laffite

Ruth Chatterton as Fran Dodsworth. No doubt there were actresses who would have been able to do a creditable job (there's always someone out there) but I wouldn't be interested. Ruth was brilliant in this, she had the magic for this role.

The fewer of these SOB moments, the better...generally. But it does depend on the movie. The lack of foreshadowing of an important event (already mentioned) is the worst kind. It can kill a film. Yet with a James Bond movie (already mentioned) the suspension of belief is not only tolerable but necessary. James is a sort of modern, Romantic hero who can just about do anything and those fantastical events that occur are a part of the scheme and enjoyment. And there are films where these moments occur but can be tolerated because other aspects of the movie have appeal. Like a stunning performance or other factors. But overall, I like movies that maintain a certain integrity to verisimilitude. BBC television dramas tend to do that although they are not to everyone's taste. I think genre pieces in old Hollywood, e.g., Westerns and noirs, are full of these moments but they are relatively tolerable, for me anyway, because it seems ridiculous to trash the whole movie (always depending, of course) for a few bad scenes, especially if these scenes are part of the convention of that particular genre. It would be interesting to think of specific movies that apply to these cases. Generally, I do believe it depends on the film, some instances will play tolerably well in this movie but will be totally exasperating in that one. Edited by: laffite on Nov 10, 2010 10:26 PM

I was disappointed to see that Netflix doesn't have this film. TCM's schedule for this month doesn't show it. I was hoping this was why you brought it up. Has it been shown on TCM before? I guess I'll just have to wait for it. Thanks.

Thanks, Jackie, you sent me scrambling to the schedule. I now have Marie scheduled for DVR treatment. And the other silents as well. Lovely pics of Marie. I especially love the second one. Oh those eyes.

Since I?ve been frequenting the campfire talks in these parts of late, my 10-gallon hat nearly fell off when I noticed this little piece on NetF. My curiosity got plumb out of control because of the possibility of not only seeing magnificent Myrna in a Western but the added phenomena of actually seeing her on a horse. You MyrnaPhiles out there can probably come up with an instance or two?but I can?t?and furthermore I had trouble conjuring up a picture of that?imagine, Myrna on a horse. She plays Carmelita, a senorita who sings in a cantina. One day in walks El Malo, a bandido with a price on his head. But he has a touch of the caballero about him. When he espies Carmelita he is at once smitten. As you can see, he likes her very much. Problem is, he has just been trying to get rid of another senorita by telling her that being a bandido and women ?don?t mix.? So much for that. El Malo has a sidekick who throughout this 59-minute movie (made in 1930) gets guns and watches stolen by still another senorita so that we are constantly reminded of this credo of the bandidos. We see she might be heading for trouble. She sings a little song for him. Will she be the woman who?ll bring him down? She does, in fact, seem to like him a bit. El Malo sends a suitor to Carmelita packing and dances a Tango Argentine with her. He tells her he wants to live with her in the casa she tells him about. They have a conversation where she speaks in a sort of broken English with the idea of sounding like a real senorita, which is dreadful but she sounds so cute you don?t care. She doesn?t know he?s the infamous El Malo, BTW. She does a little cantina dance for him and we can see where things are headed. But what will she do when she finds out who he is? *SPOILER* In a dull subplot El Malo does something good by trapping another bandit (not a bandido ) and so he has the look of the hero. The previous day he had told the sheriff that he would bring El Malo to the town (they don?t recognize him) and when he does so it?s a big joke because after revealing his identity he says, ?But I didn?t say I would stay, hahahahaha,? whereupon Carmelita, appalled, tells him that she cannot live with a bandido, sorry about that. El Malo is crushed and begs Carmelita to change her mind. Letting his guard down, it then so happens that?Oh heck, you don?t want to hear the end but I?ll give you a hint you don?t need. She, of course, changes her mind and there is sort ?happily ever after? conclusion and everybody is happy (except the sheriff). I had originally thought (when ordering) that this movie was made in 1936 which would have been curious since by that time she was Nora and probably wouldn?t need to make some generic western. But it was readily apparent that it was an early talky, not only by her facial appearance, but by the grainy images and the draggy, halting dialogue. No matter, it is great fun. Oh, so did I see my Myrna on a horse? Well, sort of? She is _supposed_ to be on a horse with her bandido (if you look closely you can see him in the darkness), meaning she is side saddle perhaps. But it could be that she could simply be standing on something so as to only appear to be on a horse. Did she tell the director, ?I?m not sitting on no stinking horse.? I hate to admit this but she might even be _meant to be standing_ there next to the horse and that would mean that I have still not seen Myrna on a horse (sigh). In any case, if you're ever riding the Rio Grande and espy a bandido on a white horse with cantina senorita riding side saddle, you might very well know who they are.

The Purple Rose of Cairo nw: upstage

The Odd Couple nw: dilettante

Do I dare admit this? I have never seen The Third Man . Do I dare show my face? Should I walk the plank? Do I dare eat a peach? Am I but a "pair of ragged claws, scuttling the floors of silent seas."? (Thank you, T.S. Eliot) Or maybe I should re-invent myself and simply watch the film. Great idea, Laffite.

>Hey, I watched a Western. So did I?and so I have been?of late. Not the norm for me. But since frequenting the campfire chats around here I have indulged. Just finished *Jake Wade and the Law* with Robert Taylor and Richard Widmark (and a host of the usual bad guys) and so far this has been the least satisfying to date. The premise is strange and I have problems with?but never mind for now. But, uh, has anyone out there seen that one? I liked *Vengeance Valley*, *The Bravados*, and *Rio Bravo* much better (the only ones I have seen in the current spree). I hadn?t seen *Rio Bravo* in many years and remembered only Dean Martin stooping to at the spittoon for hooch money. I didn?t even realize that this was the opening scene. The film has staying power. Since viewing it I have had thoughts coursing through (what?s left of) my brain and am thinking of doing a little ramble on it (if there is a concerted hue and cry opposing this, I understand. I will desist because I am a confirmed coward ). Not that anything more needs to be said. I imagine that Rio has been analyzed, re-analyzed, further rehashed, dissected, and otherwise talked to death here and everywhere for ages?but I would not claim to shed any further light on it?it would simply be a personal reaction (Is that what a ramble is?) that has crystallized almost after the fact. I have enjoyed mulling it over almost as much as the actual viewing. It is not a flawless film by any means but it is a big, fat, blustery show and seems to have a little of everything. I am not a John Wayne fan but the door to a new view on this is ajar?and that?s the least of what I like about this film. Edited by: laffite on Nov 6, 2010 2:12 PM

>When a man in a grey flannel suit meets you on the beach at say...twelve o'clock high, you might be spellbound by the sight of him. I don't think you want to risk a duel in the sun with him when he is on a Roman holiday of revenge. Take the omen. Just turn around, you can pirouette or arabesque...pack up your guns of Navarone because only the valiant..actually no one is safe from this beloved infidel. Not even a mockingbird. Whew, you tied all that together rather well. I am practically spellbound. EDIT: Oops, you beat me to it (i.e., spellbound). You're just to good Mave >"I'm going to find them if it's the last thing I do." I winced a little at that. But he still said it well. >And this is basically a death sentence for these four bandits. Well, three anyway. >What was chilling to me was after shooting down the hostage's horse, he tells the girl he won't make her walk...she can come right up here and sit next to him on his horse. Truly, that made me go "Oh no. Ewww." I think Emma gave out a gasp as well. What was chilling to me, in retrospect, was Douglas' assertion that Butler "wouldn't hurt a fly." >Does it matter if you make someone pay for something they didn't do...when you know they did other things equally as egregious? Should he lose sleep for killing men who were about to hang in the morning anyway? It's up to each of us to decide. If you follow the letter of the law you may get one answer and if you follow the spirit of the law...of justice, you may come up with another answer. Yes Jim Douglas will have to live with what he did to men who were innocent of the crime he thought they committed. But wasn't justice served? The law was satisfied and justice served since these men were sentenced to be hanged. But the problem with saying yes to that in Douglas' case is figuring out to what extent it is simply a rationalization (in one's own mind). If I am to understand that Douglas has a conscience, intellectual honesty, and a degree of humanity, all of which had been conspicuously absent up to this point, then I accept and admire his refusal to invoke the palliative of simply saying that Justice had been served. Edited by: laffite on Nov 6, 2010 11:29 AM

*Spoilers for The Bravados* After an intriguingly auspicious beginning the long posse sequence in quest of the bad guys made it look more and more like a run-of-the-mill, ho-hum revenge story, one among many. But before it was over it had turned into something else. A story with some good turns and a twisty ending. Van Cleeve was so convincing begging for his life that I believed him. Little did I know that I had stumbled upon something. The other outlaw who had a chance to speak for himself was convincing as well. But I must have dismissed it because I was genuinely surprised at the end. Some of the elements of the story really stick. When I think of this movie later on I will recall not only the major error that is made but by also the stunning misjudgment of neighbor Butler. And the cabin scene with the girl is much more disturbing that I may have wanted in a movie like this. Very gritty, and made more so by Josefa?s change of tune when she enters the cabin, ?kill them, kill them,? she howls after seeing what we, the audience, were now shown. A reminder that seemingly justifiable hatred is not so easily quashed, even among those who preach otherwise. Even the revelation early on that Mr Sims was not what he seemed stirred me a bit, a nice little shot in the arm for the story. The four outlaws look like a selection from the Outlaw Hall of Fame, so familiar they seem. And they were all excellent. Revenge and its pitfalls, the joy of family, the necessity for religion. The religious aspect was pretty strong but not overdone. I don?t see Douglas riding off in the sunset living happily ever after. I think Jim Douglas will grapple with this for a long time?with the help of God, of course. I am not at all religious so it seems awkward to write that but I think this is what the movie wants to tell us. There are some unrealistic aspects to the story but they don?t bother me that much. Gregory Peck is outstanding, perfection even. The locations and photography are an added bonus?and how about that church! Quite an edifice for a small town and what a choir. God is alive and well in Los Arribas.

The Collector apples and oranges (fig.)

"Yes, you look a little like Igor Stravinsky...but I wouldn't get carried away with it."

For those who have Netflix, I see that The Bravados is available on INSTANT PLAY.

*Jackie*, I also thought of young love a la Shakespeare, or at least any classic/old story about a love that just isn?t going to work. The marriage maker serves as Chorus in the Classical scheme, revealing truth. He tells Bowie, ?I can?t sell you any hope where there ain?t any.? All Keechie needed to do was to commit suicide and we would have had the Classic ending, ha. But, not to make light of the story?it was sad, and in a lingering way because we know from early on that it won?t end well (just as in Classical Tragedy). The dysfunctional families of Bowie and Keechie play such a role in their story. Families are a big part on the Romeo and Juliet story too, but in a different way. I liked Helen Craig a lot. Such sharp facial features and expression. The looks she gives when her husband leaves after release were rending. Did he slink away without so much as a glance because he disapproved of the way she obtained his release---ratting out. Or because he does not and never has really loved her, I think more the latter. The Mattie-Bowie scene when the note to Keechie is written shows Mattie with a mixture of envy, resentment, and guilt. *Frank*, your comments on this scene are persuasive. I believe you emphasized the envy aspect. Overall, Helen was very effective in this role, early on as well, the desperation, ?Remember, I get first money.? She has marvelous eyes. I had never seen Cathy O?Donnell before. She seemed so drab at first but then transforms into such a pretty little thing. She gives Keechie a sweetness that belies the notion of such a dysfunctional upbringing. Farley Granger is good too. I didn?t blanch when he uttered the line about how nice it would be in a movie theater and hold a girl?s hand. It so tells where he (and she too with her past) come from. The movie?s treatment of the story quashes any notion that it?s not realistic for two like this to be so na?ve or have longings such as this. It might generally be unlikely that it could be so but the two portrayals and the movie as a whole render it believable here. *Jackie*, your caps and discussion of such things as, cars, windows, symbolism, etc., are brilliant. I?m not thinking along those line at all when I?m watching . I?ll have to notice these sort of things better so that I can at least experience recognition when I read your posts. You have a real Jeweler?s Eye when it comes to this.

*Owen?s stalwart, honest, quick to fight for the justice of things. Yeah, you can tell he loves his brother?s wife. But you also know he won?t do anything about it.* That's a good summing up, that last sentence. Yes, he's good, maybe a little too good and most best expressed in his ardent devotion and undying gratitude to Arch. The sense of loyalty extends to his protection of Lee that results in this myopia that he and Arch both have towards Lee. And there might be a little naivete as well. Owen might have seen what was up after learning that the two menacing brothers were on the roundup and that Lee knew about that. He readily accepts Lee?s reversal on the Allard deal and believes the wholly improbable story that Lee will ride off and (as co-owner, no less) leave the ranch for Owen. He doesn?t suspect that there might be something dangerous in that ride to the telegraph station. I kept thinking he would wise up before they reached the boulder. *I found Walker good in the part of Lee Strobie,* So did I. He was especially good at the outset. He has that boyish almost callow mien that fits with the initial perception of Lee as being basically a good kid who needs a little bailing out once in a while. Walker makes the adjustments as Lee becomes more and more treacherous as the story progresses. Walker seems to have an easy versatility. Remember that charming young man in The Clock (and he actually played Johannes Brahms once) *Lee has fathered a child with pretty (Ida Lupino protegee) SALLY FORREST as Lily. She was interesting because of her approach to being an unwed mother. There was no moralizing or shame attached to this. Pretty progressive thinking. It was refreshing to see and rather startling for 1951 and whatever nineteenth century year that portrayed..* Good point. *Now what they?re trying to do is honorable ( finding the man responsible). It doesn?t seem to dawn on them that Sis is just plain fine the way tings are now. She?s prepared to raise her child as a single parent. The bro-thers? motive seems to have morphed into a vendetta against the priviledged brothers.* Quite right, not an ounce of consideration for ?sis.? It seemed to me a family pride thing with them. Ireland?s character declares to sis that the family has known strife but the one thing they have is the ?blood tie.? Hence, they were being ?honorable? in that sense, perhaps. But with these types it might have generalized quickly into a hatred for its own sake for the other brothers. *JAONNE DRU plays Walker?s character?s knowing wife Jen.. Jen realizes she?s made a marital mistake marrying Lee...* I loved her in that dress :x I was surprised right away that Jen and Lee were married. I had to rewind the DVR to make sure I had that right. Even before we know the true Lee, the two just didn?t seem right. Jen's "realization" may have come sooner than we think. *So we've got all these forces about to converge in the metaphoric valley of vengeance. Straight-shooter Owen, sly Lee, my favorite bad guy Ted DeCorsia thrown into the mix (nice fight scene here too), two ornery scoundrels and a real woman waiting back at the ranch for the victor.* Great! *Sadly...not an Anne Francis in sight. < Sigh! > :-(* That's why I watched the film, to see Anne (sigh). But it's okay, I got to see Joanne instead :x

*misswonderly* : The Fourth was my entry-level piece for Mahler as well. As you say, it is relatively accessible and probably the best recommendation for anyone starting out. My favorite is Szell/Cleveland with Judith Raskin, soprano. The tempo is a bit slower than the clip you provided. It seems more beautiful to me that way but it?s the one I grew up with and it has become imprinted as the definitive for me. You are probably aware of the nice double entendre you made with the use of the word ?heavenly? to describe the music because if you know the story (as you imply) then you know that the song in the fourth movement is a child?s vision of Heaven. Maybe that was your meaning. But even if not, the music is ?heavenly? nonetheless, as you also mean to say, I?m sure. *Chris* : The Eighth is so moving, so utterly transporting for me, that I become totally consumed by it. If Mahler ever out did himself, this might be the piece. My favorite is the first Bernstein version. He has the perfect understanding of the music (based on my version of perfect . The opening movement of the Ninth is tough but I finally got it (or getting it, it?s a process) after listening to Benjamin Zander?s discussion of it on CD. His discussion is included with the CDs of his music recording of same. He has also done this with #3, #4, and perhaps others as well. The talks can be quite long (the first movement of the Ninth takes 54 minutes) but they are worth it for anyone really interested. As for Mahler symphonies, I?m very familiar with One, Three, Four, Five, Six, Eight, with Two and Seven as nagging holdouts, although some parts of these last two have hit home. (You must try the Adagio from the Tenth sometime, very beautiful?and eerie in some places.) Edited by: laffite on Nov 1, 2010 12:34 PM

Hi, *Fred*, I watched/listened to them all except the Callas, I have so much of her...but I'll check them out. She was a pupil of Elvira de Hidalgo (I learn). The montage in the Elvira clip showed photos of Maria when she was younger and plumper than we are used to seeing her (I love her that way!). I like the old singers too. They sound so sweet. It was either the way they sung or the way they were recorded but their voices sounded so girlish and cute. Lily Ponds comes across that way too. La Paloma, that great Spanish song. I'm almost ashamed to admit this but I'm not sure I knew the title of that one, but of course, so familiar, the quintessential Spanish tune. I have recordings of Galli-Gurci and Beniamino Gigli, a favorite tenor (Pavarotti idolized him). A very nice little program you put together there for us, Fred, thanks. Hi *Jackie* your remark about Callas is so true. There is a clip on ClassicArtsShowcase (see link below for info on CAS) that turns up periodically. Callas is shown singing an aria (Ouch, can't think of the name right now) in a concert setting where she doesn't come in until about three minutes after the music begins. She doesn't just stand there but experiences the music with her face which, yes, many opera singers can do...but not like this, she is uncommonly real, no putting on, she is experiencing the music on the fly, so to speak, and absolutely convincing. A show of her professionalism and commitment and she's not even singing yet, whew!. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Arts_Showcase Hey, *Maven* , so cool that you were taking in a little Mahler (albiet in the "background" . I'm sorry I missed that and I'm scanning the schedule. PBS sometimes repeats programs. I love Mahler and I used your post as a cue and listened to the entire Seventh---all 79 minutes---on the iPod at work Sunday evening thinking from time to time, hmm, I wonder where the Maven was (in the music) when she wrote that. I'll have to check out that movie. Edited by: laffite on Nov 1, 2010 12:21 AM

Re "Una voce poco fa" Supervia is Superbia, lovely rendition, thanks for that, Fred. I'm sure you and others may recognize this from Citizen Kane, the music lesson scene, "No, no, no, no ...," screams the music teacher at poor Susan Alexander. Mr Kane had something to say about that (as we all well know).

Mon Oncle Playtime Mr Hulot's Holiday Jour de Fete Hi Casablancalover Remember that fine thread on Tati awhile back? You and screennamer CC Baxter (haven't heard from him for awhile) contributed nicely as I recall. I looked it up a couple months ago and found that it had suffered the death imposed by the Moderator's one year rule. No sense in reviving it. Let it die a natural death rather than revive it and have it murdered. At least it can be looked up and linked sometime. EDIT: I looked it up and here it is. http://forums.tcm.com/jive/tcm/thread.jspa?threadID=131982&start=0&tstart=0 One problem though, the thread was in General Discussions where screen caps are no longer visible due to some mishap during an upgrade. The thread is understandably diminished by this but there are still many fine comments there. Edited by: laffite on Oct 31, 2010 2:37 AM

*I think James Best's finest scene comes at the beginning. When he thinks he has Brigade caught in a trap* That was good and I thought he did well throughout. Whit himself may be more clever than given credit for. He was a little sly with Whit in nearly getting the gun from him. Whit's no genius himself but still there was some clever manipulation. And maybe he should get a little credit for showing at least some discretion in not challenging Brigade in that opening scene. Of course fear is mighty motivator but he wasn't stupid enough recklessly challenge. Hmm, I wonder why Frank, Billy, and the gang just didn't gun Brigade down at the beginning prior to Billy catching up with Brigade. It certainly would have been in character. If they can shoot people in the back and hang women, there shouldn't be qualms with dispatching Brigade to the next world from behind some rock. It would have made a short movie, though.

Thank you, pard?, for those mighty kind words. So kind though probably a little too generous. I think those things of you as well but I especially admire your ability to probe the depths. I?m a lightweight by comparison. *I'm rooting for a top five pick and a last-place schedule.* I?m rooting for something I can?t possibly have. The demise of you-know-who. But it won?t happen. All we hear from top banana is, ?Your doin? a heckuva job, Norvie.? *Laffite*: It?s a ?lawless? land where one fends for oneself and is willing to do what he must to get what he wants and in ways that might give pause or even appall in a conventional drama. I was referring to how I see the way things are, the reality of the West, if you will. I don?t mean to imply that anything is permissible to get what one wants. If I came across that way, it was wrong. So much for ?clarity? and ?focus.? *So would this apply to Frank and Billy and the gang? They are in a western and they did what they did ((kill)) to get what they wanted. I believe there is more to it.* It does apply to them?after all, they killed for whatever reasons. But they went about it the wrong way (they murdered) and at least ended up paying for it with their lives. I was mainly referring to Boone and Brigade, each who both straddle the line between good and bad (unlike Frank and Billy), who cross the line (they killed or wanted to kill for personal reasons) and who grapple with their environment (The West) and are forced to make choices that blur the line between acceptable and unacceptable, at least compared to our own standards where what is permissible is more regulated by law. Not that the same moral universe doesn't exist for all, presumably it does. I don?t justify their doings, just making a generalization that in a land with fewer restraints of law, basically decent people can go astray and even be cut some slack for what they do, or at least be understood in some way. Not Frank and Billy in this regard, their crimes would offend anywhere and anytime, Western or no. *So if Boone had shot Brigade on a quick draw, you would have been okay with that? You would have thought, "he had to do it to get what he wanted.?* Yes, I would of thought that, but only from Boone?s point of view. *But, again, Frank and Billy do the same ((klll to get what they want)). I believe motives matter.* You had asked earlier, ??and didn?t Boone want to kill Brigade for Billy?? I didn?t express it well but my point about motives was that if I want to take Boone to task for wanting to kill Brigade then I should consider doing the same with Brigade since he had already killed. Whatever the motive (i.e. it doesn?t matter what it is) killing is still killing and the two of them might therefore be held to the same standard, that is, being held responsible for such an act. Boone and Brigade both took the law into their own hands though their motives differed (I'm referring specifically to Boone's willingness to kill Brigade to get Billy, not his earlier transgression, which we don't know too much about). The point holds when talking of these two, I believe, but with Frank and Billy you certainly have a point so I will waver a bit on that. We don?t know their motives but they were probably lowdown given who they are and the way they went about it. *It's as someone else stated, if Brigade kept Billy, it would have made him less "pure." As it stands, his only driving force was vengeance. If he decided to pocket the money, that would have made his actions less "honorable."* That?s really good. That makes the ending even better. *Oh, and, uh, keep your eyes peeled with the womenfolk out heres. They like to fools ya into thinkin' they're a sweet. * Well, they?re sure doin? a good job. I?m already a fool so why fight it. I think I?ll stay on their good side a spell yet (miserable sycophant that I am ) *Chris*, I agree with Goddess, great post. *Ollie T*, I liked James Best. Very competent. I liked the way he tried to get Mrs Lane to betray Brigade. Nicely done. Good try, Kid.

*Howdy there, Laffite -- It's really nice to see you back on the board. And to see you out west.* Thank ye, pardner. I am much obliged for the fine welcomin? from you and the womenfolk out here. The doagies are maybe headin' out fer good in Rancho Arlington and Rancho Diego after the recent rodeos. Prospects have turned a mite grim of late. *Was he a decent fellow? Was he sympathetic?* Okay, Re Boone, I thought him ?sympathetic? and ?decent? enough so as not to be offended when he gets what he wants. He has been askew of the law, we know that, but Pernell?s portrayal makes Boone likable and even admirable in the vein of that type that is often seen in Westerns. Wyatt Earp comes to mind. We don?t condone some of the bad things he does but we can admire him even extol his virtues in spite of ourselves. Boone comes across that way to me. He is ?cool,? he has the good looks of a Western hero type, he saves Brigade?s life in an admirable (albeit dangerous) manner, he's at least a little endearing when he makes the joke about the?eyes" (a regular guy), he doesn?t try to snow Mrs Lane with ?I love you? but honestly tells her ?if you come live with me I?ll take care of you,? and he reveals an admirable sentiment with regard to Whit. From the movie's point of view, he is obviously meant to be liked and even admired so that the audience will accept his good end. And I fall in line with that. *I enjoyed Boone, too. Although, I was getting tired of all the talk.* That?s one of the things I liked about him. *He gets want he wants. What if he didn't?* I would be interesting to see how they would have handled that, especially the narrative up to that point being what it is. If Boone had not gotten what he wanted and given how Hollywood perceives their audiences Boone would have probably been portrayed as a scoundrel undeserving of amnesty. It would have been a different movie. *And wasn't he going to kill Brigade for Billy?* I?m not particularly offended by that. Not in a Western. It?s a ?lawless? land where one fends for oneself and is willing to do what he must to get what he wants and in ways that might give pause or even appall in a conventional drama. Boone is a genre type and I can accept what comes with that. In order to get amnesty he might have to shoot through somebody. How often have we seen that in the ole West, Hollywood style! And in the end he at least engages Brigade in a fair fight, something that is considered admirable in the Zeitgeist of the West. He won?t shoot Brigade in the back like Billy or Frank would. And are we to admire Brigade any less for wanting to kill Frank? Do motives matter or is killing still killing? Brigade wants revenge and Boone wants freedom. They are both willing to kill to get what they want. What?s a shoot ?em up without that. *It's that it was too easy of a conclusion?.* *...But, we get the quick "pat on the back."* I wonder if the director and screenwriter were winking at each other as if pulling off some practical joke on the audience. Actually, I wouldn?t go that far. It makes sense and for some of us at least it has a payoff of its own. Yes, it _was_ slick, but I thought a little clever too. Botticher (and the rest) knew that Ride Lonesome would not be a Critic?s Choice but rather fodder for the popcorn crowd and they didn?t want to jar sensibilities. Having set up two characters that they hoped would be favored by the audience and developing an adversarial tension along the way, they sought to please everybody with simplicity and yes a little expediency too. Not for everybody though . Too bad they don?t have alternative endings like they do nowadays (obviously there were none, they liked the ending they had.) It would have been interesting but I'm okay with what we got. Brigade got what he wanted---brother Frank---but why not take Billy in and get the money anyway? He could have used the cash. Rather, he makes the gesture...maybe because Boone saved his life, who knows? ... but also because he LIKED Frank (despite their adversarial skirmishing).

The Gods must be Crazy split second

>One more stride down memory lane... I loved that. Thanks.