A well standing aged-ageless film!

Rating: 9/10 (12 February 2017)

Having watched it multiple times, I have always admired its colorfulness and its technical excellence.
One of the first colored films and certainly in the top color films of the black and white era, that is until the early sixties,it exploits all means to convey the traits of characters most effectively through color. Eye colors, hair colors and clothes are used for that purpose.
Its extended use of matte paintings is effectively counterbalanced by their absorption and adjustment with live action footage. Certainly well deserving its Production Design and Cinematography Oscars.
An equally well distributed and chosen although not flawless cast choice adds to the result. Gable and Leigh are the only, literally speaking, actors of the era that could convincingly incarnate Scarlett and Rhet Butler, and near their top throne also rests Olivia De Havilland. The main cast suffers mostly from Leslie Howard as Ashley. Though he is convincing as for the mental and intellectual traits of the novel character he lacks physical resemblance and his under- toned and flat performance is somewhat distant from the presence of Ashley in the novel who has a few emotional outbursts. The rest of the cast is magnificently positioned, to mention a few: Thomas Mitchell as Gerald is very suited to the emotional spectrum of his character and I would have wanted him in more scenes which were present in the novel but edited out of the film unfortunately, including one that involves Gerald in Atlanta after the bazaar to reproach his daughter, Barbara O'Neill is physically perfect though limited in stage presence and of course Hattie McDaniel shines as Mammy with the strong character and the tough heart. She is something of an accomplice more to Scarlett than a servant or executor. Also, Laura Hope Crews is satisfactorily presented as Pittypat and not deprived of quantity and quality of scenes. Unfortunately, many other characters omitted, edited out or merged with others from the novel are just a little more than extras, including the terrific Jane Darwell and Leona Roberts whose characters are much more significant in the book.
Apart from any above mentioned flaws I credit the production with its departure from Mitchell's descriptions of mansions etc, like Tara or the Twelve Oaks, and the quite limited running time of the film. I think it should be presented as a two 5 hour movies sequence to adequately be faithful to the book. I know this is impossible to have happened back then as neither Cleopatra of 1963 managed to be something that innovative, but I lament because only this specific cast could master the whole novel to perfection with all its nuances, so today the latter is not possible anymore. Nowadays it is feasible to make a TV series of better technical standards but such actors are almost impossible to find today!!!!
I refrain from criticizing the racial and sociopolitical stance of the film's depiction of slaves, Reconstruction an such things as it was 1939 back then and the novel remained faithful to the depiction of the characters in the book. It is important to understand that the film wasn't supposed to depict 1861-1871 faithfully and objectively but to adapt for the screen a very specific piece of fiction.