Gone With The Wind- What do you think of it?

[CorporalCaptain]

Harvey wrote:

---

It's an over-long movie that views the south under slavery as something to long for, and the free south under reconstruction something to hate. It's hard to ignore the racism in the fundamental premise.

While it's true that the characters view the Old South as something to long for, I really don't think that that's the point of the movie (I've not read the book, which I understand is considerably more complicated). The main characters are all, in some way or another, tragically flawed. I believe that their flaws are intended to be reflections of flaws in Southern civilization, and that the film is a critique of Southern civilization, thinly disguised as a glorification of it.

[Gov Kodos]

Harvey wrote:

---

It's an over-long movie that views the south under slavery as something to long for, and the free south under reconstruction something to hate. It's hard to ignore the racism in the fundamental premise.

Having said that, Rhett Butler is an iconic character who (along with Bogie in Casablanca) has served as the model for cinematic rogues for nearly a century. The film has also sold more tickets at the box office than any other movie. I may despise it, but historically, it's a movie that cannot be ignored.

Pretty much this.

Additionally for myself, Scarlet is incredibly annoying with very little in the way of redeeming features. She is best described as a spider, she feeds off of everyone else in the film in a grand air of entitlement and has no real change even at the end. Rhett's final line underlines that when he finally realizes he needs to get himself out of dealing with her. Ashley, though, is equally as annoying as he is completely spineless and useless. The film just grates from beginning to end, and while possessing fine acting and a lot of memorable and funny moments, is overall unwatchable for me apart from Rhett.

[Harvey]

Conscious Circuits wrote:

---

While it's true that the characters view the Old South as something to long for, I really don't think that that's the point of the movie (I've not read the book, which I understand is considerably more complicated).

It's been about a year since I saw the film (theatrically, where there is no escape via the pause button), but what I remember suggests otherwise. The scene with the Union soldier is indicative of the movie's attitudes, no?

[doubleohfive]

Harvey wrote:

---

It's been about a year since I saw the film (theatrically, where there is no escape via the pause button), but what I remember suggests otherwise. The scene with the Union soldier is indicative of the movie's attitudes, no?

Were you at that screening at the Egyptian too?

I'm certainly aware enough and well-versed in cinema (I think) that I can see why people don't like it, but from a filmmaking perspective, (setting aside its status as a movie classic), I regard it much the same way I do Titanic - a filmmaking feat and a movie I greatly enjoy.

My mom is a huge fan of it as well though, so part of my own appreciation for it probably stems from the many times I'd watch it with her whenever it was on TV when I was growing up.

[Harvey]

Happily, I saw it for free, at UCLA. Despite being a new print, it looked rather washed out. I wonder what shape the negatives are in?

[Kirkman1987]

Harvey wrote:

---

Happily, I saw it for free, at UCLA. Despite being a new print, it looked rather washed out. I wonder what shape the negatives are in?

It looks beautiful on the DVD and Blu-ray, so I would think it's in pretty good shape.

[doubleohfive]

We saw a digital print at the Egyptian and it looked pretty good. But I've also never been one to really nitpick when it comes to these things - I can happily watch a digital print even if I'd prefer a 35mm or 70mm showing that is less than stellar.

[Harvey]

I'm not usually bothered by prints being in less than pristine condition; studios are loaning them out more infrequently, and many that are in circulation have been played to death. This, however, was talked up as a brand new print that had been struck (by the Academy, I think) and I was surprised by the state it was in. If the home video releases are in good shape, though, that suggests this was just a bad job, and not a problem with the negatives.

(Which, despite my feelings for the film, I'd like to see preserved.)

[CorporalCaptain]

Harvey wrote:

---

It's been about a year since I saw the film (theatrically, where there is no escape via the pause button), but what I remember suggests otherwise. The scene with the Union soldier is indicative of the movie's attitudes, no?

Well, it's a long movie, and there are many, many episodes and instances within it. I don't believe that there is a single scene which summarizes the whole film. There are many nuances, and I believe that one needs to keep in mind that the characters generally all view things from a certain, Southern, perspective.

One example of what I mean comes pretty early in the film, when the gentlemen are discussing the coming war in the study at Twelve Oaks. Most of the gentlemen are for the war, and only Rhett Butler voices anything like opposition. This is an example of the flaw of foolish pride leading the South to disaster. If the movie has a position on the war, then I believe it is most probably Rhett's, and therefore the film is ultimately anti-war. That is to say, the film's position is that the South made a grave error.

In Scarlett there are many flaws. She is selfish and spoiled. Things tend to go her way best when she is willing to get her hands dirty by getting involved and doing things for herself directly, contrary to her upbringing. For example, she has to deliver Melanie's baby herself, and she has to become head of the household at Tara. Of course, she gets literally dirty hands in one of the most famous scenes at the radish garden, when she swears she'll never be hungry again.

When she kills the union soldier, who was there to rape her and steal from all of them, her character arc is at about the polar opposite of where she was to begin with. She is no longer a helpless belle. Things tend to go bad for Scarlett personally when she returns back to delegating responsibility. For example, IMO, Bonnie's death while jumping on horseback can be traced to her negligence. All of this tends to point to the position that Scarlett's upbringing made her ill-equipped to face reality, and it was only when she went against her upbringing that her situation improved.

[Kira Nerys]

It is WAY overrated while a good film to be sure .It is not one of the greatest films ever made.

[doubleohfive]

Conscious Circuits wrote:

---

Well, it's a long movie, and there are many, many episodes and instances within it. I don't believe that there is a single scene which summarizes the whole film. There are many nuances, and I believe that one needs to keep in mind that the characters generally all view things from a certain, Southern, perspective.

One example of what I mean comes pretty early in the film, when the gentlemen are discussing the coming war in the study at Twelve Oaks. Most of the gentlemen are for the war, and only Rhett Butler voices anything like opposition. This is an example of the flaw of foolish pride leading the South to disaster. If the movie has a position on the war, then I believe it is most probably Rhett's, and therefore the film is ultimately anti-war. That is to say, the film's position is that the South made a grave error.

In Scarlett there are many flaws. She is selfish and spoiled. Things tend to go her way best when she is willing to get her hands dirty by getting involved and doing things for herself directly, contrary to her upbringing. For example, she has to deliver Melanie's baby herself, and she has to become head of the household at Tara. Of course, she gets literally dirty hands in one of the most famous scenes at the radish garden, when she swears she'll never be hungry again.

When she kills the union soldier, who was there to rape her and steal from all of them, her character arc is at about the polar opposite of where she was to begin with. She is no longer a helpless belle. Things tend to go bad for Scarlett personally when she returns back to delegating responsibility. For example, IMO, Bonnie's death while jumping on horseback can be traced to her negligence. All of this tends to point to the position that Scarlett's upbringing made her ill-equipped to face reality, and it was only when she went against her upbringing that her situation improved.

This is an excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing

[Temis the Vorta]

Conscious Circuits wrote:

---

While it's true that the characters view the Old South as something to long for, I really don't think that that's the point of the movie (I've not read the book, which I understand is considerably more complicated). The main characters are all, in some way or another, tragically flawed. I believe that their flaws are intended to be reflections of flaws in Southern civilization, and that the film is a critique of Southern civilization, thinly disguised as a glorification of it.

Having both read the book and seen the movie, my attitude is that regardless of what Margaret Mitchell may have intended, Rhett Butler is the point-of-view character. Scarlett is the main character, true, but she's too clueless to really sympathize with. Rhett was the only one who didn't seem like some kind of antique dolt.

Rhett is the sole modern person stuck in a society of troglodytes. He is cynical towards the Confederacy from the start and doesn't for a moment believe they will win. He doesn't seem particularly racist by the standards of his time and has enough insight, for example, to respect Mammy's opinion (and he's not a guy who respects many people's opinion.)

The happy ending is when he FINALLY kicks Scarlett to the curb and liberates himself. I like to envision him living into the 20th Century and getting a taste of history catching up to him.

[stj]

Tomorrow is another day. The movie, and the book too if I remember correctly, are quite clear that Scarlett gets Rhett back.

[Harvey]

It hardly seems clear to me. "Tomorrow is another day" leaves open that possibility, but doesn't suggest that it is a forgone conclusion. If anything, Rhett's iconic departure into the fog suggests that Scarlett is being delusional in her final dialogue (which might be voice over; I can't remember).

[Orac Zen]

While it's pleasant to look at and Max Steiner's score is marvellous (nothing unusual there), it is, IMO, Citizen Kane's only serious competition for the title of most overrated and over-praised movie ever made. It's too long, too melodramatic, some of the acting is awful (it's the only Leslie Howard performance I've seen that I cannot stand), Scarlett is an appalling character, and even allowing for its being a product of its time the attitude to race is one I find difficult to stomach.

I get why it appeals to people but it doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. As in all things, to each their own.