If you're under 35, have you ever seen the movie/read the book

[raccoon]

GONE WITH THE WIND?

I suspect many of you haven't. I don't think it's great literature, and certainly not realistic historical fiction, but it was/is part of American popular culture.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. No, but aren't you being presumptuous?

Most of my favorite movies and music are "old," as in predating me, but GWTW just never got onto my to-do list.

[raccoon]

4. Let me rephrase that. I'm speaking from my experience. My 20- and 30-

something co-workers haven't seen/read it.

Not saying that's a bad thing, I just wonder if it's going out of vogue.

Bestsellers of previous decades, most people have never heard of today.

[charlie and algernon]

2. i'm in my 20's and I've seen the movie

it's my mom's favorite, so I've seen it several times.

Also recently bought an edition of the book printed in 1936, with a "soft" hard cover and gold leaf pages. It's beautiful!

[dem629]

3. It's awful.

I love to read, and I tried to get into the book twice and couldn't stand it. Tried to watch the movie once and found it to be a snoozefest.

As for "old movies" in general, there's some real garbage out there. Terrible production, ridiculously forced acting and stilted dialog, and campy....wow.

I have a feeling some people tout these old "classics" because they think they should like them, as if it makes them sophisticated or something, when in reality most people groan at that stuff.

[SteppingRazor]

6. As Mark Twain said....

"A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read."

I agree about old movies. A lot of them are just total garbage. I think a lot of that is becuase of the newness of the medium, so that actors hadn't quite figured out how to act on camera and were still acting for the stage, where grandiose movements and emotive dialogue are necessary due to large crowds. (The cheap seats would miss subtle movements and dialogue)

[Hissyspit]

7. Um, a lot of new movies aren't total garbage?

There is some absolutely TERRIBLE acting in contemporary movies.

[SteppingRazor]

10. Sure, but that's on a case by case basis.

I'm talking across the board, most old movies tend to be poorly acted and trite. There are a few exceptions of course, but in modern times, there are a few quality movies every year, as opposed to poring through decades of bunk to look for the few real gems.

[cemaphonic]

25. But time has done the poring for us.

Yeah, it's true - the old-time Hollywood studio system would churn out junk by the bucketload. Stuff that would be scripted, cast, rehearsed, shot and edited inside of 2 weeks. But almost all of that is long forgotten. The old movies that people still watch today *are* the real gems of the era, and every single year from the early 20s or so produced at least a few movies that lots of people still like. I'd say that the only 10-year stretch that can match 1935-1945 for great movies was 1969-1979.

*Really* old movies, like most of the early silents are pretty stagey, but there are some pretty great films in there too.

[Orrex]

35. Some of the best films ever made are silent films, but...

Every day, Turner Classic Movies runs pre-1950 films that are rated at 1.5 stars or less. I really wonder what they're thinking when they do this; with so many high quality films produced during those decades, why run a movie that sucked in its first release and sucks no less 65 years later?

I imagine it's a matter of cost, but even that's a bullshit excuse.

[SteppingRazor]

5. Seen the movie. My wife, who's a couple years younger than me, LOVES the movie.

We have discussions all the time about the character of Scarlett O'Hara. My wife finds her a compelling, complex character. I find her to be utterly repellent.

[raccoon]

9. I'm with you there. My opinions about the book have changed a lot over the years.

I first read it when I was 13. My older female relatives seemed to think it was second only to the Bible. I loved it then; I read it over and over and to this day I can quote dialogue or some narrative from it.

Fast forward several decades.....

About 5 years ago, I got it on audiobook from my library. I couldn't get through part one. It seemed incredibly slow-moving.

[blueraven95]

8. I've seen the movie and read the book

I'm 26.

Truthfully, I can't say that I like the story very much. But I do like the dress she made out of the curtains.


You're co-workers, etc. may just be people who are not very interested in that sort of entertainment. I nearly fainted when I found out some of my former co-workers didn't know who Charlie Chaplin was. But I'm into films.

[Common Sense Party]

41. The dress made out of curtains--Carol Burnett did it better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aRMZ4ePmMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjhtxfSMIWk

[miss_american_pie]

11. Yes to both

I'm 31

[motely36]

12. I am over 40 and no to both

no desire...

[El Fuego]

13. I've seen the movie many times AND I own the deluxe DVD set.

Even the documentaries about the making of the film are fascinating. I've never slogged my way through the book, though.

[ElboRuum]

14. Most Overrated Film/Book of All Time n/t

[Aristus]

15. I'll never forget Mitchell's description of the Tarleton Twins, those rich Southern slave-owning

assholes. How they never cracked a book in their lives, got thrown out of every university they had attended, and lived for outdoor recreation, all funded by unpaid, forced labor.

Some things never change...

[JVS]

34. I wonder sometimes if the people who think it paints a very rosy picture of Southern culture...

realize that the film essentially the replacement of a degenerative agrarian slaveholding ruling class exemplified by characters who are fundamentally weak (Charles, Ashley, Melanie, Aunt Pittypat) and moronically enter into a war which they have been told will destroy them with an industrialized capitalist and merchant class who display strength (Rhett, Scarlett, the Northerners) but also cunning

[harmonicon]

16. I've seen the movie

[XemaSab]

17. Seen the movie and read the book

n/t

[Lyric]

18. Both, many times. And I *do* think it's good literature.

Not entirely historically correct, but then again, there's a lot of lit that isn't.

[Bryan]

19. I've seen the film, and I'm 30

As a film fan, I can appreciate its technical achievements relative to the studio output of the time. It's a slick, confident production, gorgeous to look at, and the acting is fine as well.

I don't think I enjoyed the story in the manner intended, though; I believe the audience is supposed to empathize with Scarlett O'Hara, and I found her so revoltingly spoiled, entitled, flighty, mercurial, and dim that I cheered when Rhett left her at the end (not least because it was, at long last, the end of the movie).

Also, its depiction of the antebellum South as an idyllic fantasy land of graciousness and gentility destroyed by the predations of the North is pretty hard to swallow even by '30s standards.

[Rising Phoenix]

20. read the book and saw the movie many times

I'm 31. It was my favorite book when I was 12 or 13

[Bucky]

21. I've read some of the book, but it was kinda boring. (but I'm 45)

I've seen the movie twice. The first time as a kid (I liked it, tho my sister & I made fun of Butterfly McQueen a lot.

The second time, it was too hard to watch. But I was being a really sensitive liberal that summer. It reminded me of the residual segregation I saw growing up in New Orleans.

I doubt I'll ever see the movie again, but not because it would bother me. Just because it's actually a kind of boring movie.

[cwydro]

22. Lol, I think there are so many clueless kids on DU.

Thanks for your post.

[mitchum]

23. America's greatest literary critic was the cabdriver who ran over Margaret Mitchell

[Orrex]

37. Yes--his subtle commentary was legendary

[AbbeyRoad]

24. I've read the book and I've seen the movie several times

I'm under 35.

I watched a lot of old movies when I was growing up.

[WannaBeGrumpy]

26. Gone with the Wind = Love

It's MrG's favorite so there was no way I was getting out of it lol

[cemaphonic]

27. Under 35 (barely), seen the movie but haven't read the book.

Liked Faulkner's South much better.

[mitchum]

39. Mitchell said that she wrote GWTW in order to counteract the "degenerate" south...

that was being depicted in the fiction of her day.
As an artist, she wasn't fit to change the typewriter ribbons of Wm. Faulkner and Erskine Caldwell.

[TK421]

28. I'm 33 and read the book, seen the movie dozens of times n/t

[Radical Activist]

29. I saw some of it on TV.

I don't feel like I'm missing much but not seeing the rest.

[orleans]

30. i'm past that age and i've never read the book OR seen the movie

i have managed to avoid both for YEARS

[MrSlayer]

31. I'm just past 35 and have done neither.

And frankly, I don't give a damn.

[RFKHumphreyObama]

32. My sister, who is just over 30, read and loved the book

And same for the movie.

I, by contrast, have neither read the book nor seen the whole movie and have no real interest in doing so

[JVS]

33. Seen the movie. I like the movie.

Since it was one of the first color movies, you can tell that they really made a point of going for the gusto as far as aesthetics are concerned.

[Orrex]

36. I'm over 35 and have never seen more than 10 minutes of the film

I respect it as a remarkable achievement, but I have no interest whatsoever in seeing it.

And I have even less interest in reading the book.

[Maine-ah]

38. pushing 35 here

it's acutally one of my favorite books and movies. I've read it a dozen times at least, and I have no clue how many times I've seen the movie. Historical fiction, is exactly what it is...fiction with historical points to them. They're not always accurate, and generally revolve around a major period of history. But they are fiction.

For those that like historical fiction check out Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series. Her books are very well researched and I adore her characters.

[geomon666]

40. Saw the movie and hated it. n/t