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.
Man, two paragraphs into that rant/review and I just stopped.
Gone with the Wind is soap opera cheese but it's also one of the best movies of all time in terms of acting, cinematography, costume, design and everything else. That's why it's so beloved.
It had many iconic scenes and great sequences--the burning of Atlanta and that amazing shot that pulls back to reveal how many injured soldiers there were after the Battle of Atlanta. If you at all care about the art of film making, you will understand why this is an amazingly shot scene and why it was stuff like this that put Gone with the Wind on the map:
GWTW had some amazing acting. I can never know why Hattie McDaniel won Best Supporting Actress but I'm convinced it was this scene that earned her the Oscar. I can watch it over and over again and never get tired of it:
Lastly, GWTW was a movie that touched on various themes that made for "fun" viewing--fall from grace, hitting rock bottom but then picking yourself up again, the scheming gold digger, taming of the shrew and the jerk finally getting his (or her comeuppance). Rhett Butler telling Scarlett off is probably one of the most satisfying scenes ever filmed. Again, it was stuff like this that made GWTW the iconic film that it became.
I know we're in the age of political correctness where we're supposed to "entertain" everyone's opinion and be diplomatic but to me, the blogger who ranted doesn't understand cinema. It's as simple as that.
And this blogger also is someone who lives in a black and white world. The thing about GWTW is that it exists in shades of gray. Scarlett O'Hara is an anti-heroine. She's scheming and contemptible, and the movie knows it. Yet at the same, she's admirable because of her level of resolve and resilience. Plus, she's relatable because she experiences tragedies that most people have experienced to some degree or the other. This blogger seems to think that because Scarlett had some redeemable traits, this meant that the movie was condoning her bad traits as well. No. Scarlett is both a wretch that you love to hate and a admirable, gutsy heroine. You're supposed to root for her and root against her. The movie is not glorifying her scheming ways just because it also makes her heroic at times.
Man, two paragraphs into that rant/review and I just stopped.
Well, I read the whole thing. As long as one doesn't know anything about cinematography, character development, story arcs, or a host of other things, then that guy's opinion might be valid.
Your screen name may be an indication why you disliked the movie.....
As a southern woman, I've loved this movie for years.
I agree; when the movie came to a local theatre my mother (born and raised in the south) took my sister and I to see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fleetiebelle
GWTW was the Titanic of its day. It was epic, well-made, and hugely popular. I don't think an unlikeable character or historic inaccuracy necessarily make this movie, or any other movie terrible. It's a product of its time.
This, I can also agree with. If we only watched movies with 100% historical accuracy there may not be many films worth watching.
I may be wrong here, but I think part of the problem when someone thinks that GWTW (or any number of other classic films) are so bad is a lack of understanding that movies/television and music are all evolutionary in nature. You don't just go from Stephen Foster to Beyonce; it took many small evolutions in between to get to where we are now. To really understand it, you have to look at superstars of each era to see how they changed the norm. In music it was people like Al Jolson, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra. In films it is much the same. I like old films and watch many on TCM and have my own collection. There are times that I might watch a film from the 1936-1938 period (which is only a decade after talkies first started) and think how primitive they seem. And then, all of a sudden along comes 1939 with a number of truly classic films, including "Gone With The Wind" and "The Wizard Of Oz", with a quality of color film that had not been accomplished previously and with budgets that were highly unusual for the time (2-4 times the norm). Watch one of the great films from just 2 years earlier -- "Lost Horizon" -- and compare it to the polished production of GWTW. GWTW set a new expectation for quality production of films, and industry took a big step forward and grew up because of that film.
As to the direction of the film and acting in the film, the film accurately portrays the "Lost Cause Of The Confederacy" philosophy, as outlined by Margaret Mitchell in her book. Were southern belles really that delicate...no. Was the philosophy of the war for Southerners that noble...no. Were slaves treated that well...no. But that is how the Lost Cause of Confederacy philosophy chose to paint the picture.
I never liked Vivien Leigh as an actress...except in this film. I think it was a demanding role. Clark Gable was considered "The King" at the time. Olivia deHavilland was wonderful. I did feel let down by the performance of Leslie Howard, but then again, my perception is that he played the role as directed (he was, BTW, another actor I didn't care for; too British for my tastes). And many of the character actors in this film are almost legendary.
I also realize that tastes change. But some of the films that we like today are hardly going to be seen as great films 80 years from now. And that's what we're talking about here...a nearly 80 year old film that still holds the box office record (accounting for inflation) for all films of all nations. That's not an accident. But if "you" don't like the film, that's okay; I probably don't like some films that you admire. That's why we're lucky to have a relatively diverse Hollywood.
I may be wrong here, but I think part of the problem when someone thinks that GWTW (or any number of other classic films) are so bad is a lack of understanding that movies/television and music are all evolutionary in nature.
I don't agree at all.
The movie was decades old by the time my generation "discovered" it, and it was just as loved then. The reason why is that in contrast to younger generations, older generations were both weaned on these types of films and more sophisticated. They could understand cinematic language and themes, could handle ambiguity and nuance. But this younger generation can't. If you looked at what else they "hated", you would find them also hating more recent films for the same reasons that they hate the old ones, too.
For example, there's a scene in Mulholland Drive where a male character keeps giving a female character a deadpan stare. The female character then leaves nervously. I have seen young people on YouTube describe this scene as being the most "romantic" thing they'd ever seen. Did they misinterpret the scene because of the evolutionary nature of film? No. Because they completely misread that scene.
Ditto the "sex scene" in Dead Calm, where so many young people interpret it as a "hot scene" in which Nicole Kidman's character hungrily seduces the villain and "enjoyed it", when the complete opposite was the case. Or a movie like Irreversible, which was anti-homophobic but was seen as homophobic.
The IMDB forums are now gone but back in the day, you would've seen the same issue across the board. I think this generational issue is the major reason why so many films today are just nothing but simplistic tropes in which everything fits into a neat box. They can't handle too much ambiguity, subtlety or subtext, and they're not as film literate as generations from the past.
No one could have played that role but Vivien Leigh.
And to anyone that would say that she never gave another good performance (HA), I submit:
Waterloo Bridge
Caesar and Cleopatra A Streetcar Named Desire (a triumph) The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone
Ship of Fools
No one could have played that role but Vivien Leigh.
And to anyone that would say that she never gave another good performance (HA), I submit:
Waterloo Bridge
Caesar and Cleopatra A Streetcar Named Desire (a triumph) The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone
Ship of Fools
I agree with you that Leigh's performance in the film was unique and unbeatable.
However, I never liked her in any other films. Not saying she wasn't good. Just saying she wasn't my cup of tea.
I don't understand why so many people hate this movie cause Scarlett is a hugely flawed character. Lots of protagonists are flawed and do bad things. Just look at Walter White for example. Why is Scarlett the exception to the rule?
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.
