"Gone With the Wind" - yea or nea?

LouieD · Post by **LouieD** » Fri May 20, 2011 10:26 am

So I have been discussing on FB the movie "Gone With The Wind". I think it sucks. What say you?

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Fri May 20, 2011 11:55 am

I wish there were options like: Pretty good. Not too bad, Could be worse.

My opinion is in the middle but I don't "don't care."

mndean · Post by **mndean** » Fri May 20, 2011 11:59 am

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:13 pm

Gotta be seen on the big screen. It doesn't work AT ALL on a TV.

LouieD · Post by **LouieD** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:15 pm

Michael O'Regan wrote:Gotta be seen on the big screen. It doesn't work AT ALL on a TV.

So for you, it's all visual? I think the story is terrible and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:16 pm

Michael O'Regan wrote:Gotta be seen on the big screen. It doesn't work AT ALL on a TV.

I have seen it in a theater but it was the 70's "widescreen' version.
I recently watched a chunk of it on TCM and I will admit that, if nothing else, the correct aspect ratio made a positive difference.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:20 pm

Saw this about a month ago and just loved it. Was watching with a friend who had never seen it. She was blown away by the color, the romance (yawn), and the overall story.

I think the "romance" is the only weak part, but the acting saves it. I really liked Clark Gable and Leslie Howard even though both actors dissed this as a silly woman's picture.

rollot24 · Post by **rollot24** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:27 pm

LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote:Gotta be seen on the big screen. It doesn't work AT ALL on a TV.
So for you, it's all visual? I think the story is terrible and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.

It's an extremely well done studio picture. The acting is good but yes, Scarlett is a B%^#& and I have no sympathy for her.

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Fri May 20, 2011 12:36 pm

LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote:Gotta be seen on the big screen. It doesn't work AT ALL on a TV.
So for you, it's all visual?

I've enjoyed the film when I've seen it in a theatre. On TV I've never actually had the interest to sit through the full film.
I certainly don't dislike it in any way. I guess I need to be in the mood for a long film these days.

WaverBoy · Post by **WaverBoy** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:32 pm

LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote:Gotta be seen on the big screen. It doesn't work AT ALL on a TV.
So for you, it's all visual? I think the story is terrible and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.

I think the story is compelling, and of course Leigh comes off as a bitch, because she's playing Scarlett. That, as they say, is the point.

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Fri May 20, 2011 1:53 pm

... and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.

Welllll......isn't she supposed to???

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Fri May 20, 2011 3:10 pm

drednm wrote:Saw this about a month ago and just loved it. Was watching with a friend who had never seen it. She was blown away by the color, the romance (yawn), and the overall story.

I think the "romance" is the only weak part, but the acting saves it. I really liked Clark Gable and Leslie Howard even though both actors dissed this as a silly woman's picture.

(...silly women's picture...????) I could be working myself up to a real snit, here.

Paul Penna · Post by **Paul Penna** » Fri May 20, 2011 3:25 pm

Should have ended at the intermission.

Titano · Post by **Titano** » Fri May 20, 2011 6:46 pm

It's well-done...it has sweep, romance, conflict.

I also think it could have been more tightly edited, all the way down to the adaptation from the novel. Too many things are touched on and then lost.

"The Wizard of Oz" was a much better constructed movie.

Hal Erickson · Post by **Hal Erickson** » Fri May 20, 2011 7:45 pm

I know it wasn't filmed in sequence, but it sure seems like the budget was running out in each successive scene.

Jack Theakston · Post by **Jack Theakston** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:20 pm

A great example of a film where your expectations going into it make a great deal of difference. I pooh-poohed it when I first saw it. How could it have possibly lived up to the hype? But after having read about the production, taking a fresh break away from it, and going into it with realistic expectations, it's actually quite an enjoyable picture.

Scarlett is completely unlikable, of course, and that's the point. But like her or not, she's a completely different person by the end of the picture, and I think a bit wiser for the wear. So it's not a complete waste of characterization.

bobfells · Post by **bobfells** » Fri May 20, 2011 8:20 pm

I was an impressionable 16 year old when I first saw GWTW in 1967 at the Rivoli in NYC. It was one of the first old movies I saw in 35mm on the BIG screen, and it was the first old movie I ever saw in color. I was blown away and when it went into general release I saw it another 6 times. It was magical and combined my interests in the Civil War and old movies in an unforgettable way. When it made its TV debut I found it just didn't work as well on the small screen. I've just watched part of it on blu-ray on a 42 inch tv and I liked it very much. The film has a sweep and pacing, writing and photography that are outstanding. I've never cared for Steiner's score although I admire his work generally.

All Darc · Post by **All Darc** » Fri May 20, 2011 9:11 pm

A very good films. Not briliant, and the second part it's a bit borring, but the visuals, the sets, the style od vintage era, the action, them photography, Gable performance... it's very good.

Strange that the DVDs differ. The first, restored by Lowry DIgital Images in early 2000's, was a mess, colors entirelly wrong, like they just put the technicloir strips and scanned as it with no color adjust.
The second used 4K Ulktra Resolution digital restoration, carefull color search. It was very good, incredible colors and great image detail.

The Blu Ray captures of the new (actual) edition looks strange. It's like the colors are still ok, following the same atmosphere, but it's like they tried to give it a extra vintage look by changing contrast and the hue curve along contrast, like making it behave a bit like a vintage technicolor print.

Sometimes I ask myself if many restorations have the "marketing of new". Each new edition need to appear different to appear that they did another great thing.

They always change someting in colors or contrast, to differ from the anterior one, even when the anterior was very ok.

Who here use to visit DVD Beaver ???

Strange whon in 21 century color are stiull a problem, as we see in DVD Beaver comparison many actual films have different colors in different DVD editions. SOme films look almost entirelly different.

LouieD · Post by **LouieD** » Sat May 21, 2011 12:20 am

Michael O'Regan wrote:
... and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.
Welllll......isn't she supposed to???

I dunno, is she?

Michael O'Regan · Post by **Michael O'Regan** » Sat May 21, 2011 2:21 am

LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote:
... and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.
Welllll......isn't she supposed to???

I dunno, is she?

Wellllll....aren't you supposed to???

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Sat May 21, 2011 3:47 am

LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote:
... and Leigh comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through it.
Welllll......isn't she supposed to???

I dunno, is she?

She's supposed to. I've read the novel and she's a spoilt Bi*ch from page one. The novel is a LOT longer than the movie- she ends up marrying Ashley but it doesn't go well.

bobfells · Post by **bobfells** » Sat May 21, 2011 4:00 am

Another point: GWTW is the perfect synthesis of both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Hollywood studio system at its apex. Whether that makes it a great film is open to debate but then we have to define what we mean by "great." Selznick had a vision for this film and he appears to have achieved it. So much so that he spent the rest of his life trying to make a film that would top GWTW but never could.

westegg · Post by **westegg** » Sat May 21, 2011 5:48 am

I vote "yea." At least GWTW doesn't have flying monkeys and munchkins, which terrified me as a kid.

LouieD · Post by **LouieD** » Sat May 21, 2011 6:21 am

Michael O'Regan wrote:
LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote: Welllll......isn't she supposed to???

I dunno, is she?
Wellllll....aren't you supposed to???

Aren't I supposed to what?

As I said in the original statement, she comes off as a total BI#*H all the way through the film. The problem I have with it, is her character allows me to have absolutely NO sympathy for her. Don't get Ashley, big deal. Old Man dies, don't care. Yankees wreck her house, no feeling at all. In fact, by the time her kid dies and Rhett leaves her I'm practically clapping in my seat. It may sound pretty cold, but every time I have seen this abortion, these are the feelings I have.

Frederica · Post by **Frederica** » Sat May 21, 2011 7:10 am

FrankFay wrote:
LouieD wrote:
Michael O'Regan wrote: Welllll......isn't she supposed to???

I dunno, is she?
She's supposed to. I've read the novel and she's a spoilt Bi*ch from page one. The novel is a LOT longer than the movie- she ends up marrying Ashley but it doesn't go well.

WHAT??? No, she doesn't!

ClayKing · Post by **ClayKing** » Sat May 21, 2011 7:26 am

I first saw the film theatrically as a child during one of its reissues (possibly 1957?). I saw the horrible letterboxed reissue in the late 'sixties. I bought the laser disc, DVD, and blu-ray disc. The film is a favorite, and my daughter (also a fan) and I watch it at least once a year. I disagree that Scarlett is without sympathy. She's smart, cunning, resourceful, plucky, and you have to feel sorry for her unrequited crush on Ashley, and especially the travails that fate keeps heaping upon her (home destroyed, child killed). The film is a wonderful representative of that golden age of movie making.

I also disagree that the film can only be enjoyed theatrically. The blu-ray disc on a large screen TV looks fabulous.

Post by **Mike Gebert** » Sat May 21, 2011 8:00 am

GWTW is all right; Leigh is very good, kittenish and bitchy and at times her comic timing is excellent; an unusually high proportion of other characters are bores, however, Leslie Howard first among them. The production design is outstanding, the first half has a nice epic sweep (up through the crane shot) though that air slowly escapes in the second half. But it's not a movie I've ever loved or felt close to; I'd watch The Adventures of Robin Hood or Strawberry Blonde every day for a month before I'd watch GWTW once a week.

And I do like eggs.

drednm · Post by **drednm** » Sat May 21, 2011 8:01 am

My old 52-inch Hitachi TV was just fine for watching this film a while back. Colors were fabulous and won an Honorary Oscar for William Cameron Menzies in addition to the color cinematography by Ernest Haller and Ray Rennahan. I still can't believe the music lost to the Munchkins.

FrankFay · Post by **FrankFay** » Sat May 21, 2011 8:19 am

Frederica wrote:
FrankFay wrote:
LouieD wrote: I dunno, is she?
She's supposed to. I've read the novel and she's a spoilt Bi*ch from page one. The novel is a LOT longer than the movie- she ends up marrying Ashley but it doesn't go well.
WHAT??? No, she doesn't!

OK, memory played me false, but there's a hell of a lot going on between Scarlett and Ashley in the second part of the novel. The movie makes hash of the plot. It's tasty hash, but doesn't bear close examination.

bobfells · Post by **bobfells** » Sat May 21, 2011 8:34 am

Re the novel, we're kind of evaluating the film out of context in the sense that 1939 audiences all had read the novel (or so it seems) and Selznick's challenge was to bring the essence, mood, etc of the novel to the screen. Today most of us have not read the novel - me included although years ago I read the first 50 pages and liked it - and we're judging the film on a different basis. Nothing wrong with that but it helps to remember Selznick's priorities at the time. The story may make us wonder what all the excitement was about but it was a huge bestseller.

"Gone With the Wind" - yea or nea?

Your opinion of "Gone With The Wind"

"Gone With the Wind" - yea or nea?