Is it me or is "SWAYR" a western art-house film? hear me out because i think im on to something. Those wonderfully composed, slow shots of the cavalry patrol marching on horse back through monument valley seem to me done in a style similar to that of german director Werner Herzog. Now I aint saying Werner Herzog was influenced by him but in movies that i have seen like "Nosferatu" and Fitzcaralldo" there are wide angle shots of say ships coming towards the screen with spectacular hyptnotizing vistas and atmosphere that filter like osmosis through your blood. In She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, we get the same feeling but instead of his dark german world we get our own feeling of the purely most American West furthur fueled by the patriotic cavalry cadences that goes in steps with the overpowering images. The movies storie hardly matters at all and I appreciate the nerve taht John Ford had to make this simple cavalry ye-hoo type of film with "the best" cinematography of any of his films ever made. It is the archtype for what is John Ford and this makes film makes him more of a art director before any of those new frenchies or italians. This is it pals and please talk about this great great film.
P.S. John Wayne delivers the best, underplayed performance. His silent character gives him the greatest of nobility.
The critics call SWAYR, Fort Apache and Rio Grande a "trilogy" of westerns, but both Ford and Wayne (whom I used to love since I grew up watching these westerns) insult the audience's intelligence. SWAYR and Rio Grande have the same stars, but two of them have different names and two of them have the same names. Victor McLaglen and Ben Johnson play the same characters as Quincannon and Tyree while Wayne and Harry Carey Jr. play different characters. What a sham. Almost as bad as the clones Rio Bravo and Rio Lobo that have the same plot with different sheriffs and sidekicks.
You're missing the point. The word trilogy is not meant to group movies with the same characters or in a continuous storyline. They're a trilogy of movies about cavalry officers fighting the Indians, and the movies are further linked by recurring themes and motifs. Lighten up and remember, it's only a movie. As for Rio Bravo and Rio Lobo, you have to see these movies as more like variations on a theme by the same director. And anyway, most Hollywood movies have the same plots anyway.
To understand the "same actors, different names" thing you need to go back the source material. It will make sense to you then.
Actually, I encourage everyone to find and read Bellah's cavalry stories for themselves, regardless of their interest/disinterest in these (darn good) pictures. He was a master of historical fiction.
Really, it's just that Ford liked the magazine works and liked/needed (depending on the film) to cast Wayne, etc. Wayne was not cast as York to connect the film with Ribbon.
Did you ever notice Andrew McLaglen resurrects the main character's visit to his wife's grave in SHENNADOAH? I used to have the soundtrack album which featured Stewart's monologue, but I don't remember it being in the film.
I took my mother to see the musical version at the Kennedy Center years ago. Mom loved the old MGM musicals, and Howard Keel was playing the Stewart role. Keel was great, but the music was forgettable and the play kept the soap opera elements.
jcmcm is right about the trilogy reference. bpolis51, you also talk of Rio Bravo and Rio Lobo as clones. 1) You mean Rio Bravo and ElDorado, NOT Rio Lobo and 2) Both Rio Bravo and ElDorado are great movies. If you can't appreciate each of these movies then you're not a true John Wayne fan.
I know what you mean. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon has a self-conscious but not pretentious aesethetism about it, especially in its dazzling photography, which won a well-deserved Oscar for cinematographer Winton Hoch. I love those long shots, of which there are so many, of troop movements, or of people just getting around. The scene in the Indian camp in which Red Shirt shoots an arrow literally between Wayne's legs, is tense and convincing; and the way Wayne picks up the arrow, breaks it in two, spits on it, then tosses it away, is macho acting at its best. There's humor in the film, too, none of it subtle, for sure, as with McLaglen's character, and the romantic rivalry between Carey, Jnr. and Agar, and also in Ben Johnson's droll line readings as the scout. The film has an epic sweep that makes it seem, to me, far superior to its fairly conventional story, or rather stories, as it tells quite a few. The ending of the film, with the Indians in retreat daringly runs counter to the bloodbath the viewer might have expected. I think that Ford was saying something about the passing of the Old West, of buffalo, Indian wars, Civil War vets on the frontier, that had deep down for him a sadness that's unmistakable. He didn't want the era that was passing to pass, but pass it did. It's nice that Wayne was brought back to the fort thanks to a presidential letter, and yet this part of the film seems a little tacked on. Ford just couldn't let go of Wayne's character, but in real life we know that men such as he portrayed in the film were indeed on their "way out", which is so much of what the movie is about.
Yes, Telegonus, you and Chubbs have the essence of the matter, and the historical arguers have missed the point almost entirely. Ford's historical movies are filled with small errors that can be really annoying--as in "Ribbon", when the women are called forward to see the buffalo, and are told how long it has been since the herd has been this far *north*. Whether the action is in Utah or, as I see it, Arizona, the line should be "this far south"--they didn't go to Mexico, they went to Canada. In "Clementine" there is almost no correct history anywhere. What Ford *is* a stickler about is a feeling, an experience. He uses the finest of cinematic arts and veterans' recollections, like an Impressionist painter, to recreate the feeling of the Frontier and the Old Army. There is no finer picture of a place, a time, and a culture that had disappeared by the time Ford was around: the grandeur of the landscape; the separate worlds of officer and enlisted; the unofficial support organization of the wives; the fish-nor-fowl standing of the Indian Agents; the uneasy but respectful relations between mid-grade officers and local chiefs, and between those officers and the policy-makers; and the the rules, written and unwritten, that maintained order.
Col Thursday: It's my impression that presidential appointments are reserved for the sons of Medal of Honor winners (Freely translated--Don't you know anything, you Irish scum?) . Sgt Maj O'Rourke: That was my impression, too, sir. (FT--Yes, I won the MOH, you horse's a$$, and though by protocol *you* should salute *me* first when we meet, for the sake of discipline and military decorum, we'll just leave it like this. But you can KMA, and don't you forget it.)
Ford is certainly one of the Old Masters of this art, and the cavalry trilogy is a masterpiece to stand for all time.
The visual style in Fords westerns was influenced by the paintings of Frederich Remmington, and this film is often sighted as the best example of that. I agree with that assessment and with you, many of the images do seem like moving paintings.
Its not you. This film, like so many of John Ford's films, transcends the conventions of its genre to become something akin to cinematic poetry. Never does this tendency become more pronounced than it does in The Searchers, but the Cavalry Trilogy ranks nearly as high in its artistic accomplishments as that justly celebrated classic. In addition, even Ford's less accomplished pictures, like The Horse Soldiers, feature many instances in which Ford seems to capture the essence of (to recycle the idea of a previous poster) "moving paintings".
If there is one image I will always associate with Ford, it is without question the sight of a line of men on horseback riding slowly over a ridge. These iconic shots have, by now, been mimicked so many times by other filmmakers that it is all to easy to take Ford's genius for granted. But make no mistake, Ford perfected this style of cinematic art, and while he would most likely have balked at being called an "art-house" director of Westerns, the fact remains that he was absolutely artistically-minded in everything he accomplished. In fact, a glance at the opening sequence of Werner Herzog's Aguirre, The Wrath of God reveals just how valuable Ford's aesthetic can be in the creation of genuinely artistic cinema.
While on the subject, the next time you see an "art-house" film (The Illusionist, for example), ask youself whether the imagery comes anywhere near the majestic perfection of Ford's best (or even his mid-level) work. I can assure you that on nine occassions out of ten, the answer will be a resounding "no".
Im also sure that the vast majority of "Kill Bill" fans will increase their appreciation of that film immensely by becoming familiar with Ford's work...ironic that Ford's pictures (like that of his greatest successor, Sergio Leone) appeal to both art-house afficionados and cult film fans like Quentin Tarantino. As is the case with Stanley Kubrick and Alfred Hitchcock, the highest level of praise will somehow never adequately convey the magnitude of Ford's genius with the camera...he, like those cinematic giants, is destined to be forever underrated.
Funny that this thread exists, because I've always believed that John Ford was the closest American filmmaker to the European new-wavers, pre-new wave.
Even his earliest films have a grit, pacing, and artistry to them that were ahead of their time.
The Monument Valley, Utah -- not far from the Grand Canyon -- is like nature's gigantic outdoor movie set. You can't take a bad picture there. I've been there, including to Goulding's Trading Post, where I consumed a "Navajo Taco" at the restaurant. This is where the "Captain Brittles" headquarters building -- actually an old house that once belonged to Mr. Gouldings -- still stands and looks almost identical to what it does in the movie.
I wonder just how many historically significant events actually took place in that dry, red sandy soil location?
Not much, probably, as it's actually a hot arid desert wasteland. But, it looks pretty.