MovieChat Forums > The Outlaw (1946) Discussion > This film is not bad, it is psychotic

This film is not bad, it is psychotic




There are certain elements of the movie that ARE done well and some that are not...but what is at the heart of the film is the certainty that unstable minds are behind the creation process.


There seems to be an orgasm nearly ready to be had during most scenes. Either from a homo-erotic standpoint or the blunt force sexuality of Jane Russell's presence. Beastiality is also touched upon with several characters' obsessions with the Horse.
Yes, I know it was not uncommon for the horse to be elevated in stature in old westerns.

However the fun doesn't stop with the multiple orgasms. Instead of calming, becoming more mellow which is more likely after an orgasm, the film continues to drive itself further into the absurd.

Casually blowing pieces off of ears, stringing up Rio as bait, exploitation of Pat Garrett. There were several uncomfortable moments between each of the male characters which causes one to even temporarily forget the fact Jane Russell is in the movie primarily for the stimulating effect she provides. This juxtaposition of so many eccentric human relationships is a mild work of genius if it was intended.

The script really has quite a few brilliant moments too, once you've embraced the yokel narrative point of view.

.

reply

Beastiality is also touched upon with several characters' obsessions with the Horse.

Don't you mean "bestiality?"
The fact that the whole plot pivots against ownership of a horse tends to indicate that there's a strong element of goofiness at play here. I'll entertain the notion of the "Hughes homoerotic love triangle fantasy" theory, but bestiality? No way.
I'd also point out that intense, non-sexual male camaraderie is a common theme in literature. It can be likened to non-sexual romance.

reply

[deleted]

Thank you Bluesdoctor, your observations were spot on! I thought I was the only one who realised that the Kid rapes Rio in the second reel.
This movie is seriously screwed up and definitely reflects the real Howard Hughes. A man with huge problems and too much money!

reply

Pretty interesting evaluation of a famous movie. I had heard of it for years and saw it about 15 years ago and was somewhat disappointed.

One of the most glaring historic inaccuracies was that Billy or Pat, I am not sure, did not shoot Doc. When it comes to westerns, I have noted in other posts that I am a stickler for accuracy in history, weapons, dress, and grooming to be compatible with the period shown. It was not until the spaghetti westerns came along that a serious effort was made to address these issues. I checked some other postings and I guess the three could have met so I will not attempt to question that although I was going to. Even for westerns of that time, it was not well made and I guess that is why Howard Hawks quit, I don't blame him, and it was clear, sadly, that Howard Hughes was losing his ability for moving making. He, Hughes, was definitely a fine example of genius bordering on insanity.

One good thing that I can get out of it was that it was an early attempt to make an adult western. My father said that High Noon was the first successful adult western. Gene Autry, Roy Rogers, and the others of the earlier era were good for what they did and I don't want to disrespect them. Before The Outlaw and High Noon, most of those westerns were focused on the Saturday matinee children's market. It would have been wrong to inject adult themes those movies. I can appreciate the fact that today we don't let kids be kids and often force them to grow up too fast. There is a place for childhood innocence that ends too soon.

Rest in peace Roy, Gene, and the rest of your posse. Also rest in peace John Wayne, Richard Boone, Dennis Weaver, James Arness and the rest of your posse for your contribution of westerns that adults can watch and thank you also for your valuable contributions; Clint Eastwood, Tom Selleck, Robert Duval, Sam Elliot, Kevin Costner and your posse.

reply