Gone with the Wind - Adaptation at its Best (or at least not its worst)

Gone with the Wind

Director: Victor Fleming

What gentlemen says and what they thinks is two different things. –Mammy

With enough courage, you can do without a reputation. –Rhett

As God is my witness they’re not going to lick me. I’m going to live through this… as God is my witness, I’ll never be hungry again. –Scarlett

I’m not in love with you anymore than you are with me. Heaven help the man whoever really loves you. –Rhett

She’s the only dream I've ever had that didn't die in the face of reality. –Ashley

Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn. –Rhett

I’m not sure I need to post the Netflix description of this movie, since I included a description of the book only a two posts ago, but I’m not one to stray from tradition, so here it you go:

Director Victor Fleming's 1939 epic adaption of Margaret Mitchell's novel of the same name stars Vivien Leigh as self-absorbed, headstrong Scarlett O'Hara, a Southern Belle who meets her match in Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) just as the Civil War breaks out. Living on a large cotton plantation called Tara in rural Georgia in 1861, Scarlett sees her beloved home and life as she knows it go up in flames -- but will her true love be lost too?

I can understand why people take to the movie so much. Had I not read the book, I might have even liked the story of Scarlett and Rhett and Ashley. Whoever it was that adapted the book to make the movie made some wise decisions in choosing which parts to cut. There are, of course, some choices I would question, but overall, the scenes included portrayed a very different Scarlett than the one presented in the book.

While some minor characters were not included in the movie version, the writer and casting director did a great job working with the ones that were kept. The best two characters – minor though they are – are Aunt Pittypat and Prissy. These two women added some timely humor and color whenever they entered the scenes.

One contention I had with the characters was Melanie. While I like that she was portrayed as a much stronger person mentally and emotionally in the movie than she was in the book, I didn't care much for the way the actress feigned weakness, grasping feebly onto railings, furniture or people every time she tried to move. Melanie is supposed to be a delicate creature, no doubt. But the way it came across, at least to me, was that Melanie was capable but chose to act otherwise. The pain and weakness that should have been written on her face wasn't there, making it look like she was just being lazy, not struggling against herself to do something she was not physically able to do. I don't know whether I should fault the actor for not being convincing or the director for not demanding more intensity.

There was one aspect of the movie that I found extremely lacking realism – akin to Melanie’s facial display of strain – that I felt actually did work to the story's advantage. Throughout the movie, the actors were set against ridiculously fake backdrops. Yet, as unbelievable as they were, they somehow seemed fitting. Maybe it’s because, had they been more realistic, the movie would have been downright depressing: the grays of a war-torn country, the blood and fire and smoke, the permeation of death, despair and poverty. More realistic scenes would have darkened the mood of the movie, serving to remind the viewer that the war was real, as were the poor combat conditions, the emaciated soldiers, the towns' scarcity of clothing, food and even living conditions. All of these sights would have detracted from the love story, which, at its simplest, Gone with the Wind truly is. I think the bright reds and yellows of the bold backdrops served to add to the romance, the rapture, the heat of the story. Not only that, but it somehow added a softness that the book often lacked, particularly to Scarlett. For even a character as sharp and selfish as Scarlett can benefit from good lighting.

However, even lighting did not make me warm to the interactions between Scarlett and Ashley. Every time they came on the screen, I cringed. The immaturity in the love they claimed to feel for each other, especially in contrast to the genuine love Rhett obviously held for Scarlett, angered me. I never bought into the story that he was her one true love or that they were meant to be together, each suffering silently (or, in Scarlett's case, not so silently). I think it was perhaps worse in the movie than the book, where Ashley’s love was concerned. The movie contained a few scenes where Ashley appeared to genuinely love Melanie. He rushed to her, kissed her, hugged her, all unprompted. So the viewer could foresee his epiphany that Melanie was the "only dream" he’d ever had that didn't "die in the face of reality"; it made sense. The book, however, showed Ashley as less openly affectionate toward Melanie – always instead showing her as the initiator of physical contact. Quite honestly, neither of those takes on the love triangle worked for me. Was it better when I could see Ashley's love for Melanie while he claimed love for Scarlett (movie), or was it better when I was led to believe Ashley only feigned interest in his wife while he stoically pined for Scarlett (book)? I don’t know – the end result was the same: disgust for both characters.

My takeaway: Sometimes a movie, with its decisions of when to adhere to and when to deviate from a book’s realism or character development, can be more satisfying than the book. And I still hate Scarlett… and Ashley.