"- We are like blind men lost in the streets of a big city. The streets lead to a goal, but we often return to the same places to get to where we want to be. I can see a few little streets here which, as it is now, are going nowhere. New combinations have to be arranged, then the whole will be clear, because one man cannot invent something that another cannot solve.
- I no longer follow."
REKOPIS ZNALEZIONY W SARAGOSSIE (1965)
Director: Wojciech Has
Country: Poland
Genre: Drama / Fantasy
Length: 182 minutes
Luis Buñuel, a cinema master who seldom watched movies more than once, was so fascinated by Wojciech Has' masterpiece titled Rekopis Znaleziony w Saragossie, that he saw it three times. Surrealism is a highly versatile film subgenre, and in this case, the Polish director decides to deliciously construct the most inventive ride of lunacy! Besides being the most film by the director, a fact that clearly indicates that he obtained international recognition, Rekopis Znaleziony w Saragossie is a film that can be interpreted in several ways. No matter how seemingly retarded the interpretation is, that is the correct one. It was highly influenced by past satirical masterpieces of fantasy, but it also establishes a landmark in unconventional storytelling, unconditional comedy and the importance of artistic subjectivity. With an extremely confusing and attractive mixture of events, incredible incidents, a gorgeous sense of humor, highly implied eroticism and a rarely-seen audacity, this film is arguably the best and most creative Polish work of art, leaving room for philosophical discussion, but smartly adding direct questionings towards the current way of life.
The film takes place during the Napoleonic wars. It opens with an officer entering an abandoned house and finding a book that relates the story of his grandfather Alfons van Worden, captain in the Walloon guard. On his way of seeking the shortest route through the Sierra Morena, he sups with two Islamic princesses at an inn named Venta Quemada. After being seduced and being called their lost cousin, he wakes up next to corpses in the middle of a gallows. The rest of the movie puts van Worden in unbelievable situations of real and imagined dementia, travelling to unusual places and hearing stories within stories within stories within stories within stories of hilarious anecdotes and unfaithful love. The film obtained a Special Award at the Cinema Writers Circle Awards, Spain, in the year of 1972 under the category of "Movies of special movie theatres".
Captain Alfons van Worden repeats that he belongs to the Walloon guard around five times. He is a man of pretentious honor, patriotism and courage, but perhaps it is the force and irony of destiny the one that drives him into a complex web of crazy sequences. Symbolisms abound and their particular meaning is subject to complete relativity. He is seduced by enchanting women who, according to them, have never met a man in their lives, which has led them to express their love to each other. He wakes up under corpses in gallows. He is told an extremely creepy story involving ghosts and violence by a Catholic priest and his supposedly possessed goatherd who stops being possessed under the religious commands of the priest. He wakes up under corpses in the same gallows. At this point, the film makes a clear statement. The mere purpose of the Saragossa Manuscript, considering its constant, unexplainable and senseless apparitions throughout, is to cause confusion and psychological craziness. It is not a mental journey that is supposed to be taken in its most literal form. We do not longer know the relevance of particular events portrayed until they are explained later on in the film and, moments after, the explanation that had been already given is proved wrong... The importance of early sudden and random appearances of characters is explained several segments later.
Rekopis Znaleziony w Saragossie definitely contains one of the best, smartest and most complicated screenplays in the entire history of moviemaking. Such creation laughs when pretending to be all over the place when it actually isn't. To understand the unsettled timeline and the deceiving chronology is not a difficult task. The real magic and complexity relies on the work of deciphering the meaning of the aforementioned structure. The film is explicitly divided into two parts. The first part focuses on the small process of surrealistic comedy that is slowly built inside the protagonist's mind, destroying all possible logical interpretation and making blasphemous references towards the modern culture, lesbianism, sexuality, carnality and the Catholic religion. In the second part, the now terrifying manuscript acquires a much stronger presence and a more significant philosophical meaning, and the "captain of the Walloon guard" hears an endless story-within-story narration of impossible experiences that end up making the respective personalities and experiences of the displayed personages to collide in a climax that, at the end, make more sense.
The possible intention of adapting a surrealist story to the late eighteenth century is unexplained, yet it is utterly irrelevant. It is the gorgeousness, the elegance, the insanity and the delicacy of the characters the ones that make of Rekopis Znaleziony w Saragossie a vehicle of senselessness. A visually outstanding art direction, a great vastness of character richness, a royal costume design worth of the royal halls of any location in Europe and a superbly written adaptation of Jan Potocki's original novel exalt the grandiosity of a Manuscript that seems to have been made in order to cause unstoppable existential dooms. The film is plagued with talented Polish stars offering very convincing performances and a highly artistic cinematography makes the film to derive the possibility of becoming a top-notch experience set in turbulent times. The futility of war, the implications of violence, the most common consequences of mindless sex and seduction, memorable dialogues, ghastly tales, disturbing imagery, a vaudevillian environment, a delightful use of the Spanish language and an omniscient God orchestrating a complex web of impossible sequences and an opening-credits sequence featuring the paintings of famous surrealists make of this masterpiece one of a kind.
The influence of Rekopis Znaleziony w Saragossie is an element that cannot be rejected. It is troubling, scandalous, daring... and also visionary! Surrealism had never been subject to such a multiphacetic and polished Polish brilliance. The multitalented aspects that govern this provocative piece of art from beginning to end seems to be the result of the conglomeration of every single signature of the most famous and visionary poets put into a single feature film of three hours. Time is erased, logic is raped, beauty is distorted, discretion is invited to a party of lavishness and snobbishness, and cinema adopts a new face of inventiveness and intelligence. Repetitive elements emphasize the ridiculousness of the plot and the huge audacity that Wojciech Has had to adopt. A theatrical feeling and a dramatist perspective is briefly shown, but just for the fun of it, like if William Shakespeare had written a play under the influence of a strong hallucinogenic. It is one of the greatest fantasy films ever made.
"To be, or not to be: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep; No more; and by a sleep to say we end The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep; To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause: there's the respect That makes calamity of so long life; For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely, The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, The insolence of office and the spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his quietus make With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscover'd country from whose bourn No traveller returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of? Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; And thus the native hue of resolution Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought, And enterprises of great pith and moment With this regard their currents turn awry, And lose the name of action."
HAMLET (1948)
Director: Laurence Olivier
Country: United Kingdom
Genre: Drama
Length: 155 minutes
The Chronicle History of King Henry the Fift with His Battell Fought at Agincourt in France (1944), Hamlet and Richard III (1955) compose the trilogy of Shakespeare adaptations that British icon Sir Laurence Olivier brought to the screen, indicating his outstanding talent as a poetical director and his delicate treatment of the plays by the greatest literary dramatist of all times. Arguably, Hamlet is his best and most ambitious Shakespeare cinematographic for releasing it through the Seventh Art. Adaptations had already been made, short films quickly depicted the nature of betrayal that always characterized one of Shakespeare's most famous fables, but Olivier's version is the one that was daring enough to establish a landmark in theatrical filmmaking, obtaining international attention and becoming the very first non-American production in history to win the big prize of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, not to mention it is one of the few correct decisions taken by the Academy. With the passage of time, the importance of this masterpiece has been diminished and unjustly overshadowed by the qualities present in Olivier's two remaining stories, confusing its ambition with pretentiousness. However, seen with the right eyes, this film has maintained its epic scope since the 40s and has gained a status of brilliant gloominess and theatrical parallelism, and is one of the best Shakespeare adaptations of all times.
The immortal William Shakespeare tale of revenge and murder set in medieval Denmark tells the story of Prince Hamlet who, one night, has an encounter with the ghost of his father, the King of Denmark who was assassinated. He tells his son how Claudius, brother to the King, poisoned him in order to seize the throne and marry his mother the Queen. This epiphany increases Hamlet's mournfulness and regret of the fate of his parents and decides to seek revenge hiring a group of travelling players and recreating the evil deed of his uncle Claudius in order to torment his conscience. After expressing his personal anger with his mother the Queen, an unbelievable web of tragic events leads to a catastrophic destiny and, latterly, murder. The film received 7 Academy Award nominations for Best Actress in a Supporting Role, Best Music, Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture, Best Director (an award that lost against John Huston for the film The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1946), Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Black-and-White, Best Costume Design, Black-and-White and Best Picture, winning the last 4 Oscars. It also won a Volpi Cup for Best Actress and a Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival of 1948, and received the Italian Film Critics Award two years later.
The main complaint that may be executed towards Olivier's masterful Hamlet is the very quality of its overall adaptation. Famous soliloquies have been exterminated, the appearance of several characters has been sacrificed and the original grandiose nature of the play has been trimmed to the surprising length of two-and-a-half hours. However, Olivier has reportedly stated that more than being a faithful adaptation, the film serves the purpose of a "study on Hamlet". Naturally, the main question that arises is: "What conclusions can be derived if we took a Hamlet and adapted to a modern era?" And thus begins the extensive examination of the main psychological characteristics of Hamlet. How much similarity exists between the negative implications of a classic tragedy, such as betrayal, deceit and murder, and the modern code of ethics? Hamlet is the character whose patriotism and defense of honor pushes him to a sentimental extreme. We know the motivations behind his actions and we notice the exact moment in which his emotional fuse is triggered, allowing him to reflect on the meaninglessness of his existence and his dependence towards imperialistic authorities and planning an elaborate play of revenge in order to upset the King's tranquility.
If we take merely the visual and photographic style of Hamlet, the result is extraordinarily astonishing. Hamlet's actions and incipient perversity is propelled by the nature and intentions of the surrounding characters, but a balance is achieved through the most gorgeous Ophelia ever portrayed thanks to the stellar performance by Jean Simmons. However, it is the very macabre atmosphere and a glorious black-and-white cinematography the one that transforms the viewer into an omniscient judge. The huge sets that represent royal halls are deliciously constructed and decorated with a dashing costume design, but it is the expert and passionate performances the ones that enlighten the dramatic proportions of such a philosophical tale. The biggest highlight is the apparition of the dead king making the confession to Hamlet, an aspect that may seem clichéd nowadays, but incredibly dark by those times, like if the film tried to explicitly mirror the heart's color of Claudius and the tormented soul of the Prince. A correct equilibrium between character development, third-person voiceovers, visual poetry, long takes exploring the vastness of the castle (and the psychology of its members) and action is built, culminating in the very-well known swordplay held between the Prince of Denmark and Laertes, Polonius's son because of the accidental assassination of his father.
To categorize Hamlet as a misleading adaptation is a mistake. The very definition of cinema was completely offered to worldwide masses and never before had a Shakespeare adaptation been so complete and precise. Courage, bravery, loyalty, passion, love and romance are still contrasted with deception, horror, fear and death. Nevertheless, Olivier's direction and breathtaking leading role also assign a particular meaning to the importance of the environment, the credibility of the multilayered dialogues, the perfectly captured angles, the famous scene with the skull, the richness in character and the powerful final outcome. The technical aspects, from the sound to the royal musical score also received the proper attention, and the screenplay text editor Alan Dent transformed Hamlet into a unique essay on the human condition and the elegance that past generations possessed but that is already lost. The camera work allows us to adopt an omniscient power, travelling through empty spaces and finally finding the troubled souls that, willingly or not, were drawn in a painful tragedy. Decorative objects play an artistic role and Olivier emphasizes the weakness of the soul, as if it were dependent of God's intervention. Bringing Hamlet up to a point where it even seems that death has seduced him after completely losing any notion of ethical priorities and emotional connections, Hamlet is undeniably one of the best films of the decade, a difficult cinematic triumph that could only have been achieved my the mind of a master that pays the enough respect towards transcendent tales that, ultimately, are formed by human beings... and nothing more...
"Do you remember the Shire, Mr. Frodo? It'll be spring soon. And the orchards will be in blossom. And the birds will be nesting in the hazel thicket. And they'll be sowing the summer barley in the lower fields... and eating the first of the strawberries with cream. Do you remember the taste of strawberries?"
THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE RETURN OF THE KING (2003)
Director: Peter Jackson Country: New Zealand / Germany / United States of America Genre: Action / Adventure / Fantasy Length: 251 minutes
Since this is one of the most critically acclaimed and successful trilogies ever created in filmmaking history, I dare to start this review by stating a fact, and not an opinion: The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece, admirable in all respects. Now, I'll add an opinion: The Lord of the Rings is three of the best movies of all time, fame that has acquired not for free.
The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Two Towers (2002) and The Return of the King (2003) accumulated a total of 19 Academy Awards, 207 awards and 227 nominations, internationally speaking, in period of 4 years, including Grammies and Golden Globes. The Fellowship of the Ring received 13 Academy Award nominations for Best Actor in a Supporting Role, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Music, Original Song, Best Sound, Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published, Best Director, Best Picture, Best Cinematography, Best Effects, Visual Effects, Best Makeup and Best Music, Original Score, winning the four last Oscars. The Two Towers received 6 Academy Award nominations for Best Sound Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Editing, Best Sound and Best Picture, winning the first two awards. The Return of the King, definitely the best part of the trilogy, broke the box office record of $250,000,000 collected in a single weekend, and was the second movie that actually achieved to reunite a billion dollars in cinemas around the world (the first being Titanic [1997]). Besides, The Return of the King (2003) was the main protagonist of the Academy Awards ceremony in the United States, winning 11 Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Achievement in Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Makeup, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Visual Effects, not to mention another 106 international awards and 68 nominations. It is one of the most brilliant, unprecedented and groundbreaking trilogies ever made in the entire motion picture history.
Leaving figures such as money and awards aside, we will start with the adaptation. What a film critic should definitely do is to see a film and experiment it as an independent story, like a personal vision of direction for adapting a story, which is normally found in a book. This means that the adaptation of a book to a film will end in a different result in the hands of a particular director, in case another director had not made it in the first place. Consequently, a film should not necessarily be entirely faithful to the original novel, mainly because of aspects such as length or deletion of scenes that end up being unnecessary for the screenwriters or the director, among many other variables. Judging The Lord of the Rings negatively because of its drastic differences with the original novel is a mistake, as it is with all of the films. A fact of the film is that many elements have been modified or even removed, a fact that should not originate any kind of complaint. The adaptation is beautiful and faithful to J.R.R. Tolkien's style and literary vision.
In The Fellowship of the Ring we are introduced to a fantastic Middle-Earth world wonderfully brought to the big screen, not just considering the visual aspect, such as the costume design and the setting, but also the characters and events that take place from the beginning until the last minute, which are perfectly created. The story basically tells the story of Sauron, the Dark Lord that forges The One Ring, a ring that has the power of enabling its possessor to conquer Middle-Earth through the enslavement of the bearers of the Rings of Power... bearers that belong to the races of Dwarfs, Elves and Men. At the base of Mount Doom, the Last Alliance of Elves and Men gathers forces to fight against Sauron and his army. In one battle, Isildur, using the mighty sword of his father, cuts the fingers of Sauron, destroying his army and removing the ring out of him, but not entirely, since their existence is eternally linked to the ring unless it is completely destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom. 2,500 years later the ring is found by the creature Gollum, who keeps it in his possession for 500 years, giving him an unnatural, prolonged life. When the ring is lost, the little hobbit Bilbo Baggins finds it and returns to the Shire with it. In his 111th birthday, he gives it to his nephew Frodo Baggins, and with the help of an old Bilbo's friend, the wizard Gandalf the Grey, the truth about the ring is discovered and Frodo accepts the responsibility of carrying the ring in order to destroy it in Mount Doom, located in Barad-Ûr, territory conquered by Sauron's forces, and Saruman under his command. The Two Towers continues the story with Saruman's army growing stronger and stronger, leading to an intense battle held in Isengard, while Frodo is guided by Gollum with his best friend Sam to Mount Doom. The Return of the King is the conclusion of the story as the heroes of the film fight in a gloriously epic and decisive final battle in order to defeat the extensive forces of Sauron and destroy The One Ring for all times.
The first part of the trilogy is principally focused on the introduction and explanation of the story. It is widely considered as the best part of the trilogy. Its emotiveness and brilliance irradiate amazement to the audience, and it belongs to one of the best films of the decade, not to mention of all time. Betrayal, romance, departures and the power of human relationships play both implicit and explicit roles thanks to the multitalented and multiphacetic vision of Peter Jackson. The sequel opens with a key moment of the first film, introducing us to a tense moment and a great portrayal of superiority craftsmanship. It is principally divided in two parts: the presentation of an upcoming conflict and the final battle, which covers a great part of the film's running length. The third film is a towering achievement in cinema history and quite possibly the best film ever made, being one of the strongest candidates for such a legendary honor. Despite its action-oriented nature, these sequences do not overshadow the masterful direction and the extraordinary final result of the film. Words can't suffice for fairly explaining the grandiosity of such gigantic magnum opus. The first three years of the new millennium witnessed one of the most significant and relevant miracles of cinema itself.
The Lord of the Rings sets a new standard in direction and creation of epic fantasy filmmaking. What this trilogy achieved is to conglomerate every single detail and quality characteristic that the filmmaking process involves so it could transform them into an unparalleled experience. It draws the marriage between cinematic perfection, perfectly held ambition, philosophy and literary poetry. Just like there were giants of the genre, such as Gone with the Wind (1939), Ben-Hur (1959) and Lawrence of Arabia (1962), just to mention a few astonishing Hollywood epic examples, The Lord of the Rings surpassed any possible expectation and kept it alive for the early years of the new millennium in both fans and critics. One of the most amazing facts is the trilogy's completion time: 7 years (unlike other Hollywood hits, not all of them necessarily good). Each year, the promise of bringing the next chapter of this fantastic story to the big screen was fulfilled, and fortunately all three parts were kept under Peter Jackson's direction, with the same cast.
The cinematography is stunning and all of the angles and shots are extraordinarily taken care of, providing vast views of landscapes and a magical world depicted in its most detailed and grandiose form. The film never became tedious and even some scenes were worthy of being paused to admire their beauty. The special effects are some of the best that have ever been created, and despite this, The Lord of the Rings completely stands out from the common and usually mediocre Hollywood films that are based merely on special effects randomly thrown throughout, since The Lord of the Rings is superior to those. Accompanied by the scenes, the musical score created by Howard Shore is beautiful and never distracts the viewer from the scene he/she is watching because in this type of filmmaking (epic) music is a rather delicate detail, and The Lord of the Rings takes it into consideration. The editing deserves the applause of worldwide masses, since not a single sequence is particularly tedious. The battle choreography and the story's pace, besides being excellently divided into three parts, follow a phenomenal and highly appropriate rhythm. The battles that take place in the trilogy are absolutely breathtaking and the technique that I particularly love which consists in removing the musical score in this kind of scenes in order to appreciate technical aspects such as the special effects, the editing, the sound effects and their editing was perfectly implemented by Peter Jackson. In the cases where he does not employ this technique, Howard Shore's musical score plays its role, adding emotiveness and intensity in the finest way possible.
One of the incredible aspects, which is at the same time surprising, is that one is able to identify with a certain character, and even to develop empathy and concern towards all of them, if not the majority of them. In fact, the spectator does not want to miss what this or that character is going through after the story divides them at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, which makes the story even more interesting. The performances of Elijah Wood (surprisingly), Ian McKellen, Liv Tyler, Sean Astin and Cate Blanchett are worth a powerful mention, and they were able to create well-defined characters, which is not an easy thing to do. Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, Sala Baker, Sean Bean and Christopher Lee gave pretty decent performances as well.
Despite the constant criticism I usually get from hundreds of people when they see The Lord of the Rings as one of my favorite masterpieces, this trilogy is one of the most memorable and spectacular contributions in movie history, technically and artistically speaking. It is perfection, visionary poetry and compelling beauty from wherever it may be seen. A new category of cinema for the new century has finally been reached, and the task has been successfully accomplished by one of the most unexpected directors: a filmmaker that used to make splatter feasts in his early days. Almost no one could see such phenomena coming along the way, but The Lord of the Rings steals the breath, fills the eyes with spectacle, rushes the adrenaline, conquers hearts, makes love to the ears and makes the heart to beat in the strongest way possible.
Director: Victor Fleming
Country: United States of America
Genre: Drama / Romance / War
Length: 238 minutes
Since the following review is going to be about Gone with the Wind, it is almost impossible to start the first paragraph in a fair way that this giant icon of cinema really deserves.
Victor Fleming achieved what had never been achieved in filmmaking before, and definitively would not be achieved until decades later within the genre of epic cinema; neither the world was ever so majestically amazed on the level this film did 70 years ago. Regardless of the fact that Fleming had amazed all types of audiences in the same year, including both young and old people and critics with Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, he gave birth to one of the best movies of all time, and certainly the best American classic ever made.
Gone with the Wind has been recognized as the best classic film, as well as one of the most moving and romantic stories ever brought to the big screen, worshipped generation by generation. Nowadays, the film still keeps astonishing new generations definitely. It was a work of art that fitted perfectly with general audiences, especially American. Back in the year of 1940, the film won 8 Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Supporting Role (I will focus on that too), Best Art Direction-Set Decoration, Best Cinematography (Color), Best Film Editing and Best Screenplay and was nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role, Best Actress in a Supporting Role, Best Special Effects, Best Original Score and Best Sound.
Gone with the Wind is set in the times of the Civil War, one of the most turbulent, tragic, difficult and chaotic periods of American history, as well as during the following Reconstruction. Such turmoil and tragedy are brilliantly maximized and emphasized by the direction, cinematography and acting provided. Scarlett O'Hara is a young woman of particular class and elegance, deeply in love with Ashley, but soon finds out that he will be getting married with her cousin, Melanie. Totally heartbroken and without illusions, Scarlett implores Ashley to choose her instead of Melanie, since she loves him profoundly; unfortunately, his heart already belongs to another person. After such discussion, the real male protagonist appears: Rhett Butler. From this point, the film will portray, mostly through Scarlett's eyes, the romance that these two characters will have through such difficult times.
The performance of Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O'Hara is definitely unparalleled. She managed to create a totally identifiable character, characterized by her constant changing range of emotions and by the incredible strength she acquires through life, since she must escape from the disasters caused by the war until she's forced to grow her own food in incredibly tough life conditions in order to survive. Somehow, when Scarlett swears "she'll never be hungry again", the moment turned out to be so inspirational that she awakened the hearts of millions of people, and if some were not awakened, these were definitely moved permanently to an impressive level. It ended being a reflection of how thankful we should be with what we have in our daily lives and the negative effect (or devastating effect, depending on the degree) that may be caused in us if we lose the object or even our loved one before we really knew how to be thankful and make the best use of it. This is how the first half of the film ends, which decades ago ended up being the famous intermission. Both the intermission and the ending were perfectly planned. Scarlett O'Hara was an effective model of strength and perseverance, no matter if the audience were male or female; the moral of the story stroke in a very inspiring and direct way, and the intermission as well as the last shot of the film are two of my favorite scenes in movie history for my taste.
The already famous and handsome man of Hollywood Clark Gable, who got a considerable amount of popularity since 1934 with the Academy Award winning movie It Happened One Night, portrays a completely different and opposite character: a liberal, not-so-romantic person, a drinker who enjoys the good life, as well as a wealthy and completely unpredictable man. Despite Gone with the Wind being a romantic epic movie, it is not the typical romance one expects since the beginning. The ending, despite providing one of the most famous (and brilliant) dialogues in cinema history, was not predicted by anyone. It definitely wouldn't have been the same if it hadn't been spoken by Clark Gable himself. Love, tragedy and disappointment are presented from beginning to end.
It is mandatory to emphasize the performance of Hattie McDaniel, best known for her performance as "Mammy," the colored maid of Scarlett. Her performance is simply sublime. It is not so surprising that she became one of the favorite characters of the story for so many people. Not only she is funny and nice, but she also acquires a very important influence in the story because of the righteousness and seriousness she has since the beginning, because of her capacity for empathy towards Scarlett and because of the responsibilities she acquires, the majority of these being unpredictable for her considering the difficult times in which Gone with the Wind is set. Obviously Hattie McDaniel won the Oscar for Best Actress in a Supporting Role, becoming the first Afro-American actress with such honor. Fair enough. Racism and prejudice lost that time.
The last insuperably beautiful technical aspects that must be highlighted are both the cinematography and the original musical score. If there is something characteristic and true about Gone with the Wind is the fact that both aspects, masterly brought to the big screen, (in full color when talking about the cinematography) create art when put together. The shots are beautifully taken care of, offering beautiful landscapes, open fields and a sunset that is in the end highly inspiring to the human eye, including Scarlett's figure and the tree next to her, both completely and contrastingly covered in shadows. "After the night, the dawn comes." This marks a new beginning in the life of Scarlett, since "tomorrow is another day." The music is beautiful, worthy of a soundtrack. I can't understand why it didn't won the Oscar for Best original Score, especially since listening to its music 70 years later brings us beautiful memories of the past which are summarized in this film of 238 minutes.
As a conclusion, Gone with the Wind is the definition of cinema. From the technical aspects such as special effects, sound and musical score to the cinematographic aspects such as the photography, direction, screenplay and acting, Gone with the Wind is an unparalleled, unprecedented, beautiful, inspiring, thoughtful and legendary classic, unique in its genre, brought to the big screen for the audiences of the world in a time when the world needed a breath of life, an inspiration that could bring warmth to the heart of the world, on the eve of World War II.
100/100
The Saragossa Manuscript
Unrated
Hamlet
Unrated
The Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King
PG-13
Gone With the Wind
G
