Gone with the Wind

A few months ago, on a Saturday, 'Gone with the Wind' was playing on television. I hadn't seen this movie in years, and as much as I wanted to sit down and immerse myself in the world of Scarlett and Rhett, I had to go to work. But it got me thinking, I had never actually read Margaret Mitchell's Pulitzer Prize winning book. So I loaded it onto my Kindle and over the course of the next couple of months (it's a long book and I was on my honeymoon for a few weeks) I finally finished this epic novel. So I decided to go back and re-visit the film and see how close the adaptation was.


Now this entry is by no means going to compare the two mediums blow by blow, but more my thoughts and feelings on them. I absolutely adored the book, by the first chapter I understood by it had been such a phenomenon in 1936. It's such a fascinating, page turning story with strong, intriguing characters, exciting plot twists with actual history thrown into the mix. I was pulled into the world of Scarlett O'Hara and the 1860's Deep South, the characters grew on me, and my thoughts and opinions changed from chapter to chapter until I was weeping at Melanie's death in the final pages. I really was deeply moved by this book, it took a few weeks before I could start a new one as I felt I needed to digest and analyse this epic story and it's characters. So, with the anticipation of anyone who has had a novel they treasured turned into the film, I made some popcorn and put GWTW into the dvd player.


The reception of the film on it's opening in 1939 was phenomenal. It is still classified as one of the greatest films ever made. It had a stellar cast; Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia De Havilland, Leslie Howard and Hattie McDaniel, to name but a few and won 10 Academy Awards (it was the first film to ever win more than 5). The lead up to the film's release had also been sensationalised in the news and papers, everything from the casting of Scarlett (which every actress in Hollywood and beyond wanted to play) to the firing of George Cukor as Director during filming, but the final product turned into a world wide smash. So my thoughts on this film adaption....72 years since its premiere....


I really enjoyed it, for what it was. The casting of Scarlett and Rhett, in my opinion, was perfect. I couldn't imagine them being portrayed by anyone else at that time, it was if they were lifted straight from the book. I loved that films at that time were an 'event' that people attended. I love that the film has an overture, interval music, entracte and such a strong score (that's the musician in me). The problem I did have with the film, and this is due to the fact that the book itself is over 1000 pages, is that, in writing the screen play and editing the book, a lot of the character and plot exposition was eliminated.


Now I have the utmost respect for people who can take a novel and turn it into a film or play and can see the piece as a whole and then work out what to cut without affecting the overall plot and message of the piece - I know I could never do that - just come and look at my house and see how much stuff I have - culling is not really in my nature. But with GWTW I found so much of the essence of the book, and what I loved about it, was missing, and I think was a detriment to the film, the audience and the lovers of the book. These are a few examples of things I didn't quite felt work.


Act 1

• I felt the plot was a bit like a dot to dot drawing. They had picked the 'best moments' of the first half of the book and quickly got to them, which meant you lost all the character back story, you lost the build up over the 4 year period in Atlanta of Rhett and Scarlett's relationship (which I think is really important to be able to understand them as a whole by the end) and by cutting out so much of the war and the fall of Atlanta, you don't appreciate the second half with the returning to Tara and the rebuilding of Atlanta and Scarlett's actions once back in Atlanta.
• What happened to Scarlett's child to Charles?
• Why was the character of Will cut? Which begs you to think who is looking after Tara when Scarlett goes back to Atlanta? and who is Sue-Ellen going to marry?
• Why did they change the order of the weddings (Melanie and Ashley get married after Scarlett and Charles and Scarlet does NOT cry at the wedding) and also the ring donation in Atlanta (it is Scarlett who donates her ring first and Melanie gets her strength from this action and donates hers as well) both of these changes put Scarlett in a bad light.
• Why did they feel the need to have Ellen's body in the front room, saying she had died the night before, when he had actually died days before and they had already had her funeral - the story has enough drama without adding gratuitous things.

I would like to state though, that most of Act 1 is pretty accurate to the chain of events and what happens, I just wonder whether those who have not read the book would have a different feeling of the movie as 'under developed' or have any connection to the characters, where as those who have read the book can fill in the gaps with what they know - I guess this is the same for any novel to film translation and how the Harry Potter fans must be feeling...anyway I digress...


Now this second half annoyed me (to the point of throwing popcorn at the screen) as some things were completely WRONG for NO reason


Act 2

• This second half, I felt, was a betrayal to the book. I am fine with things being condensed and time lines altered, but I don't understand completely changing things.
• Why was the incident surrounding Gerald O'Hara's death changed? (in the film they have him chasing Wilkerson off the property, which is where he falls off his horse while jumping the fence and dies, but in the book he doesn't die until Scarlet is back in Atlanta and Sue-Ellen tries to get him to sign up as a Republican Yankee supporter when he realises what she is doing he takes off on his horse and falls off while jumping and dies, which is also further character development for Sue-Ellen and Scarlett.
• What happened to Scarlett's child to Frank?
• Why did they change the whole outcome of Scarlett marrying Frank? She is supposed to marry him, take his money he is saving to buy the mill, pay the taxes on Tara and then borrow money from Rhett to buy the mill, which becomes successful and then she purchases the second mill. When she goes home to Tara for Gerald's funeral is when she then asks Ashley to come and run one of the mills - NOT help her start the business. Also because all this is changed (and the Atlanta stuff) you don't really have an understanding as to why the 'old guard' hate Scarlett and Rhett so much and why they think she deserved the attack. Incidentally I was driven to throwing popcorn at the screen in the scene where Frank questions her running the mill and says he never wanted one - wrong!!!
• What happened to Archie? and why did they think it would be ok to amalgamate part of his storyline into Mammy's character?
• Why was Prissy an adult and not a 12 year old child?
• Why did they make Melanie's death the same time as Bonnie's when it's supposed to be months later and Scarlett needs to travel back for it, all of this helping with the relationship development of Scarlett and Rhett. Also by changing this they could not show Rhett's demise after Bonnie's death.
• Finally, I realise that for dramatic effect it helped having him pack his bags, say the famous 'frankly my dear I don't give a damn' and walk out the door, but if you've read the book you know it's night time, not day time, he has a few more lines in which he says he won't divorce her, will come back from time to time to save her reputation, then goes up to his room. Scarlett does not have 'reminders of Tara' swimming thru her head and there is definitely more hope that she could possibly win him back

On a side note, it has always been Hollywood legend that Clark Gable changed the script from 'frankly my dear, I don't care' to 'frankly my dear, I don't give a damn' which was a bold and exciting 'censorship' action. I am sure this is indeed true, however I tip my hat to Clark as, besides the frankly' part, that is actually what he says in the book.


So there are a few of my thoughts about the film. I still love the film for what it is, even though I have picked the plot to pieces, it still is a great piece of cinema history, but 72 years on, and even though I am not usually a fan, I think it's time for a remake. Not a film though, I would like to see a 4 part mini-series which could properly explore the whole novel. In the mean time, if you haven't read the book, I highly recommend it. As well as the characters and story, it gives a great insight into the South's opinion of the Civil War and how they were affected as a whole.