Shane - Going to give it a chance
TBerk
unexpectedly and serendipitously as well.
I've seen bits & pieces, and out of order I've seen the ending- I've
always wondered what the big huuha was all about because I don't think
I like this movie.
Well, here goes...
berk
william
worth it.
William
www.williamahearn.com
TBerk
> On Dec 18, 3:49 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Well, an old Jimmie Stewart film just went off
>
OK, I _tried_, I really did... but then I got pulled away to help
service a combo AM/FM/Cassette/Phono/8-track Recorder rig for it's use
tomorrow (as in can't wait till later).
And yes, it has an 8-track Recorder in it.
But back to 'Shane'. I think I just don't like that film.
Now I'm off to go Bar-B-Q a Turkey Breast I have in the fridge....
berk
Death From Above
You murderous sack of shiite. I like that duck-faced ugly and
obnoxious kid.
william
wrote:
>
> You murderous sack of shiite. I like that duck-faced ugly and
> obnoxious kid.
My dearest Death From A Fart,
While it's been amusing tweaking your conflicted sexuality and your
adolescent anger, I'm afraid I've become bored with you. If you were a
tad smarter or even a bit funnier, your silly posts might be worth
responding to. But, alas, they're not. So I bid you adieu and I would
ignore you if you were worthy of attention, but you aren't.
Ta ta,
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
"william" <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:01b7a0c6-8338-4972...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
REPLY:
But he grew up to give a hell of a performance in "Hud".
william
wrote:
>
> But he grew up to give a hell of a performance in "Hud".
And "Blue Denim" -- an early teen pregnancy flick. I'm glad his career
continued but in "Shane" he was grating and annoying and while I
didn't think a whole lot of the film to start with, that kid made it
unbearable.
William
www.williamahearn.com
moviePig
But what kids near that vintage *were* presentable performers? From
Surely Temple up until the past 5 or 10 years, young kids on-screen
have always required extra cabling in my willing suspension of
disbelief...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
william
>
> But what kids near that vintage *were* presentable performers? From
> Surely Temple up until the past 5 or 10 years, young kids on-screen
> have always required extra cabling in my willing suspension of
> disbelief...
>
minutes got old fast. It's not the kid so much as how he was used so I
agree generally with you but specifically that voice and "Shane" just
drove me up the wall. Not crazy about the film anyway so it just made
it worse.
William
www.williamahearn.com
moviePig
I'm pretty sure I saw it when it first came out, and liked it a lot.
But that was before "Shane come back Shane" became primetime reference-
humor. Regardless, I'd certainly allow that neither the kid, nor the
sodbuster, nor indeed Shane himself, held a candle to Palance...
Blue
It's the realism, sorta, you know, like, that's the way it was, the
mud, sears catalogue, scenery, music, bad dude, the dog walkin' away
as Wilson shows up, somebody takin' on the evil (both sides got a
legitimate argument) folks in town, annoyin' kid, Ben Johnson's role
as Chris, sittin' there, thinkin' at Grafton's after that fight, I
don't know, too me it's the best of all time!
Halmyre
273a74...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, pwal...@moviepig.com says...
I'd like to have had Palance as Shane and Ladd as Wilson.
--
Halmyre
tomcervo
> In article <f1492f4a-49f6-466c-b0cf-
> 273a74516...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, pwall...@moviepig.com says...
Never would have happened, but . . . . Lee Van Cleef as Shane.
(Just beating Jim Beaver to the punch.)
Halmyre
@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, tomc...@aol.com says...
My old copy of Shane is this imprint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JackSchaefer_Shane.jpg
Looks a bit like Scott Glenn to me.
http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsG/6634-16039.gif
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
Howard Brazee
complaining how his lifestyle was being taken from the old timers by
the new sod busters. We almost feel sorry for him - and he is
believable. Meanwhile in the background, the two gunslingers are
sizing each other up.
Wonderful scene.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Halmyre
says...
> One of my favorite scenes in moviedom is when the wealthy rancher is
> complaining how his lifestyle was being taken from the old timers by
> the new sod busters. We almost feel sorry for him - and he is
> believable. Meanwhile in the background, the two gunslingers are
> sizing each other up.
>
> Wonderful scene.
>
>
I can't remember if it's in the film, but there's a bit in the book where it
points out that if Shane had chosen instead to carry on to Ryker's(?) ranch,
and not stop at Starrett's farm, he might have ended up in Wilson's position.
Endymion9
William
www.williamahearn.com
MY RESPONSE:
I've seen much more irritating kids. This one didn't bother me. And
enjoyed the different pacing and style of Shane. Much more subtle than a
rip roaring black vs. white western. Lots of good gray stuff.
--
--
Dennis/Endy9
~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon
--
TT
>
> I've seen much more irritating kids.
Not a fan of Harry Potter movies, eh?
william
>
> I've seen much more irritating kids. This one didn't bother me. And
> enjoyed the different pacing and style of Shane. Much more subtle than a
> rip roaring black vs. white western. Lots of good gray stuff.
>
westerns to begin with so one could dismiss my dismissal of "Shane"
for that reason alone.
Kingo Gondo
would you mind posting this reply to your own post? Appreciate it. I can
read the damn things, but can't answer unless someone posts for me.
Irritating.
Jim
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-7udndo-NPJUpbHW...@earthlink.com...
I love de Wilde in SHANE. And HUD. And IN HARM'S WAY. And in THE MEMBER
OF THE WEDDING. As a child, he reminds me of certain kids in the day-care
center my parents ran, the special kids, the ones I remember thinking "This
kid's going places someday." As an actor (even as a child actor), he rivets
my attention. I know it's much more common for people to rag on the kid in
SHANE. But I don't. He's one of my favorite things about the movie, and
it's a movie I love very much.
SHANE hatred is one of those things I just don't get. I love it, probably
one of my ten favorite Westerns. But then, I don't care for ONCE UPON A
TIME IN THE WEST, which most Western fans salivate over. One big difference
for me, of course, is that SHANE seems to take place in the American West,
while OUATITHW seems to take place in the very Italian mind of Sergio Leone.
But SHANE touches me, moves me, excites me, breaks my heart. I love the
performances and the slightly off-kilter quality of most of them. That may
be part of what some people dislike, but it's a richness in my opinion. And
I love Brandon de Wilde in it.
Jim Beaver
william
wrote:
> SHANE hatred is one of those things I just don't get. >
> Jim Beaver
I don't hate "Shane" but the kid does get annoying and I don't hate
him. I'm just underwhelmed by the movie. I'm not assuming you lumped
me in with the "haters" just clearing up my take on the film. I never
understood and still don't understand the attraction of the film and
I've seen it within the last few years.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Blue
Red River
Blue
I'd like to know the Western that overwhelms you?
william
>
> I'd like to know the Western that overwhelms you?
As I had made clear earlier in the thread, I'm not a fan of westerns.
And as I wrote earlier if you want to find that grounds for not taking
me seriously about "Shane" that's jake with me. The western that
overwhelmed me was "The Wild Bunch." I find "Shane" not to have a
story that I can really relate to while TWB has it in spades. "Shane"
is a film that bolsters the notion of American morality and I find
that -- in reality -- an illusion so I tend not to relate to films
that have that as a basis. It's a tad simple minded, if you ask me.
William
www.williamahearn.com
tomcervo
American Exceptionalism, you mean? Some moral clarity not given to
other nations?
I understand resenting "Shane" being pumped up into The Western, with
others neglected, but the moral seems darker than some people think.
The killer can not be subdued by group action, but only by another
killer; it takes Other to kill Other. Whereas in real life the Wilsons
usually went to the gallows, like Tom Horn, or were effectively
stopped by mass action. The Johnson County War is usually cited as the
source story for Shane, and in that case the bad men had to be rescued
from the armed populace by the cavalry. My own take on Wilson is that
after he shot Stonewall, he couldn't have left the store--someone
waiting with a rifle would have shot him.
The whole "fast gun" aspect of the post-war western is an invention of
a few writers of that era--a book called "Triggerometry (sp)
especially. Contemporary writers never seem to notice who was fast,
but who was sure--who could keep a cool head under fire. Bat Masterson
admired Wyatt Earp's clarity in action, and Earp himself described his
own concentration as he watched Frank McLaurey at the vacant lot next
to Fly's--he knew him to be the best shot on the other side, not the
fastest. Even if he was bragging, note that he bragged about accuracy
and not speed.
moviePig
That seems analogous to why I don't enjoy, say, WIZARD OF OZ quite as
much as ALIENS. But I figure anyone who watches lots of old movies
has (whether they admit it or not) an adjustable viewing-mode that can
travel through not only time but also relative mores. E.g., I assume
you'd use such a thing in watching even some modern overseas stuff...
william
>
> The whole "fast gun" aspect of the post-war western is an invention of
> a few writers of that era--a book called "Triggerometry (sp)
> especially.
I think we can agree that -- for the most part -- the entire "West" --
as portrayed in Hollywood films -- is an invention. For "Shane," it's
hard to find any character as far as I'm concerned that isn't
cardboard or wooden. Here's a gunslinger who has no interest in
gambling, women, drinking, or much of anything else except hanging out
in the bunkhouse ironing his cowboy outfit. Perhaps Shane was once
"bad" or "evil" but now he's a cipher. He's an absence rather than a
presence. The film is really about how a family is being threatened by
greed or the big corporations -- a Hollywood favorite since greedy
people are too busy to go to the movies and families aren't. So we
have a neutered "hero" who saves the family and then has to die
because he was "bad" at one point but redeemed himself for the family.
Puh-leeze. Throw in the kid -- again for the family -- and the moral
of the tale is covered in juvenile sentimentality. Everything about
the film is false.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Stone me
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:659bded3-236c-47c3...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"..after he shot Stonewall, he couldn't have left the store--someone
waiting with a rifle would have shot him."
I find that convincing, and indicates that the film is Not about "How it
really was, back then", but sells some mythology with which audiences
could relate.
People like the Hero who is, for the film, endowed with all the "noble"
attributes. He is then made to win against a Force or Forces which are
endowed with negative attributes.
A common theme too, is that just one person, rather than a collection of
townsfolk, comes from Outside the settled community, settles matters
which they are either unable to, or are afraid to. To do this, he has
skills or natural talents, in this case a Fast Gun, which none of the
towns people possess, and seem unlikely ever to do so.
Even Palance seems to be hired in from Outside.
Later films debunked all this stuff, to the detriment of the future of the
Western.
To emphasize his separateness from the settled community, at the end
of the film, he rides into the distance to the annoying cries of the Boy,
and the main Theme.
For my take, he could just as easily be going back to the Bat-Cave or
Planet Krypton.
Stone me.
David Oberman
wrote:
>> � I'd like to know the Western that overwhelms you?
>
>As I had made clear earlier in the thread, I'm not a fan of westerns.
>And as I wrote earlier if you want to find that grounds for not taking
>me seriously about "Shane" that's jake with me. The western that
>overwhelmed me was "The Wild Bunch."
What do you think of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL?
william
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:16:31 -0800 (PST), william <wlahe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> I'd like to know the Western that overwhelms you?
>
> >As I had made clear earlier in the thread, I'm not a fan of westerns.
> >And as I wrote earlier if you want to find that grounds for not taking
> >me seriously about "Shane" that's jake with me. The western that
> >overwhelmed me was "The Wild Bunch."
>
> What do you think of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL?
Haven't seen it in decades
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 20-Dec-2009, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >As I had made clear earlier in the thread, I'm not a fan of westerns.
> >And as I wrote earlier if you want to find that grounds for not taking
> >me seriously about "Shane" that's jake with me. The western that
> >overwhelmed me was "The Wild Bunch."
>
> What do you think of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL?
Available in an early wide screen version (as intended, not some perversion
of the 4:3 version). Magnificent film!
steve
--
"If I have seen farther than others, it's because I'm standing knee deep in
intellectual midgets."
Greg Cochrane
moviePig
> On 20-Dec-2009, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > >As I had made clear earlier in the thread, I'm not a fan of westerns.
> > >And as I wrote earlier if you want to find that grounds for not taking
> > >me seriously about "Shane" that's jake with me. The western that
> > >overwhelmed me was "The Wild Bunch."
>
> > What do you think of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL?
>
> Available in an early wide screen version (as intended, not some perversion
> of the 4:3 version). Magnificent film!
Nothing to contribute here, except to note yet another recommendation-
cascade that results in an addition to my queue. (We should
acknowledge them now and then...)
william
>
> Nothing to contribute here, except to note yet another recommendation-
> cascade that results in an addition to my queue. (We should
> acknowledge them now and then...)
>
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> > What do you think of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL?
>>
>> Available in an early wide screen version (as intended, not some perversion
>> of the 4:3 version). �Magnificent film!
>
>Nothing to contribute here, except to note yet another recommendation-
>cascade that results in an addition to my queue. (We should
>acknowledge them now and then...)
Nobody ever takes my recommendations, so thank you!
David Oberman
wrote:
>I just reserved it at the library. I'll give anything a shot.
William, I don't think you'll like it. I predict you will find it
corny & shmaltzy & chintzy & cheesy & even a little bit trashy.
william
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 14:50:00 -0800 (PST), william <wlahe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I just reserved it at the library. I'll give anything a shot.
>
> William, I don't think you'll like it. I predict you will find it
> corny & shmaltzy & chintzy & cheesy & even a little bit trashy.
"Trashy"? Ay trashy cowgirls?
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
wrote:
>"Trashy"? Any trashy cowgirls?
You mean like Mary Boland in THE WOMEN (1939)?
Nope.
moviePig
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 12:59:51 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
> >> > What do you think of Raoul Walsh's magnificent THE BIG TRAIL?
>
> >> Available in an early wide screen version (as intended, not some perversion
> >> of the 4:3 version). Magnificent film!
>
> >Nothing to contribute here, except to note yet another recommendation-
> >cascade that results in an addition to my queue. (We should
> >acknowledge them now and then...)
>
> Nobody ever takes my recommendations, so thank you!
Just selective reporting, probably. You may actually be causing
library stampedes nationally...
TBerk
>
> SHANE hatred is one of those things I just don't get.
Well, I don't think I actually _hate_ it.
> I love it, probably
> one of my ten favorite Westerns. But then, I don't care for ONCE UPON A
> TIME IN THE WEST, which most Western fans salivate over. One big difference
> for me, of course, is that SHANE seems to take place in the American West,
> while OUATITHW seems to take place in the very Italian mind of Sergio Leone.
>
> But SHANE touches me, moves me, excites me, breaks my heart. I love the
> performances and the slightly off-kilter quality of most of them. That may
> be part of what some people dislike, but it's a richness in my opinion. And
> I love Brandon de Wilde in it.
>
> Jim Beaver
It has both Classic and Icon status for a very good couple of reasons;
those characters being slightly off-kilter being one of them.
They are not the same film, but for me, I like 'Angel and the Badman'
better.
berk
steve
On 20-Dec-2009, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >I just reserved it at the library. I'll give anything a shot.
>
> William, I don't think you'll like it. I predict you will find it
> corny & shmaltzy & chintzy & cheesy & even a little bit trashy.
I predict william will like the realistic portrayal (visually, at least) of
the camp by the river (early western neorealism?), the stunning scenery and
cinematography, the lovely Marguerite Churchill, the unusual action
sequences (like lowering wagons over a cliff)..so much cool stuff. OK, some
of the acting is stiff and the sound quality is a bit poor, but it doesnt
kill the buzz.
steve
On 20-Dec-2009, william <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just reserved it at the library. I'll give anything a shot.
Is it the widescreen?
Interesting take on the film, here:
http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Walsh.html
william
> On 20-Dec-2009, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I just reserved it at the library. I'll give anything a shot.
>
> Is it the widescreen?
>
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>Just selective reporting, probably. You may actually be causing
>library stampedes nationally...
I often think about the possibly thousands of people who regularly
read this group -- people who don't let their presence be known to us.
What do _they_ think of our relatively small group of regs? Do they
think we're cool? assholes? hogging the group limelight?
steve
On 21-Dec-2009, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >Just selective reporting, probably. You may actually be causing
> >library stampedes nationally...
>
> I often think about the possibly thousands of people who regularly
> read this group -- people who don't let their presence be known to us.
> What do _they_ think of our relatively small group of regs? Do they
> think we're cool? assholes? hogging the group limelight?
I imagine that the number of lurkers is small, Dober... but if someone does
enjoy reading our nonsense as a spectator sport then they must be at least
as strange as the average ramp-f reg. Do they (assuming there is a they)
think we're cool? I doubt they even think that THEY are cool (or else they
would speak up now and then).
Limelight? Uh...yea. Dont you get tired of people stopping you on the
street, asking about ramp-f, taking pictures, and collecting autographs to
sell on ebay? Tiresome.
Perhaps they (again..assuming) are internet anthropologists (is there such a
thing? Perhaps there should be.) studying how people relate through text
alone, or (I actually hope) members of the film/DVD/TV industry who are
taking the pulse of representatives of a niche market. Could it be that TCM
reps look in now and then...or are we completely off the radar screen? Do
we actually offer anything valuable to a marketing type?
Madara0806
> Well, an old Jimmie Stewart film just went off and 'Shane' is up next,
> unexpectedly and serendipitously as well.
>
> I've seen bits & pieces, and out of order I've seen the ending- I've
> always wondered what the big huuha was all about because I don't think
> I like this movie.
>
> Well, here goes...
>
SHANE is worth seeing, simply as an example of a big, glossy,
middlebrow Hollywood western that pleased all the critics, but Ladd
made so many better westerns (RED MOUNTAIN, BRANDED, DRUM BEAT, THE
BIG LAND, etc.), and so many other, better westerns were being made at
the time, by other filmmakers, e.g. BEND OF THE RIVER, THE NAKED SPUR,
THE FAR COUNTRY, APACHE, VERA CRUZ, various Audie Murphy vehicles,
assorted Universal westerns (THE GREAT SIOUX UPRISING), etc.
moviePig
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:56:16 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
> >Just selective reporting, probably. You may actually be causing
> >library stampedes nationally...
>
> I often think about the possibly thousands of people who regularly
> read this group -- people who don't let their presence be known to us.
> What do _they_ think of our relatively small group of regs? Do they
> think we're cool? assholes? hogging the group limelight?
Yes, they think we're cool assholes hogging the group limelight.
(However, 'literate narcissistic eccentrics' is what I'd prefer... and
therefore what matters most...)
David Oberman
<pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>(However, 'literate narcissistic eccentrics' is what I'd prefer...
That describes me to a T.
moviePig
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 12:01:58 -0800 (PST), moviePig
>
> >(However, 'literate narcissistic eccentrics' is what I'd prefer...
>
> That describes me to a T.
You'll be fine. Just remember always to seem self-effacing when you
sneer... or at least dotty...
Avoid normal situations.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Let's face it: intellectual achievement and the intellectual elite are alien
to the mainstream of American society. They are off to the side in a sub-
section of esoteric isolation labeled 'oddball', 'high brow', 'egghead',
'double-dome'." -- Elmo Roper in 1958
David Oberman
<byend.removethis...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>> I often think about the possibly thousands of people who regularly
>> read this group -- people who don't let their presence be known to us.
>> What do _they_ think of our relatively small group of regs? Do they
>> think we're cool? assholes? hogging the group limelight?
>
>http://tinyurl.com/yjxuak9
We're cruel, cutting, & hysterically funny, it seems.
We're the new Algonquin Round Table!
Hi-5.
william
> We're cruel, cutting, & hysterically funny, it seems.
>
> We're the new Algonquin Round Table!
A few years back I met an old friend at the Algonquin Hotel for
coffee. It was like stepping into a past that couldn't quite remember.
Lit posers, rich hippies (think those lambskin jackets from the early
1970s but done by "designers"), moth-ball sophisticates with martinis
waiting for the well-known lounge singer to begin, and a wait staff
that probably owned property in the Hamptons and got it when it was
cheap. Pure "Twilight Zone." If it's okay with you Dave, can we
downtown to the Chelsea? There's a couple of nice tables nearby.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Jim Beaver
"Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-7udndo-NPJUpbHW...@earthlink.com...
>
> "william" <wlah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:01b7a0c6-8338-4972...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 18, 3:49 pm, TBerk <bayareab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, an old Jimmie Stewart film just went off and 'Shane' is up next,
>> unexpectedly and serendipitously as well.
>>
>> I've seen bits & pieces, and out of order I've seen the ending- I've
>> always wondered what the big huuha was all about because I don't think
>> I like this movie.
>>
>> Well, here goes...
>>
> worth it.
>
> REPLY:
>
> But he grew up to give a hell of a performance in "Hud".
I love de Wilde in SHANE. And HUD. And IN HARM'S WAY. And in THE MEMBER
OF THE WEDDING. As a child, he reminds me of certain kids in the day-care
center my parents ran, the special kids, the ones I remember thinking "This
kid's going places someday." As an actor (even as a child actor), he rivets
my attention. I know it's much more common for people to rag on the kid in
SHANE. But I don't. He's one of my favorite things about the movie, and
it's a movie I love very much.
SHANE hatred is one of those things I just don't get. I love it, probably
Avoid normal situations.
[..]
> SHANE hatred is one of those things I just don't get.
I cannot speak for the others, but I can explain for myself. Perhaps this
will shed a little light on the subject.
My problem with _Shane_ is that I read the book first. My mental picture of
Shane in the book is that he's this deep and dark and mysterious and dangerous
man who wants to become a good man instead. He'd love to be Joe Starrett...
but, due to the bottomless corruption of the world, he still has to be Shane
just to protect people like Starrett. This mental picture was matched very
closely by the cover illustration of the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JackSchaefer_Shane.jpg
Then I saw the movie, where he was turned into... smiling Alan Ladd in '50s
Technicolor.
No. Just no. No, no, no, no, no, no. It was one of those truly hideous
casting choices (e.g., Anne Hathaway as young Jane Austen, Gerard Butler as
Dracula) such that there was absolutely, positively no way that a good film
could be built around such a lead. And, mind you, I was just a boy when I
saw the film, when my standards were much lower than they are now.
I have hated _Shane_ the movie ever since.
> I love it, probably
> one of my ten favorite Westerns. But then, I don't care for ONCE UPON A
> TIME IN THE WEST, which most Western fans salivate over. One big difference
> for me, of course, is that SHANE seems to take place in the American West,
> while OUATITHW seems to take place in the very Italian mind of Sergio Leone.
I've also thought _Once Upon a Time in the West_ is great since I was a boy,
even though I first saw it cut, commercialed, and pan & scanned (horribly, I'm
sure) on TV. Further evidence that there simply is no accounting for taste.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Can any of you seriously say the Bill of Rights could get through Congress
today? It wouldn't even get out of committee."
-- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_, 1906
Halmyre
byend.removethis...@eskimo.com says...
> Jim Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > SHANE hatred is one of those things I just don't get.
>
> I cannot speak for the others, but I can explain for myself. Perhaps this
> will shed a little light on the subject.
>
> My problem with _Shane_ is that I read the book first. My mental picture of
> Shane in the book is that he's this deep and dark and mysterious and dangerous
> man who wants to become a good man instead. He'd love to be Joe Starrett...
> but, due to the bottomless corruption of the world, he still has to be Shane
> just to protect people like Starrett. This mental picture was matched very
> closely by the cover illustration of the book:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JackSchaefer_Shane.jpg
>
> Then I saw the movie, where he was turned into... smiling Alan Ladd in '50s
> Technicolor.
>
Agreed; but I don't really hate the film, although I haven't seen it in years
and have no great desire to.
--
Halmyre
This is the most powerful sigfile in the world and will probably blow your
head clean off.
Blue
> "Kingo Gondo" <kingo_nospam_go...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:-7udndo-NPJUpbHW...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "william" <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I agree, De Wilde is great as that annoyin' kid. A great Western, just
watchin' that dog ease outta the way in the saloon, Ben Johnson's
performance, the stump, Jack Palance as Wilson, I can't think of a
bad performance by anyone in that film. It's amazin' some folks hate
it.
moviePig
I suppose that, in some instances, the chronologically challenged
might dismiss a movie like SHANE as merely an uninspired imitation of
its imitators. As for the kid, it seems the *least* one ought to say
for him is that, unlike the vast majority of child-performances until
quite recently, he didn't singlehandedly demolish the movie's spell...
Jim Beaver
"Avoid normal situations." <byend.removethis...@eskimo.com>
wrote in message news:hlf26...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Well, as Faulkner or Hammett or one of those guys said when someone asked
about Hollywood ruining his novels, the novels are fine, they're still right
there on the shelf.
I can understand your reaction, but I'd love to see you look at it again
just as a movie and not as the mangled reincarnation of your beloved novel
of childhood. The fact that lots of fairly sane people do, in fact,
absolutely, positively find a good film built around a lead such as Ladd
played suggests that it can't be impossible.
I, for one, love Dostoyevsky's THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Richard Brooks's
film of the novel is not remotely right, in many, many ways, yet I love the
film. I separate the two. Perhaps someday you can do as much with SHANE
and enjoy the film in its own right. Probably not, as you've got a lot of
years feeling as you do. But if I understand you correctly that you haven't
seen it since boyhood, it might be worth another shot.
Jim Beaver
Anim8rFSK
"Avoid normal situations."
<byend.removethis...@eskimo.com> wrote:
> My problem with _Shane_ is that I read the book first.
I had *completely* forgotten they made us read SHANE in high school
english. To this day, I have no idea *why*
--
As Adam West as Bruce Wayne as Batman said in "Smack in the Middle"
the second half of the 1966 BATMAN series pilot when Jill St. John
as Molly as Robin as Molly fell into the Batmobile's atomic pile:
"What a terrible way to go-go"
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>> My problem with _Shane_ is that I read the book first.
>
>I had *completely* forgotten they made us read SHANE in high school
>english. To this day, I have no idea *why*
It's short?
I liked the book myself, but there are lots of people who say assigned
reading makes them hate books. I suspect they wouldn't like books
anyway.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Avoid normal situations.
> "Avoid normal situations." <byend.removethis...@eskimo.com>
> wrote in message news:hlf26...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> > Jim Beaver <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
[ why I hate _Shane_ the movie ]
> Well, as Faulkner or Hammett or one of those guys said when someone asked
> about Hollywood ruining his novels, the novels are fine, they're still right
> there on the shelf.
I think that was James M. Cain.
> I can understand your reaction, but I'd love to see you look at it again
> just as a movie and not as the mangled reincarnation of your beloved novel
> of childhood. The fact that lots of fairly sane people do, in fact,
> absolutely, positively find a good film built around a lead such as Ladd
> played suggests that it can't be impossible.
Well... perhaps something in there was poorly phrased on my part. By "lead"
I was trying to mean "that actor as that lead character" rather than say that
actor was always bad. I like Alan Ladd just fine in other movies, particularly
_This Gun For Hire_.
> I, for one, love Dostoyevsky's THE BROTHERS KARAMAZOV. Richard Brooks's
> film of the novel is not remotely right, in many, many ways, yet I love the
> film. I separate the two. Perhaps someday you can do as much with SHANE
> and enjoy the film in its own right. Probably not, as you've got a lot of
> years feeling as you do. But if I understand you correctly that you haven't
> seen it since boyhood, it might be worth another shot.
I just may do that, actually. Movies are not made in a vacuum, and I am a
quite different person today than I was in childhood, so my opinions are not
set in stone. In fact, just the other day I gave _The Virgin Spring_ another
shot, well over a decade after I first attempted to see it and was bored out
of my skull. (I think it helps a lot that I have acquired much more of a
taste for nonAmerican films than I used to have, and that I saw the movie in
*much* better conditions than earlier. Just as the real star of a lot of
noirs made back in the day is not any of the actors but John Alton, the
real star of _The Virgin Spring_ IMHO is not Max Von Sydow, but Sven
Nykvist. But I digress.)
That being said... currently I am trying to see as many of the real films
as possible before I die, and so it seems difficult to justify setting aside
time to see even a much-loved film a second time. (Please don't misunderstand.
I'm not terminally ill or anything like that. However, I know perfectly well
that I'm as mortal and as fragile as the next man.) Just for starters, I have
yet to see _Killer of Sheep_. Or _Yi Yi_. Or _Werckmeister Harmonies_. Or
_Moolaade_. Or _The Triplets of Belleville_. Or _Beau Travail_. Or _Secrets
& Lies_. Or... well, you get the general idea.
Jim Beaver
"Avoid normal situations." <byend.removethis...@eskimo.com>
wrote in message news:hlig5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> I just may do that, actually. Movies are not made in a vacuum, and I am a
> quite different person today than I was in childhood, so my opinions are
> not
> set in stone. In fact, just the other day I gave _The Virgin Spring_
> another
> shot, well over a decade after I first attempted to see it and was bored
> out
> of my skull. (I think it helps a lot that I have acquired much more of a
> taste for nonAmerican films than I used to have,
I feel the same way. I HATED The 400 Blows when I saw it at 25 in 1975. I
saw it again the other day and thought it was brilliant.
Jim Beaver
David Oberman
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>I HATED The 400 Blows when I saw it at 25 in 1975.
Yikes!
>I saw it again the other day and thought it was brilliant.
Whew.
What did you think of ADELE H. the first time you saw it? Yikes or
whew?
_______
Friendliness is at the core of the American spirit.
The desire to give a guy a fair shake animates us.
-- Jacques Barzun
"God's Country & Mine"
calvin
not planning to stay. Has anybody mentioned George
Stevens, though? The editor turned director was no
slouch, and created an excellent sense of place, in
this and his other movies.
william
>
> What did you think of ADELE H. the first time you saw it? Yikes or
> whew?
>
ADELE H to be one of the most amateurish films I'd ever seen from a
"name" director. I like THE 400 BLOWS but I find Truffaut ultimately
gutless when dealing with really serious or depressing material. He
clearly shows that in his butchering of two Cornell Woolrich stories.
His films leave me feeling that he wants to be liked more than
respected or admired and as a result he "spares" us the painful parts.
I gave up on him long ago.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Jim Beaver
On Feb 18, 12:42 pm, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
>
> What did you think of ADELE H. the first time you saw it? Yikes or
> whew?
I've never seen it.
Jim Beaver
calvin
I finally read the whole thread, and sure enough, nobody
mentioned George Stevens (except by inference, when
someone referred to 'other filmmakers'). For shame.
Stevens was one of the movie's most dominant factors.
As for Brandon De Wilde, he was very fine in 'Hud', but
I thought he was too puny, and his character too bitchy,
to be convincing as John Wayne's son in 'In Harm's Way'.
David Oberman
wrote:
>If I can jump in here -- and of course I can, it's usenet -- I found
>ADELE H to be one of the most amateurish films I'd ever seen from a
>"name" director.
It's one of my favorite movies from the 1970s. I think it
successfully tackles a number of dark themes head on: neurotic,
self-destructive obsession & compulsion, the love-hate between
sisters, family alienation, the belying of the myth of the wisdom of
old age, &c.
moviePig
> On Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:23:36 -0800 (PST), william <wlahe...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If I can jump in here -- and of course I can, it's usenet -- I found
> >ADELE H to be one of the most amateurish films I'd ever seen from a
> >"name" director.
>
> It's one of my favorite movies from the 1970s. I think it
> successfully tackles a number of dark themes head on: neurotic,
> self-destructive obsession & compulsion, the love-hate between
> sisters, family alienation, the belying of the myth of the wisdom of
> old age, &c.
(A myth is as good as a milestone...)
Anim8rFSK
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:04:05 -0700, Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> My problem with _Shane_ is that I read the book first.
> >
> >I had *completely* forgotten they made us read SHANE in high school
> >english. To this day, I have no idea *why*
>
> It's short?
>
> I liked the book myself, but there are lots of people who say assigned
> reading makes them hate books. I suspect they wouldn't like books
> anyway.
I love books, but I hated the ones they made us read in English. Now,
senior year in High School, in Mr. Larabell's daring new 'paperback
power' class (the other teachers were aghast he wasn't using hardbacks)
he had a spinner of paperbacks and we got to choose what we wanted and
wrote a report on it. Those books stood and fell on their own merits.
TBerk
I'm calling in the NTSB and Homeland Security, you guys are trying to
hijack my thread.... ;])
berk
TBerk
> "Avoid normal situations." <byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com>
> wrote in messagenews:hlig5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
> > I just may do that, actually. Movies are not made in a vacuum, and I am a
> > quite different person today than I was in childhood, so my opinions are
> > not
> > set in stone. In fact, just the other day I gave _The Virgin Spring_
> > another
> > shot, well over a decade after I first attempted to see it and was bored
> > out
> > of my skull. (I think it helps a lot that I have acquired much more of a
> > taste for nonAmerican films than I used to have,
>
> I feel the same way. I HATED The 400 Blows when I saw it at 25 in 1975. I
> saw it again the other day and thought it was brilliant.
>
> Jim Beaver
So, having gotten around to 'Shane' well into adulthood, how long
shall I wait to re-watch it to get to the appreciation stage?
It's not realistic to like everything, I don't think 'Shane' is ever
going to be on my 'Top xxxx List'.
berk
Anim8rFSK
<5ccd17fa-bcec-49f1...@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 17, 11:35�pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> > "Avoid normal situations." <byend.removethisbityousillyper...@eskimo.com>
> > wrote in messagenews:hlig5...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > �I just may do that, actually. Movies are not made in a vacuum, and I am a
> > > quite different person today than I was in childhood, so my opinions are
> > > not
> > > set in stone. In fact, just the other day I gave The Virgin Spring
> > > another
> > > shot, well over a decade after I first attempted to see it and was bored
> > > out
> > > of my skull. (I think it helps a lot that I have acquired much more of a
> > > taste for nonAmerican films than I used to have,
> >
> > I feel the same way. �I HATED The 400 Blows when I saw it at 25 in 1975. �I
> > saw it again the other day and thought it was brilliant.
> >
> > Jim Beaver
>
>
> So, having gotten around to 'Shane' well into adulthood, how long
> shall I wait to re-watch it to get to the appreciation stage?
>
> It's not realistic to like everything, I don't think 'Shane' is ever
> going to be on my 'Top xxxx List'.
>
>
>
> berk
I dunno, xxxx is close to ten thousand movies. Shane would probably
make my top ten thousand list. It won't make my x list, or my xx list,
and probably not even my xxx list, but my xxxx list? Yeah. But then,
so would the Albert Pyun rubber ears "Captain America"
Blue
>
> - Show quoted text -
Never say ever, also, if you don't like Westerns, don't watch them, I
know you didn't say that, but, it would be good to see evidence of the
ones superior to "Shane".
calvin
> Never say ever, also, if you don't like Westerns, don't watch them, I
> know you didn't say that, but, it would be good to see evidence of the
> ones superior to "Shane".
'High Noon' and 'The Searchers'.
FoggyTown
That was the little snot-digger in "The Blob".
TBerk
> In article
> <5ccd17fa-bcec-49f1-9eaa-056e446fa...@m27g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Argh!, I can't find that movie!
Is it really so bad it's Good?
berk
TBerk
Hmmm. Better by what criteria though? I can rattle off half a dozen
just because I like them better.
'Outlaw Jose Wales' wasn't even my 1st thought; 'Angel & the Badman',
(which barley fits in the same genre as 'Shane' btw), and yes 'the
Searchers' (a film I enjoy but have problems with...) were, and
there's that one with the Carradine brothers and the Keaches & the
Quaids in it; 'The Long Riders'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Long_Riders
I recall one with some very young boys being forced to become men but
can't recall the title at the moment. (In one sequence a poor man
traveling with his wife rents her out to the 'fellows' in the middle
of a grass field...).
Heck, I'll wrap it up with that old chestnut; 'My Darling Clementine'.
None of these selections are 'Once Upon a Time in the West' nor
'Shane', either of which I have little love for, despite being lead to
believe I should for some reason.
But thats me, exercising my own personal pursuit of happiness.
berk
If I have to pull the Internet over I'm going to pull out 'Paint Your
Wagon' or Katmandou, er 'Cat Ballou' and then all bets are off...
Halmyre
Bad Company, with Jeff Bridges?
IIRC, Jeff isn't over-concerned with foreplay...
--
Halmyre
tomcervo
be disappointed.
But it's a more pleasant way to pass two hours than most.
* that would be "Wagon Master".
Anim8rFSK
<ae992a2a-d975-409d...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
TBerk <bayar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No, it's so bad it's bad.
The only Albert Pyun movie I can think of that's so bad it's good is
Kathy Ireland's Alien from L.A., and even then I saw the MST3K version
first.