GONE WITH THE WIND is, in my opinion, half-bad. ⭐️⭐️1/2
There is a ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️1/2 movie in there, in which Scarlett’s self-serving blinkered hothouse flower stands as sharp critique of the narration, demolishing its rose-tinctured nostalgic yearning for the bygone age of gentlemen slavers, but that movie would end right here.
As for everything after that moment.
If the movie ends here, the implicit conclusion is that right after this moment, Scarlett starves.
I guess I’m saying I really liked the part where the south thought it would win and then it lost.
I really liked the part where the south thought it had the right to own people as if they were livestock and lost everything as a result.
I really liked the part where the south thought it had the right to own people as if they were livestock and lost everything as a result.
Yes, but Butterfly McQueen didn’t get much screen time.
The second half of the movie depicts Scarlett getting wealthy again, again on slave labor, without ever once investigating the values that led her to ruin in the first place. Screw her resiliency.
But Prissy absolutely dawdled for the doctor on purpose.
But Prissy absolutely dawdled for the doctor on purpose.
Prissy did *not* want another generation of Wilkes born.
She gets the doctor away by claiming to be a midwife...
... dawdles when sent for the doc ...
... claims ignorance to waste Scarlett’s time ...
... while singing 🎶just a few more days to tote the heavy load ... 🎶
She gets the doctor away by claiming to be a midwife...
... dawdles when sent for the doc ...
... claims ignorance to waste Scarlett’s time ...
... while singing 🎶just a few more days to tote the heavy load ... 🎶
You don’t see Prissy hanging around for the 2nd half of the movie.
I for real want a Prissy movie that ends with Scarlet giving the “I’ll never be hungry again” speech in the background, while in the foreground Prissy steals the cow and heads north.
I for real want a Prissy movie that ends with Scarlet giving the “I’ll never be hungry again” speech in the background, while in the foreground Prissy steals the cow and heads north.
This is not, in my opinion, what I’m saying.
and over states the ubiquity of critical reception
And I actually think I’m giving it a fair shake
but I will say a beautiful film in service of an atrocious message is merely a beautiful atrocity.
and over states the ubiquity of critical reception
And I actually think I’m giving it a fair shake
but I will say a beautiful film in service of an atrocious message is merely a beautiful atrocity.
I thought the first half was a stone classic and really subversive of toxic antebellum nostalgia.
I thought the 2nd half was really dull; it jettisoned subversion, interest depends on the extent to which one cares if Scarlett winds up w/Rhett, which frankly, my dear, I don’t g
I thought the 2nd half was really dull; it jettisoned subversion, interest depends on the extent to which one cares if Scarlett winds up w/Rhett, which frankly, my dear, I don’t g
One thing I did enjoy all the way through was how committed the movie is to a unlikable lead. I think she’s really meant to be unlikable, too. The film has self-awareness about that—and of the fact that Rhett is just as amoral, but because he’s a man, he gets to be ‘charming.’
Also really appreciated the extent to which George Clooney is doing a Clark Gable impression in O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU.
