Gone with the Wind

Gone with the Wind_360P

This move travesties the history of the war and especially of the Reconstruction, which was not at all the disaster that pro-Southern historians and their sympathizers would have us believe. This film is awash, as one would expect, in nostalgia for the ancien regime, and not even the charm of Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable can make me forget that fact. Such scenes as the one in which the director has an African-American character riding along in a carriage singing Marching Through Georgia are obviously meant to inspire bitterness and resentment in the viewer, and the Federal troops are uniformly portrayed as brutes. This is nothing but polite version of Birth of a Nation--at least so far as its politics go.

I gave this film 1/10; I would have scored it a perfect 0 if there was the option. I'm probably doing the film a disservice given that much, much worse films have been made. A true reflection of this film would probably be somewhere closer to 4, but I feel an obligation to counterbalance the thousands of perfect 10 scores from people who regard this as a "timeless classic." Anyone who considers Gone With the Wind a timeless classic should ignore the fact the it's an old film highly rated by emperor's-new-clothes types and ask themselves what they would think of a modern equivalent: an extraordinarily overlong film with a meandering, muddled storyline punctuated with cheesy dialog and hammy acting and done on an "epic" scale because the budget allows it (It's starting to sound like Titanic! Another zero).

source: Gone with the Wind

I've seen the film many times, have always enjoyed it. But I've been reading the book for the first time. It's a very long novel, and you have to stay with it if you want to see the ending. It's a good read, but Margaret Mitchell, former newspaper reporter, is very thorough in her description of both Southern culture and the changes that the Civil War brought to it. It's the size of the book that was the biggest challenge for David O Selznick. Not what parts to film, but which parts to leave out. So many characters that appeared in the book couldn't be introduced in the movie without extending the film's length to well over four hours. So he had Sidney Howard write the screenplay, then cut that down to a filmable length by hiring several more writers to further pare the script, and was still rewriting it himself while it was being filmed. Selznick was close to running out of money, so he asked his angel, millionaire Jock Whitney, to loan him enough to finish the film. The film was finally completed and edited, then was test-marketed at a theatre not far from LA. The viewers were excited about having seen it and said so on their preview cards, which allowed Selznick to rest easy, knowing he had a hit on his hands.

This movie was on my watch list since 1996 or 1997 when I read its review in a local newspaper. I though it must be a dull movie as it is very old and procrastinated to watch until Dec 2019. And friends, I can't tell you how much I am impressed with this movie - wonderful story, superb acting, mesmerizing cinematography and direction. And they did it in 1939 - which is really hard to digest. I am stupid enough to miss this glory for so many years.

It is always in people's nature to put down great things and to nit-pick or sometimes just be plain mean. No matter what anyone says, this is utterly fantastic: in story, in special effects, in casting (with perhaps the sad exception of Leslie Howard as "Ashley") and in captivation. Vivien Leigh is so powerful, passionate, magnificent and beautiful that you could watch it 1000 times on that ground alone. She brings something so convincing and human to the role of the selfish, spoilt Scarlett; the character is larger than life. Leaving Vivien's astounding performance aside, this remains a sweeping unrivalled epic. Watch it. Esther's rating: 20/10

The setting is a Georgia plantation. The year is 1861, and sixteen-year-old Scarlett O'Hara is infatuated with the blond, drowsy-eyed Ashley Wilkes - the problem is, Ashley plans to marry another woman. Little matter that every other man in the county is courting Scarlett and that a charming scoundrel named Rhett Butler is staring at her with questionable intent - she cares only for Ashley. Suddenly, the Civil War brakes out, changing the fates and fortunes of all. Scarlett, clever, manipulative, and charming, proves an adept survivor - but what will she have to do to survive? And will she ever learn whom it is that she really loves? GWTW is one of the most meticulously cast films ever; with the possible exception of Leslie Howard as Ashley (in his forties, rather old to be playing a man half that age), every role was perfectly assigned. After you watch Vivien Leigh you will be unable to imagine anyone else playing Scarlett, and Hattie McDaniel's strong, unforgettable performance as "Mammy" netted her an academy award (the first for an African-American actor). GWTW's backdrop is the gruesome Civil War, and in the end this film is the story a woman and a civilization (the Old South) going through a war that will not leave either of them unchanged. The cinematography is beautiful, memorable. Gone With the Wind was shot entirely in gorgeous technicolor; the scene of the fire in Atlanta required the use of all eight technicolor cameras in existence at the time. The pragmatic may think Gone with the Wind overly dramatic; the restless may find it too long; the action-stimulated, too subtle. None of this, however, detracts from the fact that GWTW retains a lasting appeal as one of the crowning cinematic achievements of the 20th century. Those who see its ending as depressing - tragic, even - perhaps miss the point - which Scarlett O'Hara makes in her very last instant with us, tear-stained eyes uplifted in a sudden, curious burst of hope beneath all the turmoil; that .. . "After all, tomorrow is another day." 10/10

Every time I watch this film, and I've seen it more times than I can remember, I'm always astonished by the freshness of the story, the power of the emotions it conveys and the beautiful, detailed images of a time long gone. That this film was made in the 1930's is almost incomprehensible to me. The challenges that had to be overcome in order to bring it to life must have been monumental. But come to life it did, and still does! A triumph of film-making ingenuity and genius, that will live on for many generations to come.

I believe that when one views a film, one should consider the context in which it was made. Barely 10 years after talking pictures were first created; less than that after the first full-length color feature film was created; near the end of the greatest depression this country ever experienced, and in which pretty much the only entertainment available to most was radio or the movies; David O Selznik decided to turn the biggest pot-boiler blockbuster novel into a movie. And what a movie. Stunning color, the most popular mail actor of his time, perfect music score, incredible action scenes, story line only 70 years removed from when it happened, and on, and on. Can you imagine what a store-clerk or a farmer, or a teacher experienced in that world, seeing Gone With the Wind? What was there to compare with? 1939 was a watershed year for great movies, and this one was the greatest produced. Try watching this movie as if there were no TV, no DVD's, only a few radio stations, spending maybe the second to the last quarter you owned, never having seen such a movie before, and you get what I mean. Masterful for its time, and still timeless today.