Frankly My Dear, I Don’t Give A Damn

“Gone With The Wind”  (1939) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sweeping historical romance “Gone With The Wind” (1939), directed by Victor Fleming (with uncredited contributions by George Cukor and Sam Wood).  The film stars Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara — the indomitable, manipulative, and endlessly compelling Southern belle whose willpower outlasts empires;  Clark Gable as Rhett Butler — the rakish blockade runner whose charm masks a bruised idealism;  Olivia de Havilland as Melanie Hamilton — the moral center of the story, all grace and quiet strength;  and Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes — the gentleman dreamer forever caught between honor and desire.  Rounding out the ensemble are Hattie McDaniel as Mammy (whose performance earned her the first Academy Award ever won by an African American actor), Butterfly McQueen as Prissy, and Thomas Mitchell as Gerald O’Hara.  With its Technicolor grandeur, iconic score by Max Steiner, and monumental production scale, the film remains one of the most famous — and controversial — epics in cinema history.
Background:  I came to “Gone With The Wind” with a very mixed attitude.  This was a film which I had avoided for much of my life.  The film (DVD) was a combined gift (with “Citizen Kane“) from my daughter who I fell into a conversation with about famous movies I’d never seen.  She watched “GWTW” in one of her high school history or social studies classes.  I’d never watched it for a number of reasons – the two main reasons were I wasn’t much interested in films “before my time”, particularly pre-1900 settings, and I’d heard it was a “Southern” viewpoint of the Civil War.  Although born in Missouri, I was raised almost exclusively in San Francisco, California and I considered (was taught) “Southerners” to be traitors to the Constitution and to the country.  Needless to say, I was not predisposed to entertain a positive “Southern” representation of either slavery or of the “Lost Cause”.  Anyway, I watched (sat through) the film years ago and was not particularly impressed – but I was looking at it through different eyes…
Released in 1939, which is sometimes cited as Hollywood’s greatest single year, “Gone With The Wind” was a colossal production for Selznick International Pictures.  Adapted from Margaret Mitchell’s Pulitzer Prize–winning novel, the film cost nearly $4 million — astronomical for its time — and became one of the highest-grossing films in history when adjusted for inflation.  At the 12th Academy Awards, it won eight competitive Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director (Fleming), Best Actress (Leigh), Best Supporting Actress (McDaniel), Best Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Color), Best Art Direction, and Best Editing, plus two honorary awards.  Its historical significance is undeniable:  it marked a turning point in Technicolor film-making, set new standards for epic storytelling, and remains a cultural touchstone — albeit one whose romanticized depiction of the (racist) antebellum South continues to spark debate.
Plot:  Set against the backdrop of the American Civil War and Reconstruction, the film follows Scarlett O’Hara, the headstrong daughter of a wealthy plantation owner.  Obsessed with Ashley Wilkes — who marries the gentle Melanie Hamilton — Scarlett’s jealousy and ambition drive her into a series of marriages, manipulations, and desperate survival strategies.  As war ravages the South, Scarlett claws her way through starvation, loss, and ruin, determined to preserve her family’s plantation, Tara.  Meanwhile, Rhett Butler enters her life as both foil and partner, matching her wit for wit and flaw for flaw.  Their tempestuous relationship becomes the film’s emotional core, culminating in heartbreak, disillusionment, and the famous final line that has echoed through cinematic history.  The narrative spans years, weaving personal drama with national catastrophe, and ultimately leaves Scarlett alone — but unbroken.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  visually stunning;  several;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Gone With The Wind” is a monumental achievement in classical Hollywood film-making.  It balances intimate character drama with sweeping historical spectacle, and despite its length (nearly four hours), the narrative rarely drags.  The film’s emotional beats — love, loss, pride, survival — still resonate.  Yet it is also a film that must be viewed with historical awareness:  its overly romanticized portrayal of the Old South and its depiction of enslaved characters reflect the prejudices of its era (the 1860s AND the 1930s).  As cinema, it is extraordinary;   as history, it is complicated.
Acting:  Vivien Leigh delivers one of the most iconic performances in film history.  Her Scarlett is fierce, flawed, magnetic, and utterly alive — a character who dominates every frame.  Clark Gable’s Rhett Butler is equally compelling, blending swagger with vulnerability.  Their chemistry is electric, even when the characters are at their most destructive.  Olivia de Havilland brings warmth and dignity to Melanie, grounding the film’s moral axis. Leslie Howard, though miscast by his own admission, still conveys Ashley’s gentility and inner conflict.  Hattie McDaniel’s Mammy is a standout — sharp, commanding, and emotionally rich — and her Oscar win remains a landmark moment in Hollywood history.
Filming / FX:  The film is visually breathtaking.  Shot in three-strip Technicolor, it remains one of the most beautiful color films ever made.  The burning of Atlanta sequence is legendary — a massive practical set piece that still impresses.  The production design captures both the opulence of plantation life and the devastation of war.  Max Steiner’s score is lush and unforgettable, particularly the “Tara’s Theme” motif.  The editing and pacing are remarkably controlled for such a sprawling narrative.  While some matte paintings and rear-projection shots show their age, the overall craftsmanship is astonishing for 1939.
Problems:  Several.  The film’s portrayal of slavery and the antebellum South is deeply sanitized, perpetuating Lost Cause mythology and minimizing the brutality of the institution.  The enslaved characters are written within the stereotypes of the era, which can be uncomfortable or offensive to modern viewers.  The romanticization of plantation life is historically inaccurate and ideologically fraught.  Additionally, the film’s length may challenge contemporary audiences, and some melodramatic elements feel dated.  Still, these issues are part of the film’s legacy and must be acknowledged when evaluating its place in cinematic history.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  As with many epics, “Gone With The Wind” demands reflection.  Its emotional arcs, performances, and visual splendor remain powerful.  The film is both a product of its time (late 1930s) and a towering achievement of classical Hollywood.  Watching it today requires a dual lens — appreciating its artistry while recognizing its historical blind spots (mainly the overt racism of slavery).  But as a cinematic experience, it remains compelling, immersive, and memorable.
Final Recommendation:  Very High to MUST See recommendation — with context.  “Gone With The Wind” is essential viewing for anyone interested in film history, epic storytelling, or the evolution of Hollywood craftsmanship.  Its eight Academy Awards, groundbreaking Technicolor cinematography, and iconic performances secure its place among the most influential films ever made.  At the same time, its overly romanticized depiction of the Old South demands critical engagement / comment.  Approach it as both art and artifact — a masterpiece of film-making and a reminder of the narratives America once embraced.  It is well worth your viewing time.
.
Click here (12 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Still Waiting

“Heaven Can Wait” (1943) – movie review
Today’s review is for Ernst Lubitsch’s Technicolor supernatural comedy “Heaven Can Wait” (1943), starring Don Ameche as Henry Van Cleve — a self-proclaimed rake who recounts his life to the Devil in hopes of proving he belongs in Hell.  Gene Tierney plays Martha, Henry’s devoted wife whose grace and loyalty anchor the narrative, while Charles Coburn appears as Henry’s indulgent grandfather Hugo Van Cleve, a figure of warmth and wit.  Laird Cregar embodies “His Excellency,” the urbane Devil who listens with bemused detachment.  The ensemble family members add texture:  Spring Byington as Henry’s mother, Mrs. Van Cleve, Marjorie Main as Martha’s outspoken mother, Mrs. Strabel, and Louis Calhern as Henry’s stern father, Randolph Van Cleve.  Together, they interweave the film’s domestic tapestry, shaping Henry’s journey from spoiled youth to aging roué.  With Lubitsch’s trademark “touch,” the film blends comedy, romance, and metaphysical reflection into a story that is both lighthearted and layered.
Background:  I approached this film as the “original” to two movies which combine the rom-com and the guardian angel (fantasy) genres:  “Here Comes Mr. Jordan” (1941) and “Heaven Can Wait“ (1978) (reviews of both here) .  Obviously, I didn’t remember / realize “HCMJ” pre-dated this film by two years.  LoL.  Anyway, the blurb for this film said it involved the death of the lead character and I misinterpreted that as the original to a remake / reboot of the other two films.  However, other than that death, the films have very little in common with this one, even though this film shares the exact same title as the 1978 film.  I was also interested in seeing an early Don Ameche film as my only recollections of him are in “Trading Places” and “Cocoon“, both of which I enjoyed, but in neither of which did Ameche overly impress me.
Released in 1943 by 20th Century-Fox, “Heaven Can Wait” was directed and produced by Ernst Lubitsch, with a screenplay by Samson Raphaelson based on Ladislaus Bus-Fekete’s play “Birthday“.  The film was shot in Technicolor with cinematography by Edward Cronjager and scored by Alfred Newman.  It was nominated for three Academy Awards:  Best Picture, Best Director (Lubitsch), and Best Cinematography, though it did not win any.  Historically, it stands as Lubitsch’s only film in Technicolor and one of his most celebrated late-career works, exemplifying the sophistication and wit that defined his style (a form of German subtle humor).
Plot:  The story opens with Henry Van Cleve arriving in Hell, convinced his life of indulgence and romantic escapades has earned him eternal damnation.  “His Excellency” listens as Henry recounts his life:  from his privileged childhood, through youthful indiscretions, to his marriage with Martha, whom he wins away from another suitor.  Over the decades, Henry’s charm and weakness for flirtation test Martha’s patience, yet her devotion endures.  The narrative unfolds as a series of vignettes (flashbacks) — family squabbles, romantic entanglements, and moments of self-reflection — with Hugo Van Cleve offering indulgent counsel, Randolph Van Cleve embodying stern patriarchal authority, Mrs. Van Cleve providing maternal warmth, and Mrs. Strabel injecting comic bluntness.  These family dynamics frame Henry’s choices and highlight the tension between indulgence and responsibility.  The story culminates in Henry’s death and his final plea for acceptance in Hell.  The Devil, however, questions whether Henry’s sins truly outweigh his humanity, leaving the audience to ponder the balance of virtue, dalliance, vice and evil intent.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  So-so;  witty and “old fashioned” elegant;  lush Technicolor;  minor pacing issues;  so-so.
Any Good?  So-so.  “Heaven Can Wait” is a sophisticated comedy of manners that uses the concept of an afterlife interview to frame a meditation on love, loyalty, and human folly.  Lubitsch’s light touch ensures the film never feels heavy-handed, even as it grapples with mortality and morality.
Acting:  Don Ameche delivers a fine performance, embodying Henry with charm, vanity, and vulnerability.  As mentioned previously, I have a limited recollection of him and none from his early years, so this film was interesting from that perspective alone.  Gene Tierney radiates warmth and poise, grounding the film’s emotional core.  I have / had heard Tierney’s name before, but I have no recollection of her work.  Charles Coburn steals scenes as Hugo Van Cleve, genial and indulgent.  Laird Cregar’s Devil is urbane and understated, a perfect foil to Henry’s confessions.  Spring Byington adds maternal gentleness as Mrs. Van Cleve, Louis Calhern provides gravitas as Randolph Van Cleve, and Marjorie Main injects comic energy as Mrs. Strabel.  Together, the ensemble balances comedy with sincerity, enriching the film’s domestic and moral themes.  I felt Coburn and Cregar were the two most interesting portrayals in this film.  LoL.
Filming / FX:  The Technicolor cinematography by Edward Cronjager is full, bathing the film in rich hues that enhance its romance and create a nostalgic tone.  Lubitsch’s direction emphasizes elegance and restraint, with his trademark use of suggestion and implication.  Alfred Newman’s score complements the film’s mood, while Dorothy Spencer’s editing maintains narrative flow.
Problems:  A few.  The episodic / flashback structure occasionally slows momentum, and Henry’s repeated indiscretions (mostly implied) may feel offensive to modern viewers.  The film’s light treatment of infidelity, while consistent with Lubitsch’s style, may strike some as dated.  The family is fabulously wealthy, but we never see (of find out) what they do to create / maintain wealth.  There is an intentional use of dollar amounts to “prove” this wealth, but this comes across poorly as the “amounts” seem trivial by today’s standards.  Still, these are minor quibbles in a work of enduring charm.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  So-so.  “Heaven Can Wait” is both entertaining and thoughtful, a film with wit, elegance, and emotional resonance.  If you don’t take it seriously, it’s pretty entertaining.  Watching Henry’s journey, framed by Lubitsch’s deft hand and enriched by family interplay, is a reminder of cinema’s ability to blend humor with humanity.
Final Recommendation:  High Moderate Recommendation.  “Heaven Can Wait” (1943) is a quintessential Lubitsch comedy, notable as his only Technicolor film and as an Academy Award nominee for Best Picture.  It is historically significant for its blend of supernatural framing and romantic comedy, offering audiences a witty meditation on life, love, and mortality.  Watch it for Ameche’s charm, Tierney’s grace, Coburn’s geniality, and Lubitsch’s inimitable touch — hopeful proof that even in Hell, laughter and humanity endure.
.
Click here (1 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Mahoney Sisters Can’t Carry A Melody

“The Broadway Melody” (1929) – movie review
Today’s review is for the landmark musical drama “The Broadway Melody” (1929), directed by Harry Beaumont and starring Charles King as Eddie Kearns (a songwriter and performer whose ambition is matched only by his romantic entanglements), Anita Page as Queenie Mahoney (the younger sister whose beauty and vulnerability draw both admiration and exploitation), and Bessie Love as Hank Mahoney (the elder sister, pragmatic and fiercely loyal, whose dreams of stardom are tested by betrayal and sacrifice).  Supporting roles include Jed Prouty as Uncle Jed, Kenneth Thomson as Jock Warriner (a wealthy socialite with predatory intentions), and Mary Doran as fellow performer May.  This ensemble anchors MGM’s first all-talking musical, a film that not only defined the backstage musical genre but also became the first sound film to win the Academy Award for Best Picture.  Perhaps less significant due to its being only the second ever Best Picture winner, it was also the first film to double-up as the highest gross attendance for the year.
Background:  In my continuing effort to gain an appreciation for cinema, I’m trying to work my way through a number of lists of great movies.  This film was second to receive the Best Picture Oscar.  I watched this on YouTube for free with no commercial interruptions.  Released in 1929, “The Broadway Melody” arrived at the dawn of Hollywood’s transition from silent films to “talkies.”  MGM promoted it as its first all-sound motion picture, and audiences flocked to see the spectacle of synchronized music, dialogue, and dance.  With a modest budget of $379,000 and a box office return of $4.4 million, the film was both a commercial and cultural triumph.  Its success paved the way for sequels (“Broadway Melody of 1936“, 1940, 1947) and cemented the musical as a dominant Hollywood genre.
Plot:  The story follows sisters Hank and Queenie Mahoney, vaudeville performers who journey to New York City to break into Broadway. Eddie Kearns, a songwriter and Hank’s longtime friend, introduces them to producer Francis Zanfield.  While Hank struggles to secure their place in the show, Queenie’s beauty attracts attention, particularly from wealthy Jock Warriner.  Eddie, initially Hank’s romantic interest, finds himself drawn to Queenie, creating a painful love triangle.  As Queenie is tempted by Jock’s wealth and Hank realizes Eddie’s affections have shifted, tensions rise.  Ultimately, Queenie rejects Jock’s superficial advances, Eddie declares his love, and Hank sacrifices her own happiness for her sister’s future.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  earnest but uneven;  innovative but dated;  several;  frankly, no, but with historical appreciation.
Any good?  Historically, yes;  personally, no.  “The Broadway Melody” is a fascinating artifact of early sound cinema.  While its narrative feels melodramatic by modern standards, its cultural significance and pioneering use of sound make it essential viewing for film historians and enthusiasts.
Acting:  Bessie Love delivers the standout performance as Hank, balancing grit with vulnerability.  Her Oscar nomination for Best Actress was deserved.  Anita Page embodies Queenie’s innocence and allure, though her role leans heavily on archetype.  Charles King’s Eddie is energetic but occasionally stiff, reflecting the transitional acting style of early talkies.  The supporting cast provides texture, though most characters serve as foils rather than fully developed personalities.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography by John Arnold captures both the intimacy of backstage life and some of the spectacle of musical numbers from that period.  The film includes two brief Technicolor sequences — a novelty at the time — which underscores MGM’s ambition.  Musical highlights include “You Were Meant for Me” and the titular “Broadway Melody,” staged with choreography that, while static compared to later musicals, thrilled audiences in 1929.
Problems:  Multiple and some severe.  The pacing is uneven, with melodramatic dialogue that feels stilted today (IMHO).  Having said that, there are some expressions used and I don’t know whether they are New York, Broadway, or simply era based.  For example:  Hank accuses Eddie of not fighting for Queenie because the other guy has more “jack” (money) than he (Eddie) does.  The love triangle dominates the narrative at the expense of deeper exploration of Broadway’s competitive world – which IS explored in cinema at least once in every decade since.  Sound technology was still in its infancy, resulting in awkward pauses and limited camera movement.  Queenie’s characterization leans toward objectification, reflecting gender norms of the era.  The acting, dancing and singing is actually quite terrible from all three of the lead characters.  It’s difficult to tell if the fault is the sound recording available in those days, or if the actors were really just that bad.  LoL  The female leads asks the male lead to sing them a song in their hotel room and a full orchestration breaks out in the background.  At no point did I feel there was any chemistry (romantic or sisterly) between any of the three leads.  Credit to the two female leads, they held their own (acting) in their individual / solo scenes.  King tries to sing a “swing” based version of the title song, but it comes across as a poor man’s Al Jolson – and suffers in the comparison.  There were more problems, but I don’t want to proverbially “beat a dead horse.”
Did I enjoy the film?  No — with reservations.  What enjoyment I did have came less from the story itself and more from the film’s historical significance.  Watching “The Broadway Melody” is like stepping into cinema’s transitional moment, where silent-era theatricality meets the promise of synchronized sound and black and white has brief intersections with sepia-colorization.
Final Recommendation:   Strong recommendation — for historical significance;  Low recommendation otherwise.  “The Broadway Melody” may not dazzle modern audiences (to put it lightly) with its plot, pacing, dancing or musicality, but it remains a cornerstone of film history.  As the first sound film to win Best Picture, it represents both the excitement and limitations of early talkies.  If you are interested in the evolution of musicals, the Academy Awards, or Hollywood’s leap into sound, this film belongs on your list for reference viewing.  Watch it not for perfection, but for the moment when cinema found its continuous voice.
.
Click here (29 December) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »