MovieChat Forums > The Big Country Discussion > Rufus holds Buck after he kills him

Rufus holds Buck after he kills him

posted 11 years ago by sul-4
10 replies | jump to latest

I've always found it interesting the way Rufus cradled Buck's head after he shot him, both hands on the side of his head holding against his chest by his hands,
but with

Yesterday I saw rather mediocre western called Gunman's Walk, which I stayed with because it featured Tab Hunter in an unusual role for him, an amoral killer.

**SPOILERS**

In this film, his father(Van Heflin) ends up having to kill him under different circumstances, and cradles his son exactly the same way.

Coincidence?

I've not seen that sort of embrace anywhere else. If one borrowed from the other, how? They were both released in 1958.

I looked for common writers and couldn't see one. It's possible one film was released early 1958 and influenced the other released later? Be interesting to know which one.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vinidici 11 years ago

I'm pretty sure there was nothing especially unique in the way either Ives or Heflin cradled their respective screen sons' lifeless bodies. I can't provide any specific examples but I think this has been done countless times in movies, TV shows and stage drama, both before and since 1958. Seems only natural. Think of the classic painting of the Virgin Mary, depicting holding her own son's body after He was taken down from the cross -- that scene alone goes all the way back to the Renaissance.

Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

[–] sul-4 11 years ago

To me it looked uncommon. We have, of course, lots and lots of cases of the lifeless body embrace, but it was the two hands crossed, pressing the head against his chest with his hands, and looking off-screen.

If you mean Michaelangelo's Pieta:
http://maitaly.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/300px-michelangelos_pieta_5450_cropncleaned_edit.jpg

that's nothing like what I saw in the two films, maybe another painting? I googled "crucifixion paintings" and browsed a few pages. The Heflin film is so obscure that this will likely remain an odd mystery to me, maybe my critical thinking skills can be better applied elsewhere!

Maybe I'll send a note to Mick LaSalle at the SF Chronicle!
:^)

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] vinidici 11 years ago

Well, if there are any persons who worked in both movies you could be onto something. If someone who was in one was also in the other, or someone who worked in both film crews or something, such a person could have passed along the suggestion for acting out the "grieved kinsman embraces the body of the one he's just killed" scene that you've observed. Or maybe someone copycatting the other? Or just a coincidence? We may never know.

Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

[–] kowen-7 10 years ago

I just saw this on tv-late night, its such a sad scene, can't help but feel sorry for Chuck Connors-I had tears in my eyes.
I couldn't believe Burl Ives meant it when he wanted Peck to shoot, much less Ives shooting him. It seems he was surprised or forgot-or both-that he actually did love his son.
Such a sad scene, but I do love the movie.
I love the scenery in westerns, lived in Arizona once. Beautiful out west.

[–] sul-4 10 years ago

My impression from the scene wasn't that Rufus wanted his son killed, just shot. I can't remember his line, wasn't he just repeating "fire"?

Is it worth speculating the story line from that point had McKay shot and wounded Buck? Would Rufus still spit on Buck if he was bleeding of a wound? Buck went for the gun because of the immense shame, would he have tried that if he were wounded and hadn't been openly shamed by his own father?

If Rufus hadn't killed Buck, would he have still seen his own madness and called out Terrell one on one?

I think McKay's motivation to shoot into the ground was simply that it was consistent with his character, his forbearance, and desire for a real peace and end to the violence and hate.

But that hatred had to be expressed somehow I guess, it doesn't just dissipate.

[–] vinidici 10 years ago

Kowen-7:

I am continually amazed at how well Chuck Conners played his part in this movie! Please see my Chuck Conners "an asset to TBC thread" in these boards.

Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

[–] liscarkat (18629) 2 years ago

Connors was great in everything, and particularly excellent as Buck Hannassey. He should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor for that role, but it would have put him in competition with his fellow cast member Burl Ives. Connors was by far the best of all the pro ball players who became actors.

[–] Rolltide (964) 2 years ago

They wanted to show that Rufus loved Buck as a son but he was not going to allow him to be a murderer.

A matter of contention. Rufus choose honor over his son's life? Why didn't he just shoot the gun out of Buck's hand like before?

There was nothing that Pat or the Major ever said about the Hannasays that was not true. Buck was a straight up rapist and murderer. I guess it was important to show that Rufus was not like that.