A&R1985: Wordsmith

Wordsmith (1985) #1-12
by Dave Darrigo and Richard G. Taylor

I liked Renegade a lot back in the 80s, and comics like this were a major part of that: Comics that just seem… out of whack with what anybody else was publishing.

This comic is about a pulp writer… in the mid-to-late 30s… and… that’s it: The writer isn’t a detective by night, and there’s no alien invasion, and there’s not a spy sub plot. It’s about a pulp writer.

It’s so low concept that only Renegade would have thought this was something commercially viable to publish.

And it starts off pretty sweet, with pages like this that illustrate the creative process. I like the crumpled-up panels. And if it was all like this, this would have been a fun series.

Taylor’s artwork is pretty attractive, even if it’s slavishly drawn from photo reference. It’s got an attractive stiffness to it, and the usage of different zip-a-tones and patterns works really well.

Unfortunately, when the people acting out the parts look unconvincing, then it all just looks wonky. The worst “actor” here is really the guy who’s doing the lead, unfortunately: He’s always looking down or away and holding his chin. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that Taylor used himself as the model. Especially since those glasses look really 70s and not very 30s.

(Ooops, blurry pic.) It’s also got the same problem Scott McCloud’s The Sculptor has: It’s talking a lot about making art, and coming up with really good stuff. (The writer protagonist here is really successful and everybody loves his stories.) McCloud had an artist who was supposed to be awesome, but whenever his artwork was shown on the page, it was the worst god-awful crap ever, which kinda undermined the story. The problem isn’t as severe here: But that line up there took a lot of work (in-story) to be created, and it’s supposed to be fantastically good… and… well, you can probably read yourself, even if it’s blurry.

Darrigo really loves the pulps, I think is what he’s saying here. I have read very little, and the little I’ve read has bored me silly.

So — in every issue, we get a couple scenes from whatever the protagonist is writing, but the bulk of each issue is about his life, moving around in New York and talking to people.

The protagonist feels pressure to write serious literature instead of violent pulp stories, but the wise editor sets him straight with some tired platitudes.

Oh, yeah, there’s a pin-up in most issues… and … they’re not particularly good?

Don Hutchinson also has a recurring column about the pulps. It’s very rah rah pulps.

The dialogue is unbelievably stilted. It’s not just that nobody talks like this, but it’s just … I know, I’m so eloquent tonight.

Taylor uses the tones in many interesting ways, like the abstract block shapes to the left, and perhaps less successfully as the wallpaper to the right. But I do like all his schlumpy (that’s a word) pants.

Er, uhm, OK, thanks for letting us know…

It’s a family affair — Taylor’s dad is doing the lettering, and somebody else named Taylor is doing the photo references.

I soon came to dread reading the pulp excerpts: If there’s anything I hate more than reading plot recaps, I don’t know what that is, but reading these telegraphed scenes is also tedious.

OK, re-reading these comics, I have to say that I’m really disappointed. I only had a handful of issues as a teenager, and I remembered them as being more interesting than they are. So now I’m slipping into “angry old man shouts at old comics” mode, which isn’t what I was going for, and isn’t very interesting to read, so I’ll try to not kvetch so much….

Darrigo announces that they’re going to a quarterly schedule. Strangely enough, they also go to a 32 page format (up from 24), so the number of pages pr. year doesn’t change that much. Perhaps they had planned on adding more letters pages and columns, but most of the issues are wall-to-wall Wordsmith…

OH GOD A BASEBALL STORY LARD HAVE MERCY

The main story is a lot more interesting than the pulp stories, but… er… OK, here, the protagonist meets a Nazi writer. And that’s as dramatic as things get.

The main problem, I think, is that the protagonist is just kinda vaguely a nice guy, and has no character traits beyond that (and being really into pulps). For instance, for some reason this socialite beauty is his girlfriend… but why? He looks like a slob, he’s not witty or particularly smart, he has no interest beyond writing his pulps… so this millionaire’s daughter hooks up with him? Because he said he was a writer and she assumed he meant of literature?

Taylor does some pinups himself.

Heh, a check from D. Loubert.

In one issue, we get an entire pulp western for 22 pages, and it’s so tedious that I couldn’t make myself read it all. Sorry! Blog concept failure! I promised to read all the Renegade comics, but I failed.

Then, preposterously enough, the remaining ten pages is about how everybody is so impressed by that turd of a story that they start offering him jobs left and right.

OK, OK, OK…

Finally! Dramatic fight scene!

Love that pose.

What a wordsmith.

In the final issue, the pulps meet super-hero comics, and the protagonist teams up with “Jake Corby” for an issue of Freedom Fighter.

Taylor does a pretty amusing pastiche of Kirby, eh?

The series does get a proper ending of sorts, which is nice.

Heh. Pin-ups from Al Davidson…

And I guess I was right that Taylor used himself as the model? Even the glasses? It’s like I’ve got ESPN or something.

But what did the critics think?

Somebody writes in Amazing Heroes #112, page 64:

And, yes, I have one major com-
plaint. The pulp stories written by
the protagonist, Clay Washburn
(which Darrigo cleverly weaves into
the comics as a sort of alternative
storyline), are just too god-awful to
be believed. I guess Darrigo’s play-
ing campily with the overwriting
and corniness that afflicted many of
the pulps, but these are so mon-
strously cliched and lousily written
that it’s impssible to imagine them
being published by even the crassest
pulp house. This issue’s story—in
which Congo Carson saves the shite
women from the savages through the
old predict-the-eclipse routine—
would have been laughed out the
door even in 1935. It’s downright
painful to pound thmugh four pages
of this self-conscious garbage at the
beginning of a story.
This purposely bad writing is par-
ticularly odd considering Darrigo’s
espoused fondness for the pulps; he
seems to be deriding them rather
than paying them tribute. If nothing
else, he owes it to Frank Gruber to
capture some of the genuine fun and
freshness of the actual pulps. Hav-
ing drawn so much from the man’s
remarkably similar pieces of work
from two very different sources.
Both are stories of young dreamers
trying to make it in the pulp pub-
lishing world of New York during
the Depression; one a pulp novelist,
the other a comic book artist. The
first is put together by a couple of
youngsters from secondary sources.
The other is pulled from memory by
a man who lived it all, a pioneer of
comics and one of the medium’s few
true masters. Both are quiet, bit-
tersweet, ultimately very optimistic
tales, low on plot and sensation but
rich in detail. Each is a fond tribute
to a lost phase of America’s growth,
an era of great tribulation but
astonishingly high hopes.
Eisner’s work, of course, is the
better of the two. Wordsmith has
some fine content, but it’s a rather
shapeless and imbalanced work,
never quite able to pack as much
drama as it should into its scenes.
The Dreamer has a similarly loose
storyline, but it’s given form and
strength by Eisner’s mastery of
visual storytelling. He has invented
and assimilated so many subtle
tricks over the decades that he can
draw more feeling from a tiny inci-
dent in his Dreamer’s career than
young storytellers like Darrigo and
Taylor can give to the great traumas
of their Wordsmith’s life.

Will Murray writes in Comics Scene Volume #2, page 14:

Time Out for
“Wordsmith”
ordsmith, Renegade’s ex-
perimental novelistic
story of 1935 pulp magazine writer
Clay Washburn, will undergo
dramatic changes beginning this
summer in an effort to resolve the
characteris fate before being
suspended with issue #12.
“The series’ time frame is going
to be telescoped radically,”
according to creator/writer Dave
Darrigo, beginning with issue #10.
“It’s a story involving the Spanish
Civil War. Clay tries to stop a
friend of his from going to fight in
the Spanish Civil war.
“Issue #11 jumps to the first
week of September in 1939,”
Darigo continues. “Clay is married
and his wife is expecting, and ac-
tually gives birth on the same day
the war breaks out in Europe,
when the Germans invaded
Poland. By this time, Clay is work-
ing in Hollywood and has broken
into the slick magazines. His
good friend at the newsstand, Joe,
dies. And that emphasizes the
passing of the era.
“Issue #12 should be of interest
to most comic fans. Clay’s editor,
Sam Kaiser, is released from the
pulp house he’s working at and
signs on with a comic book
publisher. He recruits Clay to do
his own version of Captain
America, basing it on one of his
old pulp characters. Then, Clay
gets recruited into the Army. Not
as a soldier. He’s a paper shuffler.
He heads off to Washington at the
story’s end. That’s where Word-
smith ends, for now.”
Darrigo says that while
-E Renegade Press would like to con-
tinue Wordsmith, low royalties
caused by slowing sales have
made it difficult for artist Rick
Taylor to continue the series.

Somebody writes in The Comics Journal #107, page 54:

As it turns out, though, Washburn
needn’t worry about literary pretensions.
Here’s how he marries Off a gunslinger and
a schoolmarm stand-in: ‘Tunney stepped up
to Cynthia. It had been a close shave with
the barber of fate, but he’d come through
it in One piece. The girl looked up at him
with a teqder yearning. She waited anxious-
ly for him to speak. ‘I’m not getting any
younger, Miss Cynthia. I could use a good
woman to look after these tired, old bones
you know what I mean?'”
Real-life interlude: can you hear the girl
slam the door in his face? I thought you
could.
For a supposed professional, Washburn is
a poor writer. • ‘Congo Carson,” the latest
of his literary pretensions, is dropped out
of a cage suspended over a man-eating tiger.
How does he survive? Washburn doesn’t
know either—he has written himself into a
corner. One Can imagine Fitzergerald kill-
ing off Gatsby only to realize four chapters
later that he still needs him.
But, here is where the initial gimmick of
Wordsmith comes into play. As with DC
Challenge readers are given the Opportuni-
ty to solve the writer’s problem. Washburn
falls asleep at the typewriter, then takes a
shower—two whole pages Of diversion (do
the readers have their thinking caps on?).
Finally, Washburn concocts a way out: Car-
son fends Off the tiger with a torch, then
throws the torch into the air, where it ignites
the rope holding the cage over him. The
cage falls over him and he is safe.
Except… the rope would have to be
• soaked liberally with gasoline to catch that
quickly. Also, though it was initially held
at bay, did the tiger just hang back and
watch the rest of this? And, once the cage
was “protecting” Carson, why didn’t the
tiger just leap at it as cats are wont to and
knock it over?
The answer to all this is simple. What is
at play here is pålp logic. Comic-book logic
The sort of logic that has torches instantly
incinerating thick hemp ana that holds
tigers at bay. The sort of logic that makes
me stop reading and start throwing.
Issue #2 was, in a way, worse. Suddenly
Washburn finds himself faced with an
ethical question: are his stories too violent
and is he, therefore, a violent person by
nature? To find out, he visits a wealthy
writer friend Of his, a murder-mystery
author who assures Washburn that writing
murder mysteries is only slightly more
prestigious than pulp fiction. When Wash.
burn poses his question, Fergus, the presti-
gious friend, tells him to lose his literary
pretensions (of course! what else?). “Ethical
doubts?” Fergus asks, “I don’t understand.”
This character then goes into a monologue
that surely sums up writer Dave Darrigo’s
frame of mind: “Your answer won’t be found
in logic, my boy. There is nothing logical
about popular fiction. people read—and
write—these stories on primitive instinct.”
Voila. Man-eating tigers sitting calmly on
the sideliens. Hemp incinerated,
The monologue goes on: “You must learn
to wear blinkers to your mit)d. And just like
a horse, you have to 100k straight ahead and
follow the path that your story reveals. I’ve
told you my ‘recipe for news-stand soup;
haven’t l? You need a quart Of violence; a
glass of sentiment.”
This great literpry figure wraps up the
meeting with these thoughts about Wash-
burn: “The boy has a good head on his
shoulders. But he thinks too much.”
Now, one could interpret this as Darrigo
winking at us; he knows that this is hooey,
and he’s going to expose how wrong the old
man’s thinking is. However, how does Wash-
burn rationalize his lead character’s
violence?
‘”Sorry about the mess,’ Bendix told his
old friend on the force. Detective Chuck
Webster shrugged and said, ‘If these hoods
didn’t shoot at you, then they’d just shoot
at somebody else.'”
Actually, they would not have shooting
at anyone had not Washburn created them.
And so, whether or not he and Darrigo like
to think so, his ethical problem remains.

Somebody writes in Amazing Heroes #83, page 56:

VVhen you hdve a lead character
who is as as lifeless as old laundry
and about as interesting as bread
mold, ‘you’d bettor put him in a story
that packs a punch if you want to
hold ‘your audience. Having him
struggle to find the right words to put
in a fictional character’s mouth does
not qualify as compelling drama.
The art, though made up of excel-
lent cornponents, owrall adds to the
feeling of listlessness. Rick Taylor has
d very fine illustrative style,
an influence by the terrific Doug
Wildey. Unfortundtely, that’s all he
presents here—illustrations. It looks
more fike a series of static photo-
graphs than the story of genuine
people. Everyone tooks posed and,
in his effort to draw realistic faces
Taylor has forgotten to give any of
them expressions. With a little more
emotion, Rick could become an out-
standing talent.

Russell Freund writes in The Comics Journal #112, page 44:

The sixth issue Of Wordsmith has a few
interesing panels near the beginning where
Clay, the hero, is walking down the street
having an internal monologue, and I swear
it’s like something out of Harvey Pekar and
Gerry Shamray. I compliment Darrigo and
Taylor on their choice of inspiration here,
although this book is still nowhere near in
American Splendor’s league. This issue Clav
settles down to write some “serious litera-
ture,” a turgid W WI novel he intends to call
“The Dirt of Heaven.” The problem with
this series remains that Clay is a no-talent
meatball. and Dave Darrigo insists on
treating him as a sensitive. creative artist.
It’s frustrating to watch this promising book
continue ro miss its mark, the same way,
issue after issue. Still, it ends with a decent
scene where Clay meets a vain, drunken
novelist, and the man’s arrogance is plaved
for a kind of sour comedy. (l think so, any-
way. It cracked me up.) If Wordsmith were
about sodden, chiseling Virgil Grant, the
contumelious man of the letters, I would
probably be an ardent fan.

So this book got plenty of attention at the time — and all of it negative? I guess I wasn’t the only one who was intrigued by the concept, and then disappointed when actually reading it.

Jim Wilson writes in The Comics Journal #105, page 46:

Darrigo’s script flows well, avoids ungram-
matical and clumsy lapses so common in
comics, and combines a surprisingly un-
pretentious and convincing portrait of a’
struggling writer with elegant ’30s flavor
thgat seems very natural end not at all
forced or tacked on. The same natural
formality is evident in the brief moments
Of Washburn with his friends.
A few comments on Taylor’s art. His
detailed style is far superior to a lot of what
passes for art in comics. His work suggests
a more classical, illustrative approach; clearly
his artistic references are far broader than
just other comic books. He gives us an
acceptable and accurate potrayal of the New
York City Of the period; obviously he did
his homework and researched the architec-
ture and style of the 1930s (even including
a background showing the famous “NO Way
Like the American Way” billboard framing
a there is more nuance and
expressiveness in the faces of these charac-
ters than there are in a whole year’s worth
Of mainstream comics (Terry Beatty would
do well to study the way this man draws
faces. )
The biggest flaw in the art is Taylor’s diffi-
culty in spotting blacks, which gives the art
a cluttered, flat, and two-dimensional
appearance. It reminds me Of the comment
that the first half of an artist’s career is learn.
ing what to put in; the second is spent learn-
ing what to leave out. This “less is more”
theory is put to good use in the work of
Eisner and Toth, and—if may be so bold—
I’d suggest that Taylor spend a bit of time
studying the style of those two masters.
The book concludes with a prose after-
word, “Long Live the Pulps,” which is
author Darrigo’s paean to the magazines
that are his hero’s bread and butter, and an
attempt to give readers a background in the
“dime novels” from which the comics
evolved. It should be interesting to those
unfamiliar With the form (and for those
really interested, Steranko’s comprehensive
chapter on the pulps in his History of Comics
I is a good source).
I urge everyone to follow and support this
book. It is potentially solid gold, and proves
once and for all that comics don’t have to
be pointlesSly violent or display bare.
breasted pin-ups girls to be maéure.

Well, that one was positive.

The series continued with nine issues from Caliber Press. They also reprinted all the Renegade issues in two volumes.

Neither series seems to have been reprinted since.

This person seems to like the one issue they found:

What the hell is going on? That’s two weeks in a row now that I’ve come across these comic books that are fantastic, but are now languishing unwanted, unnoticed, unloved, there in the bargain bin. What the hell happens? How do we lose track of these books? What does it say about a culture that spawns these artistic moments and then disposes of them without a second thought?

And that’s all I could find on dar intertubes.

This blog post is part of the Renegades and Aardvarks series.

MCMXXXIX Redux

It’s over? It’s over!

So, after doing a blog series where I watched one movie per year for a century (1919-2018, I think), I then did a blog series for every month in a decade (the 40s), and this one was one movie per week in a year (1939).

You may be noticing a pattern in the methodology here.

So… how was 1939?

Googling for “the greatest year ever for movies”, 1939 often comes up. And it was indeed a good year — perhaps because the grim reality of the 30s was finally letting up some, and the grim reality of 1940 hadn’t yet set in.

Looking over the list of movies, it’s… pretty spiffy? It was a fun project — I got to see a bunch of movies I wouldn’t otherwise have chosen to see.

I wondered whether there was going to be an obvious seasonal difference to the movies (as I watched them chronologically, one per release week in the US). And, yes, there were more blockbusters in the summer and before Xmas, but otherwise not a lot.

The impending war with Nazi Germany was not mentioned a lot: A handful of movies, at most, even alluded to the war. I was surprised at how noir some of the film noirs were — those movies became very scarce indeed when the war started.

So… there you go.

Oh, yeah:

I got the colour palette from… somewhere on the interwebs. It’s nice, isn’t it? I googled for “colours 1939”, except not in English.

I

King of the Underworld. Lewis Seiler

II

Son of Frankenstein. Rowland V. Lee

III

They Made Me A Criminal. Busby Berkeley

IV

Idiot’s Delight. Clarence Brown

V

Honolulu. Edward Buzzell

VI

Made For Each Other. John Cromwell

VII

Nancy Drew… Reporter

VIII

Wife, Husband and Friend. Gregory Ratoff

IX

Oklahoma Kid. Lloyd Bacon

X

The Little Princess. Walter Lang, William A. Seiter

XI

Midnight. Mitchell Leisen

XII

You Can’t Get Away With Murder. Lewis Seiler

XIII

The Story of Vernon and Irene Castle. H.C. Potter

XIV

East Side of Heaven. David Butler

XV

Never Say Die. Elliott Nugent

XVI

Dark Victory. Edmund Goulding

XVII

Union Pacific. Cecil B. DeMille

XVIII

Rose of Washington Square. Gregory Ratoff

XIX

Jamaica Inn. Alfred Hitchcock

XX

Goodbye Mr. Chips. Sidney Franklin & Sam Wood

XXI

The Gorilla. Allan Dwan

XXII

Charlie Chan in Reno. Norman Foster

XXIII

Daybreak. Marcel Carné

XXIV

Fric-Frac. Claude Autant-Lara & Maurice Lehmann

XXV

Five Came Back. John Farrow

XXVI

Bachelor Mother. Garson Kanin

XXVII

On Borrowed Time. Harold S. Bucquet

XXVIII

Bulldog Drummond’s Bride. James P. Hogan

XXIX

Each Dawn I Die. William Keighley

XXX

Beau Geste. William A. Wellman

XXXI

In Name Only. John Cromwell

XXXII

The Wizard of Oz. Victor Fleming

XXXIV

Fifth Avenue Girl. Gregory La Cava

XXXV

The Women. George Cukor

XXXVI

Blackmail 1939. H.C. Potter

XXXVII

Babes in Arms. Busby Berkeley

XXXVIII

Espionage Agent. Lloyd Bacon

XXXIX

The Private Lives of Elizabeth and Essex. Michael Curtiz

XL

Ninotchka. Ernst Lubitsch

XLI

Zangiku monogatari. Kenji Mizoguchi

XLII

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Frank Capra

XLIII

The Roaring Twenties. Raoul Walsh

XLIV

Drums Along the Mohawk. John Ford

XLV

Allegheny Uprising. William A. Seiter

XLVI

Tower of London. Rowland V. Lee

XLVII

Day-Time Wife. Gregory Ratoff

XLVIII

Destry Rides Again. George Marshall

XLIX

The Devil’s Daughter. Arthur H. Leonard

L

Gone With The Wind. George Cukor, Victor Fleming, Sam Wood

LI

Gulliver’s Travels. Dave Fleischer

LII

Invisible Stripes. Lloyd Bacon

MCMXXXIX LII: Invisible Stripes

Invisible Stripes. Lloyd Bacon. 1939.

This is it! The final movie in this blog series; a Bogart movie released in the last week of 1939.

This is pretty good. A quite noir noir.

Heh heh. This evil capitalist wanted to hire Raft to snitch at the workers at his plant and Raft decked him! Pow! Yeah!

I’m really enjoying this. The storyline is classic: An ex con who can’t find anybody to hire him, while his buddy’s who’s gone back to gangstering is living high. Will he break? Etc?

So that’s by the numbers, but it’s such a charming, well-made movie. Raft is perfect as the stoic guy trying to go straight, and Bogie is Bogie, of course. It’s got all these little, cool touches, all the time… just little things, like the girlfriend up there walking around the corner like that…

Heh heh… Here’s Raft dancing with his mother, Flora Robson… She says he should be dancing with the young girls. “You’re just as young as any of them, he says.” Raft was 38 at the time, and Robson was 37.

The magic of cinema! And the rule that no women over 40 should ever be on screen.

This blog post is part of the 1939 series.

MCMXXXIX LI: Gulliver’s Travels

Gulliver’s Travels. Dave Fleischer. 1939.

Oh, it’s animated! Is this the first animated movie in this blog series? I think it may be.

Directed by Dave Fleischer…

It quite un-Disney so far.

It’s very odd, though. The animation shifts wildly between being quite good and OH MY GOD WHAT”S GOING ON WITH THAT FACE THE HORROR THE ROTOSCOPE

And I’m one quarter in, and I have no idea what this movie is even going to be about.

The audio could have been more legible on this bluray. And… I’m not so sure about the picture, either. It’s so… soft? It looks like it’s been upscaled from a DVD?

Aha:

Due to the film’s public domain status, it has been released by many distributors in various home video formats. E1 Entertainment released the film on Blu-ray Disc on March 10, 2009, but received strong criticism for presenting the movie in a stretched and cropped 1.75:1 format, as well as applying heavy noise reduction.

Well, that’s not the version I have here… this isn’t 1.75:1. But it’s still not actually good.

That’s kinda cool.

What.

Anyway, this is the second “feature length” animated movie ever, so I really should be cutting it some slack. In addition, it was made on a really tight schedule for it to premiere Xmas 1939 (after the astounding success of Snow White), and… they had to make do.

But the problems here aren’t technical, really. This is just a sucky movie. The storyline is befuddling (i.e., there really isn’t much story here, just an excuse to draw gags… that mostly doesn’t work), and the pacing seems designed to make even gags that could work seem awkward.

This blog post is part of the 1939
series
.

MCMXXXIX L: Gone with the Wind

Gone With The Wind. George Cukor, Victor Fleming, Sam Wood. 1939.

So we’re now in December 1939, and I have only three movies to go in this blog series. This one is … big. Long? Long.

Ooops. I had forgotten that this movie is so long that is has an overture.

So it starts seven minutes in.

So southern!

I haven’t seen this movie since the… mid 80s? So what I’m wondering is, of course: How racist is this gonna be?

Well, it’s got Black actors, at least. That’s gotta count for something.

Oh, wow. This movie is made… er… by the same directing team as The Wizard of Oz?

Hm… Victor Fleming is the credited director on both, so I’m not sure what’s up with that. Anyway, that’s a pretty astounding feat: Directing these two huge movies the same year.

Mm-hm!

OK, I’ve never understood Clark Gable’s supposed charms. He’s just kinda a sleazeball?

The director(s) do a lot of this shot with varying participants. It’s a good shot, though.

I like this movie! It’s really taking its time, but the pacing feels so natural; not dragged out like in modern “epic” movies. It’s got a good flow.

But it really leans in to the tragedy of Southern soldiers being killed, and the tragedy of those waiting at home… very effectively at that. But then you think about the monstrous thing they died fighting for and it’s… it’s…

I guess you could make a moving movie about the brave German soldiers (and their long-suffering wives) that died defending Buchenwald from shadowy, never-seen on screen American soldiers?

NOW SOMEBODY”S GONNA MAKE THAT MOVIE SORRY

Oh my god. The portrayal of Prissy…

I guess this movie asks the question: Will Scarlett ever stop being such an asshole? (I’m guessing that it’s gonna go “no” at the end.)

This really is quite racist. I mean, beyond the call for a movie from 1939.

Scarlett in Scarlet.

The plot really doesn’t make that much sense. I mean, beyond “women be stupid and evil”. Why didn’t she just let that guy marry her sister and then bilk him out of $300 instead of marrying him herself?

OK, she had higher ambitions than just $300…

I think the misogyny of this movie has been undercommunicated. I mean, the bit about Scarlett causing her husband’s death because she was breaking Sharia law I mean, driving her carriage without a man…

Unfortunately, condoms weren’t invented in 186… 7?

Oops!

The hooker with a heart of gold.

Hattie McDaniel got an Oscar for this role, and it’s well deserved. The oldifying makeup and dye they’re using on her is kinda eeeh, though.

I’m gonna build those stairs in this apartment.

Ah, yes, that post-rape glow.

Yeah yeah.

I liked the first fourteen hours, but the last hour was kinda a drag.

This blog post is part of the 1939
series
.