Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: Il Buono on December 09, 2003, 08:38:25 AM



Title: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Il Buono on December 09, 2003, 08:38:25 AM
Saw High Noon this weekend, and it seemed to me that this film could have been very influential for Leone's westerns and OUTIW in particular.  Especially when three men are waiting for a train, it all rings a bell.
Also the scene where cooper is behind his desk writing his testament and the camera registers the villagers waiting for something bad to happen, with the music...  A very strong scene that reaches a very high dramatic level for his time I think.  It reminded me strongly of a scene like the shootout in FFDM, GBU or OUTIW where the dramatic tension rises through different points of view cloaked by a musical theme.
(I hope I made myself clear a little :P...)



Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on December 09, 2003, 03:59:50 PM
Yes certainly High Noon was another quote for OUTITW the three men waiting for the train, the clocks, I belive Bertolucci mentioned this, some of the others were, "The Iron Horse" then "Shane" then"Winchester 73', Lionel Standers trading post, then "Shane" burial at the McBaine ranch,  then "Pursued" and "The Searchers", and etc., etc., its all laid out on page 266-268 of Fraylings "Something to do with Death." Check it out if you can.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on December 09, 2003, 04:15:27 PM
Saw High Noon this weekend, and it seemed to me that this film could have been very influential for Leone's westerns and OUTIW in particular.  Especially when three men are waiting for a train, it all rings a bell.
Also the scene where cooper is behind his desk writing his testament and the camera registers the villagers waiting for something bad to happen, with the music...  A very strong scene that reaches a very high dramatic level for his time I think.  It reminded me strongly of a scene like the shootout in FFDM, GBU or OUTIW where the dramatic tension rises through different points of view cloaked by a musical theme.
(I hope I made myself clear a little :P...)



I also think that the ambush of Frank in Flagstone bears more than a passing resemblance to "High Noon".  Denote the number of killers (four), and the fact that someone other than the main character (Grace Kelly in "High Noon", Harmonica in OUATITW) kills one of the men who the main character doesn't see coming.

I know that Frayling compared this scene to "Rio Bravo" but frankly I don't see it.  I've seen "Rio Bravo" like five times and I know what I'm talking about.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Il Buono on December 10, 2003, 02:03:39 AM
You got a very good point there...


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on December 10, 2003, 04:30:26 AM
I know what you mean Groggy, I think you are right, after a while all those old westerns blend into the cliches they were, it may be an excuseable error, lol.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on December 10, 2003, 04:44:42 AM
I know what you mean Groggy, I think you are right, after a while all those old westerns blend into the cliches they were, it may be an excuseable error, lol.

LOL, yeah.

And just to clarify something if it comes up: when I said "I've seen 'Rio Bravo' like five times", that may not seem like overly much but keep in mind that I don't watch movies on a regular basis (or at least one particular movie).  I don't know if I've seen more than a few movies that many times.  

Whether it was a deliberate homage or not I don't know, but I think that the similarities are more than passing . . .


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Cusser on December 10, 2003, 07:37:14 AM
OK, I suppose most of you know that initial screening (focus group) of High Noon did not screen well, and Studio added Tex Ritter singing throughout, and the quick cuts to the clock.  Anyway, that's what instructor told us in film class, a long time ago.  More fun in High Noon is that first character to appear is Lee van Cleef, who doesn't speak even one word in entire film, but does play the harmonica.  Van Cleef was offered the deputy role (Lloyd Bridges part) if he would have his nose fixed, and Lee refused so was offered the bad guy role.  So Lee left New Jersey and job as accountant and part-time play actor to go to Hollywood.  One of the other bad guys was Sheb Wooley (song Purple People Eater) who just recently passed away.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: General Sibley on December 10, 2003, 11:44:29 AM
Just saw a bit of High Noon this weekend while surfing and saw that Jack Elam was in it too, didn't realize he was the town drunk - just like Otis Campbell.  

He's so skinny you can barely recognize him.  

And he has the 4 Aces tattooed on his chest  ;)  
"Death Rides a Horse" was on last night.  I've now watched Johny Guitar & this thing within a week, I need help.



Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: KERMIT on December 10, 2003, 12:08:10 PM
just watching johnny guitar is enough to make me seek therapy.

saw a film called "terror in a texas town". sterling hayden didn't have a gun. his weapon was a harpoon.
impaled the bad guy (in black w/ 2 guns ) in the duel @ the films end.



Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: General Sibley on December 10, 2003, 12:17:03 PM
Tell me about it.

My wife came home and looked at me watching "Death Rides a Horse"... and just shook her head.  I'm lucky she didn't call the police.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: KERMIT on December 10, 2003, 01:44:15 PM
i wish leone would have had richard boone @ some point.
watched "hombre" last night.  boone was so gifted.
shame he and leone never got together.  ;)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: General Sibley on December 10, 2003, 02:03:40 PM
Admittedly, Boone is solid - but could he have convincingly portrayed a half-breed Portugese whaler out in El Paso?  

"Terror in a Texas Town" LMFAO.  God forgive me if I ever find myself watching that movie, I'm sure the Western Channel will show it.

Did Sterling Hayden have a straight face in the harpoon shootout scene?  "Mandrake, do you know what the Commies are doing to our water?"   Interesting character from what I've heard, loved to party - bought himself a bigass 60' sailing yacht and just cruised the tropical seas with some wenches for a couple years.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on December 10, 2003, 04:09:21 PM
Regreatably Boone was very underused in film, he could definitely ooze menace, its incredible that you didn't see him more often. Maybe living in Hawaii was more important than making Hollywood bucks.

Watching crap westerns really makes you appreciate Leone even more so.

There was a line in "Something To Do With Death" where Frayling quotes Leone as saying something to the effect that female characters and their storylines screwed up a lot of good westerns. If you removed the women you had better stories. I don't think that would have helped "Johnny Guitar" though, lol.

It seems as if there was a point where they tried all kinds of weird story lines to get a hook to make simple westerns different.

It took Leone to distill things back to the basics, lol


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: General Sibley on December 10, 2003, 05:33:40 PM
The western genre was as limited as Taco Bell - how many ways can you combine beans, ground beef, cheese, sour cream & tortillas and still come up with a new product?

I love the harpoon angle - what would that be, a whalemeat chalupa?

The bad one's make you appreciate the great one's all the more.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: KERMIT on December 10, 2003, 08:52:49 PM
The western genre was as limited as Taco Bell - how many ways can you combine beans, ground beef, cheese, sour cream & tortillas and still come up with a new product?

I love the harpoon angle - what would that be, a whalemeat chalupa?

The bad one's make you appreciate the great one's all the more.
to be honest with you general, it was a prety good old movie. every time the bad guy in black would move it sounded as if he were supporting 10 lbs of leather.

don't push sterling to far...a pectoral grizzely way to go, not to mention embarrassing.  ;D


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: KERMIT on December 11, 2003, 06:19:36 AM
Admittedly, Boone is solid - but could he have convincingly portrayed a half-breed Portugese whaler out in El Paso?  

"Terror in a Texas Town" LMFAO.  God forgive me if I ever find myself watching that movie, I'm sure the Western Channel will show it.

Did Sterling Hayden have a straight face in the harpoon shootout scene?  "Mandrake, do you know what the Commies are doing to our water?"   Interesting character from what I've heard, loved to party - bought himself a bigass 60' sailing yacht and just cruised the tropical seas with some wenches for a couple years.
not a muscle moved. sterling's face granite as he impaled
pathetic badguy whose girfriend kept warning him about "pushing" sterling's character too far.

no precious bodily fluids mixed here.  LOL  
BTW, sabastian cabot totaly out of character as bad guy's fat guy employer. you just felt terrible for the bad guy as he was bound for impaling in the middle of the street in front of god  & everybody by sterling's long swift harpoon.  ::)
needless to say, hayden denied his essence.  ;D


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on December 12, 2003, 05:02:37 AM
denied his essence...., lol.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: General Sibley on December 13, 2003, 07:26:13 AM
Sebastian Cabot in the Morton role?  This keeps getting better.  Did he have "GOOD" and "EVIL" tattooed on his knuckles?

Who played the love interest, Shelly Winters?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: John Baldwin on January 04, 2006, 08:34:43 PM
I've watched this movie for the first time this week end, but in French, and I wanted to know if the sing is in English in the American version?
Thanks...

Van Cleef is... YOUNG!


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 05, 2006, 02:21:09 AM
yes it is... that is odd that they would change the language of the song for a different version.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on January 05, 2006, 05:32:18 PM
"High Noon": good movie but not as great as it's cracked up to me.  The best part is Gary Cooper, who is just great, but otherwise it's overrated.  I preferred "3:10 To Yuma" myself, though I'd still recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet seen it (come on, it's a classic - let the people decide for themselves).


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Leone Admirer on January 06, 2006, 05:48:07 AM
I really love High Noon, I think it is a great film. Those who like the structure of this film but who wanted to see it transposed to Noir should check out Robert Wise's The Set Up with Robert Ryan.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Tim on January 06, 2006, 11:33:10 PM
  I've never been able to  completely embrace High Noon.  Its a good movie, a classic in most rights, but something just doesn't click when I watch it.  Gary Cooper is very good and I'll watch it when its on tv, but I've never been able to consider it up there with other western classics.

  Like Groggy said though, I'd still recommend it to someone who hasn't seen it before.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: grandpa_chum on January 07, 2006, 11:00:15 AM
I'm not sure I'm as weary of it as some other posters, I love it any which way... but I will admit that it might be the essential one-timer film... I mean the first time I saw it and you don't know exactly the way things are gonna go down it's as good as the best of them, but others are somewhat right, after that it's still great but I can't bring myself to watch it all the way through very often... but that first time, wow!... I will never forget the first time I saw high noon(which i can't say for very many films).


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Jill on May 30, 2007, 09:58:06 AM
Well, it's good,  but a little overrated. I think, when Kane had not survived, it has been more shocking and much better. He could have killed the bad guys, right, but he should die too.

(I hope it's clear. I have problems with the past form of the conditional mood.)  :-[


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on May 30, 2007, 10:52:13 AM
I always loved the opening to High Noon with Lee Van Cleef. Awesome!


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 30, 2007, 05:10:43 PM
Well, it's good,  but a little overrated. I think, when Kane had not survived, it has been more shocking and much better. He could have killed the bad guys, right, but he should die too.

(I hope it's clear. I have problems with the past form of the conditional mood.)  :-[
Hey, they should have used you as a script doctor! I like your ending better than the one used. Let me tweak it a bit further: Kane gets all the baddies, but his wife, in attempting to save him, ends up shooting her husband by mistake. Heavy irony, eh? She violates her pacifist principles, and pays the price. Oh, the humanity!

[No biggie, Jill, but this is probably the way you wanted to formulate your thought: "Had Kane not survived, it would have been more shocking and much better."]


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: KevinJCBJK on July 06, 2007, 03:41:02 PM
The only things I didn't like about High Noon was Katy Jurado as a successful Mexican woman (haha) and the climatic gunfight dragged on too long. Clint would have wasted those guys in seconds.



Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 22, 2007, 10:25:46 AM
It's funny. I just watched High Noon again, and it makes the "3:10 to Yuma" remake criticism here even more laughable. The criticism of the remake is that it defies logic.  ::) Ok, then what do you call the end of HIGH NOON? You have Frank Miller and his gang, four all together against one, the Marshal Will Kane. On more than one occasion, Marshal Will is out in the open, and Frank Miller and his Gang fire countless times at close range and miss.

Now, I'm not knocking the end of HIGH NOON. It's masterful filmmaking, and it's the MAGIC of movie making to bend logic a bit and dispen disbelief. When I watch a film, I love to leave reality and escape into another world. High Noon is a perfect example of that! The western genre as a whole is built on myth and is often over the top. That's what makes the genre the best in my humble opinion.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: PowerRR on September 22, 2007, 11:18:33 AM
TAKE THAT YOU 3:10 HATING BASTARDS!


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 22, 2007, 12:12:48 PM
3:10 isn't made better by pointing to the flaws of High Noon. Both films have their problems, which is why I prefer other Westerns that a) have fewer problems; or b) hide their story logic inconsistencies better.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: titoli on September 22, 2007, 02:20:14 PM
I think High Noon is a serious contender for best AM ever. I don't like Grace Kelly's role with all that religious crap which I always hated and which doesn't help make the character credible. And yes, the casting for the main villain could have gone farther (of course, it would have been enough to change roles between him and LVC. It is easy to say it after 1965, but still I think it is incredible that nobody perceived that at the time). But there are few westerns better cast than this and, anyway, once you have Cooper cast in his life's role yolu're half way there. I saw it some months ago and found it better than ever. It is the first western I saw on TV, even before Stagecoach and it has grown constantly in my consideration. Gonna rewatch it soon as I bought the SE some months ago.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 22, 2007, 03:21:31 PM
I think High Noon is a serious contender for best AM ever. I don't like Grace Kelly's role with all that religious crap which I always hated and which doesn't help make the character credible. And yes, the casting for the main villain could have gone farther (of course, it would have been enough to change roles between him and LVC. It is easy to say it after 1965, but still I think it is incredible that nobody perceived that at the time). But there are few westerns better cast than this and, anyway, once you have Cooper cast in his life's role yolu're half way there. I saw it some months ago and found it better than ever. It is the first western I saw on TV, even before Stagecoach and it has grown constantly in my consideration. Gonna rewatch it soon as I bought the SE some months ago.

I do agree with your opinion titoli that it contends with the best american western of all time title. I for one think it's The Searchers, but you do have a strong argument here. This film is masterful in how it plays out, almost perfectly. I do agree that LVC should have played the main villain. But, on the other hand, I loved his character opening up the film. It was cool to see LVC here doing so.

I don't agree with you when it comes to Grace Kelly's character. I wouldn't call her religious undertone's crap by no means. What is wrong with that? I thought it fit her character perfectly. Grace was wonderful in the role.

Other than that titoli, I'm in agreement with you. This is a great film.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: titoli on September 22, 2007, 07:47:16 PM
What I don't like about her character it is that it's incredible: with all those prejudices getting married to a Sheriff, a man of action? They wanted to create a divided character, constantly in tension with herself and her man, creating suspense about her final resolve. But the premise was too far-out.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 22, 2007, 08:57:58 PM
To say nothing of her final actions. A terrible character in every respect.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on September 22, 2007, 09:07:41 PM
T_B You are still flogging a dead horse:

Quote
Ok, then what do you call the end of HIGH NOON? You have Frank Miller and his gang, four all together against one, the Marshal Will Kane. On more than one occasion, Marshal Will is out in the open, and Frank Miller and his Gang fire countless times at close range and miss.


In 3:10 they show Wades gang as being exceptional shots shooting at a moving stage thats firing back at them with a Gatling gun. There was no depiction of Millers gang as being crack shots.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 22, 2007, 09:47:01 PM
T_B You are still flogging a dead horse:
 

In 3:10 they show Wades gang as being exceptional shots shooting at a moving stage thats firing back at them with a Gatling gun. There was no depiction of Millers gang as being crack shots.

You're the one flogging a dead horse. I'm just seeing what I saw. Miller's gang should have hit the Marshall. He was out in the open, in broad daylight. This was even far more ridiculous than in the 3:10 to Yuma remake, where at least they were running away between buildings.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: mal247 on September 23, 2007, 03:13:04 AM
Thanks TB for your review of High Noon (it may be on another thread).  Long time since I saw this but I have fond memories.  Has prompted me to get permanent copies of High Noon, The Searchers and Unforgiven.

 :)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 23, 2007, 08:05:22 AM
Thanks TB for your review of High Noon (it may be on another thread).  Long time since I saw this but I have fond memories.  Has prompted me to get permanent copies of High Noon, The Searchers and Unforgiven.

 :)

Hey shades! It's no problem my friend, happy to write the review. You should watch High Noon as soon as you can again! O0


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on September 23, 2007, 06:42:36 PM
Quote
I'm just seeing what I saw. Miller's gang should have hit the Marshall. He was out in the open, in broad daylight. This was even far more ridiculous than in the 3:10 to Yuma remake, where at least they were running away between buildings.

 
Sorry, no amount of you flappin your mouth or typing your opinions is gonna change a stupid film. It could have had all the great action and have been intelligent too.

If we let this BS pass and not criticsize it we can just expect more outlandish BS in future Westerns.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 23, 2007, 07:50:55 PM

Sorry, no amount of you flappin your mouth or typing your opinions is gonna change a stupid film. It could have had all the great action and have been intelligent too.

If we let this BS pass and not criticsize it we can just expect more outlandish BS in future Westerns.

Sorry cigar, but no matter how much you preach your defied logic redrick, you won't change the opinion's of many who thought the film was great, period.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 23, 2007, 08:35:12 PM
I have to wonder, TB, about the number of Westerns you've seen. If you've only seen 10, then yeah, maybe, HN comes off looking pretty good. I can't believe, however, you can come up with a list of the 50 best Westerns (no SWs) that would put HN on top. But go ahead and prove me wrong . . .


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 23, 2007, 08:41:37 PM
I have to wonder, TB, about the number of Westerns you've seen. If you've only seen 10, then yeah, maybe, HN comes off looking pretty good. I can't believe, however, you can come up with a list of the 50 best Westerns (no SWs) that would put HN on top. But go ahead and prove me wrong . . .

Why are you criticizing me for liking HIGH NOON jenkins? It's only considered by many as one of the greatest American films ever made? And now you're judging me on my taste in film for liking it? HA! What a joke.

I've seen countless western films, and yes, HIGH NOON is up there with the best. If you think there's something wrong with my opinion, then so be it.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: PowerRR on September 23, 2007, 08:55:33 PM
How about if you list a few American westerns you find better than High Noon, DJ? There can't be too many of 'em.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 23, 2007, 09:31:26 PM
How about if you list a few American westerns you find better than High Noon, DJ? There can't be too many of 'em.
I dislike HN so much that just about every A-list Western comes before it on my list. I even put The Searchers higher than HN, and you may know how I feel about The Searchers. All the Fords (though maybe not Cheyenne Autumn), Hawkses, Daveses, Manns, Dmytryks, Hathaways, Kings, and of course Peckinpahs come before HN. High Noon has its good points (Cooper, the mounting suspense), but those are outweighed by its deficient plot, ridiculous female characters, awful music, and annoying didacticism.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: PowerRR on September 24, 2007, 04:54:10 AM
I find that quite hard to believe Mr. Jenkins.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 24, 2007, 05:04:45 AM
Well, what would it take to persuade you?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: PowerRR on September 24, 2007, 02:43:15 PM
Actually list movies that you believe are better instead of just saying that you like so many American westerns more. Maybe I can understand you to some extent that way.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 24, 2007, 04:03:27 PM
You can't imagine my list from what I've told you?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 24, 2007, 04:08:16 PM
Well it is of my opinion that High Noon kicks ass. I know what I've seen and it's and it's a wonderfully made film.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: lovelyrita on September 25, 2007, 09:36:12 AM
I am confused especially after reading some of the responses concerning High Noon. It will always be a classic. Ask my 80 year old mother and 85  year old father who I inherited this love of film from. No it's not by far the greatest western ever made but some of the comments, I ask myself are we watching the same movie. Yes it has its flaws but this in no way takes away from the importance of this film.
 

This was a review I came upon:

"The more I think about classical westerns, the more I come to the strange conclusion that classical westerns actually weren't westerns at all. For most people, western is nothing more than simple action/adventure story set in the Old West. But the films that turned into classical westerns were anything but simple; even when they fulfilled the action/adventure criteria, they actually were multi-layered dramas, with complex characters, subplots and raised issues that could cause some serious head-scratching even for the causal viewers. Such films used mythical setting of Old West in order to ask some hard questions and discover unpleasant answers about dark sides of American history, as well as the state of human civilisation in general. One of such films was HIGH NOON, 1952 film directed by Fred Zinnemann. This film is often regarded as one of the best and most influential films of all time."

http://reviews.imdb.com/Reviews/220/22076

If you are able please read the full review. Especially the last paragraph in terms of its flaws..and not to mention how good Gary Cooper was.......!!!!!!!!!!




Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on September 25, 2007, 09:43:59 AM
I am confused especially after reading some of the responses concerning High Noon. It will always be a classic. Ask my 80 year old mother and 85  year olf father who I inherited this love of film from. No it's not by far the greatest western ever made but some of the comments, I ask myself are we watching the same movie. Yes it has its flaws but this in no way takes away from the importance of this film.
 

This was a review I came upon:

"The more I think about classical westerns, the more I come to the strange conclusion that classical westerns actually weren't westerns at all. For most people, western is nothing more than simple action/adventure story set in the Old West. But the films that turned into classical westerns were anything but simple; even when they fulfilled the action/adventure criteria, they actually were multi-layered dramas, with complex characters, subplots and raised issues that could cause some serious head-scratching even for the causal viewers. Such films used mythical setting of Old West in order to ask some hard questions and discover unpleasant answers about dark sides of American history, as well as the state of human civilisation in general. One of such films was HIGH NOON, 1952 film directed by Fred Zinnemann. This film is often regarded as one of the best and most influential films of all time."

http://reviews.imdb.com/Reviews/220/22076

If you are able please read the full review. Especially the last paragraph in terms of its flaws..and not to mention how good Gary Cooper was.......!!!!!!!!!!




Great post lovelyrita! You just summed it all up perfectly with this post. High Noon is not only one of the most important American made films of all time, but overall films as well. It is of my opinion that every aspiring director should study this film. Technically it's astonishing as it's told in real time. The tention and suspense of this film is second to none!


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 04, 2008, 08:20:42 PM
Right, the film is told in real time, another reason to dislike it. Observing the unities just makes everything more play-like, which kills the distinctiveness of cinema.

Anyway, I'm sure all who feel this is such a wonderful and important film will want to have this new edition, reviewed her by DVDBeaver: http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/highnoon.htm


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: The Firecracker on June 04, 2008, 10:52:26 PM
It's funny. I just watched High Noon again, and it makes the "3:10 to Yuma" remake criticism here even more laughable. The criticism of the remake is that it defies logic.  ::) Ok, then what do you call the end of HIGH NOON? You have Frank Miller and his gang, four all together against one, the Marshal Will Kane. On more than one occasion, Marshal Will is out in the open, and Frank Miller and his Gang fire countless times at close range and miss.



I'm not so sure about this TB.
The first time Coop faces the baddies he shoots one then ducks behind a building as they send fire his way.
The second time Coop is in a barn and LVC fires at wooden floor planks which Coop is strategically positioned behind (or atop).
There is one instance where Coop is knocked off a horse (presumably by a stray bullet which grazes him: SO THEY DO HIT HIM!) he is using for COVER.
And the other instances he is inside of a house or otherwise.
I can't recall a single time that he is less than 30 feet away (difficult target when using shitty revolvers) from any of the baddies when he is out in the open.
You make it sound like Miller's men were trained by the stormtroopers from Star Wars, but in fact when they did fire at Kane he was usually ducking behind a building or already under cover.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 13, 2008, 12:08:54 PM

Anybody pick up the recent DVD upgrade? I'm wondering if it's worth it.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on June 13, 2008, 09:36:34 PM
I saw it too & looked at the extras more stuff about Frankie Lane and the title song than anything else it seemed.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 13, 2008, 09:43:43 PM
I saw it too & looked at the extras more stuff about Frankie Lane and the title song than anything else it seemed.

The extra's about Frankie Lane would be interesting to see because my grandfather knew him.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on June 14, 2008, 05:25:57 AM
The extra's about Frankie Lane would be interesting to see because my grandfather knew him.

In what capacity?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 14, 2008, 04:13:13 PM
In what capacity?

My grandfather was the head chef at a restaurant they Frankie frequently visited when he performed in Syracuse. They became friends. I have many pictures of the two of them.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on June 16, 2008, 06:37:34 PM
Cool.

My dad once did an insurance claim for Billy Barty. My dad said he was an asshole.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 16, 2008, 07:50:17 PM
Cool.

My dad once did an insurance claim for Billy Barty. My dad said he was an asshole.

LOL! That's hilarious. It's funny you say that about Billy Barty because yesterday I was reading his biography on IMDB. He was in this wrestling comedy in the 1980's called "Body Slam" where he was hilarious. I've heard he was an asshole.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on June 16, 2008, 07:53:10 PM
In another odd thing, my brother played his role in an elementary school production of The Wizard of Oz. Make of that what you will.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on June 17, 2008, 06:33:07 AM
DVD Savant posted a review of High Noon yesterday (it might have been a repost for the new DVD version, I think he reviewed it before). I agree with most of what he has to say.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2613noon.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2613noon.html)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: tucumcari bound on June 17, 2008, 12:32:50 PM
DVD Savant posted a review of High Noon yesterday (it might have been a repost for the new DVD version, I think he reviewed it before). I agree with most of what he has to say.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2613noon.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2613noon.html)

I like that review. Thanks Groggy.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on December 10, 2008, 09:40:27 PM
Well, I watched this film for the second time on TCM tonight. This was my first viewing in 5-6 years, and strangely I have roughly the same opinion of this film as I did before.

Now, I think it needs to be said that this movie is extremely well-made. Zinnemann is a criminally underrated director and he does fine work here; the editing leading up to the showdown is also quite striking. The acting is good, although I'm not sure I'd put any of the performances on the all-time great list; Gary Cooper does well with a fairly shallow character, Katy Jurado is striking and steals every scene she's in, and there are some nice performances by the rogue's gallery of character actors. And the final shootout is one of the best I've seen in any Western.

But the story! I think the DVD Savant article linked further up this thread has it absolutely right. Just getting to the final showdown requires a ridiculous amount of contrivance and convenience that wouldn't be remotely possible in the real world. This movie defines the concept of characters acting as plot devices rather than human beings; nothing in this movie makes sense except as a contrived way to steer the plot forward.

Further, even excluding the idea advanced by Jinkies and others that the town would have Civil War/Indian fighting veterans who wouldn't be complete cowards, they explicitly undercut their own intentions within the film itself. It is said that several of the men Will Kane is asking in the saloon had helped him. What exactly had "changed", as they said, to make them change their minds? The Church scene is even more contrived; Kane has four or five guys leap up to help right away. What happens to them? Do they really cave in on their stance because of Thomas Mitchell's little speech?Add in the one-eyed guy in the saloon and Herb (who backs out only when no one else shows up) and we have a half-dozen guys, who even if they don't have a lot of experience with guns at least outnumber Miller, which should be enough to make him think twice about trying anything. (Even then, the very idea that the upper-class townspeople would sit passively by while Miller is just ridiculous, but that's another point entirely.)

I also think it's ludicrous to read any McCarthyist parables into the film. If they were intentional (and I've no reason to believe that they're anything more than critics reading things into the script after the fact of Foreman's blacklist) they're done in such a broad manner as to be virtually indecipherable. An outlaw riding into town to carry out a vendetta represents a conservative politician squelching free speech to advance his political career? You'd REALLY have to reach to convince me of that.

So, as a film, High Noon has its virtues, but the story and plot are ridiculous. I give it a generous 7 because I found it well-made and generally entertaining, but my God, not anything more than that please.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Atlas2112 on December 10, 2008, 10:27:37 PM
I also think it's ludicrous to read any McCarthyist parables into the film. If they were intentional (and I've no reason to believe that they're anything more than critics reading things into the script after the fact of Foreman's blacklist) they're done in such a broad manner as to be virtually indecipherable. An outlaw riding into town to carry out a vendetta represents a conservative politician squelching free speech to advance his political career? You'd REALLY have to reach to convince me of that.

I beleive the McCarthyist parable was supposed to be that the townspeople would not be willing to fight against Miller (Big Bully Joe) or help Kane (HUAC testifier) mirroring that whole "lets just keep our trap shut about this whole deal" during the red scare.

at least thats what i gathered from all the critical praise


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on December 10, 2008, 10:58:19 PM
I beleive the McCarthyist parable was supposed to be that the townspeople would not be willing to fight against Miller (Big Bully Joe) or help Kane (HUAC testifier) mirroring that whole "lets just keep our trap shut about this whole deal" during the red scare.

at least thats what i gathered from all the critical praise

I think that's just critics talking out of their ass though.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on December 11, 2008, 05:11:07 AM
The only thing that I can think of that would change the attitude of the town was maybe, and there are a few hints thrown around, is that once Kane cleaned the place up some of the business establishments lost business. That would create two factions, the church goers and the "others".

What once was a rowdy "party" town was toned down. The Ramirez Saloon/Hotel looked as quiet as a tomb with the "clerk" or pimp mentioning it to Grace Kelly, and what or who exactly was Helen Ramirez,  the town madam as in "Mrs. Ramirez".  In The other saloon the same sentiments were stated or implied.  That was where Kane got the men that put Miller in jail the first time, perhaps Miller got a bit too out of line for even the town rowdies and they originally decided to help Kane but had second thoughts when they saw the long range consequences their actions precipitated.

I don't think you can consider the town as a unified constituency.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on December 11, 2008, 11:27:12 AM
That's a fair assessment, but that doesn't raise the point about why the people who jumped up to help Kane at the drop of a hat would turn away just because of some speechifying.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 16, 2009, 05:20:47 PM
High Noon does not, IMHO, come anywhere near the top [enter number] best Westerns ever made, but it is, nevertheless, a very entertaining movie, and a trendsetter. The major fault of this lies in its heavily flawed script. Some would even call it ridiculous, but I personally wouldn't go that far. Let's not disparage its (at the time) revolutionary set up: the whole town of honest, brave, God-fearing patriots, turning their heads away from their hero and savior. Almost 60 years later this sounds nothing more than an interesting idea, on which a whole movie can't rely (and it can't), but must have been a big revolution back then.

Apart from Grace Kelly's character, the little Quaker chick, I find the 'big enemy' to be the second weakest. Why? Because, for about an hour and ten minutes the tension in the movie is built to make us believe someone truly mean is coming... and then all we get is one (bad) gunslinger. I mean, we are let to believe this Frank Miller is one resourceful and slick murderer-criminal, that managed to ''persuade'' the politicians from up North to let him free, the whole town fears him to the point when they're willing to let go and forget all the bad things he previously did to them in order to not cross path with him, and then when he finally comes he goes against the sheriff with a gun?? WTF?! With three men against a whole town? I'm having second thoughts, he really is one crazy SOB! LOL! (Take note that he didn't know Kane will be alone.)

Grace Kelly is truly gracious, but her character is a dumb as it can be. Now, the other female character; Tuco's future ex-wife - Helen Ramirez, although also predictable in her own way, turns out to be a somewhat entertaining, honest, and at least true to herself. That, combined with her ''chili Southern senorita'' attitude, lifts her up a couple of steps.

Gary Cooper is amazing. If there ever was a character that made me believe in the American (Western) hero, it was Marshal Will Kane in High Noon. His slender figure with unobtrusive manners and moral principles, dressed in a black suit and white shirt... A presence hard to match.

The direction is solid. The whole movie is, besides those holes in the script, well filmed and balanced, with one of the most beautiful soundtracks, and I've never had a bad time watching it. But nevertheless, it doesn't have the whole package.

So, for me, High Noon is certainly an undeniable classic, but not a masterpiece.


I'd give it a - 7.5/10


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Dust Devil on May 16, 2009, 07:49:51 PM
I forgot to say; was the Hotel Clerk (Howland Chamberlain) great or what?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on May 17, 2009, 09:43:33 AM
Yea he was good, sums the film up pretty good. too


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 22, 2012, 03:52:14 PM
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/High-Noon-Blu-ray/43719/#Review

Here's the money quote:
Quote
High Noon is presented on Blu-ray courtesy of Olive Films with an AVC encoded 1080p transfer in 1.35:1. The results here are mostly spectacular, with Floyd Crosby's evocative black and white cinematography looking gorgeously lustrous, which is not to say that the dusty open prairie ambience of the film isn't presented in all its drab "glory". Contrast is extremely strong throughout this presentation, with solid renderings of very deep and true black levels, impressive variations in gray scale, and clear and decisive whites. The elements here are in amazingly good condition, with hardly a sign of damage anywhere. Fine object detail is excellent throughout, though some of the midrange shots suffer from some very slight softness (perhaps due to having been shot by a second unit). About the only noticeable artifact here is some extremely minor aliasing and moiré on some of the natty tweed jackets (Thomas Mitchell's is a good example). Otherwise this is yet another very impressive catalog release from Olive, which continues to offer product that doesn't appear to have undergone excessive digital tweaking, retaining a nicely natural filmlike appearance.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 22, 2012, 04:10:50 PM
High Noon was one of the first AW's I ever saw, and I couldn't understand all the hype. Just didn't see what was so interesting about a movie that's all about a guy running around asking for help. Can you help me? no. can you help me? no. Can you help me? no. okay, I'll have to do this on my own. okay. shootout, they're dead. (As John Wayne said to Roger Ebert, "What a piece of you-know what that was. I think it was popular because of the music." Those comments by Wayne (and more) are quotes in the last paragraph of Ebert's review on Rio Bravo http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090715/REVIEWS08/907159989/1023 ).

I watched High Noon once, just as a straight-up Western in pure innocence -- it was one of the first 5 AW's that i ever saw -- without knowledge of the Leftist politics that was the theme of the movie, nor of the Right-wing politics that opposed the movie. And as a straight-up Western, I didn't see what was that appealing about watching a guy run around and around and ask for help.
Maybe it can only be viewed properly with an understanding of the politics it's referring to. Eventually I am sure I will see it again. At least until then, High Noon is on my list of most overrated movies


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on June 22, 2012, 06:35:46 PM
DVD Savant's take on the film more or less echoes my own. His argument is contrary to any notion of "leftist" politics, rather than its message is too garbled for any coherent interpretation. To wit:
 
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2613noon.html (http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s2613noon.html)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on June 23, 2012, 03:46:31 PM
That's an excellent article, thanks, Grogs. For some odd reason, I don't think I've read it before.

I found this bit particularly illuminating:
Quote
The film theorists in Professor Stephen Mamber's class were impressed by the use of clocks: the filmmakers experimented with the notion of making the film play in real time. In one screening we clocked the clocks, so to speak, and they did indeed stay within a couple of minutes of where our clock did. So many are built into dialogue scenes that they had to be part of the original structure during shooting, and not an editorial trick imposed later in post-production, an oft repeated apocryphal claim.

In OUATITW, the use of clock images in Frank's Flagstone street walk must be an ironic comment by Leone on the non-necessity to adhere to real time when constructing a scene; in fact, cinematic time is superior to real time.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Groggy on June 23, 2012, 07:32:41 PM
 O0


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 26, 2012, 02:38:36 PM
so I was in the library and saw the High Noon dvd, borrowed it, and now I have finally seen it for the second time. The first time I saw it, I didn't really like it, I just didn't think it was very interesting, watching a man running around and around asking for help. Juts didn't think it was an interesting story; it was I think the 2nd or 3rd AW I had ever watched, (it was about 4 years ago), I was clueless about anything to do with politics, HUAAC, John Wayne, Howard Hawkes, Rio Bravo, or any of that shit. I simply watched it as a movie and found it boring.

During the past 4 years, I of course learned about all that stuff, and now that I watched it for the second time, there was no way I could ignore it. (Knowing too much about a movie's backstory and history is NOT a good way for judging it fairly and honestly; you can try ignoring it all but there's no way). I first watched the second disc of bonus features -- (its sometimes interesting to have stuff pointed out beforehand eg. about filming techniques, and the watch the movie and notice it). Then I finally watched the movie....

My feelings basically are that this can only really be enjoyed and understood with the political backstory. This is a simple morality tale. This is not really a Western, ie. it could have happened anywhere. Maybe they chose the Western as a medium of expressing their disillusionment with HUAAC cuz they figured nobody would suspect that, I don't know. But this movie cannot be enjoyed that much as a straight-up Western without understanding the backstory.

In the Rio Bravo thread, we've already discussed many of the comparisons, and I am not going to repeat here anything I've already said. But I will say this, if you are comparing movies: RB is a far better movie, and RB can be enjoyed and loved even if you have no idea about the fact that it is a response to HN; it can be enjoyed as a Western story, plain and simple. But I don't think HN can be enjoyed very much without understanding the politics behind it. If you are just watching it as a movie, what's so interesting about seeing a guy running around and aropund asking for help? Is that the western hero we want to see? is that an interesting story? how the town are a bunch of sissies, how he has to take care of it all himself, and then basically spits on the town and gets the fuck out of there?

HN is certainly not terrible. It's enjoyable when you understand its politics.  But it's nowhere near the list of all-time greatest AW's. RB is in the discussion for the top of that list.


btw, I think Katy Jurado is the most interesting character in that movie. The strong woman with the questionable past, who does what it takes to help herself in life without waiting for any knight in shining armor to come along, and is really portrayed positively, I just loved her character. Certainly not the kind of thing you see in many Westerns.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on October 26, 2012, 03:34:39 PM
My feelings basically are that this can only really be enjoyed and understood with the political backstory. This is a simple morality tale. This is not really a Western, ie. it could have happened anywhere.
I believe the Great Jenkins has called the film A Civics Lesson Disguised As a Western. On another occasion: A Western For People Who Don't Like Westerns. In any case, if you're looking for a genre buzz, look elsewhere.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: stanton on October 27, 2012, 02:16:03 AM
so I was in the library and saw the High Noon dvd, borrowed it, and now I have finally seen it for the second time. The first time I saw it, I didn't really like it, I just didn't think it was very interesting, watching a man running around and around asking for help. Juts didn't think it was an interesting story; it was I think the 2nd or 3rd AW I had ever watched, (it was about 4 years ago), I was clueless about anything to do with politics, HUAAC, John Wayne, Howard Hawkes, Rio Bravo, or any of that shit. I simply watched it as a movie and found it boring.

During the past 4 years, I of course learned about all that stuff, and now that I watched it for the second time, there was no way I could ignore it. (Knowing too much about a movie's backstory and history is NOT a good way for judging it fairly and honestly; you can try ignoring it all but there's no way). I first watched the second disc of bonus features -- (its sometimes interesting to have stuff pointed out beforehand eg. about filming techniques, and the watch the movie and notice it). Then I finally watched the movie....

My feelings basically are that this can only really be enjoyed and understood with the political backstory. This is a simple morality tale. This is not really a Western, ie. it could have happened anywhere. Maybe they chose the Western as a medium of expressing their disillusionment with HUAAC cuz they figured nobody would suspect that, I don't know. But this movie cannot be enjoyed that much as a straight-up Western without understanding the backstory.

In the Rio Bravo thread, we've already discussed many of the comparisons, and I am not going to repeat here anything I've already said. But I will say this, if you are comparing movies: RB is a far better movie, and RB can be enjoyed and loved even if you have no idea about the fact that it is a response to HN; it can be enjoyed as a Western story, plain and simple. But I don't think HN can be enjoyed very much without understanding the politics behind it. If you are just watching it as a movie, what's so interesting about seeing a guy running around and aropund asking for help? Is that the western hero we want to see? is that an interesting story? how the town are a bunch of sissies, how he has to take care of it all himself, and then basically spits on the town and gets the fuck out of there?

HN is certainly not terrible. It's enjoyable when you understand its politics.  But it's nowhere near the list of all-time greatest AW's. RB is in the discussion for the top of that list.


btw, I think Katy Jurado is the most interesting character in that movie. The strong woman with the questionable past, who does what it takes to help herself in life without waiting for any knight in shining armor to come along, and is really portrayed positively, I just loved her character. Certainly not the kind of thing you see in many Westerns.

I disagree with most of this.

I can easily ignore the politics of HN, as they are totally unimportant for the pleasure I have with HN.
Zinnemann's directing is great, and that is what counts. If it weren't for a few pretentious parts, it would be one of the best westerns ever. I prefer it slightly to Rio Bravo, which has its share of flares too.

Beautiful photography, great atmosphere, fine score, generally good acting, and some of the best action scenes of the 50s. 9/10


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on October 27, 2012, 07:41:16 PM
one of the film's biggest admirers, and biggest contributors to the bonus features, is Bill Clinton. Must be a vast left-wing conspiracy


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: T.H. on June 13, 2016, 12:11:39 PM
I disagree with most of this.

I can easily ignore the politics of HN, as they are totally unimportant for the pleasure I have with HN.
Zinnemann's directing is great, and that is what counts. If it weren't for a few pretentious parts, it would be one of the best westerns ever. I prefer it slightly to Rio Bravo, which has its share of flares too.

Beautiful photography, great atmosphere, fine score, generally good acting, and some of the best action scenes of the 50s. 9/10

I basically agree with all of this outside of preferring High Noon over Rio Bravo, which is one of my favorite movies.

I maybe saw this once or twice a decade ago or so and I was annoyed with Grace Kelly's character, but I didn't mind her too much. Her character being a Quaker was probably a bit much, but I wasn't bored by her scenes this time around. While this gets a bit too preachy in the second act, everything else is pretty much perfect. The cinematography was beautiful, with top notch framing and shots that must have had a bigger impact on Leone than I previously thought. The performances were good throughout, a great all around cast and Cooper was fantastic. The music was great, as was the tension built throughout the movie, and like stanton said, the action is really good for 50s standards.

9/10


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Rojo Ramone on June 13, 2016, 01:27:46 PM
I haven't seen this in awhile but it does list high for me for American Westerns.
I haven't seen the extras which I must remedy soon with my local library.

I could be wrong but aren't most Westerns "morality tales"?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on June 13, 2016, 06:45:21 PM
I haven't seen this in awhile but it does list high for me for American Westerns.

One of the absolute best I'd say.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Cusser on June 14, 2016, 07:50:33 AM
Cooper was 20 years too old for the role.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: T.H. on June 14, 2016, 10:33:02 AM
Cooper was 20 years too old for the role.

While he was too old for the role, he's Gary Cooper. He was fantastic in the movie and I can see that character shacking up with a much younger woman.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 27, 2016, 10:48:41 AM
You can buy Grace Kelly's house for a million bucks

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/philadelphia-real-estate/Grace-Kelly-home-hits-the-market-sans-cats.html




Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 08, 2016, 03:56:51 PM
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=19386
Quote
Special Features and Specs:
•NEW 4K restoration
•Optional English SDH subtitles
•"A Ticking Clock" - Academy Award nominee Mark Goldblatt on the editing of High Noon
•"A Stanley Kramer Production"" - Michael Schlesinger on the eminent producer of High Noon
•"Imitation of Life: The Blacklist History of High Noon" - with historian Larry Ceplair and blacklisted screenwriter Walter Bernstein
•"Ulcers and Oscars: The Production History of High Noon" - a visual essay with rarely seen archival elements, narrated by Anton Yelchin
•"Uncitizened Kane" - an original essay by Sight & Sound editor Nick James
•Theatrical trailer
STREET DATE: SEPTEMBER 20.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Moorman on January 20, 2017, 07:21:04 AM
One of the BEST movies i've ever seen. I could've sworn i already reviewed it, but here goes.  I didn't know what to expect when i saw this, but was blown away by it.  What i most loved about the film is the simplicity of the storyline.  A lot of people i've found out, don't like the fact that the Marshall had to go around and ask the townsfolk for help.  A lot of folks don't like the fact that the Marshall was afraid. I say these are the things that made it a brilliant film.  Too, too many movies, not just westerns, are FAKE.  Every hero is brave, and needs no help. No, this film broke it down to how it really is. Everybody and every situation is different. I could care less about any hidden political agendas that people say is there, because like i said, not every hero is brave and not every situation is the same.

I saw this on tv. Can't wait to purchase the blu ray version of it from Olive Signature.  
What i liked:

1.  The black and white cinematography.

2. The characters.

3. The acting.

4.  The script.

What i didn't like:

His wife inserted into the middle of a gunfight. I tend to hate ANY movie scene where the hero is saved by a 3rd party in this manner.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 02, 2017, 12:07:42 AM
Pretty hilarious: the Academy Awards ceremony at which Gary Cooper was awarded Best Actor for High Noon
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mZyA49IOXVk


Yeah, that's John Wayne complaining that he didn't get the High Noon gig   ;D ;D ;D


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on February 02, 2017, 07:54:17 AM
A lot of people i've found out, don't like the fact that the Marshall had to go around and ask the townsfolk for help.  A lot of folks don't like the fact that the Marshall was afraid.
Only one "L" in Marshal. Sorry to come off pedantic, but my father, a retired Deputy U.S. Marshal, would want me to speak up on the matter.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Cusser on February 02, 2017, 08:12:02 AM
I liked that Van Cleef was first face in the film, that he played a harmonica, and never said a single word.

I feel Cooper was way too old for the part, and too old for Grace Kelly.

I didn't like Katy Jurado.

We were told in film class - might be true - that pre-screenings of this film were a flop; then the clock stuff and the music/lyrics beefed up.  I liked the build up of the music where it ends with the train whistle.

Waiting a while, or a day, for the train was likely commonplace back then.  Nowadays folks get peeved when a flight is 10 minutes late.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 02, 2017, 09:22:46 AM
I liked that Van Cleef was first face in the film, that he played a harmonica, and never said a single word.

I feel Cooper was way too old for the part, and too old for Grace Kelly.

I didn't like Katy Jurado.

We were told in film class - might be true - that pre-screenings of this film were a flop; then the clock stuff and the music/lyrics beefed up.  I liked the build up of the music where it ends with the train whistle.

Waiting a while, or a day, for the train was likely commonplace back then.  Nowadays folks get peeved when a flight is 10 minutes late.

I like Katy Jurado. All the performances are good - just about the only thing I like about this movie


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: stanton on February 02, 2017, 01:00:49 PM
I like Katy Jurado. All the performances are good - just about the only thing I like about this movie

Come on, Zinemann's directing and the photography and the editing and the score are excellent. And the action scenes belong to the best in 50s films.

It's funny that Zinnemann and Stevens are better in that regard than most if not all of the Hollywood professionals.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 02, 2017, 01:36:38 PM
Come on, Zinemann's directing and the photography and the editing and the score are excellent. And the action scenes belong to the best in 50s films.

It's funny that Zinnemann and Stevens are better in that regard than most if not all of the Hollywood professionals.

the story doesn't interest me at all


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Moorman on February 03, 2017, 08:36:00 AM
One of the best movies ever. The simplicity of it is the brilliant part...


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 03, 2017, 11:56:02 AM
a guy running around and around looking for help. blah blah blah  ::)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Moorman on February 03, 2017, 12:19:14 PM
Come on, Zinemann's directing and the photography and the editing and the score are excellent. And the action scenes belong to the best in 50s films.

It's funny that Zinnemann and Stevens are better in that regard than most if not all of the Hollywood professionals.

Exactly. Beautiful picture. I can't wait to get the Blu Ray version...


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: stanton on February 03, 2017, 01:35:41 PM
the story doesn't interest me at all

Your fault.
It's not the stories which films tell, which makes films great, but how they tell these stories.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: stanton on February 03, 2017, 01:36:46 PM
a guy running around and around looking for help. blah blah blah  ::)

some guys sitting around and not looking for help. blah blah blah  ::)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Moorman on February 03, 2017, 01:47:11 PM
a guy running around and around looking for help. blah blah blah  ::)

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences disagrees.  Cooper won best actor award...


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on February 03, 2017, 06:44:58 PM
We were told in film class - might be true - that pre-screenings of this film were a flop; then the clock stuff and the music/lyrics beefed up.

You mean that whole clock thing was a lot shorter in the pre-screenings?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on February 21, 2017, 05:46:05 PM
I heard an interview with the author on NPR today. I had no idea that it was an allegory for the McCarthy Blacklist:

https://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Hollywood-Blacklist-American/dp/1620409488/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487724244&sr=1-1


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Moorman on February 22, 2017, 05:44:07 AM
High Noon is a masterpiece. I can't wait to get the Blu Ray of this movie...


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on February 22, 2017, 07:27:05 PM
My awesome wife came home today with the book as a gift for me! She had separately been listening to the NPR interview and thought I would like it :)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 23, 2017, 01:10:09 AM
I heard an interview with the author on NPR today. I had no idea that it was an allegory for the McCarthy Blacklist:

https://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Hollywood-Blacklist-American/dp/1620409488/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487724244&sr=1-1


Are you joking?

 You had no idea that this movie was about the blacklist?????? Have you ever read anything about it? Have you ever even read these boards?  ;)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on February 23, 2017, 02:24:52 PM
I think you'll find that the vast majority of viewers had absolutely no idea about this until now. For me and most others, it was simply a tautly crafted and brilliant edited classic Western.

The point seems to have been that it would have been too dangerous to make it overtly allegorical - hence you don't notice it unless someone tells you (or you read about it). Groggy's suggestion that it just comes down to critics reading too much into it is particularly a propos in this regard (and no I hadn't read through the thread here until skimming it now  :) )


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on February 23, 2017, 02:32:43 PM
I am pretty sure Foreman intended this specifically to be about the blacklist


And Kazan was certainly thinking about his decision to name names when he made ON THE WATERFRONT


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on February 23, 2017, 03:01:40 PM
I am pretty sure Foreman intended this specifically to be about the blacklist

Yes he did - that's the point of the book which I'm about to read.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 23, 2017, 12:32:46 AM
here is a review of the Glenn Frankel book "High Noon." The review was written in The Wall Street Journal by Stefan Kanfer:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/gary-cooper-the-red-scare-and-golden-age-hollywood-1492795033?emailToken=JRrydP15Y3WQhtEyZ8wz3Uc5K6IPDPeEXBbLLH2PIEXA8WfeqPisgqwzi564pmejSEA/7t8Jqm44QTnAn21tUIrIx%2B8lzgb5IyIG

In August 2015, the headline for an editorial in this newspaper read: “ Gary Cooper in Europe.” On a train from Amsterdam to Paris, an armed jihadi burst into a passenger car. Three young Americans happened to be aboard. The trio rose up as one, subduing the terrorist before he could fire his weapon. These men, said The Wall Street Journal’s editors, represented “an admirable strain in American culture that doesn’t shrink from individual acts of heroism for the larger good. . . . Heroism used to be celebrated in Hollywood, though it rarely is in these cynical days.”

Some 63 years before, that headliner had been the lodestar of “High Noon,” an austere black-and-white western told in real time. It became a surprise box-office smash, earned four Academy Awards (including one for Cooper for best actor), and a permanent place in the hearts of moviegoers world-wide.

It had not begun that way. In his wide-screen narrative, “High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist and the Making of an American Classic,” cultural historian Glenn Frankel follows the outrageous fortunes of the film and its creators. Fred Zinnemann was a Viennese émigré whose ideas of the Old West were derived from German potboilers. He had directed two promising newcomers, Marlon Brando (“The Men”) and Montgomery Clift (“The Search”) but was hardly a household name, even in the households of B-picture producers. The screenwriter, Carl Foreman, was better known to the cognoscenti; his credits included several distinguished features, including “Champion” and “ Cyrano de Bergerac. ” He was also known to another group: fellow members of the Communist Party, an affiliation that was to shape the drama of “High Noon” and blight the career of its writer.

Cooper, the third pillar of this now-classic feature, was 50 when he went before the cameras. He had been a bankable actor for decades, celebrated for his performances not only on screen but in bed. He never took himself seriously in the latter role. After a hot romance with co-star Ingrid Bergman, he recalled: “Ingrid loved me more than any woman in my life loved me. The day after Saratoga Trunk ended, I couldn’t get her on the phone.” But as a performer he was polished and professional, aware that he had been a member of cinema royalty—and that age had eroded his status. As Stanley Kramer, the producer of “High Noon,” put it: “Everybody felt he was old and tired.”

Not quite everybody. “Coop” believed that he was right for the role of Marshal Will Kane. So right, Mr. Frankel tells us, that he agreed to take a salary cut. He also volunteered to play without makeup, accenting the creases in his leather-saddle face. The filmmakers found the offers irresistible. With a supporting cast of reliable character actors, and a 22-year-old ingenue named Grace Kelly, filming began in the fall of 1951.

At the same time, another show got under way. The House Committee on Un-American Activities began to probe for Communist influence in Celluloid City. As a shelf of books have indicated, the congressmen pursued ink and air time as avidly as they hunted “subversives.”

They did discover a handful of self-styled commissars in the film colony. Mr. Frankel quotes Stalinist screenwriter John Howard Lawson instructing neophytes: “As a writer try to get five minutes of the Communist doctrine . . . in every script that you write. If you can, make the message come out of the mouth of Gary Cooper or some other important star who is unaware of what he is saying.”

But the scenarists were not an ovine flock. When in their early 20s, the radicals had indeed bought the Workers’ Paradise myth exported from Moscow and joined the American Communist Party. Then disillusion set in. In 1939, the U.S.S.R. invaded a defenseless Finland. This outrage was followed by the pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Members fell away. Contributions dried up. America’s entry into World War II gave the remaining comrades and fellow travelers a new rationale: Weren’t Russia and the U.S. allies in the fight against fascism?

The 1950s did not provide the answer they sought. By then the Soviet Union had acquired its own nuclear arsenal, Korea had turned into a surrogate battleground between Moscow and Washington, and the Cold War had gone glacial. A fear of Red infiltration, unseen since the America of the 1920s, resumed. The federal government required employees to sign a loyalty oath; the private sector followed.

Summoned before the House Un-American Activities Committee, scores of writers, directors, actors and executives made full confessions. When these were deemed insufficient to rescue their livelihoods, they furnished the identities of their fellow radicals. Others, however, declined to name names. They were finished in Hollywood. One of the refuseniks was Carl Foreman.

He had not supplied Gary Cooper, a political conservative, with any pink-stained speeches. He had long since torn up his Party card. That hardly mattered; colleagues drifted away, fearful of guilt by association. There were no new job offers; an industry-wide blacklist had gone into effect. In 1952, a powerful Hollywood labor leader, Mr. Frankel writes, “put out the word that anyone who worked on a movie with Carl would find himself blacklisted.” As the probes wore on, the screenwriter began to see himself as a latter-day Will Kane, the imperiled lawman whose former buddies have given him their backs. After “High Noon” wrapped, Foreman left town just like the sheriff, seeking employment elsewhere.

He found it in the friendlier precincts of Britain. But if Foreman was finished with the blacklist, the blacklist wasn’t finished with him. To sell scripts he used pseudonyms for the next six years. In 1956, along with Michael Wilson, another blacklistee, he wrote “The Bridge on the River Kwai.” The Oscar for best screenplay adaptation went to French novelist Pierre Boulle, who didn’t write or speak English.

Even this failed to satisfy the old-line Communists who attacked Foreman for ideological impurity—after all, his typewriter never stopped, so there must have been something tainted about his success. “Some perhaps were jealous of the fact,” observes Mr. Frankel, that the writer “lived well in London, and that he always seemed to come out ahead financially.” The words “skill” and “proficiency” had no place in the progressives’ lexicon.

Carl Foreman, who died in 1984, had in fact paid a steep price for his walk on the left side. Gary Cooper was back on top; Fred Zinnemann went on to become a world-class director (“The Nun’s Story,” “A Man for All Seasons”). Though Foreman was eventually rehabilitated, he had lost who knows how many film projects, a Hollywood career and a marriage. In the end there was only one true workman’s compensation: Like the character he created, “I discovered that I could be scared and still come through a situation. I actually was the kind of person I thought I was.” The movie “High Noon,” great in itself, is all the greater for the backstory Mr. Frankel tells.

---
Mr. Kanfer is the author of “A Journal of the Plague Years: A Devastating Chronicle of the Era of the Blacklist.” His novel “Hell Money” will be published in the fall.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on April 23, 2017, 03:30:04 AM
interesting thanks O0


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Spikeopath on May 03, 2017, 05:45:43 AM
Masterpiece!!!

This is just a dirty little village in the middle of nowhere. Nothing that happens here is really important.

Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is a retiring lawman all set to leave the town of Hadleyville with his new bride Amy (Grace Kelly). But word comes that a notorious gunslinger he put in prison has been released and is heading to town with his gang intent on bloody revenge. With a sense of fearless duty Kane decides to stay and sets about enlisting a posse, however, he finds that nobody in the town that he made safe for everyone will aid him in his mission.

The 1950s saw a big shift in styles for the American Western. After the yee-haw Cowboy Vs Indians excess of the 40s, the decade was ushered in by such film's as Broken Arrow. Showing the Indians in a sympathetic light, Broken Arrow also showed that clearly Westerns had much more to offer than frothy shoot them up entertainment. Which brings us to High Noon, a black and white Oater that landed in 1952 and is still today revered as a quintessential classic Western. Which is not bad considering there's no gun-play here until the last five minutes of its 85 minute running time.

What makes High Noon so significant is that it's not a big movie in terms of production. There's no reams of extras dashing around in glorious Technicolor, no sprawling vistas inhabited by colourful characters, this is pretty understated stuff. Yet thematically it's as big as it gets, a lesson in character drama where not a frame is wasted. From it's unforgettable opening of three bad men (Lee Van Cleef, Robert Wilkie, Sheb Wooley) waiting at the station while Tex Ritter's ballad explains the plot, to the now legendary and iconic ending, High Noon simmers with suspense and intensity as the story unravels. All told in real time too.

Based on a short story called The Tin Star written by John W. Cunningham, High Noon is directed metronomically by Fred Zinnermann and is shot in high contrast by cinematographer Floyd Crosby. Thus the film has a documentary feel to it, giving it an authentic edge so rarely seen in the Western genre. The piece is further boosted by the performance of Cooper. Winning the Oscar for best male performance, Cooper was 50 years old and into his third decade as a movie star. His prancing around in Western days reducing by the month, yet High Noon shows it to be one of the finest casting decisions made in the 50s. In agony from a back injury and other ailments during the shoot, Cooper carries the movie with brilliant sincerity, conveying the pain of a man now alone as he trundles towards doom. The realisation is that all his heroism and graft that made Hadleyville a safe place for women and children to live, now counts for nothing, it's a heavy weight on Kane's shoulders. It's here where Cooper excels, there's no histrionics or drawn out speeches, it's thru expressions and body movements that the story gains its emotional momentum. A remarkable turn from a remarkable actor, proof positive that you didn't need a dashing leading man to propel your movie.

The film notoriously angered Howard Hawks & John Wayne, its themes and its perceived allegory for blacklisting a bone of contention that led to them making Rio Bravo as a riposte in 1959. There's many an essay on High Noon and its links to Senator Joe McCarthy, HUAC etc etc, so really I have no interest in going there. Instead I think it's just fitting to say that Zinnermann himself always resisted talking in terms of allegorical interpretations for his film. He, rightly so, felt to do that would be unfair and dampen the huge significance of his wonderful movie.

Amen to that. 10/10


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: titoli on May 07, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
Just read the original story, The Tin Star. It bears little resemblance to the movie: no women (the only one named is the late wife of the marshall). No rounds around the town to find volunteers. The mayor tells the marshall to leave town, a deputy resigns but one remains and supports, though unwillingly, the marshall but, once wounded, the marshall sacrifices himself to save him. One of the four bandits is the main bandit's little brother, one of the four vanishes from the shooting without explanation. A tight and thrilling story. Excellent.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Cusser on May 07, 2017, 08:31:27 AM
Cooper was 50 years old and into his third decade as a movie star. His prancing around in Western days reducing by the month

50.  I knew Cooper was way too old for Grace Kelly.  We saw this in film class at college in 1974, felt that right away.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 07, 2017, 10:08:41 AM
Just read the original story, The Tin Star. It bears little resemblance to the movie: no women (the only one named is the late wife of the marshall). No rounds around the town to find volunteers. The mayor tells the marshall to leave town, a deputy resigns but one remains and supports, though unwillingly, the marshall but, once wounded, the marshall sacrifices himself to save him. One of the four bandits is the main bandit's little brother, one of the four vanishes from the shooting without explanation. A tight and thrilling story. Excellent.
Only one "L" (as in asshole).


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 07, 2017, 10:11:29 AM
50.  I knew Cooper was way too old for Grace Kelly.
The hell you say. So there was no way, in real life, the two actors could have had an affair?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 07, 2017, 10:34:27 AM
Just read the original story, The Tin Star. It bears little resemblance to the movie . . .
And the reason for that is (from Wikipedia (with citations)):
Quote
According to Darkness at High Noon: The Carl Foreman Documents—a 2002 documentary based in part on a lengthy 1952 letter from Foreman to film critic Bosley Crowther—Foreman's role in the creation and production of High Noon has been unfairly downplayed over the years in favor of Kramer's. Foreman told Crowther that the film originated from a four-page plot outline he wrote that turned out to be very similar to a short story by John W. Cunningham called "The Tin Star". Foreman purchased the film rights to Cunningham's story and wrote the screenplay.
. . .

Richard Fleischer later claimed he helped Carl Foreman develop the story of High Noon over eight weeks while driving to and from the set of The Clay Pigeon (1949) which they were making together. Fleischer says his RKO contract prevented him from directing High Noon.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: titoli on May 07, 2017, 11:13:06 AM
And the reason for that is (from Wikipedia (with citations)):

So Foreman would make one believe that he wrote the "plot outline" before reading the Cunningham's story? Don't believe it for a minute.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Cusser on May 07, 2017, 06:26:37 PM
The hell you say. So there was no way, in real life, the two actors could have had an affair?

A Quaker gal likely would've been married before reaching 22 years old.  And didn't SHE have parents?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 07, 2017, 06:59:53 PM
Your comment was "Cooper was way too old for Grace Kelly." Whether or not the character Grace was playing would have been married by age 22 is entirely beside the point. And anyway, are you saying she should have been playing younger? If she had been 17 that would have been better?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: cigar joe on May 08, 2017, 04:08:46 AM
Your comment was "Cooper was way too old for Grace Kelly." Whether or not the character Grace was playing would have been married by age 22 is entirely beside the point. And anyway, are you saying she should have been playing younger? If she had been 17 that would have been better?

Back then it happened, here is some interesting info: https://mimimatthews.com/2016/04/10/the-perils-of-may-december-marriages/ (https://mimimatthews.com/2016/04/10/the-perils-of-may-december-marriages/)


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 08, 2017, 05:58:17 AM
Thanks, CJ. That article at least demonstrates that May-December matches were an issue for the time, not something cooked up later by Hollywood.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 08, 2017, 03:28:11 PM
On Sunday, July 18th, at 1:30 p.m., Film Forum in New York will show High Noon


http://filmforum.org/events/event/high-noon-with-maria-cooper-janis-and-glenn-frankel-in-person-event

Following the film, there will be a Q&A with author Glenn Frankel, and Maria Cooper Janis, daughter of Gary Cooper, moderated by film historian Foster Hirsch. Frankel’s new book High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist and the Making of an American Classic ; and Gary Cooper: Enduring Style, by Maria Cooper Janis and G. Bruce Boyer, will be on sale at the theater, with a lobby book-signing to follow the event.


I assume CJ will show up and during the Q&A, he'll ask Foster Hirsch about film noir  >:D


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 08, 2017, 05:54:38 PM
I assume CJ will show up and during the Q&A, he'll ask Foster Hirsch about film noir  >:D
;D ;D


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on May 08, 2017, 09:53:33 PM
On Sunday, July 18th, at 1:30 p.m., Film Forum in New York will show High Noon


http://filmforum.org/events/event/high-noon-with-maria-cooper-janis-and-glenn-frankel-in-person-event

Following the film, there will be a Q&A with author Glenn Frankel, and Maria Cooper Janis, daughter of Gary Cooper, moderated by film historian Foster Hirsch. Frankel’s new book High Noon: The Hollywood Blacklist and the Making of an American Classic ; and Gary Cooper: Enduring Style, by Maria Cooper Janis and G. Bruce Boyer, will be on sale at the theater, with a lobby book-signing to follow the event.

Sounds good. I'm enjoying Frankel's book so far although haven't managed to read that much yet.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 08, 2017, 11:29:49 PM
Sounds good. I'm enjoying Frankel's book so far although haven't managed to read that much yet.

Do you live near New York?


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on May 10, 2017, 08:47:09 AM
About 4 hrs drive away. I wouldn't make the trip just for this.


Title: Re: High Noon (1952)
Post by: Novecento on June 27, 2017, 09:35:11 PM
Sounds good. I'm enjoying Frankel's book so far although haven't managed to read that much yet.

A great read. So good, I'm now thinking of picking up a copy of Frankel's book on "The Searchers".