Besides both films being produced in 1939,the films have other similarities. Both have strangers traveling together when their trip is interrupted.Both have threats from native people.Both have former prostitutes trying to redeem themselves .Both have law men with a prisoner.Both have a alcoholic and both have John Carradine in the cast.There are other similarities,but I'll stop there....did anyone else enjoy both films?
sharethe same though crossed my mind as i watched 5 came back a few hours ago (for at least
the third time)
i too thought of stagecoach - which i like a lot and have also watched many
times...
As far as I know I haven't seen Stagecoach but I have seen that basic story in other movies. The cast has an assortment of people to add to the drama but it's what would happen in real life. In any group of people, there are bound to be a mix of personalities types. We might not notice the differences initially but in an emergency situation when people start letting their guard down and sharing their past the differences and similarities become more apparent.
shareI love both films, and while they share plot similarities there are major differences as well, leaving aside, obviously, one being a western set aboard a stagecoach, the other a contemporary film with people traveling on an airplane.
Stagecoach has a lighter mood and more daylight scenes. What comedy there is feels integral to the film, to the story, not "comedy relief; while Five Came Back is more grim and isolated, with no cavalry coming to the rescue, or even hope of rescue.
The tone and setting of Stagecoach is very American, while Five Came Back, while it features mostly American passengers on an American plane, has a cosmopolitan quality, in its setting (duh!), and in some of its supporting characters.
Also, the menace in the John Ford western is largely gone by the latter part of the film in Lordsburg aside from the fate of the Ringo Kid; and the ending is unambiguous. The Farrow picture ends on a note of hope but doesn't feel as certain. There's an air of mystery as to the fate of those on the plane as it flies away; and of tragedy in the fate of the sole survivor gradually being surrounded by headhunters.
I don't think anyone said the movies were identical, shot-for-shot. Are you always so bloody pedantic?
...and while they share plot similarities there are major differences as well, leaving aside, obviously, one being a western set aboard a stagecoach, the other a contemporary film with people traveling on an airplane.
Fair enough,--the pedantic part, I mean--but if so you can simply not read my posts. These are message boards, after all, places for people to share thoughts and ideas. If some of us carry on about things, and I admit I do, that's the way it is. Some of us enjoy reading other people's different thoughts, perspectives and ideas. If you don't enjoy mine, there's always the ignore button. As to loving the sound of my own voice, I actually don't. I do love to write, though, and I guess that comes through. Whatever else I may be I'm not rude. If I don't care for someone's style I nearly always just pass and move on, however in your case I've made an exception.
shareWell said. The below should be Holy Writ for all commenters, here and on the news articles:
If I don't care for someone's style I nearly always just pass and move on,
I appreciate your response, Borg.
It's difficult to know how to respond to someone who replies to a post like you've been bending their ear for an hour at Starbuck's or the corner bar on some topic, holding forth, bloviating endlessly, wasting their time with vacuous observations (etc.) when in fact it's just a message board, a post, something in writing, easy to ignore. It's not like any of us is, literally, making noise, creating a ruckus, driving someone up the proverbial wall.
[deleted]
Thanks Lon...it took a couple of years,but my simple question was finally answered.
shareYep. I came here to find the "Stagecoach" thread, certain it would be here, and it was. You covered the parallels very well. That story must go back a ways- a disparate group of travelers united by danger, including prostitute w/heart of gold and rat-bastard John Carradine. In this version, the baby had already been born, but in both the P W/HOG is demeaned and humiliated vs. the "pure" woman before being redeemed by the heart of gold and finding love.
Would've been great if Andy Devine could have been one of the pilots! And there's never been a film made that wouldn't benefit from a drunken Thomas Mitchell.