Critics Pan 'Gone With the Wind' Musical

The movie "Gone With Wind" is one of those rare masterpieces. The actors originally wanted by the director were not the actors who finally starred in the movie. Nonetheless, it is a stand alone movie. How can any one improve on it?

A follow-up T.V. movie covering Brett's and Scarlett's life after the movie didn't impress anyone. A musical? Never! What could they possibly sing while Atlanta was burning? Maybe "light my fire, Scarlett"?

And the musical is being staged in London? That's really off, off Broadway, don't you think.

Frankly, I don't give a damn!

"Gone With the Wind, the Musical" would have been a terrific Monty Python's Flying Circus skit. What ever happened to "Now, for something entirely different"?

...... but with that said, not having experienced the show first hand, nor do I pay much heed to the opinions of "critics" 'cos I like to make up my own mind if I like something, just maybe they found a way to pull this ambitious, tho improbable venture off. Wouldn't that be something.

This is actually the second time a musical version of GONE WITH THE WIND has been attempted. Both were failures. But the idea is not, in itself, a bad one. The idea is that it should be a grand operatic musical along the lines of LES MISERABLES, not THE PRODUCERS.

There was a time that people said they couldn't imagine George Bernard Shaw's PYGMALIAN as a musical. Others said the same about the King Arthur story. No one could imagine how you could musicalize the works of Victor Hugo. And how about the Bible? They all sound like insane and impossible projects. Yet MY FAIR LADY, CAMELOT, LES MISERABLES, and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR have, in spite of such popular skepticism, become for of the most successful and well loved musicals of all time. And by the way, the last two premiered in London.

London's West End is one of the great tehatrical hotbeds of the world. Broadway has NOTHING on the West End when it comes to both creative and interpretive talent. Virtually all of Andrew Lloyd Webber's best (and, admittedly, his worst as well) works premiered in London before going to Broadway. So did the work of Schonberg & Boublil and, of course, Gilbert & Sullivan if you want to talk about classics.

Regardless of its quality, this production is directed by Sir Trevor Nunn, one of the greatest directors to grace either London or Broadway. He has a long history in musical theatre as well as having been former artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Company AND the National Theatre in London. Any time I see his name on a show, it doesn't guarantee the show will be good but it does assure that it deserves attention.

To DreadPirateRoberts,
Great point and very well said. I should wait until morning to post my first thoughts. I've been to too few large musical productions but I did experience Les Miserables several times. Having read the book first I could only envision it as a motion picture. Good thing someone else had a broader imagination.

I also agree with you on your top three cities, although my order of preference changes with the seasons. This however does not make me a fair weather fan. Go Cubs!

Many people see this as the classic and almost perfect American Film. Because of this perception many will feel that it is disrespectful and impossible to attempt tell the story any other way. I never have a problem with someone trying to tell a story. Movies, Theater, and Books are a way of telling stories and are always open for interpretation and reinterpretation. That is the art of telling a story.

I have to say although classic I find the film to be over rated.
There is one great and innovative moment in the film where Scarlet is walking and the camera dollies out and up and allows you to see all of the casualties.

Interesting fact: Margaret Martin, who wrote the stage play and music has no stage or music experience. She’s a doctor!

to remsleep:

Yes, that shot of Scarlett in the railway station among all the wounded is one of the great shots in all cinematography. But, by and large, I tend to agree with you. The film is very good and it's iconic and it's well done on many levels. But it is not God's gift to cinema as many fans would have you believe.

After having read the links to the various articles on this new production, I find it highly amusing that everyone is complaining about its length. At 3:40, it is two minutes SHORTER than the movie!!!

Note to South-Side John:

LES MISERABLES is in the Guinness Book of World Records as the book that has been adapted into a motion picture the most often. According to Guinness, Victor Hugo's masterpiece has been done either on TV or the cinema no fewer than 40 times (although IMDb only lists 18). I have seen four of them, all in English, but there are many in other languages. While some were quite good, none do full justice to the book.

After some thought, James Michener's TALES OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC and T.S. Eliot's OLD POSSUM'S BOOK OF PRACTICAL CATS also seemed like highly unlikely sources for musical adaptation.

Interesting fact #2....Lucille Ball was considered for the part of Scarlett. Now, who can argue, after seeing Lucille protray Scarlett, wearing the famous "curtain attire" that she shouldn't have had the part.
A side note: please know that I am sitting here smiling as I write this comment, and frankly my dear.....

I have an interesting question for everyone. We've all seen the movie, but has anyone read the book?

I agree the panoramic view of the casualties is a great shot. I doubt it could be recreated on stage.

I was not being critical of the London stage scene....I was curious as to why an "American story" like GWTW wasn't staged there, first. Perhaps it has become timeless and belongs to everyone, everywhere. When GWTW premiered in London in 1939 it was an instant hit. It played every night for four years during the German Blitz attacks on London.

The first actor to be offered the role of Brett was Gary Cooper. The second choice was Errol Flynn. Besides Lucy, Bette Davis and Olivia de Haviland were considered for Scarlett.

What a different movie it would have been with any of those actors.......I think Flynn would have been a good choice. Errol Flynn and Lucy Ball, wow! And Lucy was drop-dead gorgeous in those days.

Reading is a passion of mine, but I have not read this book.

The whole idea seems silly. The original film was top notch. Why try to improve something that is already great?

to ExPat:

A very good question about the book. Although I, myself, have not read it, I know many people who have. They include my wife and several of my friends. Off the top of my head, though, I cannot name a single male who has read it. Probably a coincidence but impossible not to notice.

While the movie continues to come under fire to this day for portraying the slaves as happy servants who loved their masters, it actually softens some of the racism in the book. For instance, in Mitchell's novel, Rhett and Ashley were active members of the KKK! I think we're all glad that little tidbit didn't make it to the screen.

I've never been a big fan of Clark Gable but I admit he was at his very best as Rhett Butler. You're quite right though that Flynn would have been great. In fact, Bette Davis turned down the role of Scarlett after hearing Flynn would not be cast opposite her. I've seen her screen test. Quite a few of those are available in archival documentary footage on the making of the film. They're a real treat for fans of the great classic actresses.

Gable and Flynn were considered because Mitchell and Selznick had made it very clear what kind of presence Rhett needed to be. "He must be a bona fide star and a box-office draw; he must have a history of playing leading man roles; he must have a mustache as it is described in the book." Of course, by that criteria, Groucho Marx would be a lead contender.

Sorry if I misunderstood your description of London as "way off Broadway". No offense intended. Why didn't the musical premier here? I admit I don't know. I can only postulate that it's the same reason PHANTOM OF THE OPERA didn't premier in Paris.