To think that Scarlett's first 2 children are one of the most overlooked bits of Gone With The Wind?

[Jane379]

I was rereading it a few days ago and it struck me how at the end, Scarlett is totally focused on getting Rhett back, nothing else. What happens to poor Wade & Ella afterwards are anyone's guess - especially as Melanie has died and Rhett seems to have checked out, and they were previously acting as surrogate parents. I suppose Mammy would probably end up looking after them?
It's hardly Scarlett's fault that she was expected to have kids despite no desire to, but she should have treated them better once they were born. I think the film toned down her attitude to them a lot, probably because it was seen as too shocking and damaged her heroine sstatus.A retelling in retrospect by Wade or Ella would be an interesting spin-off idea...

Rhett seems a pretty negative parental figure too, I think he's often assessed too positively & romanticised. Unbelievable he had Bonnie jumping like that at only 4,..the whole thing with him & Bonnie was weird, at the end he essentially says he treated her as a substitute for Scarlett.

AIBU?

GWTW is one of my favourite films for its cinematic efforts. The scale, ambition, casting, acting, cinematography, direction, script, design… beyond anything that had come before. It’s the first Block Buster and should be studied and celebrated for that.

It is a hugely problematic film.

The concept of ‘Happy and grateful slaves’ is horrific.
The South being ‘wronged’ is horrific.
The rape scene is horrific.
‘Good’ women (Melly and Mrs O’Hara Snr) finding peace in death (God) is horrific.
A prototype feminist meeting her comeuppance through the death of her child and divorce from her husband is horrific.

It remains a film to be studied for all its positives and negatives.

I only know the book, not the film, but in the book, it's pretty clear most privileged white children are brought up by black nannies, as Scarlett was and as her children are. She's not even vaguely socialised to be a hands-on parent and no-one seems to expect it of her.

Scarlett wasn't very maternal with her first 2 children.

Possibly because she had no good feelings towards their fathers.

Plus she was only 17 when she had Wade Hampton and had servants to look after him so no need to be "hands on"

I agree strongly with this. However, this post was primarily about the book : the film I'd quite different in some ways.

In the book I felt it was much clearer that Melanie didn't want to die, it wasn't like she was finding peace in death. In the book it also seemed like the staircase scene night have been consensual though it was still disturbing.

I think it’s an excellent and honest account of how some women probably were. They didn’t want children, but ended up with them anyway. Not every child was wanted and loved, it’s nice to have that acknowledged rather than glossed over.

I agree it's a excellent portrait of the potential consequences of women feeling forced to have kids. Astonishingly honest esp for its time & place.

I think Ellen is shown as a pretty hands on parent but it's not clear if that was typical. Definitely from the little I know of the pre Civil War South irl, enslaved nannies often did play a huge role in raising wealthy white children.

Is she? In the book Scarlett remembers her leading family prayers, and otherwise she goes out a lot to minister to sick poor people (!), and that's about it. Scarlett and her sisters are brought up by Mammy.

Scarlett idolises her mother, but I think that is different from her being an involved or hands-on parent.

I don’t think Wade or Ella were overlooked as such - Margaret Mitchell just wasn’t that interested in them.

I imagine they were included simply to give Scarlett more responsibility and illustrate how trapped she was.

But as characters in their own right they were left quite thinly drawn. The book has quite the cast list as it is.

Agree with @ParadiseIsNoBunkerthat book/film are problematic. I can’t imagine a spin off without a new writer adapting to the modern gaze and that in itself would raise complaints.

That's true - same for Scarlett's sisters, who don't have an awful lot of character really.

There are at least two relatively modern spin offs - there's one written in the voice of (IIRC) the illegitimate half-sister of Scarlett et al., who is (if I've got this right) Mammy's - or possibly Dilcey's - daughter, fathered by Gerald O'Hara. I've not read it. There is also a truly bonkers sequel from about the 90s, where Scarlett goes to Ireland to discover her Irish roots, has a mystical experience and ends up pregnant again.

I always found the book more problematic. The wealth and privilege seemed far more romanticised. In the movie, Vivienne Leigh brought fight and grit to Scarlett. And, it must be said, absolute beauty. You could see why so many men fell over themselves for her. But that’s a sidebar to the OP.

I read that sequel! - bonkers is apt 😳😁

It's hardly Scarlett's fault that she was expected to have kids despite no desire to,

It's her fault that, as I recall, she rushed into her first marriage in a fit of pique because she couldn't have Ashley. (It's a long time since I read the book.)
Children would be an inevitable consequence.

All the other characters had to be a bit colourless so that Scarlett's grit and determination stood out. But Melanie was stronger than she is given credit for, because we see her mostly through Scarlett's eyes and Scarlett didn't appreciate her.

I think the film toned down her attitude to them a lot, probably because it was seen as too shocking and damaged her heroine sstatus.

Actually in the movie the first two children don't exist, her only child is Bonnie

Both the book and the film are horrific in their racism and blatant lies about the realities of slavery, as well as the mythologising of the Civil War (the "lost cause," etc.) and appalling justification for Reconstruction. It is highly disturbing when some readers and viewers seem to consider GWTW as an accurate portrayal of U.S. history. It is anything but.

However, despite my serious reservations about both the book and the film, I appreciate that the character of Scarlett is a complex and essentially negative figure. She could have been flattened into a positive heroine who learns from her mistakes and is transformed into a sadder but wiser woman. The standard (and boring) redemption arc is avoided for the most part. She is much more interesting as a person who possesses numerous flaws as well as some positive qualities. It is rare to see such a character in mainstream cinema these days.

Scarlett's treatment of her children reveals a great deal about who she is, as well as reflecting some of the typical attitudes towards childrearing in both the historical period in which the book is set and the era in which it was written.

@EverydayRoutine really agree. I may be wildly incorrect but she feels like the first flawed cinematic heroine / anti-heroine. Before GWTW, women in cinema were ‘perfect’, beautiful and secondary.

As an aside, my mother grew up with an unpredictable, alcoholic, highly intelligent but angry father. She always adored Ashley for his kindness, gentleness and adoration of Mellie. I was 😲 because RHETT! I get it now, in my dotage.

....She always adored Ashley for his kindness, gentleness and adoration of Mellie.

My mother favoured Ashley because as a girl she had a crush on Leslie Howard. (He came second to Bogie, though.)

She was most put out when friends and I saw GWTW when it was re-released in cinemas and said we thought Ashley was wet.

He was, though. As Scarlett herself said, he should have told her years ago that he loved Melanie and not her.

Definitely agree re her being the first antiheroine in Hollywood. Arguably the talkie era though: silent films before more censorship were full of notable and often flawed female MCs.

Interesting re your mother... Mitchell herself based Rhett on her alcoholic & abusive first husband and Ashley on her kind but boring second husband. Arguably this might explain why neither feels ideal and Rhett is at positioned at the end in a positive light which feels somewhat jarring given some of his earlier actions.

I’ve always liked it. I just saw it as a biased narration. Scarlett’s stubborn and spoilt, but that stubborness keeps them alive. As for Rhett, he pours the love Scarlett has no use for into Bonnie. I mean, they are all flawed except Mel. And they’re all the product of a deeply flawed society.

But it’s a long time since I read it.

I love Gone with the Wind, both film and book. I view very much as a product of its time and understand that it is only 1/3 of the story.
Scarlet herself is very interesting character. Her first 2 children don’t even exist in the film.
She is a teenage mother and widow at 17 at a time when that meant social death. She is the widow of man child she barely knew let alone loved.
She’s a terrible mother but for some very good reasons.
Nowadays she would have been a strong career woman. A bit like Beth Dutton from Yellowstone if you’ve seen any of that!
She was not made for the time she was born into.

She was spoiled and selfish. When she had to she found the qualities she needed for her and her family to survive, but she was still selfish in her personal relationships.

And of course the book will show the South in a favourable light. All the main characters are from the South and we see it from their pov. But that isn't what the book's about. It's about how they deal with the loss of their families and friends, their homes and lifestyles and livelihoods - because they're all 'gone with the wind'.

I agree Scarlett would have been a great Beth Dutton type!

Otoh arguably as pp said the marriage to Charles was her fault. Gerald advised her to wait & not marry so young. She was wrong to marry him knowing very well she didn't love him. She would have had to marry & have kids at some point orpbably though and ste married Frank in a hard situation mainly to save Tara

Agree with this. I think most characters in the book are quite strongly drawn though, Melanie too as you say has unappreciated qualities.

But she was a child! A child who’d been trained to have some very odd priorities!