Western Movie Rambles

[JackFavell]

Thanks, MissG. You know I can go on and on about Ford too., and WILL at the drop of a hat..... Just having this discussion makes me want to go watch all these movies over again.

 

I am so jealous of you, getting to see Grapes on the big screen! I probably wouldn't be able to see it in a theater with other people. I would be trying to hold back the sobs throughout the whole movie, and would end by loudly exploding into tears and embarrassing myself.

[MissGoddess]

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

> Thanks, MissG. You know I can go on and on about Ford too., and WILL at the drop of a hat..... Just having this discussion makes me want to go watch all these movies over again.

>

 

And you know I'm your biggest fan when you do, lass. I tell you, I save your posts!!

 

> I am so jealous of you, getting to see Grapes on the big screen! I probably wouldn't be able to see it in a theater with other people. I would be trying to hold back the sobs throughout the whole movie, and would end by loudly exploding into tears and embarrassing myself.

 

Well rest easy honey, I just about sobbed enough for the both of us! And I know I was the only one because it wasn't a very full house (Film Forum is usually packed but I think the cold kept people home) and mine were the only sobs echoing.

 

Believe me, Ford is the only filmaker who could drag me out on a chilly day like this all the way downtown. I thought it was going to be milder, like yesterday.

 

Oh! And I have to check something out that I noticed for the very first time...it's in the very, very last shot of the film. If I can make it out, I'll post the cap.

[MissGoddess]

Okay, here it is...the final camera shot of the film, which I think is Ford's, not part of the "coda" that Zanuck added, shows the line of cars driving off in a line...but look at the sign in the foreground...until I saw it on the big screen today I never noticed what it says. I can't make out the small writing, but look at the first line...I hope you can see it. I found it rather cautionary. Everyone remembers Ma's somewhat populist speech, but this shot seems a counterpoint.

 

I'm posting it unreduced, so you can hopefully make out the sign better.

 

 

The sign says "DANGER!"

[JackFavell]

OH MY GOSH! I never ever noticed that! I have to go look at my copy. I also feel dumb, I didn't know that Zanuck added a "coda". It is clear to me now that you say it which part was tacked on. Is the last shot also part of the coda? Or is that the original ending, with the coda put in between?

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Nov 27, 2010 8:07 PM

[MissGoddess]

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

> OH MY GOSH! I never ever noticed that! I have to go look at my copy. I also feel dumb, I didn't know that Zanuck added a "coda". It is clear to me now that you say it which part was tacked on. Is the last shot also part of the coda? Or is that the original ending, with the coda put in between?

>

 

I think Ma's speech in the truck is what Zanuck added, because is was shot afteward at the studio. This is clearly a location shot and it has the composition that is Fordian. I wonder if it's the shot he wanted to end on, without the speech (though he has gone on record to say he had no real issue with Zanuck's insertion). Had he done so, what a chilling feeling it would leave the audience with.

 

As it stands, you are so focused on the reverberation of Ma's words that this final shot really doesn't register as it would otherwise.

 

(I suggest you watch the film on as big a screen as you can to really make out the sign)

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Nov 27, 2010 8:14 PM

[rohanaka]

Wowsa!!! I go out for a while and LOOK what I get to come back to.. what a fun read, everybody!!!

 

And Miss G.. you are right on the money.. Isn't it amazing how these same films seem to come up for our conversations again and again. A less thoughtful person MIGHT think that we are all just stuck in a RUT, ha. (OH me.. perish THAT thought as well) but in truth I think you hit on how it is a testament to how MUCH can be "mined" so to speak from these treasures.

 

And PS: Laffite.. I am really looking forward to hearing how you found all these stories and characters.. and what your thoughts are about them.

 

PS: Ollie.. I have never seen Thursday as a "villain" so much as an "adversary". And I know.. that is sort of like I am trying to talk out of both sides of my mouth, maybe. But truly.. I think he REALLY thought he was doing right.. and was just REALLY wrong about how right he was. I don't think he ever set out to cause mayhem and destruction for anyone (but the indians) and I think he just failed to see how his own arrogance and unwillingness to consider anyone's opinions but his own could be so harmful to all the other men in his command.

 

(He really DID think he was "something" afterall... doggone it.. that party SHOULD have been for him)

 

I think my love to "hate" him attitude stems from my TOTAL lack of patience for anyone with that level of arrogance as their primary character trait. I don't MIND seeing him taken down a peg or two (or twenty) but GEE, I hate the way he gets his final "come-uppance" and how many men pay the price right along with him. VERY tragic. So.. that would be where my "hate" for him stems from more than anything.

 

And, Miss G.. re: your comment:

 

It's a stunning example of his ability to be very internal with his acting...because he's not given a heck of a lot to do except act frustrated with Thursday. This is very similar to me to his "Sean Thornton" character in The Quiet Man. Rarely is he in this position in any film outside of those with Ford.

 

THAT is a perfect way to describe Wayne's performance in this film. And you are right.. he is very "internal" with his acting... he shows his strength.. his "reigned in" strength, by the way, (in BOTH films) in the way he outwardly handles the inward frustration caused by another persons' arrogance. You just know in his mind he is thinking, "I COULD do something TO you for what you are doing or saying right now, but I WON'T". You gotta admire a man with that much self-control.

 

And in FA it makes you respect HIM (the lower ranking officer) all the more to see him show such superior character especially when compared to someone so "grand" and proud of his higher ranking like Thursday. (OH gee.. if ONLY the Duke could have had a few "Marques of Queensbury" moments with THURSDAY.... ha. Now that would be the stuff that Peacemaker DREAMS are made of, to be sure, ha.

 

IF only..

 

OH, and PS: RE: The Grapes of Wrath

 

On the big screen.. sigh.. talk about the stuff that dreams are made of. Although not my fave Fordie by a LONG shot (but let's not go down THAT road again, ha) Still.. an excellent film, and I bet it was a grand sight to see.

 

PS some MORE.. ha. I JUST saw your post as I was getting ready to post this.. DANGER.. oh me.. I never saw that before, either..

[JackFavell]

I LOVE John Wayne in F.A. I know it seems like he doesn't have a lot to do, but he is in every shot of the movie, and he so impresses me. It is one of my favorite of his performances, maybe my favorite. He is very different from most of his other roles, his simmering is so real to me. He is a military man first and foremost, and he wills himself to follow Thursday's orders even when he knows they are wrong. He is bursting with it, but he is just as familiar with protocol (maybe more so) as Thursday is. He is forced into that role of lesser man, because Thursday must have a whipping boy. He will follow orders, but he is anything but a whipping boy. He draws the line at that. He is so honorable and very, very strong to be able to take it, much stronger than the man dishing it out. I have profound respect for Wayne and Ford in creating this character that is everything a military man should be, and yet so human too.

 

I was trying to watch the end of GOW on my computer, but my player is having trouble. I watched scenes individually as best I could to see how the film would have played without the People speech, and I realized that the entire ending would have been silent - the last words of note being Fonda's speech - and then Russell Simpson's saying a quiet, "Come on, Ma..." as they leave the camp without ever knowing what might happen to Tom. A dreadful, sombre ending... I don't know if I could take it, although it probably would make me bawl even more that way. I see why Zanuck wanted to insert an uplifting moment, especially a little closure for Ma. It's kind of like Will Rogers changing his tone during the depression to be more uplifting for the folks listening, who were scared and close to giving up.

 

I wonder if we would be talking about the film the same way today if there were no tacked on speech? I wonder if the film would have a greater critical success, or a lesser one? Would this move have been reviled as "too downbeat"? Or would it have won the Academy Award?

[MissGoddess]

Howdy, Peacemaker!

 

> And Miss G.. you are right on the money.. Isn't it amazing how these same films seem to come up for our conversations again and again. A less thoughtful person MIGHT think that we are all just stuck in a RUT, ha. (OH me.. perish THAT thought as well) but in truth I think you hit on how it is a testament to how MUCH can be "mined" so to speak from these treasures.

>

 

Ha! I think I am definitely the one stuck in a "rut" when it comes to Ford.

 

And it's great having "fresh meat" like Laffite and CineMaven enter the western world...it stirs up the dust on the trail and gets things kicking around here!

 

> THAT is a perfect way to describe Wayne's performance in this film. And you are right.. he is very "internal" with his acting... he shows his strength.. his "reigned in" strength, by the way, (in BOTH films) in the way he outwardly handles the inward frustration caused by another persons' arrogance. You just know in his mind he is thinking, "I COULD do something TO you for what you are doing or saying right now, but I WON'T". You gotta admire a man with that much self-control.

>

 

Yes, having cast a man of action like Wayne, and to tie his hands so to speak, is

really interesting. It automatically adds conflict to the character, just by virtue of

the tension created by Wayne playing such a man.

 

> And in FA it makes you respect HIM (the lower ranking officer) all the more to see him show such superior character especially when compared to someone so "grand" and proud of his higher ranking like Thursday.

 

That was beautifully said. In one interview I recently watched with Ford, he was asked about heroism. He said it was the obscure, ordinary looking little guy no one notices that was the real hero most of the time. In other words, the ones who don't get the glory.

 

> OH, and PS: RE: The Grapes of Wrath

>

> On the big screen.. sigh.. talk about the stuff that dreams are made of. Although not my fave Fordie by a LONG shot (but let's not go down THAT road again, ha) Still.. an excellent film, and I bet it was a grand sight to see.

>

 

I seem to remember a certain ramble about that film. :D

 

Believe it or not, I think I can understand your feelings because I feel the same about some of his other films. I may not like the subject matter in general, but he'll find a way of making me focus on the human beings and their stories, and not the milieu or the things I don't necessarily agree with.

 

> PS some MORE.. ha. I JUST saw your post as I was getting ready to post this.. DANGER.. oh me.. I never saw that before, either..

 

It's really given me a different feeling about the ending and certainly thought provoking.

[MissGoddess]

>

> I was trying to watch the end of GOW on my computer, but my player is having trouble. I watched scenes individually as best I could to see how the film would have played without the People speech, and I realized that the entire ending would have been silent - the last words of note being Fonda's speech - and then Russell Simpson's saying a quiet, "Come on, Ma..." as they leave the camp without ever knowing what might happen to Tom. A dreadful, sombre ending... I don't know if I could take it, although it probably would make me bawl even more that way.

 

Wow...a silent ending. That certainly is appropriate to a man who believe in pictures more than words. I agree it would probably make me feel incredibly heavy and despondent that way.

 

> I see why Zanuck wanted to insert an uplifting moment, especially a little closure for Ma. It's kind of like Will Rogers changing his tone during the depression to be more uplifting for the folks listening, who were scared and close to giving up.

>

 

Excellent point!

 

One other thing about Ma's speech struck me this time...she seems to switch from being pessimistic to optimistic without reason or explanation. She starts out replying sanguinely to Al (O.Z. Whitehead) and his excited prospects about the work they will be getting. She doesn't believe it will pan out, apparently. But then Al or Pa (Russell Simpson), I forget which, says something to which she replies in an upbeat way, and that leads to her words about the people enduring. I'm just wondering if she changes her tone because she senses Pa's need for bolstering (he admits to not being "any good" anymore)??? It just seemed funny that she'd start out sounding down and then switch like that. I suppose Nichols and Zanuck (I forget which actually wrote the speech) wanted to make it seem like Ma was realistically feeling depressed about Tom's leaving, but that she was finding her own natural optimism inside herself in the course of her speech.

 

Anyway, that's what was running through my pea brain this time watching GoW.

 

> I wonder if we would be talking about the film the same way today if there were no tacked on speech? I wonder if the film would have a greater critical success, or a lesser one? Would this move have been reviled as "too downbeat"? Or would it have won the Academy Award?

 

Oh boy you do ask the good questions. I can see the critics making even more of a fuss over it with a downbeat ending. When have they ever varied in their obsession with despairing films? As for an Oscar, I don't know. They often give Oscars to uplifting movies in opposition to the downbeat ones.

 

I can see Europeans liking GoW even more if it ended Ford's original way.

 

As for me, I am split. In terms of "fitness" and poetic justice, I think Ford's original ending, from what we can conjecture about how he'd have done it, would have felt more appropriate and wrenching...and personal. Because a speech, no matter how good, is a speech. Can it be internalized as a personal experience the way images can be? The latter way lets you put your own interpretation on what you are seeing. The way it stands, we are being told something.

 

And I'm usually all for the happy ending! But my feeling this way is because we already saw the worst happen: Tom left. If I could make a happy ending, I'd resolve Tom's situation happily. In the end, no speech can really change the fact that the Joad family really is dissolving.

[JackFavell]

Wow! You make some excellent points. I am torn, very torn about the end. I had never ever questioned the ending, and completely believed ma's changeover in that last scene for years. But the last few times I watched it, the same sneaking suspicion that it was tacked on overtook me. So when you said it, though it was a surprise, I knew right where the coda was, because it had made me slightly uncomfortable already.

 

I am usually one to say the original director's choice is how a movie should be seen. But I am so used to that speech, and the interpretation that includes that speech, I find it hard to give that up. It's one thing if you find out that, oh, the movie THEM had a different ending. But this is a movie that I have loved, a movie that completely changed my life when I first saw it at age 12 or so. I find it hard to give up the slight hope, the feeling that Tom will help many people before things get better, that Ma and the Joads will find some stability somewhere. I always got the impression that you COULD change the world, somewhat, if you just joined the good fight for what are simple human rights and tolerance... his is the feeling I get at the end of the film as it is.

 

I do see the other way as being more integral, of a piece. One whole with no blips added on. It would be bleak to the point that I wonder how people would actually react - despairing? Angry? I think anger might be the second and strongest emotion the movie would inspire, at least in me. But a feeling that I could do something about people's problems? I don't know. Inspiring? Yes, but to what?

[movieman1957]

If I can go back to "Ft. Apache" for a moment and Col. Thursday. What is hard to deal with is that Thursday is not a stupid man but he often does stupid things. He feels he is being punished, in my mind, and he is determined to show everyone that they made a mistake posting him there.

 

He continually insults his subordinates whether in the course of their work or even in their lives. He has a heart as he means to do well by Philadelphia (his daughter) even if she doesn't agree with what he is doing. He keeps himself above the others and feels that everyone, enemy included, will jump at his every command.

 

This leads to his and his command's demise. All the while I keep asking why is he so hard headed? Why can't he listen to reason and to those with more experience? I wonder if he were anywhere else would he have acted the same way. That chip on his shoulder becomes a nightmare for everyone. Sgt, York though is above all that. Despite his knowing what he knows he will not let Thursday go down for the fool he is. There are bigger things at stake.

[JackFavell]

That was perfect, mm.

[movieman1957]

Thank you.

[MissGoddess]

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

> If I can go back to "Ft. Apache" for a moment and Col. Thursday. What is hard to deal with is that Thursday is not a stupid man but he often does stupid things. He feels he is being punished, in my mind, and he is determined to show everyone that they made a mistake posting him there.

>

 

You always can boil it down to the essence, MovieMan. That never even occurred to me, that he is going to make others suffer for the intolerable insult to his vanity. GREAT observation.

 

> Sgt, York though is above all that. Despite his knowing what he knows he will not let Thursday go down for the fool he is. There are bigger things at stake.

 

I love that. Perfect.

[rohanaka]

Hellloooooooo Little Missy!!

 

And it's great having "fresh meat" like Laffite and CineMaven enter the western world...it stirs up the dust on the trail and gets things kicking around here

 

I agree!!! It is always fun to see things from a fresh pair of eyes all over again.

 

That was beautifully said. In one interview I recently watched with Ford, he was asked about heroism. He said it was the obscure, ordinary looking little guy no one notices that was the real hero most of the time. In other words, the ones who don't get the glory.

 

Wow.. ha. I just realized how FEW roles could ever be described as John Wayne playing a "little guy" ha. But he DOES willingly take a back seat to Thursday in this story.. and he come off standing out in front as a character because of it.

 

PS: Mr Movieman: Despite his knowing what he knows he will not let Thursday go down for the fool he is. There are bigger things at stake

 

Exactly... the "myth" was far too important to preserve for EVERYONE's sake.. no matter what the truth really was. He knows what he has to do.. and he does it.

 

Moving over to TGOW:

 

Wow...a silent ending. That certainly is appropriate to a man who believe in pictures more than words. I agree it would probably make me feel incredibly heavy and despondent that way.

 

Wowsa, Miss G and Jackie.. you have me thinking on this film all over again. It has been SOME time since I saw it last.

 

I need to go back and revisit the ending to remember everything she says there at the end.. but gee.. just the thought of ending without her final "moment".. it could change EVERYTHING about how to view their future.. and also how to view all that had happened to them (as far as the effects all their struggles had on who they were (or at least she was) as people.

 

As for "heavy and despondent".. well, practically the entire story plays out that way.. it is a VERY depressing story in many ways, so it COULD have been an effective way to end it all as well. Again.. leaving her words of determination to "go on" in spite of (or even because of) it all out of the at end of the movie could have given off a MUCH different "vibe" for sure.

 

And PS: ha.. it HAS been so long since I saw the film I many not even be remembering what sorts of "feelings" her final speech even brought out in me.. so I might have it all wrong anyway..ha. (would not be the first time, HA. I am an old woman and sometimes I tend to forget, ha)

 

Honestly.. I can't say which way I'd have rather had it. Mostly I have to say this film (at least in my mind) centered more on her character than I realized at first. So to have it end with her and how all she had experienced affected her attitude about the future is not such a bad way to go.. and again.. ha... that is providing IF I am remembering it all correctly. (did I mention it has been a long time since I saw it and also... I am an OLD woman and tend to be forgettful of some things)

 

I seem to remember a certain ramble about that film

 

Me too. ha. And if I remember THAT correctly, it did not go nearly as far as it COULD have.. but I am very VERY glad about that. ha.

 

Believe it or not, I think I can understand your feelings because I feel the same about some of his other films. I may not like the subject matter in general, but he'll find a way of making me focus on the human beings and their stories, and not the milieu or the things I don't necessarily agree with

 

Well said! And I hestite to say too much "negative" stuff about the film now as I do not want to come off sounding like I hated the movie or something. Far from it. But I was just at odds with SOME of the things in the story, if I recall.. and they sort of caught my attention.

 

But GEE, it IS a very powerful story... and if viewed strictly from a "character study" sort of way.. to me it is a GREAT film. So even if there were some "themes" floating around in there that I had a bit of a struggle chewing on, the film itself.. and the characters.. especially MA (and Tom too) were VERY well played and quite thought provoking.

 

And as for the themes that I had a hard time reconciling... well... I do not know anything about Steinbeck to speak of and as I recall (at least in the film) they were not "hit you over the head" strong and obvious.. but more just a 'sense" I had about some of the ideals that were being put forth.. so I freely admit I might have just been too "senstive" about some of them. (gee.. I am sounding rather "cryptic" tonight, aint, I? ha)

[MissGoddess]

Hellloooooo, MissRo!

 

> Wow.. ha. I just realized how FEW roles could ever be described as John Wayne playing a "little guy" ha. But he DOES willingly take a back seat to Thursday in this story.. and he come off standing out in front as a character because of it.

>

 

I agree! And Yorke is a little too imposing to be that "obscure guy" Ford was speaking of, but his character, like Collingwood, ends up being "forgotten" by history which favors the glory mongers.

 

> I need to go back and revisit the ending to remember everything she says there at the end.. but gee.. just the thought of ending without her final "moment".. it could change EVERYTHING about how to view their future.. and also how to view all that had happened to them (as far as the effects all their struggles had on who they were (or at least she was) as people.

>

 

It would indeed change it, and it must have been a really downbeat ending as Ford left it or else why would Zanuck go to the trouble and expense of writing an additional scene, re-assembling the cast and shooting it? (Ford had moved on to other things by then).

 

> Honestly.. I can't say which way I'd have rather had it. Mostly I have to say this film (at least in my mind) centered more on her character than I realized at first. So to have it end with her and how all she had experienced affected her attitude about the future is not such a bad way to go.. and again.. ha... that is providing IF I am remembering it all correctly. (did I mention it has been a long time since I saw it and also... I am an OLD woman and tend to be forgettful of some things)

>

 

No, I think you have it right if you feel she was encouraging about their ability to endure. But her speaking about the "people" enduring seems at odds with her fears about her family falling apart, something the film depicts with painful deliberation from start to finish. We're not even sure they will find work as promised. Her last words seem to be about a general, far distant future, and not necessarily applicable to them, the Joads, and the present day.

 

>

> And as for the themes that I had a hard time reconciling... well... I do not know anything about Steinbeck to speak of and as I recall (at least in the film) they were not "hit you over the head" strong and obvious.. but more just a 'sense" I had about some of the ideals that were being put forth.. so I freely admit I might have just been too "senstive" about some of them. (gee.. I am sounding rather "cryptic" tonight, aint, I? ha)

 

No, no, not at all and I'm one who is really leery of films with overt political messages myself, if for different reasons. I just am so focused on what is happening to this family, the Joads, who seem to represent all families and what can happen to them when outside forces put extreme pressure on them. I mean, bringing it back to *The Searchers*, the Edwards and Jorgensens had a physical "enemy" to contend with: the Comanche, as well as the terrain/climate. But the Joads, the 20th century family, had so much more. Like Muley asked, "Who do we shoot?" They can't even identify the "enemy" that is shooting them down, because he is more invisible than those eery Arabs in *The Lost Patrol*. In fact, he has no identity, he is just the reality of modern life.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Nov 28, 2010 12:39 AM

[laffite]

*Jackie:* You know your Ford. Thank you for those remarks about his stance regarding the military and the individual?and the fact that viewing FP does not commit to a miniseries as it were.

 

*lzcutter*: *Bite the Bullet* is within reach of my eager hands and ready to put in the player. I want to see Candace again. I hope she smiles a little in this one. I bet she does.

 

*Goddess* and *Ro*: Thanks for pushing me to Ford Country. We greenhorns need a little pushing now and then . I note that FP is streamable on NetF so I will jump into this soon. I am very curious about that Henry in this one. Here I thought he couldn?t play the steely-gazed, don?t-mess-with-me Wyatt and now I'm finding out that ? but I?ll wait and see for myself.

 

*Oliie*: You mean Ford made movies that weren?t Westerns? I?m glad for your recommendations. I wrote them down.

 

*Maven:* Not to get gushy but I?ve wanted to say this?and since you lauded *Goddess* for her excellence, I _will_ say it, i.e., how much I admire that post you did on *Vengeance Valley* (Nov 2). Not a ramble, nor a review, a preview really, and you covered it all with such eloquence, economy, precision, and pizzazz (if you will) while putting it all together so beautifully with that paragraph about the ?metaphorical? valley. I thought it splendid.

[OllieTSB]

Boy, two pages overnight to read thru...

 

I think the *Thursday Is Adversary Not Enemy* thought is correct, but this is one of those "Impact On The Audience vs. Impact On The Story" factors - to the story, he's an adversary. But to the audience, he is The Villain. And we're not allowed to cheer for his demise - mostly, I think, because he's leading a lot of others to their needless deaths, and he's battling "Enemies".

 

In Orson Welles' great little radio show THE ADVENTURES OF HARRY LIME (THE THIRD MAN), this is a 'prequel' to the film - Harry Lime's early days. He's still a rogue at best, or a bad guy at worse. It's just that he's never The Worst Bad Guy in any script. He's still trying to rob-steal-cheat-swindle, but he's taking from corrupt officials, rotten cops, enemy agents, etc.

 

But in FORT APACHE, Col Thursday IS the villainous character on the screen.

 

MissG asked about "Leaving O'Rourke behind..." and I think that earns him one point out of a hundred on the Human Scale. His consideration only for HIS daughter is almost more villainous.

 

The interesting scene, for me, is Ward Bond dictating orders in his own house and Thursday clearly understanding he was overstepping A Man's Boundary. For once - he consider Man instead of Officer Rank.

[JackFavell]

>No, no, not at all and I'm one who is really leery of films with overt political messages myself, if for different reasons. I just am so focused on what is happening to this family, the Joads, who seem to represent all families and what can happen to them when outside forces put extreme pressure on them. I mean, bringing it back to The Searchers, the Edwards and Jorgensens had a physical "enemy" to contend with: the Comanche, as well as the terrain/climate. But the Joads, the 20th century family, had so much more. Like Muley asked, "Who do we shoot?" They can't even identify the "enemy" that is shooting them down, because he is more invisible than those eery Arabs in The Lost Patrol. In fact, he has no identity, he is just the reality of modern life.

 

Wow. This was so very good, MissG. You leave me speechless!

 

>We're not even sure they will find work as promised.

 

The kindly man who runs the place they are leaving shakes his head as they are pulling out. He knows they are heading out into nothing.

 

>Wow.. ha. I just realized how FEW roles could ever be described as John Wayne playing a "little guy" ha. But he DOES willingly take a back seat to Thursday in this story.. and he come off standing out in front as a character because of it.

 

>I agree! And Yorke is a little too imposing to be that "obscure guy" Ford was speaking of, but his character, like Collingwood, ends up being "forgotten" by history which favors the glory mongers.

 

And this is what makes me love the Wayne character - because he could just as easily throw a big hissy fit and tell the truth about what happened, thinking he was glorifying the real men of Fort Apache, the non-coms and the others under Thursday's command. Thus he would be glorifying himself, showing the great man he is. But once he opened up the can of worms, he would be forced to repeat it and he knows that would be the ultimate dishonor to the men, worse than Thursday's act. His sense of injustice would dictate that he should say something, easily. But instead he decides to go the hard route, down with the unremembered individual soldiers who died for nothing, but will be remembered as a group who lived for an ideal. He subverts himself for his friends and the men of his regiment. He chooses to go the path with the heroic simple soldiers, a good man, a fine one, but not a famous man. He makes himself smaller than he is.

 

Wayne is so splendid, I think it's the quietest role he ever played, but to me it is the most meaningful. Arguably, he is the best man in the outfit, and is the least well known. He did not die as a hero, and he backs into the shadows in order that others will be remembered. Agh! I will tear up if I keep writing!

[movieman1957]

This may have been the only point is Wayne's career he could have played this part. Two years later the idea of him playing a subordinate to anyone would have been nearly unthinkable. It does give him a chance to play a quiet role. In one sense I am not sure it is not unlike his part in "They Were Expendable." At least there he had a more proper leader.

[JackFavell]

That's true - I like him in very much They Were Expendable too - these are probably the two main films and maybe Angel and the Badman, that made me see that Wayne could really act. I think they are my favorites.

 

I like his chomping at the bit in TWE. But in that film, he is more foolish than in Fort Apache. In F.A. he is a natural leader. In TWE, he is most definitely a second in command. He hasn't got the self control yet for the main job. And Rusty learns what he needs to become by watching a real leader - Brick.

 

In Fort Apache - he learns what he needs to avoid becoming by watching Thursday.

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Nov 28, 2010 2:22 PM

 

Edited by: JackFavell on Nov 28, 2010 2:23 PM

[MissGoddess]

> And this is what makes me love the Wayne character - because he could just as easily throw a big hissy fit and tell the truth about what happened, thinking he was glorifying the real men of Fort Apache, the non-coms and the others under Thursday's command. Thus he would be glorifying himself, showing the great man he is. But once he opened up the can of worms, he would be forced to repeat it and he knows that would be the ultimate dishonor to the men, worse than Thursday's act. His sense of injustice would dictate that he should say something, easily. But instead he decides to go the hard route, down with the unremembered individual soldiers who died for nothing, but will be remembered as a group who lived for an ideal. He subverts himself for his friends and the men of his regiment. He chooses to go the path with the heroic simple soldiers, a good man, a fine one, but not a famous man. He makes himself smaller than he is.

>

> Wayne is so splendid, I think it's the quietest role he ever played, but to me it is the most meaningful. Arguably, he is the best man in the outfit, and is the least well known. He did not die as a hero, and he backs into the shadows in order that others will be remembered. Agh! I will tear up if I keep writing!

 

That was gorgeous, Jackie. you already had me tearing up. he really does demonstrate all the most wonderful qualities in a man and a leader, a complete counter-point to Thursday...yet isn't it interesting that he was also smart enough to apply at least one aspect of Thursday's leadership: discipline. The men are more orderly looking at the end, less individualistic. That does make it easier to organize and get the job done. Yorke says the regiment became better for Thursday, and I think that is what he meant, at least in part, though I know next to nothing about such things. I just noticed that besides wearing Thursday's cap, all the men looked very sharp.

[JackFavell]

That is so interesting, Goddess! I never caught that! Yes, the men WERE getting lazy under the previous leader. Left to their own devices, they were letting themselves go, and probably not just in their dress. The Thursday affair also showed Yorke that they must be always on guard against themselves, to be proud of their uniform and their duties no matter where they were assigned.

[rohanaka]

Wayne is so splendid, I think it's the quietest role he ever played, but to me it is the most meaningful. Arguably, he is the best man in the outfit, and is the least well known. He did not die as a hero, and he backs into the shadows in order that others will be remembered. Agh! I will tear up if I keep writing!

 

I love what you have written here, little darlin'. And I have to say that I really enjoy seeing my favorite actor so well described. The truth is he truly DID have a way about him that allowed for moments like this on the screen.. especially earlier on in his career before he became SO huge.

 

I know I have said this before but I think he is among one of the more 'underrated" actors who hit the big time. So often he gets confused with his "image" of the BIG cowboy with the LOUD mouth and the TOUGH GUY attitude. And yes.. he was all that.. but also so very much more... if one stops and studies his films and the many (very diverse.. though some might not realize it) sorts of characters he played.

 

Though admittedly he is more well known for his westerns, he had a LOT more in him as an actor than just "a cowboy" sort of character. And I think I would still say that even if he ONLY made westerns (which he did not). I think some folks like to "pooh-pooh" him and make him seem of less importance simply because he was so well known for his "cowboy" image and so "iconic" for lack of a better word.

 

And you know.. I guess that is their right. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.. and certainly I would never presume to say that ALL the world should love his films as much as I do. But to me that is awfully narrow-minded . And I don't say that lightly. .because I have always maintained that in terms of "likes and dislikes" movies (and movie characters) are NOTHING if not subjective.

 

But to me it is sad to see the "stereotype" become the "type" for John Wayne because I think if one really STUDIES some of his more famous roles (and many of his not so famous) and does it objectively (if that is even possible) it would show a much different Duke than most folks realize. But instead his talent has been lost in the "legend" his more famous roles created. (almost like he is a living lesson on the whole "print the legend" sort of thing).

 

And I imagine that somewhere right now someone is reading this and rolling their eyes before looking down their nose and saying.. "Oh blah blah blah.. just another "John Wayne fan" (as if that were some sort of comment on my intelligence.. or lack thereof) But in truth.. it is a sign of ignorance on THEIR part as far as I am concerned because that just shows me they really don't know much about his ability as an actor. Like him or don't like him.. but don't negate his talent. (ok..ha. that sounds a bit bossy.. sorry.. WHO do I think I am anyway, ha)

 

Now I have to confess.. I am probably his worst excuse for a "fan" in that I know next to nothing about his personal life.. and not much about him as a real PERSON... but truly, I don't need to in order to appreciate him as an actor. I just like his films and the way he portrays his characters.

 

Do I think EVERYTHING he made is first rate. No. (In fact there are some of his later films especially.. late 60's early 70's) I have not even seen because I am truly not very interested in some of them. But then.. do I think EVERYTHING he did had to be perfect just because I am his fan???

 

No again. He was just a guy.. who made movies.. and SOME of them were OUTSTANDING. (at least to my uneducated and ignorant film-watching brain) so I will enjoy what I do about him without apology and leave the rest,

 

OH good gravy.. what a blabber mouth I am. Just listen to me rant.. ha. (and this time.. I really AM ranting, HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) But I mean that in a good way, of course. :-) I will step down off my Duke Appreciation Soap Box now. ha. Sorry to go all "whacko" on you.. ha. (oh yeah.. like that was something "new" for me, HA)

 

PS: Ollie:

The interesting scene, for me, is Ward Bond dictating orders in his own house and Thursday clearly understanding he was overstepping A Man's Boundary. For once - he consider Man instead of Officer Rank.

 

I love that scene. A man's home IS his castle.. where the rank is Father/Son and so on... and there is no longer room for a Colonel to come in and outrank anybody.

 

I also like when Thursday is talking to Bond before everyone else comes in the room about how Wardie's son got into West Point.. and how he understood that Presidential Appointments were reserved for Medal of Honor recipients.. and Bond's character says something like "That's my understanding too, sir" What a great moment. Thursday gets "put in his place" without O'Rourke Sr having to so much as raise his voice... and all done and said with the proper amount of respect.

 

PS Miss G: No, no, not at all and I'm one who is really leery of films with overt political messages myself, if for different reasons. I just am so focused on what is happening to this family, the Joads, who seem to represent all families and what can happen to them when outside forces put extreme pressure on them.

 

They can't even identify the "enemy" that is shooting them down, because he is more invisible than those eery Arabs in The Lost Patrol. In fact, he has no identity, he is just the reality of modern life

 

Well said, little missy. It is easy to fight when you KNOW who to fight.. but when you are in the hands of "circumstances beyond your control" it may not always be so simple who the real adversary is and what the best ways to overcome it all should be.

 

And I am glad that these things are not TOTALLY spelled out in this film (though in many ways, I imagine it is to be "understood" I guess) But again, RE: the political messages.... to me they were not overt (at least for the most part) so I am glad it's possible for me to look at the film more from the view point of the Joad's.. and all they were enduring and how they responded to all of it, rather than focus on the politics of what caused it all and what the right solution for each of them may or may not be.

 

And I am also glad I was not TOO off on my memory for the ending speech.. though you are right.. I think she was speaking more in general about the "people" than just about the Joads.

 

Times like that can make or break a family And I imagine that she did feel a LOT of the weight of how her own family would never be the same again.. so in that sense I think you were right in how much more optimistic her tone sounded at the end considering all they had been through.

[JackFavell]

Ro -

 

I never thought I'd be such a Wayne fan, but those performances from his middle years really speak to me strongly about what should be, and the frustration of having to deal with what is.

 

I never really thought of this before, but realizing when Fort Apache was made, do you think that some of Ford's audience members might have really identified with Yorke strongly - having dealt with a Thursday themselves?

 

Also, picking up the pieces of their lives and work, and having to plow through the day to day, perhaps boring WORK of living in peacetime, isn't that what Yorke is going to do? In that brave new world, after having been in combat, it must have seemed really strange. A hero who simply does his work without glory would have been a welcome hero for that time.

 

Here is a moviemorlocks post from last month - I think you will like it in the long run - don't get upset at the beginning of the article and stop reading! I almost did, but I'm glad I finished it, because David Kalat really brings up some things I had not thought of with Wayne's later 1960's and 70's movies. And also, make sure you read the reply at the bottom from Suzi, she really says a lot in her letter.

 

http://moviemorlocks.com/2010/11/13/is-there-no-room-for-heroes/