MovieChat Forums > North and South (1985) Discussion > Ashton Main / Scarlett O'Hara

Ashton Main / Scarlett O'Hara

posted 9 years ago by salchoff
18 replies | jump to latest

Am I the only one who thinks that Ashton reminds of Scarlett ? With the difference that Scarlett was only spoilt, while Ashton was a real evil.

But their behaviour, way of speaking, faces etc. were pretty much the same. I've always wondered whether it was a conscious or sub-conscious act of Terri Garber or the director.

I even wish the creators of "Scarlett" mini-series (sequel to GWTW) had hired Terri instead of Joanne Whalley. I bet her Scarlett would have been closer to the original ! Do you ?

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I definitely think that Jakes borrowed aspects of Scarlett's character and life and put them into Ashton's story. He changed it up enough to make it not seem like a totally blatant ripoff, but.....it is pretty darn close.....

As for the movie, I'm a little confused on that because I read in a couple of old articles that part of the reason Terri was hired because she was the only girl who hadn't seen GWTW.

So you would think that they wouldn't want her to act like Scarlett, but then, they also made a point of saying that they saw Ashton as their "Scarlett O'Hara" type, and that they thought Terri looked like Vivien Leigh (I don't see that at all, but whatever), so doesn't that seem like they were trying to make Ashton be Scarlett? So it's a little contradictory there.

As for Terri, if she really didn't see GWTW, then it wouldn't have been a conscious choice on her part to act like her, it would have been the directors.

No, I wouldn't have wanted Terri to play Scarlett in that GWTW sequel, I don't remember what color Joanne's eyes are, but Terri's are too dark. I also think it would have been a bit cheesy, and I don't think it would be a good idea for Terri to be typecast. Also, that book wasn't good, I don't even count it as canon. If it didn't come from Margaret Mitchell herself, or approved by her, it isn't canon to me. From what I read, she didn't care what happened to Scarlett after the story ended.

[–] furienna 9 years ago

Yeah, there are plenty of similarities between Scarlett and Ashton. Of course, Scarlett is more of an anti-heroine, while Ashton sure is a real villain, but...

* They both were brunette Southern girls from the same time period and the same social class (they both came from a rich plantation owner family during the civil war era).

* They both used men to get what they wanted (Scarlett only had sex with her husbands, but she was still just as good as Ashton at flirting with men and manipulating them).

* They both were more ambitious than what would have been acceptable for a woman back then, so despite all of their bad qualities, they can be seen as some kind of proto-feminists.

* Even if Scarlett maybe wasn't evil like Ashton, she did some questionable things too, like lusting over another woman's husband, and stealing her sister's fiancé just to get his money (Suellen found a new man to marry later, but still), and neglecting her two eldest children (who were not included in the movie adaption though).

Intelligence and purity.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

They both were more ambitious than what would have been acceptable for a woman back then, so despite all of their bad qualities, they can be seen as some kind of proto-feminists.

Please don't associate these spoiled, self-centred bimbos with feminism. Doing so gives feminism a bad name.

These brats used their sexuality to get what they want, and they certainly weren't interested in the sisterhood and supporting other women. They would have been among the few women who would have seen their status and privileges, which depended on being married to the right man, detrimentally affected by female emancipation and the notion that women were independent.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

Ashton does give money to suffragists at the end of the 3rd book, but it didn't represent feminism to me in her explanations as to why she related to them (some nonsense about James seeing her as nothing but a whore and wife, which is BS, James did not mistreat Ashton, it was the other way around).

Ashton cares about Ashton and who and what makes her happy. Her ambitions aren't because she cares about changing the world in a positive way, it's just about elevating her own status.

However, I suppose you could say at least her giving money to someone's charity for reasons that aren't about looking good to someone, shows a slight positive change in direction for the character. By then it was too late for me though.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

I agree with you on this one rikajessie. Even if Ashton redeemed herself towards the end of her story (and as you say, that's arguable), she still didn't start off as a 'feminist'.

To me a true feminist is interested in elevating the position of all women, or at least a large cross-section of women, in society to an equal level with men. They aren't interested in elevating their own status to the exclusion, even detriment, of other women. If anything that type of behaviour is antithetical to feminism.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

Yes, I really don't see Ashton as redeemed. The only thing I like about her in Book 3 is her fondness for Will, because it was the first time in all 3 novels that her liking for someone wasn't based on something shallow. She just likes him for his personality, he hasn't got good looks or sexual prowess. She did sort of fall for Billy in the first book, and was willing to give up her ambitions for him, but she never told him that, and it was never went into why she loved Billy. I feel like that's because Jakes never cared about fleshing that relationship out, it was a plot point to get animosity between the sisters.

The only thing I can see feminists possibly being pissed about is that Ashton gets dumped by Billy basically for being ambitious and experienced, two things that if a man had, would be considered good. I personally think this is why the script writer for this movie changed it that Billy caught Ashton cheating on him Forbes. I mean I'm not sure if Billy thought she was cheating on him in the book, but I got the impression her experience was gained before she got with Billy, though I can't remember exactly.

In any case, I agree with you that Ashton is no representation of feminism.

[–] marktayloruk (2506) 2 years ago

Perhaps Ashton just supported their cause, as she supported secession in 1860.

[–] furienna 9 years ago

Please don't associate these spoiled, self-centred bimbos with feminism. Doing so gives feminism a bad name.

These brats used their sexuality to get what they want, and they certainly weren't interested in the sisterhood and supporting other women. They would have been among the few women who would have seen their status and privileges, which depended on being married to the right man, detrimentally affected by female emancipation and the notion that women were independent.

Well, I don't believe that you have to be a good person to be a feminist. Heck, I don't even know if you have to fight for the same rights for all women, as long as you fight for yourself and your own rights. Yes, I can see how it is Scarlett and Ashton are problematic characters. The former is an anti-heroine, the latter is mostly a pure villain. But they also show us how hard it was to be an ambitious woman back in the 19th century. It might feel wrong to you to use men for your own purposes, but there was hardly any way for women like Scarlett and Ashton to gain money and power. And in the end, Scarlett managed to save her family plantation and become a business woman. And yes, Ashton did support the suffragette movement, even if she maybe had a weird reason to do so.

And as for the good women in "North & South", all of them, except for maybe Madeline, have a tendency to appear more or less weak in comparison. Okay, maybe I was a bit unfair there. Constance helped a lot of runaway slaves, and Brett did her best to keep Mount Royal going after the war. But they also were so damn perfect, that we also needed a couple of people like Virgilia and Ashton to keep things interesting. And as for "Gone with the wind", I feel that Scarlett with all her flaws was more interesting than the goody-goody Melanie.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] HarveyManfredSinJohn 9 years ago

I'm a feminist, but I am also a moralist. Let's not treat feminism and morality as mutually exclusive, please. In fact, I would say the contrary is true, and that standing up for women's rights, regardless of your gender, is a moral duty.

I think the problem is that third-wave 'everyone is out for themselves (or at least herself)' type feminism has supplanted first and second-wave feminism. First and second-wave feminism was always about elevating the status of every woman in society to an equal level with men, rather than allowing individual women to say "It's okay, I can do what I want because I'm a woman" and rationalising the type of bad behaviour most of us, with any moral or progressive convictions whether political, religious or philosophical, would frown upon regardless of whether it was committed by a man or a woman.

Ashton and Scarlett's behaviour wasn't feminism; it was selfishness, and whilst it's true that they did have to fight against the type of restrictions imposed upon women during the era (and thus had to be craftier than men in obtaining their goals), their selfishness is no different to the type of brazen, self-centred behaviour we see many women and men display in our relatively more progressive and equal society.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I haven't read GWTW in a really, really long time so I can't comment on Scarlett. I did like her better than Ashton, Ashton made Scarlett look like a nun, imo. lol

I think the Ashton character shouldn't be taken too seriously. These books are good, but they aren't great literature, and Ashton in particular is a very far-fetched character. There's not very much that is believable or realistic about her life. I think Jakes just put her in there to have a sexy bad girl to entice male readers, mostly. And maybe someone for women to wish they were, because let's face it, Ashton has a pretty darn easy life, which I thought was unfair considering all the rotten things she did and how she caused destruction for others. And since his other villains all got comeuppance (except for the first Charles Main, who I see as a villain but that's another topic).

One part I did find amusing with Ashton was in part 3 when she is sleeping with this guy Villers, and she likes him because he has a huge penis. I just find it funny because usually we always have to hear men going on about what they expect a woman's body to be like, so I got a kick out of the woman enjoying a man specifically because of his sexual part. Jakes in particular does a lot of writing about women's bodies and what is desirable in one and what is not, so I have to give him credit for switching things up for once.

[–] furienna 9 years ago

I have not read the book "Gone with the wind" yet, so I can only judge the Scarlett character based on the movie. But I can honestly say that even if she isn't quite as evil and promiscuous as Ashton, Scarlett is hardly anywhere near a nun. She did many questionable things, and I don't think that we're supposed to like her a lot of the time, even if she's the protagonist.

And as for Ashton, I have to continue the story to see what I feel about the rest of her life. But I have to say that she suffered some setbacks. When she got pregnant after having a damn orgy with those men at West Point, she had a nasty abortion, that probably was the reason why she never could have children later on in her life. When she plotted to have Billy killed, not only did her plan fail, but her own brother threw her out of the family. And she would not inherit any money from her husband, who had willed his fortune away to a cousin.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

All those setbacks were things Ashton brought on herself. All the fallout of her own nasty actions. And she never suffered the full consequences, such as an early grave, like other people that she dragged down, Forbes and James, did.

The reason I don't have sympathy for Ashton is because she didn't have any real reason to be a nasty person like she was. Ashton could have had a very easy life, easier than what she has. She had good looks, she could have had pretty much any guy in her area just like Scarlett. And really all she wanted out of life was sex and money. She could have had those things if she hadn't married James knowing she didn't love him. She also came from money.

I mean it's not like Ashton was abused or came from a poor family and then you could understand why she turns out like she does.

Ashton fits the profile of a sociopath and psychopath. These people will use anyone they can to get what they want and when they can't use the person anymore, they will discard them with no caring at all. The perfect example of Ashton doing this is the way she treated James. She knew she never loved him and only used him, and when she was done, she conspired for him to be killed (this is the second time she was willing to kill without a second thought, even getting perverse pleasure out of it). She also got sexual thrills out of slaves being beat.

I don't believe this is anything to do with Ashton feeling oppressed by her womanhood. I don't get the impression that Ashton's ambitions are anything beyond marrying a wealthy, powerful man and having fame and fortune from it. I don't believe she wanted to change the world, like Virgilia. Maybe you're thinking that if Ashton had been born in today's world, she could channel her, uh, energies, into a career?

But I just don't really feel that is Jakes' intention. I think Ashton was just born the way she was, and I think that's illustrated by her behavior from her first appearance. Killing the baby bird in the egg and making that statement, "If I don't have it, you don't have it either." I think a lot of us have those base instincts of jealousy, negativity, but most people would try to repress that, and the difference with Ashton and a good person is that she has no moral compass or boundaries. And I don't see her as strong, either. Many women have to face more rejection than she ever did, and they don't plot to murder the person who did it. Ashton doesn't have that part of her that says, "I want to do this, but I can't because it's wrong".

She also enjoyed her father spanking her, and got pleasure out of walking around in her bloody underwear in front of Brett, two things that I think denote a pervert. She also enjoyed making Brett feel inferior, and I think much of the reason she wanted Billy dead wasn't love for Billy and missing him, but being pissed that he dared to reject her royal highness in favor of her lowly sister.

I have had real sociopaths/psychopaths in my life and they are just as destructive to those around them as Ashton was to those around her.

It's nice of you to try to defend Ashton and see it as the society that caused her behavior, but I think that Jakes was trying to write a person without a conscience, and there are real people like that. I guess the only thing I can say in her defense, is if she was born this way, she couldn't help being the way she was.

That Will Fenway could make her like him even though he didn't have power, good looks, and great sexual abilities, is amazing and makes him a miracle worker, lol. That's why it's the only relationship she had that I liked. He made her seem human.

[–] furienna 9 years ago

I never said that feminism and morality are mutually exclusive. But what I was trying to say is that you can be a feminist without being a saint. And I have never denied that both Scarlett and Ashton did plenty of bad things. After all, Scarlett is an anti-heroine and Ashton is a villain. They were both selfish, manipulated men with their sex appeal and hurt their own sisters for their own gain. But yet again, they were also forced to survive somehow in a tough world, where women still hardly had any rights at the same time as their social class started its downfall. And that gives me some sympathy for them, that I probably wouldn't have had if they had lived today. And it does not help that the good girls in the respective stories come across as so weak in comparison.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

I have sympathy for Scarlett because she really did suffer and had to go to work for a living.

Ashton never had any financial ruin or have to work until the end of the second book, and even then she didn't have to be a prostitute that long because Will rescued her from it.

What was weak about Madeline, Constance and Brett? I thought they were actually pretty strong heroines. So were Augusta and Willa. I only didn't like Willa taking abuse off Charles, but I suppose it wasn't that bad.

[–] furienna 9 years ago

If you read my previous posts, you will see that I have never denied that Ashton was a nasty person. I would even agree with you that she probably was supposed to be a sociopath or psychopath. Nevertheless though, society back then would have been harsh towards a woman, who did not fit into people's narow mold of what a female should be like. We could see that with Virgilia, but also with Ashton. Didn't you say yourself that Ashton felt that her father was disappointed with her being a girl, despite that he had a son (two sons if we count the oldest brother, who was not included in the first two series) already? I believe that you also said that she would lament over being born a woman? Her supporting the suffragettes is also interesting, even if she might have given a stupid reason for doing that. So yes, I do believe that if Ashton had lived in a later era, I guess that she still wouldn't have been a nice person, but she would have found different field than prostitution and gotten a good career. But back in the 19th century, marrying a rich powerful man was practically the only choice for an ambitious woman.

When it comes to being a good role model, I agree that Scarlett (even if she too is deeply flawed) has to be considered better than Ashton. But she could not help it if she had a disorder, no more than she could help being a more ambitious woman in a world where women had hardly any rights.

Constance and Brett are so freaking perfect that they almost become boring to me. Yes, they are good people, but not very interesting, despite how Constance helped runaway slaves and Brett worked with saving Mount Royal after the war. Madeline is more interesting to me though somehow.

Intelligence and purity.

[–] rikajessie 9 years ago

There is a part where she says she knows Tillet wanted another son.

I wonder, do you think Jakes was implying that Tillet molested Ashton? Because she seems to have an unhealthy attachment to Tillet, at least in the last novel. I think if that's supposed to be the case, Jakes would have mentioned it, but I don't know, it would explain a lot other than her being a born socio or psychopath.

I think if Ashton lived today, she'd just be one of those girls like the girls at the Playboy mansion, pose nude, hang out there and hope some wealthy celebrity would marry her. lol Really, I don't think Ashton's ambitions were anything more than to be arm candy for a politician. I remembered that that was why Billy felt she wasn't right for him, because she wanted him to be into politics and he wasn't. And I don't think Ashton's interest in being married to a politician was because she cared about the state of the world, like Virgilia did. It even said she didn't know what Southern rights really were, other than what she believed was their right to own slaves.

I think in those days politicians would be the only celebrities, unlike today where there are movie stars, rock stars, etc.

Anyway, I'll grant you that Constance and Brett are a snooze, at least in the books. But then again I feel that way about all of Jakes' characters in this, I only like one, the rest I could take or leave. Even as a little kid I invented my own characters to mingle with these and I suppose that's because I found the ones in the movie boring.XD

[–] tonik_2000 9 years ago

Scarlett seemed to have savvy of how to take care of things in desperate situations, and despite what Rhett Butler thinks of her, I think she did these things because she had a heart. She really wasn't exactly selfish, she was just getting things done, and reacting to her strong feminine emotions. If she came across as harsh I think she was just saying what everyone else was thinking. At least that's how Vivien Leigh portrayed her.

Ashton is simply a toxic person of the grandest, most selfish kind. That girl is murder and should be ripped from the world. But yes, you can tell Terri Garber modeled her portrayal after Scarlett's mannerisms.

[–] marktayloruk (2506) 3 years ago

Ashton's giving money to suffragists presumably because she believed that women should be allowed to vote .Her experience of men's intelligence was hardly a happy one!