Western Movie Rambles

[FrankGrimes]

that's a good comparison. though i like the stuff between coop and julie london more, it felt more mature. well, julie was a woman, and lina is a little more like renee in the far country, only with less to do.

 

I agree with you.

 

The dynamics are different between the two couples. Link is protecting Billie. Kemp has captured Lina. Lina comes to protect Kemp. But, you are right, there are more private moments between Link and Billie, so you feel their being together much more than Kemp and Lina.

 

oh yes i agree with all that, i was referring to her amount of screen time. her scenes with stewart seemed too brief. mann is not always for lingering on moments, and I admit i like to soak in a feeling, to have time to really let what is happening sink in before a cut or a dissolve.

 

You're right. And I do know you like to "soak," Soaky.

 

you don't get told what he did, which in western movie vernacular usually means, in an important character anyway, that whatever the crimes were they weren't as venal as the other guy's (in this case, billy).

 

Oh, I'm not so sure about that. Boone is on the run for a reason and he's looking for exoneration for a reason. He doesn't want to pay for his crime.

 

It's been a couple weeks since I watched the film. Did they ever mention what he did?

 

But what Frank and Billy did is about as bad as it gets.

 

there is nothing boring about it.

 

[MissGoddess]

>

> I agree with you.

>

 

then i'm in trouble.

 

> The dynamics are different between the two couples. Link is protecting Billie. Kemp has captured Lina. Lina comes to protect Kemp. But, you are right, there are more private moments between Link and Billie, so you feel their being together much more than Kemp and Lina.

>

 

you're right about the roles kind of being switched. even renee is kind of protective of

jeff in the far country. jeff isn't all that protective of anyone but himself, and maybe walter

brennan.

 

>

> You're right. And I do know you like to "soak," Soaky.

>

 

i'm sure i don't know what you mean.

 

> Oh, I'm not so sure about that. Boone is on the run for a reason and he's looking for exoneration for a reason. He doesn't want to pay for his crime.

>

> It's been a couple weeks since I watched the film. Did they ever mention what he did?

>

> But what Frank and Billy did is about as bad as it gets.

>

 

i don't recall they said what he did, though i'm sure he killed. but i think

it's clear the movie doesn't put him in same level as billy. at least to me,

otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

[FrankGrimes]

then i'm in trouble.

 

That's what you get for being around me!

 

you're right about the roles kind of being switched. even renee is kind of protective of

jeff in the far country. jeff isn't all that protective of anyone but himself, and maybe walter

brennan.

 

Jeff is definitely his own man. Renee is feisty cute.

 

i don't recall they said what he did, though i'm sure he killed. but i think

it's clear the movie doesn't put him in same level as billy. at least to me,

otherwise the whole thing falls apart.

 

No, Boone and Billy (and Frank) are not viewed on the same level. But I don't think Boone merely jaywalked.

[MissGoddess]

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

> then i'm in trouble.

>

> That's what you get for being around me!

>

 

you said it!

 

> No, Boone and Billy (and Frank) are not viewed on the same level. But I don't think Boone merely jaywalked.

 

definitely not, he was a bad "dude."

 

let us know when you get to *the bravados*.

[laffite]

*Hey.. I am liking that whole "new you" look. Way cool!! I think you are have sort of a Richard Boone-ish Long Haired "Paladin" thing going on. (April?? Do you see the resemblance??) ha. Whatever you call it, you wear the West well, sir* --- Ro of the West

 

*i do see the "Paladin" flair* --- Prairie Goddess

 

 

Hmm, might work.

[movieman1957]

>let us know when you get to the bravados.

 

Got there.

 

(Even if it wasn't directed to me.)

[MissGoddess]

Brilliant! Now I need to get there.....

[laffite]

*Howdy there, Laffite -- It's really nice to see you back on the board. And to see you out west.*

 

Thank ye, pardner. I am much obliged for the fine welcomin? from you and the womenfolk out here.

 

The doagies are maybe headin' out fer good in Rancho Arlington and Rancho Diego after the recent rodeos. Prospects have turned a mite grim of late.

 

*Was he a decent fellow? Was he sympathetic?*

 

Okay, Re Boone, I thought him ?sympathetic? and ?decent? enough so as not to be offended when he gets what he wants. He has been askew of the law, we know that, but Pernell?s portrayal makes Boone likable and even admirable in the vein of that type that is often seen in Westerns. Wyatt Earp comes to mind. We don?t condone some of the bad things he does but we can admire him even extol his virtues in spite of ourselves. Boone comes across that way to me. He is ?cool,? he has the good looks of a Western hero type, he saves Brigade?s life in an admirable (albeit dangerous) manner, he's at least a little endearing when he makes the joke about the?eyes" (a regular guy), he doesn?t try to snow Mrs Lane with ?I love you? but honestly tells her ?if you come live with me I?ll take care of you,? and he reveals an admirable sentiment with regard to Whit. From the movie's point of view, he is obviously meant to be liked and even admired so that the audience will accept his good end. And I fall in line with that.

 

*I enjoyed Boone, too. Although, I was getting tired of all the talk.*

 

That?s one of the things I liked about him.

 

*He gets want he wants. What if he didn't?*

 

I would be interesting to see how they would have handled that, especially the narrative up to that point being what it is. If Boone had not gotten what he wanted and given how Hollywood perceives their audiences Boone would have probably been portrayed as a scoundrel undeserving of amnesty. It would have been a different movie.

 

*And wasn't he going to kill Brigade for Billy?*

 

I?m not particularly offended by that. Not in a Western. It?s a ?lawless? land where one fends for oneself and is willing to do what he must to get what he wants and in ways that might give pause or even appall in a conventional drama. Boone is a genre type and I can accept what comes with that. In order to get amnesty he might have to shoot through somebody. How often have we seen that in the ole West, Hollywood style! And in the end he at least engages Brigade in a fair fight, something that is considered admirable in the Zeitgeist of the West. He won?t shoot Brigade in the back like Billy or Frank would. And are we to admire Brigade any less for wanting to kill Frank? Do motives matter or is killing still killing? Brigade wants revenge and Boone wants freedom. They are both willing to kill to get what they want. What?s a shoot ?em up without that.

 

*It's that it was too easy of a conclusion?.*

 

 

 

*...But, we get the quick "pat on the back."*

 

I wonder if the director and screenwriter were winking at each other as if pulling off some practical joke on the audience. Actually, I wouldn?t go that far. It makes sense and for some of us at least it has a payoff of its own. Yes, it _was_ slick, but I thought a little clever too. Botticher (and the rest) knew that Ride Lonesome would not be a Critic?s Choice but rather fodder for the popcorn crowd and they didn?t want to jar sensibilities. Having set up two characters that they hoped would be favored by the audience and developing an adversarial tension along the way, they sought to please everybody with simplicity and yes a little expediency too. Not for everybody though . Too bad they don?t have alternative endings like they do nowadays (obviously there were none, they liked the ending they had.) It would have been interesting but I'm okay with what we got.

 

Brigade got what he wanted---brother Frank---but why not take Billy in and get the money anyway? He could have used the cash. Rather, he makes the gesture...maybe because Boone saved his life, who knows? ... but also because he LIKED Frank (despite their adversarial skirmishing).

[FrankGrimes]

How do, Laffite -- The doagies are maybe headin' out fer good in Rancho Arlington and Rancho Diego after the recent rodeos. Prospects have turned a mite grim of late.

 

I'm rooting for a top five pick and a last-place schedule.

 

Okay, Re Boone, I thought him ?sympathetic? and ?decent? enough so as not to be offended when he gets what he wants. He has been askew of the law, we know that, but Pernell?s portrayal makes Boone likable and even admirable in the vein of that type that is often seen in Westerns. Wyatt Earp comes to mind. We don?t condone some of the bad things he does but we can admire him even extol his virtues in spite of ourselves. Boone comes across that way to me. He is ?cool,? he has the good looks of a Western hero type, he saves Brigade?s life in an admirable (albeit dangerous) manner, he's at least a little endearing when he makes the joke about the?eyes" (a regular guy), he doesn?t try to snow Mrs Lane with ?I love you? but honestly tells her ?if you come live with me I?ll take care of you,? and he reveals an admirable sentiment with regard to Whit. From the movie's point of view, he is obviously meant to be liked and even admired so that the audience will accept his good end. And I fall in line with that.

 

That was exceptional. You're an exceptional writer. You do an excellent job with focus and clarity.

 

I definitely like the character of Boone because he's sideways. You just never know where he's truly going.

 

I?m not particularly offended by that. Not in a Western. It?s a ?lawless? land where one fends for oneself and is willing to do what he must to get what he wants and in ways that might give pause or even appall in a conventional drama.

 

So would this apply to Frank and Billy and the gang? They are in a western and they did what they did to get what they wanted. I believe there is more to it.

 

Boone is a genre type and I can accept what comes with that. In order to get amnesty he might have to shoot through somebody. How often have we seen that in the ole West, Hollywood style! And in the end he at least engages Brigade in a fair fight, something that is considered admirable in the Zeitgeist of the West. He won?t shoot Brigade in the back like Billy or Frank would.

 

So if Boone had shot Brigade on a quick draw, you would have been okay with that? You would have thought, "he had to do it to get what he wanted."

 

And are we to admire Brigade any less for wanting to kill Frank? Do motives matter or is killing still killing? Brigade wants revenge and Boone wants freedom. They are both willing to kill to get what they want.

 

But, again, Frank and Billy do the same. I believe motives matter.

 

I wonder if the director and screenwriter were winking at each other as if pulling off some practical joke on the audience. Actually, I wouldn?t go that far. It makes sense and for some of us at least it has a payoff of its own. Yes, it was slick, but I thought a little clever too. Botticher (and the rest) knew that Ride Lonesome would not be a Critic?s Choice but rather fodder for the popcorn crowd and they didn?t want to jar sensibilities. Having set up two characters that they hoped would be favored by the audience and developing an adversarial tension along the way, they sought to please everybody with simplicity and yes a little expediency too. Not for everybody though .

 

The ending isn't awful, by any stretch. I was just disappointed in it.

 

Brigade got what he wanted---brother Frank---but why not take Billy in and get the money anyway? He could have used the cash. Rather, he makes the gesture...maybe because Boone saved his life, who knows? ... but also because he LIKED Frank (despite their adversarial skirmishing).

 

It's as someone else stated, if Brigade kept Billy, it would have made him less "pure." As it stands, his only driving force was vengeance. If he decided to pocket the money, that would have made his actions less "honorable." But I guess he could have taken Billy into town and given the money to others or told the town to keep it. Instead, he chose to give it to Boone and Whit, who did help him stay alive. Without them, he would have been killed. In a way, I guess that's what Brigade was expecting. He was basically looking for vengeance with the idea of his being killed.

 

Oh, and, uh, keep your eyes peeled with the womenfolk out heres. They like to fools ya into thinkin' they're a sweet.

[MissGoddess]

> Oh, and, uh, keep your eyes peeled with the womenfolk out heres. They like to fools ya into thinkin' they're a sweet.

 

don't you believe him, laffite!

[movieman1957]

HI everyone. I thought I'd chime in before this all gets away. It will probably be a little scattered but here goes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For me part of the beauty of *Ride Lonesome* is the way Boone and Brigade play off of each other. They are "friends" but don't quite trust each other. They have different agendas for different reasons but they play it that they know at some point they will cross. There is a deep respect here. It is certainly deeper than what is had in *The Tall T.* These two have a past and it means something. That is evident when they meet each other at the depot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The intrigue with Billy is what gives it some drama. Who will win? Billy is the pawn but for a completely different reason than we assume. Boone is suspicious but he can't quite put his finger on it. This adds another level to their relationship. They look out for each other. Partly from respect and partly because it suits their purposes. They question each others motives. They know each other and can't quite buy the idea of what they both want to do. For Boone going strait is easier than the life he has lived.

 

April mentioned the relationship between Boone and Whit being like that in "The Far Country." I can see it. Two friends who have been through some stuff. Both looking for a change and comfortable enough with each other to live casually for some time. Coburn is fine in the part. It is early and looks to be his first film. Did Sturges see something that lead to "The Magnificent Seven"?

 

When we, through Frank, figure out Brigade's take on this is does tend to change the direction of how we look at him. It is not strictly money and we now see him as justified rather than it being a job. It gives it a new level. Brigade's attitude when they reach the tree changes. There is some connection. (Just wondering - the tree does resemble a cross. Any chance it has to do with his, April's word, exorcism?)

 

The whole thing is done at a leisurely pace. They can't even get the horses to run fast enough. Plenty of talking but that is how we learn about their issues. Having watched it again Steele does seem completely superfluous. Billy uses her to get at the others but that is about it.

 

I found the ending quite interesting. Everyone gets what they want. Brigade purges his demons and his past. He gets justice and revenge and a new start. No past has been more "buried" and more poignantly than Brigade's. Could it be a little too wrapped up? Maybe but why not?

[MissGoddess]

good gracious, chris.

 

everyone has written really well about *ride lonesome*, but

for me what you just laid out for us captures the film's mystique

to perfection. it is so obvious now that you've said it, that it

really is about a "friendship" of the most unlikely kind.

Similar to *Vera Cruz* in that it is nearly like a "buddy" road

movie, *Ride Lonesome* is the much deeper film because

both of the characters turn out to be deeper.

 

Wonderful post, thank you SO much coming in on the discussion.

It's not a real western ramble without the movieman.

[movieman1957]

Wow. Thank you. Here I was afraid I didn't really have anything to add. I wanted to get in as I was feeling left behind. All my fault but wanted to be in on it. Glad it made you think about it differently.

[MissGoddess]

you are the man of the west around here, hermano.

[OllieTSB]

I was glad to see RIDE LONE and TALL T, two films I'd avoided forever. But you won't get me to collect Westerns like you've tricked me into paying attention to those blasted musicals. RIDE started off capturing my attention because of young James Best's initial scenes.

 

I wonder what Randolph thought of the harder elements these later westerns displayed toward the end of his career?

[MissGoddess]

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

> I was glad to see RIDE LONE and TALL T, two films I'd avoided forever. But you won't get me to collect Westerns like you've tricked me into paying attention to those blasted musicals. RIDE started off capturing my attention because of young James Best's initial scenes.

>

 

oh come on, Ollie...you know you're just an ol' cowhand at heart...

 

> I wonder what Randolph thought of the harder elements these later westerns displayed toward the end of his career?

 

Maybe he thought there are some things a man can't ride around?

 

[laffite]

Thank you, pard?, for those mighty kind words. So kind though probably a little too generous. I think those things of you as well but I especially admire your ability to probe the depths. I?m a lightweight by comparison.

 

*I'm rooting for a top five pick and a last-place schedule.*

 

I?m rooting for something I can?t possibly have. The demise of you-know-who. But it won?t happen. All we hear from top banana is, ?Your doin? a heckuva job, Norvie.?

 

*Laffite*: It?s a ?lawless? land where one fends for oneself and is willing to do what he must to get what he wants and in ways that might give pause or even appall in a conventional drama.

 

I was referring to how I see the way things are, the reality of the West, if you will. I don?t mean to imply that anything is permissible to get what one wants. If I came across that way, it was wrong. So much for ?clarity? and ?focus.?

 

*So would this apply to Frank and Billy and the gang? They are in a western and they did what they did ((kill)) to get what they wanted. I believe there is more to it.*

 

It does apply to them?after all, they killed for whatever reasons. But they went about it the wrong way (they murdered) and at least ended up paying for it with their lives. I was mainly referring to Boone and Brigade, each who both straddle the line between good and bad (unlike Frank and Billy), who cross the line (they killed or wanted to kill for personal reasons) and who grapple with their environment (The West) and are forced to make choices that blur the line between acceptable and unacceptable, at least compared to our own standards where what is permissible is more regulated by law. Not that the same moral universe doesn't exist for all, presumably it does. I don?t justify their doings, just making a generalization that in a land with fewer restraints of law, basically decent people can go astray and even be cut some slack for what they do, or at least be understood in some way. Not Frank and Billy in this regard, their crimes would offend anywhere and anytime, Western or no.

 

*So if Boone had shot Brigade on a quick draw, you would have been okay with that? You would have thought, "he had to do it to get what he wanted.?*

 

Yes, I would of thought that, but only from Boone?s point of view.

 

*But, again, Frank and Billy do the same ((klll to get what they want)). I believe motives matter.*

 

You had asked earlier, ??and didn?t Boone want to kill Brigade for Billy?? I didn?t express it well but my point about motives was that if I want to take Boone to task for wanting to kill Brigade then I should consider doing the same with Brigade since he had already killed. Whatever the motive (i.e. it doesn?t matter what it is) killing is still killing and the two of them might therefore be held to the same standard, that is, being held responsible for such an act. Boone and Brigade both took the law into their own hands though their motives differed (I'm referring specifically to Boone's willingness to kill Brigade to get Billy, not his earlier transgression, which we don't know too much about). The point holds when talking of these two, I believe, but with Frank and Billy you certainly have a point so I will waver a bit on that. We don?t know their motives but they were probably lowdown given who they are and the way they went about it.

 

*It's as someone else stated, if Brigade kept Billy, it would have made him less "pure." As it stands, his only driving force was vengeance. If he decided to pocket the money, that would have made his actions less "honorable."*

 

That?s really good. That makes the ending even better.

 

*Oh, and, uh, keep your eyes peeled with the womenfolk out heres. They like to fools ya into thinkin' they're a sweet. *

 

Well, they?re sure doin? a good job. I?m already a fool so why fight it. I think I?ll stay on their good side a spell yet (miserable sycophant that I am )

 

*Chris*, I agree with Goddess, great post.

 

*Ollie T*, I liked James Best. Very competent. I liked the way he tried to get Mrs Lane to betray Brigade. Nicely done. Good try, Kid.

[movieman1957]

I think James Best's finest scene comes at the beginning. When he thinks he has Brigade caught in a trap but really is in a standoff he really shows his frustration well. I love it when he yells to the gang to stop and his voice trails off from yelling at them to berating them and himself in a low tone and doesn't even finish the sentence.

 

He is kind of on the shallow side. Brigade gets him here. Boone suckers him in the scene with the rifle. I think he fancies himself clever but really is anything but clever.

 

As far as Pernell Roberts is concerned he sore of strikes me like Richard Boone in "The Tall T." He is clearly not evil like "Frank" but he is well spoken, wants similar things (if he can get them) and a self confidence that rivals Scott's.

 

We can get through the rest of the Scott/Boetticher films along the way. (Just put them at the end of the line.)

 

BTW, thank you.

[laffite]

*I think James Best's finest scene comes at the beginning. When he thinks he has Brigade caught in a trap*

 

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

[MissGoddess]

hey everyone,

 

one of my favorite lesser westerns (not exactly a "b" western, but definitely not a biggie)

is on TCM this coming Tuesday at 8 a.m. EST. *Vengeance Valley* stars Burt Lancaster

and Robert Walker in a sort of western "Cain and Abel" tale. It's nothing spectacular, but I've

always liked it (I have the DVD) because I like burt when he's "low key" and I really like

ann francis in this. lots of familiar if not well known western regulars pop up in the supporting

cast. joann dru co-stars with her husband, john ireland.

 

walker's character is kind of like *strangers on a train* only a little less psychotic.

 

i hope everyone tunes in and enjoys it.

 

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Oct 29, 2010 7:49 PM

[CitySlicker]

LOVED Joanne Dru ... great looker and a good actress. She was TERRIFIC in Westerns (Red River, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon) but I also thought she was great in All The Kings Men ... Her brother was PETER MARSHALL of Hollywood Squares fame. And this is a decent Western, too, I would agree.

[CitySlicker]

LOVED Joanne Dru ... great looker and a good actress. She was TERRIFIC in Westerns (Red River, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon) but I also thought she was great in All The Kings Men ... Her brother was PETER MARSHALL of Hollywood Squares fame. And this is a decent Western, too, I would agree.

[MissGoddess]

hi cityslicker,

i watched hollywood squares as a kid, but i'll have to "google" peter marshall, i don't

remember him. thanks for that info. i like joann.

[lzcutter]

*Her brother was PETER MARSHALL of Hollywood Squares fame*

 

With winner getting gifts from Dicker and Dicker of Beverly Hills.

 

He was great as the emcee basically playing the straight guy to the likes of Paul Lynde, Wally Cox, Charley Weaver, Waylon and Madame and others.

[fredbaetz]

The original Hollywood Squares was one of the best game shows ever. Marshall was great and keeping the stars in line was a problem at times. I know they had to do quite a bit of editing with some of the answers. One answer I heard about was by Paul Lynn. The question was "What does Dale Evans attribute her long marriage to Roy Rogers to ? Paul Lynn's answer was " He was great in the saddle".....EDIT.....