Western Movie Rambles

[MissGoddess]

> 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/

 

 

WOW! The comments by Suzi were phenomenal. And i never made the connection

between Fistful of Dollars and El Dorado. Fascinating. I've never seen FoD, either.

 

Edited by: MissGoddess on Nov 28, 2010 5:34 PM

[JackFavell]

I thought it was a very interesting article, even though it takes off from a modern comic book point of view.

 

I enjoyed that the author actually came around to a different point of view about John Wayne, and his character. I liked that he was able to see something in El Dorado that I had absolutely never ever thought of. AS soon as he said that Hawks was replying to Fistful of Dollars (or was it the Good the Bad and The Ugly?) I was sure it was true. I guess I need to see these films back to back.

[MissGoddess]

> I enjoyed that the author actually came around to a different point of view about John Wayne, and his character. I liked that he was able to see something in El Dorado that I had absolutely never ever thought of. AS soon as he said that Hawks was replying to Fistful of Dollars (or was it the Good the Bad and The Ugly?) I was sure it was true. I guess I need to see these films back to back.

 

I think I'd like to do the same. It's a good excuse to finally watch the Leone film.

[rohanaka]

Helloooooo Ms Favell!!!

 

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

 

You may be right, but you know.. if you think about it.. I bet MOST of us (no matter what era we grew up in) could find a Thursday of our own if we stop and think about it.. there are a lot of them out there. But not so many "Yorkes" nowdays... alas.. ha.

 

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

 

That is an excellent point. And one that I imagine is pretty timely too, considering the world we live in now and the men and women who come home and have to go back to their "normal" lives after living in such an UN-normal way... serving and fighting along with their comrades in day to day life and death situations. I truly admire them for their sacrifice in that way as much as any.

 

And PS: Thank you so much for pointing out the Morlock blog.. I am such a dimwit about remembering to look on there so often.. and boy..that one was well worth the read, so I am glad to have caught it.

 

I think the author made some excellent points (and I truly enjoyed reading it all.. no "angry" to report whatsoever, ha)

 

And I appreciated how the author also sadly pointed out some things that are all too true about our modern day points of view about what makes a "good" good guy.. that he is not necessarily "good"... (more the sort of "anti-hero" like many of the Eastwood films, for example) I like how he ended his post with how refreshing it might be to NOT have that be the way of things so often now days.

 

And not to sound in any way critical of what was written, but if I could have maybe changed one thing it would have been to maybe point out that honestly.. I think many of John Wayne's characters are not so "black and white" as the author seemed to hint at.. (and Grey Guy.. that takes a lot for me to say that as you well know, ha) But instead I think that is the PERCEPTION of many of the roles he played for sure.

 

And PS:.. ha. as for the "perception" of the Duke in his films....The kidling is a perfect example.. she thinks he is "the good guy" in EVERY movie we watch.. and it actually makes her mad when I tell her otherwise, ( NObody better badmouth the Duke to HER, ha,.. In her eyes.. he can do no wrong.. but then again.. she is seven.) But a lot of people still think that way.. despite their age.. and sometimes it is not so easy as who is good and bad.. UGH. I hate to admit it, but for purposes of this conersation,it is often more complicated than that.

 

(BLECH.. I am really sounding FAR more gray/grey than I like to admit.. DO NOT tell the Grey Dude, HA)

 

I imagine much of the reason for why most folks have that "black and white" perception of his image goes back to that whole "legend" idea of what his movies and characters were like more than anything else. Many of his characters had a far greater level of moral ambiguity than most folks realize, but the author was right in that even if he seemed to struggle with right or wrong, he was EXPECTED to come to the "right" choice by the end of the movie (a la... The Searchers, for example) He had some TRULY "meaty" roles that way.. so I guess I would add that I agree with the author that even in their "wrong-ness" many of his characters were motivated by a sense of right.. or at would at least COME to their senses about what was right.. eventually... again.. The Searchers is a great example.

 

Anyway.. I enjoyed the read. It was a great post and had a lot of really good points. And I also enjoyed many of the comments by the various people at the end of the blog as well.. including Suzi's that you pointed out. Thanks again for bringing it all to my attention

[wouldbestar]

Since we are comparing Mr. Wayne?s frontier and ?modern? military films I?d like to enter the fray.

 

I see a great similarity between York, Nettles of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and Stryker of Sands of Iwo Jima. All believe in the military way of life, must teach new members the code and how to fight and survive, and lead them in battle. All feel the weight of that responsibility. They care about their comrades-in-arms but try to deny or hide it-mostly from themselves-because losing them hurts. Tanks and bazookas replace horses and rifles but the main themes stand. I guess Rio Grande and They Were Expendable should be in this group as well.

 

I think I said before I knew a real Stryker during Desert Storm. Nobody wants to see young men go to war but men like my friend made certain they were the best trained for the job in mind and body. One was his son. I still have a problem with Nettles ?weakness? theory but that?s not a deal breaker for the rest. I like them all.

 

Edited by: wouldbestar on Nov 28, 2010 10:13 PM

[movieman1957]

I think that maybe the perception of Duke as always good guy is that even when he is not really the good guy it is still hard not to like him. With all the bad the Ethan Edwards carries with him you get just enough of his tender side with Martha that you just can't really hate him.

 

Even though he flat out kills Liberty Valance he has served a greater good. The way he treats Hallie and Ranse makes us feel sympathy for him when he loses control after the killing and losing Hallie. Shoot, we feel sorry for him as soon as opening credits are barely over.

 

He's supposed to be an outlaw in "Angel and The Badman" but that doesn't last and whatever bad he is supposed to have done is only by reputation. We don't see him do anything.

 

About the nastiest he gets, as I recall, is "Red River." His heart goes cold and there is only revenge in it. But you see just enough love under all those promises to get Matt that you can't believe he'll do it.

 

"The Conquerer" maybe. He certainly played a nasty historical figure but I can't remember how mean he might have been.

[MissGoddess]

I agree, momvieman. I'd say "surly" is about as bad as he got, but he didn't ever play a villain to my knowledge.

[movieman1957]

>I see a great similarity between York, Nettles of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon

 

His name is Brittles. Nathan Brittles in "SWAYR."

[rohanaka]

You are right Chris (in that he did not really play the "villian") but I guess what I was meaning by saying that he was not always the "good guy" in the traditional sense of the word (despite the perception) is that he could do "dark" and even somewhat "sinister" so very convincingly... and at least a few of his characters were not always "above reproach" in the way they handled their problems. The Searchers and Red River to me were his darkest roles. (MAYBE.. but I have never seen The Conqueror.. I just cannot bring myself to watch that one for some reason)

 

At any rate.. going back go what I was saying about the kidling and her "perception" that he should always be the good guy.. she is very "protective" of his "good guy" status (most likely because she knows he is a favorite and she won't let herself "cheer" for anyone in a film that is not a good guy. She is still young enough to be very "black and white about what her movie characters SHOULD be. (And ha, I have NO idea where she gets it from) and she is not quite willing to give them any wiggle room in that whole "repentant bad guy" angle... yet. But she IS getting there.

 

BOY did it make her unhappy when we first started watching Angel and the Badman.. and I had to tell her that HE was the BAD man... (but she eventually got over it.. because you are right... he DID end up good after all. ha.) And then OH she was mad another time when I told her that the Duke was an outlaw when we were watching 3 Godfathers. "Mom.. turn the channel.. he should NOT be acting that way" HA. But she got over it.. eventually.. once the baby showed up.. (because after all, WHO could resist that adorable little Robert William Pedro.. ha)

 

PS. WBS.. good for your friend.. he is doing a service to his country and to those he trains to train them well.

 

Edited by: rohanaka on Nov 29, 2010 1:33 AM

[FrankGrimes]

Don't forget this guy:

 

[rohanaka]

YIKES.. get out of my head, Grey Guy. ha. (I ALMOST listed WOTRW as one of his more sinister characters... but I think he still was a bit darker overall in the other two films I mentioned.)

 

PS: I bet you are just loving this whole "gray/grey" confessional I am having here about my favorite movie star, aren't you? Blech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MissGoddess]

He was also a good mix of dark and light in *shepherd of the hills*. His charcter was on the cusp of turning into a reflection of sweet little Beulah Bondi.

[FrankGrimes]

YIKES.. get out of my head, Grey Guy. ha. (I ALMOST listed WOTRW as one of his more sinister characters... but I think he still was a bit darker overall in the other two films I mentioned.)

 

Yes, I agree with you. But he was a scoundrel in Wake of the Red Witch. Do you remember why he was found tied to a log in the middle of the ocean? Wayne playing "Gable," if you will.

 

I bet you are just loving this whole "gray/grey" confessional I am having here about my favorite movie star, aren't you? Blech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I think it just shows that you're not blind. But you're not too far gone. If I asked you if Wayne played mostly white, gray, or black characters, I'm pretty sure you'd say "white." He plays "gray," to be sure, but he's mostly "white." I think it's the kind of "white" he plays that can bother some. The "moral certitude" that is mentioned is a big part of it. That's where the strong "white" perception is coming from. It's why many gravitate to Wayne (traditionalists) and it's why others turn away.

[OllieTSB]

Here's a good John Wayne scene. Where he just about breaks down and blubbers - not just cry, but blubbers...

 

ISLAND IN THE SKY. When he considers that their crashed plane is lost forever, that they'll all die and there's not a thing he can do about it. He's at the mercy of the blizzard conditions, and he can't save any of his crew.

 

Such a great scene.

[movieman1957]

I didn't even think of "WOTRW." The other one that came to mind was "The War Wagon." He and Douglas are going to steal some gold but frankly they are both so flat out fun that it is hard to think of them doing something illegal.

 

BTW, unless you are am absolute completist for Wayne don't knowck yourself out getting to "The Conqueror." (You could make a good argument for skipping "The Barbarian and The Geisha" and even "Circus World.")

[wouldbestar]

You're right. I know where my mind was; it was late and I guess the wine got to me. The important thing was the character of the man and I think I got that right.

[movieman1957]

>The important thing was the character of the man and I think I got that right.

 

You certainly did.

[laffite]

I think it was the *Grimes* guy who said recently on another thread that the forum here can make us do things (watch certain kinds of movies, for instance) that we might not ordinarily do. Very true for me. So here I am watching a movie entitled *Fort Apache* that in earlier days would pass rapidly through my mind as probably some mindless Western with a lot of cowboys and Indians and no doubt boring as all get out (not helped by the fact that John Wayne was in it) and that I hoped the popcorn made endurable (although I preferred JuJubes, my little nickel could a long way with those, it took forever to eat them) and further willing to be endured by the anticipation of some cartoons ahead and maybe the latest installment of Flash Gordon. Back then a Ford was a car and had no other association for me. Now in retrospect I know that I had seen some John Ford but as far as I can remember, not really aware of it at the time. This, despite graduating from the Jujube stage to a slightly higher level consciousness---still pre TCM, mind you---where the viewing of a movie was still a casual thing with no special effort at discerning essential elements but simply grabbing whatever entertainment I could get---it had to be really obvious, heaven forbid that I should have to do any serious thinking---and then moving on to next mindless endeavor, whatever that might have been at the time (I am essentially a dreamer too, *Grimes*, if I may refer to yet another of your recent offerings. I am a notorious eavesdropper and a incorrigible blabber mouth, so I hope you don?t mind )

 

In other words, TCM, and more specifically this forum, has changed my why, what, and how of movie watching.

 

Voila, the Western, and John Ford, no less.

 

I have seen *Stagecoach* within recent memory and there is the obvious things that jump out in Fort Apache that are similar to SC, so obvious in fact that probably not worth mentioning, except that they work so well.

 

The use of the camera seems to me to be so simple at times but has great effect. I think the key for me with these particular shots is that the camera keeps it?s distance and presents a certain tableau, an almost iconic look at what things really looked like back then, an authenticity. I could take any number of screen shots, print them out, make a little book out of it, then show it to somebody and say, ?Here, this is the way it was.? That shabby little fort, this column of soldiers riding off to war, that stagecoach streaking across the desert plain, those riders in the distance, and to get specific, that wonderful shot of Cochise? (Geronimo?) throwing down the gauntlet in the desert wind. To say that there may be a documentary element to these shots might suggest a stultifying effect since, after all, there is a story going on. But not so. Orson Welles either wrote or said in an interview how he studied *Stagecoach* for composition and perspective, so I?m sure there is a lot more than this going on with this camera business (in both movies).

 

Some of the music is interesting. Sometimes it doesn?t necessarily fit with what?s going on, an odd incongruity. It seems to be OK though. I'll watch again and notice the music better in FT, but I recall moment in SC when the camera is inside the moving coach and passing methodically from one countenance to another, close-ups, and all the time this blustery orchestral music is raging away. You would think that music like this would be reserved for some wild, action sequence. The effect of the music inside the coach seems peculiar but it somehow works. The ?kid? Wayne looks at Trevor and she looks back, the camera does a 360, nobody is talking but merely sitting there in silence, eyes flickering here and there looking bored (like people on a bus) while being jostled around by the terrain. And yet this music. Amazing.

 

And the singing of soldiers on horseback going to war. Back in my pre-TCM days (going as far back as the Jujubee Era) I used to laugh at things like this. (I haven?t seen SWAYR yet but I know what?s coming ). I noticed that the boys were singing even when they were riding out for this ill-conceived mission, which seemed interesting. And that beautiful Irish song and so well done. The Irish get a lot of play in FT.

 

There is ample humor in FT and I nearly found myself getting fidgety during that fairly long recruit sequence where the guys were getting on the horses and then falling off, etc., etc. Now the next time I see that I might laugh but during this first viewing I was so interested in Thursday and the Thursday-Roarke connection that I wanted to get on with it. I'll use a separate post for them and some of the others, How about that Shirley Temple :x , cute. I want to have a look at some of what the you all have said so far and offer a few comments of my own.

 

Earlier today I watched FT on Netflix streaming and I am thinking of ordering the CD to be sent anyway. The screen was ultra small on the stream and as anyone who has used NetF Instant Play knows, it is cumbersome and time consuming to navigate. The stream rebuffs every time you move the cursor to a new location. I?m hoping for a bigger screen and I?ll be glad to click around to my favorite points of the show. I want to go back and hear Thursday say, ?Pour me some scripture.?

 

Ps For those of you out there who are religiously inclined (I know of a couple of you but I won?t name names ), can you approve of scripture in that form? If so, I may convert.

[JackFavell]

Awesome, so far, Laffite! I love how you capture little moments here and there. It's wonderful to see the movie like it was the first time! And now I have to go back and listen to the music...something I can't remember ever doing specifically.

 

I think one of the things I like so much about Fort Apache is the way it looks. It never really came to me why, I just thought it was one of the most beautiful black and white movies ever made. But now, I think it's also because it has that authenticity that you speak of - as if Mathew Brady was making a movie.

 

And I love all the moments with Cochise (the marvelous Miguel Inclan). He's brilliant. It's uncanny how much like Cochise he really looks.

 

I can't wait to read more.

[movieman1957]

You certainly came with an open mind. A fine commentary.

 

I think the part of "Stagecoach" you refer to about the music is when it first sets out? If I recall correctly I got the sense it was nothing more than to help build excitement. A sense of this is not your ordinary coach ride. Maybe you're a little more up when the action does start.

 

Of course, with my luck it was probably lifted and just stuck on there like those old bad "B" westerns that seemed to recycle music.

 

Oh. I agree with you that having spent several years visiting here and being involved in these discussions that you can't help but watch films differently. So many different perspectives and ideas make watching now much more interesting. I'm now looking for things that I might bring to a conversation. Little things that might make it more interesting. Also I wonder while I watch if I'm not over-thinking things.

 

Edited by: movieman1957 on Nov 30, 2010 11:25 AM

[laffite]

*Chris:* Thanks. I don't know if your "over thinking" or not...but I hope you keep doing what your doing, it works.

 

*You certainly came with an open mind.*

 

That came with everyone's help. Being open to new things is so much easier when there is a sounding board. The enthusiasm here is so great in general and particularly with Ford, I almost feel I WANT to like it.

 

*I think the part of "Stagecoach" you refer to about the music is when it first sets out?*

 

It's about 35 minutes in. Here is the link. Put the cursor at the six minute mark. As usual it's not so much as I remember it. No 360 camera, for instance. I think I was originally struck by the ebullience of the music in such enclosed setting like that. I still think it was a wonderful decision to do that and a nice effect. I liked it enough to have apparently embellished it a bit on recall.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEMPnfHNLvE&feature=related

 

Jackie: Thanks. Browsing *Stagecoach* looking for that clip makes me want to go back and see that. That has a pretty good look too . Ford has a way of framing a shot that is remarkable, mainly because there doesn't seem to be anything fancy about it. And yet an uncommonly good effect. The youtube version has been colorized for the most part...not good so I won't watch it there.

 

Edited by: laffite on Nov 30, 2010 1:22 PM

 

Edited by: laffite on Nov 30, 2010 1:32 PM

[MissGoddess]

*Stagecoach* would be the first time Ford used folk songs in his movie scoring in earnest. Richard Hageman and several others who worked on this movie in the music department, used at least seventeen different folk songs for different parts of the score. Ford did not care so much if a tune was anachronistic, so long as it developed the emotion of the scene or conveyed some sort continuity (for example, "Red River Valley" is used frequently in several of his films, both western and non-western, provides an aural "link" throughout his work, even as his "stock company" of familiar players do, and repeated gags, motifs and themes. In a way, Ford's entire body of work constitutes a "family" or "community" of films.)

 

Rather stunningly, Hageman (sharing with W. Franke Harling, John Leipold and Leo Shuken) won the Oscar for Best Score in that year of years, 1939.

[MissGoddess]

"The use of the camera seems to me to be so simple at times but has great effect."

 

Laffite, you've just summed up what is Ford's strongest visual suit in one sentence, whereas it takes the professionals 50+ books to say the same thing!

 

...in retrospect I know that I had seen some John Ford but as far as I can remember, not really aware of it at the time.

 

It's exactly how I came to his films. Exactly the same. I saw many of the movies, thought they were entertaining, but kept hearing his name praised as one of the greats and it didn't register why. I was more in tune with Lubitsch, Wilder, Wyler, Stevens, Welles, plus the studio directors.

 

Then I'd see one of his movies again a little later and think, wow, this is better than I remembered. Then a few years later I'd see those movies again another time and think, goodness, how come I never noticed that, or that, or that going on. Who directed this? (I never could remember which movies he directed except I knew he directed one I wanted no part of and avoided for years: The Grapes of Wrath). I think I must have overlooked him bedause his movies registered at first as well crafted entertainment, but I missed ALL of the nuances and subtleties, and even the personality of the man behind it.

 

In other words, it took me a long, looooong time to appreciate Ford's films. He readjusted my thinking about movies, and made me look closer at them (and made me realize I didn't know them as well as I thought I did.) This board has also taught me that all over again.

 

I love what you wrote about *Stagecoach* and *Fort Apache*. I would even encourage you to rent the Criterion disc of *Stagecoach* and just watch that one extra that Tag Gallagher put together. It's remarkable. Tag is European, and looks at the film with a European eye, and very poetically.

 

Now tell me more about what you thought about Oooooh, Henry!

[MissGoddess]

It looks like *El Dorado* and *Fistful of Dollars* are airing back-to-back tomorrow, starting at 9:45 a.m. EST I believe, for those interested in watching them and reading David Kallat's Morlocks article on the same. I hope my recorder catches all of it, lately it is very temperamental.

[JackFavell]

MissG - thanks for that reminder, I had no idea that they were airing the two movies together. Great, I don't even have to rent them!

 

Laffite - I felt the same about Ford, I had no idea who he was, just enjoyed his movies for the surface entertainment. I liked *Prisoner of Shark Island*, it was good adventure. Somehow, even though it was a western, I loved *The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance*. Lots of fun and excitement. The way Goddess described coming back and back to the movies is pretty much just the same for me, but with a little difference - When I saw *Grapes of Wrath* at age twelve or thirteen, it completely turned me upside down emotionally... I saw a couple of movies that year that totally moved me, maybe because I was growing up.... (I remember Streetcar was another that deeply disturbed me.)

 

*The Informer* was another. I had NO IDEA that Ford had directed most of the above movies, had no idea a director even existed at that time. All I knew was that GOW and The Informer had a compassionate feeling for men who normally would be cast as the villain in a movie, and showed why they did what they did, how they got to that place in life. If Ford taught me anything, it is that you can't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes. He blew me away, and I didn't even know who he was.

 

As I went along, watching classic movies, I discovered that I was drawn back to those simple Ford films. However, it wasn't till much later that I could even understand what all the fuss was about. Watching *The Searchers*, it made no sense to me. *The Quiet Man* was my mom's favorite movie, and for the life of me, I couldn't understand it. I had to come here, to the message boards, to appreciate either one. Sometimes, Ford movies mystify me. Like *They Were Expendable*. Huh? I faked understanding it, but because I spent a lot of time looking at it in screencaps, it began to unfurl itself to me. I realized that there were all these layers - layers you could come back to at different ages and appreciate. As if your young self and your old self could be lined up next to one another, watching the same movie, but getting totally different things out of it.

 

I'm sitting here watching The Quiet Man, and realizing once again, that Ford is doing something with the music. Because I am listening more than watching, I realized something- there is actually very little dialogue in the movie, and all the important things that happen happen with music, not talk. I can hear that the movie is very much a silent film with the lead characters doing very little chatting. As it flows, they seem to open up very slightly to one another, in talk, but the talk that is important is not scored by any music.

 

Anyway, sorry for getting carried away, I never meant to rattle on so much, straying off-topic.

 

I love the clip you picked out - The music is just going hell-bent for leather, and it adds to the feeling of pent up feelings swirling around that tiny coach, everyone mashed up together, with no place for those feelings to go.

 

There! Thats what I was originally going to say, before I got sidetracked by Ford and how he floats under the radar sometimes for years. How he does those simple, easy, breathtaking shots, as if it were nothing at all, I'll never know. Maybe when I'm eighty, I'll understand how he did it.