Gone With The Wind Is the Worst Movie Ever (filmed, theater, scene)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did anyone say Harriet Tubman wasn't a heroine? There are lots of real-life heroines. What's your point? And I believe there have been several movies and many books written about her. She's got Scarlett O'Hara trumped in that department, all right.
It's funny you mention that because that's Tarrantino's next project. Django Unchained is about Jamie Foxx as a former slave turned bounty hunter who gets revenge on a plantation owner...
Aw man! I read some more about this movie and it looks like they've toned down the script a lot. Apparently a Nat Turner movie wasn't very appealing to Hollywood executives.
Here's how I'd do it.
The movie would be set in Charleston, SC in 1822. The movie would be centered around Denmark Vesey. But instead of a slave tipping off the plantation owners to the insurrection, Vesey and his conspirators kill him first, and then the insurrection succeeds! You would have a scene similar to the one in Gangs of New York where the wealthy are sitting down for dinner to enjoy the shrimp and grits prepared by Mammy and then all of a sudden slaves explode through their window. The rebellion spreads throughout Charleston, and as other plantations get word, they overtake their plantations and start militias.
Without anyone's knowledge, Vesey had been working with the British during the War of 1812 to arrange for military reinforcements. So as soon as the slave rebellion breaks out, the British hit the shores and set fire to Boston. The United States ends up being under the control of the Crown again. End of story.
The book was written about one person's viewpoint of the South and Civil War at the time it occurred. I wonder how many people posting here today keep a journal of their lives, to show not only what life was/is like for them, in their particular time and interpretation, not to weave in other peoples' interpretations - or to cater to the current politically correct crowd. Scarlett in her time was an anomaly; she did things that "no decent Southern woman would do!" in other words, she didn't starve herself to death in genteel poverty, but got off of her bustle and made something of herself, the only way she knew how. Then, that sort of independent thought and action was strictly forbidden from women.
The movie was a huge success not only because of the popular actors of the time, but because of the overwhelmingly passionate and brilliant cinematography that went into it. For the time, it was impressive. For years, the "Burning of Atlanta" was heralded as the height of dramatic photography.
Like Harry Chickpea, I too have seen the hapless helpless Melanies, secure in their own do-goodism, and self-righteousness, always dependent on someone who is willing to plow and work with their own hands, getting dirty and even doing murder, to keep the family and the dependent, clinging Melanies alive.
Of course, what sort of intelligent, conversant, and studious perspective can you expect from those who are raised on the deeply interpretative values of "Dumb and Dumber" and "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"?
The failures of interpretation lie, not within the stars, but the selves.
What if Mammy just kept tightening Scarlett's corset during this scene until she died of asphyxiation? It would have been awesome! It would have served Scarlett right because (1) she was an a-hole and (2) she was a slave-owning a-hole on top of it.
What if Mammy just kept tightening Scarlett's corset during this scene until she died of asphyxiation? It would have been awesome! It would have served Scarlett right because (1) she was an a-hole and (2) she was a slave-owning a-hole on top of it.
Of course Scarlett is an anti-hero heroine. She wasn't supposed to be likable, or particularly admired.
Skip all the current day PC BS and strip the movie down to core plotline themes. Melanie lives in a fantasy world where everything is wonderful and everyone around her is wonderful. To the extent that she attaches to someone who is successful (Scarlett), she survives. Scarlett rescues her, Scarlett feeds her, Scarlett gives her life context. Scarlett is a greedy manipulative narcissist who takes advantage of people and situations. Rhett lives his own macho semi-military fantasy, but understands and generally likes the people he takes advantage of. Prissy is the idiot employee. Ashley is the nebbish who gets battered around by the wind. There are plenty more underlying characterizations, but those are the primary character motivators.
Every single one of those types of people are alive today, and you will run into them in daily life. Prissy was a rocket scientist compared to some people I have employed. Most politicians are like Rhett, Scarlett, or a combination thereof. Probably 50% of the public in the U.S. wander around in a Melanie-like fabricated world of their own, purposely closing their ears and eyes to anything troubling to them, and dependent on the Scarlett types to keep them alive and feed them.
The film is in large part a social commentary. It reflects the world and gives you a chance to learn about parts of it. The world is but a stage...
Are there problems with the film? Of course. Was it hyped by Hollywood? Of course. Does it have stereotyping and racism? Of course. Is the underlying theme more important than those shortcomings? Of course.
Your distaste for the film reflects something that I have been afraid would happen because of the way Hollywood makes movies. The use of the Hayes code and successor unwritten codes have turned people to expecting that all plots will turn out well in the end, that the protagonists are always heroes or heroines, and that all criminals will get their just end.
Life is NOT that way. The greedy and narcissistic DO make it to the top. Some criminals get off scot free. People trounce on each other and scramble for whatever they think has value. GWTW was important NOT because of the use of "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn." and the continuing censorship of that word and others that allow the Melanie fantasists to live in bliss, but because it dared to break out of the idea that "Miss Scarlett" had to be a perfect lady.
You are railing because "Dick and Jane" did more than "Run Dick Run, see the bad guys chase Dick" (a la Forest Gump), but had more complexity of character and more darkside than in the other kindergarten quality film "product" that you are used to seeing.
A LOT of good films are troubling and even hard to watch. Some of them are simply unfathomable to a large segment of the population without the guidance of film buffs and critics.
Exactly. Scarlett is the one or so in ten who survive well when the world collases. Melanie and Ashley would be dead without her. Frank would have made it but like you said, Melanie and Ashley were still living in the past. Scarlett had let go of it. Much of the cast were trying to find a middle ground, clinging to what was gone and yet trudging unhappily through the new mean world around them.
Survivors are often not liked much by anyone. But they are necessary. Sometimes they are the ones who point the way out of the shipwreck to the people who are so scared their minds have stalled. She makes the family work the farm since nobody else is going to. She doesn't even see that they feel this keen social cost since she doesn't. She looks ahead, they look back. But she also keeps her promises. So some of the family lives that wouldn't have.
The book is well worth a read, since it has so much more to it. I wish her first son, the boy born of the marriage to the sisters boyfriend who never ever knew anything but war and poverty as a small child. He's the counter to the last child who was pampered to make up for all that was lost. That is part of the theme, survival costs you something, and sometimes the cost is huge.
Set the story with a group of wealthy Poles in the 40's (not Jewish) and repeat the characters and it would play out the same because it would be the same story.
I like books and movies where the end is realistic instead of fairytales.
Scarlett O'Hara was a crazy, conceited, conniving, sociopathic beeyotch. And she serves as the movie's protagonist?
Most credible literary/movie analysts would say Scarlett is the definitive example of an anti-hero. The reader is not supposed to identify with and adore her, but to view her struggles and her many vices and see her as a complex character. She has many strengths and weaknesses, and was played perfectly by Vivien Leigh.
Quote:
Was this movie such a hit because it engendered nostalgia in 1930s white southerners for the "good ole days?"
That is just beyond ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by auntieannie68
for it's time it was one of the most intricately produced film----the 2 main actors were popular in hollywood and as today popularity does not always equal being good at the craft----as for me i loved it as it appealed to my inner desire to be a southern lady(AVIDLY READ AS MANY SOUTHERN ORIENTED BOOKS AS I COULD SINCE I WAS 10)
False. Clark Gable was a huge star but Vivien Leigh was an unknown. In fact, her casting created some controversy as some people felt a British actress should not be portraying a "southern belle".
You're applying revisionist ideology on an age where things happened a certain way.
Who cares? Do you think slaves enjoyed picking cotton because it just "happened that certain way?" That didn't mean that slaves didn't fantasize about busting a cap in their slave masters. And could you blame them? Such a movie would not be any different from Inglorious Basterds (also revisionist). I'm sure a slave revenge movie would do well at the box office.
Where did anyone say that slaves enjoyed being slaves? You're being revisionist in that you're taking a movie that was made in 1939 by a major studio based on a book written in 1936 and expecting it to have the same historical context and standards as a movie put out today. It was a product of its time. Because it's not the movie you want it to be doesn't make it inherently terrible, it only means you don't like it.
Who cares? Do you think slaves enjoyed picking cotton because it just "happened that certain way?" That didn't mean that slaves didn't fantasize about busting a cap in their slave masters. And could you blame them? Such a movie would not be any different from Inglorious Basterds (also revisionist). I'm sure a slave revenge movie would do well at the box office.
I thought Quentin was making one with Jamie Foxx and Dicaprio. You can have your revisionist revenge orgasm in a few months
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
