HF Gone With the Wind, a Review

[CanadianCanuck]

I just finished watching Gone With the Wind in full for the first time the other day. I had seen the first half of the movie some years ago, seen clips and context through cultural osmosis, but had not yet been able to watch the thing in full. So I finally sat down the other night and watched it all. Since there has been some discussion of whether we should be watching it, or how bad it is, I did some research. Then I reviewed it on my blog.

Quite honestly, it didn't come off entirely as problematic as much of the discourse surrounding it made it out to be. Oh don't get me wrong, the romantic vision of the South and happy slaves it paints is very wrong, but watching it in 2020, it seems almost pointless to complain about? I can identify the problems with the film, the inaccuracies of the depictions of the happy slaves or the romantic notions of the South, its more eye rolling anachronism than anything else to me.

Despite that, there are two great things to be praised about the movie. It's portrayal of the horrors of war is quite gripping, even with all the advances made in film making in 80 years. The scene of Scarlett walking across that field of wounded and dying Confederate men in Atlanta, the early shelling, and Scarlett's time in the Peach Tree Military Hospital still ring true as showing off the horrors of war extremely well. Then marching through the field of dead to reach Tara, well I thought that was awesome - grim, but awesome in the classical sense.

Then we have the acting and the story, well that story! It was nice to see that Scarlett and Rhett actually deconstructed the notions of a Southern Belle and a Southern Gentleman. Neither of them fit in their place, Scarlett actively chafes against the restrictions placed on her by her status (woman, widowhood, ect) and becomes something frowned upon by society at large. Rhett actively seems to revel in his own infamy, visiting brothels, being a blockade runner for the sake of it, and only to try and build up his reputation for his daughter does he embrace the image of a Southern gentleman. They're both delightfully flawed characters, and I think their stories are fascinating.

Quite honestly, I still think that nearly a century later the film stands the test of time. It's a good watch and well worth the time to sit down and watch all the way through.

 

[archieclement]

Part of what made it a masterpiece is the complexity woven into it, it depicts slave resistance more accurately then the newer movies which center on events such as uprisings, the UGR, and runaways that were actually statistically anomalies.

The most common form of resistance is protrayed quite well by Prissy.

 

[CanadianCanuck]

Part of what made it a masterpiece is the complexity woven into it, it depicts slave resistance more accurately then the newer movies which center on events such as uprisings, the UGR, and runaways that were actually statistically anomalies.

Would you mind expanding on that for me? Slave resistance seemed very absent in the movie to my eyes.

Though to a point I agree. There's far too much attempt to romanticize things like slave uprisings vs the more 'passive' resistance which existed historically.

 

[archieclement]

Prissy was the classic form of slave resistance, they would willfully disobey their master wishes, and instead of foolishly claiming so to be punished or sold, then feign loyality and that "they are sorry they nots knows any better"

However it seems the actual practical forms of resistance that included living to get your "digs" in another day are not "romantic or dramatic" enough for some segments today........so they instead attempt to rewrite history into some mass "give me liberty or give me death" on the slaves part, that never existed on any mass scale at all........most quite conciously actually seemed to wish to avoid the death or being sold thing historically........

 

[donna]

Thanks for the review. For me it will always be a classic and well worth watching. Just glad we own our own copy.

 

[lupaglupa]

A good review. I have mixed feelings about the film - in the style of its time it's too melodramatic for my taste. But I agree that the characters are more complex than most and some of the epic sequences are very impressive. I have fond memories of watching it with my mother. But I've never bothered to show it to my son.

 

[rupert822]

Nothing to add to the conversation re:the review, but I always thought it was cool that Margaret Mitchell and Doc Holliday were cousins.

 

[Rusk County Avengers]

Any time I watch it and Prissy, (i think that's the slave girl with the screechy voice) comes on screechy my initial reaction the first time was "Holy s*** kill it with fire!!!!!!!" Which hasn't changed...

I can't stand that screechy mess of a voice.

 

[wausaubob]

The problem with the movie is that it creates a little Georgia world in which these people think everything is OK. But the greater world of New York and London had already moved on. The message of "this is what comes from living in the past" gets buried in the love story that is the allegory for not facing the modern world.

 

[wausaubob]

One should recall that by 1939, war was escalating in Europe. Escapism was a money maker, but US entry into the war was looming regardless.

 

[gentlemanrob]

Personally I see the movie as a master piece the book is different then the movie with showing more details

 

[Llewellyn]

Astonishing to think that one of the stars is still alive - Olivia de Havilland (Melanie).

 

[Philip Leigh]

In reality, the story is quite good at underscoring flaws in the Confederacy.

Scarlett is a bit of a phony and a scamp. She imagines herself a highborn lady of a superior culture, but she will compromise herself to get what she wants. She chases after Ashley Wilkes who symbolizes the plantation society but is also weaker than his symbol. Despite being married to a virtuous lady he draws Scarlett along thereby betraying the nobility he is supposed to represent. In short, the movie shows that Ashley and Scarlett both fail to be what they seem at first, indirectly revealing faults in the foundation of plantation life.

Rhett is a blockade-running rouge. Unlike Ashely and Scarlett he does not pretend to be something else. Since he lives by an independent code, which he will not break, people trust him. Although he is physically drawn to Scarlett he repeatedly mocks her phoniness until their young daughter dies, breaking his last bond to the dishonest Scarlett. Beauty alone was not enough to hold a man who was true to his code.

Meanwhile the story portrays slaves and ex-slaves as compassionate and level-headed. Contrary to criticisms, it undeniably shows them building the foundations of Southern society and its defenses. Yet, in the end Rhett joins the fight to defend it because he is a part of the South. Ultimately, his loyalty is to his own people, despite their flaws. In that sense, they are much like a family.

Much of the movie's message is missed by modern critics because they are unable to detect nuance, a skill they falsely believe to be uniquely theirs. While we can all cringe at moments of black characterization, the movie is generally critical of the South in its original 1939 context. It needs no additional "contextualization" by "experts" who cannot discern anything beyond their narrow field of vision. Finally, nobody should ignore that GWTW actually advanced race relations eighty years ago by awarding the first Academy Award to a black.

 

[infomanpa]

Astonishing to think that one of the stars is still alive - Olivia de Havilland (Melanie).

In 10 days, she will be 104 years old!

 

[John Hartwell]

Still can't stand that dreadful O'Hara woman! Simpering, selfish, insincere, manipulating bi--.... [well, you get the idea]
All the very worst stereotypes ever associated with the term "Southern Belle".
[PS: not saying there aren't wonderful, appealing stereotypes as well.]

 

[TerryB]

I just finished watching Gone With the Wind in full for the first time the other day. I had seen the first half of the movie some years ago, seen clips and context through cultural osmosis, but had not yet been able to watch the thing in full. So I finally sat down the other night and watched it all. Since there has been some discussion of whether we should be watching it, or how bad it is, I did some research. Then I reviewed it on my blog.

Quite honestly, it didn't come off entirely as problematic as much of the discourse surrounding it made it out to be. Oh don't get me wrong, the romantic vision of the South and happy slaves it paints is very wrong, but watching it in 2020, it seems almost pointless to complain about? I can identify the problems with the film, the inaccuracies of the depictions of the happy slaves or the romantic notions of the South, its more eye rolling anachronism than anything else to me.

Despite that, there are two great things to be praised about the movie. It's portrayal of the horrors of war is quite gripping, even with all the advances made in film making in 80 years. The scene of Scarlett walking across that field of wounded and dying Confederate men in Atlanta, the early shelling, and Scarlett's time in the Peach Tree Military Hospital still ring true as showing off the horrors of war extremely well. Then marching through the field of dead to reach Tara, well I thought that was awesome - grim, but awesome in the classical sense.

Then we have the acting and the story, well that story! It was nice to see that Scarlett and Rhett actually deconstructed the notions of a Southern Belle and a Southern Gentleman. Neither of them fit in their place, Scarlett actively chafes against the restrictions placed on her by her status (woman, widowhood, ect) and becomes something frowned upon by society at large. Rhett actively seems to revel in his own infamy, visiting brothels, being a blockade runner for the sake of it, and only to try and build up his reputation for his daughter does he embrace the image of a Southern gentleman. They're both delightfully flawed characters, and I think their stories are fascinating.

Quite honestly, I still think that nearly a century later the film stands the test of time. It's a good watch and well worth the time to sit down and watch all the way through.

Been so long since I've seen it that I hardly remember the plot. The scenes you mention do stand out in my memory. Another one you should see is "Raintree County." There's a scene of Liz Taylor in an asylum that is truly awesome.

 

[Llewellyn]

Still can't stand that dreadful O'Hara woman! Simpering, selfish, insincere, manipulating bi--.... [well, you get the idea]
All the very worst stereotypes ever associated with the term "Southern Belle".

Is that why MGM chose an English actress to play her ? Hollywood just lurves an English baddie.

 

[Bruce Vail]

I've loved this movie for decades, but I can't agree that it stands up well over time.

It is outstanding entertainment (for white lovers of old Hollywood) because of the unusually powerful screen performances by a number of the best actors of their generation. But it is often correctly reviled for its embrace of Lost Cause mythology. Politically speaking, its worst sin is that it treats enslaved Amerians as irrelevant to the Civil War era, or to any other of the concerns of white America.

The movie is an antique, and some of us love it because it is hopelessly outdated, a relic of another way of thinking.

 

[mkyzzzrdet]

I've loved this movie for decades, but I can't agree that it stands up well over time.

It is outstanding entertainment (for white lovers of old Hollywood) because of the unusually powerful screen performances by a number of the best actors of their generation. But it is often correctly reviled for its embrace of Lost Cause mythology. Politically speaking, its worst sin is that it treats enslaved Amerians as irrelevant to the Civil War era, or to any other of the concerns of white America.

The movie is an antique, and some of us love it because it is hopelessly outdated, a relic of another way of thinking.

Said it before and I will say it again - the movie was not supposed to be ABOUT the slavery system, or directly ABOUT the Civil War era.. It was about a spoiled rich white girl who lived on a plantation before she lost it all in the war.. It was about HER and her reactions to things around her. It was not supposed to be a "Ken Burns" anthology about the Civil War.

 

[Southern Unionist]

Fantasy novel. Happy slaves, strong women, horrible Yankees, most people live happily ever after.