SSO Summer School- The Films and Style of Howard Hawks

[movieman1957]

I did and have corrected it. I'm such a goof.

AS far as O'Neill goes I can see why Hawks felt like he did about O'Neill. It seems hard to imagine they couldn't get a better front line cast. Patrick Wayne may have been too old by then but he would have been better than Rivero.

[mrsl]

Lynn: While you were 'beating' Chris about his typo, I was giggling until I almost fell off my chair. But of course, you know me, I'm Miss Perfect myself :!: :!: :!:

Now to business. I have seen both El Dorado and Rio Bravo too many times to try to count, but the two times I saw Rio Lobo, I seriously did not have the impression I was watching a 're-make' as such. Some of the scenarios were similar, as well as the characters, but actually Rio Lobo did not have that sense of 'sameness' that El Dorado and Rio Bravo had to each other.

Naturally because of Mitchum, my favorite is El Dorado, but even without him, I still would prefer the story which was a little more involved and contained more characters, as well as more side stories, like the bullet in Wayne's back, the two doctors, and James Caan and that little girl who latched onto him. I loved every single line that Bull had, and laughed at each of them (and still do). Stumpy was a lovable but cranky old cuss, whereas Bull was just a big, lovable kid.

I felt a better comaraderie between Wayne and Mitchum, which also seemed to bring Caan into the fold with them. As I said before, Charlene Holt is a better match for Wayne than in many of his other co-stars, and knowing he preferred Latin ladies, I was always surprised they didn't have him paired off with co-stars like Katy Jurado and others.
.

[mrsl]

Since I'm here, I may as well give my comments on Red River and Hatari.

Talk about an actor playing two completely different roles, this is a perfect instance. Hatari could almost be called a comedy. I know it was sold as a movie about big game hunting, but the group made up of Wayne, Red Buttons, and several other little known (to me), actors put forth a terrific little show about how a bunch of guys have each others back at all times and laugh about it around the campfire, but don't let a stranger try anything against any one of them. These guys even make catching a water buffalo look like fun. Red Buttons idea of catching monkeys for a zoo makes for a wonderful sequence. Wayne is the leader of this little group of misfits, who all meld together, and is furious when, after agreeing to have a reporter come and film, and write an article about them, the reporter turns out to be lovely Elsa Martinelli who almost immediately sets her cap for Wayne. Throughout the movie he is roaring like a wounded lion about her and females in general, but it's all done like a comedy skit, and you find yourself laughing like a loon.

We all know Wayne played a rather brutish character in Red River, and aged several years throughout the movie and was probably one of his roles that should not have been ignored by the academy. The love/hate relationship between father and 'son' was beautifully portrayed by both John Wayne and Montgomery Clift. It's a riveting spectacle of life on the range and what could have happened on a cattle drive, but unlike Hatari, the men don't have the comradeship for one another. I don't want to say too much because I'm sure there are still some out there who have not seen it, and I don't want to ruin it. Suffice to say, Red River could turn you into a John Wayne fan if you are not already, or turn you the other way.
.

[charliechaplinfan]

Anne, Red River made me change my mind about John Wayne and made me realise just how beautiful westerns could be if left in the hands of a great director like Hawks. Before Red River my experience of Wayne had been only The Quiet Man a film I selected because it was a none western. I think somewhere in my childhood when TV played westerns on a Saturday afternoon they obviously didn't play the right westerns for my tastes.

[Lzcutter]

I am beyond pleased with the level of discussion that many of you have brought to this class. When I was in film school thirty years ago, my film professors would have been pleased beyond belief by your essays. Today, they would relish them with joy, no doubt. The nuances that you are able to pick up on and write about is quite gratifying not only to me but I hope all the other readers of this thread.

This has certainly turned into a Master's Class on Hawks and I truly appreciate the commitment that so many of you have shown by picking up the gauntlet and examining these films beyond the superficial.

As we wind down the Summer Semester, here is this week's topic:

Talk about the difference in John Wayne's performances in Hawks films including Red Riverand Hatari and Wayne's performances in John Ford films, especially the westerns and Donovan's Reef.

[MissGoddess]

Talk about the difference in John Wayne's performances in Hawks films including Red Riverand Hatari and Wayne's performances in John Ford films, especially the westerns and Donovan's Reef.

Tom Dunson in Red River is the only dark character Wayne did for Hawks, and the most complex performance. John Wayne’s characters in Hawks’ movies are very laid back and the emphasis seems to rest on his competence to handle difficult situations (and women, ha), and his sense of humor.

In Ford’s films, Wayne brings forth something extra you don’t see in any of his other movies, at least not to the same degree. Sometimes the difference is a kind of innate grace under fire, highlighting his decency and fairplay (Ringo in Stagecoach, Kirby in Fort Apache, Sean in The Quiet Man). With varying degrees of complexity and temperament, he often plays a defeated, frustrated or suppressed character in Ford’s movie, since loss is a persistent theme with the director: Marlowe in The Horse Soldiers, Rusty in They Were Expendable, Tom in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Kirby (again) in both Fort Apache and Rio Grande, Spig in Wings of Eagles, who is also a man conflicted by his inability to reconcile his military life and his home life.

Then there is Nathan in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, which, as an elderly and elegiac character, is unlike anything in Hawks.

Ethan Edwards is closest to Tom Dunson in his rage and indefatigable pursuit. They also are paired with a younger man who reflects more of his kinder qualities.

His “Guns” Donovan in Donovan’s Reef is the most laid back and I guess closest to his Hawks characters and the introduction of a woman into this mostly male (male and children, which to Ford often was the same thing) world is kind of reminiscent of Hawksie’s movies.

In short, I think Wayne’s performances in Ford’s movies are deeper and more emotional overall, than in Hawkses.

[movieman1957]

I think Hawks let loose Wayne in "Red River." We had seen hints of his talent before from "A Lady Takes A Chance" to "Ft. Apache" but there was a whole new dimension to Wayne. There was now a deeper Wayne. There was now a more complicated Wayne. He wasn't completely the good guy. His anger was not always justifiable. The question becomes if Ford (who should have known if he was not already being facetious about his acting) had not found this Wayne in "Red River" would we have had the same characters in the likes of "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" or "Rio Grande" or especially "The Searchers." Maybe, but maybe not as nuanced as they were. The only other thing is that by the time Hawks and Wayne get to "Rio Bravo" the characters, to me, are never as deep again as "Red River." They are still good characters but they are similar types.

Wayne also had a gift for comedy. (Again "A Lady Takes A Chance" and "The Quiet Man" and innumerable comedy scenes) so that by the time he gets to "Donovan's Reef" he can kind of cut loose. Though for my money, Lee Marvin is more the surprise there. I can see where Wayne wants to do something more fun. After a string of films to get him out of debt from "The Alamo" it might have been a chance to travel someplace different and lovely. I'm not sure anyone would ever buy the grandfatherly Wayne but it was a nice change of pace. He sure looked like he enjoyed himself. They certainly served him better than things like "Hellfighters" or "Brannigan" and later "normal" set films.

[mrsl]

I've already given my comments on the points for this week, but I looked a couple of things up and realized that after WWII, most of Hawks films turned to comedy, if not outward comedies, at least they contained a lot of comedic scenes. Back to 1949's I was a Male War Bride which of course, was pure comedy, and in 1952's The Big Sky, Kirk Douglas was fooling around throughout the entire movie, if not playing practical jokes, then laughing at himself and the situations they all got into. Hawks made a couple of serious films in that time span before he died, but I think he was either trying to forget something unhappy in his personal life, or since he had been around for so long, I'm sure he had pretty much his pick of scripts, he preferred to have good time on set rather than stay in the doldrums. Also as I said, the films Wayne made for Hawks definitely allowed him to relax and let loose more than those he made with Ford.

[Lzcutter]

Hey guys,

Didn't want to think I forgot, just catching up on life.

For this week:

Hawks' did a musical in the 1950s with Marilyn Monroe and Jane Russell as "two girls from Little Rock" and their pursuit of love and happiness.

Talk about the Hawksian style of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and contrast that musical with other musicals of the 1950s, especially the Freed Unit at MGM.

[charliechaplinfan]

I think Gentleman Prefer Blondes stands apart from Hawks other works. I get the sense that he was only comfortable making the movie because he could work with Jane Russell at last, something Howard Hughes had thwarted in the past. I'm suprised he made another movie with Marilyn, unlike a director like Cukor, he doesn't seem to have been endowed with endless patience. I believe Jane Russell was worth her weight in gold to him because of her ability to encourage Marilyn and put her at ease.

To contrast it to the work of the Freed unit, I guess most of MGM's musicals were built around the dancing and singing talent they had there. Bot girls could sing but weren't known for their singing and the dance numbers looked like they could have been shot a little at a time with much of the dancing/manouevering being done by numerous male dancers employed, apart from the opening number.

I think it's a great musical and until I had to think about it I never had compared it to other musicals of the era.

[mrsl]

I wanted something else by Hawks to compare so I was surprised at first that he also directed A Song is Born in 1948 with Danny Kaye and Virginia Mayo a remake of the Cooper/Stanwyck Ball of Fire. Ball of Fire is working on a regular dictionary, but Song is Born is doing a musical dictionary with lots of added swing music from the era featuring the Dorseys, Louis Armstrong, and Benny Goodman (the real guys, not actors playing parts). The biggest similarity with Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is the fun music; even the love songs are jumpy and happy. I seriously believe Hawks was trying to thoroughly enjoy his last twenty or so years and it showed in his work. I know nothing at all about his life so I could be wrong but that's how it looks to me. Considering the era and what life was about, I'm sure there was enough comedy and clothing changes in Gentlemen for the women, and getting an eyeful of both Marilyn and Jane was probably heaven for any man.

[movieman1957]

I finally watched it and I can't say I was that thrilled with it. It looked lovely and the outfits the ladies wore were, well, flattering to say the least.

The story left me with a kind of uncomfortable feeling. Everyone has an angle except for Mr Stafford, the boy. Some of the flirtatious dialogue was fun and some throw away lines were fun but not much else.

Russell and Monroe are fine and look lovely but everyone is greedy and shallow. Though Monroe may come to love Mr. Bland she certainly doesn't at the beginning but that doesn't stop her. Russell does do a pretty good Monroe.

Far be it for me to criticize anyone who can write songs and make a lot of money with them but I didn't enjoy that many of them. I found the placement of the songs odd. At the beginning we get three or four of them almost before the story gets going. Then we go nearly 40 minutes without one. Then they pile up again. I do like the way the film opens. The whole Olympic team workout number was just weird.

Is it time for Ford/Hawks comparisons?

[charliechaplinfan]

Chris I watched this with my friend when we were 16 and we loved it, I never thought about the things you said but you are right some of it is plain odd. Perhaps it was all about the girls being bigger than normal conventions. Now we are going to watch it again, I say we, my Chris although he isn't keen on my kind of film isn't objecting. I know the reason

[Lzcutter]

Last call for essays on this week's topic. Tomorrow we start talking about Hawks and Ford.

[Lzcutter]

Okay, with only a two more weeks to go, the topic I suspect many of you have been waiting for!

Compare and contrast Hawks and his closest rival, John Ford.

Both men started in silents and worked in various genres over the years.

Both worked with John Wayne, though it is said that Hawks say the acting potential of Duke more than Ford (which I still find strange given the great performance Wayne gives They Were Expendable. Was Pappy just not paying attention?)

Both made character driven westerns in the 1950s and 1960s.

Two good friends who held each others work in high esteem.

Why does Ford get more of the glory? Is it deserved?