But after Rio Bravo he made mostly westerns for the rest of his career ,and by that he continued to do mostly traditional westerns and most of them were still successful. It seems he had his audience.
Big Jake uses the twilight western elements only because they were popular in these days. There are a few jokes about his age (everybody he meets says “I thought you were long dead”), but otherwise it is not really a twilight western. But True Grit is, in a very gentle way by reusing the autumnal colors of Ride the High Country and setting the last (touching) scene in a winterly cemetery.
He had his audiences yes, but like you say his westerns were traditional, actually for most part they were not what the ‘westerns of the day’ were: in the fifties, sixties and seventies his style was not ‘en vogue’. He was, in a way, an underdog, he went against a certain establishment of critics and younger film makers, who determined what was ‘good’ and ‘modern’. Audiences often sympathize with such underdogs and refute modernist tendencies (how popular is non-figurative art?). Wayne didn’t make the movies the critics wanted, but apparently some audiences did.
I never saw True Grit as a twilight western about the end of the West, even though it starred an aging Wayne and was about a veteran who had outlived his time. There are twilight aspects, such as the use of colors, you’re right about that, still I don’t think that was the idea behind the movie.
It is not the idea behind the film, but it is there, only towards the end, and not very obtrusive. In fact only in the last scene which is not unintentional set in the winter, and by the autumnal atmosphere which precedes it. This scene is not in the book, nor in the Coen film.
But his westerns were not out of the time in the 50s. The 50s was still a decade of mostly traditional westerns even if the style and the themes were developing. And the first twilight westerns in 1961 remained singular until these end-of-the-west themes became popular towards the end of the 60s. And then especially in the 70s.
His films were not old fashioned until the mid 60s. And he was in some westerns which became darker (or let’s say less optimistic) like The Searchers, The Horse Soldiers and Liberty Valance.
The three films you mention, are all by Ford. Ford’s vision became darker towards the end of his career, he seemed to mourn the Old West at the end of his life, as some critic put it.
I’ll rewatch that ending of True Grit to see how it feels.
It’s true that a lot of traditional westerns made in the 50s, but like you say the style and the themes were developing and the most important westerns, the ones we identify now with the decade, were ‘different’, ‘modern’. Even Shane, at first sight a very traditional film, has modernist tendencies (the primitive town, not much more than a muddy street, the backward jump of Palance’s victim, a man with a shady past being the hero). It’s often said that Ford and Hawks couldn’t do without Wayne, but it’s also true that Wayne couldn’t do (or at least had big problems) without Ford and Hawks. He wasn’t a good director himself, and relied too much on average directors he knew and trusted. They probably did what he wanted them to do, but the movies suffered from it.
I think he was a quite good director, much better than McLaglen and Kennedy. Alamo is surprisingly well directed with a still spectacular final, but the subject of Alamo is uninteresting for me.
He also co-directed according to some sources The Comancheros and Big Jake, both the last films of veteran directors.
You forgot Henry Hathaway, not an auteur but a gifted craftsman, and for that the most important of all his other directors, with whom he made 6 films. Most of his lesser westerns did not need much more than a professional like Hathaway in the director’s chair. And Hathaway stands for traditional westerns of high quality, like North to Alaska and The Sons of Katie Elder beautifully show. They should have done more of them. On the other hand the adventure film Legend of the Lost is a total turkey due to a lousy script.
In the end it was luck for Wayne to have worked so often with Ford and Hawks, 2 directors who became legends, and with their films Wayne became also something special. More than he deserved only judged by his acting abilities.
U.S western starring Jack Palance as the family leader of a renegade group of soldiers. They steal and rape, but things get difficult when one of Palance’s sons has had enough. Palance looks the same age as some of his sons which was a little weird. Palance is pretty over the top for a U.S western of the period I thought, but I like his western roles though. Some arial shots of a town burning at the start of the film were different. Fair amount of action, but found it hard to really connect to any of the characters.
U.S western starring Jack Palance as the family leader of a renegade group of soldiers. They steal and rape, but things get difficult when one of Palance’s sons has had enough. Palance looks the same age as some of his sons which was a little weird. Palance is pretty over the top for a U.S western of the period I thought, but I like his western roles though. Some arial shots of a town burning at the start of the film were different. Fair amount of action, but found it hard to really connect to any of the characters.[/quote]
Some good camera work (among them the arial shots), bad film.
Don’t know what happened to Palance, looks like he really was on dope in this movie.
The point is that he was one of those actors who needed a strong directional hand. Obviously there wasn’t one here.
The first western Clint made back in his home country after his Italian adventures, and although it’s flawed, it’s also one of his best. It was produced by his own Malpaso Company and he knew both director Post and composer Frontiere from his Rawhide days. According to several sources he co-directed it, and this wouldn’t surprise me a bit. It announces some of the rather complex ideas about personal versus legal revenge, that would become a recurrent theme in Clint’s movies.
Set in 1899, at the brink of a new millennium and era, it depicts a West in which personal revenge is gradually being replaced by a still rudimentary legal system. The process is presented as ‘natural’, as ‘in the line of things’, so when Clint survives his own hanging by a blood-thirsty lynch mob, and wants revenge, it’s only natural that he picks up the star which is offered to him by a hanging judge. But he’ll have to learn that legal butchery is unacceptable. At the same time we see the first signs (and drawbacks) of bureaucracy, when ‘the system’ shows no mercy for two young men, who would have been pardoned by the classical, ‘personal’ avenger. There’s also a hanging sequence that shows the procedure in all its grimness and brutality.
Although a revenge story lies at the base of it, it’s a typical American western. However, visually it is indebted to Leone in a couple of scenes, and the loud, obtrusive score by Dominic Frontiere is an example of what critic Philip French has called an ‘overloaded soundtrack’, and one of the things the Italian film industry gave in return for the myth they took (along with a preference for excessive violence). As said, the film is flawed. Unlike some other critics (for instance Phil Hardy) I don’t think the uneasy relationship between Eastwood and Inger Stevens does the film any good, and with all this attention for hanging, it’s a bit short on real western action.
Neither do I, Ennioo, even if I am one. I always judge for myself, but I find it interesting to know what others said about a movie, and sometimes I use their words to spice up my own writings. It also find it interesting to confront readers with opposing views, or opinions from the past that now look ridiculous. It’s probably a good moment to point out that Jesus had twelve followers when he died.
CHUCK MULL- I liked this one, with a great cast! It’s got a dark and grity atmosphere to it. Great outside scenery too. The twisted story is somewhat farfetched to believe, but enjoyable. The only thing i did not like about it, was the theme song.
Battle of wits among the two stars sums this one up. George Peppard is pretty much his usual self for around this period. Dean Martin does play a different character than he usually does, however hard to tell at times with his boy like smile. Generic sounding score, which had me thinking of many a better score. Average tale, and was expecting a little better.
[size=12pt]Open range [/size] (2003) Kevin Costner
Actually a pretty good western if you ask me, also the best film Costner ever directed, this saying I was never a big fan of Dancing with wolves, this film its a fine improvemnt from that last one, less pretentious but a better film.
The cast is very good, and a clear strong point of the film, with Duvall doing a great job as usual. The action scenes are pretty good, and even if the story ain’t nothing special the way its told is, with the main concern being the characters actions and so much the narrative. The final shootout is very good IMO.
I guess its one of thsoe modern western that tries to show how the real west was, with the muddy small towns, violent shootouts where you had th shoot a couple of times to hit someone. My wife even like the endig after surviving all the shootings.
So not a bad film, very melancholic at times, with a very good photography work, a real nice modern western, it just feels good from time to time to watch one like Open range.
imdb- story/line: A former Confederate officer hunting for an outlaw who wronged him finds him in Dallas, but now a wealty, respectable citizen.
Well, i really enjoyed this one. Cooper was never better, good entertainment, plenty of action and Ruth Roman looked really pretty. Good old fashioned western.
I rewatched this one after midnight. Outside a lot of firework going on, inside a blind Tony Anthony doing his dirty job.
I enjoyed it a bit more than last time, when I wrote my review for the database (just checked it), but I still think it’s a rather nasty film. A child of its time, I suppose: censors had become more lenient towards nudity and Baldi seems to have used every possibility to show some naked flesh and raunchy action.
Won’t ever be a favourite of mine, but okay, if you can accept its excesses, it’s a good genre example, beautifully shot, well-acted, and often surprisingly funny.
[quote=“scherpschutter, post:9257, topic:141”]Blindman
if you can accept its excesses, it’s a good genre example, beautifully shot, well-acted, and often surprisingly funny.[/quote]
Yes
In the end the same for other SWs which were exessive on their release, and are still excessive to a certain degree. Like Django or Django Kills or 4 of the Apocalypse.
I think the disliking of FOD by many on it’s initial release was also due to what a contemporary audience might had a taste problem with.
But is Blindman really more excessive as Django? In the 5 years between those 2 a lot have changed, but Django was really a few years ahead.
In its approach (and degradation) of women it most certainly is. Otherwise the violence in Django is more excessive, and more exploitative. The cutting of Pernice’s ear and the burning of Baldassare’s eyes are on the same level, I guess. Django, by the way, never was a special favourite of mine.
But, as said, in retrospect Blindman is more acceptable, more enjoyable. I’ll change my review a litle, by adding a note here and there. I was too negative.
.![http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/clintqb.jpg/[/url]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/17/clintqb.jpg/%5B/url%5D){kind=link}