Western Movie Rambles

[FrankGrimes]

Howdy, Lest We Lynn -- Oh, no! You're looking to make me watch every Ford

and Cooper film!

 

You say that like you think it's a bad thing.

 

It is! I'd rather eat Quiet Gal's cooking than watch Ford and Coop.

 

Fort Apache is the first time Ford embraces the heroic side of a myth created. York

defends Thursday's arrogance and tunnel-vision and wraps it up in courage not so much

for Philadelphia's sake or for the sake of Thursday's reputation but for all the men who

were his friends who followed Thursday into battle. Ford will explore the dark side of

creating a myth in Liberty Valance and show us how difficult it is to live a life created

on a myth.

 

That is excellently said. I most definitely agree with you.

 

She Wore a Yellow Ribbon is Ford at his finest with lots of tradition and lots of ritual. It

gives him a chance to explore a deeper character with Wayne (they began doing that,

imho, in They Were Expendable ) and this process will reach it's zenith in The Searchers.

There's lots to love about SWAYR as well, Ben Johnson relationship with Nathan as well

as Vic McLaglen's.

 

John Wayne's "Captain Nathan Brittles" is what I like most about She Wore a

Yellow Ribbon. Wayne gets to display a wide range of emotions, capably so, too.

Of the "cavalry trilogy," his "Captain Yorke" in Rio Grande is my favorite. I feel it's

the most emotional of his cavalry characters and performances.

 

My two favorite images from She Wore a Yellow Ribbon are the following:

 

 

 

Here are the kind of shots in Rio Grande that I absolutely love:

 

 

 

Rio Grande makes possible The Quiet Man and is on some levels an even more romantic movie. It again shows a maturing of the relationship between Ford and Wayne that will serve them both very well in their remaining films together.

 

That's a very nice comparison between Rio Grande and The Quiet Man.

The Quiet Man is about the building of love and marriage while Rio Grande is

about the rebuilding of love and marriage.

[lzcutter]

I*n a book on his westerns I have, it shows a painting of, I believe, Custer's last*

*stand or something like, and Ford's positioning of the men and framing the shots*

*looks a lot like that painting. It's very classical looking to me.*

 

Very good eye there, MissG.

 

Thursday's Last Stand is modeled after the romanticized myth of Custer's Last Stand. We've learned a lot more about what actually happened at the Little Big Horn since Ford hung up his director's hat.

 

But Ford always knew a good story and a good image when he saw it and wasn't about using it and mythologizing (is that a word) it to suit his purposes.

 

Think of *Clementine* and the Shoot-Out at the OK Corral vs what really happened not only at the OK Corral but in the months following. Wyatt Earp is a very different historical figure vs Henry Fonda's myth-making turn.

 

We like our justice, real and reel, neat and tidy and history is anything but neat and tidy. But the reel justice gives us a chance to experience justice the way we would like to have had it happen.

 

No one wants to believe that Wyatt Earp was a guy with human foibles and flaws. He's the guy who took on the Clayton clan with his brothers and a dentist/gambler suffering from TB not to mention the real life sheriff who cleaned up Dodge City before Marshal Dillion was even a thought in some writer's mind.

 

We don't like to think about the violence that continued (especially at the hands of the Earps) in the aftermath of what happened in Tombstone. Unless, you wrap it up in a rousing story and some over-the-top and some pitch perfect performances and make *Tombstone*.

 

But consider all the Wyatt Earp/OK Corral movies that came before we finally got something akin to real history. *Tombstone* is not completely historically accurate (Kevin Costner's *Wyatt Earp* may be accurate but it is like watching paint dry except for Dennis Quaid) but it is fun.

[movieman1957]

>Coming around? It's been my second favorite "genre," behind only film noir. I also like

horror films.

 

Well, there's another mistake to chalk up from this weekend. One of these days I'll get things right. (At least I got the title to your screencap right.)

 

Message was edited by: movieman1957. Nevermind. It's not worth it.

[rohanaka]

Well... I did not get a chance to watch this like I wanted to last night. But I just wanted to respond to a couple of the EXCELLENT posts and comments here... you folks are knocking my socks off with this terrific ramble.

 

Miss Goddess says:

Fonda never budges or relents. But do we hate him? I'm curious what others

really think about Colonel Thursday? I hate his misconceptions and egotism, but

I still can't help but admire him in a way! It's crazy, and I'm probably the only one

who feels that way about him.

 

Everytime I think of Thursday... I think "pompous jerk". In a lot of ways, he seemed to be a man that had "form" but not "substance". Sure, he was "brave".... but in a foolish way. And (ok Grey Guy I am going to pay for this maybe....) he was an EXCELLENT example of "Black and White" thinking gone awry. I mean that to say that he viewed everything in his OWN black and white terms... but not necessarily from the reality of what was TRULY right or wrong. And he had NO room for any other opinion but his own.

 

But having said all that.... I can understand your level of admiration for him as well. He was sort of "glorious" in a way... but I just think it was so tragically "glorious" because he was so foolishly arrogant. (So in all honesty, most of my admiration has to go to his men.)

 

He was a VERY interesting character and extremely well played. I had not seen this film in a LONG time before I watched it this past winter... but back in January I was watching it w/ my new found perspective on Fonda (since seeing him in The OxBow Incident and Grapes of Wrath) and I have to say.... I have an entirely new opinion of how WELL old Thursday was played because I have a better appreciation for the actor. And in this one, he carried the role off so well that I just wanted to kick him in the pants about every other time he was on screen. (ha)

 

I still intend to go back and watch this again soon (maybe tonight I hope) and then maybe will be able to comment some more on a few of the other things you folks are bringing up, but for now, I want to give a shout out to the comparisons you all are making to the the other films (SWAYR and Rio Grande) You folks rock! ha. This film is not necessarily so "romantic" as Rio Grande.... and it doesn't have the "nostalgic" quality that is seen in SWAYR (as in an old soldier reflecting on the past) But it IS an emotional film on a lot of levels.

 

And PS... your screen caps are excellent. (Mr. Grey... OH!! Those shots of the women as they wait.... wow.)

 

And PSS... the ending... OH ME. (Mrs Cutter... I like what you said about how we prefer our history neat and tidy.. especially in our films.) It all goes back to that "embrace the myth" angle that Ford seemed to totally "get" in so many of his westerns. I like the way that at least in THIS film (and some of the others... like Liberty Valance) you get to see the REALITY and THE MYTH side by side.... and then you get a reason for perhaps "the creation of the myth" and the "secret keeper's" decision to refrain from "disillusioning" everyone else as well.

 

I am looking forward to the continuing chat here.... great job folks.

 

OH... and by the way...

 

I'd rather eat Quiet Gal's cooking than watch Ford and Coop

 

Laugh it up Grey Dude.... your day is coming!!!

 

[MissGoddess]

Spoilers on the trail!

 

I was wondering if Fonda would

have played "Ranse" in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance if he and Ford didn't

have a falling out. Ranse seems like a Fonda character, especially when placed against

John Wayne's "Doniphon." But could Fonda bring a warmth to Ranse that James

Stewart did? Yes, I said it, Ranse is a warm character... before his political career.

 

Now there's a question. I don't know---Fonda was good at playing naively foolish

characters in his early comedies, but I never saw him play venal. There is

a very venal streak in the character of Ranse Stoddard and something about Jimmy's

neuroticism kind of lends itself to that. Fonda seems too definite, so very rigid in his

beliefs while Jimmy is more of a loose cannon and emotional. Yes, and because Jimmy

is a warm actor he makes Ransom Stoddard more likable. In the short story, Stoddard is

not very likable---he even deliberatly tries to alienate people. Ford changed the character to

make it a little more sympathetic and ambivalent. I could perhaps see some other actor

in the part besides Jimmy, perhaps someone younger, but then you would have the problem

of John Wayne blowing them off the screen---he needs someone who can hold their own

opposite him, which is where I think Henry would fit the bill. Noooo---I can't see Henry

playing the "blowhard" part of the later day Ransom---Jimmy was PERFECT at conveying

THAT aspect of his personality.

 

Terrific point. Did you learn that at West Point?

 

I cut and pasted from Wikipedia.

 

Yes. Colonel Rogers (Robert Keith) seeks glory and a reward for his ill-conceived

attack. He's bailed out by the bravery and skill of some of his men.

 

Right, that's right. So many lives were lost---imagine how many in history have

been lost because of the "glory seekers".

 

Thank you! I'm trying. I'm at least trying.

 

More than trying. Those screencaps you chose showing some repeated

compositions in Ford films were stunning. He does like the wonderfully

balanced look of a scene with three people. Mankiewicz does that a lot, too,

I suppose many classical directors did.

[MissGoddess]

Everytime I think of Thursday... I think "pompous jerk". In a lot of ways, he seemed to be a man that had "form" but not "substance". Sure, he was "brave".... but in a foolish way

 

Lol! Tell us how you REALLY feel Miss Rohanaka!

 

My poor Thursday.

 

I really like how he handles the most disgusting character in the whole

film, the outpost trader Meacham, played to evil perfection by reliable

Grant Withers here (notice the language Meacham uses---he knows

all the right words to use on inquisitive representatives of Uncle Sam):

 

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

 

Notice, too, how John Wayne's Sgt. Yorke wants to just go in like

gangbusters and arrest Meacham but Thursday insists not only on protocol

and hearing out Meacham, but on making up his own mind about how

to handle him. This scene really cleverly gets across a lot of exposition

about the relations between the whites and the Apaches, as well as

expanding on character (and providing some laughs).

[FrankGrimes]

Now there's a question. I don't know---Fonda was good at playing naively foolish

characters in his early comedies, but I never saw him play venal. There is

a very venal streak in the character of Ranse Stoddard and something about Jimmy's

neuroticism kind of lends itself to that.

 

I don't view Ranse as being venal. I think he loses his way more than anything else. He

starts to think of himself first, but not in a corrupt way.

 

Fonda seems too definite, so very rigid in his beliefs while Jimmy is more of a loose

cannon and emotional.

 

That's an excellent point. Fonda comes across calm and calculating. I'm not sure

he could erupt in incredulity like Jimmy does as "Ranse." Jimmy was masterful at

conveying "at wit's end." He wears his emotions whereas Fonda often conceals his.

 

In the short story, Stoddard is not very likable---he even deliberatly tries to alienate

people. Ford changed the character to make it a little more sympathetic and ambivalent.

 

Now that's very interesting. I didn't know this. I definitely like Ford's "Ranse."

 

I could perhaps see some other actor in the part besides Jimmy, perhaps someone

younger, but then you would have the problem of John Wayne blowing them off the

screen---he needs someone who can hold their own opposite him, which is where I think

Henry would fit the bill.

 

I was rather mesmerized by the Fonda-Wayne pairing in Fort Apache. And I really

like your "passing of the torch" comment.

 

Noooo---I can't see Henry playing the "blowhard" part of the later day Ransom---Jimmy

was PERFECT at conveying THAT aspect of his personality.

 

I actually can see Fonda playing a blowhard. I think he could do that very well.

 

Right, that's right. So many lives were lost---imagine how many in history have

been lost because of the "glory seekers".

 

More than we would ever know.

 

More than trying. Those screencaps you chose showing some repeated

compositions in Ford films were stunning.

 

Thanks. Ford definitely reuses themes and compositions... and I really like that.

 

He does like the wonderfully balanced look of a scene with three people. Mankiewicz

does that a lot, too, I suppose many classical directors did.

 

I didn't know Ford and Mank liked the "three" shot. I'll have to look for that in my future

viewings.

[MissGoddess]

I don't view Ranse as being venal. I think he loses his way more than anything else. He

starts to think of himself first, but not in a corrupt way.

 

Look at his eyes! He can't look people straight in the eye many times, because

he's conscious he's conflicted. I didn't say he was venal, just that he had

that bad or venal streak in him. I call building a life of glory on another man's

tragedy pretty venal. I'm not speaking of how he started either. It's not where a man

starts that counts---it's how he ends up. That's why as long as there is breath, there

is hope for a change for the good.

 

I was rather mesmerized by the Fonda-Wayne pairing in Fort Apache.

 

I like seeing Kirby frustrated by Fonda---how Fonda overrules him SO OFTEN and

so publicly. But Kirby, to his credit, really handles it well. In real life, I can somehow

picture Wayne handling Ford's bossyness the same way.

 

I just love Fonda's "Thursday". He's so riveting. I just find his obliviousness of

any other point of view to be rather like a phenomenon. He was almost a machine!

 

I actually can see Fonda playing a blowhard. I think he could do that very well.

 

I really can't see it, but he was a super talented actor. Ford liked to say Jimmy was

a "complete actor", meaning everything you saw on the screen was acting and had

nothing to do with what he was really like as a man. Jimmy is so good at it, so good

even at bee-essing, tall-tale telling, perfect for a political manipulator. I haven't

seen Fonda in a part like that, am I missing something? The politicians I've

seen him play were all straight arrows.

 

I didn't know Ford and Mank liked the "three" shot. I'll have to look for that in my future

viewings.

 

I think I confused Mank with Preminger for his fondness for the three-shot. In fact, I can

immediately summon to my mind several scenes from Otto's movies that involved three

character composition.

[FrankGrimes]

Look at his eyes! He can't look people straight in the eye many times, because

he's conscious he's conflicted. I didn't say he was venal, just that he had

that bad or venal streak in him.

 

Oh, yes, I do think Ranse had a venal streak in him. But, ultimately, I think he became

full of himself, thusly losing contact with reality and humanity.

 

I call building a life of glory on another man's tragedy pretty venal. I'm not speaking

of how he started either. It's not where a man starts that counts---it's how he ends

up. That's why as long as there is breath, there is hope for a change for the good.

 

Ranse was encouraged by Doniphon to use his political opportunity to do good, to make

a positive difference. I think Ranse ended up thinking everything he did was good for the

people even though he ended up seeking personal glory in the end. He became a product

of the political system. He assimilated.

 

 

 

 

I like seeing Kirby frustrated by Fonda---how Fonda overrules him SO OFTEN and

so publicly. But Kirby, to his credit, really handles it well. In real life, I can somehow

picture Wayne handling Ford's bossyness the same way.

 

That's yet another brilliant observation. I can definitely see Wayne and Ford's relationship

being the same, especially on the set.

 

I just love Fonda's "Thursday". He's so riveting. I just find his obliviousness of

any other point of view to be rather like a phenomenon. He was almost a machine!

 

You're on fire! Thursday really is a machine. He's the Terminator! Or, you could say,

he's the "Determinator." I also find Fonda's "Thursday" to be enthralling but from a

point of amazement. He's quite the contrast to his Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men.

 

Ford liked to say Jimmy was a "complete actor", meaning everything you saw on

the screen was acting and had nothing to do with what he was really like as a

man. Jimmy is so good at it, so good even at bee-essing, tall-tale telling, perfect for

a political manipulator.

 

Is this really Miss G? You are making such great sense. Are you drinking again? You

are right, Jimmy really does feel at home telling tall tales and keeping an audience

of reporters and common folk captivated. He's very inviting.

 

I haven't seen Fonda in a part like that, am I missing something? The politicians I've

seen him play were all straight arrows.

 

You are right about that, but I felt his "Honest Abe" could tell some country tales. He

was very homespun. I think Fonda could have played a BSer who was full of himself.

 

I think I confused Mank with Preminger for his fondness for the three-shot. In fact,

I can immediately summon to my mind several scenes from Otto's movies that involved

three character composition.

 

I know Preminger loved that crane. Come to think of it, I haven't watched a Preminger

film in a while.

[rohanaka]

Tell us how you REALLY feel Miss Rohanaka

 

Oh never ask me to do that... we could be here all day... ha. :-)

 

And Poor Thursday... ha. He DID have some redeeming qualities.. (like in the scene you posted).

 

(Wasn't McLaglen hilarious... the look on his face when that match went into that cup!! ha.)

[lzcutter]

*I really like how he handles the most disgusting character in the whole*

*film, the outpost trader Meacham, played to evil perfection by reliable*

*Grant Withers here*

 

Ford had no love, it seems for outpost traders or Indian agents. From *Fort Apache* to *SWAYR* to *The Searchers* with the "late Mr. Fudderman" they all have one thing in common, one way or another, they end up dead.

[JackFavell]

That's what you get for playing both sides, and cheating the native Americans.....

[movieman1957]

Miss G said:

"I like seeing Kirby frustrated by Fonda---how Fonda overrules him SO OFTEN and

so publicly. But Kirby, to his credit, really handles it well. In real life, I can somehow

picture Wayne handling Ford's bossyness the same way."

 

That's a great point that is early indication that trouble is coming. What is the point in having a suboridinate who is also an aide if you don't listen to him. Fonda is so by the book it is what gets him in trouble. Wayne knows there is a "book" but you have to allow for some fexibility because the Apaches work differently. As Fonda won't bend and we know the Apaches won't either that can only mean one thing - climactic shoot out.

 

Message was edited by: movieman1957 (some of my commands aren't working.)

[rohanaka]

Ok April.... I went back and watched again..... I still stand by the "pompous jerk" statement... Ha!

EVERY other time you turned around (especially at the beginning) he is saying stuff like "I take it this is NOT for me." etc, etc. Like he was pointing out to EVERYONE (again and again) that he was due and he'd been slighted.

 

But having said that... he DID have his moments. Like when he sent the extra troops covertly in behind the 4 or 5 men and how he dressed down (and sort of shut down) that low life Meechum... and yes... (thanks for pointing out what SHOULD have been obvious, Grey Guy) the way he sent young O'Rourke out of harm's way. He knew (despite his own arrogance) that he was likely not coming back (IF Kirby was right) and he did not want to leave his daughter w/out someone to care for her. So he DID have some "respect" from me after this last veiwing that maybe I did not want to give him before. I mean... you gotta love the fact that he really did go all out. He wasn't a "wishy washy" sort of "what do we do next?" kinda guy.

 

I just love Fonda's "Thursday". He's so riveting. I just find his obliviousness of

any other point of view to be rather like a phenomenon. He was almost a machine

 

"Oblivious" is a good choice. He had NO clue that he could possibly offend ANYONE because if they did not agree with him... that was just their problem for being wrong. He CLEARLY had no interest in anyone's opinion but his own and he did not listen to the people who were supposed to be his advisors. (like Chris mentioned) And he obviously had NO intention of ever admitting fault when he was proved wrong... Although I DID notice last night for the first time.. there at the end.... he made a few apologies to some of the men he'd "wronged" (brief ones... but apologies none the less) So... perhaps...he wasn't completely incapable of seeing his mistakes. But as a rule...I am gonna go with: "Oblivious" thy name is Thursday.... ha.

 

He was a really interesting character.

 

I like seeing Kirby frustrated by Fonda---how Fonda overrules him SO OFTEN and so publicly. But Kirby, to his credit, really handles it well. In real life, I can somehow picture Wayne handling Ford's bossyness the same way.

 

Kirby was an interesting character too. I really admired him for his ability to be right but not throw it up in anyone's face. And I also admired him for understanding that the best way to be able to "do" right by his men was to not get "kicked out" for speaking out of line Even when he WAS right. (And that is a hard thing to do when you are serving under a "pompous jerk" ha.) And you gotta admire him for that. Everytime he was overruled he managed to remain "subordinate" at least until the very end when "enough was enough" (and then he ended up.... "getting kicked out' for his trouble, didn't he?) I think too how he came in and "rescued" Thursday says a lot for him as well. He was a good example of an officer and a gentleman in every respect.

 

You know... I got to thinking about my comments on They Were Expendable from way back at the first of the year, and how I had said that I had not remembered seeing the Duke in such a " supporting" role before. But THIS movie is not so dissimilar to that same thing now that I think of it. It really IS Fonda's film... and the Duke is a supporting character... but I think you may be right in what you brought up earlier about how it could be viewed as a "passing of the torch". He'd had leading roles before, but I think he was really coming into his own (Red River came out the same year, didn't it?) and a lot of the other roles he would get in the future support that too.

[movieman1957]

"Red River" and "Ft. Apache" were the same year. That is quite a leap in roles for Duke.

[rohanaka]

Talk about your polar opposites for sure!!! ha

[JackFavell]

Ro-

 

I just bought Fort Apache (I can't believe I don't already have it). I will be watching tomorrow or the next day. I really love John Wayne in this movie - the way he knows what his place is, and how he doesn't have to let everyone KNOW he is right when he is. I love that last shot out the window (I can't even type the words, the waterworks are starting). And I guess I just think this is a hell of a good movie from start to finish. It is put together so beautifully. I think my favorite parts are the two scenes with Ward Bond - one in Ward Bond's home, and then the coda to it at the dance.

 

And Frank, I'm with you - that final raid in the valley is really something amazing - it is both beautiful and sickening to watch.

 

I don't know why I like this film better than the other two in the cavalry trilogy, I guess I feel like it is the most cohesive of the three. But then again, I might have to change my mind because Ben Johnson is not featured in this one.

[HollywoodGolightly]

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

> "Red River" and "Ft. Apache" were the same year. That is quite a leap in roles for Duke.

 

What is most amazing (at least to me) is that Wayne was also in yet 2 other 1948 releases: John Ford's 3 Godfathers and Wake of the Red Witch.

 

1948 was definitely a good year for Wayne and Ford, I guess.

[lzcutter]

Chris ( *movieman1957* ),

 

Don't forget, *Red River* was shot in 1946 but not released until 1948.

[movieman1957]

Forget? I didn't even know it. Frankly, it makes it more amazing for Wayne in "Red River." It also shows I'm not that smart.

 

Thanks for the info.

[MissGoddess]

Oh, yes, I do think Ranse had a venal streak in him. But, ultimately, I think he became

full of himself, thusly losing contact with reality and humanity.

 

The eternal yin and YANG of your Mr. Stoddard.

 

By the way, I can't wait---less than two weeks until the release of TMWSLV with "extras"!

 

Ranse was encouraged by Doniphon to use his political opportunity to do good, to make

a positive difference. I think Ranse ended up thinking everything he did was good for the

people even though he ended up seeking personal glory in the end. He became a product

of the political system. He assimilated.

 

Yes, Ranse wa nudged by Doniphon for Hallie's sake but he was enticed by his own

desires---that sign, "Ransom Stoddard, Attorney-at-Law", he liked that. I think this

indicated his pride in words and titles and public approbation---in a word, status. He

does want to raise the "status" of the little townspeople, but that speaks as much

to his contempt of them as they are as it does to any more generous feeling.

 

Thank you for the pictures of Tom's back! :x

 

 

Thursday really is a machine. He's the Terminator! Or, you could say,

he's the "Determinator." I also find Fonda's "Thursday" to be enthralling but from a

point of amazement. He's quite the contrast to his Juror #8 in 12 Angry Men.

 

Isn't he though? He hasn't a trace of a sense of humor, which is one reason I

think Fonda is so good in the role.

 

You are right about that, but I felt his "Honest Abe" could tell some country tales. He

was very homespun. I think Fonda could have played a BSer who was full of himself.

 

You have a point about Abe...but the energy is slower and more circumspect, I don't

think Stoddard can be played that way---he needs to played with a nervous, erratic

quality at least in the flashbacks---he was a man intensely uncomfortable with who

and where he is and he may be the brainiac, the one trying to inculcate the rule

of law but emotionally he is irrational and reactive, while Tom, in contrast, is always

laid back and slower to react. You need a contrast of styles and energy and that's

why I think the casting works, setting aside quibbles about their ages.

 

Going back to Fort Apache, others have commented on how good Wardy

is in this, what did you think of the scenes Bond and Fonda shared? I was

very taken with the one when Thursday barges into the O'Rourke quarters and

Bond calls him on a point of etiquette/protocol. While it must have been

galling to such a rule stickler as Thursday to have it said he'd actually made

a faux pas, he did make his apologies. It's like Kathy says, he seems to only

think about the rules as they work for HIM, not for the good of the others.

 

I know Preminger loved that crane. Come to think of it, I haven't watched a Preminger

film in a while.

 

I see that Bunny Lake is Missing is airing this Sunday on TCM.

[MissGoddess]

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

>

> Ford had no love, it seems for outpost traders or Indian agents. From *Fort Apache* to *SWAYR* to *The Searchers* with the "late Mr. Fudderman" they all have one thing in common, one way or another, they end up dead.

 

Ha haaa! Good point, Madame Z! They did seem to be a scourge on the land.

[MissGoddess]

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

>

> That's a great point that is early indication that trouble is coming. What is the point in having a suboridinate who is also an aide if you don't listen to him. Fonda is so by the book it is what gets him in trouble. Wayne knows there is a "book" but you have to allow for some fexibility because the Apaches work differently. As Fonda won't bend and we know the Apaches won't either that can only mean one thing - climactic shoot out.

>

 

Howdy, Chris!

 

It's really idiotic the way Thursday sweeps in, a man with no experience with the land,

the people, the languages, and acts like he has all the answers. Kirby and the other

men had become almost a part of the landscape, they understood it so well.

 

However, just to play devil's advocate, the implication seems to be the fort

has become slack in discipline, which could hurt them in a crisis, so in a way

they did need someone to come in and shape things up, just not a martinet.

Kirby also seems, at the end, to have taken a lesson in the positives about

Thursday's leadership qualities and absorbed them.

[JackFavell]

> It's really idiotic the way Thursday sweeps in, a man with no experience with the land,

> the people, the languages, and acts like he has all the answers. Kirby and the other

> men had become almost a part of the landscape, they understood it so well.

 

Everyone is saying how arrogant Thursday is.... I felt a little different. Thursday to me seems so neurotic and unsure of himself on a deep, deep level. He cannot make men like him, so he will force them to follow the rules, and in the end they will come to respect his way, because he will be the BEST leader ever, by the book. His outlook is completely flawed, but that is the only way he can deal with people. This discussion really put me in mind of the movie Tunes of Glory, which explores some of the same issues more deeply and frighteningly.

 

> However, just to play devil's advocate, the implication seems to be the fort

> has become slack in discipline, which could hurt them in a crisis, so in a way

> they did need someone to come in and shape things up, just not a martinet.

 

Unfortunately, this is true, and it gives Thursday's argument some power.

 

> Kirby also seems, at the end, to have taken a lesson in the positives about

> Thursday's leadership qualities and absorbed them.

 

To me it seems that Thursday learns from Kirby in the end as well... but it is too late. He only realizes it because death is imminent. This is why the ending is so very tragic to me. And because Thursday has relented just the tiniest bit toward Kirby's way of thinking, Kirby must also put what he learned from Thursday into action later on, after he is gone. I think this is one side reason why Kirby doesn't ruin Thursday's reputation....

 

Message was edited by: JackFavell

[rohanaka]

I am glad you guys brought up the ending. I wanted to make one more comment about the "admiration" April mentioned for Thursday and you all have almost made my point for me.

 

I like the way that Kirby don's a "Thursday style" cap as he is riding away (after all the earlier scenes when Thursday kept commenting on his old hat being "non regulation"). I think part of it may have been to show that now he HAD assumed the command that Thursday had alluded to just before dying, and it may have also been that he had somehow found some admiration for the man who had gone before him... despite all their differences.

 

And also it may have been a way for him to show respect for the "myth" the man had become and how "inspiring" that myth now was for the new recruits, etc. (despite all the truth about some of the things he might have known to the contrary).He understood how powerful that inspiration was for young men just starting out (and for the more seasoned work weary men as well) I am not sure if I am saying this in a way that makes sense... but it seemed that way to me.