Review of Gone with the Wind (1939) by Adam S — 27 Jun 2014

It's no longer the "greatest film of all-time" as it may have been in 1939 when it was released, but it is nearly impossible to deny the historical significance or indeed, nostalgic charm of "Gone With the Wind".

Telling the classic tale of Scarlett O'Hara, a highly flawed and narcissistic character who weasels her way through most social situations, "Gone With the Wind" follows the threads of love and loss, death and war, poverty and riches, and ultimately carries some poignant and still relevant messages about the consequences of using people for your own ends.

It also contains brilliant performances from the likes of Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Olivia de Havilland and Leslie Howard, and the cinematography and imagery of Old South plantations and a devastated Atlanta is far beyond it's own time.

However, David O. Selznick's film is not without its flaws, and these flaws are fairly troubling considering the pedestal this film is still put on in this day and age. Some may be troubled by criticism towards this film, but, "frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn". So here goes.

First: the portrayal of African Americans. While it's very much a product of it's times, it's amazing that a post-Civil War America is still allowed to portray the blacks as willing participants in the slave agreements. Hattie McDaniel, who won an Oscar for her portrayal as "Mammy", famously said that she'd rather earn $700 a week for playing a maid than $7 a week being one, but that doesn't excuse the portrayal by the writes. Still, it was, as I say a different time. But when reviewing a film in 2014, it becomes an issue.

Secondly: The character of Scarlett O'Hara. I know it was a key plot point, but they almost made the character too unlikeable, when in reality the final scene works better if you partially sympathize with O'Hara. It's no fault of Leigh, who does brilliantly with the directions she's given, but it's very annoying as viewer.

Thirdly: (And this follows on from the previous point) The length is astronomical. Considering we have to spend most of the nearly 4 hours in the presence of the irritating O'Hara, it certainly made me a bit restless and very mildly resentful of having to be there for so long. Again, different time, but the pacing was so slow that you felt that the movie could have been improved at a 3 hour run length or so.

Still, it is classic cinema, and undoubtedly influential. I just wasn't as taken by it as most seem to be.

4 stars.