Film Friday: The Good Dinosaur (2015)

Pixar’s The Good Dinosaur is not doing well with audiences, and I’m not at all surprised. There is a fundamental problem with The Good Dinosaur, and that is that the film mixes a main character who is too cutsie with a plot that is anything but cutsie. The resulting mishmash satisfies neither those looking for a mindless baby distracter nor those looking for a more compelling story.

Plot

To put it simply, The Good Dinosaur is a western that uses dinosaurs instead of humans as the main characters. In fact, this is a very, very clichéd western, right down to the use of Sam Elliot to do voice work. The story involves the weak son of a noble farmer who must prove that he can live up to his father’s expectations and ends up in a survival film as he must find his way home through a dark and evil wilderness.

The story opens with the birth of the main character, Arlo, and his sister Libby and brother Buck. Their parents, Henry and Ida, are Apatosauruses. They live in a world where the dinosaurs were never wiped out and continued to, uh, evolve I guess (this is part of the problem with the film... it’s not clear what changed except that these particular dinosaurs are farmers).

Arlo is the runt of the litter and quickly proves not only to be incapable of doing the work required on the farm, but is a coward. He is afraid of basically everything. His father is patient with him however, though he simultaneously pushes Arlo to stop being such a whiny bi— uh, to become less of a coward. One of the tasks Henry gives Arlo in this regard is to trap and kill a pest that has been eating their corn... which they need to feed their chickens, who terrorize Arlo. The pest turns out to be a cutsie baby human! Oh goodie.

Arlo, of course, can’t bring himself to kill the human, and the human escapes. Henry then takes Arlo and chases after the human cave boy. They chase him up into some evil looking mountains, which end up flooding. The flood kills Henry and leaves Arlo stranded far away from home. Arlo then finds and befriends the human, who acts like little more than a puppy (he can’t even speak). The rest of the story is Arlo’s journey to find his way back to the farm.

Why This Film Doesn’t Work

This movie has a lot of problems, quite frankly.

The first problem is the simple blown potential. The trailer to this film was intensely clever. It asked, what would happen if the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs missed the Earth? And then you see the asteroid shoot by the planet and all the dinosaurs who had looked up at its approach return to their grazing. This trailer offered limitless potential. It opened the door to anything. It promised a world where dinosaurs had evolved to something beyond just being dinosaurs. It promised a world where man and dinosaurs co-existed in some friendly or hostile way. It promised something you had never seen before. The film even skips a few million years at the opening, suggesting that we would see dinosaur society evolved into the modern world... whatever that would look like.

But none of that happened.

Instead, you get a world that is indistinguishable from dinosaur times except for the presence of one cave-boy and the existence of one dinosaur farm. That’s it. What a waste.

The next problem probably tells us why the first problem exists: the filmmakers never bothered to lay down the rules that guide their new universe before they began. Is there really a dinosaur society or not? There’s the farm. There are three T-Rexes who are herding the dinosaur version of cattle. But that’s all you see. There is no sense if there are cities or if there is an economy – does the farmer sells his crops? Do the T-Rexes sell their cattle or just eat them? The other dinosaurs they run into seem to be standard feral dinosaurs. So is there a society or not? They never say, and the result is that it’s unclear what kind of world Arlo really lives in and everything feels ambiguous and confused.

As an aside, I was also personally bothered by the sense that much of what they encounter felt vaguely stolen. The human reminded me of Mogli from Jungle Book; he even has a similar storyline – leaving for human companionship at the end. The nyctosaurus and pterodactyls reminded me of the vultures from Jungle Book. The T-Rexes reminded me of a combination of Bagheera and the elephants from Jungle Book. There's even a seemingly hypnotic horned dinosaur (a Styracosaurus), right at the end of a snake scene, which is clearly Kaa from Jungle Book. The scene chasing the human felt like the apes rounding up the humans in Planet of the Apes. The whole Arlo story felt like a number of westerns involving a weak son who must avenge his father’s death. And so on. This is the first Pixar film where I felt I could pick out things that were copied from other films.

The real problem, however, is that the film is a mishmash of concepts. For whatever reason, Pixar chose a main character who is better suited for the preschool set. He’s cute and whiny and stupid and whiny and seems made for backpacks and plush toys. Put him in a story with his imaginary friends and magic tree houses and he would feel right at home. But then they rammed him into a story that has a truly adult storyline in the sense of being dark and not at all funny, and about the subtle goal of proving one’s worth to oneself. This is a farmer western combined with a survival drama like The Grey or The Edge. It is not a plot that in any fits the childish Arlo.

The result of this is an entirely unsatisfying story. The preschool crowd will not like the dark, very unfunny plot. The people who might like the survival story will find the whiny, child that plays the lead to be too annoying and unbelievable for this kind of story. And people who come in having seen the trailer are going to wonder how this movie managed to ignore the entire magic the trailer promised.

Pixar is an amazing company that does a great job with its movies time and again, but this one is a total miss. This one is entirely unsatisfying. It’s boring, indifferent, and just out of place. And that’s too bad given the amazing potential the backstory suggested.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

My Favorite Films: Westerns

I know that many of you don't like westerns. To that, I can only call you dirty commies and refuse to ever speak to you again. As for the rest of you, the good Americans among us, I could probably give you a Top 500 here, including anything by Gene Autry or Audie Murphy or John Wayne or Glenn Ford or Randolph Scott. But I'm going to keep this to the ten I turn to most often. Head 'em up!

1. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966): The ultimate Spaghetti Western and in many ways the ultimate Western. You've got three men, Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef and Eli Wallach playing cat and mouse as they pursue a buried treasure in a grave. In the process, you have iconic moments, a twisting game of revenge complete with last second reprieves, beautifully staged gun fights, and one of the greatest scores ever in a film. I can watch this one every day.

2. The Magnificent Seven (1960): This film is just fantastic. A remake of Seven Samurai (another excellent film), you got seven big named action stars teaming up to take on Mexican bandit Eli Wallach. What makes this film so great is that it explores each character, including Wallach, and you come to like (or pity) them all, including Wallach. Add in snappy dialog, scene stealing Steve McQueen, and a booming soundtrack and this is easily the best classic Western you will ever find.

3. The Wild Bunch (1969): If the The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly was a story about antiheroes, then The Wild Bunch is simply the story of villains. One group of villains robs a bank. Another group of villains is hired to stop them. They chase them to Mexico where they encounter villainous Mexican soldiers. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, this is "tough guy" Western at its peak. It's brutal, it's bloody, and it's packed full of action and, of all things, philosophy.

4. Silverado (1985): This is a great redemption story done with tremendous ability. Interesting characters with strong relationships, great actors, some great situations, some likeable villains, and a plot that pulls you in and keeps you going from start to finish, I highly recommend this film.

5. High Plains Drifter (1973): This one's really fascinating. This is the story of a man with no name, Clint Eastwood, who may well be an avenging angel come back to town to punish the townsfolk for hiring killers to get rid of their sheriff and then watching as these killers whip him to death. Interestingly, this was remade by Eastwood in the 1980s as Pale Rider, and while Pale Rider was a good film which I enjoy very much, it completely lacks the spirit which made this film so special. This film feels like a glimpse into hell at times.

6. Dodge City (1939): If there's such a thing as a cliché Western, this is it. Errol Flynn needs to clean up Dodge City to make it safe for the good people who live there and in the process, he fights cattle barons and gunslingers. But this cliché is done right!

7. Blazing Saddles (1974): Funniest... western... ever.

8. Unforgiven (1992): This film pissed me off originally. The first time through, it felt like Eastwood was repudiating his Spaghetti Western days. But over time, I've come to see this as a film that wants to be a more serious, realistic Western, but at the same time lets us know that The Man With No Name lives in Eastwood's spirit and he'll come shoot every last one of you if you give him cause.

9. The Quick and the Dead (1995): I'll admit it, I like this one. This film was meant to deconstruct Westerns and essentially mock them. But it's got an amazing cast and it soft-pedaled the satire a little too much to achieve its purpose of sending a nasty message about Westerns. Thus, what was meant to be smug and condescending actually turns out to be a heavily-clichéd but fun Western... a serious version of Rustler's Rhapsody mixed with Bloodsport and I enjoy it.

10. High Noon (1952): This is a very uncomfortable Western because everyone is made out as a coward, a hypocrite or a monster. Nevertheless, the story is made with undeniable quality and in the end you feel satisfied when the Marshall saves the day and then walks away from the townsfolk he once thought were decent people. In a way, this is a revenge fantasy where Cooper proves everybody wrong and then shames them by leaving them to wallow in the own cowardice and avarice.

Let me also give a shout out to Sergeant Rutledge. This is a really well done film that handles race and racism in the US better than any film I've seen in Hollywood. It's also a fantastic legal drama.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Lesson of Gene Autry

Gene Autry is a national icon. He rose from telegraph operator to Hollywood hero to owner of the Los Angeles Angels. He was known as a humble and decent man who made lifelong friends. He was a beloved hero to millions. He was also a solid conservative who supported Ike, Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan. Over the past few months, I’ve watched almost his entire film catalog and I’ve found many interesting lessons in these films. But there is one I want to talk about today.

In the 1940s and 1950s, Autry was a Top 10 Box Office star, and he remained super popular until his death. In fact, his popularity was astounding. What made Autry so popular? To put it simply, Gene Autry was essentially impossible to dislike because he came across as genuinely nice and he came across as someone who actually cared about everyone. Indeed, he always smiled, no matter what the circumstances. And he always remained relentlessly positive. Even when he faced the bad guy, he still smiled and chose to counter the villain’s conduct good-naturedly rather than with anger.

More importantly though, he cared about everyone. No issue was too small for him to want to help and there wasn’t anyone he was unwilling to help. In fact, in his films he rejects racism, classism and genderism. At one point, he created a Cowboy Code which he shared with tens of millions of kids and that code specifically said that a genuine cowboy “must not advocate or possess racially or religiously intolerant ideas.” It also said that a genuine cowboy must “respect women,” may not take unfair advantage, must always tell the truth, must help people in distress, must be gentle with children, the elderly and animals, and must never go back on his word.

Right now, I can hear some people mocking him as “a Boy Scout,” but that says more about their cynicism than anything about Autry if they dislike people who display all the virtues we claim to prize.

Anyways, he was forgiving too and never acted in anger. Indeed, Autry never gave up trying to talk the villain out his plan because he wanted the best solution for everyone, not just victory. He would use violence sometimes, but only in genuine self-defense (not fake self-defense like modern heroes). Interestingly, he was also the kind of guy who would race to save a villain who had fallen over a cliff and would beat himself up for failing to save the villain from falling to his death.

Compare that with modern “heroes” who are cynical, nasty, and presume the worst. They only seem happy when they are kicking ass or killing bad guys. Autry never did that. Autry simply wanted to help people. He was the kind of guy who never failed to give the shirt off his back at the first sign of need. He never ridiculed anyone, never spoke ill of anyone, and never wished harm upon anyone... friend or foe. He had tremendous patience and was always willing to forgive. He was humble, honest, and he genuinely cared about everyone. This is what he projected on film and all indications are that this is who he really was.

Ok, so why am I telling you this? Because this is what made Autry irresistible to the American public. They loved him.

Now look at Ronald Reagan. How did Reagan come across to the public? He came across as humble and honest, and he genuinely seemed to care about everyone. He talked about making “all boats” rise, not just those of his friends, his donors, his voters, or people of a certain color or class. He spoke proudly of all Americans of any gender, race or religion. He never tried to section people off under the law and he never sold his policies as hurting or getting even with people he didn't like. He never ridiculed anyone, never spoke ill of anyone, and never wished harm upon anyone... friend or foe. Even as Tipp O’Neil and the MSM savaged him and tried to destroy him, Reagan kept his sunny disposition and treated them as friends.

And do you know what? The public loved him! He became the most loved politician this country has ever produced. Just think back to his funeral and you’ll see that. Think back to the hundreds of thousands of people who turned out to see his body, who lined the streets, and who openly cried that a man they hadn’t seen in 20 years had died. That is an amazing emotional connection, the same connection Autry achieved.

This is the lesson. It’s no secret how to be popular. When the public believes that you care about everyone equally, and that you do genuinely care and want to help people... when the public sees you as humble, honest, and decent... the public will love you. Ronald Reagan, just like Gene Autry, won over a massive majority of the public because the public knew that these were decent men who cared about everyone and wanted the best for everyone. That created the trust which caused the public to give Reagan a chance and to stick with him. If we want to regain the public’s trust, that is the course we need to take. It’s not about ideology, it’s about attitude.

To put a fine point on this: if conservatism wants to win back the public, it needs to learn to care about all Americans again, not just those it likes. Drop the anger, drop the exclusion, and drop the cynicism that is the essence of talk radio. Embrace America. Embrace Americans... every American. This is the greatest country on earth and her people are amazing. Give them the opportunities and trust them to excel. Be someone the public will love and respect and the public will love and respect you. It’s that simple. Remember this the next time a candidate tells you what his goals are.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Why They Couldn't Make Blazing Saddles Today

They couldn’t do Blazing Saddles today. I’m sure of that. But the reasons might surprise you. It’s not because of political correctness as you might think. Let’s discuss.

Blazing Saddles is truly a classic comedy. The film stars Cleavon Little as a black railway worker who is sentenced to hang for punching a white man. Before he can be hung however, he is saved by the evil Hedley Lamarr, the attorney general, who appoints Little as Sheriff of Rock Ridge in an effort to annoy the crap out of the locals (who are all named Johnson) so they won’t defend their town from an army of villains Hedley has commissioned to destroy the town so he can buy the land cheap before the railroad comes through. Little must overcome the racism of the locals with the help of his drunken deputy, Gene Wilder as the Waco Kid.

On the surface, the film is packed with racist comments and was, thus, controversial... “Hey, where the white women at?” But only an idiot would see the film as racist. To the contrary, the film is a parody of the subtle racism inherent in many old westerns. To that end, it makes Little smarter than the racist locals and they come to love him as he saves them. The film then shifts from parodying westerns to parodying Hollywood itself, with a particular emphasis on gays in Hollywood.

Three things made this film work, but they wouldn’t work today:

● Mel Brooks: “Piss on you! I work for Mel Brooks!” That’s the most telling line in this film. Brooks was known as an irreverent comedic genius who could parody anything, even taboo subjects, and make it funny. That made Brooks the perfect man to make this film because he had the clout to do what he wanted and the reputation that people would know to accept outrageous ideas without being offended. There's no one with that kind of public trust today. To the contrary, all the people who would touch such a project are either hard-core ideologues like Michael Moore, scared light-weights like Judd Apatow, or people who use shock as a substitute for skill like Seth McFarlane or Sasha Cohen. Thus, the film would generate enemies before it even hit theaters.

● Timing: The timing was perfect on this film. By the 1970s, the age of the great western was over and we had entered the cynical period of deconstructionist westerns. This was the era where John Wayne’s hero gave way to Robert Redford’s sniveling bank robber. And because of that, Blazing Saddles fit right in as it essentially deconstructed and parodied the tropes of the 1940s and 1950s westerns. Had Blazing Saddles been released in the 1950s, it probably would have felt like a nasty attack on a beloved genres. But coming out in the 1970s, amidst so many malicious westerns, it came across more as a loving summation of the now-dead western era.

Remaking Blazing Saddles today would run into a timing problem. The tropes of the 1940s and 1950s westerns are largely unknown today. Instead, the westerns that are known today are films like Unforgiven and Cowboys & Aliens. These films never exhibit “casual racism.” To the contrary, when they talk about race, and they always do, they make racism a cause worth fighting for the heroes and only the villains will display racism. Thus, to modern audiences, the idea that average locals would treat a black character in a racist manner doesn’t make sense because it’s not something they see on film anymore.

Further, in the 1970s, the idea of a black sheriff was a novel idea. It wasn’t that there hadn’t been such people, they just weren’t part of the popular culture. In fact, films like Smokey and the Bandit made a point of having an “old school” character run into just such a black person and then struggle with how to reconcile that with their worldview. In that regard, Blazing Saddles was very much on the edge of the culture when it made Little the Sheriff of Rock Ridge, i.e. the idea itself was shocking to audiences. Making it the old West was the joke.

Today, no one thinks anything of seeing black cops. So a story about a black man being appointed a sheriff wouldn’t strike the public as novel, or edgy, or outrageous. Even the historical aspect of making him a sheriff in the old West wouldn’t shock people because we regularly see black heroes injected into westerns now: Will Smith, David Keith, Danny Glover, Jamie Foxx, Morgan Freeman, Mario Peebles, and more have all been accepted with open arms by “westerns” as if they were white, with only the villains themselves making a point of them being black. So making a black character into a sheriff in the old West just doesn’t shock anyone anymore. Hence, the very foundation of Blazing Saddles would fall flat on its face today.

● The Perception of Racism Has Changed: Finally, we come to the big one: the changing perception of racism. Despite the use of racist words, Blazing Saddles is not a racist film. Consider this line: “I extend a laurel and hardy handshake to our new... nigger.” Is that racist? Well, it depends on the context, doesn’t it? It’s certainly meant to show that the speaker is racist. But the film never agrees with those sentiments. To the contrary, the film shows Cleavon Little to be by far a superior person to the racist townsfolk and they quickly come to love and respect him. The message of this is that racism is the product of ignorance and once the ignorance is overcome, the racism vanishes. The film also suggests that racism isn't as deeply ingrained as people think. Indeed, these people flip pretty easily from being racists to loving their black sheriff. It also softens the racism in a way by showing how it was not just anti-black racism, but anti-everything-different-ism: “We’ll take the niggers and the chinks, but not the Irish!”

In the end, what this film suggests is really positive. It suggests that racism isn't an inherent personal feeling akin to hate, but is really only fear of the unknown. And it mocks racists not as evil, but as just stupid. And it suggests that if we all get to know each other, then our racism will vanish and our better instincts will prevail. That is a very optimistic view of racism and it fit the era, when people thought racism was being put behind us. But this view of racism is no longer accepted by the public. Once the next few decades after the 1970s, the racism industry became particularly vile.

Starting in the 1970s, black race hustlers began to spew victimization and to claim that all whites were secretly racist. Things that had nothing to do with race were called racist and demands were made for a special set of rules that would apply only to blacks. Meanwhile, their opposite numbers in the white race baiter ranks spewed their own victimization and claimed that blacks wanted to oppress whites. These two groups poisoned the issued so that no one wants to talk about it. And because of them, if Blazing Saddles were made today, average people would not go see it because they simply don't want to deal with the issue of race. In the 1970s, people did want to deal with it because there was a moral basis to the discussion and good will among the participants. Today, there is neither, there are just screams of racism and victimization. No one wants to deal with that. And that is why this film simply could not be made today: there is no audience for it.

This is the key. Whereas 1974 Mel Brooks tapped into an issue people wanted to discuss and he offered something they wanted to believe – that we could end racism by getting to know each other, Mel Brooks 2013 would find himself smeared as a propagandist by both sides and ignored by the public. That’s why this film simply could not be made today. Not because it’s politically incorrect to make such a film, but because there’s no audience left for these ideas. And since the rest of the film wouldn't speak to audiences either, this film could not be made today.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: They Came To Cordura (1959)

A couple weeks ago, I wrote about cynicism and how the age of cynicism began at least as early as 1960 rather than after Vietnam and Watergate. They Came To Cordura adds a great deal of support to that argument. This film stars Gary Cooper as Major Thomas Thorn and it makes Platoon look like an Army recruitment film.

Gary Cooper makes me uneasy. I know he was a staunch Republican. I also know he testified against the communists before the House Un-American Activities Committee as a friendly witness. But when I see his films, something always “feels” wrong at a fundamental level. Indeed, his most famous role, that of Marshal Will Kane in High Noon, was written by communist Carl Foreman as an attack on the American people in light of the HUAAC. Foreman wrote Will Kane as a cynical takedown of heroism. He is a once-great man, who fights because he is now too afraid to run away. And the fact he won’t run away exposes the townsfolk as selfish, cynical cowards who don’t care about right and wrong. The message was clear: don’t be a hero, it’s not worth it and the American people don’t deserve you.

In fact, this meaning was so clear to John Wayne that he called the film “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life,” and he and Howard Hawks produced Rio Bravo as a direct response. Said Hawks, “I made Rio Bravo because I didn’t like High Noon. Neither did Duke. I didn’t think a good town marshal was going to run around town like a chicken... asking everyone to help. And who saves him? His Quaker wife. That isn’t my idea of a good Western.”

Admittedly, the interpretation of High Noon has changed over time and people now see it more as an ode to the individual standing alone against great odds to do the right thing. So if that was the only time I questioned Cooper, it would be easy to dismiss my nagging feelings. But then you run into a film like Cordura – one of three films produced by Cooper’s own company.

Cordura is the story of Major Thomas Thorn (Cooper) of the United States Cavalry. The year is 1916 and the cavalry is fighting Mexican bandit Pancho Villa. As the story opens, the cavalry charges a ranch occupied by Villa’s troops. The charge is reckless and results in a lot of dead American soldiers, but Villa is routed because of the brave acts of four soldiers. These soldiers are observed by Cooper, who decides to put them up for the Congressional Medal of Honor. Cooper is then assigned to return with those four soldiers and a female prisoner to the Texas town of Cordura. Things go wrong along the way and the other soldiers turn on Cooper. That’s the basic plot and it doesn’t sound so bad, but just wait for the details.

Right out of the gates, we learn that Cooper is a coward. In a prior attack, he hid in a ditch. No one denies this and this isn’t some mistake you discover later in the film which redeems Cooper. Further, Cooper’s commander Col. Rogers knew about the cowardice and did nothing about it. Why? Because Rogers knew Cooper’s father and wanted to protect the father’s reputation. Further, Rogers knew it would come in handy because Rogers, who is 63, thought he could hold this over Cooper’s head so Cooper would recommend him for the Congressional Medal of Honor, which would get Rogers promoted to General. In fact, when Cooper refuses to put Rogers up for the medal, Rogers becomes irate, threatens Cooper and sends him away with the other soldiers as punishment.

Notice right away that the message here is that the U.S. Army, and by extension American society, is sick. Its leaders are cowards and opportunists. They ignore their duty to help friends, they hold each other to a lower standard than they do average people, and they turn on each other when they won’t return a favor. This will be reinforced by the other officer, Lt. Fowler, who also turns on Cooper when he won’t do a favor for Fowler. Fowler even tells Cooper, “an officer’s duty is to protect his own kind,” but he won’t help Cooper.

Adding to the negative critique, Cooper blasts the attack itself as disorganized and pure luck. He says the soldiers chased into the attack “like a gang of Don Quixotes” (meaning crazy, delusional and recklessly). He blasts the commanders for not having a plan and acting without intelligence or knowledge of the terrain, and he notes that if Villa had automatic weapons the cavalry would have lost. Essentially, the U.S. Army gets lucky.

As the journey begins, they take Adelaide Geary (Rita Hayworth) with them. She’s an American who has been helping Villa. At first, the film makes it clear that Rogers only arrests her because he’s angry with her. And when she demands to know what she’s charged with, Cooper tells her but she instantly proves how she can’t be charged under the law he cites. He doesn’t care. The implication is that the Army sees itself above the law and will fit the law to its needs. Then, as the story progresses, she proves to be smarter than all the soldiers about military matters. Meanwhile, we learn that Cooper is obsessed with finding out why these four men did such heroic acts. What he discovers is another kick in the teeth: these heroic men acted out of fear, ambition and racism. In effect, the film says that those are the things that drive bravery. Then it gets ugly.

Almost from the first step of the journey, the men snipe at each other and at Cooper. Once they learn that they are to receive the highest award the nation can give, three of the four want Cooper to take them off the list. Why? Because one is wanted for murder and doesn’t want to get spotted. One doesn’t want to help the Army; he wants a transfer away from combat to “let the young ones do the fighting.” Fowler thinks it will ruin his career to standout too early – he thinks it will make him a target for “jealous superiors.” Also, the one who does want the award only wants it because it means an extra $2 a month. Notice that these men are cynically held up as the example of heroes in the military, yet none of them are worthy - they are cutthroats, liars, cowards, opportunists and malingerers (we’re even told, “The Army don’t ask no questions,” when it recruits). And “held up” is the right way to say it because Cooper makes a point that, no matter how rotten these men really are, they need to be given these awards because the Army needs heroes to show everyone else “how to act.” Think about the cynicism here. The writer basically claims that the Army uses the fraud of phony heroism to inspire its soldiers, even when it knows the kind of rotten people it is propping up as heroes. Then it gets worse again.

No sooner do the troops start to rebel about being made heroes against their will than they decide to rape Hayworth. This forces Cooper to disarm them and he essentially takes them to Cordura as prisoners. As they walk (they lose their horses to the Mexicans), they keep wanting to quit and lie down and die. They keep attacking Cooper. They try to blackmail him and threaten him. They become increasingly murderous. Only Cooper’s gun keeps them going. One of the men even becomes ill with typhoid and Cooper must force them to carry the man - the others want to abandon him. This, by the way, is only a two-day walk.

Finally, as they near Cordura, Hayworth falls for Cooper and she declares him to be a great man. At that point, the film treats her as redeemed. Only, her version of redemption doesn’t involve renouncing her prior treacherous aid of the Mexican raiders; it just involves liking Cooper. And the reason she likes him is the “moral courage” he shows in being determined to get these men the Medal of Honor despite all they have done. That is twisted nonsense, that the coward is the hero because he blindly follows his orders, no matter how wrong. Adding insult to insult, she then has sex with one of the soldiers to distract him to help Cooper. Essentially, this representation of American womanhood is portrayed as someone with easily shifting loyalties who doesn’t think twice about using her body to get what she needs. She’s also a major alcoholic.

Films like this make me wonder about Cooper. This film characterizes the military, American heroes, and all aspects of American society as rotten to the extreme with no redeeming values. Our people are savages, held in check only by the guns of our leaders who are cynical hypocrites. There is no redemption. There is no moment where these rotten soldiers show they are better than they have behaved to that point. They don’t even help Cooper when they realize they are near Cordura after they tried to let him die. Cooper is never redeemed either. There is no moment where he shows that he can be a better man. He just does his nonsensical job like an obsessed bureaucrat or automaton. The closest we get to redemption is when the soldiers act surprised to see that Cooper wrote some nice things about them in his diary (which of course they should already know). Then Cooper writes, “Judge not lest ye be judged,” as if that makes it all better. So don’t judge the cowardly rapists or the guy who wants to turn them into false heroes because you’re probably just as bad? Do you see the cynicism? I don’t know how Cooper could have looked at this script and not seen all of this?

This is the kind of film I was talking about when I spoke of cynicism. If I described this film to you without the name of the actor or the year, I doubt anyone would have guessed this film was made in 1959. This is the sort of thing you expect from an Iraq film or a Vietnam film. Yet, here it is... with Cooper’s name on it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Cowboys & Aliens (2011)

When a film appears with a fantastic concept, a solid cast, and a great look. . . and then it bombs. . . you know something went very wrong along the way. That’s the case with Cowboys & Aliens. Only in this instance, everything went wrong. Put simply, no one associated with this project had any idea what to do with this concept.

** spoiler alert **

Directed by Jon Favreau, Cowboys & Aliens is the story of some people in the old West who battle aliens who are faster, stronger and can’t be killed by human weapons. . . except when they can. That’s all you need to know because everything else about this film fails. Let’s go through the list of failures:

● The Actors: The actors seemed lost in this. It’s like they didn’t realize they were in a Western. Daniel Craig plays the lead. He did an excellent job eliminating his English accent, he just didn’t know what to replace it with. So he ends up kind of mumbling English words that don’t really fit in any dialect and certainly don’t fit in the American West. Olivia Wilde, who plays the required female character, may not even have read the script for all she brought to her role. Harrison Ford wasn’t great either. He plays a bad guy with a heart of gold, only he was never able to find that line where we actually like him. The supporting actors never clicked either. It’s like no one explained to anyone who these people were before they began shooting.

● The Director: It’s often difficult to separate the writers and the director, but here it was easy. Few scenes made sense from a visual perspective, and it was almost impossible to care about what was happening on the screen.

The perfect example of this is the scene where the aliens first attack the town. The aliens have come to grab townsfolk, but there’s no reason to do this. Indeed, while we’re later told some vague garbage about the aliens studying the humans, there’s no evidence the aliens are doing that and there’s no reason they would need to. It would be like studying ants to learn their military weakness. Not to mention, the townsfolk are eventually found stored in some cave rather than being examined, which calls into question why they were taken at all. Moreover, when the aliens attack, they blow things up all over town for no reason whatsoever. They are more than capable of just flying overhead and grabbing people -- no one can stop them -- but they instead choose to blow up buildings for no apparent reason. In effect, the raid is pointless nonsense.

Further, while the aliens are blowing things up and taking people you don’t know, the camera follows the action almost randomly. Basically, you see people running back and forth until they get taken while the heroes shoot at the alien ships, and all of this is done in the dark by similarly-dressed characters that we don’t know. So throughout this scene, the audience has no idea what happened or who did what, nor does any of it matter. In effect, it’s ten minutes of pointless explosions with no substance. That’s on the director.

Even worse, this becomes the pattern for the film as things happen for no logical reason, as you are incapable of following which characters are doing what or why, and as nothing really interesting happens in any scene. “Stuff blows up” pretty much describes the whole film.

● The Writers: The writing is horrid. To explain this, let’s continue with the first raid by the aliens. I mentioned above that the raid was pointless, but that’s not entirely true. The raid was conducted for two obvious purposes: (1) so the hero, who was about to be killed by the townsfolk, could be saved and his importance to the rest of the story affirmed by those same townsfolk, and (2) so that the loved one of each main character could be taken by the aliens so they would all have a reason to begin the movie. That’s horrible writing when the only purpose to a major scene is to establish plot points. Not to mention that wipes out all the conflicts except one -- retrieve the loved ones. But that’s just the beginning of the problems with the writing.

The story begins with a mystery: who is Daniel Craig. Craig wakes up with an alien device on his arm and no memory. He makes his way to town, where everyone else seems to thinks he’s a criminal. The writer carries this mystery on for about an hour, way too long given that the mystery is neither the point to the film nor all that interesting. Indeed, once you learn that everyone wants him dead, solving the rest of the mystery becomes pretty pointless, but the story continues to act like it matters. Conversely, while the mystery is quickly solved, it simultaneously leaves too many details unsolved for too long. Consequently, the audience is repeatedly left in the dark for the first thirty minutes or so as characters talk knowingly about things we know nothing about and plot points happen which make little sense to us because we don’t understand the background.

The next problem is that after the aliens raid the town, about twenty minutes into the film, the rest of the film becomes a series of random and deeply clichéd scenes. It feels like the writer came up with a list of things which could happen in a western and just inserts those one after another. There’s also never a sense that the scenes really relate in any meaningful way.

The motives for the aliens are rather stupid too and show that the writer has no scientific background. The aliens apparently want gold because it’s valuable, even though the creation of gold would take less energy than bringing their spaceships to Earth in the first place. The aliens round up people to experiment on them to “test their weaknesses” even though we’re also told the aliens are so far advanced that they see humans as “insects.” And then we’re told the aliens plan to destroy the planet for no reason whatsoever except to jack up the significance of the attack on the aliens.

Finally, there is one huge problem which falls on the writers and the director equally: there isn’t a moment of this film which varies from expectations. That’s a cardinal sin in any film and especially in something as supposedly unique as this. To give you a sense of this problem, consider that there isn’t a single scene which doesn’t end the way you expect from the moment the scene first begins. You know who will save whom and how they will react. Moreover, you will have seen this moment coming from the moment the characters met because EVERYTHING in this film is telegraphed in the most ham-fisted way. When two characters dislike each other, you know right away they will save each other and become friends. A character who can’t shoot will of course make an impossible shot to save the day. When a character mentions a knife, not only can you be sure that it will save that character, but you will know at roughly what time in the film that will happen. And when that scene comes, you’ll know it because the director will point the camera at the knife to open the scene, then will show you where the events will take place, then the characters rush to that location so the alien chasing them can do something incredibly stupid and SURPRISE the knife saves the day!! Yeah, this film is like that. . . repeatedly.

Cowboys & Aliens began with a great concept, but no one involved with the film knew how to handle it. Indeed, there isn’t really a competent element of this film. The actors didn’t know how to treat their characters, the director couldn’t compose a single interesting scene, and the writers were just guessing about what a science-fiction Western would include. And that caused this excellent concept to be wasted.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

TV Review: Hell On Wheels (2011-????)

I hate predicting how a series will turn out after only two episodes. But only two episodes into AMC’s new show Hell on Wheels, I’m having serious problems with the show and I think it’s only going to get worse because the problems lie within the writer’s liberal worldview and dishonest motives.

Hell on Wheels is the story of Cullen Bohannon (Anson Mount), an ex-confederate soldier seeking revenge for the killing of his wife. He takes a job working for Thomas Durant (Colm Meaney), who is building the transcontinental railroad through Nebraska in 1865. Bohannon takes this job because the man he wants to kill works for the railroad as a foreman. Bohannon gets the job and then goes to kill the foreman. But the foreman throws him for a loop when he mentions another murderer Bohannon knows nothing about. But just as the foreman is about to reveal the man’s identity, the foreman is killed by Elam Ferguson (racist rapper turned actor Common). Hilarity ensues.

My problems with Hell on Wheels actually started from the first word. For weeks before the show premiered, AMC ran ads implying this would be more than just a Western. Specifically, they used a line of dialog which implied something supernatural was taking place. But in the opening twenty seconds, we discover that "line" was in reality two separate lines spliced together to create a misleading impression. Rather than referencing some supernatural force they unleashed, the character was only whining about how evil he and the rest of the Union Army were in the Civil War. Boo fricken hoo.

And it doesn’t stop there. Soon we get blasted by characters whining about how evilly the South treated Union prisoners of war. . . how evilly the Union treated the South’s soldiers. . . how evilly the Southerners treated the slaves. . . how evilly whitey treated the Indians. . . how evilly the Irish were treated. . . how evilly whitey treated the Chinese. . . how evilly corporate America treated its workers. . . etc. etc. etc. Every racial, ethnic, religious, political or economic grievance you can conjure up about the era gets crammed into the first two episodes. That’s whiny liberalism at its worst.

Even worse, the characters accept the modern liberal worldview. Hence, they all lament how evil they are and almost every scene involves characters whining about some group-based grievance. And even worse, standard liberal hypocrisies apply. Thus, they are all hopelessly conflicted and dearly apologetic about all the evils done by their own people and they reject evils like racism and violence. . . unless you're black or an Indian, then it’s hunky dory. This is ridiculous. This show seems to be written from the worst end of the racial identity politics regime. If we swapped the characters’ races, you’d swear this was written by the Klan.

And it doesn't stop there. Our hero Bohannon is a cliché, being a cold-blooded killer in the tradition of Clint Eastwood’s spaghetti westerns. But he's also noble because he freed his own slaves before the war because he knew slavery was wrong. Really? This is ex post facto liberal false courage masturbatory disease. This is all those liberals who tell you proudly how THEY would have stood up to Hitler if THEY’d lived in Germany, or THEY would have led the Civil Rights Movement, or THEY would have ended slavery, or THEY would have been the first to [fill in the blank]. . . when the reality is they are abject cowards with a complete blindspot for the intersection of personal responsibility and morality. The Bohannon character is an attempt by liberal writers to feel morally superior by criticizing a long gone era using modern sensibilities knowing that they risk nothing by being so "brave."

The villain, Thomas Durant, is the ultimate liberal boogeyman, by the way. Not only is he entirely corrupt, as we’re told all businessmen apparently were at that time, but he’s murderous, gratuitously racist, he beats his underlings and needlessly humiliates people he bribes. He openly bribes and threatens Senators, tells the press his evil plans because he knows they would never go against him, and he laughs maniacally at all of his own evil doings. He actually sees himself as evil and revels in it. Indeed, Colm Meaney plays Durant so rottenly that Ebenezer Scrooge would cry foul.

But even beyond the politics, this story is full of inexplicable actions and plot conveniences. Why does Bohannon bother joining the railroad when he could have just rode up and shot his nemesis? Why stick around after the murder except to get caught -- he wasn’t told until later that Elam knows who the other killer might be. Why would Durant not hang Bohannon (he framed him for the foreman’s murder) just because Bohannon says he knows how to handle blacks? And what are the chances Elam would kill the foreman just as he was about to spill the beans, and then actually know the foreman’s secret when the foreman clearly never confided in blacks and when Elam wouldn’t even have any way to connect the dots? Or are we to believe the foreman liked to brag about the same murder that supposedly haunted him?

Almost every moment in this show feels manufactured. It is manufactured in the sense that the characters’ actions make no sense, they espouse beliefs that are anachronistic and inconsistent, and each scene feels set up just to let them espouse those beliefs. The actions binding the character together are nonsense and the characters themselves are laughably cardboard and seem drawn to act as liberal archetypes.

Even beyond that, there are problems. Is the show fast paced? Sure. But the acting is weak and the accents are horrid. The costumes are good, except Common looks too clean and modern to be a railroad worker from 1865. . . he looks more like a model. Does the plot twist and turn? Sure. But it’s not surprising.

But in the end, the real problem is that I keep feeling in scene after scene that I’m being fed propaganda. I keep being told revisionist history. I keep seeing extreme liberal boogeymen and I can’t help but see a sad liberal writer proudly telling himself, "that would have been me!" Yeah, sure. This show is dishonest and that’s the problem.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Outland (1981)

Outland is one of my favorite science fiction films. It’s gritty. It’s realistic. It’s got cool characters, memorable dialog, and an as~kicking Sean Connery. What could be better? What’s more, Outland turns a certain commie western on its head.

** spoiler alert**

To satisfy the resource hungry earth, Con-Amalgamate, i.e. “the company,” has set up mines all over the solar system. These mines are like mining towns in the old west, complete with bars, prostitutes, and federal marshals, though it's all contained within a single station. The marshals rotate between stations every year or two and the newest marshal on Io, one of Jupiter’s moons, is Marshal William T. O’Neill (Sean Connery).

It doesn’t take O’Neill long to discover the miners are taking a drug called polydichloric euthymol, which makes you work like a dog and then makes you psychotic. The thing is, O’Neill isn’t the best or the brightest and he has a fairly poor reputation. So everyone assumes he’ll take some money and look the other way. But he doesn’t. And when he doesn’t, the mine’s General Manager Sheppard (Peter Boyle), decides O’Neill must die. Soon, everyone at the mine is waiting for the arrival of the next shuttle. . . which carries two hired killers who are coming for Marshal O’Neill.

If this sounds familiar, it should. Outland is essentially a science fiction remake of High Noon. Though there is a key difference.

High Noon was written by communist sympathizer Carl Foreman. Foreman intentionally wrote the sheriff character (played by Gary Cooper) to be weak and anti-heroic: Cooper was a tough and brave sheriff until he got married to a Quaker who hates all violence, no matter what the reason. This puts Cooper in an awkward position when he learns that some criminals he sent to prison are returning to town to seek revenge. In the past he would have stood against them, but now he’s afraid to because he doesn’t want to risk losing his wife. He tries to unload his duty on the townsfolk, but they are cowardly and hypocritical, and they even angrily blame him for bringing the bad guys upon them. In the end, he has no choice but to fight. And the lesson Foreman hoped to impart from this was there is no place for heroism in Cold-War America.

Outland starts with a similar set up. Connery is neither morally strong nor imbued with a sense of heroism. His wife wants him to quit and go home to Earth; she even leaves with their son to force Connery's hand, leaving Connery a ticket to join them. And all the people he meets are as corrupt, cowardly and hypocritical as the townsfolk in High Noon.

But then something changes. Unlike Cooper, who stands alone, Connery finds an ally and she is one heck of an ally! Frances Sternhagen plays Dr. Lazarus, a cranky, nasty, old company doctor. She doesn’t like Connery. In fact, she likes no one. But after she realizes there’s more to Connery than meets the eye, she decides to help him. Of all the mine employees, she’s the only one who lifts a finger to help Connery and she does it because it’s the right thing to do. And that makes her the exact opposite of the message Foreman was sending in High Noon. Her actions tell us that heroes make a difference and anyone, in any profession, at any stage of their lives can be a hero.

There’s another key difference too. Unlike Cooper, who is afraid and conflicted and only fights because he must (in fact, you get the feeling he’s just too afraid to run away), Connery fights to prove to himself that he’s a better man than he and everyone else thinks. This leads to what I think is one of the finest acting moments in Connery’s career, as he explains:

They sent me here to this pile of shit because they think I belong here. I want to find out if . . . . well if they're right. There's a whole machine that works because everybody does what they are supposed to. And I found out . . . . I was supposed to be something I didn't like. . . . That's what's in the program. That's my rotten little part in the rotten machine. . . . I don't like it, so I'm going to find out if they're right.

Connery needs to prove to himself that he's a decent man. That is a powerful motive. It also makes him the anti-Cooper. Whereas Cooper is the perfect man fallen, Connery is the imperfect man rising. Cooper teaches that it’s pointless to fight evil, Connery teaches that it’s essential to our very beings.

It is through these two changes that Peter Hyams, the writer and director of Outland completely flips the intended meaning of High Noon. And interestingly, as something of a final slap, right after Connery’s motive for staying is revealed, Sternhagen tells Connery, “your wife is one stupid lady.” This is a total repudiation of the wife who wanted him to flee. . . the same wife who stole Gary Cooper’s courage. Was this intentional by Hyams? I can’t say that it was, but it sure sounds like it.

Beyond this, the rest of the film is quite good too. The effects are gritty and seem very real of what mankind’s first true commercial venture into space will probably be like. The treatment of zero gravity and zero atmosphere are accurate and excellent. The mine itself is no-frills and exactly what you would expect. Living quarters, dining quarters and the police station all feel genuine. The characters are likable too. And the dialog is excellent. For one thing, you get the kind of dialog you would expect. The characters all seem competent in their careers and talk shop except when the plot intrudes. Much of the dialog is highly quotable, such as almost anything Sternhagen says (“I’m unpleasant, I’m not stupid”) or some of the policing moments (“They’re still sponging him off the walls” and “you don’t just lose nuclear detonators and then find them”). But my favorite line comes from Connery telling Sternhagen that she needs to provide him with a report:

“I’d like a report of all the incidents in the last six months. I’d like it soon, or I might just kick your nasty ass all over this room. That's a marshal joke.”

That line has come in useful more than once.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Early Western Stars of the Small Screen

By Tennessee Jed

After Andrew’s Top 25 Westerns, Andrew and I decided to do an ongoing series about the western genre, looking at actors, bad guys, TV and film. Since westerns on television were pretty much children of the 50ʼs and 60ʼs, it seemed appropriate for me, as a certified geezer, to take the first crack at it. This “sub-genre” of the western lasted pretty much from 1949 to 1973, actually peaking in 1959 when as many as 25 prime time shows were traditional westerns as were many of the top 20 shows in the Nielsens in any given week.

In this article, we explore those individual actors who became larger than life as the indisputable stars of their shows. No attempt is made to rank them. And several of the best western series ever made will be excluded because they were anthologies or feature ensemble casts where the show was not carried by a single actor, and as such, are better suited for a separate article. Without further fanfare, here is one man’s list of some of the very biggest stars of the small screen in the western genre and why they mattered.

William Boyd - Hopalong Cassidy was created in 1904 as a pulp novel character who was a vulgar, hard drinking, fighting, cattle wrangler. When a film was made in 1936, Boyd was asked to read for a minor role. Instead, he requested to read for the lead and won the part. Dressed in fancy all black costumes, Boyd changed the character to a much more likable and moral figure and starred in over 60 matinee films. Early recognition of TV’s potential caused him to purchase all rights to the Hopalong character, netting him a fortune, and on 6/24/49, Hopalong Cassidy became the very first western series broadcast on television. NBC used edited versions of his feature films while waiting for new episodes to be produced. The success of the show quickly prompted similar shows for other stars of the “B” western film genre that had become popularized during the late 30ʼs and 40ʼs.

Jack Carlton Moore - Under his stage name “Clayton,” Moore is best known for portraying The Lone Ranger on television and in two feature films. The Lone Ranger, originally broadcast as a serial radio drama in 1933, followed the exploits of John Reid, sole survivor of a group of six Texas Rangers who were bushwhacked by the outlaw Cavendish gang. Left for dead, Reid is found by the Indian Tonto (Jay Silverheels) who nurses him back to health. Together, they dig six graves, and Reid wears a mask to disguise his true identity. The show ran from 1949 to 1957. Moore was a model with only a couple of bit roles in “B” films when he was spotted by a coproducer of the series. He trained his voice to resemble that of the radio character. The Lone Ranger character is trademarked by his mask, powder blue suit, silver bullets, horse silver, and of course, the William Tell Overture, which became mega-famous by its use on the show. Moore was replaced briefly by John Hart after a contract dispute, but had become so entrenched in the role that audiences rejected Hart despite the mask. The rights to the show were sold and Moore was rehired. Moore and his character remain one of the most iconic in the history of westerns.

The Singing Cowboys - Driven by the success of Hopalong Cassidy, the two unrivaled box office champions of “B” movie westerns in the 40’s quickly jumped aboard TV’s western bandwagon. We’re talking about none other than Orevon Grover Autry, aka “the Singing Cowboy,” and Leonard Franklin Slye, better known as Roy Rodgers, aka “King of the Cowboys.” Gene, as he became known, was 4 years older than Roy and their careers were eerily similar. Both started out as recording artists before breaking into western matinee films in the mid-thirties. Throughout the forties, they became the biggest draws in “B” westerns (or “horse operas” as fellow practitioner John Wayne called them), where they were known for featuring their own ballad singing in their films. In the 1950s, they moved to TV, where their half-hour shows were aimed at the youth market (such as myself). Master marketers, these two did wonders for 50’s children’s fashions (known today as “retro” western shirts favored by country rock artists), plus lunch boxes, action play figure sets, cap guns, and the like. Both men are hall of famers with Hollywood stars, and could never be left off a listing such as this -- another singing cowboy, “Tex” Ritter, was father of the late actor John Ritter, but he never achieved the mega star status of Autry and Rogers.

Autry may be as well known for his Christmas songs such as “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer,” and later ownership of the California Angels baseball team as his acting career. When Autry joined the service in WWII, Rogers became the undisputed champ of the genre, retaining the title even after Autry returned. In addition to acting, Rogers worked as a migrant farm laborer and founded the legendary western vocal group “The Sons of the Pioneers.” Rogers was paid a nice tribute in the Bruce Willis film, Die Hard.

Richard Boone - Boone starred in the western drama Have Gun Will Travel, which aired from 1957 to 1963 on CBS -- usually ranking either third or fourth in the Nielson’s. Based in San Francisco, Boone’s character is known only by the name “Paladin” (a play on words derived from the name given to the top knights of Charlemagne in the “Chanson du Roland”). Essentially, he was hired muscle for those in need (much like Edward Woodward’s The Equalizer). A former Union officer in the Civil War dressed in all black, Paladin would resort to violence only as a last resort, and in more than a few instances, ended up siding with the target if his original “client” was found to be in the wrong. What made this show special was that Boone played what amounts to a 19th century James Bond, being intelligent, witty, urbane, and well educated in addition to being deadly fast with a pistol. One of the main writers was a young Gene Roddenberry, and this show was in my view, along with Cheyenne, the best written of all the television westerns. Boone, who was related to frontiersman Daniel Boone, was a good enough actor to star in areas well beyond westerns. As such, he and his character Paladin probably do not reach the iconic status of the others mentioned, but personal prejudice requires his inclusion. As a l.o.l. aside, I was young and naive enough at the time to think the character’s actual name was Wire Paladin, admittedly a first name I had not heard before. Look at his card (above), damn it!! Was I not just being logical? . . . and the theme song . . oh my, best ever.

Clint Walker - Walker is best known as “Cheyenne Bodie” in the television series Cheyenne, which ran between 1955 and 1963. The show was the first to be developed from scratch by a film studio, i.e. it was not developed from pre-existing film or radio properties. Orphaned as a boy and raised by Cheyenne Indians, Cheyenne was a drifter, allegedly looking for a place to settle down, but usually needing to keep on the move to find work. He often worked as a civilian army scout, cattle boss or farm hand. Trouble had a way of finding Cheyenne, and like some 19th century Mary Worth, he always seemed to find people to help. Tall, dark, handsome, soft spoken and brooding, Walker was in the mold of Gary Cooper’s “strong silent type.” A sample of dialog I still remember to this day-- Bad guy: “blah, blah, blah, what do you say to that, Bodie?” Cheyenne: “I say I think you’re trying to talk me to death.” Like others, Cheyenne was loathe to use violence, but was as adept with his fists as with his gun. The show had surprisingly complex plots for its time and featured future stars like Angie Dickinson, Dennis Hopper, and James Garner, who appeared numerous times as different characters before getting his own Warner Brothers series Maverick -- I would argue for Garner’s inclusion on this list were it not for the fact he became so well known later in non-western roles, plus he shared the Maverick franchise with Jack Kelly and Roger Moore. As such, he was perhaps slightly less iconic in his role than Walker. He did create a new approach to the western lead character, however: the ramblin’ gamblin’ slightly “bad” boy who uses his charm and brains rather than his brawn or gun skills to win the day. For that, I thank him.

There are numerous others that easily could be included on this list. James Arness (Gunsmoke), Hugh O’Brian (Wyatt Earp) Chuck Connors (The Rifleman) John Russell (The Lawman) and Michael Landon (Bonanza) quickly come to mind. Why I didn’t include them essentially boils down to either of two reasons. First, in the case of Gunsmoke, Bonanza, or even Rawhide with Clint Eastwood, the series had enough of an ensemble cast that the show itself became the star rather than any individual lead actor. Secondly, if I included all the stars that belonged, there simply wouldn’t be enough space. This, more than anything, is why I didn’t include Connors, O’Brian, Steve McQueen (Wanted Dead or Alive) or even James Drury (The Virginian).

That’s the list. It may be far from perfect, but of course, I never claimed it to be definitive. I would certify everyone on it to be worthy of special status within that deliciously delightful sub-genre, the TV western. Hopefully, going forward, Andrew and I can come up with more articles on westerns, be it a look at stars of the silver screen, bad guys (my man Morgan Woodward, of course) and more. What do you folks think? Who qualifies for “how did you leave him out” status?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Top 25: Westerns You Should Know

Let’s discuss the Top 25 Westerns you should know to be well-versed in Westerns. Westerns are one of the most distinct genres with storylines that can’t easily be translated to other genres, e.g. wagon trains and cattle drives. They are also the quintessential story of America. Picking the Top 25, however, is surprisingly difficult because Westerns have been a cultural battleground where left and right struggled to define American’s Mythology. This means the influence of individual films often was short-lived and coincided with cultural changes within the country, rather than coming from the film itself.

1. The Good, The Bad and the Ugly (1966): This may not sit well with traditional western fans, but GBU is easily the most influential Western. Part of a “Spaghetti Westerns” trilogy (including Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More), GBU forever changed the Western. Prior to GBU, Westerns were philosophically black and white, with clear good guys and bad guys, and they were about settling the West, bringing law and order, building an economy, and taming the Indians and the wilderness, i.e. the building of America. This film tossed all that aside by introducing the “anti-hero,” a good guy who acts more like a bad guy -- this remains the dominant form of protagonist in film today -- and changed the themes of Westerns toward selfishness, cynicism and the exploitation of others. This film also made Clint Eastwood a star. “Two hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money. We’re gonna have to earn it.”

2. The Covered Wagon (1923): This is the first truly epic Western and established many of the conventions of the genre -- including Indian attacks, shoot outs, fording rivers, and the hero who must clear his name. “Far out on the westward trail stands another plow that bravely started for Oregon.”

3. High Noon (1952): High Noon is fascinating and controversial. Premised on the now-classic Western theme of a sheriff (Gary Cooper) waiting for killers to come to town, High Noon was written by communist Carl Foreman, who chose to make this sheriff weak and unwilling and the townsfolk cowardly. This was Foreman’s attempt to eliminate the hero from Western mythology. Yet, as with The Guns of Navarone, Foreman ultimately fails because Cooper rises to the occasion and becomes an iconic hero as a man who answers the call of duty even when those around him try to tear him down. “In the end you wind up dying all alone on some dirty street. For what? For nothing. For a tin star.”

4. Rio Bravo (1959): Considered by many to be Howard Hawks’ and John Wayne’s finest Western, this was Hawks’ direct response to High Noon, which infuriated him. Hawks believed firmly in strong and self-reliant heroes, like Sheriff John Chance (John Wayne), who must fend off the brother and gang of a man he holds prisoner for six days until the marshal arrives. Hawks’ view of heroism would continue to reign in Hollywood until the The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. “Sorry don’t get it done, dude.”

5. Stagecoach (1939): By the 1930s, Westerns had fallen from favor and were seen as B-movies. John Ford’s Stagecoach saved the Western through a combination of inventive camera work which remains influential today (such as riding among the Indians), incredible stunts, the use of stunning scenery from Monument Valley, complex dialog, and its huge box office success. This film also made John Wayne, who played outlaw Johnny Ringo, a star. “I guess you can’t break out of prison and into society in the same week.”

6. Shane (1953): Shane add two of the most common conventions to the Western mix: the gun fighter who tries to put away his guns until he is forced to fight to protect those he loves and the struggle between the farmers v. cattlemen. “Shane. . . come back, Shane!”

7. Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid (1969): Starring leftists Robert Redford and Paul Newman, Butch Cassidy attempted to declare the Western dead. Not only did Butch Cassidy do things like send its heroes to New York and Bolivia, but it included a pop music soundtrack and it used cars, bicycles and electricity to signify the passing of the West into history. Moreover, while it rejected traditional heroes entirely, it also largely lampooned the anti-hero of the Spaghetti Westerns by presenting heroes who were neither heroic nor all-that competent. It would take sixteen years for the Western to recover. “The future’s all yours, you lousy bicycle.”

8. Silverado (1985): Directed by Lawrence Kasdan, Silverado was the film that revived the Western after Butch Cassidy’s attempt to kill it. By reaching back into the past for old-school, classic Western heroes, Silverado sucked the cynicism from Westerns and returned to classic pro-American themes of settling the West, bringing law and order, and heroes protecting the weak from the predatory. This film made Kevin Costner a star. “We’re gonna give you a fair trial, followed by a first class hanging.”

9. Unforgiven (1992): When Unforgiven first came out, people saw it as an attack on the Western and a repudiation of Clint Eastwood’s Spaghetti Westerns. This was largely the result of Eastwood’s grumpy attitude, the constant dispelling of myths by Gene Hackman and the claim that all their prior triumphs were the result of being drunk. In effect, this film appeared to take a cynical look at the cynical anti-hero. But over time, this view has changed and people now see Unforgiven as a surprisingly strong Western with a solid moral compass that humanizes the anti-hero and shows they can be genuine Western heroes when they have a moral motivation. “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”

10. The Ox-Bow Incident (1943): One of the first socially-relevant Westerns, with an anti-lynching theme, Ox-Bow involves a posse looking for a murderer. They happen upon three men, led by a Mexican (Anthony Quinn) and decide to hang them. Henry Fonda stands against the crowd, attacking both Southern racism and vigilante justice. “If people touch God anywhere, where is it except through their conscience and what is anybody’s conscience except a little piece of the conscience of all men that ever lived.”

11. The Magnificent Seven (1960): Based on Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai, The Magnificent Seven is the last hurrah for the classic Western, as larger-than-life heroic gunmen defend a Mexican village. With a stellar cast, including Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, James Coburn and Charles Bronson, and a massive score by Elmer Bernstein, this was the last big cynicism-free Western until the 1980s, but would soon be overtaken by the anti-heroes. “If God didn't want them sheared, he would not have made them sheep.”

12. The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962): Just as Magnificent Seven was the last hurrah of the BIG Western, Liberty Valance was the last shot of traditionalist John Ford to justify the old-style heroes. Liberty Valance is the story of Jimmy Stewart, a civilized man, who is given credit for shooting outlaw Valance (Lee Marvin), even though ruffian gunman John Wayne actually did the shooting. The moral here was that men like Stewart owe their civilized, rule-of-law world to the difficult choices and hard deeds of frontiersmen like Wayne. In other words, we all owe the heroes of the past a significant debt even if we no longer accept their ways today. This was a powerful counter to the deconstructionism of the era, but ultimately proved futile as the country was changing. “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

13. How The West Was Won (1962): This epic covers all the bases of the Western genre, following a family as it moves from the East to the West, becoming trappers, pioneers, gold miners, soldiers, and gamblers and helping build America. This film presents the classic American (pre-1960s liberal) view of the settling of the American West and the virtues of America. “Out of their rude settlements, their trading posts came cities to rank among the great ones of the world. All the heritage of a people free to dream, free to act, free to mold their own destiny.”

14. Dances With Wolves (1990): Wolves is difficult to rank. It’s a dull movie that’s rife with political correctness, having been made during Hollywood’s “noble American Indian” phase, where Indians were idealized, whites were demonized and only a white liberals could save the Indians. It did have significant influence at the time, although that influence really hasn’t lasted and didn’t really impact other films. Nevertheless, you should know this film. “Turned injun, didn’t yeh.”

15. Tombstone (1993): Starring Kurt Russell and Val Kilmer, Tombstone came along just as it appeared Hollywood was trying again to remove heroes from the old West with films like Unforgiven, Dances With Wolves, and The Quick and the Dead. But Tombstone was a rowdy, old-fashioned Western that reveled in classic heroes, classic themes, and black and white versions of good and evil. And the public’s acceptance of Tombstone kept the Western alive and well. “Wearing that badge don't make you right.”

16. My Darling Clementine (1946): Staring Henry Fonda and Tim Holt, John Ford’s version of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, Clementine became an inspiration for many Western filmmakers, including Sam Pekinpah. “When ya pull a gun, kill a man.”

17. Dodge City (1939): Errol Flynn must tame Dodge City, a notoriously violent cattle town full of ex-soldiers following the end of the Civil War. This is a classic Western of the type Hollywood made before its more political period started. “Gamblin’, drinkin’, and killin’. Mostly killin’.”

18. The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976): One of the few serious Westerns made in the 1970s, Josey Wales tapped into the stress of returning Vietnam veterans by presenting Civil War veterans who were incapable of integrating into society. “Are you gonna pull those pistols or whistle Dixie?”

19. High Plains Drifter (1972): Along with Josey Wales, High Plains Drifter was one of the few serious Westerns during the post-Butch Cassidy dead period. In Drifter, Clint Eastwood tries to give his Spaghetti Western past a supernatural aspect and an extra-dose of cynicism as even average citizens are portrayed as unredeemable degenerates. This perhaps went too far for Eastwood, who remade this film as Pale Rider in 1985, this time making the citizens the normal decent folk of prior Westerns. “You're a man who makes people afraid, and that's dangerous.”

20. Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948): Directed by John Huston and staring Humphrey Bogart and Tim Holt, Sierra Madre added Mexico to the film world of the West and provided an in-depth look at treasure hunters and gold fever. “Badges? We don’t need no stinking ain’t got no badges!”

21. The Searchers (1956): Ostensibly a revenge film wherein John Wayne seeks to avenge the massacre of his family by Indians, Searchers is actually an anti-segregation statement by conservative John Ford. “A fellow could mistake you for a half-breed.”

22. Blazing Saddles (1974): The only comedy on the list, Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles effectively lampoons many of the conventions of Westerns, and treads all over the politically incorrect topic of race in America. “The sheriff is a nig...”

23. The Wild Bunch (1969): An anti-Western and anti-Vietnam War statement, The Wild Bunch is a defeatist, immoral jaunt as a gang of railroad deputies led by outlaw Robert Ryan chase a gang of outlaws led by William Holden. Bloody, crude, and without any moral compass, The Wild Bunch is unlike any other Western ever made. It is also considered Sam Peckinpah’s greatest achievement. But unlike Butch Cassidy, which made Westerns “uncool,” The Wild Bunch was too violent and nasty to have significant influence in the culture. “It ain’t [your word] what counts! It's who you give it to!”

24. Quigley Down Under (1990): Tom Selleck takes Westerns to a new land. . . Australia. “You’re about a half a bubble off plumb, and that's fer sure and fer certain.”

25. The Quick and the Dead (1995): Sharon Stone, Leonardo DiCaprio and Gene Hackman star in this highly clichéd attempt to open the gunfighter subgenre to women. The film bombed in theaters, but not before inspiring a series of films attempting to open Westerns to other minority casts. The film has since found an audience on cable. “Is it possible to improve on perfection?”

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...