Gone With the Wind sure is long...

[carnivorousplant]

[shameless brag]The mill in the opening credits is in North Little Rock, Arkansas. [/shameless brag]

[BrotherCadfael]

@AuntiePam

Teensy tiny hijack: Is the attention to detail common for big movies in the 30’s? In Cavalcade (I think it was made in 1933) the lead character had been knighted and was being presented to the queen at a fancy dress ball. The scene lasted about half a minute, but it must have cost a fortune. You could see at least 50 characters milling around in a huge area, exquisite gowns on people who didn’t even speak. It was stunning.

The gowns for a period piece made in the '30s probably were not made specifically for this movie, but were from a common stock, perhaps with some minor customization.

Also, acording to David Niven’s Hollywood memoir, Bring On the Empty Horses, the so-called “dress extras” owned their own period costumes. The larger their wardrobe, the more often they worked.
I first saw *Gone with the Wind * in an old large-screen movie house with my eigth grade class. Because this was a special showing just for the school, there was no intermission.

[Guinastasia]

@Lissa

What I love about this movie is the amazing attention to detail, both in technical matters and in sets/costumes. (The major exception being Scarlett’s dissapearing/reappearing necklace on the Twelve Oaks staircase when she first sees Rhett.)

When you watch the movie next, watch how Scarlett’s brown paisley dress ages from the scene in the hospital when she and Melanie comfort the wounded soldier to the time when she makes the green velvet dress. Not only does the dress fade, but she loses a button or two, and there’s a small rip on one side under the arm. That sort of attention to detail is what makes this movie for me-- Selznick’s production values.

One of my favorite commentaries on this movie was made by the actress who played Careen, Scarlett’s youngest sister. She was horrified at the elaborate expense put into undergarments which the audience would never see. She told Selznick that the rows of expensive lace on her petticoats and pantaletts were unecessary. He replied that she would know they were there-- getting her into character as a rich planter’s daughter.

But even after all that, they were still historically inaccurate!

[Lissa]

@ivylass

If you look very closely, Scarlett is wearing the necklace, but it’s hidden under the ribbons of her bonnet.

I phrased that badly.

When Scarlett leaves her bedroom, she isn’t wearing a necklace, but one appears as she walks up the Twelve Oaks staircase.

@Guinastasia

But even after all that, they were still historically inaccurate!

But, hey, for 1930’s Hollywood, they did a pretty good job. I know that’s not saying much, but at least they put a little effort into *trying * to be somewhat accurate.

[carnivorousplant]

@Guinastasia

But even after all that, they were still historically inaccurate!

In what way? Besides First Manassas vs. Bull Run.

[Walloon]

@Lissa

When Scarlett leaves her bedroom, she isn’t wearing a necklace, but one appears as she walks up the Twelve Oaks staircase.

A scene was shot (scene #35, for those who are counting) showing Gerald O’Hara, Suellen, Careen, and Pork sitting in their open carriage in front of the house waiting for Scarlett to get dressed. Another scene (#38) showed the ride to Twelve Oaks, with Pork driving and Mammy holding a box with Scarlett’s ball gown. Both scene were cut, and as the movie is, you only hear Gerald shouting up through Scarlett’s window. The book Scarlett Fever has a still of #38 on page 152. Presumably Scarlett made a last minute change in jewelry on the road to Twelve Oaks.

[bup]

@Eve

I’ve always thought Paulette Goddard…would have been as good as Vivien Leigh.

Yeah.

Yeah!