Roses de sang

I saw this film on television (channel 21 I believe) back in the 1980s. It was okay, and (given the standards of racial stereotypes in 1935)actually ahead of its time in one scene. Otherwise, it is a pale sketch for Gone With The Wind. I think the reason is that whatever failings on racial grounds haunt us regarding Margaret Mitchell's novel, Miss Mitchell created memorable characters in Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler (and yes, even in Mammy)while the screenplay writers and the novelist who wrote SO RED THE ROSE did not do so. Also, the disasters facing Margaret Sullivan's world (while ruinous) are not as visually nightmarish to us as Scarlet's finding her father insane and her mother dead, or of seeing Atlanta burn. There are moments in SO RED that subtly show the size of the disaster - the death of the weakened defeated Walter Conolly, as he returns home in his carriage, for example. But while sad, it just does not hold a candle to the collapse of the ante-bellum Atlanta in GWTW.

The one moment that does stand out (and stands out against the normal racist rubbish of the 1930s) was when Sullivan confronts her slaves, who have heard the Yankee troops are approaching and they may be free. She tries to control them with reminders of how good her family was to them (although - tellingly - she slaps one who dare suggests its wasn't all that great). But further bad news reaches her, and she collapses. The slaves look at her - and walk away to desert the plantation. No scene like that is in GWTW, but I suspect it happened far more frequently than Margaret Mitchell would have preferred to have know of.

"So Red The Rose" is a forerunner of "Gone With The Wind" and there are several similarities apart from the Civil War backdrop. 'Rose' is in black and white and does not have the sweep or scope of the later picture. It is somewhat stagebound and takes place entirely on the Bedford plantation belonging to Margaret Sullavan's father, played by Walter Connolly. It is a story of the ante-bellum South which becomes the post-bellum South before the picture is over, and of one family in particular and how they manage the transition.

Like GWTW there is precious little action - one would expect a Civil War picture to have some second unit action, but no. The most we get are a few loud arguments, mostly from Miss Sullavan who is the pivotal figure in the film as Vivien Leigh was in hers. It is mainly a character study with a good, solid story to go with it. There is a sequence in which the slaves of the Bedford's realize they are free, but can't figure out what to do about it. I found it fascinating and gives one pause as to what it must have been like to suddenly find yourself a free man after a lifetime of slavery. This is the type of situation that a master director like King Vidor can bring off - a completely human instance tailor-made for him and which he illustrated in "The Crowd"(1928).

This is a good movie and a good story. I thought it had some touches that GWTW did not - what it doesn't have is length (at only 80 minutes), scope and a PR campaign behind it like the more famous film. But it is well worth seeing in its own right.

This movie seems to end just when it should begin. This story of the old South cannot fail to be compared with "Gone With the Wind", as it tells the story of a Southern family just before, during and just after the Civil War. The house even looks like Tara. But "So Red the Rose" finishes way too early and with an awful abruptness. Vidor has just begun to explore the ambiguities of the Civil War when the music swells and it's all over. With his characteristic humanism he looks at the conflict amongst the newly freed slaves - what do they do with this freedom? How will they eat? And must they now hate their former masters even those they once loved? And there are conflicts amongst the white folks too - especially when an innocent young Yankee asks the family for help. Can they allow this boy to be hanged? Is he not just like the son they lost? But before Vidor can really explore these issues the film is over.

Strong performances from Margaret Sullavan, Walter Connolly, Elizabeth Patterson and especially Janet Beecher give the film a solid base - and Vidor's technical skill and Victor Milner's cinematography give the film beauty. But it is Vidor's humanism that gives it heart. He was a remarkable artist - much over-looked by film historians. "So Red the Rose" is not a great film, but it is a remarkable one.

As a huge fan of director King Vidor's work, and of the genre, I was eager to see SO RED THE ROSE. It took me years to find this obscure film, and now I understand why.

The worst and most glaring flaw is the superficial character development throughout. I never once cared about the romance presented in this Civil War melodrama. There is no depth or soul to this production. The cinematography, score, costumes, and set design all seem like a TV production from the 1950s and not the glossy prestige film this should have been.

There are no moments of poetic brilliance, nothing profound in the script, and the slave stereotypes are offensive even by the standards of the time. I have a hard time believing King Vidor directed this mess, because his trademark sensitivity, intelligence, and masterful touches are completely absent from the production.

As far as good Civil War romances go, I think you know which one to watch, but may I also recommend OPERATOR 13 with Marion Davies and Gary Cooper. That is the obscure classic you are looking for.

So Red the Rose is yet another civil war drama, this time from Paramount, and starring Margaret Sullavan, Randolph Scott, Elizabeth Patterson, Janet Beecher, Walter Connolly, and Robert Cummings. I guess I never realized that Cummings started out so early, and in small roles. He's not very good.

This family, the Bedfords, has it a little tougher than the Tara group, though what went on in GWTW was pretty harrowing. This film focuses on the loss of family members, and slaves rebelling, although the family is shown here as being loving and supportive.

Their treatment is very typical Hollywood, though it is true that some slaves were well treated, learned to read, etc., which is no justification for it. But they want their freedom, and they hear it's coming. On the day the rebellion was filmed, 500 African Americans were needed. So it was filmed during a city-wide "Maid's Day Off" in Los Angeles.

What Sullavan says to the slaves who want to quit is interesting and actually realistic. Slavery, she says, is at an end, and you'll be free. But what are you free to do? Are you promised land? Freedom means you work for wages or for yourself.

This actually is a good handle on the issues faced during Reconstruction. This topic is not shied away from in "So Red the Rose" at all.

In the beginning, I almost turned this off because it was so over the top. Margaret Sullavan as Vallette flounces around in what looks like a parody of an antebellum gown. And the accents - yikes. Cummings is a friend of Vallette's brother - his performance is just too big.

Randolph Scott plays a distant cousin who objects to the war and refuses to fight. Vallette is in love with him, but he is focused on other things.

All in all, a darker film, though one is less attached to the characters as we are in Gone with the Wind. What I like about both Wind and Rose is that it shows that the way of life of southerners changed within minutes. And they weren't prepared for what it meant.