Margaret Mitchell's 1934 masterpiece is the epitome of the sweeping epic.
Set in Atlanta during the American Civil War and subsequent Reconstruction, Mitchell chronicles the successes and struggles of Scarlett O'Hara, the daughter of an Irish immigrant plantation owner. Scarlett watches her beloved house, Tara, fall into disrepair as her household disbands upon the outbreak of war. Making the occasional appearance at both the most convenient and most inopportune moments is Rhett Butler, the dashing, albeit socially ostracized, gentleman who, if nothing else, lusts after Scarlett like no other.
I've always been a fan of the 1939 David O. Selznick film version, in all its technicolour glory. However, when reading the novel, I was struck by how much the novel is an actual history lesson. I was going on the assumption that the novel was more of a romance, as the film suggests, yet it's much more powerful and shouldn't be brushed off as such.
Scarlett O'Hara is the most complex female character I've ever encountered in a novel. Vivien Leigh is beautiful and charming, however, the film didn't do complete justice to this vibrant character. While reading the novel I couldn't believe how much of an anti-heroine Scarlett really is in Mitchell's writing. She speaks her mind, regardless of its consequences, openly loathes Melanie Wilkes, a woman so kind she practically has a halo around her head, and will use any man at the drop of a hat should she need money to provide for herself and her beloved Tara.
Even when I didn't agree with something Scarlett was doing, saying or thinking, I loved her to pieces. It astounded me that this vibrant, controversial character was created in the 1930s. I found myself rooting for her, even when her actions called for her to be taken down a notch. Unlike her youngest sisters, when the O'Hara riches began to disappear Scarlett fought tooth and nail to scrounge what she could, regardless of its cost to others. Scarlett O'Hara is a complete original. Perhaps when Charles Darwin wrote his theory on the "survival of the fittest" he had a woman like Scarlett in mind.
Rhett and Scarlett were made for each other, however, they were both equally too stubborn to really embrace the concept. Even though Rhett was the one who more openly adored Scarlett in the relationship, he had his moments where he almost threw his love for her to the wind. Scarlett was too oblivious and wrapped up in her own individual struggles to realize the looks Rhett gave her were looks of love and respect. I love open-ended finales and I admire any author who can leave their audience hanging and wanting more without giving everything away and leaving nothing to the imagination. We have no idea whether or not Rhett ever came back to Scarlett. I like my fiction with a dose of realism so I kind of like the unsatisfactory idea that Rhett never returned. What Scarlett said to him was the final straw and Scarlett was left trying to fill a void in her life that no amount of money could fill.
Ashley Wilkes was much more compelling in Mitchell's writing. He's a bit of a drip in the film; scrawny and not particularly worthy of Scarlett's unwavering devotion. However, in the novel, he was much more of a stud and I found that I understood his character a lot better. He was a man broken by war and what he witnessed and his pride prevented his ever feeling comfortable with Scarlett's generosity towards him and Melanie. He had his masculine pride and, like all men in the novel besides Rhett, he felt threatened by the obvious success of Scarlett, a woman. In the film I always thought Ashley truly did love Scarlett. After reading the novel I realized that he was "in lust" with her the entire time. He didn't love her temper, her savvy money skills, her brashness, her opinions or her mind the way Rhett did. He (and its sad in its own way) married a woman he didn't love simply out of an obligation to family tradition.
It made me realize Scarlett and Rhett were so ahead of their time, in their personalities and belief systems. They threw caution to the wind and dared to be themselves in a time still steeped in old traditions and separate and distinct gender roles. I love that Scarlett had no desire for motherhood. It completely casts aside the notion that every woman desires to become a parent one day to a large brood of children. Scarlett would have fit in well with today's career-oriented, independent world.
I never knew much about the American Civil War, however, Mitchell's novel gave me a great history lesson in and of itself. Her novel is jam-packed with vivid details on war trails, crushing battle fronts, famous generals and intricate societal expectations. She displayed admirable attention to detail in describing the fashion of the time, the destruction of towns, the freedom of black slaves and the subsequent creation of the Ku Klux Klan, among other issues.
The descriptions of the tragedies of war and the desolation of its aftermath were compelling and profoundly moving.
I read this giant, epic, 1200 + page tome in about a month. I was swept up in the tragedy, the romance and the overall greatness of Margaret Mitchell's stunning novel. It's one of the few novels you will read in your lifetime that you can credit as being absolutely flawless in every regard.
A++
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
Method Men: Marlon Brando and Jimmy Dean
About six years ago I caught Rebel Without A Cause on t.v. late one night. I was exhausted that day. I had planned to go to bed but I was struck by the image of James Dean, lying on the ground with a wind-up toy monkey, in the opening credit sequence for the film. I recognized the iconic red jacket. It was around this time that my obsession with classic film was just starting to really peak and take off so I decided, despite my exhaustion, to watch this much-beloved teen classic. I hadn't counted on actually being able to stay wide-awake into the wee morning hours.
The film itself is significant to 1950s film history. While parts of it may not have aged very well it still deserves its place amongst the Hollywood elite. This, in large part, is thanks to the performance of Dean. I was intrigued by his performance. He had reminded me so much of a young Marlon Brando.
Around this time I'd only recently become enamoured with Marlon Brando (the previous year I'd watched The Godfather for the first time and fell in love with Brando's talent). Dean reminded me of Brando, despite their differences in acting style. Dean clearly idolized and tried to mimic Brando, yet he managed to make all three of his film performances unique. From the inspiration he got from Brando he came up with his own style and helped revolutionize acting in film in the 1950s. Drawing from real life experiences and tragedies, Dean utilized these emotions when creating a character so that the audience could relate and sympathize with someone like Cal Trask in East of Eden, my favourite Dean film and performance.
Brando and Dean were both amongst the first to use the Method Approach in film acting. It originally started out as a theatre movement in the 1930s in which actors attempt to seek out the emotional "truth" of the character they are portraying. In order to effectively present these emotions and psychological torment, actors were often forced to look to themselves and their personal lives for inspiration. Brando was famous for remaining in character on set, even going so far as to remain in the character of Terry from On the Waterfront for the duration of filming, both on and off set.
Rarely do I watch a film only to walk away from it absolutely fascinated and in awe of the talent before me. Young actors today rarely go out of their way to bring something fresh and original to their performances, which is why they (hopefully) won't have the enduring cult power of Jimmy Dean. Or have millions of loyalists who declare Brando as the greatest actor of all time.
Marlon Brando and Jimmy Dean embodied the charisma, beauty and talent that most actors can only dream of achieving for themselves. They were the epitome of masculine-cool. Both were ahead of the game in the way they portrayed conflicted young rebels. They helped make it okay for male characters to cry in film. Gone were the days of the alpha-male, like John Wayne; all blazing guns and snarls. Dean and, especially, Brando helped usher in a new generation of young, Method actors who saw performance as an art form worthy of sweat and tears. With trailblazers like Brando and Dean, would we have had the likes of Daniel Day-Lewis and Viggo Mortensen today?
It's been fifty-four years since Dean's death in a car accident, yet time has not diminished his star. To some people he may be a product, just another young dead celebrity face on a poster or a purse, but to his real fans he was a first-class movie star.
They don't make celebrities like Marlon and Jimmy anymore.
~Laura~
The film itself is significant to 1950s film history. While parts of it may not have aged very well it still deserves its place amongst the Hollywood elite. This, in large part, is thanks to the performance of Dean. I was intrigued by his performance. He had reminded me so much of a young Marlon Brando.
Around this time I'd only recently become enamoured with Marlon Brando (the previous year I'd watched The Godfather for the first time and fell in love with Brando's talent). Dean reminded me of Brando, despite their differences in acting style. Dean clearly idolized and tried to mimic Brando, yet he managed to make all three of his film performances unique. From the inspiration he got from Brando he came up with his own style and helped revolutionize acting in film in the 1950s. Drawing from real life experiences and tragedies, Dean utilized these emotions when creating a character so that the audience could relate and sympathize with someone like Cal Trask in East of Eden, my favourite Dean film and performance.
Brando and Dean were both amongst the first to use the Method Approach in film acting. It originally started out as a theatre movement in the 1930s in which actors attempt to seek out the emotional "truth" of the character they are portraying. In order to effectively present these emotions and psychological torment, actors were often forced to look to themselves and their personal lives for inspiration. Brando was famous for remaining in character on set, even going so far as to remain in the character of Terry from On the Waterfront for the duration of filming, both on and off set.
Rarely do I watch a film only to walk away from it absolutely fascinated and in awe of the talent before me. Young actors today rarely go out of their way to bring something fresh and original to their performances, which is why they (hopefully) won't have the enduring cult power of Jimmy Dean. Or have millions of loyalists who declare Brando as the greatest actor of all time.
Marlon Brando and Jimmy Dean embodied the charisma, beauty and talent that most actors can only dream of achieving for themselves. They were the epitome of masculine-cool. Both were ahead of the game in the way they portrayed conflicted young rebels. They helped make it okay for male characters to cry in film. Gone were the days of the alpha-male, like John Wayne; all blazing guns and snarls. Dean and, especially, Brando helped usher in a new generation of young, Method actors who saw performance as an art form worthy of sweat and tears. With trailblazers like Brando and Dean, would we have had the likes of Daniel Day-Lewis and Viggo Mortensen today?
It's been fifty-four years since Dean's death in a car accident, yet time has not diminished his star. To some people he may be a product, just another young dead celebrity face on a poster or a purse, but to his real fans he was a first-class movie star.
They don't make celebrities like Marlon and Jimmy anymore.
~Laura~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)