Western Movie Rambles

[JackFavell]

*The Wind* is a great film, but it was made in 1928, when silent film had reached it's zenith. And even in that one, there is a good guy and a bad guy.

 

In 1916, most films were shorter than 4 reels, feature length films were uncommon and a big deal, and the stories were much less complex. Most of them were morality tales, designed to keep young men and women from making terrible mistakes in their lives.

 

There were some companies that made great literary works into short films. They were extremely stagey and showed highlights from the books and plays they were representing.

 

Francis Ford was making his thrillers - adventures and murder mysteries and westerns with more complex and deceptive characters designed to shock and surprise the audience. Aside from that, most films were highly stylized, and over-simplified. You were good or you were bad. Vamps like Theda Bara (or the saloon girl) were popular and so was her antithesis, Mary Pickford, just as in this story there was a good girl and a bad girl. But there were very few characters who were in between, in other words, human, with real doubts. I would even go so far as to say that there were NO characters like that, except maybe in Francis Ford's actioners. And we have little record of what those were like.

 

In D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation (1915), a girl leaped to her death rather than risk being attacked by a man. In Intolerance (1916), 4 stories were interwoven to show how the world's intolerance was destroying the simple people - the characters have no names - the main character is known as "The Dear One" which will give you an idea of what I am trying to say.

 

Western heroes like Tom Mix and Bronco Billy were clean cut types who always saved the day. They played innocent telegraph operators, wranglers, mounties, or sheepmen with hearts of gold who saw injustice and stepped in to rescue the heroine or a baby or a family in need.

 

The story of *Hell's Hinges* is not complex, but there are aspects of it that are, and it is unlike any other movie of that time that we have available to us in this day and age. In any other film of that time, Hart would have turned "good" the minute he saw the girl and never looked back. There would have been no scene with the townsfolk held hostage, he would have been too high-minded for that. The movie looks simple to us, but it was a horse of a different color to those audiences of 1916, for whom it was a breakthrough in characterization and realism. It's downright subtle.

 

And for the record, I did not find the ending to be a particularly happy" one. I thought it left a lot of tragedy unsettled. It seems to me that they did not do the standard - "My brother's dead but it's OK because I've found true love". I really liked the way they just sort of drifted off at the end, with all the horror to deal with afterwards.

[FrankGrimes]

In 1916, most films were shorter than 4 reels, feature length films were uncommon and a big deal, and the stories were much less complex. Most of them were morality tales, designed to keep young men and women from making terrible mistakes in their lives.

 

I haven't seen any films from this period. The ones I've seen a little of are Les Vampires, which I like. I will be getting Judex and Fantomas, later this year or early next. They seem very interesting. My kind of stuff.

 

Francis Ford was making his thrillers - adventures and murder mysteries and westerns with more complex and deceptive characters designed to shock and surprise the audience. Aside from that, most films were highly stylized, and over-simplified. You were good or you were bad. Vamps like Theda Bara (or the saloon girl) were popular and so was her antithesis, Mary Pickford, just as in this story there was a good girl and a bad girl. But there were very few characters who were in between, in other words, human, with real doubts. I would even go so far as to say that there were NO characters like that, except maybe in Francis Ford's actioners. And we have little record of what those were like.

 

Francis Ford made murder mysteries? How interesting.

 

In D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation (1915), a girl leaped to her death rather than risk being attacked by a man. In Intolerance (1916), 4 stories were interwoven to show how the world's intolerance was destroying the simple people - the characters have no names - the main character is known as "The Dear One" which will give you an idea of what I am trying to say.

 

I've yet to see a Griffith's film. I haven't been drawn to his work.

 

Western heroes like Tom Mix and Bronco Billy were clean cut types who always saved the day. They played innocent telegraph operators, wranglers, mounties, or sheepmen with hearts of gold who saw injustice and stepped in to rescue the heroine or a baby or a family in need.

 

I see. I did like Blaze. He wasn't black and white.

 

The story of Hell's Hinges is not complex, but there are aspects of it that are,

 

Such as...

 

and it is unlike any other movie of that time that we have available to us in this day and age. In any other film of that time, Hart would have turned "good" the minute he saw the girl and never looked back. There would have been no scene with the townsfolk held hostage, he would have been too high-minded for that. The movie looks simple to us, but it was a horse of a different color to those audiences of 1916, for whom it was a breakthrough in characterization and realism. It's downright subtle.

 

That's something I didn't know. I'm just not that familiar with American silents. It's German silents that I like. And I'm excited to watch some Louis Feuillade.

 

And for the record, I did not find the ending to be a particularly happy" one. I thought it left a lot of tragedy unsettled. It seems to me that they did not do the standard - "My brother's dead but it's OK because I've found true love". I really liked the way they just sort of drifted off at the end, with all the horror to deal with afterwards.

 

That's an excellent point. And I do agree with you. In my post to Quiet Gal, I was going to write that 3 Bad Men is a happy ending with me, but there's a lot of tragedy, so I just couldn't call it happy. The ending to both films is hopeful more so than happy. Nothing wrong with that.

[MissGoddess]

what did you think of ride lonesome?

[rohanaka]

Howdy Mr. Grey...

 

I also watched Ride Lonesome. While the Boetticher westerns have fallen in the "middle" on my favorites list, I really like them

 

Golly.. you are really going to town with all your movie watching young'un. Very impressive. This has been a banner year for you, ha. I like that you have been getting so involved w/ so many different types of movies too. Way cool. (I need to check out RL myself, by the way)

 

liked the end, primarily the sweetness of Blaze. I also liked the burning of the church and saloon. As Jackie said, those visuals were on the shocking side. But I really wasn't into the first two acts

 

I think it likely is just a matter of personal taste. I did not mind a lot of the themes in the early part of the film.. and I especially liked the struggling moments w/ the sister and her heartfelt desire to both serve God and help her brother too. I found her to be a vey inspiring character. I did not find her "Pollyanna-ish" or "Goody Goody" the way a lot of "good girls" are often played in stories like this.

 

Instead she was very strong.. and VERY committed to a cause she believed in with her whole heart and she gave all her soul, mind, and strength toward it and she did not give in to what most people might have felt afraid of if they had been in similar circumstances. Anyway.. that is how I am remembering her.. The scenes that leaned a bit heavier on her real faith were used quite well as a contrast with her brother's false faith and I thought this to be one of the strong suits of the early parts of the movie. But again.. it is likely a matter of what sorts of characteristics one finds appealing in a main character or in a story for that matter.

 

As for Hart.. I don't quite see his "change of heart" as being so immediate as you do. True.. he did do an "about face" in terms of what he initially set out to do pretty quickly, and I think that is because he STARTED to change when SHE got his attention. He may have had a desire in his heart for HER.. but it was not a complete change of mind and heart and purpose (in terms of who he was a person) yet. All those things that "changed" for him early on are not the same as the other, deeper changes that came over him (both emotionally and spiritually) toward both her.. and God... later on in the story. Those deeper more permanent differences in his character were not so immediate (as I recall) and they became a gradual thing for him as the story went on.

 

And again.. this is just how I am remembering it.. it has been just long enough since I watched it all that I might be "off" a bit.. but that is how it seems to me looking back on it all.

 

I would be constantly sitting in the "sin bin" in your class!

 

NO such thing.. ha. I am SURE you would be RIGHT at home w/ the rest of our "little darlin's" (and PS: all kidding aside, VERY rarely do we EVER have to "get tough" with our bunch of young'uns in that class. MOST of them are well behaved.. ha. But once in a while one of them will have a "moment" and then they have to go sit in the grown up class w/ mom or dad.)

 

But oh.. I just thought of something.. you'd NEVER last in our Sunday School class... ha.You'd have to go sit with the grown ups anyway.. ha. We do NOT have "sawdust" or saur kraut cookies fo snack time. Only Teddy Grahams. :p

 

I thought the lines were clearly drawn and a little cartoonish. But the violence surprised me

 

It is true that there was not much "grey" with any of these characters. But I do not see their "black and whiteness' as cartoonish. Again, I think for the time this film was made.. it was very evenly set (in terms of how the characters were presented) We were not supposed to have to "figure them out" so much as figure out what they were going next to do based on what we already knew about who they were. That is sometimes a nice way to tell a story too. Although I do admit.. (even if a bit grudginly, ha) that SOMETIMES it does help a story to have to "wonder" about a character (in terms of their moral fiber and how that will affect the choices they make) Both ways of telling a story are entertaining IF you have well thought out and interesting characters to work with.

 

I didn't view him as a nasty sinner. But I guess since he was to be the most faithful, he was not to be tempted. We was just weak, that's all

 

His biggest "sins" were not his outward acts. They were INSIDE his duplicitous heart. He PRETENDED to be one thing but was REALLY something else altogether. (And what he PRETENDED to be was WAY too important to just let him get away with acting any old way he pleased when no one was looking) That to me made him FAR worse in deed than the "Hell-towners" They were OPENLY sinful and very depraved but they really only had THEMSELVES to answer to and for (at least on an earthy level). But aside from being a preacher and responsible to God.. HE was responsible to his flock, and his church leaders, his sister AND even the townspeople whom he had gone to witness and minister to. He had the greater burden of responsibility so he had the greater guilt.

 

I really didn't have a problem with Bob. His family and the Church elders knew what he was yet they let him continue. They basically knew he was going to fail. They failed him

 

I do agree with you.. both his mother AND the church leaders who sent him there let him down. They (the leaders) even let down the people of that town. They lost sight of their own responsibility and did not care about what was best for him or for the town.. only about how to keep him from being an embarrassment to them. That is a HUGE "flaw" in their thinking and their actions really do make them at least somewhat accountable on a certain level for all the wrong deeds HE committted as well.

 

Really only his sister seemed to have the right perspective as far as what they were SUPPOSED to be there for. She took her responsibilities to God, her brother, the church, and that town all very seriously. And again, I think she truly was an inspiring character in that regard.

 

I was going to write that 3 Bad Men is a happy ending with me, but there's a lot of tragedy, so I just couldn't call it happy. The ending to both films is hopeful more so than happy. Nothing wrong with that.

 

That is a great way to say it (hopeful) and I agree.. both films end that way (though the endings are not really similar otherwise) Nice catch.

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Oct 11, 2010 11:09 PM

[FrankGrimes]

what did you think of ride lonesome?

 

It's my third Boetticher-Scott western and it ranks third of the three, but I still liked it. In fact, I have all three of those films ranked very closely on my list. I just love the entire vibe and feel of the Boetticher-Scott westerns.

 

I didn't think the tension in Ride Lonesome to be on the level of Seven Men from Now and The Tall T. The only real tension for me was wondering what would happen between Ben (Randolph Scott) and Sam (Pernell Roberts).

[fxreyman]

Oh, I am just kidding you.......... Normally you write quite long replies and I thought that you might have something else to say about the reasons I gave in addition to what you wrote already.

 

Maybe it is just because I have been sooo busy at work that when I do find the time to write about stuff, I find I am too darn tired to jot anything down.

 

That is why I was thrilled to see all of this attention to list making again.

[FrankGrimes]

How do, Quiet Gal -- I think it likely is just a matter of personal taste. I did not mind a lot of the themes in the early part of the film.. and I especially liked the struggling moments w/ the sister and her heartfelt desire to both serve God and help her brother too. I found her to be a vey inspiring character. I did not find her "Pollyanna-ish" or "Goody Goody" the way a lot of "good girls" are often played in stories like this.

 

The themes of Hell's Hinges are definitely more your speed than mine. There's no question about that.

 

Instead she was very strong.. and VERY committed to a cause she believed in with her whole heart and she gave all her soul, mind, and strength toward it and she did not give in to what most people might have felt afraid of if they had been in similar circumstances. Anyway.. that is how I am remembering her.. The scenes that leaned a bit heavier on her real faith were used quite well as a contrast with her brother's false faith and I thought this to be one of the strong suits of the early parts of the movie. But again.. it is likely a matter of what sorts of characteristics one finds appealing in a main character or in a story for that matter.

 

I don't even remember any of that! I thought she was boring. Give me Dolly (Louise Glaum)!

 

As for Hart.. I don't quite see his "change of heart" as being so immediate as you do. True.. he did do an "about face" in terms of what he initially set out to do pretty quickly, and I think that is because he STARTED to change when SHE got his attention. He may have had a desire in his heart for HER.. but it was not a complete change of mind and heart and purpose (in terms of who he was a person) yet. All those things that "changed" for him early on are not the same as the other, deeper changes that came over him (both emotionally and spiritually) toward both her.. and God... later on in the story. Those deeper more permanent differences in his character were not so immediate (as I recall) and they became a gradual thing for him as the story went on.

 

He wants to impress her, so he does look to change for her. That is very sweet of him. But he pretty much did a 180 by just seeing her. It was immediate.

 

But oh.. I just thought of something.. you'd NEVER last in our Sunday School class... ha.You'd have to go sit with the grown ups anyway.. ha. We do NOT have "sawdust" or saur kraut cookies fo snack time. Only Teddy Grahams. :p

 

It's best I stay outside.

 

It is true that there was not much "grey" with any of these characters. But I do not see their "black and whiteness' as cartoonish. Again, I think for the time this film was made.. it was very evenly set (in terms of how the characters were presented) We were not supposed to have to "figure them out" so much as figure out what they were going next to do based on what we already knew about who they were. That is sometimes a nice way to tell a story too. Although I do admit.. (even if a bit grudginly, ha) that SOMETIMES it does help a story to have to "wonder" about a character (in terms of their moral fiber and how that will affect the choices they make) Both ways of telling a story are entertaining IF you have well thought out and interesting characters to work with.

 

There wasn't much to figure out with these two groups. As you said, "sinners" and "saints." Black and white. I liked Bob because he wasn't just one thing.

 

His biggest "sins" were not his outward acts. They were INSIDE his duplicitous heart. He PRETENDED to be one thing but was REALLY something else altogether. (And what he PRETENDED to be was WAY too important to just let him get away with acting any old way he pleased when no one was looking) That to me made him FAR worse in deed than the "Hell-towners" They were OPENLY sinful and very depraved but they really only had THEMSELVES to answer to and for (at least on an earthy level). But aside from being a preacher and responsible to God.. HE was responsible to his flock, and his church leaders, his sister AND even the townspeople whom he had gone to witness and minister to. He had the greater burden of responsibility so he had the greater guilt.

 

Well, you're right about that. He was being deceptive.

 

I do agree with you.. both his mother AND the church leaders who sent him there let him down. They (the leaders) even let down the people of that town. They lost sight of their own responsibility and did not care about what was best for him or for the town.. only about how to keep him from being an embarrassment to them. That is a HUGE "flaw" in their thinking and their actions really do make them at least somewhat accountable on a certain level for all the wrong deeds HE committted as well.

 

Yes, they just pushed him onto another town, a tough town. That was reckless and cruel.

 

Really only his sister seemed to have the right perspective as far as what they were SUPPOSED to be there for. She took her responsibilities to God, her brother, the church, and that town all very seriously. And again, I think she truly was an inspiring character in that regard.

 

She really didn't do much for me.

[FrankGrimes]

Howdy, Reyman -- I thought that you might have something else to say about the reasons I gave in addition to what you wrote already.

 

Oh, I see. I liked your reasons for your choices. I was impressed to see The Professionals at the top. It's a fun, action western with a sneaky heart. Love the performers and I like the director.

[rohanaka]

I don't even remember any of that! I thought she was boring. Give me Dolly (Louise Glaum)

 

OH golly.. it is getting late and I am an OLD woman.. and so now you have me wondering if I am making it all up in my MIND. ha. (wouldn't be the first time..and I may need to go back and look at it all again) But TRULY that is how I am remembering her.

 

And PS: Dolly?? tsk tsk... talk about "duplicitous. Ok.. so maybe she was more "coniving" than dishonest.. but SHE will only lead you down the path of destruction for sure, ha. She had her job description down pat. Surely you can do better than that.. I thought you liked your "lambie" sorts of gals. To me.. Faith (at least the way I am remembering her) was a "lambie". But maybe just not as "lovely" a lamb as your sweet Grace.

 

He wants to impress her, so he does look to change for her. That is very sweet of him. But he pretty much did a 180 by just seeing her. It was immediate

 

Well, this is likely one of those times where we are just not going to see it the same way no matter what. But in all fairness I SHOULD go back and watch again to refresh my memory.

 

But I will also ask if you really think that the sorts of changes that came over him early on would have been lasting ones if the story had ended right there.. with him having a "love at first sight" moment with her.. and just wanting to impress her by not being a "bad guy" any more?

 

I don't.

 

At that point, I do not think there was any sort of change in him that would have made a long lasting permanent difference in terms of who he was DEEP down inside. And the reason I say that is the sort of things he did and said after that part (where he first "defends" her. That may have been what started it all, but it took TIME for him to reason out all the things he saw in who she was (not just that first meeting with her) And I believe it takes time for most people to reason out the sorts of changes that TRULY change ones life. (Though not always. There may be a "bolt of lightening" moment for some people (like in the film Sgt York.. where Alvin gets knocked off that mule LITERALLY by a bolt of lightening and becomes a new man on the spot) But I did not see THAT sort of repentant heart in Hart's character until MUCH later in the story.

 

And again.. that is just my opinion.. so take it for what it is worth. (and since I already know you see it differenlty I know it is not likely worth much, but I will get over it). HA.

 

All kidding aside, that again is to me one of the fun things about movie discussions like this. We can all bring our thoughts and points of view to the table.. and we may all see things our own way.. but it is still fun to discuss it back and forth and maybe get to understand the characters and story from a different point of view. (And then after that... I get to stick you with my hat pin, HA)

[FrankGrimes]

And PS: Dolly?? tsk tsk... talk about "duplicitous. Ok.. so maybe she was more "coniving" than dishonest.. but SHE will only lead you down the path of destruction for sure, ha. She had her job description down pat. Surely you can do better than that.

 

But she's fun to watch!

 

I thought you liked your "lambie" sorts of gals. To me.. Faith (at least the way I am remembering her) was a "lambie". But maybe just not as "lovely" a lamb as your sweet Grace.

 

Lamby showed more fight and emotion. Faith just seemed to be a symbol.

 

But I will also ask if you really think that the sorts of changes that came over him early on would have been lasting ones if the story had ended right there.. with him having a "love at first sight" moment with her.. and just wanting to impress her by not being a "bad guy" any more?

 

I thought he was doing it for her, not himself. Many guys do this for a woman. They make a conversion. The "Petticoat Brigade" was in town the whole time but Blaze didn't care about them and their beliefs. He was against law and religion. But he sees her and now things are different. Does he take it seriously? He's definitely wanting to make an impression on Faith, so I guess he does.

 

What's deeper, doing something just because you want to be with somebody or doing it because you chose to do it on your own?

[rohanaka]

Doggone it Grey Guy..ha I am going to be holding my eyeballs open with TOOTHPICKS in the morning, ha.

 

But you really got me to thinking about all this and while you were typing your last post.. I went into that website that Jackie had posted way back when we first chatted on this movie (which is a way cool site by the way) and looked at some "excerpts" of the scenes where he meets her and starts down his "road to redemption" and I watched some of the stuff at the end. too. up to the very end in fact.

 

And I do confess that I might not have remembered it all as "firmly' as I should have (in terms of how "deeply changed" he was from the beginning. You are right in that he DID change a lot after he first met her.. and pretty quickly. But I still maintain that his total redemption (spiritually and emotionally speaking) were a gradual thing. Among other reasons, the best example I can give is if you look at the two prayers I mentioned ealier.. first he prays selfishly "for her" with no real sincere belief that God was listening... almost "bold' and "in God's face" so to speak. And then later.. at the end.. he prays in humility of spirit.. on her behalf.. "for her" asking God to make her happy. It took TIME for him to grow into that sort of faith.. and he did not "change" that way all at once. (And PS: I like how God answered his FIRST prayer... and second prayer all at the same time.. again.. as you say.. the ending was very "hopeful".)

 

Lamby showed more fight and emotion. Faith just seemed to be a symbol

 

Now see.. again.. it is all a matter of personal taste and opinion.. because I see them BOTH as having a similar spirit (in terms of "fight and emotion" but just not for the same reasons or motivations. And NOT at all in any sort of similar way. At any rate, I wanted to say that after watching these bits and pieces of the movie again tonight, I am all the more convinced in Faith's attributes and strength of character. At the risk of sounding a bit preachy... I found her to be a very strong woman.. strong in faith.. and in her love for God.. his kingdom and her brother. And also eventually.. for Hart's character as well.

 

And I REALLY liked how she looked after her brother while she looked out for the ministry too. Deep down she knew his weaknesses and did her best to help him (perhaps hoping God would do the rest and truly make him the man he should have been all along)

 

Wow.. just watching what I did again.. makes me want to sit down with this story and watch it all the way through once more. (but NOT tonight. I am going to drop off asleep at ANY moment if I do not get up from here, ha)

 

But thanks again SO much Jackie, for bringing this film up earlier this year.

 

And thanks to YOU Grey Guy for giving it a chance. Maybe if you are nice.. ha.. I will save you some Teddy Grahams from NEXT week's Sunday School Class, ha. Nah.. you'd likely just try to spit them out since they are not made of sawdust... and I hate to see a good Teddy Graham go to waste. ha.

[JackFavell]

>I haven't seen any films from this period. The ones I've seen a little of are Les Vampires, which I like. I will be getting Judex and Fantomas, later this year or early next. They seem very interesting. My kind of stuff.

 

*Judex* 's plot sounds exactly like *Hell's Hinges* ! *Judex* also sounds very, VERY similar to the *Francis Ford* films, with the emphasis on characters who may not be exactly who you think they are at first glance. Ford did a lot of serials in this same vein, all types of genres, practically inventing the crime drama. When he got bored, he would change from one type of film to another, always creating something new and different. One series might be set in India and Egypt, another would be Phantom of the Opera-esque. His characters might start out bad, then spend some time caught between the love of a woman (usually Grace Cunard) and carrying out their nefarious plot. You never knew which way Ford's character was going to go. He had one series in which he and his female lead BOTH played dual roles. They were tremendously popular, because there was always something new happening, and the characters were not easily knowable. The height of their popularity was in 1915 - 1916. I guess 1916 was the year of deeper characterization and plot.

 

This is the tragedy of lost films....we'll never really know what kind of spectacular work Ford might have done., nor how much our modern movies owe to him and others whose work is lost.

 

You have me extremely interested in the Feuillade now. Thanks!

 

>Such as...

 

I'm talking character, mainly, but not exclusively. The two main male characters in *Hell's Hinges* are not simple. One is a roughneck hit man who is brought in to do the real dirty work of the Helltowners. I grant you that Hart's background is not dealt with in any detail... but I do believe he is a bad man - I think you discussed this when we talked about 3 Bad Men, so long ago. The only thing we are shown is him coming in to get rid of the churchgoers - we must take it on faith that he has done this kind of thing before, and not with such a benign ending.

 

His redemption is simple, yes but the depth of the character is not. A good bad man was not the norm at this time - this was a new development, and we have Hart to thank for it, at least in part.

 

The parson brother is also not what he appears to be. Before this time, you might see a similar character - but the man would be evil incarnate - a lecher posing as a man of the cloth. He would have brought his downfall on himself, rather than this feckless, easily swayed weakling, who FINDS NO REDEMPTION. That is a very complex thought to deal with. One of the charms of finding this film is that it offers no easy answers. To me, that is complex.

 

I find Parson Bob to be a very interesting and subtly developed character, very human and real, just as Hart's character is much more real than the previous western heroes. He is complex - not as complex as you would like, but complex nevertheless.

 

The other thing that I think is complex is the direction the plot takes - When Bob dies, the movie takes off into unknown territory. Wouldn't you say a simple hero would round up the perpetrators and march them off to jail? If a man has not experienced evil, it is a very simple thing to be moralistic. You can talk a good game, but unless you are tested, your goodness is a hollow bell. I found Hart's mix of good and bad to be very profound, especially in the scene where he holds the Helltowners captive in the fire. Is this what a good man would do? I say, no! It is complex. How do you feel watching the movie at that point? I was thrown for a loop, because it seemed almost outrageous that a hero would do such a thing. It is a villain's place to hold someone's feet to the fire. It made me think twice about my notions of good and bad. A good man can slip off the wagon every now and then, and maybe that is not a bid thing always. I say that Hart is suggesting that a hero should be a mostly good man, but that the added grit that a bad past offers is what was needed out west to survive. In tempering his morals with humanity, he created a new, stronger, complex character.

 

Women would have a long way to go before they were given complex roles. I'm thinking Babs, Ruth Chatterton and Mary Astor were the first to create good bad girls. Maybe someone can think of some complex female characters from before 1930....??

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Oct 12, 2010 10:24 AM

[MissGoddess]

great stuff, everyone, on *Hell's Hinges*. Imagine such a discussion on a movie that is nearly a hundred years old! Jackie I loved what you wrote about Francis...and when I saw the press release on the Louis Fueillade serials, I immediately thought of his own work in the same vein.

 

Ro, it says a lot about the effectiveness of Hart's film that it could move an audience today and your words testify to that. I find it so interesting, and proof that art CANNOT be "dated" if it touches the human spirit somehow. Okay maybe a William S. Hart western isn't quite Art with a capital "A" but it's storytelling and good storytelling and I'm babbling now so I'll stop.

[movieman1957]

>and I'm babbling now so I'll stop.

 

Please babble on. (pun intended.)

 

Pardon me while I do the same for a minute. As your comment about a hundred year old film still giving such deep thought I think it is amazing (and wonderful) that this thread has over 6000 replies in a little over two years. (It also has nearly 140,000 views.)

 

It is a grand thing that the people here speak so eloquently and deeply about what may seem the most narrow of genres. This is, by far, my favorite thread. I have learned a great deal from everyone about these films. Everyone has made it interesting and fun. Thanks to all.

 

Back to "Hell's Hinges."

[FrankGrimes]

But I still maintain that his total redemption (spiritually and emotionally speaking) were a gradual thing.

 

Well, you're right. He resists with Bob's words but he listens when Faith talks. He wants to be with her, to do right by her. For him to do this, he must enter her world. And I believe he does so with honesty. He's not doing so just to humor her.

 

I found her to be a very strong woman.. strong in faith.. and in her love for God.. his kingdom and her brother. And also eventually.. for Hart's character as well.

 

She is. I give her credit for not judging Blaze. I just don't find her character to be all that interesting. Her best moment with me is the walk home with Blaze.

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't like the topic matter. Those kind of films drive me crazy. They upset me. Still, I thought the ending was very sweet. I liked all that Blaze does for Faith and his wish for her to be happy was lovely.

[FrankGrimes]

Judex 's plot sounds exactly like Hell's Hinges ! Judex also sounds very, VERY similar to the Francis Ford films, with the emphasis on characters who may not be exactly who you think they are at first glance. Ford did a lot of serials in this same vein, all types of genres, practically inventing the crime drama. When he got bored, he would change from one type of film to another, always creating something new and different. One series might be set in India and Egypt, another would be Phantom of the Opera-esque. His characters might start out bad, then spend some time caught between the love of a woman (usually Grace Cunard) and carrying out their nefarious plot. You never knew which way Ford's character was going to go. He had one series in which he and his female lead BOTH played dual roles. They were tremendously popular, because there was always something new happening, and the characters were not easily knowable. The height of their popularity was in 1915 - 1916. I guess 1916 was the year of deeper characterization and plot.

 

I never knew Francis Ford was the American version of Louis Feuillade! That's remarkable.

 

Feuillade greatly interests me because his focus is on crime and the duplicitous. Judex is evidently an inspiration for Batman. Fritz Lang's films, the Spiders and Dr. Mabuse, the Gambler, also take from Feuillade. Love the darkness.

 

His redemption is simple, yes but the depth of the character is not. A good bad man was not the norm at this time - this was a new development, and we have Hart to thank for it, at least in part.

 

So it's that he's a bad man who turns good which wasn't done at the time. This is the complexity. I can see that. And I do like his character. I like that he wants to do right for the girl he's fallen for. I guess he turns "simplistic" around her. Nothing wrong with that. I wish he struggled with it all more than he does. That would have made it complex to me. But the point of the film isn't that. It's a very Christian tale.

 

The parson brother is also not what he appears to be. Before this time, you might see a similar character - but the man would be evil incarnate - a lecher posing as a man of the cloth. He would have brought his downfall on himself, rather than this feckless, easily swayed weakling, who FINDS NO REDEMPTION. That is a very complex thought to deal with. One of the charms of finding this film is that it offers no easy answers. To me, that is complex.

 

That was excellent, Jackie. I'm with you about Bob. He wasn't evil, he was just weak and he was set up to fail by his mother and the other church leaders. Even his sister turned a blind eye with him. But I like that she was willing to walk beside him versus shuffle him off. She cared about him.

 

The other thing that I think is complex is the direction the plot takes - When Bob dies, the movie takes off into unknown territory. Wouldn't you say a simple hero would round up the perpetrators and march them off to jail? If a man has not experienced evil, it is a very simple thing to be moralistic. You can talk a good game, but unless you are tested, your goodness is a hollow bell. I found Hart's mix of good and bad to be very profound, especially in the scene where he holds the Helltowners captive in the fire. Is this what a good man would do? I say, no! It is complex. How do you feel watching the movie at that point? I was thrown for a loop, because it seemed almost outrageous that a hero would do such a thing. It is a villain's place to hold someone's feet to the fire. It made me think twice about my notions of good and bad. A good man can slip off the wagon every now and then, and maybe that is not a bid thing always. I say that Hart is suggesting that a hero should be a mostly good man, but that the added grit that a bad past offers is what was needed out west to survive. In tempering his morals with humanity, he created a new, stronger, complex character.

 

Now that's a brilliant observation and it proves your point very nicely. You're right, the saloon scene where Blaze does "hold their feet to the fire" (perfect description by you) was very different and certainly complex. He had vengeance on his mind, which isn't a moral thought. He wanted an eye for an eye. And I definitely liked that. I didn't like the scene as a whole in that everyone cowered to him. They should have lit him up!

 

You've done well, Spunky! The verdict goes to you and Quiet Gal.

 

Women would have a long way to go before they were given complex roles. I'm thinking Babs, Ruth Chatterton and Mary Astor were the first to create good bad girls. Maybe someone can think of some complex female characters from before 1930....??

 

Oh, there are some very complex female characters prior to 1930. Kriemhild in Lang's Die Nibelungen (Margarete Sch?n) turns from love to hate. She plots and plans. I also love Thymian (Louise Brooks) in Diary of a Lost Girl. She's one of my all-time favorite female characters. I'm also big on Kate Cregeen (Anny Ondra) in Hitchcock's The Manxman. Irma Vep (Musidora) is a rather fascinating female character from Les Vampires. The rest of the silents I have watched don't feature a complex female character, so you're right.

[JackFavell]

For all I know, Francis Ford was making his films out of whole cloth, relying on his own brain for plots and diversions. I don't know how influenced Ford was by European directors. If he was like Jack, he would have been influenced by all sorts of things, literary genres and styles, European arts, etc. I do not know specifically if he was a reader or watcher of foreign films. He may not have had time to see other director's films - he was making his own films non-stop. He was most open-minded and imaginative, though, that is clear. And he had no fear - anything was fair game for his creative eye - the more exotic, shocking and dark, the better.

 

I am embarrassed to say I haven't seen one of the ladies on your list of complex heroines. I did find *Les Vampires* on youtube and will try to watch it when I can. I go back to *The WInd*, because I do think the Lillian Gish character becomes complex during the course of the movie. I would say though, that the movie itself is more complex than the heroine and her struggles with madness.

[FrankGrimes]

Diary of a Lost Girl should be a must watch for you. As you like to say, it's very "modern."

 

 

 

[MissGoddess]

it's been ages since i saw *diary of a lost girl* but i can definitely see jackie loving it. ro and movieman should watch it, too.

[movieman1957]

Thanks. I put it in my queue.

[JackFavell]

I've seen Pandora's Box , but not Diary....Unfortunately, my opinion of Pandora is not as glowing as most viewers. I thought it interesting, Louise Brooks was fun to watch, and I loved Francis L. , but I was generally underwhelmed. Maybe all those glowing reviews I'd read all my life made it somewhat less exciting when I finally did see the movie. Or maybe it is one of those films like Citizen Kane you have to watch over before it strikes you the right way.

 

I have DOALG in my queue. Maybe I'll bump it up....

[FrankGrimes]

I've seen Pandora's Box , but not Diary....Unfortunately, my opinion of Pandora is not as glowing as most viewers. I thought it interesting, Louise Brooks was fun to watch, and I loved Francis L. , but I was generally underwhelmed. Maybe all those glowing reviews I'd read all my life made it somewhat less exciting when I finally did see the movie. Or maybe it is one of those films like Citizen Kane you have to watch over before it strikes you the right way.

 

I've only seen parts of Pandora's Box, and what I saw, I didn't like it nearly as much as Diary of a Lost Girl. I agree with Miss G (never again), I think you'd love Diary of a Lost Girl. It's a female Odyssey. Lots of emotions. It will make you cry but also make you feel good, too.

 

I have DOALG in my queue. Maybe I'll bump it up....

 

I really hope you do.

[OllieTSB]

We're just working thru the Fantomas series this week and next, and like all the reviews thus far, I see the origins of so many later characters in film, comics, etc. But I still wonder about the origins of THESE characters, too - I'm thinking of all the 'dark gothic books' of the 19th Century and I suppose that's what these early European filmmakers were considering. DR MABUSE's powers, though, seem well beyond anything I've discovered.

 

I need to find out when Robin Hood tales were first published and distributed. I wonder about that Dark Deed For Good Purpose as an origin to a 'species'.

[OllieTSB]

We're just working thru the Fantomas series this week and next, and like all the reviews thus far, I see the origins of so many later characters in film, comics, etc. But I still wonder about the origins of THESE characters, too - I'm thinking of all the 'dark gothic books' of the 19th Century and I suppose that's what these early European filmmakers were considering. DR MABUSE's powers, though, seem well beyond anything I've discovered.

 

I need to find out when Robin Hood tales were first published and distributed. I wonder about that Dark Deed For Good Purpose as an origin to a 'species'.

[MissGoddess]

Hi Ollie,

the Robin Hood tales go back to medieval times and the adventure series...didn't they begin with the "Penny Press" in Victorian England and the States?