JW was capable of being a great actor. Material and direction has some responsibility. I submit that JW's effort in "The Searchers" is as good as anyone else. The capability was certainly there. The acting efforts in "Red River", "The Shootist", "In Harm's Way", and, of course, "True Grit" weren't too shabby either. He was not the best actor of all time, but "The Searchers" ranks up there with the best. IMHO. -- Al
True Grit (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter mikemiller1955
- Start date
binder001
Command Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 2,729
I don't know about that. Take a boy from a small Iowa farm town, transplant his childhood to southern California. Then years later he becomes the "ideal" of the American cowboy/gunfighter. There's a lot of acting in there - it just is done so smoothly as to look effortless. Yes, the Duke and John Ford built the "John Wayne personna" and too many times he wasn't willing to break that mold. When he did he was really good. For his best roles he would get "into" the character. People say that during the filming of "The Searchers" he got so into being Ethan Edwards that he was surly and difficult to get along with. In "True Grit" and in "McClintock" one can see that he was enjoying the lighter side of his characters. "The Shootist" is (to me) the most poignant of his films. Wayne had battles cancer and brought it to his character. That movie was released right before the Duke's final diagnosis. Wayne built such a strong individual character that it was hard for his to be in "buddy" movies. "Rio Bravo" has to be about the best one of those. Somehow he toned down a bit and let his co-stars help make that a great ensemble cast. Maybe because Wayne and Hawks believed in the theme of the movie - it was their response to "High Noon". I also agree that the best leading lady the Duke ever has was Maureen O'Hara. Wayne needed a big strong woman to match his big strong male character. O'Hara certainly could stand and deliver right in his face!
Who else could (ore can) answer the line "I thought you were dead", with "Not hardly" and make you feel it?
Gary B.
Great post, Gary. The Duke was the best. Hollywood has not been able to, nor will they ever be able to replace or equal him. "That'll be the day". -- Al
The Military Workshop
1st Lieutenant
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 4,778
My wife and I enjoyed it. The girl was very good, particularly when haggling over the horses etc.
Brolins role a bit less than I was expecting.
Brolins role a bit less than I was expecting.
Bridges looked like he was acting way too hard. He never seemd truly comfortable or relaxed.
Always thought Clint Eastwood should have played the Texas Ranger in the first film.
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon - Wayne at his best.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - another good Wayne.
Always thought Clint Eastwood should have played the Texas Ranger in the first film.
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon - Wayne at his best.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance - another good Wayne.
I thought it was a great western, as to Bridges looking uncomfortable all the time, he was playing a fat old man who drank and smoked too much, slept in the cold on the hard ground everynight! I think it was perfectly acted, I'm sure his life made him ****ed uncorfortable in that body! i know men that age that act and move like that and they live a cushy life. Gettin old ain't for the squeamish!
Spitfrnd
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2008
- Messages
- 6,923
I quite agree with you Gary. To those who would say that the Duke was not a good actor I can only say, clearly you don't know his work. In addition to those classics you mentioned I would suggest The Quiet Man, In Harm's Way, Rio Grande, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and of course, Red River.
One Hollywood great that did know and much appreciate his work was the legendary Howard Hawks who noted “When you have someone as good as Duke around, it becomes awfully easy to do good scenes because he helps and inspires everyone around him.” When Wayne won the oscar for True Grit he dryly observed “John Wayne has just come to be recognized for the good actor he is.” “I've always thought he was a good actor, ..... I always thought he could do things that other people can't do.” Perhaps even more appropriate were his comments on Wayne after Red River where he observed that Wayne had “more power than any other man on the screen ..... The only problem with Wayne, .... is who do you get to play with him, [because] if you get somebody who's not pretty strong, he blows them right off the screen. He doesn't do it purposely–that's just what happens.” Perhaps more memorable and certainly more appreciated by Wayne was the post Red River observation by Director John Ford who wisecracked to Hawks: "I didn't know the big sonofab*t*h could act."
mikemiller1955
Lieutenant General
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 17,492
I got this as a Netflix delivery today...I saw it at the theater when it came out...and am anxious to watch it after the NBA game ends tonight...
Was able to watch this movie today and I must say I was very impressed with the whole thing. The Coen's hit a home run with this version. Excellent performances by all concerned. Bridges just proves again how good an actor he is, even though I still think Wayne owns the Rooster character. I also liked Barry Pepper as Ned Pepper. Thought Brolin was underused, almost as if the actual, physical character was just an after thought and was unimportant to the story, other than being the catalyst for the story itself. I thought the Mattie actress was outstanding and that Damon was better than Campbell. Thought the story set-up and character development was better in the original TG but that's a minor quibble as I think the new TG is as entertaining as the older one, and I think the whole ending sequence was better in this new version. It is a film I will watch again. -- Al
Scott
Major
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 6,058
JW remade El Dorado, as Rio Bravo, and Rio Lobo. Pretty much the same plot and characters. All fun movies.
Al, I have to disagree with you on the "story set up and character development" aspect.
I just saw the remake this weekend, and althouth I liked it very much, I think the original had "more detail".
For example:
1. Orginal - Opens with Mattie and her father. You get to view the father as a living, breathing person with a family. In the remake, it opens with the father dead on the ground already. I was expecitng them to provide more detail in the opening scenes, instead it seemed rushed.
2. Original - The Texas ranger explains to Mattie that he is hunting Chaney not just because of a bounty, but there is a girl that would look favorably on him if he brings back his man. That seemd more of a motivation for that character that he would follow this man hundered of miles, even through hostile country to bring him in.
3. Orignal - When you are taken back to Cogburn's home that, he shares with the China man, Chin Lee, you learn the family Cogburn lives with is Chin Lee and the cat, General Sterling Price. In the new version the China man does not even have a name, unless I missed that. So you do not know if he is living with the person, or is this guy there just picking up his laundry or what exactly.
4. Original - Musical score. Original was hands down the winner on this. Really sets the mood through the movie.
5. Original - Although both endings were very good, I thought the ending in the original had more "warmth". Cogburn got to visit Mattie, and you could see there was a definite bond between the two of them. Cogburn knew where he was going to end up when his days were over. Maybe not true to the orinigal novel, but my preference of the two. I did like the way the remake followed Mattie into her adult life though, so you knew she survived and looked after Cogburn when he was gone.
There were other small details in the original I preferred also, but the ones I metioned here were some that really stuck out for me.
I also agree that Brolin was underused.
Walt
Hi Walt. Don't think we disagree here. As I stated, I thought the story and character development was better in the original TG, just as you do. Thought the sound scores were good for both pictures. As to the ending, it is just different between them, both endings work, just kind of liked the way the remake wrapped up. Ultimately, I guess I would pick the original, with The Duke, if I had to pick a favorite, but I prefer the Mattie and Leboef from the remake. :smile2: -- Al
Combat
Brigadier General
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,436
Remaking a classic like this one has to be difficult. I found myself constantly comparing the story to the original movie - what was the same and different. Hard to watch it as a standalone movie. I think they did a decent job, but at the end of the day still asking why they bother. It's impossible to improve on the John Wayne version.
Impossible to improve on most JW films, especially his westerns. There are a lot of great western film actors in a lot of great westerns but The Duke's body of work overpowers them all with only, IMO, Randolph Scott and possibly Eastwood being within shouting distance.^&grin -- Al
Toy Soldier Brigade
Sergeant Major
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,662
I did not like the remake at all. I couldn't even understand Bridges in parts of the film.
Al, I misread your post somehow. Yes, I see we both agree. If I had never seen the original, I still would have liked the remake more I'm sure.
One of the remakes I really like was "The Getaway" with Alec Baldwin and Kim Bassinger.
Walt