Finally managed to log in, by utilizing some jiggery pokery, Blogger has decided to let me log in but not use any navigation or features, so I can't even see the reading list. I just like to take a moment to thank Google and wish them all the best with those cars that drive themselves, off a cliff as seems likely at the moment. Well at least they wont be cheating emissions testing, well not for long anyway.
Not sure why this problem should arise, my browser is a little outdated, maybe a year or so behind, because I can't be bothered to install the new version or maybe someone at Google really likes Rio Lobo and took offense, who knows?
Sunday 27 September 2015
Thursday 24 September 2015
The decline of the western genre (part 2)
Now where were we, ah yes those three Howard Hawks films that mark the decline of the western genre. It might not be a surprise to a student of the genre that they're the films that comprise the Spanish trilogy, so called because the titles are in Spanish. They are: Rio Bravo (1959), El Dorado (1966) and Rio Lobo (1970). The two latter films have been called remakes of the first and while there is a case for that assertion with El Dorado, it's just not the case with Rio Lobo, yes it is derivative but it's structure is much more meandering and the features that make Rio Bravo so memorable, are mostly non existent or maybe they were just executed so badly, as to be totally ineffectual.
Rio Bravo is so good, it's probably one of the best American films ever and it succeeds because it combines the mythical elements of the western genre with tightly observed characterisation and performances from the lead roles. Remember I'm making a case for the western as a fantasy genre and fantasy works best when it imposes its own limitations. Those limitations are what became the conventions of the western narrative form. Conventions that had little foundation in reality, every gun slinger is armed with an 1873 colt revolver, is an accomplished horseman, can shoot the eye out of sparrow at thirty paces and take a punch that would fell a tree with no shattered bones and only the occasional loose tooth. There are, however, rules that limit the extent of possibility in this fictional world and reel in the suspension of disbelief from an audience. That's where Rio Bravo succeeds it paints fallible characters, struggling with the consequences of their circumstance, faltering and even failing on occasion but perusing their personal narrative to its conclusion.
The role that most personifies this, is that of Dude played by Dean Martin. Dude's character utilises a rarely seen device within narrative, he's not the protagonist but he's the character whose journey is rendered most completely. Chance, Waynes character and the protagonist, undergoes a somewhat more subtle transformation, that serves in part as counterpoint to Dude. The other two prominent male characters are also interesting, Colorado, played by Ricky Nelson, is the inverse of a his stereotype, a young male subordinate character who is neither petulant nor unnecessarily aggressive but deliberate and possessed of insight beyond the scope expected of his age. Stumpy, Walther Brennan, is the character that most closely follows his type but he's not relegated to the usual purpose of light relief. The antagonist of the plot Nathan Burdette, is rarely seen, instead his malevolence is conveyed nebulously by the actions and the fate of his subordinates and by the serenade of El Deguello, that he orders played throughout the internment of his brother and his captors in the town jail. Of course there is a romantic interest in the narrative, it's required because heroes like Chance can't be driven by self interest there needs to be something else at stake. Feathers is played by Angie Dickenson and embodies what Chance places risk through his actions, the promise of their life together beyond the immediate narrative.
The narrative concludes with an action sequence, a shoot out at a warehouse which inverts the circumstances of the main characters earlier in the narrative. The bad guys still outnumber our heroes but now it's the them who're isolated in a building with a hostage.
I went into a bit more detail about Rio Bravo than is really required, but hey this just a blog post, so there's no editor to placate. So the clock runs forward to 1966 and El Dorado hits the screens, a lot of things have changed in seven years. The space race is on and the 60's are swinging with free love, we're not quite into flower power yet but there is a discernible difference in the way that El Dorado reflects its contemporary origin. Despite an excellent performance from Robert Mitchum it's a pale film in comparison to Rio Bravo. There are some lapses in on screen continuity that betray problems with Wayne's health in production and it can be speculated that the injury his character acquires is something written into the script. The physicality that made Wayne such an effective protagonist and potent on screen presence, is much reduced. This is the moment in his career where he starts to fall back on his sissy walk and similar such mannerisms to evoke the memory of his former glory. If you watched only films made after El Dorado to assess Wayne's career, you'd wonder what the fuss was about and it's probably the lingering aspect of his career that damaged the reputation of one of the finest on screen actors in the eyes of younger audiences. It's this reliance on past achievement that epitomises the flaws in El Dorado, it's not a particularly bad film. it's just not that great and the cheese is starting to outweigh the beef. El Dorado also suffers from some mismanaged attempts to update the genre, make it relevant to a younger audience and it's this trend that will play a significant role in the next film.
Then we get to Rio Lobo, well if a lot happened between 59 and 66 then the world must've turned on it's head in the next four years because what Rio Lobo is, is a pile of poop. The attempts to appeal to a younger audience is so clawing and ill conceived that there's a character portrayed with a sixties mop top. There's also much studio interference evident, extraneous prominent female roles just pop up with no rhyme or reason, the fact that one of the actress became a prominent executive within the film industry, might offer a clue as to why. If El Dorado rode on the back of fond memories then Rio Lobo casts them to wind in a desperate search for a new audience. Trying to appeal to a new audience is not a sin in itself, to be sure it's the life blood of cinema or any entertainment but those who were trying to achieve this, were so remote from that audience, that their attempts are laughable. Rio Lobo's worst failure though is that the fantasy of the wild west is extinct within its narrative, they tried so hard to be trendy that what they ended up with was so preoccupied with relevance to its intended audience they forgot what the genre was about. What that would be, is the western fantasy, complete with core conventions intact, what we get instead with Rio Lobo, is a series a tableaux, constructed for the convenience of character types inserted into the narrative, it's all very depressing and totally ineffectual as drama.
When you get a chance, make a comparison between Rio Lobo and the contemporary spaghetti western scene. Sure the spaghetti westerns are not all great, some of 'em are not even watchable and they are a little iconoclastic in regard to some extraneous conventions of the western genre but they what they do well, when the succeed, is convey small narratives on a large stage. That's essentially what a genre work does, encapsulate the nuance and triviality of real life and project into a fantasy context. That's why the western and the science fiction/fantasy genre are essentially equivalent.
Rio Bravo is so good, it's probably one of the best American films ever and it succeeds because it combines the mythical elements of the western genre with tightly observed characterisation and performances from the lead roles. Remember I'm making a case for the western as a fantasy genre and fantasy works best when it imposes its own limitations. Those limitations are what became the conventions of the western narrative form. Conventions that had little foundation in reality, every gun slinger is armed with an 1873 colt revolver, is an accomplished horseman, can shoot the eye out of sparrow at thirty paces and take a punch that would fell a tree with no shattered bones and only the occasional loose tooth. There are, however, rules that limit the extent of possibility in this fictional world and reel in the suspension of disbelief from an audience. That's where Rio Bravo succeeds it paints fallible characters, struggling with the consequences of their circumstance, faltering and even failing on occasion but perusing their personal narrative to its conclusion.
The role that most personifies this, is that of Dude played by Dean Martin. Dude's character utilises a rarely seen device within narrative, he's not the protagonist but he's the character whose journey is rendered most completely. Chance, Waynes character and the protagonist, undergoes a somewhat more subtle transformation, that serves in part as counterpoint to Dude. The other two prominent male characters are also interesting, Colorado, played by Ricky Nelson, is the inverse of a his stereotype, a young male subordinate character who is neither petulant nor unnecessarily aggressive but deliberate and possessed of insight beyond the scope expected of his age. Stumpy, Walther Brennan, is the character that most closely follows his type but he's not relegated to the usual purpose of light relief. The antagonist of the plot Nathan Burdette, is rarely seen, instead his malevolence is conveyed nebulously by the actions and the fate of his subordinates and by the serenade of El Deguello, that he orders played throughout the internment of his brother and his captors in the town jail. Of course there is a romantic interest in the narrative, it's required because heroes like Chance can't be driven by self interest there needs to be something else at stake. Feathers is played by Angie Dickenson and embodies what Chance places risk through his actions, the promise of their life together beyond the immediate narrative.
The narrative concludes with an action sequence, a shoot out at a warehouse which inverts the circumstances of the main characters earlier in the narrative. The bad guys still outnumber our heroes but now it's the them who're isolated in a building with a hostage.
I went into a bit more detail about Rio Bravo than is really required, but hey this just a blog post, so there's no editor to placate. So the clock runs forward to 1966 and El Dorado hits the screens, a lot of things have changed in seven years. The space race is on and the 60's are swinging with free love, we're not quite into flower power yet but there is a discernible difference in the way that El Dorado reflects its contemporary origin. Despite an excellent performance from Robert Mitchum it's a pale film in comparison to Rio Bravo. There are some lapses in on screen continuity that betray problems with Wayne's health in production and it can be speculated that the injury his character acquires is something written into the script. The physicality that made Wayne such an effective protagonist and potent on screen presence, is much reduced. This is the moment in his career where he starts to fall back on his sissy walk and similar such mannerisms to evoke the memory of his former glory. If you watched only films made after El Dorado to assess Wayne's career, you'd wonder what the fuss was about and it's probably the lingering aspect of his career that damaged the reputation of one of the finest on screen actors in the eyes of younger audiences. It's this reliance on past achievement that epitomises the flaws in El Dorado, it's not a particularly bad film. it's just not that great and the cheese is starting to outweigh the beef. El Dorado also suffers from some mismanaged attempts to update the genre, make it relevant to a younger audience and it's this trend that will play a significant role in the next film.
Then we get to Rio Lobo, well if a lot happened between 59 and 66 then the world must've turned on it's head in the next four years because what Rio Lobo is, is a pile of poop. The attempts to appeal to a younger audience is so clawing and ill conceived that there's a character portrayed with a sixties mop top. There's also much studio interference evident, extraneous prominent female roles just pop up with no rhyme or reason, the fact that one of the actress became a prominent executive within the film industry, might offer a clue as to why. If El Dorado rode on the back of fond memories then Rio Lobo casts them to wind in a desperate search for a new audience. Trying to appeal to a new audience is not a sin in itself, to be sure it's the life blood of cinema or any entertainment but those who were trying to achieve this, were so remote from that audience, that their attempts are laughable. Rio Lobo's worst failure though is that the fantasy of the wild west is extinct within its narrative, they tried so hard to be trendy that what they ended up with was so preoccupied with relevance to its intended audience they forgot what the genre was about. What that would be, is the western fantasy, complete with core conventions intact, what we get instead with Rio Lobo, is a series a tableaux, constructed for the convenience of character types inserted into the narrative, it's all very depressing and totally ineffectual as drama.
When you get a chance, make a comparison between Rio Lobo and the contemporary spaghetti western scene. Sure the spaghetti westerns are not all great, some of 'em are not even watchable and they are a little iconoclastic in regard to some extraneous conventions of the western genre but they what they do well, when the succeed, is convey small narratives on a large stage. That's essentially what a genre work does, encapsulate the nuance and triviality of real life and project into a fantasy context. That's why the western and the science fiction/fantasy genre are essentially equivalent.
Wednesday 23 September 2015
The decline of the western genre (part 1)
Back in about, ooh 1980 something ish, probably 83, although it could possibly've been earlier, I was sitting in some offices on The Charing Cross Road, which is a fairly rare distinction, because most offices in that locale were just off Charing Cross Road. It didn't go well and I was flung out on the street within about twenty minutes of entering the building, which time would include, negotiating reception, trying to chat up the girl there and the wait in the ante room. I think my time there might've even been shorter, if it weren't for the agent taking the extra care to point out, in meticulous detail, exactly how useless I was. The interview was concluded in the ante room, I didn't even get past the coffee rings and wire frame chairs. As a parting shot the agent proffered some advice, you see as a youngster, I'd indulged my own predilection for science fiction and fantasy and built a portfolio which featured those genres, not exactly heavily, but with some prominence. 'Science fiction is a fad,' he said with sagacious assurance, the implication being that next year no one will be interested.
Well that was 1980 something and we're in the 2000 and teens and the fad of science fiction and fantasy seems to be lingering a little, I wonder why that should be? My answer to that question, is simple, it's because it's not a fad the idiom encompassed by science fiction and fantasy has always been here, it's been the chief focus of fictional literature and drama since their inception. The clue is in the concept of fiction, it's made up, events that never occurred, conjured from the conceit of imagination, so why would you fetter that imagination within the restrictions of the prosaic world you live in? You wouldn't and nobody of any notability ever did, for example: historical drama, well the past is a foreign land, and if it's far enough away to be remote from living memory, then it's a land conceived only through rumour, speculation and lies.
One of those foreign lands would be the one embodied by the western genre but that genre is as old as the past that it now references. People were reading of the fictionalised exploits of notable western figures almost concurrently. The mythology and fantasy that grew up was encouraged by notions of the wild west a place remote from reality and its strictures, populated by beasts, savages, ventured by the brave and the lawless. The institutions that optimise this mythologisation are things like, Buffalo Bill's Wild West; the show that toured the world with attractions like Annie Oakley, Sitting Bull and Bill himself, the man who could bring down a glass ball flying through the air with a single bullet, while astride a cantering horse. I dunno about you but that seems like science fiction to me, give Bill a light sabre and you've got a Jedi.
The western genre suffered a decline in late 60's the preoccupations of adventure seeking juveniles shifted to rocket ships and ray guns to exercise their imaginations. There was a brief interruption in the decline, the spaghetti westerns and those influenced by the vigour of that sub-genre and it's rebellion against the conventions that had grown to stifle expression within the broader genre. It is that creative stagnation that is the cause of the decline the western genre and it can be empitomised with three films by the same director, Howard Hawks.
Part two, tomorrow or when it's finished.
Well that was 1980 something and we're in the 2000 and teens and the fad of science fiction and fantasy seems to be lingering a little, I wonder why that should be? My answer to that question, is simple, it's because it's not a fad the idiom encompassed by science fiction and fantasy has always been here, it's been the chief focus of fictional literature and drama since their inception. The clue is in the concept of fiction, it's made up, events that never occurred, conjured from the conceit of imagination, so why would you fetter that imagination within the restrictions of the prosaic world you live in? You wouldn't and nobody of any notability ever did, for example: historical drama, well the past is a foreign land, and if it's far enough away to be remote from living memory, then it's a land conceived only through rumour, speculation and lies.
One of those foreign lands would be the one embodied by the western genre but that genre is as old as the past that it now references. People were reading of the fictionalised exploits of notable western figures almost concurrently. The mythology and fantasy that grew up was encouraged by notions of the wild west a place remote from reality and its strictures, populated by beasts, savages, ventured by the brave and the lawless. The institutions that optimise this mythologisation are things like, Buffalo Bill's Wild West; the show that toured the world with attractions like Annie Oakley, Sitting Bull and Bill himself, the man who could bring down a glass ball flying through the air with a single bullet, while astride a cantering horse. I dunno about you but that seems like science fiction to me, give Bill a light sabre and you've got a Jedi.
The western genre suffered a decline in late 60's the preoccupations of adventure seeking juveniles shifted to rocket ships and ray guns to exercise their imaginations. There was a brief interruption in the decline, the spaghetti westerns and those influenced by the vigour of that sub-genre and it's rebellion against the conventions that had grown to stifle expression within the broader genre. It is that creative stagnation that is the cause of the decline the western genre and it can be empitomised with three films by the same director, Howard Hawks.
Part two, tomorrow or when it's finished.
Frazetta: Frazetta Auction Update
From fritzfrazetta.blogspot: okay so the items in the auction are likely to be beyond your purchasing power but that catalogue might be nice.
Frazetta: Frazetta Auction Update: Please check the PROFILES IN HISTORY web site for current details about ordering catalogs The auction will be held on December 11. There ...
Frazetta: Frazetta Auction Update: Please check the PROFILES IN HISTORY web site for current details about ordering catalogs The auction will be held on December 11. There ...
Saturday 19 September 2015
Party tricks, again
It's not really a trick, you can't demonstrate the solution but the other blog entries under this label have been a bit tenuous too. Anyway it goes like this: you have a gun and you aim it at a target, that you're standing some distance away from, you pull the trigger and hit your target. Great the gun works as expected but what would you expect to happen if you weren't standing on the ground but on a flatbed rail carriage, on a railway line exactly parallel to the barrel of the gun you're aiming. That carrage is accelerated in exact synchronisation with the bullet when you pull the trigger. Of course that acceleration would be equivielent to about 60g or 70g so you'd be pureed into a gooey mess in the real world but lets suppose you're immune to that effect, what would happen to the bullet you fired, once it left the barrel?
If you answered that the bullet would just fall to the ground, congratulations you've won and this poser probably seems a bit nonsensical to you, until that is, you see how many people get it wrong, I was alarmed, it's easily the majority of people you ask the question of. The general consensus is that the bullet will hang in the air for a period, while it's "flying" and then fall to the ground. The fact that bullets don't fly, they're just objects in ballistic free fall, doesn't really seem to impact on that assumption, even if you use words of one syllable and pretty pictures to explain that fact. Now I confess, If I didn't know the answer and I was a little bit squiffy, like is generally the case at parties, I would probably have to think about it for few seconds, then there would be an, oh yeah of course, moment once I had it explained to me. You can divide the responses to the question, into several categories, which are:-
If you answered that the bullet would just fall to the ground, congratulations you've won and this poser probably seems a bit nonsensical to you, until that is, you see how many people get it wrong, I was alarmed, it's easily the majority of people you ask the question of. The general consensus is that the bullet will hang in the air for a period, while it's "flying" and then fall to the ground. The fact that bullets don't fly, they're just objects in ballistic free fall, doesn't really seem to impact on that assumption, even if you use words of one syllable and pretty pictures to explain that fact. Now I confess, If I didn't know the answer and I was a little bit squiffy, like is generally the case at parties, I would probably have to think about it for few seconds, then there would be an, oh yeah of course, moment once I had it explained to me. You can divide the responses to the question, into several categories, which are:-
- Smarty: no problem, what a dumb question
- Slow but solid: works it out, eventually
- Dim: quick but with the wrong answer, accepts the correct answer readily
- Slow and stupid: wrong answer, may be reluctant to accept correct answer
- Intransigent idiot: quick or slow, will not accept the correct answer, even when everyone else in laughing
- Nutter: got it wrong, wont accept the correct answer, actively seeks to subvert the case for the correct answer, with coercion or social pressure, may succeed depending on their level of charisma or social status.
Wednesday 9 September 2015
Party tricks
You know those questions that pose hypothetical situations to which the answer seems obvious but the question has been constructed in a deceptive form, so that the obvious answer reveals some subtle aspect of perception? Some of those questions seem painfully contrived, like: A man driving on a twisty country road, hits a deer and his headlights are smashed. Ten minutes later he's phoning his wife, after diving to a town (obviously he doesn't have a mobile). How did he drive to the town with no headlights?
I answered with, 'He just drove there,' I think I was supposed to infer a night time incident from the context but it didn't work. The person asking got a bit mift at this point, she was never the brightest light on the Xmas tree, not dim exactly, she just put too much faith in rote, one of those folk with predicable thought processes who accepted answers depending on the status of their source. Anyway I tried out the question myself, for curiosity's sake, guess what, it didn't work then either. She must've been asked the question herself at one point, for her to be as impressed by its implications as she seemed. So I started to wonder, was the question posed to her with a more effective wording or did she fail it deliberately? By deliberately I mean, appear to make the assumption of a night time context in the question, for the sake of social acquiescence, then use self deception to convince herself that her assumption was genuine. That might seem a little tenuous but the nature of her reaction, when I failed to make the elicited assumption, was something akin to that which follows from a break in social etiquette, it was if I was being rude.
A much better question of this ilk is: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? Yeah that question, this one went so far over my head that I always dismissed it as some zen type thought mangling, that needed sufficient drug induced cerebral hindrance to be effective. It wasn't until it was pointed out, that the word sound, a bit like the word colour, can be, and is often interpreted as reference to a sensory phenomena, that the penny dropped for me.
So here's another question, that falls somewhere between the forest question and the equivocal wording of the car hits deer question. Here it goes: there are three people travelling together, each of them has just applied for a job as a bus driver. The first person is a good driver and got the job. The second person is a fair driver and didn't get the job, the third person can't drive. Who wins?
I answered with, 'He just drove there,' I think I was supposed to infer a night time incident from the context but it didn't work. The person asking got a bit mift at this point, she was never the brightest light on the Xmas tree, not dim exactly, she just put too much faith in rote, one of those folk with predicable thought processes who accepted answers depending on the status of their source. Anyway I tried out the question myself, for curiosity's sake, guess what, it didn't work then either. She must've been asked the question herself at one point, for her to be as impressed by its implications as she seemed. So I started to wonder, was the question posed to her with a more effective wording or did she fail it deliberately? By deliberately I mean, appear to make the assumption of a night time context in the question, for the sake of social acquiescence, then use self deception to convince herself that her assumption was genuine. That might seem a little tenuous but the nature of her reaction, when I failed to make the elicited assumption, was something akin to that which follows from a break in social etiquette, it was if I was being rude.
A much better question of this ilk is: if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? Yeah that question, this one went so far over my head that I always dismissed it as some zen type thought mangling, that needed sufficient drug induced cerebral hindrance to be effective. It wasn't until it was pointed out, that the word sound, a bit like the word colour, can be, and is often interpreted as reference to a sensory phenomena, that the penny dropped for me.
So here's another question, that falls somewhere between the forest question and the equivocal wording of the car hits deer question. Here it goes: there are three people travelling together, each of them has just applied for a job as a bus driver. The first person is a good driver and got the job. The second person is a fair driver and didn't get the job, the third person can't drive. Who wins?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)