Continuing our whirlwind appreciation (heh?) of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) today. Hope I don't blow away...
Film 54
54. "Gone With The Wind" (AFI Rank #6)
I don't know if you ever click on the links I put to IMDB, but have you noticed that there are only 3 films that rate a 9 out of 10 or above? If we were doing 90% is an A...there are only 3 films ranked by IMDB users as worthy of an "A" grade. They are "The Shawshank Redemption," "The Godfather," and "The Godfather, Part II." All 3 are fine films, and one is my personal favorite film, ever. However. Think about that. IMDB users only give what they consider the best film of all time 9.2 out of 10. Meanwhile, this film, the far and away leader for biggest box office gross, when adjusted for inflation, the Best Picture winner from what is among the 2-3 greatest years in film history, is ranked just behind Matt Damon in "The Martian," clocking in at a smooth 8.2 out of 10. I saw "The Martian." You know what it isn't? It isn't fucking "Gone With The Wind," that's what.
So, what is "Gone With The Wind?" It's a great, great, gorgeous film, replete with at least one amazing performance, maybe two, and stuffed with tragedy, hope, triumph, and selfishness. Oh, and it maybe glorifies the aristocracy of the south before the Civil War a bit, while celebrating the KKK briefly and reviling northerners...pretty much throughout.
Written by what rumored to be a dozen or so screenwriters, and directed by Victor Fleming (who replaced George Cukor), this film was the adaptation of a novel that was a runaway bestseller, written by Margaret Mitchell. Shunned by studios, the book was considered "too big" to make into a film. Well. People proved that no matter the novel, no matter the scale, it can be made into a film, and in this case, be made brilliantly. I have no knowledge of the book, nor do I want any. I'm here to comment on the film, and the film alone, as that has always been my goal with these things. What is the piece of art I'm looking at? What does it make me feel? etc. etc.
I'm getting away from the film. I saw this when it came on television as a two night extravaganza back in the early 80s. I haven't watched it since. So, for me, it was refreshing to watch this as a grownup, and as someone who has invested a couple hundred hours in great film this year. Watching the film, I was more than a bit taken aback by just how grownup it was. Playing on themes of promiscuity, greed, war, chivalry, and ultimately blind ambition, the tale is the story of Scarlett O'Hara, and what she would do to survive. See that? I didn't mention Rhett. I didn't mention Ashley. I didn't mention the Civil War. Nope. This film is about Scarlett. Everything else is tertiary to that.
Of course, all those things mean something, especially Rhett and Ashley, but the focus here is the leading woman, and it should be. Played, in an absolutely stunning performance, by Vivien Leigh, Scarlett is an anti-hero's anti-hero. There is nothing, not one thing, about her that we should like from the moment she appears on screen the first time, until she is left, alone, at the end of the film, with Hollywood's greatest filmed line rebuking her. Yet, we are drawn to her charm because of Leigh. We suffer with her, when suffering with her runs counter to what we believe decency should allow. We cheer for her industry, despite the fact that it is informed by a complete lack of humanity. We feel genuine pity for her, as she stands in a shocking red dress, for all of society to judge her at the birthday party given for the man she is rumored to have been caught in embrace with, the aforementioned Ashley Wilkes. We shouldn't feel that. We should think that she is awful. And she is. Except Leigh makes her so damned appealing. Just watch how much Leigh can convey with the simple arch of an eyebrow, and you'll know what acting is. I've long thought Meryl Streep was it when it came to acting. I may be changing that opinion. Not that Streep isn't still "it," but that maybe the gap between her and the rest of her competition (male and female) isn't as great as I once thought.
Full of breathtaking visuals, "Gone With The Wind" shows us just what film can do that no other performance art can. It can give us grandeur. The opening view of Tara as Scarlett and her father look upon it, which is repeated later with a solo Scarlett, is jaw-dropping. The burning of Atlanta is amazing. The interiors are opulent, and so exquisitely filmed that every shot feels like a painting. Tell me that in the final scene, as Scarlett descends the stairs as Rhett is leaving, that you don't see that image, hanging in someone's study, in an oil painting. It's gorgeous. The whole film is that way. Gorgeous. Not so gorgeous, but heartbreaking and gut-rattling, is the long crane shot as Scarlett makes her way through the wounded, laying in the streets of Atlanta, looking for Dr. Meade. This shot makes the impact of war visceral. It's one thing to see a battlefield strewn with the dead. It's another thing to see the wounded, waiting for help, waiting for death, just waiting. It's a moment that makes us wonder just what it means, and what it's worth. That's art. That's what art can do.
I need to mention some other acting performances. I'm going to say that this film is not dependent on its acting performances, except in its primary leads. Hattie McDaniel won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. I don't know what her competition was, but it's hardly a nuanced performance. Yes, she is consistent, and yes, we are entertained by her, but I'd hardly call it great acting. Leslie Howard was clearly not interested in the film, at all. His Ashley lacks...well...anything that would make him so bloody attractive for so bloody long. I'll get to Gable. The other tremendous performance that I mentioned earlier was Olivia de Havilland as Melanie. Married to Ashley, her cousin, Melanie is the heroic woman in the film, but because of physical weaknesses associated with inbreeding, she is unable to actually BE that hero. She does a magnificent job in the film, though, and really proves a worthy foil to Leigh whenever she's on screen with her.
Lastly, I get to Clark Gable. From the moment he appears on screen, Gable as Rhett Butler is strikingly different from every other male actor in the film. Shady, sure, but he has a magnificent presence that is palpable. Although Rhett doesn't appear in really that much of the film (his marriage to Scarlett is a brief period towards the end of the film), his moments on screen shine. Gable was paid almost 5 times as much as Leigh was for her work, despite his considerably smaller role. I'm not here to make statements. I'm just stating a fact. However, it's hard to imagine any other actor in this role. His moments of jocularity, his laissez-faire attitude, all of it is just masterful. Considering he wasn't having that great a time with the film, I'd like to see the performance he'd give if he'd actually cared. His Rhett is an iconic performance of an iconic character. We love Rhett, because he is all at once so anti-everything this film purports as great, while so stunningly in step with it at times. He's a gentleman, in the strictest sense of the word, but he also has a dear friend who is a prostitute. And he's ashamed of neither side of his personality. It's great, great work. And that last line? Yeah. That IS the greatest line in film history. It so brilliantly punctuates our story, and Rhett, and Scarlett...it is the perfect moment. Perfect. If I have any complaint with this film, it is its length. While I'm not sure what I'd delete, some of this film seems as if it is spending a great deal of time showing me the same thing I've seen before. Perhaps Scarlett's marriage to Kennedy could be trimmed, but it is necessary for us to see her thrive. Perhaps we lose some of the opening, but how do you ever cut exposition? I don't know. I just know that this film repeats itself a couple of times, and that is an indication that perhaps a pair of scissors could be taken to part of it. I'm glad I was not the guy in charge of making those cuts. I don't know what I'd do. I just know that it feels a shade too long.
So. This is about as big a movie as has ever been made. It has sold about $4 Billion in tickets, using today's economy. That's staggering. "The Avengers" didn't even get to a billion. That's not a film. That's a cultural event. I'm glad I got to watch it again. I don't know when I will again, or if I will again, but I'm glad I'm part of its history.
Ebert's review is here. He and I are mentioning a lot of the same things again.
No comments:
Post a Comment