“Gone With the Wind,” directed by Victor Fleming, with portions directed by George Cukor, William Cameron Menzies, Sidney Franklin and Sam Wood. Screenplay by Sidney Howard, based on the novel by Margaret Mitchell. Running time: 222 minutes. Rated G. Showing nightly Aug. 24-27, Railroad Square Cinema, Waterville.

Nearly 60 years ago, when Atlanta burned in theaters and a man named Rhett Butler told a woman named Scarlett O’Hara that he didn’t give a damn, movie-goers certainly did. The year was 1939 and the film was “Gone With the Wind,” a four-hour American epic that went on to win eight Academy Awards and emerge as one of the best and most beloved films in history.

Now, with a new Technicolor print, a remastered digital soundtrack and approximately 12 minutes of digital rejuvenation, the film returns triumphant, its engrossing story, superior production and unflagging chemistry between its principal characters suggesting a feat of virtuoso filmmaking that is as distinclty American in its scope as it is southern in its romanticization of the Civil War and sentimentalization of the old South.

In each of its five major revivals, the film has transcended time, thrilling audiences not just with the struggle between North and South, but with something more universal and timeless: the struggle between Scarlett’s lust and her vanity.

In the history of film, few characters have enjoyed Scarlett’s longevity, and that is because she was a woman born before her time. In her neurotic self-destruction, she was a dynamo of blind impulse, reckless abandon, unwavering strength and surprising weakness. She was a Dixie princess who believed in the power of her beauty and used it to further her position, knowing that her looks, coupled with her shrewd intelligence, where key to her survival. Indeed they were — but also they were the root of her downfall, the Achilles heel that left her looking toward a tomorrow with few possibilities.

Still, in 1939, Scarlett was exactly the kind of woman the nation needed as World War II cast its long shadow toward the United States; strong, willful and defiant, she was able to take care of herself in the face of pending turmoil. The family estate Tara was not only safe in her hands, but came back to fruition because of her efforts. As a result, Scarlett was canonized, lifting the film — and herself — into the social fabric of a dark, uncertain time.

Though British, Viven Leigh was perfectly cast as Scarlett, perhaps because she herself was self-destructive, finding solace in drugs just as the character she immortalized turned to alcohol. Pitting her against Clark Gable was the right choice, particularly because Gable himself was no angel off screen. Long known for his conquests of women, Gable fell easily into Butler’s character, infusing him with a mocking patience that could either ignite or temper the high-strung Scarlett.

And how each scoundrel loved, Rhett with a passion that nearly ruined him and Scarlett with a reservation that cost her the one man she should have kept. They were perfect for each other and absolutely wrong for each other; it is the chaos of their pairing — not to mention the outstanding performances from Hattie McDaniel (the first African-American to win an Oscar) and Butterfly McQueen — that has made this film a classic and kept audiences coming back for more.

Grade: A

Video of the Week

“The Newton Boys,” directed by Richard Linklater. Written by Linklater, Claude Stanush and Clark Lee Walker, based on Stanush’s book. Running time: 122 minutes. Rate PG-13 (for violence and language).

In the 1920s, the Newton Boys became the most successful bank robbers in American history, hitting more than 200 banks before turning their sights to a mail train in northern Illinois. On that train were millions of dollars, which the boys happily took, but only after making lots of unnecessary noise, hoisting up the belt buckles in a failed effort to appear masculine — and even after shooting one of their own.

In Richard Linklater’s “The Newton Boys,” one wonders how these boys got dressed in the morning, let alone robbed banks. Certainly Linklater doesn’t feel their success was due to any measure of intelligence — in the film, the boys come off more like excited lap dogs that need to be neutered than they do bank robbers who need to be feared.

Imagine, if you can, Matthew McConaughey, Ethan Hawke or Skeet Ulrich, of all people, holding a gun or handling nitroglycerin, and you have an idea of how tenuously this film hangs together. Disjointed and uneven, the film suffers from bad editing and implausible situations, and emerges, rather ironically, as the ultimate thief — one that steals your time.

Grade: D+

Christopher Smith, a writer and critic who lives in Brewer, reviews films each Monday in the NEWS.