Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Frankly dear who gives a damn!

It's a crap post. TBH as an old poster, he'd have probably been given a load more grief. If I'd written it, I'd never have heard the end of it
 
It's a crap post. TBH as an old poster, he'd have probably been given a load more grief. If I'd written it, I'd never have heard the end of it

but he isn't an old poster. that was his first post.

mine was probably just as bad, or worse, or something.
 
Do you consider the original post well written? Do you consider that an argument has been well made or presented - despite the numerous sweeping generalisations it contains?

I don't.

And given the fact that the OP claims to be deeply interested in film I regard everything which follows after that assertion as being deeply suspect.

:rolleyes:

Personally, I thought it was just someone trying to assert some identity by indulging in a somewhat dramatic slating of a film which is regarded by many as a classic. Perhaps he (bound to be a he...) choose the wrong forum or film (I can't see anyone on Urban jumping to the defence of Gone with the Wind in any sort of meaningfully passionate way...). I think he was simply looking for debate.

Then again, I have been known to be wrong and general concensus says otherwise....
 
Being a fairly fanatical film buff, I am forever trying to fill the gaps in my cinematic education. It was for this reason that I recently made the foolish mistake of watching "Gone with the wind" for the first time.
By the end of this worthless excuse for a movie I was livid with anger at having wasted around three hours of my life I will never have back. Why was this travisty ever made? And more importantly why is it considered a masterpiece?
The heroine Scarlet is without doubt the most spoilt, vain, vacuous and selfish bimbo ever to appear in a work of fiction. Yet we are expected to not only spend three hours in her insufferable company, but worst still to sympathise with her. Whilst her romantic intrest is little more than a smug war profiteer, who's sleazy charm is made all the more repellent by the poor judgement he exhibits in fancying (bitch of the century) Scarlet!
The film is deeply irresponsible in failing to depict the civil war for tragic, wasteful, pointless atrocity that it was, and worst still brushes over the racism and snobbery that made such a terrible event possible.
The one redeeming moment was the scene in which Scarlets daughter is killed in a rideing accident, which I confess, did make me laugh. But this one isolated moment of unintentional hilarity did not make up for the overall shambels of a epic.
Thank all the gods the recent west end musical flopped as badly as it did.
That at least restores so of my faith in the taste of the theatre going public.
But why oh why do so many so called film fans still rate this inexcuseable piece of crap?




the%20comic%20book%20guy%20pondering.gif
 
1. Top username :D

2.
The film is deeply irresponsible in failing to depict the civil war for tragic, wasteful, pointless atrocity that it was, and worst still brushes over the racism and snobbery that made such a terrible event possible.

Yes, because films made in the 1930s based on books written in the 1920s are well known for their realistic coverage and portrayl of the civil war.

3. Are we supposed to sympathise with Scarlet? I've not read the book, but she is an insufferably annoying, user character, on a par with Cathy/Heathcliffe for general dislikability.

4. GwtW, as a piece of filmmaking, is magnificent, and as a 'film buff' you should know the debts many films afterwards owed to it in a huge variety of technical areas - much like Citizen Kane, which IMV isn't that good a film, but a masterclass in filmmaking...
 
Back
Top Bottom