Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

ROBERT RYAN - The Real Quiet Man


Recommended Posts

Maybe being privy to what happened to him also built up sympathy for him. He was being used from day and we saw it happen,

 

I think you've got it. We see his entire demise.

 

whereas in TNS it's just told to us. In TNS, the woman who Howie lost (or did she betray him?), she's just a plot device or character motivation.

 

His wife betrayed him and he lost his land because of her. This wasn't some obsession of a woman (a married one, at that) who he wished was his. Kemp was married. He was stabbed in the back by his wife. Are you sure you're not Mrs. Kemp? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

> His wife betrayed him and he lost his land because of her. This wasn't some obsession of a woman (a married one, at that) who he wished was his. Kemp was married. He was stabbed in the back by his wife. Are you sure you're not Mrs. Kemp? :P

 

I'm the one who gets stabbed in the back.

 

And I know what happened, but I didn't even see the woman so it's just not the same impact. I empathize with him, but it doesn't live with me the way Vertigo's story does. And I think Vertigo is a masterpiece, The Naked Spur is not a masterpiece to me.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Jul 21, 2010 1:21 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

And I know what happened, but I didn't even see the woman so it's just not the same impact. I empathize with him, but it doesn't live with me the way Vertigo's story does.

 

Yes, I understand that. We see the demise of Scottie but are told of Kemp's demise. We're only seeing the result of the deed. It's the last act of Vertigo.

 

And I think Vertigo is a masterpiece, The Naked Spur is not a masterpiece to me.

 

Oh, no, not this again! I like Vertigo more than The Naked Spur, but I do like the latter, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Oh, no, not this again! I like Vertigo more than The Naked Spur, but I do like the latter, too.

 

Vertigo is perfect to me, and The Naked Spur is very good but not very deep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

> Sacrifice vs. Selfishness, and even how the two can come to cloud the other.

 

That sounds good. Where did the sacrifice come in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds good. Where did the sacrifice come in?

 

Every single one of them sacrifices but for Ben (Robert Ryan). Kemp (James Stewart) served in the war, so he sacrificed while his wife sold him up the river for selfish gain.

 

Roy (Ralph Meeker) served but he was discharged. He's a total confliction and contradiction. He's completely sideways. It's as if he's using the uniform for selfish gain.

 

Lina (Janet Leigh) is constantly lending her hand to the men. I think she just wishes to have a home, a place to be appreciated. You get the feeling she's sacrificing everything just with the hopes of a little. This is something many women fall victim to.

 

The film basically plays as a returning vet (unselfish and sacrificial) has come home to a selfish world. He ends up becoming just as selfish and even more so than the rest.

 

Kemp is very "business-oriented," at the start. The heck with the "workers." He promised them a "wage" and that's it. He gets to pocket the rest. It's not about sharing (unselfish), it's about greed (selfish).

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

> That sounds good. Where did the sacrifice come in?

>

> Every single one of them sacrifices but for Ben (Robert Ryan). Kemp (James Stewart) served in the war, so he sacrificed while his wife sold him up the river for selfish gain.

>

 

Hmmm.

 

> Roy (Ralph Meeker) served but he was discharged. He's a total confliction and contradiction. He's completely sideways. It's as if he's using the uniform for selfish gain.

>

 

You left out a key word. He was dishonorably discharged. I don't see any conflict or contradiction. I remember him as being venal from start to finish. I would have to see it again to be sure if he changed at any point, but I believe he was always only interested in the money and maybe, if he had the chance, getting to Lina like he did that Indian girl he raped. I thought he was as bad if not worse than Ben.

 

> Lina (Janet Leigh) is constantly lending her hand to the men. I think she just wishes to have a home, a place to be appreciated. You get the feeling she's sacrificing everything just with the hopes of a little. This is something many women fall victim to.

>

 

I suppose, though I don't see it so much sacrifice as being loving. She isn't really giving anything up since she has nowhere to go and no one to go to.

 

> The film basically plays as a returning vet (unselfish and sacrificial) has come home to a selfish world. He ends up becoming just as selfish and even more so than the rest.

>

 

Now that is brilliant. I can see that.

 

> Kemp is very "business-oriented," at the start. The heck with the "workers." He promised them a "wage" and that's it. He gets to pocket the rest. It's not about sharing (unselfish), it's about greed (selfish).

 

So his learning what happened to him with his wife turned him from one to the other?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}

> At first thought everyone in "Naked Spur" has an angle except maybe Janet Leigh. Even at that her deal is to get Ryan out of there. Millard Mitchell's loss a result of a sacrifice?

>

> Don't quite remember.

 

I do think Lina and Millard Mitchell were the only two to get second thoughts about their course of life. That an old man like Mitchell could have pangs of conscience was very touching, and it was very sad to see what happened to him. Almost like what happens to Walter Brennan in The Far Country. Their trustingness in others got them killed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Roy wasn't very much interested in anything but Roy until he found out there was some money involved. Kemp wasn't about to really share anything until he was left with no choice.

 

I think the majority of the film deals with the tension created by everyone's greed. Ryan plays on that. That is what he counts on for his escape.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm.

 

I'll "hmmmmmm" you!

 

You left out a key word. He was dishonorably discharged.

 

Yes, I did forget that key word. My mistake.

 

I don't see any conflict or contradiction. I remember him as being venal from start to finish. I would have to see it again to be sure if he changed at any point, but I believe he was always only interested in the money and maybe, if he had the chance, getting to Lina like he did that Indian girl he raped. I thought he was as bad if not worse than Ben.

 

Roy is the phony facade. He's wearing a mask and costume, hoping to trick those into believing he's on the up and up. He's a taker and a user. He represents such figures in a society, which there are now many. Yet, Roy does lend a helping hand. And that's where there is a snag. "See, I helped you."

 

Do I think he's worse than Ben? I find them to be similar. But, yes, you could say he's worse because he's hiding his bad intentions behind a mask of good.

 

I suppose, though I don't see it so much sacrifice as being loving. She isn't really giving anything up since she has nowhere to go and no one to go to.

 

Ahhhh, but isn't loving to be unselfish and sacrificial? Lina doesn't need to help Kemp. She could have spit on his suffering.

 

So his learning what happened to him with his wife turned him from one to the other?

 

I believe Kemp is angry at his wife. He's trying to get back what he lost but he's doing so with anger and rage in his heart. He's consumed by it. That has become his guiding force in life. It's almost as if Ben has come to represent his wife and I believe he has come to represent his entire existence.

 

Anyone who has been completely played for a sucker could end up being bitter and hateful as a result of it. How does one come back from such pain? It often takes the help of someone else. But can you trust them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}

> Roy wasn't very much interested in anything but Roy until he found out there was some money involved. Kemp wasn't about to really share anything until he was left with no choice.

>

> I think the majority of the film deals with the tension created by everyone's greed. Ryan plays on that. That is what he counts on for his escape.

 

I do see a lot of that from Ben's point of view. He sizes up everyone's weakness and plays one against the other. He's definitely the smartest in the bunch. Makes you wonder how he ever got caught.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Roy is the phony facade. He's wearing a mask and costume, hoping to trick those into believing he's on the up and up. He's a taker and a user. He represents such figures in a society, which there are now many. Yet, Roy does lend a helping hand. And that's where there is a snag. "See, I helped you."

>

 

But was the "helping hand" because he was to get a share of the bounty?

 

> Do I think he's worse than Ben? I find them to be similar. But, yes, you could say he's worse because he's hiding his bad intentions behind a mask of good.

>

 

I just thought he never showed a redeeming characteristic except he was genial. Even Ben kept Lina alive and fed, even it was for his own ends, and presumably he never molested her which is almost hard to credit. But Roy, he took, ran, lied and raped. Probably murdered, too, I don't remember.

 

> Ahhhh, but isn't loving to be unselfish and sacrificial? Lina doesn't need to help Kemp. She could have spit on his suffering.

>

 

Yes it is and I can see she is ready to sacrifice. I see her as unselfish, definitely. I'm still not sure about sacrificial though you can assume it would get to that point if she married Ben.

 

> I believe Kemp is angry at his wife. He's trying to get back what he lost but he's doing so with anger and rage in his heart. He's consumed by it. That has become his guiding force in life. It's almost as if Ben has come to represent his wife and I believe he has come to represent his entire existence.

>

> Anyone who has been completely played for a sucker could end up being bitter and hateful as a result of it. How does one come back from such pain? It often takes the help of someone else. But can you trust them?

 

That's wonderful! I can see all that going on in Stewart's intense performance. It is one of his most concentrated characters, and his most consistently enraged and easily provoked. He's really just dying to make Ben "pay" for all that happened to him. It's not about the reward and certainly not about justice. It's deeply personal with him. He even comes to resent Lina's allegiance to Ben as a personal issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But was the "helping hand" because he was to get a share of the bounty?

 

He has ulterior motives. Not only can he horn in on the reward, but he knows the indians are after him, so he would benefit from having others with him versus being alone. So, I do agree with you, he's out for self and he's cloaking it in unselfishness. That's why I spoke of him as being "sideways."

 

I just thought he never showed a redeeming characteristic except he was genial. Even Ben kept Lina alive and fed, even it was for his own ends, and presumably he never molested her which is almost hard to credit. But Roy, he took, ran, lied and raped. Probably murdered, too, I don't remember.

 

That's a great point about Ben keeping a distance from Lina, sexually speaking. He viewed her as a "kid." But Roy wants to have his way with her. So I do believe you are right, Ben is a more admirable man than Roy.

 

Did you rewatch the film? I'm amazed by your recall of the film if you haven't.

 

Yes it is and I can see she is ready to sacrifice. I see her as unselfish, definitely. I'm still not sure about sacrificial though you can assume it would get to that point if she married Ben.

 

She sacrifices her own sleep to tend to Kemp. And she also runs to his rescue during the indian clash, risking her own life to help him.

 

nakedspur1.jpg

 

This kind of scene is seen in Rio Bravo:

 

nakedspur5.jpg

 

But in Rio Bravo, it was returning the favor. Here, it's sacrifice.

 

I can see all that going on in Stewart's intense performance. It is one of his most concentrated characters, and his most consistently enraged and easily provoked. He's really just dying to make Ben "pay" for all that happened to him. It's not about the reward and certainly not about justice. It's deeply personal with him.

 

You've got it. Kemp believes by getting back his land, he'll rid himself of the anger and the pain. But he won't.

 

nakedspur4.jpg

 

He even comes to resent Lina's allegiance to Ben as a personal issue.

 

That's terrific! You're very right about that. She's very loyal to Ben, despite Ben being a crook. And here's Kemp, a good soldier, who was stabbed in the back by his woman. Why does it work that way?

 

So that's why you stick knives in my back! It's because I'm sweet and loving! :P

 

And I'm wrong. He wasn't married. He was to get married when he returned.

 

nakedspur2.jpg

 

nakedspur3.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

> He has ulterior motives. Not only can he horn in on the reward, but he knows the indians are after him, so he would benefit from having others with him versus being alone. So, I do agree with you, he's out for self and he's cloaking it in unselfishness. That's why I spoke of him as being "sideways."

>

 

It took me years to like Ralph Meeker because of this performance...I held his sliminess against him. :D

 

>

> That's a great point about Ben keeping a distance from Lina, sexually speaking. He viewed her as a "kid." But Roy wants to have his way with her. So I do believe you are right, Ben is a more admirable man than Roy.

>

 

It's the one area that makes Ben seem alright.

 

> Did you rewatch the film? I'm amazed by your recall of the film if you haven't.

>

 

No, I haven't rewatched. But I've seen it well over twenty times, so I remember it fairly well.

 

> She sacrifices her own sleep to tend to Kemp. And she also runs to his rescue during the indian clash, risking her own life to help him.

>

 

That's true.

 

> This kind of scene is seen in Rio Bravo:

>

> nakedspur5.jpg

>

> But in Rio Bravo, it was returning the favor. Here, it's sacrifice.

>

 

That's interesting. And that is why Mann is a deeper director than Hawks.

 

>

> That's terrific! You're very right about that. She's very loyal to Ben, despite Ben being a crook. And here's Kemp, a good soldier, who was stabbed in the back by his woman. Why does it work that way?

>

 

I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right! What Kemp doesn't realize, is he's practically negating all his previous sacrifice by this new course.

 

> So that's why you stick knives in my back! It's because I'm sweet and loving! :P

>

 

Since when?

 

> And I'm wrong. He wasn't married. He was to get married when he returned.

>

 

I forgot about that, too. I wonder who the other man was.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It took me years to like Ralph Meeker because of this performance...I held his sliminess against him. :D

 

His "Mike Hammer" is more your type. :P

 

It's the one area that makes Ben seem alright.

 

This is true. He never crosses that very important line. Roy stomps all over it.

 

No, I haven't rewatched. But I've seen it well over twenty times, so I remember it fairly well.

 

Amazing. Your memory skills are better than you let on.

 

That's interesting. And that is why Mann is a deeper director than Hawks.

 

I think Hawks has some depth. Hawks is more into relationships. Mann tends to be more about inner-conflict, especially when it comes to anger, hate, revenge.

 

I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right! What Kemp doesn't realize, is he's practically negating all his previous sacrifice by this new course.

 

He's so far gone in his quest of righting his being wronged that he's now in the wrong.

 

So that's why you stick knives in my back! It's because I'm sweet and loving! :P

 

Since when?

 

Since always!

 

I forgot about that, too. I wonder who the other man was.

 

One of your many cast-offs, I'm sure. :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

>

> His "Mike Hammer" is more your type. :P

>

 

I actually do like him better.

 

>

> I think Hawks has some depth. Hawks is more into relationships. Mann tends to be more about inner-conflict, especially when it comes to anger, hate, revenge.

>

 

I agree with that. Though I'm not convinced Hawks is so deep. "Some depth" maybe, but some is not a lot.

 

> Since when?[/b]

>

> Since always!

>

 

Since never!

 

> I forgot about that, too. I wonder who the other man was.

>

> One of your many cast-offs, I'm sure. :P

I don't go back quite that far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

> Rub my back, woman! :P

 

Rub it yourself. :D

 

>He's so far gone in his quest of righting his being wronged that he's now in the wrong.

 

That was beautiful!

 

 

>It took me years to like Ralph Meeker because of this performance...I held his sliminess against him. :D

 

That's so weird - I actually loved Ralph Meeker in this movie! Yes, he's selfish and hateful, but he is too stupid to be really manipulative. I get the impression he is the type who never grows up - what they would have called a "peter pan" type in the eighties... everything is always about him, all the time. And yet, he is good natured in a way that Ben really isn't. He is callow youth. He has all the makings of someone worthwhile - looks, good disposition, a body that is fit, a mind that works reasonably well. And yet, he is a magnificent waste of a man. It's very sad, really, his story, because he never finds self-knowledge, not even at the very end.

 

>I hadn't thought of it that way but you're right! What Kemp doesn't realize, is he's practically negating all his previous sacrifice by this new course.

 

What you say about Kemp is all very true, but why then does he hold back from killing Vandergroat, each time he is given the opportunity? The money is his, dead or alive. That is where the fascination comes from, for me anyway. That is what Lina sees. Ben would never hold back his vindictiveness that way.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Jul 26, 2010 10:33 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that. Though I'm not convinced Hawks is so deep. "Some depth" maybe, but some is not a lot.

 

I believe Hawks' films run deeper feelings between people than Mann's films do. Mann is mostly about the dark journey of the protagonist. Hawks' films are more communal. I think Hawks does "man-woman" much better, too. You will find more "tears" with Hawks than Mann.

 

I don't go back quite that far.

 

Yeah, but the bodies stretch that far!

Link to post
Share on other sites

> I believe Hawks' films run deeper feelings between people than Mann's films do. Mann is mostly about the dark journey of the protagonist. Hawks' films are more communal. I think Hawks does "man-woman" much better, too. You will find more "tears" with Hawks than Mann.

>

 

I totally feel the opposite with that last remark. While I do find he's more entertaining at the man-woman thing, I have never, ever felt moved emotionally by any of his films. The closest I came was with one or two of his very early movies. I find his movies entertaining and often exciting but never would I associate "tears" with him. He eschews sentiment almost every time.

 

> I don't go back quite that far.

>

> Yeah, but the bodies stretch that far!

 

Yes, but your lies certainly do!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...