How true that the similarities are there: the period, the civil war, and the sweeping scenes. But, to me, the differences are greater than the similarities.
First the “aristocracies”, remember that in “Gone With the Wind” Gerald O’Hara is a self-made man, a penniless immigrant from Ireland who has “pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. True, Mrs. O’Hara is from one of the “first families” of Savannah. But the Villa Donnafugatta was probably a hundred years old when Savannah was a mud clearing with log huts. In the 1860’s there were no families of the “antiquity” of the Italian aristocracy in America(nor are there today).
Secondly: the focus of the respective films: Scarlet O’Hara is, in the final analysis, the ultimate b*tch-girl. She has no concerns but for herself and what she wants. And, to her, these are fairly to be achieved at the any cost, human or moral. Introspection and self-analysis are as foreign to her as would be ancient Mesopotamian. Her single-minded pursuit of another woman’s husband, that the price to herself , to a woman who has never shown her anything but kindness, or to the man she nominally loves is not even a matter of indifference, but not even a matter at all, is a telling insight into Scarlett’s character. That she wants it is all the reason she needs. Once it’s within her reach, after Melanie’s death, and she realizes this is not what she wants, does she stop to even ask if all the grief she has caused was worth the price? Not even for a second. She only rushes to go for what she now decides she wants. In that immortal line “...What shall become of me? What shall I do? Where shall I go?” Is there any thought at all for what she’s done, to Rhett, to Melanie, to Ashley, or even a thought for them at all? Is there even an apology or the admission of a misteak? Hardly, there is only I, I, I. If one can step away from the romance to an objective vantage point, one will realize that this is a, nay THE, selfish, shallow, self-centered woman. It is a reflection on the how a good romance is “GWTW” (and to my jaded eye even a greater reflection on the romance reader or viewer) that Scarlett is the sympathetic character who has all the sighs and tears of the audience.
Let’s now compare Prince Don Frabrizio to Miss O’Hara. Can he be imagined smashing porcelain in a temper tantrum? Or more significantly, chasing after another man’s wife at whatever the cost? Not likely in the least. This is a man not only aware of his own dignity and that of his family, but of his responsibilities, not only to his wife (whom he does not love but does respect) and family, but to society at large. Even though he knows that this society is preparing to dispose of him. Even if this society has decided he is to go, he is determined to leave with all the dignity he has come to expect of himself. He will do what he believes is right, even if it means the end of his house and all he knows. Scarlett could not care less about what society thinks of her. And that Ashley might care is even less than something she cannot understand, it is something that never even comes near to entering her mind. Don Fabrizio does and will remain true to his own ideals and standards whether these are expedient or not. To me, this is the definition of an aristocrat, a definition that has become an abstraction or, more likely, an anachronism today. Scarlett, on the other hand, would be today a supremely successful politician. She would have no problem lying or tricking her way to wherever she wanted to be. Don Fabrizio would, and does, stand by his truth and principles, no matter the consequence to himself as long as it was what he believed right. Consider The Prince's line "What would the Senate do with me, a man completely lacking in the power of self-deception?" Hunt as you will, you’ll never find that thought or those words in Scarlett’s mind or vocabulary. The only commonality between the two would be no need for an apology or an explanation to anyone. Though, to be fair, Don Fabrizio would attempt to grant one, if only out of courtesy. ("I explain myself badly, forgive me.")
But finally, “Gone With the Wind” is a very pretty romance, with no challenging ideas, no more thoughts than will she get the guy? It’s a beautifully photographed film, with some very good performances. But here will be found little or nothing deeper than the average Barbra Cartland (no disrespect to Miss Mitchell intended, she’s still an infinitely better romance novelist than Cartland). There is nothing to challenge the mind or raise difficult questions, nor are these things looked for here. Depth is not sought after in romance, and would only be disturbing to the average romance reader were there.
Conversely, “Il Gattopardo” is a deep and broad novel and film, with ideas and questions far beyond its nominal story. This is a characteristic of all great stories. “Gone With the Wind” is a beautiful piece of escapism, perfectly designed for those who chose not to (or cannot) think. And there will always be a place for such works. “Il Gattopardo” is a deep and significant work with challenging thoughts and themes, that are, at the very least, disquieting. With which many will not want to deal with.
Many would rather carry a feather pillow than a cannonball for a mile, it is certainly easier and more restful, but they who so chose will never build any muscles. No lasting impact was ever made by a feather pillow either, but it is very comfortable.
reply
share
BlueGreen
17 years ago
Griffinj, that was a magnificently well articulated comparison.
reply
share