John Ford

Discussion and info on people in film, ranging from directors to actors to cinematographers to writers.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: John Ford

#226 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:47 am

Jesus, what are they looking for, Dances with Wolves? Politically, I loved with Costner was trying to do with that movie, but as a work of art, it's pretty flat. A great political statement isn't the same thing as great art. Politically, Ford's work is usually uncomfortable, even ugly, but conflicted, rich and complex - brutally honest with no easy answers. That's why he's a great artist.

User avatar
Drucker
Your Future our Drucker
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 9:37 am

Re: John Ford

#227 Post by Drucker » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:49 am

It makes me think of people who dislike films for not being perfectly accurate. There are probably better examples, but The Social Network comes to mind. When Mark Zuckerberg criticized it, he did so by mentioning the entire "pining for his ex-girlfriend" angle is a fabrication, and he dated the same woman throughout and beyond college (and eventually married her). There's a failure to admire the film itself and what's there.

I also remember that when I was getting into film, I read somewhere that Grapes Of Wrath was an odd choice because Ford was "conservative." Maybe that idea carries weight because of how often John Wayne appeared in his films, but is there really any evidence that Ford was conservative? I haven't found any, and his concern seems mainly to celebrate the common man, who often stands against the interest of the more powerful.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: John Ford

#228 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:56 am

I think Joseph McBride covered Ford's politics extremely well in Searching for John Ford, partly for the way it evolved and how McBride reflected Ford's politics off the surrounding culture. Not just on a nationwide scale but with other communities and subcultures as well (not just with other ethnicities but within Caucasian culture as well - especially important considering Ford's Irish heritage). Long story short, he was conservative, but saying that wouldn't do his work or his actual politics justice, especially when labeling someone's ideology these days usually leads to broad assumptions. (Understandable in the era of Fox News, yeesh.)

User avatar
John Hodson
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Near dark satanic mills...
Contact:

Re: John Ford

#229 Post by John Hodson » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:57 am

FrauBlucher wrote:Political correctness has become an overwhelming reaction in society that it puts almost everything being judged in a vacuum. It's a shame that Ford has to be viewed and critiqued this way.
It's shameful. Shame on them.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: John Ford

#230 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:02 pm

It's also the default because it's easier to feel superior to a film or a work of art than engage with it, let it challenge your existent beliefs, compare it to other films with similar aims, explore its context and response, or any other manner of truly responding to a film. Dismissal is quick, simple, and makes you look "enlightened" in the process, giving one the appearance of intelligence without doing anything to earn it. Film not as art but as a bullet point on a checklist of preexisting agendas.

User avatar
Michael Kerpan
Spelling Bee Champeen
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:20 pm
Location: New England
Contact:

Re: John Ford

#231 Post by Michael Kerpan » Tue Jul 07, 2015 12:52 pm

The Ford films I've seen don't _feel_ nearly so conservative as McCarey's films.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: John Ford

#232 Post by hearthesilence » Tue Jul 07, 2015 1:59 pm

Michael Kerpan wrote:The Ford films I've seen don't _feel_ nearly so conservative as McCarey's films.
HAH, ain't that the truth? I'm almost glad for McCarey's relative obscurity - God knows how much time I'd be wasting defending My Son John. (Politics are horrendous but seen as a domestic drama, it's brilliant...then again, I could just upload Gary Giddins' interview for Criterion and forward people to that, he does a pretty succinct job.)

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: John Ford

#233 Post by knives » Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:51 pm

I just heard a particularly odious variation of this absurdity today on the radio. Some Scrabble guy had to explain to the reporter use mention differentiation with regards to allowing racial slurs and she just could not appreciate that racial slurs are still words.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: John Ford

#234 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:04 am

FWIW, I just checked and found out that Dissolve regular Mike D’Angelo was the one who wrote "Tarantino was onto something when he took that shot at John Ford" (the actual title of the article) for the A.V. Club. SMDH...

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: John Ford

#235 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jul 08, 2015 11:10 am

D'Angelo is our new patron saint of film idiocy, he probably merits his own Armond White-ish thread at this point

User avatar
knives
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 6:49 pm

Re: John Ford

#236 Post by knives » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:43 pm

Yeah, at least Armond White was amusingly deranged about it.

User avatar
whaleallright
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: John Ford

#237 Post by whaleallright » Wed Jul 08, 2015 12:54 pm

I sometimes wonder if the authors of these broadsides against John Ford and his films have seen any other Western films, or any other American films from mid-century at all.

Aside from the discomfiting presence of Stephin Fetchit (who I admire as a performer and find very charming, even if there's no way around the fact that his persona--at least partially--inhabits some troubling stereotypes) in several films, there's not much in Ford's body of work that's more offensive than in thousands of other films. And while even the pedantic anti-racism of Sergeant Rutledge and Cheyenne Autumn is itself enabled by putatively "positive" stereotypes (the loyal, sexless Negro; the stoic, noble Indian), Ford's cinema contains such a strong vein of self-criticism and -revision that it's weird that he's the one subject to attacks. I guess he's a big target?
Last edited by whaleallright on Mon Nov 02, 2015 5:32 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: John Ford

#238 Post by hearthesilence » Wed Jul 08, 2015 1:54 pm

Ford's films are usually imperfect in a way that can turn off modern/younger audiences - more innocuous stuff like his taste for broad humor (in The Searchers, after the famous moment where John Wayne finally has Natalie Wood in his arms, we dissolve to Ward Bond getting something pulled out of his ass) and more disarming stuff like anything that seems like a stereotype. For the latter, the knee-jerk reaction is usually hostility, but context is always important.

In The Searchers, people have problems with Martin's Native American bride and Mose, but it says a lot that they are the only types of Native Americans that are (more or less) "welcomed" into these people's lives when they are so different from those who are not assimilating into white society. Play this against the women who have become "Indian" ("it's hard to believe that they used to be white"). What does this say about integration? Or rather people's fears about integration? (think about the famous reaction shot of Edwards, in close-up, as he looks at one of these women…is this how he imagines Debbie? Even when Debbie seems all right, that doesn't change what he feels.)

You mentioned Fetchit, which is also an excellent example. Here's what Dave Kehr wrote with regards to The Sun Shines Bright:

The lynching [that was cut from Ford's Judge Priest) is back in [this] remake, although Fetchit had aged out of the victim’s role by that point. Instead the target of the mob’s wrath is a frail teenager (played by Elzie Emanuel) who bears, for the South of the late 19th century, the highly unfortunate name of U. S. Grant Woodford.

In an early scene the judge asks the young man to demonstrate his prowess on the banjo by playing a military song — and the teenager responds with a rousing rendition of the Union anthem “Marching Through Georgia.” The scene, though played for comedy, remains the most gripping sequence in “The Sun Shines Bright” and one of the most revealing passages in all of Ford’s work. As he hears the first bars of the hated march, a look of shock and fear crosses Fetchit’s face, and he breaks his usual studied shuffle to dash to the boy’s side.

Looking the boy in the eyes, a black man communicating with a black man, Fetchit desperately struggles to communicate just how inappropriate the choice of music is — at least if the two men intend to live through the day — and manages to persuade U. S. to segue into “Dixie.”

The scene lasts only a couple of seconds — a brief moment in which the curtain drops, and Ford allows a glimpse of the greater reality that lies behind the stereotypes. In this time and place to shuck and jive is the only available survival strategy. The lynch mob awaits those who let the mask slip.

User avatar
DeprongMori
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:59 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: John Ford

#239 Post by DeprongMori » Wed Jul 08, 2015 4:27 pm

Thanks for the pointer to the Kent Jones piece. Tarantino's citing of John Ford's role in 1915 as an extra in The Birth of a Nation as a Klansman when he was roughly 20 years old as ample evidence that Ford should be reviled is frankly absurd.

However, regarding The Birth of a Nation itself, Kent Jones goes far too easy on the film. As technically and narratively accomplished as it is, and as cinematically and historically important as it is, it is in fact a work of vicious propaganda. Its central premise is that White Supremacy is divinely ordained and the "birth of a nation" itself occurs in the interaction between the former Union and Confederate members in the beseiged cabin near the end of the film: "The former enemies of North and South are united again in common defence of their Aryan birthright." This contract of White Supremacy is to be safeguarded by the terrorism of the Invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan.

One obviously cannot dismiss Griffith's body of work based on this one film, but based on this film alone and its frankly evil message it is entirely appropriate that the Director's Guild of America decided to remove Griffith's name from their highest award back in 1999. This was not a "casually racist" film -- White Supremacy was its key theme. Granted, Thomas Dixon was the primary creator of the film's script and message as he was the main creative collaborator on the film and it was based on his novels and his plays. Nevertheless, Griffith brought the film to life as the object which it is, with its malign centerpiece. He bears at least as much responsibility for it as Dixon.

Should the film be banned? No. It is worthy of study for many reasons. It should also not be let off the hook for what it in fact is: a nasty piece of vicious propaganda that had a direct catastrophic impact on the country's racial relations.

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: John Ford

#240 Post by domino harvey » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:42 pm

Watched the Hurricane via Kino Lorber's new Blu-Ray and I think it ranks amongst Ford's weakest efforts. Are there some decent special effects? Sure. But the film is filled with annoying characters-- I literally hated everyone in this movie, especially our "heroic" protagonist who keeps trying and failing to escape over and over, adding over sixteen years to his sentence. Okay, he didn't belong there to begin with, but gimme a breaksville on him making it worse for himself like this.

One bright spot with this release that I hadn't seen mentioned here is Joseph McBride provides an audio commentary for the film, so I guess I'll hold onto the disc for now...

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: John Ford

#241 Post by mizo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:38 pm

Can anybody comment on the quality of this DVD of 7 Women? All I know is the transfer is apparently "poor" (THANKS JANET WOODROW!).

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: John Ford

#242 Post by domino harvey » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:40 pm

The aspect ratio appears to be wrong, it's a 'Scope film

EDIT: Although this version is apparently directed by Robert Z Leonard, so who knows what's even on that disc

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: John Ford

#243 Post by mizo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:56 pm

Thanks for the heads-up (although the credit that has me more intrigued is John Ford as "host"!)

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: John Ford

#244 Post by mizo » Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:21 am

Thanks to a couple of minor upheavals within my daily life (most notably the unexpected discovery of how close I am to a library with a really respectable film collection and my first time ever participating in a list project of any scale on this forum) I’ve recently become more aware than ever of just how vast some of the blind spots in my film experience are. So, as a corrective measure, I’m now embarking on a fairly expansive viewing project that should fill in some of the more conspicuous holes. I plan on tackling, in chronological order, the complete (available) works of the most prominent international filmmakers whose names I regularly see bandied about here and elsewhere sort of like code words, signifying a certain style or disposition or worldview, that barely hold any meaning to me. To give an example, while experience has given me a pretty solid idea of what is meant by “Hitchcockian,” I have only the vaguest notion of what “Fordian” could indicate. I mean, I’ve seen Stagecoach, The Grapes of Wrath, They Were Expendable, and The Searchers, but each one at a very different time in my life, and I’ve certainly never tried to suss out what it could be that’s emblematic of the artist behind them. I guess now is the time for doing just that (and I’m beginning to hear a reverb-laden voice intone, “Join me, ladies and gentlemen, as we travel down the mind-bending auteurist wormhole of Fordiana!”). To start me off, I’ve watched two films from Ford’s very first year in the business (at least, behind the camera): 1917’s Straight Shooting and Bucking Broadway. I tried to identify absolutely everything in them that either rings a bell (in relation to one of the others I’ve seen) or otherwise strikes me as possibly central to Ford’s artistic persona. I ended up with about twenty pages of notes, so you’re going to have to bear with me folks as I try to come up with some conclusions!

If the credits are to be taken as the final authority on the matter, Harry Carey is playing the same character in both movies; however, his Cheyenne Harry persona reads, to my mind, less like Chaplin in the 20’s and more like Bowie in the 70’s! From film to film, he could hardly be more different. I’ll begin with Straight Shooting, in which the version of the character he plays dominates the drama (against what is, surprisingly, fairly decent competition). Now, I don’t think you need a lot of experience with Ford to identify that shot of John Wayne framed in the doorway, from The Searchers, as an important reference point for the director’s visual and thematic preoccupations. It did surprise me, though, how ubiquitous that image is, even this early on. If a story has any characters that could be seen as outsiders (which Straight Shooting has in spades) you can bet that this visual motif will show up, and usually more than once! It’s most associated with Cheyenne Harry, though, and he certainly comes across as the archetypal loner.

Another particularly potent symbol for Harry’s loneliness is the image of his horse standing in the rain outside a saloon. Here, the horse is not only soaking wet, but also distinctly weary. I’m not saying he gives an Oscar-worthy performance here (if he is indeed a he) but it’s not hard to read weariness into the sort of sad, numb non-reaction he gives to the dimwitted sheriff who pushes him around with random aggression (evidently recognizing the horse to be that of hired killer Harry). The strangely disinterested response to inhuman treatment has a direct parallel with Harry’s lack of interest in the ethics of his violent profession (a lack of interest that he expresses in no uncertain terms, indiscriminately referring to a couple of friendly, harmless farmers as “the enemy”) and the way that he is, to look at the broader picture, basically being exploited by the ranchers who have hired him. He is little more than a beast of burden – his ignorance being his defining characteristic – and, not to get all Marxist or anything, but that seems to engender a pretty deep-seated sense of isolation within him.

Constantly reiterated is his failure to quite align with any recognizable group or cause. The closest thing to a compatriot he has is Placer Fremont, a rancher, and apparently an old friend, though the nature of their friendship remains somewhat ambiguous. One insight we do get comes during the saloon sequence when Fremont is introduced. We see the two men in medium close-up, embroiled in a kind of drinking contest. Fremont’s quick gulps of whisky (taken with his head thrown upward and his eyes shut) contrast with Harry’s long, confident ones, during which he never takes his eyes off Fremont. The staging here is surprisingly elegant, with the space between the intense, inscrutable faces of the two men being taken up by the bartender, who nervously watches their every action, and whose visible reactions guide our emotions through this rather opaque sequence (this is before we know much of anything about either character, except that Harry is a wanted criminal). The tension here is only lifted when, after a fade elides much of their contest, we return to see them desperately drunk, and with that, they’re cemented in our minds as pals. For a film that seems much more comfortable in action or contemplation, it’s a surprisingly graceful moment of comedy (although the goodwill it inspires does get tested as the scene goes on. And on…). Of course, light comedy doesn’t really define this subplot (in stark contrast to Bucking Broadway, humor here exists mainly as something to be broken by the entrance of tragedy). On the contrary, it’s one of the most explicitly tragic in the film. I was reminded of the traits the two men exhibit in the drinking scene (Harry’s unwavering stare versus Fremont’s quick breaks) when they are turned against each other by competing alliances and forced into a shoot-out; Fremont blinks nervously every few seconds, but Harry’s gaze remains constant. The irony of this defining aspect of their friendship returning just before one is to kill the other soon gives way to violence and, after Fremont’s frightened retreat lends an air of desperation to the showdown, the actual shooting is blocked from our view by an explosion of white smoke in the center of the frame. Then, Fremont falls, pathetically, like a wounded animal. This is the kind of fatalistic action I would normally associate with Anthony Mann before I’d think of Ford. And indeed, much like Gary Cooper stalking out of the ghost town toward the end of Man of the West, Cheyenne Harry stiffly, and with an air of disgust, makes his slow, solemn way out of the town where he’s killed his best friend, looking more alone than ever before.

I did slightly contradict myself above in saying that Harry was fundamentally alienated from all groups (being largely uninterested in causes), and then going on to say that his conflict with Fremont arose due to “competing alliances.” Halfway through the film, after he witnesses the Sim family (of farmers) grieving over the brutal murder of their son by a rancher, Harry renounces his (already pretty perfunctory) alliance with the ranchers in order to defend the victimized farmers. While the film raises no doubt that this change of heart is sincere for Harry, Ford is very careful about the degree to which he portrays Harry and the farmers as being united in mindset. Just in case we weren’t sufficiently clued in about Harry’s complicity in the Sim boy’s death, when the latter is killed, there’s a lone horse, unaware of and uninterested in what’s going on, that dominates the frame.

It must be emphasized that, fundamentally, Harry and the farmers are incompatible, and this is endlessly reiterated to us through composition. During the grieving scene (which takes place outdoors) Sweet Water Sim (the father) and Joan (the daughter) are both dramatically dwarfed by Harry. Indeed, the former two rarely remain standing up for very long, as they always seem to fall to the ground from despair or shock, particularly in Harry’s presence. This motif of incongruity continues in the Sim home, where Harry always seems out of place – awkward and perhaps too big. An inescapable quality of the film is how artificial and flimsy many interiors look; they seem rather ineffective barriers against the potent vastness of the plains. Moreover, they tie characters like Harry to the outside, particularly when Harry is shown, as he usually is when indoors, in a long shot that emphasizes the artificiality of the interiors by making the very real (and powerful) exteriors visible through windows and open doorways. These are the same doorways that we so often see Harry trapped inside, not feeling at home within the family unit that he dwarfs like the encroaching horizon, but also alienated from the outside, a place inhabited by violent ranchers, whose cause he no longer believes in (if indeed he ever did). So, while the father and Joan are characters tied with the interior, the home, and the family unit, Harry is tied with the open stretches and loneliness of the outside.

Also tied with the outside, however, is Sam Turner – a young man, ostensibly a rancher, but also a close friend of the Sim family – who seems even more remote. Very early on, Sam first appears in the doorway while the Sims are gathered around the dinner table, already introducing him as something of an outsider. He maintains this status for the entire time he appears on screen, cut off from the others due to his alliances and, perhaps more potently, Joan’s lack of receptivity to his romantic advances. Later, after the Sim boy’s death, he is not permitted into the family’s private grieving and instead remains in the shadows. Ford doesn’t quite manage to make him a tragic figure, though, as audience sympathy is constantly hampered by Sam’s endless obliviousness (most annoyingly, when he cannot. Get it. Though. His thick. Skull. That Joan. Doesn’t. Want him. Like seriously, Ford tries to pull off having him have that big wordless moment where he realizes he’s unloved like three times and gets significantly diminishing returns each time). Another surprisingly semi-tragic character is the ostensible villain of the film, the chief rancher Thunder Flint, who manages to appear both lonely (when he meditates atop the mountain above where the cattle are spread out) and as a kind of patriarch (when he is with the other ranchers, who gather around him like disciples awaiting his sage wisdom). At one point, Ford executes a graphic match between Sam’s trail down the hill (off to find Harry on Flint’s instructions) and Flint’s tall, frame-filling body, and this seems to hint at Flint being less a man than a force of nature and, by extension, the most alienated from other people of them all. Certainly, he seem as out of place if not more so within his own home as Harry or Sam do.

The film’s (sort of tacked-on) ending sees Harry, after some contemplation, settling down to a life with Joan. Significantly, the scene plays outdoors, which makes it all the more difficult to believe. The quiet life of a farmer with a family is surely no life for Harry, as we’ve been made to intuitively feel from the beginning, so why should this change of heart be convincing? Ultimately, he belongs elsewhere (“Shane! Come back!”).

All this emphasis on loneliness might make one think that Ford’s conception of the archetypal Western hero has a fundamental sense of isolation, but Bucking Broadway seems to refute this. In that film, the Cheyenne Harry character (who, in stark contrast to the mostly solemn and tragic figure of Straight Shooting, is loveable, goofy, and is first seen flocked by his chums, the other ranch hands) although he is colored by shades of the same loneliness that afflicts the earlier incarnation, also has some very different motivations.

The sense of the West that I’ve tried to express here, and that Ford articulates far more clearly in images (the lone horse, the figure in the doorway, etc.) than I ever could in words, is defined by almost oppressively open spaces, broken by the occasional flimsy fence or artificial house, and peopled with lonely souls looking for meaning or friendship or something indefinable (already it sounds hackneyed when I try to explain it, but I’ll be damned if those images aren’t powerful!). But there’s something at the heart of it – something that’s invisible at the macro level I’ve outlined. In a key scene (central, I think, to Ford’s worldview) Harry takes Helen, the boss’s daughter and the girl he’s in love with, to the home he’s built himself, where he asks her to marry him. It’s the middle of the night. We never see the outside of the home – only Helen’s fairly confused reaction to first coming upon it. Then we’re inside. Ford keeps the camera very close to the stars, who are illuminated by the warm light of a fireplace. It’s an extraordinarily tender scene (even if Helen’s slowness in catching on to Harry’s intentions strains credulity a bit). What’s really important, though, is the closeness or, more precisely, the insularity. There’s no chance of this interior seeming flimsy; the walls aren’t even visible to us. Harry has retreated from the emptiness of the outdoors (and taken Helen with him) into a fantasy, utopian by virtue of its insularity, of the impossibly deep bond of family and love.

A central conflict of the film is of this kind of quasi-sacred bond against the implacable efforts of modernity to apparently destroy it (I say “apparently” because, as we find out by the end, there really isn’t that much difference between the Westerners and the city folk, so really this whole element is just a fantasy taking place in the uber-emotional protagonists’ minds) which is first impressed on us with bold diagonals, in stark contrast to the parallel lines that previously dominated the compositions. Another way Ford expresses modernity, imbuing it with a real sense of almost existential discomfort, is through the use of reflections. As Helen is being taken to the city by her devious suitor, Thornton, she locks herself in some compartment (a powder room?) to be alone, while he waits for her outside, his face stretched grotesquely in the reflective wood of the door. Once Helen is in the city, we see her sitting alone and forlorn, while her double in a mirror matches and seems to amplify her misery. Finally, and most subtly, Ford suggests the imperviousness of the purest old world values to encroaching modernity (and, by extension, the underlying absurdity of the whole conflict) in the scene when Harry jumps off his horse onto a speeding train (because of course he does). As he climbs aboard, we can briefly see his reflection in the shining wood. Unlike Helen and Thornton, he does not linger by it, but instead remains resolute.

Moreover – once we’ve seen a fireplace for the second time (when Harry asks Helen’s father for her hand in marriage) and it’s been sufficiently locked in the viewer’s mind as a symbol of the familial bond so that Ford can begin to play variations on it – the third fireplace (the same one as the second, but in a much later scene) appears when Thornton, who is visiting the ranch, persuades Helen to ignore Harry’s proposal and slip away with him in the night to get married in the city. The two of them whisper this plan while her father sleeps in the same room, his face illuminated by an oil lamp. Oil or electric lamps (a sort of bastardization of the more pure light of the fireplace, I guess) always seem to shine on broken families here. An oil lamp lights the scene where a quietly grieving Harry consoles the more outwardly distraught father about Helen’s disappearance. Another lamp casts ominous shadows onto the face of Thornton’s sister (in New York) whose coldness will push Helen into despair over the absence of the family bond in this new, frightening environment.

Ford also makes frequent use of another symbol for the bond, one that’s even more powerful: hands. After Harry asks Helen to marry him, she toys with him briefly (expressed visually through some frilly hand gestures) before slowly allowing her hand to rest on his, communicating her answer. When they go to her father, he ultimately blesses the union by putting his hand on theirs, which (in close-up) are already interlocked. When Thornton is wooing Helen, there’s a moment when he grabs her hand and she suddenly goes off mentally to another place, looking ruefully into the distance, as if she’s thinking of Harry. This same symbol also appears (and very prominently, I might add) in Straight Shooting. Following the Sim boy’s death, we get an extraordinarily powerful image of a broken family: the father, transported by his despair, is patting his sobbing daughter’s head with one hand while the other lies on the chest of his dead son. Hands are used again to convey grief in the gorgeously simple scene where Joan takes a moment to caress her dead brother’s plate before putting it back in the cabinet for good (a private moment to which Harry, now outside of the family unit and in the outdoors, is a rather embarrassed witness). Very quiet, but still astonishingly moving stuff.

And that’s about all I have to say, except for a few idle thoughts I can’t really expand on too much. For example, I speculated that the flimsy interiors might be a metaphor for the solubility of boundaries (of the farmer vs. rancher, rural vs. urban sort) and I do think that solubility is an element of Ford’s conception of the west. The female characters here don’t really have a whole lot of agency, although I appreciated the relative complexity and emotional depth they are afforded (considerably more than the patriarchs, whose respective despairs are sort of bland and bathetic in comparison). In particular, I recall fondly one scene in Straight Shooting where, after Sam Turner is (non-fatally) shot and Harry seems to have no interest in staying with her, Joan briefly worries about the prospect of being married off (almost like an offering, out of pity) to Sam. Ford respectfully declines to offer any judgement here. I would also like to point out that each movie features the same Hispanic dude. He wears a sombrero and, in Straight Shooting, he steals jam from the Sims while, in Bucking Broadway, he makes a crack about Harry and Helen’s relationship before being chased away by the other ranch hands, never to be seen again. We’re a ways away from the racial politics of The Searchers at this point, folks!

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: John Ford

#245 Post by mizo » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:10 pm

Another particularly potent symbol for Harry’s loneliness is the image of his horse standing in the rain outside a saloon.
Image
The staging here is surprisingly elegant, with the space between the intense, inscrutable faces of the two men being taken up by the bartender, who nervously watches their every action, and whose visible reactions guide our emotions through this rather opaque sequence
Image
This motif of incongruity continues in the Sim home, where Harry always seems out of place – awkward and perhaps too big.
Image
These are the same doorways that we so often see Harry trapped inside, not feeling at home within the family unit that he dwarfs like the encroaching horizon, but also alienated from the outside, a place inhabited by violent ranchers, whose cause he no longer believes in (if indeed he ever did).
Image
Ford keeps the camera very close to the stars, who are illuminated by the warm light of a fireplace....After Harry asks Helen to marry him, she toys with him briefly (expressed visually through some frilly hand gestures) before slowly allowing her hand to rest on his, communicating her answer.
Image
A central conflict of the film is of this kind of quasi-sacred bond against the implacable efforts of modernity to apparently destroy it...which is first impressed on us with bold diagonals, in stark contrast to the parallel lines that previously dominated the compositions.
Image
As Helen is being taken to the city by her devious suitor, Thornton, she locks herself in some compartment (a powder room?) to be alone, while he waits for her outside, his face stretched grotesquely in the reflective wood of the door.

Image
Once Helen is in the city, we see her sitting alone and forlorn, while her double in a mirror matches and seems to amplify her misery.
Image
As [Harry] climbs aboard, we can briefly see his reflection in the shining wood. Unlike Helen and Thornton, he does not linger by it, but instead remains resolute.
Image
An oil lamp lights the scene where a quietly grieving Harry consoles the more outwardly distraught father about Helen’s disappearance.
Image
Another lamp casts ominous shadows onto the face of Thornton’s sister (in New York) whose coldness will push Helen into despair over the absence of the family bond in this new, frightening environment.
Image
When they go to her father, he ultimately blesses the union by putting his hand on theirs, which (in close-up) are already interlocked.
Image
When Thornton is wooing Helen, there’s a moment when he grabs her hand and she suddenly goes off mentally to another place, looking ruefully into the distance, as if she’s thinking of Harry.
Image
Following the Sim boy’s death, we get an extraordinarily powerful image of a broken family: the father, transported by his despair, is patting his sobbing daughter’s head with one hand while the other lies on the chest of his dead son.
(Also, notice the horse in the corner of the frame.)
Image
The sense of the West that I’ve tried to express here, and that Ford articulates far more clearly in images than I ever could in words, is defined by almost oppressively open spaces...peopled with lonely souls looking for meaning or friendship or something indefinable
(I don't know how well you can see the figures on top of the hill, but they're there.)
Image
I would also like to point out that each movie features the same Hispanic dude. He wears a sombrero and, in Straight Shooting, he steals jam from the Sims
Image

User avatar
domino harvey
Dot Com Dom
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: John Ford

#246 Post by domino harvey » Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:15 pm

Some great and exhaustive thoughts here, looking forward to the next installment!

User avatar
mizo
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 10:22 pm
Location: Heard about Pittsburgh PA?

Re: John Ford

#247 Post by mizo » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:32 pm

Thank you for braving my labyrinth of parenthetical clauses! :)

User avatar
whaleallright
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:56 am

Re: John Ford

#248 Post by whaleallright » Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:50 pm

Thanks for those analyses! It's a shame that, even though the Library of Congress rents a spectacularly beautiful 35mm print of Straight Shooting, there's no decent home-video version of that film to be had.

I've seen this film on the big screen twice, and there's one shot in particular--a slightly high angle of Harry and Helen in a doorway--that's highly unusual for 1917, and elicited gasps each time. I'd have to be foolish to suggest that Straight Shooting is as dense and commanding as Ford at his very best, but it's still obviously the work of a master, even though Ford made it at the age of 23.

User avatar
zedz
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 7:24 pm

Re: John Ford

#249 Post by zedz » Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:18 pm

mizoguchi5354 wrote:
Once Helen is in the city, we see her sitting alone and forlorn, while her double in a mirror matches and seems to amplify her misery.
Image
That downward-tilted mirror providing a doubled view of the characters within the same frame and alluding to otherwise offscreen space is a regular element of early cinema mise-en-scene that practically disappears from later cinema. You see a fair bit of it in Benjamin Christensen's 1910s features (and I think you see it in Yevgeni Bauer as well). Obviously, tilting the mirror down serves to hide the camera, and later on different conventions developed to do the same thing when shooting mirrors (e.g. avoidance of frontal compositions), but creative directors could use it to do interesting things with the mise en scene, as in this instance.

John Shade
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 3:04 pm

Re: John Ford

#250 Post by John Shade » Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:18 pm

I couldn't find a thread for the Criterion release of Young Mr. Lincoln. A blu ray version was released in Spain recently; I'm wondering if anyone has info on it at all.

http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Young-Mr- ... /#Overview" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Post Reply