Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 29, 2024, 03:27:14 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Best Westerns

Started by Yellow Reggae, December 31, 2010, 06:42:59 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Famous Mortimer

I was bored to death by "The Quick and the Dead", and the above story might have had something to do with it.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Groodle on January 06, 2011, 01:23:35 AM
The reputations of both films have grown with time, I'd say.
Oh, absolutely - although McCabe & Mrs. Miller did win one or two gongs and some good notices, it wasn't loved by all the critics, whereas today it's an AFI choice etc.

Danger Man

Inspired by this thread to go back and look at some old westerns, I was surprised to discover that one of my favourites (Bad Company) is apparently an 'acid western'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_western

It seems a rather loose term but the article threw up a couple of obscure films that I hadn't heard of . Dirty Little Billy looks especially interesting. Anyone seen it? Any good?




Ignatius_S

Quote from: Danger Man on January 06, 2011, 11:05:13 AM
Inspired by this thread to go back and look at some old westerns, I was surprised to discover that one of my favourites (Bad Company) is apparently an 'acid western'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_western

It seems a rather loose term but the article threw up a couple of obscure films that I hadn't heard of . Dirty Little Billy looks especially interesting. Anyone seen it? Any good?
Haven't seen that one myself - seen a few of the ones mentioned and they're worth watching, especially The Shooting, which I love to bang on about.

It is a loose term - people like Cox had been singling these films out but Rosenbaum gave it a sexy name.

This is nitpicking, but Rosenbaum said that The Shooting was a big inspiration for Jarmusch when he made Dead Man, but what was taken from Rudy Wurlitzer's unproduced screenplay Zebulon (which was doing the rounds in Hollywood for a few years) was arguably theft.

Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 06, 2011, 01:08:22 AM
Not according to the screenwriter, who gives a very interesting account of the making in The Guerrilla Film Makers Handbook.

Additionally, according to him, Raimi lacked any noticeable control on the proceedings with Hackman completely dominating, studio interference and the finished result obviously very different to the original vision.
That is very surprising. The Quick and the Dead is exactly as you'd expect a Raimi directed western to turn out. Was he aiming for something more serious?

alcoholic messiah

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 06, 2011, 03:33:39 PM
That is very surprising. The Quick and the Dead is exactly as you'd expect a Raimi directed western to turn out. Was he aiming for something more serious?

Quite. Even though it represented somewhat of a thematic departure from his previous films, Raimi's directorial fingerprints are all over it, and whilst it may have endured a difficult pregnancy, I maintain that the film that emerged has a consistent tone and style, even if the pieces only fell into place during post-production. I certainly don't get the impression that the original vision was an intimate character piece, or an existential tone poem, the guts of which were then cruelly discarded on the cutting room floor.

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 06, 2011, 01:08:22 AM
Additionally, according to him, Raimi lacked any noticeable control on the proceedings with Hackman completely dominating, studio interference and the finished result obviously very different to the original vision.

I'd be surprised if someone without a single writing, producing or directing credit to his name [nb]According to IMDb anyway.[/nb] turned out to be the real driving force behind this production. Given that this was Sharon Stone's pet project (she co-produced it, and was instrumental in securing the involvement of Raimi, Crowe, and DiCaprio), and that post-Basic Instinct her tinseltown clout was probably at its apex (and arguably eclipsed Hackman's), I could well believe that she was guilty of meddling, but Hackman? Nah, I'm not buying that pitch.

Fucking writers[nb]Q. How many screenwriters does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A. The old one is supposed to be like that! Don't you get it? Wah! Wah![/nb]. What do they know?

Ignatius_S

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on January 06, 2011, 03:33:39 PM
That is very surprising. The Quick and the Dead is exactly as you'd expect a Raimi directed western to turn out. Was he aiming for something more serious?
It's a while since I've seen it, but although it does have flourishes that I would say are very Raimi, overall it doesn't feel like it's a completely Raimi picture.

Simon Moore, who wrote the screenplay (and was the writer of the series, Traffik) described Raimi as one of the good guys but just wasn't up to the might of the studio. Moore said that he believed film would have been a lot more interesting and better if Raimi had been allowed to make it his way.

Moore claimed that the major problem was that different studio people had their own favourite Westerns and wanted Raimi to watch that and emulate... none of which were actually a Spaghetti. He also claimed that there was an attitude of 'you're English, so don't tell us how to make a Western.'

Incidentally, Moore had intended to make the film himself.

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 06, 2011, 06:59:59 PM
.... I could well believe that she was guilty of meddling, but Hackman? Nah, I'm not buying that pitch....
Oh, I guess you're right and directors such as Wes Anderson who say that Hackman refuses to take direction and will insist on doing things his way or not at all are totally wrong.

alcoholic messiah

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 06, 2011, 07:58:24 PM
Oh, I guess you're right and directors such as Wes Anderson who say that Hackman refuses to take direction and will insist on doing things his way or not at all are totally wrong.

I can definitely buy Hackman imposing his will on scenes involving his own character[nb]He probably only has the 3rd or 4th most screentime - Stone is clearly the lead.[/nb]. It's more of a stretch for me to believe that he was influencing other parts of the film, which is what your paraphrased account seemed to suggest. A quote from Raimi or Stone backing up that claim[nb]Assuming that's what Moore was implying.[/nb] would convince me.

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 06, 2011, 07:58:24 PM
Incidentally, Moore had intended to make the film himself.

If that's the case, then it only gives me more reason to believe that his account of what transpired during production should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. It may not be completely false, but he would appear to have ample motivation to embellish his version of events.

Ignatius_S

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 06, 2011, 08:46:34 PM
I can definitely buy Hackman imposing his will on scenes involving his own character[nb]He probably only has the 3rd or 4th most screentime - Stone is clearly the lead.[/nb]. It's more of a stretch for me to believe that he was influencing other parts of the film, which is what your paraphrased account seemed to suggest. A quote from Raimi or Stone backing up that claim[nb]Assuming that's what Moore was implying.[/nb] would convince me.

If that's the case, then it only gives me more reason to believe that his account of what transpired during production should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. It may not be completely false, but he would appear to have ample motivation to embellish his version of events.
Sorry, I think we're at cross-purposes!

If you don't want to read what Moore has actually said and discount that Hackman threw his weight around on set and off because of your gut feeling or own opinion about how the film was constructed, then that's fine. When I posted my original comment, it wasn't to say that an account by the person with the sole writing credit was definitely correct, but that's his story so it's probably of interest.

The book is quite often in shops like Waterstones, for those interested, it's relatively easy to have a quick look – my paraphrasing I think is fair, but I would take a look.

When I mentioned Hackman dominating, it was because Moore claimed that he was throwing his weight around the set and one far more vocal about the script and what lines being taken out at the read-through. Hackman doesn't have a reputation for being the easiest of actors to work with and Moore isn't the only person to comment about this.

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 06, 2011, 08:46:34 PM
...If that's the case, then it only gives me more reason to believe that his account of what transpired during production should probably be taken with a pinch of salt. It may not be completely false, but he would appear to have ample motivation to embellish his version of events.
The book it appears in as a guide to film making and contains a number of case studies where people are sharing their experiences; Moore's is one of them.

Moore doesn't come across as embittered in his account and I wouldn't even say he's even critical about Hackman – but he makes some observations about studio interference and on the set, stars are the rulers.

However, as I say, the book is often in book shops and is only a few pages long so is worth a quick browse.

alcoholic messiah

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 07, 2011, 10:29:58 AM
When I posted my original comment, it wasn't to say that an account by the person with the sole writing credit was definitely correct, but that's his story so it's probably of interest.

Yeah, I get that. It certainly is of interest, and please don't mistake my incredulity at what was posted for ingratitude that you posted it. I'm just saying that without further corroboration I would find it hard to believe that Hackman was more pivotal in shaping the film creatively than Raimi, as this seemed to imply:

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 06, 2011, 01:08:22 AM
Raimi lacked any noticeable control on the proceedings with Hackman completely dominating

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to adopt. It doesn't mean it's impossible, or has never happened on a film set before, just that in this particular case I wasn't buying it on the evidence presented so far.

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 07, 2011, 10:29:58 AM
my paraphrasing I think is fair

I only referred to it as "paraphrased" because it wasn't a direct quote of Moore's words. There was no implied suggestion that it wasn't an accurate summary of his account.

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 07, 2011, 10:29:58 AM
Hackman doesn't have a reputation for being the easiest of actors to work with and Moore isn't the only person to comment about this.

Yep. I'm not in denial about stars being arsey, or interfering with the creative process (and I've previously stated that I could much more easily accept accusations of meddling had they been levelled at Sharon Stone).

Quote from: Ignatius_S on January 07, 2011, 10:29:58 AM
The book it appears in as a guide to film making and contains a number of case studies where people are sharing their experiences; Moore's is one of them.

Sounds interesting. Any chance of a quick rundown of the other films and interviewees that are featured?

Old Thrashbarg

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 06, 2011, 06:59:59 PMGiven that this was Sharon Stone's pet project (she co-produced it, and was instrumental in securing the involvement of Raimi, Crowe, and DiCaprio), and that post-Basic Instinct her tinseltown clout was probably at its apex

I really hope your use of 'clout' here deliberately played on its dual meaning.

Ignatius_S

Couple more I like:

5 Card Stud – Dean Martin and Robert Mitchum (playing a preacher) star in this film about members of a lynch mob being picked off one by one. Decent cast with Inger Stevens and Roddy McDowall.

Hang 'Em High – Eastwood tracking down the lynch mob who tried killing him. Stevens also appears in this (she also had an affair with Eastwood, which ended badly for her. Cast includes Ed Begley, Pat Hingle, Dennis Hopper and Bert Freed (the first actor to play Columbo).

Firecreek – often gets compared to High Noon, as the story revolves around a sheriff standing up to outlaws even though, the town refuses to help. Personally, I prefer this one – the sheriff played by James Stewart, is only a part-time officer of a tiny town, whose badge has been made by his sons, and who is under no threat from the gunmen, who just want to ride out of town. The gunmen are led by Henry Fonda (one of his first 'baddy' roles) and the followers include the incomparable Jack Elam and James Best (best known for his role as Sherriff Rosco P. Coltrane in a certain television series).

I read in a Stewart biography that it was the director was highly experienced in television but this was his first film, and I think this probably shows in the direction but I think it's a gem. Good supporting cast, including a certain Inger Stevens and Ed Begley – Best and Elam are superb.

Although the viewer doesn't witness the incident that forces Stewart to make a stand (the lynching of a young man with learning difficulties because he accidentally shot one of the gunmen, who was trying to rape a woman) and it doesn't come as a massive surprise to us, the way we learn this instils genuine shock and horror. When Stewart is fastening his gunbelt, the unconcealed rage and fury is very reminiscent of the Anthony Mann Westerns.

It's certainly not a fast-paced film, but tension and menace are nicely built up and the characters are more shades of grey than black and white.

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 07, 2011, 07:47:27 PM
Yeah, I get that. It certainly is of interest, and please don't mistake my incredulity at what was posted for ingratitude that you posted it. I'm just saying that without further corroboration I would find it hard to believe that Hackman was more pivotal in shaping the film creatively than Raimi, as this seemed to imply..
Cool! When I re-read my first post about it, it occurred that my succinctness could have been read as me being abruptly dismissive about your opinion in a rather offhand way and that I was trying to 'put you straight'.

Although I wouldn't say – from the little I read – that Hackman was more important creatively than Raimi, but if he didn't like something, he wasn't shy of making this known and certainly wouldn't do anything that he didn't want to do.

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 07, 2011, 07:47:27 PM
...I only referred to it as "paraphrased" because it wasn't a direct quote of Moore's words. There was no implied suggestion that it wasn't an accurate summary of his account...
Actually, I didn't say that because what you had posted! With the first post about it, I wrote it quickly and going from memory, so I thought about it to see whether I was being fair/accurate – it wasn't because  of what you had said.

Quote from: alcoholic messiah on January 07, 2011, 07:47:27 PM
...Sounds interesting. Any chance of a quick rundown of the other films and interviewees that are featured?
I'll try to scan the pages in question with Moore, but the case studies include:

Christopher Nolan (Not sure what happened to him).
Jake West (Evil Aliens, Razor Blade Smile)
Jeremy Bolt (producer – Shopping was an early one, and these days he's in Hollywood mainly working with Paul W S Anderson)

Neil Marshall might have been included – he certainly is in the third edition, as are Edgar Wright and the bods who did Saw.

The way the book is structured, each chapter is about a particular area (e.g. the legal side, finance) and contains different people being interviewed, so with the chapter on the script, who might have someone who is a script reader, as well as writers. In fact, Moore's bit was in the script chapter – the case studies I mentioned above towards in a chapter at the back, don't focus on a specific area and are longer.

Even for those who have no desire to make a film, but who are interested in a film, it's a great read.

chocky909

Cheers for all the recommendations and information so far guys.

Minty

Most of my YT links are borked now but heres my two cents partner;

http://mintyblonde.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/mintys-best-westerns/


Famous Mortimer

I just finished reading Bruce Campbell's autobiography, and there's an interesting story relayed through him when he went to visit Sam Raimi on set. Raimi tried to get Hackman to move a certain way in one scene, and Hackman just flatly refused, without giving any explanation as to why. He eventually capitulated, but if that was the hassle he had just getting him to lean over in his chair in one minor scene of the film, I can only imagine how much of a pain he must have been during the rest of filming. And Sharon Stone refused to hit her mark before filming – she'd get there then start talking to her assistant and wandering about, and when Raimi just started filming in frustration, she flipped out on him.

So, this kinda backs up the stories told from the Guerilla Film Makers Handbook.

SavageHedgehog

They do both have a reputation for being pretty difficult. I hear the crew of King Soloman's Mines hated her so much they, er, "specially mixed" her drinks. And that was before she was famous!

Famous Mortimer

I just watched "The Good, The Bad And The Weird" last night, the Korean spaghetti Western homage / pastiche / other foreign word. It's about 30 minutes too long, and they've stuffed it with a bit too much plot, but it's...alright, I suppose. More "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad Western" than the film whose title inspires it.