“Don’t know what I’m talking about?”
Really?
I certainly don’t know what YOU are talking about.
That’s a trait we share.
And please, enlighten me as to where this classic can be seen?
The novel was written by a woman who refused to attend a class in college because there was a Black female student in it, so calling her work racist isn’t a stretch.
Also, a novel and a film which celebrate slavery is offensive, unless of course, you can’t be offended by human bondage.
It was an ugly film that’s been placed on the collective back burner. I’m actually surprised that anybody on here is discussing it. What’s next…a review of The Ritz Brothers classics? Perhaps a debate about how the Bowery Boys were an accurate depiction of New York City in the mid-20th century.
Roger Ebert gives it 4 stars in his review from 1998. I’ve seen GWTW three or four times in its entirety and I notice something new each time. Is it still relevant today? More relevant than most movies its age I think. It certainly had a strong cultural impact. People still visit the Old Mill in North Little Rock, Arkansas in part because it’s thought to be the only structure that appeared in GWTW that’s still standing.
The novel is extremely historical accurate. Mitchell got all the details right.
I liked the film and can still watch it today. It’s a work of fiction, reflection the mores of the day.
PLAYING ON TCM: 29-SEP-14 10:00 PM
Cast: Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland.
Dir: Victor Fleming.
Details: Epic | 233 mins.
Well Das Boot is one of my favorite movies. A movie that treats the people from losing side of history as people can be very good.
GWTW have beautiful cinematography, editing, costumes and some great acting all in service of a mediocre script. (IMHO)
Sexist: Rhett rapes Scarlett, and it makes her happy.
Racist: with the enormous exception of Mammy, every black character is stupid and/or servile. (Servility may be historically accurate, as CalMeacham points out.) Prissy isn’t playing the fool; she is a fool.
I’ve read the book and seen the movie a dozen times, and I like it and will probably watch it on Monday.
An interesting point.
It is certainly one of my favorite films.
I’m a film buff - a film major in college even - but I avoided seeing GWTW until a few years ago. I didn’t think I’d like it, but I knew it was a major hole in my film watching experience.
From a filmmaking and artistic perspective, it was fantastic. Sprawling and epic in scope, great performances, amazing cinematography and art design. It really deserves all the accolades it receives.
Story and character wise, it managed to be annoying and boring at the same time. Mostly annoying, because I wanted to slap Scarlett hard every time she opened her mouth. Of course the racial and gender roles are terribly dated, but I would never fault a film for being of its time.
I had to pause the film after about three and a half hours to go to bed, planning to watch the rest the next day – but I never mustered up the enthusiasm to go back to it. God, I hated Scarlett.
By a (not-so) amazing coincidence, NPR ran a story yesterday on these very same lines.
It’s hard to define “relevance” when discussing old movies. The themes of unrequited love and overcoming hardship are timeless, so of course they’re relevant. Racial and gender attitudes have changed, so we cringe at things that audiences wouldn’t bat an eye at 75 years ago. That doesn’t make the film irrelevant. Acting and directing styles come and go, so old movies look odd to modern audiences. But I don’t think anyone disputes that GWTW is a great technical achievement.
ETA: this is one of those movies that I’ve seen the beginning 10x as often as the end. I tend to wander away when Rhett and Scarlett get married; it’s just dull (and terribly sad) after that.
Already answered, if you’d bother to read the thread. It’s on this Monday night, as a matter of fact.
You’re uninformed, and don’t know what you’re talking about.
I still think it’s one of those movies someone should see at least once due to it massive popularity, influence, and importance in film history. However, after that, you don’t have to think it’s the greatest movie ever made or even see it again. The only time I’ve seen all of it iis when it was first shown on network television back in 1976. Removed from the big screen and shrank down to the standard dimensions of a 70s-model television, I found it to be an overblown soap opera with mostly unlikeable lead characters.
Longer reply later, but I’m guessing the reality of life as a mafia don was a bit less sophisticated and sympathetic than Don Vito Corleone. Most dons were brutal thugs, and even assuming Vito himself isn’t that bad a guy he oversees an empire that takes fortunes from poor neighborhoods by manipulating unions, encourages gambling, gets paid protection, etc., his “most trusted friend” is a baby murdering monster, and he has an innocent horse decapitated to intimidate its owner for the benefit of a spoiled godson.
Do the same people who believe GWTW is without merit (other than technical) or relevance feel that THE GODFATHER is an irrelevant and meritless movie because it glorifies urban crime and excuses criminal overlords?
Still relevant to what? The Civil War? I’m not trying to be a smart-ass, but what frame of reference are you looking at? It came out in 1939 which according to some cinema scholars was the Golden Year of Movies. I’ve seen it 12 times on the big screen, countless times on TCM and have worn through 3 copies of the novel. So I guess I like it. I don’t look at it as a history of the U.S. at that particular time. It’s not a factual movie. It’s a movie about woman and her life.
For those interested, the memoir entitled Life in Dixie During the War, by Mary A.H. Gay, provides a look at life in the vicinity of Atlanta during the Civil War. Read it and you can better judge the accuracy of Margaret Mitchell’s depiction of the era. It is out of copyright and available as a free book through Kindle and elsewhere.
Funny you should ask.
I hate the glorification of mobsters. I hate that so many people enjoy TV shows about mobsters, like they are some modern folk heroes. They murder people to get what they want. They’re thugs, people! I wish they’d all die in a fire.
But, The Godfather is a film that grabs my attention. I get hooked watching it. It’s a great story about horrible people.
I consider both of them to still have merit as films.
I guess if you’re looking at it in purely historical terms it comes up lacking. I also think a case can be made for racism. With the exception of the marital rape scene, I don’t really see the sexism. In fact, the female characters generally are smarter and stronger than the male characters. In fact, most of the major characters are fairly compex and well-rounded.
As a piece of cinema, it’s gorgeous. The cinematography is particularly stunning. There are so many shots that are so beautifully framed and lighted. I like to watch it just because it’s so pretty.
In the end, it’s a soap opera and it succeeds on that level mainly because the main character is fairly complex.
Why do we give a damn about whether or not someone likes a film?
Well, in a word, yes.
Or as Just Asking Questions put it better, it is (or may be) a good movie about horrible people. I can’t say because I have avoided seeing any of the Godfather films or the other popular mafia/gangster films for the reasons that **JAQ **states.
How about Petrified Forest. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid? Treasure of the Sierra Madre?