swoon said:
man. what. it's not better than kane, nothing is really. but let's not act like it wasn't the second or third best picture that year and i couldn't name 50 better movies. and i've tried.
a. the emotional tone is the same through out the film - think about the opening v.o "who can say what's real and not real" it's the memories this film is about, and memories are flaw things - they are emotional things - and when you are leaving your valley because of the skag and the liars that live in your town the memories are all you have.
b. the script is pretty much perfect, just listen to the what the preacher is saying - rather than how is saying it:
"There is not one among you who has had the courage to come to me and accuse me of wrongdoing. And yet, by any standard, if there has been a sin, I am the one who should be branded the sinner. Will anyone raise his voice here now to accuse me? No. You're cowards, too"
chew it. live it. think about your past and your valley. everything you could lose at this moment. and then think about standing in front of that crowd.
c. it doesn't just touch on those theme it makes other films about those themes seem shallow. there will be blood included no matter how many times anderson has watched a ford film
d. it's pretty obvious you don't like the film, but why would you call it the film that encapsulates what ford was "about" a 7? also why wouldn't that film be the searchers?
also did some dude give hudson hawk an 8/10
I guess my problem is that I can intellectually identify how the various components of the film come together to make it a cohesive whole (indeed, Ford was a great craftsman), but I found myself ultimately unmoved by what was happening.
a. The opening voice-over sets up the film quite perfectly, I agree. The events afterward, though, did not hit me in any sort of meaningful way. I never got a sense of the dreamlike quality of memories; it felt rather typical, personally.
b. I liked some qualities of the script, but I thought many of the lines were stilted (though the strange delivery caused by the really fake accents may be peppering my judgment of some of the dialogue). In general, I just felt like the script jumped around a little bit too much (perhaps a symptom of its being an adaptation, as I find that to be a common problem). For example,I thought that the scene where the two tough guys go to the school and beat up the teacher was funny, but I think it would have been a stronger choice for all of the men to heed Huw's request not to take matters into their own hands. It would have made the line about Huw becoming a man have more resonance, which I thought was cheapened by what happened. In addition, while I liked the preacher character quite a lot, I thought the romance angle was a little undercooked on the woman's part; she disappears for a long swath of the film, only to return and slip right back into the plot thread. That could have been a powerful choice (as she does just kind of disappear after the wedding), but I never felt convinced by their relationship prior to the wedding; for that reason, it did not strike much of a cord with me. I do agree that there is power in some of the lines (specifically the preacher's line that you quoted), but for me, not a lot of the script had that kind of potency. Different strokes.
c. Actually, after a bit of reflection, I will raise the level of respect that I have for its take on industrialization. I will disagree with your stance that it makes There Will Be Blood look shallow, but TWBB is in my top ten of all time, which gives me a rather strong bias.
d. I give it a 7 because I can see the film's craft and think that it fits nicely into film history as a perfect example of a John Ford film, even as a non-Western. I did not dislike it, actually; I did not love it, but I did not dislike it. I thought that it was just okay. I also did not say that it was
the film that encapsulates John Ford, just that it was
a film that did as such. I might actually take contention with your contention that THE movie is The Searchers; putting aside my distaste for the comedic relief portions of that film, I think that it subtly challenges some of the themes of other John Ford films. While that is a brilliant cinematic decision, I think that it also takes away from its ability to serve as a primary thematic example of a John Ford movie. It is THE John Ford movie, for sure, but some of his straighter, 'purer' westerns (forgive that terminology; I could think of nothing else right there) like My Darling Clementine are, I think, more fitting for that role.
Edit: Also, I misplaced my years. It beat out Citizen Kane AND The Maltese Falcon. Travesty, I say!
