fxreyman
-
Posts
3,497 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by fxreyman
-
-
another fine film not needing a remake.
-
What follows is basically what I wrote in an earlier reply on the Western Threads from April, 2009. I am adding to that essay here today. I hope you all don't mind, it's just a lot easier to do especially since as I am writing this I have a terrible tooth ache.
This is also more about the differences between El Dorado and Rio Bravo than Rio Lobo.
IMHO, Rio Lobo was one of the worst westerns ever made. It is not even in the same ballpark as Rio Bravo and El Dorado. I think Hawks should have just called it quits after hitting El Dorado out of the ballpark (to use a baseball analogy).
The thing about Howard hawks is this:
His westerns are a lot of fun to watch. He knew exactly how to mix humor with action, and that helps keep his movies running right along. And another thing he has going for him is the fact that both scripts were written by Leigh Brackett.
I like Rio Bravo. I really do. But if I had to pick between Rio Bravo, El Dorado or Rio Lobo, I would have to pick El Dorado. Rio Bravo is a leisurely paced film that takes it's sweet time to its conclusion. And even though I like the supporting characters and the story, I much prefer the characters and the story in El Dorado. As far as Rio Lobo is concerned, the less we talk about that clunker of a movie the better we all shall be.
Some have said El Dorado is basically a retelling of Rio Bravo. That in my opinion is not very accurate. And after repeat viewings between the two films, you will then understand that the two are completely different. Similar, yes, but different.
Beyond the story of a sheriff and his friends versus a greedy land baron, the film concerns itself with professional standards and the fear of declining abilities. It is a film that takes similar characters and adds eight years onto them. We get to see older men, possibly past their prime, trying to make out in situations only younger men would stumble at.
John Wayne's role in El Dorado is in one respect a considerable departure from his usual screen persona. Especially if you compare it to John T. Chance. Here he plays Cole Thornton, a wandering hired gun who goes around helping out paying customers doing their dirty work for them. He is a total professional, one of the three fastest gunfighters around (the other two appear in the film). He is still the hero and is incorruptible but he is also no longer the younger version of himself from ten or even twenty years before. In other words, he has traveled a long and hard road and he is showing it. Cole is no John T. Chance. Chance is in command throughout Rio Bravo. Here, Cole is not always in command. In fact his body is letting him down most of the time. And he is an older gunfighter now. And that shows as well. He is still attracted to Maudie, the town's showgirl, but the age difference is not as great as it was with Feathers in Rio Bravo.
Now Wayne is going to be Wayne. Some have and will continue to argue that the man mostly played himself on the screen. Lets face it, he knew what he could do and what you see on the screen is a testament to his acting skills. The weight of his personality alone is a driving force that quite a few action films could only wish they had access to. It's no wonder then that the producers of The Dirty Dozen had approached Wayne to star in the movie as Major Reisman (the part eventually went to Lee Marvin). As well as the producers of Dirty Harry.
Wayne was always better when he had a strong collection of supporting actors around him. In El Dorado he had one of his finest co-stars of all time: The great Robert Mitchum. Mitchum's J.P. Harrah is El Dorado's sheriff and is quite sober at the beginning of the film. He is a tower of strength and resolve. You can see with his conversation with Cole in the washroom his command of the local politics. But, after Cole leaves town, he meets up with a pretty petticoat and after she dumps him he turns to the bottle. In this J.P. Harrah is silmilar to Dude; a drunk with a badge. Later his friends all pitch in to help him get over this drunken binge. Similar to Dude but different. In the case of J.P., the friends try to sober him up with the use of a special concoction that Mississippi knows will help to treat a drunk. It is a very pleasing and funny scene to watch.
James Caan's Mississippi is a less skilled, but a more inventive equivalent to Ricky Nelson's Colorado Ryan. Caan is quite a bit of an upgrade from Nelson in Rio Bravo. Colorado is a very loosely developed character in Rio Bravo. Nelson was not a good actor by any stretch of the imagination IMHO. Here Caan has him beat. Caan's Mississippi is a well drawn out character who has many flaws, but is willing to learn from his mistakes. His alliance and friendship with Cole means that he will be able to take what he has learned and use that new knowledge later in his life. Colorado, is a cocky kid bent on establishing himself as a gunslinger and is out for similar revenge for the killing of his mentor/boss Pat Wheeler (Ward Bond). He is less interested in learning from Chance than he is at proving that he can stand up to other gunslingers.
Arthur Hunnicutt's grizzled old deputy Bull is Walter Brennan's Stumpy all over again, down to hating then being nice to his boss. But Bull, an old Indian fighter is less a caricature than Stumpy was. He is clearly a supporting player, but without the histrionics as Stumpy had.
Charlene Holt's Maudie is Angie Dickinson's Feathers with the same past history but with less screen time. Maudie is confident of herself and knows how to take care of herself. There is no self doubt here as there was with Feathers at the beginning of Rio Bravo. She may not have the raw sexuality of Dickinson, but she is none-the-less very attractive and being older sure does go a long way in establishing that she and Thornton could be invloved.
Bart Jason (Ed Asner) is a meaner version of Nathan Burdette. He is more devious as well. After he finds out that Cole won't be working for him against the MacDonalds, Jason goes out and finds an even more dangerous and younger gunslinger to help him, Nelse McLeod (Christopher George). After Cole leaves El Dorado, he meets McLeod in a cantina and it is there that Cole finds out why he must return to El Dorado to help an old friend.
McLeod likes the fact that even though Thornton might be older, he is as capable as he is with a gun. He is the flip-side to Thornton. As such, his character never sees himself as evil, just professional.
All-in-all, I would pick El Dorado over Rio Bravo. Another good thing ED has is it's running time. RB is 141 minutes long where as ED clocks in at just under 126 minutes. That in itself helps further the story along much faster IMHO.
Message edited by FXreyman
-
Okay I will bite.....
and contribute my own five little appreciated wonders of film:
Queen Christina 1933
IMHO, the greatest Garbo performance. Beautifully acted and photographed.
The Prisoner of Zenda 1937
Not as well known an adventure film as the same years' Captains Courageous, or Lost Horizon.
Abe Lincoln in Illinois 1940
Almost always gets overshadowed whenever 1939's Young Mr. Lincoln is mentioned as one of the better Lincoln stories.
The Talk of the Town 1942
Now here is a great comedy. Thing is it always gets bumped off whenever another perennial Ronald Coleman film is talked about: Random Harvest.
Odd Man Out 1947
Just a wonderful nail-biter of a movie. James Mason is wonderful in the English crime caper.
-
I would go on the assumption that they've seen the Basics (GWTW, Wizard of Oz, Sound of Music, and other movies that have permiated our culture).
Okay, I'll bite......
I will pick six hidden gems that many may never have heard of but nonetheless are classics!
The Prisoner of Zenda 1937
A Walk in the Sun 1945
The Thing From Another World 1951
Executive Suite 1954
Ride the High Country 1962
The Stunt Man 1980
-
> {quote:title=Ascotrudgeracer wrote:}{quote}
> LOUSY CHOICE! Idiotic neo-con, cheerleader for the insane Iraq War *cost to U.S. taxpayers: $3 trillion)* tells everybody "I want to kill terrorists," but really means "I want poorly paid, poorly equipped 19-year-olds to kill terrorists, not me, because I'm having lunch at the Beverly Hills Hotel today."
>
> With all the great stars languishing around Hollyweird without work or exposure, since the town has been taken over by children, why not give the opportunity to ANYBODY else who has actually had a movie career?
Does having a movie career mean that a person is more qualified to talk about four movies than a person who does have a movie career?
What about our 15 guest programmers in April? I think anyone of them could be outstanding at doing a four movie GP stint.
Baldwin has pretty much given up on theatrical released movies since he has a great gig now on 30 Rock.
He made a few good movies during his movie career, including the exceptional Hunt For Red October. But I can't really sya that he was a very good actor in many movies after that, however.
Miller also acted in movies. He has appeared on his own talk shows, many of which failed. But he was on HBO for nine years and won five Emmy Awards.
Just because he supported a failed war does not mean that he is an idiot. Don't forget, many in Congress agreed that we needed to go to war in Iraq and supported the President at that time.
No one can ever predict the outcome of a war. Just look at what happened during the Vietnam War. No one expected that we would be fighting that war for as long as we did, nor did anyone ever think that we would lose that war, and lose more than 58,000 lives fighting it.
*tells everybody "I want to kill terrorists," but really means "I want poorly paid, poorly equipped 19-year-olds to kill terrorists, not me, because I'm having lunch at the Beverly Hills Hotel today.*
Wow. Now there's a great deduction on your part. Where do you get that from? Just because he tells it like it is? Don't forget the Taliban attacked us on 9/11. There is nothing wrong with wanting to kill terrorists. And as far as you thinking he wants young 19 year olds to go and fight and kill terroists, there are quite a few of these brave, young men and women who continue to go back to that part of the world to fight for OUR FREEDOMS. Including one of my neighbors. He is a captain in the air calvary and has gone back four time now.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> Good point, Lynn. Still, count me among those who wouldn't want to see DM doing what Baldwin is doing at the moment, and it has nothing to do with the man's politics, which I don't even know.
So what does it have to do with? If not his politics what is it that you have against Dennis Miller?
Has he not acted enough? Hasn't appeared in enough movies? Not won enough awards?
Is it because he has become a so-called radio personality who likes to talk about irrelevant issues?
Could it be that he was once known as a left-leaning entertainer, but now supports some Republican causes. He is still pro choice and pro gay marriage, if you DID NOT KNOW that.
The guy has a proven track record of hosting shows on cable. He was a member of SNL for a few years. He had a nine year run for his talk show on HBO and in the process won five Emmy Awards.
He has had his fair share of failures, but his current radio program has a loyal listening base of about 2 million listeners.
I think he will do well. Whether or not he could co-host with RO, well I think that is another story.
-
> {quote:title=HollywoodGolightly wrote:}{quote}
> Well, before we start comparing Miller to Baldwin, let's just remember that Miller's just going to be guest programmer for one night. When I first read the thread title, for some reason I was thinking "Essentials co-host", but happily (for me at least) that's not the case.
So what if Mr. Miller wound up being offered next season's co-hosting duties with Mr. Osborne.
Would it bother you to have someone like him sharing his thoughts on the Essentials with Osborne?
I mean lets face it. Baldwin did a very good job with Gene Wilder and then HIS one night stand with Osborne. That is why he was offered the chance to co-host the Essentials.
If Miller does just as well, I'd have NO problem listening to him discuss the movies with RO on the Essentials.
And from my point of view politically, I am the opposite of Baldwin. But does that make me cringe or fear what he has to say just because I do not agree with his politics?
No. I think he has done a very good job with the Essentials.
I guess what I am trying to say is that anyone could come on that show and do a fine job with RO.
-
Because it captures the essence of the way of life that existed on Oahu right up to the time of the attack. It is always a good thing to see what military life is like to the grunts who actually are the first ones to hit the beaches.
There really has not been too many movies made about the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
And really when you get right down to it, there is only one true definitive movie that was ever made about the attack and that was Tora Tora Tora.
The movie Pearl Harbor is not what I would consider even remotely an honest retelling of the attack. At least Tora told the story from both sides. Perspectives like that are not done today, because I feel audiences of today do not want to sit through 2 plus hours of a semi-documentry feeling movie about an actual historical event.
Do you honestly believe that Pearl Harbor is that good of a story? If its so good why did they have to include a love triangle?
And then they have to film an ending to it that includes the historic Doolittle Raid. Like taht had anything to do with the attack as well.
It is basically a popcorn movie, meant to get youngsters into the theater to watch other youngsters fall in and out of love and then get all shot to pieces fighting the enemy.
Oh, and by the way I wasn't picking on you specifically. I was just indicating my belief that you could be a younger person who likes popcorn movies as opposed to more serious films as the best of all times.
-
Well, I don't know about you but that is one of the reasons for having a film library.
Especially a film library of films you like to watch over and over again.
And as it pertains to me, a few films are on my i-tunes account. Specifically certain films that are either not yet released on dvd, or those films that have been released on dvd but do not have any extras on them as of yet.
Hence I will NOT buy any dvd unless it has some sort of commentary track or some other worthwhile value added to it.
-
Of course......
I forget......
Many posters here on this message board are left of center.
That is why some might think that having a guest programmer like right of center Dennis Miller might not be the easiest thing to swallow.
I know I had the same feeling about Alec Baldwin when he was a GP.
Still do.
-
Wendy,
The Undefeated wasn't that bad.
In fact it was quite enjoyable.
Rey
-
If you really want to know something about Bite the Bullet, why not just ramble on over to the Bite the Bullet corral, oops I mean Bite the Bullet thread on the Westerns forum.
Of course you will need to watch the movie first because I spill a lot of beans about the film.
If you have a computer you can download the film from iTunes for around $10. That's what I did, even though I have an old vhs tape of the movie.
-
The only downside is that interviewing directors, writers, authors who are still around would possibly shift the focus more towards contemporary films, if they're going to be talking about movies they've worked in.
Well, I don't think that will happen. Just look at the John Ford documentry. You have qualified people talking about the past. That is probably what they are going to do here. Now, you may be correct, but I think if they were to talk about modern films, it would be in the context of how the modern films relate to the older films.
Well, it's hard to see how the stars we admire to - at least the ones who are still with us - would not be "past their prime" when the movies for which we admire them came out in the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s.
I've nothing but respect and admiration for those folks who are in the twilight of their lives and make an effort to share their experiences with us. May all of us live to be around as long as they have.
So do I. I was NOT speaking of everyone of the older actors still living. Just in some cases where certain actors have no business being interviewed in the first place due to their current medical status.
-
You obviously do not like Gene Hackman.
Or could it be that because he was an actor who got his start in films during the 1960's is too modern a film actor to be included with the likes of all of those other so-called "classic" film stars from the golden age of movies?
I think it is important to view his films just as important as anyone else's. Lets face it even Bonnie and Clyde is over forty years old now. That is a long time ago as far as I am concerned. I was seven years of age at the time of it's release.
I for one have always enjoyed Gene Hackman. He represents to me the everyman in life. Now what I am about to say may be controversial to you, but I have always thought of him as sort of a Spencer Tracy of modern film (1960's to present).
Tracy never looked like he was acting. Hackman is the same way to me. If you take a film like Bite the Bullet for instance, there is sort of an everyday like quality about his performance. He treats his character as if he is just an ordinary joe who is really more interested with getting to the next job than worrying about some 700 mile horse race.
And even when he does get involved with the horse race, he does not tie himself to the same principles the other riders have agreed to. He will take this race as another one of his jobs.
-
I think that this hjust might be one of TCM's better ideas.
Why NOT have a one hour look at how movies are made or more specifically looking at how film makers go about bringing their films to fruition. And they seem to be doing this in a more meaningful way. Interviewing various directors, writers, authors, actors and producers.
This could lead to a whole new group of people becoming interested in classic film.
Much better than just interviewing older stars way past their prime who in some cases can not even put their responses together in somewhat of a coherent narrative.
-
> {quote:title=ganstagator wrote:}{quote}
> gene hackman's day was yesterday. i enjoyed seeing him in "lilith" and later in "a bridge too far" just for a very small part. it was full of late 70's male actors and i am glad i stayed up to see it, an excellent WWII movie, well done indeed. does anybody know if it was a true story?
>
> Message was edited by: ganstagator i made a boo boo, thinking that yesterday was warren beatty's day!
To answer your question:
Was this movie a true story? Yes.
From Wikipedia:
A Bridge Too Far, a non-fiction book by Cornelius Ryan published in 1974, tells the story of Operation Market Garden, a failed Allied attempt to break through German lines at Arnhem in the occupied Netherlands during World War II in September 1944. The title of the book comes from a comment made by British Lt. Gen. Frederick Browning, deputy commander of the First Allied Airborne Army, who told Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery before the operation, "I think we may be going a bridge too far."
Prior to Ryan's book, Market Garden had been a classic example of victors writing the history. Popular histories of World War II of the time usually tended to not mention the battle at all, mentioned it in passing or put Montgomery's spin on it as being a partial success.
A Bridge Too Far was responsible for bringing to the general public's attention the full extent of this massive operation, including a catalog of errors and miscalculations, whilst highlighting the extreme bravery of the participants. Though largely accurate, Ryan's disregard for Montgomery is clearly discernible and is sometimes evident in skewed observations of the operation.
The film tells the story of Operation Market-Garden, and its ultimate failure, the Allied attempt to break through German lines and seize several bridges, with the main objective the bridge over the Lower Rhine (Neder Rijn) River, in the occupied Netherlands during World War II.
The film had a very large and famous cast. Sort of like what happened on an earlier Cornelius Ryan book that was turned into one of the all-time great WWII epic films, The Longest Day.
The part of the casting was interesting.
Apparently director Richard Attenborough wanted an old colleague to join the cast. Steve McQueen was still sort of a superstar at the time, and Attenborough had worked with McQueen on The Sand Pebbles and The Great Escape. But McQueen wanted $3 million for his role as Major Cook. He also wanted the film's producers to purchase a house that was valued at over $400,000 so he could stay there while filming. He also demanded that he schedule his scenes first so he could still act in another film that he was also being paid $3 million for.
Ultimately, producer Joseph E. Levine turned McQueen down, and hired Robert Redford for the role for $2 million.
Another interesting thing happened on this movie that also happened more than twenty years later. Attenborough decided to make some of his actors / extras go through a mini boot camp / training situation to get then used to being a soldier. He even housed them in some sort of barracks styled buildings while filming was taking place.
Steven Spielberg and Tom Hanks would later do the same thing for their actors on the film Saving Private Ryan and the great mini series, Band of Brothers.
IMHO, this was a fairly good movie. Band of Brothers also covers this as well, not on the grand scale as this movie does however.
I also think that of all of the big budget films to cover WWII, this one can stand on it's own against other well made films, especially The Longest Day.
Message edited by FXreyman
-
Spence,
This special montage was created and produced for TCM by Chuck Workman.
It was meant to coincide with the 100 anniversary of the movies, which at the time this video ws made was 100 years from the first motion picture that was made in 1894.
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia:
In 1888, American inventor and entrepreneur Thomas Alva Edison conceived of a device that would do "for the Eye what the phonograph does for the Ear". In October, Edison filed a preliminary claim, known as a caveat, with the U.S. Patent Office outlining his plans for the device. In March 1889, a second caveat was filed, in which the proposed motion picture device was given a name, the Kinetoscope. William Dickson, then the Edison company's official photographer, was assigned to turn the concept into a reality.
Dickson invented the first practical celluloid film for this application and decided on 35 mm for the size, a standard still used.
Dickson and his team at the Edison lab then worked on the development of the Kinetoscope for several years. The first working protoype was unveiled in May 1891 and the design of system was essentially finalized by the fall of 1892. The completed version of the Kinetoscope was officially unveiled at the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences on 9 May 1893. While not technically a projector system. It was a peep show machine showing a continuous loop of the film Dickson invented, lit by an Edison light source, viewed individually through the window of a cabinet housing its components. The Kinetoscope introduced the basic approach that would become the standard for all cinematic projection before the advent of video.
It creates the illusion of movement by conveying a strip of perforated film bearing sequential images over a light source with a high-speed shutter. Dickson and his team also devised the Kinetograph, an innovative motion picture camera with rapid intermittent, or stop-and-go, film movement, to photograph movies for in-house experiments and, eventually, commercial Kinetoscope presentations.
Dickson was the first person to make a film for a Pope, and at the time his camera was blessed by His Holiness Leo XIII.
In late *1894* or early 1895, Dickson became an ad hoc advisor to the motion picture operation of the Latham brothers, Otway and Grey, and their father, Woodville, who ran one of the leading Kinetoscope exhibition companies. Seeking to develop a movie projector system, they hired former Edison employee Eugene Lauste, probably at Dickson's suggestion. In April 1895, Dickson left Edison's employ and joined the Latham outfit. Alongside Lauste, he helped devise what would become known as the "Latham loop," allowing the photography and exhibition of much longer filmstrips than had previously been possible. The team of former Edison associates brought to fruition the Eidoloscope projector system, which would be used in the first commercial movie screening in world history on 20 May 1895. With the Lathams, Dickson was part of the group that formed the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company, before he returned permanently to work in the United Kingdom in 1897.
Dickson left Edison's company and formed his own company that produced the mutoscope, a form of hand cranked peep show movie machine. These machines produced moving images by means of a revolving drum of card illustrations, taken from an actual piece of film. They were often featured at seaside locations, showing (usually) sequences of women undressing or acting as an artist's model. In Britain, they became known as "What the butler saw" machines, taking the name from one of the first and most famous softcore reels.
So I am guessing that Workman used the year of 1894 as the year that the motion picture was created. Although if you do enough research, motion pictures were being used in a very crude form as early as the 1860's. But as it states in this article, Dickson developed a celluloid film in 35mm that is still commonly used today.
I mean, it makes sense. He had to start somewhere, so he chose 1894. Although there were several other films released prior to 1894.
Again from Wikipedia:
In the 1860s, mechanisms for producing two-dimensional drawings in motion were demonstrated with devices such as the zoetrope, mutoscope and praxinoscope. These machines were outgrowths of simple optical devices (such as magic lanterns) and would display sequences of still pictures at sufficient speed for the images on the pictures to appear to be moving, a phenomenon called persistence of vision. Naturally the images needed to be carefully designed to achieve the desired effect, and the underlying principle became the basis for the development of film animation.
With the development of celluloid film for still photography, it became possible to directly capture objects in motion in real time. An 1878 experiment by Eadweard Muybridge in the United States using 24 cameras produced a series of stereoscopic images of a galloping horse, arguably the first "motion picture," though it was not called by this name. This technology required a person to look into a viewing machine to see the pictures which were separate paper prints attached to a drum turned by a handcrank. The pictures were shown at a variable speed of about 5 to 10 pictures per second, depending on how rapidly the crank was turned. Commercial versions of these machines were coin operated.
A frame from Roundhay Garden Scene, the world's earliest film produced using a motion picture camera, by Louis Le Prince, 1888
By the 1880s the development of the motion picture camera allowed the individual component images to be captured and stored on a single reel, and led quickly to the development of a motion picture projector to shine light through the processed and printed film and magnify these "moving picture shows" onto a screen for an entire audience. These reels, so exhibited, came to be known as "motion pictures". Early motion pictures were static shots that showed an event or action with no editing or other cinematic techniques.
Ignoring Dickson's early sound experiments (1894), commercial motion pictures were purely visual art through the late 19th century, but these innovative silent films had gained a hold on the public imagination. Around the turn of the twentieth century, films began developing a narrative structure by stringing scenes together to tell narratives. The scenes were later broken up into multiple shots of varying sizes and angles. Other techniques such as camera movement were realized as effective ways to portray a story on film. Rather than leave the audience in silence, theater owners would hire a pianist or organist or a full orchestra to play music fitting the mood of the film at any given moment. By the early 1920s, most films came with a prepared list of sheet music for this purpose, with complete film scores being composed for major productions.
So it would be easy to deduce that motion pictures as we know them today came into being during the late 1800's to the very early 1900's. I think I have read somewhere else that the first "real" narrative motion picture was 1903's The Great Train Robbery".
So from that narrative film came into being in 1903. But Workman still chose 1894 to be the very beginning.
And that is wher we are today. So when you ask that an updated version of this film be made, what you are clearly asking for then is to update it to the present year, 2009. which would be 15 years removed from the end of that 100 years starting in 1894.
IMHO, that would sort of negate the whole reason for having the earlier film by Workman. His film was meant to celebrate an actual 100 year anniversary.
What you are asking, I think, is an update to include films made after 1994. Is this what you are asking for? Well if that is what you are asking for, then it would go against what Workman was trying to achieve. He made this film as a retrospective for a 100 year anniversary. It stops in 1994 because that would be the final year of a 100 year arc.
What could be done in exchange for what you are asking is a pure celebration of movies from the beginning of the first real motion picture to today. That then would need to be updated every year. Or they could update it every ten years or so.
Just my opinion of course.
Message edited by FXreyman
-
EDIT - Never mind, I just took a look at the iTunes store and see that it's advertised as a widescreen version. Still, not sure how many TCM viewers would pay $10 for a movie that TCM is already showing.
Well, if regular TCM viewers like most of the posters on here are like, I would assume that many WOULD purchase the movie either online or from a store so that they can watch it at any time.
Of course the opposite is also true. Many probably taped conventionally using a vhs or they taped via dvd-r.
It does not really matter. Anyone can do whatever they like to do.
Right now in my life I like to watch movies and tv programs on my mac. I do not have the money to purchase a wide screen LCD nor do I have the inclination to purchase a blu-ray at this time.
I am also not so concerned with sound quality or picture quality. Since I work my a _ _ off I really do not have the time to do what most other people do for granted.
-
Well good morning all!
I only got about four hours sleep last night ..... All my fault!
I hope you all don't mind, but I have some things to say about the great Bite the Bullet. And it might take a while to read, so you'd all better go to the bathroom now!
I decided to purchase Bite the Bullet last night from iTunes and then I decided to watch this very enjoyable film until 2:30 in the morning. As I have indicated elsewhere, I do own the vhs of this film, but they do not have vhs slots in my mac, so I can't watch it on my computer!
So after watching an original Star Trek episode (The Return of the Archons) I decided to see if iTunes had Bite the Bullet. And they did!
I have seen this film about ten times. Maybe more if I consider all the times I put it in my vcr but got interrupted and never got back to watching it.
I say this because watching it again early this morning just made me realize what a fine film this was. And what a shame that it got lost in all of the other releases from 1975.
This film has some very special moments in it.
*BE ADVISED SOME SPOILERS AHEAD*
As for the acting chops you need not look any further than Hackman, Coburn and Johnson. All three gave fine performances. Hackman as Sam Clayton the self-described animal lover, had what could have been a showy role, but instead decided to tone it down except when teaching the young kid (Vincent) a lesson about cruelty to animals and to women. So did Coburn as Luke Matthews, but I think that Brooks wanted them to be shown as more professional or even more experienced as in worldly. They two are the only ones involved in the race that were also under the command of Col. Teddy Roosevelt during the Spanish American War.
When Clayton delivers the horse to the Parkers, Matthews is delighted to see him. Of course, they end up getting involved in a fight with Carbo and his buddies that becomes personal for Luke.
Clayton: "Just like old times."
Matthews: "Yeah. You start trouble and I start bleedin'."
Afterwards it becomes apparent that these two have a special bond with each other. And even though Clayton signs up for the race, he is not totally convinced he can win. It is not until several days later that Sam tells Luke that he is going to win this race. We are not clearly sure why Sam decides he is setting his mind on winning, maybe he feels he is just as capable a rider as all the others.
It could also be that he wants to prove to Jack Parker (Coleman) that he is a better man than he is. Parker is the one who fires him after delivering his champion steed several days later than expected, and it is Parker who must be convinced that Clayton could win the race after he tries to get him to quit the race and go back on his payroll.
And Hackman has some other wonderful lines in this film:
One of the best scenes is where he starts to tell Miss Jones about how he met his wife in Cuba, and his experience as a Rough Rider with Teddy. He should have won an Oscar for this scene alone.
Sam Clayton: "We came out of the jungle and there it was - San Juan Hill. The Spanish guns lookin' right down our throat, the sharpshooters pickin' us off and we just charged right up that hill!"
starts to ride off, but returns
Sam Clayton: "That's not the way it happened at all. It wasn't anything like it was in San Antoine where we did our trainin'. That's where I ran into Luke and a lot of other men from every other country who wanted to be Roughriders. Bakers and barbers and Congressman, cattlemen, ballplayers, farmers and porters... cowboys. No, we didn't rough ride up that hill, 'cause we didn't have any horses. We didn't charge up there, either. We crawled up there on our scared bellies. There was only one horse and one rider - that was Colonel Teddy. He went chargin' up that damn hill and they shot his glasses off. He put on another pair and they nipped him in the elbow, and he said, "Follow me!" And we did, 'cause we was too damned ashamed not to.
The people some people marry. I wasn't worth her spit."
Luke Matthews is a gambler at heart. He has bet everything on his chances to win. And he probably thinks he has a good chance too, until his good friend Sam Clayton enters the race.
Coburn's character comes across as someone who really cares, just like Clayton. And why not, he is not out to hurt anybody, he is out to look after himself but keep a weary eye on the others. He is sophisticated and he has world-like experiences. A man who likes to think he can enjoy the best the world has to offer.
Where as Clayton is just moving from job to job. That is until this race comes along.
Johnson had a very quiet yet effective performance as "Mister", the old Confederate who just wanted to be famous. He has several great scenes. The best being his final scene with Clayton.
Clayton: "No family?"
Mister: "Him"
[indicates his horse]
Mister: "Oh, you know saddle tramps. They sign on, drive the beef a thousand miles, make your mark, draw your pay and move on to the next ranch. Another roundup and another drive. Hired... fired... and move on."
Sam Clayton: "Well, it's never bothered me none."
Mister: "No, me neither when I was thirty years lighter."
Mister to Clayton:
"Ever prospected? Ever hit pay dirt? I've dug for gold, silver, lead, mercury. I've dug more holes than a whole regiment of gophers. I ain't never dug a decent day's wages yet."
Again a few seconds later, Mister to Clayton:
"God, what ain't I tried. Pony express rider, Overland Stage driver, lawman, gambler, riverman, rancher, rodeo hand, barman, spittoon man... old man. Never much to remember. Of course, there ain't much to forget, either. Nobody's got much use for an old man. I can't blame 'em much. That's why I'm going to win this here newspaper race. When I cross the finish line, I get to be a big man. Top man. A man to remember."
All the while as he is recounting what he has done, his eyes are looking straight ahead, as he is remembering all of these great adventures he had participated in.
And when he dies, he has that small smile on his face and he is looking up toward the mountains. Sort of reminded me of Joel McCrea's final in Ride the High Country.
Maybe Mister just wanted to enter his house justified.
Of the other performers, I think Jan-Michael Vincent was quite good as Carbo, the young punk who was willing to do anything to get the attention of the others. It was a thankless role for him. Everytime he started to mouth off or do something despicable, there was Clayton waiting to teach him a lesson. Eventually, Carbo sees the errors of his ways and even tries to apologize to Miss Jones (Bergen). And he even gets involved with the hunt for the escaped convicts towards the end of the movie. His was a total transformation, all due to Clayton's and Matthews' valuable lessons.
Ian Bannen as Sir Harry Norfolk has always been one of my favorites. He adds a bit of English class to the adventure, although like many of the others is a virgin to this new land called the American West. He like the others tries shortcuts during the race. Finally having to shoot his horse after a daredevil ride through a creek.
And I really like Mario Arteaga as the Mexican who is the one that really has to bite the bullet!
As we first find him, he is leaving his home and family to go ride and win this race. Surely, $2,000 would come in very handy for a poor Mexican family. He is befriended at the bar by Clayton and Matthews, who try to point out to a bigot what their heritages are.
The look on the Mexican's face as the last of his heroin pills go tumbling down a rocky formation is unforgettable. And then there is Clayton, waiting for him with an extra pill bottle.
Candice Bergen as Miss Jones is pretty good in this as well. Although from what I have read, she was not all that convinced that she could play this role, although I thought she was quite good as the former prostitute turned race competitor. She was as good in this as she was in the same years' release of The Wind and the Lion, starring opposite Sean Connery.
She also has some memorable lines:
Speaking with Carbo:
"I've been around a lot of cowhands, one way or another. A cowboy dresses from the top down. The first thing on is his hat. And he undresses from the bottom up. Last thing off... hat. Oh, and another thing - to be a cowpuncher, that don't mean you actually got to go around punching them, you know."
And earlier in the film she has this bit of dialogue with Rosie, her former boss:
"Rosie, how many times you been married?
Eleven. Ten without a preacher or license.
Well, did you love any of 'em?
Oh, all of 'em! Every one of 'em! The good and the bad. It's a shame to waste all that prime beef on a guy serving three to five in a prison. Do you keep in touch?
Oh, he's kind of a lousy letter writer.
A lousy bank robber, too."
Of the other supporting charachters in the film, I really liked seeing Robert Hoy. He portrays Lee Christie, the expert rider Jack Parker uses to ride his champion steed in the race.
Hoy if you do not remember was in the cast of the TV western The High Chaparral. He played the part Joe Butler, brother to Sam Butler (played by Sam Collier) two of the ranch hands working for "Big" John Cannon (Leif Erickson).
In BTB he has some memorable bits as well. He is the authoritative voice of reason that Jack Parker goes to when asking who is the best in the race so far. It is a quiet scene, one in which Lee addresses all of the riders he thinks still has a chance. And even though Parker is not convinced at all of Sam Clayton, it is Lee who tells him that Clayton could very well be the one to beat.
Coleman as Jack Parker is fun to watch as well. I have always enjoyed his acting abilities. Here he is a pretty serious fellow. And just to think, he is the son of J.B. Parker, the great uncredited Paul Stewart from Champion and Twelve O'Clock High.
Bite the Bullet was released in 1975. That was one of those watershed years of film releases.
Lets see, the films released that year were:
The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother
Barry Lyndon
The Day of the Locust
Dog Day Afternoon
The Drowniing Pool
Farewell, My Lovely
The Fortune
Give 'em Hell, Harry!
The Great Waldo Pepper
Jaws
The Man Who Would Be King
The Man in the Glass Booth
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
Nashville
Night Moves
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Other Side of the Mountain
The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Shampoo
The Stepford Wives
The Sunshine Boys
Three Days of the Condor
Tommy
The Wind and the Lion
And the Oscar nominations for that year that Bite the Bullet could have been and in two cases was nominated in were:
Best Picture:
Barry Lyndon, Stanley Kubrick, producer
Dog Day Afternoon, Martin Bregman and Martin Elfand, producers
Jaws, Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown, producers
Nashville, Robert Altman, producer
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Saul Zaentz and Michael Douglas, producers
Bite the Bullet was NOT a strong enough contender for Best Picture that year, solely based on these other nominees. Actually IMHO the only Best Picture nominee NOT worth consideration is Barry Lyndon. The Man Who Would Be King is the one picture that should have received a nomination in this category.
Best Actor
Walter Matthau, The Sunshine Boys
Jack Nicholson, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Al Pacino, Dog Day Afternoon
Maximilian Schell, The Man in the Glass Booth
James Whitmore, Give 'em Hell, Harry!
Now here was a chance for the Academy to honor Hackman with a nomination. Although he could have easily been picked for his other 1975 film, Night Moves. But Bite the Bullet was a stronger acting challenge for him, and he has often said that the film's 64 day shooting schedule was the toughest he had ever participated in. James Coburn could have also been nominated in this category for his fine performance as Luke Matthews.
Best Actress
Isabelle Adjani, The Story of Adele H.
Louise Fletcher, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Glenda Jackson, Hedda
Carol Kane, Hester Street
Ann-Margret, Tommy
Bergen, could have been nominated in this category. But in reality even though she gets shared top billing with Hackman, she was really just starting out in movies. And no one was going to beat Louise Fletcher that year.
Actor in a Supporting Role
George Burns, The Sunshine Boys
Brad Dourif, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Burgess Meredith, The Day of the Locust
Chris Sarandon, Dog Day Afternoon
Jack Warden, Shampoo
Again, the Academy chose to ignore all of the fine supporting actors in Bite the Bullet. I mean, really, why wasn't Ben Johnson nominated. Sure his role was small, but he sure did have some memorable moments. Mario Arteaga was very good also as the Mexican contestant.
Directing
Robert Altman, Nashville
Federico Fellini, Amarcord
Milos Forman, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Stanley Kubrick, Barry Lyndon
Sidney Lumet, Dog Day Afternoon
Again, I think the Academy may have goofed here as well. Kubrick and Fellini were fine directors, but they did not deserve noms that year. Easily, Spielberg should have been nominated for Jaws, and Brooks should have been too for BTB.
Writing
Original Screenplay:
Ted Allan, Lies My Father Told Me
Federico Fellini and Tonino Guerra, Amarcord
Claude Lelouch and Pierre Uytterhoeven, And Now My Love
Frank Pierson, Dog Day Afternoon
Robert Towne and Warren Beatty, Shampoo
The Academy missed an opportunity to nominate Brooks here. His original screenplay perfectly captures the time period (roughly 1906) and the goings on of the wild west that was soon to disappear. He has said that he based his story on actual Horse endurance races that had occurred between the 1880's and the early 1900's. One in particular was a race between some small place in Wyoming and Denver. This is the race he chose to depict in this film.
Cinematography
John Alcott, Barry Lyndon
Conrad Hall, The Day of the Locust
James Wong Howe, Funny Lady
Robert Surtees, The Hindenburg
Haskell Wexler and Bill Butler, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Harry Stradling, Jr. was one of the finest cinematographers working at the time. Howe was surely nominated because of his name as was Surtees. Thus Stradling should have been nominated for his beautiful exterior shots of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado. As some would know, shooting outdoors without controlled light is very difficult.
Sound
Robert L. Hoyt, Roger Heman, Earl Madery and John Carter, Jaws
Leonard Peterson, John A. Bolger, Jr., John Mack and Don K. Sharpless, The Hindenburg
Arthur Piantadosi, Les Fresholtz, Richard Tyler and Al Overton, Jr., Bite the Bullet
Richard Portman, Don MacDougall, Curly Thirlwell and Jack Solomon, Funny Lady
Harry W. Tetrick, Aaron Rochin, William McCaughey and Roy Charman, The Wind and the Lion
I have no clue why BTB was nominated in this category. I guess all of the sounds of nature and that train came into play. BTB should have been nominated in Cinematography instead.
Original Score
Gerald Fried, Birds Do It, Bees Do It
Jerry Goldsmith, The Wind and the Lion
Jack Nitzsche, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
Alex North, Bite the Bullet
John Williams, Jaws
Great score by North, but he was eclipsed that year by John Williams in Jaws. Although I think Goldsmith was even better with The Wind and the Lion.
All in all one of my all-time favorite films. A film to be savored.
Message edited by Fxreyman
-
Yes, Wendy, I think Tobin as crazy as he was was very capable of wanting the rest of his gang bumped off. Lets face it, the town of Lassoo is a ghost town, what better place for Link to kill off as many of the remaining Tobin bunch as he could.
It's funny though, from what I have read elsewhere that all of the love scenes between Cooper and London were edited out of the final version of the film before the initial release due to the studio thinking London was not experienced enough.
-
Wendy,
Excellent thoughts!!! Well worth the read.
On Lee J. Cobb, I totally agree with you. One of his better roles was as Juror # 3 in 12 Angry Men.
And I also tend to think he was quite good as Judge Henry Garth in the long-running tv show The Virginian.
You are also very correct about Julie London. I agree that through much of her career she came across as cold or even aloof. If you ever watch her in Emergency! the tv show from the early 70's she shows the same coldness there as well. Though I think that had more to do with the fact that Rampart Hospital was the serious part of each episode's story and the paramedics were really the funny tag team for the show.
The other interesting bit of tidbit is that most of these wonderful actors went on to have somewhat successful tvcareers. Dano even managed to show up in 1983's The Right Stuff as the minister who has the unenviable task of showing up on the doorstep of recently dead pilot's widows.
Thanks for sharing these wonderful thoughts with us.
Rey
-
Hey there!
Got some time to post this morning here at work, since our mainframe just went down for maintenance.
I absolutely adore Bite the Bullet. It is one of those rare times that a movie has an intelligent script, wonderful photography, great direction (one of my fave directors, Richard Brooks) and a great cast lead by one of my all-time favorite actors, Gene Hackman.
I am NOT taping or recording the film. I own the VHS version and even though it is available on DVD, I am holding out for an updated DVD release (if it ever happens) with bonus features.
As far as this film is concerned, I kind of think of it as a companion piece to another Brooks film, 1966's, The Professionals, another one of my favorite films. Similar, but not the same.
On another note, I have not really been able to watch many of the films airing this month due to my work schedule and weekend activities, BUT I have been paying attention to the boards when I can.
Edited by FXreyman
(Rey Nowlin)
-
{...}
Message was edited by: TCMWebAdmin
Harassment
-
IMHO that ain't ever gonna happen.
31 Days of Oscar is one of the premier events during the year. Plus if I am not mistaken the end of TCM's regular programming schedule ends during January and the new schedule starts anew in March.
So they have a month of titles to fill.
The one thing I miss from 31 Days is that at the beginning of each film they showed the film's nominations. Poor Robert now has to often spend more time talking about the film's nominations than just talking about the film.
It is also a great way of bringing more new fans to the channel.
Directed by Phil Karlson - 9/26
in Film Noir--Gangster
Posted
Too bad TCM could not schedule these additional films directed by Karlson:
The Young Doctors 1961
Kid Galahad 1962
Rampage 1963
The Wrecking Crew 1968
Ben 1972
and
the original...Walking Tall 1973