Western Movie Rambles

[CineMaven]

Ha! If I had realized these movies were going to be on, I would have watched more of them! I missed the one with Rita Hayworth! :-( :-(

 

RITA HAYWORTH??!!!!!

 

Get thee to a dance class!!!

[MissGoddess]

> Fred may have started out doing this for the company but I don't think it took long for him to get past it. Fonda is certainly the emotional one as he is the one having everything taken from him. I'm not sure Fred knows he is in love with Sydney until he says it. I think he is pretty unaware of what the impact his relationship with her early on is having with Fonda.

>

> Interesting climax.

 

PASSAGE OF CANYON SPOILERS!

 

Hi Chris,

thinking back (and I may watch this movie again, tonight) I am less satisfied with how

Fred and Fonda "resolve" their conflicts with each other. It seems coming to blows

cleared the air rather easily and in the end, getting the benefits of the mine development

put aside all of Fonda's resistence. I admired him in a way, for his stubbornness and

ambivalence toward the "progress" coming to their home and way of life. And in other

was, it was the suspicion of the ignorant. Fonda did well at conveying a man who was

both crudely educated and yet not at all stupid. I'm beginning to think he could do it

all.

 

I do like that Sylvia was adaptable and knew what she wanted and went after it. Maybe

seeing what became of Beulah had an impact on her. She knew Fonda was like her

father, and if it weren't for the coming of the developers to their community, she might

have ended up just like Beaulah.

 

As for Sylvia's quick transformation, that was funny. I get the feeling it was for the

benefit of the ladies in the audience who, like me, were sick of seeing her in that

raggedy old dress, HA!

[movieman1957]

"The Trail Of The Lonesome Pine" SPOILERS.

 

I think MacMurray was more on Fonda's side than he knew. I think Fred enjoyed the visits from Spanky and Sylvia more than being friendly for the sake of the business. Fred fought Fonda to show, I think, he really was on his side but that he wasn't going to just back down.

 

Sydney absolutely did not want to end up like her mother. She knows how much this feud has worn on her and she wants no part of continuing the trend. The idea of learning something is exciting and her way out. She'll have no part of "Things have been fine for generations, why change?" attitude of the town.

 

I was thinking this film has the broader since of tradition, if you will, against progress. Sydney may be the only one, other than Spanky, who gets the idea of progress being just that.

 

You are quite right about Fonda. He may not be educated but he was not dumb at all. If anything his lack of experience may have been his biggest hindrance.

[MissGoddess]

PINESOME SPOIL TRAILERS!

 

> I think MacMurray was more on Fonda's side than he knew. I think Fred enjoyed the visits from Spanky and Sylvia more than being friendly for the sake of the business. Fred fought Fonda to show, I think, he really was on his side but that he wasn't going to just back down.

>

 

Beautifully said, Chris. I love all you wrote. Fred surely was the ideal man of business

and "progress", was he not? Too often, those who went into pristine wilderness areas

had no feel at all for the people. You know who his character reminds me of, and what

movie this film suddenly compares itself to in my mind? Elia Kazan's WILD RIVER. I

believe Jackie is a fan of that film, so maybe this will tempt her even more to watch

*Trail of the Lonesome Pine* one day.

 

You have a man sent out to get the locals prepared for what's coming: a railroad and

a mine development. They are given what in this case is fair compensation as well

as a share in profits, it seems...or was it stock in the mine? Either way, the movie

is definitely no *Grapes of Wrath* (sorry Grimes) this time, because the "greedy"

capitalists are nowhere to be found. Maybe it's a bit TOO nice on the mining interests,

but I think the movie is focusing elsewhere. It is showing the complexity of the local

community, where a feudin' and a fussin' is usual but not everyone is a Jed Clampett

ready to pack up and move to Bever-lee as soon as they get a check in hand.

 

It shows the dangers come not from the mining interests, but in the hardened tradition

of feuding between two families. They've forgotten what the original cause of the

feud was, and the men folk, who are the ones keeping it going, just do it because it's

all they've ever known. Only the women, Beulah in particular, see its futility because they

and the children (Spanky) are the ones who pay for all the violence. The men don't even

seem to mind getting shot up, at least Fonda seems used to it!) and it was interesting to see how

the older generation just naturally expected the young ones after them to keep up the

cycle of violence.

 

> Sydney absolutely did not want to end up like her mother. She knows how much this feud has worn on her and she wants no part of continuing the trend. The idea of learning something is exciting and her way out. She'll have no part of "Things have been fine for generations, why change?" attitude of the town.

>

 

Even though I think she really wanted something better for herself I also get the feeling

she wanted to please Fred, too, and to show him she could meet him at his level. Interestingly,

she's almost like Cathy in *Wuthering Heights* (oh no!) when she returns to her home after

the "tragedy" and rejects with disgust all the new ideas and immerses herself again, briefly,

in the old ways.

 

> I was thinking this film has the broader since of tradition, if you will, against progress. Sydney may be the only one, other than Spanky, who gets the idea of progress being just that.

>

 

Yes, it seems fairly "black and white" on that. With the developers being rather pure

in motive and full of nothing but promises of a glorious improvement in the lives of all

the locals. Of course, we know it doesn't always work out that way. What was jarringly

at odds with this message was seeing the bulldozers come in and take down all those

beautiful trees. They showed it like it was something glorious, yet in my eyes at least,

it seemed almost a desecration.

 

> You are quite right about Fonda. He may not be educated but he was not dumb at all. If anything his lack of experience may have been his biggest hindrance.

 

Right. He'd never known any folk but the locals and had a natural distrust of "foreigners".

[JackFavell]

SPANKY SPOILERS

 

 

Oh, Spanky..... Spanky......

 

I knew the minute he was introduced that he was a goner. Why did Spanky get into that "dang contraption"? oh, WHY did they have to do it? snif if he was annoying Mickey Rooney, he would have lived.

 

I love 'panky.

 

I liked TOTLP..... no wait. I was irritated at TOTLP. It was a very confusing movie to me. It seemed all over the place. And yet, there were moments of great beauty, and moments that I really loved.

 

Fred MacMurray is a likable but callow fellow, and Henry Fonda is really great as MacMurray's polar opposite - a boy-man who feels things all too much.

 

It took me ten minutes of staring to figure out that Toliver is actually Alice Adams' dad. He's very good here.

 

The movie is just plain gorgeous, and Hathaway's ability to make the landscape really talk never fails to impress me. I like his mirror shots of the water.

 

However, I felt that TOTLP walked a fine line, never coming down to a real viewpoint. Is the desecration of the woods any different from the Falin's burning the camp down? I guess I was expecting some kind of epiphany on Fred MacMurray's part - about the work he was doing, and the land - that the land itself and the kindness of the people would change him. But then, I forget that this was 1936, the height of the WPA.... I guess I was expecting the same spirit that filled *Shepherd of the Hills* to be here, and it was lacking. I wanted someone to stand up for the good things of the country, while also saying that progress with a heart and an eye is a good thing, but this movie was not about that. *Wild River* is a great example, MissG, and a movie that I feel hit all the right notes in dealing with the exact same subject.

 

I liked *Fred MacMurray* - especially the epiphany he _did_ have after...... after the tragedy.....he was callow, but you knew he had a good heart, watching over Spanky and I liked his slow falling in love with Sydney...... he played this role with a lot of gusto, and I enjoyed his light touch at the beginning - it was a great contrast to the slow, rather heavy "country" acting of the rest of the cast.

 

I literally did not recognize *Nigel Bruce* - he was great here, actually playing a totally different character!

 

I especially liked the Falin father - *Robert Barrat*, he was wonderful at showing the change and remorse of a man caught up in events he has lost control of.

 

I too noticed the Cathy-like fit that *Sylvia Sydney* threw... I thought her especially fine during that scene. I did not like her character though, and was disappointed when she turned to Fonda to solve things at the end. Sydney did extremely well with a character I thought was shallow and selfish. I hate to say I felt just like FrankGrimes did about Cathy in WH. But Sydney really salvaged my liking of that character. She added a lot of charm to her role. Even when I didn't like what she was doing, she made me see that June was just a girl, with thoughtless feelings and emotions she couldn't control any more than the men in her family could theirs.

 

I loved *Henry Fonda*, he was like a cut that won't heal because it is in the wrong place, at the tip of the finger where it keeps getting opened up. He wore his heart on his sleeve, and I very much liked the hint of anger in his love. He really did see the invasiveness of the so called "progress", and that is a point in his favor. He was a great mix of foolish backwoods suspicion, and something strong and powerful - pride in his country roots. Though he seems just the tiniest bit broad and stagey at certain points, I found him to be very strong as an actor, and his scenes ((especially with Bondi) are the best in the movie. In a way, he was changed for the better by that "progress" that he encountered. His character stands out for me, because he seemed not of one thing or another, walking between the new world and the old world, between tradition and progress, just as he walked between the two families to end the feud. He steps away from his old world ways in order to bring peace to his country, and for that, he is rewarded with a gun shot, as all Hollywood angels must be. He could never have gone back to the way things were anyway, once the peace was made, his girl gone....He would have ended up lost, maybe a little like Tom Joad, forced to wander between worlds forever. Fonda is about the only actor who can do such a role justice.

 

The fact that the movie leaves a lot of unanswered questions about tradition as opposed to progress could be a point in it's favor. I thought a lot while watching it, but I am not sure I like that. I could have done without at least one of the fist fights, I thought that was overkill. The bottom line for me was, I really wanted to fall deeply into this film, like SOTH, but couldn't, and that was terribly diasappointing.

 

The movie back and forthed way too much for me to really enjoy the complications. They seemed contrived, and that is my biggest complaint with the film. The events did not flow one after another like the water through the mill (a fine symbol - I wish they had used it more).

 

>It shows the dangers come not from the mining interests, but in the hardened tradition of feuding between two families. They've forgotten what the original cause of the feud was, and the men folk, who are the ones keeping it going, just do it because it'sall they've ever known. Only the women, Beulah in particular, see its futility because they and the children (Spanky) are the ones who pay for all the violence. The men don't even seem to mind getting shot up, at least Fonda seems used to it!) and it was interesting to see how the older generation just naturally expected the young ones after them to keep up thecycle of violence.

 

At one point, I thought the movie was going to talk about the money - how the money ruined the family. But aside from Henry Fonda's beautiful speech (I thought it was the best of the film), it just didn't stick with that theme either. There were so many red herrings as to the plot, that I simply couldn't enjoy the film. Maybe it is a film that gets better after you have seen it once... so you can enjoy it for what it IS.

 

Again, I should have loved the music, and the way it flowed through the movie, dealing with the emotions of the main characters, but I somehow felt a little played, and the guy singing became annoying to me. Perhaps it was just my mood. I did see this movie a very long time ago, and hated it. Now I see a lot of virtue in it, but I was very disappointed with the end product.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 17, 2010 9:35 AM

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 17, 2010 9:41 AM

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 17, 2010 9:42 AM

[movieman1957]

I don't think, in film, it is uncommon for feuds to have lost their original meaning. Even if they did Bondi wouldn't have cared. She just wanted an end to it. It is not about right or wrong or winning or losing it is all about keeping her family safe.

 

I would suggest that Falin's burning the camp is completely different than what the company is doing in the mountains. What Falin does is really as much to get back at the other family as it is MacMurray. He wasn't going to have them benefit. Even though he was also making a profit the damage was of more value to him.

 

Glad you commented. I hope you'll copy it over there.

[MissGoddess]

That was great, Jackie---you really expressed much better the ambivalence in the film

about so many things. Even though I truly enjoyed the movie---maybe because I was

just focused on the characters, it's been in reflection that its inconcistencies or lack

of a well developed theme that has grown with me. You put those new reflections into

perfect clarity.

 

I bet it is the times it was made: 1936, and frankly, the producer, Walter Wanger, who

can be blamed for its wishy washiness. I remember reading in the biography on Wanger

that he was notorious for often splitting the difference between what he can add to make

a movie commercial and perhaps also politically motivating. This sometimes resulted

in watered down themes.

 

And you're right about Sylvia's character...in fact, as I said about Fred I could say about

her: I was never too sure exactly where either of them stood though I think they were

both good people.

 

I love your way of putting things into words. The events did not flow one after another like the water through the mill (a fine symbol - I wish they had used it more). That was beautiful and I

felt the same...I thought the millwheel was going to mean something more.

 

And this: I loved Fonda, he was like a cut that won't heal because it is in the wrong place, at the tip of the finger where it keeps getting opened up. That's brilliant! It really captures his character.

[JackFavell]

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

> I don't think, in film, it is uncommon for feuds to have lost their original meaning. Even if they did Bondi wouldn't have cared. She just wanted an end to it. It is not about right or wrong or winning or losing it is all about keeping her family safe.

>

> I would suggest that Falin's burning the camp is completely different than what the company is doing in the mountains. What Falin does is really as much to get back at the other family as it is MacMurray. He wasn't going to have them benefit. Even though he was also making a profit the damage was of more value to him.

 

 

That's a great point! In the context of the movie, you are right - I was making a comment that I felt the clearing of the woods was just as bad as the burning of the camp, but I imposed that emotion of mine on the movie.

 

It's amazing isn't it, that Falin would burn something that was essentially his - in order to propel the feud? - this is great example of how destructive that hatred was, and how it can leap the bounds just like a wild fire. They had lost sight of the original purpose of the fight in the first place and were basically willing to kill themselves in order to continue something they didn't even understand. .

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 17, 2010 9:59 AM

[JackFavell]

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

> That was great, Jackie---you really expressed much better the ambivalence in the film

> about so many things. Even though I truly enjoyed the movie---maybe because I was

> just focused on the characters, it's been in reflection that its inconcistencies or lack

> of a well developed theme that has grown with me. You put those new reflections into

> perfect clarity.

>

> I bet it is the times it was made: 1936, and frankly, the producer, Walter Wanger, who

> can be blamed for its wishy washiness. I remember reading in the biography on Wanger

> that he was notorious for often splitting the difference between what he can add to make

> a movie commercial and perhaps also politically motivating. This sometimes resulted

> in watered down themes.

 

I can totally see that being the case - the movie did feel watered down, and added to! I like to put the blame on Wanger, because I really like Henry Hathaway! I bet because it was in color, Wanger kept sticking his fingers into it, because it was bigger budget, and he wanted to "make it better". It lost that small intimate magical feeling that Hathaway was so good at.

 

And thank you for the compliment on my writing - I was very much inspired by you and movieman's words.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Sep 17, 2010 10:05 AM

[JackFavell]

Sorry to keep jumping in and adding stuff, but it just occurred to me that *Spitfire* with Katharine Hepburn covers a lot of the same ground. It is a movie that I really love, but it is also flawed. It was made only two years before, but carries a lot of that magic quality I was expecting in TOTLP.... maybe they were trying to steer clear of any resemblance to that film?

[MissGoddess]

Well, I'm so glad you and Chris watched it because even though it's not

a great film, I think it is a piece of the overall fabric of movies dealing with

backwoods themes and especially in color. Since we have discussed

*Shepherd of the Hills* it's a nice bookend with that film. But boy, it

sure could have used the resonance and presence of Harry Carey. I guess

we can see what Hathaway took from the earlier experience and what

he knew to add.

[MissGoddess]

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

> Sorry to keep jumping in and adding stuff, but it just occurred to me that *Spitfire* with Katharine Hepburn covers a lot of the same ground. It is a movie that I really love, but it is also flawed. It was made only two years before, but carries a lot of that magic quality I was expecting in TOTLP.... maybe they were trying to steer clear of any resemblance to that film?

 

Glad you brought that up because it's part of what I meant by that grouping of films dealing

with the mountain/backwoods folk. *Spitfire* came to my mind and *The Yearling* is another.

*The Yearling* comes close to *Shepherd of the Hills* in its mix of light and tragic. *Spitfire*

attempts to capture that mystical aspect which *Shepherd* also touches upon.

 

So like you, I wanted to know that once the miners came in and the trains were roaring

through those gentle woods that even though the feuding guns may have been silenced,

won't other, good things be silenced forever, too?

 

Always these things make me think of Ford's "Magesty of the Law" segment of Rising

of the Moon, where Noel Purcell speaks of the "songs that are lost forever" due to "progress".

I wish I could remember the exact quote. But old Purcell could have been Fonda at that age,

two of a kind. Both stubborn about old ways that are not all good ways, but which have

something incalculably precious tied up in with them and when you eradicate one you kill

it all.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Sep 17, 2010 10:22 AM

[JackFavell]

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

> Always these things make me think of Ford's "Magesty of the Law" segment of Rising

> of the Moon, where Noel Purcell speaks of the "songs that are lost forever" due to "progress".

>* I wish I could remember the exact quote. But *old Purcell could have been Fonda at that age, two of a kind. Both stubborn about old ways that are not all good ways, but which have something incalculably precious tied up in with them and when you eradicate one you kill it all.*

 

 

That's beautiful! Because life is not something you can parse out - one thing is inextricably tied up in the other....

 

 

 

I am totally glad I watched TOTLP - it's not like I hated it, by any stretch. And if TOTLP had anything to do with Hathaway's creating of *Shepherd of the Hills*, I am thankful!

 

There were some gorgeous, gorgeous moments, and I thought the movie was beautifully directed. I wonder how they made some of those over head shots - as if the camera were in the sky? Someone must have hauled the equipment up there on a rock or precipice in order to get some of those shots!

 

I love Hathaway's way of panning over a landscape until the camera settles on what he wants you to see.

 

 

 

or this:

 

 

 

 

 

or this one:

 

He also has an eye for juxtaposing the magical with the down to earth - unearthly clouds in the background of a mining camp... or a fight.

 

 

I also love the way he frames his shots - he is constantly shooting from between two trees or rocks or even ...pencils.

 

 

 

 

Here are a couple intimate shots that rejoice in the small:

 

 

 

 

 

And I never noticed while watching that Henry Fonda IS the Lonesome Pine.

 

 

[movieman1957]

Great pictures. The one of the rock in the water reminded me of when I saw it in the film. It was rather delayed. The shot sat on that view through the gate out into the water. It waited for the man to get there and then out of nowhere the rock comes and lands right in the appointed spot in the opening of the gate.

 

It's a lovely shot. You did a wonderful job in point them out.

[rohanaka]

Oh golly, Jackie.. I am FAIRLY drooling over those BEAUTIFUL screencaps, little gal. So far I have had NO luck finding a copy of this movie.. drat. Between missing this one (AND Shepherd of the Hills too) I am having a severe case of "backwoodsy mountain folk, hill-ishbilly" WITHDRAWL for sure. ha.) Maybe someday I will be able to catch up w/ you folks on either (or both) of these movies. In the meantime.. THANKS for the fun read (and for lovely caps to look at too)

[fredbaetz]

"Trail of the Lonesome Pine" and "Shepherd of the Hills are avaiable on Amazon and also on Netflix....

 

Edited by: fredbaetz on Sep 17, 2010 12:44 PM

[JackFavell]

Ro - in looking back at these caps, I realize that they are nothing compared to the actual movie - the colors are so vivid and beautiful when you watch the whole thing in movement. Somehow, the caps don't really cap-ture the real look of the film. It's GORGEOUS.

[MissGoddess]

Thanks for those stunning screencaps...especially of the mill..it looks so real, not like

a movie set. And I was astonished at the snow scene....it looked real, like they really

filmed in all seasons. Wonderful scenery. And I am beginning to have much greater

respect for Hathaway's visual powers. When he wanted to, he could do wonders with

composition and what is more difficult, creating mood through visuals.

[movieman1957]

For your consideration.

 

On Monday the 27th TCM is highlighting "Range Wars." A night of westerns that will show, starting at 8pm ET, "The Westerner" with Gary Cooper, "El Dorado" with John Wayne, "The Violent Men" and "Heaven With A Gun" with Glenn Ford and finally "Blood On The Moon" with Robert Mitchum.

 

Not that we have to wait until next week to have a "ramble" but I thought I'd put it out there in case anyone feels any of these are worth discussing. We have talked about "El Dorado" but I know some people around her are fond of Cooper.

 

If you have any thoughts maybe we can coordinate one of them.

[MissGoddess]

Funny, I don't remember a range war in El Dorado! I just always think of it as a remake of Rio Bravo.

 

I think *Blood on the Moon* is the best of the bunch.

 

I love Gary, but I'm not a huge fan of *The Westerner*. The performances are great, but it feels lacking in something.

[movieman1957]

If there is anything about it in "El Dorado" it is early and dispatched quickly.

 

I'll just have to remember to record "Blood On The Moon." I saw it about a year ago but if I am to ramble with the Queen I have to be on my game.

 

Hopefully, the rest of the Royal family will be on board.

[rohanaka]

Wowsa... now that's quite a line up. I have seen some of them... but several I have not. (will have to see if I can take a look at the ones I have not seen to find out more.. ) woo hoo.... sounds like a "busy" movie watching night for the Western folk for sure!

[fredbaetz]

MissG, you hit the nail on the head. "The Westerner" never did it for me and it had a great cast, but like you said it was missing something. "Blood on the Moon" is the best of the lot. A really good noir western with Mitchum. A early effort by the great Robert Wise. "The Violent Men" is a pretty good Glenn Ford oater, "Heaven With a Gun" is so-so.

"El Dorado" is indeed a remake of "Rio Bravo" with Mitchum replacing Martin and James Caan standing in for Ricky Nelson,maybe Hawks did get lazy, but it's still fun....

 

Edited by: fredbaetz on Sep 21, 2010 3:40 AM

[FredCDobbs]

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

> I love Gary, but I'm not a huge fan of *The Westerner*. The performances are great, but it feels lacking in something.

 

 

Seems to me it?s lacking in plot and action. All I can ever remember about it is the two guys inside the bar talking for an hour or so. Then a little action during a shoot out at an old theater in the end.

[MissGoddess]

Gary sure looked good, though. Ha, trust me to bring it down to "essentials".

 

*The Westerner* also fails to really inspire visually, maybe because there are

so many interior shots and soundstage scenes. That doesn't ordinarily bother

me or even fall under my notice but this time it did.

 

I don't mind Hawks repeating his themes and plots if it entertains, and *El Dorado*

does have some pretty good scenes, if not as crisp as *Rio Bravo*. It mainly stands

out for getting to see Duke and Robert Mitchum go toe to toe and they do make a

VERY entertaining team. It's wonderful seeing them together. The humor about

how they're getting old and falling apart is pretty darn funny, too.