We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.
No, Kubrick made the first one with James Mason and Peter Sellers. Adrian Lyne made the Jeremy Irons one. I liked them both.Am I behind the times or did I forget that Kubrik made the Jeremony Irons version?
No, Kubrick made the first one with James Mason and Peter Sellers. Adrian Lyne made the Jeremy Irons one. I liked them both.
Before the first foot of film was exposed it had a highly articulate "pre-sold" audience of best-seller readers, millions strong, who insisted on the book, the whole book, and nothing but the book. So it had to be long; the wonder is how Sidney Howard and David O. Selznick between them contrived so neatly to condense the thousand-page novel into a manageable scenario.
But abnormal length (as Disney has proved) need not in itself be a handicap. The major drawback about the literal translation of a novel to the screen is that the film cannot, in one important respect, be much better than the book. And the one serious weakness about "Gone With the Wind" is that its story lacks the epic quality which alone could justify such a lavish outlay of time, talent, and "production values." If the story had been cut short and tidied up at the point marked by the interval, and if the personal drama had been made subservient to a cinematic treatment of the central theme – the collapse and devastation of the Old South – then "Gone With the Wind" might have been a really great film.
For me the classic book into good movies is Anna Karenina with Sophie Marceau