John Sturges’ first (and rather unknown) western The Walking Hills (1949) is set in the then present, but if you miss the first minutes you do not recognize that it is not set 70 years earlier. Or Comes a Horseman (1978) which is set after WW II, but with only a few scenes changed, it could easily have played after the civil war. It is about men with cowboy hats and Winchesters and it is about cattle.
But The Misfits (1961) has, despite being close to the genre, not enough direct western elements for me, but I have no problem to include Lonely Are the Brave. 2 examples of films which are called generally post-westerns.
Bad Day at Black Rock is about the descendants of the cowboy, and it’s content is similar to those of the Ox-Bow Incident, but it does not feel that much like a western and is more a thriller, but most books about the genre count is as western. Coogan’s Bluff is another one which turns up in many English books.
I have not seen the Sturges’ film. The Misfits I only thought of as an adventure film. Another rewatch! COOGAN’S BLUFF is the only contemporary Western non fans I know recognise as a modern western. For me naming the greatest contemporary Western is much harder than naming the greatest Western.
Perhaps it was a list trying to please everyone the author spoke to, including the woman next door who likes Christian Bale ?
Seriously though, anyone genuinely passionate on the genre would find this list irksome. It feels like it was compiled based on the work of other critics and a few loose cannons thrown in to confirm the guy really doesn’t have much of an idea.
The stand out no-no for me is the inclusion of ‘The Salvation’ … it may have received some acclaim, but to me it’s no better than the straight to video junk that’s been turning up regularly over the past 10 years or so.
That’s what I meant.
If there are the usual classics all complain that there are no surprises, if there are lots of comparatively unknown films all complain that it is an odd list.
I’m very passionate about the genre, but I think neither that it is bizarre nor that it is irksome. The list reflects in large parts what is the consense about westerns. And the 6 Spags he has reflect btw the forum’s taste pretty close. Even by ranking. Almost.
Yeah, it is not a risky list, but I see no reason to suspect that the list does not reflect his taste. My list would be different, some of my favourites are missing, but others are in. Some of his films wouldn’t make a top 200 or even top 300 of mine.
The above mentioned Western Encyclopedia by Phil Hardy reprints a list compiled from the BFI in 1988. I don’t know how much BFI members participated, and I don’t know how knowledgeable they were about westerns, but there are also only the usual suspects making the top 10. And again I do not expect such a list to be much different. It shows what critics and historians and in the end also many fans think about the genre:
1
*
High Noon
2
*
The Searchers
3
*
Stagecoach
4
*
Shane
5
*
Red River
6
*
The Wild Bunch
7
*
Rio Bravo
7
*
C’ era una volta il West
7
*
The Outlaw Josey Wales
10
*
Ride the High Country
The only surprise is that the Eastwood film was then ranked that high, but the others are those westerns who found in the decades before 1988 the most recognition. Actually not that much different in the decades after in consideration of the latest Sight & Sound list.
If I made a list I wouldn’t be surprised if it got a few laughs because I don’t know many American westerns other than the most popular ones. My list would be mostly spags.
Disagree. That would be way near the top in my list. Just goes to show how subjective these things are. Of course, it’s largely due to Vilmos Zsigmond that it climbs that high.
I think it is.
The last version we have before non-Peckinpah forces tinkered with it does not flow properly for me. Peckinpah’s version is almost poetic in its transitions and beautiful bookending. If you tally up the actual minutes, the difference might not seem that big. But the collective impact of those minutes on a holistic viewing experience is huge in my opinion. It’s depressing how many people watch the non-Peckinpah-sanctioned revised cut and think of that as the film Peckinpah intended. That’s not to knock the revised cut because it’s intention was never to replace the earlier cut. Unfortunately we have the producers/distributors to blame for that. Seydor’s book outlining the logic behind the new cut is fascinating even if I disagree with the end result.
Of course not, it is due to Altman’s revisionist view on the genre.
But you are right about the subjective view. Maybe here are so many out up by such a simple list because of the term “greatest westerns” in the sense of “the best westerns”. But even if Stone thinks these are the best westerns, these are only the best westerns in his opinion. The list expresses at best his way of looking at the genre. Other people have different approaches towards the genre, and will offer a partly or even very differently list.
The best thing to do with that list, like with every other list, is to just view it as his personal favourites. And he seems to be at least a guy who has a lifelong relationship with the genre, and it is especially that which makes such an list interesting. Cause he has most likely seen an awful lot of westerns, not only the usual ones.
It would have been more polite to say M&M would not have been on mine. Thinking about it the big minus for me was Warren Beatty. After rewatching BALLA OF CABLE HOGUE recently i just thought I can see Jason Robards doing the McCabe role nobody plays the scallywag like him!
All the talk of the different PAT GARRET AND BILLY THE KID is fascinating (a film that should be in the top ten of any list) I have only seen the version I have seen is on my DVD.
Well, like before, I completely disagree with that.
The despite great flaws still magnificent theatrical version was influenced by the studio’s will to make a short and more commercial version, but was mostly fine cut by Peckinpah’s editors, the longer cut in only a rough cut (and suffers from that), a cut which demands the very important fine cutting, and the 115 in version is a compromise of both previous versions made much later, but it is for me the one which does the film the most justice.
But as yousurely remember, the perfect version, the infamous Stanton cut, was never released … sigh …
I’m not the guy to ask lol!
