My favourite non spaghetti western, and most likley my second or third favourite film ever is ‘High Noon’ i think it’s pure brilliance. Do you guys like this? Or is it too much talking, and not enough fighting?
i think it’s excellent… “do not forsake me oh my darling…” a great western! great suspense! it just builds up! great. i just dont like the finale shoot out and all that… not “duel style” enough
I dosagree, i think each character (NO matter how annoying the mexicans womans voiice is) adds greatly to the movie. Coop was born to play the part. The final showdown is ok, it’d be better if they had a standoff, like the one in OUATITW. But the tention and build up, is fantastic.
And of course the soundtrack is top notch.
It is based on the story “The Tin Star” by John W. Cunningham and one of the best movies set in old west. Not enough shootout cant be a reason for not liking a movie, for example “Dances with Wolves” had minimal action (considering its length) but it was a great movie nonethless…Its the period.presentation, the tension(not in any particular order) etc that make a movie
I LOVE WESTERNS,THATS PRIMARILY WHAT I WATCH,AND I WATCH 'EM FROM ANY TIME PERIOD,BUT I GOTTA SAY “WHATS THE BIG DEAL ABOUT HIGH NOON”? A BUNCH OF COWARDS HOPING ONE MAN WILL DO THIER DIRTY WORK FOR 'EM .THE WHOLE MOVIEÂ LEFT ME FEELING LIKE “TO HELL WITH 'EM COOP!”.PLUS ITS JUST NOT THAT GOOD OF A MOVIE.GIVE ME “THE SEARCHERS” OR "SHANE " OR A WHOLE NUMBER OF "NON-CLASSICS"OVER THIS.I JUST DONT GET IT.
Anyone see the remake of “High Noon”? It’s not as good as the original but not bad for a tv movie.
I like “High Noon” too, its amazing how simple is the plot and how brilliant is the result on screen
Hi friends,
a mate of mine has to do a homework (a bigger one) for university. His topic is as the topic of this thread “High Noon - A western against every convention”. Now he is looking for literature and knowledge about conventions of western (US indeed) to fill the work with facts.
So does any of you has knowledge (thinking of Tom e.g.) and resources of western’s conventions? Best would be in an online form. So please help my friend to get some serious good mark…
…or even a work about High Noon?
Cheers
[quote=“Lode, post:8, topic:101”]Hi friends,
a mate of mine has to do a homework (a bigger one) for university. His topic is as the topic of this thread “High Noon - A western against every convention”. Now he is looking for literature and knowledge about conventions of western (US indeed) to fill the work with facts.
So does any of you has knowledge (thinking of Tom e.g.) and resources of western’s conventions? Best would be in an online form. So please help my friend to get some serious good mark…
…or even a work about High Noon?
Cheers[/quote]
I have just finished a review of High Noon
It will be published on another forum, but I could PM it to you or email it to your mate
This would be nice, scherp. Just email it to me. My email adress is in my profile. Thank you very much!
Hmmm, funny, but High Noon is not even a western against conventions, and surely not one against every convention.
If you let beside the “arty” direction and some political sideswipes, which are pretensious and not too important, you have a film which follows the conventions as much as a western can.
The only difference to a total standard western is for me the superior directing.
I think a fidani movie defies western conventions more than High Noon does.
Not sure what’s available online about this but perhaps the question set for this essay is refering to High Noon’s position against the genre’s conventions in it’s time. It doesn’t appear to be a film which bucks the conventions now but that is largely because of the influence it had on the genre itself. The Hollywood west was a very different place post High Noon than it was pre High Noon. In particular the image of the western town and its people.
Pre High Noon the western town was shown to be populated by generally decent people pioneering a path in a harsh environment in the face of violent dangers, either from Indians or outlaws. The people of Hadleyville in High Noon are very different. They are selfish, cowardly and uncaring individuals who will quickly turn their backs on anyone rather than stand up to danger themselves. Rather than offer a warm and positive image of american society they represent its darker side, driven by fear and self interest. This, at that time, was very much against convention in a genre which celebrated the forging of a new nation. Likewise, Gary Cooper’s character, Kane, is a different kind of hero figure. On the surface he appears to fit the model of the classic western hero; the white hatted hero standing alone against the bad guys. The classic ‘a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do’ scenario. But if we look closer, his position is very different from the conventional one at that time. His defeat of Miller, by extension, protects the townspeople from future harm but his fight is a personal one and when he leaves town at the story’s conclusion it is not because he is a classic loner who cannot fit into modern society. It is because he is disgusted by society’s lack of moral fibre. His grinding of the marshall’s badge underfoot as he leaves was a shocking statement and an indictment of what had previously been shown as a wholesome and largely benevolent society. Kane, also, is not a classically brave hero either. He is a reluctant one and by no means self assured.
As years went by of course the black and white nature of the western genre changed so High Noon doesn’t seem so radical but it certainly stood out in its day and rankled a lot of conservative feathers in the movie business. Its political parallels at the time of McCarthyism have often been discussed although, in truth, I believe it can be read equally easily as a right wing piece as a liberal one. What is not in doubt is that major western personalities like John Wayne and Howard Hawks felt so moved by the insults they perceived in it to make films of their own in response. Showing the west as they prefered top see it. Rio Bravo is a well documented case in point. Wayne was even moved to say "it’s the most un-American thing I’ve seen in my life.
I don’t know if any of these thoughts help your friend Lode, but for what it’s worth it’s the angle I would come from if I was writing the essay.
My review of HIGH NOON is now on-line (a bit sooner then I expected 
):
http://www.most-wanted-western-movies.com/high-noon-1952-fred-zinneman.html
@ sherp wonderful review again 
Fred Zinnemann was a great Director. I wished he would have done more Westerns ( Oklahoma! is more a Musical). As many of these filmmakers, scriptwriters, directors … who came to Hollywood from Europe because of the War and the Nazis he brought fresh blood and ideas to Hollywood.
[quote=“Paco Roman, post:15, topic:101”]@ sherp wonderful review again
Fred Zinnemann was a great Director. I wished he would have done more Westerns ( Oklahoma! is more a Musical). As many of these filmmakers, scriptwriters, directors … who came to Hollywood from Europe because of the War and the Nazis he brought fresh blood and ideas to Hollywood.[/quote]
Very true. And, interestingly, contributed a fair bit to the Hollywood western. Proving that european eyes were already working on the shape of the genre way back then. The list of european migrant directors who made significant work in the western genre is quite impressive, as the quick list of directors I made based on my own collection makes clear.
Fred Zinneman (Austria)
Andre de Toth (Hungary)
Rudolph Mate (Poland)
Fritz Lang (Austrian)
Michael Curtiz (Hungary)
None of these fellas are neccesarily known purely for their westerns but they all made significant contributions in both ‘A’ and ‘B’ pictures ranging from the 30s to the 50s.
Thanks to Phil and scherp. My man here in Dresden told me, that Phil’s points are exactly what he was looking for - the same way he meant it!
Nice to know old farts like Scherp and me can be of use occasionally
hehe
And another question:
Do you have an overview of what changed in the western in the end of the 40s/early 50s compared to the classic western before that time?
Thanks guys.
[quote=“Lode, post:19, topic:101”]hehe
And another question:
Do you have an overview of what changed in the western in the end of the 40s/early 50s compared to the classic western before that time?
Thanks guys.[/quote]
To sum it up in a few words I would characterise the late 40s / early 50s as the time when the western ‘grew up’.
If you like, the time when there was less black and white and more shades of grey in the content. It’s probably fair to say this of Hollywood cinema in general so it reflects what else was going on at the time. There is Noir influence in the 40s, more emphasis on the psychological make up of characters in the early 50s as well as some political and social commentary as well. Even the much maligned Indians started to get a fairer deal in their portrayals. All in all, an era that changed the western from a largely juvenile genre into an adult one. Consequently, it was a time that produced some of the best westerns of all time in my opinion.
Hope that helps a bit Lode. I’m sure Scherps will have something useful to add too.