Gone With The Wind has been shunned once again, this time by HBO Max, and HE is still saying “yes but hold on.” For despite its deeply offensive depictions of the antebellum South and a culture that was founded upon the ruthless exploitation of African-American slaves, the second half of the first act of Gone With The Wind is nonetheless great cinema.

Because, as I wrote five years ago, GWTW is not actually about this odious history and these conditions. Not really, not deep down. For it is fundamentally a film about how life separates the survivors from the victims when the chips are down, and about the necessity of scrappy, hand-to-mouth survival under the cruelest and most miserable of conditions. It basically says “only the strongest and the most determined survive.”

In June 2015 former N.Y. Post film critic Lou Lumenick called for a shunning of Gone With The Wind because of “undeniably racist” attitudes embedded in its story and characters. A little more than two years later (late August of ’17) the board of Memphis’ Orpheum Theatre announced it would no longer show Gone With The Wind as part of the Orpheum Movie Series due to complaints. The board deemed the 1939 film “insensitive” after receiving “numerous comments” that stemmed from a screening on Friday, 8.11.17.

And now another shoe has dropped upon David O. Selznick and Victor Fleming‘s Oscar winner with the announcement that HBO Max will no longer stream it.

The move came partly in response to “media companies reappraising content in light of nationwide protests over police brutality and systemic racism after the death of George Floyd,” according to a 6.9.20 Hollywood Reporter piece by Abid Rahman.

Another nudge was felt from a Los Angeles Times op-ed by 12 Years A Slave screenwriter John Ridley, published Tuesday (6.9). The headline read “Hey, HBO, Gone With the Wind romanticizes the horrors of slavery. Take it off your platform for now.”

GWTW “glorifies the antebellum south,” Ridley wrote. “It is a film that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color.”

Ridley is, of course, correct. There’s never been any question that Selznick’s epic ignores and sugarcoats the realities of 19th Century slavery, and that its Technicolor depiction of the Old South as a fair land of cavaliers and cotton fields makes it in some ways a dark and odious fantasy piece — the anti-12 Years A Slave. Consciousness does evolve and for all its polish and grandeur, Gone With The Wind has become more and more of an unsavory antique in some respects. No argument there.

“But I feel misgivings,” I wrote on 6.26.15. “I don’t believe it’s right to throw Gone With The Wind under the bus just like that. Yes, it’s an icky and offensive film at times. The moment when Vivien Leigh‘s Scarlett O’Hara slaps Butterly McQueen‘s Prissy for being irresponsible in the handling of Melanie giving birth is ugly, to say the least. And the depiction of Everett Brown‘s Big Sam as a loyal and eternal defender of Scarlett in the face of thieves and would-be rapists is another head-scratcher.

“But every time I’ve watched GWTW I’ve always put that stuff in a box in order to focus on the real order of business.

My recently ordered Jaws 4K Bluray was on the doorstep when we returned last evening (7:45ish) from Mexico. I popped it into my Samsung 4K Bluray player around 9:30 pm, and almost immediately I was going “wait…what? This is it?”

Because I wasn’t seeing my #1 basic requirement when it comes to 4K discs, which is a moderately exciting bump or an agreeable change for the better compared to the most recently released 1080p version. Official HE verdict: The 4K upgrade of Steven Spielberg‘s sea-change classic is approvable but underwhelming.

Here’s how I explained it last night to a tech-savvy industry friend: “I watched the 4K Jaws tonight, and while it certainly looks crisp and clean and handsome enough, there’s no detectable enhancement compared to the eight-year-old 1080p Bluray version. Not to these eyes, at least.

“And please don’t start with your old ‘have your 4K player and TV been properly calibrated?’ question, which you throw at me every time there’s an issue. My set-up is close to dead perfect. Everything always looks great on it. I’ve never been happier with a TV in my life.

“But the 4K Jaws disappoints. We tend to forget that Bill Butler‘s cinematography was never intended to be eye candy. It’s a utilitarian small-town drama mixed with a monster flick. Butler delivered pro-level work, but the idea was never to get people to drop to their knees. Obviously shot with efficiency, but never an attempt to show off. Butler was unpretentiously serving the story while delivering natural atmospheric elements.

“We tend to forget that color-wise Jaws is just this side of slightly desaturated, and many of the exterior shots have a kind of hazy seaside humidity appearance. It’s almost a little soft-focusy, and it certainly looks misty in some daytime scenes. Which is fine in itself. I’m just saying that it looks and feels like the 2012 Bluray. Not a bad looking presentation, but it hardly ever jumps out at you. It never makes you say ‘wow, I’ve never seen it look this good.’

“The bottom line is that I feel burned. My feeling is that Universal Home Video hustled me. They sold me a bill of goods. They tied a tin can to my tail. They led me down a garden path. They flim-flammed me.”

Tech guy has also seen the 4K Jaws, and his assessment was more generous. “It’s very different from the 2012 Bluray,” he said. “A far more cohesive image. Solid colors. Nice HDR that actually works. Dolby Atmos, which you can play with a sound bar. And perfect grain levels.”

HE reply: “What about the forthcoming Spartacus 4K disc (7.21)? Have you heard if it delivers any kind of bump? I’m not sure I want to shell out for this. I’m feeling a bit swindled here.

“Remember that I’m a Bluray peon — I look and see and judge in peon terms. Your technical perspective and insight are reflected in what you wrote and are much appreciated, but it doesn’t look substantially different than the 2012 Bluray. Not really.

“No bump, no buy. That’s how peons see things when it comes to a potential 4K purchase.”

However, the 4K Jaws also contains that legendary two-hour “Making of Jaws” doc that stretches back to the laser-disc days. If you’ve never watched it, please do.

Another beauty from the Lincoln Project. Yes, agreed — the opening line is perfect. Trump has called these guys and their political ilk “killers’, and in terms of fanning and capturing the surge of wholly justifiable outrage that’s still happening, he’s not wrong.

In a discussion with Steven Soderbergh on the beautiful, relatively recent Billy Budd Bluray, Terence Stamp is asked about his blonde angel appearance in this 1962 film, which was shot when he was 23 or thereabouts.

Stamp replies that “getting older is like being steadily, increasingly punished for a crime I didn’t commit.”

I’m not calling this any kind of profound universal truth, but it’s certainly a biological one. After a couple of drinks most once-beautiful lads and lassies with any inclination toward candor will admit to feeling this way deep down. Optimistic people claim that aging is not a “massacre”, as some have called it, but generally a good thing because sensible 45-plus lifestyles will usually nudge you into greater kindnesses, a mellower mindset and a deeper, richer spiritual awareness of the cosmic altogether.

Which is all true, but at the same aging thins your hair out or flat-out destroys it unless you seek a Prague remedy. It also makes your nose and ears look bigger, and your teeth smaller and less white.

On the other hand it’s nice to know that the Prague option is always there. I for one am glad I took care of some business in that fine, fair city. Plus it’s a great foodie town and one of the greatest places on the planet to just roam around endlessly minus any particular destination or game plan.

“We should worry about the [wokester] hive mind policing content at the New York Times. We should worry when any story is suppressed to tell a more idealized one, a safer one, or one that won’t offend. You can’t even find legit criticism of the forced resignation of op-ed editor James Bennet beyond rightwing outlets because the only outlet that would cover it would have been the Times under Bennett, who attempted to deliver an opposing viewpoint. They aren’t going to police themselves but they should.

“The truth is that the New York Times must learn how to stand up to Twitter. While every respectable outlet should carefully read every potentially incendiary piece before publication ten times over, they should never not publish something for fear of offending. And if they do make that decision not to publish out of a responsibility to keep the peace, that is their call.

“But trial by mob can’t ever be an option. Then you become no better than the Nazis or hardcore Christians advocating for book-burning because material in it might be ‘dangerous’ to young minds.” — from Sasha Stone‘s “The New York Times and Others Must Stand up to Twitter for the Sake of Journalism and Freedom of Speech,” posted on Medium on 7.9.

No defunding or disbanding but…? Significant portions of police departments are regarded as unrestrained brutalists who represent a kind of governmentally-funded Trumpian militia. So if you, the Hollywood Elsewhere administrator, were in charge of getting rid of “the bad apples,” how would you do it? Obviously the uniformed goons need to go, but how do we decide which goons are the worst? I’m asking.

HE commenter from the presumably boomer-esque “Regular Joe,” posted this morning: