I'm mad, good and mad. First 20 minutes it was so unnatural, the fighting scene, the melodramatic music, the acting (John Wayne doesn’t do silences that well), cheesy writing, and morally dubious proposition. It picked up after Clift came on, but elements of the plot didn’t make sense (how could Wayne take the land so easily, why didn’t that cowboy do anything after Wayne admitted stealing his cows, why was it explicitly suggested there would be a rivalry between Clift and the other young cowboy but then it never happens?, the way the woman is introduced just as a narrative device in the final third, the anticlimax of the showdown between Wayne and Clift).
It was shot very well, big expanse, the cattle drive, the silhouettes. The father and son, psychopath and innocent youth dynamic reminded me of Tribute to a Bad Man (with James Cagney). But overall no idea why its reputation is so high...
Westerns are not usually my choice of genre but I actually enjoyed this film, a lot more than I thought I would.
I understand all that Ruggs has mentioned above but AFAIK that is how it was back in the day. The West was wild, those with a gun took what they wanted, others stepped into line. If you wanted change you drew your gun and if you was fast enough, you won!
The land "owner" probably thought it best to stay away, after all he had his own land. The other cowboy knew of the dangers of the ride so why not take the money on offer for no work ? He was old, who is to say he didn't steal them from someone :-) It literally was survival of the fittest (or meanest).
The other young cowboy who joined, I think he would have moved on afterwards. He used the group as a means to get out West, nothing else.
Amazing how they got all the cattle to move etc and the vast landscape was very beautiful.
I'm mad, good and mad. First 20 minutes it was so unnatural, the fighting scene, the melodramatic music, the acting (John Wayne doesn’t do silences that well), cheesy writing, and morally dubious proposition. It picked up after Clift came on, but elements of the plot didn’t make sense (how could Wayne take the land so easily, why didn’t that cowboy do anything after Wayne admitted stealing his cows, why was it explicitly suggested there would be a rivalry between Clift and the other young cowboy but then it never happens?, the way the woman is introduced just as a narrative device in the final third, the anticlimax of the showdown between Wayne and Clift).
ReplyDeleteIt was shot very well, big expanse, the cattle drive, the silhouettes. The father and son, psychopath and innocent youth dynamic reminded me of Tribute to a Bad Man (with James Cagney). But overall no idea why its reputation is so high...
Trying to make sense out of classic Hollywood western is WRONG. :D
DeleteWesterns are not usually my choice of genre but I actually enjoyed this film, a lot more than I thought I would.
ReplyDeleteI understand all that Ruggs has mentioned above but AFAIK that is how it was back in the day. The West was wild, those with a gun took what they wanted, others stepped into line. If you wanted change you drew your gun and if you was fast enough, you won!
The land "owner" probably thought it best to stay away, after all he had his own land. The other cowboy knew of the dangers of the ride so why not take the money on offer for no work ? He was old, who is to say he didn't steal them from someone :-) It literally was survival of the fittest (or meanest).
The other young cowboy who joined, I think he would have moved on afterwards. He used the group as a means to get out West, nothing else.
Amazing how they got all the cattle to move etc and the vast landscape was very beautiful.