what am i missing with deathwish, searchers and bullit?

[Livius]

Originally Posted by Spectre07

Here’s what I find memorable about The Searchers:

1. The symbolism and poignancy of the film’s closing shot making it one of the greatest endings to a film ever.

Amen.

[Guest 66721]

I think they should remake it and remove some of the over acting.

I agree john wayne is quite good in his role.

Not a patch on ouatitw though.

[Livius]

Ever get the feeling someone's just trying to get a rise out of us?

[Spectre07]

Originally Posted by tdevon1

I think they should remake it and remove some of the over acting.

I agree john wayne is quite good in his role.

Not a patch on ouatitw though.

Are you trolling with this "Look at me I don't get one of the greatest westerns ever made! Aren't I controversial! I think they should remake it!" because if you are it's getting very tired.

[anephric]

Just as an aside, my dad's a pretty big John Ford/John Wayne fan (although I think the latter thoroughly informs the former) and I made a regular feature of filling holes in his Duke catalogue for birthdays/Xmas. The occasion when I bought him The Searchers was met with a mild "Ummph, never liked that one much" whereas She Wore A Yellow Ribbon was met with smiles and paternal appreciation. Same deal with McLintock! Barely registered, but serve the old man up with Donovan's Reef and he was in hog (watery Duke) heaven.

[Spectre07]

Originally Posted by Livius

Ever get the feeling someone's just trying to get a rise out of us?

Amen.

[Guest 66721]

Originally Posted by Spectre07

Are you trolling with this "Look at me I don't get one of the greatest westerns ever made! Aren't I controversial! I think they should remake it!" because if you are it's getting very tired.

No, i did like the story arc but felt some of the acting let it down.

Has there been a remake maybe by another name?

Also, some may call it the greatest western but I didnt feel it. Maybe I will look at some of the other john ford/wayne pictures as I do hold the views of some of the directors who name him as a influence in high regard.

[Guest 56823]

Originally Posted by tdevon1

No, i did like the story arc but felt some of the acting let it down.

Has there been a remake maybe by another name?

Also, some may call it the greatest western but I didnt feel it. Maybe I will look at some of the other john ford/wayne pictures as I do hold the views of some of the directors who name him as a influence in high regard.

The Searchers has never officially been remade, but it's been a huge influence on many films from Paul Schrader's Hardcore and Schrader's/Scorsese's Taxi Driver to Ron Howard's The Missing and even on the first Star Wars.

With older films you have to keep in mind that acting styles used to be different from what they are now. It's not bad acting, but it's more stylised than todays more naturalistic acting style. As others have pointed out it helps to look at older films within their historical context.

Originally Posted by anephric

Just as an aside, my dad's a pretty big John Ford/John Wayne fan (although I think the latter thoroughly informs the former) and I made a regular feature of filling holes in his Duke catalogue for birthdays/Xmas. The occasion when I bought him The Searchers was met with a mild "Ummph, never liked that one much" whereas She Wore A Yellow Ribbon was met with smiles and paternal appreciation. Same deal with McLintock! Barely registered, but serve the old man up with Donovan's Reef and he was in hog (watery Duke) heaven.

In this way I always felt The Searchers is similar to Hitchcock's Vertigo. Even by their directors standards those films are incredibly dark, they deal with obsession and they feel very personal. Both films are also less easily consumed as mere entertainment when compared to She Wore a Yellow Ribbon or North by Northwest. Neither film was hugely popular in their time either with critics or audiences, but both have since undergone a huge critical re-evaluation.

[Guest 66721]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

With older films you have to keep in mind that acting styles used to be different from what they are now. It's not bad acting, but it's more stylised than todays more naturalistic acting style. As others have pointed out it helps to look at older films within their historical context.

I understand this. Maybe because Ive seen other westerns before this that it has made this film loose its effect. Like maybe seeing the bourne films and french connection before bullit.


In regards to filming, there is nothing in the film that matches the first 20 minutes of ouatitw or the last 20 minutes of tgtbatu.

[Guest 53019]

Originally Posted by tdevon1

The best western imo is ouatitw followed by goodbadugly.

the funny thing is I know that quite a few directors were influenced by ford, including leone, and the searchers but I just didnt get it. Also in regards framing the scenery i thought leones was better.

I can appreciate the story arc but maybe Im used to less dramatic acting, ie more natural. Maybe I need to rewatch the film.

It cant be a case of transfer as I watched the hddvd on a projector.

In regards bullit, can you comment on the numnerous times it had closeups for no reason?

Well, since the transfer, color-wise, is a complete botch, it may well have been the transfer. Sharp as a tack, yes. Bad color, yes. Too much bloody yellow - skies a BLUE not sickly green/yellow. But there have been many discussions about this. I'm told that a certain high-up at Warners has had his hands roundly slapped for allowing it to happen.

[Guest 66721]

Originally Posted by haineshisway

Well, since the transfer, color-wise, is a complete botch, it may well have been the transfer. Sharp as a tack, yes. Bad color, yes. Too much bloody yellow - skies a BLUE not sickly green/yellow. But there have been many discussions about this. I'm told that a certain high-up at Warners has had his hands roundly slapped for allowing it to happen.

that may be it in regards to transfer as it didnt really grab me after hearing it praised for its vistas.

[Raigmore]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

With older films you have to keep in mind that acting styles used to be different from what they are now. It's not bad acting, but it's more stylised than todays more naturalistic acting style. As others have pointed out it helps to look at older films within their historical context

This comment only tells you one side of the story. You have to remember that the social mores in the 'old' days were closer to what you saw in the films back then but very different from today. Furthermore, people between wars and immediatly after WW2 were sick of the real events around them and used movies as a source of entertainment/escapism and expected most stories to have a beginning, a middle and an end.

Having said that, the world as seen by the likes of Tarantino, Soderbergh, Tim Burton etc is not exactly "naturalistic" even though those guys try to force their ideas on the viewer. I cannot help thinking that tha majority of films these days - especially the American ones - cater for a different type of audience as opposed to 50 years or more before. You only have to look at any cinema on a weekend evening to realise what I am on about.

[DanWilde1966]

Originally Posted by Raigmore

I cannot help thinking that tha majority of films these days - especially the American ones - cater for a different type of audience as opposed to 50 years or more before. You only have to look at any cinema on a weekend evening to realise what I am on about.

This is the essential point. I have the misfortune to teach film - misfortune, because the potential for having my love of the subject trashed by the sheer uncomprehending indifference of many of the students is so great.

Let's take a recent example: I showed a group of students Deliverance. To my eye, I can see that the pace of its narrative is much slower than many movies today. There isn't that need to grab the audience in the first few minutes. Instead, the viewer is given "Duelling Banjos" (an amazing, amazing opening, in my view), but then must wait something like 45 minutes for "squeal piggy sceam" and all the rest of it. The build up in the first third of the movie is gradual (but gripping). I can watch this movie over and over, because it's very rich on a variety of levels. I adore it.

And yet... when the lights went up in my classroom, the students didn't have any comments to make. After five minutes of questioning, the most I could get out of them was - "It's weird." There was no further analysis, no apparent willingness (or ability?) to push the ball further than that, or indeed engage in any active response. Quite the opposite: the response was completely passive, and the students' assumption seemed to be that if the movie didn't grab viscerally in the first seconds, then it was automatically a bore. (My partner later said: "You were very naive showing them that. It does't have big special effects and car chases in it.") So many films from that glorious time (1968-1975-ish), from Pakula, Nichols, Polanski, Altman, et al - wash over the heads of many younger audiences today, because they require the engaged attention of the viewer, often for longer than 120 mins, and because they assume that the audience can follow/be interested in a more literary form of narrative.

Now if we bear this little anecdote in mind and return to The Searchers, it doesn't really have a hope in hell with a sensation-jaded, passive audience. Someone who can write that the film is "OK" is actually, passively, rather put-out that it doesn't do all the work. It requires something of the viewer. Furthermore, The Searchers works particularly well if you have a working knowledge of Wayne's earlier films and have an understanding of his place in the American psyche. Only with this context can you really see the challenging brilliance of his performance. The idea of a "remake" seems ludicrous to me.

[Spectre07]

Leone's films are stylised westerns whereas the old westerns are more naturalistic. I would advise the OP not to bother with Seven Samurai if he's already watched The Magnificient Seven.

[Spectre07]

Originally Posted by DanWilde1966

This is the essential point. I have the misfortune to teach film - misfortune, because the potential for having my love of the subject trashed by the sheer uncomprehending indifference of many of the students is so great.

What kind of work can you get if you study film? Apart from teaching film that is?

[DanWilde1966]

Originally Posted by Spectre07

What kind of work can you get if you study film? Apart from teaching film that is?

Ah ha! You are someone who thinks that education is only valid if it leads to a particular job?

[Livius]

Originally Posted by DanWilde1966

Let's take a recent example: I showed a group of students Deliverance. To my eye, I can see that the pace of its narrative is much slower than many movies today. There isn't that need to grab the audience in the first few minutes. Instead, the viewer is given "Duelling Banjos" (an amazing, amazing opening, in my view), but then must wait something like 45 minutes for "squeal piggy sceam" and all the rest of it. The build up in the first third of the movie is gradual (but gripping). I can watch this movie over and over, because it's very rich on a variety of levels. I adore it.

And yet... when the lights went up in my classroom, the students didn't have any comments to make. After five minutes of questioning, the most I could get out of them was - "It's weird." There was no further analysis, no apparent willingness (or ability?) to push the ball further than that, or indeed engage in any active response. Quite the opposite: the response was completely passive, and the students' assumption seemed to be that if the movie didn't grab viscerally in the first seconds, then it was automatically a bore. .

Well, that's a nice depressing little story.
Sadly, though, I think it highlights the problem of pitching older movies to younger audiences perfectly. After being force-fed a diet of unrelenting crap in the cinema and on TV a whole generation has grown up unable and/or unwilling to engage their brain while viewing a film. It makes me think of a discussion on another board where some people have pointed out that younger viewers found Jaws too slow and boring!

As for this point about the acting style in older movies being unnatural etc., it just doesn't make sense to me. I could buy that argument if it were applied to the followers of the method, who can seem painfully forced and fake but it doesn't really apply to the majority of old films - certainly not The Searchers.

[DanWilde1966]

Originally Posted by Livius

It makes me think of a discussion on another board where some people have pointed out that younger viewers found Jaws too slow and boring!

My timespan ended in '75 with JAWS in mind. It is one of the most tired grumblings in film discussions that JAWS "changed Hollywood cinema", in the sense that the blockbuster and "movie brats" infantilised the movies. This is a gross simplification, of course, but I do find it horribly ironic that younger audiences now might find Spielberg's film too slow and boring!

[Livius]

It's probably worth noting that most of us who post here grew up in an era when we were regularly exposed to a far wider variety of film styles. Both cinema and TV offered up a selection of popcorn entertainment flicks along with more thought provoking/slower stuff so - we learned to appreciate both on their own merits. Nowadays, that variety just isn't there and if a film doesn't deliver the payoff early on, and continue to do so throughout, it draws sighs of boredom.

[Spectre07]

Originally Posted by DanWilde1966

Ah ha! You are someone who thinks that education is only valid if it leads to a particular job?

Yes, my working life started after the socialist dream evaporated and I live in an age where the cost of living has no regard for a bohemian lifestyle.