Gone With The Wind - my thoughts
 

Gone With The Wind (1939): 4.5-5/5

Absolutely amazing film :eek: :)

First thing is its loooong (as long as one of the LOTR EE's) but that didnt matter, it didnt feel like it. :)
I didnt think I'd like it as I'm not used to seeing old classics, but its' a great story, as the title card says "Margaret Mitchell's Story of the Old South" (US Civil War). Its the story of a self-centered Southern girl named Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh).

I'm pretty sure I got the new remastered/restored version from cd-wow rentals (even though its a flipper?) - the picture quality is jaw dropping. Seriously, it looks like it was shot yesterday with rich and vibrant colours. Its that good. If I didnt, I was still more than pleased with it.

How Clark Gable didnt win the Best Actor Oscar for this film I'll never know. My sympathies also seemed to go one way then the other for Scarlett (Vivien Leigh, who sure looks lovely here), one minute a spoilt rich brat (IMO) who messes about with mens feelings, then a compassionate person. Perhaps playboy Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) is an anti-hero too.
The film is extremely emotional in places. :(

Originally, he didnt want to play the part, because Scarlett doesnt always love him. He once said "Thats the only picture I ever did in which the girl wasnt sure she wanted me the minute she saw me".

What do you think of Margaret Mitchell's portrayal of the "Southern Gentlemen" and how they gallantly went to war to keep other human beings slaves?

Absolutely terrific.

It's a terrific movie and the transfer to dvd is outstanding. The first time I ever saw this movie was in theaters about 10 years ago. Leigh won the Best Actress Oscar and Gable should have won Best Actor. But I say the most outstanding performance was by Hattie McDaniel who played the nanny and won Best Supporting Actress.

...and this has to do with the DVD, how?

Seeing this appear immediately after Rad14's post is a little disturbing. (I'm assuming, of curse, that Doniphon isn't really replying to Rad14's question.)

My question had absolutely nothing to do with the dvd, picture/sound or otherwise. In these departments, I agree the movie looks like it was made yesterday -absolutely stunning. The overall acting is also fantastic, with Leigh infusing the otherwise spoilt, selfish southern belle with an almost, dare I say it, endearing quality. By the finale, we really do care about her and her plight. Clark Gable is THE Rhett Butler, anyone else is unthinkable.

(BTW in that fantastic cinema year of 1939, it was Robert Donat who scooped the Best Actor Oscar for Goodbye Mr. Chips. Anyone who has seen his performance in that film will understand immediately why he won it).


The original poster called his thread, "Gone With The Wind - My thoughts". He then goes on to talk about what he thought of the film. In this vein then, I was simply asking what he thought about the way Margaret Mitchell portrayed her "Cavaliers" as "southern gentlemen" who gaily went off to war. After all, what were these "gentlemen" fighting for? To ensure the continuation of their prosperity gleaned from the hardship and barbarity they inflicted on Negroes.

I'm afraid I don't see the gallantry or southern hospitality in that.

As a colourful, well-acted and entertaining movie, GWTW is in a class of its own. However, the politics at its core are dubious to say the least. Compare these issues say with the portrayal of the same historical period in the TV miniseries ROOTS and I think you'll understand what I am getting at.

Surely I'm not the only person on these boards that feels this way?

I agree about Scarlett being mean and self-centred, but if we feel something for her at the end thats a sign of a well written character - neither Butler nor Scarlett are whiter than white though Butler is more of a suave rogue, (IMO).

She and the others were on the side of the Cavaliers/Rebels right? :) Though Scarlett doesnt like the aspect of war with men dying (witness the scene in the hospital).
I dont know that much about the US Civil War. BTW I thought the acting of the people who played the servants was fine - one poster on another board said he didnt like the way the servants are treated in the film. Consider when the film was made and when its set - in the South in the 1800's (so isnt that close to how they would of been treated then?) - Scarlett's father calls the black people "darkies" (though that sounds awful now he doesnt mean to be insulting).
Of course we cant condone it, that doesnt mean we should sweep aspects of history under the carpet.

The woman who played Scarlett's mother was good too - amazingly she was only 3 years older than Vivien Leigh in 1939 (Leigh was 25, the other woman was 28).

Hattie McDaniel (The nanny) was the first black woman to win an Oscar.
Amazing to think it took another 63 years for Halle Berry to to win Best Actress, the first black woman to do so.

You didn't get the latest version, unless they made a special DVD-18 version just for rentals with only the film (although I seriously doubt this). The latest one that came out last year is a 4-disc set with the film on two dual-layer discs. If you decide to buy it, please do get the 4-disc version. If you thought the disc you rented looked good, you ain't seen nuthin' yet. :)

Edit: I just noticed you're in England. I don't know what the situation is there with the newer version.

Oh, we got it here as well; in fact if grim-tales wants to get his hands on it dirt cheap, I suggest he goes here.

grim_tales said

Consider when the film was made and when its set - in the South in the 1800's (so isnt that close to how they would of been treated then?)

Actually, with rape, castration, lynchings, whippings, murder, starvation and forced labour they were treated far worse! But of course, in 1939 unpleasant things like this could never be depicted in movies.

Of course we cant condone it, that doesnt mean we should sweep aspects of history under the carpet.

That's my very point. GWTW does sweep these aspects under the carpet, instead showing a white man's stereotype of what he thinks a happy negro in 1862 was like.

So we have Mammy portrayed as a kind of clown figure to make us laugh. Prissy - obviously a dimwit, if not completely retarded. Pork, the man servant - at a loss when having to make a decision on his own. Big Joe, the foreman - childlike in his speech patterns, who can't wait to dig ditches for the South (the very people who are keeping him a slave!) and so on.

Amazing to think it took another 63 years for Halle Berry to win Best Actress, the first black woman to do so.

I don't think that's amazing at all! Actually, rather a predictable sign of the sad times we live in.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, the foreman was actually called "Big Sam" :eek:

It's a brilliant film on every level - but discussing the dark undercurrents of the slavery issue do very much belong in any discussion of Gone With The Wind. They're inseparable.

If you're interested, I'm particularly proud of my review of the special edition for DVDTalk. I think I took the time to really discuss a lot of different aspects of this great film.

Great Review Gil. I enjoyed your reflections immensely and as you said:

But the slave experience as portrayed in the film is a mix of Hollywood hooey and minstrel-show mugging with some fine performances and character details mixed in.

I couldn't agree more.

A great classic then. Tremendous entertainment. Wonderful, unforgettable characters and miraculous scenes. But IMHO, it does not do justice in its depiction of negroes and the REAL, and horrifying suffering they endured throughout those tumultuous years, at the hands of the so-called "gallant southern gentlemen" who proudly rode out on their noble cause.

(BTW, I am neither a negro nor an American. I just can't stand to see injustice in whatever medium it rears its ugly head).

Thanks for the comments.

The thing that's interesting to me about the film's racial element is that in a way, it's almost MORE fitting that they sort of soft-pedal slavery than if the film were some sort of social exploration. Gone With The Wind is American, through and through. And the way it treats race is classic American weirdness. Sort of trying to ignore what's bad and put a positive spin on things. Giving the film the gloss that the characters themselves bought into, not to make a point, but because the whole fabric of the film somehow buys it too. For the intelligent viewer, this actually deepens the viewing experience of this particular film. I'm not saying that Amistad should take that tactic, but for GWTW it all goes into the turbulent, bizarre, grandoise mess of greatness and misery that makes the film so unique. It's crazy that a film where so much was done so perfectly on purpose could also have this seriously fucked up side that is ill-conceived and outdated. I've seen it quite a few times and I feel like I find more to think about each time.

The reason that I mentioned Birth of a Nation in the review is that that's the other "most important" film in the first half of the medium's existance and it too is about the Civil War, which tells you something about the importance of that war and slavery to America. But Birth of a Nation is SO viciously racist that it's almost difficult to pick out why it was cinematically important anymore. You want to think "Wow, the editing is so groundbreaking, the battles are so epic," but instead you spend a lot of the time just going "ewwww..." GWTW transcends that, but not 100%. It's very interesting that way.

The southern gentlemen weren't fighting for slavery any more than the northern men were fighting against it. Ulysses S. Grant said, "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side". Yet Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson both thought slavery to be evil. In James McPherson's 1997 "For Cause and Comrades", he analyzes primary sources to see why ordinary men, both northern and southern, fought. His conclusions are that 2/3rds of all the men, northern and souther fought for patriotrism. All of the men were probably racists. I have no more respect for the northern fighting man than the southern fighting man. I doubt either really cared about what his side was fighting for.

Finally, some good sense on the issue.

Exactly. Most of the Southerners who fought in the Civil War were not slave owners. You had to be rich and probably operating a large-scale plantation or factory to be a slave owner. The morals and social values of the 1860's do not correlate to those of today. By today's standards, Abraham Lincoln would probably be considered a bit of a racist. Maybe he was against slavery and believed blacks were human beings with God-given rights, but I doubt he would have considered dating a black woman, for instance. The Civil War was not fought specifically over the issue of slavery; that is a fallacy perpetuated by modern education. It was about one part of the country wanting to separate and form their own nation, and the other wanting to preserve the union. Slavery was just one of many issues dividing the North and South. And for the record, a lot of blacks chose to fight on the side of the South. So the depiction of, say, Big Joe is not so much of an exaggeration in that light. Obviously GWTW is blissfully ignoring the harsh realities of slavery, but the film (and book) are not about that per se. They're more concerned with the death of the Old South, which despite the ugly sore that was slavery, did have its merits beyond that. There was a certain gallantry and elegance that existed which was lost with the advent of the Civil War. Slavery will always taint that picture, but it doesn't mean that there was nothing of value in that society. GWTW is just lamenting the loss of those values through the ugliness of the Civil War. It was never intended to be a realistic in-depth look at the Old South and the politics and social values underpinning the Civil War. Many Southern men were gallant. Some of them may have also been tremendous hypocrites, and certainly naive, but that's part of what GWTW really captures the essence of so well: (Naive) gallantry and bravado being crushed in the face of the reality of a bloody war and a decimated South. If Margaret Mitchell was concerned with depicting the realities of the South, she would have written an expose not an epic romance.

But the movie in question is largely about slave owners.

The movie is not about their role as slave owners. They are not one-dimensional characters. They have many concerns and the movie is focusing on some of them moreso than others. I'm sure Scarlett is saddened to see her family's forced labor supply eliminated, but she's more concerned with the loss of her family's land, her unrequited love for Ashley, the burden of having to assume responsibility for her family's security and future (i.e. being forced to grow up faster than she'd like), and watching the world she's known all her life be violently destroyed and supplanted. By your logic we should complain more about The Godfather for not spending more time focusing on the perils of the average Americans victimized by organized crime. The story is not about that. It's focused on a particular aspect, not the entire broad picture. Is GWTW at times overly idealistic in its portrayal? Yes. Some of that is deliberately metaphorical and some just springs from the author and fillmmakers biases/sentimentality. Are there some anachronisms present? Certainly. But it's not purporting to be a full historical account of the Old South and its eventual death during the Civil War. You have to take it for what it is.

Btw, shouldn't this thread be in the Movie Talk forum?

The DVD I got wasnt the new SE, but the previous DVD-10 version released in England. That still looked very good.
Did anyone else find Scarlett really annoying? A bratty, spoilt character who seems to burst into tears every time she doesnt get her own way :rolleyes:
I think we're supposed to feel that way though - Scarlett is 16 (I think) at the beginning of the film.

When talking about Halle Berry winning Best Actress for Monsters Ball, I didnt mean amazing (that it took so long) in a positive way, in fact the opposite.

I know GWTW features caricatures (sp?) of the servants in terms of how they act, what I meant was does it rose-tint how theyre treated in the house?
Consider Scarletts father tells her not to treat the servants badly.

It's too old, i don't like it.

I wouldnt not watch a film simply "because" its old.

Most of the 2nd part of the film is very emotional - with tragedy on tragedy that are just built up. :(

:(

What do you think?

To not watch any movie for this reason is ridiculous. -ohbfrank-

Of course it does!

They must have seen it before making that judgement though surely? :) I agree BTW.

Just wanted to point out that in the new 4 disc set that the documentary and extras are outstanding. Seeing the premieres filmed in Atlanta gave me a perspective on this movie that I never actually had before. The restoration and making of it had some great little tidbits are fabulous and rich in history all on there own.

I also think it is hard to separate the slavery from the film, but then again, having been removed from that slice of history by 100+ years it just doesn't bother me as much. I don't think the film is a celebration of slavery or slave owners. I think the story just takes place during that place in time and history. To not have slaves in the film would make it less authentic somehow and although the blacks are portrayed as caricatures, it would be even lamer if they were portrayed as educated thespians or the like. A lot of slaves were uneducated, that's history. I'm not defending it, but sometimes people need to let the past go instead of dwelling on it and enjoy the film.

No body is suggesting that the film is "celebrating" slavery or slave owners. And to not have slaves in the film would have been ridiculous. To have had them portrayed as "educated thespians" would have been laughable. Of course they were uneducated, because white people ensured they wouldn't be educated!

I think what we are trying to get at here is that in GWTW it is simply not an honest portrayal of their lives. Okay, you can use the argument that in 1939 they couldn't show anything too brutal, I accept that. But good movie directors have always been excellent at "implying" brutality, without actually shoving it in your face!

When you say, "sometimes people need to let the past go instead of dwelling on it and enjoy the film" I wonder is that how negroes feel about GWTW? and the past?

Should they just forget about it and enjoy the film? :eek:

It may be not be honest but it makes us talk about the film and what we've seen.

There are a couple of scenes that show brutality without actually showing it, though not to the slaves. There's the bit when the soldier is about to get his leg amputated and we hear him screaming "Don't cut.. don't cut!" :(

The look on Scarlett's face makes that scene excruciating. In many ways it's a brutal and honest film. The treatment of slavery in it is dishonest. I would imagine that many black viewers would be unable to look past it and I understand that. The film is drenched in it (it's not a momentary subplot that's easily forgotten) and the entire thing is colored by those interactions. (Read the review I linked above if you haven't already)

In short, yes. The past is the past. Learn from it and move on. Don't harbor a destructive hatred for wrongs of the past. Especially don't hold it over contemporaries that had nothing to do with it. If I'm African American I could bare just as big a grudge against the africans who sold me into slavery from the continent.

This would be akin to the Irish hating the British today for the potato famine. Or the British hating the Romans today for years of invasion or suffering hundreds of years ago. Do you hold current day Germans accountable for the Nazi's of the 30's and 40's? Do you get mad at German people when a film about nazis comes out trying to explain why that horrible event happened? On and on and on. It's history.

I agree with your first sentiments - the movie is a movie - it is not an honest portrayal of their lives. Neither is Braveheart or even 'Rome' on HBO. It's entertainment. In this case, I don't think there was anything evil intended so I don't see why you raise the point you do.

I have read your review BTW Gil, and its excellent :)
You make a good point Kerborus. I know its a different sort of film, but the movie "Fist of Fury" (The Chinese Connection) was extremely popular in Japan despite its obvious anti-Japanese sentiment. Japanese of 1972 and the Japanese of today are able to watch it knowing it refers not to "all" Japanese but the particular right-wing people who occupied Shanghai and HK in the 1930's and 40's.

As a Black woman GWTW is one of my favorite movies and a favorite book. It is just a movie about a selfesh woman that happens to take place during that time frame. It is not about Slavery ! And as how I feel about the past it was a shameful time in our history but not the first and not the last, look how the Japanese were treated during WW2 but they do not let that stop them. I think that people use slavery as a crutch and it is not.

I raise the point because although there may not have been anything evil intended when they made the film, the slave part of it (and let's face it, it's a pretty big part) is totally distorted and gives the impression that negroes (who where either clowns, idiots or childlike) where quite happy to live under the whim of white men, and go singing happily off to work!
Why then wasn't the truth shown? or even "off screen"?

As for "especially don't hold it over contemporaries that had nothing to do with it" I never suggested any such thing! and let me make this absolutely clear: I do not hold southern people today guilty for the inhumanity of their forbears at all, or the Germans or anyone else in contemporary times!

Of course movies are famous for not "showing the truth". You mention Braveheart and Rome as examples, and I could mention plenty more, but this is GWTW, the supposedly biggest movie of an era, taken from a best-selling tome, that took years to make and endless studio resources, countless technicians, directors, actors etc, (you get the message) and was reputedly "a story of The Old South". Why then was this most horrendous of episodes, not simply ignored, but distorted beyond belief?

As I mentioned earlier, I am not a Negro, but if I was, I would consider the slave issue in GWTW, at best, a distortion of the truth. But in reality a gross insult to an entire people.

I would guess the truth about slavery wasn't shown because it's not a movie about slavery. Just like Tara isn't a real southern plantation because it's not a movie about southern architecture. The treatment of the wounded isn't accurate because it's not about 19th century medicine. Rhett and Scarlet aren't real because it isn't a movie about a real historical couple.

Why do you keep concentrating on what the movie isn't about?

You might want to use a different term than "negro." In a historical sense, it's proper, since that is what blacks were referred to as during that time period. Today, it's a bit uncomely. While not exactly a pejorative term like the other "N word," I know a lot of people who would take it that way.

I apologise profusely for any offence

I certainly do not wish to insult anyone, least of all blacks! Where I come from, we are not aware that the other term is offensive, in fact quite the opposite.
However, I apologise sincerely for any offence given, if that is indeed the case.

I will not be taking any further part in this discussion as it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. These were simply my views on the subject and I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's nest.

Peace :)

I'm trying to figure out how people born in the 1970s or 1980s can be so knowledgeable about a problem that was abolished in the 1860s.