Discussion in 'TV & Media' started by Kirkman1987, Oct 29, 2012.
It looks beautiful on the DVD and Blu-ray, so I would think it's in pretty good shape.
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.
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.)
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.
It is WAY overrated while a good film to be sure .It is not one of the greatest films ever made.
This is an excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing
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.
Tomorrow is another day. The movie, and the book too if I remember correctly, are quite clear that Scarlett gets Rhett back.
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).
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.
I consider it a perfect film. There is not a single line in it that doesn't serve a purpose and illustrate a character. I've seen it about 7 times on the big screen.
I hate Melanie she needs to kick that milksop to the curb.
I still find Scarlett rather intimidating
Scarlett O'Hara is all about triumph of the will. "I will never go hungry again" and "tomorrow is another day" are parallels, not ironic contrasts. They're the fadeout scenes for a reason.
It's true there is a dramatic irony throughout the whole movie in that Scarlett thinks she's in love with Ashley. So, unlike much (most?) drama ironic readings can at least be contemplated.
But there's never any irony in the movie's infatuation with Scarlett's elemental force. That's what some people love about the character, and why the movie can be so upfront about how truly appalling the character really is. Magnificent bastard, flawed hero, shades of grey, it's a trendy motif, although it's still unusual to apply to a woman. (And more likely therefore to grate, instead of being appreciated.)
The "upfront"ness as you call it never fails to impress.
I know what you mean, although I can't bring myself to ever hate someone with the likeness of Oliva De Havilland
Regarding the appeal of Scarlett as a character and the theme of survival in the story, it's of course important to remember that in the 30's a lot of the audience could relate all too well to the story because of the depression.
Read the book, saw the movie and while Scarlett was not everyone's cup of tea I do believe the actress captured the character better than anyone could have. As to the sequel Scarlett (TV mini-series) Joanne Whalley and Timothy Dalton... Oh Lord love a duck! Mitchell must have been rolling in her grave because that thing went here, there and everywhere. Sadly Ms. Whalley is no Vivian Leigh but much like a train wreck I had to watch it till the end.
What do I think of Gone With the Wind?
Well, I dunno. I suppose I should ask myself how I would feel about a tragic romance focusing on the Nazi guards at a concentration camp during World War II. Since a romance about Confederate slavers is pretty much just as disgusting.
I'm don't think you got the point of the film.
No he understood the film perfectly.
Perhaps that's what the film is about on a superficial level, yes. But as has been demonstrated in the ongoing discussion of this thread, there's clearly more going on than just what you and Sci walked away with.
I'm sure plenty's going on there. I just think none of it matters in the face of the fact that it romanticizes slavers.
Separate names with a comma.