Western Movie Rambles

[molo14]

Okay everyone! Slow down. Wait for me!

 

Mad Hat is in the house and composing his thoughts on *The Man From Laramie* at this very moment. I'll be back shortly.

 

*Now what have you done to Mad Hat?! Don't tell me he was captured and is working*

*at the "Barb" ranch as a kilt-wearin' stud. I'd rather be hanged.* - Frank

 

I'm not sure what that means but don't make my mind wander. I have to stay focused!

 

*HA!!!!! Well that would be the OTHER "Barb" ranch now wouldn't it.... ha. She will have to chime in on that one... ha.* - Rohanaka

 

Now let's leave Bronxie's good name out of this.

[molo14]

Hey there everyone,

 

I have seen the following Mann westerns (that I can remember) :

 

*Winchester '73*

*Bend of the River*

*The Naked Spur*

*The Man From Laramie*

 

*Major spoilers!!!*

 

I really liked *The Man From Laramie* for what it was, but I thought it could have been more. It certainly kept me guessing. It was visually an interesting film to watch, and it left me wanting more. It was the more that I was missing. Still even if it seemed to go in too many directions, I still thought it was a good, enjoyable and occasionally thought provoking Western.

 

There were a lot of characters. Did someone say too many? Here are my random thoughts.

 

I'll start with Dave have to agree that he was way over the top. My initial reaction after he pounces on Stewart at the salt lagoon was to want to kill him. Stewart's Lockhart, I imagine, had the same visceral reaction. As they say in Texas: he needed killin'. Even the other ranch hands thought he was nuts. So what to make of Dave?

 

We don't get much insight. What makes a Dave? When Waggoman tells him later in the film that he reminds him of his mother: you listen, but you don't understand I thought that was pretty telling about him and his mother. Didn't Kate Canady say she was a stupid woman? Waggoman didn't have much time for Dave growing up, what with building up his ranch, so he left him to others. Maybe to Vic. We see how that turned out.

 

Dave is practically infantile in his relationships with others. Spoiled, entitled and lacking any common sense, he can be a walking example of what happens when first generation power barons neglect thier legacy. Or he could just be a bad seed. Is he worth all the analysis? Probably not. He seems nothing more than a plot device and a bit of a red herring but it's Anthony Mann so I had to think about it.

 

Cathy O'Donnell is totally under my radar, but I didn't get much from her Barbara Waggoman, and again, we have another character who is really little more than a plot device. We learn from her talking to Lockhart, and Vic, some little insights into the characters we have already been presented with. After a while, she pretty much disappears.

 

Arthur Kennedy's Vic started out interesting. I really liked his little confrontation with Alec Waggoman after the old man threatens to fire him. It harkened right back to his earlier conversation with Barbara, and her warning that he would do just that. I confess that I must have missed something about him though. His previous conversation with Dave about the guns, right before he kills him, left me scratching my head when he kept trying to dissuade Alec from finding the shipment. So he was the guilty party all along? It didn't seem to fit for me.

 

Chris Boldt seemed like another loose end that we were supposed to put together. His murder and all. I had to laugh a little after Lockhart fends off his knife attack. He just kind of lets it go like it was par for the course. Well after spending a spell in Coronado, I guess you just have to expect that sort of thing.

 

Aline MacMahon"s Kate Canady was an enjoyable character. I'm a big MacMahon fan. Her character almost seemed like a natural extension of some of her earlier roles from the pre-code era. Her Mary Dennis from *Heroes For Sale* comes to mind. Wise, neglected and pining, yet always an outward bulwark of strength. Her little exchange with Alec where she tells him that it would seem they would have more to say to each other than hello and goodbye was rather touching, and his reaction was typical. They did have more between them and that speaks to one of the things I wish the film had explored more. Their relationship, as it was presented as being in conflict, never made much sense to me. Except for his predictably violent son, I couldn't see Alec as much of a threat to her.

 

As for Alec Waggoman, well I already talked about him a little bit when discussing Dave. Here we have an old man struggling with blindness and worried about the future of what he has built up. He knows Dave is a wash as an heir, but he has to believe he can be changed. That change must come from the influence of others because he knows as well that Dave doesn't have it in him to redeem himself.

 

He fumbles with papers, due to his failing sight, but he knows his business. Dave sees only the actions and not the thought behind it. Old Waggoman is a sad character, left groping in the dark. I feel he is a good man and I'm glad that he and Kate come together. The "war" is over so to speak, not because it is done, but because it is too late.

 

This is actually one of my favorite performances for Stewart. He does seem to be somewhat apart from the story. It's as if he just dropped in and got caught up in everyone else's troubles.

 

This is the most unfriendly country I've ever been in. Why is everybody so touchy? - Lockhart

 

Well actually that is what happens. Lockhart's quest kind of gets buried in the story. It might make a great comedy. A loner comes to town on a mission only to be so sidetracked every which way by the inner quarrels of the townspeople, that he never has time to focus on his real reason for being there.

 

*The Man From Laramie* isn't like that though. It's a film that maybe does go in too many directions. Lockhart's relationship with O'Leary certainly could have been explored or eliminated. The way it is, I didn't give it much thought. Still Stewart's character kept me engaged through out the story. He kind of ties all the peices together. There is a typical, although perhaps great Western, sitting on a mystery that never quite captures the viewer. The mystery I mean. In the end it all ties up rather quickly and conveniently. Why does Vic run right into the Apaches? Shouldn't he be running the other way?

 

Still this was an enjoyable movie. Mann's touch is there. The shooting of Stewart's hand and the early scene when Dave burns the wagons and shoots the mules certainly don't lose their potency in shocking us to attention, and to taking note of the random dangers in an untamed land.

The shades of gray we might expect from an Anthony Mann film seem less prevalent here. It's as if too many characters and plotlines serve like oil and vinegar to sort out the nuances that might have been more fully explored. Kate and Alec, Vic and Barbara, Lockhart and O'Leary, and Lockhart and his brother.

 

I think you all have made some very good points here that I will try to comment on later. I saw this film a very long time ago. When I watched it again, it was like seeing it for the first time. It may take more viewings for me to really "get it." I'm slow that way. Still, It got me out of my "fluff filmfest" that I had been on for the past week.

 

Kathy, Will this do for you? Am I reprieved?

 

Message was edited by: molo14

[FrankGrimes]

That was phenomenal, Molo. Welcome back to the trail, pardner!

[MissGoddess]

Super duper and worth the wait, Mad Hat! You really touched on some points I

had never considered. And this that I totally missed each time I've watched it:

 

When Waggoman tells him later in the film that he reminds him of his mother: you listen, but you don't understand I thought that was pretty telling about him and his mother. Didn't Kate Canady say she was a stupid woman?

 

I honestly don't recall that at all and it really speaks volumes to Dave's background and

even comments on Alec Waggoman. I get the feeling maybe he married a pretty piece of

fluff.

[rohanaka]

WOW.....

 

Before I respond to your post, friend Molo.... let me just say... OH my goodness me... I am so happy to be on here. PS... April.. I finally got the answer to that old line from 3 SWEET Men.... "Where was Moses when the lights went out?" HA... He was likely at MY house... we have had storms off and on all DAY... and we lost power for MOST of the late afternoon... then it came back on for a while... and right after that.. I got on here and was about to answer some posts.. and then whammo... we lost our CABLE.. (and internet)

 

But FINALLY... it all seems to be back on... at least for the moment. I am getting back OFF this thing as soon as I am finished here though. MORE storms are headed this way and I need to just shut this thing down for the night I think.

 

SO... before I batten down the hatches... let's just get on w/ the ramble shall we... And I will start by saying....

 

YEE HAW!!! Mad Hat Molo is in the house INDEED!!

 

Kathy will this do....

 

Are you KIDDING????? I think we need to change your name to MOP UP Molo... because you have just mopped up the floor w/ my puny little ramble, mister. Nicely done.

 

I'll start with Dave

 

Dave is practically infantile in his relationships with others. Spoiled, entitled and lacking any common sense, he can be a walking example of what happens when first generation power barons neglect thier legacy. Or he could just be a bad seed. Is he worth all the analysis? Probably not. He seems nothing more than a plot device and a bit of a red herring but it's Anthony Mann so I had to think about it.

 

Now that was perfect. He was ALL of that to be sure.... and I like that you took him beyond the "not worth all the analysis". I also like how you brought it all back to the dad again... but beyond that... to the mom as well.

 

Old Waggoman is a sad character, left groping in the dark. I feel he is a good man and I'm glad that he and Kate come together. The "war" is over so to speak, not because it is done, but because it is too late

 

I like how you have worded all this. And I agree w/ you that he was likely a good man. I think he was a decent man who made some REALLY bad choices. But what I really liked was that in the end.... he was able to admit at least some of his mistakes.

 

The Man From Laramie isn't like that though. It's a film that maybe does go in too many directions.... There is a typical, although perhaps great Western, sitting on a mystery that never quite captures the viewer. The mystery I mean. In the end it all ties up rather quickly and conveniently...

 

Still this was an enjoyable movie. Mann's touch is there. The shooting of Stewart's hand and the early scene when Dave burns the wagons and shoots the mules certainly don't lose their potency in shocking us to attention, and to taking note of the random dangers in an untamed land.

 

The shades of gray we might expect from an Anthony Mann film seem less prevalent here. It's as if too many characters and plotlines serve like oil and vinegar to sort out the nuances that might have been more fully explored. Kate and Alec, Vic and Barbara, Lockhart and O'Leary, and Lockhart and his brother.

 

Oh wow, young'un... nicely said. And I really appreciate the way you have tied this all together.

 

One of the things I have been thinking of (with regard to some of the issues we all seem to have w/ the story and the undeveloped characters, etc) is something I heard when watching the trailer for this on youtube. This film was taken from a story from the Saturday Evening Post.. It could be that when it was written for the screen that the authors just did not have enough "meat" on some of the characters' "bones" as it were to get a clear idea of who they were... and so they did not have a clear identity to work with. I don't know... I am probalby guessing at all of this. Anyway... some of the things I have read on here by you and all the others as to what WOULD have made the story more interesting and the characters more believable are BETTER than what was actually written for the film.... but I guess it is easy for us to play "armchair" screenwriters.... ha. At any rate... I like what you have said here regarding all these issues... nicely done, sir.

 

Will this do for you? Am I reprieved?

 

Ha.. I say again... Are you KIDDING??? (gee... you threaten somebody w/ a little necktie party and a slap on the hand.. and they get all paranoid.... ha.)

 

Ok... all kidding aside.... nice rambling folks. You three gents are doing a fine job of handling the manly man MANN perspective for us... and you ladies are throwing in a good word of your own as well. I have been needing a good old fashioned westerny ramble lately. This chat might have been a LONG time coming... but I am glad to see it taking shape so well... nice job folks.

 

(PS... Molo... hope those "germ"-ans are leaving you be... plenty of rest, fluid...and vitamin C, sir.) :-)

[JackFavell]

Mad Hat! Welcome back!

 

I loved the things you brought out. I noticed the "you're like your mother" line, but it didn't really sink in. Good call!

 

I thought that if the movie had stayed on course, it could have been great. The wagon burning scene especially, the fight in the cattle pen, Vic's "Don't push me" scene with Alec, all were terrific. Chris Boldt's killing and the jail scene, were still good, though not quite as interesting as the first part, but they still belonged in that really good movie it might have been. Something happened after the jail scene, I am not sure what. Things stopped making sense. I'll have to go back and look again.

 

I am really glad you mentioned the burning of the wagons, because it was riveting, and for once a man being dragged by a horse looked like it hurt bad. It was shocking and then just escalated with the killing of the animals. It set up a huge amount of tension that unfortunately dissipated suddenly halfway through the film. I thought it was the best scene in the entire movie.

 

[FrankGrimes]

SPOILER AMBUSH

 

Howdy, Jackie -- I am going to have to watch The Furies, right after I watch Caged,

all the rest of the Fritz Lang movies I recorded, etc, etc, etc.......in between Scooby Doo

and old Pink Panther cartoons that my girl is watching.

 

Let's talk Scooby Doo and Pink Panther!

 

I want to clarify that point about the Greek tragedy before. While I really liked Donald

Crisp a lot in this movie, I wish that they had made it more about how his belief in the

dream had actually caused all the problems that were wreaking havoc on the family

and the town.....by believing in it, he ruined and babied his son too much, turning him

into a monster. By believing in the dream, he turned Kennedy into a glorified babysitter,

thus setting him up to fail in his job. And by believing in the dream, he almost killed Jimmy

Stewart wrongfully. His own life was destroyed (almost literally) by his fear of someone

coming to kill his child.

 

Oooohhhh, I really like all of that. That's superb! I wish it would have played out as you

described.

 

Howdy, Quiet Gal -- Sir, you are talking to a teetotaler.... But I HAVE been known

to hit the bottle (of caffeine free COKE) pretty hard from time to time... ha.

 

Don't worry, Fordy Guns will have your share. :p

 

I don't know if she so much carried a torch for him as she just waited for him to

"see the light".... and yes... you mentioned it earlier... he had to become BLIND

before he could see.

 

Ohhh, I don't know. I think she had it bad. To actually see the man you love marry another

woman is pretty darn tough. And then to live next to him... ohhh, my.

 

Most of my favorite westerns feature good guys who are either mysterious, have a

dark past, or are madly driven.

 

And would THAT be because YOU are a combination of all three????? ha. (or maybe NOT

so "ha"... "Mr. Man in the Shadows")

 

"Madly driven" is the far country for me. The other two, well...

 

Seriously though... I think it is fun to see a "good guy" who has a little mystery to him

now and then... it is even MORE fun to see an "unwilling" good guy.... someone who gets

caught up in doing the right thing because he clearly sees it is the right thing to do... whether

he wants to admit it or not (a la our beloved 3 SWEET Men.. I just can't call them "Bad"... ha)

 

Yes, I do enjoy seeing heroism thrust upon someone, most especially if they are someone

who has struggled to do the right thing in the past. I basically like conflicted men. The

clear-thinking ones tend to be far less interesting to me.

 

You have quite a list there... but you KNOW what I am going to say about your # 1 choice

already, don't you....

 

Once Upon a Time in the West

 

UGH!! BLECH!!! ICKY!!! YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BREAK OUT THE PEPTO BISMOL.... I am gonna be SICK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ha. (Blame it on Henry Fonda for being SO GOOD at being bad... ha)

 

A western opera!

 

Howdy, Mad Hat -- We don't get much insight. What makes a Dave? When

Waggoman tells him later in the film that he reminds him of his mother: you listen, but

you don't understand I thought that was pretty telling about him and his mother. Didn't

Kate Canady say she was a stupid woman? Waggoman didn't have much time for Dave

growing up, what with building up his ranch, so he left him to others. Maybe to Vic. We

see how that turned out.

 

That is brilliant. You are right on it. I think Alec left Dave to his mother and she spoiled

him rotten. Why didn't Alec step in? I believe it's exactly as you say: he was too caught

up in himself and his empire. Throughout the film, that remains his focus... until the very

end.

 

Dave is practically infantile in his relationships with others. Spoiled, entitled and lacking

any common sense, he can be a walking example of what happens when first generation

power barons neglect thier legacy. Or he could just be a bad seed. Is he worth all the

analysis? Probably not. He seems nothing more than a plot device and a bit of a red

herring but it's Anthony Mann so I had to think about it.

 

"Infantile" is the perfect word for Dave. He was a 12-year-old boy looking to play with his

toys. And, you are right, he's basically a plot device. He's the keg of dynamite that explodes

everyone. Without him, where's the conflict?

 

A film that comes to mind for me with The Man from Laramie is The Big Country.

I see some similarities between some of the characters, most notably:

 

Charlton Heston's "Steve" and Arthur Kennedy's "Vic"

Charles Bickford's "Major" and Donald Crisp's "Alec"

 

and

 

Chuck Connors' "Buck" and Alex Nicol's "Dave."

 

In each case, I preferred the performances and characters in The Big Country.

 

Cathy O'Donnell is totally under my radar, but I didn't get much from her Barbara

Waggoman, and again, we have another character who is really little more than a plot

device. We learn from her talking to Lockhart, and Vic, some little insights into the

characters we have already been presented with. After a while, she pretty much disappears.

 

This is actually one of my biggest gripes with the film. Barbara could have and should have

played a much bigger role in this film. She's a Waggoman and in love with the hired hand,

so there's some conflict there. Then you throw in her growing interest in Will and you've got

yourself a very conflicted woman in the middle of a storm. Instead, we hardly ever spend any

time with Barbara. This is strange since it's her that is standing alone at the end of the film.

We should feel her emotional pain and anguish but we don't.

 

What I liked about Barbara at the end is that she's very girly around Will. She doesn't want to

come out and say what she's feeling. She's basically blushing. She's quite immature and I

find this to be adorable. But do we understand her feelings? No. They are basically thrust

upon us.

 

Barbara: This wouldn't have happened if you hadn't come here.

 

Will: My coming had nothing to do with the trouble here. The seeds of it were long planted

before I ever heard of Coronado.

 

Barbara: I don't mean Coronado. I mean me.

 

Will: You? What have I done to you, Miss Waggoman?

 

Barbara: I was so sure. Now I don't know.

 

Will: You don't know about what?

 

Barbara: How I feel about everything.

 

Will: Well, I'm very sorry if I've upset you, Miss Waggoman.

 

Barbara: Stop calling me "Miss Waggoman"!

 

Will: Shall I call you "Barbara"?

 

 

Barbara's reaction tells us she'd love for him to call her "Barbara," and in a loving way.

 

 

Barbara heads for the door.

 

Will: Oh, don't go.

 

Barbara: I mustn't stay.

 

Will: No, please. Just for a minute.

 

Barbara: I fell like something will be said that shouldn't be said.

 

Will: You know, you've got orders from Kate to entertain the patient, you know. Please.

 

Barbara: All right. Did you know Daniel Boone was 84 years old when he crossed the Rockies?

 

Will: Oh, yes. Everybody knows that.

 

Barbara: I know all about Daniel Boone. How many children he had -- the towns named after him.

 

Will: Is that so?

 

Barbara: Ask me. Just ask me.

 

 

I really liked her talking about Daniel Boone. She knows all about Daniel Boone but what

does she really know about life and love? She wants to, though. She really wants to. All

Will needs to do is ask her, just ask her.

 

Arthur Kennedy's Vic started out interesting. I really liked his little confrontation with

Alec Waggoman after the old man threatens to fire him. It harkened right back to his

earlier conversation with Barbara, and her warning that he would do just that. I confess

that I must have missed something about him though. His previous conversation with

Dave about the guns, right before he kills him, left me scratching my head when he

kept trying to dissuade Alec from finding the shipment. So he was the guilty party

all along? It didn't seem to fit for me.

 

I'm with you on all of that. I thought Vic was one of the better characters for the first act,

but it went downhill after that. I didn't buy him.

 

As for Alec Waggoman, well I already talked about him a little bit when discussing

Dave. Here we have an old man struggling with blindness and worried about the future

of what he has built up. He knows Dave is a wash as an heir, but he has to believe he

can be changed. That change must come from the influence of others because he

knows as well that Dave doesn't have it in him to redeem himself.

 

He fumbles with papers, due to his failing sight, but he knows his business. Dave sees

only the actions and not the thought behind it. Old Waggoman is a sad character, left

groping in the dark. I feel he is a good man and I'm glad that he and Kate come

together. The "war" is over so to speak, not because it is done, but because it is too late.

 

Very well said. I thought Alec to be a stand-up guy, just "blinded" by his desires and fears,

which speaks to his "vision." He was a strong man turning weak before his own eyes. I

believe he was starting to feel helpless and, even, alone.

 

This is actually one of my favorite performances for Stewart. He does seem to be

somewhat apart from the story. It's as if he just dropped in and got caught up in

everyone else's troubles.

 

Exactly. I have the feeling Mann was attempting to make a Shane-like film.

 

The man from Laramie

Oh, he was friendly to everyone he met

No one seemed to know a thing about him

He had an air of mystery.

He was not inclined, to speak his mind

The man from Laramie

 

Oh, he was friendly to everyone he met

Everyone admired the fearless stranger

Danger was this man's speciality

So they never bossed or double-crossed

The man from Laramie

 

 

This is the most unfriendly country I've ever been in. Why is everybody so touchy? - Lockhart

 

Well actually that is what happens. Lockhart's quest kind of gets buried in the story. It might

make a great comedy. A loner comes to town on a mission only to be so sidetracked every

which way by the inner quarrels of the townspeople, that he never has time to focus on his

real reason for being there.

 

That's terrific! After Hours!

 

The Man From Laramie isn't like that though. It's a film that maybe does go in too many

directions. Lockhart's relationship with O'Leary certainly could have been explored or

eliminated. The way it is, I didn't give it much thought.

 

I think O'Leary's (Wallace Ford) principal role was to tell us more about Will. He's the one

who fills us in on the Captain.

 

 

 

 

 

[HollywoodGolightly]

*Let's talk Scooby Doo and Pink Panther!*

 

Just when I thought I'd heard everything in the TCM forums...

 

Make no mistake, I enjoyed those cartoons as much as the next child, I suppose, back in their heyday.

 

Seriously, though, I'd like to thank Larry for sharing that amazing write-up - er, rambling - on The Man From Laramie. I've not seen it in a year or so, but I'm already anxious to watch it again soon.

 

It's interesting to see how strongly people seem to react to the character of the son, Dave, because we've seen nastiness taken to a much higher level in some contemporary movies; although I guess at the time it was quite over-the-top.

 

Keep on ramblin', vaqueros !

[movieman1957]

That is an interesting comparison between "The Man From Laramie" and "The Big Country" (which is another one I enjoy,)

 

The thing that always sticks out about "TBC" was Burl Ives. He had to have been more embarrassed about his son than even Waggomen would have been as Waggomen seems to have tolerated his son more.

 

Now that you bring this up a close resemblance too might be Earl Holliman in "Last Train From Gun Hill." There he can do anything he wants because Dad is going to take care of it. He is not the whiny brat "Dave" is "TMFL" but he is certainly as selfish as "Dave" or Connors character.

 

The old west is full of nasty boys.

[HollywoodGolightly]

Morning, Chris!

I thought about the similarities and differences between TMFL and The Big Country. The similarities that Scott pointed out are very striking indeed (at least they are to me) but what really makes the two films different is the epic scope of The Big Country. In this regard, it is interesting to see how both reflect in some way the personality of their respective directors, Anthony Mann and William Wyler.

[MissGoddess]

>

> The old west is full of nasty boys.

 

So's the new east.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLLweEwG8Ss

[FrankGrimes]

Howdy, M&M Kid -- You have an excellent grasp of westerns. Your comments are always on the mark.

 

That is an interesting comparison between "The Man From Laramie" and "The Big Country" (which is another one I enjoy,)

 

The thing that always sticks out about "TBC" was Burl Ives. He had to have been more embarrassed about his son than even Waggomen would have been as Waggomen seems

to have tolerated his son more.

 

Very true. Rufus (Burl Ives) did not let his boys get away with a thing. He was on them, hard

and fast. Still, Buck (Chuck Connors) was more interested in doing his own thing, ala Dave

(Alex Nicol). Both were wild and reckless. That's where I saw the similarity between the two. They are buckin' young colts.

 

I found Alec (Donald Crisp) to be more similar to the Major (Charles Bickford) than Rufus.

 

The Big Country handles multiple characters and storylines with greater ease. We feel

and understand the love triangle and the pain of the "hired-hand son" and the conflict between

families. Of course, it's also a film that's just over an hour longer, too.

 

Now that you bring this up a close resemblance too might be Earl Holliman in

"Last Train From Gun Hill." There he can do anything he wants because Dad is going

to take care of it. He is not the whiny brat "Dave" is "TMFL" but he is certainly as selfish

as "Dave" or Connors character.

 

That's one I've yet to see. Your westerns knowledge is quite impressive.

[HollywoodGolightly]

I forgot to comment about Last Train from Gun Hill, which I think TCM has shown fairly recently (maybe it was for Anthony Quinn's birthday?), but I didn't get to watch it when it was on TCM. However since it's out on video, and since you seem to think it was worth mentioning, I'll make sure and add it to my queue.

 

I mean, anything with Kirk Douglas and Anthony Quinn's gotta be worth watching!

 

[movieman1957]

Sir Francis:

 

Thank you for the compliment. I still have some catching in other genres to get to your level.

 

I agree with you about Waggomen and the Major (Bickford.) Ives was in a world of his own. He is as hard as they come. In his own way he still maintained a code of honor. He certainly showed that with his "treatment" of Connors.

 

If you get to see "Last Train From Gun Hill" and you are familiar with "Gunfight At The OK Corral" is it easy to notice that John Sturges uses the same outdoor location for a couple of scenes in both films. It's a good story about two friends who become rivals after Quinn's son commits a crime that outs the friends (Douglas and Quinn) on opposite sides of the situation.

[movieman1957]

I think you will enjoy it.

[molo14]

*MAJOR SPOILERS!*

 

 

_Howdy April_,

 

 

 

*This would be Anthony Mann and James Stewart's final*

*collaboration (they parted company while filming Night Passage) and*

*I find it interesting that it is arguably Stewart's least satisfying characterization*

*of all their films. Still, I always enjoy watching it whenever it comes on and,*

*perversely, I like it a little better than Bend of the Riber. I don't know*

*why, BotR is tighter as we've mentioned, except maybe I don't care much for the Rock*

*Hudson/Lori Nelson substory, nor am I a big Julie Adams fan. She's alright.*

 

 

My favorite Mann western is still *Winchester '73.* I think it was the first time I saw the darker side of Jimmy Stewart come to fruition. I actually agree with you about liking this a little more than BotR. "Laramie is kind of a frustrating film for me because a lot of the parts were there but they were curtailed, if that makes any sense. It's basically what everyone has been saying.

 

I really liked Stewart's characterization here. He hit a lot of the right notes and when he was all shivering with anger, anxiety, contempt or what have you, I believed it. I don't always believe it, not even in *Winchester '73* but here I did.

 

*I get the feeling maybe he married a pretty piece of fluff.*

 

I do too.

 

_Hi Chris_,

 

So you are a Western genre guy and Frank is a noir guy. I spread myself thin through all genres. I know just enough to get me in trouble and little else.

 

*You and April mentioned "Dave," Donald Crisp's son. The problem I had with him was not so much that he was nasty, which indeed he was, as much as he whined about everything. His father was unfair to him. Kennedy got the favored status. He wasn't going to earn it he was going to steal his way into what he thought was his. Being the son was all that counted in his mind. He was lie a kid throwing a tantrum. If you are going to be mean then be mature mean.*

 

I like what you said here, especially about being "mature mean". I said I wanted to "kill" Dave and in a way I meant that I wanted him to go away. When he first comes on screen, he is so over the top, to me, that I found him irritating. I have no doubt that he was dangerous and I'm sure there are a lot of Daves out there, but I want some thought behind the actions. There are fascinating stories that can and have been made about irrational villains. This wasn't one if them. He was there to permit a shortcut in the narrative as far as I can see.

 

_Hey there Mr. Grimes_,

 

*Speaking as a Mann fan, I'm ashamed to admit that I've yet to pin down the Mann style. I*

*need someone like ChiO to educate me with this. Of what I've seen of his westerns, I'd say*

*he likes placing a man with a dark past in a position where he must confront his demons, thus*

*proving and redeeming himself with himself. I consider him to be a "masculine" director. And,*

*ironically, my favorite film of his, Raw Deal, is one of this most "feminine," though still*

*masculine as a whole.*

 

Be careful when conjuring ChiO. Oh I kid! ChiO's take on Mann westerns would be interesting. I see the same themes you do in his films. I have never seen *Raw Deal*

 

*I thought Jimmy Stewart was excellent in the film. I loved his wide emotional range. I always*

*felt him and his character, Will Lockhart. I just love seeing an angry and determined*

*Jimmy Stewart. That's the Stewart I like the most.*

 

As I said before, I really thought he hit all the right notes here.

 

*I never thought Jimmy could be the kind of actor who would play a character with rage,*

*but he does so in a few of his westerns with Anthony Mann, and he does so earnestly.*

 

Try *Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation* sometimes. I'm serious! I have a rambling rant on that one ready to go at some point.

 

*Very rocky. Mann seems to love them rocks.*

 

Yes he does.

 

*This is actually one of my biggest gripes with the film. Barbara could have and should have*

*played a much bigger role in this film. She's a Waggoman and in love with the hired hand,*

*so there's some conflict there. Then you throw in her growing interest in Will and you've got*

*yourself a very conflicted woman in the middle of a storm. Instead, we hardly ever spend any*

*time with Barbara. This is strange since it's her that is standing alone at the end of the film.*

*We should feel her emotional pain and anguish but we don't.*

 

Exactly. That was wonderfully put. She is a very conflicted character. We sense it from the beginning when Lockhart is making the delivery and in her scene talking with Lockhart outside the church (I think) but it is dropped. She seems very anxious from the start.

 

*I really liked her talking about Daniel Boone. She knows all about Daniel Boone but what*

*does she really know about life and love? She wants to, though. She really wants to. All*

*Will needs to do is ask her, just ask her.*

 

I'm glad you brought that scene up. I liked it too. I remember feeling that her character was coming alive in that scene. I was beginning to relate to her feelings there, but then it's left aside.

 

*I have the feeling Mann was attempting to make a Shane-like film.*

 

That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that.

 

*I think O'Leary's (Wallace Ford) principal role was to tell us more about Will. He's the one*

*who fills us in on the Captain.*

 

I was thinking about Ford's O'Leary last night and I don't think I gave him enough credit for his role in the film. You are right of course, and I did catch the insights he was able to provide in his interaction with Stewart. Maybe what frustrated me was not only his role's brevity, but that he never stood with Lockhart in the conflict. Something like what Jackie was saying. I felt he should have been more of a sidekick but that went against Lockhart's character.

 

 

_Hi "Cold Rope" Kathy_,

 

*I think we need to change your name to MOP UP Molo...*

 

um, I like Mad Hat better, if you start calling me Mop Up Molo people might confuse me with Shirley Booth!

 

*I like how she stood by him from a FAR off distance for all those years... and I also like how she was one of the few people who really seemed able to hold him accountable. She KNEW the mistakes he'd made... and she did not let him just get away with them. She stood up to him in her own way. But most of all... she just loved him for REAL... even when he was REALLY hard to love.*

 

That was nicely said. She doesn't take any guff from him and in the corral fight she shows she's not afraid to take action. I found her very interesting and probably my favorite character. MacMahon was a good choice for the part. She shows a lot of feeling in her face. You could just tell how she felt about Alec. I wanted to know more about her.

 

Oh I agree with Frank though, she was carrying the torch big time.

 

*I like how you have worded all this. And I agree w/ you that he was likely a good man. I think he was a decent man who made some REALLY bad choices. But what I really liked was that in the end.... he was able to admit at least some of his mistakes*.

 

There you go again, being all hard on those poor misunderstood cattle barons again! Did you have a problem with Ben Cartwright too!

 

 

_Hi Jackie_,

 

*The revelation that it was really Arthur Kennedy who put Dave up to the gun thing was very weak, really only a guess by the father. If that had been pointed up, and then given Kennedy a big confession scene in which we see the evil and hatred oozing out of him, as he accuses the old man of making him that way, well THAT would have been something! Then Stewart could have had a similar revelation in which he realizes that it was Kennedy who killed his brother. Everybody happy, especially the audience.*

 

Hey that's good. Where were you in 1955? This was the confusing part of the movie for me. I get it now but it could have played out better.

 

*I want to clarify that point about the Greek tragedy before. While I really liked Donald Crisp a lot in this movie, I wish that they had made it more about how his belief in the dream had actually caused all the problems that were wreaking havoc on the family and the town.....by believing in it, he ruined and babied his son too much, turning him into a monster. By believing in the dream, he turned Kennedy into a glorified babysitter, thus setting him up to fail in his job. And by believing in the dream, he almost killed Jimmy Stewart wrongfully. His own life was destroyed (almost literally) by his fear of someone coming to kill his child.*

 

I found what you said here very insightful. I had thought the dream was his own conscious coming back to haunt him for neglecting his son and making him such a target of other peoples wrath. Did he realize how dangerous Dave's immaturity was? Was he blind to Dave's behavior? You are saying the dream was the origin of the problem. Interesting.

 

*Something happened after the jail scene, I am not sure what. Things stopped making sense. I'll have to go back and look again.*

 

You are exactly right. That was when the film started to drift. Lockhart went to the Half Moon Ranch, was sent to check cattle, got shot in the hand, then the guns, it was in all of this that things maybe got a little rushed to get us to the conclusion. I already said that I'll have to take another look.

 

Message was edited by: molo14

[FrankGrimes]

You are putting on a show at this here rodeo, Mad Hat.

 

My favorite Mann western is still Winchester '73.

 

A mann with good taste. I like it.

 

Be careful when conjuring ChiO. Oh I kid! ChiO's take on Mann westerns would be

interesting. I see the same themes you do in his films. I have never seen Raw Deal.

 

ChiO's on a "Wanted" poster in this town, so I'm not sure he'll want to show his mug or not. Quiet Gal is a tough sheriff, too.

 

Try Mr. Hobbs Takes a Vacation sometimes. I'm serious! I have a rambling rant on that one ready to go at some point.

 

Say what? Now that's mighty interesting. Leave it to you.

 

Exactly. That was wonderfully put. She is a very conflicted character. We sense it from the beginning when Lockhart is making the delivery and in her scene talking with Lockhart outside the church (I think) but it is dropped. She seems very anxious from the start.

 

"Anxious" is the right word. You're like Bronxie, you have a knack for using just the right words to describe a person or situation.

 

In a way, Barbara (Cathy O'Donnell) is similar to Hallie (Vera Miles) in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. She's restless with a trapped feeling. She wants something she

doesn't have and she fears the man she is with is never going to give her what she

thinks she wants.

 

 

I'm glad you brought that scene up. I liked it too. I remember feeling that her character

was coming alive in that scene. I was beginning to relate to her feelings there, but then

it's left aside.

 

That scene comes out of nowhere. I never got the feeling that Barbara was taken by Will prior

to that. Granted, there are times when a person can be very interested in another without

tipping their hand. But in storytelling, you'd expect the author to tip off their audience. Still,

I do like Barbara's "young girl" shyness with Will. I'm attracted to such behavior.

 

I was thinking about Ford's O'Leary last night and I don't think I gave him enough

credit for his role in the film. You are right of course, and I did catch the insights he

was able to provide in his interaction with Stewart. Maybe what frustrated me was

not only his role's brevity, but that he never stood with Lockhart in the conflict. Something

like what Jackie was saying. I felt he should have been more of a sidekick but that went

against Lockhart's character.

 

Your last sentence is what I believe to be correct. I think Mann wanted Will to be more of

a loner, an outsider. He's similar to "Shane," in this regard.

 

 

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote}

> *MAJOR SPOILERS!*

> This is actually one of my biggest gripes with the film. Barbara could have and should have

> played a much bigger role in this film. She's a Waggoman and in love with the hired hand,

> so there's some conflict there. Then you throw in her growing interest in Will and you've got

> yourself a very conflicted woman in the middle of a storm. Instead, we hardly ever spend any

> time with Barbara. This is strange since it's her that is standing alone at the end of the film.

> We should feel her emotional pain and anguish but we don't.

 

> Exactly. That was wonderfully put. She is a very conflicted character. We sense it from the beginning when Lockhart is making the delivery and in her scene talking with Lockhart outside the church (I think) but it is dropped. She seems very anxious from the start.

 

> I really liked her talking about Daniel Boone. She knows all about Daniel Boone but what

> does she really know about life and love? She wants to, though. She really wants to. All

> Will needs to do is ask her, just ask her.

 

> I'm glad you brought that scene up. I liked it too. I remember feeling that her character was coming alive in that scene. I was beginning to relate to her feelings there, but then it's left aside.

 

I like where you are going with this. The Daniel Boone speech was very appealing to me, because men are not the only ones with an itch to go - to let the wind take them. Barbara wanted to leave, almost to flee - go out and see the world, but never got that chance. Even at the end, though she is free of her ties to the Waggoman's, it is still only intimated that she might be traveling on. Her whole character is only intimated at. The same with MacMahon. This is a whole other story to tell.

 

>In a way, Barbara (Cathy O'Donnell) is similar to Hallie (Vera Miles) in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. She's restless with a trapped feeling. She wants something she doesn't have and she fears the man she is with is never going to give her *what shethinks she wants.*

 

Just what does she think she wants? Now I find that very interesting.... and a little condescending. You think that what she really wants is to _settle_ down with someone other than Vic? That her real problem is that she is with the wrong man? That would be settling for second best, wouldn't it? I mean, what she really wants is a life outside of this town. I don't think getting a different man would change that deep need.

 

> *I like how she stood by him from a FAR off distance for all those years... and I also like how she was one of the few people who really seemed able to hold him accountable. She KNEW the mistakes he'd made... and she did not let him just get away with them. She stood up to him in her own way. But most of all... she just loved him for REAL... even when he was REALLY hard to love.*

 

> That was nicely said. She doesn't take any guff from him and in the corral fight she shows she's not afraid to take action. I found her very interesting and probably my favorite character. MacMahon was a good choice for the part. She shows a lot of feeling in her face. You could just tell how she felt about Alec. I wanted to know more about her.

 

> Oh I agree with Frank though, she was carrying the torch big time.

 

> *I like how you have worded all this. And I agree w/ you that he was likely a good man. I think he was a decent man who made some REALLY bad choices. But what I really liked was that in the end.... he was able to admit at least some of his mistakes*.

>

> There you go again, being all hard on those poor misunderstood cattle barons again! Did you have a problem with Ben Cartwright too!

 

I always felt these two, Alec and Kate, were playing at fighting with each other. I liked that. The friendly competition thing was super. Kate understood Alec, which his wife obviously did not, but that appealed to him. He didn't want an equal, he wanted someone to be in the background, taking care of the unimportant details like the house and his son.....

 

 

> I want to clarify that point about the Greek tragedy before. While I really liked Donald Crisp a lot in this movie, I wish that they had made it more about how his belief in the dream had actually caused all the problems that were wreaking havoc on the family and the town.....by believing in it, he ruined and babied his son too much, turning him into a monster. By believing in the dream, he turned Kennedy into a glorified babysitter, thus setting him up to fail in his job. And by believing in the dream, he almost killed Jimmy Stewart wrongfully. His own life was destroyed (almost literally) by his fear of someone coming to kill his child.

>

> *I found what you said here very insightful. I had thought the dream was his own conscious coming back to haunt him for neglecting his son and making him such a target of other peoples wrath. Did he realize how dangerous Dave's immaturity was? Was he blind to Dave's behavior? You are saying the dream was the origin of the problem. Interesting.*

 

Now I find this thought so great! You are on it! So Alec's own guilt is coming back to haunt him? oooh. I love that. So in reality, _he_ is the tall stranger in his dream - he "killed" his own son.....in his mind... He really did, by letting his wife spoil him rotten, then thinking he could impose his beliefs and strength on him too late. By never giving Dave the opportunity to fail, he made him weak and mean, and then by hiring Vic as protector, he really is insulting his son, and making him even less of a man. Very good.

 

Message was edited by: JackFavell

[FrankGrimes]

Just what does she think she wants? Now I find that very interesting.... and a little condescending. You think that what she really wants is to settle down with someone

other than Vic? That her real problem is that she is with the wrong man? That would

be settling for second best, wouldn't it? I mean, what she really wants is a life outside

of this town. I don't think getting a different man would change that deep need.

 

Ohhh, heck, I'm always condescending.

 

In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Hallie felt she knew what she wanted in a man

and environment and she comes to regret her thinking... in time. Barbara reminds me of

Hallie in that she knows that what she's currently feeling isn't what she wants, but that

doesn't mean she knows what she wants. Who's to say the next man or town will

be more right for her? Hallie was sure. Young Charlie (Teresa Wright in Shadow of a Doubt)

was sure.

 

And none of this has to do with gender. Men are just as unsure as women when it comes to

thinking they know what they want. "If only I had this, I'd be happy." It's rarely that simple.

 

 

[movieman1957]

"And none of this has to do with gender. Men are just as unsure as women when it comes to

thinking they know what they want. "If only I had this, I'd be happy." It's rarely that simple."

 

Amen.

 

Message was edited by: movieman1957. My "bold" or italics" still won't work. Drat.

[HollywoodGolightly]

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

> >And none of this has to do with gender. Men are just as unsure as women when it comes to thinking they know what they want. "If only I had this, I'd be happy." It's rarely that simple.

>

> Amen.

 

I salute the sentiment of gender equality, but doesn't society put a bit of an extra burden of men, in that (even today) they are more or less expected to provide for the family? So for them, it's not just about what makes them happy, but also about providing for what the wife and the children might need to make them happy.

 

It was even more extreme in the Old West, of course.... although quite possibly, there was also a lot more chivalry!

[movieman1957]

I think that men are still primarily the economic providers but I wasn't even going that far with what would make them happy. But just providing won't make the family necessarily happy.

 

Message was edited by: movieman1957

[HollywoodGolightly]

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

> I think that men are still primarily the economic providers but I wasn't even going that far with what would make them happy. But just providing won't make the family necessarily happy.

>

> Message was edited by: movieman1957

 

Fair enough. I re-read Scott's original comment and I think perhaps I read too much into it, so I apologize for that. Getting back to the point, in the context of westerns, I think there are a lot of examples that could be pertinent. The first one that came to mind was Shane, where Marian seems to want something she cannot have, because she already has a family and with that family come responsibilities.

 

If this is indeed a recurring theme in Westerns (and I have to ponder about that a bit more) it may reflect in part the limited choices that were available to women at the time, since they pretty much relied on men to defend them, provide for them, etc., and were usually expected to be wed fairly young; and once that major life decision was taken, there was no easy way to alter the path their lives had taken, except in the case of their husband's unexpected death. By the same token, most of the men in Westerns enjoy a lot more freedom, unless they are married, and can go wherever they want to go pretty much, do whatever they want to do.

 

There are a few exceptions, of course, where there are Westerns with very strong women ( Forty Guns and Johnny Guitar come to mind) but those, in my opinion, would have to be the exception rather than the rule.

 

Here is another interesting idea: were Westerns more popular in the 50s than they are today because that era in American society still reflected to a great extent the old-fashioned values where men were the primary bread-winners, and women were usually homemakers and raised the children? Can it be harder for today's audiences (at least mainstream audiences) to relate to the old West because we've gotten pretty far from that kind of family arrangement, or is it entirely unrelated?

 

You've given me quite a bit of food for thought, I'm very grateful.

[JackFavell]

> Ohhh, heck, I'm always condescending.

 

Thanks for clarifying. I appear to be in a cantankerous mood. You'd better watch out! I might go all "Dave" on you....

 

> In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Hallie felt she knew what she wanted in a man

> and environment and she comes to regret her thinking... in time.

 

But does she regret her thinking because she didn't know what she really wanted? Or does she regret her thinking because her choice was based on a lie? I mean, the man she married was not the man she thought he was. That's not confusion about feelings, that's disillusionment.

 

Barbara reminds me of

> Hallie in that she knows that what she's currently feeling isn't what she wants, but that

> doesn't mean she knows what she wants. Who's to say the next man or town will

> be more right for her? Hallie was sure. Young Charlie (Teresa Wright in Shadow of a Doubt)

> was sure.

 

My feeling is that Barbara does know what she wants. The only time she doesn't hesitate is when she is talking about Daniel Boone - an explorer. She has read everything about him. She wants a more adventurous life. At that time (even in the fifties still), that adventurous life had to be linked with a man. That's how you chose your future. I do understand that. But I don't think she is confused about her wants, I think she is simply disillusioned with Vic. And in that, yes, she is very much like Hallie. However, I think Barbara was beginning that disillusionment before Will ever got there - he is totally right when he says the problems were there before he arrived..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Isn't it interesting - in those two pictures, Hallie and Barbara almost look alike, don't they?

[movieman1957]

I was speaking more in context of things in general than the western. With Marian in "Shane" I get the sense that she was content until it looked like things were getting out of hand. Nothing was worth losing her husband for, especially not the land. Joe's problem was losing his self respect. His pride, his honor was as important, if not more so than the land.

 

I think westerns of the 50's tended to reflect the family situations of the day that were average among the population, even if stereotypically. My own thought is that westerns were popular because as American became more urbanized that maybe the appeal of being outdoors, rugged, not tied to anything, least of all a desk had a greater appeal. There is still the code of the west and that certainly has its appeal. I may be projecting my own reasons for my love of westerns because I was too young then to have been a part of it.

 

I think as well the majority of western films didn't have as much a traditional family structure then the TV westerns. Most films are about loners or people on their way from or to something. Family often gets in the way or slows them down. Often the secondary characters were the ones with the normal family. The other side is "Will Penny." Heston falls on, what later becomes, a ready made family but he can't bring himself to do it because he feels he is not worthy of them and that he can't provide for them. Sometimes by the end of the film some of the characters are ready to settle down but it has not been the focus on the film.