misswonderly3

It's a lead role, the most important in the film. For that matter, there are many movies in which the main character doesn't appear until halfway through the movie (how about Harry Lime in *The Third Man* ? ) And just because the man who meets Marge and kind of falls apart emotionally is Asian-American does not make it a racist scene. Why is it racist just because the guy happens to be Asian-American? There's no allusion to his ethnicity, just to how he's messed up his life - it could have been anybody, white, black, pink, or blue. (from the cold) ps -kinokima, thanks for your positive opinion on the film. It is here, on this tcm fansite, that I have read negative comments about *Fargo*. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 7, 2011 3:26 PM

Hmm, I'm trying to think of a film that I regard as a Western that doesn't have horses in it. I'm sure there must be at least one. Anyway, *here's a list of Westerns for people who don't like Westerns:* (in no particular order): *Destry Rides Again* - as much a comedy as a Western, plus fun bantering between Jimmy Stewart and Marlene Dietrich (who sings "Boys in the Backroom" ) *Johnny Guitar* -a Western for the film noir lover. Also a Joan-o-drama, with Joan flashing her eyes at Sterling Hayden and Mercedes McCambridge all mixed-up and overwrought over both of them. *Rauncho Notorious* -more Western comedy/noir, more Marlene Dietrich *Pursued* -you don't have to be a Western fan, just a Robert Mitchum fan, to enjoy this *Red River* -one of John Wayne's better performances (IMHO) , with Monty Clift giving as good as he gets from the Duke. John Ireland hangs around to see what will happen next. My only quibble is when Joanne Dru slows things down a little. *The Naked Spur* - as much a character study as a Western; four very different and interesting characters in conflict; James Stewart wants to turn in Robert Ryan for a bounty, with Janet Leigh and Ralph Meeker along for the ride. *The Outlaw Josey Wales* - believe it or not, this is kind of a "nice" story, with Clint Eastwood somewhat unwillingly helping people he encounters as he flees some post Civil War Union soldiers. It actually is a kind of "feel good" Western, as he finds himself and his mongrel friends setting up a little community. *The Treasure of the Sierra Madre* -I'm kind of stretching things here, calling this a Western. But it's certainly got a Western setting, and a fascinating story about how the lust for gold can drive a person insane. It's also got one of the most memorable endings in all moviedom. that's all for now, folks. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 7, 2011 3:30 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 7, 2011 7:02 PM

> {quote:title=JonnyGeetar wrote:}{quote} and Fargo may actually be my least favorite movie of _ALL TIME_ (I know I stand alone on that, but it is just a one-note, one-joke film, and that joke is "boy, aren't common, everyday, non-intellectual people stupid ?!! LAUGH DAMMIT+ This is a commonly -held misconception about *Fargo*; ie, that it was made as just one big nasty joke, its sole purpose to make fun of people from the mid-west. It's an easy way to dismiss a movie -just write it off as a "one joke" film. In fact, there is a lot to *Fargo*; if you look beyond the mid-western accents and goofy "oh yah"s, you'll see that it's a very well-crafted crime film, a beautifully executed work of cinematography, a philosophical musing on how the best-laid plans can go wrong and often do, and yes,an affectionate and gently mocking tribute to those no-nonsense cheese-eaters. The Coen brothers themselves hail from Minneapolis, Minnesota, so if they're laughing at "common everyday non-intellectual people" they're laughing at themselves. The female police officer, Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) may be full of "non-intellectual" utterances, but don't let that fool you. She is the smartest person in the film, and the most moral.The lecture she gives to the killer she has captured at the film's conclusion may be a funny scene -and it is, mainly because of the incongruity of this supposedly unsophisticated lady cop scolding the brutal and somewhat dim murderer and half-expecting him to heed her reproaches -but it's also a basic moral truth she's stating, and its meant to be listened to by the audience. *Fargo* is not the shallow, insultingly smug film that many seem to think it is. As I said, it's easy to relegate it to "the Coens are just making a cheap joke" if you're not paying attention to the film. Personally, it's one of my favourite movies, and I'm starting to get tired of people knocking it. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 7, 2011 2:54 PM Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 7, 2011 2:55 PM

> {quote:title=TikiSoo wrote:}{quote} > Well herein lies the problem with this discussion. A "Western" means different things to different people. Many films fall short of any general criteria while still considered Westerns as has been stated in earlier posts. > There are cowboy films set in the wild west that are not considered westerns like ANNIE GET YOUR GUN. And the previously discussed MISFITS, BAD DAY AT BLACK ROCK, heck BLAZING SADDLES & SON OF PALEFACE kind of defy definitions. > Do Westerns only take place in the past? In America? Do they need gunfights & horses? > I'd rather include all aforementioned films into Westerns rather than eliminate them because they don't fall in a narrow definition.... Very good point, TikiSoo. And therein lies the problem with not only a discussion of "The Western", but also of any "genre". Film Noir, for instance, probably the most problematic genre of all, certainly when it come to any kind of consensus on what it is, exactly, has generated endless discussions, sometimes bordering on arguments, on its definition, what its parametres are, what is and is not a film noir. And, as you say, the same thing applies to Westerns - or should I say, "The Western". "On the other hand" , discussing what criteria apply to a genre is fun; part of what makes it interesting is the examination of themes and other elements and the variety of opinions on the definition of any genre. I suspect that most of the people on these boards are not only hard core cinephiles, but also pretty knowledgeable about genres and their definitions, and that most are fairly open and flexible about just what constitutes a "Western" or any other genre. Any discussion of any film genre is going to end up with the acknowledgment that it is impossible to come up with a definitive statement on its definition, and that in any case, it is constantly changing and re-defining itself. Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 6, 2011 5:38 PM

I've always kind of wanted to learn German. I saw *Pandora's Box* the other night, and wondered what Louise Brooks made of it all. Did she speak or understand German? I kind of doubt it. But it doesn't matter, she comes across exactly the way she should anyway. Yeah, maybe the title cards in German silent movies had more text and took longer to read than American or other English-language silents. English is such an economical language !

Yes, james, but the odd title card, usually with very little text, and appearing on the screen for abouat 30 seconds once in a while, is very different from dubbed-in dialogue for an entire (previously) silent movie. The title cards just gave the audience the gist of what was going on, and that was usually all that was necessary. They were not intrusive or a distraction - at least, I have never found them to be so. Also, I believe they were part of the original film, they were edited in before the film would be released to the viewing public. So they weren't artificial add-ons, they were conceived to be there to help tell the story from the beginning. The way silent movies were filmed, the way the stories were planned and the actors performed, very few words, be they spoken or supplied on title cards, were needed for the audience to understand what was happening on screen. And I will say again, the titles were few and far between, usually with a minimal amount of text, and very un-obtrusive. One more thing: you say the elimination of the cards, to be replaced with voice-over, would "keep the action flowing". But again, since silent movies were made knowing that title cards would be inserted now and then, they were filmed on purpose for the cards to fit in with the movie as a whole. And in the "action" scenes, there usually is no dialogue anyway, so the camera keeps rolling and the action keeps flowing (like in *Intolerance* , or the famous baby carriage scene in *Battleship Potemkin* .) Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 6, 2011 3:33 PM

Thanks for all the cool film noir quotes, errol. If you know all these by heart, you have an amazing memory and an impressive love of film noir. If you look them up first, you at least have the latter. Either way, they're fun to read.

Perhaps we're done with this controversial topic, in which case, to borrow/mispell from Shakespeare, "The rest is silents. "

Interesting post, Valentine, and very nicely written, as usual. I'm humbled to say that of the Westerns you list, I have only seen *One Eyed Jacks* . It's what I would classify as a "psychological Western", although there certainly is action in it as well. But it's more about the Brando/Maldon characters and their relationship. This makes it a more interesting Western, for me. I love Sam Fuller, but have mostly seen his noir work. Now that I'm more aware that he made a number of Westerns I'll be on the look-out for them.

Another shameless bump! This should be one page one.

Can anyone answer my question? I honestly want to know the answer.

They sure did -way more than Canada, no doubt about that.

What's up with winter this year? Everywhere - not just in Ontario, or Canada. You Americans are getting more than your usual share of snow and cold too. Here's a little "indie" song by a native Haligonian (believe that's the odd but correct word for someone from Halifax -Nova Scotia, anyway; don't know about the one in Yorkshire or wherever it is.) It's clearly winter and snowy in this funny little video. It's very home-made looking, but I like all the people sort of jumping around in the snowy streets with their mitts and winter coats and boots. The song's not bad either. Jenn Grant, "Getcha Good" : Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 5, 2011 6:33 PM

> {quote:title=MyFavoriteFilms wrote:}{quote} > No, MissWonderly, you explain it. We'll wait for you to get back to us. LOL Gentle tcm forum friend, why should I explain it? You're the one who said it. I assume you were just making a quiet joke.

I'm beaming. By the way, I'm assuming that most even luke-warm Western fans know that many American -made Westerns, cast, crew, story etc. American, were filmed in Canada's West, usually Alberta (which is very similar in its terrain to many U.S. states. )

So, is Alec Baldwin going to be The Essentials co-host for the third year in a row? Not that I mind, I guess, I don't have a problem with him. But just for variety's sake, it might be interesting to have someone else.

I don't mind the title cards at all, I feel they are part of the silent movie watching experience. I don't argue that the titles were used for "artistic reasons";no, they were just the simplest way to communicate to the audience what was being said on screen. But they really do not appear very often in the movie, usually, and when they do, it's usually just a few words. I don't mind reading them, any more than I mind reading English sub-titles in foreign films. A voice-over narration would be the lesser of two evils (the other one being, god forbid, added -in voices). But it's unnecessary. Why is there an assumption that the viewer of a silent film cannot figure out what's going on in the movie without all this additional assistance? It's almost insulting, as though the audience wouldn't be smart enough to get the story without oral effects of some kind. People understood what was going on in silent movies when they first came out, and they understand them now. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Errol, I looked this up on the tcm search function, but it says it is "not currently scheduled". Have you heard that is airing on another station sometime soon? By the way, I am impressed with all your noir quotes. You really know your film noir !

finance, baby, read the original post.

> {quote:title=finance wrote:}{quote} > Sitting here, reading these posts, I'm really getting hungry. Some oats, or even hay, would really hit the spot. Never mind the oats, aren't they always tucking into steak and apple pie in these pictures? Washed down with some solid whiskey, I don't doubt.

Jake, knowing you are a fan of Westerns, I was hoping you'd participate here. Thanks for posting that list. Hope you don't mind, I copied the film part of the article for here. Le voila : *Best 10* *Best Western Films* Shane High Noon The Searchers Dances with Wolves Red River The Shootist Stagecoach Ride the High Country Unforgiven The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Gosh, thanks, harlow10

*The Grey Fox* is a good little film, and I can see it's being regarded as a Western. It's not only set in Canada, by the way, it is a Canadian film. (can't resist. ) Edited by: misswonderly on Feb 5, 2011 2:40 PM

There seems to be an ongoing concern on these boards about "bringing younger audiences to classic film". Various ideas have been suggested from time to time. While I too, don't want all those old movies I love to disappear or be forgotten, I think the idea of "modernizing" or somehow tarting up old films to seem more like new ones is very misguided. As with any art form, the old always gives way to the new in terms of mass popularity and attention. That doesn't mean the old is totally abandoned or forgotten. People still listen to classical music, many still learn how to play this kind of music. It's not going to garner the attention Lady Ga-Ga's stuff gets, but so what? Nobody says. "Hey, let's figure out a way to make Schubert sound more like Lady Ga-Ga, that way more young people will listen to Schubert". The majority of people -whatever age they may be- don't read Dickens, Flaubert, Tolstoy, Austin, or Hardy. Or Melville or Faulkner. But quite a few still do. Should we, in an attempt to draw more readers to these writers from an earlier time, alter the language, maybe add a micro-chip with sound effects to the pages to liven them up? Both those suggestions, I suspect, would be considered ridiculous. So why do some people want to do this with films? In any case, silent films are what they are. If you like them you like them because of that - it's the absence of sound that is, in part, what makes them fascinating. Also, the cinematography, the way people looked, the dream-like atmosphere many silents have ...those magical qualities would be lost if they had dialogue added to them. Besides, even if voices were added to silent films (what a horrible thought), it would not bring younger audiences to those kinds of movies. They still wouldn't bother with them. The minority of movie fans, whatever their age may be, love silent movies for what they are, and that would include any young people too. I've never understood this urge to mess with art from the past. Leave it alone, and worry about making better current art (whether it's movies, music, or literature.)

> {quote:title=casablancalover wrote:}{quote} > I love most westerns. A western to me contains these elements: > > Great story > Magnificent outdoor landscapes > Pretty horses Don't forget pretty men. Heh heh heh...