The Western (1 Viewer)

[Winston T. Boogie]

I think there are obviously many fans of this genre here and I certainly count myself as one. History seems to indicate the first Western was shot and released sometime around 1903 and though there are far fewer of them made these days (sadly in my opinion) the recent release of Appaloosa proves the Western is still alive and well. High Noon is the film screened more than any other at the White House. Bill Clinton listed it as his favorite and showed it 20 times while he was in office and recommended the film to George W. Bush.

2008 was a great year for Western fans with nothing being larger, in my opinion, than the release of the Budd Boetticher box set. This was for many people the DVD release of the year (ok, at least for me it was) and its appearance finally leaves Boetticher well represented on DVD and sits well on the shelf next to the fantastic 2005 release of Batjac's Seven Men From Now. We also got a set from Warner that included a couple of Westerns I had long wanted on DVD, Escape From Fort Bravo and The Stalking Moon. I'm with the others on this site that have already expressed their hope that the Warner set was the first in a series of sets.

I don't think there is a more naturally cinematic setting than the Old West. Films shot outdoors in places like Monument Valley or Lone Pine by directors as skilled as John Ford, Anthony Mann, Sam Peckinpah and Budd Boetticher already have a leg up on other films. I'm biased, sure, but that's why I've started this thread. I was hoping to create a place where we could discuss all things Western and get peoples thoughts on their favorite films, directors and stars, to why they like them, what you think are the best DVD releases so far, what you'd like to see released and what's in your collection. Feel free to make lists of your favorite films, favorite DVDs, stars, locations, anything.

To get the discussion rolling Wild West Magazine recently put out a full issue dedicated to the 100 Best Western's Ever and here is a link to their list (pick up the magazine if you are a Western fan, it's a fun read and there is plenty to argue about in their selections but that's the point of a list right!)


100 Greatest Western Movies HistoryNet


and here's the IMDB Top 50 and Bottom 10:

Top 50 Western movies by average vote


and the AFI Top Ten:


http://www.filmsite.org/afi10toptennoms5.html


and here's a link to a funny but pretty good little documentary on the Western that was made by Rich Hall of all people!

YouTube - Rich Hall's 'How the West was Lost' (Part 1 of 11)

(Also please feel free to post links to your favorite sites on the internet related to Western films, directors, stars etc...)


So there's quite a bit to get you started and there's plenty more where that came from so saddle up and let's ride!

 

[John Hodson]

Saw that on original broadcast, and it defied expectations by being quite decent...right up until the moment when Hall simply dismissed Italian westerns in general, but more irritatingly Sergio Leone in particular, which, considering Leone's positive influence on a genre that he had long worshipped, was a tad contemptuous.

 

[Simon Howson]

I think lists are silly, and this one in particular because they don't explain their criteria of what makes a good western.

Most of my favourite westerns are missing - The Last Frontier, White Feather, Jubal, The Last Wagon, The Proud Ones, Comanche Station.
I guess it comes down to how you define the genre. If you say it is at least in part related to when and where the films where made, then that could lead you to exclude important films made at a different time, and in a different industry.

These sort of games with genre definition go on a lot, because there is no perfect way to define a genre (is it what the film is about? Or where it was made? Or the technologies it was made with? Or the reason it was made? Or which actors are in it?). Any genre film is at once conventional and innovative at the same time, so no single film can ever be considered a PERFECT exemplar of a genre.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Well, first in response to John, I agree with you on the Leone thing, but I certainly don't take what Hall says too seriously. He is after all a comedian first and foremost and I think that whole doc was more than a bit cheesy and tongue in cheek. I thought for the most part he went for being entertaining in a snarky sort of way more than anything and mostly did fine. He either does not "get" Leone or just isn't a fan...either way it's just one guy's opinion. Heck, I love Leone!

To Simon, lists are silly but they can be a fun place to start a discussion and it's always fun to see what somebody else thinks is good. There were many films on the Wild West list I thought did not belong there and you obviously felt the same way but that's the point of a list. It's not meant to be definitive, it's the starting point for a discussion, like "Here's my list, let's see yours!"

I think any time you try to say this film is better or greater than that film it's a matter of opinion, nothing more and nothing less. For the record there is a lot more info in the magazine itself outlining how they went about choosing the films and who was doing the choosing. I posted the other lists for contrast hoping that people, as you did, would say "Hey, why isn't this on the list?" and "Hey, that doesn't belong there!" etc....

Finally, nice catch there on the Cripple Creek short Jonathan...in fact here it is:

YouTube - Cripple Creek Bar Room Scene [1899]

 

[Vegas 1]

Simon, thanks for listing those six westerns, four of those I have not seen so I went to Netflix and added to my queue. Jubal, Comanche Station, The Last Frontier and White Feather. Looking forward to watching them.
Regards
Al

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Here's another fun site:

The Best Western Movies For All Cowboy-Movie Fans

 

[Simon Howson]

Enjoy! Jubal is THE Western that got me to take the genre more seriously. Comanche Station is my favourite Boetticher film. The Last Frontier is this curious Anthony Mann film with Victor Mature is a nobel savage. The second half of White Feather seems to be an excuse to include lots of wide CinemaScope shots with hundreds of extras, it would've been overwealming on a 60 foot wide screen.

 

[Richard--W]

Perhaps, but why is it on your list? because of the spectacle? surely spectacle alone doesn't make a good western? Have you never wondered where the Indians get all those horses?

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

"I like lists when the writer first goes through a processes of explaining what makes a GOOD Western, and what makes a BAD one. In other words, detailing a criteria of what makes some films of a genre good and interesting, and others not so much. I don't like lists when it is essentially "a list of films I happen to like but can't explain why"." - Simon

I agree, Simon, and though that info is not presented at their website in the magazine they released they actually do explain what they think makes a "Good" Western and provide a review and thoughts on each film on their list...the catch is they make you buy the magazine to get all that. I think they posted just their list on their site to get you to go out and pick up their magazine. I can't blame them for that really. As I said my reason to pointing people to it was to start a discussion and make them aware the magazine exists in case they had an interest. I found it entertaining being a big fan of Westerns.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I've also just noticed this thread has been moved to the "Theatrical" section and I apologize to anybody wondering why this conversation is taking place here. I realize this discussion is mainly about past releases and not about anything currently in theatres so please forgive me. I did not originally post this here and I think it may have been moved here by mistake. It was meant all along to be primarily a discussion of films from the past and films on DVD or that we hope to see on DVD, or that we have already collected and why we like them (or find these films "Great" or not so great, ha!).

Anyway, it seems a bit misplaced here and maybe that will be fixed but I'm not sure where to direct that request.

Very sorry for the confusion!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Crawdaddy

 

[todd s]

Whats kinda of cool to think about. The early Westerns even up to the 1940's could have been watched by people who lived in the "old west" of the 1860's to 1880's.

And on a side note. By coincidence I got an email with the following link. Which is appropriate for this thread...

Those Old Westerns

 

[Walter Przybylowski]

Here's a list of the top 20 Spaghetti Westerns from Quentin Tarintino follow link Quentin Tarantino's Top 20 favorite Spaghetti Westerns - The Spaghetti Western Database
As for myself nothing has yet replaced Once upon a Time in the West as top dog, though some days Rio Bravo comes real close. I want to echo The Great Silence from Tarantino's list, it received a quality non-enhanced dvd from Fantoma and makes for a unique viewing. Also let me confuse the subject by naming two of my favorite "westerns" that appear to be not, Walter Hill's terse The Driver and John Carpenter's Ghosts of Mars.

 

[Richard--W]

The Driver is a noir in deference to action. It is Walter Hill trying to do a Jean-Pierre Melville crime-noir in English, with Ryan O'Neal standing in for Alain Delon. Wonderful, under-rated film, but it's not a western. Ghosts of Mars is sci-fi on the "siege" premise. The siege premise works for all genres from Wyler's The Desperate Hours to Hawks' Rio Bravo to Neil Simon's The Prisoner of Second Avenue to Cameron's Aliens. The siege premise is universal. Carpenter made it once before, in Assault on Precinct 13. He just changed locations and reversed character roles.

Part of my criteria for what makes a good western is that it have some measure of historical intelligence, and that it derive from how people actually lived in the American West. It doesn't have to be a documentary or a re-enactment, and it can't have characters doing fantastical things like firing twenty bullets out of a six-shooter with a chamber that only holds six. Most important the film must tell a story that is connected to how western people lived and what they in fact did. Most American westerns meet my criteria, some meet it better than others, including the recent The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford and Appaloosa.

The only spaghetti western that I've seen that has even a remote connection to the American west is Leone's Once Upon a Time In the West, and not just because it was filmed in part in Monument Valley, but because of its story content. Even if it were a bad western, I could still enjoy it as an eloquent tone poem and as a brilliant film. There's an excellent book on it here:

McFarland - Publisher of Reference and Scholarly Books

Here's a good book about the development of the American genre of the western:

McFarland - Publisher of Reference and Scholarly Books

 

[Walter Przybylowski]

Well of course getting into semantics regarding what makes a non-western a western or not, would prove fruitless unless there was a mutual understanding that ones personal criteria is just that, personal. But to argue that the European made Westerns aren’t allowed in the genre seems harsh, and rings untrue to me. Of course they’re radicalized, and over the top (would you kick The Wild Bunch out as well?), but remember this, with their new ideas, which seemed to me more aesthetic than strictly thematic, they revived a flagging genre. Leone’s work in particular, rethought visually the Western (no small feat.)
I concede that The Driver is a stretch but a fun stretch at that, let me see what I can remember from the film that impressed upon me its Western-ess. Of course that the Western seems to be Hill's favorite genre probably fed into this, the driver could be seen as a lone gunslinger with a code, the movie seemed to refuse to be indoors, a crime film with no police station, if I recall Bruce Dern did his work out a bar (read saloon,) Dern even literally calls the driver a cowboy at one point. I’m sure there is more I am forgetting and a re-watch could be in order (haven’t watched the film in a few years.)
With Ghosts Of Mars yea it’s a siege film, but the ghosts seem to be code for Indians, with body mutilations that distinguish their tribe and a tortuous outcome for the towns folk who were killed by them (not unlike the victims of an Apache raid). Their weaponry was not futuristic but rudimentary (flying discs.) And the only reason people were on mars was for settlement and exploitation, two themes very strong in the Western. Plus it ends with a shootout on a train. Its no secret that Carpenter is a big Hawks fan and while this is not literally a Western, literalness was never my contention. Remember both of these films were made when Westerns were not a viable genre in Hollywood anymore so either could be the directors secretly having fun with their favorite genre.
As for Hollywood Westerns Open Range was the last great one I saw on the big screen. Also to argue that American westerns are less “fantasy” than European Westerns seems a dubious enterprise. You could argue that European westerns demythologized American Westerns with their own brand of mythology and in fact I did argue that in this essay published by dialogues@rutgers http://dialogues.rutgers.edu/vol_05/...uments/pry.pdf
It’s rather long and the editor didn’t put forth my final revised copy but it’s ok.
...Just found this quote from Walter Hill "As far as I'm concerned, all my movies could be westerns."

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

First, RC, no problem on the move. I'll admit I've never read the definitions you posted, my bad.

Since this has sort of become a thread about what makes a "good" western, at least to start, I'll basically lay out what I think. First, I judge a western the same way I judge any film. Is it an entertaining well made film, well shot, directed, acted, are there things I like about it...these are all important. As far as deciding if it is a "Western", I think that falls into a different category. I mainly judge that by the setting of the film. I think films like No Country for Old Men and The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada are "modern westerns" in that they are set in the west and have a western theme and feel.

I suppose a good film to start an argument with would be Blazing Saddles as some people would argue it is a comedy and not a western and some would say it's a western comedy.

My feeling is placing a film in a genre is a subjective thing and so is defining if a film is "good" or not. This is the stuff long thoughtful discussions are built upon.

I would be fine with a person calling Blazing Saddles a comedy or a western or a western comedy. I think it's mainly a comedy but that's just me. I would argue it's mainly a comedy because the comedy is more important and more central to the film than the fact that it is set in the west.

Some people like to argue that a "western" has to be historically accurate or "authentic" for it to be considered a "good western" but I find this idea to be a little out in left field. Let's keep in mind that most westerns are fables or allegories and this is a huge part of what makes them compelling. Films can strive for a level of authenticity to make them more absorbing or convincing but this does not mean it will be a better film. If we're not talking about documentaries then I don't think "historical accuracy" or authenticity are huge factors. They are a nice bonus but not deciding factors, at least to me. I always get a giggle when somebody says something like "Well, the railroad ties the workers were laying in the background of the shot and the hammers were not actually in use until 25 years after the date the story was set and that ruined the movie for me." that always makes me think it must have been a real engrossing tale if that's what you were focused on.

Don't get me wrong, I love the small details too but let's face it they are making movies and if they don't have time or the money to get an extra the right hammer but he's still using a very old hammer does this really destroy a film?

Basically you could pick out stuff that's not accurate (or even goofy) in any western but if it's a good film you are less likely to dwell on these things. This leads me back to where I began, if it is a good film then it is likely a good western.

So on the Spaghetti Western or Euro-Western thing, I think if they are good films then yes, they are good westerns.

I'm with Richard, I'd love to hear Simon break down what he loves about Jubal and the other films he chose to list. I'd love for this thread to grow and I hope we can have a long and interesting discussion.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I recently watched Seraphim Falls and was stunned at how good this film was. This one got by me when it first came out and I honestly forgot it even existed until I saw it sitting in a 5 dollar bin at the local supermarket. I figured I'd pick it up and give it a shot based on the fact it was only the cost of a rental and to be honest I was not expecting much.

Let's start with the fact that this film is absolutely gorgeous to look at. It is shot almost entirely outdoors, as the film is basically one long chase from the mountains down into the desert. The DP on this picture was John Toll and he did an amazing job, really a beautiful film.

The acting is also fantastic and I'm not really a fan of the work of Pierce Brosnan but this is certainly one of his best performances if not the best. I can't really think of a film I was more impressed with him in. Liam Neeson is, as usual, outstanding as are all of the supporting players.

This is sort of an odd film and the title gives away the fact that there is a bit of the supernatural thrown into the mix. I'd actually compare this to High Plains Drifter as that is another western with supernatural overtones. It's a very tight, well paced film that moves right along. I think, like me, you'll be on the edge of your seat throughout its 112 minute running length.

This one gets a huge recommendation from me and if you missed it or ignored the film as I did, check this one out asap! This is one of the best westerns of the last 10 years as the blurb on the back of the box says.

 

[Richard--W]

If you liked Seraphim Falls, you'll love The Stalking Moon (1968) with Gregory Peck in his second collaboration with director Robert Mulligan (To Kill A Mockinbird). A spartan and stoic masterpiece and a true sleeper. It's a dry, dusty, rocky desert western about a retired scout who escorts a former Indian-captive and her half-breed son to civilization only to be chased by her Apache warrior husband who is a merciless and efficient killing machine. It's a stalker plot that segues into a siege situation with time and care given to the performances. Almost a horror film, but not in the Gothic or supernatural sense. Filmed entirely in outdoor locations it moves fast, bites hard and looks great.

http://www.amazon.com/Stalking-Moon-...5120912&sr=1-1

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I agree, Richard. These films do make a great double bill. I have Stalking Moon as well and mentioned it in my original post. There is a bit of the "supernatural" aspect in Stalking Moon too, at least in as much as you and the people he is chasing are made to wonder "Who or what is this guy?"

 

[Walter Przybylowski]

Stars in My Crown (1950)
Jacques Tourneur’s understated masterpiece has been lost in the shuffle of great Hollywood Westerns, its story of a town settling in, just after the ravages of the civil war, becomes a microcosm for America’s nationhood. Joel McCrea, an actor film fans are going to have to discover on their own as his talents have been ignored by most mainstream film circles, plays a preacher who has given up a violent past to do the lords work. There is much to love in this film; tension and plot are underplayed allowing for a natural, folksy story to just kind of unfold. The film wrestles with faith and science, focuses not on calamity but resolutions thereof, and kind of makes a startling stand for working out problems in the community without violence. When the Klan shows up, Tourneur finds a way to confront ugly parts of American history without resorting to cheapened thrills. This is fine, sober filmmaking filled with many wonderful passages, - I am thinking of a sequence when two boys ride on a haystack, they fall back at the start of the cart, the camera cuts with them to an overhead shot, shadows move across their faces, a reverse shot of the sun streaming through the trees, their conversation becomes metaphysical, discussing the afterlife, the sequence as a whole is the kind of poetry only the cinema can deliver. Soon after a typhoid fever strikes the town’s children and I could only marvel at how Tourneur’s art served the film proper. Highly recommended.