This particular book about Billy Wilde gives accounts of conversations and experiences which illustrate both his personal and social life.  Zolotow looks at exchanges Wilder has with different actors, directors etc. and incorporates dialogue from these dialogues into the bibliographic form in order to give the reader a more engaging account of the events in Wilders life. 

            A book such as this gives a good background perspective on Wilders life and personality from exchanges he has with people.  It is through gaining this greater understanding of the director and his life that one gains insight into the director’s work. Billy Wilder was a dynamic genius who gave his movies a great deal of attention and care which is how he was able to produce several masterpieces.  It is the often overlooked and even the seemingly inane details that make scenes in Wilders movies works of art.  One example the book offers of Wilders cinematic brilliance is from a scene in the movie Some Like it Hot. In the scene when Daphne (Jerry) tells Josephine (Joe) that he is engaged a rich billionaire, Wilder insisted that Jack Lemmon who plays Daphne have maracas and shaken them after every line.  In this scene the maracas were added to give the audience a chance to laugh during the maracas shaking sequence, and then settle down in time to hear the rest of the witty dialogue. A simple detail such as this shows the care and consideration Wilder has for his audience.

            The conversationalist tone taken by the speaker gives this book the feel of a story.  And while this tone makes the book reader friendly it also gives it a seemingly less credible foundation.  The lack of references and a background research section also make the book a questionable source.

As an influential and important producer, David O. Selznick was involved in enough films to be considered one of the greatest producers of all time. It was his involvement in Gone with the Wind that secured him his place in cinema history.

Initially, Selznick worked for his father's company, Lewis J. Selznick Productions, until it went bankrupt in 1923. Then, in 1926, Selznick moved to MGM and worked as a script reader and assistant story editor. He climbed the ranks to become supervisor of production until he was fired because of constant disagreements with Irving Thalberg, the then head of production. In 1927, Selznick was named production chief at Paramount. After the Depression and salary cuts, he moved to RKO and worked as studio boss. When Irving Thalberg became ill, there were many changes made within MGM in the production area. Louis B. Mayer convinced Selznick to return to MGM (coincidentally, Selznick was married to Mayer's Daughter.) With his new job, Selznick was intent on bringing more prestigious films to the screen.

In 1936, Selznick left MGM to become an independent producer, founding Selznick International Pictures. Gone with the wind was his most memorable film produced at this time. There were many problems that occurred during production of the film. Among the myriad of issues was the involvement of six different directors and the relinquishment of distribution rights to MGM in order to get Clark Gable to star in the movie. In the end, Gone with the Wind won ten Academy Awards and is considered to be one of the most important films ever produced.

After a huge tax debt forced Selznick to auction off his company, he formed a new company, David Selznick Productions. Selznick now became more of a talent scout than a producer. He discovered many successful actors and actresses, including Jennifer Jones. In 1949, Selznick married Jones and gave up his independent producer status. He became "something of a joke for his obsession with his wife," producing mediocre films, certainly nowhere near the quality standards of his previous work. Although he continued to work in Hollywood his preoccupation with his wife's career forced him into the background of the industry. Despite this end to his career, David O. Selznick is a name that is "firmly planted in motion picture history." He was the biggest of independent producers at a time when there was rarely such a thing. This site reveals a detailed history of Selznick, why he is considered to be one of the greatest producers of all time, and his tremendous impact on Gone with the Wind.

It is extremely important to understand the background of a producer in considering the product he creates. Selznick's life experiences and opportunities had tremendous influence on the films he made. David O. Selznick's contributions to Gone with the Wind cannot be minimized in understanding the overall impact of the film and its success. Without him, who knows how the film might have traversed it complicated path? Gone with the Wind would certainly not have become the film as we know it today.

After critical reaction to the flim Lifeboat complained of the weak portrayal of Americans in comparison with the superman Nazi, producer Kenneth Macgowan wrote this article about the intent behind the film. Macgowan tries and provide explanations for several of the issues that critics had with the film. He claims the reason the German is the only one who can row the boat because he's the only one with water and food tablets, avoiding the fact that no one man should be able to paddle that lifeboat, no matter how strong he is.

Interestingly, in the article Macgowan includes Steinbeck's name in the list of primary creators of the allegory that was being so strongly criticized because at the time, Steinbeck was seeking to have his name removed from the film.

Macgowan credits Hitchcock with the idea of shooting a film in a lifeboat, and saying that first and foremost, this was a gimmick film. It was Hitchcock's idea of a challenge to shoot the first ever film with only one set. For this reason, Macgowan claims that the allegory was never intended, and they stumbled upon it by accident, throughout the creative process. Steinbeck is the only one for whom this is definetly true as his early manuscript proves. However, a few paragraphs earlier, Macgowan was crediting Steinbeck, a man only involved only very early on in the process, with having an allegorical intent that was supposedly developed later on.

Macgowan's contradictions are best summed up in his final paragraph when he essentially says (paraphrasing), "You misinterpreted our intent.  Oh, and if you still disagree, we didn't have any intent to begin with."

Bosley Crowther uses Lifeboat as a case study in the issues he sees with the current state of the film industry.  He questions why the screenwriter never receives the attention and the acclaim that the playwright does.  With control firmly rooted in the hands of the producer and the director, a screenwriter may find his name attached to a project that is significantly altered from his original vision.  Early criticism of Lifeboat came on the shoulders of both Hitchcock and Steinbeck.  Steinbeck was a well known name, but for his novels not for his work in the film industry.  Subsequently, his name was used to market the film even though he had no control and input on the final print.  The lack of control is a situation that many Hollywood screenwriters could find themselves in.

Crowther’s analysis and comparison of Steinbeck’s original treatment of Lifeboat and the final script reveals the specifics of the changes Steinbeck that drove Steinbeck to seek the removal of his name from the film.  Steinbeck’s tale was even more character and less plot driven then Hitchcock’s final film.  The largest change is the democracies foe was not the Nazi but the ocean.  The Nazi attempted take over was little more than a subplot which was handled after only one act of deception by the other survivors.

Crowther accuses Hitchcock and producer Macgowan of “preempting” Steinbeck’s “creative authority.”  However, he acknowledges that under the current system the director and the producer have every right to change, for better or worse, a screenwriter’s original intent and characters.  He places blame too not only the founders of the system, but the writers who do not do anything to change it.  Crowther does not seek a system in which the producer has no control, as without his financing the film would not be made.  He seeks for a more balanced industry in which the financial and creative input are on a more balanced footing.