misswonderly3

Black Moon (Louis Malle) The Exterminating Angel (Luis Bunuel) (My strange films have to be directed by people named Looey.)

I wish I had that same edition of The Searchers, Lorna, but alas, mine is more ordinary, its just included in a 4-movie DVD set of Westerns - actually, I think it's one of those TCM compiled sets. I'd love to see this comic book version of "The Searchers". It sounds kind of fun. Maybe it would remind me of those Classic Comics that my brother collected when we were kids. I used to sneak into his room and read them. If he caught me he'd be furious, since he was obsessive about them, kept them in impeccable order, and did not want his younger sister sullying them by borrowing without permission (which he never gave.)

Yes ! That part's hilarious ! I should have mentioned Ken Curtis' gem of a performance in my OP. I love this guy. Apparently Ken Curtis was in real life a singer as well as an actor, so those scenes where he strums his banjo (guitar? can't remember) are authentic. Love, love, his crazy accent in this movie !

Sorry if I'm making this thread longer than it really is by quoting all these long posts , but I wanted to directly address many of them and what was said in them. (Hey, I guess that's the reason why we quote other posters here.) rosebette, many thanks for your extremely interesting and informative post. It's truly helpful in lending insight as to that whole subject of Indians capturing young white children, and what happened to those children. One thing I was a little confused about: You said Debby's character may have been based on Cynthia Ann Parker, who was captured by the Comanches, grew up with them, and had a child who became a great Comanche leader. So, this was before she was "rescued" and restored to white society, right? The child she had after her "rescue" was obviously a different one from Quanah? (sorry to be so thick about this; I'm wondering if maybe you went back and edited your original post here to clarify Cynthia's story....)

I don't make that assumption at all. It's made clear in the film that if a white child was taken by the Comanches at a young enough age, they were adopted and integrated into their sociiety. Not abused in any way. Yes, if they found a young woman who was older than whatever age they thought "adoptable", they'd abuse them all right: but that seems to me a matter of r a p l n g and then killing them. Quickly. I've never heard of them keeping white girls as sex slaves. As RoseBette informed us earlier on this thread, if the Indians did decide to adopt a young child, they treated him or her as one of their own. So I'm still puzzled by the bizarre behaviour exhibited by the three white females ( one a woman who looked about thirty, the other two young girls, maybe ten and seven) in the scene where Ethan and Martin look to see if any of them are Debby. edit: I find it interesting that the autocensor deletes the word "r a p e", but allows the word "kill".

Princess of Tap, your assumption that Canada has treated its First Nations people better than your country has is touching but inaccurate. Canada is and has been for several years now undergoing a very painful and shameful expose of a long list of wrongs committed against its indigenous peoples. Too many to mention here, but the one that's received the most attention and is in many ways the worst, is the history of the "Residential Indian Schools" that were implemented in many provinces here. The aftermath of the horrible treatment of thousands of aboriginal children is still resonating today. I don't think this is the place to discuss this topic, but here's a link about it if you're interested: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/a-history-of-residential-schools-in-canada-1.702280 Just wanted to clarify that Canada bears its own disgracefully well-earned burden of guilt when it comes to racist attitudes toward its indigenous peoples, and countless injustices towards them.

Interesting comment, Helen. Casablancalover said more or less the same thing in a more recent post. I think someone (we three?) could write a book on John Ford and his images of on-screen masculinity. (Probably someone already has.) As for your theory as to why Ethan went on his quest, it's a good one. In fact, one thing I've realized about The Searchers since starting this thread is that the film is more complex than I'd previously given it credit for. This is one example: I've read a few ideas here as to Ethan's motivation for his long search for Debby. 1 The one you gave here, that Ethan loved Martha (his brother's wife), and for her sake was bent on finding her daughter. 2 He was an outsider, he did not fit in to any kind of society (white or native), and was driven to a quest like the search for Debby because it was the only kind of thing he could do. He'd never be happy, settling down to a "normal" life. 3 He had a profound hatred for "Indians" and could not rest until he'd "rescued" his white niece from them. I think there were some other suggestions about his need for this quest, but I'd have to go back and read the whole thread. If I've left any out, I apologize. So here are at least three different (although related) theories as to the what drove Ethan on this 7-year search. That alone suggests a degree of complexitiy to The Searchers that I'd never previously considered. Helen, please don't denigrate your own posts like that. None of what you said about your writing and your contributions here is true. I and many others enjoy your posts. As for film courses, some of the dumbest, most pointless writing on these forums comes from so-called film studies graduates, and some of the most well-written and insightful from people who've never taken a single film course.

I see in the three days I've been away from here there have been quite a few posts about this film. Thanks, everyone, for your ideas. I'd like to respond to some of them. First, this one: There are quite a few Westerns I "am fond of", but it seems to me that a question like that deserves its own thread. It would be fun to talk about Westerns in general, especially as this is "Western"month at TCM. If you start a thread about it, I'd be glad to list some Westerns that I like.

Cave Girl: Thanks for your considered response to my thoughts on The Searchers. Overall, I respect your take on the film. But just for the sake of discussion, I'd like to counter a few of your points. I've bolded to the colour blue- Lorna-style -- the comments you made which I address. I did not "discount" the cinematography or the setting, au contraire, it was the first of the (few) positive things I said about the film. Ok, maybe one sentence for such a magnificent location and such sensitive and visually arresting cinematography is not doing it justice, since this IS a major strength of The Searchers. Still, although I maybe could have and should have praised the Monument Valley location and shooting more than I did, I did not "discount" it. I gave credit where credit is due. You mention the "humourous" bits in the film. I, too, mentioned them, but did explain why I thought they were NOT funny. I don't think Martin's "marriage" to poor little "Look" is funny at all, but sad and even somewhat disturbing, especially the part where Martin kind of shoves her over and she topples down the hill. True, Martin did not mean for that to happen, and "Look" is not hurt-- but her dignity is. I am not at all one of those poe-faced disapprovers who cannot see the humour in what would now be considered politically incorrect depictions and situations in old movies; it's not that. It's just that the"squaw" is not accorded any respect or compassion at all, she's just supposed to be a source for comic relief. As for Vera Miles, I also addressed her "funny" scenes; she just seems kind of desperate and bossy to me. Fact is, as I said before, I just don't think John Ford could do humour. His supposedly comic scenes in his movies never make me laugh or even smile, they just make me roll my eyes. As for "taking it a bit too seriously", the whole reason why I started this post was because The Searchers is esteemed, venerated even, as a very serious film that deserves to be taken very, uh, seriously. I've never heard it spoken of as merely a piece of light entertainment. It's often called "one of the greatest films of all time". With a reputation like that, I'm not going to tone down my expectations of it. It's not the sort of film that one is told to "lighten up" about.

With comments like that, you should become a monk.

Well, that's a damn shane.

I could have put this in the "I Just Watched" thread, since I did "just watch" The Searchers last night. But I wanted discussion of this (for me, anyway) problematic film to extend beyond that thread, because this is such a "big" movie in so many ways. So. I'm going to say, right up-front: I don't get The Searchers. I own the DVD (it came in a set), I've seen it many times, and it was analyzed in depth in a film course I took (on Westerns, yet) . But despite all its accolades and its position in the top ten, which it enjoys on many " Best Movies Ever Made" lists, I'm missing something. I just don't understand why this film is so venerated. Don't Read This If You're Worried About Spoilers. Pro: Ok, yes, it's got beautiful location shooting, and along with that, lovely cinematography. It's got a fine score. The acting is pretty darn good (except for Lucy, but then the poor girl is only in the film for all of five minutes), even from The Duke himself. Yes, one has to admire the structure and the metaphor in the use of dark doorways (and also cave apertures) opening out onto brightly lit exteriors. And the final scene, wherein Ethan chooses not to kill Debby but to take her "home", is, I suppose, emotionally surprising and powerful. But: Con: I get weary of watching these two guys riding around in circles for seven years . (I figured it out: I used to think it was ten years, but last night I paid attention. Ethan and Martin are away for two years, then return to the Jorgensen's home (for like, one night !) and then are away for another five years.) I don't usually like films that span a long period of time. I know, I know, that's the point, that's what The Searchers is all about, Ethan's persistence and obsession. But still. Poor old Martin, that's seven years of his life - his youth - spent, wandering around with crazy hate-filled old Ethan. Still, it's his choice to do so. Another Con: John Ford can not do funny. His sense of humour is not his strong point. The scenes with that poor young Comanche woman ("Look" ) are not even remotely funny, they're kind of disturbing and sad. Also the scenes with Lori scolding Martin in the bath don't make me laugh or even smile. Give the guy some privacy. Con 3: This is the main problem I have with The Searchers: The whole issue of white children who were adopted by Indians. (I don't say "Indians" in normal discourse, I say "aboriginal" or "First Nations". But in the context of The Searchers, "Indian" just seems the natural word to use.) Why, for instance, when at one point Ethan and Martin are told the Cavalry has found and captured back 3 white girls from a Comanche settlement, and they go to see if any of them are Debby, are these girls jabbering idiots? What part of living with the Comanches for years would make them developmentally challenged? They might not remember English anymore, but would that make them incapable of speech of any kind? Why is that one woman (quite a bit older than the other two) ranting and moaning like that? And why are the two young girls, children really, grinning foolishly at Ethan? All three seem to have no intelligence whatsoever. Are we supposed to think this is what happens to white people who live with Indians for years? It makes no sense, not even in the world of The Searchers; especially since later, when they do find Debby, she clearly is an intelligent young woman, who even remembers how to speak English- without a hitch. Also- when Martin sneaks into her tent and tells her he's going to "rescue" her, she immediately agrees, "Oh yes, oh yes, ,take me back..." But she'd actually be very confused and ambivalent about her "rescue". Also: Ok, Debby's back in the white world. What now? She was captured at 8 (or so?) and is now around 16. This means she's spent fully half her young life with the Comanches. Why would she necessarily want to return to white society? And even if she did, she'd still be frightened, I'm sure, and would have a myriad of problems to deal with. Poor Debby, what's to become of her ? I could overlook all these problems I have with The Searchers if I just plain enjoyed it more. But honestly, there are lots of Westerns I think are better and more entertaining. And even more profound. Is there anyone else out there who is a fellow Searchers doubter?

...and Capucine.

Maybe he's just plain Shane. Since, technically, "Shane" could serve as either a first or last name, perhaps he just wanted to keep it simple - or maybe keep people guessing - and just call himself "Shane". He was way ahead of Clint Eastwood. Clint may have been the Man With No Name, but Shane was "the Man With One Name".

So, you're not actually saying, " I HATE YOU, SHANE ! "

I meant Brian. I wasn't sure whether to say "bisexual" or "gay". I wanted to say "gay", but since Brian was having an, uh, "successful" affair with Sally, I figured he must kind of sort of sometimes like women too. But yes, upon reflection, Brian was pretty much gay. Sally was, as you say, an exception. (and after all, she practically forced herself on him...at least at first.)

I don't agree that he says this "without thinking". In fact, there's a noticeable pause before he replies, and when he does, his voice is filled with significance. I think this is a key scene in the film, the one in which Brian decides to directly tell Sally that he's bisexual.

Well, at least it sounds like it's making you happy. What's a few decades matter when you're having fun?

I'm not setting myself up for anything. The post you quoted is just about a love for music,whatever genre or genres a person likes. Whether someone makes an effort to familiarize themselves with a new (to them) type of music is a different matter. I was talking about music that one already loves. However, yeah, sure, I'm open to many different types of music. Often one has to hear something a few times before actually "hearing" it. One listen only is not really enough to "get" everything a particular piece of music has to offer.

Back to what I was originally trying to say here: By the way, since, sadly, I am not a musician, I'm talking about listening to music as opposed to playing it. If you can sing or play an instrument, I admire you. But this is more about "appreciating" music than creating it. I think the kind of person who loves movies ( and I chose the word "love" as opposed to "like" on purpose) is also likely to love music. Film-lovers who come to this site often also start or participate in threads about music. But music is something apart from books, plays, or movies in that you don't need to have a plot, or characters. There's no investment of time the way there is in reading a book or watching a film (obviously, with a film it's about 2 hours, with a book it could be as long as 2 months...) You can listen to music and do something else at the same time. I suppose I mean mindless tasks, because when I play music I don't have it as background sound, I pay attention to it. Also, to me anyway, music is much more about the senses than movies are. Yes, film is a visual art /entertainment form, and there are many great movies that are as much about what you see as they are about story. But in general, most movies have characters and plot, and a large part of why we enjoy them is connected with that. You have to comprehend what's going on in a film to enjoy it. With music, all you need is to be able to hear. It's a direct connection between sound, ear, and brain. And to respond to it emotionally, all you need to do is listen to it. This is not to say that I don't love movies, obviously I do. But for me, because the effect of music is more immediate and direct upon my senses ( well, the sense of hearing) than either reading or film-watching is, it moves me in a different way than books or films do. It's deeper, it's more direct, it's more emotional.

No wonder you don't like classical music. It's like when they make you read a great book in high school, but for whatever reason you're not ready for it, or - more likely - the teacher ruins the book by analyzing it to death (there you go, Sepia) , making reading become work, and taking all the fun out of it. I hate it that so many people- social workers, shrinks, and even pre-natal experts - think of classical music as "soothing" and something to listen to merely to be calmed down. No surprise so many people think it's lame or boring. The classical music "calmer downers", I suspect, don't really care about it as music. Who's going to like classical music if it's treated as therapy?

I don't know about Cave Girl, but I am a glasses-wearer, have been since I was 16. I've never minded them. Once, for about three months, I tried contact lenses, but they were more trouble than they were worth.

I almost added books to the mix in my original post. Yes, I really have three "loves": music, movies, and books. The only reason I didn't mention them is, I didn't want to make it too complicated- or too difficult to decide. But in fact, books were my first love. I discovered the joys of reading before those of either music or movies.

Ha ! Cheating ! Just kidding. As I said in my O.P., movies and music go hand in hand. Why not have your cake and eat it too by choosing movies in which music is an essential part of their make-up ?

Hey, people. This is not one of those threads about the place of music IN movies, movie soundtracks, favourite film score composers, great songs associated with certain movies, etc. Although there is undeniably a deep connection between movies and music - - even silent films have specific scores to be played along with them - - this thread is not intended to be about that, not exactly anyway. It's about two of the things I love most, two things that give me a lot of joy: music and movies. I realized the other day that I was spending a lot more time recently on a thread in these forums that's about music, and hadn't participated very much at all on any of the movie threads. This got me thinking about how much I love music, and what an important part it plays in my life. As do movies. Now, I know, this does not have to be an "either / or " thing. You can appreciate both equally. They're similar, yet very different. Nobody's saying you have to pick one or the other. That would be silly. Still, for some reason I got to thinking about both these loves of mine, and how, if I were banished to a deserted island ( yes ! the old "deserted island" cliche !) and I could take a supply of only one with me -- music or movies - - which one would I choose. (Since this is a purely hypothetical situation, we won't sorry about where the power hook-up to enable either movie-watching or music-listening activity would come from.) I'd choose music. Thoughts?