Westerns

[MissGoddess]

I missed that one but I did catch the one that aired just before Wells Fargo, I just can't remember the title. It was pretty good. I remember thinking it a rare instance where Leo Gordon played a good guy. Joel is a union officer returning to his half-brother's ranch for the first time after the war, and there is some bad blood between them because his brother thinks Joel responsible for his son's death. Virginia Mayo is in a wagon train along the way that rescues Joel after he's bushwhacked by a fellow in fancy spurs and left for dead.

It's a middling film, not bad and made enjoyable by all the players.

[movieman1957]

Was that "The Tall Stranger"? I recorded it. I saw the very end and it looked awful. Pan/Scan, faded color, and it looked magnified. All that in the last two minutes. I still have it to watch along with some others.

[MissGoddess]

Yes, The Tall Stranger. I didn't notice much in the appearance, other than that it was rather typical. Maybe I've seen so many like that on Encore I don't mind so much.

[RedRiver]

I don't think I've seen WELLS FARGO. It sounds substantial enough that I'd probably remember. I think I'd like it.

[JackFavell]

I just watched the 1914 version of The Spoilers, starring William Farnum, Thomas Santschi, Kathlyn Williams, Bessie Eyton, Frank Clark, Jack McDonald, Wheeler Oakman, Norval MacGregor and William Ryno.



I thought this film was absolutely great! The pacing was as fast as a racehorse, the acting was uniformly good, and there was no heavy emoting. I liked the initial scenes in Alaska - there is a very crowded, muddy street scene that worked well to show the uncivilized country. Though the rest was filmed on small sets with little charm or evocation of the snowy frontier, the film kept my interest, thanks to well delineated characters acted simply by the cast. No wonder it was such a huge hit. I thought this film was very modern in structure, aside from the many titles strung through - the director managed to keep the plot rolling along lickety split despite his need to explain everything in words first. You can see that it was very influential - this type of pacing was the way action movies would be made for years to come, with each action sequence topping the next.

Best performances were given by the ladies - Bessie Eyton as the lead, Helen, was quite beautiful, even by today's standards, and made the plucky but sincere heroine more than just an uptight snob... she never seemed stilted. In other words, I liked her. And Kathlyn Williams, star of the first serial ever made, was the emotional good time gal, Cherry Malotte. She really commanded the screen, and I felt for her plight, though I thought she was better at the racier scenes at the beginning. I was surprised at the depth both actresses were able to convey, since they played such stereotypes... the other silents I've seen from the same time period vary widely in the acting expertise of the leading ladies, so it was a treat to find two talented actresses in one picture.

I thought Wheeler Oakman did a splendid job as the Bronco Kid, making his role far more dimensional than I was expecting. William Farnum was a breezy good natured Roy Glenister, our hero, until of course, he has to give up his rough and tumble ways, at which point Farnum becomes a bit lugubrious, but he's still likable.

Thomas Santschi was a perfect "bad man" - cool as a cucumber, and very strong in the role of McNamara, the evil hand behind all the mining disputes. The scene where Santschi stops anyone from protesting his devious ways with just a look had me quite impressed with his acting ability and presence on screen. I can't imagine why Santschi was not a major heartthrob of his day, he is my idea of a man's man. He's quite the actor, always understating his roles, never pushing the audience. He lets it all unfold slowly, letting you see small glimpses of the soul underneath, until you realize what kind of man he really is. A much more satisfactory way of acting, to my way of thinking.

Unfortunately, probably due to wear and tear, I believe some huge chunks of the mammoth fight scene which the movie was famous for have disappeared over the years. When comparing this film to other American films of the time, I thought this one, though very simply made, was miles ahead in keeping the audience entertained.

You can see the film for yourself here on youtube:

[youtube][/youtube]

Our own Ann Harding has a review of the film at her website, though it's in french.

http://annhardingstreasures.blogspot.co ... -1914.html

Her thoughts on the movie are a bit different from mine, though my rudimentary french may be misinterpreting her take on the film. I believe she was not thrilled with the movie overall, the simplistic direction, the cheap sets, nor with the numerous titles, a point on which we can agree. The titles told the story before it was shown, and though I still felt the film built up a good head of steam, she thought it lacked suspense because of the giveaways of plot contained in said titles. She describes the film much better than I. I think all in all, she liked the performances. The French and other European countries were far ahead of the U.S. at the time this film was made, but for me, it seemed miles ahead of some of the American films from 1914. Maybe she can weigh in on her opinions of the film here, since I am not a particularly good translator.

I found the film very enjoyable, despite the lack of technique in the direction. It was straightforward, without artifice, and I appreciated the pacing and the acting. These make the film for me, and I can see a direct link between this film and the American action/adventure films to come.

[MissGoddess]

Oh my goodness, I can't WAIT to see this! I remember looking all over the planet for this movie a couple of years back. I bet the fight seen is so tattered from over use! It's the most anticipated scene in every version, supposedly, and this fight was the standard bearer for realistic brawls up until Wayne and Yakima Canutt began working together.

Since I've seen the Wayne/Scott version and know the plot, I read both your review and Christine's and it makes me want to ask how you'd compare this to that Francis Ford western, Heart of an Indian (Ince, 1912)? It was a short film, but I thought it was perfectly done. I do wish more of the early teens films were in existence, because I persist in believing they were far more innovative than we tend to think. Maybe not up to what was being done in Europe, but surely only one step behind considering the sheer talent that was pouring into the fledgling industry, as if hurling toward a new "gold rush".

As for Santschi, as far as I've seen only John Ford exploited him to the fullest extent. Either no one else saw his possibilities or maybe Tom just didn't care that much for movie acting. Pity, he had a great presence as you say. His "Bull Stanley" is one of my all time favorite western characters.

[JackFavell]

I think it compares very well with Heart of an Indian. For me, this was kind of a breakthrough movie - I believe, from the other silents I've seen around this time, that the sort of devil may care, slap-dash style it had woke people up to a new way of enjoying and making films. Its very relaxed. It seems lighthearted and simple, without too much pomp and circumstance, and I like that. I think so many directors of the time were convinced of film's social significance, it seemed more like an educational tool, but this is just a good, old fashioned blockbuster, 1914 style.

In other words, it's a popular movie. No pretention, it's sort of like plain good eatin', if you know what I mean. But oh, I had a brief moment after watching when the glow wore off, and I thought "But what if John or Francis Ford had made it..." and my heart ached to have seen Pappy get his hands on this. I'm guessing that the book and the film influenced both Fords, raising such iconic images as it did.

The film felt fresh to me, and had the same feel as some of the early westerns, where you catch yourself thinking how some of the cast could very well have been adventurers themselves, or the extras in the background look pretty rough and tumble.

As for Tom Santschi, I think he acquits himself beautifully here, though again, not as beautifully as in Three Bad Men, but then, Ford was always able to pull deeply felt, iconic performances out of his actors.

[movieman1957]

Another Joel McCrea western found its way to my TV though this time it was not one shown recently on TCM. "The Oklahoman" is a little known western and it is as much drama as it is western. Someone at imdb described it as quiet and I guess that is as good a term as any.

McCrea plays a widowed doctor who decides to settle in Oklahoma town where his wife died in childbirth. He is popular among the townsfolk which means he gets dragged into the local disputes at anytime.

The main two story lines involve a young Indian girl about 18 who comes to live with McCrea as a nanny to his young daughter and a widow who is also interested in McCrea. The other is the local cattle baron discovers oil on an Indian's land and seeks to force him off. Trouble ensues.

Barbara Hale plays the widow and does a fine job. Michael Pate, Anthony Caruso and an uncredited Sheb Wooley also support. Fairly plain with usual solid performance from McCrea (who incidentally look so smooth on a horse) plays well enough if you're looking for a way to spend a late night watching something that requires little effort.

[Ann Harding]

I just watched the 1914 version of The Spoilers, starring William Farnum, Thomas Santschi, Kathlyn Williams, Bessie Eyton, Frank Clark, Jack McDonald, Wheeler Oakman, Norval MacGregor and William Ryno.
Our own Ann Harding has a review of the film at her website, though it's in french.

http://annhardingstreasures.blogspot.co ... -1914.html
Her thoughts on the movie are a bit different from mine, though my rudimentary french may be misinterpreting her take on the film. I believe she was not thrilled with the movie overall, the simplistic direction, the cheap sets, nor with the numerous titles, a point on which we can agree. The titles told the story before it was shown, and though I still felt the film built up a good head of steam, she thought it lacked suspense because of the giveaways of plot contained in said titles. She describes the film much better than I. I think all in all, she liked the performances. The French and other European countries were far ahead of the U.S. at the time this film was made, but for me, it seemed miles ahead of some of the American films from 1914. Maybe she can weigh in on her opinions of the film here, since I am not a particularly good translator.
I found the film very enjoyable, despite the lack of technique in the direction. It was straightforward, without artifice, and I appreciated the pacing and the acting. These make the film for me, and I can see a direct link between this film and the American action/adventure films to come.

I guess I was particularly unimpressed by Colin Campbell's direction. The problem is I have seen The Bargain (1914, R. Barker) with William S. Hart. And I found it vastly superior to The Spoilers. The later looks clumsy in comparison. I think it's very sad that William S. Hart's films are only available in hideous versions like those from Alpha Video. Having seen several gorgeous 16mm print of his films, there are all brilliant (Joe August is behind the camera) in terms of images and of narrative. The Spoilers is still an important landmark in American film history.

[JackFavell]

I understand, Ann. Hart's films are definitely in a league of their own. The earliest I've seen is Hell's Hinges, from 1916, which is pretty incredible. I think you are dead on about the lackluster direction of the film, but for me, it was the charm of the actors that really pulled me into the story and kept me interested in The Spoilers. Maybe the pace can be chalked up to having only a short time to tell a gargantuan story, but I liked the breakneck way things happened. As for mise en scene, there wasn't any - but at least it wasn't distracting.

[JackFavell]

I watched the marvelous Four Faces West over the weekend, and I thought it was excellent.

Unpretentious and moving, this one has a very interesting, rather literary plot, based on a story by Eugene Manlove Rhodes, and has the benefit of excellent actors in all the roles. Joel McCrea and Frances Dee are per-fect, showing a great deal of chemistry despite being married for fifteen years already. I just adored this film, it reminded me a little of The Angel and the Badman, but only superficially. It kept me more than interested, I really had a lot of empathy for McCrea here.

Of course, another of the reasons I liked this one so much was that it offered Joseph Calleia a meaty, un-stereotypical role for a change, and he was again, perfect as McCrea's only real friend and confidant. Charles Bickford as Pat Garrett was strong and kindly, just as you would want him to be. The cinematography was by the great Russell Harlan, and is a knockout with lots of big beautiful sky, swirling clouds, and several different vistas and settings. I've never seen McCrea so emotional. It's just a beautiful film. What a gem!

[feaito]

I ended this past WE with a good western: "Texas" (1941) directed by George Marshall and starring the young Glenn Ford and William Holden, as a couple of Southerners looking for work after the Civil War has ended; they go to Kansas and then to Texas, were impetuous Dan (Holden) joins a band of outlaws who work for a guy who pretends to be a respectable cattle and landowner; Todd (Ford) goes to work for a rancher and his fine looking daughter (Claire Trevor) and becomes the leader of the Texan cattle-barons. Still Todd and Danny, although in different sides of the law and vying for the affections of Trevor, they remain loyal to one another...Holden gives a especially noteworthy performance as the mischievous, childlike Dan. They're supported by two very fine actors: Edgar Buchanan (as a likable dentist who's much more than that) and George Bancroft as Windy Miller, a very respectable and admired Abilene citizen. Very enjoyable with most amusing scenes, like the one in which Danny participates in a boxing match (hilarious).

[movieman1957]

When westerns died in the mid 90s they went to Purgatory which was the land of cable TV. For a while they lived very well together.

HBO, amid the George Carlin concerts and the seedy late night fare, they made movies. A few of those were westerns and one was called "The Jack Bull." Directed by John Badham and starring the unlikely John Cusack this is a really good film. Based on a true story it is essentially a disagreement over the abuse of two beautiful horses. It deals with whether what is the principle of things and what is right can go too far. Yes, they can. Justice can come with too heavy a price.

After leaving his horses as collateral for a toll Cusack returns to find his horses abused and broken. He wants his horses returned in the original condition. The problem is the local cattle baron and big shot, L.Q. Jones (in a marvelously evil role) couldn't care less and wants to be rid of the horses. This is where the trouble begins.

Trying to do things the right way only brings Cusack grief and no help from the law. With that he decides to deal with it himself. Applying his interpretation things shortly get out of hand. His vigilante sensibilities get the better of him. Things happen and there can be no good end to it. There isn't.

As good as Cusack and Jones are the one who really shines is John Goodman. His by-the-book "Judge Tolivor" also has a very deep rooted sense of fairness but he can't and won't undo everything. From a screenplay by Cusack's father the film has great attention to details and beautiful scenery. It is certainly among the best TV westerns made and if you like this genre put this one on your list.

[MissGoddess]

Sounds good, actually.

Is he related in any way to Cyril?

[movieman1957]

No mention of it in his imdb listing.

BTW, DVD was from Netflix.