I think Giant shows the same things, but in a more forthright, honest manner.
GWTW condones racism, even slavery to a great extent, and perpetrates the long-held southern lie that the Old South was "a land of cavaliers and ladies fair where chivalry took its last bow". Bilge, to put it as politely as I can. The South was a land of inequality (of poor whites as well of blacks), abhorrent human cruelty, economic deprivation for all but the upper classes, a land of greed, viciousness, abysmal ignorance and rebellion. The Civil War was an act of treason, a war of insurrection against the legitimate government, and one begun by the South to preserve human slavery, period. There was nothing "noble" about it, the "cause", or the motives of the people who fought it. GWTW depicts and propagates this false view, glorifies (and glories in) it, and makes heroes out of villains (and villains out of those who fought to end slavery and reunite the union, the loathsome "Yankees").
Giant tackles similar problems from a more honest perspective. It exposes the hypocrisy of its leading characters while enabling the audience to understand and respect them. The characters grow...which those in GWTW really don't. The film exposes and excoriates racism; GWTW wallows in it, falsifies it: for instance, when Ashley, uneasy about the use of white convict labor, complains to Scarlet and she, in a burst of honesty, replies that he wasn't so particular about having owned slaves, he answers, "Well that was different -- we didn't treat them that way," and then goes on to say he would have freed them all anyway. Yes, employing white convicts is demeaning; but owning black slaves was merely a legalistic formality, and in any event, they were just so well treated and taken care of that even after being freed, they prefer working for their former masters...simple, loyal darkies that they are.
And solely from a cinematic or dramatic standpoint, GWTW is a prolonged soap opera about silly people. Giant traces the evolving culture of a state and a way of life, as well as of its people, for good and bad. It does not romanticize its characters or their circumstances, the way GWTW notoriously does. Both films are entertaining, but when one considers what's up on that screen, Giant's honesty and complexity make it far superior to anything GWTW was capable of...or sought to be.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
hobnob53
11 years ago
As it happens I'm having a very similar discussion on another board here. So I'm fighting on two fronts!
I don't disagree with much that you wrote about GWTW, but the fundamental problem, as I've said elsewhere, is that we're comparing apples and oranges -- two very different books about different eras, made into films that themselves reflected the differing sensibilities of the periods in which they were made.
I disagree that the characters interrelate with one another in GWTW better than they do in Giant. The nature of the relationships is different in each because the people, and their circumstances, are different in each. There is nothing intrinsically superior about the characters in one film (or novel) over the other. It's solely a matter of the personal appeal one has over the other.
GWTW's politics and social background are as evident as Giant's, just not brought as overtly to the fore. This is a product of the film's sources, and the intentions of the films' makers. In my view, the effort of Giant to honestly confront serious issues and portray its characters in a more realistic manner are strengths. GWTW conjures a fantasy (a polite word for lie) about the nature of its setting and society, and creates characters to fit this conceit. It distorts and insults the history it depicts (masterfully if dishonestly). I agree that this is a separate consideration from its merits as a piece of movie-making but one cannot break the film into its component parts and wave away those portions that betray weaknesses in conception or execution.
I respect your academic approach but one doesn't have to have a science background to analyze, in this case, a film and what it says. As I said, ultimately one's attitudes are a reflection of individual preferences and beliefs, and I gather yours and mine are simply rather different here. It may also be that, as an American who has grown up bathed in this history, I may have an innate understanding of what both films portray, and how they do it, that you simply would not. Of course, this does not validate my views nor invalidate yours, but it may well add an extra aspect to the discourse: namely, an historical and cultural attachment that is almost emotional, the expression of which does not lend itself readily to words; something a non-American simply cannot truly grasp in the way a native could, in tales that are, after all, about very complex problems that long tortured this land, and still reverberate today.
But, dear Reg, nowhere else could I experience a more learned or enjoyable difference! Truly.
reply
share