Chuck Connors, an Asset to TBC

[deleted]

Once more, I can do little more than echo your comments, vinidici! I always thought Rufus deliberately laid himself open to getting shot by the Major at the end, even though he had shot him first and certainly could have either finished him off immediately with another shot or stayed out of range until Terrill died. But he just walked right into it, with what could only be described as suicide in mind. You're absolutely right about his feelings towards Buck -- look how he cradled him in his arms after he mortally wounded him, damning him for making hm shoot him, sobbing all the while. After that, I think he had no desire to live, and, as he said to McKay when he caught up with them riding out of the canyon, "You were right -- this is between Henry Terrill and me." You caught it -- he realized that the only way to end the war was to have the two men responsible for it die -- himself and Terrill. And, of course, it worked -- everyone else just called things off and rode away real peaceable-like. But I think he might not have made this ultimate sacrifice had he not just had to murder his own son, an action that was an outgrowth of this ongoing battle with the Terrills.

Contrast Rufus's actions with the Major -- you cannot even conceive of him making any such grand gesture, even a lesser one that didn't entail anyone's death, in order to stop the war. The Major was in some ways much like Buck -- not a coward, certainly, but a bully determined to use every unfair advantage against others. Whereas Rufus insisted on a fair fight between Buck and McKay in their duel -- to the point of killing Buck when he violated the rules and then tried to shoot an unarmed man -- the Major encouraged fighting between McKay and Leech and other violent acts. Rufus fought only when he had no choice. Hannassey wanted peace and to be left alone. Terrill wanted bloodshed and conquest: total war resulting in total victory and a dead foe. That's the main reason, as I said in my previous post, that I could never see this as a conflict between equally stubborn and menacing men. It's really all Terrill's war, thrust upon the Hannasseys. The Major may regard Rufus and his clan as "something out of the stone age", but though he lives an outwardly more civilized existence compared with Rufus's crudities, it's he who's really behaving more like a mindless cave man, trying to buy off or kill everyone he dislikes or who stands in his way, and all for selfish purposes and an enjoyment of inflicting pain and destruction on others.

Rufus treats McKay tough but like an equal, as a man; Terrill tires to humiliate him in so many little ways -- and remember his boast to Pat that "I'll make a Terrill of him yet." He even means to conquer and subdue his son-in-law, something Rufus had no desire to do with Julie when he thought she was really "sweet on" Buck -- in fact, as mentioned previously, he tries to push Buck into being more like her -- refined, cultured, with dignity and gentleness. Forlorn hope, but it shows the vast difference between the two men's attitudes and priorities.

As to your other non-TBC observations, I have often made virtually precisely the same plea for civility of discourse and respect for other opinions you mentioned, and have run into other such persons as the individual you had your conflict with earlier. I am refusing to reply to, or even read, two posts on two other sites, where I have had conflicts with other persons who are just plain abusive, constantly distort or lie about what I said, and incessantly resort to gratuitous insults and name-calling to make themselves feel superior. Unfortunately I have sometimes replied in kind but with efforts to end things, to no avail; so I made my last posts on those threads my actual last words, and have allowed those guys to have their final, triumphant say, since it means so much to them. I haven't read them and don't intend to, let alone answer. It's too bad we get such people here but that's the risk we take. But it is sometimes hard to avoid responding in kind, and I don't feel any the better for lowering myself to that level. I think you understand what it's like.

But discussing things with you (and the vast majority of others here) is an entirely different matter, and I enjoy these posts, the new ideas and points of view, and learning new things -- all done in a respectful, civil, friendly manner. I can't understand the ones who insist on being the Buck Hannasseys of IMDb (or the Henry Terrills) -- but finally, I realize it's just better to let them be. They can't change or be reasoned with, so let them have their little self-imagined triumphs. They're the only kind they can get, I expect. Rather sad and pathetic, actually.

Anyway, I too am glad we hooked up on this thread and hope to enjoy many other discussions with you, here and elsewhere. Thank you for your kind and insightful remarks, and I look forward to more, on this site and on others. You are a true and learned gentleman (maybe like the unseen Clem Maragon?)!

A few years ago I had started an IMDB thread (pre-2006) regarding my opinion that Chuck should have received the Best Supporting Actor award for his role in this movie rather than Burl Ives. I guess the thread is too old as I can't even find it in my posting history now. But I heartily agree with the notion that Chuck Conners was totally awesome in this movie and am glad someone out there feels the same way I do. He went through an impressive array of different emotions and was very impressive. Ives was good, but his usual blustery self.

As for those that critique the acting of John Wayne, go sit down and watch the movie "Rio Grande". Pay close attention to the scene where the Sons of the Pioneers are serenading Duke and Maureen O' Hara. They don't speak a word, yet their reactions to the lyrics of the song tell a whole story. Brilliant.

It's a sad things that westerns aren't made much anymore. One of the interesting things that came from Jane Fonda's ill-advised trip to Hanoi was General Giap relating to her his sadness of his troops having to kill American cowboys, whom he had idolized from watching movies as a child. The western identifies us like Shakespeare does for England, and the samurai for Japan. It is unique to us and I am grateful for any western made nowadays.

Happy Trails Y'all!