When faced with Paul Bettany, I had but one question: "You've been doing a lot of these religious themed movies -- " "You mean two?"

"In media and Internet terms, I think that equals 200," I teased. He laughed. "Are there some personal demons you're trying to work out with the church?"

"No. No, I have no personal demons -- well, I have personal demons but they're not with the church. There happen to be a lot of these sorts of movies around, you know? Religiously themed movies, and vampire movies are often religious themed. Although I think vampirism is an awesome alternative to Christianity as a way to survive death!" (Afterwards, I realized it's four -- The DaVinci Code, Legion, Creation, and Priest. Draw your own conclusions!)

Priest is the first Tokyo Pop book to be made into a movie, which is something I'm embarrassed to say I didn't realize until the panel itself. Min-Woo Hyung visited the set, loved it, and gave it his blessing. He was even inspired enough to write a prequel comic. (Which I received and is currently being mangled in my backpack. Sorry!) The Western elements have been played down in favor of sci-fi, and Priest takes place about 20 years after the events of Min-Woo's final book. The war between the vampires and priests have ended, the priests (and priestesses) are now akin to Vietnam veterans who are unwanted and unloved.

As you know, the reaction to the The Green Hornet's first trailer was mixed. At ComicCon, one of the looming questions would be if Hornet's panel could turn the tide of bad buzz. Even Seth Rogen was open about how desperate he was for Hall H to like the new footage, which came complete with 3D and our first look at the much mentioned KatoVision. Rogen couldn't have felt very positive considering that his panel seemed to be the beginning of the Hall H exodus -- a bad sign on a day of thin panels for the legendary Room of Madness.

So, what did we see? Essentially, a longer and recut version of the original trailer. Decidedly absent were all the Rogen "trademark" jokes, such as the line about taking Kato's hand for an adventure. This footage played Hornet a lot straighter and a lot more action oriented. If this cut had debuted originally, there wouldn't have been nearly as many "Rogen is playing Rogen! He's a stoner goofball!" comments. However, unless they cut that character angle and all silly lines from the film -- or unless it's really that slight -- audiences aren't going to be any more enthusiastic about Britt Reid.

The KatoVision was definitely cool. The camera zooms into Kato's eye, and gives you his version of a fight scene. It's definitely surreal and a bit more Michel Gondry-esque. He sees each weapon, which lights up in red next to his opponent, and he mentally calculates how to destroy them or it. It's also akin to a first person shooter -- the closest example might be using the Dead Eye "point and shoot" in Red Dead Redemption. Only fancier. With 3D. The 3D is still being converted in post and they stressed what we were seeing was rough. I was in the absolute worst seat, so take my word with a grain of salt, but I.it was pretty good 3D. Certainly not The Clash of the Titans' double heads and muddiness.

I can't believe it's this time of year again. Where did 2009 go? Where did my summer go?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining, I'm just perplexed at the passage of time, especially summer time. Since it was snowing in my corner of the prairie through May, I suppose this is partly why I'm discombobulated. But it feels like I was just posting the first images of Iron Man 2, and crossing my fingers to get into the Hall H panel.

A lot of people loathe ComicCon. A lot of industry people regard it with a mixture of sadness, regret, and nostalgia. This is an event that began in a guy's basement, and boasted nothing more than a few boxes of comics. Now it's this megalith of pop culture where comics and their longboxes are taking a smaller and smaller seat at the table. Actually, I think many -- not just comic book professionals -- feel the con has been taken away from them. Fans lament the focus, the crowds and occasionally grim "Welcome to ComicCon, time to queue up!" atmosphere. ComicCon used to be a casual geek party. Now it's an obstacle course that even Rambo would sweat to navigate. (Since Stallone is coming to the con this year, we should totally put it to the test!)

SDCC is a weird event for me. On one hand, it's become something I almost dread, but it also feels like a bit of a homecoming or renewal. This is where I started this oddball job of mine. Now, I hate to get sentimental and mawkish, but it felt right to do a more personal column and save up all agonizing "Why did they ruin it?" ammunition for upcoming weeks. Plus, I may even have some interviews to run in this space instead. Neat! So, bear with me -- and hopefully share your own deep, dark, and wistful stories at the end.

Earlier this month, Erik Davis reported that the Batmobile had been seen in downtown Manhattan. Those who saw it on the street probably thought Christian Bale was inside, but it turned out to be an extravagant purchase on the set of Russell Brand's Arthur remake. If anyone had any doubts the Batmobile would actually appear in the film, toss them out now, because photos have emerged of Brand in the Batsuit. Even better, Brand's Batvision is secure enough in its rubber codpiece to include Batman's trusty sidekick, Robin. Don't mess with Luis Guzman. Even in Robin underoos, he looks fierce enough to kick ass.

No one is sure just what Arthur is doing dressing up as Batman -- or why Guzman is still an uncredited member of the production as per IMDB -- but I imagine this is what 21st century playboys do. Dudley Moore drank champagne in a bathtub while wearing a top hat; Brand wears a Batsuit. Makes sense. I would hope a playboy would have the discretion not to choose the Batsuit with the nipples, but Brand probably insisted purely so he could make plenty of jokes on the press junkets.

The photos came from Zimbio by way of Latino Review, and from Starcasm. There are a ton more, including one of Brand's rubberclad butt that would probably make Joel Schumacher blush with shame.

%Gallery-97727%

Barring the very first glimpse of Chris Hemsworth as the Thunder God, people don't seem to be digging the costumes, set design, or general aesthetic of Thor. Cries of doom are sounding as if it's Ragnarok. I'm not willing to join in just yet. Movie stills are an incredibly hard thing to judge -- nothing is in motion, the lighting might be off, it's one frame of time in one big film -- and I remember how snarky most people were about Christopher Nolan's Bat and Joker designs and the initial unfinished Iron Man effects. Those turned out fine.

This new photo of Asgard's throne room comes from The LA Times' print edition and Latino Review superscanned the photo to get a big version of Loki, so we could all admire the care that went into recreating his horned helmet. Pretty wicked. (I mean that in the "it looks evil!" sense, not the surfer Bill and Ted sense, though you could take it that way if you like.)

One of my biggest misgivings about Thor was always his general look. It's why I never dug the comics or the character that much. I was concerned it wouldn't translate. However, I'm not hating the design. It's clear they went in a decidedly alien fashion (the Asgardians are supposed to be "alien", this erasing any uncomfortable Nordic association) over Norse/Viking and I'm curious to see more before I give it a thumbs down. Plus, I do like red capes.

This upcoming weekend's Marvel will be the moment that makes or breaks the buzz, I suppose. Are you ready to judge by Odin's beard?

%Gallery-92093%

When you visit a set, it's difficult knowing you're a bit of an interruption. No one actually treats you as such, of course, but you have to wonder what it would be like if someone came to your place of work and started chatting about your life and work. On sets, this is especially evident in directors. They're up against all kinds of crunches and pressure, they're trying to concentrate, and they have to come and explain it all to you.

Greg Mottola was a super busy man on Paul. He took his time with everything. The scenes we saw were small -- Clive (Nick Frost) and Graham (Simon Pegg) stand open-mouthed at the exhibit hall as the camera whirls around them. They examine the schedule, and run in opposite directions. They take part in a virtual reality battle with two young boys. (Watching these kids clumsily bow and punch was hysterical.) It was all energetic and loose, yet painstakingly plotted out. I'm anxious to see it come together. This is, as Pegg and Frost took care to point out, not an Edgar Wright film. But I'm not sure it's what you might expect out of Mottola, either.

But let's just let him talk, shall we?

It's funny, out of Comic-Con in 2007 when they had the Superbad premiere there, and Edgar [Wright] and Nick [Frost] were there, it seemed like there was this moment where basically these two groups kind of came together and just formed all of these projects. Did you feel that also, that that was the central point of [the relationship/project]?

Greg Mottola: Yeah, I mean that's where I met those guys. It was a collision of kingdoms.

It should come as no surprise to you that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are two of the nicest and funniest guys you will ever meet. But they are also two of the quietest, at least on set. Like most comedic actors, they throw a lot of energy into their performances, and they could literally turn that Pegg / Frost kineticism on and off. That's not to say that it's fake -- it really isn't -- but that they are careful about timing it and using it. It's always fascinating to watch actors at work, but this was the first time I'd seen a comedic performance in action, and it honestly seems to take a lot more out of a performer than running, dodging, and shooting.

I've been to a few of these set visits now with Cinematical and I have to say, never did the sight of Famous People elicit so much enthusiasm and excitement among extras than Pegg and Frost. The ComicCon "attendees" could barely keep to their assigned circuits because they kept stopping to gaze at them. Even Pegg's dog Minnie was the focus of points, whispers and pleas to pet her because everyone was convinced she was Colin from Spaced. There's something incredibly refreshing about the supersized fame Pegg and Frost now enjoy. Just when you think it's all about pretty boys and girls, you see a group of young whippersnappers fall over themselves at the sight of Shaun and Ed.

But hey, enough rhapsodizing. These guys speak for themselves. Read on to see what they have to say about Paul.

The record throwing scene was the very scene where Paul was thought up. For real!

You wanna know how you write a Motion History? Here's how -- someone suggests a movie, you agree. You watch the movie, you hit the library. When the library fails, you yell at your keyboard and go to Google. And then you're glad the Motion History deadline moved. That's the Chicago Cinematical way.

All corny quoting aside, that's exactly what happened. I fully expected to be able to find The Untouchables (the original book actually penned by Eliot Ness and Oscar Fraley) at the library. I thought it would have Kevin Costner on the front. I thought this topic would be as slick to pin down as getting Al Capone on tax evasion. I was wrong, and I'm surprised and saddened to be wrong. Eliot Ness is an American legend. So much of his life and career has become embedded in pop culture that I thought his autobiography (as fluffy as it may or may not be) would be readily available at my local library. It's on Amazon of course, but it couldn't get here fast enough, and that's not really the point. I like libraries. It saddens me so many are becoming glorified Blockbusters -- especially in this digital and streaming age -- instead of places you can learn about Prohibition.

So, I apologize. This might be a rather thin column, and a topic that Cinematical readers can school me on. Nevertheless, I'm happy to say I went into this a blank slate and came out with a vaguely less one. Perhaps a few will read this and say the same. Perhaps it will even restore our libraries.

Is It Accurate?

Over the three years I've been writing this column, I've yet to predict what will be the match to light fandom's gasoline. It's impossible. Major casting decisions are received with a shrug. Minor ones threaten to cause riots in the streets. (Well, if "the information highway" was a street, anyway.) Some films earn fervent cult followers that won't hear a negative comment; others are proudly and enthusiastically trashed no matter what goodwill may have gone into it.

When Drew McWeeny broke the news of Norton and Marvel parting ways, I expected a small flurry of a response. After all, rumors had swirled since Summer 2008 that there wouldn't even be a sequel to The Incredible Hulk. Stories of Norton's demanding behavior were rampant. Norton was honest about the silence between him and Marvel. "The minds of Marvel are sometimes opaque. I won't say [they're] obtuse, but I don't have any idea what they want to do."

July is the right time for sand and surf. Many of our readers are undoubtedly lucky enough to live on the coast where they have daily (or at least weekly or monthly) beach access. But many of us are landlocked and too busy or poor to make the trip. And let's be honest here -- the very best beaches in the United States and Mexico are probably going to look like something out of The Road before vacation season rolls around again.

So, what's someone desperate for a seaside trip to do? Escape in some old-fashioned escapism through the magic of movies. There's a lot of tropical films a person can watch to cure their lust for islands, cabanas, and crumbly sand. I've narrowed it down to five. I've also deliberately kept it to films that are just cheesy enough that you could mute them and just look at the pretty sunsets.

Now, If you're one of those creative types, you could do some kind of cute theme party where everyone shows up in Hawaiian shirts and chows down on shrimp, salsa, and key lime pie while watching one or more of these films. If you're like me, you'll just cut up some limes, crack open a Mexican beer, and get buzzed enough to forget the wind outside belongs to the prairie and not the sea. Hey, we all escape in different ways, and some of those ways involve alcohol and Kurt Russell. Don't judge my vacation.

Continue below for free trips to the beach ...

The discussion of Wonder Woman's new look rages on (even here on Cinematical). To add a little fuel to the fire, now there's some intriguing new concept art from Joss Whedon's Wonder Woman That Never Was. Costume designer Shawna Tripcic tweeted her costume sketches that she had done for Whedon's Princess Diana and surprise surprise, she's wearing pants.

Too bad Trpcic couldn't weigh in on the comic version's new look. I think this is actually much better than what Diana is currently sporting. All of her iconic gear is visible, it's streamlined, and the pants don't look like they came out of 1990. Sure, I could do without the crop top -- vital organs are contained there, Wonder Woman knows you need armor covering those bits -- and the duster coat is too reminiscent of the Matrix. But she gets to keep her boots. You need comfy boots to fight in --everyone knows that.

Again, it's not too surprising that any eventual movie is going to radically alter Wonder Woman's costume. Few actresses are going to want to wear her glorified swimsuit. But if they do put Wonder Woman in pants, I hope they go back to Tripcic's ideas and give her something that's a little more kick ass and contemporary. Just make sure she covers up her midriff, please.

What do you think of Whedon's Wonder Woman?

Last week, geekdom had a small meltdown over the new Wonder Woman costume, and J. Michael Straczynski's new reboot/retcon/alternate universe that will launch in Wonder Woman #600. The consensus was generally "nay" to both ideas, especially the outfit, though we all know how short-lived new ideas in comic books can be. Normally, I wouldn't write about comic book news, even if ABC News and Nikke Finke are both shrieking about it, but I think this revamp (good, bad, or ugly) is going to be important for Wonder Woman. It's not going to be a mere footnote on her Wikipedia page. I think her big screen chances might rest on it.

Wonder Woman is an odd character. She sells more merchandise than she sells books. I know a lot of women who love the idea of Wonder Woman, and they own the doll, the t-shirt, and the sports bra, but they don't own the comic books. Market analysis claims this is because the books aren't good, and the character is dull, but I don't think that's true. I think it simply comes down to comic books being so inaccessible to average readers -- not necessarily because of cryptic mythology or childish reputation (though that's part of it) but because they're difficult to buy on a whim. But that's another topic. The argument goes that she doesn't sell because she's boring, cold, or underdressed.

Of course, the world will also get its first look at The Green Lantern. I'm willing to bet Hal Jordan himself may be in attendance alongside Geoff Johns. But let's be honest, a glimpse of Ryan Reynolds will be nothing compared to seeing him wield the ring in his mo-cap suit.

According to The New York Times, we'll also get a glimpse at Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch, a film that has remained under tight, tight wraps. My secret wish? They would also bring Hereafter. Clint Eastwood doesn't need ComicCon or its geeky crowd, but I'd love a glimpse of his ghost movie to appear there anyway. It would feel so right.

Obviously, that's the DC end of things. What will Marvel bring to the table? Those hoping for a glimpse of Captain America: The First Avenger will undoubtedly go home disappointed as it hasn't even started filming. But you're definitely going to get your first proper look at Thor. Should we pray Natalie Portman doesn't show up so that we stand an easier chance of getting in Hall H? Or should we just be grateful she isn't Megan Fox? The rumor mill has continued to insist that we'll hear something about Ant-Man, but since Edgar Wright swears on Twitter that he's not done with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I think you can stop holding your breath. (I will, however, eat the first volume of Bryan Lee O'Malley's series if I'm wrong. I swear it. We can even tape it, as long as you promise I can have ketchup to dip it in.)

We may finally have an official confirmation that Joss Whedon is directing The Avengers, though. Maybe he will even talk about it on a panel, since he's a con staple. You and I won't get in, though. Whedonites camp out from press night on for his stuff, which means if Jeremy Renner shows up to talk about Hawkeye, only Buffy and Browncoat fans will be there. (No slam. You know that. I am a Browncoat.)

But don't despair. You're going to see Wright. It will just be with Universal and Scott Pilgrim vs the World, not in Ant-Man or Avengers announcements. Fans were bitterly disappointed that there wasn't a Scott Pilgrim panel last year -- they were too busy filming to do one -- but this year they can't help but have their wishes fulfilled. The movie opens August 13 (and is whispered to have some kind of preview screening at SDCC), but fans know that having an early taste makes the wait go even faster. We might get a hilarious one-two punch if they bring Your Highness and Paul, too.

Another August movie will be making an appearance, as The Expendables will be the subject of a panel. You know what that means -- a Q&A with more testosterone than Hall H can handle. If Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, and Jason Statham aren't there, I will be incredibly shocked and crushed. I've never seen Statham in person, so I'm crossing my fingers he's going to sit there scowling, and make my con dreams come true.

But all that manpower will have a tough time competing with Tron: Legacy, which has already taken over San Diego streets? (Jeff Bridges, Olivia Wilde, and Garret Hedlund are festooning the downtown as we speak.) This will actually be the third time Tron: Legacy has graced the convention. It first appeared in a teaser slipped in a late afternoon panel in 2008, and had a panel and some viral marketing in 2009. It also made a splashy presentation at WonderCon. But this will be our first big, big, big look at the movie and I expect an Avatar frenzy to follow.

Disney / Pixar usually brings something animated to tease fans with. Monsters Inc. 2? Or the long gestating Brave, (aka The Bear and the Bow)? Most likely, Tangled be the only animation preview from the Mouse House this year. However, I'm going to hope for a teaser from John Carter of Mars. I suspect it is too far away, but maybe we'll see some teaser posters. After their long Tron tease, I wouldn't be surprised how early they started with John Carter.

Sony will be bringing Battle: Los Angeles and The Green Hornet. Last year, they had a booth with the Black Beauty to rev up fans, though a single frame had yet to be shot on the film. Will the footage and stars Sony brings be able to tilt the lukewarm buzz into something positive? Or are we in for a snowball effect of negativity? Rumor has it they will also be bringing Beastly, in the hopes of attracting some of those Twilight fans who will have no Edward Cullen to gaze at. Priest is a possibility, too. Die hard fans can hope for some kind of Spider-Man presentation with Andrew Garfield, though a meet and greet this early in the game could just be awkward for all involved.

Finally, we have some studio dark horses. We know DreamWorks is bringing Megamind, but many of their 2011 genre films (Real Steel, Cowboys & Aliens, I Am Number Four, Fright Night) just started shooting or were cast this summer, so they won't be appearing at the convention except through limited marketing such as posters or t-shirts. Jon Favreau can do some amazing things in a pinch -- remember the quick Iron Man 2 presentation last year? -- so he might send something along from Cowboys & Aliens to tease his loyal fanbase.

Paramount is even more of a mystery. Star Trek 2 is still a deep dark secret, but there may be something Super 8 related, but I doubt it. J.J. Abrams has blown off SDCC many times before. Dark Fields and James Cameron's Sanctum are better shots for an appearance, Kung Fu Panda 2: The Kaboom of Doom seems likely, as does Rango to follow up on its trailer premiere. Nothing has been announced, though, so they could end up being a no-show as they were in 2008.

Fox is in an awkward spot of having a big geek property that will miss this ComicCon and the next in X-Men: First Class. I could actually see them bringing Matthew Vaughn for an awkward "final cast announcement" like Zack Snyder did for Watchmen in 2007, and maybe trot out a cast member or two for a Q&A. While Never Let Me Go has enough sci-fi to qualify, I fear their biggest presentation may be Gulliver's Travels. Try to contain your excitement for that!

There's three weeks to go, and there will be a lot of official announcements to come. When we get an official schedule, we'll be sure to post the highlights here on Cinematical. In the meantime, tell us what you're looking forward to, and what you hope to see there.

I had fully intended to write about The Patriot this week. It's a guilty pleasure of a film. It's pure puffy-shirted nonsense, and ultimately more about World War II than the American Revolution. (I know, figure that one out.) But so many people already know about The Patriot that it feels like a column cop-out, even if it is appropriate to the holiday. And who wants to read about a Mel Gibson film this week, anyway?

So, I thought I'd tackle another film centered on British colonialism, and the loss of one nation's independence. Zulu is a film I always meant to go back and research after it was oh-so-casually namedropped in my 19th Century Europe class. There's not much of that class I actually remember, as I was sick the entire semester with bronchitis. My notes actually ran in swirls and loops around the page because I was so doped up on drugs, so it's a miracle I recall a Zulu reference. We never actually watched it. Movies were almost always verboten. My professor merely said "You guys remember that Michael Caine movie? Well, this is that war." Everyone tittered in that way history students always do -- oh please, that movie was so inaccurate! -- when in reality, they were probably all holding back from chanting "Zulu! Zulu!" or something. It's only in retrospect I realize we were all dorks doing stuff like that in our heads.

But I digress. One of the reasons I wanted to do this column was to research stuff I didn't know about, and after World's Deadliest Warriors showed off how powerful a Zulu shield was, well, it was time to find out exactly why those Zulus wanted to kill Michael Caine's battalion.

Today's Motion History is going to center on a historical setting over a historical story. So far, all but one of the films I've picked have had some historical figure or story at the core, even if the stories ended up largely fictional. I don't intend to just stick to real people and real stories, because I think historical fiction is worth examining too. It can be just as powerful as a true story, and it can be just as illuminating about the time and place in which it was made. It can also be quite damaging to people's perceptions of history, culture, race, and politics.

Also, I just really wanted to write an piece about Gone With the Wind. I love this film, even as I understand what's grievously wrong with it. There's a tendency now to politely ignore this film, as with so many other troubling racial stories, because we've "evolved" passed it. Well, we haven't. Not as moviegoers, and certainly not as a country. Some of the recent fanboy casting flaps indicate that much, and the root of the Tea Party movement is inherently the political belief that's at the heart of Gone with the Wind: Give us our country back. This country that, to quote the opening crawl, can be found "only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered."

You see, this isn't a movie about the Civil War. It's about America's perception of the Civil War, particularly down South. And it's all about the 1930s.

The Historical Background

It's the American Civil War. You know the drill -- slavery, states rights, secession, Abraham Lincoln, Fort Sumter. This is stuff you learned in numerous history classes, or should have. I know I went into massive essays prior to this, but there's so much finer ink spilled on the Civil War (as with any topic I've addressed -- but this is even more massive than the Tudors!) that I don't feel like I should muddy the waters.

Instead, I'll talk a little more about the novel. As awkward as the book reads now, Margaret Mitchell's book is quite a piece of folk history. Much of what Scarlett experiences during and after the war was drawn from stories she'd heard from elderly relatives and friends, and it reads (and views) true. Sure, Scarlett is pining over Ashley the entire time, but she's also starving, and fearful that the entire O'Hara family will end up homeless and begging. Mitchell also researched exhaustively -- the Fall of Atlanta is far more terrifying and accurate in the book, and she portrays the postwar world as even more bitter and poor than the film does. It's also very explicit in introducing the Ku Klux Klan. While Mitchell paints slavery as a real form of noblesse oblige (at one point, a slave cries and begs to be taken home because he's had enough freedom), she's also careful to stress that her characters aren't racist enough to join the Klan. Rhett and Ashley even have the honor of breaking it up. Scarlett may say and think hideous things about "negroes" (please understand I'm quoting here, and don't condone that word), but no one shares the Klan's view. It's very schizophrenic, but it's also valuable. As I said, it's folk history. You don't have to like it, and you can't overlook its offensive language and attitude, but as a document of how Southerners perceived the war, it's crucial.

I should hasten to add that Southern civilians did suffer. There's a lot of homefront diaries of the period you can read. One example that's online is that of Julia Johnson Fisher, who talks about the "many deprivations" they've suffered since war broke out: "Our main living has been pork, rice and hominy -- parched grits for coffee without milk or sugar. How often we talk of the good things we once enjoyed and wonder if we shall ever enjoy them again. A slice of bread and butter and a sweetened cup of tea would be a treat indeed, such a treat as we have not enjoyed for more than a year. Our severe trials appear to be just commencing. Thus far war has been in the distance, now its ravages are becoming tangible ... We feel completely bound -- there is no way of escape."

Is It Accurate?

Well, yes and no. The film is based on the book, but it makes some surprising choices that actually upholds Southern and American mythology far more than Mitchell's book does. While the film does a lot right (the hospital and amputations, the train station full of wounded soldiers, civilians being in the line of battle, the poverty), it does a lot wrong.

The first is the portrayal of the plantations. They're enormous. While some did look this elegant (Oak Alley in Louisiana is one of the most iconic, and has been used in so many films) they were rare. They certainly were never as gilded and ornate inside as Tara or Twelve Oaks. It's Hollywood's oversized love for set decoration at play, to the point that they look more like Versailles than any historical plantation. Even Mitchell was aghast, and refused to visit the set or advise the film: "I grieve to hear that Tara has columns. Of course, [in the book] it didn't and looked nice and ugly like Alex Stephens' Liberty Hall [in Crawfordville, Georgia] ... I had feared, of course that [Twelve Oaks] would end up looking like the Grand Central Station, and your description confirms my worst apprehensions. I did not know whether to laugh or to throw up at the TWO staircases.... God help me when the reporters get me after I've seen the picture. I will have to tell the truth, and if Tara has columns and Twelve Oaks is such an elegant affair I will have to say that nothing like that was ever seen in Clayton County, or, for that matter, on land or sea .... When I think of the healthy, hardy, country and somewhat crude civilization I depicted and then of the elegance that is to be presented, I cannot help yelping with laughter." To be somewhat fair to Hollywood, though, the society the book presents isn't that crude. The houses might be, but the Southern food and Scarlett's dresses are so lushly described that it can really only be described as "antebellum porn."

American history loves the idea of the plantation. We may have been extremely proud of ending slavery, but we hated the idea of feudal kingdoms disappearing. The antebellum South is inevitably pictured as the place where chivalry really did take its last stand, instead of a vaguely frontier region that was largely farmed by the middle class. There were massive plantations, but they were in the minority. The majority of the South was made up of middle class farmers who owned a handful of slaves. My American history professor once told us that if we ever wanted to be famous and wealthy with grant money, we should write a doctoral thesis on yeoman farmers, because no one ever did. Historians concentrated purely on plantations because it was so utterly decadent and romantic, or the lower classes because they liked arguing that the hoop skirts and mint juleps were utter fiction. I don't know if this was actually true, or if it's still true in academia but it made me laugh. Yes, I actually contemplated writing about yeoman Southern farmers for awhile. (Hey, I like money. Just like Scarlett!)

This mythology has been evident ever since the Civil War ended, but had a resurgence in the 1930s. Though you had the "Southern Renaissance" going in literature that sought to get rid of all that Lost Cause romanticism and replace it with bitter realism (William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams) you also had the Depression. The South had also transformed from a rural economy into a more industrial one after World War I. They were nostalgic for an golden age, and wanted to believe that had existed. You also had the last Confederate veterans passing away. It was powerful stuff, ripe for Mitchell to spin a novel out of (she herself admitted she was ten before she even knew the South had lost). Gone with the Wind looks back to the good old days, when everyone lived on massive plantations and were waited on by kindly Mammys. Slaves were beloved members of the family. The Yankees were bloodthirsty rapists. Audiences ate it up. It was better to believe your grandparents and great grandparents had lived this way than to believe you or your people resembled the family in Faulkner's As I Lay Dying or Erksine Caldwell's Tobacco Road. Caldwell was controversial. Mitchell was not.

Why did Americans in general respond? Well, I suppose because we all love knights and ladies, and cherish the idea that we once had that in our own country. There were probably many who were sorry they destroyed the gallant South. Plus, the Depression hit the entire country. Americans were hungry for escapism whether on page or screen. Hollywood had no interest in portraying the historic South. People needed beautiful and glittery images to escape in. They also needed to see some dashes of hardship to be reminded that they would overcome again, as they had before. If you watch The Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind back to back, you'll notice a lot of tonal and stylistic similarities. The Deep South might as well be Oz for the sheer fantasy it spins and wraps the audience in. Unfortunately, what seemed fun and harmless at the time has kept up a pretty damaging myth of the antebellum South, one that I suspect some political rioters still cherish and bank on.

David O. Selznick knowingly softened the political overtones. The "attack on Scarlett / revenge of Southern gentlemen" scene is still there, but he omitted any mention of the Ku Klux Klan. His intentions were good -- he didn't want to remake Birth of a Nation, and hoped screenwriter Sidney Howard would "agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times. . . ." Yet the sentiments remain, as does the patronizing attitude towards slaves and freemen and women. It's good that they didn't want to endorse intolerance, but like Mitchell's book, it straddles the fence, and doesn't condemn it. (Add that to the story of the Atlanta premiere, and Hattie McDaniel being banned and wonder just how they could be so careless and glib.)

But what I'll say this for it's Depression-era artificiality -- it portrays Southern women as the warriors they were and are. Glenda Riley's Inventing the American Woman indicates a lot of upper and middle class women were like Scarlett, holding everything together, sleeping with pistols under their pillows and doing hard physical labor themselves. Many men came home like Ashley -- weak, broken, and miserable. Their obsession with protecting "white women" (seen so violently within the film) was born out of the loss of the Confederacy, and their determination to keep some shred of the old patriarchy going. Remember, the women's movement had been going strong in the North and South before switching its focus to slavery -- and now women saw it taking a backseat to Reconstruction, and found themselves pawns in a racially charged war. (Don't think I'm absolving them of all blame, though.)

In an eerie way though, Gone with the Wind manages to evoke the war that was on the horizon. The film came out in 1939, and yet you'd swear it was about World War II as much as the Depression. There's the tender homefront scenes. Saintly Melanie works in the hospital, hoping someone is doing the same for Ashley. Scarlett is Rosie the Riveter, doing a man's work to keep everyone fed and clothed. Lest you think that's fiction, this is a weird fact which was actually true in North and South. Many women took to working in munition, arsenal, and textile factories just as they would in the 20th century. It's no wonder the film was so popular in England during the Blitz, as British women were guarding and running the UK just as fiercely.

Obviously, Gone with the Wind is an old film, and one that's had its mythology dissected over and over again. I doubt I'm adding anything new to the discussion. As intelligent filmgoers, this is probably stuff you already know. But it's always possible that it's new and interesting to someone, and I've always wanted to write it. As I've said, I think we're seeing a real resurgence of Lost Cause mythology in politics and pop culture. Political meetings and rallies are filled with cries demanding their country back. Politicians are currently running in primaries with unsubtle taunts of rebellion. Even something as fun as True Blood carries hints of stars-and-bars romanticism (Bill Compton looked so dashing in his Confederate gray) while having characters denounce it. I don't believe in demonizing the South or the Confederacy (I don't agree with slavery, but not every Confederate was evil incarnate, and not every Yankee was idealistic and racially enlightened) but I don't believe in blindly worshiping history. Gone with the Wind dreamily imagines something that never existed -- and to be fair, most Hollywood films did and still do. While it's ok to play in historical fiction, it's dangerous that so many continue to believe (or worse, willingly choose to despite all facts to the contrary) that Master and Slave was a idyllic reality.