Hello, all! Today, we’ll be moving from one bladder buster to another [which is what some contemporary critics of today’s recommended film called it, incidentally], closing out the “Napoleonic Tactics/Civil War” portion of this “series” with what may very well be the seminal Civil War film. If you don’t like it, I can understand… but, frankly, I don’t give a…
You guessed it, it’s the cinematic adaptation of Margaret Mitchell’s GONE WITH THE WIND. The trailer for the film is below:
As I alluded to yesterday, this is the first film I saw in theaters that had an intermission… and it needed it. Critics found it overlong when it was released [some calling it a “bladder buster”] and nothing about that has really changed since it was released eighty years ago. Runtime notwithstanding, it’s a compelling [and romanticized] look at the antebellum South. For the most part, the casting is spot-on with respect to the book, with Vivien Leigh doing a terrific job as Scarlett O’Hara and Clark Gable being almost iconic in his portrayal of Rhett Butler. The main exception to the movie vs. book casting choices probably has to be Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes. Compared to the character one imagines in the book, the on-screen iteration is a bit of a weenie, but I can’t be too critical since the actor was a WWI vet who was diagnosed with shell shock and invalided out of the service.
And what better segue could there be to move from the Napoleonic tactics films to those about The Great War? But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Anecdotally, I feel that it’s worth pointing out that I saw this film in the Capitol Theatre in Greeneville, TN, a city fairly well steeped in Civil War lore, with Gen. John Hunt Morgan being gunned down right in front of the Episcopal Church about a block away from the theatre, and the so-called “Cannonball Church,” which features a cannonball [ostensibly fired from a cannon during a Civil War engagement rather than just being planted there] in the bricks of its front façade. Naturally, the first impeached POTUS [Andrew Johnson] hailing from the place also helped to add to the Civil War vibe.
It’s not as if the film needs any help, however, being one long ode to the antebellum South, where “the help” loved their work [whether or not they knew anything about “birthin’ babies”] and anyone who wasn’t a part of that noble, chivalric culture was either a carpetbagger or rape-minded Union soldier. The saccharine tone of life in the South notwithstanding, however, it’s a good film. Overlong? Sure. Romanticized unto the point of almost becoming pure fiction? Probably. Nevertheless, it stands as one of the most awarded and successful films in American history for good reason. [Edit: After looking it up, I found out that it is the most financially successful film in American history (adjusted for inflation). I live and I learn.]
What makes it so successful, though? My guess is that there will always be some kind of curious attraction to tragedy, and there’s little more tragic than war… and when it’s literally brother against brother, very little more tragic than that. To deal with such an episode psychologically, it seems almost necessary to put some sort of romanticized varnish on it. Why else would the so-called “Lost Cause” myth ever gain traction? In short, rather than confronting the ugly realities of the Civil War, we prefer to mythologize it – its causes, its actors, its battles – and continue to make it approachable.
If only we’d listen to Sherman and realize that “war is hell.” Combine that with Sartre’s famous quote that “hell is other people,” and it becomes quite clear why romanticized versions of terrible events will continue to have mass appeal – the alternative is too terrible to consider. C’est la vie.
Other films recommended:
[Day 1 - KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (Director's Cut); Day 2 - GLADIATOR; Day 3 - TROY; Day 4 - SPARTACUS; Day 5 - BRAVEHEART; Day 6 - MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD; Day 7 - GLORY; Day 8 - GODS AND GENERALS]
You guessed it, it’s the cinematic adaptation of Margaret Mitchell’s GONE WITH THE WIND. The trailer for the film is below:
As I alluded to yesterday, this is the first film I saw in theaters that had an intermission… and it needed it. Critics found it overlong when it was released [some calling it a “bladder buster”] and nothing about that has really changed since it was released eighty years ago. Runtime notwithstanding, it’s a compelling [and romanticized] look at the antebellum South. For the most part, the casting is spot-on with respect to the book, with Vivien Leigh doing a terrific job as Scarlett O’Hara and Clark Gable being almost iconic in his portrayal of Rhett Butler. The main exception to the movie vs. book casting choices probably has to be Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes. Compared to the character one imagines in the book, the on-screen iteration is a bit of a weenie, but I can’t be too critical since the actor was a WWI vet who was diagnosed with shell shock and invalided out of the service.
And what better segue could there be to move from the Napoleonic tactics films to those about The Great War? But, I’m getting ahead of myself.
Anecdotally, I feel that it’s worth pointing out that I saw this film in the Capitol Theatre in Greeneville, TN, a city fairly well steeped in Civil War lore, with Gen. John Hunt Morgan being gunned down right in front of the Episcopal Church about a block away from the theatre, and the so-called “Cannonball Church,” which features a cannonball [ostensibly fired from a cannon during a Civil War engagement rather than just being planted there] in the bricks of its front façade. Naturally, the first impeached POTUS [Andrew Johnson] hailing from the place also helped to add to the Civil War vibe.
It’s not as if the film needs any help, however, being one long ode to the antebellum South, where “the help” loved their work [whether or not they knew anything about “birthin’ babies”] and anyone who wasn’t a part of that noble, chivalric culture was either a carpetbagger or rape-minded Union soldier. The saccharine tone of life in the South notwithstanding, however, it’s a good film. Overlong? Sure. Romanticized unto the point of almost becoming pure fiction? Probably. Nevertheless, it stands as one of the most awarded and successful films in American history for good reason. [Edit: After looking it up, I found out that it is the most financially successful film in American history (adjusted for inflation). I live and I learn.]
What makes it so successful, though? My guess is that there will always be some kind of curious attraction to tragedy, and there’s little more tragic than war… and when it’s literally brother against brother, very little more tragic than that. To deal with such an episode psychologically, it seems almost necessary to put some sort of romanticized varnish on it. Why else would the so-called “Lost Cause” myth ever gain traction? In short, rather than confronting the ugly realities of the Civil War, we prefer to mythologize it – its causes, its actors, its battles – and continue to make it approachable.
If only we’d listen to Sherman and realize that “war is hell.” Combine that with Sartre’s famous quote that “hell is other people,” and it becomes quite clear why romanticized versions of terrible events will continue to have mass appeal – the alternative is too terrible to consider. C’est la vie.
Other films recommended:
[Day 1 - KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (Director's Cut); Day 2 - GLADIATOR; Day 3 - TROY; Day 4 - SPARTACUS; Day 5 - BRAVEHEART; Day 6 - MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD; Day 7 - GLORY; Day 8 - GODS AND GENERALS]
Last edited:
