Gone With the Wind

[Dan Hoover]

Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.

[Michael Press]

In article <9f0690a9-3e60-4376...@googlegroups.com>,

Dan Hoover <hoove...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.

It was dated when it came out. A turkey if ever there was
one---a great gobbling, waddler of a screen spectacle. As
many clap-traps per film foot as a politician's acceptance
speech. Self-indulgent, cloying, whining twaddle. In the last
year I've seen 50 movies from the 1930s with more wit, better
pace, more panache, more appreciation for the human condition
and a tighter story than GWTW. That movie plays to sentiment
and nothing else.

--
Michael Press

[meda...@gmail.com]

Wow. I agree. I never agree with you. But you nailed it.

[swangdb]

I saw GWTW for the first time when I was 27. I'd heard about it for years, how awesome it was. I hated it. I hated Scarlett Ohara. Not one of my favorites.

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

On Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:09:42 PM UTC-5, Dan Hoover wrote:
> Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about this movie

[Michael]

On Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:09:42 PM UTC-5, Dan Hoover wrote:

> Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.

We saw it again a couple of years ago or so. I remember that it was long, epic, over-the-top, and long. But overall not unenjoyable even though it was long.

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

On Sunday, September 28, 2014 7:09:42 PM UTC-5, Dan Hoover wrote:

> Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.

My Momma's from ATL and that's all I heard about growing up. When they first ran it on TV (1976 or so) we all had to watch it. It wasn't *bad*, but nothing stuck with me except for Scarlett drinking her perfume.

I have to assume that until Atlanta took off in the 1960s, their most recent claim to fame culturally and emotionally was getting RUTSed by the Union, like it was a badge or something.

(Sidebar: Go see teh Cyclorama in Grant's Park. *That* changed my life.)

[GrtArtiste]

In adjusted 2014 dollars GWTW is still the highest-grossing movie of all
time at over $1.646 Billion. It's still ahead of Star Wars, Sound Of
Music, E.T., Titanic, Ten Commandments, Jaws, Dr. Zhivago. The Exorcist
and Snow White. Care to guess which film will be leading the pack in
another 75 years?

So I guess more than a few folks disagree with you.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

GrtArtiste

[The Cheesehusker, Trade Warrior]

It's like Titantic - total chickflick

[Michael Press]

In article <m0ca3i$s7c$1...@dont-email.me>,

GrtArtiste <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/2014 12:05 AM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <9f0690a9-3e60-4376...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dan Hoover <hoove...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.
> >
> > It was dated when it came out. A turkey if ever there was
> > one---a great gobbling, waddler of a screen spectacle. As
> > many clap-traps per film foot as a politician's acceptance
> > speech. Self-indulgent, cloying, whining twaddle. In the last
> > year I've seen 50 movies from the 1930s with more wit, better
> > pace, more panache, more appreciation for the human condition
> > and a tighter story than GWTW. That movie plays to sentiment
> > and nothing else.
> >
>
>
> In adjusted 2014 dollars GWTW is still the highest-grossing movie of all
> time at over $1.646 Billion.

I see. That is your criterion for a good movie.

> It's still ahead of Star Wars, Sound Of
> Music, E.T., Titanic, Ten Commandments, Jaws, Dr. Zhivago. The Exorcist
> and Snow White. Care to guess which film will be leading the pack in
> another 75 years?
>
> So I guess more than a few folks disagree with you.

They're do not know what I know and this is not a democracy.

--
Michael Press

[Michael Press]

In article <0b0b1c8b-3d96-40d1...@googlegroups.com>,

> Wow. I agree. I never agree with you. But you nailed it.

P.S. Scarlet is a sociopath.
GWTW is the colorized version of Birth of a Nation.

--
Michael Press

[GrtArtiste]

On 9/29/2014 4:12 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <m0ca3i$s7c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> GrtArtiste <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> In adjusted 2014 dollars GWTW is still the highest-grossing movie of all
>> time at over $1.646 Billion.
>
> I see. That is your criterion for a good movie.

I said no such thing...I just posted a few facts. It's a popular movie
determined by the number of people who vote with their wallet.
You don't agree...fine.

>
> They're do not know what I know and this is not a democracy.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I haven't said otherwise.
But opinions are like assholes...everybody has one.

GrtArtiste

[Michael Press]

In article <m0cfld$9r9$1...@dont-email.me>,

GrtArtiste <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/2014 4:12 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <m0ca3i$s7c$1...@dont-email.me>,
> > GrtArtiste <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> In adjusted 2014 dollars GWTW is still the highest-grossing movie of all
> >> time at over $1.646 Billion.
> >
> > I see. That is your criterion for a good movie.
>
> I said no such thing...

Yes, you did. Or do you say GWTW is not a good movie.

> I just posted a few facts. It's a popular movie

Neither does that make it a good movie.
_Triumph des Willens_ was popular.
At least it got to be known for what it is.
No such luck with GWTW.

> determined by the number of people who vote with their wallet.
> You don't agree...fine.
> >
> > They're do not know what I know and this is not a democracy.
>
> You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I haven't said otherwise.
> But opinions are like assholes...everybody has one.

Much of what I know and think about GWTW is not opinion.
Scarlet is a sociopath. The movie is no better than Birth of a Nation.
GWTW is obvious in its apology for antebellum south
and aggressively demeaning to everything northern.
You forget the opening crawl:

| Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their
| Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave...

Really? You go along with _that_?

--
Michael Press

[GrtArtiste]

On 9/29/2014 5:00 PM, Michael Press wrote:

Neither does that make it a good movie.
> _Triumph des Willens_ was popular.
> At least it got to be known for what it is.
> No such luck with GWTW.

> Much of what I know and think about GWTW is not opinion.
> Scarlet is a sociopath.

Sure she was. So was Hannibal Lecter.

The movie is no better than Birth of a Nation.
> GWTW is obvious in its apology for antebellum south
> and aggressively demeaning to everything northern.

Not at all surprising. I think you've forgotten that the MOVIE followed
the BOOK...in it's own right a huge success. GWTW was maybe the first
time that a huge movie-going public actually saw an attempt to put on
the screen a story with which they were already familiar because most of
them HAD READ THE BOOK (how many people today actually do that anymore?)
and had already formed opinions about what they hoped to see and who
would perform the primary roles.

> You forget the opening crawl:
>
> | Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their
> | Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave...

GWTW wasn't a success because of WHAT it portrayed, it was a success
because of HOW it portrayed the subject. Remember, we're talking about
MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCE here. No one in 1939 was concerning
themselves with how later generations would view their work...they were
only trying to sell tickets NOW. It was a movie made only for it's time.
If WHAT GWTW portrayed makes it (in your opinion) a bad movie, that is
an indictment not of the movie but of the people who made it and the
people who bought a ticket who were satisfied with the entertainment it
provided. Everything about GWTW's ART and SCIENCE was absolutely the
best of it's time and even 75 years later moviegoers still approve of
that effort against which much of what passes today as a good movie
pales in comparison.

GrtArtiste

[Dan Hoover]

Agree!

[Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose:

Stoled from Wikipedia:

Following Hattie McDaniel's Oscar win, Walter Francis White, leader of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, accused her of being an Uncle Tom. McDaniel responded that she would "rather make seven hundred dollars a week playing a maid than seven dollars being one"; she further questioned White's qualification to speak on behalf of blacks, since he was light-skinned and only one-eighth black.

[Dan Hoover]

Hattie was not invited to the premiere in Atlanta. She was not allowed to be buried in the Hollywood Forever cemetery.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 28 Sep 2014 17:09:40 -0700 (PDT), Dan Hoover
<hoove...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Went to see it on the big screen to celebrate its 75th anniversary. A near perfect movie and none of it seems outdated.

I never saw that South except in the movies.

For a long time I thought the only slaves were the steel mill workers
in the nawth and coal miners.

Hugh

[Michael Press]

In article <m0ckdu$ct4$1...@dont-email.me>,

GrtArtiste <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 9/29/2014 5:00 PM, Michael Press wrote:
>
> Neither does that make it a good movie.
> > _Triumph des Willens_ was popular.
> > At least it got to be known for what it is.
> > No such luck with GWTW.
>
> > Much of what I know and think about GWTW is not opinion.
> > Scarlet is a sociopath.
>
> Sure she was. So was Hannibal Lecter.

You seem to be saying it is okay to glorify that.

> The movie is no better than Birth of a Nation.
> > GWTW is obvious in its apology for antebellum south
> > and aggressively demeaning to everything northern.
>
> Not at all surprising. I think you've forgotten
> that the MOVIE followed the BOOK...

No, I have not. Once again your thinking leads you astray.

> in it's own right a huge success. GWTW was maybe the first
> time that a huge movie-going public actually saw an attempt to put on
> the screen a story with which they were already familiar because most of
> them HAD READ THE BOOK (how many people today actually do that anymore?)
> and had already formed opinions about what they hoped to see and who
> would perform the primary roles.

So a bunch of people read and approved of a bigoted and racist book.
No honor there.

> > You forget the opening crawl:
> >
> > | Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their
> > | Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave...
>
> GWTW wasn't a success because of WHAT it portrayed,

Yes, it was. Being extremely bigoted and racist and claiming is
okay to have unilaterally fomented and actively started a tragic
civil war makes GWTW, the book and the movie, very successful.

> it was a success
> because of HOW it portrayed the subject. Remember, we're talking about
> MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCE here. No one in 1939 was concerning
> themselves with how later generations would view their work...they were
> only trying to sell tickets NOW. It was a movie made only for it's time.
> If WHAT GWTW portrayed makes it (in your opinion) a bad movie, that is
> an indictment not of the movie but of the people who made it and the
> people who bought a ticket who were satisfied with the entertainment it
> provided.

And very satisfied that their base feelings are pandered to.

> Everything about GWTW's ART and SCIENCE was absolutely the
> best of it's time and even 75 years later moviegoers still approve of
> that effort against which much of what passes today as a good movie
> pales in comparison.

_Triumph des Willens_ [1935] broke new technical ground as well.
Read up on some of what Leni Riefenstahl invented and successfully
implemented. _Citizen Kane_ did new things in a movie and it is
ponderous, tedious and vapid.

Successfully drawing viewers does not make GWTW a good movie.
_Gone With the Wind_ is a stinky movie and a stinky book.

--
Michael Press

[GrtArtiste]

On 9/30/2014 3:10 PM, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <m0ckdu$ct4$1...@dont-email.me>,
> GrtArtiste <nine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> No, I have not. Once again your thinking leads you astray.
>
>> in it's own right a huge success. GWTW was maybe the first
>> time that a huge movie-going public actually saw an attempt to put on
>> the screen a story with which they were already familiar because most of
>> them HAD READ THE BOOK (how many people today actually do that anymore?)
>> and had already formed opinions about what they hoped to see and who
>> would perform the primary roles.
>
> So a bunch of people read and approved of a bigoted and racist book.
> No honor there.

>

> Yes, it was. Being extremely bigoted and racist and claiming is
> okay to have unilaterally fomented and actively started a tragic
> civil war makes GWTW, the book and the movie, very successful.

>

> And very satisfied that their base feelings are pandered to.
>
>> Everything about GWTW's ART and SCIENCE was absolutely the
>> best of it's time and even 75 years later moviegoers still approve of
>> that effort against which much of what passes today as a good movie
>> pales in comparison.

>

> Successfully drawing viewers does not make GWTW a good movie.
> _Gone With the Wind_ is a stinky movie and a stinky book.

If you want to blame Margaret Mitchell for what she wrote and David O.
Selznick for what he filmed...go ahead...BE MY GUEST. If you want to
blame the audience of 1939 because they liked GWTW...GO AHEAD. They did
not and could not know how the attitudes of later generations would
evolve and change. They lived only in their time just as we live only in
ours. As a piece of FILM_MAKING GWTW still stands tall.

Sounds like you are more interested in trying to proclaim your own
superiority as a human being over that generation. A World War was just
starting at that time and it was that generation that went out and won
it at a terrible cost that none of us today can fully comprehend. Try to
remember that before you go pissing on their graves.

GrtArtiste

[Michael Press]

In article <m0f2i6$pvd$1...@dont-email.me>,

You attack me because you cannot answer the facts about the movie
that I present. GWTW is a bigoted, racist apology for fomenting
and starting a war. Bigoted against anything northern. Racist in
presenting black slaves as acceptable. The main character is
a sociopath, Ashley is a nobody, Melanie is doormat, Rhett is
a buccaneer who hypocritically advances the cause of the Confederacy
while pretending to neutrality. The characters are uniformly weak.
The plot is kept going by one tragic death after another.

Even when it came out many even handed critics thought it
bloated and weak drama.

I call it Self-indulgent, cloying, whining twaddle playing
entirely to sentiment. It is offensive, nasty and stinky.

Here, read this

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)#African-American_reaction>

"nostalgic plea for sympathy for a still living cause of Southern reaction"

"shiftless and dull-witted Pork",
the "indolent and thoroughly irresponsible Prissy",
Big Sam's "radiant acceptance of slavery",
and Mammy with her "constant haranguing and doting
on every wish of Scarlett".

So there. Even when it came out, thoughtful people saw
it for what it is: propaganda to rewrite history with
a sentimental sugar coating.

--
Michael Press

[JGibson]

On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:10:57 PM UTC-4, Michael Press wrote:
> _Citizen Kane_ did new things in a movie and it is
>
> ponderous, tedious and vapid.

Nobody is taking up opposition to this statement?

[GrtArtiste]

I wish I could, but have never had the opportunity to see CK
in it's entirety.

GrtArtiste