Sergio Leone Web Board

General Information => Trivia Games => Topic started by: Belkin on January 23, 2005, 02:13:09 PM

Title: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Belkin on January 23, 2005, 02:13:09 PM
JOHN WAYNE made this movie as a reaction to what movie. Name both?
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: cigar joe on January 23, 2005, 03:24:21 PM
Rio Bravo, it was in reaction to High Noon which Wayne considered un-American.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Belkin on January 23, 2005, 03:43:53 PM
Rio Bravo, it was in reaction to High Noon which Wayne considered un-American.
Spot on! Am opening GUINNESS in your honor, sir!  ;)
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 24, 2005, 10:18:09 PM
unamerican?... if someone could explain how anyone could see high noon as unamerican let me know.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: cigar joe on January 25, 2005, 04:26:02 AM
From "The Life and Times of the Western Movie" Jay Hyams (1983 W.H. Smith)

It was in an interview in Playboy (May, 1971) he said High Noon was "the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life.... I'll never regret having helped run Foreman out of the country". Nice guy huh?

Any way Howard Hawks agreed with Wayne, both thought the premis of High Noon was ridiculous. They believed that no marshall would expect towns people to help fight outlaws and no citizens of the old West, tough conquerors of the frontier, would have refused to if asked. They also dislikede 3:10 to Yuma. They didn't like its treatment of heroism, and they thought the outlaws taunting of his farmer-captor could have been esily hanndeled.

So they made Rio Bravo
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: almulock on February 20, 2005, 09:02:33 AM
Beong
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Huey on June 04, 2005, 09:13:28 AM
From "The Life and Times of the Western Movie" Jay Hyams (1983 W.H. Smith)

It was in an interview in Playboy (May, 1971) he said High Noon was "the most un-American thing I've ever seen in my whole life.... I'll never regret having helped run Foreman out of the country". Nice guy huh?

Any way Howard Hawks agreed with Wayne, both thought the premis of High Noon was ridiculous. They believed that no marshall would expect towns people to help fight outlaws and no citizens of the old West, tough conquerors of the frontier, would have refused to if asked. They also dislikede 3:10 to Yuma. They didn't like its treatment of heroism, and they thought the outlaws taunting of his farmer-captor could have been esily hanndeled.

So they made Rio Bravo


Which was not as good as either of the other two.

I suppose Wayne thought Soldier Blue was also "un-American"?
 >:(
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: cigar joe on June 08, 2005, 03:34:02 AM
Quote
I suppose Wayne thought Soldier Blue was also "un-American"?
Probably  ;)
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Groggy on June 11, 2005, 05:27:43 AM
Wayne's entitled to his opinion.  Just because he didn't spout off rote liberal mantra like 90% of Hollywood doesn't mean he was a bad actor, a racist, or an idiot.  If you actually do any reading about him, he was anything but.  Yes, he loved his country.  WTF is wrong with that?  He had a damn good reason to be bitter towards the Communists, as they sent guys to assassinate him on at least two occasions.  I don't agree with everything he believed in, but the fact that you're trying to paint him as the incarnation of evil just because he didn't like certain films is beyond the pale.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Egdor on June 11, 2005, 07:32:56 PM
I don’t really see how 90 per cent of Hollywood ‘spouts off liberal mantra’. I don’t want to turn this into a political flamewar, but loving your country is a pretty sorry excuse for boasting about having chased an innocent screenwriter out of your country. And what kind of sweeping generalization is this, anyway:

Quote from: Groggy
He had a damn good reason to be bitter towards the Communists, as they sent guys to assassinate him on at least two occasions.

Sounds as if all the communists in the world or communism itself is responsible for trying to kill him. No one ever claimed he wasn’t entitled to his opinions. And it was definitely never suggested that anyone was ‘trying to paint him as the incarnation of evil’. Making comments about him not necessarily being a bad actor, racist or an idiot because of his points of view is completely beside the point. The amount of liberal mantra he was responsible for spouting off is in no way proportional to his acting skills, I agree. He might have been a decent actor and an anti-racist, but he was an idiot notwithstanding.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Groggy on June 12, 2005, 06:11:21 AM
Mao and Stalin personally ordered attempts on Wayne's life on separate occasions (both times the would-be assassins were apprehended so it isn't just a conspiracy theory), because his anti-Communist views were supposedly a threat to the stability of their respective countries.  Also American Communists, acting on their own accord threatened him and stalked his family on a number of occasions.  So yeah, I think his hatred of Communism had a good reason.  Then again, seeing as I'm a guy who finds it hard to excuse an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of 150,000,000 people in the last ninety years, I'm a bit biased.  :P

And in any case (and more on topic), "Rio Bravo" is at least as good, if not better, than "High Noon".  I don't honestly give a s*** about its political viewpoints; if I did, I would DETEST "The Wild Bunch" and "Once Upon A Time In The West", among many of my other favorite films.  "3:10 To Yuma" I've not seen, so I can't pass judgment.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: visitor on June 12, 2005, 07:52:46 AM
Mao and Stalin personally ordered attempts on Wayne's life on separate occasions (both times the would-be assassins were apprehended so it isn't just a conspiracy theory), because his anti-Communist views were supposedly a threat to the stability of their respective countries.  Also American Communists, acting on their own accord threatened him and stalked his family on a number of occasions.  So yeah, I think his hatred of Communism had a good reason.  Then again, seeing as I'm a guy who finds it hard to excuse an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of 150,000,000 people in the last ninety years, I'm a bit biased.  :P

And in any case (and more on topic), "Rio Bravo" is at least as good, if not better, than "High Noon".  I don't honestly give a s*** about its political viewpoints; if I did, I would DETEST "The Wild Bunch" and "Once Upon A Time In The West", among many of my other favorite films.  "3:10 To Yuma" I've not seen, so I can't pass judgment.

HIGH NOON vs RIO BRAVO - unfair to be forced to choose. One is a drama in  a western setting; the other an old-fashioned shoot em up. I LIKE both, and LEONE obviously did too as you can see cribs from both films in his material(three men waiting at the train station, one playing a HARMONICA - the music only opening to RIO BRAVO, the deguello, Wayne and Martin stalking down opposite sides of the street a la Eastwood/ Wallach)

And if Wayne was that bad, why was he the only one in H'Wood that'd hire that left wing pot smokin'  loose cannon Dennis Hopper(who loved him).
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Egdor on June 12, 2005, 11:46:13 AM
Mao and Stalin personally ordered attempts on Wayne's life on separate occasions (both times the would-be assassins were apprehended so it isn't just a conspiracy theory), because his anti-Communist views were supposedly a threat to the stability of their respective countries.  Also American Communists, acting on their own accord threatened him and stalked his family on a number of occasions.  So yeah, I think his hatred of Communism had a good reason.  Then again, seeing as I'm a guy who finds it hard to excuse an ideology that is responsible for the deaths of 150,000,000 people in the last ninety years, I'm a bit biased.  :P

And in any case (and more on topic), "Rio Bravo" is at least as good, if not better, than "High Noon".  I don't honestly give a s*** about its political viewpoints; if I did, I would DETEST "The Wild Bunch" and "Once Upon A Time In The West", among many of my other favorite films.  "3:10 To Yuma" I've not seen, so I can't pass judgment.

Mao and Stalin were both dictators of totalitarian single-party states, a concept that has no root in communism. I’ve read quite a few biographies on Stalin and have come to the conclusion that, although he might be considered a Marxist, his methods were entirely un-Marxist. He is known to have said, ‘Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.’ I think that quite covers the way he operated.

Wherever you got the 150,000,000 number from, I’m somewhat struck by the assertion that an ideology can be held responsible for anything at all. Surely the men behind the ideology, or those who commit actions in its name, must be held responsible. I can see why the Duke must have been skeptical toward commies, though.  I just hope the United States have moved on from the ridiculous tendencies they were showing in the fifties and sixties, or I pity them. But then again, I’m someone who finds it hard to excuse an ideology that is responsible for war, famine and poverty, so I might perhaps be a little biased.  ::)

I like John wayne films, though. And I love both High Noon and Rio Bravo.


Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: visitor on June 12, 2005, 02:18:33 PM
Edgor states, somewhat  as an apologist for communism that "Mao and Stalin were both dictators of totalitarian single-party states, a concept that has no root in communism. I’ve read quite a few biographies on Stalin and have come to the conclusion that, although he might be considered a Marxist, his methods were entirely un-Marxist. He is known to have said, ‘Death solves all problems: no man, no problem.’ I think that quite covers the way he operated.

Wherever you got the 150,000,000 number from, I’m somewhat struck by the assertion that an ideology can be held responsible for anything at all. Surely the men behind the ideology, or those who commit actions in its name, must be held responsible. "

That's akin to a citizen of the USA saying Republicans are not playing the race card because Lincoln was a Republican.

....what a load of dung. As leaders of communist  run countries, they were also communist  party leaders. If not,  then they would never have gotten their posts.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Groggy on June 12, 2005, 03:13:31 PM
Thanks for backing me up, visitor, but I think we'd better stop before we get an all-out flame war going here.

Quote
But then again, I’m someone who finds it hard to excuse an ideology that is responsible for war, famine and poverty, so I might perhaps be a little biased

You mean Communism, right? 

I have no respect for the ideology of Communism, any more than I do fascism, Nazism, or any other type of totalitarian government.  Obviously, I don't hate every single person who was a Communist, and certainly not every person who's left-leaning.  I will say that if an entertainer is left wing or even a Marxist, I don't give a crap as long as their films/music/whatever are entertaining.  Salvador Dali was a Franco-loving fascist, and he's my favorite artist.

And BTW, American "McCarthyism" cost some people their jobs in the movies, but that's about it.  Comparing it to the Ukranian famine, Holocaust, Soviet gulags or the Cultural Revolution in China is absolute B.S., no ifs, ands, or buts about it.  The people who fled to Europe were either cowards or guilty, or both.  Actor Albert Dekker (who was a leftist) gave the perfect response to "McCarthyism": after being blacklisted, he ignored McCarthy and went to work on the Broadway stage.  All he had to do was stay out of Hollywood, and he was left pretty well alone until it was "safe" to go back to Hollywood again.

I agree that Wayne's saying "High Noon" was un-American is kinda dumb, and I think that he was a bit too ready to snap at anything with a possible left-wing bent.  It's not that I don't like "High Noon", I just take issue with it being one of the greatest Westerns of all time.  I certainly don't read anything particularly offensive into the plot, or anything much at all involving "left-wing" ideology.   It might be there, but you'd really have to look.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Egdor on June 13, 2005, 01:55:22 AM
Quote from: Groggy
I have no respect for the ideology of Communism, any more than I do fascism, Nazism, or any other type of totalitarian government.

I’m afraid it seems you’re confusing economics with governments. Economic systems are capitalism, mercantilism, communism and so forth. Totalitarianism, anarchy, monarchy and democracy are examples of governments.  The Soviet Union, for instance, was a totalitarian government that worked to attain communist economics, something it never did and never claimed to have done.

Now I have to tell you something that I believe is very important to bear in mind especially if you’re not a communist.  Communism is an ideology that has the best interests of humankind at heart, only communists may be a little too ideological in assuming everything will work out.

Quote from: Groggy
And BTW, American "McCarthyism" cost some people their jobs in the movies, but that's about it.  Comparing it to the Ukranian famine, Holocaust, Soviet gulags or the Cultural Revolution in China is absolute B.S., no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Definitely, but I can’t see that anyone made that comparison, though.  From what I’ve gathered most of the ‘communists’ of the McCarthy era were either socialists or capitalists. Very few if any of them, I think, were actually Marxists.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Groggy on June 13, 2005, 03:03:12 PM
I’m afraid it seems you’re confusing economics with governments. Economic systems are capitalism, mercantilism, communism and so forth. Totalitarianism, anarchy, monarchy and democracy are examples of governments.  The Soviet Union, for instance, was a totalitarian government that worked to attain communist economics, something it never did and never claimed to have done.

Now I have to tell you something that I believe is very important to bear in mind especially if you’re not a communist.  Communism is an ideology that has the best interests of humankind at heart, only communists may be a little too ideological in assuming everything will work out.

I agree with what seems to be the thrust of your argument - that theoretically, Communism could work.  Unfortunately, every place a Communist government has sprung up, there has been total disaster and oppression (USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.), some places certainly more than others.

Quote
Definitely, but I can’t see that anyone made that comparison, though.  From what I’ve gathered most of the ‘communists’ of the McCarthy era were either socialists or capitalists. Very few if any of them, I think, were actually Marxists.

There were a number of Soviet spies in the US government and in Hollywood (I assume you're familiar with the Venona Files), but yes, the vast majority of those accused of being such were innocent.  Like I said, I'm not a McCarthy fan, he had the right idea but did what he did for personal gain and glory more than "doing the right thing".  I do find the anti-McCarthy forces to have stooped to equally low levels (especially their gay baiting of Roy Cohn, but that's another story), but I don't think I'll defend McCarthy with any real vigor.
Like I said, those who were blacklisted may have found themselves out of a job for awhile, but that's it.  Most Communists got their old jobs back within ten years.  Only those that fled to Europe and elsewhere were permanently unemployed as a result of the "Red Scare".

And just for the record (though I may have already said this): "High Noon" has no political elements that I'm aware of.  I think that Wayne was being hypersensitive, if you ask me.  I love the man but sometimes I think he read too much into things.  I remember reading that "Rio Grande", according to him, was supposed to be an allegory of the Korean War (a major stretch).
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Egdor on June 13, 2005, 03:46:51 PM
I agree with what seems to be the thrust of your argument - that theoretically, Communism could work.  Unfortunately, every place a Communist government has sprung up, there has been total disaster and oppression (USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc.), some places certainly more than others.

All of those countries were very poor and had neither the resources nor the capability needed to stabilize a communist economy. This resulted in opposition, civil wars and terror. Anyway, sure life in the Soviet Union must have sucked, but it wasn’t as bad as people tend to make out, really. At least it was a lot better life than under the Tsarist regime (which isn’t saying a great deal, but still). There was the incredible bullshit of the ‘enemies of the people’ Stalinism paranoia during 1936–1938, of course, but after Stalin it was an OK country, a lot better than other ones with similar regimes. And by the way (it annoys me to repeat this) the governments you speak of weren’t communist  (because obviously communism isn’t a type of government but a style of economy); they were totalitarian governemts with a more or less socialist economy working to attain communism.

Quote
And just for the record (though I may have already said this): "High Noon" has no political elements that I'm aware of.  I think that Wayne was being hypersensitive, if you ask me.  I love the man but sometimes I think he read too much into things.  I remember reading that "Rio Grande", according to him, was supposed to be an allegory of the Korean War (a major stretch).

High Noon does have some political content, even though it means nothing to us today. It’s not very evident, but it’s a protest to the McCarthy stuff. It’s nothing remotely like propaganda, though, and it certainly can be enjoyed by everyone regardless of their political views.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Groggy on June 13, 2005, 04:18:15 PM
Ah, have to disagree with you again. 

North Korea - How well off in comparison to the rest of the world it was in 1949 is questionable, but in that year it had virtually all of Korea's industries and factories and dwarfed the South in virtually every way imaginable.  Thirty years later, South Korea was (and remains to this day) a competitive member of the world economy and North Korea was entering an age of horrendous poverty.  You could blame foreign sanctions to an extent, certainly, but I have little sympathy on that score, seeing as 31% of North Korea's GDP is spent on their military and Kim Jong-Il spends tens of millions of dollars on his personal homes while his people starve in the hundreds of thousands.

Cuba - Batista's government was corrupt, to be sure, but nowhere near as bad as Castro. Batista's "oppression" was basically telling the press to remain in line every once in awhile.  Even Castro cited Batista's prisons as being comparatively luxorious and fair.  Castro planned to make Cuba a Communist state even before the US turned on him, and his actions over the last forty years, though obviously not on the scale of Stalin or Mao, make anything Batista did seem like a misdemeanor.

USSR - Was ALWAYS an oppressive country.  50-100 million people (depending on which source you cite) were killed, millions more deported to gulags.  Khruschev, Brehznev, and Gorbachev were not as bad as Stalin, but that's like saying that cancer isn't as bad as the Ebola virus.  Even today you have guys like Putin who apparently want to restore the USSR (note Putin's interference in elections in Ukraine and Georgia).  This was basically Russian oppression of hundreds of minority groups who didn't want anything to do with the Russians.

Vietnam - You may have a point there.  I have many misgivings involving US involvement in Vietnam, but the fact of the matter is: once we pulled our troops out of South Vietnam, all hell broke loose, and millions of people were killed in Indochina.  Was the South Vietnamese government bad?  Hell yes, but then again we aided equally oppressive regimes in South Korea, Taiwan, Nicaragua, Chile, and El Salvador, and all of those countries are fairly stable democracies now.  Obviously it doesn't always work (see Iraq and Iran particularly), but there IS a track record of US-backed countries eventually ending up in the right.  The "Domino Theory" seemed to hold true, seeing as Laos and Cambodia quickly fell under Communist dominion.

China - Is basically a shadow of their former self, despite attempts to pain themselves as the world's "third superpower".  Slowly turning capitalist, with decaying military power and limited influence in world affairs.

Quote
And by the way (it annoys me to repeat this) the governments you speak of weren’t communist  (because obviously communism isn’t a type of government but a style of economy); they were totalitarian governemts with a more or less socialist economy working to attain communism.

This is a semantical argument at best.  Marxism is the theory that history is determined by economics and nothing else, and that governments should be based around this fact.  Yes, there have been Communist governments. 
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Egdor on June 13, 2005, 04:29:52 PM
I’ll let you have the last word, Groggy, not because I’ve run out of arguments, but because it’s really gone a little off-topic by now. It started out as some John Wayne trivia, and now we’re discussing this. Enough is enough.
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Groggy on June 13, 2005, 04:37:30 PM
I’ll let you have the last word, Groggy, not because I’ve run out of arguments, but because it’s really gone a little off-topic by now. It started out as some John Wayne trivia, and now we’re discussing this. Enough is enough.

Good idea.  Sorry about that, it was all my fault in starting a political discussion.  :-\
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Egdor on June 13, 2005, 04:42:33 PM
Ha, I guess we both got a little carried away.  :P
Title: Re: JOHN WAYNE.....
Post by: Christopher on June 13, 2005, 06:48:46 PM
Good, I'm glad we all reached that conclusion. ;)