laffite

Amidst all the *Duke Day Film Fest* talk, can I duck in an alert for a film that will air far in advance of that. We don't want to crowd The Duke. *Warlock* is coming on Tuesday, Dec 7 at 8pm EST. You?ve probably all seen it. I rented it recently and saw most of it, but the DVD malfunctioned right near the end ?but I did not order a replacement when I saw the schedule. No spoilers (I think) It's *Henry Fonda* again. He is a gunfighter but not like in *Clementine* (it seems to me). Same bird, but of a different feather, softer around the edges. If there?s such a thing as a Gentleman Gunfighter, he may be it. He has the darker aspects of that profession, he?s a tough SOB?but he is polished, well-spoken, great with the ladies, and yet intimidating when he has to be. As a reminder I mention *Richard Widmark*, *Anthony Quinn*, and *Dorothy Malone* who are all good?as well as *DeForest Kelley*. Yes, DeForest Kelley. In *The Law and Jake Wade* he was a gang member but with a low profile. In *Warlock*, he plays the same type, but he is front and center and does very, very well?maybe even great. (Way to go, Bones!). ?Sophisticated? is a stuffy adjective but it seems to apply to *Warlock*. It has a touch of class. I can?t wait to see the ending *Rohanaka*, your little Duke Day House Party sounds great, but I'm a little worried about the "teetotalling" thing. I wanted to bring some Vintage Jamaican Rum, fresh from recent plunder. If I'm unable to do that, I may have to, uh, pass on the festivities (Ooh I'm going to miss those cookies)

Yes, Fred, you are right. Reading you and Jackie on this make me realize that I didn't really have the correct take on this. You and Jackie are putting on a clinic for me.

Oh, Jackie, you are so persuasive and I?m sure you must be right. But I couldn?t see that at the time. When he gets back to the pit, he apologizes twice. The first time is when he is told by O?Rourke senior, ?You?re late,? and that was a sort of tongue and cheek thing, the second time he apologizes (after which O?Rourke says, ?Save it for our grandchildren?) I couldn?t understand that. I could not see that he could make this turn around, he just didn?t seem to have that flexibility, even in those harrowing circumstances. I could not believe he could apologize for ordering the ill-conceived attack, it didn?t ring true for me. And I?m still not sure I?m persuaded. It may have not played that way to me but I feel deep down now that you are right about it.

>Also, if you were who am I going to talk to about the finer points of Brahms? Hmm, I wonder what Brahms would have looked like on a horse. You see how my mind goes these days. I may be in the early stages of madness. But the truth, I've always been a little fascinated with the Old West, I just could never get into the movies. For awhile I was watching a lot of these programs on the History Channel. There was an excellent show on the OK Corral incident. They showed diagrams where everyone was standing, how the shooting went...and the reenactment was delicious. Some of those are very realistically done and fun to watch. Amazing how Wyatt survived that. And what was that program, Western Tech, with Carradine as host? I thought those entertaining.

>For now I just wanted to pop in and say THANKS, dear Pirate Dude, for stirring up the dust around all things "Fordian" for us again Well, thank you, *Rohanaka*, for helping me do it. There is something infectious the way you all just carry on about things Fordian. And I'm not just jumping on the bandwagon either, I'm into it. I have a friend who watches the old movies now and then and I'm trying to get him to watch Fort Apache. He and his wife are sort of like the old me, what Westerns? And nice to hear from you again, the eponymous creator (did I finally use that word right?) of this time-honored, venerable old thread of the Old West. You are busy with life, understandable, but do drop by once in awhile. We need to hear from our leader, *Miss Goddess* Thanks for the alert. I'm glad to know of it and so soon. This will give time to clear the DVR. Here's my for sure: *SWAYR, Rio Grande, The Searchers* (I'll curious to see if I do better with this one), *3 Godfathers,* and yes, *True Grit*, a movie I haven't seen . I hope I'm allowed to say that without being ostracized As you can see, I'm more interested in the 40s and 50s. The remaining two cavalry films are, of course, a must.

>I always thought that Thursday knew he was most likely be killed and that to die a hero's death was something that appealed to him. That would show the "SOB"'s in D.C. who posted him there that he was still the hero of the Civil War and if others died with him,well, that was their duty to go down with the commanding officer. .... Fred, your point is so well taken that I?m going to retract something I said. But first this?I am not persuaded that Thursday?s original idea was to martyr himself. Maybe that?s not quite what you meant, so I may be out in left field. I believe he wanted to win. He wanted much more to be a live hero than a dead one. Perhaps there was a latent desire for martyrdom, who knows. But If he had some sort of pathology that meant throwing himself to the wolves for the sake dying a hero?s death, it would detract in other respects the folly of his final decision to attack. I think I would rather believe that his rigid cast of mind and his excessive arrogance is what brought him down, not a suicide mentality. IMO it?s a better story that way, FWIW But your observation tears to tatters my statement: *?There is something pathetic about Thursdays justification for claiming the horse and the saber and saying, ?I must return to my Command.? A Command that he has destroyed.?* Well, it might SEEM pathetic in a way, but you are quite right, Fred, that at that point, with the ship going down, he DID want to be there, not only because that?s what Commanding Officers do, but because he fashioned himself a hero and he wanted to be remembered as fighting to the end. Yes, perhaps he felt that this would show them. Did it occur to him that by exercising good leadership and establishing the peace would have accomplished the same thing? Perhaps not in his mind, as you allude.

Just a drive by, I've been eavesdropping on this from time to time. This is a classic discussion. And let's face it, it's about the most interesting subject there is. *FrankGrimes:* The incisiveness and depth of your observations are astonishing to me. Never an easy admission from one guy to another...but you certainly know more about women than I do. *CineMaven*: As always, you are a most wonderful writer. I hope I'm still around when your memoir comes out because I want to read it. As *Jackie* alludes, you adeptness at making your readers hang on a cliff is part of what will keep me turning the pages. And that's only a part of it.

Thanks for the alert. We had a rather involved discussion here of *In a Lonely Place* about a year or so ago so this will be interesting. I seem to remember reading the novel (KOAD) when I was a kid, by James T. Farrall I think, part of a trilogy.

*Jackie*, thank you for printing out that song. I loved reading it. It doesn?t make for great poetry (I know, it?s only a song) but it?s fun to read a story or ballad in that form. The meter maybe a little choppy but it rhymes and it?s fun. Good catch too on how you saw the affinity of the song and the action. I know my classics but am short on traditional songs and I should go to IMBD to see what titles were used in *Fort Apache* (I know, your song is from *Stagecoach* ), so many familiar tunes. Some of them so familiar than even I know them. I mentioned before how in former times I would scoff at the use of familiar songs in a given film because the associations take me out of the film in a way that original music might not. Yet I am coming round because Ford gets away with it (now) with me. I?ve seen *Stagecoach* only twice and not too recently but I see it?s stream-able on NefF , I am so in a Fordian groove (it's all you guyses fault, you know ), I may try to take it in after work late tonight. Jackie, you wrote, re *Stagecoach* *?Amazon had a good deal, and I figured I'd get it quicker if I bought it than renting it from Netflix. Do you suppose that they can get it to me in one day, so I can post caps here? Probably not. ?* Can?t wait I want to see your choices. After the first viewing of *Fort Apache* I was hoping to build a case that Thursday could be a Classical figure, the not-so-bad guy with a flaw, but after the second viewing yesterday I find that?s a hard sell. He?s just too much of SOB. It?s bad form to try and improve on Ford but I wish that Thursday had been depicted as a little grayer (and maybe with a couple of fine white spots here and there). That way we can see him as a fundamentally decent man who had a weak spot that did him in. Or can we still say that? I don't know. It?s hard to find any real decency. It?s been pointed out by someone that sending O?Rourke back before the fateful battle (more like a slaughter) was essentially a selfish act, he was looking out for his daughter. And I?m not even sure that the apology to O?Rourke senior was much of a palliative. It?s probably easy for a guy like Owen Thursday to apologize where there is protocol involved?after all, Thursday is all protocol. He can admit his mistake and even come off well in doing it. I?m no military historian but it?s clear that there have been and will be more Owen Thursdays (in fact, there is something uncomfortably familiar about all this within our own time) in the real world for he does represent a certain military cast of mind, a certain TYPE (the representation of which is a Classical idea), excessively rigid with hubris to match and who therefore can make egregious mistakes that shock us. He is no hearts-and-mind guy, that?s for sure. That role was York?s but it was all for naught. Owen won?t listen and innocent people die over the perceived insolence of Cochise. Or was it that Thursday was determined to make a name for himself to show those who dared send him to Fort Apache. Probably both. Here are a few caps for my nascent scrapbook of Fordian action shots: Correct me, but it seems to me that Ford doesn?t rely too much on the close up. But when he does he punches it, like here with the Duke. (Even I can remember Wayne?s introduction in *Stagecoach*, he gets a medium shot and then the camera ostentatiously zooms in on him as if to say, ?Hears the Duke.?) The cap above is of course the moment when Thursday has commandeered his horse and saber. I had a mischievous notion when, just prior to that when Thursday was dismounted and floundering about in the dust, that he might say, ?My Kingdom for a Horse, My Kingdom for a horse!.? There is something pathetic about Thursdays justification for claiming the horse and the saber and saying, ?I must return to my Command.? A Command that he has destroyed. =

Thanks, *Jackie*, for all you wrote. Yes, it can take awhile before we get the idea that "It's a Fooooorrrrrrrrrrrrdd" Okay, okay...sorry. (I hope I'm not the only one old enough to remember that) *When I saw Grapes of Wrath at age twelve or thirteen, it completely turned me upside down emotionally...* I think you must have been a precocious child. No wonder you?re so smart, Jackie, that?s a pretty early start to having such heartfelt reactions to movies like that. I?m impressed. I was no where near there at that age. *I realized that there were all these layers - layers you could come back to at different ages and appreciate. As if your young self and your old self could be lined up next to one another, watching the same movie, but getting totally different things out of it.* I think more and more that even within a relatively short space of time I can get those opposing takes, depending on just where I am at a given time and where attitudes are. I was under whelmed with both *Quiet Man* and *The Searchers* and I?m sure I was held back by my stupid preconceived notions about Westerns and even John Wayne who I never liked much (although that?s changing a bit now). Even something as simple and variable as what kind of mood I'm in at any given time might effect how ready I am for a particular film. *Anyway, sorry for getting carried away, I never meant to rattle on so much, straying off-topic.* Never apologize (even casually like this) for that, you?re too good of a read. I?m the one who rattles on too long . *CineMaven*: I feel so sorry for Claire inside that coach. I was more affected by the psychological suicide of offering her shoulder to Mrs Malloy. Claire is so beaten down at that point in the story, a scarlet woman in a coach, surely she must have known she would be refused. Her sigh of disappointment while looking out the window is as much an acknowledgment of forlorn hope as actual rejection.

*Chris:* Thanks. I don't know if your "over thinking" or not...but I hope you keep doing what your doing, it works. *You certainly came with an open mind.* That came with everyone's help. Being open to new things is so much easier when there is a sounding board. The enthusiasm here is so great in general and particularly with Ford, I almost feel I WANT to like it. *I think the part of "Stagecoach" you refer to about the music is when it first sets out?* It's about 35 minutes in. Here is the link. Put the cursor at the six minute mark. As usual it's not so much as I remember it. No 360 camera, for instance. I think I was originally struck by the ebullience of the music in such enclosed setting like that. I still think it was a wonderful decision to do that and a nice effect. I liked it enough to have apparently embellished it a bit on recall. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEMPnfHNLvE&feature=related Jackie: Thanks. Browsing *Stagecoach* looking for that clip makes me want to go back and see that. That has a pretty good look too . Ford has a way of framing a shot that is remarkable, mainly because there doesn't seem to be anything fancy about it. And yet an uncommonly good effect. The youtube version has been colorized for the most part...not good so I won't watch it there. Edited by: laffite on Nov 30, 2010 1:22 PM Edited by: laffite on Nov 30, 2010 1:32 PM

I think it was the *Grimes* guy who said recently on another thread that the forum here can make us do things (watch certain kinds of movies, for instance) that we might not ordinarily do. Very true for me. So here I am watching a movie entitled *Fort Apache* that in earlier days would pass rapidly through my mind as probably some mindless Western with a lot of cowboys and Indians and no doubt boring as all get out (not helped by the fact that John Wayne was in it) and that I hoped the popcorn made endurable (although I preferred JuJubes, my little nickel could a long way with those, it took forever to eat them) and further willing to be endured by the anticipation of some cartoons ahead and maybe the latest installment of Flash Gordon. Back then a Ford was a car and had no other association for me. Now in retrospect I know that I had seen some John Ford but as far as I can remember, not really aware of it at the time. This, despite graduating from the Jujube stage to a slightly higher level consciousness---still pre TCM, mind you---where the viewing of a movie was still a casual thing with no special effort at discerning essential elements but simply grabbing whatever entertainment I could get---it had to be really obvious, heaven forbid that I should have to do any serious thinking---and then moving on to next mindless endeavor, whatever that might have been at the time (I am essentially a dreamer too, *Grimes*, if I may refer to yet another of your recent offerings. I am a notorious eavesdropper and a incorrigible blabber mouth, so I hope you don?t mind ) In other words, TCM, and more specifically this forum, has changed my why, what, and how of movie watching. Voila, the Western, and John Ford, no less. I have seen *Stagecoach* within recent memory and there is the obvious things that jump out in Fort Apache that are similar to SC, so obvious in fact that probably not worth mentioning, except that they work so well. The use of the camera seems to me to be so simple at times but has great effect. I think the key for me with these particular shots is that the camera keeps it?s distance and presents a certain tableau, an almost iconic look at what things really looked like back then, an authenticity. I could take any number of screen shots, print them out, make a little book out of it, then show it to somebody and say, ?Here, this is the way it was.? That shabby little fort, this column of soldiers riding off to war, that stagecoach streaking across the desert plain, those riders in the distance, and to get specific, that wonderful shot of Cochise? (Geronimo?) throwing down the gauntlet in the desert wind. To say that there may be a documentary element to these shots might suggest a stultifying effect since, after all, there is a story going on. But not so. Orson Welles either wrote or said in an interview how he studied *Stagecoach* for composition and perspective, so I?m sure there is a lot more than this going on with this camera business (in both movies). Some of the music is interesting. Sometimes it doesn?t necessarily fit with what?s going on, an odd incongruity. It seems to be OK though. I'll watch again and notice the music better in FT, but I recall moment in SC when the camera is inside the moving coach and passing methodically from one countenance to another, close-ups, and all the time this blustery orchestral music is raging away. You would think that music like this would be reserved for some wild, action sequence. The effect of the music inside the coach seems peculiar but it somehow works. The ?kid? Wayne looks at Trevor and she looks back, the camera does a 360, nobody is talking but merely sitting there in silence, eyes flickering here and there looking bored (like people on a bus) while being jostled around by the terrain. And yet this music. Amazing. And the singing of soldiers on horseback going to war. Back in my pre-TCM days (going as far back as the Jujubee Era) I used to laugh at things like this. (I haven?t seen SWAYR yet but I know what?s coming ). I noticed that the boys were singing even when they were riding out for this ill-conceived mission, which seemed interesting. And that beautiful Irish song and so well done. The Irish get a lot of play in FT. There is ample humor in FT and I nearly found myself getting fidgety during that fairly long recruit sequence where the guys were getting on the horses and then falling off, etc., etc. Now the next time I see that I might laugh but during this first viewing I was so interested in Thursday and the Thursday-Roarke connection that I wanted to get on with it. I'll use a separate post for them and some of the others, How about that Shirley Temple :x , cute. I want to have a look at some of what the you all have said so far and offer a few comments of my own. Earlier today I watched FT on Netflix streaming and I am thinking of ordering the CD to be sent anyway. The screen was ultra small on the stream and as anyone who has used NetF Instant Play knows, it is cumbersome and time consuming to navigate. The stream rebuffs every time you move the cursor to a new location. I?m hoping for a bigger screen and I?ll be glad to click around to my favorite points of the show. I want to go back and hear Thursday say, ?Pour me some scripture.? Ps For those of you out there who are religiously inclined (I know of a couple of you but I won?t name names ), can you approve of scripture in that form? If so, I may convert.

*Jackie:* You know your Ford. Thank you for those remarks about his stance regarding the military and the individual?and the fact that viewing FP does not commit to a miniseries as it were. *lzcutter*: *Bite the Bullet* is within reach of my eager hands and ready to put in the player. I want to see Candace again. I hope she smiles a little in this one. I bet she does. *Goddess* and *Ro*: Thanks for pushing me to Ford Country. We greenhorns need a little pushing now and then . I note that FP is streamable on NetF so I will jump into this soon. I am very curious about that Henry in this one. Here I thought he couldn?t play the steely-gazed, don?t-mess-with-me Wyatt and now I'm finding out that ? but I?ll wait and see for myself. *Oliie*: You mean Ford made movies that weren?t Westerns? I?m glad for your recommendations. I wrote them down. *Maven:* Not to get gushy but I?ve wanted to say this?and since you lauded *Goddess* for her excellence, I _will_ say it, i.e., how much I admire that post you did on *Vengeance Valley* (Nov 2). Not a ramble, nor a review, a preview really, and you covered it all with such eloquence, economy, precision, and pizzazz (if you will) while putting it all together so beautifully with that paragraph about the ?metaphorical? valley. I thought it splendid.

>Oh, but there are so many, many, many things I love about "My Darling Clementine"...I can get quite tiresome to discuss it. I think it's a cowboy tone poem. An old west song. It moves like music, it's so lyrical I forget this is actually a treatment of the "OK Corral" legend. I love that Ford throws away literal sticking to facts and gives us a work of art instead. If you can forget about history, and bask in the authenticity of the characters...and the texture of old west life that is completely believable yet touchingly idealized...you can get lost in a masterpiece.. Okay, not to overdo it?but this quote needs an encore. It?s a dazzling passage and it shows just how good one can get (in your case, *MissG*, how one can be even better still) when writing about a movie (or anything) that one loves. But it also reminded me of something. Read this, *MissG* *?I cannot define poetry in any of its forms, it's just a feeling, a certain almost lyrical way in which the movie is paced and presented. It has such a personal rhythm and cadence that reminds me of poetry. Scenes travel into one another in a way that is utterly unique (I'm not referring to the editing, I'm referring to whatever it is the mind of the man who made the movie that influenced the decisions regarding how to film and place each scene in relation to the others)"* You should recognize this passage, *MIssG*, because YOU wrote it (about two years ago) and, yes, you were talking about MDC. I copied and saved it at that time because I was immersed in a different movie---no obsessed with, shall we say---that your words seem to describe so well. I watched this movie about seven times in 10 days (as I recall) and I didn?t mind watching the same story over and over because it was just so flawlessly done. The scene transitions were so clever and natural, following seamlessly from one to another, that there was that rhythm and music you describe. You say it much better. And you make a wonderful point about the editing---it?s not that, rather someone?s (in the case Director Charles Sturridge I assume) conception and execution, like a composer creating a piece of music. It?s *Where Angels Fear To Tread*, a Brit period piece from ?89, one of my favorite movies. You, *MissG,* might watch this and feel that your words above do not apply, but those words meant a lot to me because I can relate to them so well with a specific movie that captures me. All of this to say that I?m looking forward to MDC again. It?s on my short list along with *Fort Apache.* I have skillfully avoided some of the recent comments about it although I couldn?t help notice a comment or two about what a bad guy Henry Fonda is. Really? Now I can?t wait I want to comment a bit about all those fine recommendations but I have no time now. Le Pirate doit aller a son travaille,

*MissG*, please recommend some Ford. Even I'm aware of some of the titles but point me in the right direction. I've seen *My Darling Clementine*, but to my chagrin, I cannot remember the actual gunfight. I recall being put off a little by the alterations to what is commonly accepted as truth of the legend but I know that I must get by that and accept the story, as is, in order to see the movie on its own merits. What I remember most is Henry Fonda and his Wyatt. I wouldn't have cast him in that role but I remember liking him very much. Henry's voice can be boyish and whiny sounding at times and I wasn't sure he could be a "tough guy." But the early scene with Doc Holiday (Victor Mature) showed me a lot. Victor's entrance was a bombshell for me, so powerful. He commanded the screen and I would have expected Vic to dominate poor Henry in that encounter at the bar. But no. Henry stood up to him and was convincing doing it. This may sound ridiculous but I was proud of Henry. I thought, wow, way to go, you did it! Henry is a great actor and I don't condescend, it's just that I thought that his wasn't his type of role. But it is. I should put *Clementine* on my list. *Arkadin:* *The Lonely Man* is a classy little film. Palance is such a rough looking dude and it's interesting to see him in a nurturing role. And that soft voice of his fit right in. Perkins has a lot of poise and was superb.

In recent days, two more Westerns, *The Lonely Man* and *The Stalking Moon*. I enjoyed both films but they have a dubious similarity, in fact, a very common one, I'm afraid. They both end with a showdown, a shootout, and I am coming to believe that there is a caveat emptor, so to speak, with Westerns (and probably all genre films) that entail the acceptance of conventions and realizing that they (the endings, in this case) may not hold with a general verisimilitude with life as we know it. Suspension of disbelief is necessary but, unfortunately, not without a grimace or two. In films like this I hope to learn not to rely on good endings (or ending that I would approve) but be happy at least with all that went before it, if it so merits. This was the case with both films. There is a lot of verbiage here (too much, I know) but I have tried to hold spoilers to a minumum. Just the broad outlines to make certain points. But... *SPOIL ALERT* anyway, just to be safe. In *The Lonely Man*, Jack Palance plays a gunfighter who has called it quits and returns home to his grown son (played by Anthony Perkins). The son hates his father and tells him so without mincing words. Now, JackP has the look of a man who might take offense easily but I was interested to see that he takes it quite calmly that causes me to think, ?What?s up?? It turns out that JP is on a mission, not that kind that is often the case---revenge, for instance---but something near quite the opposite. The story proceeds slowly but generated interest for me by the sudden revelations throughout the story of what has gone on in the past. It reminded me of how stage plays work. We see people acting and talking in real time and we are of course seeing the action unfold but the real emphasis and life blood of the story is what we learn about what has already transpired---back stories of the characters, for instance---and how it affects present behavior. Sometimes this results in more talking and less action (gunfights, etc) and how that comes across will depend on taste. But this is how I experienced this film and it sure worked for me. If you like horses, you?ll love the mustang sequences. No need of the past there, these were just beautiful shots. *Spoiler* *The Stalking Moon* opens with a well-done scene where a group of Apaches are captured by the US Cavalry. Among them is a white woman (played by Eva Marie Saint) who had been captured by and for the last 10 years lived with the Apache tribe. She has a son looking to be about that age. This was not a conquer and destroy type mission, it seems (if memory serves) that the Indians were treated with some respect and a proper disposition was being made for them. The woman makes an appeal to a man (Gregory Peck) who is just finishing service and making plans to return home in retirement. She needs to be somewhere and she wants him to take her there. He refuses but accompanies her to the stage depot where arrangement are made for passage to a destination that she knows nothing about. It?s sad and there is a scene that tugs a little at the heart, showing the woman and child sitting on a bench waiting, a feeling of hopeless was there that I could feel. So could Gregory, he finally approaches her and talks with her ? Eva Marie Saint does well and is well directed. There is practically nothing left of whatever she must have been like. She is taut, expressionless, and a living picture of what the last ten years must have been like. She comes across, realistically I think, as an actual Indian squaw (or at least how they tend to be represented on screen). Her use of language is impaired, compared to what it might have been before her capture. Gregory, of course, is brilliant and carries the movie. But Eva did her part and an unusual relationship ensues between the two. I was more interested in them than in other aspects of the story and I would have liked to see a little more made of them. There is a brief role, a "breed" (half-breed) who is fluent in English and Apache, with a passion for poker, and who gives the kid a lesson in a game of stud, stuffing a cigar in his mouth to boot. Amusing. The main conflict is the existence of a sort of Super Apache, who, acting alone, is so formidable that he can apparently destroy whole villages and train depots, killing any and all humans in the environs. We see little of him but we get ample testimony from those who still breathe and can still talk. Oh, and there?s a connection between him and Eva. I wouldn?t have thought that a cumbersome white guy, even the great Gregory, would be any match for such a redoubtable foe, but? Both of these movies are good viewing?and don?t worry about what I said about the endings. I?m finicky as all get out. Of this recent spate of Westerns, I think the best ending for me is *The Bravados*. The action, the gunfights, etc., took place earlier in the film and the ending had more to do with character, right and wrong, and was very pensive. *Ride the High Country* was much like that too, but made a lesser impression on me. On the surface, the ending of *The Hunting Party* seems really far fetched, but I liked it because an insight to one of the main characters is illuminated, less on what he wanted to do (we know that from the beginning), but how he wants to do it and what he is willing to pay to accomplish that. A good example, to me anyway, of how an ending might seem implausible but nevertheless play well on screen.

>mon cher pirate, have you ever seen Randolph as the bad dude in THE SPOILERS? He's not really altogether bad, just rascally like in RTHC. It might give you a feel for him in this kind of part because he plays it rather the same way...smiling, friendly, flirtatious with marlene and all the while he has his eye on the main chance Ah mon dieu, c'est peut-etre la probleme pour moi... I haven't see a lot of RS. But, honestly, I thought there was more than "rascally" here. Maybe I took it too seriously. I'm still blaming RS for not making that clear to me . Randolph has presence, no doubt, and I hope that one day I'll be able to appreciate him more as an actor. I don't want to trash him to extravagantly since he is so well liked in these here parts, I don't want to get strung up. Remember, I'm still a tin horn in this, the Territory of the Western Ramblers (hey, that would make a good movie title). *Fred* That didn't occur to me at all. I'll leave it those who know Hollywood better as to whether a movie of this era would want to play around with even the slightest innuendo of such a thing. My thought is probably not...but who knows, some movie makers might get frisky with things like this. They are masters at implication and maybe they wanted us to have an unpleasant vibe or two about it. Edited by: laffite on Nov 21, 2010 12:40 PM

>I've read that the roles were reversed when they started shooting, but that both leads thought that they would be better off switching. I wonder why? Anyway, that's very interesting. At least, the way it is now, it is easier to believe that the RS character will do "the right thing" at the end. SPOILER This is probably just quibbling but I had a problem with RS when he had those occasional asides with his partner, about what they were planning. In his scenes with his long time friend he came across so totally good natured and honest that it seemed hard to believe that he actually had something up his sleeve. The moments when he and his partner were alone, the tone changed and he seemed like a completely different person. So resolute, so determined, intimating even that he will kill his friend if necessary, "...if I have to," I think he said. I DO understand, this is the dark side coming out and he's supposed to sound different...but I don't know that RS integrated the two sides of his character into an understandable whole (for me.) (Would JM have been more convincing to me?) And the effect that those displays of camaraderie and friendship during the bulk of the movie were undermined by the awareness I had that RS was prepared to commit a dastardly deed against his friend in order to get what he wants. I am probably losing my way a little with all this, nitpicking too much. None of this really ruined the movie for me. Nevertheless, It would have been interesting to see what reversed roles would look like, but...it's all speculation, just another thing in life we'll never know. Edited by: laffite on Nov 21, 2010 1:57 AM

Thank you, *Jackie* And you too *MissG* who writes: >...you sure are making Grimes a happy camper... Think so! Hmm, I dunno, that *Grimes* has a pretty good lock on this film and may be hard to please. Speaking of hard to please, here is one-half of a pair: Chilling... // Edited by: laffite on Nov 21, 2010 2:03 AM

Please endure a few comments (I don't mean to hijack the thread, honest, but I appreciate your indulgence with this...don't worry, all this blabbering can't last ) about another recent viewing, one that most of you have already seen I?m sure, namely, *Ride the High Country*, ( *Minor spoilers* only, I think) about two aging fellas who also happen at be old friends (played by Randolph Scott and Joel McCrea) who are in need of money and who embark on a joint venture to get some. It?s an honest venture (not a robbery, for instance) but a possible subterfuge by one of these two guys (which we learn of early) provide the central conflict. The movie is likable for the most part, especially at the outset, helped by the barbs of the two principals about their advancing age as well as an amusing instance where one of them has to excuse himself because he doesn?t want to reveal that he is in need of spectacles. There is a subplot that actually dominates the middle of the movie about a young man (Ron Starr) who is interested in a young woman (Mariette Hartley). Soon they have the love-hate thing going and so we know that they really like each other in spite of an indication or two to the contrary. Mariette has a certain boyish charm that doesn?t take anything away from her femininity. It?s all there. There is still another (I say ?still? because there seems to be a lot of abuse towards women in these gosh darn Westerns) where she is, uh, harassed (to put it nicely) that I thought disturbing. I have to admit that graphic scenes showing violence against women seem to really bother me of late (Oh, Laffite, how noble you are! Such chivalry?right. ) The scene is so bad that I had to suspend disbelief for an instant, telling myself that all of this was shown from HER point of view, so that perhaps dictated the severity of the treatment. There?s a truth to that but as usual I?m probably kidding myself. It was not pleasant. (Oh, Laffite, get a life!) And even I, the notorious un-Western watcher, knows I am seeing a legend when the ubiquitous and reliable Edgar Buchanan makes an appearance on screen. He doesn?t do much but what he does is amazing. Does anyone remember that speech he gives about marriage? He performs a marriage ceremony (while drunk, BTW, he?s actually drunk the whole time on screen) and manages to utter a few sage words to the principals (who, of course, are paying no attention.) It was great as well as unexpected (and seemly out of place, considering the milieu) coming from someone who might have simply and perfunctorily performed the ceremony and repaired quietly to his little space for another drink. Later he is threatened by one of the old guys if he doesn?t do what he?s told and all he does is assent with eyes half closed with a terrible hangover which doesn?t sound like much at all but there is such a naturalness and realness to his every move. A lesser actor might have hammed it up but Edgar has embedded within him that professionalism that allows him to be appropriately restrained and utterly convincing. I enjoyed the show but wonder?would this movie had been better had Joel and Randolph switched roles? To elaborate on that would require telling more than I wish to?but I think it might have been better. ...

*Ollie:* The "vague memory" quote is accurate, especially at the beginning and quite a ways into the film. But gradually there is some likability for at least a couple of these characters...maybe. *Jackie:* Seeing OliverR in a Western, exactly! I was very curious. If you feel that way you might try this. He's the best part of the film. *lzcutter:* Thanks for the recommendation. I put it on my queue. I may have to wait awhile so I can can see Hack and Bergen as different people. After THP, Hack has no way to go but up...and it might be nice to see CB as someone who is not being constantly harrassed (to put it kindly). Maybe she even smiles a little. *Goddess:* I almost didn't make it through. Despite Candace being there, it was Oliver Reed that made me hang on to the movie. I turned down the sound and looked away at some of the bodice-ripping scenes. Come on. Laffite, it's only a movie...still.

Oh shucks, hope nobody minds of post this. I watched this a week ago and had no thought of positing anything about it at all. But sometimes I get a delayed reaction and I have a job where I can do a lot of sitting around and thinking, thus, the following. Since there is not a particular film that is heavily under discussion at present, maybe it will be okay to throw it out there. I'm not suggesting a discussion but a comment or two might be fun if anyone has seen it. It is not from the classic era so maybe I'm already in trouble but... ...rather, it's from the "New World", the post-Code, Movie Rating System era and I have to say that I was somewhat disillusioned, at least as far as Westerns are concerned. Like the rest of you, I?ve been around a little, so I shouldn?t be shocked?but I think that because I have seen so few Westerns in recent years (well, more than just recent) I wasn?t really expecting to see what I saw. Rapes, attempted rapes, debauchery, cruelty, and a kind of cold-blooded killing that might even make John Wayne and Randalph Scott blanch. All of this in a Western? And the killing. More people die in this movie than I care to number?and in horrific ways. In the old-fashioned traditional Western the good guys shot and killed bad guys but it was no big deal. When Lee Van Cleef was shot dead he at least he fell over and died like a gentleman. Here, there is some preliminary writhing about followed by protracted body spasms?oh, and of course, blood galore, spurting from wounds, all over someone?s face, sopped in clothing, everywhere. The movie is *The Hunting Party* (1974) and there SPOILERS AHEAD. A presumptive schoolmarm (Candace Bergen) is kidnapped by a band of outlaws because the leader (Oliver Reed) wants to learn to read (yep, you read that right). Only she ain?t the marm, she?s the wife of a rich and powerful business tycoon-type (Gene Hackman), who thereby vows revenge. Hackman (as his name indicates, ha) is not a Jim Douglas-Gregory Peck type revenge ****. Douglas-Peck eventually reveals himself to be a man with normal values and, in the end, endowed with an extraordinarily and rigorously honest constitution when it comes to scruples, while the Hack Man is more like a psychopath. He is a holder of a number of cutting edge rifles that can hit a target at 800 yards instead of usual measly 300 yards. He means to profit from this advantage by lining up his ducks (Reed?s gang) and pick them off unseen---and from a distance. Gene Hackman?s character is one of the most unpleasant individuals that I have ever seen in a movie. He manages to alienate everyone who claimed to be his friend and goes to quite a length to achieve his object, the hard way, because he is lunatic enough to want to do his way. I like Candace Bergen in this although she doesn?t exactly impress as a stellar actress. She doesn?t so much act as re-act what with all the attempts on her person. But when she in not being attacked in some way, she is subdued and I think kind of real. To her credit, she doesn?t overact. Seriously, the movie is unpleasant and I almost gave up on it. The only reason I got his movie was to see Oliver Reed on a horse. My curiosity seems to be getting to me lately. Now that I have satisfied myself (sort of) with seeing Myrna Loy on a horse (see *Rogue of the Rio Grande* (1931) where she plays Carmita ) I wanted to see Oliver Reed with a 10-gallon hat, i.e., in a Western, quite an anomaly for him. There is only one scene in the movie that I can recall right now that is even remotely pleasant and that?s the peach scene. There is some lightheartedness there and the scene constitutes a progression of the wearing down of Bergen?s obstinacy and consequently advancing the quirky rapprochement of Reed and Bergen, which began, by the way, by a rape (although it can be argued, as I would, that there was enough eventual acquiesce on her part to call it something a little less dire---maybe.) I won?t say too much about the ending, except that it was not what I expected. It looked like a traditional showdown was in the works?Anyway when it was over, I was a little pensive and seemed to have a sort of respect for the show although I can't really say I liked it that much. I navigated back and watched the peach scene a couple of times. Candace is (no surprise) very pretty in this movie and it is practically the only time she smiled. Who can blame her. Anyway, ho-hum, I think I'll regress a little and go back to JW and RS, and maybe even a bit of Rory Calhoun, who knows? (And a few less body spasms too, I hope)

>...brought up Widmark in regards to "WARLOCK." It is one of my favorite westerns... Hmmm, wonder what Western I'll watch next...oh well, I'll come up with something...hmmm

Well, Gosh, *MissG*, I think you are quite magnifique to say something like that right out of the blue, especially since I consider myself impoverished in my movie watching compared with the rest of you...Vous etes tres gentille, merci SS can be very funny, I agree. I laugh out loud when Kitty kicks off her shoes and hurls her cigarette butt in the bathroom yelling at CC to "PAINT?" I didn't laugh out loud at the image of CC in that apron washing the dishes but it is humorous nonetheless and maybe, paradoxically, in a sad way. Poor Chris! As a pair, Kitty and Johnny should be inducted into the Noir Hall of Fame for their scenes together. They are almost to good to be true. The way Kitty says, "Johnny," drives me nuts (even her roommate says it that way) but it is fitting somehow. EGR is phenomenal in this. He is the tough guy in so many roles and yet he comes through in a role like this. It's almost incongruous to cast an actor with such rough facial features (I was going to write "grisly") for such a (basically) sweet guy. But he is marvelous. Despite the appeal of those two Hall of Fame schemers, I think of EGR as the main strength of the movie (a debatable point though). The two final scenes have elements that are nothing less than exquisite...from a noir point of view, naturally.

>This film may be closer to the truth then many of its fans { I'm one of them } realize. Wellman gave us a wonderful film, that was rare of its depiction of women for that time. He gave them character and made you care for them in a way that was rare for a western in the 1950's. That's such a good point since Westerns are generally about men. This movie probably holds the record for most women in a Western. So many Westerns have few if any and it seems to me that many of those have just one woman and sometimes have to struggle to work them into a meaningful part of the story.