Tonight I watched a classic Western called "Ulzana's Raid" (1972), starring our old pal Burt Lahn-cahs-tah as an aging frontier scout in Arizona assigned to help a U.S.Army Cavalry group (stationed at a nearby fort) track down and capture, or kill, a renegade band of Apache Indians, who have killed several families of white settlers, burned their homes down and stolen their horses. The Apaches are led by Ulzana of the title, and he and his warriors are ruthless. This film was made in the early '70s, at a time when realism was being depicted onscreen. As an aside, I just saw, on TCM the other night, the ending to "Bonnie And Clyde", which was released in 1967. That was 51 years ago, and the ending to that movie is more graphic (and thus realistic) than much of what you will see even nowdays. Realism in movies is not always a good thing, especially where violence is concerned. It can often be gratuitous, but in "Bonnie And Clyde" I think that Arthur Penn wanted to achieve a "death scene" for B&C that was as close to what actually happened as he could get. Perhaps he used newspaper reports of the shootout, or FBI records, I don't know. But it was extremely realistic in the film. It looked pretty much like what you would think it would look like in real life. Not for the squeamish, in other words.
I think "B&C" the movie was considered to be the first to go to that extent of violent realism. Then came "The Wild Bunch" in 1969. A huge deal was made out of the realistic violence in that movie, and it was very realistic, filmed in a slow, twisting ballet by Sam Peckinpah. The only problem with "The Wild Bunch" is that it isn't a very good movie (go back and watch it if you don't believe me), but because of it's popularity it inspired a great many "realistic" Westerns in the early 70s that almost all sucked. Directors became fascinated by the violence of the Old West, and - with the newly established cinematic and cultural liberation to show graphic violence onscreen - they made gory violence a staple of 1970s westerns, which were shot in color with an emphasis on the color red, if you get my drift. The story in those latter day Westerns was given a back seat, and the movies were all style and no substance.
I am a fan of Westerns that were made from the late 40s through the 50s, with a few in the 30s and a handful in the early 60s as bookends. My preference for Westerns is black and white, because as I always say, black and white creates a mythical situation by removing the "everyday color of life" from the picture. What you are left with, in black and white, is Pure Image.
I am off on a tangent, but I meant to reinforce why I don't care for later period Westerns. The Clint Eastwood Westerns also are not very good (sacreligious, I know, but true) and "Unforgiven", which is considered a classic like "Wild Bunch", is downright terrible.
Which brings me back to "Ulzana's Raid". It is a straight up classic because the focus is not on violence, even though the script features a lot of dialogue about the savagery of the Apaches, and even though there are some graphic color scenes of that violence. The focus, instead, is on the human stories within - just like in classic 1950s Westerns - and in this case there are many such stories on display, the main ones being Lahn-cahs-tah's weary but resolute Scout, who knows the ways of the Apache, and young Army Lieutenant Bruce Davison, the son of a minister, who feels that the Apache would change their ways if they were treated in a Christian manner.
There is a great story in "Ulzana's Raid", which makes it a rare exception to the rule of crummy 1970s Westerns. And it is filmed exceptionally well by director Aldrich.
Two huge Thumbs Up, and hooray for me that I saw another Western that I hadn't seen. :)
I've been meaning to Say Hey to Elizabeth, and so I will do it now. Elizabeth, I don't know if you are out there anymore. You haven't made a post on your own FB in a month, and though I do see a few "posts you like" every other day or so, things seem to be quite a lot different these days as compared to past years. That's why I've been writing mostly about my own thoughts and experiences - weird though they may be - instead of addressing the nightly blog to you, the SB.
It's only because you haven't been around. I know that since you moved to Chicago, things have been different. I know John is in the picture, and so, if that is the case in a permanent way I say congrats to you guys.
But I am still here if you need me, or even if you don't need me but just feel like posting something, lol.
You will always be The SB to me, and I have been on your side since the "Autre Temps" video, six years ago.
I always liked it when I could write in response to a creative endeavor you were working on. And I always enjoyed our correspondence, in the unique way that we developed it.
This is all just a way of saying "I'm still here for you". I hope you are still working on your music.
xoxoxoxoxo :):)
No comments:
Post a Comment