Gone with the Wind (1939)

 

                    I postponed watching “Gone with the Wind” for a long time because I had not remembered in fondly as a teenager and I was skeptical of whether it is a war movie.  But recently I decided to review it because I have seen it listed as a war movie by several “experts” that I trust.  Clearly, it is more of a drama than a war movie, but I have reviewed war movies that are less firmly in the genre.  I won’t spend a lot of time summarizing the plot because it is possibly the most famous American movie.  It may have been seen more than any other movie and it is estimated to have the biggest box office of all time if you adjust for inflation.  It is based on a famous novel by Margaret Mitchell and brought to the screen by famous producer David O. Selznick.  It came out in the year considered to be the best in Hollywood history, and yet it dominated at the box office and at the Academy Awards.  It won eleven Oscars including:  Picture, Production, Director (Victor Fleming), Actress (Vivien Leigh), Supporting Actress (Hattie McDaniel), Screenplay (Sidney Howard), Art Direction, Cinematography – Color, and Editing,  Clark Gable was nominated for Best Actor (losing to Robert Donat of “Goodbye, Mr. Chips”) and Olivia de Havilland for Best Supporting Actress.

                    The film starts in the Antebellum South.  Scarlet O’Hara (Leigh) is the pampered daughter of a plantation owner.  She is in love with Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard), but he’s not interested in marrying a bitch.  Instead, he chooses the saintly Melanie (de Havilland).  Partly because she doesn’t want to be an old maid, Scarlet eventually succumbs to the courting of the suave Rhett Butler (Gable).  The movie does a good job depicting the naïve enthusiasm of Southern boys for the upcoming war.  They all believe one Southerner can whip twenty Yankees.  Ashley enlists and becomes a war hero.  Rhett is a dashing blockade runner.  The part of the movie set in the war is most remembered for the famous burning of Atlanta scene.  In spite of its overlength, we are left wondering what Rhett and Scarlett are doing for much of the war.  The second half covers the Reconstruction period.  Scarlet struggles to preserve her plantation – Tara.  Her marriage to Rhett is dysfunctional, partly because she still pines for Ashley.  Times are rough for the former upper class as the evil carpetbaggers control the South.  Thank goodness Scarlett’s former slaves remain loyal. 

                    The first question that needs to be answered is:  does it hold up in the 21^st Century?  Not as well as “The Wizard of Oz”, but better than most of the other Best Picture nominees from that year.  I’m referring to entertainment value, not historical value.  It is something of a curio of Hollywood’s view of the South in the 1930’s.  Although not as offensive as “Birth of a Nation”, it pushes a similar stereotyped portrayal of the Old South.  The stereotyping is especially egregious in the slave characters which include the shiftless, the irresponsible, the Uncle Tomish, and the mammy.  (Those are the house slaves, since the movie does not deal with the field slaves.) To be fair, there is a white prostitute with a heart of gold.  Almost as offensive is the attempt by the plot to make us feel sorry for the upper class slaveowners.  Even the Southern belle from hell Scarlet elicits sympathy as she perseveres against the tides of war and reunification.  And the unrequited love that turns her into a scheming mantrap. 

                    Scarlet is a great character, as is Rhett.  However, the charismatic Rhett (and thus Gable) disappears from large stretches of the film.  These two flawed humans are balanced by the flawless Ashley and Melanie.  Melanie should have been called St. Melanie.  The cast is good and the nominations were deserved.  McDaniel broke racial barriers, although she was criticized for reinforcing the ever-loyal mammy stereotype.  Her response was she’d rather make a lot of money playing a maid than being one.

                    GWTW was an expensive movie and it shows.  It is a gorgeous movie and well-deserved the art direction Oscar.  Keep in mind that none of the interiors were slave cabin interiors.  And you have the costumes, highlighted by the requisite ball and the iconic dress made from a curtain (so brilliantly satirized by Carol Burnett).  The score is what you would expect from the overrated Max Steiner.  The dialogue as not as sappy as you might expect and it does have some memorable lines.  The dialogue is not what creates the offensiveness.  Unless you are offended by the repeated use of the curse “fiddle-dee-dee.”  The n-word is not used, although darkie and negro are.  Kudos to the screenwriters for somewhat whittling down the book.  And respect for not putting the movie Rhett and Ashley in the KKK.  That alone shows you how far movies had come since “Birth of a Nation”.

                    So, is it a good war movie?  If “Casablanca” is, so is GWTW.  Speaking of which, “Casablanca” is a much better movie.  Still, every one should see it once.  Well, maybe not war movie fans.  I’ve seen it twice, with fifty years in between.  And another fifty before the third viewing.  But I didn’t have to be drinking heavily like I had to when I reviewed “Braveheart”,  after having refused to break my rule of not walking out on a movie.  (I only broke it once – Jim Carrey’s “Me, Myself, and Irene”.) 

GRADE  =  B-