Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: cigar joe on June 20, 2005, 05:00:53 AM



Title: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: cigar joe on June 20, 2005, 05:00:53 AM
I bought this a while back in a $10 dollar sale and finally got around to watching it, what a great DVD transfer in widescreen.

Its the first time I've seen it not panned and scanned and it has a few scenes in the transfer that they usually cut out on AMC.

Its a low key comedy western with a lot of insight, check it out if you've never seen it before and if you've only seen it on cable.

The beautiful Montana scenery (reminds me of my second home) is worth it alone, its a great story too, an epic about a 120 year old man who lived many various lives in the West. The Native Amercican sequences are great.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: jerkface on June 20, 2005, 08:27:53 AM
Little Big Man is excellent. It's both funny and moving emotionally. I found it strange how it would vacillate between those two extremes. Both light hearted and heart rending at times.

Dustin Hoffman's performance is pretty interesting. I liked how his speaking voice would change in regards to his context. One minute he'd be speaking English with a Native American accent. Then he'd be drawling like a good ol' boy. At first I wasnt' sure what he was doing, but it makes sense with his character. He doesn't really know where he belongs and attempts to fit in wherever he is.

Faye Dunaway, hubba hubba.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: HEX on September 22, 2005, 10:22:06 AM
LITTLE BIG MAN  is a wondrfully unique western

plays a lot like FOREST GUMP and BARRY LYNDON!

the plot is 120 year old man reminisces on his old life as a young boy taken in by indians then later becoming adopted by religous women(faye dunway) who is in to adultery. then becomes a gunslinger and so on and so on.......the climax is that he plays a very valuable role in custards last stand.


GREAT FILM I RECOMEND BUYING IT SINCE U CAN GET IT FOR ONLY NINE BUCKS! THATS A STEAL!


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: Sackett on September 22, 2005, 06:00:21 PM
A must see or a must own.  Intend to get in on DVD soon.  The book is as good also and Iwill buy one of the old style hardbacks on ebay soon.  Got to add it to my collection.
I enjoy Martin Balsam as Alardyce T. Meriweather.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: HEX on September 22, 2005, 06:20:50 PM
A MUST SEE.. BUT WITH A PRICE TAG OF 9.99 MIGHT AS WELL BUY IT.

IT IS WORTH SEEING MORE THEN ONCE.




BUT IT SEEMS YOURE A FAN OF THE BOOK.
MUST BUY FOR U MY FRIEND.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 08, 2006, 01:07:41 PM
I saw this film when released. Watched in on TV and finally got me a DVD at 3 Euros (It is good that over here we have the newsagency releases: they are series which are released on the newsagency distribution net. As there is a newsagency even in the remotest place of Italy (well, almost) and of course you have hundreds in the big cities) that means that these dvd's are printed in big numbers and sold at about 10-12 euros a piece. That also means that the ones unsold are resold at low prices in unofficial channels (flea markets and such) at the prices I bought them. These editions usually are same as the official editions. Anyway I bought  also lots of Clint Eastwoods and other american popular movie classic at this price.

Anyway, I found the movie quite enjoyable but no classic: some charachters are too didascalic (Faye Dunaway's (I love her, but here is doing nothing), Martin Balsam's and Grandpa himself). Hoffman is not at his best. I think he's always off role, he doesn't know what to make with his character. I don't know whether Custer was such an imbecile as portrayed in the movie (he probably was) but he's too programmatically so.
Excellent score (to compare with that of Soldier Blue: they have a folksie instrumentation with the acoustic guitar playing though various styles).





     


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 08, 2006, 03:45:13 PM
ah "Little Big Man"...the only film Faye Dunaway looks attractive to me (didnt care for her skinny ass in "Bonnie and Clyde").

Love this film. The comedic elements are wonderful and the "going snake eye" scene is among my favorites.
Editing is a bit choppy in some scenes like when the Pawnee indian appears out of nowhere (literally) and tries to kill Hoffman but ends up wanting to trade (or sell) him goods.

nice epic tale. I still think they should have gotten a different actor to play Hoffman in his old incarnation. That make up is way too much.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: cigar joe on August 08, 2006, 09:28:43 PM
One of LBM's best selling points are the Native American sequences, Chief Dan George was great,  that was done very well, the other sequences aren't quite up to that level.

The location scenery for the Battle of The Little Big Horn was spot on, that's exactly what that part of the Big Horn-Yellowstone River country of Montana looks like. Also many Native Americans from the Souix-Assinibone and Crow tribes were in the film.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 09, 2006, 05:33:27 AM
Quote
Chief Dan George was great


Yeah, that's one of the problems. He's always so wise, so keen, so good, so inspired...you name it. 


The best line of the movie is when the negroes are defined as "black white men". That was great. I also like Hoffman when he dares Custer to attack the indian camp.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: cigar joe on August 09, 2006, 05:41:09 AM
Quote
Yeah, that's one of the problems. He's always so wise, so keen, so good, so inspired...you name it.


Yes typcast for sure, but I believe this was the first film that really featured him so it was fresh at the time. Before this all the Natives were show more wise & stoic and with no humor (and I think humor is the key factor here), unless of course they were depicted drunk.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 09, 2006, 05:24:34 PM
Well, these comments are not very passionate...

Telling the truth, even if I do prefer Leone and his OUATITW, GBU, DYS and OUATIA, because this is a kind of cinema that moves and impress me a lot, I have to admit that Little Big Man may be the greatest movie ever.

Masterpiece. incredibly funny, and two shots after it becomes the sadest scene you'll ever see, and two minutes after you're back on laughing. Incredible. Terrific. So powerful. Almost perfect.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 09, 2006, 08:55:04 PM
Well, these comments are not very passionate...



on the contrary...I really like "Little big man" and consider it to be the best American film of the sixties. Next To "Bonnie and Clyde" that is.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 06:38:59 AM
I have only seen the very begining of Bonnie and Clyde so i cannot speak about it... Another huge american movie of the 60s is The Graduate, even if I might be one of the very few who love it... Actually, I heard it was more famous in the USA, but in France, nonody knows about it.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 10, 2006, 08:57:19 AM
on the contrary...I really like "Little big man" and consider it to be the best American film of the sixties.
If you consider 1970 to be part of the 60s (and I do)......

The film is entertaining, but clearly of its time (i.e. not a "classic", which, by definition, must be timeless). An example:
the "gay" Indian, who is ahistorical, and owes his existence entirely to borsht-belt schtick.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2006, 12:03:44 PM
Quote
owes his existence entirely to borsht-belt schtick

Uh?


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 10, 2006, 03:57:36 PM
If you consider 1970 to be part of the 60s (and I do)......

.


then I take my opinion back as I dont consider 70 to be apart of the 60's.

my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2006, 04:06:58 PM
This is not a matter left to private judgement. We start to count from 1 to arrive at 10. Zero has no value. So a decade starts from 1, not from 0.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 04:18:28 PM
But some could consider the 60s as beeing a certain period and not an exact decade. And in this case, 1970 does not really belongs to the sixties:)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2006, 04:33:01 PM
This was already noted in another thread by Dave Jenkins: subjectively you can stretch periods of time as you prefer. The '60's for me started in 1963 and ended in 1976. But what about others with other dates? So, you know,  we have to find a common calendar and a common way to count unless we don't care about communicating. And  the calendar was invented to do just that. And there are not two ways to count with it.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 04:41:02 PM
But we are talking about movies, which have something to do with subjective periodes, ideas and the like, and nothing to do with the calendar... ;)

So, I still support the Firecracker:) moreover, Little Big Man looks more like a 1970's movie than a 1960's one IMO.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 10, 2006, 04:44:57 PM
This is not a matter left to private judgement.


why is that?


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 04:47:57 PM
Anyway, the firecracker couldn't say "according to the common calendar, Little big Man does belong to the sixties, but I do not subjectively consider 1970 as part of the sixties."

"I dont consider 70 to be apart of the 60's." was enough respectuous of our way of communication IMO :)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2006, 04:57:23 PM
Quote
But we are talking about movies, which have something to do with subjective periodes, ideas and the like, and nothing to do with the calendar...


In facts they have to do with the calendar only when you  date them. Apart from that you can talk about them as you prefer.

Quote
Anyway, the firecracker couldn't say "according to the common calendar, Little big Man does belong to the sixties, but I do not subjectively consider 1970 as part of the sixties."

I agree. But that's a Firecracker's problem.



Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2006, 05:03:42 PM
Please remark that I have just started what it could be my second thousand series of posts. And it has started not with post 1000 but with 1001. post number 1000 was the last of the first series not the first of the second.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 05:06:20 PM
Please remark that I have just started what it could be my second thousand series of posts. And it has started not with post 1000 but with 1001. post number 1000 was the last of the first series not the first of the second.

 ;D

Good job :)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 05:07:58 PM


In facts they have to do with the calendar only when you  date them. Apart from that you can talk about them as you prefer.

Why? He could have said: "Though made in 1970, LBM doesn't belong to the '60's". What's wrong with this?


he could have say it. but what's wrong with what he told? :)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 10, 2006, 05:11:54 PM
No,my mistake. I had forgotten what his line was (LBM as a '60's, not a '70's movie: which is correct, BTW) and corrected my post.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 10, 2006, 05:18:44 PM
ok :)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: cigar joe on August 10, 2006, 09:42:51 PM
whew, glad we settled that one, lol.

Anyway getting back to LBM, its a film of contrasts for sure.

Quote
Masterpiece. incredibly funny, and two shots after it becomes the sadest scene you'll ever see, and two minutes after you're back on laughing. Incredible. Terrific. So powerful. Almost perfect.


Never though of it as a masterpiece, but its very good, and I guess you could call it that along with Penn's Bonnie & Clyde.

Missouri Breaks is pretty entertaining also.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 11, 2006, 09:54:18 AM
One more note (I hear that groaning, class!) on the matter of calendarical time; strictly speaking, the "60"s runs from 1960-1969. However, the seventh decade of the 20th Century includes the years 61-70. Whether to lump year "70" in with 60-69 or 61-70 then rests on nothing more than an accident of semantics.

As a practicing Herzogian, I resist such accountants' truths! I seek ecstatic truth, the kind available to all who recognize there is a period of continuity that runs from the early 60s to the mid 70s. What point is there to arbitrarily limit from discussion films produced in 69 but not actually released until 70? When we look at a film like Klute (1970) and speak of it as exhibiting a 60s ethos, we all know what we're talking about. Bean counters be damned!


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 11, 2006, 12:04:27 PM
Quote
strictly speaking, the "60"s runs from 1960-1969

Strictly how? Can you tell me, please, where the first decade  of the first Millennium starts from?


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on August 11, 2006, 05:35:53 PM
Never though of it as a masterpiece, but its very good

What are your criticisms about that movie, CJ? ???


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: cigar joe on August 12, 2006, 02:56:48 PM
Quote
What are your criticisms about that movie, CJ?

No real criticisms, it was good, I thought the town sequences not as tight as the Native American sequences but it was a serio-comedy so I can let it pass.
 8)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 12, 2006, 05:13:01 PM
Strictly how? Can you tell me, please, where the first decade  of the first Millennium starts from?
Of course there is no year zero, so the first decade runs 1-10.
The second decade then runs 11-20, but it is not called the 20s. The 20s are of course 20-29, and the third decade is 21-30. Again, these are merely semantic distinctions, of little use except to cloud matters.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 12, 2006, 06:14:54 PM
Not "merely" semantic: we're talking about the universal way of counting. But to make the matter short give me an honest answer: if you were writing a history book, instead of posting on this board, would you adopt your way of counting without any explanation to the reader?


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 12, 2006, 06:40:50 PM
It would depend on who my intended audience is. I would assume that most educated people know the difference between "the third decade" and "the 20s", just as they would know that the 1900s and the 20th Century are almost the same thing, but not exactly.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: titoli on August 12, 2006, 10:42:00 PM
I've checked sources here on line and looks I was wrong about this. So I have to beg pardon both to you and Firecracker, which I do, thanking the both of you for having me taught something I hadn't noticed before.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: The Firecracker on August 12, 2006, 10:43:40 PM
I've checked sources here on line and looks I was wrong about this. So I have to beg pardon both to you and Firecracker, which I do,

no problem :)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: Groggy on December 12, 2009, 09:02:19 PM
This is certainly a very interesting discussion. :D

Quote
Arthur Penn's (Bonnie and Clyde) Little Big Man (1970) is yet another entry in the spate of revisionist Westerns of the late '60s/early '70s, which challenged the old-fashioned triumphalist views of the Old West. Think Forrest Gump meets Dances With Wolves, filtered through Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and you have a good idea of the kind of film this is. It's certainly well-made and entertaining, but dated and only sporadically successful in making its point.

The 122-year old Jack Crabb (Dustin Hoffman), "the last white survivor of the Battle of the Little Big Horn", tells his story to an obnoxious historian (William Hickey). Crabb and his sister () were orphaned when their parents were killed by bloodthirsty Pawnee Indians, and they were rescued and raised by a tribe of Cheyenne led by Lodge Skins (Chief Dan George). Crabb is captured by US Cavalrymen, adopted into wife society by the Bible beating Reverend Pendrake (Thayer David) and his lascivious wife (Faye Dunaway), works with conman (Martin Balsam), undertakes a gunslinging career which leads to several encounters with Wild Bill Hickok (Jeff Corey), and ends up a scout with the 7th Cavalry led by the vainglorious George Armstrong Custer (Richard Mulligan), who stupidly leads his regiment into a massacre at the hands of Sioux and Cheyenne in Montana.

Little Big Man is obviously a mediation on Western myth-making. Jack Crabb is the ultimate unreliable narrator, an ancient codger telling tall tales into a microphone, and right off the bat it's made clear that we should take the stories we hear with a grain of salt. As such, it's hard to fault the film for its historical inaccuracies, from its Vietnam-informed portrayal of Custer and the 7th Cavalry to the unlikely number of historical personages (Custer, Hickok, Buffalo Bill) Crabb encounters to his masturbatory sexual encounters with a trio of Indian widows. However, the film's falling back on cliches of all sorts, from the lecherous, hypocritical Christians to the murderous cavalry and noble Indians, is much more problematic.

The film thematically bears a curious resemblance to John Huston's The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1973), another revisionist film. Little Big Man's episodic plot is certainly better-structured and more consistent than Bean's, its scenes and plot having some sort of structure and sense, but it suffers from the same oft-overbearing irreverence and smugness as Huston. The humor is often broad and self-serving, not funny so much as mocking, particularly its bizarre portrayal of Custer as an insane, stupid egomaniac, giving a speech while his troopers are slaguhtered around him. In this regard, along with the Pocahontas-esque noble Indians, the film goes a bit too far in correcitng the ledger. The movie is much better in its serious moments; the snow-driven Washita Massacre is a truly harrowing sequence, and the scenes of Crabb adjusting to Indian life are strong scenes. For all its strong parts, however, the film never truly transcends the mythos of the early '70s, and remains a product of its own time.

Penn's direction is fairly assured, handling the action scenes well and wonderfully capturing the gorgeous Montana landscapes. The movie has strong set pieces throughout - the battle scenes, particularly the aforementioned Washita scene, are well-handled as a general rule, though the Little Big Horn climax is a bit of a let-down. The movie handles the Natives fairly well, aside from an occasionally over-eloquent speech and a bizarre homosexual Indian (Robert Little Star) who is anachronistic and probably in bad taste, though the American characters are mostly cartoons. John Hammond's catchy blue grass music score is wonderful.

Dustin Hoffman's casting in the title role is highly problematic, to say the least. The talented Method star of The Graduate, Straw Dogs and All the President's Men, at the peak of his stardom, is simply not cut out to play an adopted Indian/Indian fighter/hermit/gunslinger/Old Man; his attempts at a corn-poned Southern accent, mixing with his usual New York deadpan, result in perhaps the most bizarre accent outside of Richard Nixon's Texas Leprechaun voice as Richard Nixon. It's not that Hoffman's performance is bad per se, but that he's miscast beyond all hope.

The supporting cast fairs a bit better. Faye Dunaway has an extended cameo as the sultry, sensual Mrs. Pendrake, who believably goes from bored preacher's wife to whore. Martin Balsam and Jeff Corey contribute fun cameos as larger-than-life Westerners. The Indian cast is solid, save Little Star's character; particular honors goes to Chief Dan George (The Outlaw Josey Wales), the perfect mixture of sagely wisdom and down-to-earth wit and humor. Richard Mulligan's caricature Custer is beyond absurd, and is too ridiculous to draw the laughs it's designed to.

Little Big Man is a fun, irreverent little film that perhaps goes too far in its efforts. It's certainly worth a look for Western fans, but it's far from the classic its reputation suggests.

http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/12/little-big-man.html (http://nothingiswrittenfilm.blogspot.com/2009/12/little-big-man.html)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: stanton on December 13, 2009, 01:42:25 AM
LBM is still one of my favourite westerns. Penn's best film together with B&C, and followed by Night Moves.

A film for body and mind.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 04:10:25 AM
LBM is still one of my favourite westerns. Penn's best film together with B&C, and followed by Night Moves.

A film for body and mind.

I love you.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: cigar joe on December 14, 2009, 04:16:02 AM
The Little Big Man Sioux sequences especially the landscapes are spot on, that is exactly what the land looks like in the vicinity of Little Big Horn, rolling sagebrush & prairie grass.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 04:18:30 AM
Looks like the part of California between Frisco and Yosemite National Park to me... with less vegetation.


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 04:21:56 AM
Two screenshots of the video I took last may when I was there:

(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2576/3821478634_8047257c62_b.jpg)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3820671503_556db1f054_b.jpg)

(I was in a car on the highway, that explains the poor quality of the screenshots)

That was pretty close to SF if I remember well... There are more trees and less windmills when you get closer to Yosemite...


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: stanton on December 14, 2009, 05:21:49 AM
I love you.

I love you too, at least if you look just like on your signature. ;)


Title: Re: Little Big Man (1970)
Post by: noodles_leone on December 14, 2009, 05:23:40 AM
 :-*

You may be desapointed at some point...