GONE WITH THE WIND was a big deal when I was young in Atlanta. The film was only released every 7 years and always created excitement. It had way back at the start as well, when the films cast held a parade for the release. The film isn't about the Old South as much as it was about the way the Old South was re-invented after the Spainsh American War. The first half up to the burning of Atlanta lives up to the myth of the film, but the second half is pure 1930's soap opera. Still, the women in Atlanta took the film very seriously - it was the character of Scarlett O'Hara- the unsung woman who held the South together as it was raped, pillaged and burned.( All of which the studio was able to show and even allow the word dam* to appear despite strict censorship of the day that forbade all of it). GONE WITH THE WIND was also the first time the losers in a war were shown reacting to the attacks being made on them (ever see an American made WW 2 film that showed what it was like for Germans or Japanese being bombed? Didn't think so!).
Should GONE WITH THE WIND go the way of THE SONG OF THE SOUTH- censored and forgotten?
1. "Gone With the Wind" (1939)
Go ahead, say it: The idea that this towering totem of Hollywood's Golden Age may not deserve the praise it's received over the decades is downright sacrilegious, and we should be strung up for saying so. To which we reply: When was the last time you actually watched this marathon paean to the Old South? We can appreciate what producer David O. Selznick accomplished -- after hearing the film's backstory, it's a miracle the movie even managed to get made -- but this template for every bloated spectacle made since is one creaky melodrama. Vivien Leigh's touted performance now seems drastically mannered and camp ("I'll never go hungry again!"), set pieces such as Scarlett O'Hara's tour of the Civil War battlefield stick out like sore thumbs amidst the overwrought "intimate" moments, and Victor Fleming's direction never rises above journeyman level. Even Clark Gable's charismatic Rhett Butler feels less like an actual character and more like a star simply savoring the taste of the scenery between his teeth. You can chalk up the retrograde politics to the times -- still, we dare you to sit through Butterfly McQueen's and Hattie McDaniel's scenes without wincing -- but the sheen of this capo di tutti capi of movies has worn off once and for all. For all its pomp, "Gone With the Wind" no longer blows us away. http://movies.msn.com/movies/moviesfeature/dvd/not-classic-movies?GT1=28002
Last edited by DJ Psychomike; 05-06-2008 at 08:41 AM.
History or Hollywood? HOLLYWOOD! GWTW the movie is a product of its time, just like the book. Unabashed costume soap opera. So what? If you don't like it, don't watch it.
If you want to talk about bloated melodramas, mention Gods and Generals.
I wish Disney would get over the whole Song of the South thing. I'm surprised that they re-released Dumbo... what about those crows???
Amen. And a word of pity for those who can't tell the difference.
ole
__________________ I never knew a man who wished to be himself a slave. Consider if you know any good thing that no man desires for himself. A. Lincoln
There remains to this day, worldwide, a link in peoples minds between the city of Atlanta and Gone with the Wind. During the 1996 Olympics, the BBC used the theme from the movie as the intro to Olympic coverage. I also found a link during my visit to the city in 2000. The cyclorama painting of The Battle of Atlanta is housed in Grant Park. At some time during the 1930's, figures and scenery were placed around the bottom of the painting. One of these figures is modelled on Clark Gable. Mr Gable apparantly had a good sense of humour. His figure is a dead Confederate.
There certainly is a link between Atlanta and "Gone with the Wind." In fact, there's more than one.
Margaret Mitchell, the author of the book, lived in a house on Peachtree St. during the years while she was writing it (I think it took her about 8-10 years to complete the work).
I had the opportunity to visit the house some years back. When I first saw the house, I thought "Well, that's a nice big house. That looks like the kind of place where a rich and famous author would live." While I was thinking that, I was forgetting that Margaret Mitchell was not a rich and famous author while she was writing the book - she became rich and famous only after it was published.
The house was originally built as a single-family home in the late 1800's, but by the time Margaret and her husband moved in in the 1920's, it had been converted to a 10-unit apartment dwelling. The two of them moved into a little apartment on the corner of the first floor.
I got my wife a t-shirt that has a picture of the front of the house (i.e., the side that faces Peachtree St.) on the back of the shirt and a picture of the back of the house (the side that faces away from Peachtree St.) on the front of the shirt. The reason for that is that Margaret's apartment was at the back of the building.
The house was almost destroyed in a fire during the 1990's, but the fire missed the section of the building where Margaret's apartment was. The building has been restored, with Margaret's apartment furnished as it was when she lived there, and is open to the public (admission is charged). Worth a visit, if you're ever in Atlanta.
Films often show the opinions of the time the movies were made, not the opinions of people alive during the incidents. This is important as well, though I admit the reflection is often far away from the reality.
BIRTH OF A NATION was at the time considered a liberal and honest re-telling of the Souths' side of the war. Why is this of interest to historians? Lot's of ways, but let's just list a few:
1. Until the advent of new media technology the rule was- losers in war don't write the history books. Yet this film was clearly the Southern side of war. Ultra Liberal and Lincoln fan Woodrow Wilson called it, "History written with lightening bolts". Now, does the film present the opinions of Southerners who had already transformed the war from its roots, romantasized what Lincoln would have done had he lived, or does it show the opinions of the South during war? I argue it reflects the fears of Southerners 40 years after the war and not what people thought at the time of the war.
No Blacks are shown fighting for the South, Lincoln is romantisized and Davis is ignored, Blacks workiing with whites, owning property and even slaves is not shown. Fear of blacks is shown instead.
Excuse me but the reality is that while able bodied men were away at war, women, kids, the elderly and slaves were running the platations. Yet there were no slave uprisings. Clearly the role of blacks in the South during the war has yet to be tackled. So the film is more about the attitudes of the country as a whole at the start of the 20th Century than the war itself, but give us an important insight into the changing attitudes about the war.
2. The editing style of the film made the battle sequences come alive and are still shot the way Griffith set his battle scenes up.
Because I write for a living, I don't see THE SONG OF THE SOUTH the way others do.
Uncle Remus is NOT a slave. In fact, he tells such good stories he is exempted from slave quarters and work, living in the forest instead.
He tells a young boy a story and the boy decides to act it out in life. How often do we read of horrible things that happen in the news that were "inspired" by writing? From CATCHER IN THE RYE to the film PSYCHO (which was almost banned in the 60's after a killer said he got the idea to stab his wife after seeing PSYCHO), to kids who shoot up a school dressed up as Matrix characters!
Uncle Remus finds the kid who has run away and becomes sick and tells him a story that brings him back to home and health. After being condemned by the whites, this act brings Remus back their respect.
It should have been called SONG OF THE WRITERS!
Last edited by DJ Psychomike; 05-19-2008 at 11:11 AM.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Goodbye, GONE WITH THE WIND 
Linear Mode
