In revisiting the film in the 1970s, Arthur Schlesinger believed that Hollywood films generally age well, revealing an unexpected depth or integrity, but in the case of "Gone with the Wind" time has not treated it kindly. Richard Schickel argued that one measure of a film's quality is to ask what the viewer can remember of it, and the film falls down in this regard: unforgettable imagery and dialogue are simply not present. Stanley Kauffmann, likewise, also found the film to be a largely forgettable experience, claiming he could only remember two scenes vividly. Both Schickel and Schlesinger put this down to it being "badly written", in turn describing the dialogue as "flowery" and possessing a "picture postcard" sensibility. Schickel also believes the film fails as popular art, in that it has limited rewatch value—a sentiment that Kauffmann also concurs with, stating that having watched it twice he hopes "never to see it again: twice is twice as much as any lifetime needs". Both Schickel and Andrew Sarris identify the film's main failing is in possessing a producer's sensibility rather than an artistic one: having gone through so many directors and writers the film does not carry a sense of being "created" or "directed", but rather having emerged "steaming from the crowded kitchen", where the main creative force was a producer's obsession in making the film as literally faithful to the novel as possible.