The most important thing is to enjoy your life - to be happy - it's all that matters.
- Audrey Hepburn

I want to get something straight

Moderators: moira finnie, Lzcutter, Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957

User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

I want to get something straight

Postby mrsl » May 26th, 2007, 5:05 pm

When people talk about John Fords' trilogy to the Old West, I've never argued because I couldn't get something clear in my head. Here's my dilemna:

In 1948 was Fort Apache - JWs' role was Kirby York.
In 1949 was She Wore . . Yellow Ribbon - JW was Nathan Brittles.
In 1950 was Rio Grande - JWs' role was Kirby York.

All were John Ford movies, but I always thought those three were the trilogy, until this week when between three channels, I saw all three movies, and realized Nathan Brittles stood out and separate. Believe it or not after seeing all these movies several times each, this was the first time the character names dawned on me. Doesn't it seem natural that She Wore. . . (1949) should have had JW playing Kirby York? In Fort Apache, JW was comparatively young, in Rio Grande, he was middle aged but with his own command, finally in Yellow Ribbon, he was retiring, his wife was dead, and he was alone.

What exactly is the trilogy?

Some say Fort Apache, Rio Grande, and Red River, Some throw the Searchers in there, and others put Yellow Ribbon in. What have I missed in all these years?

HAPPY 100TH MR. WAYNE!!!! :lol:

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************

User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2514
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Postby Dewey1960 » May 26th, 2007, 5:42 pm

Hi Anne -
I've always heard the three films referenced as "the Cavalry trilogy," comprised of FORT APACHE, SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON and RIO GRANDE. As for the inconsistency of the character's name, I cannot speak to that. As for RED RIVER, well, that's Howard Hawks. And THE SEARCHERS occupies a space in Ford's oeuvre all its own. So, despite your confusion, you were right all along. Perhaps others will add their two cents as well.

User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Postby mrsl » May 26th, 2007, 7:28 pm

Weird isn't it, Dewey? (I should say Frenchy - what does oeuvre mean?)

I'm really enjoying the Western Channel. They have some fine movies on. The old 30's, although really corny by today's standards show JW in the beginnings of his personna - the way of speaking, the walk, the stance - with one knee bent, even his hat changed from a oversized 10 gallon to the flatter type he wore later. They have a 15 minute thing on the JW museum - I guess the opening day was today, and also on the John Wayne Cancer Institute. In between each movie they ask a trivia question about him, and answer just before the next movie. Chisum was in letterbox, as were a couple others. Earlier today The Searchers was in P&S, but I can't see where any of the scenery and scope was missed. It's coming on again now at 7:00, and I'll watch again because earlier I was cleaning during it.

Anyway, anyone else have any comments on the trilogy?

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************

User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2514
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Postby Dewey1960 » May 26th, 2007, 7:44 pm

Howdy -
You may indeed call me Frenchy--after good ol' 100% American movin' pitchers, I do fancy French films pert near as much. (Oeuvre means an artist's body of work.)
And you know, I'm watching the Western Channel more and more these days. Very much looking forward to catching up on the vintage John Wayne films, too!
Vivre en paix!
Le Dewey

User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Postby mrsl » May 26th, 2007, 9:48 pm

Dewey (Frenchy)

"Live in peace?" - You're putting this polish dago to work today!

Anyway, if you just watched The Searchers you know that it was in letterbox! Maybe they think some people prefer Pan & Scan and that's why earlier it was in that format, who knows. Keep watching tonight, there are a few more oldies coming on. I missed Chisum today in favor of Trouble Along the Way on TCM, and now putting up with commercials to see Hellfighters on AMC. My channel schedule is going nuts with all the timers I've got set up. Sometime tomorrow Chisum is on again, so I'll catch it then. BTW, it was nice to see my Rifleman on TATW. Strange how actors grow up eventually, In Searchers, Vera Miles was Jeffrey Hunters love interest, now 12 years later, in Hellfighters, she's JWs' ex-wife.

Enjoy the oldies!

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************

User avatar
Dewey1960
Posts: 2514
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 7:52 am
Location: Oakland, CA

Postby Dewey1960 » May 27th, 2007, 7:23 am

Anne wrote: "Anyway, if you just watched The Searchers you know that it was in letterbox! Maybe they think some people prefer Pan & Scan and that's why earlier it was in that format, who knows."

Oddly enough, many people DO prefer pan & scan versions, no doubt because of years spent watching television and becoming comfortable with the format. Some gradually make the transition to letterbox if they are led gently down the path of enlightenment, others not. How about you? I believe we were involved in a discussion in a different thread recently about watching THE SEARCHERS in one or the other formats. Do you have a preference? Had you seen a letterbox version before? I watched bits and pieces last night on the Western Channel as well and was pleased to see the letterbox version appear in prime time! (The color quality was astonishing, too, didn't you think?) This seems to be a new trend for the WC; until very recently I don't recall seeing any films shown in letterbox there. Wait--that's not true: they showed TOMBSTONE in that format, I believe. In any case, if they're going to show films from the modern period, then it's definitely the right way to go. (Not long ago they ran Peckinpah's THE WILD BUNCH in pan & scan and I just had to scratch my head and wonder why.) But Ford was an artist not unlike a great painter and THE SEARCHERS is, for me at least, his masterpiece. Every opportunity to see the entire canvas should be cherished and savored.

As for the Wayne "oldies", I taped a half dozen during the night and plan to unwind with them over the holiday!

User avatar
mrsl
Posts: 4220
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 5:20 pm
Location: Chicago SW suburbs

Postby mrsl » May 27th, 2007, 1:37 pm

I definitely prefer letterbox and I never had a problem getting used to it. The black borders disappear within the first few minutes (mentally, that is). I had not seen it in LB before, but the P&S wasn't bad either. Yes you miss some of the scenery, and I get aggravated to see someone talking to someone who is not on camera in P&S, but since the story is more important to me than the photography, either will do, although I prefer LB. The Western Channel shows a lot of movies in LB, but I guess they're not as particular as TCM as to which they show. I've seen Two Rode Together and a couple of Clint Eastwoods also. I didn't realize I had never seen Chisum before, don't know how I missed it, both my husbands were JW fans, and we always went to see them if possible, or caught them on TV later. Naturally a girlfriend, called right in the middle, and a few minutes later my daughter, so I missed a good chunk of it, so I'll be there again tonight. My VCR is being balky in the living room, so I have to re-hook up the one in the bedroom to tape Chisum tonight and the Searchers tomorrow. Oh God! JW's singing right now.

Anne
Anne


***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *

]***********************************************************************

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5502
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Postby movieman1957 » May 28th, 2007, 6:28 pm

Anne:

As far as a trilogy goes, those three movies, I believe were never intended t obe a true trilogy in the proper sense of the word. They do not follow any progression of story and are not truly related save for their setting. I really think they become a trilogy as they were made consecutively by Ford.

The real truth about "Rio Grande" was to fulfill a promise to Republic pictures to give them a money maker so they could bankroll "The Quiet Man." Since the cast was already set for "The Quiet Man" they all agreed to do "Rio Grande."

As for the names in "Rio Grande" and "Ft. Apache" I don't really have an answer but Wayne's name in "Rio Grande" was spelled Yorke. Go figure.

Saw a shot of your beloved Chuck Connors in "Trouble Along The Way." He was awfully young.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5108
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Postby MissGoddess » June 1st, 2007, 9:14 am

Going along with what Chris said, I have always read there was never any intention in Ford's mind to film a series of interrelated stories about the cavalry, it's in retrospect that film historians and critics have come to bunch them together.

I get soooo confused with all the Kirby's and York(e)s!!

BTW---which is ya'll's favorite? Mine is RIO GRANDE. I find it one of the most romantic movies ever. When people say Ford only directed one "romance", TQM, I say have you really paid attention? :wink:

User avatar
knitwit45
Posts: 4720
Joined: May 4th, 2007, 9:33 pm
Location: Gardner, KS

JW & M'OH

Postby knitwit45 » June 1st, 2007, 9:38 am

When John Wayne comes into that tent, turns around and kisses Maureen O'Hara.....boy howdee!
"Life is not the way it's supposed to be.. It's the way it is..
The way we cope with it, is what makes the difference." ~ Virginia Satir
""Most people pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it." ~ Soren Kierkegaard

User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5502
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Postby movieman1957 » June 1st, 2007, 11:06 am

MissGoddess wrote:
BTW---which is ya'll's favorite? Mine is RIO GRANDE. I find it one of the most romantic movies ever. When people say Ford only directed one "romance", TQM, I say have you really paid attention? :wink:


I like Rio Grande as well based on your comment. The scene where she walks though his tent with her hand over her stomach as if to calm herself is quite touching. The scene where the singers sing "I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen" to her she looks as if she's just melting at the thought. Then he screws it up by saying he didn't pick the song. Bonehead!
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."

User avatar
MissGoddess
Posts: 5108
Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:01 am
Contact:

Postby MissGoddess » June 1st, 2007, 11:08 am

movieman1957 wrote:
MissGoddess wrote:
BTW---which is ya'll's favorite? Mine is RIO GRANDE. I find it one of the most romantic movies ever. When people say Ford only directed one "romance", TQM, I say have you really paid attention? :wink:


I like Rio Grande as well based on your comment. The scene where she walks though his tent with her hand over her stomach as if to calm herself is quite touching. The scene where the singers sing "I'll Take You Home Again, Kathleen" to her she looks as if she's just melting at the thought. Then he screws it up by saying he didn't pick the song. Bonehead!


Ha ha! Yes, he really should have kept his mouth shut. :wink:


Return to “Westerns”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest