Western Movie Rambles

[JackFavell]

I did!

 

I also started *Les Vampires* on youtube - probably the worst way to see it. I am through ep 1, which was slow going, but it was all expository. Hopefully, the other eps will be a little more action oriented. It's also available from Netflix I think.

 

Then I got sidetracked and started rewatching the Henri Langlois Cinematheque documentary, which is fabulous...if you are interested in New Wave cinema, or the cultivation and restoration of films, I recommend it. It's very entertaining. The first time I saw it was on TCM a couple years ago, in the middle of the night and I've been trying to find it. What a character that man was, and how much we owe him for saving so many classic films.

 

I realized this morning that I still have DeMille's *The Squaw Man* on my hard drive. It was made in 1914, and I am curious now to see it, I want to compare it to *Hell's Hinges* and the Feuillade films, just to see what was going on in the years between 1914 and 1917 - they seem like incredibly important years for movies, with giant leaps ahead technically and imaginatively. Before 1914, the movies are pretty simple and could be quite charming. Some are striving for depth and complexity, but cannot overcome a very linear way of putting scenes together. In other words, if someone is going to the store, there are shots of them walking out the door, getting in the car, driving off, driving up to the store, stopping, getting out of the car.... etc. They felt they had to show each action for it to make sense. Except, as far as I can tell, for Griffith, and maybe Mary Pickford, whose films show an almost scary modernity in the way they are edited.

 

As the 1917's roll in, the films become hugely more sophisticated, with editing making film more like eyesight, or even thought. I guess this really is thanks to Griffith, who was obsessed with film. Shot duration is shorter, making films seem more lively and interesting. Instead of actors parading in front of the camera full length, within the proscenium arch of the frame, actors faces are given more attention ... medium shots are added. Fade ins, fade outs, and irising started taking the place of inconsequential actions, like getting in and out of a car.

 

Even Les Vampires seems to be trapped within that full shot approach - no faces, no medium shots, and achingly slow editing. But the magical mystery of the story takes your mind off of it.

[FrankGrimes]

Hey there, Ollie -- 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.

 

That's what has me excited to see Fantomas, Judex, and Les Vampires. I recently watched Fritz Lang's The Spiders and I really enjoyed it. Lang took from Les Vampires.

 

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.

 

Most everything is taken from or inspired by something else. The French crime stories were highly influential.

 

DR MABUSE's powers, though, seem well beyond anything I've discovered.

 

Ah, yes, the master of deception. Love Lang's "Mabuse" films.

 

Hiya, Jackie -- I also started Les Vampires on youtube - probably the worst way to see it. I am through ep 1, which was slow going, but it was all expository. Hopefully, the other eps will be a little more action oriented. It's also available from Netflix I think.

 

All I've watched of Les Vampires was the first "episode." It's very slow, for sure. I'll see if I can borrow my brother's DVD this weekend. I'm interested in watching it.

 

As the 1917's roll in, the films become hugely more sophisticated, with editing making film more like eyesight, or even thought. I guess this really is thanks to Griffith, who was obsessed with film. Shot duration is shorter, making films seem more lively and interesting. Instead of actors parading in front of the camera full length, within the proscenium arch of the frame, actors faces are given more attention ... medium shots are added. Fade ins, fade outs, and irising started taking the place of inconsequential actions, like getting in and out of a car.

 

I'm sure Griffith was the most influential director in America, but I haven't seen any of his films, so I'm not sure what he brought to the table. I only know of the UFA directors. Their visuals are very strong; lots of camera tricks. The earliest Lang film I have seen is The Spiders (1919), which is very representative of Lang's work in Germany. Destiny (1921) is the next Lang film I've seen and that has quite a few camera tricks.

 

The earliest F.W. Murnau film that I've watched is Phantom (1922), and that also features some remarkable images and camerawork. I have The Haunted Castle (1921), but I've yet to watch it.

 

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is from 1920. It's another early film with great visuals.

 

But in terms of prior to 1919, my only reference is really Louis Feuillade.

 

Even Les Vampires seems to be trapped within that full shot approach - no faces, no medium shots, and achingly slow editing. But the magical mystery of the story takes your mind off of it.

 

I really cannot remember much about the first "episode" other than the introduction of some characters.

 

By the way, Hell's Hinges had two very creative editing tricks in the film to go along with the impressive fires.

[MissGoddess]

I'll post another as it nears, but here's an early reminder that a rare Thomas Ince

short film from 1912, Heart of an Indian (aka The Indian Massacre), starring _Francis Ford_ and

Grace Cunard, is airing November 8th at 8 p.m. EST. And it turns out that it's available

on DVD as part of this interesting three disc set of pioneering films and fragments:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Saved-Flames-Rare-Restored-Films/dp/B0010WMV8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1286996045&sr=1-1

 

Lots of good stuff in that set, if I can I may order this at one point since it covers both

European and Hollywood films from waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Oct 13, 2010 2:58 PM

[JackFavell]

That looks really cool, MissG! Everything from Lois Weber to George Pal! And the Thomas Ince/Francis Ford movie is icing on the cake.... I wonder if Frank directed?

 

Frank -

 

Griffith brought huge narrative skills to the table - his films after 1912 are more like what we are used to today. His cutting is fluid and graceful, with meaning behind it - he intercuts shots that denote or describe feelings, which virtually no one was doing. His camera angles are closer, designed to bring you completely into the story - creating characters we identify with and even love. Actors don't simply walk from left to right into a shot, but mosey in on the diagonal (much like Ford) or appear in the frame already doing something, another thing no one else seemed to do in 1914. I can demonstrate:

 

Part 1 of Cecil B. DeMille's *The Squaw Man* (1914) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMUfeYn2jY&feature=fvw

 

D.W. Griffith's *The Avenging Conscience* (1914) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMMBVjYPAUU

 

You don't have to watch very much of these two films to see why Griffith was the father of film.

[FrankGrimes]

I'll try to watch the Griffith and DeMille films in the coming days, Jackie.

 

I'm also looking to watch:

 

[JackFavell]

You really only have to watch a few minutes of the Griffith and DeMille movies to get the idea of how they are directed - I was not pushing you to watch the whole movies. Sorry! Really only two or three minutes each will suffice... it's kind of stunning to see the difference. I picked the DeMille because it was hugely popular, and the D.W. Griffith because it was a small movie - I did not want to pick out Griffith's masterpiece and skew the argument by comparing it with a crappy little programmer by an unknown director.

 

I thought you saw TOTLP?

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Oct 13, 2010 7:57 PM

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Oct 13, 2010 7:58 PM

[FrankGrimes]

You really only have to watch a few minutes of the Griffith and DeMille movies to get the idea of how they are directed - I was not pushing you to watch the whole movies. Sorry! Really only two or three minutes each will suffice... it's kind of stunning to see the difference. I picked the DeMille because it was hugely popular, and the D.W. Griffith because it was a small movie - I did not want to pick out Griffith's masterpiece and skew the argument by comparing it with a crappy little programmer by an unknown director.

 

Do you wish me to compare and contrast the two?

 

I thought you saw TOTLP?

 

No. I just got it today.

[JackFavell]

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

 

> Do you wish me to compare and contrast the two?

 

I don't want to push you to do anything. I just thought it was interesting to look at how really different the Griffith looks in comparison to the DeMille, or for that matter, to almost anything else. Griffith really was incredibly far ahead when you compare. You said you hadn't seen any Griffith and I thought you might like to _see_ what he brings to the table, rather than me blah blah blahing about it. I really should be talking about this in a different place anyway, instead of hogging the Westerns thread.... though I think this all ties back into *Hell's Hinges*.

 

BTW, what were the editing (or was it camera) tricks Hart used? I haven't gone back yet to try and figure out what you meant. Maybe you can tell me where in the movie to look for them?

 

 

> I thought you saw TOTLP?

>

> No. I just got it today.

[FrankGrimes]

I don't want to push you to do anything. I just thought it was interesting to look at how really different the Griffith looks in comparison to the DeMille, or for that matter, to almost anything else. Griffith really was incredibly far ahead when you compare. You said you hadn't seen any Griffith and I thought you might like to see what he brings to the table, rather than me blah blah blahing about it. I really should be talking about this in a different place anyway, instead of hogging the Westerns thread.... though I think this all ties back into Hell's Hinges.

 

You're not pushing me, Pushy. I'm interested in watching those two films, but I wanted to make sure I understood why you chose those two.

 

BTW, what were the editing (or was it camera) tricks Hart used? I haven't gone back yet to try and figure out what you meant. Maybe you can tell me where in the movie to look for them?

 

The fades in and out of images. The images are left to linger. The one is when Faith is praying in the church and Blaze hears her call. There's another one, but I'm trying to remember where it is. I believe it's with Blaze and his thoughts.

 

[rohanaka]

Helllo Mr. Grey...

 

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 think I may have not valued his motives as much as I should have (early in our chat) because it had been a while since I watched the film and I had forgotten some key moments. I think he did change very quickly on ONE level.. so you did have it right when you said that. But I also think the deeper, lasting, and life changing moments were also gradual for him. To use a couple of "biblical" terms.. there is a difference between "justification" and "sanctification" and I do not presume to be any sort of authority on those two doctrines.. but a person is "justified" once.. at the moment of belief..

"redeemed" at the moment of repentence if you will. But "sanctification" is a process.. and it never truly is something that will be achieved this side of heaven.. but as believers we are called to keep working toward that goal.

 

As a new believer.. Blaze did not have the background or the time spent in following after the One he had come to know yet.. so he was bound to fall back on the things he DID know.. until such time as he grew and became more mature in his faith.

 

Which leads me to THIS from Jackie:

 

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.

 

Oh little darlin...' that was very well said. And you are right.. it was not what a "good man" WOULD do.. but none of us is good in the "truest" sense of the word. We all have our faults and failings.. and deep down inside he allowed the things in him that were NOT yet "perfected" to come out. He had not learned enough yet (nor attained the sort of personal strength needed) to be able to turn the other cheek. He was not wrong to be angry... but he was WRONG about the way he chose to respond to the anger. He WAS thinking like a "bad guy" but at least he was doing it out of a "righteous" anger.. and ultimately.. the new righteousness that he had in him caused him to let them all go. He might not have done that otherwise. "Complex" is the right word for it.

 

And PS: for the record.. even the BEST can fall sometimes. But again.. to be "sanctified" is a process and Blaze was at the VERY beginning on this road. It is not always easy to control the "natural" instincts we all have in our hearts to do things "our way" so he had a LONG way to go.. And by the way.. ha.... trust me when I say.. I could write a book about THAT.. But let's don't go THERE! ha) :-)

 

The Grey Guy says:

 

I guess the bottom line is I don't like the topic matter. Those kind of films drive me crazy. They upset me.

 

Fair enough.

 

But to be honest.. I am curious what it was about the film that "upset" you. I know there was a lot of "Christian" imagery.. like the part where she is praying and you see the image (over top of her face) where she is clinging to the cross on the beach) etc.. and I can see someone not "liking" the way some of the themes were presented.. or maybe even not liking the subject matter. We are all entitled to our own opinions so I would never presume to say you should or should not like or dislike anything..

 

And I do freely admit the "faith messages" and imagery is very strong in this story. I know you felt like it was too "Sunday School-ish".

 

But I truly feel that the subject was shown from balanced perspective. I say this mainly because if it were a film that wanted to just go "all out" with a "gospel" message and "preach" to the viewer, it would NOT likely have had the PASTOR be a lecherous drunk who dies in his sin... at the very least he likley would have repented at the last minute. Jackie is right.. this film gives us WAY more than the "typical" storyline. I have to say I found it all very refreshing.

 

At any rate, I think these sorts of stories are very valuable.. and very RARE. In fact.. even MORE rare now than when this film was made. And I am not even saying all this just because I am looking at the story from a "faith" perspective. But I am simply saying that this film DID sort of raise the bar in terms of being "innovative" because it did NOT take the typical "road" when it came to faith issues. So many times faith is kept "in the background" of the story and of litte consequence to the characters or why they do what they do.. OR more often the "believers" are all just a bunch of "hypocrytes" instead of being genuine followeres of what they say they believe.

 

And the thing I liked THE most about this story was that it did not go EITHER of those two routes.. you had a LOT of "grit" and a VERY compelling story.. but it was still fair in how it showed the sister.. Not TOO many "people of faith" in movies of this nature (especailly westerns) are shown in such a positive and inspiring light. But there she was.. working and living out her REAL faith in spite of her brother's FALSE faith.. and in the midst of all the OTHER stuff that was going on.

 

So many times (especially when western movies get made) it is always the "good girls" or the "church ladies" who are looking down their noses at the "lesser than" citizens. They are often shown as the "fine upstanding citizens" who are the most "hypocritical" of all. But she (Faith) was NOTHING of the sort. She was real, and she was genuine in her spirit, her love, and her faith. And she did not look down on ANYONE... no matter their station in life or their "mocking" of her and the things she held dear. Again.. I say.. refreshing.

 

Ok.. I did not mean to go so far out on a limb there, but I truly do see this film that way. (I hope nothing I have said was in any way sounding "confrontational) I freely admit not everyone will see it from my point of view. But as I am always fond of saying... that is what makes these sorts of chats fun (at least for me) I genuinely enjoy a good discussion and a "respectufl debate sometimes too, as you well know (and also the occassional "goofing around knock down drag out with you too, HA.) but I hope I have not come across in any way too heavy handed here.

 

And having said all that.. thank you (all of you) for putting up with me. Feel free to just roll your eyes and say "Oh that Kathy.. she is going off on one of THOSE tangents again" ha)

 

(PS.. Miss G... you are so right.. I wonder if the makers of this film had ANY idea we'd all be here lo these many, many... MANY years later just gabbing away about this movie.. who'da thunk it???)

 

OH.. and PS: some more.. Jackie..thanks for those links to the two films. Also.. I found Diary of a Lost Girl on youtube too.. SOMEWHERE along the line I hope to get a chance to watch ALL of these.. someday...

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Oct 13, 2010 8:46 PM

[JackFavell]

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

 

> The fades in and out of images. The images are left to linger. The one is when Faith is praying in the church and Blaze hears her call.

 

Ooh, I like that! So he uses the fade to show us the connection between the two - does his hearing her have a mystic quality to it? I can't watch it right now, I think because Andrew is using the other computer - the movie just keeps loading. It sounds like there is a spiritual connection shown by that fade... but maybe I am reading too much into the edit.

 

There's another one, but I'm trying to remember where it is. I believe it's with Blaze and his thoughts.

 

I can see how a slow fade could be used to show a man deep in thought. I've never really thought about the reasons behind the editing or the camera angles this clearly before. It's very interesting how sophisticated we have become - looking at these first films is opening my eyes as to how much goes on in a film that I am blissfully unaware of. And I never realized how much joy I get out of a simple edit, if it's well done.

[FrankGrimes]

I just found Hell's Hinges to be very heavy-handed and too preachy for my tastes. The moment Bible passages and the like are being tossed at me, I get the urge to get some drinks at Silk Miller's "Palace of Joy." And I don't drink!

 

As usual, it's about sensibilities. Everyone has their lines. What's violent to one person may not be to another. This is an area where my sensibilities are easily disturbed. It's on the "too much" side, for me.

 

I like my Quaker girls in High Noon and Angel and the Badman, mainly because it's a way of life they represent. They don't preach to me.

 

I'm not into "sanctifies" and "justifies." That's just not me.

 

This is pretty much me:

 

[JackFavell]

Ha! I gotta agree with Ro - I felt it was not preachy at all, in fact, I liked the mix of Grit and good... what Ro said only she said it so much better.

 

And I am probably far more finicky about religious topics than Frank is... this is too funny!

 

Thanks also Ro for telling me about Lost Girl on youtube - I think this is one I may see if I can get from Netflix for the larger screen - if it's like Pandora, there's a lot of beauty in the film, and I want to see it a little better. I have to watch the two movies I have from there already - Shark Island and Red Witch.... THAT'S how far behind I am in conversations.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Oct 13, 2010 9:09 PM

[FrankGrimes]

Ooh, I like that! So he uses the fade to show us the connection between the two - does his hearing her have a mystic quality to it? I can't watch it right now, I think because Andrew is using the other computer - the movie just keeps loading. It sounds like there is a spiritual connection shown by that fade... but maybe I am reading too much into the edit.

 

Yes, I believe it's meant to be a spiritual connection. Blaze cannot hear the parson because what he's saying isn't heartfelt and real. Blaze's heart is not touched. When Faith talks about God, his heart listens.

 

But I don't know what the image below is about because I'm not religious. Quiet Gal, Fordy Guns, and Cowboy Chris may be able to answer that. I know what the cross symbolizes, of course. It's just I don't understand the rest.

 

 

I can see how a slow fade could be used to show a man deep in thought.

 

That's correct. The director is letting you know what is swirling inside the mind and/or body of a person. I'm not sure how prevalent those kind of fades were in 1916. I was impressed by the one with Faith.

 

 

I've never really thought about the reasons behind the editing or the camera angles this clearly before. It's very interesting how sophisticated we have become - looking at these first films is opening my eyes as to how much goes on in a film that I am blissfully unaware of. And I never realized how much joy I get out of a simple edit, if it's well done.

 

Are you kidding?! You've been excellent in noticing film techniques! What you just wrote about Griffith is superb. I now have something to look for in my viewing. And you certainly understand Ford and his strong emotional images.

 

By the way, I really liked the intertitles for Hell's Hinges. I love that the cards related to the town and story. Very creative.

 

 

[MissGoddess]

so many times faith is kept "in the background" of the story and of litte consequence to the characters or why they do what they do.. OR more often the "believers" are all just a bunch of "hypocrytes" instead of being genuine followeres of what they say they believe.

 

I so agree, Ro. Beautifully put.

[rohanaka]

As usual, it's about sensibilities. Everyone has their lines. What's violent to one person may not be to another. This is an area where my sensibilities are easily disturbed. It's on the "too much" side, for me.

 

And I can totally respect that. I do agree there are some "story lines" that may be more one person's "flavor" than another. You have heard ME come down on why I don't like certain themes that others find appealing.. so we all have our "things" when it comes to stuff like that.

 

As for this film, I think where we differ the most is that what you saw as "preachy" I saw as simply saw as a way to show who she was as a person.. (it really does all more or less come down to personal opinion and taste) For my money, it was not unreasonable to expect her to say those sorts of things.. (and have scripture used to describe things going on in the story as well) considering her character and who she was and what was happening)

 

I like that you get a more complete picture of the characters (in silents films) by the sorts of things that are said about them in those little lines that pop up to tell the story. and I liked how she was "unashamed" of who she was.. and so was the movie.

 

And PS:

 

But I don't know what the image below is about

 

This is soley my opinion.. so I would not presume to be any sort of authority.. but the message I got from that image is that she was literally CLINGING to the cross as her source of strength in the face of the persecution that had been going on from the Hell Towners (if I am remembering the scene correctly) She is pleading her cause to the only one in her mind who could truly defend and protect her... there is other symbolism too.. in that she is wearing white.. and she is on the "stormy rocks".. perhaps of doubt or fear. Someone else might have a different view.. but in my mind.. she was leaning and relying on Christ (and him alone) for help. (and that is about all I will say about that.. ha. So now, to borrow from Sean Connery in The Untouchables... "there endeth the lesson") :-)

 

PS: Jackie.. you are usually the "treasure trove" for me.. ha. so I am glad I found a "youtube" for YOU this time. ha. . And PS: some more.. YOU are not nearly so far behind in your movie watching as I am, little darlin'. ha. If I am not careful.. the SHIFTLESS one will have to turn in his "crown" and name ME the most "shirking" when it comes to movie-watching "duty" ha.

 

Oh me.. where DOES the time go???? :-)

[JackFavell]

I liked the titles too.. The fact that they had western artwork in them gave the movie a lot more flavor - and it showed a thoughtful, meticulous presence behind the camera.

 

I don't really get that first thought bubble - the one with the cross - I'd have to go look at the movie over again, and I am not really up on my bible quotes either. But I sure do know what the second one (the parson's thought) means! I actually loved that fade when I saw it - his dreams and foolish ideas about how his life will be when he got his posting were sad, because we knew that was not going to be the case as soon as we saw inside his head. We saw how deluded he was.

[MissGoddess]

Me, Jackie and Ro all posted at exactly the same time!

[JackFavell]

Sistas! Under the mink....

[FrankGrimes]

This is soley my opinion.. so I would not presume to be any sort of authority.. but the message I got from that image is that she was literally CLINGING to the cross as her source of strength in the face of the persecution that had been going on from the Hell Towners (if I am remembering the scene correctly) She is pleading her cause to the only one in her mind who could truly defend and protect her... there is other symbolism too.. in that she is wearing white.. and she is on the "stormy rocks".. perhaps of doubt or fear. Someone else might have a different view.. but in my mind.. she was leaning and relying on Christ (and him alone) for help.

 

You're right, it's true to the character, but it's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too preachy for me. I just don't like such films. Religious films just don't work with me. Inherit the Wind is the kind of religious film that I like.

[MissGoddess]

[JackFavell]

I don't think this was a "religious" film.

 

>PS: Jackie.. you are usually the "treasure trove" for me.. ha. so I am glad I found a "youtube" for YOU this time. ha. . And PS: some more.. YOU are not nearly so far behind in your movie watching as I am, little darlin'. ha. If I am not careful.. the SHIFTLESS one will have to turn in his "crown" and name ME the most "shirking" when it comes to movie-watching "duty" ha.

 

>Oh me.. where DOES the time go???? :-)

 

Right down the drain, I think. I have promised to watch so many movies, I can't remember what they are anymore! Terrible.

 

And here I am typing instead of watching.....

[FrankGrimes]

I liked the titles too.. The fact that they had western artwork in them gave the movie a lot more flavor - and it showed a thoughtful, meticulous presence behind the camera.

 

There is definitely some creativity and art with Hell's Hinges. You are right about that. The fire scenes are quite breathtaking.

 

 

And I am probably far more finicky about religious topics than Frank is... this is too funny!

 

That's been proven wrong!

 

I have to watch the two movies I have from there already - Shark Island and Red Witch.... THAT'S how far behind I am in conversations.

 

Ford and Wayne? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Actually, I really like those two films. They are both entertaining, emotional, and somewhat thought-provoking. And Wake of the Red Witch features gods!

[JackFavell]

That fire still is awesome! The blackness of the smoke and the glow of the fire made for really striking imagery.

 

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

> Ford and Wayne? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Actually, I really like those two films. They are both entertaining, emotional, and somewhat thought-provoking. *And Wake of the Red Witch features gods!*

 

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Oct 13, 2010 10:08 PM

[FrankGrimes]

I don't think this was a "religious" film.

 

 

 

That's pretty doggone religious, to me. The cross is very prevalent in the film.

 

So what do you think the film is really about? And Quiet Gal, you? Fordy Guns? What's the film about?