The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence (1962)

Why it's here: 
Highly recommended by a friend who brought his son and some snacks over to watch with us! We certainly can't go wrong with that.

Specs: 
2 hours; black and white

Our rating on a scale of 1 - 10: 
8.13

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film did not disappoint. Remarkable for the onscreen pairing of James Stewart and John Wayne whose talents suit each other remarkably well, this film is yet another of John Ford's successful Westerns and probably one of the best Westerns we've seen. It kept reminding me of the other wonderfully different Westerns in our festival: Stagecoach and High Noon. All three share a similar calm, intellectual story - rather than a high energy "shoot em up" approach.

The film may be best suited for tweens and up -- not because it is gory or violent -- but because it might seem dull or slow for those who don't get in to the underlying personal and political tensions. There are a few graphic and unsettling moments including, I guess I don't give anything away here that the title hasn't already suggested -- a man shot in a gun battle. The interesting piece is not so much that this man was shot but by whom and why and we don't really learn that until we put it all together at the end.

We would recommend the film highly.


Iconic Image:

Gunfight at the OK Corral (1957)

Why it's here:
The story has been done so many times, but this is the Classic. We were drawn by the strong local interest since the historical events underlying this tale took place near where we live. In addition, the film was shot in part at Old Tucson. We had to check it out.

Specs:
2 hours, color. Available on dvd

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
6.63

More about the film and our reaction to it:
Although the film was good, and certainly watchable entertainment, it was not fabulous. The best part was the exposure to the performances of Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster, both major stars who gave top performances here. But the movie dragged on a bit, especially with subplots that pulled away from the main story. Maybe this is because, though clearly one of the most famous tales from the old West, the real Tombstone shoot-out was truly just not that dramatic.  This probably also explains why dramatizations always ratchet up the facts and intensity of the story. Quite a bit.


After watching the film, we went and toured the actual site of the gunfight and learned that the whole battle was short and well contained within a small corral.

The film is full of 50s-era cliches and camp that are charming and enjoyable if you are in the right mind -- for instance, the song "Boot Hill" which has been running through our brains in a continuous loop since. ("Boot Hill, Boot Hill, so cold, so still...") The Boot Hill cemetery in real life is a fascinating and nicely kept monument to the time of the wild West. The Tombstone courthouse holds wonderful exhibits -- including many historical artifacts, displays and period details. It is both architecturally and historically a fantastic place to see. And, the preserved gallows standing in the walled-in courthouse yard still reeks with unpleasant energy.

The actual history of the town is so compelling and as this film marked the impetus for our trip there, and as a well known, quintessential piece of American cultural history, we are grateful to it.
The shot below is so well-framed that I believe it is mandatory to recreate in every subsequent Hollywood release of the story :)

Iconic image:

High Noon (1952)

Why it's here:
Lets see: Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly, classic Western. Yep. That's plenty of reason.

Specs:
About an hour and a half, black and white. We watched on dvd
I'm not sure they ever make clear what the year is, but it's probably in the late 1800s

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
7.38

More about the film and our reaction to it:
The film is not your typical Western. It is slow, thoughtful, introspective and psychological. For me, it seemed to follow the legacy of "Stagecoach" in that the whole film is tense on nothing more than the theory of waiting for something you know is going to happen. This film takes that drama to whole new planes. It is beautifully filmed. The camera seems to know just how to milk every shot for silence, tension, calm and stress. The basic selling point of the film is character. Who behaves how and why? And because the film is so well done, this is enough to make riveting cinema. The theme song "Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darlin'" playing throughout the film, adds a haunting and emotional touch. Just thinking of the song now, evokes all the emotional tensions of this movie.

My husband was frustrated with it seeming to be a movie full of cliches. But the funny thing is, many of the cliche's were probably created by this movie itself. It is so iconic, so well-known, whether you know it or not. My son asked whether the whole idea of "the showdown at noon" preceded or followed this film? I truly have no idea.

The film is remarkable not just for the unusual slow and psychological approach but for the incredible female roles. Grace Kelly is so much more than eye candy. She is the moral center -- a Quaker who is absolutely opposed to violence. She makes several hard choices based on her own conscience and character. More amazing still, an Hispanic woman of strength and character, (a respected business woman no less) is played by a Mexican actress (Helen Ramirez) in a powerful performance. This just blows me away.

Beyond the movie's plot, you can also enjoy the film as allegory for what was going on in Hollywood at this time (blacklisting/Red scare politics). The issues of character -- of standing up and doing the right thing can be a great jumping off point for a chance to learn about these dark times in Hollywood.

All politics aside, we've now enjoyed seeing Gary Cooper at several stages in his career: as a very young actor in "Wings"; as a man at the height of his powers in "The Pride of the Yankees" and, here, as a mature man. Always an incredible screen presence.

Iconic shot:

Broken Arrow (1950)

Why it's here:
For the simple reason that it was filmed at Old Tucson.

Specs:
1 and 1/2 hours. Color! We watched on a dvd from our local library
Set in the 1870s

Our family's average rating:
7.67

More about the film and our reaction to it:
I didn't know much about the film when I chose it for the festival, but when I picked up the dvd from the library and read the back, I was amazed to see that the story sounded just like Dances with Wolves -- Later, when I read the back of the case to my kids, my older son said: "that sounds just like Avatar." It turns out that we were both somewhat correct, and it certainly could have been an inspiration for both movies.

Jimmy Stewart, as always, gives a great performance -- this time as a disenfranchised Union soldier, Tom Jeffords, who stumbles upon a tribe of Apache Indians, is tasked by his government with convincing them to allow the U.S. mail to go through their territory unmolested, and who ultimately finds beauty in their lifestyle, makes enduring trust-based friendships, falls in love with and marries a native woman, and endures tragedy due to the clash of cultures and advancing white men.  Sound like DWW? Yes. But, unlike the latter, Stewart's character stays connected to the white people in Tucson throughout the film and does not completely leave "his kind." According to my sons this is also pretty much the same story you find in Avatar with a few key plot differences, such as the two cultures aren't already at war when our hero joins them and their is no element of attempted peace treaty. The themes are good ones, so no wonder the movie gets made over and again.

To watch a film like this is a bit of a test for a modern viewer. I found it troublesome and distracting that the lead Apache characters were played by actors who were clearly not natives. In the case of the character Cochise, Jeff Chandler was at least very capable and quite convincing as an Apache chief. However, the leading "lady" (and I have to put that in quotes because Debra Paget was a girl - just 16 when the film was made) was woefully inadequate in acting skill and in "look" to manage the task of compelling love interest/Indian maiden. I don't know if orange spray tan had been invented in 1950, but that seemed to be the approach to make this clearly Anglo girl an "Indian." How sad that this ever seemed acceptable. Some of the Apaches in the background scenes did appear to be Native actors, and the character Geronimo, though a very small part, was played by Jay Silverheels. The lack of Native actors in key parts is troublesome, but not as much as the attempt at the optimistic tone the film seems bent on sharing. It is hard to see this film strive for a positive if not happy ending, when we know that there is no Chiricahua Apache land preserve anywhere near us in southern Arizona and no chance that the Americans kept their word to keep the peace and stay out of Apache lands.


Still, one has to appreciate that this film boldly portrayed the Apaches as sympathetic and honorable people. An unusual touch for 1950.

Probably the film's biggest failure was with it's strained love story. Debra Paget is an unbearably and inappropriately young love interest for Jimmy Stewart. We've seen plenty of May-December romances in Hollywood films of this era, think Judy Garland/Fred Astair. But in Easter Parade, Garland was at least a fully grown woman of 26 choosing a much older man after a long build up that made it clear why she liked him. Paget's character here is given no such build-up, no motivations, and no reason why she would fall for Stewart's.  Paget is a teenager. She seemed hardly able to manage to kiss him, and even Stewart seemed only slightly less troubled by the match-up. They were horribly unsuited. I wished heartily that the film makers had not tried to make this a love story!

Interestingly enough, in researching the movie, we learned that much of the story is true. Tom Jeffords was a real person who did become close friends with Cochise and much of the plot based on that friendship seems accurate or at least based on real events. (However, not surprisingly, the romance was entirely made up. Jeffords never married an Indian woman.)

One final note: It was wonderful but strange to see a Technicolor Western, especially one filmed around Tucson. However, it almost seemed wrong to see this story in color, as Westerns just seem like they should be black and white.

Iconic shot:

Stagecoach (1939)

Why it's here:
We needed to watch John Wayne. I'd heard a lot about this one as the first pairing of John Wayne with John Ford the famous director of Westerns -- and as the movie that made John Wayne a star.

Specs:
About an hour and a half long, black and white. Available on dvd.
The film is set in 1880.

Our family's average rating on a scale of 1-10:
8.0

More about the movie and our reaction to it:
It's always a good sign when immediately after watching a movie the kids get up and start playing. Whether its grabbing bows and arrows after Robin Hood, or climbing the walls (literally) after Buster Keaton, or pulling out the Nerf guns and having a shootout after tonights entry, it makes me smile a gratified smile.

The film is a top notch quality Western. Whether you love the genre or put up with it, Hollywood Westerns are a force of nature that should be sampled and you can't go wrong with this one. The film builds tension to a slow steady burn, creating a sense of drama though almost nothing "happens" through 2/3 of the movie. The last half hour, when Apache Indians (played to Ford's credit by Native actors) start to fire upon the stage is thrilling stuff.

So, yes, the movie does have some tough violent themes. It also has talk of prison and social ostracism and reference to the leading lady's character and repute (treated with a light brush, but treated). There is a good deal of drinking hard alcohol -- humorously, and by one character in particular. All these elements are present, but the overwhelming impression is just of a good, well-told story in a beautiful Western surrounding. (It was shot on location in Monument Valley).

The film draws on the natural dramatic tension that arises when a disparate group of folks are thrown together in some situation - here, riding together on a stagecoach through dangerous territory. All the lead performances are impressive and add greatly to the production. But John Wayne's performance is simply profound. He had an extensive body of work in B movies, but was not generally known before this film. Stagecoach is said to be the movie that made him a star and you can surely see why. He comes on screen with so much presence and charisma you can't look anywhere else.

Iconic shot:

">

The Kid Brother (1927)

Why it's here:
We needed to beef up on Harold Lloyd after seeing Safety Last!. What I had wanted to include was The Freshman, but despite exhaustive search of all sources available, could not find it. This was a worthy substitute.

Specs:
An hour and 20 minutes, black and white, silent.
It isn't clear to me exactly when the film is set, but it is a Western, probably meant to be in the late 1880s or so.

Our family's average rating (on a scale of 1-10):

7.75 

More about the film and our reaction to it:
How much thoroughly better a viewing experience is a movie like this -- with a plot, good acting, humour and pleasant on-location cinematography -- than a movie who's job it is to simply capitalize on the fact of sound like The Jazz Singer, also released in 1927. Here, Lloyd is a bit more nuanced and interesting a character than he played in Safety Last!. The film isn't quite so hilarious, but its value lies elsewhere.  This is a slower-paced, sweeter, romantic picture. Harold is quite an appealing romantic lead and has great chemistry with his co-star Jobyna Rawlston. Yet it's still funny and full of great slapstick moments.

Harold's "look" doesn't translate well to still photos. When you watch him in a film, he moves with a nice grace and has a fresh, attractive, modern quality to his face. Yet in stills, he usually just looks dorky. Its too bad, because this is probably not winning him scores of modern fans. But he deserves modern fans. His films are really good.

He has another big strike against him, in terms of winning popular support today, and that is a too-protective nature toward his films while he was living and too active a trust with respect to copyrights now. His films were not shown on tv when people my age were growing up (by his choice, as he didn't care for the medium); so now, though people can get them on dvd, most haven't heard of him. And because his estate has actively secured copyrights and kept a tight hold on his material, people can't easily stumble upon videos of his work online -- to get to know and appreciate him. All of this makes him pretty obscure -- I can't find his films at my library nor though Netflix; even if you were inclined to rent his work on Amazon or iTunes (which I am!), you're out of luck.

It might not happen without effort, but if you get the chance to see his work you should.

Iconic shot:

Tumbleweeds (1925)

Why it's here:
William S Hart was a famous early movie cowboy of the silent era. This film, his last, is also often considered his best. Somehow, its just crazy to think of an actor having had a full and famous career and reaching the end of it in 1925 -- a year that probably predates any movie most Americans have ever seen.

Specs:
An hour and 15 min, black and white. Silent film. We were thrilled that our library had a copy on dvd; but it is also easily available online.
Set in 1893

Our family's average rating:
7.25

More about the film and our reaction to it:
We were pleasantly surprised by this film. Though William S. Hart's work is often categorized as "melodrama," we found this film to be mostly humorous, easy to watch and not overly dramatic. Hart plays Don Carver, a good guy cowboy through-and-through who is termed a "tumbleweed" due to his roaming lifestyle. As the film opens, the cowboys in the area are finishing up their work for a ranch boss in the Cherokee strip and the area is about to be "opened up" for settlement. As a result, white people hoping to file claims are pouring in to the little town where the cowboys have been staying. The influx of people causes both our hero and his funny sidekick to meet and fall in love with a couple of them. The story is part historical drama, part standard fare good guy vs bad guy rivals, part love story. The whole is extremely enjoyable.

As far as the great Land Run of 1893, I found it very edifying. The implications to Indians of the Federal land policies are not treated in the film, but the settlement of the land, from the whites' point of view, is fascinating. The climatic scene in which the settlers are pouring onto the opened land is a stunning spectacle that must have been an incredible feat of filmmaking for its time.

In addition to Hart, who is a very likable and appealing hero, Barbara Bedford is wonderful as Molly. Many of the supporting performances are really engaging, including Molly's little brother, Don's sidekick, the sidekick's love interest, and a couple of great love-to-hate-'em bad guys. The whole thing falls together so well, with swift pacing, lots of comic relief, rich background relationships, and beautiful cinematography.  This was a satisfying Western that did not need dialog to make it complete.

Iconic shot:

The Last Drop of Water (1911)

Why it's here:
We added this film, an early Western, into our list in order to beef up on some early era times we'd moved through too quickly.

Specs:
Just 15 minutes, black and white; easily available online in the public domain. We watched on youtube.

Our family's average rating:
6.5

More about the film and our reaction to it:
This is surprisingly good. So much so that I imagine most modern viewers (even those with no experience watching silents) would find it entertaining. It is directed by D.W. Griffith and you can really see just how good a director he was. He was excellent at using the camera to focus your attention, with cutting and editing film, with changing the camera's perspective and filming backgrounds (like extras in crowd scenes), to allowing the actors to really act and, in short, just filming a story in a very complete way.

The Western format is such a staple of American film, it feels odd to hark back in time to its earliest roots and see how many of the conventions we are now so used to were first employed. He's got the Indian attack on the wagon train. (Not sure about this, but the Indians may in fact be played by Native actors). He's got the hard-drinking cowboy who makes good. He's got the girl-next-door in peril, the stark landscape and the empty canteens. However, I think none of these can properly be called cliches when you're filming them in 1911!

I was fascinated by the landscape that looked to me like Arizona, with cholla and prickly pear and short scrub. But it turns out that Griffith filmed this in the deserts around the San Fernando Valley in California. I was surprised to learn that because the film was made before the movie industry had re-located itself to Southern California, but, apparently, Griffith took his film company on location in winter to California and was one of the first directors to chose this area to make films.

Iconic shot:

The Great Train Robbery (1903)

Why it's included:
Often hailed as the first film to employ the narrative structure -- i.e. using the medium of film to tell a complete story -- The Great Train Robbery, like A Trip to the Moon, is so often referenced in pop culture that it is simply a good film to be familiar with.

Specs:
Just 12 minutes long, black and white, with occasional use of hand-drawn color to highlight certain effects. It is easily found online in the public domain.

Our family average rating (on a scale of 1-10):
6.5

More about the film and our response to it:
This is a pretty entertaining film. It features a real, period train and that is a valueable viewing experience in itself. It also sets the bar a good notch higher than "Moon" in terms of being watchable and entertaining to a modern audience.

In addition to the film telling a story, it is notable for its early (first?) use of cross-cut editing between scenes and filming on-location outdoors. There is a realistic effect at the end of the film where the actor who plays one of the bandits points his gun directly at the audience and shoots. This was said to have occasioned panic in the unsophisticated viewers of 1903. Whether or not that story is true, I can at least attest that the moment plays out powerfully.

Note that, even though it is very old, the film is actually rather intense and involves gunfighting, train robbery (duh), and pretty mean looking bad guys. And in families with young or sensitive children, it might warrant a pre-watch. We really enjoyed this film.

Iconic shot: