Brooke Bundy
Sunday Funnies – 16
Dorothy Malone
The Nevadan 1950
Sunday Funnies – 15
Virginia Mayo
Sunday Funnies – 14
A little Fall renovating
In case anyone is confused by the different layout and some things being way out of order, fret not, I’m trying a different layout and it’s taking a little time to get everything arranged properly.
In the meantime,…might I suggest a humorous bit of whimsy from the Far Side cartoons on display in the Sunday Funnies dropdown?
The Revisionist Era of Westerns
The Revisionist Era may not have had an official start date, but it was basically when Hollywood started reassessing the way it looked at westerns. Traditionally, we knew who the good guy was, we knew what he was fighting for, and we knew he was going to win. Eventually the formula ran cold and we started getting stories where we didn’t know who was the good guy, or who was going to win; revenge became a driving motivator, replacing the good-ol’ pursuit of justice.
Out of this movement we got leads who were more and more jaded, who handled women however they wanted, and at it’s pinnacle we saw the most revered names of the gunfighter era dragged through the mud in attempt to “take the shine off”, as so many like to brag about when approaching the old west. Examples are “Doc” and “Dirty Little Billy”; each a blatant rewrite of history, intentionally skewed in order to serve a purpose of this “new vision” that satisfied the mood of the time. Which, of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the political overtones of the films that tied to the political activities of the country at that point in the countries history. I have no interest in getting into the politics of these movies, but it is an unavoidable part of this revisionist era of westerns. Another major aspect of the revisionist time was the Spaghetti Western. These films perfected the grizzled, S.O.B as lead character.
This era was, for the most part, initiated in the 60’s, peaking in the 70’s, and continuing into the 80’s. By film school standards even today’s movies are widely considered revisionist simply because they weren’t the classic good-guy formula of the oaters era. And for the purposes of this site, I separate the movies with the release of Young Guns in 1988. Most everything from Young Guns forward will be classified in the “Modern Era”, but that’s explained on it’s own page.
The Revisionist Era brought about many other nuanced labels such as modernist westerns, deconstructionist westerns, anti-westerns, and even acid westerns and red westerns. I have no interest in diving into the dynamics that separate each of these labels, or what makes them worthwhile; I’m only interested in if it’s a western or not. The intent of this blog is not to be a college course on western film, it’s a simple place to have fun with men wearing guns and riding horses.
In 1961 Marlon Brando’s movie One-Eyed Jacks was released, and this film is widely considered the start of the revisionist era. This was because, as was referenced just a moment ago, the lines of good and bad were not easily identified. While this was truly a different perspective for the western genre, it’s created a bit of a problem. Sixty years later pretty much every western that comes out is classed as a revisionist western. If 60 years of westerns all deserve to be labeled revisionist, then what does revisionist even mean anymore?
If we’re being honest then we should acknowledge that “revisionist“ meant using the western as allegory for contemporary climates. Westerns can always, and often do, reflect the attitudes and morals of our country; it is practically what they are made for. But 1993’s Tombstone, and 1971’s Doc do not belong in the same sub-category of western. They just aren’t the same type of film at all, primarily using the directors intent as our gauge.
I think we see a definite turn in the mid-to-late 80’s in regards to how westerns were being presented, and this was due to a decline in the revisionist tones that were so prevalent in the previous decade, and I’d like to see a new term being applied to the movies that came later in response to this shift.
Here’s how I see it:
–>Up to the 50’s, Good guy was clearly a good guy; the white hat era
–> 60’s & 70’s; Good guy wasn’t really a good guy; a social counter to the mythologizing of previous heroes
–> Late 80’s to today; Good guy wasn’t all good or all bad, but a human who should be studied to be understood; an attempt to stabilize an overreaction from the previous era
Sunday Funnies – 13
Sunday Funnies – 12
Jane Got a Gun (2015)
I’m compelled to write about this movie for several reasons. First is, of course, the simple fact that I enjoy it so much myself, as well as the fact that the movie hasn’t received enough exposure, combined with the fact that I feel it has gotten too many unfair negative reviews. Enjoyment is subjective and there is always a necessary allowance for different spectrums, but at the same time, some assessments just defy logic.
In a time when westerns are not the hip thing the way they once were, I am always eager to support something that forwards the genre and attempts to keep it at least somewhat relevant. Through the many, many struggles of this films production Natalie Portman held tight to get it completed. Directors bailed, and likewise the lead actors who had signed on the project in order to work with said bailing directors. Eventually Portman was helped out by good friends and previous collaborators Ewan McGregor and Joel Edgerton. Portman had reached out to Ewan McGregor and asked him to come on board to help her get it finished, which he agreed to, and that sort of camaraderie and dedication to getting a quality Western made deserves, at least, fair consideration.
One of the consequences for the films labored production was that the studio dumped it in January, (where they offload any projects considered to be lesser) and it received very little promotion, giving it the impression that if the studio didn’t care much about, then why should audiences? One interesting side note is that it’s domestic theater release was handled by The Weinstein Company. Is it possible Natalie Portman refused to do Fat Harvey certain favors in order to get favorable treatment for her movie? Considering what Salma Hayek had to do for her movie, it wouldn’t surprise me. But none-the-less, the movie was not so much put out as left out like a late dinner left on the counter when you’re tired and want to go to bed; none of this reflecting the actual quality of the movie.
Portman portrays Jane Hammond, a possible mash-up of two previous characters she has played (Jane Foster in Thor and Evey Hammond in V For Vendetta). Her husband has come home shot up and it’s only a matter of time until the men who did it track him to where he and Jane live. To this point we have a fairly standard western dilemma set up, but this is where the movie excels, even though some feel it loses it’s way. The movie isn’t about the big showdown at the end, and this is why some criticize it as being uneven or of getting lost. It was never meant to be about the showdown; this is a woman’s story about having to survive in the meanness of the western frontier. In order to enjoy this movie it needs to be remembered that this is not a traditional western shoot ‘em up; it’s a western drama set against the backdrop of common western feuds.
What takes this movie in it’s own unique direction is that instead of focusing on how Jane’s husband is going to become a one-man A-Team and take down the oncoming bad guys, it focuses on a woman caught up in the midst of these men and their anger. And in the middle of it all she has to do her best to survive, and hopefully keep her husband alive, as well. Along the way we get more and more context, learning about Jane, her relationship with her husband, as well as Joel Edgerton’s character, who just so happens to be the “gun” that Jane is trying to get. This unfolding narrative is what I love in a western: people dealing with circumstances that are essentially unique to their time. Many of the struggles that people face today are not the same as the struggles that people faced 150 years ago.
There’s been a lot of pain and hurt, including loss, getting to where they are, and in spite of all that trouble they’ve got to deal with where life has brought them as people; even without the ones they’ve lost. Ultimately the culmination is not in the concern of whether they will physically survive the moment, but who they will be when it’s all done, and what choices will be made.
I’m being careful not to say anything that could be considered a spoiler, so this write up may seem vague at times, but I’d rather that than ruin anything. Definitely see it for yourself and I really believe you’ll have a great experience.
Handy With A Gun...! 