<!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

This article discusses Hitchcock's ability to create romance in his films. The author asserts that the romance is a result of the flawed male characters and the deceiving female ones. The romance blossoms out of their human plights, they are both flawed and imperfect. It is stated that such films as Blackmail, Vertigo and Psycho are overrated in their importance to Hitchcock's oeuvre and therefore shouldn't be considered for this assertion.

 

I would argue that Blackmail is not overrated and that it is the flawed males that drive the tragedy of the film and reject Alice's sexuality. There is nothing romantic about the suppression of another human being. While Alice was deceptive, Frank's behavior as well as the other men in the film have nothing attractive to offer her.

The topic that I want to look at is Walt Disney's Cinderella's influence on children's perceptions about love and romance.

Today, almost every film receives a big premiere and a grand opening. There is a red carpet and photographers. It is an essential part of the requisite publicity package. The excitement generated by these events attracts people to the theaters and helps boost film revenues. However, at the time Gone with the Wind was produced, it was rare that a film received such fanfare.

Daily Variety provided coverage of the Gone with the Wind premiere and declared it to be one of the biggest premieres of the time. On the front page of the paper, the morning after the premiere, it was reported that the Atlanta "staged the greatest celebration in its history." The theater, the Loew's Grand, was transformed into the Wilkes plantation house. When people passed by the theater they were curious about what was happening and why the facade of the theater had changed. The response which they received generated publicity for the film. Searchlights, which were visible for several miles, let everyone know that it was premiere night. All of the major stars of the film (and others) - Clark Gable, Vivien Leigh, Laurence Olivier, Olivia de Havilland, Evelyn Keyes, Carol Lombard and Claudette Colbert attended. The theater held 2,019 people on opening night, each of whom paid $10 per seat, with the money going to charity. Producers were also in attendance. The next week, there was another premiere in New York. Even with all of this hoopla, there were disappointments. Everything was neither perfect nor did it run smoothly. The late nights took a toll on executives. All of the fanfare and glamour got in the way of business. Additionally, there were reports of disappointing initial grosses. This was blamed on pre-Christmas shopping and "psychological overselling" - because of all of the publicity, people assumed that there would be long lines and therefore did not even bother to come to the theater. Despite some "brief hiccups" the movie went on to gross $390 million worldwide.

This article is very informative, revealing the inner workings of the industry and psyche of the public at the time. Although society has evolved and experienced many changes, much has stayed the same.

It is amazing that a film could be so successful 70 years ago when there were far fewer venues for promotion and fewer theaters to generate a large gross profit. This article also reveals that the formula for a successful film is very similar to today - the celebrities, the publicity, the promotion, the premiere and the fanfare. It is a formula as old as the movies themselves.

 

Margaret Mitchell had been working as a reporter for a newspaper when she fell from a horse and was forced to resign. She was confined to her small, one-bedroom apartment which she nicknamed "The Dump." Ms. Mitchell was given a typewriter as a gift in order to occupy herself within the confines of her house. She was told to write "what she knew." Secretly, she began to write a book. Given the endless flow of people and friends who came through her apartment, she found it very difficult to hide the manuscript. It seemed unlikely that the novel would ever be published because she kept it a secret from anyone who would be able to publish it for her. However, Mitchell's friend who worked at a publishing company discovered parts of the novel in Mitchell's home. The friend informed her boss, Harold Latham, of the "masterpiece" she had found. Latham flew to Atlanta and questioned Mitchell regarding the novel. However, Mitchell did not want to turn in the novel to the publisher. She claimed that it was "lousy, and she was ashamed of it." In a brilliant use of reverse psychology, Mitchell's friend said to her, "well, I would never expect that you would write a good novel, you don't take life seriously enough." Mitchell was angered by this, raced home and immediately gave it over to Latham. She said "take it before I change my mind." Latham read the novel and changed the name of the main character to Scarlet. This was the inception of one of the most successful novels in history. Gone with the Wind was finally published on June 30, 1936 and had almost just as much impact on Atlanta as the actual events that were detailed in the book. It sold more copies than any other book except for the Bible.

This is a revealing source which details the way in which the phenomenally successful novel, Gone with the Wind, came into existence. It is amazing to think that its author thought that her creation was "lousy." Additionally, it is fascinating how a true phenomenon can be born out of seemingly mundane events and thoughts. One of the greatest, best-selling books of all time is a product of a leisure project on a typewriter in someone's living room. Mitchell did not sit down with the intent of writing a phenomenon; she was just trying to keep herself busy when she could no longer work as a newspaper reporter.

One most consider the novel, Gone with the Wind, as a precursor to the film. It is important to understand where the novel came from and the thought process of its author. It is further fascinating that the novel was as huge a success as the film. Often, a book is successful and interesting, while the movie version of the novel is not. Margaret Mitchell wrote a novel and spawned a film that entertained in its time, continues to be of interest as a period piece, and will continue to entertain many generations to come.

Gone with the Wind is one of the most popular films of all time. But why is that? The author of this article suggests several reasons. He says that the audience has a love/hate relationship with the film and its characters. This relationship with Gone with the Wind has to do with the ways in which ideas, specifically ones relating to sex and gender are "both referenced and violated" in the film, most specifically, regarding Scarlett O'hara. This article outlines exactly what those criticisms are in order to prove that the audience's relationship with the film stems from the way in which sex and gender are presented.

I found this article to be an alternative view to the traditional exclamation that "Gone with the Wind is the best movie ever, a phenomenon!" It is interesting to contemplate the underlying causes of the relationship which Gone with the Wind has with its audience. The author views the film from a sociological perspective. This is a more intellectual approach to the explanation of the popularity of the film.

It is also interesting to consider the fact that the audience does not always love the film or its characters. This is a more realistic way in which to consider the popularity and impact of Gone with the Wind. Life is not perfect and neither are real people and their life stories. Margaret Mitchell recognized this fact when she wrote the novel. I think that the audience appreciates the fact that the characters are flawed and, therefore, made more real. As a result, there are moments when one loves Scarlett O'hara and other times that she is despised. It is because of this portrayal of human realities that the audience can appreciate the film and accept it as a true rendition of relationships and society.

This article sheds light on two issues. The first, that the relationship that the audience has with the film is complex and not always perfect. The second is that while the film is popular, it is not because it represents pure escape. Rather, people love the film because they can relate to the humanity and truth in the situations portrayed.

This article, by Ben Railton, compares and contrasts two immensely successful novels, Gone with the Wind and Absalom, Absalom!. 1936 was an incredible time for both the historical and Southern novel. The two novels studied are perfect paradigms of this fact. Gone with the Wind and Absalom, Absalom! present many similarities and differences between their key characters and settings. These are "two interpretations of history which were coming into conflict at precisely the moment of this coincidental joint publication."

This article provides a unique view of Gone with the Wind. By comparing the novel to another important work of the time, a very different perspective is presented in light of the historical issues of Absalom, Absalom!. This comparison of the two important novels is a means of understanding the framework of Gone with the Wind from a completely different perspective.

As an influential and important producer, David O. Selznick was involved in enough films to be considered one of the greatest producers of all time. It was his involvement in Gone with the Wind that secured him his place in cinema history.

Initially, Selznick worked for his father's company, Lewis J. Selznick Productions, until it went bankrupt in 1923. Then, in 1926, Selznick moved to MGM and worked as a script reader and assistant story editor. He climbed the ranks to become supervisor of production until he was fired because of constant disagreements with Irving Thalberg, the then head of production. In 1927, Selznick was named production chief at Paramount. After the Depression and salary cuts, he moved to RKO and worked as studio boss. When Irving Thalberg became ill, there were many changes made within MGM in the production area. Louis B. Mayer convinced Selznick to return to MGM (coincidentally, Selznick was married to Mayer's Daughter.) With his new job, Selznick was intent on bringing more prestigious films to the screen.

In 1936, Selznick left MGM to become an independent producer, founding Selznick International Pictures. Gone with the wind was his most memorable film produced at this time. There were many problems that occurred during production of the film. Among the myriad of issues was the involvement of six different directors and the relinquishment of distribution rights to MGM in order to get Clark Gable to star in the movie. In the end, Gone with the Wind won ten Academy Awards and is considered to be one of the most important films ever produced.

After a huge tax debt forced Selznick to auction off his company, he formed a new company, David Selznick Productions. Selznick now became more of a talent scout than a producer. He discovered many successful actors and actresses, including Jennifer Jones. In 1949, Selznick married Jones and gave up his independent producer status. He became "something of a joke for his obsession with his wife," producing mediocre films, certainly nowhere near the quality standards of his previous work. Although he continued to work in Hollywood his preoccupation with his wife's career forced him into the background of the industry. Despite this end to his career, David O. Selznick is a name that is "firmly planted in motion picture history." He was the biggest of independent producers at a time when there was rarely such a thing. This site reveals a detailed history of Selznick, why he is considered to be one of the greatest producers of all time, and his tremendous impact on Gone with the Wind.

It is extremely important to understand the background of a producer in considering the product he creates. Selznick's life experiences and opportunities had tremendous influence on the films he made. David O. Selznick's contributions to Gone with the Wind cannot be minimized in understanding the overall impact of the film and its success. Without him, who knows how the film might have traversed it complicated path? Gone with the Wind would certainly not have become the film as we know it today.

Max Steiner was born in Vienna. His grandfather was a "musical impresario". His godfather was Richard Strauss. For a short time, Steiner studied with Gustav Mahler. Steiner studied violin, trumpet, piano, and organ. From the age of twelve, he conducted concerts and from the age of eighteen, he worked a great deal in Britain. Following the outbreak of the war in Europe, Steiner accepted an invitation to move to New York where he spent many years working on theater production, conducting, orchestrating, and producing arrangements for many shows and musicals. Steiner worked with George Gershwin, Jerome Kern, and Sigmund Romberg before he moved to Hollywood to work for RKO and then Warner Brothers.

Steiner worked in Hollywood from the 1930's until the 1960's. He worked on several musicals as musical director and is now known primarily as a composer. His work on the scoring of films includes such masterpieces as "Tara's Theme" from Gone with the Wind, which is instantly recognizable. This work is significant in its representation of Tara - the house and plantation - and its important role in the film. Steiner received many Academy Award nominations and won three times. The "Max Steiner Award" was created in his honor for film music which recognizes Steiner's pioneering role in the early development of the craft of score composition.

Max Steiner's music style is highly distinctive. He does not use subtle nuances, but rather, his language is very direct, illustrating the emotion of the film at particular moments in time. Although Steiner has his signature style, he has been known to borrow an idea or melody from other sources. He has also been criticized for "Mickey Mousing" the film. However, Max Steiner made his mark as a pioneer in the composition of music for film. He created several music scores for films, some of which have become renowned for their power and drama, i.e. King Kong.

Steiner was another key component contributing to the success of Gone with the Wind. The blockbuster movie was further enhanced by the powerful score which complemented the intense plot and scenery. This issue illustrates the magnitude of Steiner's influence in the film industry. The public was aware of Steiner's reputation and when his original score for Gone with the Wind was played, the audience instantly recognized it as Steiner's work. This important facet of the film not only contributed to its overall impact, but most certainly helped contribute to its success.

This article is taken from The Saturday Evening Post. The article describes several different mansions and plantations built centuries ago and still in existence today. This article discusses the unique architecture and relevance of these homes in the contemporary South. The preservation of history is contained in these structures that represented a unique way of life in the Civil War South and Gone with the Wind. These homes bring life and added realism to the film Gone with the Wind.

The homes have been lovingly restored and kept intact. The interiors have been remodeled and updated, while the exteriors remain the same, appearing just as they did in the Civil War era. As the tagline of the article suggests, "The pillars of Southern gentility still stand in the renovated plantation homes and mansions of Alabama, Louisiana and Georgia." The antebellum mansions of the South reflect a bygone way of life and culture that was integral to the manners and mores of Southern society. These special homes serve as reminders of a way of life that we will never see again. Both these homes and Gone with the Wind are surviving icons that bring to life an existence steeped in cultural values of the specific era.

For three days in 1939, celebrities descended on Atlanta, Georgia highlighting the events of the Civil War and its aftermath while overshadowing the events of World War II at the time. This article, written exclusively for About North Georgia by Larry Worthy, details the events of those three days. As with movie premieres today, all of the stars of the movie arrived in town to promote the film. Not only did they come to give interviews and attend the premiere, but they also performed acts of goodwill, such as greeting Civil War veterans, in order to create positive press for the film and its actors. The thought process was that the public would want to see the film if they liked the stars in it.

There were also special events dedicated to the film in order to generate "buzz" and publicity. The "Gone with the Wind ball" attracted a "remarkable" guest list. By the time the day of the premiere arrived, the town was infused with excitement, not only for the film, but also the celebrities. The premiere was a huge event at the Loew's Grand Theater. There were celebrities galore, spotlights sweeping the sky, traffic closures, and a crowd of about 300,000. People waited to get a glimpse of their favorite celebrity as they emerged form their chauffer driven limousines to give radio interviews. Four and a half hours later the premiere was over. The film's stars went on to another premiere in New York the following week. A little known fact surrounding the New York premiere is that Laurence Olivier proposed to Vivien Leigh on the flight out and she accepted. The glitz and glamour of the Gone With The Wind premiere seventy years ago was unique in its time but has remained a standard for movie premieres even today.

Gone with the Wind is a film that continues to be relevant because of the time period portrayed, its social influences, and overall importance in the history of film. The release of Gone with the Wind on DVD is significant for a number of reasons. The enhancement of the actual film and the special features added make the DVD an important addition to any film library and just as significant as the film's initial release.

Included in the DVD's content is an in depth interview with Olivia de Hallivand, who plays Melanie. She was nominated for an Academy Award, however, she lost to Hattie McDaniel, who played Mammy. (There is speculation that the reason McDaniel won was as compensation for not being invited to the movie's Atlanta premiere.) In de Hallivand's interview, she reveals the chaos which occurred behind the scenes during the production of the film. For example, directors and writers came and went with alarming frequency.

The most impressive part of the DVD, which makes the DVD "vital and gorgeous", is the attempt to revert to the quality of the original Technicolor process in which the film was shot. The evolution of Technicolor is a significant facet of film history. Gone with the Wind was to be the test of the new Technicolor technology. The production of the film centered around brilliance and contrast of color as well as intricate scenery shots. Much of the original impact of the film lay in the quantity and quality of color schemes throughout the production. As the technology of film progressed, Technicolor was deemed old fashioned and new technology improved upon the once spectacular visions produced by the once unique color delivery system. The Gone with the Wind DVD has resurrected the original screen's Technicolor version of the film.

I feel that it is of great significance and interest for today's audience to see the film just as it was presented in its original form. The use of Technicolor had a significant impact on the audience of the time. Every aspect of a film contributes to the way in which an audience views, comprehends, and appreciates the film. With all the technology available today for production quality enhancement, it is important to have the ability to revert back to the original film version and screen it in its purest form. With every generation producing new audiences with interest in the film, the release of the DVD has made this important piece of film history readily accessible to an even wider audience. The attraction of the DVD lies in its special features. For film buffs and people who are knowledgeable about the history of film and production values, the remastering of Gone with the Wind in Technicolor is an important feature which, perhaps, trumps all of the other aspects of the DVD.

In The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, Spoto discusses many of the motifs found in Hithcock’s films. Water is frequently used to symbolize create turmoil, seen in Lifeboat with the stormy uncertain waters. Water also is the impetus for the survivors to rise up against the deceptive Nazi who had hidden his secret supply from the others, even killing to keep it a secret.

Jewelry is also a common Hitchcockian theme. It frequently represents false value. Connie equates her bracelet with good luck, saying that she will never take it off for fear of what would happen. The survivors are only saved, ironically, with her removal of the bracelet and its eventual loss. Hithcock also equates the bracelet with power. Connie is never able to fasten the clasp. Initially, she turns to Kopac for help, but eventually, the Nazi Willie is the only one who can fix her bracelet.

Hitchcock also suggests that transit sparks romance. The Nurse and the Radio officer slowly develop a relationship with him eventually proposing. Sexual tension also exists between Connie and Kopec. The trip also forces Gus to think only about his Rosie back in New Jersey, frequently questioning if he will ever see her again.

Spoto also suggests that the items that pass through the water in the opening represent the film’s main themes: The New Yorker symbolizes a society troubled in its foundation; the chess board symbolizes intellect useless in solving their situation; playing cards represent excessive leisure which allow Willie to successfully cement control over the ship.

While many criticize Lifeboat for its portrayal of Willie as an Aryan superman, Spotto suggests that people would be more offended by his humanity. His singing of German anthems and appreciation of music gives him a quality no one wanted to associate with Nazis. (This humanity is intentional as Walter Slezak who played Willie claimed his character was given curls in an effort to look more innocent.) Conversely, the “rabid pack of dogs” that were the other survivors prove unappealing at the end when they finally organize as one. Americans could only view a Nazi not as human or superhuman but as inhuman.

Shumway’s article discusses the function of romance in screwball comedy as a way of “mystifying marriage.” The author uses writer Stanley Cavell’s Pursuits of Happiness, an analysis of screwball comedy, as a basis and then refutes his argument that screwball comedy enlightens audiences about marriage. Shumway argues that romance essentially contains an element of illusion in itself and this thus translates in screwball comedy, to an illusive view of marriage as well. The idea of illusion also stems from the relationship between romance and desire, which Shumway states is another reason why screwball comedies often involve the rich, for this wealthy world is almost like a false promise that results from romance and love, and functions to heighten desire.

One of the most interesting arguments that Shumway makes in this article is that screwball comedies tend to hint that complete desire and complete satisfaction are attainable and that this specific state is known as marriage. Shumway uses examples from It Happened One Night and The Philadelphia Story to demonstrate that in screwball comedies, even women become objects of desire for the men. What is essential in creating this mystified notion of marriage is ultimately dependent on how the audience views the relationship between the characters. Shumway argues that the classic generic elements of screwball, such as the fast-paced dialogue, functions as a sort of electrical attraction that can be sensed by the audience and hints at the blissful ending of marriage.

The second half of this article consists of a contrasting analysis of Desperately Seeking Susan which reverses a lot of the generic elements of screwball. Beginning with marriage, and ending in divorce, the film presents an alternative to marriage, which in this case is adultery. In this film, marriage is not shown as the culmination of desire, but rather, the failure of romance.

It is interesting however, that Shumway’s analysis does not seem to fit Bringing Up Baby exactly. Despite the implied marriage at the end, which is in a way, mystified by the romance between the two characters, there is also a very realistic view of marriage in the beginning of the film when Huxley is engaged to be married to Miss Swallow, a marriage that would definitely not be one of romance. This could probably be explained by Shumway as a contrast of a “failed” marriage and a successful marriage, to perhaps heighten the illusion of the successful marriage.

            In this critical piece, Philip Kerr argues that in American cinema there is an underlying sense of embarrassment or discomfort with the idea of love, which leads to the inclusion of humor in films that deal directly with love.  Kerr asserts that it is for this reason that the majority of romance films in American cinema in recent years have been romantic comedies.  Kerr cites Annie Hall (1977), When Harry Met Sally (1989), Sleepless in Seattle (1993), While You Were Sleeping (1995), As Good as it Gets (1997), and What Women Want (2000) among examples of these romantic comedies.  He argues that European cinema is not faced with such restrictions and inhibitions and therefore explores love in much more serious tones and treats it with greater respect.  Kerr takes this argument one step further to assert, rather radically, that “outside New York and Los Angeles, Americans don’t feel comfortable with the English language… which is the polite way of saying that outside the big cities, most Americans are plain inarticulate.”  Kerr does not make it clear how he arrives at such a conclusion based on his earlier allegation that Americans are uncomfortable addressing love and romance directly.  He does not provide the reader with definitions of what he means by inarticulate, so it is hard to determine exactly what Kerr is arguing.  There is a definite negative undertone to his critique of American cinema in contrast with European cinema, but he does not provide any reason as to why Americans and Europeans might address love differently, nor does he introduce any ways to remedy the situation.  The problem with Kerr’s argument is that, while he shows an association between the proliferation of romantic comedies and the sense of discomfort with love in American society, he does not provide enough evidence to prove a causal relationship between the two concepts.  This article has minimal relevance to Woody Allen’s Annie Hall, though it does put it in the context of the modern romantic comedy and set it in a group of potential comparable and notable films.  It is important to look at articles such as this one that examine Annie Hall in a much larger context so as not to get caught up only in articles that look specifically at the minute details and underpinnings of the specific film itself.  It is easy to find oneself looking only at character analyses and symbolism within the cinematography of a particular film, which can sometimes cause one to lose sight of the film in the larger context of its role in American cinema and the connotations that its place in film history bring to the film. 

            John C. Spurlock writes a comprehensive and astute assessment of David Shumway’s book Modern Love: Romance, Intimacy, and the Marriage Crisis.  Spurlock synthesizes Shumway’s study of modern relationships and the development of romantic love over past few centuries.  Shumway, a professor of English and Literary and Cultural Studies at Carnegie Mellon University, analyzes the transformation of the discourse of romance and the narrative form of romantic love.  He relies on “historical work on the family, sexuality, courtship, and marriage… show[ing] that an important shift in the understanding and uses of romance appears in the late 18^th and early 19^th century.”  He asserts that novels were the main “carriers of romantic discourse” in the 19^th century and that as a shift to the increase of personal expectations from marriage occurred, so did the rate of divorce, which led to the so-called marriage crisis.  Shumway studies the marriage crisis through the frames of intimacy and romance.  Throughout the twentieth century, the discourse of romance, love, marriage, and intimacy continued to change and the idea of love repeatedly reinvented itself.  These shifts in discourse were reflected through the literature and culture of the time.  Advice writers became prevalent and the new connotations of love and romance were depicted in the development of the screwball comedy.  In the way that literature was a carrier of romantic discourse in the late 18^th and 19^th centuries, film also became such a carrier in the 20^th century.  As the marriage crisis became a more serious issue due to the transformation of the idea of modern love and the increasing divorce rate, these advice writers and films that addressed marriage and romance began to play larger roles in society.  Shumway explores the challenges associated with achieving the 20^th century ideal of intimacy by observing popular and timely films such as Annie Hall (1977) and When Harry Met Sally (1989).  These films provide insight into the culturally accepted definitions of such ideals as intimacy, romance, and love, while also revealing the subtexts associated with these ideals.  This article does a remarkable job of synthesizing a convoluted and complex body of literature, but it is still not as sufficient or comprehensive as Shumway’s actual text.  In terms of the article’s relevancy to Woody Allen’s Annie Hall, the article does not address Annie Hall in detail, but it does demonstrate how such a film can both reflect and generate cultural ideals including love, intimacy, and romance, which is arguably the most important role of the film.