Jump to content

 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Det Jim McLeod

Gone With The Wind (1939) Surprising And Shocking Moments

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TikiSoo said:

My Mom read the book in two days as a teen then gave me her first print copy when I was a teen. I loved it too. I am also lucky enough to have seen it projected 35mm in a theater-and sat in the front row. 

That's a really long book too. It would take me a month. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

 

My Mom read the book in two days as a teen then gave me her first print copy when I was a teen. I loved it too. I am also lucky enough to have seen it projected 35mm in a theater-and sat in the front row. 

 

.

I also seen the 35mm version at my local theatre in 1985.  It was presented the old fashion way - lights dimmed / brighten, curtains open / closed during opening scene, intermission, ending  like in the movie "This is Cinerama".

I obtained the outside movie poster and still have it.

 

Trivia...The original 1939 screening of GWTW came with an instruction manual for the projectionist how exactly to present it.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, hamradio said:

I also seen the 35mm version at my local theatre in 1985.  It was presented the old fashion way - lights dimmed / brighten, curtains open / closed during opening scene, intermission, ending  like in the movie "This is Cinerama".

I obtained the outside movie poster and still have it.

 

Trivia...The original 1939 screening of GWTW came with an instruction manual for the projectionist how exactly to present it.  

 

I thought all films came with projectionist's instructions, especially in first-run houses?   Maybe there's some veteran projectionists on here that can confirm.  Maybe that was only after the proliferation of aspect ratios in the 1950s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, txfilmfan said:

I thought all films came with projectionist's instructions, especially in first-run houses?   Maybe there's some veteran projectionists on here that can confirm.  Maybe that was only after the proliferation of aspect ratios in the 1950s?

For the average film, projectionist were trained how to present them which was their primary job. Sound level, sharpness of the image, film breaks a no-no, etc.

Union run projection rooms were strict  regarding projectionist!  

 

This story may be of interest.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/film-projectionists-digital-age-181628995.html

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, hamradio said:

Union run projection rooms were strict  regarding projectionist!

Especially in Chicago! 😉

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, LiamCasey said:

Especially in Chicago! 😉

Goodness a license is required in New York! 

One think that was a public safety issue! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, txfilmfan said:

I thought all films came with projectionist's instructions, especially in first-run houses?   Maybe there's some veteran projectionists on here that can confirm.  Maybe that was only after the proliferation of aspect ratios in the 1950s?

I've heard that this sort'a thing, instructions to the movie projectionists that is, didn't really begin in earnest for another 20 years after GWTW, and until the following movie was released to the movie houses in 1959...

 

tingler-cinema-projectionist.jpg

(...beware The TINGLER...and especially you projectionists out there...at a theater near you)

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Dargo said:

I've heard that this sort'a thing, instructions to the movie projectionists that is, didn't really begin in earnest for another 20 years after GWTW, and until the following movie was released to the movie houses in 1959...

 

tingler-cinema-projectionist.jpg

(...beware The TINGLER...and especially you projectionists out there...at a theater near you)

 

RELATED, but depressing article from slate:

https://slate.com/culture/2010/12/why-projectionists-will-soon-be-no-more.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well TOM, back to that party you mentioned....

MID '70's did you say?   I think it was about then the movie finally got around to being broadcast on TV.  It's main boasting point for years was that despite it's age, it has yet to be shown on network television( the only television available for decades, chillun)  I can remember it routinely being re-released to theaters  going back to when I first learned how to read newspaper ads and theater marquees.  But even then, I'd bet that the high school students putting on that amusing display probably watched it only because it might have been a classroom assignment.   As I was raising my family by the mid '70's, I'm only guessing as to the interest teen aged kids would have had in that movie at that point in time.

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the movie in theaters three times before I turned 21 and read the book twice while in high school.

Naturally being from The Deep South influenced my opinions then.  But it was a romanticized view of The Old South and the Dawn of The New South.  Still a great movie with a great story and fantastic acting and directing.

You could analyze the various aspects of the book and the movie almost as much as you could the Civil War itself.   To me, the movie reflected the traumatic passing of a way of life and a social class and the struggle of some members to adjust and succeed (Scarlett O'Hara, Rhett Butler,  Melanie Wilkes).  Of course, Rhett was a black sheep member of the class so he had a leg up to start with.

While slavery underpinned the society, not so much the movie.  Neither the book nor the movie was supposed to be a history of The South or The Civil War, but a romanticized version of people's struggle with a dramatic, sudden cataclysmic change to their life styles.  Oh, and the romance of one woman.

As for romanticizing, Hollywood does that all the time.  You can look at any number of recent war movies and see that they romanticize the characters and their actions.  May be more gory, but still a strong element of romanticizing.

Incidentally, the original title of the book was Tomorrow is Another Day, but Mitchell changed it before publication.  Gone With the Wind is much better.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first (and only) theater viewing was the 67(?) rerelease. I read the book somewhat later. Due to length the film cut and condensed storylines. I think Scarlett had at least one other child, perhaps two with Charles Hamilton. Originally Scarlett was to be named PANSY O'HARA. Glad she dropped that idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that the first time I saw GWTW was when my parents took me to see it at its 1967 revival. There was a general sadness at the time as Vivien Leigh had just passed away that year, leaving Olivia de Havilland as the only principle cast member still around (which is STILL the case, of course, all these decades later).

I enjoyed the film very much but was stuck by what TERRIBLE colour it had. Everything on the screen seemed so orange. I was a fan of The Adventures of Robin Hood and proclaimed far and wide afterward to anyone who would listen just how superior its colour was to that in Wind.

It wasn't until later that I discovered that the Technicolor prints of GWTW had badly discoloured with time, and it wouldn't be until some years later that the film was restored bringing it back to the outstanding Technicolor with which we associate it today. But, believe me, folks, in 1967 GWTW's colour was in a very sad condition, and that is the version that people paid money to see at its re-release in the theatres that year.

I'm not certain, however, that the Technicolor quality we see in the film, since it went through a restoration process, is exactly the same as audiences viewed in 1939.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Hibi said:

My first (and only) theater viewing was the 67(?) rerelease. I read the book somewhat later. Due to length the film cut and condensed storylines. I think Scarlett had at least one other child, perhaps two with Charles Hamilton. Originally Scarlett was to be named PANSY O'HARA. Glad she dropped that idea.

I snort every time I read that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TheCid said:

I saw the movie in theaters three times before I turned 21 and read the book twice while in high school.

Naturally being from The Deep South influenced my opinions then.  But it was a romanticized view of The Old South and the Dawn of The New South.  Still a great movie with a great story and fantastic acting and directing.

 

well, sort of. the film has three different directors and, in many ways, it shows. (but some could say that that goes in the film's plus column as it has three distinct acts with three distinct "feels" to them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, TomJH said:

I recall that the first time I saw GWTW was when my parents took me to see it at its 1967 revival. There was a general sadness at the time as Vivien Leigh had just passed away that year, leaving Olivia de Havilland as the only principle cast member still around (which is STILL the case, of course, all these decades later).

I enjoyed the film very much but was stuck by what TERRIBLE colour it had. Everything on the screen seemed so orange. I was a fan of The Adventures of Robin Hood and proclaimed far and wide afterward to anyone who would listen just how superior its colour was to that in Wind.

It wasn't until later that I discovered that the Technicolor prints of GWTW had badly discoloured with time, and it wouldn't be until some years later that the film was restored bringing it back to the outstanding Technicolor with which we associate it today. But, believe me, folks, in 1967 GWTW's colour was in a very sad condition, and that is the version that people paid money to see at its re-release in the theatres that year.

I'm not certain, however, that the Technicolor quality we see in the film, since it went through a restoration process, is exactly the same as audiences viewed in 1939.

Well Tom, ANOTHER thing I've heard is that all the really poor quality prints of this flick at the time were sent up to the projectionists in Canada.

(...and so that could explain all this, ya know)

;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also also also, the fact that CHARLES HAMILTON is SUCH  a GOOBER and so ill-equipped for war comes across, to me, as a fair and kind of funny bit of shade on the South- and again, I am a Southerner.

A sample of the "Confederacy's Finest...until they got the measles":

charles+hamilton.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Well Tom, ANOTHER thing I've heard is that all the really poor quality prints of this flick at the time were sent up to the projectionists in Canada.

(...and so that could explain all this, ya know)

;)

 

I bet that really would have been the case if Movie Madness have been in charge.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

I snort every time I read that.

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

also also also, the fact that CHARLES HAMILTON is SUCH  a GOOBER and so ill-equipped for war comes across, to me, as a fair and kind of funny bit of shade on the South- and again, I am a Southerner.

A sample of the "Confederacy's Finest...until they got the measles":

charles+hamilton.jpg

LOL! He figures more prominently in the book, but as written and acted in the film, we are glad to see him go quickly! :D

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also also also also, it is a shame there was no COSTUME DESIGN AWARD the year GWTW came and conquered.

this video may be a bit much for some of you, and it is incomplete- leaving out a lot of her gowns in the first act of the film, but still impressive.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

also also also, the fact that CHARLES HAMILTON is SUCH  a GOOBER and so ill-equipped for war comes across, to me, as a fair and kind of funny bit of shade on the South- and again, I am a Southerner.

A sample of the "Confederacy's Finest...until they got the measles":

charles+hamilton.jpg

And even though I called the guy a "doofus" earlier in this thread Lorna, I have to admit your use of the word "goober" is MUCH more apropos here.

(...southern doofus=goober...yep, I should've thought of that, huh)

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, LornaHansonForbes said:

also also also also, it is a shame there was no COSTUME DESIGN AWARD the year GWTW came and conquered.

this video may be a bit much for some of you, and it is incomplete- leaving out a lot of her gowns in the first act of the film, but still impressive.

 

I don't understand what took them SO LONG to establish this award. Wasn't it the late 40s???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Dargo said:

And even though I called the guy a "doofus" earlier in this thread Lorna, I have to admit your use of the word "goober" is MUCH more apropos here.

(...southern doofus=goober...yep, I should've thought of that, huh)

I'm thinking it was just the Wilkes's who "always marry their cousins."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Hibi said:

I don't understand what took them SO LONG to establish this award. Wasn't it the late 40s???

yeah, and when it was they only allowed TWO NOMINEES in the category *which, i think was divided between black and white and color)

i want to say 1948 was the first year, and one of the nominees was BF's DAUGHTER, a largely forgotten STANWYCK vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAMLET, JOAN OF ARC, THE HEIRESS  and ADVENTURES OF DON JUAN were the winners in the first 2 years of the awars.

Year Film Nominees
1948
(21st)
[15]
Black-and-White
Hamlet Roger K. Furse
B.F.'s Daughter Irene
Color
Joan of Arc Dorothy Jeakins and Karinska
The Emperor Waltz Edith Head and Gile Steele
1949
(22nd)
[16]
Black-and-White
The Heiress Edith Head and Gile Steele
Prince of Foxes Vittorio Nino Novarese
Color
Adventures of Don Juan Leah Rhodes, Travilla and Marjorie Best
Mother Is a Freshman Kay Nelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...