Hello from France. Congratulations on your very good analysis. This film is prodigious in all its aspects, actors, music, sets, costumes etc. Invention of the production designer position for Menzies, a practice adopted by the entire profession since. Tight editing, dramatic use of colors, dazzling dialogues shaking up the ukases of the Hays code. The birth of modern cinema and a wonderful lesson in courage and resilience.
I'm glad to hear that you read the book before seeing the film. I too read the book first which although very long, roughly 1100 pages I believe ( I read it way back in 1997) it's very accessible, immersive and enjoyable. All the actors in the film do their characters justice.
I'm not sure I know what your definition of 'racist' is. Is 'racist' recounting history or does it require bias and obvious prejudice in the telling.? To me it is the latter. I don't see this movie as racist. It does try to portray a time and culture. That's all.
Hattie McDaniel spent the entire Oscar ceremony at the Selznick table, even if she was not under confract. Her "official" table was at the edge of the stage. I am a little surprised that you think there was a lot that couldn't be done in a 1939 film in which a man's face graphically is blown to pulp! The exposition scene with Mammy is for time concerns....after all, we hear Rhett ask Scarlett who the father of her child is before he evades her and she falls to a miscarriage. I think it's edgy for all times.
I do like the film (casting was great), but I contend that the reason the book has remained relevant for so long is due to the existence of the film. For example, let's look at another (modern) version of 'GWTW'--the Thornbirds. This novel is a sweeping and epic as GWTW, and it is filled with real characters and breathtaking events. The difference is that GWTW got a film, and Thornbirds just got a 5 night mini series.
What I would disagree is that if weren't for the popularity of GWTW that minimizes it's impact, that novel is a work of literature, one that is being vindicated by time, whereas, The Thorn Birds was written as most best-sellers are, which is just pulp writing, the same as The Godfather or The Exorcist.
Gone with the Wind is a great work of literature. It can’t be compared to The Thorn Birds!! Not even in the same stratosphere. I like The Thorn Birds, but they’re not comparable. It’s more romance novel, soapy.
Not likable !!?? What about Melanie, Mammy (leading or supporting characters in the film), then Will Benteen, Uncle Peter, Mrs Tarleton and others in the book?? 📕 “The Great Gatsby” is my favorite novel of all time. I just read it a month ago, yet again. I don’t know what you mean about not likable there either.. the Buchanans are the main villains. Nick Carraway is VERY likable and so is Gatsby. He’s tragic but we love him and identify with him in the novel and particularly in the 1974 (Robert Redford) version. Leo di Caprio is a great actor but in that version, he is not very likable. Plays it too “angry” for the Gatz of the book. (Fitzgerald would have hated that Baz Luhrmann mess.)
I understand the controversy about the slaves. The story makes it look like the central characters like Mammy and Pork were content with their status. That might have been true for some closest to their white “bosses”, but i’m sure was not common. In the end this was a story written about a white upper class survivor and told through her lens. A great review. Thanks!
The interminably long dreck by Margaret Mitchell is basically non-stop pro slave propoganda that communicates again and again the fact that black people belonged and slaves and that they furthermore were happier this way. The book is terrible. The film is comparatively good but hopelessly dated and with terrible representations of slaves which didn't at all line up with reality. In other words, dreck.
I always say, I think this story is as successful as it is because Scarlett is an actual antihero, as well as the female lead. I want to be challenged on this, but she's the ONLY female lead antihero in U.S. mainstream film history I can think of. I think people are still way more comfortable with a male antihero than a female. When there is a female antihero, she's either going to be a secondary character, or attain a "heart of gold" by the end of the film. Of course Scarlett never becomes a "good girl". She's pretty realistic in many ways for a story accused of being a "soap opera". Also, this may make you feel a little better about it all, but as someone who's extensively studied the book and film, lots of reference material related to those two, as well as coming from a Southern heritage myself, I can tell you Ashley and Melanie are NOT first cousins. It's not as warped as your take on it. Southern families were huge, and you could have a second, third, fourth, etc. cousin you knew personally who was barely related to you, but still in your social circle. People didn't move around much, and they kept track of complex family ties for generations. In this case, those relatives are referred to as a "cousin", without getting into how distant a cousin they were. That's the kind of "cousin" Ashley and Melanie were.
![เปิดบ้าน นาราเครปกระเทย 1 ไร่ ขายขาดทุนหลัก10ล้าน เอามาใช้หนี้!!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0jz84VFWVP4/mqdefault.jpg)
Hello from France.
Congratulations on your very good analysis.
This film is prodigious in all its aspects, actors, music, sets, costumes etc.
Invention of the production designer position for Menzies, a practice adopted by the entire profession since. Tight editing, dramatic use of colors, dazzling dialogues shaking up the ukases of the Hays code.
The birth of modern cinema and a wonderful lesson in courage and resilience.
I'm glad to hear that you read the book before seeing the film. I too read the book first which although very long, roughly 1100 pages I believe ( I read it way back in 1997) it's very accessible, immersive and enjoyable. All the actors in the film do their characters justice.
I'm not sure I know what your definition of 'racist' is. Is 'racist' recounting history or does it require bias and obvious prejudice in the telling.? To me it is the latter. I don't see this movie as racist. It does try to portray a time and culture. That's all.
Very thoughtful and insightful analysis, giving credit where it’s due for a remarkable cinematic achievement.
Hattie McDaniel spent the entire Oscar ceremony at the Selznick table, even if she was not under confract. Her "official" table was at the edge of the stage.
I am a little surprised that you think there was a lot that couldn't be done in a 1939 film in which a man's face graphically is blown to pulp! The exposition scene with Mammy is for time concerns....after all, we hear Rhett ask Scarlett who the father of her child is before he evades her and she falls to a miscarriage. I think it's edgy for all times.
I do like the film (casting was great), but I contend that the reason the book has remained relevant for so long is due to the existence of the film. For example, let's look at another (modern) version of 'GWTW'--the Thornbirds. This novel is a sweeping and epic as GWTW, and it is filled with real characters and breathtaking events. The difference is that GWTW got a film, and Thornbirds just got a 5 night mini series.
What I would disagree is that if weren't for the popularity of GWTW that minimizes it's impact, that novel is a work of literature, one that is being vindicated by time, whereas, The Thorn Birds was written as most best-sellers are, which is just pulp writing, the same as The Godfather or The Exorcist.
Gone with the Wind is a great work of literature. It can’t be compared to The Thorn Birds!! Not even in the same stratosphere. I like The Thorn Birds, but they’re not comparable. It’s more romance novel, soapy.
Although I'm from India, I really like this movie. Vivien is sooo talented ❤❤
This is a DEAD ON, RIGHT ON Review!!! Absolutely excellent Review of this Phenomenal Film!!
Not likable !!?? What about Melanie, Mammy (leading or supporting characters in the film), then Will Benteen, Uncle Peter, Mrs Tarleton and others in the book?? 📕
“The Great Gatsby” is my favorite novel of all time. I just read it a month ago, yet again. I don’t know what you mean about not likable there either.. the Buchanans are the main villains. Nick Carraway is VERY likable and so is Gatsby. He’s tragic but we love him and identify with him in the novel and particularly in the 1974 (Robert Redford) version. Leo di Caprio is a great actor but in that version, he is not very likable. Plays it too “angry” for the Gatz of the book. (Fitzgerald would have hated that Baz Luhrmann mess.)
Great Review. Yes! Fantastic movie!
I understand the controversy about the slaves. The story makes it look like the central characters like Mammy and Pork were content with their status. That might have been true for some closest to their white “bosses”, but i’m sure was not common. In the end this was a story written about a white upper class survivor and told through her lens. A great review. Thanks!
The interminably long dreck by Margaret Mitchell is basically non-stop pro slave propoganda that communicates again and again the fact that black people belonged and slaves and that they furthermore were happier this way. The book is terrible. The film is comparatively good but hopelessly dated and with terrible representations of slaves which didn't at all line up with reality. In other words, dreck.
GWTW Part visual spectacle, part soap opera. And that's about it. Next
actually, you can do the same thing about just any film, Kurusawas films are basic plots with spectacle!
I always say, I think this story is as successful as it is because Scarlett is an actual antihero, as well as the female lead. I want to be challenged on this, but she's the ONLY female lead antihero in U.S. mainstream film history I can think of.
I think people are still way more comfortable with a male antihero than a female. When there is a female antihero, she's either going to be a secondary character, or attain a "heart of gold" by the end of the film. Of course Scarlett never becomes a "good girl". She's pretty realistic in many ways for a story accused of being a "soap opera".
Also, this may make you feel a little better about it all, but as someone who's extensively studied the book and film, lots of reference material related to those two, as well as coming from a Southern heritage myself, I can tell you Ashley and Melanie are NOT first cousins. It's not as warped as your take on it.
Southern families were huge, and you could have a second, third, fourth, etc. cousin you knew personally who was barely related to you, but still in your social circle. People didn't move around much, and they kept track of complex family ties for generations.
In this case, those relatives are referred to as a "cousin", without getting into how distant a cousin they were. That's the kind of "cousin" Ashley and Melanie were.
This is bull shit
Many more better pictures than this in 1939, I think it was around the 10th best of that year.
That’s laughable.