Sergio Leone Web Board
Films of Sergio Leone => Once Upon A Time In The West => Topic started by: Groggy on June 12, 2005, 03:26:03 PM
-
Quite often during my rounds on the IMDB boards, I come across some ignoramus who spouts off the rumor that John Wayne was Sergio Leone's first choice for the role of Frank. One moron even went so far as to say that Leone's original plan was Wayne for Frank, Fonda was Harmonica (!), and (get this) Bronson as Cheyenne :o speaking as if they were some sort of knowledgable person who knows something about the film in question.
As most of you know, I have read both Frayling's biography of Leoneand "Spaghetti Westerns" many times, along with much other material, along with Michael Munn's biography of John Wayne ("The Man Behind the Myth"), and other source material concerning the Duke. I have not even heard that Leone had a second choice should Fonda turn the part down. I have heard no evidence that Wayne was even considered, let alone approached, for the part. There's no credible evidence for this rumor, so I have no idea how it even got started.
So why is it that, every other day on the IMDB, I come across some "genius" spouting off this story? I don't even know what the basis of it is, and it almost certainly isn't true. Anyone have any thoughts on this perplexing matter?
-
I've heard bronson was considered for cheyenne, and it doesn't seem that out of the ordinary, i don't see why he would because it seems to me he was the first choice for harmonica, but who knows... john wayne doesn't sound beyond belief that leone might want to work with him, but wayne would never have worked with leone, nor would he ever have played a ruthless baddie... it just wouldn't happen.
-
I agree grandpa. I very much doubt that Wayne would have taken the chance. I am so glad that Leone got Fonda, as he is a great actor. Fantastic in his other films like The Ox-Bow Incident and My Darling Clementine.
-
However he has such a friendly voice and appearance like in the Longest Day and other war movies as the good guy. It's card to see him in a cruel heartless bad guy role. Cheyanne also has a friendly smile, my dad says he was in AA (Alcoholics Anonamos) "a great actor, but a bad drunk" Such a friendly smile.
-
I think Wayne would have made an excellent Frank, but like has been said, he’d never have done it. Fonda is in any case pretty perfect seeing as the role was written for him.
-
I guess I can understand why the idea of John Wayne as Frank has appeal, but my point is there's no real evidence that even Leone ever thought about the idea. With the exception of Harmonica Leone had a good idea about who was going to play all of the leads (including Cheyenne) right off the bat. Seeing John Wayne in a Sergio Leone movie would be pure surrealism.
-
Not just about the role of Frank, Groggy. Is there evidence that Leone EVER thought of Wayne for ANY part in one of his movies. I'm guessing "no."
-
Not just about the role of Frank, Groggy. Is there evidence that Leone EVER thought of Wayne for ANY part in one of his movies. I'm guessing "no."
No, but I was addressing this specific RUMOR. Wayne hated Leone's films, though to his credit he did at least (apparently) SEE the Dollars Trilogy, so he just wasn't making an assumption that they would be bad based on the fact that they were Italian (unlike a number of critics of Spaghetti Westerns). I'm glad that Henry Fonda enjoyed those films and agreed to be in it, and remember, he always said Frank was his favorite character ever to play . . .
Wayne as Frank definitely would've been interesting though. As we've said, he's always at his best when he plays darker-than-usual characters ("Red River", "The Searchers", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "The Shootist"), so I think that theoretically he could've pulled it off, though certainly not as well as Hank.
-
The rumour is just a rumour. We’d all have heard it by now if Leone ever approached Wayne for a role.
-
No, but I was addressing this specific RUMOR. Wayne hated Leone's films...
This is what I was trying to get at. The specific rumor loses all credibility when we consider the entire background of the Duke's career. For the rumor to have any substance at all we would need compelling evidence for its support, evidence sufficient to produce a paradigm shift in our current understanding of both Wayne and Leone. Absent such evidence.....it's just another rumor.
-
I don't believe leone considered for a second having wayne playing frank, he always was a fonda fan, as all of us here know, and wanted him since FOD. And I really can't imagine Wayne playing sidekick to anybody, i wouldn't have believed it for a moment. he probably would have come off even stronger than Fonda in the kid and harmonica's brother killing, but the rest of the movie, no. he wouldn't have fit.
-
I've read Frayling as well, and I believe I remember that Fonda was the first choice (and Eli Wallach talked him into doing it). But one of the problems is, as Groggy says, that some people put rumours as facts on imdb. It is very frustrating, as many of the anecdotes quoted there are funny and interesting.
When we know that several of them are either lies, or at least very improbable rumours, some of the fun disappears.
-
I agree that because of personal politics and the fact that John Wayne would never play a villain, he would refuse, nor would he be in a movie that wasn't wholesome and all-american, but that doesnt mean that leone would NEVER EVEN THINK of working with him, being such a fan of fords westerns and loving the man who shot liberty valance and the searchers and all that he must have had some inkling of thought of working with the duke, sure it would never happen, but i don't think that means he didn't think about it.
-
Wayne would have been interesting in the role, perhaps more so than Fonda (who was imo a good actor at a nuts-and-bolts level but incredibly BORING to watch, and only got more BORING the longer Leone trained his camera on him),
How DARE you slur Henry Fonda, one of the greatest actors who ever lived. :P :P :P j/k, though I certainly disagree with you on this score.
and Wayne was in general good in darkish roles, but pretty much stopped playing dark after Liberty Valance.
"The Shootist", anyone? I rewatched "True Grit", BTW, a few weeks back and I retract my previous comments on that film; Wayne did indeed deserve his Oscar for that film.
I don't know that we can know if Leone ever thought of him for the part. Even Leone's memory could be faulty at times-he could get turned around on historical details, like describing an incident that happened to Bat Masterson and saying it happened to Wyatt Earp.
That actually happened to Wild Bill Hickock. :P
And Eli Wallach has apparently denied ever having been approached to play Tuco in Once.
I'm willing to believe Leone had this idea in his head, but given his constant embellishment of the facts, I wouldn't be surprised if Eastwood/Van Cleef/Wallach weren't approached.
If I were casting Once, I think I would've aged Clint up a bit and made him Frank-that would have really shocked filmgoers who thought they knew what to expect from a Leone film-and maybe cast LVC as either Morton or Cheyenne
Don't think that would've worked personally, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
-
someone mentioned LVC as possibly morton... I hate to say this but the ONLY absolutely irreplacable performance in this movie IMO was ferzetti's... all the others had satisfying fantasy replacements... no one could ever do morton better or even close.
-
someone mentioned LVC as possibly morton... I hate to say this but the ONLY absolutely irreplacable performance in this movie IMO was ferzetti's... all the others had satisfying fantasy replacements... no one could ever do morton better or even close.
Don't know if I necessarily agree with you on THAT, but I certainly agree that Ferzetti's performance was fantastic. Ferzetti was/is a fantastic actor who deserves more recognition than he has. Glad that there's another fan of GF's performance here, though. ;D
-
As it is it is hard to think Henry Fonda played the heartless bad guy in a moive. He did a sensational job at it. Almost as good as Bronson, but Bronson was used to the Hero role or good guy side of things. Henry Fonda just has such a friendly voice. John Wayne is famous for being the Hero and nothing less. I don't think he's ever been in a villan role (correct me if I'm wrong). At least Fonda has can make is eyes have that evil glare. The flashback of Fonda hanging Bronson's brother has those evil eyes with that sinister smile. I can't see Wayne in this.
-
if you've seen red river you can probably agree that wayne would have made a great bad guy, problem is he refused to do it... in red river he was just the rival really not the bad guy... I heard that in the shootist he wouldn't even shoot someone in the back... i mean he just flat out refused to be the villain.
-
"I like to think that the glacial Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West is the legitimate son, even if he's the diabolic and monstrous son, of the intuition that John Ford brought to Fort Apache: an unpleasant, authoritarian colonel who violates moral codes and treaties with the Indians, to the point of leading his men to destruction in the Valley of Death."
Thus spake Leone in an Italian newspaper, Aug. 20, 1983 (Frayling's translation).
Not the kind of performance one would have expected out of the Duke, eh?
-
"I like to think that the glacial Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West is the legitimate son, even if he's the diabolic and monstrous son, of the intuition that John Ford brought to Fort Apache: an unpleasant, authoritarian colonel who violates moral codes and treaties with the Indians, to the point of leading his men to destruction in the Valley of Death."
Thus spake Leone in an Italian newspaper, Aug. 20, 1983 (Frayling's translation).
Not the kind of performance one would have expected out of the Duke, eh?
Interesting that you should bring up "Fort Apache", as Ford deliberately avoided casting Wayne in the lead role and gave him a supporting one instead. Ford didn't think much of Wayne as an actor (unlike Howard Hawks, for instance), and apparently was still angry that Wayne had gone elsewhere after his role in "Stagecoach" for lead roles.
Wayne's darkest roles (not necessarily villainous) are:
- Red River: Wayne's character is an egomaniac who murders innocent people (the Mexican guy in the 1855 scene, for instance) and tyrannically rules over his cattle drive with an iron fist. Right before his final showdown with Montgomery Clift, when he walks right past John Ireland's character and turns around and murders him in cold blood is a chilling moment. The closest he ever came to being an outright villain, IMO.
- The Searchers: Ethan Edwards is obsessed with finding his niece. Edwards is a muderous, compulsive racist who loses all real sympathy (until the end) pretty early on. Watch the movie again if you doubt.
- The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: Though its a supporting role, this is one of my favorite performances. Tom Doniphon goes from a typical John Wayne hero to a drunken, suicidal vagrant who murders Liberty Valance in cold blood.
- The Shootist: Wayne murders a few people in this movie, and his character is himself a murderer. For most of the movie, he's the typical John Wayne character, but with shades of darkness added to the edges.
Just all IMO.
-
I can't see how The Searchers could be a dark role. Because in the end you find his intentions are all well. And in the Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance I can only think of him humiliating Jimmy Stewart at the ranch. In the end he is shown as the modest hero when he lets Stewart take the glory for the Death of Liberty.
"Try it liberty, just try it"
-
The Searchers was actually very much a conscious attack on racism, and Ethan is meant to be a villain or at least an anti-hero. The famous final shot, with the door slamming shut on Ethan is supposedly a visual metaphor for racism having no place in civilised society. Throughout his attitudes are portrayed as irrational and hypocritical - e.g. he views Indians as little more than animals, yet he knows plenty about their customs and language. Along with the racism his character is generally brutal, selfish and arrogant.
Of course Wayne himself clearly didn't interpret this as a villainous role since he named his son Ethan after the character!
-
The Searchers was actually very much a conscious attack on racism, and Ethan is meant to be a villain or at least an anti-hero. The famous final shot, with the door slamming shut on Ethan is supposedly a visual metaphor for racism having no place in civilised society. Throughout his attitudes are portrayed as irrational and hypocritical - e.g. he views Indians as little more than animals, yet he knows plenty about their customs and language. Along with the racism his character is generally brutal, selfish and arrogant.
Of course Wayne himself clearly didn't interpret this as a villainous role since he named his son Ethan after the character!
Knowing Wayne, I think he likely knew that but enjoyed playing a character who stretched his acting chops.
I absolutely HATE it when people say that Wayne and Ford are racists. The only Ford Western where Indians are one-dimensional villains is "Rio Grande" (even in the other two films in the Cavalry Trilogy they're treated with respect and as human beings), and Wayne - well, he wasn't exactly a liberal, but anyone who calls him a racist doesn't know jack about Duke. I think Ford made "The Searchers" as sort of a commentary on racism in America ("Brown Vs. Board of Education" was being debated while the film was being produced), and he made "Sergeant Rutledge" (a woefully underrated movie IMO with a fantastic performance by Woody Strode) and "Cheyenne Autumn" largely as a rebuke to those who accused him of racism.
-
The Searchers was actually very much a conscious attack on racism, and Ethan is meant to be a villain or at least an anti-hero. The famous final shot, with the door slamming shut on Ethan is supposedly a visual metaphor for racism having no place in civilised society. Throughout his attitudes are portrayed as irrational and hypocritical - e.g. he views Indians as little more than animals, yet he knows plenty about their customs and language. Along with the racism his character is generally brutal, selfish and arrogant.
If Ethan really had been a racist, he would have killed the Natalie Wood character, not saved her. He talks the talk, but when push comes to shove, he doesn't walk the walk. He has to face his inconsistencies and make a choice, and he makes the right one. He may have even surprised himself.
The door swings shut on him not because he's a racist, but because he's an anachronism. There is no place for a loner in the new world he's discovered.
-
Well given the time period you cant quite point the finger at Waynes character. Back then the Indians were the rival. I don't want to get a lot of well they had a right to be brutal because we attacked first and stole their land . The Indians did rape, scalp, murder, plunder, sabatoge etc. and you can't blame a character such as Ethan to be racist. it is only natural. The other characters after finding the body of the Indian and the prize bull also showed signs of hate and racism, but only natural. I am aware of how they defend the body after Ethan shoots the eyes but he does it not in a blind hate but he commits a crime in Indian custom with the spirit wandering. Mockingly he humiliates the body and spirit.
As for the door. He is a lone man who isnt very touchy feely and doesnt want to be brought up in all the "oh bless you Ethan you saved her life"
-
Well given the time period you cant quite point the finger at Waynes character. Back then the Indians were the rival. I don't want to get a lot of well they had a right to be brutal because we attacked first and stole their land . The Indians did rape, scalp, murder, plunder, sabatoge etc. and you can't blame a character such as Ethan to be racist. it is only natural. The other characters after finding the body of the Indian and the prize bull also showed signs of hate and racism, but only natural. I am aware of how they defend the body after Ethan shoots the eyes but he does it not in a blind hate but he commits a crime in Indian custom with the spirit wandering. Mockingly he humiliates the body and spirit.
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. While yes, whites did encroach on Indian lands (perhaps unfairly, depending on your POV), and they certainly committed many atrocities, Native Americans committed just as many crimes against whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other interlopers, so the modern "Politically Correct" crowd are idiots to suggest that the Native Americans were completely peaceful and never harmed anyone. (Also, I would just like to ask, if we had engaged in a "genocide" of the Indians, then why are there more Indians in North America today than when Columbus first arrived?)
Have any of you seen "Broken Arrow", with James Stewart? Wonderful film which I think does the best job of presenting the Indian/white conflict fairly. There are good Indians and bad Indians, just as there are good whites and bad whites. The movie's sympathetic towards the Apache but doesn't treat the US government or white's in general as pure evil. Extremely even-handed and very fair, IMO. I love "Dances With Wolves" as a film, but I despise most of the political sentiments expressed therein.
-
Thank you Groggy for your kind words. As for the more American Indians since Columbus's times, too many reverse descrimination acts and laws have been set by (not trying to get in an argument but honestly..) the left (please, no debates concerning left vs. right, after all this is about John Wayne and Frank) to 'protect' the lifestyle of the American Indians. Therefore the race of American Indians has thrived in numbers but unfortunatly dwindled in their rank in society. Sad that many are being pushed around by casino owners.
But back to Wayne. I was saying that the 'racism' talked about is wide spread and that it is hard to point a finger at Wayne. He just takes his hate farther. In most real cases the hatred was from first hand losses of family lives to the Indians. I'm not saying they were right to hate but just try to understand, a group of Indians has killed you brother and his family, the Indians are typically thought of as a group and their thoughts and ideals are very close to eachother so it is hard to think of the crime being from a group of Indians. This is where the hate for them came in the settlers. Again I am not saying it is right or wrong just trying to understand where they are coming from.
Wow this all started from Searchers being a villonous Wayne role. Whew :P
-
All differences between Wayne and Leone aside, can you imagine that opening scene at the McBain Ranch with Wayne in it?
I imagine that viewers would have that enormous sense of surprise when the camera pans around to see, who?, John Wayne. I still get chills when I see Fonda's Frank for the first time, and I'm thinking I'd get the same feeling seeing Wayne gun down a small child.
-
yeah, all differences aside, wayne is the only guy i would even think of willingly replacing fonda with... the guy would have made an amazing frank.
-
i'd like to have seen victor mature as frank.
the way VM raises his eyebrow like mr. spock.
bob mitchum ?
-
yeah, all differences aside, wayne is the only guy i would even think of willingly replacing fonda with... the guy would have made an amazing frank.
Jimmy Stewart might have made an impression also
-
Katherine Hepburn?
-
I've always thought Wayne would have made a good Frank ( even though nobody could be better than Henry Fonda ) but he must have HATED Spaghetti Westerns. If John Wayne called High Noon un-American, can you imagine what he thought of SWs? Three reasons why it would've been IMPOSSIBLE to cast John Wayne as Frank are:
1) John Wayne would never be in a Spaghetti Western
2) He would never play a bad guy role
3) Everyone would've hated the movie and probably ban it in the United States
But, it's still an interesting thought!
-
After watching "Major Dundee" I think Charlton Heston would've made a good Frank . . . I mean it wouldn't have had the impact of Fonda, but still. Heston was made for Westerns and costume dramas, moreso than Biblical epics at least.
I don't think I could imagine Jimmy Stewart as Frank, I just can't. I mean, as I've said a billion times over, the key to Fonda's performance is that he's playing Frank basically the same way he played, say, Wyatt Earp or Morg Hickman except he's evil. Stewart was good in some of his darker roles ("Vertigo", "The Naked Spur") but I don't think I can see him as a child killer.
-
John Wayne would have been brilliant as Frank. John Wayne could indeed act and Sergio Leone would have brought the best out of Wayne while directing him. Yes, Henry Fonda was brilliant as the cruel Frank, but I think Wayne could have been just as brilliant. Just imagine seeing Wayne take out that whole family as we seen Henry Fonda do as Frank. It would have been even more SHOCKING. A casting move that would have been even more brilliant than Henry Fonda. It would have worked my friends.
Yes, Wayne hated SW's as I've read but it's fun thinking about this stuff.
-
I don't think Wayne could have managed the subtleties that the role required. Frank was as introspective as they come, and I just don't see how the boisterous, brash Wayne could have managed with the intricate details that made Frank a great character: the walk, the smile, the way he picked up a glass, etc. If John Wayne was Frank, he couldn't be John Wayne, which defeats the purpose of the role altogether.
Just my opinion. I think Wayne was a very good actor, but nowhere near the level of Fonda.
-
I don't think Wayne could have managed the subtleties that the role required. Frank was as introspective as they come, and I just don't see how the boisterous, brash Wayne could have managed with the intricate details that made Frank a great character: the walk, the smile, the way he picked up a glass, etc. If John Wayne was Frank, he couldn't be John Wayne, which defeats the purpose of the role altogether.
Just my opinion. I think Wayne was a very good actor, but nowhere near the level of Fonda.
The thing about John Wayne is this...he had amazing charisma which many actors lack. His screen presense is arguably the best ever. He just had a way about him that's hard to explain. His popularity till this day explains it. That's why I hate it when people say he can't act. This is not true. He got away with being John Wayne because of his charisma and the way people were attracted to him. This made big money for Hollywood so most directors probably gave him a lot of freedom.
I believe John Wayne could have tackled the role of Frank very well. Like I've said before, if you take a highly talented director like Sergio Leone and brought these two talents together, it work magic. If John Wayne had the chance to work with Sergio, I think he would have listened to him and strayed away from the norm to create a memorable character. Yes, Henry Fonda is the more diverse actor of the two, I agree with you there Tuco, and he played Frank brilliantly, but forget about Fonda's performance for one sec. If Wayne was cast as this evil person, you'd be thinking the same things about Wayne's performance as we do Fonda's.
Of course, this is also my opinion. Just thought I'd dig into it alittle more. :)
-
I think Wayne might have done a great job as Frank. Maybe not as good as Fonda, but the sight of him killing a child would be the most traumatic experience in cinema history. :o
If Wayne had actually been offered the part, he might have considered it, but unlike Fonda he was very concerned about his image and while he played darker characters at points in his career, he never wanted to play a full-on villain. It would have been interesting to see how he and Sergio would have gotten on at any rate, I'm sure Wayne would at least respect Leone's love and knowledge of the Western genre.
-
You guys may know that (i didn't even had the time to read the whole topic so sby my have post it befor me), but anyway:
In the Inside The Actor Studio with Clint Eastwood as guest, Clint says that Don Siegel, who was directing John Wayne in a movie, asked Wayne to shoot sby in the back. Wayne answered that it is not even thinkable. Siegel said "Clint Eastwood would have done it." and Wayne: "I don't care what that boy would have done; i'm not doing it".
I have never seen the movie, still, I seriously doubt that Wayne would have even thought to accept the part of Frank ::)
He would have been pretty interesting and very good by the way, even if Fonda is the perfect match for the part.
-
You guys may know that (i didn't even had the time to read the whole topic so sby my have post it befor me), but anyway:
In the Inside The Actor Studio with Clint Eastwood as guest, Clint says that Don Siegel, who was directing John Wayne in a movie, asked Wayne to shoot sby in the back. Wayne answered that it is not even thinkable. Siegel said "Clint Eastwood would have done it." and Wayne: "I don't care what that boy would have done; i'm not doing it".
I have never seen the movie, still, I seriously doubt that Wayne would have even thought to accept the part of Frank ::)
He would have been pretty interesting and very good by the way, even if Fonda is the perfect match for the part.
The film your referring to is The Shootist, John Wayne's last film which is a great one at that.
-
thanks you Tuc!
-
thanks you Tuc!
No problem noodles!
-
Hm... I think he was good actor, but he played always the same type. He had very good roles - what I have seen: Red River, but as a person, I don't like him. It's a pity he hated SWs... perhaps for they are much betterd more artistic
than the most of his movies? He hated communists, strangers, also, he was a typical WASP in bad meaning...
But I would like to see him as a cold-blood murderer. ;D
-
I'd hate Communists too if they tried to kill me or my family. :P
-
They tried to kill John Wayne or his family? ???
Well, in my homeland was 40 years of "communism" (it was only "builded")... it wasn't good, but after 1960 it became soft. Life was easier and everyone had a job (that means not he had anything interesting to do). Today is here capitalism, but it doesn't work better... :)
-
The amusing thing of your post is that a lot of Communists, at least in the US, were WASPs (Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White. . .) - unless you're adhering tot he stereotype that all Communists are filthy, bearded foreigners.
Anyone doubting the existence of Soviet spies in America in the '50s, after the release of the Venona Project archives, is just being willfully ignorant at this point, so let's not have another debate about McCarthyism please.
http://www.nsa.gov/venona/index.cfm (http://www.nsa.gov/venona/index.cfm)
Well, Wayne was the target of various plots against his life. One involved two Communist agents trying to kill him in his home in CA. The story goes that they were Soviet agents, but they may have just been American Communists who were pissed off at Wayne. There was also a Chinese sniper hired by Mao Zedong to assassinate Wayne while he visiting Vietnam in 1966. So there was some threat to him by them. It didn't originate his distaste towards Communist, but it fanned it to giant heights.
-
Groggy, thanks for your post. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I offer a qualification. One doesn't have to be personally threatened by a group/movement/ideology before one takes action. Threats to others, to one's belief system, to one's culture are sufficient warrant. Communism was one of the most pernicious movements ever devised, which, regardless of rhetoric, aimed in fact at eradicating the human spirit. Nothing was more natural than to oppose it and it's agents, beings who, though sometimes well intentioned, sought our subjugation. I have no problem with the Duke's anti-Communism, regardless of how Communism did or did not affect Wayne personally.
-
Communism is maybe the best idea ever on paper but the only bad thing with it is that it doesn't work in real life ;D
-
Communism is maybe the best idea ever on paper but the only bad thing with it is that it doesn't work in real life ;D
A very generous idea... may be not a good idea... It is for humanity, but against humans.
-
Hm... I think he was good actor, but he played always the same type. He had very good roles - what I have seen: Red River, but as a person, I don't like him. It's a pity he hated SWs... perhaps for they are much betterd more artistic
than the most of his movies? He hated communists, strangers, also, he was a typical WASP in bad meaning...
But I would like to see him as a cold-blood murderer. ;D
I hate the fact he didn't like SW's, but that's his personal preference I guess. I actually respect John Wayne as a person totally. He didn't speak about his private life in public like a lot of actors do today which pisses me off. He stood by what he believed in which I also respect. He also was not a liberal which I love. haha but that's just me.
-
Groggy, thanks for your post. I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I offer a qualification. One doesn't have to be personally threatened by a group/movement/ideology before one takes action. Threats to others, to one's belief system, to one's culture are sufficient warrant. Communism was one of the most pernicious movements ever devised, which, regardless of rhetoric, aimed in fact at eradicating the human spirit. Nothing was more natural than to oppose it and it's agents, beings who, though sometimes well intentioned, sought our subjugation. I have no problem with the Duke's anti-Communism, regardless of how Communism did or did not affect Wayne personally.
I can only agree. Collectivist ideologies never work, at least not for the better.
-
Groggy, do you think that you will find potential anti-American info about the Cold War on a US govt. website?
-
I say let's let politic in peace.
Return to John.
I imagine as he says:
"Keep your lovin' brother happy..."
It would be hard. The only matter is that Fonda was very thin and John... wasn't.
And... what's John Wayne's eye color? I've seen him only in black and white...
-
Groggy, do you think that you will find potential anti-American info about the Cold War on a US govt. website?
Not sure what your point is. . .
-
In the Inside The Actor Studio with Clint Eastwood as guest, Clint says that Don Siegel, who was directing John Wayne in a movie, asked Wayne to shoot sby in the back. Wayne answered that it is not even thinkable. Siegel said "Clint Eastwood would have done it." and Wayne: "I don't care what that boy would have done; i'm not doing it".
Thanx for the quotation. That should put an end to the thread.
-
LOL, I actually remember that episode of ITAS, and I haven't seen it in years. (I can't stand James Lipton so I tend to avoid that show unless someone I really love is on it.) I remember the audiences reaction to Clint saying that, it was hysterical. ;D
-
They tried to kill John Wayne or his family? ???
Well, in my homeland was 40 years of "communism" (it was only "builded")... it wasn't good, but after 1960 it became soft. Life was easier and everyone had a job (that means not he had anything interesting to do). Today is here capitalism, but it doesn't work better... :)
Interesting.
As in Duck, you sucker, you sound like Sean saying something like: «before I used to believe in everything and now I just believe in dynamite».
-
Communism is maybe the best idea ever on paper but the only bad thing with it is that it doesn't work in real life ;D
Through history, the only type of communism we have seen is «State Capitalism».
Communism as Marx imagined it has never been realized.
Not likely to in the near future, either: «Workers of the world unite» I wonder.
-
OFF
Comm doesn't work, cap. doesn't too... :)
See The Tragedy of Man: there is a scene in London, critic of capitalism and the Falanster scene, critic of socialism.
-
Through history, the only type of communism we have seen is «State Capitalism».
Communism as Marx imagined it has never been realized.
Not likely to in the near future, either: «Workers of the world unite» I wonder.
That's exactly what I mean. People are greed, have always been and will always be. They don't want to share, they want to own. I'm not advocating communism because I know it's never gonna happen as Marx meant, but I'm in advocary of joint liability: free health care and such at least (I know that means taxes, but if you give, you get also).
Sorry Jill, it seems this is now getting pretty political and off-topic ;D
-
Jill's the one who brought politics into this discussion, but anyway. . . ::)
Let me just say this and clear the air:
Communism is a completely ridiculous idea. Period. Even the argument that it is "great on paper" is shoddy at best. I mean the idea of anarchy, no government whatsoever and people living in harmony, is great "on paper" - but how long do you think it would last in reality. Even fascism/Nazism is "on paper" a great idea - I mean what's wrong with sacrificing yourself for the sake of your country and making it stronger? So enough of that stupid canard.
There is no friggin' way to achieve absolute equality, and quite frankly the advocates of Communism - Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Pol Pot, whoever the hell else you want to name - didn't even try. It's hard to say Stalin, Mao, or even the allegedly idealistic Castro and Lenin cared about anything other than pure personal power. Even in theory, Communism absolutely fails to take into account human nature and the needs of individual humans, regarding people as a malleable mass that serves as playthings to be manipulated by a "superior" class.
If you think Communism is a great idea, ask the 100 million people dead in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia how fucking great of an idea it is. Communism is the absolute opposite of liberalism, because unlike true liberalism, it regards people as a mass of objects to manipulate for political, social, and economic ends. True liberals, in the Western sense at least, regard people as essentially virtuous creatures who are intelligent and generally good, means in themselves, not means to an end, to paraphrase Kant. Capitalism isn't perfect, surely, but it is definitely preferable to the alternative - or at least, this alternative.
All political systems, in the end, serve those in power more than anyone else. Some systems are better than others, but there will always be someone abusing the other.
-
Excellent post, Groggy. I have nothing to add, but this guy does:
People that read books go to people who don't read books and say, "The time has come for change. . . " So the poor people make the change. The people who read the books sit around big polished tables and talk and talk and eat. But what has happened to the poor people? They are dead! That's your revolution. So please, don't tell me about revolutions.
-
Groggy speaks the truth.
On another note, honestly... if in communism everyone is treated the same, everyone is payed the same (ideally), everyone is the same - then why would anyone want to be a doctor or scientists... I mean, you're just gonna make the same amount as custodians, so what's the point of trying?
If Capitalism does one thing right, it should make you strive to be the best - otherwise you're fucked. Well, actually, it doesn't seem to be that way lately...
-
Very apt quote, Dave. O0
-
Of MFing course communism is impossible idea. I just said so in my last post and also said that it's the reason why I'm not for communism. It could work in small communities, with only tens or hundreds people, not in bigger scale.
Capitalism is great system for the strong ones who have the strenght to survive. But what about the weak, poor and sick ones? They are human beings too. That someone is weak doesn't mean that he/she isn't as valuable as the winners. They deserve the same benefits as everyone else. On the other hand, the prevailing western system pushes people to the edge of insanity: they work their asses off because if they don't, they are nobodies. And at the same time Asians are working their asses off that you could see your rare favorite movie on new, nice, shiny DVD with superb extras. And they don't get paid a shit if even at all! capitalism doesn't work as it is supposed to, either. The idea is that the ones who work harder get more money, right? Well, it's not happening as long as Asians do hard 16 hour workdays just to get food and water and some clothes.
I see Whaletoe's point, and good point that is. I can't solve that problem.
As Aki Kaurismäki has said, as soon as every Asian wants a refrigerator, modern society and the whole environment, Earth, is gonna collapse.
We are doomed! ;D
-
John Wayne as Frank? Sorry I can't imagine that.
Henry Fonda was at the time, the ultimate father figure. Even though in real life his parenting skills were lacking. To portray him as a cold blooded child killer was a stroke of genius.
Wayne was already a hard boiled character. The leep to this level would not have been as dramatic as Fonda's. Wayne would'nt have had the guts to tarnish his rightous image with such a character.
Finally, Wayne did'nt have Fonda's acting range.
-
John Wayne as Frank? Sorry I can't imagine that.
Henry Fonda was at the time, the ultimate father figure. Even though in real life his parenting skills were lacking. To portray him as a cold blooded child killer was a stroke of genius.
Wayne was already a hard boiled character. The leep to this level would not have been as dramatic as Fonda's. Wayne would'nt have had the guts to tarnish his rightous image with such a character.
Finally, Wayne did'nt have Fonda's acting range.
John Wayne as Frank is definitely imaginable! John Wayne was more of the GOOD GUY type than Henry Fonda. It would have been even more shocking.
Also, it's not a matter of Wayne tarnishing an image. This is acting, and this is what actors do. Wayne just didn't like this type of western.
-
In Hollywood movies, there are actors and movie stars and some in the middle.
Actors hone their craft from flim to film. Rarely do they play the same type of character. Pacino, DeNiro and Brando are good examples.
Movie stars have a persona that they adapt to the film they are in. Wayne and Nicholson are examples. John Wayne played John Wayne in most of his films.
Fonda was somewhere in the middle, like Bogart. IMHO.
-
In Hollywood movies, there are actors and movie stars and some in the middle.
Actors hone their craft from flim to film. Rarely do they play the same type of character. Pacino, DeNiro and Brando are good examples.
Movie stars have a persona that they adapt to the film they are in. Wayne and Nicholson are examples. John Wayne played John Wayne in most of his films.
Fonda was somewhere in the middle, like Bogart. IMHO.
Good observations Sean. I agree with you for the most part, but as I've mentioned in previous posts, John Wayne has charisma that sold tickets. Why change a good thing when it works everytime out?
-
I know I am new to the board and I am enjoying being a part of something like this as everyone is so welcoming and so knowledgeable, I am definitely learning but in saying that I have the funniest feeling that what I am going to say isn't going to be popular. John Wayne as Frank, no not possible in my eyes. I have always felt that if you have seen one John Wayne movie you have seen them all. Can't say that about Henry Fonda..
-
I know I am new to the board and I am enjoying being a part of something like this as everyone is so welcoming and so knowledgeable, I am definitely learning but in saying that I have the funniest feeling that what I am going to say isn't going to be popular. John Wayne as Frank, no not possible in my eyes. I have always felt that if you have seen one John Wayne movie you have seen them all. Can't say that about Henry Fonda..
Welcome and agree 100% on the John Wayne comment O0
-
Yea I would agree almost, but when he does play against type he can do a good job. 95% of his stuff was same old same old, but there are a few gems.
-
Yea I would agree almost, but when he does play against type he can do a good job. 95% of his stuff was same old same old, but there are a few gems.
Yes, and I have mentioned before...he could afford to act the same way in most of his films being that's what sold tickets.
-
No doubt the film would have sold tickets if there was any chance that John Wayne was offerened and accepted the role. Then 1968 would have been known as "The Year When Hell Frozed Over."
Nothing beats Henry Fonda as Frank.