Well, since there’s nothing new that’s been posted all day; and since it’s the weekend and this is a western-themed blog, here’s a break from politics: The Lone Ranger.
I saw a matinee of the new movie yesterday because I had nothing better to do; and in light of all the panning it’s received from professional critics, I went into it with low expectations. Because of that, I wasn’t disappointed.
To be sure, it’s a pretty bad movie with no clear direction as to how it wanted to define itself.
Since it’s produced by Disney, and since its traditional roots of yesteryear are grounded in appealing to kids, I found the violence in it distasteful (Cavendish eats the heart of the Lone Ranger’s brother- oops, is that a spoiler? Not shown, but implied, nevertheless). The final act is just comical, over-the-top comic-book action, with a bit of slapstick.
I feel like the movie had a hard time defining itself and what it wanted to be; and what audience it wanted to appeal toward.
The movie should more properly be called “Tanto”, since Johnny Depp’s portrayal of the Indian “sidekick” takes center stage and is the real star of the movie. Armie Hammer is duller than baking soda and plays the title character like a foppish dolt. Absolutely unheroic; and they make a mockery of the Lone Ranger’s idealism to uphold the law (in the original TV series, I remember that the reason the Lone Ranger uses silver bullets is because it was a reminder to him that every life is sacred, and to use his bullets sparingly).
The director, writers, and producers failed to do the Lone Ranger legend/tradition justice in their attempt to reimagine the legend and make it appealing to a newer generation. I think they sacrificed the purity of spirit and nobility of the original tv and radio series. Sure, much of the original is dated now; and can even be cringe-worthy when viewed today. But honor and respect for the rule of law should never go out of vogue. This movie does nothing to capture the spirit and essence of the Lone Ranger message to make it “sexy” for modern society. Instead, the movie mocks the Lone Ranger’s idealism as naiveté. Perhaps in the real world, it is indeed that. But that’s why we have escapist movies where heroes can be pure and uncorruptible.
The “original” actors of Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels took their position as role models to children very seriously. So much so as to try and live by this creed:
I believe…
That to have a friend, a man must be one.
That all men are created equal and that everyone has within himself the power to make this a better world.
That God put the firewood there, but that every man must gather and light it himself.
In being prepared physically, mentally, and morally to fight when necessary for what is right.
That a man should make the most of what equipment he has.
That ‘this government of the people, by the people, and for the people’ shall live always.
That men should live by the rule of what is best for the greatest number.
That sooner or later…somewhere…somehow…we must settle with the world and make payment for what we have taken.
That all things change but truth, and that truth alone, lives on forever.
In my Creator, my country, my fellow man.
Fran Striker and George W. Trendle, the original creators, had specific traits in mind that the Lone Ranger should embody:
The Lone Ranger is never seen without his mask or a disguise.
With emphasis on logic, The Lone Ranger is never captured or held for any length of time by lawmen, avoiding his being unmasked.
The Lone Ranger always uses perfect grammar and precise speech completely devoid of slang and colloquial phrases, at all times.
When he has to use guns, The Lone Ranger never shoots to kill, but rather only to disarm his opponent as painlessly as possible.
Logically, too, The Lone Ranger never wins against hopeless odds; i.e., he is never seen escaping from a barrage of bullets merely by riding into the horizon.
Even though The Lone Ranger offers his aid to individuals or small groups, the ultimate objective of his story never fails to imply that their benefit is only a by-product of a greater achievement—the development of the west or our country. His adversaries are usually groups whose power is such that large areas are at stake.
Adversaries are never other than American to avoid criticism from minority groups. There were exceptions to this rule. He sometimes battled foreign agents, though their nation of origin was generally not named. One exception was helping the Mexican Juarez against French troops of Emperor Maximilian, as occurred in radio episodes such as “Supplies for Juarez” (18 September 1939), “Hunted by Legionnaires” (20 September 1939) and “Lafitte’s Reinforcements” (22 September 1939).
Names of unsympathetic characters are carefully chosen, never consisting of two names if it can be avoided, to avoid even further vicarious association—more often than not, a single nickname is selected.
The Lone Ranger never drinks or smokes and saloon scenes are usually interpreted as cafes, with waiters and food instead of bartenders and liquor.
Criminals are never shown in enviable positions of wealth or power, and they never appear as successful or glamorous.
If the creative forces behind this new Lone Ranger movie can’t pay homage and honor these ideas, why not simply call it something else instead of trying to market and piggyback off of Lone Ranger nostalgia while desecrating all that lies at its heart?
Perhaps Tim Tebow would have been better suited to play either of the two title characters.
All my whining complaints said, because I did go in with low expectations, I thought the movie was enjoyably silly. I liked the William Tell overture inclusion. The “Heigh-ho Silver” line at the end was funny. I haven’t seen the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise aside from bits and pieces; but apparently Johnny Depp’s Tanto is essentially Captain Jack Sparrow in Indian getup.
If the American western is to make a revival on the Hollywood big screen, this movie probably won’t be the catalyst for it.
We did a top 10 list of favorite western movies from FA readers, once.
I would love to hear what westerns today’s FA readers enjoy, if any.
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Spot on:
Although you can get into a very philosophical debate about whether or not actors need to limit their acting roles to fit the constraints of their real life ethnicity and gender.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but from the reviews I’ve heard it sounds like they adopted a similar translation formula as was done with the film remake of Green Hornet whereby the sidekick had all the talent and the lead partner all the flaws.
@Wordsmith:
The Daily Beast writer must have missed all the interviews Johnny did for this movie.
He really makes a big thing about his own Indian roots.
(Apparently his mom is mostly one tribe or another.)
But I also read a review by Ed Driscoll over at PJMedia.
In it he points out the PC aspects of this version of the Lone Ranger.
And your comment about, “I feel like the movie had a hard time defining itself and what it wanted to be; and what audience it wanted to appeal toward,” was parroted by a big wig from a competing studio who said, “A Disney film that may be seriously inappropriate for families is tough.”
When you enjoyed a series as a child and hear about a remake, you naturally would like to see it and bring back good memories.
PC was NOT part of my childhood memories.
But Hollywood has lost its creativity.
Look at this graphic:
http://www.shortoftheweek.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Loss-of-Originality-STATS8.gif
That’s why….
I’m heading for a rodeo this weekend.
During the early 80’s, I was working for a lady in Wyoming. We were talking about the TV series Lonesome Dove, and I mentioned that I thought William Duval did an excellent job in the portrayal of a Texas Ranger/Cowboy.
She laughed, and said he wasn’t acting; she went to college with him, and the character you saw on TV was Robert Duval. We laughed and laughed about playing yourself in a movie and being required to reach way deep inside.
I still like to watch the original series.
NICE, I still can hear the music of the old one,
ta tatata ta taaaa
I’m guessing that the producers of the movie had to buy the right to make the movie. Did the one or ones who owned those rights get to read the script before the contract was signed? What do they think of the movie?
There are certain people that I will not pay to watch. I don’t want to put money in their pockets, or the ones who hire them, just like I won’t buy Chinese products unless it is something I NEED, and I can’t find one made in another country.
I can’t turn off the common sense part of my brain when watching a movie or TV show, and when I see the stunts that are done in today’s movies, It makes me think that some kids are going to try those stunts, and some of those kids are going to get injured.
The original Hulk was a pile of rocks, not a green giant.
The original Batman didn’t have body armor and couldn’t glide with his cape.
Just once I would like to see a movie that took the original creation and kept it just the way it was created, as closely as reasonable. As long as none of the actors are on my “Do not watch this movie”, I will watch it.
I guess as a way to market the new movie, or play off it, COZI TV (check the subchannels on your local station) ran a lot of original Lone Ranger episodes and movies this week. I’ll stick with those 😉 I don’t know why Hollywood has to be so disrespectful to the stuff of our youth. I grabbed most of the radio episodes that still exist – something like 1800 episodes – from the web. I don’t really remember hearing them as a kid, but I find them interesting now.
@Smorgasbord:
I thought that “The Shadow” was a pretty fair adaptation of the original creation. Too bad it’s Alec Baldwin, before he got fat and stupid. 😉
Come to think of it, he wasn’t so bad in “The Hunt for Red October” either, another adaptation of an original yarn.
@Jim S: #8
I don’t remember The Shadow. I must have watched something on another channel at the same time.
You readers of this website should visit, if you are in D.C., the Museum of the American Indian.
You will get a much different view of our “native Americans” there, especially if you can watch one of the re-created Indian circle dances. Such dances were used to train the young in survival tactics. You will not see any absurd makeup. You will see earned badges of honor (feathers), awarded for coups. You will not witness any sarcasm or invective; they honored one another even as they fought.
Too bad for Depp, too bad for any native American watching this flick for clues to his/her origins.
A debased and distorted Disneyed view of the world, sad to say.
The radio types who created the first radio show didn’t have a clue about westerns or cowboys. Their prime desire was to create an American version of Zorro, using a revolver instead of a sword. They cared nothing about accurate historical portrayal of heritage, or factual western living.
Of course they wanted upstanding morals from the Lone Ranger… it was the 30s… poverty, Roosevelt was about to embark on the New Deal, and Hitler was on the rise. The last thing they’d want to do is some wrist slashing, depressing radio show.
On the other hand, they were also portraying the unflattering caricatures of Native Americans common back then. Somehow, I don’t think that being as close to the original, as the 1933’s radio show, would fly today. I’m sure that there were many a Native American in an uproar with Tonto’s English phrases including offensive stuff like “you betchum”. Striker and Trendle had no desire to be true to heritage, language and history authenticity. They merely wanted a good story that would inspire (but apparently not Native Americans…)
In today’s ultra PC world, everyone’s a critic. Some are disgruntled that Depp isn’t “Indian” enough in reality, or that his portrayal as a Commanche (also not the original tribe) isn’t accurate Native American. Well gosh darn… neither was the original radio show or the TV series. Nor can a single film redeem decades of unflattering caricatures. Indeed, to do so would part widely from the “original” that so many want preserved.
But I would hope that a Disney production would still include the basic morals that underlie the characters. If they weren’t fighting some injustice plot in the film, what were they doing?
While the Daily Beast may pan Depp for not living up to a promise to redeem Hollywood’s deplorable past with Native American cliches, the glitter town of film and TV have long been slow to abandon caricatures of “Injuns” in films. But Depp has credibility with many tribes that the Daily Beast is unaware of, going back to his role in the 1990 Jim Jarmusch film, “Dead Man.”
I would counter the Daily Beast complaints above that not only do they do not know much of Depp’s filmography, they know even less if they think the film can be carried by a lesser known actor, cast only because he is Native American. It’s business…
Speaking of carrying the film, what I’ve read of the screenplay’s plot, Depp *is* the star… not unsurprising given his box office appeal. It would be ludicrous for any director to cast him as a second fiddle to Armin Hammer – a relative newbie to film stardom with thin credentials in his past compared to Depp’s. The new twist is that the story of the Lone Ranger is told from an aging Tonto’s perspective to a young boy visiting a carnival sideshow in 1933 – the same year the radio broadcast originated. Perhaps it would have been a different story were it an aging, anonymous John Reid as the narrator.
So if one walks into the theater, not knowing who is the intended “star” of the film, and how the story is going to be told, you’re going to walk out confused. Even that said, what with the reviews, I’m going to be content to wait for it to come to the small screen, and not head out to a theater.
As far as rights and some emotional investment in scripts etc … the Lone Ranger started as an attempt for a radio audience for profit – a business venture. It continued to be a prolific business adventure when Wrather-Alvarez bought the right (presumably from the radio station or Trendle/Striker) in the early 50s. At that time it became the TV series so many remember with Moore and Silverheels…. still a business venture. When that ran it’s course, it lived on in comic books and a single movie remake attempt prior to now… remaining a business venture.
Wrather was a oil millionaire who liked to buy intellectual rights for broadcast… including not only the Lone Ranger, but Lassie and Sgt. Preston of the Yukon. (dang, all this stuff is bringing back childhood memories… LOL) He also purchased broadcast franchises and was owner/financier of the original Disneyland Hotel in Anaheim, as well as other resort hotels. For those of you who remember the infernal Prozac style elevator music, Muzak, he owned that too. I believe most of his intellectual property rights were left to Dreamworks – a company that often works hand in hand with Disney – after his passing. If Marvel got the rights to the Lone Ranger, that’s been owned by Disney since 2009, so Disney would have the rights.
The Lone Range/Tonto is a business first and foremost to those who own the rights. Even to Wrather, as evidenced by his infamous lawsuit against Moore for wearing the mask in public appearances when the 1981 movie, The Legend of the Lone Ranger, was about to be released. He needed to toss the original 65 year old for the new Lone Ranger. That movie ended up bombing for sundry reasons, not excluding the public’s reaction at his treatment of Clayton Moore.
Straying off the original path isn’t unusual for fictional superhero stories as most are attempting to take advantage of new technology in media – techniques exampled in flicks like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Matrix, or the mix of modeling/animation and real characters. This is the action that the young like to see in films. I believe their end quest, *right after making money*, is to bring an old story to the attention of the younger generation so they can create their own memories. No doubt their memories will be destroyed by their own children’s future remakes… such is the cycle of life.
As to originality… well, there isn’t much originality in any of the arts of theater, films, stories or music as all tend to be 6 degrees of separation from some other classic work. ’tisn’t unusual. Sequels of popular adaptations or originals isn’t to be unexpected.
For example in the graph linked above by Nan G, Monsters Inc was an original screenplay that was very popular… as was Cars in 2006, and Finding Nemo in 2003. Now there are sequels to Monsters Inc, and Cars, so those will show up in that dreaded “red” in the future. Is that necessarily a bad thing? And is such a small representation of all the films – major and independent – released in a year’s time construed to be an accurate portrayal of screenwriters creativity? I don’t think so.
Writing screenplays today differs mightily from writing screenplays in 1981 simply because of the evolution of film/animated and model technology. Screenwriters today have to be well versed in what can be captured with the advanced cinematic and artificial technology as they pen their plots and actions. Not so much over three decades ago. Not to mention the costs are so high today compared to the 80s, that taking risks is less apt to happen.
It’s just a different world, folks. Hi tech and gloss are the calling cards of the younger generations. But it’s nice to see that they at least try to create a bridge between generational heroes, so that they live on in some way.
@MataHarley: “…they know even less if they think the film can be carried by a lesser known actor, cast only because he is Native American. It’s business…”
If I do go to see the movie, it would be to see Depp, certainly not the newby trying to fill Clayton Moore’s boots. More likely, I’ll wait for it to come out on Blu-ray, and wait further until it hits the remainder tables under ten bucks. And that ten bucks will still be to see Depp, to see what he does with the role.
My favorite modern western is Silverado. It had adventure, humor, and a little romance, but basically it had good triumphing over evil, by men not looking for a fight, but not backing down from one either. Great writing, great cast.
I’m with you, proof. Depp is a uniquely talented thespian and has what appears to be an endless range in ability. Even Christian Bale, coming off of his Batman trilogy box office appeal, had a hard time keeping up with Depp in Public Enemies. He tends to dominate the screen without trying. With his Tonto role, he was required to be “the star” and narrator, but then assume a supporting role during the retelling of the stories. That is no easy task when the lead character can’t compete with Depp. I think there was a mistake in not casting a strong enough actor in the role of the Lone Ranger, who could come closer to holding his own against Depp.
I also agree with Silverado… great film. Also enjoyed the Unforgiven. Third coming in, off the top of my head, was Dances with Wolves. For some lesser known films that stick in my mind, there was an early 70s movie called Soldier Blue with Donald Pleasence, Peter Strauss and Candice Bergen (a seriously tough one to watch, but left an indelible mark). The original A Man Called Horse with Richard Harrison is another one.
Not necessarily being a die hard western movie fan, all struck a pleasant and often gripping entertainment balance for me. I’m generally more critical of films that are recreating history in what I consider an abomination… something Spielberg tends to quite often. Despite the acclaim of Saving Private Ryan, there were some things that really bothered me in that film, inserted for theatrical effect instead of accuracy. But then Hollywood’s prime purpose is profit and entertainment, not education.
I’m an intrigue/heist/mystery buff myself. I think one of the more fascinating films I’ve seen over the past few years is Inception with Leonardo DiCaprio… a guy who’s filmography doesn’t always wow me. But that was a mind twisting and satisfying screen play, combining stellar technology in the cinematic making. That writer/director is the same who did the more dark versions of Batman with Christian Bale. His younger brother – the creator of Person of Interest – is similar, tho lesser IMHO, with that style of creativity.
I always felt the the Radio and TV versions of Lone Ranger treated the Indians far better than most Hollywood productions of the time, with the possible exception of Tonto’s broken English. Many of the white characters in the show treated the natives poorly… but that was the point, to show them in contrast to the Lone Ranger, who did not. But, as you say, it was a business, not a lecture. 😉
Trivia: The Radio “Green Hornet”, Britt Reid, was supposedly the son of Dan Reid, the Ranger’s nephew. Maybe it was due to some copyright stuff, but in the episode where Britt tells his father that he’s the Hornet, Dan tells him about his time in the old west when he rode with a masked vigilante. They don’t mention the Lone Ranger by name, but as Dan speaks, the William Tell overture plays in the background.
@Jim S, way cool trivia about the Green Hornet. Guess they’d call the Hornet an unofficial “spin off”, eh? LOL
@MataHarley: I didn’t see Inception. To me, most intrigue/heist/mystery movies are either too predictable or lose something in translation from other media. I guess I just prefer the movies in my head when it comes to those genres.
I finally saw the remake of True Grit, which was good on its own, but was pale in comparison to the original iconic cast. A Man Called Horse was good, the sequel, not so much. Quigley Down Under is another favorite. Alan Rickman as the sinister Australian land baron, Tom Selleck as the quintessential American cowboy. QDU and Silverado both benefited from outstanding musical scoring, too.
@MataHarley:
I believe Jay Silverheels himself complained about having to speak in broken English.
I read a commenter (It might have been on the Daily Beast article) describe the non-PC attitudes of yesteryear’s Lone Ranger programming as “benevolent racism”. They might have “meant well”, but is cringe-inducing when viewed here in the 21st century. Certain things would definitely not go over well, today.
I think some of this was also brought up by commenters on the DB article. 🙂
I remember watching Rin Tin Tin!
The problem I have with so many of these “reimaginings” is that I think the vision that the creative forces have for the product often seems to miss the mark. All franchises undergo a revamping to make it relevant to today’s society; but in the process, sometimes they dissolve the actual essence of what made the character/series so appealing in the first place; or make such radical changes that they’ve only kept the namebrand only and lost everything else.
When Frank Miller redefined Batman with his Dark Knight series, it breathed new life into the Batman franchise. It enhanced the superhero legend.
As much as I enjoyed the Battlestar Galactica reimagining, I wish they had simply called it something else; because the series it became is unrecognizable to me from the essence of the series I watched as a child of the 70’s.
It doesn’t really do much good to keep the name in hopes of drawing in an already built-in audience and for marketing if they end up alienating those original fans who don’t recognize any aspect of the new reinvention. Reimaginings and retellings should add something and be improvements.
Personally, I’d hate to see Casablanca redone; or a retelling of The Wizard of Oz by someone trying to be more faithful to the book than the 30s version was (I actually have no idea how close that movie is to the book)- perhaps even worse would be to try and be a faithful remake of the movie! Lol! Or Star Wars 50 years from now because some studio heads think they can do it better with upgraded special effects (really, the story isn’t that terrific that it needs to be retold).
Then there are those movies that that are based upon previous works, taking the concept and essence of the story but changing the trappings (Seven Samurai- Magnificent Seven, Fistful of Dollars- Yojimbo, Cyrano de Bergerac- Roxanne, Hidden Fortress- Star Wars, etc.)
Maybe they should have done “Lone Ranger and Tonto” as an Outer Space flick?
@Wordsmith: The Magnificent Seven was indeed based on Seven Samurai, but did you by any chance see “Battle Beyond the Stars”, based on the same story in a sci-fi genre? It even sported one of the actors from Magnificent Seven (Robert Vaughn).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080421/
Not as good as Sean Connery in Outland. (High Noon in space.)
Oh, yes! I completely forgot about Battle Beyond the Stars but had gone to see it as a kid and thinking, “…waitaminute…I’ve seen this story before…” Lol!
@proof:
And of course, as well all know, Seven Samurai, in turn, was inspired by American westerns.
@MataHarley:
I think that Spielberg’s film Schindler’s List, would not fit the term “abomination”. While it did take certain liberties in regards to historical accuracy, this is very common with Hollywood. It is also not uncommon among biographers to place their own slant in their work:
Crowe’s interpretation is unfair however, in that it underplays Schindler’s importance in the events.
If the viewer’s concern is historical accuracy, then they would have to throw out most of the “history based” films that have been created and only watch only historical documentaries. The purpose of historical based films is to tell a story, not to serve as a presentation of historical fact. Schindler’s List is a powerful telling about a historical situation that was little known of.
A spin-off indeed. I had forgotten that there was a family connection between The Lone Ranger and The Green Hornet, Thanks for reminding us of that Jim. Taken to their most base plot elements, the two have nearly identical situational formulas. Both of the “title” characters wore masks and operated independently of authority (vigilantism,) They had loyal partners/friends who helped them in their chosen life’s mission. They mostly concentrated their efforts against groups of outlaws with a “disable, capture and bring to justice” methodology, rather than the “shoot and kill the bad guys” modus operandus more prevalently shown in most Westerns and Gangster presentations.
Ditto, I thought Schindler’s List was among Spielberg’s better historic efforts. Hence the reason I used the phrase “quite often” and not “always”.
Spielberg has his place in entertainment… rather like pop or soft rock has it’s place in rock’n’roll. He’s just not my cup of tea save for a few films.
If everyone wants historically accurate films, spend a day watching Oliver Stone’s films! : )
@MataHarley:
No argument here. In the past, I’ve heard various people gripe about the accuracy of Schindler’s List. I wasn’t sure if you were including it among your list of “Abominations.”
Artistically, I consider Schindler’s List his best work. The “girl in the red dress” scenes clearly influenced directors such as Frank Miller’s film noir Sin City.
As a hobby, I perform at renaissance fairs and I get rather tickled at protestations by self-appointed “period police” of their fellow participants. It is funniest when their cell phone rings while they are complaining. I also enjoy going to “living history” museums, who do try very hard to be historically accurate, but all their admissions, gift stores and restaurants accept credit cards.
Well, Inception is in that below $10 category these days. I highly recommend a viewing, and I’d be surprised if you were successful in any predictions. After 18-19 years in the pro sound music/film/TV world, I don’t get impressed with screenplays easily. This one did catch my attention.
INRE a good historical pictorial, John Singleton did a magnificent version of Rosewood, starring John Voight and Don Cheadle. Unfortunately, a lot ended up on the cutting room floor during the final mix. Singleton is an amazing director who works much like Orson Wells did for visual and dialogue effect, and long single angle scenes etc. Unfortunately that doesn’t endear him to studios, who reign in his creativity and budget.
@MataHarley: I’m always pleasantly surprised by movies, TV etc. where every twist is not easily predictable. I’ll check out Inception. (Inception may be the exception?)
@MataHarley:
I love that movie….it blew me away. I would disagree with you about DiCaprio though, I like his work, but I’m no movie expert, just know what I like.
Jay Silverheels was my favorite of the duo, I liked his horse and his unassuming style.
I met him, years later, when he was racing Standardbreds in Kentucky, nice guy. He didn’t have the Paint, but he had several bays and chestnuts.
P.S. I listened to the radio shows while sitting on my grandmother’s lap, I was a lot smaller back then. The sound effects were good enough that it sounded as if thew were galloping in the house, great stuff.
1 The Good The Bad and The Ugly—Clint not saying a word said it all
2 The Magnificent Seven
3 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
4 3:10 To Yuma—great movie
5** The Quick and The Dead—- 23 yr old Sharon Stone chaps and a six shooter—-nuf said!!
Mata and Curt I unashamedly admit I don’t have a clue what Inception was about.
@Curt, you know I’ll have to restate that DiCaprio opinion. I think in his later years.. i.e. 2006 on… I started liking him much more than his more typically cast roles earlier. I’m not passionate about Titanic, The Aviator (Howard Hughes), The Beach, Man in the Iron Mask etal. Then again, he spent a lot of years where he was continually cast/viewed as a “heart throb”. I’ve just never seen him that way.
Post that era, I have to say that while Shutter Island, Blood Diamond and Catch Me If You Can (probably my second favorite of DiCaprio work, I guess) can’t rise to the level of Inception (IMHO), they were entertaining. The Departed… again I’m so so about that one. Altho that’s more of an ensemble cast than a DiCaprio vehicle. But you’re right… his later stuff does show consistent quality and a better choice of roles. Sorry DiCaprio… more kudos than I originally gave on closer scrutiny. LOL
@proof, just don’t read any spoilers about Inception other than what may be on the DVD jacket. Hope you enjoy it.
@Richard Wheeler, not sure what you’re saying. That you saw Inception and don’t know what it was about? Or that you never heard of it?
@Richard Wheeler: You forgot “High Noon”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKLvKZ6nIiA&feature=player_embedded
@Richard Wheeler: @Skookum:
Good list, Rich. I definitely agree with “High Noon”. I would humbly recommend “The Searchers”. And, my left field stretch pick: “No Country For Old Men”, which could perhaps be called a neo-noir Western. On the more obscure front, “One-Eyed Jacks”, the only film ever directed by Marlon Brando.
Shane still ranks up there at the top of my list.
I absolutely love the Young Guns II soundtrack with Bon Jovi- both the music and the lyrics.
Santa Fe:
Blood Money:
@Tom: No Country For Old Men–neo-noir for sure with Javier Bardem badass. One-Eyed Jacks with Marlon’s buddy Jack N. showing early greatness.
Mata Saw Inception—no clue.
And the person I thought I looked like when I was a tyke: Robert Conrad. 🙂
After all, the inspiration for this banner:
I was so into the fight choreography back then:
@Richard Wheeler: My favorite Clint cowboy job was “The Unforgiven”. Top notched acting all around and an excellent story. One decent Western that didn’t seem to get much acclaim was “Warlock”, my favorite Henry Fonda film. Then of course we have the tribute to the dying days of the old West, “The Wild Bunch”. Best Western comedy besides “Blazing Saddles”- “There Was a Crooked Man”. Excellent cast. And if you want to see a good flick that is a modern day Western, believe it or not- “Last Stand”. I didn’t think I would like it but it was a nice surprise. Arnie’s age and being out of his prime actually worked to his advantage. It was a cross between “High Noon” and “The Expendables”.
@Tom: Would have to agree….that list of Rich’s is a good one, well, except for the Sharon Stone one but that one was enjoyable for the eye candy. No Country is definitely a bad ass flick.
@MataHarley: I actually think his acting is way underrated due to his earlier heart throb status but it’s all relative. One persons great actor is another’s horrible one. Liked many of the movies you named.
@Richard Wheeler: Really? Man that was one great movie. Kept me guessing the whole time. Really one of the better made movies I’ve seen in many years but like I said, it’s all relative.
@Wordsmith: Haven’t seen Shane since I was a kid, need to check that one out again.
@Wordsmith: Yup! good stuff
@Curt, you and I are on the same page with Inception. I don’t buy many DVDs for a collection, but that is definitely one that lives on my shelf. Oddly enough, each time I watch it, I still catch something new.
@Richard Wheeler, all I can say is Inception is the type of screenplay that if you lose focus for a nanosecond, you’ll end up bewildered.
@another vet… oh my. How could I forget Blazing Saddles! But then again, always been a Gene Wilder fan… especially when joined by Madeline Kahn and Marty Feldman (i.e Young Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes Smarter Brother). Inanity at it’s best for that era.
@Tom, The Searchers is my all time favorite John Wayne movie. Wayne is an acquired taste for me, and really didn’t happen until the latter part of his career (probably circa Rooster Cogburn with Kate Hepburn). After getting that appreciation, I could return to the older films with a new look.
But John Ford and John Wayne is a winning combo for sure. Considering John Ford’s western genres with Drums Along the Mohawk, and Stagecoach (working with Ben Hecht, one of my all time favorite screenwriters), and I have to throw them in there for mention as well.
@MataHarley:
Agreed for sure. I would love to see The Searchers on the big screen some day. Ford sure had a knack for filming those amazing Monument Park vistas. I certainly think he brought out the best in John Wayne as an actor. His character in The Searchers is not very sympathetic in the classic protagonist sense, but unpredictable and compelling in the best senses.
@MataHarley:
As a fellow Gene Wilder fan, may I recommend the western-comedy he filmed with Harrison Ford: The Frisco Kid. It’s not Mel Brooks, but it’s a fun film with a lot of heart that leaves you with the same kind of feelings as Wilder’s late wife Gilda Radner one woman show Gilda Live.
@MataHarley:
If you’ve never seen “There Was a Crooked Man”, you would probably like it then. It didn’t have the laugh out loud moments like the campfire scene or Alex Karis punching out the horse in BS, but it’s good for laughs and will leave a smile on your face. Kirk Douglas and Henry Fonda were great as the leads as was the entire supporting cast which had a slew of character actors from back in the day like Warren Oates and Burgess Meredith.
“High Noon” became a classic horse opera by employing none of the common theatrics of the common Western; instead, it relied on drama, and plot. Filmed in real time (the town clock counting down the minutes, till 12 noon), the movie was a real gamble, filming an avant garde Western in the early 50’s; it “bucked” Western movie tradition and pulled it off.
The plot had the lead, Gregory Peck as the Sheriff, seeking help from the townspeople to meet the heavies arriving by train, but having the people he is sworn to protect turn their backs to him. Even his young beautiful wife begs him to take the coward’s path and leave the town to its fate.
The character development reveals the true nature and lack of courage of the town’s people.
He meets evil all alone and triumphs, in a matter of seconds, but when the people run from hiding to congratulate him, he throws his badge in the sand and walks away into the distance. Does he desert the town? Does he desert his wife? Everyone failed him and he stood alone, his duty to them is over. He walks away with honor and dignity, in the sense of a classic American hero.
In reality, the marshal is the man we would like to be, but like most people, we can only emulate this fictional hero.
SKOOKUM
IT REMIND ME of the COMMUNITY , WHERE ZIMMERMAN WAS GUARDING AGAINST THE BREAK IN,
YES I would love to see that movie ,
I’ll take NOTE OF IT’S NAME
THANK YOU,
I always had admire those who will stand out to protect a person assaulted by bully
You know what’s funny and embarrassing? Reading back through the comments of the previous thread to find that I’ve pretty much repeated myself here, forgetting that I had already said the same stuff.
@Skookum: I think it was during the time that I was putting together my previous post that I came across some controversy regarding High Noon (which I also love) as being anti-American. What do you guys make of this:
Darkness at High Noon: the UnAmericanism of an American Icon
HIGH NOON: The Most Un-American Thing I’ve Ever Seen in My Whole Life
@Skookum: Although I’m sure it was just a verbal slip of the tongue, I can’t have you dissin’ my boy Gary Cooper!
@MataHarley:
Yeah, especially if you recall the opening title sequence from the 1960’s TV show. 😉 That Hirts.
@Wordsmith:
I’m aware of the background of High Noon, but i think the criticisms you linked to are prime examples of conflating a work of art on its own terms with the noise surrounding it. There is nothing on the screen that would lead one to jump to the ridiculous accusations that the Hot Air article levels. These criticisms are clearly an outgrowth of the author’s knowledge and hostility toward the filmmakers and their personal stories. If one were to read the Hot Air piece before seeing High Noon, I imagine one would expect a didactic piece of film-making that swims with overt leftist sentiments. That is simply not the case. The film completely transcends any attempt to fix to it a one issue, or partisan allegory. I think Skookum’s interpretation proves that out. A good piece of art hits on universal truths, and typically inspires multiple interpretations. Personally, i consider any work that forces one down a narrow philosophical alley to be of dubious value, because by chaining itself to a specific message it doesn’t allow for any personal contribution from the consumer, and is thus ultimately boring and unchallenging. The fact that liberals and conservatives both identify with Gary Cooper’s character and dilemma say a lot about the film’s artistic success as an examination of universal themes.
@Wordsmith: @proof: The memory makes mistakes now and then, especially when recalling events from 50 years ago.
I became aware of the Duke’s bowels being in an uproar back in the 70’s; although, I failed to understand the full complexity of the situation.
Whether the movie was an attempt to impugn the integrity and courage of the stalwart American town dweller or an innocent reflection of a writer’s mood, will never be known conclusively. However, the myth of the cowboy or saddle tramp as he was known by many, has been seriously overplayed by people who may have never known a real cowboy. I have known many, certainly more than most people; I have lived with them, eaten with them, laughed with them, and cried with them.
They have honor and integrity, more so than most people, but I will tell you, they are complicated people and to picture them as White middle aged men with superb physiques and undaunted courage is a mistake. To begin, one out of every five cowboys was Black and of the four that were left, one was a Mexican. Some were good horsemen, some were good cattlemen, but the idea of A White man being king of the cowboys is the beginning of a sad myth.
Unfortunately, Western clothes and boots are very expensive, say for example someone dressing like Cooper in the movie. Unless you have another income or you are playing at the role, you cannot afford to dress that well, and I know you couldn’t afford to dress that well toward the end of the 19th Century on a cowboy’s wages.
As far as the courage of town’s people, I find this too to be over rated. I base this on personal experience as well; because, while attending college and living off campus, I was looked upon as a barbarian because I hunted birds and deer and I was frequently seen carrying weapons to and from my truck, but on two occasions, when a prowler was making a nuisance of himself, I was asked to watch for him. On both occasions, when I set up a watching post in my truck with a rifle the prowler gave up his antics.
I felt the anxiety of Marshal Kane in a way. My neighbors were scared to death, and normally, I made them apprehensive, but I was the best security they had.
No, I look at the artistic merit of the film. It gripped me the whole time without action, and this is atypical for horse operas. The Duke made films glorifying traits that were a bit beyond the Pale (A region in Wales that was considered too dangerous to wander) as far as reality. To him, it wasn’t propaganda, it was glorifying a mystique. A mystique he helped make.
The movie “Free Range,” was based on a similar principle, but the town’s people found their courage when the two protagonists were being shot to rag dolls. American propagandists and myth preservationists were okay with this because it didn’t damage the myth. I liked the movie, but saw the ambiguity almost immediately.
I prefer realism, nearly all the cowboys I knew, died in the arms of a nightmare; now, that is reality.
Clayton Moore was a man. Armie Hammer looks like a gangly teenager in adult’s clothes.
@Skook: There’s the classic line from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence: This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
@proof: That is a classic line.