Gone With the Wind: On Paper and On Screen

Nearly all Americans have seen Gone With the Wind. The film is an American classic, like Singin' in the Rain or The Sound of Music. Interestingly, the book by Margaret Mitchell is not nearly as often talked about. The book lies in the shadow of the iconic movie.

So, in my research on Gone With the Wind, I really had no choice but to re-watch the film. The last time I watched it was right after I had first read the book, and I could hardly watch it all the way through. It seemed so petty and childish compared to the novel, no more than a weak attempt to imitate the deep emotion of the original story. I couldn't understand why the movie is so famous. 

But this time I felt differently. My last post was a pretty good segue into this topic because the question of Book vs. Movie is extremely important in the conversation about Gone With the Wind. This time, I could really enjoy and appreciate the film version. I tried to look at it with the same views I expressed in the last post, remembering that the film and the paper versions ought to be very different. 

So which is better: the book or the movie? 

Book

• Time. In the course of 1000 or so pages, there's plenty of time for the characters to grow and change. In the film, there are only about 3 hours in which the characters can figure themselves out. At the end of the book, I felt like Scarlett, Rhett, and Melanie were completely different people from the way they had started, whereas in the movie I felt like they hadn't changed as much. 
• Imagination. As others have pointed out, in the book, there's plenty of room for imagining the characters and setting any way you please. Personally, I liked my own imagined version of Aunt Pittypat much better than the way she was interpreted in the film. 
• More Story. The movie necessarily had to leave out some of the characters who were actually pretty vital in the story. For instance, the man who ends up marrying Carreen (and who also happens to be one of my favorite characters from the book), doesn't make it into the film version at all. The story is more full and rounded out in the book than in the movie. 

Film

• Vivid. In my opinion, the film is an excellent interpretation of the sets in the book. Sure, I could imagine from description what Tara or Atlanta looked like, but since I've never seen a Southern plantation in the 1800s, it's really cool to be able to see what it might have looked like. 
• Length. Probably one of the big reasons that nearly everyone has seen the movie while few people have read the book is that the film provides the story within a manageable chunk of time. A 3-hour movie is a lot easier to swallow than a 1000-page book. 
• Acting. I thought nearly all the actors did a really excellent job. I could never picture Rhett Butler as anyone other than Clark Gable. 

Both the book and the movie have really great traits that make for an excellent telling of the classic story. However, I wonder if the retellings really had to end in 1939 with the iconic film. I wonder if anyone would want or even could enjoy a fresh retelling? Although I love the book and the movie, I think there is still room for more interpretations and more versions of Margaret Mitchell's story. What do you think? Did Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh have the last word on Gone With the Wind, or is there more that's been left unsaid?