When my sister Liz asked me to comment on whether 1939 was really Hollywood's greatest year, it was in response to a claim made in some special feature on the recent re-release of the Gone With the Wind DVD. Obviously, a major factor in all the attention paid to that year largely was due to all the attention paid to David O. Selznik's quintessential blockbuster. It wouldn't surprise me if GWTW is still the all-time box-office champ in terms of tickets sold, especially since in the days before home video, the film was re-released to theaters every few years through the 1970s. In fact, it's status as a cultural touchstone renders it difficult to consider as a piece of art-- especially since that status is partly built on the unprecedented commercial dimension of its legacy.
That's not to say it's not a great movie (even though I wouldn't rank it among the top ten of 1939)-- maybe the ultimate movie-movie. But it's also difficult to see it as transcending the sum of its parts, especially the classic performances of most everyone in the massive cast. Certainly, individual scenes are among the most memorable in all of cinema (the crane shot pulling back to reveal the seemingly endless pallets of wounded soldiers; the confrontation between Scarlett and the scrounging renegade Yankee; the final break between Rhett and Scarlett), but it also seems like each successive scene is trying to top what's come before-- there's not much dramatic balance or opportunity for the audience to feel that the narrative is building towards a true climax, since virtually every scene plays like the key moment of the film. It's to the credit of producer Selznik (and director Victor Fleming, I suppose) that the film never completely topples over despite the immense weight carried in every moment of the story. But unlike most classic films, it's hard to work up any enthusisam for watching this one over and over: instead of rewarding successive viewings with subtleties and nuances previously missed, with GWTW you kind of feel like you're constantly being pounded over the head. Scarlett is what she is, and so is Rhett and Ashley and Melanie. As good as Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Leslie Howard and Olivia DeHavilland are in bringing those characters to life, they never really display the complexity one associates with real people. In the end, Gone With the Wind is a technically superior spectacle, and that's worth something. But by my reckoning, that doesn't make it great art.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dr John,
Actually I WOULD call it great art precisely for the rich textures of the the scenes, costumes, technical issues employed (over the top and to some degree ahead of their time for 1939). There may not have been character development to your satisfaction to list it as a great movie, but to think that a british actress actually came across beautifully as a southern woman was, in my mind, a solid acting accomplishment. Were you aware that the script (started by Sidney Howard) was actually a modge podge of writers (with some shoots using the dialogue from the book directly) that it is somewhat amazing that anything of merit could have come from it. I believe that you have issues because of the over exposure of the movie through the years.=)
Lil' Sis
Lil Sis,
Well as I said, I do think the performances are very good-- that isn't the problem. But the numerous writers are at the heart of why this doesn't rise above the quality of technical spectacle. There is no cohesive thematic narrative thread through which the audience is encouraged to think about anything other than the visual splendor of the image before them. None of the characters change over the course of the film, nor is there an honest attempt to deal with the issues of the Civil War or Reconstruction. If the movie is "about" anything, it's misguided nostalgia for a lifestyle that never really existed, but that modern southerners in the 1930s pined for nonetheless. To me, great art requires more than technical prowess, it tries to engage some level of truth, and there's very little of that on display in GWTW. That doesn't make it a bad movie, and I don't dispute its classic status, but it does not hold up in comparison with something like Citizen Kane, which isn't as pretty or easy to like, but actually rewards a viewer whose willing to give it a little thought. I'm not sure what "over-exposure" has to do with any of these points-- I haven't seen GWTW any more times than lots of movies that I like more. By the way-- this is the fun part of running down a list like this: arguing about it!
Dr. John
Dr John,
I know you like the arguing.. that is why I commented =D
Lil' Sis
Post a Comment