Bonus Review: Gone With the Wind, Movie Version!

p5094_v_v8_aiAt the beginning of this month, I announced that I’d be reading Southern literature and started with Gone With the Wind. As I said when I reviewed the book, before I started this adventure I didn’t have a clue what was coming.

Not only is the book Gone With the Wind the one of the biggest selling American books of all time, it spawned the definitely best-selling movie of all time when adjusted for inflation. After reading the book, I had to see this 4-hour monster of a film, and here I’ve stacked it up against what I recently read.

There will be some spoilers spread throughout the review.

The Good

I was, overall, impressed with how the movie handled the intense, detailed story contained within the book. It still conveyed a good sense of the character of Scarlett, and I thought Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh were perfect choices for casting.

Because I read the book just before watching the movie, I was able to remember a few details that the movie did right. I was impressed with how well they represented the architecture, fashions, and overall aesthetics of the different settings. Often in old movies, scenes don’t have quite the right lighting for the mood. Perhaps this had to do with camera technology, or perhaps the budgets, but Gone With the Wind did it very well.

One of the scenes I thought was the most vivid was when Scarlett witnessed the soldier getting his arm cut off without any painkillers or anesthetics. Though the camera just showed shadows, the shadows clearly indicated what was happening, and the screams and audio hints were dreadful. This scene felt even more powerful than it did in the book.

I was also impressed by the burning of Atlanta scene. I have no idea how much that must have cost for them to do in the thirties, but I can’t imagine them being able to afford doing it in more than one take.

The Bad

Now, “The Bad” mostly has to do with the stuff they deleted to get the story to fit within 4 freaking hours. Yes, the book had so much more that the movie skipped over, and I did think what it skipped could have enhanced the movie. However, I can see why they chose much of this to excise, and I don’t think it would have been easy to pare the book down in a different way.

First, the two children Ella and Wade Hampton (who were from Scarlett’s first two husbands) were entirely absent. Though they didn’t appear too often in the book, their spectres and the hatred Scarlett held for them was palpable and important. If they’d been in the movie, Scarlett’s evil would have been even more apparent.

Probably the biggest thing they missed out on were some of the roles the people of color played. As I mentioned in my book review, the book was pretty racist, but several of the characters who had speaking roles were very good. Pork, Uncle Peter, Dilcey, and Sam were all either cut entirely or pared down to only a sliver of what they had been. Miss Prissy, who remained in the show, was the biggest idiot that has ever existed. Without the stronger characters of color to offset stupid Prissy, the movie’s racial undertones were somehow even more egregious than the book’s. Even Mammy, who I think was done well in the movie, wasn’t enough to make up for these excisions.

Next Week

It’s a brand new month, and we’re going to explore a few more indie books! Stay tuned!

12 thoughts on “Bonus Review: Gone With the Wind, Movie Version!

  1. D. Wallace Peach says:

    What a great idea to watch the movie after reading the book and compare the two. Your efforts have my greatest admiration. I have vague memories of watching the movie as a kid and the hospital tents in the yard of Tara (hopefully I didn’t make that up). Anyway, you have solidified my decision to skip the book and the movie. Lol. Have a great week and be safe. ❤

    • H.R.R. Gorman says:

      I think the hospital tents were in Atlanta. But yeah – that was a huge scene, especially because in the time the film was made, you couldn’t just make bodies with computers. They had to get hundreds of people to lie there, pretending to be in agony. That’s one of the best parts of the film: just seeing how much had to have gone into making it.

    • H.R.R. Gorman says:

      Haha, I understand completely. I think I’m fairly good at decoupling the two and judging changes based on a movie’s time constraints and the need to be visual.

      I have heard, however, that the Forrest Gump book is terrible compared to the movie. Haven’t read the book, so that’s just grapevine nonsense talk.

  2. Miriam Hurdle says:

    A I mentioned earlier that I saw this movie long ago. Lately, we watched the old movies. I’m going to watch this one again since I’ve forgotten most of it. Wonderful review and comparison between the book and the movie, HRR.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.