “It doesn’t matter a damn to me who wins this election. What does matter is that everyone knows I’ve worked for it and that I’ve spent money on it. And that’ll be remembered in Bonnie’s favor in years to come.”
Scarlett: “I was almost afraid from your pious talk that you’d had a change of heart, but I see you’ve got no more sincerity about the Democrats than about anything else.”
Yes, Rhett did kill a black man.
In chapter 36 of the book he confesses to Scarlett, “I did kill the n*****. He was uppity to a lady, and what else could a Southern gentleman do?”
X
share