This is my entry in the Cinema Couture: The Art Of Illusion Blogathon hosted by Classic Movie Blog Association.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to go see Gone With the Wind in a theater. The venue was The Ritz in Austin, Texas. The theater had been around since the 1920's, although it had at times been a different kind of venue. It spent some time being a place to go see live bands, as well as turns at being a valid movie theater. Currently it is a comedy club, but from 2007 to 2021 it served as a movie theater under the auspices of Alamo Drafthouse.
The neat thing about The Ritz was that it was a classic old theater, with the seating style basically unaltered from it's days during the heyday of it's existence. The Ritz had two screens (I think). The approach to the actual seating had a small lobby with stairs going up to enter the theater. The seating was probably altered just enough to make them more comfortable to modern audiences, but still laid out in much the same way as it had been during it's first opening.
It was originally built in the 1920's and is noted as being the first movie theater built in Austin specifically to show the new "talkies"; movies that actually had sound as opposed to the older "silents".
The experience of seeing it at the Ritz in 2021 was especially memorable. I'm not sure about ALL of the films that Alamo Drafthouse showed during the Flashback Cinema, but on the occasions when I went to see a film in the Flashback Cinema series (another one I saw was It's A Wonderful Life) there was an employee who would come out and give a little historical background to the film showing that day. In this particular showing a young lady came out on the stage in front of the screen and gave a little history.
The really memorable part of this exhibition is that the young lady came out in an outfit inspired by the Carol Burnett Show parody of the film, in which Carol, as Starlett O'Hara, came out dressed in an outfit made from one of the mansion's curtains (complete with the curtain rod). Don't have a picture of the young lady in the theater that day, but here is the original Carol Burnett scene to give you an idea...
The background to this incident was that the girl said she had mentioned she was going to talk about Gone With the Wind and her father mentioned the classic TV parody. The girl had never seen, nor even heard of, the parody so her father sat her down and showed her the entire episode, and the girl decided to do something similar for her presentation.
So earlier this year a notice popped up in my Facebook feed that Gone with the Wind was going to be making another appearance in the theater and, coincidentally enough, one of the dates it was going to be showing was on October 10th, which was my sister's birthday. Most years I have a problem with finding something for her birthday, usually settling for something mundane, like taking her to dinner. But, as you know if you have been reading this blog over the years, her tastes in movies tend towards the old classics. And by classics I mean dramas and westerns, but not horror or sci-fi or anything even remotely outre. Which means about 90% or more of the movies I review could safely be classed as "not her cup of tea". (She is definitely not watching White Zombie with me, much less A Clockwork Orange.)
But this movie falls easily into a category of one she likes. So, last month we went to the local theater.
Note: Gone With the Wind is a classic in the annals of Hollywood. As such, I have no illusions that any of this stuff will be revelations that 95% or more of you didn't already know. I am deeply indebted to Cynthia Marylee Molt who, in 1990, published a volume Gone with the Wind on Film which provided much of the information I used for this piece. Also, many trivia notations came from a Turner Classics production, The Making of a Legend, a documentary made on the production of the film.
The background to the film has a fairly long and intriguing story. The novel on which it was based was started by the author, Margaret Mitchell, as a way to occupy her time while she recovered from an automobile accident. It took her something like 10 years, off and on, to complete, and when it was finally published it was an international best seller.
The casting of the film is a legend in itself. Due to the popularity and renown of the novel, there was a great interest in the casting of the primary characters. Especially for the headlining role of Scarlett O'Hara. Virtually every actress in Hollywood of an appropriate age (and even some not so appropriate) saw themselves as the best choice to play the role. Even the public got into the debate. According to the aforementioned documentary, a public poll of who would be the ideal Scarlett ranked the following as the best choice (in order): Bette Davis, Katharine Hepburn, Miriam Hopkins, Margaret Sullivan, Joan Crawford and Barbara Stanwyck. (As a side note, I think Hepburn or Davis would have been good choices, but I think Crawford would have been a bad choice, even though she would have added some nuances to the vindictive side of Scarlett...)
An incomplete list (but including some of the more notable applicants and considered possibilities) for the role would include Lucille Ball, Tallulah Bankhead, Claudette Colbert, Paulette Goddard, Jean Harlow, Susan Hayward, Carole Lombard, Lana Turner and even, (believe it or not), Margaret Mitchell herself!
The part of Rhett Butler was almost a shoo-in for Clark Gable. Nearly everyone thought he was the only possible actor to play the role. But I discovered, reading the reference work on the film cited above, that Mitchell's choice was... wait for it... Groucho Marx! Gary Cooper, Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn, Basil Rathbone and Randolph Scott were considered.
Another interesting contender: The part of Belle, the brothel madam, could have been played by Mae West. As much as I would like to have seen her in that role, I have to admit that I feel the movie would have suffered some if she was in it, mainly because I think she would have drawn attention away from the central characters whenever she was on camera. The role was eventually awarded to Ona Munson, who did a good job.
The costume designer for Gone with the Wind was Walter Plunkett. Because of the Hays Code, many films suffered a little because of the strictures of propriety that the Code enforced. Molt notes in her book that producers clashed with those rules in some productions because you couldn't really be historically accurate in costumes, mainly because the real historical style of clothing was a bit too risque for the times. For instance, the 1934 version of Cleopatra: "for which authentic clothing would have been no clothing at all" and "Forever Amber (1947) {would have required} the bawdy deshabillé of a woman during the Court of Charles II in England".
For Gone with the Wind, Plunkett had no strictures, since the fashion of the South circa the late 1800's was pretty much along the same lines as what the Code established was allowable. Even the scene where the young women are preparing for nap time, garbed in night clothes, was reasonably sensible for the Code. And the dresses worn by the female characters in public are astounding.
Sets for the film are also pretty impressive. The only one that really suffers, in my opinion, is the scene involving the burning of Atlanta. Although it is rather impressive in look, the sets, which were really older sets for very obviously NOT southern US settings, is just a little off. Many of the buildings burning look exactly like what they really were: settings from the 1933 film King Kong and also from The Garden of Allah.
As well, since this scene was the first one filmed, prior to the prime casting, stunt doubles were used in most of the scene. Not all that obvious when watching on a small screen, but watching it on a movie theater, many of the long shots emphasized, unintentionally, that that was not Gable and Leigh in the carriage. The rest of the film did have some great settings. I was particularly impressed by the dishevelled look of Tara, post Civil War, when Scarlett returned home.
I will say, at this point, that if you have never had the privilege of seeing the film on the big screen you should jump at the opportunity if it comes your way. Hopefully you won't have to wait until the (probable) 100th anniversary re-release in 2039...
Gone With the Wind (1939):
Note: Given that it's sure bet that you already know the entire plot by heart (and if you don't what have you been waiting for to watch this?), most of what follows will be a musing on my impressions of how the film played out and the characters involved, rather than an in-depth discussion of the story itself.
The film opens with Max Steiner's score as we see a party being held at Tara. Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) is surrounded by admirers, hoping to gain her attention. Among these are the two Tarleton brothers, Stuart and Brent (note: the credits are in error as George Reeves is credited as Brent, but actually played Stuart and Fred Crane is credited as Stuart, but actually played Brent. Apparently the credits were already made and it was deemed too costly to redo them. But, unless you were familiar with one or the other, or both, it wouldn't stand out too much, since both characters are pretty much the same...)
Scarlett toys with the affections all of her potential suitors, but her true love is reserved for Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard). Unfortunately, the devotion is not requited by Ashley. Instead, he is betrothed to Melanie Hamilton (Olivia de Havilland). Which doesn't set well with Scarlett, obviously. Scarlett comes off in this film as a spoiled and manipulative brat, and her actions throughout gave me nervous shivers. I felt sorry for every man that crossed her path, and couldn't help but feel relief for Ashley, who escaped a lifetime of pure distress if he had been the unfortunate victim of her machinations.
Because Scarlett has a single-minded obsession with Ashley, she ultimately marries Melanie's brother, Charles (Rand Brooks), not because she truly loves him; she is only doing it to hopefully inspire a little jealousy in Ashley. (Manipulative bitch that she is). The marriage is doomed, however, when, after the start of the Civil War, Charles is killed in action. Scarlett doesn't spend much time grieving over the loss however.
Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) makes his appearance on the scene, and Scarlett takes a dislike to his brash manner, but does eventually mellow towards him, especially after he helps her and Melanie escape Atlanta during the burning of the city by the Union.
She returns to Tara, where the financial troubles of keeping her beloved home cause her to, once again, use her wiles to get money to keep it afloat by marrying Frank Kennedy (Carroll Nye). (Once again, Scarlett's self, self-entitled personality grated on me). Frak also dies, and Scarlett has about as much grieving over the loss as she did for Charles.
Eventually Scarlett and Rhett hook up. Rhett, for his part, seems to love Scarlett and her independent spirit, but once again, Scarlett really only holds her true love for Ashley, even though he is still married and devoted to Melanie. The relationship between Scarlett and Rhett gradually deteriorates as he realizes that Scarlett is just as single-minded and immature as when he first met her. This comes to a head when their daughter, Bonnie, dies. Rhett truly was devoted to Bonnie, although it seemed to me that Scarlett just considered her a burden to be borne.
Even the ending didn't change my opinion of Scarlett, as her grief over the loss of Rhett's love came off more as a "woe is me, nobody loves me, everybody hates me" scene. Still selfish, even to the last. Her final words in the movie are "I'll think of some way to get him back! After all... tomorrow is another day!" Personally, my opinion of what Scarlett does from here on out is reflected by Rhett's final words: "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"
So, even though I truly don't like Scarlett, I think the movie is astounding, especially in tems of the way it was filmed, the sets, the costumes and the music. Given a much more likable main female character, this could easily be one of my top ten movies. It still ranks in the top 25, which is a credit to those other factors. And it is worth watching multiple times.
One final note: some critics have disparaged the film for it's portrayal of the slaves as being happy in their position. Were some slaves comfortable with their position as this movie implies? Maybe, but probably not. That doesn't detract from the film for me. I especially liked the Mammy (Hattie McDaniel) character, despite the fact that her devotion to the O'Hara family may have been unrealistic. Assuredly this is a film that deserves a better reputation than the likes of, say, Birth of a Nation in it's depiction of the Negro. Whether or not you agree, there were some serious changes made during the filming process. Equality, whether agreeably or grudgingly, was upheld at may points. For instance, one article I read stated that the restrooms had to be desegregated on set if the Negro cast were going to continue. And Clark Gable said that unless equality were a part of the set he would not appear in the film. These may seem like minor concessions to the 21st century mind, but given the climate of the time, there were fairly progressive.
With a budget of only about $4 million, the film was an astounding success at the box office, bringing in $380 million in ticket sales (to put that in perspective, a ticket for a film in 1939 was only about 25 cents). The film virtually swept the Oscars that year. Out of 13 nominations it took home 8 of those, including a record setting first Oscar to a black actress, Hattie McDaniel for Best Supporting Actress. Of the five that the movie did NOT win, the most egregious loss, in my opinion, was giving Best Actor to Robert Donat (Goodbye, Mr. Chips) over Clark Gable.
The film ranks #4 on the 100 Years...100 Movies list put out by the American Film Institute, behind Citizen Kane, Casablanca and The Godfather. (It's no secret about how much I don't like Citizen Kane, but I think the other two deserve their spots, so I personally would not object if it were ranked #3... even if it wouldn't garner that high a spot in my own personal list.)
This viewing, as I said earlier, was a birthday present for my sister. We had a good time, and it's always a nice thing to see a movie that was previously only available on whatever small screen format that could be found. A side note: My own birthday is coming up next month, and I am hoping we can do another outing, because The Maltese Falcon is being re-released.
That's it for this time. Drive safely, folks.
Quiggy


























































