Great art + hateful characters = 65 years of debate, influence, misunderstanding and admiration

Rating: 7/10 (16 February 2005)

Finally, seeing the film the way it was meant to be seen (in the newly released and restored, theatrical-ratio, letter-boxed format, digital transfer 4-disc DVD set, {phew!}) showed me more than I bargained for. "Gone with the Wind" has been (immediately following its 1939 release) hailed as a classic. And it does have all the makings of a classic: Sprawling sets, beautiful cinematography, amazing music, brilliant directing and the desire of two studios working together to get the job done properly. No expense was spared (and it shows) in the making of the film, and the audience was given a true visual treat. The script was fine, as most of the dialog was verbatim from Margaret Mitchell's novel, and the actors read their lines and performed their scenes to the best of their ability (some obviously better than others). Unfortunately, the problems with the picture far out weigh the positives and it was the same problems that the novel had. The characters that these wonderful to mediocre actors play are despicable. The lot of them. Scarlett is the most hateful female character I have encountered, ever. She is petty, selfish, dishonest, she puts on airs even when she has no reason to, she is unfaithful to her family (marrying her sister's romantic interest - even if it was to save the estate), she is manipulative and generally just an out and out witch (choice of first letter optional). Likewise, and making the perfect couple from Hell, Rhett is a scoundrel; an abuser, a womanizer, a drunk and would turn sides against the North or the South or his own mother if it were to raise his bank account. Ashley is horrid; he is wishy-washy (especially for a soldier), unfaithful to his wife - who is also his cousin (if not in body, most certainly in mind), weak-willed and idiotic in his decision to go to Atlanta instead of New York (away from the evil and manipulative Scarlett). Even Melanie is unlikable; at the very least because of the blind faith she places in her husband and the unwarranted, misplaced trust she places in Scarlett, if not for the incestuous relationship with Ashley. And those are just the leads! The secondary characters are no better. Mammy is arrogant and often unnecessarily angry; Prissy is a liar and a dolt; Ellen O'Hara (Scarlett's mother) is cold, bitter, distant and unpleasant, Gerald O'Hara (the father) is stubborn and rigid, and later weak and detached. In fact the only truly pleasant characters are Big Sam who saves Scarlett from attackers (much to this viewer's disappointment) and the prostitute-with-the-heart-of-gold who gives Melanie money for the hospital and later safe-houses Ashley for Rhett. And all of the above (well, except maybe Mammy, Prissy and Big Sam) are all in support of the Old South. If these characters are not hateful for the above reasons given (which they are - at least by yours truly) then they must be condemned simply for holding dearly a philosophy which, not only accepted, but championed slavery, incest and war and put more stock in keeping up appearances as opposed to accepting reality. I am not hater of great art, and I know a good movie when I see it. I loved this film for the cinematic genius that it must have taken to produce it. But watching loathsome people for nearly four hours is a bit hard to stomach, regardless of the ingenuity and obvious skill provided on-set and behind the scenes. In other classic films like "Citizen Kane", "Shadow Of A Doubt", "Casablanca" and "The Godfather" (and more recently with "Falling Down", "As Good As It Gets", "Fight Club" and "Pulp Fiction"), the audience is able to enjoy the viewing experience because even though the main protagonist is disliked, dreaded or despised, at least they remain sympathetic. I did not feel sorry for one character at one time during "Gone with the Wind". They all got what they deserved. Even Bonnie is better off dead than have to live with the soul-sucking Scarlett as her mother. So, my final review: 10 stars out of 10 for production, direction, cinematography, musical composition and performance and faithful adaptation of the novel; 8 out of 10 stars for acting (brought up 2 whole points - one each for Clark Gable and Olivia de Havilland, both of whom were remarkable, regardless of their awful characters); 2 out of 10 stars for the characters and story (these are terrible people from head to toe, from page to screen; people whom you would walk across the street to spit on, but a 1 out of 10 stars is a score reserved for films like "Glitter", "Crossroads" and "You Got Served"); and my overall score (10+8+2 divided by 3) is 6.7 stars out of 10. This film is obviously worth seeing and (this new version is) probably worth owning, but worth loving? I'm not so sure.