The first time I saw him, he was striding toward me out of the burning Georgia sun, as helicopters landed behind him. His face was tanned a deep brown. He was wearing a combat helmet, an ammo belt, carrying a rifle, had a canteen on his hip, stood six feet four inches. He stuck out his hand and said, "John Wayne." That was not necessary.
John Wayne died 30 years ago on June 11. Stomach cancer. "The Big C," he called it. He had lived for quite a while on one lung, and then the Big C came back. He was near death and he knew it when he walked out on stage at the 1979 Academy Awards to present Best Picture to "The Deer Hunter," a film he wouldn't have made. He looked frail, but he planted himself there and sounded like John Wayne.
John Wayne. When I was a kid, we said it as one word: Johnwayne. Like Marilynmonroe. His name was shorthand for heroism. All of his movies could have been titled "Walking Tall." Yet he wasn't a cruel and violent action hero. He was almost always a man doing his duty. Sometimes he was other than that, and he could be gentle, as in "The Quiet Man," or vulnerable, as in "The Shootist," or lonely and obsessed, as in "The Searchers," or tender with a baby, as in "3 Godfathers."
He worked all the time. In the 1930s alone, he made 69 movies. Between 1928 and 1963, he made 21 films with John Ford, the man he called "Pappy." He had an effect on people that few other actors ever had. Gene Siskel was interviewing him in the middle of the night during a Chicago location shoot. The Duke had been doing some drinking, to keep warm. At 3 a.m. he wanted something to eat.
"We walked into an all-night greasy spoon," Gene remembered. "He threw an arm over my shoulder. I felt protected. We sat down in a booth. The waitress came over, took one look at him, and made the Sign of the Cross. She was almost trembling when she asked him what he'd like to have. Eggs! And plenty of 'em! How would he like them? Staring at me."
He wasn't a drunk, but he didn't shy clear of the stuff. "Tequila," he told me, "makes your head hurt. Not from your hangover. From falling over and hitting your head." What people didn't understand is that he could be very funny. Once I was on location for "Chisum" in Durango, Mexico. Clive Hirshhorn of the London Daily Express was there, too. "Duke" he asked, "what do you think about Nixon's policy in Vietnam?"Wayne sized him up as if to judge if he was one of those goddamned hippies. "I think the President is conducting himself with honor," Wayne said, "and there's only one thing better than honor"
"What's that?"
"In her."
On that same set, we were playing a chess game, both of us bending over the board on an upended apple crate. Wayne, slouched in his old stitched leather director's chair, looked around at his listeners: wranglers, rough-hewn extras, old cronies and drinking buddies, a couple of Mexican stunt men, none of whom seemed even interested in poltics. He studied the board, roared with laughter, and said. "God...damn it!" he said. "You've trapped my queen!" He studied the position bitterly. "Why did I just say that?" he asked. "If I hadn't-a...said it, you wouldn't-a...seen it."
He broke off and studied the board. "God damn! You've got my queen! But why did I...just say that? If I hadn't-a...said it, you'd never-a...seen it!"
That's how he talked, with a pause in the middle of a phrase. In his wonderful documentary "Directed by John Ford," Peter Bogdanovich quotes him: "I started in silent pictures. One of my teachers was the old character actor Harry Carey. He told me, "John, the talkies are coming in, and that's a fact of life. Those Broadway playwrights are going to be selling the studios all of their plays. What they don't know is, people can't listen that fast! My theory is, we should stop halfway through a sentence and give the audience a chance to catch up."
Why did he become, and remain, not only a star but an icon? He was uncommonly attractive in face and presence. He was utterly without affectation. He was at home. He could talk to anyone. You couldn't catch him acting. He was lucky to start early, in the mid-1920s, and become at ease on camera even before his first speaking role. He sounded how he looked. He was a small-town Iowa boy, a college football player. He worked with great directors. He listened to them. He wasn't a sex symbol. He didn't perform, he embodied. You liked him.
I met him three times officially, on the sets of "The Green Berets" and "Chisum," and at his home in Newport Beach. And one other time. "Duke is in town to visit a sick friend at the hospital," his old friend the Warner Bros. press agent Frank Casey told me one day in 1976, "and he wanted me to invite over all the movie critics to have a drink. He's got the Presidential Suite at the Conrad Hilton." In an age when movie stars employ guards with black belts to keep the press away, how does that sound? We all gathered at the Hilton--Siskel, David Elliott of the Chicago Daily News, Mary Knoblauch of Chicago's American, and me.
"I've been visiting Stepin Fetchit down at Illinois Central Hospital," Wayne told us. "We worked together for the first time in 1929. But I don't want that in the paper. I don't want a goddamned death watch on him. Don't tell Kup! He'll run it in his column. "What did we discuss? None of us took notes, of course, I recall that we discussed some politics. Wayne supported the war in Vietnam ("I've been over there and I believe what we're doing is necessary.") He was a defender of Nixon. He was a born conservative, but in an old-fashioned, simple and patriotic way. I believe he would have had contempt for the latter-day weirdos of the Right.
His big, masculine, leather-brass-and-wood hilltop home on a hilltop in Newport Beach stood guard over his yacht, a converted Navy mine sweeper. One end of the room was occupied by Wayne's massive wooden desk, piled with books, papers, letters, scripts. There was an antique Army campaign table, with a bronze sculpture of cowboys on it. The walls were lined with cabinets, bookcases, an antique firearm collection, and a display of trophies and awards.
Wayne, not a servant, went in the kitchen, brought out tequila and ice for us both, and gave me a tour. He pointed out autographed photos of Eisenhower, Nixon, Goldwater, and J. Edgar Hoover. I said I had to take a pee. On the wall of the bathroom opening off the den, he had a photo of Hubert Humphrey, inscribed "with warm appreciation for your continued Support."
Waiting on the other side of the room, he showed me his firearm collection. "This is my rifle from 'Stagecoach,"' he said. "In 'True Grit,' I spun like this." He held the rifle in his right hand and spun it. Pain flashed across his face.
"Jesus Christ!" he said. He replaced the rifle back on its rack and massaged his shoulder. "Jesus, I wrecked that shoulder. Down in Baton Rouge, when I was making 'The Undefeated,' I twisted around in the saddle and the damn stirrup was completely loose. I fell right under that goddamned horse; I'm lucky I didn't kill myself.He took another rifle from the wall and held it up for inspection. "And this," he said, "is one of the guns the Russians are sending to kill our boys in Vietnam. People just won't see we're at war over there. Win or lose. Look at that--isn't that a mean-looking rifle? And it's a good one, too. And this is the piece of shit we're giving our boys to shoot back with. But people just won't realize. I heard a poem the other day. How did it go? Every day I pray, I won't go my complacent way... Hell, I can't remember it all. Something to the effect of, I'll never let those kids down.
"Jesus, that was a terrible thing about Gloria and Jimmy Stewart's kid getting killed over there. It makes you want to cry. At least Jimmy was over there to see the kid a few months ago. That's something. But it makes you want to cry. And Bob Taylor's going was terrible. He was terminal since they opened him up. I know what he went through. They ripped a lung out of me. I thank God I'm still here."
"All the real motion picture people have always made family pictures. But the downbeats and the so-called intelligentsia got in when the government stupidly split up the production companies and the theaters. The old giants--Mayer, Thalberg, even Harry Cohn, despite the fact that personally I couldn't stand him--were good for this industry. Now the goddamned stock manipulators have taken over. They don't know a goddamned thing about making movies. They make something dirty, and it makes money, and they say, 'Jesus, let's make one a little dirtier, maybe it'll make more money.' And now even the bankers are getting their noses into it.
"I'll give you an example. Take that girl, Julie Andrews, a refreshing, openhearted girl, a wonderful performer. Her stint was 'Mary Poppins' and 'The Sound of Music.' But she wanted to be a Theda Bara. And they went along with her, and the picture fell flat on its ass. A Goldwyn would have told her, 'Look, my dear, you can't change your sweet and lovely image . . ."
With William Holden and Pappy on the set of "The Horse Soldiers"
An eager white puppy hurried into the room. Wayne snapped his fingers and the puppy ran to him. "Hey, little fella." The puppy growled and rolled over on its back. "His name's Frosty," Wayne said. "Belongs to my daughter Aissa." He played with the puppy."But you know," he said, "I'm very conscious that people criticize Hollywood. Yet we've created a form, the Western, that can be understood in every country. The good guys against the bad guys. No nuances. And the horse is the best vehicle of action in our medium. You take action, a scene, and scenery, and cut them together, and you never miss. Action, scene, scenery."
Frosty abandoned Wayne and began to chew on the carpet. "Hey, you, get away from there!" Wayne said. The puppy looked up inquisitively and resumed chewing.
"I ought to get him some rawhide to keep him busy," Wayne said. "But when you think about the Western--ones I've made, for example. 'Stagecoach,' 'Red River,' 'The Searchers,' a picture named 'Hondo' that had a little depth to it--it's an American art form. It represents what this country is about. In 'True Grit,' for example, that scene where Rooster shoots the rat. That was a kind of reference to today's problems. Oh, not that 'True Grit' has a message or anything. But that scene was about less accommodation, and more justice.
"They keep bringing up the fact that America's for the downtrodden. But this new thing of genuflecting to the downtrodden, I don't go along with that. We ought to go back to praising the kids who get good grades, instead of making excuses for the ones who shoot the neighborhood grocery man. But, hell, I don't want to get started on that --hey, you!
The puppy looked up from its inspection of a sofa leg. Wayne captured it and shooed it out through the sliding glass doors onto the patio. "The little fella was smelling around the wrong way there.
"But back to 'True Grit.' Henry Hathaway used the backgrounds in such a way that it became almost a fantasy. Remember that one scene, where old Rooster is facing those four men across the meadow, and he takes the reins in his teeth and charges? Fill your hands, you varmits! That's Henry at work. It's a real meadow, but it looks almost dreamlike. Henry made it a fantasy and yet he kept it an honest Western."Wayne sipped at his tequila absentmindedly. "You get something of that in the character of Rooster," he said. "Well, they say he's not like what I've done before, and I even say that, but he does have facets of the John Wayne character, huh? I think he does.
"Of course, they give me that John Wayne stuff so much, claim I always play the same role. Seems like nobody remembers how different the fellas were in 'The Quiet Man.' or 'Iwo Jima,' or 'Yellow Ribbon,' where I was 35 playing a man of 65. To stay a star, you have to bring along some of your own personality. Thousands of good actors can carry a scene, but a star has to carry the scene and still, without intruding, allow some of his character into it. What do you think?"
It was an uncanny experience, being asked by John Wayne what you thought about the John Wayne image. What came to mind was a scene in "True Grit" where Wayne and Kim Darby are waiting all night up on a hill for the bad guys to come back to the cabin. And Wayne gets to talking about how he was married once, to a grass widow back in Cairo, Illinois, and how she took off one day. And how he didn't care much, how he missed her some, but he'd rather lose a wife than his independence. And how he took off alone, and glad to be alone, and stuck up a bank or two, just to stake himself, back in the days before he took up marshaling. And Darby asks him about those old days, about how he got to where he was now.
It's a scene that echoes back to Howard Hawks' "El Dorado," in which old hand Wayne teaches young James Caan how to hold a gun and shoot it. But the "True Grit" scene is even more nostalgic. I think it's sort of a summation of the dozens of Western characters played by Wayne.
"Well," Wayne said. "Well, maybe so." He stood up and walked over to the glass doors, hands in his pockets, and looked out at the patio. Frosty was wagging his tail and begging to be allowed back inside. "I guess that scene in 'True Grit' is about the best scene I ever did," he said.
Drawn by the great John Fischetti (Click!)
He sprawled comfortably on an old leather sofa. "And that ending," he said, pouring a few more drops of tequila into his neglected glass, "I liked that. You know, in the book Mattie loses her hand from the snakebite, and I die, and the last scene in the book has her looking at my grave. But the way Marguerite Roberts wrote the screenplay, she gave it an uplift. Mattie and Rooster both go to visit her family plot, after she gets cured of the snakebite. By now it's winter. And she offers to let Rooster be buried there some day, seeing as how he has no family of his own. Rooster's happy to accept, long as he doesn't have to take her up on it too quick. So then he gets on his horse and says, 'Come and see a fat old man some time.' And then he spurs the horse and jumps a fence, just to show he still can."John Wayne was asked one time what his contribution to American movies was. He said, "Vitality." He had that in such abundance that he brought life to his bad movies and greatness to his good ones. He stood in a doorway once, in a movie called "The Searchers," and he rested his weight on one foot and put his right hand on his left elbow and looked out into the desert, and brought such a poignancy to that physical movement that the French film critics stood up and cheered.
Not that he read the French critics. He was a totally untheoretical actor. He never studied his craft. He became good at it because he went out into Monument Valley a great many times with Ford, and they made some of the greatest American movies without giving it much more thought than the whisky and the poker games and the campfires with which they occupied their evenings. Those were Wayne's great days, when Pappy and his wagon train camped out in the desert, far from Hollywood and its agents and moguls, and made what they used to call cowboy pictures.
Marion Morrison's birthplace in Winterset, Iowa (click!)
Wayne was, of course, a lifelong conservative. That time in 1973, though, down in Durango, Mexico, he explained that he was, in fact, a liberal. "Hell yes, I'm a liberal," he said. "I listen to both sides before I make up my mind. Doesn't that make you a liberal? Not in today's terms, it doesn't. These days, you have to be a fucking left-wing radical to be a liberal. Politically, though . . . I've mellowed."
On screen he held so much authority so that he was not even being ironic when he explained his theory of acting: "Don't act. React." John Wayne, you see, could react. Others actors had to strain the limits of their craft to hold the screen with him. There is this test for an actor who, for a moment, is just standing there in a scene: Does he seem to be just standing there? Or does he, as John Wayne always did, appear to be deciding when, and why, and how to take the situation under his control?His last picture was called "The Shootist," in 1976. He played an old gunfighter who had fought and shot and ridden his way through the West for a lifetime, and had finally come to a small town and was filled with the fear of dying. He went to the doctor, played by James Stewart, and learned that he had weeks to live, and he conducted himself during those days with strength and dignity.
But there was one other movie he wanted to make, and never made, that he talked about once. It didn't have a title and it didn't need a title, not in Wayne's mind. It would just have been, quite simply, one last movie directed by John Ford, who died in 1973 with Wayne at the bedside.
"God, that was a loss to me when Pappy died," Wayne said that day in 1976 "Up until the very last years of his life," Wayne then said, softly, "Pappy could have directed another picture, and a damned good one. But they said Pappy was too old. Hell, he was never too old. In Hollywood these days, they don't stand behind a fella. They'd rather make a goddamned legend out of him and be done with him."
Parts of this entry adapted from my earlier interviews with Wayne.¶
The Duke wins his Oscar
¶
Fill your hands!
¶
Lee Marvin on John Wayne and John Ford
¶
Buddy Holly's song was inspired by Wayne's famous line in "The Searchers"
¶A song from several John Ford films, sung at his funeral
¶
My brother and I so admire The Duke that we're producing a short documentary on all the John Wayne impersonators living in Texas.
The beautiful Stanford Theatre in Palo Alto, CA just finished a short season comprised of The Duke's films. It was great.
What a character! So many wonderful movies. I haven't thought about Wayne recently (his movies do not seem to pop up on the tube these days) so I enjoyed your personal recollections.
When Wayne said; "a picture named 'Hondo' that had a little depth to it" was he talking about 3-D? 'Hondo' of course was one of the few good 3-D movies from the 50's.
Did you know there is a statue of John Ford in Portland, Maine? I could not find a clear picture of it on the internet but it is a fine piece of work and does the home town hero a great honor. Ford never lost touch with his roots. They even played the Maine fight song at his AFI tribute. Do any other directors have statues?
Here is a link to give you some idea: http://www.freefoto.com/images/1214/03/1214_03_94---John-Ford-Statue--Portland--Maine--USA_web.jpg
"He rests in an unmarked grave."..Ebert
In my part of India we don't have graves anyway and we flow the bones(gathered from the remains of cremation) down the Ganges which is very nice and soothing. As the great Ghalib(1797-1869) of Urdu writes:
hue mar ke ham jo ruswa, hue kyon na gharq-e-dariya
na koi janaaza hota, na koi mazaar hota.
My translation:
My bad reputation(drinking mainly) survives my death:
Wish I'd simply died of drownin'
Neither would a funeral be
Nor a grave to mark my ignonimy.
Wayne is an image pencil-outlined in the vault of youthful memory (I saw Searchers last year and its a blur now)---when America was Eldorado and Indian schoolchildren who happened to be studying in so called english medium schools had a staple diet of Walt Disney( comics not movies, since even TV was in the far future),Gene Autry and Roy Rogers, Archie mainly for the girls (his betrothal is currently in the news),etc etc etc,not to forget Enid Blyton,then's Harry Potter....
I've always wondered what lessons a young Ron Howard took away from his experience on "The Shootist," being a part of that veteran cast led by Wayne and being directed by Don Siegel.
Dear Roger,
Thank you for this.
Here is that scene of John Wayne speaking to his doctor James Stewart in "The Shootist":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-RUuyt80kU
I know this is a dumb question, but I wonder who today has "true grit?" I don't know. Maybe ours is an era of anti-heroes?
A hair off-topic: I stumbled onto this special Orson Welles appearance on Merv Griffin, recorded two hours before his sudden death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGgUQ9zbIk
I hope all is well.
Omer M
Hello Roger,
Reading your blogs is always one of the highlights of my day.
We're all so glad you're back!
Thank you for your wonderful reminiscences on John Wayne. The Duke was indeed unique, genuine, and a stalwart icon. As was said of him in *The Birdcage* (1996), "...if anyone was a MAN".
My father holds many of the Ford/Wayne dusters very close to his heart. I suppose they remind him of his youth, different historical times, and great old fashioned movie-making. While I deeply admire modern westerns like *No Country for Old Men*, *The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada*, and especially *Lone Star*, there is something a little more satisfying and fun about a Wayne duster. I think this is because the Duke just gives the baddie a knuckle sandwich, strolls into the tavern, and all is well with the world. So simplistic and silly, but a damn fine cinematic experience.
Ebert: I love that word dusters.
I have to admit that for the longest time I didn't "get" John Wayne. I was too young to have seen any of his films upon their original release, and I had the misfortune of mainly experiencing The Duke through parodies of his image.
Then I saw The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (at the time I wanted to see it because of Lee Marvin and Jimmy Stewart), and it all suddenly made sense. The charisma and nobility of his character was so striking, and I find those same qualities in many of the other roles that he played. He just projected a heroic quality, and was an incredible presence in everything I've seen him in since. I'm happy to say Tom Doniphon opened the door for me to have many great experiences with Wayne's movies.
Regarding his collaborations with John Ford; is there a more legendary actor/director duo in cinema history? Others come to mind (Eastwood/Leone, Mifune/Kurosawa, De Niro/Scorcese, Kinski/Herzog, etc), but I feel the sheer number of films and their collective impact can't be matched.
"He never studied his craft. He became good at it because he went out into Monument Valley a great many times with Ford, and they made some of the greatest American movies without giving it much more thought than the whisky and the poker games and the campfires with which they occupied their evenings. Those were Wayne's great days, when Pappy and his wagon train camped out in the desert, far from Hollywood and its agents and moguls, and made what they used to call cowboy pictures."
That's just beautiful writing, Roger.
Reading some of those interview quotes, I'm reminded of something the Duke said that novelist Jonathan Lethem used as the epigraph for his book "Girl in Landscape," a Western/SF genre crossover: "Screw ambiguity. Perversion and corruption masquerade as ambiguity. I don't trust ambiguity." Of course, much of the modern interest in Wayne's better roles is all about the ambiguity at the heart of something like "The Searchers." But it's somehow crucial that Wayne himself wasn't aware of that.
Roger, I'm wondering -- When you spoke with Duke, did you ask him or did he comment about his feelings on Clint Eastwood's style of Western? It was interesting to hear Wayne speak of Westerns in terms of black and white, right and wrong, good and evil, "no nuance" as he put it, which was certainly (mostly) true of the Westerns of his era. I wonder how he felt about many of the films in which Eastwood played the anti-hero and where things were often more gray than black and white.
Ebert: I never did. Of course we live in different times, and movies have changed, but you can see some of Wayne's qualites in Eastwood, especially the authenticity that resides and doesn't have to strain.
John Wayne Western got me started on movies (through my dad who let me watch past my bedtime) and to this day I cant watch El Dorado without getting a bit misty eyed. To this day I cant watch a movie where John Wayne plays anything else but the hero!
"Eggs! And plenty of 'em! How would he like them? Staring at me."
Ha, he even talks like a John Ford film!
This was a fantastic article. John Wayne is one of my favorite actors, and these are stories I hadn't read before. Thank goodness his movies live on in the DVD format so we can enjoy them today. They don't make them like that anymore.
I encountered Mr. Morrison when I lived in Southern California back in the mid-70's and conducted research at the U.C. medical school in Irvine. I liked to watch the sunsets from the cliffs at Corona del Mar overlooking the entrance to the harbor at Newport Beach. Very often Wayne and his entourage would take his converted mine sweeper, "The Wild Goose," out for evening cocktails or whatever and all the common folks on the shore would go gah-gah over the supposedly great actor, great patriot and great man all rolled into one Hollywood legend. In my time, I've also met (and posed for photos with) governors, senators and lesser politicians aspiring to be governors, senators and the grand delusion of president. In their hearts, most of them must realise they are basically posers and parasites who dare not represent their real selves to the public. They identify a personna for some constituency and stick with it, same with movie stars whether or not they adopt some ancillary political philosphy, like Wayne on the right or Jane Fonda on the left.
Personally, my greatest thrill was meeting and conversing with Nobel laureates who changed the entire world for all time whilst seeking real truth, not political leverage, public acclaim or personal wealth. I've had the honor to meet or chat with Sir Francis Crick, James Watson, Linus Pauling, Max Delbruck, and perhaps a dozen other laureates. I've had the additional honor of turning down the onerous task of sitting through convocation speeches by George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney, though I did get stuck attending one by Barbara Bush. (Our state-funded flagship university unfortunately had an affinity for GOP politics and politicians. So much for the myth of liberal academia.)
Whilst truth for the scientists I've mentioned was painstakingly squeezed from nature using the most rigorous intellectual standards and arduous work habits, it seems to me that for conservative pols and their flag-waving cheerleaders like Marion Morrison "truth" is simply and painlessly revealed to them by their native environment--at their mother's knee, if you will. If they had been born in China instead of the USA, they would have grown up to be loyal communists. Unthinking, loyal party members no doubt. "Lucky me, born into the best of all possible worlds where we have a monopoly on truth and the certainty that everyone else is a liar!"
While John Wayne and Ronald Reagan were making movies about the American military during World War II, Jimmy Stewart, Lee Marvin and George McGovern (among many other public personages) were actually out fighting that war without being radicalized to right wing causes. Sorry, John Wayne was never a "hero" to me. In fact, his screen performances were so heavily mannered, I never considered him a particularly good actor either. He basically played himself. Two thumbs down for "the duke."
Ebert: Wayne was rejected for service because of an ear infection and partial deafness. I assume that was on the level.
Well said Mr. Ebert. I'm only 25, so I never had the pleasure of meeting Duke Wayne or seeing his films theatrically. Of course, my father always told me stories about his wild anticipation for any new John Wayne flick back in the '50s and '60s. I was introduced to the Duke back in the early '90s when I saw "True Grit" on cable. I was hooked.Since then I've seen almost all of them, and, of course, when I first saw "The Searchers" at age 12, I knew it had cast its mythical, dream-like spell over me. My neighborhood friends couldn't understand why I preferred to stay home and consume old John Wayne movies rather than go and catch "Independence Day" at the local multiplex.
I really owe most of my current interests, and possibly my eventual career to the Duke. Because of him I became a huge fan of western novels, which led to a love for all great literature, and his films introduced me to directors, actors, and classic films I otherwise would have ignored. And now for the last ten years I've been a passionate fan of great movies, decided to go into both literature and film studies, write movie reviews for my University paper, and find myself an everyday reader at rogerebert.suntimes.com, where,incidentally, i've come across your wonderful blog entry. The Duke made it possible! So, I'll tip my hat and down a shot of whiskey in honor of the Duke, and in honor of you Mr. Ebert, whose love for great movies has been a true inspiration. Cheers.
-Oliver Spivey
Er, I'm afraid John Wayne's grave is definitely marked. Do you mean that he isn't buried under that plaque? Perhaps his grave should be in Monument Valley, like Ted Hughes' grave is on Dartmoor.
I love how you let him speak through your column. His definition of a liberal is an interesting one, one that makes me smile, given the political opinions he expressed, but also think about how I get to mine, and how I'd define liberal.
Ebert: I found some disinforrmation on the web. His grave was unmarked for 20 years (the family hoping to preserve some privacy), and then the stone was engraved.
John Wayne.
Probably the most underrated actor in the history of film. I would hazard to guess that his voice and mannerisms have been among the most parodied in history. Every person who has ever attempted to do an impression of a celebrity has tried to do John Wayne. I believe that when people think of John Wayne, most of them are really thinking of the impressions they've seen. John Wayne has become a caricature to many people.
The ignorant ones, anyway.
It's sad really. Many people feel the same way about Elvis Presley. He has become so parodied that people only see him the way impersonators have depicted him. They see him as some bloated Las Vegas lounge singer, popping pills and eating fried peanut butter and banana sandwiches and slurrong the phrase "thank yew vury mush", and not as the electrifying, dynamic performer he truly was.
John Wayne was so much more than a caricature. He was bigger than life. He was also a MUCH greater actor than most people give him credit for. As you said in your article, John Wayne was mainly given John Wayne roles. Maybe that was because no one on earth could possibly have played them better. Sure, there are better actors. But, there truly was only one John Wayne.
As John Ford himself famously said about Wayne to Howard Hawks after seeing him in Hawks' "Red River," "I never knew the big son of a bitch could act!"
By the way, Roger, have you seen the glorious transfer of The Searchers on Blu-ray? Peter Bogdonovich does a great commentary on it as well.
Eric Kohn:
There aren't many public statements from John Wayne on Eastwood, but Eastwood has commented on his one and only communication with John Wayne a few times...
"I gave him a piece of material that I thought had potential for us to do as a younger guy and an older guy. He wrote me back critical of it. He had seen High Plains Drifter, and he didn't think that represented Americana like She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and other John Ford westerns. I never answered him."
Eastwood's putting it nicely here. John Wayne ripped High Plains Drifter a new asshole, is what he did.
Thank you Roger for the memories of John Wayne.
I read a story, perhaps apocryphal, about Mr. Wayne wading into some Vietnam war protestors to make them be quiet in Jimmy Stewart's presence after the death of his son.
I recall a movie The Perez Family about Cuban immigrants. Marisa Tomei's character wanted so badly to meet John Wayne, not understanding the movies she saw in Cuba were old, and that Wayne had long since died.
Baseball, Mickey Mouse, Elvis Presley and John Wayne may be the USA's greatest contributions to popular culture. That is rare company indeed.
I've tried very hard to "get" John Wayne. I've watched all his movies, some more than once, and I've read numerous sympathetic biographies. But I can never get past the fact that every time I see his face I am absolutely revolted by him. He literally turns my stomach. And I don't know why that should be: there are many actors less conventionally attractive and more politically conservative than Wayne whose performances I adore. If anything, Wayne's politics don't bother me at all.
When I've mentioned to this to my female friends in the past many of them have admitted that they feel the same way, but in the same breath they've also said that they will never mention it to their male friends because men are so wrapped into the myth of John Wayne as demigod that they won't hesitate to belittle anyone who feels otherwise. I've also learned to keep my opinion to myself around men because when I have mentioned it to a guy, he will never believe it's not due to Wayne's politics. The guy invariably becomes angry and cruel and belittling and vicious, and refuses to admit that I have a right to my own opinion. I suspect that most of them assume that if they could just teach me that my opinion is wrong and transgressive, I wouldn't be so unreasonable. It must be something they can fix in my mind, and being as cruel and as belittling as possible must somehow be the best way to teach me how wrong I am. (I've actually deleted this four times for fear that some commenter will yet again take it upon himself to try to teach me how wrong and stupid I am.)
And by "absolutely revolted", I mean that when I look at John Wayne on the screen I feel the same way as I do when I see a picture of Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy. All evidence might say "hero", but my subconscious says "filthy, filthy, filthy villain". And I don't know why that is.
Ebert: I don't know, either.
Maybe others here will comment...
I think John Wayne's greatest gift was his abiity to play a "man obsessed." His most noteworthy performances -- "The Searchers", "Red River", "The Quiet Man", even some scenes in "True Grit" display this ability.
He also had no problem kidding his image -- he lampoons himself pretty well in "North To Alaska" (I always felt in that film Wayne, Stewart Granger, et. al. came to have fun and Capucine came to act) and seems to be having a great time in "The Comancheros."
You are also correct about his conservatism -- it was founded on principle; I don't believe he would be enamored of the 2009 right wing, either. He had respect for others -- even Dennis Hopper speaks of a good-natured "ribbing" relationship they had.
Do you know anything about how he came to be "The Duke"? Who, when, where he received that sobriquet? It sure fits, eh?
I remember the first time I saw "The Quiet Man" and I was amazed, at that time I didn't realize how much subtlety and thoughtfulness he had.
I'm really glad to see how much you appreciated his craft and his industriousness. Thanks for the warm memories.
Ebert: Named after his childhood Airedale. In the same place I discovered he was an A student, president of his high school Latin Society, and head of the senior class. Was all-state in football, won a scholarship to USC, hired as an extra, discovered by...John Ford, of course.
You mentioned Wayne's politics, while I am politically liberal, I recognize that his quote about John F Kennedy, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president and I hope he does a good job," has to be one of the most patriotic things ever said (standing in obvious contrast to Rush Limbaugh's infamous comments about the Obama administration). However, I find it difficult to sympathize with his support of Hollywood blacklisting and Joseph McCarthy; granted, I was born in 1982 and times have changed since the Cold War. But, this strikes me as profoundly unpatriotic and un-American. How do you reconcile this?
Ebert: Nothing to reconcile. He always said he was a conservative, and he was.
I'm certain that if Wayne were still alive, he'd be a firm supporter of today's right-wingers. I suggest that speculation asserting he wouldn't support the contemporary right is primarily one's attempt to keep him likeable to liberals who find conservative viewpoints a seriously disgusting personality flaw.
I wasn't around in the 1960's and 70's, but I ask those liberals who were: did you really hate the right less back then than you do now? GW Bush and Iraq might seem traumatic, but what about Nixon and Vietnam (which I know Tricky Dick didn't initiate, but still)?
Ebert: I was around them. I admired Goldwater, Taft and Buckley. I despised Thurmond. Today, I consider someone like O'Reilly not a conservative but an odious opportunist.
Incredible to have this dialogue of his! Thanks for sharing such a rare and personal treat.
My father grew up in front of a television, and he brought us all up on classic films of the 1930s, 40s and 50s- from Saturday matinees that PBS re-aired (like Zorro and the Lone Ranger) to a variety of Westerns, most of them Wayne's. I saw True Grit when I was barely in the double digits, and was absolutely riveted.
I never thought about whether or not Wayne was handsome. It didn't matter. He was there.
I have not seen many of Clint Eastwood's films (bad me!) but he definitely comes off as a similarly real and vital man. We're watching Gran Torino soon.
Charlene, your reaction to Wayne isn't exclusive to women. I also have an innate dislike and distrust of the man. I have attempted to give him a chance, but I am simply unable to see his supposedly heroic qualities. All I see is a pig-headed man whose hubris is a danger to himself and everyone around him. I am a huge fan of tough-guy cinema, from Eastwood and Bronson to Stallone and Schwarzenegger (even Statham), yet for some reason, Wayne just comes off as an arrogant bully to me. I think this might have something to do with the fact that all those other action stars I mentioned kept some degree of ironic distance between their characters and the alpha male ideal. Wayne seemed to embody it in earnest, and since there is no more destructive force on earth than a man who always thinks he knows best, I instinctively see him, like Charlene said, as a villain.
I have never seen a John Wayne movie.
Until now, I'd never wanted to.
I'm with HAL and Charlene on this one; I can't watch a John Wayne movie. Flipping through movie channels, as soon as I see or hear him, I move on to the next channel. His jingoistic politics disgust me, and he strikes me as just another Republican chickenhawk. I saw many of his films as a kid, but as an adult, I won't watch him. The only exception is Liberty Valance, which I have not yet seen but soon will, and that largely for Jimmy Stewart, a genuine hero.
Not only do I find John Wayne the actor to be woeful and ridiculously lacking in nuance but I find man to be even more so. Understand growing up I always found him to be a bad actor but later in my life I learned more about the man himself and was pretty disgusted.
It seems, while giving him a voice here, Roger, you left out some of his most vitriolic and distasteful opinions. You leave out his part in creating the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and his direct involvement in getting Carl Foreman blacklisted because of High Noon (a better film than any he's been a part of with the exception of maybe The Searchers). You leave out his ardent support of blacklisting in general and red scare McCarthyism in particular. You leave his notorious '71 Playboy interview where he essentially states that Native Americans were hording land for themselves (no shit, it was their land) and we had every right to come here and decimate them. Better yet he goes on to say:
"But you can't whine and bellyache 'cause somebody else got a break and you didn't, like those Indians are."
Genocide is a "not getting a break"? Really? He goes on to deliver this beauty:
"I believe in white supremacy until blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."
That's a lot to gloss over, Roger. I'm 33. I didn't grow up when he did nor in his circumstances but I know well there were far more progressive, truly patriotic writers, actors and political philosophers during his lifetime and that such racist and paranoid views were not the only ones he possibly could have been exposed to. He chose them. Maybe that's why Charlene (above) perceives him as so:
"All evidence might say "hero", but my subconscious says "filthy, filthy, filthy villain."
Yeah, we all admired the Duke. Too bad he felt it necessary to profane God the Father's name and use God the Son's name as an exclamation.
Charlene on June 10, 2009 8:47 AM: "And by 'absolutely revolted,' I mean that when I look at John Wayne on the screen I feel the same way as I do when I see a picture of Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy. All evidence might say "hero", but my subconscious says 'filthy, filthy, filthy villain.' And I don't know why that is."
In The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction, Judith Fetterley famously points out that most fiction written by men does not consider a female audience. The result is an eradication of women from the author's world, replacing them with a series of simplified, even degrading, caricatures and stereotypes.
I can feel that in Wayne's pictures--in many Hollywood movies. I don't think it's Wayne's "fault," but he personifies that male-oriented authorial voice like no other actor. I cannot speak to Charlene's revulsion, but I understand her resistance. I have felt it myself--filtered more through Wayne's politics (and a fair amount of smugness--not just self-assuredness); but it's the risk Wayne took--and one I think he encouraged.
Still, as time passed (I was of draft age during the Vietnam War) I became the kind of "liberal" Wayne spoke of--willing to hear both sides before judging--and have grown to appreciate the burden of "John Wayne"--even as early as Stagecoach, where what he should do--leave the code behind, settle down with Dallas--is hindered by what he must do. That's what keeps me from demonizing Wayne: his heroic-but-weary posture. I think Wayne's performances could be self-parodying, even lazy, but that's a long way from Charles Manson. I suspect he represents for Charlene (and I apologize for being presumptuous) that male urge to see women as men see them, not as they are--and thus to eradicate them, as do those villains she refers to.
Just curious, how are you able to quote Wayne so thoroughly at a meeting where you didn't take notes? Are you paraphrasing or do you just have a really good memory?
Ebert: Most of my quotes come from other meetings. That one, I'm relying on memory, so no doubt am not exactly transcribing.
Roger--a great piece as always. Thanks for the inside perspective to a movie icon.
Charlene,
I'm going to go out on a limb here...I assume you did not grow up in the "John Wayne era," nor have you seen all of his films. Regardless, it seems that your view of John Wayne as a "filthy, filthy, filthy villain" has much more to do with him being a man, and a powerful one at that, than anything he has actually said or done. Even in your discussion of why you don't like him you take a decidedly female vs. male (or "us vs. them") approach. But comparing John Wayne, one of the biggest legends of American cinema, to serial killers like Manson, Dahmer, and Gacy makes you sound simply ignorant. I'm not trying to "correct" your opinion, of which you are entitled, but you may want to cool it on the womynism.
I doubt that any of us can possibly know why Charlene A- has such a visceral reaction to someone for, as she tells it, no reason she can think of, B- seems surprised that people find her lack of any reason to be, well, unreasonable, and C- Why in God's green Earth she wastes time re-watching movies and reading numerous biographies about someone that she loathes with such passion. Life is short.
(Perhaps some of the antagonism she is getting from her male friends is due to fear--if she can feel such revulsion toward someone (serious, serious, serial killer level revulsion) for no good reason what's to stop her from feeling similar thoughts toward others for equally nebulous reasons? Had I similar thoughts toward some actor I would probably keep them to myself until I could articulate some reason for them, lest I look like a crazy person.)
Question for Roger--is there any actor/actress today who has that quality of being a good actor while playing, essentially, the same character? I mean, I love James Cagney but whether it's a gangster or a Yankee Doodle Dandy I always know it's James Cagney. The style now is to lose your own character in the role, something I don't think Cagney or Bogart or Wayne did. I guess Christopher Walkin is the closest thing to that now.
(It occurs to me that the loss of that style of acting also killed the great comedy impressionists. You could do a bad Bogart or Cagney or Peter Lorre and people would still know who were going for. Someone could do a pitch perfect Brad Pitt and I would be none the wiser.)
What a rich, fascinating read, especially the little nuggets about John Ford. I gotta ask you, Roger, why the greatest of American directors, Ford, Keaton, Huston, Altman, never seemed to have a pretentious bone in their bodies, never put on airs, never engaged in self-indulgence, never got in the way of great story-telling, indelible characters, beautiful imagery...you know what, I think I might've answered my own question...
Dear Roger,
We just screened Stagecoach here at the Hearst Free Library in Montana. Fifty people turned out to see John Wayne and Monument Valley on the big-ish screen. It was a decidedly older crowd than we usually get for a screening. But it was easliy the biggest and most enthusiastic. People love him and can't shake his image.
What a wonderfully gracious interview from Lee Marvin. He even answered the Chris Farley question; "Remember that time in Liberty Valance when you died? That was cool."
If memory serves, didn't you also spend significant time with Marvin? Have you already 'journaled' about him or is it something to look forward too?
There have been some strange negative comments here about John Wayne. All I can say is that enough time has gone by that Wayne's body of work should speak for him. I do remember him as a politically polarizing figure as was Jane Fonda. But it's time to cut them both some slack.
Charlene might want to seek some help. All I can say is I hope she does not have any 'father' issues.
I look forward to hearing from your native American readers about John Wayne.
I had a Duke homage post all cued up for tomorrow on my blog, but, Roger, you are, of course, way ahead of me. And mine can't compete with your real memories of the Duke in person. Except for one anecdote I can share:
One of my favorite John Wayne stories has nothing to do with Westerns. An executive at the Bath Iron Works, the shipyard that has been producing US Navy vessels for over 100 years, told me about the time John Wayne was invited to christen a battleship. He smashed the champagne bottle over the hull, which was supposed to signal the hydraulics to release the ship down the ramp and into the water. Nothing happened. In as superstition-riddled an industry as the maritime world, this is the greatest bad juju -- pretty much a curse on a ship for all time. There was a horrified pause. Then the Duke reached out with one long arm and gave the bow of the ship a shove. It slid down the ramp to thunderous applause
Ebert: Now that is a story.
I'm sure my entry won't preclude yours. You are one of the best writers in the blogosphere, and in the finals for Most Likable. Your way with illustrations is high-spirited.
Readers: Do yourself the favor of clicking on "Lisa Paul" above.
Do you know anything about how he came to be "The Duke"? Who, when, where he received that sobriquet? It sure fits, eh?
Ebert: Named after his childhood Airedale.
If memory serves, this was the origin of Dr. Henry Jones' nickname, Indiana.
I grew up with John Wayne watching his movies on local television on Saturday and Sunday afternoons with my father.
I am not going to comment about those who find his acting lacking nuance, or find his political views reprehensible, or characterize his opinions as racist or sexist, etc. other than to say: People, the man was born, raised, lived, and died in a different time than today. I am very certain that if he grew up with our namby-pamby liberal arts education, from a broken home with two or three fathers and multiple siblings, with teaching responsibility being someone else's responsibility, and turning your cheek being a requirement becuase your assailant "needs love and grew up in a bad environment", he would have been "more sensitive" and less vomit inducing or stomach wretching to some who have posted here.
Ebert: I grew up in a happy household, was educated by dedicated nuns, went to three excellent universities, and learned to not make racist comments while pretending otherwise.
Jack.
Roger, that was a very interesting read, and a thoughtful recollection of the man. Nobody is perfect, but Wayne certainly has a body of work the film lovers can admire. I think also that some people must remember is that many of the older films lack the nuance of todays film because it is simply where the industry was at the time. Scripts were generally straightforward in their character treatment and plot advancement. Had there been an Ang Lee directing Wayne back in the day, who knows what might have come of it.
"By NH Bill:
There have been some strange negative comments here about John Wayne."
It's not really strange to be negative about a man who behaved like John Wayne did. He bragged about getting Carl Foreman "run out of the country" because he made a movie that was "un-American". Does that sound familiar?
If the man lived today he would be a regular guest of Hannity and O'Rielly and other hard-right wingnuts. Wayne considered anything that didn't fit his narrow world view as un-American or perverted and was vociferous about attacking it in the name of patriotism. I think Roger simply saying he was "conservative" is a bit of a cop out. His views went beyond conservative even for his time. Roger, you certainly weren't sympathetic to what Wayne tried to do with The Green Berets according to your zero star review.
Anyone who hasn't read this interview needs to:
http://www.playboy.com/articles/john-wayne-interview
(there's no nudity on the page if that's a worry to anybody)
The man seems to believe the ridiculous Western myths he took part in creating. It's hard not to walk away from that interview and not see a rather bitter, deluded man, a man wrong about every prediction he makes, griping about how the US isn't like it used to be when, in reality, it was never like he thinks it was in the first place.
what this coumtry needs is john wayne.
My favorite John Wayne film's always been RIO BRAVO. I love how Wayne's character relates to Stumpy (Walter Brennan) and how he just does the right thing in the movie like it's second nature to him. It's also, imo, the most fun John Wayne movie. Never fails, when it's on, I'll watch it.
I'll be honest and say that until the last few years, I despised John Wayne, too (although comparing him to Jeffrey Dahmer seems rather overwrought). But as I age, I find myself liking traditional Westerns more and more, and your column makes me view Wayne as a talented actor and a thoughtful human being whose world view happened to differ with mine.
No, I don't think he was perfect, but then again, who is? Thanks for the wonderful appreciation.
Roger,
Great tribute to John Wayne. I idolized him as a kid growing up in the 70's and early 80's. I own many of his films because I enjoy putting them on and re-watching them at times. The Searchers was a disappointment to me, partially because I had read so much praise for it, I doubt it could be met.
As I have tried to learn more about John Wayne now that I am an adult, I have been surprised by what I learned about him as a man. I read the Playboy interview he did - tough to read because it diminished the way I had always envisioned him - I had put him on that pedestal.
I reminded myself that he was a great actor, and the joy I get from watching his movies will not be reduced because I disagreed with some of his opinions as a person. I have religious-right friends that have lists of actors that they refuse to watch their movies because of there liberal stance in public. They refuse to see a great Sean Penn movie? Why dismiss that experience of a good movie just because of what the actor believes politically.
After reading the Playboy interview with John Wayne, I still respect his work. I did not disagree with everything he said in the interview, but I was surprised at how supportive he was of the War in Vietnam, and the Nixon administration.
I grew up on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington State - John Wayne visited that area in his boat occasionally, and owned some land near Sequim, WA. Everyone that had met him had good things to say about him - that he was a down to earth guy. So he could not have been all that bad.
I am surprised at how many of the commenter’s have such a strong dislike for John Wayne based on his politics - he was a great actor (maybe just good in some roles) and that seems to have impacted their ability to watch his movies.
For those of you that do not think John Wayne was a good actor - you are entitled to your opinions.
Mr. Ebert - thank you for sharing your memories of John Wayne - and I hope your health continues to improve. Your love of movies has helped me expand my love for movies – and the range of movies that I now enjoy. I now own over 4,000 movies and my library will continue to grow.
Ebert: That is a lot of movies.
I have decidedly mixed feelings about John Wayne. I mostly love his movies for their simplistic, rough hewn messages, but for many of the same reasons I am concerned about his politics. We want justice, fairness and self-reliance, however, their attainability is not as black and white as most of his movies would portray. But, maybe we should not be so quick to form our impressions of Wayne based only on the myth.
Gary Wills, perhaps our most astute American Historian and Chicago area resident, wrote a book about this very subject a few years back. It is called " John Waynes' America: The Politics of Celebrity". His thesis is that Wayne is a prism through which we all shoot our own political views. In Waynes' case these views embody patriotism, masculine society and self reliance. Most of our own views are formed in support of or in opposition to these categories. However, the myth of John Wayne does not fully capture the dimension of the man. I believe his role in "The Searchers" is probably more accurate in terms of his real life character than in his other more two dimensional roles.
Great post. Check out Chris Abani's novel 'Graceland' for an interesting take on John Wayne's iconic persona and the shift in how that persona is viewed in 1970s Nigeria.
http://www.amazon.com/Graceland-Today-Show-Pick-January/dp/0312425287
Also, on a side note, I recently saw a PBS show on the perception of Asians in American cinema, and they used your response to an audience member's criticism of 'Better Luck Tomorrow' at Sundance. Your rebuttal struck me as one of those things I would have thought to say on the drive home and wished I would have said at the time, so kudos for standing and delivering an eloquent and heartfelt reply in that moment.
"Personally, my greatest thrill was meeting and conversing with Nobel laureates who changed the entire world for all time whilst seeking real truth, not political leverage, public acclaim or personal wealth. I've had the honor to meet or chat with Sir Francis Crick, James Watson, Linus Pauling, Max Delbruck, and perhaps a dozen other laureates." [HAL9026, June 10th, 2009)
The late Francis Crick was NOT 'Sir' (ie never knighted) but O.M., ie a member of the Order of Merit bestowed by the Queen herself.
Dear Roger,
This was a wonderful read, thank you.
I am a fan of film regardless of genre or time period, but the John Wayne fascination has always escaped me. I watched "The Quiet Man" with my family as a child, and I studied "Stagecoach" in a college film class.
But Wayne has never interested me as much as he does now after having read this intriguing portrait. Even in a story taking place in his own home on a random afternoon, guns, tequila, and old "war wounds" are involved. Awesome.
I've always looked at The Searchers, as noot only one of the best movies ever made, but also as one of the most anti-racist. More than anything, The Searchers, is a story of redemption and healing. The crazed Confederate hero must overcome his racism and try to join the human race again. The movie was made in 1956, at the beginning of the civil rights struggle in America. Instead of addressing the issue directly, John Ford used a Western to comment on the current situation. It was a very daring movie to make. Having a hero who was a genocidal racist who shoots people in the back was different role for John Wayne and a different kind of movie for John Ford.
At the end of the movie, Martin, the "half-breed" and Debbie, the "leavin's of Comanche bucks", are allowed to enter the homestead with the Jorgensen family. Ethan, the racist, turns away and again walks away from civilization. He had made progress as the movie progressed but he still had a way to go, as did most of America in 1956.
I think John Wayne knew what the movie was saying. He wasn't a racist. He was patriotic and conservative. I think that part of his conservative beliefs held that all people were equal and The Searchers is a great testimonial to him.
Ebert: I grew up in a happy household, was educated by dedicated nuns, went to three excellent universities, and learned to not make racist comments while pretending otherwise.
I am not sure if you are talking about me or the Duke, here, Roger. If you are talking about me, I was being autobiographical: I was educated in liberal arts my entire life (B.A. and J.D. from two private universities), come from a broken-home with multiple-siblings, grew up a victim on several occasions from others abuse only to be told that the kids had a valid excuse for attacking me, and have been taught, forced to read, made to watch countless articles all regarding or defining cultural relativism, diversity, misogyny, racism, etc., and I am a white guy. My point, which may have been lost, is I am less likely to grab a girl by the arm and swing her into my chest and plant one on her because it isn't acceptable in my time, where it may have been slightly more acceptable in the Duke's time.
From your comment Roger, I think the greater point is why do we today preach understanding of other's cultures, religions and mores and lack of tolerance of these concerns as being one of the many -ists or -isms we have scourging civilization, yet we take a person out of the past and hold them accountable to some preconceived notion as to what is acceptable in 2009?
Seriously, Roger. Me a racist? That hurts, dude.
Ebert: Your post read to me as if it were in code about welfare families.
I do not hold John Wayne accountable for his past or for the times that shaped him. I wish he had been able to be more progressive. He was certainly no worse than most white males of his time, and a lot better than many.
Seeing as John Wayne was never arrested for rape or serial murder and several of his movies have strong roles for women, it's most definitely John Wayne's status as a male icon that seems to bother a lot of women not anything about John Wayne the man. As a human being, he was anything but a villain or a misogynist, but as an icon, he can stand for anything you ascribe him. Charlene's opinion on John Wayne speaks more of something in her subconscious than it does of John Wayne himself.
One of John Wayne's frequent collaborators was Howard Hawks who was considered a feminist and always gave women prominent roles in... pretty much every movie he ever made, including the ones starring John Wayne. Whatever Charlene sees in John Wayne isn't really there, at least not in Wayne himself.
"Why did he become, and remain, not only a star but an icon? He was uncommonly attractive in face and presence. He was utterly without affectation. He was at home. He could talk to anyone. You couldn't catch him acting. He was lucky to start early, in the mid-1920s, and become at ease on camera even before his first speaking role. He sounded how he looked. He was a small-town Iowa boy, a college football player. He worked with great directors. He listened to them. He wasn't a sex symbol. He didn't perform, he embodied. You liked him."
Bullet points for future stars to emulate.
Roger, thank you for a great entry, as usual. I thought the comment Wayne made about a star as opposed to an actor was really telling: "To stay a star, you have to bring along some of your own personality." They all did that back then, and it's undoubtedly why some people are repelled today. (I personally find Katharine Hepburn extremely aggravating, but it's because so many of her characters acted just like my big sister when I was growing up. Not KH's fault.)
The other thing that struck me was the liberal vs. conservative theme again. Wayne was certainly a conservative, but conservatism then was different from what it is now. Our two-party system is three decades-plus more polarized than it was back then. Before Vietnam, conservatism was mainly anti-communism; during Vietnam, it turned into pro-war; since then it has become (in my mind) unrecognizable, just like liberalism. Liberalism today means Democratic Party, and thus equates to secular, pro-big government (and regulation), pro-abortion, pro-union, pro-environmentalism, and a half dozen other things. Conservatism has paralleled by becoming religious, pro-small government (and leaving things unregulated), anti-abortion, pro-big business, pro-industrialism-at-the-environment's-expense, etc.
How can anyone get completely behind either one of those? I certainly can't. Heaven knows presidents have flaws, whether they're named Reagan, Clinton, Bush, or Obama. (Not the same things, surprise, surprise.) Isn't that true of everyone? No one's perfect, and it's silly to treat any politician as if they were, even if they embody a lot of things you like.
Wayne embodied a lot of things I like as well, although heaven knows he had flaws, too. But if he were around today, I see no reason why he wouldn't support Obama the same as he supported Kennedy. And good for him. From what I've read, he may have been too anti-communist, too pro-USA (quite possible, during Vietnam), and so on. But he stayed pretty genuine, didn't get petty or mean over such differences, and he treated individuals with respect. For someone from Hollywood, what more could you want? For someone from, well, anywhere, what more could you want?
Ebert: Whatever happened to the era when Illinois Senators Paul Douglas, the liberal lion, and Everett McKinley Dirksen, the GOP majority leader, used to have a friendly debate every month or so on WGN Radio?
THANK YOU ROGER
What a wonderful story.
I enjoy watching John Wayne’s movies and look forward to watching a few of my favorites in the near future do in part to your well told story.
In this age of DVD’s and 50” home TV screen’s a lot of people never see a movie on a real movie screen.
Some movies/movie scenes simply can not be appreciated on TV no matter the size
The crawl of the Star Destroyer in the first Star Wars movie the, the sun setting as the hero rides off into the sunset, the Titanic sinking,
I believe some thing precious is lost when you don’t not see these images they way they were meant to be seen.
I wonder how much of a business you might be able to make out of showing the Ford/Wayne Westerns on a real movie screen?
Maybe throw in a cartoon or two on a Saturday afternoon just so our dads can tell us about the days when they saw 2 newsreels and 4 cartoons and the main feature for less than a buck.
In the immortal words of another Hollywood icon
Roger, “THANKS FOR THE MEMORIES”
LOUIS
I think Charlene's revulsion can be compared to some people's revulsion for Mick Jagger. There's something about these two men -- their faces, the way they talk, the way they move -- that is unlike anything audiences had ever seen when they burst onscreen.
Compare Wayne's introduction in Stagecoach (at the 1:06 mark)...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbKuXJduEY8&feature=related
... to an early performance of Jagger singing Satisfaction...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulVDM0a49Lw
Admittedly, Wayne was helped by John Ford's iconic direction, but the choices in Wayne's acting were designed to be iconographic. Wayne knew he would be projected to thirty feet tall and adjusted his performance. Similarly, Jagger knew how his co-option of rhythm and blues moves with unbridled sexuality would go over.
This in-your-face approach forces the audience to respond. Usually, that reaction is identification -- but sometimes it's revulsion. I can't tell you how many women, including my wife, shake their head and say, "Well, I wouldn't sleep with Jagger" or "Well, I don't find John Wayne all that interesting."
And yet their power is impossible to deny, as evidenced by the way their style has been absorbed into movies and music. We'd be disappointed if Harrison Ford didn't take a punch, pause and then punch back. Or if the American Idol contestants didn't make love to the camera with their eyes.
But when Wayne and Jagger burst onto the scene, nobody was prepared for it. And it's still sort of breathtaking to watch.
In the late 1970s, I moved to Durand Wisconsin for a job at the local radio station. Durand is/was a very small town in West Central Wisconsin, with few places to rent. I rented a room from a local woman, the widow of John Wayne who happened to be the actor Marion Morrison's cousin and from whom he got his career name.
Roger, can you verify this?
Ebert: Afraid not. I found this on the web: After Ford recommended Marion Marrison to Raoul Walsh for "The Big Trail"...
" There was one problem: his name. It would be difficult to convince the American public that Marion Morrison was a tough trail scout. Duke Morrison was considered and dropped. The name of a General from the American War of Independence was suggested. "Mad" Anthony Wayne. Anthony was replaced with John. Consequently, without any say in the matter, Duke acquired his screen name: John Wayne."
Lots more here:
http://www.apex.net.au/~mhumphry/wayne.html
So, Mickey, you're back, huh? What happened, you got furlough or something?
Let me guess: your abonimable writing is NOT a product of "our namby-pamby liberal arts education" system, and you really meant to write "...he would have been 'more sensitive' and less vomit-inducing or stomach-wrenching than some who have posted here," right?
Go back to your hole and quit reading/writing here if it's so hard on your digestion, Mickey.
Ebert: Sounds like you and Mickey go way back.
Whatever his social or political impact, John Wayne and his films will always hold a special place in my heart. In my youth, the release of Wayne movies onto VHS provided me with a gateway to the world of classic film. One of my fondest childhood memories is being held in awe by films like Fort Apache, The Searchers, or even lesser films like McLintock. Through his movies I was introduced to some of the all time great directors-people like John Ford or Howard Hawks-along with allowing me to discover some of the best "journeymen" directors the studio system had to offer, for example, the under-rated Henry Hathaway or Raoul Walsh.
Your post has affirmed something that I always wanted to be true about Wayne the man (and not necessarily Wayne the icon)that he was a well meaning, passionately patriotic man.(Patriotic in an honest way, not in the way the Right-wing has mutated the term these days.)
This post gives Wayne shades of gray that neither his admirers on the right nor his detractors on the left ever think to apply to him.
Thank you for this insight into one of the most misunderstood film icons of the 20th century!
Have you seen Wayne's first starring role in Raoul Walsh's "The Big Trail," Roger? There was a new DVD that came out a year or so ago (it's very cheap, actually, but great quality), and even then, the Duke was basically the Duke. Some people are just like that.
I've been meaning to get around to "True Grit" for ages now.
martin packer: "The late Francis Crick was NOT 'Sir' (ie never knighted) but O.M., ie a member of the Order of Merit bestowed by the Queen herself."
Apparently the attribution is a faulty meme in widespread circulation. "In addition to the 1962 Nobel prize he received many awards and honours, including the Royal and Copley medals of the Royal Society (1972 and 1975), and also the Order of Merit (November 27 1991); he refused an offer of a CBE in 1963 and later refused an offer of a knighthood, but was often referred to in error as 'Sir Francis Crick' and even on occasions as 'Lord Crick'; Richard Lewontin's review of The Double Helix by James Watson in "The Chicago Sunday Times" on February 25 1968 contained an astonishing four references to "Sir Francis Crick" - in error." (From Wikipedia)
Thanks for the correction. We should certainly strive for accuracy in all issues represented to the public.
Ebert: Nobody's perfect. Wikipedia makes an astonishing reference to the Chicago Sunday Times, a newspaper that does not exist.
I'm amazed by how so many of the comments have focused on John Wayne's politics. There was a great episode of Seinfeld that ridiculed this idea that everyone we associate with or do business with has to agree with our politics (in that case it was abortion). It's just silly. I gently pointed this out to my wife, after she went back in to our dentist to ask about the NRA poster on their door. Sure, I may not be a fan of the NRA, but if you followed that rule you wouldn't find a dentist in our town. Besides, our dentist is a great dentist, and that's what we're there for. I don't think John Wayne was a great actor. But I love "The man who shot Liberty Valance", and I certainly wouldn't want to miss it because I happen to strongly disagree with his politics. I also love "The Quiet Man", even though the scene where Wayne drags Maureen O'Hara across the country side makes me queasy. I could never decide if it was because of the scene itself, or the fact that the movie seems to be saying that she wanted him to force her (similar to the bedroom scene, which is also troubling). Does a scene like this mean John Ford is sexist, and we should boycott his movies? (that's a rhetorical question, of course)
Andrew McLaglen directed some of Wayne's movies. Last I heard of him, he was living in Friday Harbor, a couple of islands away from the mainland where I live. He's 6'7"; with Wayne at 6'4", that must have been a sight to behold.
Yep, all the way back to January, at least! We had our little contretemps in both "The birds of prey are circling" and "Darwin survives as the fittest."
Another great blog. I like many grew up watching these films with my father, who though lifelong from the south, never engaged or verbalized prejudice. Perhaps the movies, and the Man, symbolize an earlier time where things at least seemed more clear and simple, even though they might not have been. Whether we agreed or not, we seem to know where John Wayne stood. The "genuineness." There are many of his statements of which I was not aware but it doesn't spoil the body of my enjoyment of his great work.
Lastly, hasn't anyone else been mulling over the scene in Smoke Signals about "John Wayne's teeth.
Ebert: So many of the posters grew up watching John Wayne with gtheir dads. None with their moms...
I am relatively new to your blog (about 6 months). I have been very impressed with both your writing and the quality of the comments by readers. That is why many of the comments responding to this particular entry are something of a shock. The level of personal animosity reflected between readers is a surprise. I believe, and fervently hope, this is an aberration. Personal attacks - whether discreet or blatant - is more in line with some of the sports blogs I read, not what I have come to admire here.
That said, I have to agree with Joe V. Separate the actor from their politics. A conservative will be missing out if they disregard the work of Tim Robbins because he is liberal and a liberal will be missing out if they disregard the work of Charlton Heston because he was the face of the NRA.
I believe John Wayne has become a polarized figure. He is placed on too high a pedestal by the right and demonized too much by the left. I believe you noted he was a little more complex and had more shades of gray than generally given credit.
I guess my bottom line is: Regardless of his politics, despite the debate about whether he was a good actor or not, I continue to enjoy and be entertained by his movies.
Ebert: There have really only been two readers expressing personal animosity on this thread, and they have a history, I tend to quietly dampen flame wars. We are past 2,100 comments and 600,000 words on the Ben Stein entry, with ToC and ID supporters going at each other hammer and tongs, and yet no flames, or only intellectual ones,
We cultivate great comments because we keep out the bottom-feeders. People discover it is worth writing for these readers.
Disagree with a liberal? You must be a racist, sexist, warmongering, irrational oppressor who values "rights" over justice.
Disagree with a conservative? You must be a statist, communist, unpatriotic, emotional totalitarian who values "equality" over freedom.
Any wonder that political discourse in this country is so vitriolic? Can't any of us be wrong without being evil, too?
Anyway, loved your reminiscences of John Wayne, Roger. If you weren't quoting him exactly, you must've been close because I hear his voice reading your lines.
I didn't much care for westerns when I was a kid. When you're 8 and you've just seen 'Star Wars', stories of guys riding around on horses can seem pretty mundane. But, just as I grew to love spinach, I grew to love the western. And, sure enough, I grew to love John Wayne.
He was larger than life and always on the right side. He could be tough but not unjust. He was brave, confident, and determined. He believed in fair play and honest work. He could be a bit forceful in his methods, but he always upheld the rule of law. He never turned his back on a friend. He was an ideal, a role model, a vision of ourselves on our best days.
Yes, other westerns with stars like Clint Eastwood were harder edged, filled with more violence and savage thrills, but, while I loved those, too, there's something about Wayne's optimism, fair-mindedness, and--dare I say?--civility that endures with the viewer long after adrenaline spikes have subsided.
And I disagree with those who say John Wayne never really acted. Look at Ringo ('Stagecoach'), Ethan Edwards ('The Searchers'), Tom Dunson ('Red River'), Sean Thornton ('The Quiet Man'), or Rooster Cogburn ('True Grit') and tell me they're all just John Wayne being John Wayne. No, he wasn't Sir Laurence Olivier, but I doubt they were up for many of the same roles anyway.
I'm smart enough to know that the cinematic John Wayne and the historical John Wayne aren't the same man. But it's largely academic to discuss what the historical man would've thought; he's long gone. The celluloid version--the one forever spinning his rifle on the stagecoach trail or reeling in Maureen O'Hara for a kiss--is immortal. He'll still be alive for moviewatchers in a hundred years.
And doesn't that thought make you happy?
I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and growing up I saw my share of John Wayne films. I guess I liked his movies well enough at first. His portrayal of Davy Crockett's death in The Alamo was particularly throat-lump-inducing. (It broke my heart when I learned that the real Davy Crockett's death was nothing like that.) Then I hit adolescence, and the U.S. hit its Civil-Rights-Vietnam-era growing pains at around the same time. My generation had been raised to believe that whatever U.S. soldiers did was heroic by definition, and our various misadventures in Central America, the Middle East, etc., didn't fit that picture, and so consequently weren't talked about very much. When these things finally started to be talked about, Wayne was among those who in real life consistently told us it was unpatriotic to look at our actions critically. I found and still find this sort of willful myopia to be juvenile, and a reason why we get ourselves into so much trouble overseas. I took from Wayne's public pronouncements that the John Wayne film persona and political persona were identical: if he shot an Indian on film, then by golly that Indian deserved shooting, and only a bleeding heart would tell you otherwise. Similarly, if he called you Unamerican, then by golly you were Unamerican. It became all but impossible for me to watch a John Wayne movie after that. His The Green Berets was truly insulting to his political opponents, no matter what he might have claimed about being liberal and seeing both sides. To me that was the last straw.
By the way, lately I've striven to rehabilitate my image of him by seeing Rio Bravo and Red River. I was glad to see and be reminded of what to me is Wayne's saving grace -- that soft-spoken, human side he would show in his pictures' quieter moments. My favorite scenes are always the ones round the campfire or in the sheriff's office, talking quietly and candidly while waiting for the inevitable showdown, giving Dean Martin room to wrestle his demons or the great Walter Brennan space to be Walter Brennan. Wayne the listener and responder emerges then, finally, and this lends gravitas to the man of action. And I've always liked how polite, almost courtly, he was around the woman-folk, on screen, at least. (We'll set aside the story about Wayne in real life dumping a plate of mashed potatoes over Geraldine Page's head.)
Even so, when he starts a-blustering and a-shooting all those nameless enemies, count me out of the fan club.
Roger, love the blog, the forum and the majority of comments here. But I had to say: Mickey's point was not without merit. Crudely made, sure. But racist? Your response revealed more about your own predispositions than his.
Ebert: I hope so.
You've explained to your readers, in the past, that "the curse of the critic is that we are required to tell the truth". Did you feel somewhat guilty, then, when you were left with no choice but to give a zero-star review to "The Green Berets" after already visiting Wayne on the set not once, but three times?
In your 1968 review, you wrote of the film, "it is offensive not only to those who oppose American policy but even to those who support it. At this moment in our history, locked in the longest and one of the most controversial wars we have ever fought, what we certainly do not need is a movie depicting Vietnam in terms of cowboys and Indians. That is cruel and dishonest and unworthy of the thousands who have died there."
When you were facing Wayne on the set, did you ever receive the temptation to cry out, "This is wrong! You're making this film all wrong!"?
Ebert: I didn't know it at the time.
Still, he was willing to talk to me those two other times.
A great review of the life and times of a totally American actor, John Wayne.
It's those memories of Wayne and the films he made with John Ford that moved me to take a trip to Monument Valley this spring. Just the sight of those red rocks was jaw dropping and awe inspiring - better in many ways to the time I spent at the Grand Canyon, because there was no smog and no crowds. Thanks again.
Ebert: ''Wayne was rejected for service because of an ear infection and partial deafness. I assume that was on the level.''
From the website "The Straight Dope" (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1055/was-john-wayne-a-draft-dodger):
"Dear Cecil:
In your book The Straight Dope you were asked whether John Wayne had ever served in the military. You said no--that though Wayne as a youth had wanted to become a naval officer, "during World War II, he was rejected for military service." However, it may be more interesting than that. According to a recent Wayne bio, for all his vaunted patriotism, Wayne may actually have tried to stay out of the service."
— Virgiejo, via AOL
Cecil replies:
"John Wayne, draft dodger? Oh, what delicious (if cheap) irony! But that judgment is a little harsh. As Garry Wills tells the story in his book "John Wayne's America: The Politics of Celebrity" (1997), the Duke faced a tough choice at the outset of World War II. If he wimped out, don't be so sure a lot of us wouldn't have done the same.
At the time of Pearl Harbor, Wayne was 34 years old. His marriage was on the rocks but he still had four kids to support. His career was taking off, in large part on the strength of his work in the classic western "Stagecoach" (1939). But he wasn't rich. Should he chuck it all and enlist? Many of Hollywood's big names, such as Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, and Clark Gable, did just that. (Fonda, Wills points out, was 37 at the time and had a wife and three kids.) But these were established stars. Wayne knew that if he took a few years off for military service, there was a good chance that by the time he got back he'd be over the hill.
Besides, he specialized in the kind of movies a nation at war wanted to see, in which a rugged American hero overcame great odds. Recognizing that Hollywood was an important part of the war effort, Washington had told California draft boards to go easy on actors. Perhaps rationalizing that he could do more good at home, Wayne obtained 3-A status, "deferred for [family] dependency reasons." He told friends he'd enlist after he made just one or two more movies.
The real question is why he never did so. Wayne cranked out thirteen movies during the war, many with war-related themes. Most of the films were enormously successful and within a short time the Duke was one of America's most popular stars. His bankability now firmly established, he could have joined the military, secure in the knowledge that Hollywood would welcome him back later. He even made a half-hearted effort to sign up, sending in the paperwork to enlist in the naval photography unit commanded by a good friend, director John Ford.
But he didn't follow through. Nobody really knows why; Wayne didn't like to talk about it. A guy who prided himself on doing his own stunts, he doesn't seem to have lacked physical courage. One suspects he just found it was a lot more fun being a Hollywood hero than the real kind. Many movie star-soldiers had enlisted in the first flush of patriotism after Pearl Harbor. As the war ground on, slogging it out in the trenches seemed a lot less exciting. The movies, on the other hand, had put Wayne well on the way to becoming a legend. "Wayne increasingly came to embody the American fighting man," Wills writes. In late 1943 and early 1944 he entertained the troops in the Pacific theater as part of a USO tour. An intelligence bigshot asked him to give his impression of Douglas MacArthur. He was fawned over by the press when he got back. Meanwhile, he was having a torrid affair with a beautiful Mexican woman. How could military service compare with that?
In 1944, Wayne received a 2-A classification, "deferred in support of [the] national . . . interest." A month later the Selective Service decided to revoke many previous deferments and reclassified him 1-A. But Wayne's studio appealed and got his 2-A status reinstated until after the war ended.
People who knew Wayne say he felt bad about not having served. (During the war he'd gotten into a few fights with servicemen who wondered why he wasn't in uniform.) Some think his guilty conscience was one reason he became such a superpatriot later. The fact remains that the man who came to symbolize American patriotism and pride had a chance to do more than just act the part, and he let it pass."
— Cecil Adams
"He rests in an unmarked grave."..Ebert
At least used to. On same theme:
"Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie.
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.
This be the verse you grave for me;
"Here he lies where he longed to be,
Home is the sailor, home from sea,
And the hunter home from the hill."
-- Robert L. Stevenson
This is in response to D.N.
In Boston Sports writing legend Leigh Montville's book about Ted Williams you'll find a reference to Williams being the 'real John Wayne'. His hard drinkin' free swingin' personality was similar to the on screen character. But unlike Wayne, Williams walked away from Baseball not once but twice. He served as a Marine pilot in WWII and was John Glenn's wing man in Korea. Williams was not only the last man to hit over .401 in Baseball but was one of this country's finest Top Guns. Here's the best part if you know anyone who has ever had chemotherapy thank Ted. His fund raising efforts on behalf on Boston's Jimmy Fund was instrumental in the development of the cancer treatment. There is a statue of Teddy Ballgame at Fenway Park. Is he swinging for the fences? Nope. He's putting his cap on the bald head of a very young cancer patient.
Sorry Mr. Ebert but I wrote this during the 9th inning of a 6-5 Red Sox win over the Yankees.
If you want to see a bit of Ted's statue or find out about the Jimmy Fund here is a link:
http://www.jimmyfund.org/abo/press/pressreleases/2004/041604.asp
That Playboy interview is unbelievably sad. It is at once disappointing and ridiculous and I would say that about an actor of any political stripe who presumed to know so much about the world and what was good for America. His patronizing attitude towards young people is especially disappointing.
All film requires from the audience some suspension of disbelief. In regards to Wayne I will suspend thinking about the Playboy interview and certain aspects of his character. Instead I choose to remember the great films Wayne made that give me joy and Ebert's recollections; for me that's enough truth to suffice.
Democrats need to stop putting the Vietnam War on Nixon. Nixon pulled us out of Vietnam after it was clear that it couldn't be won. Other than him, the other Presidents who served during Vietnam were Democrats. Stop acting like it was the Republicans fault we were in that place. Pull your head out.
Another great subject Roger - it brought me back to my teenage years in Alamogordo, New Mexico. I was 17 and the projectionist at the local theatre and drive in. I can't begin to tell you how many times we played "The War Wagon" (with Kirk Douglas) over and over and over again. We always knew if we were playing a John Wayne movie, any title, we would be packed.
I like a good John Wayne movie. My dad lives on them now-a-days. A movie pack of 'dusters' is always welcome around Christmas.
My favourite is probably True Grit. I like his vunerability in that one. Usually a John Wayne character is all encompassing and in total control of the world around him. Like he could go anywhere and do anything. In True Grit, I could imagine that character wandering into a big city and being completely out of place, not understanding it, eager to get back to his element, his values, his people.
It's interesting to read the female reaction to JW. I recall the beginning of the movie What Women Want, where Mel Gibson's character was described as a Man's Man. Can you imagine?? That character wasn't a man's man, he was a lady's man. There is no such confusion with John Wayne.
My parents lived two blocks from Wayne in Newport Beach
back in the 1960's. I remember meeting him when he
attended a neighborhood beach party - sans toupee.
He was talking with my father and swigging a beer.
I was about to enter college and was interested in a career
in motion pictures. After my Dad introduced me, he asked
Duke if he knew of a good film school to send me to.
Wayne said, "The best film school I know is called 'twenty
years of hard knocks'!"
Ebert: Heresy from a USC guy!
Charlene wrote on June 10, 2009 8:47 AM - "I've also learned to keep my opinion to myself around men because when I have mentioned it to a guy, he will never believe it's not due to Wayne's politics. The guy invariably becomes angry and cruel and belittling and vicious, and refuses to admit that I have a right to my own opinion... (I've actually deleted this four times for fear that some commenter will yet again take it upon himself to try to teach me how wrong and stupid I am.)
I've read a lot of posts inside Roger's blog but yours has genuinely pierced me. As I can only imagine what's gone into the making of the above, and it gives rise to such empathy on my part for what it seems to reveal of another's circumstances.
First: To Bill Mulligan and Daniel A;
Thank-you both for illustrating the very thing Charlene is so afraid of encountering, that it prompted her to delete a post 4 times before finding the courage to submit one; as it serves to underscores why she hesitated in the first place.
When I don't understand something or it doesn't make sense to me, I ask questions so as to learn more. Why didn't you? As your response strikes me as being unkind without due cause. "Had I similar thoughts toward some actor I would probably keep them to myself until I could articulate some reason for them, lest I look like a crazy person" - and - "I'm not trying to "correct" your opinion, of which you are entitled, but you may want to cool it on the womynism" etc.
Look crazy? What about being afraid to look like a "BEEP!"
Womynism? "The word womanism was adapted from Pulitzer Prize winning author, Alice Walker. In her book "In Search of Our Mother’s Garden: Womanist Prose", Walker used the word to describe the perspective and experiences of "women of color". - Wiki
I'm not trying to correct your opinion Daniel, of which you are entitled, but you may want to learn WTF you're talking about the next time you pretend not to correct a woman. Cough.
Charlene owned up front that she was afraid and tried four times to write a post - maybe that's why she didn't word things entirely to your satisfaction. Maybe she was so wary of putting a foot wrong for having been bullied in the past, and it got in the way of articulating what she was TRYING to convey? Ever think of that? NO. You pounced instead. Shame on you!
Note: at least Paul J. Marasa tried to understand where she might have been coming from.
Go gentle into that good night, By Roger Ebert on May 2, 2009
"Kindness" covers all of my political beliefs. No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end of it all, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn't always know this, and am happy I lived long enough to find it out."
Sometimes, there are days inside your blog Roger, when I wonder how many people actually pay attention to what you write or even care.
Charlene;
I'm Canadian and my Dad grew-up on a farm in Saskatchewan before moving to British Columbia, where I'm from. He loves all that "Cowboys & Indians" stuff, which in my house proved to be the antithesis of my world: the Arts. And whenever I complained of how badly the cowboys were behaving towards the Indians for example, I was encouraged NOT to share my point of view, which was also then belittled. However instead of that making me fearful of reproach, it had the opposite effect; it got my back up! It offended my sense of self-worth and burgeoning artist ego. :)
And my childhood experiences, coupled with working with men in Animation, taught me how to stand my ground. No single person owns the planet you live on, Charlene. You have just as much right to express a point of view and shouldn't be afraid to. NOTE: when you capitulate to a bully, you just end up empowering the boot pressing down on you - so push back! True, I don't know your personal circumstances and one has to pick and choose their battles, but who taught you to be afraid? Where was your mom? Is it not safe to contradict the men where you live?
When it comes to John Wayne and politics, he's dead and Vietnam is over. As for his physical appearance, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and while he's not my personal cup of tea, I don't dislike him; so I'm neutral. If I have any issues with the guy, it's the image he came to represent.
As an actor, John Wayne embodied the American values of the day. He gave young, white men a hero they could look up to, while being an iconic symbol of manhood; the essence of what a real man should be. The very myth that actor/comedian Dennis Leary would in time embody the deconstruction of, as seen on HBO's "Rescue Me" and even earlier in his infamous song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7hY8iJvIkQ
Otherwise, I liked all those John Ford films and the Director himself, who was not as he seemed in public but much softer, kinder. Now, as for you disliking John Wayne's appearance - I understood your examples and what you'd meant by them. Someone mentioned Mick Jagger, as well. Ie: a famous face you can point to, so as to compare it to another face. Case in point:
Even though Michael C. Hall is playing a serial killer on "Dexter" I still think he's attractive. Whereas Mick Jagger? Nope. And I've always had a soft spot for Wallace Shawn - and he's hardly Brad Pitt. But then and no offense to Pitt, I like Sam Witwer way better. And Tom Hardy and Tahmoh Penikett and Jesse L. Martin. I liked Bogart better than Redford and couldn't stand Clark Gable. So the fact that you don't like John Wayne in and of itself, is just apples vs oranges. Totally subjective. Anyone failing to afford you that is a hypocrite - as WE all do it. We all like or dislike this or that face for reason we can't always put a finger on.
So for me, the real mystery is why you feel repulsion. As that's pretty strong.
When you look at John Wayne, specifically what sort of man does he look like to you? Which isn't to describe his features but rather, the sort of man you'd tend to associate with having them. And can you think of anyone else who looks like John Wayne? Who might have played a part in a creepy movie, maybe? Sometimes, faces can contain aspects and elements of other faces and in truth amounts to an amalgamation of features; maybe you're reacting to that?
Either way, I don't think you're crazy for having your feelings, or trying to express them. Your post made me curious and that's a good thing! That's how I learn stuff. Just ask Roger. :)
That aside, as because someone made me curious, I did indeed check out Lisa Paul's blog... and OMG!
"My Vampire Can Kick Your Vampire’s Sparkly Little Butt" - Lisa Paul
Yes. Yes he can, Lisa. Vampire Bill can totally hold his own. :)
Twilight is beyond a joke, of course, but I continue to gleefully mock it with the Jossverse and memories of Spike. Who, despite being a Vampire, absolutely didn't suck.
Ebert: Charlene's post began an entirely appropriate discussion on this thread.
I was aware of John Wayne before I knew his name. Back in the days of Broadcast only televison and 3 channels plus PBS, John Wayne was on television in movies often enough for me, at the age of 5, to think of him as "that man". As I recally, my impression of him onscreen was of a man that was tough, brave, but not invincible.
When he died, it was like something terrible had happened to a distant relative, not that my parents made a big deal out of it. As I grew up, and cable opened up the chance to see more of his movies, I enjoyed seeing him play a variety of parts, all of which seemed to hark back to my first impression of him, as "that man, tough, brave, but not invincible." But there was more. He wasn't infallible, and he wasn't always right. He did his best as he saw fit.
I have to say that I actually feel sorry for those that find him repulsive - physically or politically - and while I can understand how one's political views can take such a deep hold that you cannot view the world except through its filter, I simply cannot understand how anyone could look at John Wayne and see a villain. He wasn't perfect, but then who is.
This clip from a Dean Martin show is kind of hokey, but at about 1:45 in, Wayne starts talking about his hopes for his daughter. And yeah, he's an old fashioned guy, but when he says "I don't really care if she ever memorizes the Gettysburg Address, just so long as she understands it" I feel like he was saying that symbols of patriotism don't matter, while an understanding of our country's core values do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBQ1T1sQQ_E
Dean Martin, at the end, says "I'm proud to know you Duke". I wish I could have. I'll take imperfect John Wayne over arrogant Russell Crowe any day.
By ChloeM on June 10, 2009 6:02 PM
Andrew McLaglen directed some of Wayne's movies. Last I heard of him, he was living in Friday Harbor, a couple of islands away from the mainland where I live. He's 6'7"; with Wayne at 6'4", that must have been a sight to behold."
Andrew is indeed alive and still working at the age of 88. He turns 89 this July. He is the only living director who directed both John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. He directed the most episodes of "Gunsmoke" and "Have Gun Will Travel" among many, many television shows. Listen to his commentary on the DVD of "Chisum" sometime to get a take on what it was like to direct John Wayne. He now directs plays.
Although John Ford directed John Wayne in the most movies, Andrew did 5(and he co-directed many other of Wayne's movies) so the total is higher in a way. It's too bad no film festival the last few years has honored him.
It wasn't just Ford and Howard Hawks who influenced John Wayne's image. Check out the films he did with Andrew and you'll see that as well.
Thanks for the memories Roger of John Wayne.
See John Wayne meet a "Beatle":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7kOkFIIYhE
As with many others who have posted here, my Dad got me hooked on John Wayne when I was kid. Besides seeing almost all of his available movies (many more than once), I've read nearly every biography written about his life. I am to young to have met him, but I have talked to people who have. Everything I know about John Wayne points to one conclusion. He was a decent man.
Which, regarding most actors, would be an irrelevant statement to a discussion of their craft. But John Wayne is more than that, whether people want to admit it or not. And it is because that he is so mythic, that discussions about his films quickly devolve into discussions on politics, Vietnam, the playboy interview, or draft dodging. (A side note on that topic: My own grandfather, who would be the exact same age as Wayne, sat out WWII with only two children. My understanding is that few men in their mid-thirties with several children were called to combat.) Wayne's mythic presence in our culture is why detractors feel the need to tear him down, and why fans (such as myself) choose to defend him
I'm a democrat, so of course there are a great many stances he had that I may disagree with. But I can recognize that disagreement or not, he was a descent man. If he was half the villainous individual some try to make him seem, he would not have had the staunch of democratic friends he had. From Sinatra to Jimmy Carter (and of course John Ford), there were many people who disagreed with the Duke, but got along very well with him.
Liberal versus conservative politics aside, John Wayne went out of his way to meet fans, to be nice to the public, and even nice to critics (as Roger noted.) John Wayne never turned a way a kid asking for an autograph, and from what I've read, was polite to everyone regardless of circumstances. More than that, he worked hard to make sure that his characters were good and descent. In fact, he was so staunch in his belief that movies should be clean for children, it almost seems that he and Tipper Gore coordinated statements. These are standards that virtually no modern actor lives up to.
Also, Roger, I believe you are absolutely right that Wayne would now be disenfranchised with the republican party. Wayne was a staunch supporter of Barry Goldwater throughout Goldwater's career. Most Goldwater republicans are disgusted with the modern neo-com (O'Reily, Limbaugh) and have divorced themselves from the republican party. (See the book, Invasion of the Party Snatchers, by Victor Gold.) I have no doubt that Wayne would have the same feelings.
So, ultimately, thanks Roger for this wonderful reflection on the Duke. It made my evening.
He was my father's favourite. When I was a little girl Mr. Wayne served as grand marshall of our Fourth of July parade. Daddy had to work that day, so Mother and I went to the parade and made sure we got a place in front so we could tell him everything we saw, in detail. I still remember how much fun it was relating to my father exactly what John Wayne was like in person! He was bigger than life. Mr. Wayne and my Daddy.
Oh, thanks be to Roger Ebert (or, at least the blog)!
Reading this blog brought back the scene from Repo Man in which Tracey Walter's character calls John Wayne "a fag"(!), inspiring all the other antagonized men in the scene to rally against him, to which Walter's character relates an absurd story about John Wayne coming to the door in a dress.
This blog put me in the mood for Repo Man!
Many people say "they don't make them like they used to", and that's true- but if the craft never changed, we wouldn't have Repo Man or The Man Who Fell to Earth or Alphaville or the luminance of Tarantino (and such).
Random- It's time for Mr. Ebert to go back on the Charlie Rose show!
More random- Wouldn't it be a guilty pleasure to see an art-house, surrealist slasher film, with a black-gloved killer walking into a room full of John Wayne mannequins and slashing them up (that's for Charlene)!
Most random- To borg, or not to borg- John Wayne would've made a great borg in Star Trek (take that Patrick Stewart). John Wayne would have made a great villain on "24" (oh no, they didn't!). The sequel to Being John Malkovich can be Being John Wayne, and Malkovich can play Wayne!
Looking back at what happened in Vietnam after1975(boat people, labor camps, etc.)I've been puzzledever since I saw GREEN BERETSin 1968: Who was right: John Wayne or Hanoi Jane?
I am one of those who has felt an unease about Wayne's hyper-masculine roles because of his apparent draft-dodger status. After reading this piece, I looked up what I could find on several websites. They all told pretty much the same story, and now I feel I understand the whole thing a bit better (albeit as an outsider).
I take away from all this reading that as ashamed as some of his audience and apparently, his colleagues and friends were for his lack of momentum in getting involved in the war, that he was at least as disappointed in himself. That is a heavy burden to bear, and it does not surprise me that he tried to become in films the man he could not become in real life; and that perhaps at times he fooled himself into thinking he had. So thanks for your post that educated me on parts of the man, and for making me educate myself on other parts.
I probably spend about as much time analyzing his performances as he did. Fact is, he was fun to watch on the screen, even as predictably uber-manly as his characters were. The reason "The Searchers" is my favorite Wayne film is simply that, until the very end, I did not know what he would do. The suspense was quite enjoyable. And for all the hype about the testosterone-laden film roles he took, he was at his best when opposite a strong female character who didn't take any BS from him.
You mentioned the other day where you where when Elvis died (in the newsroom). Where were you when John Wayne died?
Ebert: Monument Valley, singing "Red River Vally" around a campfire.
Roger, great stuff as usual. That might be the best lede I've read since ... well ... maybe the last one you wrote.
Have you - or anyone else who happens to be reading this post - ever read Joan Didion's essay on The Duke ("John Wayne: A Love Song")? Heartily recommended.
I'd also like to mention that my grandmother was in love with John Wayne. She had a framed, poster-sized rendering of the Duke in full cowboy regalia down the hallway on the wall between her bedroom and the bathroom. I used to stay there during summers, and every morning John Wayne would greet me in that dark, cramped hallway. My grandmother's favorite Wayne movie? Wake of the Red Witch.
NH Bill: While Ted Williams served in both WWII & Korea, he didn't serve in the Korean War very willingly.
He was furious at being called back, believing that his WWII service was enough.
Roger: Just a beautiful piece of writing, but you made a couple of spelling errors.
You misspelled Harry Carey's last name & compounded that by putting up a poster of one of Wayne's movies with his name on it correctly spelled.
I believe you also misspelled Mary Knoblauch's last name.
Ebert: Both actually typos. I know, likely story...
Actually Roger, Ron and I do go way back and I thought we had a bit of a detente (Christ, where are the accent aigu on my keyboard!) as I think we agree to disagree on our political, social, and religious philosophies. We feel (correct me if I am wrong here, Ron) that we are both kooks, but I am happier to know that we have your forum to elaborate upon our beliefs.
Regarding my typing, I admit that I am more of a product of Grammatik check than I am a poor writer. I also do not have the benefit of going back into a post and editing my typing upon having an "oh crap" moment of seeing something that was spelled incorrectly, wrong tense, poorly worded, etc.
And, I do have a BA and JD. That I received my JD from the same University as the current Vice President maybe does not help my case that I am not an idiot. However, I did not major in "Typing in little blog boxes" or "Marginalization of Others Opinions because they make a grammatical error".
By Doug P. on June 10, 2009 10:23 PM: "That Playboy interview is unbelievably sad. It is at once disappointing and ridiculous ... . All film requires from the audience some suspension of disbelief. In regards to Wayne I will suspend thinking about the Playboy interview and certain aspects of his character. Instead I choose to remember the great films Wayne made that give me joy and Ebert's recollections; for me that's enough truth to suffice."
Doug, don't block out "certain aspects of his character": That's half the pleasure of watching a Wayne performance. The Searchers comes to mind--as it has for many others. Ethan is not likable. He's bullying, patronizing, cruel. When I was teaching a film class at our local correctional facility and showed this film, we discussed those elements of his character--and someone pointed out that all that's true, but when you're standing on a river bank and a horde of Indians are surging at you, Ethan is the one you want at your side.
So part of what may be discomfiting about "John Wayne" is that American history has, every once in a while, made him necessary. You don't like Ethan? Then forget Manifest Destiny. The Green Berets makes you squirm? Tell that to the Silent Majority. As Wayne himself once pointed out, he does not act but react. Ford plunks him down into Monument Valley with kindly settlers who get slaughtered--and he reacts, and, as Roger puts it, decides "when, and why, and how to take the situation under his control."
This is summed up well by Ryan on June 11, 2009 5:23 AM: "The reason 'The Searchers' is my favorite Wayne film is simply that, until the very end, I did not know what he would do. The suspense was quite enjoyable." Durn tootin, Ryan.
p.s. Thanks to Marie Haws for her kind words. Gosh, Ma'm, I'm jes' tryin' t'be one-a them thar New Males.
I think my favorite of Wayne's movies are probably Stagecoach ("What I remember is the time John Wayne killed three men with a carbine as he was falling to the dusty street in 'Stagecoach' - The Moviegoer), the obsessional Wayne of Red River, The Quiet Man, even the troubled and vulnerable Sargeant of Midway but probably the best in my opinion is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. I just really enjoy films that allow for an actor to meditate upon their own legacy. It is also such a fascinating study of manhood, contrasting the more academic, somewhat feminine (in relation) Jimmy Stewart character who Wayne provides a prop for in the fading lawlessness of the West. Stewart provides the model for manhood that will come to be more realized, while the ghost of the old version will never really die. That's why that first dramatic entrance of Wayne in Stagecoach is really kind of a beginning of an era of a certain type of film that would give us an idealized vision of manhood. Clint Eastwood would come along and show us the dark complexities and ethical ambiguities such an ideal would beg.
Ebert: And the time the cat rubbed up against Orson Welles' shoe.
One of my favorite Mike Royko columns reflected on his unapologetic regard for John Wayne. The column begins:
During the late 1960s, I had a serious falling out with a liberal friend. He was against the Vietam War, and so was I. he didn't liek Richard Nixon or George Wallace or J. Edgar Hoover, and I didn't either. But I was a John Wayne fan, and he couldn't understand that. John Wayne, he argued, stood for everything that was wrong. He glorified war, violence, justice by the fun, male chauvinism, simple-minded solutions, and even racism in the casual way he shot down Indians. So how could I like a man who represented all of that? My answer drove him up the wall and almost ended our friendhip. "You're right," I told him. "But I still like John Wayne. His movies really make me feel good."
...John Wayne shot people in the heart, and drank whiskey, and treated his horse like a horse. In fact, he treated women like he treated his horse. He seemed real because he reminded me of the men in my neighborhood."
The June 13, 1979 column is included in Royko's collection, "Sez Who? Sez Me."
This is in response to Jeff, who wondered what lessons Ron Howard took away from his experience working on "The Shootist." There was a tribute to John Wayne that aired when the film came out. Ron Howard was one of the presenters. His latest film was "Eat My Dust." He had yet to direct "Grand Theft Auto." And Ron said in his speech something to the effect that this was a marvelous gathering and he hoped someday he would receive a similar honor. And I scoffed. Looks like I owe Mr. Howard an apology.
Any idea how many Actors, Writers, Directors won Academy Awards in John Wayne films? John Ford/The Quiet Man & Thomas Mitchell/Stagecoach come immediately to mind. This is not a test ... I just think we would be amazed at how good he made all others around him.
Roger,
I have already left a post - my love for Wayne the actor, while not being thrilled with what I learned of his politics. However I love the movies he left for us to enjoy.
You left a comment that many people have said that their dad introduced them to John Wayne and not many or any mothers did so. I did not include this in my first post because I was trying to make a different point, but it was my mother that had me sit and watch John Wayne movies with her. She bought me John Wayne memorabilia, and back in the VHS days when video stores first began, she would bring home various Wayne movies and we would watch together. True Grit, A Quiet Man, The Green Berets, Stagecoach and many others that do not come instantly to mind.
I do not recall her having a crush on him or anything, but we discussed him as an actor, his roles and his status as an icon. I recall trying to write to Mr. Wayne when I was 10 or 11, asking for an autograph. I received a nice reply that Mr. Wayne was very ill at the time and could not fulfill my request.
My mother had a great love for the Western Movie, and great admiration for John Wayne.
Thanks Roger.
Ebert: My earlier comment about all the dads who told their kids about John Wayne has now inspired memories of lots of mothers and grandmothers, who may have been inspired by qualites dad didn't reflect on.
I greatly enjoyed reading the reflections on John Wayne. He is an epic figure who is not discussed much in modern Hollywood, at least not to the extent that he deserves. John Wayne's movies always kept you involved, both in the action and in the character. Watching his movies was always a fun adventure where the action was not overdone, it was there to carry along the story which made it more enthralling. John Wayne didn't need CGI or green-screens to make you involved in the action.
And another fact that is often overlooked when talking about the great John Wayne...the Duke could act. I think the reason that fact is often not prominent when talking about John Wayne is because he acted in such a subtle way. True Grit was a great movie and he deserved the Oscar for it, but I believe his best performance was in "The Searchers". He portayed one of the first real anti-heroes in Hollywood and he did it well. You never knew exactly what he was going to do. The ending scene where John Wayne does not join the other characters inside the house is truly an epic moment. John Wayne was a great actor, without a shadow of a doubt.
Thank you, Roger Ebert, for posting your reflections on one of the greatest cinema icons in history.
Thanks for the wonderful read. I know you can't help yourself, but the dig against the conservatives, "I believe he would have had contempt for the latter-day weirdos of the Right" was a bit uncalled for. Any decent man of any age, would have contempt for any irrational ideology be it left or right. I like Johnwayne's description of himself as a "Liberal." I feel too that I am the most liberal person I know or read about and that's why I am a conservative. To "love thy neighbor" and "to sacrifice for others" are historically "liberal" concepts that the conservatives I know hold so dear.
Ebert: It's a tragedy of modern conservatism that its face is being propvided by loonies like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. "Love thy neighbor" seems to have escaped them. Barry Goldwater and Robert Taft would be appalled. Otherwise, I agree.
Thanks for this, Roger, and for all of it. The comments bring up the age-old questions of Wayne's talent and his politics. I've made my peace with them: http://letsnottalkaboutmovies.blogspot.com/2009/06/100-years-of-duke.html
And, by the way, that very scene you mentioned in "True Grit" will be the scene deconstruction on Sunday.
Marie, sorry if I came across as cruel to Charlene's post. I thought I chose my words carefully. Normally, when confronted with such unreasoning hate--and I don't see how either of those words does not apply to what she wrote--I don't worry much about hurting the feelings of the hater. With Charlene at least she was upfront about not having a clue as to why she has this reaction. I think she showed much less awareness in blaming others for their bad reactions to her hate--frankly, that would be a perfectly normal reaction, in my opinion.
I mean, if someone told me that just the sight of Jane Fonda made them physically ill, in the same way that looking at Pol Pot, or Mengela, or Vlad the Impaler did, and that they had tested this out by reading books about her and watching her movies multiple times and yet still they had to reach for the Dramamine when she popped up on an episode of The View and in addition to all that, they did NOT have any problem at all with her politics, film roles, choice of lifestyle or any of a thousand possible mitigating factors that one could articulate as to a conceivable justification for visceral antipathy...well, I should think I could be forgiven for suggesting, ever so kindly, that such an opinion might lead some to suspect that the person in question is one wave short of a shipwreck, knitting with only one needle, suffering from a marble deficiency, or, (if they are fabulously wealthy), eccentric.
But, as I said, she was upfront about the lack of reason behind her feelings, she did not try to justify them and I do respect that. Maybe it's Just One of Those Things. I had an abnormal Psychology professor who had a phobia that butterflies were going to castrate him and, according to legend, once ran screaming from a lecture when a moth flew in the room. He didn't try to defend his phobia and, in fact, often brought it up as an example of something an otherwise normal person suffer from. Frankly, given the repeated body blows that we suffer in life it's a wonder we don't have more screws lose.
On the other hand, I'm not so sure that a forum where people are largely celebrating the memory of someone is the best place to share this sort of thing. Reasoned counterpoints, sure, and there is plenty of that here. Pissing on someone's memory and doing it in a way that allows no rational disagreement is not likely to get a much better response than it did.
Ebert: Thanks a whole hell of a lot. Castration by butterflies. I won't be able to sleep for a week.
Greetings Roger and Fellow Readers!
Growing up in rural Nova Scotia it was apparent to me and my family that we needed the goodwill and assistance of others to get by. When somebody in the community would try to go it alone we would always accuse them of ‘John Wayne-ing it.’
This speaks of the perception we had of Americans as cowboys who pretty much did what they wanted on the world stage, regardless of matters pertaining to justice and international law.
As I’ve grown older I’ve been able to separate the politics from the man so that now I judge his films on their own merit. By not letting the politics of the artist intercede, we can more fully experience the art (in this case movies). Very hard to do when dealing with national icons.
Chris Alders
Nova Scotia, Canada
Ebert: Do you know that the map on my tracking software indicates I have an inordinate number of readers in Nova Scotia? Also tracking well in Newfoundland, where Mike Spearns lives.
One of the things that some people seem to hold against John Wayne is that, though he played heroes, he was not one himself. Of course he looked like a hero, and that set the type. But in thinking how to address this, I found myself on a tangent, which I now share, for what it might be worth:
There once was an actor named Wayne Morris. In the '30s and early '40s he was a second string leading man under contract to Warner Bros. Morris was tall,blond, beefy, with a wide, slightly silly-looking grin, and so was typecast as "the hero's friend". If he ever played the lead, it was in a B programmer: western, cop movie, or the like. Came the war, and Morris became a Navy pilot. He proceeded to compile one of the most decorated and distinguihed air combat records of any actor who entered active service (reportedly, Morris was the first Hollywoodian to achieve "ace" status in combat). But when Morris came back to Hollywood, he still looked like "the hero's friend"; his own real-life heroism notwithstanding, he found himself relegated to second features and B-westerns. As the '50s went on, those venues began to dry up, and by 1959, Wayne Morris decide to make a full-out move to television. He spent the first half of that year making a pilot for his own comedy western series, while booking guest shots on as many series as he could - everything from Bourbon Street to Ozzie & Harriet. That summer, with a bunch of TV guest shots and a pilot in reserve, Morris visited some old Navy buddies on an aircraft carrier to watch maneuvers; while on the carrier, he suffered a fatal heart attck at age 45. His TV appearances aired throughout the 59-60 TV season. After that Wayne Morris was forgotten by all but the most devout movie buffs - and his war service even goes unmentioned in those circles.
From what I've read about the man, Wayne Morris was not at all bitter about any of this; an actor's life is chancy even under the best of circumstances, and he apparently did not begrudge the greater success enjoyed by others who did not servee in combat, like John Wayne or his own contemporary Ronald Reagan. But this is supposed to be about John Wayne, isn't it?
I've already unloaded on the ever-meatastasizing incivility in our political life on other threads. Since last I vented, we've had no fewer than three shooting incidents which are now being exploited - by all sides - for agenda-driven reasons. Did Duke Wayne have an agenda - ever? He may have supported the blacklist at the time; but I read an interview with Jeff Corey in which he found himself meeting up with Wayne on a set many years later and being greeted thusly: "Jeff,it's been too goddamn long!" The Playboy interview is appalling; but I've read accounts of Wayne displaying a barbed sense of humor, possibly acquired from John Ford by osmosis. Example: Wayne met up at some function with the screenwriter William Bowers, who wrote "The Gunfighter" , which Wayne had passed on, to his regret. From then on, he always greeted Bowers with a round of highly profane denunciation. On this occasion, Bowers said to Wayne, "You know, Duke, you're a cantankerous old bastard, but I still like you." Wayne's reply:"Well, you're one of those goddamn liberals! You have to like people!" I've always suspected that when Wayne made those comments, he was putting the Playboy interviewer on, perhaps not realizing what they would look like in cold type. This doesn't excuse the remarks, but I put forth as a possibility that if you saw and heard him saying them, you might sense that he didn't mean them.
One last note for MEtv and MEtoo watchers: among Andrew McLaglen's TV credits are episodes of Have Gun Will Travel and Rawhide which were the last acting appearances of his father, Victor McLaglen. Just thought I'd throw that in...
Two things - is there any more suitable final film for any screen legend then "The Shootist" for John Wayne? In a sense it is as if he knew this was it and he played John Book with no doubt more then a little John Wayne in him. Wayne was saying goodbye to films, Hollywood and his fans the same way Book was saying goodbye to the West.
Also, Roger, I read years ago you had admitted to not having seen "The Sons of Katie Elder" and since it is one of my favorite Wayne movies I was wondering if you had ever gotten around to it? If not you need to take two hours to sit back and enjoy this wonderful western.
My favorite John Wayne story is made up. In the comic book series "Preacher," a platoon of marines in Vietnam are visited by him and every one of them given a Zippo lighter with "Fuck Communism" etched in the side. I have nothing against communism, but if I were given one of those lighters, I'd use it to light every cigarette I smoked for the rest of my shortened life.
Pull our heads out of what, history books? It was, in fact, the Eisenhower administration that began our long problem in Vietnam by not supporting the free nationwide elections (which all parties knew the Communists would win) mandated for 1956 in the 1954 Geneva Accords, and by sending in "advisors" to support the Diem regime in the South. Neither should we forget Nixon's back-channel contacts to the South prior to the 1968 elections here, effectively sabotaging Johnson's efforts for peace, assuring them that they would be better positioned in their negotiations with Republicans in power in the US (otherwise known as treason). Or how about the invasions and bombings of Cambodia and Laos, directly repudiating our promises of respecting their neutrality and sovereignty? There were few with clean hands, and Nixon certainly was not one of them.
By referring to Ms. Fonda as "Hanoi Jane," I think I know your answer to that question. But really, who was right, the one who spoke out (perhaps clumsily given the circumstances) against our continued aggressive military involvement in an internal political/military conflict half a world away in support of a series of egregiously corrupt dictators, or the one who fervently supported an imperialist adventure in which over 55,000 Americans were killed for...what?
I consider myself a movie buff, but until last month I'd never seen a John Wayne movie (not proud of that...just sayin'). The only reason that changed is that I had to review a couple of Wayne DVDs for work. Of course I knew all about his politics and had heard much scoffing about his acting ability. But I popped in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" with an open mind. To put it simply, Wayne's performance in that film knocked me out. I expected him to be charming and charismatic, and of course he was. What suprised me, though, was the way he conveyed the pain and rage that roiled inside his character. It's a startling, well-rounded performance that easily equals the work done by co-star Jimmy Stewart.
Needless to say, I'll be checking out more of the man's work ASAP.
Any relic from the past will seem outmoded to some while remaining relevant for others. I don't believe it's John Wayne who's become out-of-time. I believe it's the common thread amongst most of his characters that now seems dated; individualism. Doing what was best for everyone is the creed of the family man. The westerns of yesteryear triumphed characters who privately pursued a life of following their own code.
As for Wayne's abilities as an actor, indeed - Wayne's characters were quite often variations on a theme. However, it's silly to dismiss Wayne's work on that critcism. Most movie stars, past and present, rely on an archetype that they play and/or explore over and over.
Both my favorite Wayne film and my favorite western is "Rio Bravo". I love its casual tone and it's breezy dialogue. The plot seems almost like an afterthought, allowing me to just hang out with Dino and the Duke for 2 1/2 hours.
Mr. Ebert - great writing as usual. You must possess great patience and clarity of mind to tell your stories so well! You layer in all the details beautifully.
Ebert: Hawks liked that story he remade it as "Rio Lobo" and "El Dorado." Mitchum told me when Hawks wanted to send over the script, he told him, "Don't bother, Howard. I've seen both of your earlier drafts."
Reply to: Charlene: every time I see his face I am absolutely revolted by him. He literally turns my stomach. And I don't know why that should be... And by "absolutely revolted", I mean that when I look at him on the screen I feel the same way as I do when I see a picture of Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. All evidence might say "hero", but my subconscious says "filthy, filthy, filthy villain". And I don't know why that is.
Reply to: Ebert: I don't know, either. Maybe others here will comment...
It seems wrong to say "this is the explanation" when all you have is a single comment on a blog. However, several possibilities come to mind, and I'll share. Let me qualify this by saying my guilty pleasure is "Criminal Minds" on CBS, where a team of psychologists construct profiles for the benefit of local law enforcement. The concept is based on the real Behavioral Analysis unit of the FBI.
Reply to: Ebert: Burt and Verona are two characters rarely seen in the movies: educated, healthy, gentle, thoughtful, whimsical, not neurotic and really truly in love. For every character like this I’ve seen in the last 12 months, I’ve seen 20, maybe 30, mass murderers. (From a review, not this blog.)
I have a similar reaction to mass murderers... and yet, I watch a TV show which hunts down a serial killer every week. Luke Perry played one. They get some great actors.
Back to the topic... is there a (possible) reason why she associates the "image on a screen" with an emotionally charged description like "filthy, filthy, filthy villain"? Did she know such a person in real life? Has she buried the actual memory, but the face and characters played by Wayne are so similar, the emotional component pops to the surface?
Our memories are stored in several different places in the brain. The "emotional component" may be stored in a different section than the "visual" or "Sensory" components." The memory of what was said may have been written over after thirty years, which allows the emotional component to be triggered .. IF the linking mechanism is still there. Very theoretical, certainly nothing I can back up without a lot of googling.
Reply to: Charlene: my female friends feel the same way, but will never mention it to their male friends because men are so wrapped into the myth of John Wayne as demigod that they won't hesitate to belittle anyone who feels otherwise. I've also learned to keep my opinion to myself around men... The guy invariably becomes angry and cruel and belittling and vicious, (I've actually deleted this four times for fear that some commenter will yet again take it upon himself to try to teach me how wrong and stupid I am.)
My comment is, Find some new male friends. Immediately. The ones you have now are abnormal.
No, seriously, the "myth of John Wayne as demigod" hasn't been very common for the last 25 years. You're talking to men who are abusive and stuck in the past.
(2) I can think of one reason for a negative reaction to John Wayne.
He got old.
For a lot of young people, it's disturbing to watch a movie like "The Quiet Man" where Wayne is 6'4" and powerful, and then watch the same man after his bout with cancer in "The Shootist." it upsets their assumption that "Other people get old, but I won't have to."
(3) Reply to: they won't hesitate to belittle anyone who feels otherwise. I've also learned to keep my opinion to myself around men...
One more suggestion. Post some of your comments on Internet message boards, but using a man's name. See if you get the same reaction. See if you get the same response from women. Maybe the problem is that some of the ideas... well, that's WAY beyond my ability to judge at this point. Like Dr. House says, "You're asking if I'm going to put this poor little girl through a series of extremely painful tests just for my own amusement? Well, actually, that is something I'd do...."
Do more tests. Post the results.
I've seen "Stagecoach," "Rio Bravo," and "The Shootist," two of which (the latter) I enjoyed; however, I think I'm among the few who just don't give a hoot about John Wayne one way or the other. I thought when I was growing up that he was just a hack. These days, at best I'm just ambivalent about him. I've never been the biggest fan of the western, the genre with which I most associate him. If given a chance between a western with Wayne and one without him, though, I'd probably pick the one without him.
Two ways around that, Mickey: 1) If using Windows: Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, Character Map, then get the 4 digit number (in this case, 0233) to type as you hold the Alt key; or 2) go to Wiktionary (or some other online resource that will have the foreign punctuation marks, and copy and paste.
Speak for yourself! I posited a question a couple months back in response to being deemed demonstrably insane by some other right-winger, and the consensus (of one, if memory serves) was that I am not demonstrably insane. So there.
OMG! A point of agreement between us! A détente, if you will. I also wish I could edit my posts for the (rare) typo that I miss when proofing before sending.
Now that's weird. While I didn't major in Marginalization of Others' (note the plural possessive's apostrophe) Opinions, I did minor in it. And while I have a lowly BSE from Wharton -- with exactly one semester of required English -- I don't have a JD...although I've played a lawyer in real life, eliciting a Confession of Error from the Cook County State's Attorney with my one pro se appellate brief. Surely, you realize that you invite my marginalization of your opinions because of grammatical/spelling errors when you impugn the educational system; when talking about others' poor education, it would behoove you to demonstrate the superiority of yours.
PS The close quote goes after the period after "error" in that last excerpt from your comment. :p
Couple questions for you, Bill: 1) When you write "abnormal Psychology professor," do you mean a professor of Psychology who was abnormal, or a professor of Abnormal Psychology? and 2) if he had a phobia about butterflies castrating him (technical term, lepidopterishlongectomiphobia, IIRC), why the problem with the moth? :D
Ebert: I needed that term.
Thanks to comments by HAL90x and Ian Poirier and similar for useful perspective.
I would add that one thing that I got from reading this concept of Wayne`s world - as interpreted by Ebert - is a sense of romanticism. Surely, for an American to be a traditional conservative (of course at that time there were no other kind) through the times that Wayne personally saw he would have to be a staunch romantic. Nothing wrong with that, per se, though to suggest that the neocons of today do not compare to the basically patriotic conservatism of your father is naive and simplistic. Essentially, conservativism represents the staunch belief in status quo, and that if change be absolutely necessary, it should occur at glacial speed. Thus, in a lifetime that witnessed gross class injustice (Depression), war-mongering, blacklisting, severely suspect foreign policies, civil and social injustice (and the ensuing black, women, and gay rights movements), arrogant and corrupt governance, to be a staunch conservative and hold that change, should it prove to be necessary, should be slow, is no small claim. I read between the lines. But, back to this actor being a romantic -- likely when he sought to connect his romanticism with anything relevant he wound up digging his grave.
Never was into Wayne. Wee bit before my time and always saw a caricature rather than a character when he moved across the screen. Im sure he was useful.
Now Brando. THere is an actor who`s opinions and insights are actually interesting and thought provoking. ANd not thought provoking because of what he represents (which is all Wayne is) but for what he thinks and how he sees things.
Please tell me the story about John Wayne beating up Frank Sinatra's bodyguard is true. It's like some fantasy situation come to life.
Granted something like that wouldn't happen today. Today said bodyguard would either be some sort of superhuman giant or ex-mossad and the Duke would have been quickly incapacitated. But back then it just seems mind blowing because of how larger than life Sinatra and Wayne were.
I can't even conjure up a similar situation with todays movie stars.
Hey Roger, an overall nice tribute to the Duke, *definitely* one of the most, if not the most, under-rated actors of all time. He was a larger than life icon of American cinema.
It's too bad that intolerant liberal hacks feel compelled to regurgitate & spew their venemous diatribes on the 'issue' of John Wayne: his politics, as well as his movies.
Depite their use of ten dollar words, these liberals are only displaying their ignorance about not only politics, but also cinema itself. Any cinephile with half a brain would realize that John Wayne was indeed an accomplished actor. Was he as versatile as Olivier? Obviously not. But John Wayne could play a varied spectrum of roles, &, most importantly, have them feel believable to the (unbiased) viewer..
If John Wayne was such a terrible actor (as these malcontents believe...) why would a director like John Ford (considered by some as the greatest American director of all time) put Wayne in his movies? The answer is that obviously Ford felt Wayne was a very good actor. I myself would rather take John Ford's opinion over these biased poseurs.
As to Wayne's lack of military service. if a highly commissioned,
high-ranking military officer like actor Jimmy Stewart was close friends with John Wayne, I'd say that Stewart felt that Wayne's reason for not serving during WWII was legit, as he still remained good friends with the Duke.
Only an extremely biased person (or someone ignorant of film acting)
could watch Wayne's impresive (*&* nuanced) performances in "The Quiet Man," "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" "Three Godfathers," & "The Shootist," to name but a few, & claim the man was no actor.
Obviously you are a liberal, Roger, but you are open-minded & enlightened to appreciate John Wayne's acting as well as his iconic image. Surely you see a common thread running thru these liberal rants about John Wayne. Do the conservatives rant about Jane Fonda's acting or movies? No, because conservatives are open-minded...FWIW..
Anyway, glad you gave the Duke his due, Roger. Hope you are doing better. I miss the old days with you & Gene sparring up in the balcony.... Take care...
I wonder how many people's first introduction to John Wayne was the same as mine: his hilarious cameo as the centurion supervising the crucifixion of Jesus in "The Greatest Story Ever Told". Nothing undermines the solemnity of Christ's death like the Duke murdering his only line: "Truuuly this maaan wuz the son of Gaaawd!!!"
dear mickey,
that was dr. henry jones, junior.
________________
dear charlene,
i can see a similarity in the features, specifically the deep-set eyes, of john wayne and boris karloff. could there could be a shadow of frankenstein in what you see?
___________________
dear ron/bill,
clearly jack. i've railed for years that i find him the most overrated actor ever because he isn't acting; he's just "being." i must plead partial ignorance, however, because i have not seen enough of his early films to know which came first: jack the actor or jack the person. the only role i give him a break is in a barely seen film with meryl streep called ironweed.
_________________
dear roger,
i watched and learned about film and john wayne with my mother. wayne was her second favorite, right behind gene hackman. i'm not a huge fan of john wayne, but i put the searchers in my top 5 movies. bruce springsteen mentioned that film as part of his inspiration for his album darkness on the edge of town, which is basically about family struggle and acceptance. in an interview back in the 80's bruce referred to himself feeling like wayne as he stood in the doorway at the end of the film, the camera pulls back to frame ethan and separate him from the rest of the family as he just didn't feel comfortable enough to enjoy the moment of debbie's safe return. as he grabs his own elbow, he's really trying to hug himself the way that the rest of the family is hugging each other without him. he wants to enter that house, but he can't.
no matter how many times i watch that film, i will always cry like a baby when ethan says, "let's go home, debbie."
___________________
Thanks for sharing your memories on John Wayne.
Not a June 11th goes by for me without a warm thought of him.
Glad to know you appreciated him as a man and an actor.
He certainly had his faults but don't we all?
Take care Roger.
Roger--a terrific tribute to the Duke, beautifully written and as he would have said in one movie or other, 'dead on'.
I am blogging from Australia and John Wayne is as popular down here these days as he is now in the U.S. His appearance at our version of the Emmys, the TV Week Logie Awards in March 1975 is often quoted as one of the most memorable moments in Australian television history.
If I may suggest another tribute that is just as good: "Unforgettable John Wayne" by Ronald Reagan, from Readers Digest, October 1979. This essay features the incident regarding the Vietnam flag and Jimmy Stewart and also quotes from the article written by Mike Royko.
I often think what the Duke's career would have been had his health improved--I know he had a contract with the ABC network for a series of specials. One of my lasting memories is of him as host of the one special he managed to make -- "General Electric's All-Star Anniversary" made just after he survived heart surgery in 1978. All the greats were there--Henry Fonda, Jimmy Stewart, Bob Hope, Lucy, as well as everyone on ABC at the time from Laverne and Shirley to Donny and Marie.
What I found amazing was the ease in which John Wayne hosted the show--while some guests were straining to keep up with the autocue, he was as smooth and professional as anyone I had ever seen.
He closed the show by breaking away from it's format and thanked everyone who had sent cards and prayers in his direction during his recent illness--even after more than 30 years, I'll probably never forget such a moment.
When I read Charlene's comment, my first thought was envy that she had managed to see all John Wayne's films. Wayne is my favorite male actor, the only one who I would buy any of his films on DVD, yet I haven't been able to see GIRLS DEMAND EXCITEMENT, LADY AND GENT, THE LAWLESS NINETIES, I COVER THE WAR, NEW FRONTIER and quite a few of his other films from the early 30's.
I was then puzzled that she could watch that many films of someone who literally turned her stomach. When I think of someone I can't stand to watch, Jim Carrey comes first to mind. I don't know what kind of inducement could get me to watch ALL of Jim Carrey's films. (All right, hookers and blow. Any offers?)
And I wonder if this revulsion she speaks of goes all the way back to the way he looked in his first feature film THE BIG TRAIL, when he was 23?
I suspect Bill Hays is closest to the answer as to why Charlene feels that way.
Digressing slightly, even though I totally disagree with Wayne's political statements, it has no effect on my enjoyment of his films. For that matter, I totally disagreed with my father's political and racial statements, but I loved him. It's not as if my father or John Wayne was actually going around beating up blacks or longhairs or something. I don't believe John Wayne was a hero, but he was an excellent personification of a hero.
Ebert wrote: Charlene's post began an entirely appropriate discussion on this thread.
As with all submissions to the blog you read Charlene's in advance, too. And I suspect knew exactly what you were doing Roger, when you allowed it through. Is it appropriate to amuse oneself at the expense of a fool? To hand them a rope, or pass it to another only too happy to hoist them for you? Yes, at least according to Shakespeare. :)
But is she such a fool..? No, I don't think so.
I think there's enough to be gleaned in between the lines and beneath the surface of Charlene's comments to inspire mercy, instead. And based on the portrait she paints of her life and the gender politics I can see at work.
Again, I don't know her circumstances and likely never will, but I think she's surrounded by a bunch of a good ol' white boys who worship John Wayne like a demigod - and that's why she's seen all his movies and more than once; so too, read some of his biographies. I suspect when she confessed how she felt, they ganged-up on her and was made to feel as though there was something wrong with HER.
"...when I have mentioned it to a guy, he will never believe it's not due to Wayne's politics. The guy invariably becomes angry and cruel and belittling and vicious, and refuses to admit that I have a right to my own opinion. I suspect that most of them assume that if they could just teach me that my opinion is wrong and transgressive, I wouldn't be so unreasonable. It must be something they can fix in my mind, and being as cruel and as belittling as possible must somehow be the best way to teach me how wrong I am."
Roger, I can only think of one reason a woman would ever have so strong a negative, visceral reaction to the sight of a man's face - and be unable to consciously account for it.
Because you've repressed something associated with it.
Or maybe I'm wrong. I don't know, it's just a feeling. A feeling that something isn't right in Charlene's world and the best response to that and her in here, a fellow soul, is kindness.
I've made no secret of it in your blog, there's no love lost between me and the Vatican. But that doesn't mean I didn't like the nicer bits, the good stuff to be cherry picked from the bad. Jesus was a hippie after all and a dissident-minded liberal. :)
In life, there's the person we are and then the person we'd like to be. When I responded to Charlene's post, I was aiming for the latter. And when I chided those who hadn't resisted the temptation to hit an easy target, it was because I felt they'd lost sight of something important; we're all connected.
The Last Temptation of Christ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=747U-5FclqM
Note: Bill, I don't think you meant any harm. But I honestly don't think she was taking a pee on anyone's memory either - not unless you give her the power to do that for caring enough about her opinion; and given how low you held it, how was it possible then for it to reach you unless you stooped to pick it up, eh? I think Gilbert Smith understood: "Whatever Charlene sees in John Wayne isn't really there, at least not in Wayne himself."
Personally, I neither like nor dislike John Wayne; to me, he's just this guy who made a lot of westerns and one of them featured Katherine Hepburn. I do remembering thinking that "The Green Berets" was a rather silly film but that aside, my only issue has always been how some embrace his iconic image as an example of a "real American male" - as gee, I guess that leaves out Harvey Milk, eh?
There many kinds of hero. :)
Ebert: I didn't for a second think of her as a fool. She was expressing an honest and not uncommon opinion, and her post earns a place in the thread and has inspired a lot of interest.
I must admit I am alienated from the genre. Truth is the only western I ever watched as a boy was "Back to the future 3". Rather ninjas and ninja turtles took the place of cowboys and Indians.
Ebert: You should start with...hmmm...maybe "The Wild Bunch."
Beyond a ripping good read from its principal author, this blog is a treat for all the tributaries it creates in the comments section. I keep coming back for more, patiently scrolling up to where the last comment used to be so that I can peruse the fresh ones.
So from John Wayne to Nova Scotia to castrating butterflies (inter alia).
I'm only posting of course because I was reading a comment and remarking to myself, "Hey another one from Nova Scotia" and Roger came on in the end and said, "Hey another one from Nova Scotia."
Allow me to throw the rock a little further afield and describe for you the heavy maritime fog that blankets the harbour of our capital city, completely typical for this time of year except that this morning it smells like poop.
Ebert: A heavy maritime fog that smells like poop runs counter-clockwise to every idea I have ever held about Nova Scotia. And fog. Is it, like...ah...whale doo-doo? Like I know what that smells like.
The Duke passed before my birth, but my dad (hereafter referred to as Stan so as not to be confused with the other father figure in this story) had a cool story about him...starting back in the 60s when Stan (then a teenager) gave his buddy, running away from home after getting into some trouble, a ride to the Mass Pike. Later, the buddy's father called and forced a confession out of Stan; the next day, the buddy called up. His own father had found him, administered a punch to the face, and issued an ultimatum. Now the buddy wanted to say goodbye to Stan. "Where are you going?" he asked. "Vietnam," the buddy answered glumly. And sure enough, he was (the ultimatum had been "Army or Navy"?).
Years later, Stan received a photo in the mail. It was his old friend, now with scraggly hair but in uniform, with his arm around a much bigger guy. Both wore big, semi-drunken grins for the camera and were flipping the bird at Stan. The bigger guy was John Wayne.
Unfortunately he no longer has the picture, which was stolen by a female friend (not because of the movie star, but because she had a crush on my dad's buddy).
Apropos of nothing, I have a random inquiry (perhaps I'll offer it later if this thread has more or less died off and gets neglected): did you work with/know William Braden? He was a Sun-Times journalist who wrote a now-out-of-print book called "LSD & the Search for God." Despite the title, it's actually an intriguing and sober-minded look at religious mysticism, psychedelic drugs, and various related phenomena (including Braden's own, decidedly unenjoyable, experiment with mescalin). I discovered the book years ago in online form, and was just able to purchase a used copy online. Since he was seemingly at the paper around the same time as you, I was wondering if you know him & what he was like.
Ebert: I knew Bill very well. He got me invited to the conference on World Affairs the first time. I never met a newspaper man who smoked more. When the Sun-Times set up a Smoking Room, he moved his computer in there. He was a fast writer and a great reporter, and shared in a Pulitzer.
Female, early 20s, love John Wayne.
Every time I end up taking Team Wayne in an argument against somebody who's determined to write him off as a walking cardboard cut-out, I always point to that one scene in "The Searchers" where Wayne rejoins the other riders after coming out of the canyon, alone. What he's discovered in that canyon is too horrible for words, certainly too horrible for words in a Hollywood Western made during the Production Code era (as Ethan himself says later on about it, "What do you want me to do, draw you a picture?"). I'm looking at the screenplay right now, and Ethan's dialogue is written as deliberately vague, unsettled, disturbed, just as Wayne speaks it in the movie. It's hard to determine exactly what happened back there, although you know it's something bad.
But what's NOT in the script is the action Wayne takes when he comes back to the party. He stumbles over, flops down on the ground, takes out his knife, and begins stabbing into the sand with these repetitive, primal strokes, and combined with the haunted look in his eyes, it's a moment that makes your heart stop beating for a second, because with this one gesture, he's told you everything that needs to be told.
Re the Charlene case --
I think something has been overlooked. Consider the reaction of the waitress in the all night diner. I assumed, along with everyone else (no offense MarieHaws), her reaction was merely that of a simpleton overwhelmed by the presence of a famous person, a `johnwayne`. But, reconsidered in light of Charlene`s contribution, perhaps something more was afoot. Was this the reaction of a simpleton overcome by `meeting` a `celebrity`, or that of someone recognizing the presence of menace, of evil, something that likely even she herself was unable to articulate or understand, but felt nonetheless? Notice how he instructed his eggs to be served, as though they were eyes, `staring`, before he consumed them. No doubt Gacey had the same thoughts.
Thanks for this, Roger, and for all of it. The comments bring up the age-old questions of Wayne's talent and his politics.
Charlene II
Notice too the charming anecdote Ebert provides us with relating the duke`s (`ducks` I say...) ability to not pass up an opportunity to crack a misogynistic joke when asked about the Nixon admins foreign policy. Truly, a man for all seasons. Oh, I know, its all in good fun.
This was a terrific tribute to a great actor. For me Wayne will always be Ethan Edwards of The Searchers, one of the best westerns I've ever seen. Curiously, I haven't seen any of his non-Westerns. Something I guess I'll do someday.
Speaking of which, I remember reading once an article of yours about film noir, where you declared that this - together with Westerns - was the American genre. Now, I agree with you about the former, not about film noir. This, I think, was primarily a European genre imported to the USA by such people as Billy Wilder or Fritz Lang. But it's not rooted in American culture or folklore (as opposed to Westerns) but in basic pessimistic assumptions regarding human nature - and I think those assumptions are more characteristic of Europe than of the USA, making film noir a European genre, albeit one who had a dramatic influence on the American film industry.
Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for your great profile on an actor that most Americans love and will always love. I don't know the exact reason, but most of America still loves John Wayne and we miss his flicks.
Your article was wonderful, and it pleases us to find that Mr. Wayne treated critics with such openness and kindness.
It's funny, I just watched 'Green Berets' the other night for the first time in probably twenty years, at least. It looks to me now like a bridge, either the last of the old war movies or the first of the new ones. It wants to be a flag-waver but at the same time makes a few awkward stabs at acknowledging the Vietnam War is different. I thought the battle scene where the US compound is attacked at night was very well-staged; I'll bet there were a few other directors taking notes. Of course the film is corny and cheesy too, but is that really what stops us from accepting it? Times had changed, and we had changed. It wasn't the film making a statement so much as it was the audience saying, we don't want war movies like this anymore.
For some reason, this doesn't come up at all in any conversation, online or off, of "The Searchers" that I've ever seen, but I've long suspected that not so deeply layered in the story is the idea that Debbie isn't Ethan's niece - she is his daughter.
Note the early scenes - Ethan's sister-in-law is clearly in love with Ethan, by the way she treats him, and by the way she holds his clothes close to her when she believes no one is looking. Ward Bond pointedly ignores what is going on behind him when Ethan and his sister-in-law intereact. Debbie is the apple of Ethan's eye.
Ethan's reactions are driven by something deeper than a man's unrequited love for the woman that married his brother, both in his reactions to his sister-in-law's death, and in his pursuit to at first rescue Debbie, and then to kill her to save her from a "fate worse than death".
Certainly, you could interpret it another way, but if Ford did intend this, then the story takes on an even deeper, and much more awful meaning. I guess the wonderful thing about art is that it can be interpreted in many ways. The Searchers, intended to be a commercial film for a wide audience, contains more than its fair share of broad comedy, but it is most definitely a work of art, of many dimensions, made by a master with a team of artists.
Ebert: Good lord. You may have come up with something there. Wow.
Ron Barth, Jr.:
"PS The close quote goes after the period after "error" in that last excerpt from your comment. :p"
I thought I could catch you on that one....Actually, I know that is the proper grammatical posture, but I don't like the look of it. And your use of a colon and the letter p escapes me. And you call my grammar poor? Just kidding, of course.
However, I do not feel the need to "prove" anything to anyone regarding my education. I do not feel exalted or superior to anyone because I had an opportunity to obtain an education. In fact, I feel pretty certain that the modern education system especially at the university level is nothing more than a cafeteria line whereby the more money you spend, the more you get on your tray whether or not it is deserved. Maybe one day if Roger writes upon his academic journey, I will explain what I mean by that comment. Quickly, there is no reason to extend law school to three years. The last year was superfluous. Once you learn how to think and write as an attorney, all you need is to learn to "be" an attorney and you cannot do that in a classroom. Yet, it cost me close to $40,000 to learn that my last year was completely unnecessary. My two-month internship was more valuable to me than "International Business Transactions II."
Some of the most educated individuals are those that experienced life outside a classroom. I think that is one reason why like Roger so much, politics aside; he provides real life experience to strengthen and support the written word. Would I rather read a review from some kid that received a high grade in Critical Thinking, or from someone that met John Wayne?
I represent a lot of hard-working middle-class people. I use my skills for their benefit. I learn something new everyday. My clients do not want me to talk down to them. They want me to talk to them. I cannot reasonably do that sitting on a throne.
But, I do understand the greater point, and I should be more aware of my Manual of Style. I think it is in a box somewhere and it may need to have some light shed upon it.
Finally, I don't think I have any animosity in my heart to you, Ron. Name calling on a blog somewhere leads us nowhere. I rather have a conversation with you (and Roger), and maybe one day you may be able to understand me a bit as I try to understand you. And I meant nothing offensive by calling you a kook. I think you are a kook. You might think worse of me. But I have many family and friends who are kooks and we get along fine.
And may I recommend to all "Rooster Cogburn (...and the Lady)" with the Duke and Katherine Hepburn. I think that modern-day feminists would appreciate Kate dishing it out to the Duke.
Allow me to recommend Five Easy Pieces, Carnal Knowledge, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and Chinatown. As Good As It Gets was good, also.
LOL. Stony you are being facetious right? Particularly with this: "Surely you see a common thread running thru these liberal rants about John Wayne. Do the conservatives rant about Jane Fonda's acting or movies? No, because conservatives are open-minded."
Go to a conservative website and bring up Jane Fonda and you will see venom spewed like none you've ever seen before. I've seen it a million times. Google the words: jane fonda conservative and might point will be proved. To this day Hannity and O'Rielly bring her up on a regular basis.
This is all beside the point though. There's only two ways to view artists. Either you separate their politics from their work or you don't. I'm of the latter school. A true artists work is informed by their beliefs whether they admit it or not. Wayne made a blatant propaganda film by his own admission.
So we're left where? You think I and others who feel the same should ignore his views that we find disturbing? Anyone should find blacklisting (and being proud of it until the day you die as he was) disturbing. His view of America was he gets to decide what's American and in doing so he and others like him threw the constitution under the bus proudly.
So that's where I'm left: with my opinion and my right to it. An opinion that Wayne might well have like me blacklisted for if I voiced it in the 40s or 50s. You're entitled to your own opinion of the man's views.
PS. Stony, I can't help but note the irony here. For all your accusations of liberals that "regurgitate & spew their venemous diatribes" it's rather obvious for anyone scanning these comments that the most venomous and rude diatribe so far has been your own.
As to Wayne's lack of military service. if a highly commissioned, high-ranking military officer like actor Jimmy Stewart was close friends with John Wayne, I'd say that Stewart felt that Wayne's reason for not serving during WWII was legit, as he still remained good friends with the Duke.
Perhaps Stewart felt so, but John Ford certainly did not. As recounted in Garry Wills's abovementioned book, Ford's treatment of Wayne during the filming of They Were Expendable was cruel and merciless. Recall this was the film where much of the cast and crew were billed using their service ranks (e.g. "Robert Montgomery, Cmdr. USNR"), making Wayne's lack of service particularly noticeable. It came to a head when Ford said to Wayne, in front of the entire cast and crew, "Jesus, Duke, can't you at least salute as if you had been in the service?" Humiliated, Wayne stormed off the set. Montgomery, no friend of Wayne's to begin with, was offended, and excoriated Ford, telling him that a real commander does not humiliate a subordinate in front of the troops. Ford broke down in tears at this criticism from someone whom he idolized for his wartime bravery. He publicly apologized to Wayne in front of the company.
Just thought I'd let folks know that film restoration expert Robert Harris is turning his attention to a full restoration of John Wayne's "The Alamo." You can find more information here: http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/robertharris/harris032009.html
And an interview I did with Mr. Harris is online here: http://audio.tpr.org/cinema-alamorestoration.mp3
Ron Barth at 4:57 PM June 11....
Thanks for the great example of passive aggressive hostility. There's really something personal going on there directed at an unknown someone else with Mickey, eh?
That was a really venomous post in response to a clumsy but apparently genuine offer of "life and let live". If you can't recognize and acknowledge that, phew....
Normally I just ignore that kind of bullying, I don't know why I spoke up now, but it really gave me the creeps to read that post. Can we truly have a genuine truce that doesn't stoop to personal attacks, please?
Ron Barth at 4:57 PM June 11....
Thanks for the great example of passive aggressive hostility. There's really something personal going on there directed at an unknown someone else with Mickey standing in between, eh?
That was a really venomous post in response to a clumsy but apparently genuine offer of "live and let live". If you can't recognize and acknowledge that, phew....
Normally I just ignore that kind of bullying, I don't know why I spoke up now, but it really gave me the creeps to read that post. Can we truly have a genuine truce that doesn't stoop to personal attacks, please?
In a previous overworked and underpaid life I managed the music/video departments of a big department store chain. We sorted movies into genres, and the labels on each video had a two letter secret code to help keep our budding Tarantinos from stocking the shelves too creatively: CD = Comedy, DM = Drama, KD = Kids, HR = Horror, etc.
Some of the better distractions from our otherwise mundane existence were the many laughs and heated disagreements that erupted percieved mislabeling. The labelers at the corporate mothership seemed particularly bent on making sure nobody could ever find a Mel Brooks film: "Spaceballs" was SF (SciFi), "The Producers" was MS (Musical), "Blazing Saddles" was WS, "Young Frankenstein was HR, you get the idea...
Our favorite running gag along these lines occured every time a newbie struggled to discern why most of the Westerns were labeled WS, but close to half of them were labeled JW. When I'd tell them that John Wayne was the only actor that got his own category, they'd inevitably think I was putting them on.
Mr. Ebert,
Superb work, as always. Your writing is better in this piece than even your normal very high quality articles. But take the compliment for what it's worth, being from one talent-less writer to one with an unfair and unjust abundance of ability.
Unfortunately and inevitably the comments so far have for a large part focused on the political, like oh so many tired web conversations these days. I wonder what people's reactions would be if John Wayne had given us the exact same body of work, but his political views were entirely opposite of what we believe them to be.
I personally fall squarely on the side of John Wayne as a "demigod" -- to quote from an earlier post. My experience was not watching him with my father, as my father had forsaken his family. How un-Duke-like of him. In a world where I had few other examples, Wayne was the perfect icon, the exact manifestation of what I thought a man should be; a reluctant hero, working hard and doing what is right not because it was easy, but because it was what you were supposed to do. I know, Mr. Ebert, you don't like High Noon all too much, but there is a great line in there that would have been pitch perfect for any John Wayne movie as well. Gary Cooper's character is asked why he is staying to fight a fight that's not his to fight. "Why, Will? Why do it?" A shrug and a look and the simple answer: "If you don't already know, there's no use me telling you." Some things are just right because they are, because you know them to be -- no amount of explaining, equivocating, rationalizing, or whining makes any difference. John Wayne's characters very often also embodied this same certitude, a comfortable absolutism in an otherwise relativist world.
I don't know exactly know why it is John Wayne was so awesome, so great, so much what a man should be or maybe could be, but it just is. And if you can't see it, there's no use me telling you.
Mr. Rana quoted Stevenson's poem. Weren't those the words Rusty Ryan spoke over his fallen comrade in They Were Expendable?
John Wayne was my father's favorite actor, and The Quiet Man his favorite movie. I think my father tried to be like Sean Thornton.To the extent that I know, he was usually successful. I dearly hope that was its own reward. Myself, I expect to end up crying my eyes out in a place with a very bad climate.
Legacy.I suppose,with the odds, that Wayne had his full share of good and bad points( We're all sinners, as I forget who used to say), many of which will live 'til time immemorial in film and print. I think that " John Wayne" will be an icon of what some men in the US aspired to be, and even were, for the first 60 years or so, give or take, of the 20th century. Trustworthy, loyal, courteous, kind, friendly, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, reverent,proud( often to the point of hubris), masculine( often bemused by Hawks's pseudo-proto-feminists),sometimes brutal, xenophobic, and... non-culturally-sensitive, thinking that, at the end of the day, right thought, right action,right effort, right speech, and all the others, would prevail, justly. But then, Wayne played John Stryker. He played Ethan Edwards, who,in the end,saved himself and Debbie( though it was Martin's bullet that killed Scar), only to hug his throbbing arm as he turned back to see not his family behind the closing door, but the sublime yet silent Monuments. He played Tom Doniphon, dead before his movie started, with his ...confession... as his death scene.`
Cary Grant used to say that everybody, including himself, wanted to be " Cary Grant". True, I think, sometimes. And " Frank Sinatra",sometimes, and Sean Connery".
I think I'd like to be Sean Thornton,or Johnny Felong,
for his strength and his faith in his strength. But I won't. I won't....
In your blog, you mentioned meeting John Wayne three times during the screening of The Green Berets and noticed you gave it 0 stars in a review done in 1968 (before I was born.) I liked the review. You could almost use a lot its's points in todays Iraq War.
You mentioned talking politics with him including the Vietnam War. I haven't seen The Green Berets, however the jacket mentioned it used actually military advisors in its production. Do you think that the movie functioned more like recruiting film rather than an insight of what was actually going on? I read in history 1968 was one of the lowest levels of morale with soldiers there.
Or maybe reporters were not allowed to talk about the movie on location.
Were you very vocal about your opinions with him?
This was a great article and reminiscence, Roger. John Wayne isn't exactly a hero of mine, but I love his movies and I think he was a great actor.
Too much of the criticism of Wayne seems to focus on his politics here. Now there are far too many celebrities speaking out about their politics these days, and they call people names and make a big fuss and it just really irritates me. I don't care what their politics are as long as they don't become insulting about it and expecting me to follow their opinions just because they're famous. So in some respects that irritates me about John Wayne, that he spoke out about politics more than he really should have in his later years. But except in the case of Jane Fonda (who actually went over to the VietCong and had her picture taken with them to show her support--how would you feel about someone who supported Osama bin Laden and had their picture taken with him?), I don't let that affect my opinion of any actors at all, and even with Fonda I jude her movies separately from her. But with Wayne I happen to agree with him more than I disagree.
I just finished reading that Playboy interview and here are my thoughts: First, he did express opinions that today we would consider racist and shocking. Second, he didn't express those opinions quite that way in any other interview I know of, and I think it' unfair to judge his whole life and character on the basis of a few overly cranky statements in a single interview. Here he was, drinking beer out on his yacht and spouting forth lots of over-the-top things, and a few of them were completely uncalled-for and offensive. However, this interview is 13 pages long and was recored over two sessions with him, and the vast majority of it isn't offensive at all--at least if you're not offended by his coarseness and cussing. That's the way he talked, and this coarse and rather old-fashioned ways of putting things are not as diplomatic and PC as we like to hear it today, so that can make some of the things he said seem worse than they are. When reading this, you need to imagine him drinking and laughing and exaggerating and being sarcastic, because if you read some of the statements as straight and serious they sound pretty outrageous when you probably would just laugh if you heard him actually say them.
Anyway, once you do that, you might find some things to actually agree with: he attacks a lot of the activism and rioting going on at the time, which we tend to generalize as good and righteous today when much of it was seriously screwed up and violent. He criticizes the Black Panthers, but they were a pseudo-fascist paramilitary organization pretty much dedicated to the destruction of white America, so good for him. He criticizes non-working welfare recipients-a charge which turned out to be true enough that Clinton signed a reform. He criticizes campus radicals who take over college buildings and vandalize things. He criticizes liberals as Communist fellow-travelers and pansies. You can disagree with some of these things, but you have to admit, they're mostly pretty mainstream conservative even today.
To balance the feeling from this interview that he was perhaps always angry and prejudiced, remember that he was married to three Latin American women. He worked well with Indians on set, with John Ford who the Indians of Monument Valley considered a special friend of theirs. He had friends who were black and treated them well, including Woody Strode. And he had quite a few liberal friends in Hollywood who he got along with. IMO, a man's personal interactions speak more to his character than his general statements about groups.
And here's a quote from Wayne's Playboy interview that speaks for the man much better then some of his other comments:
I think the pendulum's swinging back. We're remembering that the past can't be so bad. We built a nation on it. We must also look always to the future. Tomorrow -- the time that gives a man or a country just one more chance -- is just one of many things that I feel are wonderful in life. So's a good horse under you. Or the only campfire for miles around. Or a quiet night and a nice soft hunk of ground to sleep on. Or church bells sending out their invitations. A mother meeting her first-born. The sound of a kid calling you Dad for the first time. There's a lot of things great about life. But I think tomorrow is the most important thing. Comes in to us at midnight very clean, ya know. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday. As a country, our yesterdays tell us that we have to win not only at war but at peace. So far we haven't done that. Sadly, it looks like we'll have to win another war to win a peace. All I can hope is that in our anxiety to have peace, we remember our clear and present dangers and beware the futility of compromise; only if we keep sight of both will we have a chance of stumbling forward into a day when there won't be guns fired anymore in anger.
Thank you for an enlightening post about John Wayne. He is not a favorite of mine. Now that I have been living under roof with a John Wayne fan (and indiscriminate old movie fan) for about a year, I have softened a bit. Not a lot but a little. I'm consciously working on opening my mind and rethinking some past judgments.
I'm pretty sure my anti-Wayne prediliction stems from the Vietnam war and his politics. So it goes. We as a culture have not even scabbed over on that war yet. Of course the Iraq war...nevermind. I read a milblog and voice personal support and encouragement to the individuals who write them when I have anything to add. Warms my old English teacher heart to find wonderful use of language there too.
I'm happy to see a post-Vietnam-era group of leaders emerging. Obama is one, but just one of more to come. We boomers won't die off quickly enough for some of them, but we can be fun to hang out with.
I grew up in Newport Beach in the 60's when it was just a small beach town and not the sad realty-show stereotype it is today. Mr. Wayne was of course, our local celebrity who for the most part was left alone to live his life. But I have three distinct memories of him.
One was when Patty Hearst was kidnapped by the self-proclaimed symbionese liberation army and eventually robbed a bank and was later pardoned by President Carter. At the time much of the local press was up in self-righteous arms about how Carter this criminal Hearst could go free. This was also shortly after the time of the Jonestown massacre. The press asked Mr. Wayne for comment, perhaps assuming his conservatism would back them up. His response was that he was baffled as to how easily the press and society accepted the concept that one man could brainwash hundreds into committing suicide but then turn around and be unwilling to accept that a dozen men could brainwash one captured & beaten woman into committing a bank robbery. His rebuke, logic, and grasp of the bigger picture impressed me.
Another time he impressed me was a story told by Barbara Walters. She'd signed a contract for a million dollars to be the new, gasp!, female anchor for ABC along side Harry Reasoner on ABC. The press was relentlessly critical of her salary. How could woman do this job and be worth a million dollars and she felt very embattled. John Wayne sent her a telegram that simply said "Don’t let the bastards get you down." As woman, I had to like that.
My last memory is a personal one. Mr. Wayne was my late mother's favorite actor. She used to work in a antiques department store in Newport Beach, now long gone. It would surprise a lot of people to know that John Wayne had a fondness and understanding of fine Asian antiques. One day he walked in the store and she ended up waiting on him several times over the years. And she told me was so nervous at first. (let's face it, sometimes it's best not to meet your heroes) But he always treated her with gracious respect and kindness. So thank you Mr. Wayne, for being nice to my mom. It meant a lot to her, so it meant a lot to me.
Matt Kaufman--congratulations on some fine deductive reasoning.
R & M--please take it outside, fellas.
John Wayne--I think your finest hour was speculating, before Barbara Walters and the world, that God might be Female. Rest In Peace.
If you read enough about him, it's clear that John Wayne "contained multitudes", an idea you might familiar with.
In one of his books, Dick Cavett tells of the time he was taping a special about Hollywood, at various locations and with as many major names as he could get. His segment with John Wayne was done on a soundstage set of a western cabin. As the story goes (and Cavett tells it far better than I), he and Wayne are waiting for the camera and lights to be set up. Wayne is humming to himself, and Cavett recognizes the melody as "Somewhere I'll Find You" by Noel Coward. This leads to the two men chatting about Coward's music and plays - and I'm pretty sure that Cavett used the word 'surreal' to describe the situation. As I said, Cavett tells this far better than I can; it's in his second bok "Eye On Cavett"; try and find it if you can.
It might well be that Wayne liked to play around with people's perceptions, either carrying them to an absurd extreme (as in the Playboy interview) or maybe throwing a curve (as in Cavett and Coward). What comes across consistently is that in person, John Wayne was a charming, eminently likable man. Even on the big movie screen, this quality can come through strongly enough to make scoffers put their baggage away and enjoy the show and the man.
I suppose it's like that moment at the close of Wayne's guest shot on "Maude". Duke throws out a line and Bea Arthur is ready to rip him a new one. Then he smiles, and Bea says "Oh the hell with it, Duke. Let's dance!" That might not work for Charlene, but who knows?
Ebert: "Somewhere I'll Find You." Yes. The theme music for the classic radio suspenser, "Mr. Keene, Tracer of Lost Persons."
You're very welcome, and excuse my asking, but are you not only cold, but also completely delusional? You thought this was "venomous?!?" Christ, I even told him how to get weird European pronunciation marks in Windows! What else do you want, blood?
Tell ya what, "Brr," let me try some aggressive aggressive hostility by suggesting you bite me and mind your own business. Mickey's a big boy, and so am I; neither of us needs to be coddled.
Mr. Ebert, I am wondering if there are any Wayne films that have grown on you over time?
As for his Military Service, I would have to wonder if he was afraid to end up like many other Hollywood Icons of the era, being used by the US Army for PR, USO, and other support services.
Ebert: I'll tell ya, Pilgrim, this one holds up damn fine.
Roger, I have to ask, because this goes to the heart of critical philosophy...
Although 'The Green Berets' is not one of Wayne's better films, is your review of ZERO stars a reflection of the film's merits or of your own personal political viewpoint? I've seen the film several times and it does not seem unredeeming; in fact, much of it is quite entertaining. [Incidentally, I cannot call up your review on your website; although the search returns a link for 'The Green Berets (1968)', clicking on it yields a 'not found' message.]
Would you feel an injustice were done if, say, a prominent film critic with more conservative views gave 'Good Night and Good Luck' a zero because it didn't take the threat of communism seriously? Or gave a zero to 'Norma Rae,' because unions destroy American competitiveness?
To take a more extreme example (and one you've written on), can one appreciate (and even praise) the technique of Leni Riefenstahl's 'Triumph of the Will' despite its pro-Nazi message?
Should a critic evaluate a film positively if it attains artistic and technical success, even if its message is disagreeable...or even reprehensible?
Quasi-repeat of part of my previous message One Two Three Four/We Don't Want a Flame War. Stay with John Wayne, please.
John Wayne is a perfect subject for velvet painting. Try it! It's hard to go wrong.
There is such a thing as John Wayne miscasting. As Olsen in "The Long Voyage Home" JW had one of the fakiest accents in the history of cinema--But Ya Gotta Love Him, Yinger Beer And All . . .
Why even mention the Duke's politics? Why can't we have an honest discussion of the man's films?
Because to a liberal, politics trumps everything.
Ebert: I'm one liberal of whom that is obviously not true.
How about conservatives if the topic were Jane Fonda?
Wow. Great article/blog post/piece of amazing writing, and as to all the other posts, I guess I had never really focused on John Wayne the polarizing conservative, or supposedly talentless hack. Appreciation of John Wayne was about as natural to me as appreciation of American Folk Songs or College Football. Mr. Wayne's films were a fixture in my household along with the Southeastern Conference and family car trips singing The Battle Hymn of the Republic (usually followed by Dixie and Amazing Grace, for the full irony of the American legacy). My mother introduced me to John Wayne westerns (though she dislikes his historically inaccurate Alamo film) and to a few of his war films, including The Green Berets. Which she loved as a child, and which I also loved as a child, but at some point, I realized why she didn't like it as much as an adult. Her appreciation for The Green Berets related to her brother's service in Vietnam and her desire at that time to see her brother as a John Wayne hero-type. I think I understand that impulse, and I can appreciate the film as sort of clumsy propaganda that was designed to help the American people see their sons and brothers out in Vietnam as John Wayne hero-types. And I know that all propaganda films are at some level just annoying unless you really agree with the message, and The Green Berets is at best a really clumsy propaganda film. But some; however, are sort of amazing--I mean Casablanca is pretty much an Allied propaganda film about the necessity of American intervention in the war in Europe ("They're asleep all over America!"), and it's fabulous, and because everybody agrees with that message (and of course, I agree with its message) it is rarely called propaganda. Anyway, I'm not really trying to defend The Green Berets, but just the idea that John Wayne might have felt that the soldiers of Vietnam deserved the same kind of heavy-handed propaganda he and Bogart and everyone else gave the soldiers of WWII, regardless of the merits of the respective conflicts. And that is pretty patriotic, and though it is not my favorite flavor of patriotism, I respect it.
I wonder that nobody has brought up "The Cowboys" here (If someone has, I missed that post), because while I love "The Searchers," John Wayne as "Mr. Andersen" in the showdown against Bruce Dern, fighting for the lives and souls of all those boys, is probably one of my favorite moments in any Western. I wish someone would make "The Cowboys: Special Edition" and leave out all that cringe-worthy stuff that dates the film, but that would probably destroy something about it.
"I had my back broke once, and my hip twice. And on my worst day I could beat the hell outta you." He says that line, and then he goes on to do just that and when Bruce Dern shoots him in the back anyway, I cry every time I see it. It is a seriously flawed film overall, and I don't know if the boys' actions after Andersen's death really redeem him as a father as the film seems to say, or if these boys too "went bad" on him. Whatever problems I have with the movie, John Williams' score is fantastic, and that is one great scene.
Ebert wrote: "I didn't for a second think of her as a fool. She was expressing an honest and not uncommon opinion, and her post earns a place in the thread and has inspired a lot of interest."
Ahh!
I stand corrected then; I thought you were perhaps chumming the waters a bit with what struck me as the "singularity" of Charlene's opinion. I understand women's intuition of course and the whole "radar thingy" wherein you see someone and the little hairs go up on the back of your neck, but I've honestly never encountered it before in regards to John Wayne. That's a new one!
I've always viewed John Wayne as belonging to another time and place, while being both a byproduct of it and its victim; ie: there's Marion Robert Morrison from Iowa, then there's John Wayne the actor, then there's his iconic image - which like Elvis or Monroe, took on a life of its own.
I've known about the Playboy interview for years, but he wasn't speaking as an elected public official. He was expressing his own point of view and freedom of speech can get messy, eh? I totally disagree with him of course, but it has no bearing for me on his acting because I see the two as unrelated.
Example: I can't stand Picasso - but I think some of his work is pretty cool. Mind you, you learn pretty fast in the Arts to divorce the two. Otherwise, you won't be able to enjoy much for being unable to get past someone's faults. But I digress as usual...
John Wayne the "icon" is very much an American thing. At least I don't remember seeing him held up to men, here in Canada. Instead, it's always been a famous hockey player or some such. Bobby Orr, Maurice "Rocket" Richard, Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretzky, etc. The only time I even hear his name is invariably when an American brings it up. Or I catch an old film on TV.
So if it's not entirely uncommon for a woman to have an intense, dislike of the guy; again, it's news to me. I've asked around moreover, since reading Charlene's post which I shared with pals and none of my girl friends reported feeling anything similar. More like "Maybe he looks like a guy who abused her as a kid..?"
That was their reaction. So too, mine I confess. Owing to how she qualified her dislike, coupled with sharing what amounts to a lot of emotional abuse on the part of the men in her life.
Just how common is that reaction to John Wayne, Roger..? I get the political stuff, but not the reaction to his physical appearance. And curious, I've been hunting around online to see if I can find anything similar. So far, some take issue with his politics or maybe gender roles in a movie, but no one's going "ewww, creepy!"
P.S. I saw "The Painted Veil" last night on DVD; wonderful movie! It stars a British actor named Toby Jones. He's on my Wallace Shawn list aka: "handsome" in an unusual way. Maybe that's why I reacted to Charlene's post the way I did? I couldn't see anything ugly or creepy about John Wayne so it had to be "other" thing (abuse) which immediately made me feel protective of her, poor thing, etc.
And I only suspected you of possible shenanigans because you're a Gemini born on June 18th and I have done your chart - and it's very, very interesting. :)
Solomon Wakeling:
Being a fellow child of the Ninja Turtles generation, I don't know anyone in our age range who doesn't like Sergio Leone's westerns, so alongside The Wild Bunch I'd think those are a pretty good place to start if you ever want to give the genre a try.
If you like those, they were my gateway drug to Clint's westerns like High Plains Drifter and The Outlaw Josey Wales, and then into Rio Bravo and The Searchers.
Andy, I too would be interested in Roger's views on that. But for myself, I'd say that it's can often be a balancing act. The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will are far more politically repugnant than The Life of David Gale & The Green Berets, but they are also aesthetically far more interesting. All things being equal, aesthetics will probably have more weight on the opinion of a good critic than ethics - hence, on balance, those movies get more favorable reviews from Roger than the other films. (Though it also probably helps that Birth and Triumph were reviewed by him years after their political sell-by date, and hence their "message" could be viewed from more of a distance than the far less inflammatory, but also far more pertinent, Green Berets - in '68 - and David Gale).
I recently saw Red River for the first time. Wonderful movie. Of course I was intrigued with the idea of Montgomery Clift in a western. All in all, quite an accomplishment.
With apologies if this has been mentioned (I haven't read the entire thread), I think one of Wayne's best, least appreciated movies is one I discovered through one of your reviews (I think). "They Were Expendable" is a little more nuanced than other, good guy-bad guy John Wayne movies. I'm not a big fan of Wayne's politics, but this performance reflects a certain empathy with the soldier that finds its culmination in moe thoughtful modern work, something like "Saving Private Ryan" or "Glory".
Another forgotten John Wayne movie is "Trouble Along The Way" - a fluff piece, but nicely done and enjoyable. He's still John Wayne, but there is a sliver of tenderness in this performance.
Today, I think someone like Dwayne Johnson could be a kind of John Wayne type, in a good enough movie.
My God! Sometimes I forget that you still have so many ties to some of the greatest actors that ever lived.
McLintock!
As a kid I cannot tell you how many video stores my Dad scoured over in the mid-eighties to get this Wayne movie. "Do you have McLintock?" "Do they have McLintock?" "Find out if they have McLintock!!"
I was already made to watch North to Alaska at least five times by the time I was 12, ("Bite it off!"). I had memorized the Hatari! soundtrack as well as anything else by Mancini (how many Wayne movie titles end in exclamation points?), but I, as I'm sure other children of baby boomers also did, was forced to watch The Quiet Man every Easter with their weeping mothers. I'm sure one of those Wayne Watchings also occurred on a Sunday afternoon watching Family Classics with Frazier Thomas on WGN, though I cannot confirm that.
So, in 1988, we finally found a copy of McLintock in the bottom corner of some video store near Naperville, IL. And you know what? It was never panned and scanned! Who ever transferred the movie McLintock, that my father so dearly beloved, made a straight transfer of the 70mm print, and, therefore, half the time, you couldn't even see John Wayne's face! Or sometimes half his body, or sometimes just his legs.
But it didn't matter. My Dad watched that one at least 12 times.
"Pappy could have directed another picture, and a damned good one. But they said Pappy was too old. Hell, he was never too old. In Hollywood these days, they don't stand behind a fella. They'd rather make a goddamned legend out of him and be done with him."...Wayne
Indeed, one is never old. The body ofcourse ages. The mountain of Age is no less rewarding an adventure than ridin' the prairie of youth---a different movie, one has a better mind....
bill at 6:52, you say "to a liberal, politics trumps everything." I suggest you check out a conservative blog called Big Hollywood. Talk about politics trumping everything! This liberal loves John Wayne as an actor, and I suspect I would have found him a charming and likable human being as well. I'm partial to Rio Bravo and Liberty Valance, but I'll watch almost anything with the Duke in it. I've read the Playboy interview referenced above, and I found Wyane's racism appalling. I try not to judge too much, though. He grew up in a much different time and place, and I can't know the reasons behind his thinking.
Ebert: How about conservatives if the topic were Jane Fonda?
May I take this one, Roger?
I feel fairly confident that if she was mentioned in a similar article, someone would bring up "Hanoi Jane." I would not be the one to do it, and I likely would not comment on it because I was not alive and have no "cultural memory" of what she did or did not do.
While her patriotism would be questioned, maybe angrily by some, I think most true conservatives feel that she had/has a right to her opinion and a right to use her celebrity to support any cause she desires. And we, as Americans and consumers (not sure which to place before the other), have the right not to support her and her movies or other projects if we disagree with her.
The best non-western Westerns I've seen are the now legendary Bollywood's Sholay (means Embers)(best part subtitled here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tq6Xr71NpuY)
and Seven Samurai (I'm now hooked to watch its next of kin Magnificent Seven which missed me.) Those were the days when movies was movies!
"By bill on June 12, 2009 6:52 PM
Why even mention the Duke's politics? Why can't we have an honest discussion of the man's films?
Because to a liberal, politics trumps everything.
Ebert: I'm one liberal of whom that is obviously not true.
How about conservatives if the topic were Jane Fonda?"
To Bill and the other conservatives who have offered such provocations: must all Americans walk in lockstep with you on every subject? Can you never tolerate an opinion with which you disagree? Was it written into law somewhere that everyone must both consider John Wayne to be a great actor and a great patriotic American icon because of his political affiliations?
I certainly drew a distinction between the two issues in my statement, though I'm sure you didn't like either response. Firstly, apart from his politics, I don't think that John Wayne was a particularly good actor. He certainly was not a versatile actor. Most of his cadence, tone of voice, pronunciations, general delivery, attitude, body movements and other mannerisms are pretty much transferable from any character he played in any film to any other character he played in any other film. For me to say that I don't think he was a good actor does not mean that I do not recognise that he was a spectacularly popular and successful actor. It doesn't take a liberal to be objective, only someone who is fair.
The other issue I touched upon was Mr. Morrison's popular acclaim as some kind of "hero" or American icon because of his outspoken political stances combined with the sorts of roles he tended to play in his films (strong, authoritarian, "patriotic," usually macho). This larger than life status was certainly something he consciously cultivated irrespective of the details of his personal biography (which I did not get into, but others have in this blog). I defined for you what I consider to be a genuine hero (someone who irrevocably improves the condition of every human through genius, hard work and sacrifice) and gave several examples of such individuals I have personally met in life. (Francis Crick, the man who discovered the structure of DNA together with Jim Watson, was one. Jim Watson was another.) Unfortunately, John Wayne did not qualify for such status in my scheme of things. I also excluded what I believe to be a large category of people who posture, pose, speak platitudes and exploit patriotism to futher their own gain and their own reputation. I said this group includes an awful lot of politicians and actors who espouse politics across the political spectrum. I even countered John Wayne on the right with Jane Fonda on the left, by way of example. That said, my harsh critique is not meant to deter anyone, actors included, from expressing political thought. In fact, I encourage political participation by everyone, I just take most of what I consume with a large grain of salt.
Obviously, you want more from me to prove that my opinion of Wayne as an actor is not based soley on his politics. (Of course, you will never get me to embrace his politics irrespective of whether he was a successful movie actor, or even if he were a good movie actor.) I can give you numerous examples of very conservative, highly outspoken, politically active individuals whom I like as actors. I believe their reasoning in the political arena is flawed but they give great performances on screen. Charlton Heston is the most obvious choice. He was outstanding as Moses, Juda Ben Hur, Taylor and Neville (in the Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Planet of the Apes and the Omega Man) to name a few of his best performances. Clint Eastwood has been outstanding in often very political films like Gran Torino. You would never know his personal politics from his roles. Bruce Willis has always engaged me, not in his shoot-em-ups like Die Hard, but in his sci-fi/action movies like the Fifth Element and Armageddon. John Voight is another great actor whom you might be tempted to think is liberal from some of the roles he played, however, he is an outspoken opponent of Barack Obama whom he considers a disaster for the country. These guys are not rarities. Ben Stein is a raving loon when it comes to politics, religion and economics, however, he is entertaining on the screen (as a comedian, not a philosopher). Ron Silver sometimes had his moments as a actor (he was quite well-liked by liberal friends), but he became a hard core conservative.
Not to put words into Roger's keyboard, but when he gave accolades to John Wayne as an actor and as an individual, I don't believe there was an implicit assumption that he was also signing off on the popular notion that Wayne truly was the self-styled great "hero" and American icon--especially not because of his political stances. I think Roger was saying that Mr. Wayne was a decent and generous man in his personal life. He certainly treated Roger well enough, giving the kid several interviews early in his career when gaining that sort of access mattered most. I can well believe that John Wayne was fair and good to those he knew in life. I have no reason to doubt it, and we have Roger's words to support it. However, that does not make him a "hero" and an American icon whom this country should look to for moral or political guidance any more than it should look to me or to you, Bill, on matters like war, peace, saving the economy or unifying the disparate elements of our diverse society.
Some of you people are slightly blinded by his movie persona. Yes, he was a great actor and stared in many great movies. But do you have to defend and white-wash his real life persona because of the movies? The man was a known and outspoke racist. That's it.
I wonder: does "Brokeback mountain" count as a Western?
What a terrific post and some fascinating comments. I am always amazed by your recollections and meetings with the icons such as Robert Mitchum, Lee Marvin and even Charles Bronson. Your perspective is poignant, though I often ask, "Did it really happen that way?!" I'm sure your recollections are essentially true, seen through the eyes of a man who believes and respects. After reading this post, I said, "God, if it didn't happen that way, it should have."
It must have been extremely difficult being John Wayne, just as it must have been difficult being Paul Newman or Charlton Heston. Today, I imagine it's difficult being Tom Cruise. I try, not always successfully, to separate the actors from their politics. Bottom line, Wayne had such charisma, even in his bad films such as "Hellfighters" and "McQ." There was always a sense of decency. It's comforting to know it was genuine. I consider "Red River" to be his greatest film, but then watch "The Searchers" or "The Quiet Man" and change my mind. I return to his flawed films often - "The Alamo," that wonderful mess of a movie where he rides upon the scene God-like to Dimitri Timokin's majestic score; "The Cowboys," just about the greatest film he ever made until Bruce Dern and gang make their appearance; "The Train Robbers," a dream-like fantasy with one of the greatest supporting casts ever; and so on. I saw a film of his the other night, "Trouble Along the Way," co-starring the lovely Donna Reed. Wayne, in rare contemporary form as a football coach, displayed a great flair for comedy. I'm sad he didn't attempt the vein more often. He and his daughter (Wayne's character was divorced) move to a college campus where he is to coach. They are shown their living quarters, a cobwebbed attic in an old building, and the daughter asks, "I wonder who used to live here Daddy?" Wayne drawls, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame.....probably."
Lee Marvin had such intense presence on the screen, and yet he seemed to diminish in stature when standing next to Wayne. We all know Marvin was the real deal, with an ass full of shrapnel to prove it. But when even Marvin wilts, well, you know there's an uncommon spark. There's an ideal in the Wayne persona that is comforting and inspirational (perhaps mostly for men?). It may not be based in the reality of today's world, and maybe the further we move down the road the more it fades. I don't know, it's tough to overcome our cynicism. But there is some truth during the quieter moments.
Ebert: None of them ever claimed I misquoted them. I wrote a profile about Bronson for Esquire, and when Johnny Carson asked him "What do you think when someone writes about you like this?" he replied, "It's what I said." I interviewed him 2-3 more times after that. Kirk Douglas was game. Lee Marvin kept talking. Paul Newman did. They perhaps realized that they seemed more interesting in a real interview than after insipid sound bite inanity.
HAL90x,
Your posts are always excellent and erudite. However, I laughed because those actors you provided as examples of `great`, to a man,all recycled the same character over and over again. Successful typecasting. Now, Fonda! Brando! You know, Id even throw in a Mitchum.
You have these nice new categories. The Immensity! is what rattled those who persecuted Galileo who had been peering into his improved telescope and finding a lot more stuff up there than the holy writ allowed for---and it is what Einstein understood as the divineness of the pattern. Buddhist cosmology incidently allowed for a much vaster world even 2500 and more years ago as in the quote below which refers to a span of time ago when a specific event ocurred:
"Suppose someone grinds a major world system into dust. He then takes this dust with him and goes one thousand major world systems toward the east, where he drops one particle. He proceeds another thousand major world systems eastward and drops the second particle. He continues on in this manner, dropping another particle and then another until he has exhausted all the dust particles of the entire major world system. Then he gathers up all the major world systems along the route he has taken, whether they have received a particle or not, and reduces them all to dust. He places these dust particles in a row, allowing one entire kalpa to pass for the placement of each. When the first kalpa has passed, he places the second particle, and then the third, until as many kalpas have passed as there are particles of dust. The total length of time represented by the passage of all these kalpas is referred to as a period of major world system dust particle kalpas."
*A kalpa (aeon) according to one view is around four million years.
Well, once again I just spent what will no doubt be the most enjoyable half hour of my day reading and reflecting on another entry in Mr. Ebert's journal. It means a great deal to me. And, as I think I've urged before, it should published in book form (obviously minus the wonderful videos, but maybe with stills from them), perhaps in annual volumes. I'd certainly collect and read through them again--and, more importantly, pass them along to my daughter when she's a little older.
Some say Decency, some say Racist. Can they coexist in one man?
Reading about his visit to Stepin Fetchit in hospital triggered a memory. There was a recruitment meeting at an International Order of Foresters lodge, early 60's, and by way of daycare they stuck us hids in a room and showed us a movie. The movie showed, for laughs, an African-American being so frightened his dark skin turned white, and his e3yes bulged beyond the humanly possible (they used to call that 'trick photography.')--and all over something anyone with a roomtemp IQ could figure out was nothing to be scared of.
The room rocked with laughter. I laughed too.
Now, that was the most blatant racism. Does the fact that I laughed make me a racist? I don't think so--maybe a Racist-In-Training or a Racist Cadet . . . but I trust a mahny of us shed that vile part of our education, evolved . . . and John Wayne, product of a racist upbringing (that's simplistic, to boil it down to that, isn't it?) evolved, I think, to the extent he was capable.
As Robert Penn Warren had his character Jackie Burden say: People are not good or bad; they are good and bad.
As the alleged Christ allegedly said: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Kurt Vonnegut had the grudgingest of admirations for Celine (dammit, where IS that Accent Going Off To The Lefty key??!), and was honest enough to publish his take on that.
Further, deponent saith not, except to refer to the GLORIOUS song, "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist."
Ebert: Some blog housekeeping matters:
The "Recent Two Thumbs Up® reviews" entry has been taken down for repairs. We are trying to figure out how to position it permanently on the home page, rather than have it cycle down and off as all other entries do. This involves getting the blog software and the website software to work together. It will return. Better to take it down than have it appear and disappear bafflingly.
The "Win Ben Stein's mind" entry continues to amaze. Debate continues furiously there. Today it passed 2,100 comments and 800,000 words. That's an average comment of 380 words. This matter is not easily resolved to universal satisfaction.
I have an authoritative response to Stephen Sheehan's provocative post about the possibility that Natalie Wood plays John Wayne's daughter in "The Searchers." It will lead the next Answer Man.
This happened in late 1969 or early 1970. A friend and I had just stepped into an elevator at the University of Washington. We were discussing (and deriding) John Wayne’s political opinions. Perhaps we’d just seen True Grit – second run and double-billed, no doubt, because that was how we chose our movies when we were students. There was one other person in the elevator, an African-American student. When we ran out of disparaging remarks and stopped talking for a moment, he said, “John Wayne. At least you always know where he stands.” My friend and I looked at each other and, I suppose, nodded in agreement. I don’t think we said anything more. I took it as a grudging compliment for Mr. Morrison. At the time, I didn’t recognize that it was also directed at a couple of white guys from suburban Bellevue who were willing to protest the war in Vietnam (as was almost everyone else on campus) but took little or no notice of civil rights issues. He – the African-American student – was right, of course, not just about me (I won’t speak for my friend) but about John Wayne. You always knew where he stood, in his films and in his life.
Ebert: Fascinating that the moment has remained in your memory for 40 years. It meant something to you.
RE: Matt Kaufman on June 12, 2009 11:56 AM
Although I, too, consider myself a film aficionado, somehow "The Searchers" escaped my view until about a month ago. After reading Matt's post, I realized that I had also picked up on the sister-in-law's behavior, especially in the scene where she takes Ethan's overcoat into the back room and clutches it to herself. Ethan's reaction after the house and farm have been burned and the family killed also seems disproportionate unless he has deeper feelings for his sister-in-law than what is perceptible on the surface. It is clear from the earlier scenes that he and his brother are not particularly close, so it seems unlikely that Ethan would be so devastated by his brother's murder.
Thank you, Matt for throwing light on something I subconsciously perceived, but did not really SEE until your post. As Ebert says, this adds another, deeper layer of meaning to the film.
Because to a liberal, politics trumps everything.
Ebert: I'm one liberal of whom that is obviously not true.
Respectfully: If you set aside politics and take the film solely on its merits, is 'The Green Berets' really deserving of zero stars?
Ebert: As I explain the stars, 0.5 stars is as bad as a film can be. Zero stars indicates a moral objection, apart from the film's merits.
I only got half way through the responses but recently I read a great article about the guy who owned the place where they made a lot of the Ford westerns. One thing it mentioned was how bad Ford treated Wayne. It said he was bad to everyone but that he was especially mean to Wayne.
Learn your emoticons, Mickey! That's me sticking my tongue out at you. :p
I love watching Ford, Kurosawa, Leone and Scorsese in comparison to one another. What appeals to me about their works is their ability to make the action of the story reveal the character of the actor. For John Wayne in True Grit, The Searchers, Red River and even The Big Trail, we see the qualities of the man in what he does and how he does it, rather than in the words he speaks.
What makes these directors and their star actors interesting to me is how the place the protagonist into a physical context that requires them to be authentic in character in place. Whether it is Monument Valley (the Searchers), Jackson Hole (Shane and The Big Trail), Sinai (Lawrence of Arabia), New York (Taxi Driver), or Leone's Spain, the setting is a lead that the actors must act with. I think John Wayne did this as well as any one.
I think John Wayne's body of work stands head and shoulders over all most every other actor in the Hollywood. I don't find his movies overtly political like what we find today. They tell stories that tell us about the human condition. And what John Wayne showed us about our humanity is worth remember and revisiting often.
Thank you for a great homage to The Duke.
Ian, I couldn't agree with you more. Here's my thinking on it: it seems that if you could choose one trait to define the right-wingnuts, I would say it was their tendency to endlessly indulge themselves in projection. They always seem to project their own corruption/inadequacies/fears onto their perceived enemies... you know, their "fellow" citizens of the country they love so fervently.
Interesting point, and logical, but it could also be a manifestation of the conservative tendency to stick with "their kind," as it were. Patty Hearst, John Wayne: two wealthy white people, whereas those hundreds brainwashed by Jim Jones were, IIRC, mostly black.
I'm nearly 59. I remember a few things about John Wayne I'll submit for no particular reason. When we were asked about attending a movie, it wasn't a "John Wayne movie is on at the Strand", it was "John Wayne is AT the Strand - we're going".
John was one of my first of many movie father figures. Most are deceased, but their memory is as clear as Klinger Lake deep well water in the morning (see southern Michigan).
John Wayne only made a handfull of bad movies. One was Rio Bravo. It had a dubious appearance by Ricky Nelson. I think his name was "ColArAdA", but that could have been someone else. Even as a teenager, I knew that there would never be another actor of Rick's caliber...until I saw Glen Campbell act. Elvis Presley probably attended the same thespian school as Glen and Ricky prior to doing A Change of Habit. The Green Berets was a bad movie, but I think Mr. Wayne probably wanted it to be great. There is honor in trying to portray our soldiers as heroes. Most of them are. Besides, what other kind of movie could they really make at that time with John Wayne? None other.
Watching the interview with Lee Marvin made me remember that my mom was absolutely in love with him. I loved The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance". A truly wonderful movie filled with great father figures
for boys of my age. The man who shot Liberty Valance - he was the bravest of them all!
Another great piece of writing and remembering Roger. You're the best.
I too was not always a fan of westerns but learned to love them after watching "The Wild Bunch". I have since watched many Westerns with my father, a huge John Wayne fan.
Not a week goes by without me watching a Western, be it at home or at my video store while I am working. The Searchers and Rio Bravo are among my favorites.
I don't agree with some of his assitance in the "Red Scare" of the '50s but I don't let them interfere with my movie watching.
For those of who are just starting to watch westerns may I suggest James Stewart's westerns starting with The Man From Laramie and winchester '73 and Burt Lancster's ones are pretty good too.
I love watching Ford, Kurosawa, Leone and Scorsese in comparison to one another. What appeals to me about their works is their ability to make the action of the story reveal the character of the actor. For John Wayne in True Grit, The Searchers, Red River and even The Big Trail, we see the qualities of the man in what he does and how he does it, rather than in the words he speaks.
What makes these directors and their star actors interesting to me is how the place the protagonist into a physical context that requires them to be authentic in character in place. Whether it is Monument Valley (the Searchers), Jackson Hole (Shane and The Big Trail), Sinai (Lawrence of Arabia), New York (Taxi Driver), or Leone's Spain, the setting is a lead that the actors must act with. I think John Wayne did this as well as any one.
I think John Wayne's body of work stands head and shoulders over all most every other actor in the Hollywood. I don't find his movies overtly political like what we find today. They tell stories that tell us about the human condition. And what John Wayne showed us about our humanity is worth remember and revisiting often.
Thank you for a great homage to The Duke.
Hi Roger
I always wanted to know who Martin Scorsese's favourite actor was or use to be on the big screen. I was thinking John Wayne since he likes to use The Duke references in his past films, what do you think?
Ebert: I don't think Scorsese is thinking so much about actors as about directors. And the "Taxi Driver" parallels with "The Searchers" came from the screenplay by Paul Schrader, who also drew on "The Searchers" for his own "Hard Core."
I read something astonishing today by Josh Olson; an American screenwriter and director. He wrote the screenplay for "A History of Violence" and was invited at one point by Harlan Ellison back in 2006 to collaborate on the adaptation of the one of the author's short stories (ie: so they know one another, which factors into his piece.)
My friend Cheryl sent me the link for a story Olson published in OCT 2007:
"The Life and Death of Jesse James" - An internet love mystery
http://www.laweekly.com/2007-10-11/news/the-life-and-death-of-jesse-james/1
It's the bizarre true story about a friend of his named Audrey (whom Josh met inside a forum devoted to screenwriters) who falls in love over the internet with the "perfect guy" - Jesse; a firefighter, poet and 9/11 survivor. She falls so in madly love that Audry leaves her husband - even though she and Jesse have never met - with plans to move to Colorado so as to be with him. But before that can happen, he reportedly shoots himself in the stomach because he had cancer and wanted to kill himself; there was also a history of mental illness and numerous stays inside hospitals.
But that's not the really weird part.
It turns out there is "no" Jesse. Everything about him was invented. A woman named Janna Saint James who'd befriended Audrey and eventually even moved into her house, had been corresponding with Audrey for almost 2 years in secret - pretending from the start to be her soul mate and the man her of dreams, while providing excuses as to why they couldn't meet. A psychotic emotional parasite, Janna apparently trolls forums looking for vulnerable women. Not for money. Not to cause them any bodily harm but rather, in order to feed of the need of another. She may even have had an accomplice; as Audrey had spoken to "Jesse" over the phone and it was a man's voice. Note: Janna is married.
Eventually, it was all uncovered and led to a scheme to save Audrey - Harlan Ellison himself took part in the intervention, while Josh and his friends went to Audrey's home to kick Janna out. When confronted her reaction was so calm it was chilling. She simply agreed to pack her bags and leave. No argument. And she left in a cab.
Cheryl had been waiting for me to finish reading that article and upon doing so, I grabbed the phone; imagine 20 minutes worth of astonished "WTF?!" then, being exchanged between two girl friends; chuckle!
And why am I sharing all this with you in here..?
Where's Charlene? Why hasn't she come back? And did it really take her 4 tries to write that post? Or did someone decide to drop a canary amongst the cats just to see what would happen, eh? That story by Josh has really got me wondering now - for having expanded my definition of weirdness!
I mentioned all this to Cheryl, who laughed "well, that's the internet for you."
Too true. :)
And the more I think about it, the more it makes me genuinely laugh to think Charlene's post might have been a sneaky prank! For I confess I kinda admire sneakiness; chuckle! I actually hope that's the case, for I'd felt so sorry for her, thinking the worst - whereas this would be much better!
Thoughts, anyone?
P.S. my name really is Marie Haws and I really do live in Canada. :)
Ebert: If I were Charlene I wouldn't come back either. She honestly expresses herself, takes a chance on being open, and for her pains is discussed as a psycho. I think her feelings are legitimate, even if I happen to disagree.
Ford was definitely a hardass. When an actor kept screwing up their lines, he would bend them over in front of everyone and kick them right in the ass. I'd probably take that over Kubrick's emotional abuse, though.
I think that a day will come when I won't be able to watch a movie with John Wayne in it with out crying. My Dad almost always cries when he watches these movies, and I know that when I lose him someday I will cry because I miss my dad. There is something of my Dad invoked by Wayne. My Dad is not a tough guy. (He cries at Hallmark commercials as well as John Wayne movies...) But, I think that Wayne's cowboys often make larger than life the sufferings of love deeply held, but unexpressible. I certainly have experienced the service of love's austere offices from my father, and I know that he loves me deeply; however, it is hard for him to express it sometimes.
I don't want to get drawn into the political stuff, but I have to contribute this. I picked up a copy of the Chicago Reader, and skimmed the personals - always enjoyable and often more eye-opening than a gallon of coffee - and saw in the "Just Friends" section, a woman who said that she "Enjoys people from all walks of life, except Republicans."
Well. I was raised Democrat (I can still remember my Grandpa fuming about Herbert Hoover's "A chicken in every pot!") and am now feel somewhat distant from both parties. All I can say is, when I visit my Dad's tavern in Rantoul, IL you have both Democrats and Republicans enjoying each other's company. Politics doesn't come up, generally. I strongly suspect that one of my brothers voted for Obama, and that the other didn't. Who did I vote for? None of your business.
It seems like the internet is as good at dividing people politically as it is in pulling together people with shared interests. Probably because there's no urge to hold back when the person on the other side of the screen isn't "real" to you - just an online oppoenent. Sharp words, without the softening of a raised eyebrow or a verbal inflection, can cut deeply.
Ron Barth's post, saying "it seems that if you could choose one trait to define the right-wingnuts, I would say it was their tendency to endlessly indulge themselves in projection. They always seem to project their own corruption/inadequacies/fears onto their perceived enemies..." is unfortunately just as true for "left-wingnuts".
Once someone starts defining everything about the world in terms of a party platform or political viewpoint, and forgets that this world is made of fallible, wonderful, redeemable people, then cynicism sets in all too quickly. I'd like to have a beer with all you guys and talk about anything other than politics.
Now back to Film, which is the reason I come here - thanks for the kind words about "The Searchers" to those that commented - it just kind of "came to me" recently, but surely I can't have been the very first to see it. Even so, you'd think that it'd be in the literature on the movie, but it isn't.
Ebert: And there is Stephen Sheehan's post suggesting that Debbie isn't Ethan's niece - she is his daughter, by his sister-in-law. I will have a persuasive response to that leading the next Answer Man.
Scott,
before I posted, I actually considered the possibility that the actors I mentioned were just as typecast as Wayne. Now that you bring it up, I cannot disagree.
Probably when all is said and done, we simply have innate biases towards and against certain screen personality types--irrespective of the actors' private lives and personal beliefs. Perhaps we gravitate towards those with whom we find empathy, be it consciously or subliminally. If this emotional resonance is absent, we may not care for the characters they portray. Some of us may be innately sympatico with Wayne's personna, others not at all. They may rather love Heston, Lee Marvin, Ernest Borgnine, Al Pacino or Jack Palance, and feel no contradiction whatsoever, though all these actors commonly play strong, domineering personality types. I think the key is the actor's getting you to understand and accept the motives of his character. Only then will you unconditionally legitimate his actions. Yes?
I have recollected many additional actors (since my last post) who publicly allied themselves with Republican or conservative causes, most of whom I loved as actors, only a few of whom turned me off. There is no shortage of the type in Hollywood, no matter all the phony boo-hooing about "liberal bias" and conservative victimhood in show business and the media.
I would never miss a Schwarzeneggar flick no matter his politics or even how over the top his performances. He wasn't a great actor, maybe not even an above average actor, he simply entertained me. He had an instinctual knack for immediately winning you over to his side, except as the first terminator whom you were meant to hate. When he reprised the role, he immediately reversed the polarity and won your trust. Bad guy transformed to good guy via new computer code, no existential crisis necessary for redemption a la Darth Vader. People in SoCal who know Arnold tell me he's a charismatic guy, in spite of his tendency to play grabass with hot babes.
Bob Hope, Sammy Davis Jr. and Frank Sinatra conspicuously hob-nobbed with GOP presidents. To me, they were still great actors or entertainers. Rambo, I mean Silvester Stallone, rubbed me the wrong way. I just didn't like his acting, the characters he played or the off-screen shenanigans. I doubt he and I would have gotten along in real life.
I doubt that any one of these guys ever lost any sleep over whether you or I liked them or considered them good actors. As long as the public kept buying tickets they could consider themselves a success. I think it's how most Americans operate. We define our own goals and live by our own standards. We don't all want the same things. As long as we do no harm to anyone else, "it's our movie."
Just because I'm a curious guy, I'd be interested to find out which of these many other stars I've mentioned (Heston, Eastwood, Willis, Voight, Silver, Schwarzeneggar, Stallone, Sinatra, etc ) gave Roger the time for numerous free-wheeling interviews, what Roger thought of them personally and professionally, and (most importantly) what he learned about them that may have been surprising. Given all that's been speculated about Sinatra, those interviews (if they happened) would intrigue me the most. So, a column on Sinatra one of these days, Roger? Whadda-ya-say?
Ebert: I spoken that way with Eastwood and Stallone, not so much the others, never with Sinatra.
What has happened to Jon Voight recently?
dear ron,
thanks for the recommendations. one flew over the cuckoo's nest was one of the first films i had ever seen in a theater and one that i had to sneak into as i was not yet of age for an r-rated movie. great film, of course, but that and carnal knowledge are both examples of jack being jack, which is not a knock on jack's acting as much as a knock on most of the roles he has taken. i haven't seen as good as it gets mainly because i cringe whenever i see greg kinnear. his career can only be explained by assuming he's got a picture of a very powerful hollywood person in drag or with a shetland pony. (borrowed that one from harry callahan)
Roger in,
Horse are cinematic, they breath. It's a trick to get them on screen though. Put more racetracks in the movies. That means characters who gamble? No, just characters who are friends with a jockey.
You know where the western have got as audience? Video games, that's where, as long as you look for the right type of western. All of John Wayne's westerns were set on this hemisphere. Maybe not all of them. I'll look into it but you can't tell from a list of titles where the movies are set. If you want to give that away you can use a modern trailer. I repeat, it's a different type of western out there.
Johnwayne. Johnwayne. I think it was Montaigne who would have said "Everyone needs a name like that."
Ebert: Definitely Montaigne.
Let me start by saying I've been a fan of Wayne's work for most of my life , with "The Searchers" and "Red River" being 2 of my favorite films. I definitely agree that Wayne had talent, and I'm sure he was a personable man with many great traits. However, I don't know if any of the other responders here are members of a minority group like myself, but to hear someone say they were in favor of "white supremecy" (in 1971, no less...not 1921 or 1941) can only be construed as a racist remark. I see many other posters trying to twist that or explain it away. And I don't buy the comments that Wayne was "a man of his time"...there were many contemporaries of his (such as Bogart and Henry Fonda)or near-contemporaries (such as Peck or even Sinatra), who did not hold such beliefs. Comments like that, or the one's about the Indian's "bellyaching",makes me feel that Public Enemy had it wrong about Elvis, but sadly, right about the Duke. Now let me go put on my beautful Blu-ray of "The Searchers"...
Since I was eight John Wayne has been one of my favourite actors. From my grandfather, I inherited a deep love for Westerns. In Mexico, The Duke's name is also legendary, one of the legends of US cinema, although, of course, he is not a true hombre next to our very own pride and joy, like Pedro Infante, Jorge Negrete or Antonio Aguilar (whom the Duke shared credits with in "The Undefeated")
My dad also liked him a lot, and when I was about 12, I bought "Rio Bravo" and have been hooked ever since. The ones I've seen are "The Searchers", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance", "The Shootist", "True Grit", "The Alamo", "El Dorado", "The Comancheros", "McLintock", "Stagecoach", "Rio Bravo", "Red River", "The Cowboys" and "Angel and the Badman". I love them all and I really wish I could catch up with the rest. I cannot imagine anyone who hasn't seen his films...they truly are missing out.
The Duke would've hated my guts. I consider myself a Democratic Socialist, so I'm probably one of those "fucking left wing radicals". Growing up, just being familiar with his persona, I loved him dearly. The nonsense spewed about him being a "vicious bully" comparable with serial killers is unbelievably stupid. He might have been headstrong and a bit forward, but he was always paternal and protective. The Playboy interview broke my heart where I first read it, but all I gotta do is remember him in his roles as the almost-invisible hero of the untamed West and I smile...even with his best performance, as Ethan Edwards. His iconic moment at the doorway sends goosebumps down my spine.
He's my fifth favorite actor (after Infante, Groucho, Mifune and Pacino) and I continue to like him, regardless of his wrong headed views. Such is the power of his persona, his films, his collaborations with great figures and the fact that his films are a bonding experience with my father and even my younger sister!
Ebert: Infante, Groucho, Mifune, Pacino and Wayne.
I'm trying to imagine who could come next on that list.
Ebert wrote: "If I were Charlene I wouldn't come back either. She honestly expresses herself, takes a chance on being open, and for her pains is discussed as a psycho. I think her feelings are legitimate, even if I happen to disagree."
See that's what I'd thought, too! And hence my reaction and initial post. But there's been silence ever since; she hasn't responded to anyone. At which point you've got two options: either she got scared off, or it was never genuine to begin with.
Note: the Olson story simply reminded me that you can encounter all kinds on the internet. Ie: people are not always what they seem. Which led to me wonder if maybe the reason there's been silence, is because someone was just having a bit of fun, so to speak. That's all I'd meant by it in case more is being inferred..?
And personally, I'd rather it be a prank post. As the alternative is to know that someone's courage was met with unkindness inside your blog, eh?
That said, immediately following Charlene’s post, there was some sympathetic feedback. At least Marcel, Ron Barth Jr, Ian Poirier, Paul J. Marasa aren't enamored with John Wayne, either. It’s not until Daniel A. posts, followed by Bill Mulligan, that someone actually takes issue with her comments - which I scolded them for. All of which is to say, and assuming Charlene's feelings are indeed legitimate, seems she chose to see her glass in here as being half empty instead of half full.
And that's a pity.
I apologize if I came off as insensitive to Charlene, I certainly didn't meant to bully her (though some people here definitely did).
I can't think of any actors that strike me as serial killers, but there have been some who I have a subconscious distaste for, through no fault of their own. Some people just rub you the wrong way.
Reading through this thread, it's astounding to see how otherwise intelligent individuals marginalise themselves by spouting unsolicited political opinions.
Fellas, please: these sorts of debates - the "my team is great and yours is self-evidently stupid" sort - should have stayed on the playground.
I was pleased to see the treatment given to Wayne's politics in the article here, Roger. Sort of managed to put things in perspective while not glossing over the, say, crudeness of the man's view of society.
I'm guessing you despised Strom Thurmond for the same reasons I despised him, and for the same reasons I'm guessing we both despised Senator Jesse Helms. There's a difference between being a conservative and being a bigot. Taft, Goldwater and Buckley were the former. Thurmond and Helms were the latter.
Ebert: Whatever happened to the era when Illinois Senators Paul Douglas, the liberal lion, and Everett McKinley Dirksen, the GOP majority leader, used to have a friendly debate every month or so on WGN Radio?
The era still exists. I had a friendly debate with Stanley Dancer on this blog about Bush's legacy for hours. (I still think GW Bush was a miserable failure, the worst President since maybe Franklin Pierce, whilst Stanley believes historians will place Bush next to Carter.) I'm still waiting for someone to list an accomplishment of the Bush Administration, as opposed to the argument that Bush wasn't as bad as Carter.
Being too young to really appreciate "THE DUKE", I have to say I could not have enjoyed your column/blog/cathersis enough. I am damn close to 31 years old. I have been raised on a steady diet of anti-heroes, and the simple fact that nobody is clean is burned into my brain. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no Idealist. I have spent time in Iraq, and truly understand that nobody really is innocent in the true sense if the word, but goddamn we all need one beacon to look to. Personally I don't favor JW, nothing personal, but I was raised with a level of toxic incredulity of all things pure, can you blame me? Spider-man, Bat-man, The-Man-with-No-Name, and Quentin Tarantino-esque man/children were the flavor of my day. But somehow the distilled esence of "goodness" comes through with every JW role. I don't care what the director has him do, you know damn good and well he could watch your mom if nned be. Now Me/We/All have seen the parodies, both good and bad(gitalongliddledoggy) that mostly define JW for my generation. While I have no real personal revelation concurrent with ths article, I will share this story. To be brief, Ross Perot was running for president when I was a freshman in high school, at this time my entire knowledge of Mr. Perot was soley derived from Dana Carvey's impression of him on SNL. My parents had recently given up on trying to keep me on any sort of realistic schedule and I was allowed unfettered access to the family TV on sSat. nights after the 11:00 pm news. Now I enjoyed the impression of Mr. Perot greatly, even though up until that point I had never heard of him. I recently read a novel by a popular english author that very thinly dramitized the fall of Iran in the early 80's and featured Mr. Perot as a hero of sorts to his employees/family. The net effect was a realization that a person I had viewed for well over a decade as a parody, had a real life and many important functions aside from comedic relief. I must say that this article has had much the same effect on me. JW has always been the archtype of american being, so much so tht he has been made a symbol rather then a person. When eating breakfast last week, and hearing my friend ask the waitress for eggs that blink back, my only thought was, "damn, that would be a killer movie line", I realized that not only was it already a killer movie line, it had been inspired by a real life individual that modern frankness has been the watered-down imitaion of for years. The lasting legacy of JW is in my eyes, not a true grit or a cowboy swagger, but the ability to be oneself no matter what the consequences. People often complain that JW always played himself, just in different costumes. I think the true story is that we accepted him is so many roles as himself, just in different costumes. Best Wishes, BILES...
Great revisit with The Big J, Roger. Better still, the exceptional responses of your legions of faithful U.S. and Canadian followers, and the extraordinary sense of community they share. Bravo!
Reply to: Ebert: Infante, Groucho, Mifune, Pacino and Wayne. I'm trying to imagine who could come next on that list.
If he ever accomplishes his jump from prime time TV to movies, an actor named Shemar Moore.
Reply to: Ebert wrote: "If I were Charlene I wouldn't come back either. She honestly expresses herself, takes a chance on being open, and for her pains is discussed as a psycho. I think her feelings are legitimate, even if I happen to disagree."
I don't think I did that, but neither was I very supportive. I thought she came with a question and I was trying to answer it.
Reply to: Charlene: I can never get past the fact that every time I see his face I am absolutely revolted by him. He literally turns my stomach. And I don't know why that should be... (I've actually deleted this four times for fear that some commenter will yet again take it upon himself to try to teach me how wrong and stupid I am.) And by "absolutely revolted", I mean that when I look at John Wayne on the screen I feel the same way as I do when I see a picture of Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy. All evidence might say "hero", but my subconscious says "filthy, filthy, filthy villain". And I don't know why that is.
John Wayne is not a villain.
(1) We live in a world where the government of North Korea is building nuclear weapons. Where second-tier countries all over the globe are building nuclear weapons. The only sensible system is for ONE country, the United States, to have nuclear weapons, and no one else. Not China. Not Russia. Not India or Pakistan.
Children should not have nuclear weapons. The fact that they're building nuclear weapons means they're irresponsible. Dangerous children.
(2) The Drug War and the American prison system.
http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/64
LINK: Of the 2.3 million inmates housed in the American prison system, 2.1 million were men and 208,300 were women.
Black males represented the largest percentage (35.4%) followed by white males (32.9%) and Hispanic males (17.9%). The largest percentage of black (35.5%) and Hispanic (39.9%) males held in custody were ages 20 to 29.
A majority of black (53%) and Hispanic (54%) prisoners were sentenced for violent offenses, compared to about half (50%) of white prisoners. Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than whites to be sentenced for drug offenses (23% of blacks, 21% of Hispanics, and 15% of whites).
LINK: In the 1980s, urban neighborhoods plagued by the crack epidemic became openly violent. Crack dealers who once operated openly on urban street corners have now largely disappeared behind closed doors and disposable cellphone numbers...(end)
When I hear the term "filthy villain," these are the two groups I immediately think of.
The governments of small counries who are building nuclear weapons, and the 2.1 million men and 200,000 women currently in American prisons.
Crack dealers. Organized gangs, many with ethnic origins. Many drug dealers were convicted of "violent offenses" rather than drug-related charges, so the ~20% statistic is misleading.
Selling drugs is the #1 problem. Drug dealers are the filthy villains.
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/americas-most-vicious-gang/article19854.html
La Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13, has rapidly expanded from L.A., its U.S. birthplace, into more than 30 states across the country. With at least 10,000 members today,
When Charlene announces that she feels the same repulsion for John Wayne that she does for Charles Manson.... and calls John Wayne a filthy villain... yes, she may be expressing an honest feeling.
but she is also completely, absolutely wrong.
And once you think about the real villains in the world today, it's easy to dismiss anyone who tries to throw a law-abiding American like John Wayne into that group.
Reading back over the comments, I think they were fair. More than fair, actually. I think we were responding to a statement that was false, slanderous and ridiculous on its face.
If Charlene can't accept that everyone here was making an honest effort to help, even if we didn't say "Oh, we understand exactly what you meant", then I don't feel any need to apologize. She might disagree strongly with some of Wayne's political views, but in no way can they ever be considered "villainous."
HAL9029,
The word `personality` comes to mind. I was trying to understand what exactly people saw in the actors mentioned. You suggested, I think, that they succeed because they portray and explain their characters motives in a way that draws a significant emotional response from the audience, good or bad. Perhaps. One can get anecdotal to argue the exceptions. But, due to the intrinsic limits of their characters, I wonder if there is not something more. In other words, are people interested in these actors and their work because they `explain` a type of character, or because they represent a personality? Frankly, I would suggest that the Wayne`s, the Heston`s, the Eastwood`s etc tended to play a character that was usually if not always beyond understanding, who were not meant to be understood, merely to be, to move, to speak, in that so intimately predictable way. I think that is the attraction. And perhaps this is what you meant. Everything exists for them to bounce off of, as props to bring out the (narrow and significantly limited ) vitality of the their characters. But to see this done over and over again seems to me to change from playing a particular role in a story to adopting a personality - a charm if you will. A personality that doesnt much, perhaps could not, change. And, when they do not, in real life, come across as charming, they are guilty of betraying something.
I am always puzzled when people talk about `hating` or `loving` a particular actor because of the roles she plays.
when i was 17 my dad and i drove out west, and on the pacific coast highway we stopped to see one of his old friends. the fellas hanging out there were vets and between 'em they had every john wayne movie there ever was. they'd hook up a tv and a vcr to somebodys generator and watch old duke flicks on the beach---nothing but the duke! night after night!
At the same time I was following this blog, I was reading your 2009 Yearbook and I got to your last entry about Studs Terkel. Your article is not in front of me now, but you wrote about the way Studs Terkel has lived his life has helped you. I have thought of that many times since reading it and it reminded me of so many incidents in my life that I remember and have stuck with me. I think most of the important ones involved a personal connection, but I have also think that this is my attraction to the movies, and especially the ones that stick with me, there is something that connected. It probably says something about me that my favorite John Wayne movie is The Quiet Man, where perhaps he is a different kind of hero. Perhaps like my attaction to The Accidental Tourist.
There are heroes everywhere. Spirituality means "waking up" was an opening line to some book I read many years ago. Over 30 years ago, a lady I had never met before walked up to me as I was perusing the "Self Help" section, and told me she had just been told she had terminal cancer and now needed to go home and tell her family. We talked probably 1 1/2 hrs and I never saw her again, but I have thought of her regularly. I'd like to think she needed something that day and reached out for someone.
I went back to re-read the entry by Charlene, and I hope she does "return." While I don't connect to her image of John Wayne as "filthy, filthy, filthy villain" I still believe she risked and
maybe she also was reaching out with her entry. Perhaps it is like politics. Many researchers in this area find that we respond emotionally more so than logically about politics.
If Studs Terkel were interviewing Charlene, my guess is he would be filled with more questions and curiosity and wonder, not disdain.
Lastly, I think it is more than a "male thing" with John Wayne. I was dating a girl 30 years ago at the time of his death, and she truly mourned his passing in a grief that surprised me. While I had loved many of his movies, I did not have the same grief.
I had mentioned earlier that I had grown up with these movies with my Father, not my father. However, I should mention that there was only one time each week when a family member was excused to eat dinner in front of the t.v., and that was for Gunsmoke. And Mom was there with everyone else. Neither of my parents "went out" to movies (I took Mom to most of the movies she saw as an adult). But they both loved a good story. John Wayne is a good story, as evidenced by the number of people who have responded here.
Mr. Ebert, please forgive me for I have not read your journal yet. This comment is sister-serving. My sister has followed your work her adult life and wants to be you when she grows us. Since she is 43 and a patent lawyer, she decided to start writing a blog that only I know about. I think she is hilarious. If you find the time to read her blog, it would make her day, maybe even year. No pressure because I won't tell her I am writing you. I know you are busy. And, I hope you liked Up! as much as I did. :-) (my best attempt a movie reviewing.)
Ebert: I admired it very much. She has that Erma Bombeck voice, of a comrade in arms in life. And she uses (1) and (2) the way I like to, in a sort of kidding way. She's a real writer.
You included her URL, but said she writes only for you. Therefore, I'm deleting it. But let me know if she'd like it back in. It would be a pleasure.
the idea of not seeing a movie solely because of the lead actor's politics seems intolerant to me.
I am a person who despised John Wayne's politics, but never despised the man, much like I love to read P.J. O'Rourke even though I think he's dead wrong. One of the reasons I like John Wayne is because of this story that is a part of family history.
My husband's Grandpa was a Norwegian sea captain. He had a young son, Ralph that was able to accompany him on many sea adventures while his older brothers had to stay home to attend school. On one of these voyages John Wayne was a passenger. It seems although Wayne was always associated with the horse, his true favourite mode of transport were ships and boats. At one point in voyage, introductions between the Duke and the Captain and young Ralph were made. John Wayne bent down to shake little Ralph's hand and asked him who his favourite cowboy was. Without any hesitation, Ralph replied "Hopalong Cassidy!" John Wayne, roared with laughter and throughout the rest of the trip, always had time for Ralph even though the little Canadian/Norwegian kid had no idea who the big friendly American was.
I told this story to my friend Marie, a frequent poster here and she encouraged, no prodded me to post. I was told while many bark, few bite.
Ebert: Don't be a stranger.
I think that was the beginning of "Jack being Jack," really. But what about Chinatown? It was Jack, of course, but it was also Jake Gittes (a character very much like Jack's screen persona in most films transported to the '30s). How much of "Jack being Jack" is his fault, and how much is ours for always knowing it's Jack onscreen?
And I saw Cuckoo's Nest with my dad at a second-run house when I was 12, so I didn't have to sneak in. We were too much alike to get along as I got older, but he did have good taste in movies, even if I sometimes didn't quite understand what the hell was going on (think Godfather, Part II at 10 or 11).
FACT: The US, the leader of the "free world," incarcerates more people, both in absolute and relative terms, than any other country in the world.
FACT: Designating the US as the only sensible allowable holder of nuclear weapons is absurd and wholly unrealistic. First, we're the only ones to have ever used them on an enemy when the enemy was making back-channel approaches about surrendering, but we had to send a message to our brand spanking new enemy, the USSR. Second, any country that has any resource we might want, history has shown, had better have some way to defend themselves against our corporate colonial military adventures. And doesn't the fact that the US spends more on "defense" than the rest of the world combined give lie to our self-image as peace-loving?
Ebert: Infante, Groucho, Mifune, Pacino and Wayne.
I'm trying to imagine who could come next on that list.
Haha, thank you for adding such an addendum to my comment. Rounding up my Top 10 are Clint, Jimmy Cagney, Bogey, DeNiro and Ignacio Lopez Tarso (or maybe Antonio Aguilar). The list goes on and on.
I have a penchant for making "favourite" lists, and one of my favorite books ever was "The Book of Lists", first published in the 70's, and that my father gave me when I was a young (I'm 21 by the way...I wasn't around for the first printing). It features an array of lists, including celebrity lists (Jack Lemmon lists his "Second Favorite Films of All Time", because he couldn't think of the his all time firsts!).
I know that you, Roger, do not truly believe that is possible to rank "all time favorite movies extensively, which is why you order them alphabetically, but I have no such problems. I have ranked about 400 movies as my favorites, even though I still need to watch a boatload (or maybe a "cruiseload") of movies, including several canon classics.
P.S. I forgot to add on my last post that the Duke might have hated my politics, but I'd like to think he'd be alright with me. One of my favorite things about him is that he married three Hispanic women (OK, the first two went really bad, but oh well...) He was also fondly remembered in Durango, where some years ago there was an old man being interviewed, and he spoke fondly about the Duke and the positive effect he brought to their town, which had a Western set built on it, and which was consequently used for US and Mexican westerns (for those who you don't know, the Italians/Germans/Etc. were not the only ones to adopt the American West as a setting for great movies feauturing many of our great actors)which brought a new life to the region.
Ebert: I enjoyed my visit to Durango and saw that great Western set, also used in Sam Peckinpah's "Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid."
Roger, A few years ago I wrote an essay that addressed the reason for John Wayne's appeal to me. Please share this with your readers, if you will. Thank you, Mike Woodring
Why John Wayne?
By Mike Woodring
A lot of folks know that I’m a pretty big fan of Duke Wayne. As a matter of fact, I have been told that whenever some of those same folks see a John Wayne movie on television, they think of me. That’s not a bad thing, in my opinion.
I don’t think people understand just what it is about John Wayne that has held my attention for nearly all of my life. Of course it is his films to begin with. I was a young boy of five years old when I saw “True Grit”. It was then and there that Duke Wayne captured my attention and always has. So many of his roles are tributes to a masculine way of life. But there are others that hold life lessons in them, both for his character and for me.
Duke Wayne was a patriot. He loved America and believed in her limitless possibilities. He knew that as a nation we would stumble but would also regain our footing, proudly doing so.
So many of the stories told about him often mention his loyalty to the people in his life. If he had a friend in need, he didn’t stop to ask why they were in need, but rather simply lent a hand and stood by that friend and didn’t ask questions.
In 1964, Duke contracted cancer and lost a lung to it. Yet, he survived and went on to make many more rough and tumble westerns. It would be another 15 years before cancer would come calling again and claim his life. But during those 15 years he made his life count for something.
So with those things in mind, ask me what John Wayne taught me and means to me, and here is what I am bound to tell you:
Be absolutely loyal to your family and friends, and honor and keep them safe because nothing else you do will matter as much.
Take what illness the good Lord hands down to you and live with it and not let it get the best of you, regardless of what it takes out of you.
Be a man of your word, even if it costs you something somewhere along the line, because it just might. But stick to it even if it makes you unpopular for a bit.
Love your country because there is none other like it, and you were lucky enough to be born here.
Consider yourself a fortunate man because you had a mother and father that loved you, a grandfather that showed you how to be tough against adversity, and that a man like John Wayne embodied all of the lessons a man ought to learn in life and that he was up there on the screen for you to see it all.
And that’s what John Wayne means to me- Just that simple.
Copyright by Mike Woodring 2006
Gilbert Smith wrote on June 14, 2009 4:50 AM - "I apologize if I came off as insensitive to Charlene, I certainly didn't meant to bully her (though some people here definitely did).
I can't think of any actors that strike me as serial killers, but there have been some who I have a subconscious distaste for, through no fault of their own. Some people just rub you the wrong way."
Exactly! And sometimes it's hard to explain why they do. At best, you can only reach for what's nearest to the feeling you have and use that to describe it.
Charles Manson aside, as I don't tend to think of him when you say "serial killer" (I think crazy cult leader, instead) the other two mentioned were Jeffrey Dahmer - who murdered 17 men and boys between 1978 -'91, most of whom were of African or Asian descent, by way of rape, torture, dismemberment, necrophilia and cannibalism - and John Wayne Gacy Jr. aka "the killer clown" who between 1972 -'78 raped and murdered 33 boys and young men whom he buried in a crawl space under the floor of his house.
Note: Charlene's post interests me more so than John Wayne. He was never an elected official and because Ridley Scott's "Kingdom of Heaven" made a lasting impression via "We fight over an offense we did not give, against those who were not alive to be offended" why I can't get too worked up over the old political stuff. The man's dead, what more do people want, eh?
And if what he appeared to stand for serves as a rallying point for some now, or a bone of contention for others, okay dokie to each his side and thus their reason to fight; although I personally think that sort of energy is better channeled through a cutthroat game of Bocce ball, myself. :)
Just speaking for myself.
Now where was I..? Oh yes, serial killers. I noticed Charlene's both had something in common. Their victims were men. I find that curious. Most serial killers prey on women. Yet Charlene manages to find a pair of exceptions to the rule and site them:
"And by "absolutely revolted", I mean that when I look at John Wayne on the screen I feel the same way as I do when I see a picture of Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer or John Wayne Gacy."
When you see a picture... but those stories are quite old now. At least 20 years or more have passed, for those last 2. And unless they made a huge impression upon her at the time so as to burn their likenesses into memory, you'd either have to be a fan of horrific crime stories or, live with someone who loves all that creepy stuff. I understand serial killers have a huge following in America - the way some in England are fascinated by Jack the Ripper; you can even take a "tour" of his hunting grounds through White Chapel at night. I saw a brochures when I was last in London but it struck me too akin to going to a Concentration Camp for the "entertainment value" of it.
Ie: if Charlene is that familiar with a very particular pair of serial killers that she can readily site them, imo, given most women don't enjoy that stuff, I'm inclined to think she knows someone who has it around the house; books and such. Along with biographies of John Wayne and a collection of his movies.
No, no, I'm not suggesting Charlene lives with a would-be serial killer - hang on, let me connect my dots, chuckle!
When I first read her post, an image popped into my head. And it filled me with empathy and compassion. I saw a woman in her late 30's or older, white, living somewhere in the southern United States and surrounded by misogynist good 'ol boys with a gun collection and who'd voted for Bush. And I totally wanted to engage her so I could point her in the direction of some really nice Feminist blogs; for thinking she could use the emotional support and encouragement. And also so she could experience "thinking out loud" without having to be afraid.
But then she disappeared, planting seeds of speculation for the more curious minded. :)
Bill Hays has made an interesting point; "When Charlene announces that she feels the same repulsion for John Wayne that she does for Charles Manson.... and calls John Wayne a filthy villain... yes, she may be expressing an honest feeling. But she is also completely, absolutely wrong. And once you think about the real villains in the world today, it's easy to dismiss anyone who tries to throw a law-abiding American like John Wayne into that group."
Charlene does inadvertently open the door to being misunderstood owing to her choice of similies; as a case can be made for believing she thinks John Wayne is as bad a serial killer; as opposed to just having a really strong reaction to "his face" and sharing that in here with people. Ie: I think she got blown-off because it's easier to react to the surface of reading "serial killer" than go down its rabbit hole and explore the unspoken - and even then, you have to assume stuff.
What specifically made her decide not to post again? Was she hoping for a different response from Roger? Did she only read so far, get upset, then head for the door? What if she's not physically able to post again? Ie: computer issues. Or what if someone "saw" what she'd posted and didn't like it, eh? We know what the men in her life think - and how she gets treated as a result.
I have more questions than answers and again, assuming her post is genuine and it wasn't a misguided Feminist prank designed to "spark" a discussion about how women are treated by some men and why, inside a thread devoted to the icon of manliness, John Wayne.
Don't look at me that way - I can't help the way my mind works! Artist, hello? The universe is a Rubik's cube and I can see connections everywhere. :)
I'm also Canadian, and we can be kinda different - case in point: Dan Aykroyd and "Crystal Head Vodka" which is quadruple distilled using Newfoundland water and triple filtered through Herkimer diamonds and sold in a skull-shaped bottle made by Bruni Glass in Milan, Italy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGGhxFAl0nw
Just in case I've ever struck anyone inside Roger's blog as "odd". :)
For father's day, I ordered a 3-dvd set of John Wayne that includes "Rio Bravo", "El Dorado", and "True Grit." I'm glad very glad this blog came up because it's the perfect present (aside from it being great).
First, to get it out of the way, I was positive that Richard Attenborough was reading the Cinammon Peeler; but, upon viewing his Wikipedia entry, I found that he has been at St. George Hospital since December. I hope he gets well and makes a few more films.
Second, at the tender age of 24, I'm starting to realize just how good John Wayne really was. Through high school and for some time afterwards I was on the 'chameleon-actor' soapbox, praising only those performers who disappear with ease into the most complex roles, like Geoffrey Rush or Johnny Depp. Then I found the time to visit Humphrey Bogart and Clint Eastwood and, of course, John Wayne. Gradually, I regained the ablity to watch their movies like when I was a kid, able to take in the the quiet confidence with which these guys inhabited their roles without nitpicking over psychological depth or ability to master accents(though, to my knoweledge, Wayne's voice was as carefully constructed as the day is long).
Thanks for the great articles and entries and I hope you have a great 4th of July.
I've been a big fan of the Duke all my life, more of his persona than actual film work. But after reading your posters... that Playboy interview is absolutely horrendous! If even half of what is said here is true I am left with one conclusion: Roger Ebert ruined the Duke for me!
P.S.
My wife insists I add that I am an idiot.
Roger, I very much enjoyed the piece on your time spent with John Wayne. I found myself there almost by accident when looking up a film on IMDB but was glad to find your blog. I had not seen it before. Odd that two hours prior I was on the phone with a film director as I prepare to go do a week of reshoots and pick up's on a film. I play the lead character in the film, a Texas Ranger (modern day)who basically brings down a drug cartel when he learns they were responsible for the murder of his wife. We were talking about the character for an hour or so, and I finally said, "look, think of him like a young John Wayne...he says what he means...and he means what he says...all the time...and you damn sure believe him when he says it." That lead me to IMDB and to your blog today. It was certainly true of Wayne, and could also probably be said about Mitchum (who I spent some time with), Lee Marvin, McQueen, Robert Ryan and a host of other actors of that generation.
I was lucky enough to get to hang out with Robert Mitchum some before he passed away and I can tell you, like Wayne, he was the real deal. His onscreen persona was deeply connected to who he was. Though, in my opinion, he was constantly underrated as an actor. His command of the craft was pretty stunning and he was also extremely well read and intellectually bright. He didn't get to show that side much on camera, so it was generally considered that he was a rough and tumble, hard drinking, womanizing guy. He was all those things...and much, much more.
I have acted in a lot of movies myself. In my IMDB bio, I credit many of those same actors with inspiring me to want to be an actor. I don't believe I could name nearly as many actors from this generation who command that kind of screen presence or that kind of moral certitude. Even Liberty Valance thought he was dead right. Maybe Clint Eastwood has that kind of thing. Harrison Ford has exhibited it too at times. Not too many others. I'm not sure what the reason is for that. Maybe the world has changed too much. Maybe audiences want less black and white, and more gray. Maybe studios THINK that's what audiences want. I'm not sure.
This little Texas Ranger picture, and the role I play, in particular, gave me the opportunity to explore some those things. I have to say, it has been a great experience to portray a man on screen who knows what he has to do...and does it. I thought of John Wayne (particularly in Red River and The Searchers) a lot while making this movie. It seems to me that Wayne, throughout his career, tapped into that crucial area in the conciousness where men wanted for, and hoped they possessed the kind of spirited, manly, edgy certainty that it took to get the job done...and to be a certain kind of man. And women, though they felt sometimes bullied into submission by him(or the perception of it)...they felt the rush of confidence, or safety, or security when they heard his spurs on the sidewalk. I think of those scenes in Liberty Valance where Wayne is such a contrast to Jimmy Stewart and how they are both percieved by Vera Miles.
In any case, I was very pleased to come across your blog. I am a fan of yours. Best, Todd
Ebert: You and I are in absolute agreement about Robert Mitchum. A great actor and the real thing. I have three or four interviews with him on this site where he seems willing to say almost anything.
You mentioned in your Imagine That review that you are amazed at how good child actors are becoming. I urge you to check out the unfairly maligned (in my eyes, anyway) Tideland, from Terry Gilliam. The film features a little girl named Jodelle Ferland (you saw her in Silent Hill), who was about 10 when the film was made, and it is one of the most captivating and astonishing performances I've ever seen, largely because she is alone on screen for at least 60 percent of the film's runtime. The film is a spiritual companion to Pan's Labyrinth, and though it goes to some incredibly dark and disturbing places, Ferland's performance makes it completely worthwhile. It's a film I keep returning to, and I don't know why, but she certainly sells the hell out of it.
Anyway, regarding this entry, I love these little noodlings and thoughts and memories you have of Wayne. The thing that struck me the most was how Wayne talked of how people aren't used to listening that fast. Watching old films (particularly His Girl Friday), I'm always amazed at how fast people talked, and how much that changed over time. Annie Hall is the most recent film I can think of in which the characters do not stop talking for the entire runtime. I wonder why that changed?
Ebert: Dialogue-heavy movies don't perform well overseas, so after the budget passes a certain point, the studios begin to fret.
John Wayne did not mean much to me during childhood, and probably my colleagues did not know much about him, either. It was the time when you could find "A Nightmare on Elm street" or "Friday the 13th" movies more easily than old John Wayne movies at video rental shops(Don't worry, we also had movies like "Princess Bride", "House of Games", and "Say Anything" on video at that time.). And only western movie I remember watching during that time was "Shane". During middle school years, they released many great classic movies on video, but I seldom came across western movies.
And DVD changed everything. I am against DVD piracy, but these illegal DVDs allowed me to watch these classic movies far more easily than before. Since 2003, lots and lots of old Hollywood movies have been released on these illegal DVDs, and I was a voracious watcher. I watched many John Ford movies in this way, and then I got used to John Wayne.(As far as I remember, only "The Searchers", "Grape of Wrath", and "How Green Was My Valley" were properly released on DVD in South Korea)
I have heard about conservative sides of John Wayne several times, and I sometimes wonder how his image could have been affected by experiencing real war. Well, I do not bother about it much while watching good or great movies in his career. Especially he was more interesting in movies since 1950s. I have not seen "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" for years, but I still remember them well. "The Quiet Man" is a lot funnier than I expected, and Wayne shows what "Aged to play" really means in "True Grit", like Peter O'Toole in "Venus".
Thanks for your wonderful reminiscences on John Wayne. He was a great star and actor, and nobody can replace him. He made terrible movie like "Green Beret" at that time, but I think he was a decent man. He could have said "I do not regret having political differences with men that I respect; I do regret, however, that our philosophies kept us apart."(It's from "Being there") I agree with you; he is much better than those weird American conservatives. Also far, far better than more weird conservatives in Korea(Unfortunately, they have power now, and, believe me, it's like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh at the top of government).
Why do people admire "True Grit" so much when it is inherently a one-sided revenge movie that supports capital punishment?
Say what you will about its sweeping Technicolor scope, but the film has a plotline so basic that it is borderline offenseive: the whole film consists of Kim Darby and John Wayne chasing down the man who killed Darby's father in a drunken rage, with Darby vowing that she won't rest until he is found and hanged.
In fact, when you think about it, both "True Grit" and the sequel, "Rooster Cogburn and the Lady", are one-sided revenge movies. In both flicks, Rooster Cogburn teams up with a woman to find and slaughter the villains who made a mess of her life. Thus, how can people seriously insist on calling Rooster Cogburn a hero? He's an executioner. He stands for the death penalty and believes that it is a correct form of justice. The filmmakers seem to agree with him. I find that appalling.
"The Searchers" was also a movie in which Wayne played a cold-blooded murderer, but at least in that film, Ford chose to be objective. A decade later, Hathaway made "True Grit"; but he championed the disgusting cause of his protagonist and chose to be naively subjective.
What did you make of the moral simplicity of "True Grit"?
Note: Bill, I don't think you meant any harm. But I honestly don't think she was taking a pee on anyone's memory either - not unless you give her the power to do that for caring enough about her opinion; and given how low you held it, how was it possible then for it to reach you unless you stooped to pick it up, eh? I think Gilbert Smith understood: "Whatever Charlene sees in John Wayne isn't really there, at least not in Wayne himself."
Fine point Marie, well spoken.
For some reason, this doesn't come up at all in any conversation, online or off, of "The Searchers" that I've ever seen, but I've long suspected that not so deeply layered in the story is the idea that Debbie isn't Ethan's niece - she is his daughter.
Couple questions for you, Bill: 1) When you write "abnormal Psychology professor," do you mean a professor of Psychology who was abnormal, or a professor of Abnormal Psychology? and 2) if he had a phobia about butterflies castrating him (technical term, lepidopterishlongectomiphobia, IIRC), why the problem with the moth? :D
I really did mean a teacher of Abnormal Psychology but given the circumstances...
I'm not surprised there's a name for it, I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be a website.
Re: Matt's idea about The Searchers...yeah, wow. I'll have to go watch again now, reason enough for a thank you.
Ebert: There's money to be made in that website.
Well, Bill Hays has already responded, so I will just say that I think, Mr Ebert, your readership showed the same, quite characteristic, qualities that made and make this blog a continued success.
No one responded to Charlene in kind, the one or two that disagreed with her (o my!) did so with restraint and at least attempted a rebuttal (this blog also exists to discuss ideas, no?) for which they were rebuked(!), others provided at least an attempt to seriously discuss and one kind soul appeared ready to adopt. More to the point -- all took her seriously. Which is about the best one should expect, no?
Several years ago, I had the great pleasure to meet several folks from Wayne's circle, including Dobe Carey, John Mitchum and Patrick Wayne. They were all extraordinary, good-natured people. And though they had a mixture of awe and anger in their memories of Ford, For Wayne, there was nothing but love.
I have a confession, Bill and Roger: I, um, just made that up. God knows, I could be wrong given all the weird phobias that do have names, but as far as I'm aware, that one doesn't (or didn't).
PS Roger, could you do me a favor and insert a "c" in my -shlong-? Wait, that didn't sound right...
Ebert: So, do you think there's a Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
One thing about www.lepidopterishlongectomiphobia.com -- people would want to bookmark it. I'd register the URL if I were you. Hope it's not already taken.
Is it possible that Charlene is subconsciously confusing John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy? If Gacy were the first serial killer Charlene heard about, or just exposed to the depths of Gacy's depravities at an early age, she might have confused the two.
Especially if the only other JW she had heard of was John Wayne Bobbitt.
As to The Duke, I've rarely seen acting as good as a scene in Island In The Sky. Wayne and several other airmen have crash landed in an obscure part of Labrador. After several freezing days with no food or shelter, they hear an airplane overhead. The camera is trained on Wayne's face as he realizes the plane has not spotted them and rescue is again a remote possibility. From ecstasy to despair to resolve without the slighted hint of hamming it up or anything but real human emotion. I swear he pulls the teardrops back in so his men won't see him weep.
Wayne, Tracy, Gable, Bogart, other classic-era stars had LIVES, and developed stark personae, BEFORE they became performers, and it shows in their faces.
Whereas most current lead film actors don't come off as memorable, individualistic personalities, as JW did, because they (mostly) have college-theater backgrounds.
Modern film actors, from what I understand, can't get a serious gig unless they can show an advanced acting diploma. This shows in THEIR work, bigtime - you can see them "acting" a mile away - compare Brad Pitt's spurious machismo in the "Inglorious Basterds" trailer to Lee Marvin in the analogous "Dirty Dozen".
Any actors care to comment? I could be wrong about this...
We need fewer acting school grads, more former oil-well riggers, military personnel, etc., on the 21st-century screen, IMHO.
Marie Haws, thanks for the link to the DACHV commercial, which was not only informative and entertaining but 1) the longest commercial I've ever seen, if you don't count "Top Gun"; 2) the first commercial I've ever seen where someone drinks alcohol (they don't allow that in the United States); 3) a great idea of what I want to ask for for Father's Day (and available at "Gary's Wine"--ha!).
Didn't have diddly to do with John Wayne, but if I ever get some, I'll raise a glass of it to toast the Duke's memory.
I know there is. In fact, I would consider my theology to be closer to your average Pastafarian, though I still await my first touching by his noodly appendages. Pasta be upon your plate, Roger.
My father, who was an Air Force Sergeant stationed in Tuscon, Arizona, during the sixties and seventies, moonlighted as an extra in many of the films and television series that were filmed in the movie location Old Tucson in those days (his first gig was a month-long job as Paul Newman's beer cooler caretaker). Among many other films, he worked on El Dorado and Rio Lobo, both directed by Howard Hawks. One day during the former, John Ford hung out on the set, and dad got to meet him. For an New England Irish-American of dad's generation that was a pretty big deal. One time, dad and I were at a well-known restaurant outside of Old Tucson, Papagayo, and dad pointed out a very tall large man with his back to us who was chatting and laughing it up with one of the waitresses. "That's John Wayne," my very liberal dad said. "A very sweet, smart guy."
Ebert: Everybody's dad liked him.
I don't want to keep posting, but I read the Playboy interview for the first time last night. I'm disappointed in John Wayne's views on African-Americans, and that he chose to use the phrase "White Supremacy", and his views on the Indian's are pretty bluntly expressed, even though I don't imagine anyone living in a former "Indian Nation Treaty Area", would put their feet where their heart is and leave, even if the government reimbursed them.
Now, I hate to sound like a guy in a tin-foil hat, but the Anti-Communist aspect of his views deserves more perspective than most people today are really capable of. Most of us remember the USSR primarily from the Khruschev era on, or for me, the Breshnev era. The USSR during those times couldn't exactly be called a Worker's Paradise, but if that's what you're basing your view of Communism of, then Wayne's virulent anti-Communism might seem to be an overreaction (unless you happened to live in a Warsaw Pact country, naturally).
But Wayne wasn't formed by those times. He came to maturity during the Stalin era. I've been doing research on the Eastern Front and Stalinist Russia for a project I'm working on, and let me tell you, it is an eye opening experience. The Soviet Union from its very inception was founded on "ruling from above".
Both Lenin and Trotsky were willing to sacrifice millions of innocent peasants to achieve what they believed would be a beneficial end result. But Stalin was bloodier than both of them together. Stalin had both Trotsky and Kirov murdered, and then anyone that could be conceived of as a threat to his rule, including his closest confidants and their families.
And he was just starting - completely innocent people from all levels of society were charged with treason and forced to confess using methods that were truly torture. The most incredible, repulsive acts were committed by the government against its people, and anyone who spoke up against it was branded a traitor. Some may make sincere comparisons to the George W. Bush era, but really, their IS no comparison, in terms of motive, numbers, brutality or consequences.
At least a million were executed. Their families - even their children - were often executed along with them. Children under the age of 12 were usually spared, but turned out on the street to fend for themselves, or sent to NKVD run orphanages where they were generally treated as criminals. More millions - including peasants, writers and artists alike - were sent to Gulags where they worked hard labor and often died from a combination of overwork, exposure, and starvation. Their families usually knew what happened to them.
Stalin can also be blamed for the failure of much of the Soviet Union's industry and for the famines that struck which killed even more millions. Why? All the competent people were dead, their replacements were dead, and often their replacements were dead. Anyone with both potential and any kind of sense hid their abilities, as being put into a leadership position meant that you were making yourself a target.
And finally, Stalin wiped out nearly everyone in the Army or Navy, and most of the good engineers, aircraft designers and specialists, leading to catastrophic consequences when the "non-agression" pact was ended by Hitler.
It's estimated by Robert Conquest that 12-15 Russians died at the hands of their fellow Russians during the "purge" or the "terror" before the War. During the war 20 million more Russians had to pay for Stalin's policies. In the years after, even the heroes of the War were murdered in "little terrors", including nearly everyone with any high level responsibilities in Leningrad.
If you think I'm exaggerating, by all means, read the text of Nikita Khruschev's secret speech.
THIS is the communism that John Wayne was against, abroad and at home. Joseph McCarthy was an amoral alcoholic son-of-a-bitch that ruined peoples lives. The HUAC took things too far. But as this book review of "Spies: The Rise and Fall of the KGB in America" in The New Republic http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=e828c17a-787d-4142-af25-b2b4f5cc730d makes clear, the Soviet Union, through the American Communist Party, was indeed doing its very best to undermine the United States, preying upon the sincere good intentions of the people it recruited.
With an understanding of Stalinist Russia in mind, one can begin to understand Wayne's politics. I'd like to ~think~ that the way he expressed himself about African-Americans didn't reflect how he truly felt - only Woody Strode knows for sure.
I do have to say one LAST thing about Wayne and the Playboy interview. The interview was almost certainly edited, with a number of questions and answers not included, and the questions that do make it in often clearly try to provoke Wayne. "You fell off Horses on some recent films, isn't that embarassing?" and etc. but Wayne seems to keep his cool. Harrison Ford's interviews sometimes come off as testy - I wonder how he might've replied.
And FINALLY, Charlene, if you're out there and reading this, I'll say again that I feel sorry that you can't enjoy John Wayne. You must have good reasons for feeling that way. If you never change your mind about him, that's just fine. Anybody that's going to make or break a friendship because of John Wayne is an idiot that you wouldn't want to be around anyway. I'll bet he'd have thought so too.
Ron Barth, Jr. wrote on June 15, 2009 11:48 AM - "PS Roger, could you do me a favor and insert a "c" in my -shlong-? Wait, that didn't sound right..."
Now that made me laugh out loud! Chuckle!
So too, mention of Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! For I remember reading a story once about a guy who had it printed on a t-shirt and wore it to church one day; choosing to sit up front near the alter. When the young priest, who was in the middle of giving his sermon caught sight of it from the pulpit, he burst out laughing!
His sermon was reportedly about the nature of pure faith. I guess he saw the irony.
Bill Mulligan wrote on June 15, 2009 7:32 AM - "Fine point Marie, well spoken."
And a smile for you in return; as despite the fact I'd scolded you, you're gracious enough to award me one now. Mind you, I did earn it. :)
Patrick Kelly wrote on June 15, 2009 11:50 AM - "Is it possible that Charlene is subconsciously confusing John Wayne and John Wayne Gacy?"
Now there's food for thought. What if you hear about Gacy, note how his name sounds like "John Wayne" and it plants a seed which over time, eventually bears fruit by projecting itself as an intense dislike not of the actor but rather, of his physical appearance: his face.
Although I can also twist the Rubik's cube another way, too:
Charlene is projecting her dislike of the men in her life onto the Demigod they worship while simultaneously free-associating John Wayne with serial killers; as in addition to the Duke, they also take an interest in that subject too. And subconsciously, she's mixed them together.
Gary in Phoenix, Arizona wrote on June 15, 2009 1:00 PM - "Marie Haws, thanks for the link to the DACHV commercial... Didn't have diddly to do with John Wayne, but if I ever get some, I'll raise a glass of it to toast the Duke's memory."
You're welcome - and it and has everything to do with the Duke; ie: as a fellow Canadian, Dan Akroyd makes me look no more odd for talking so much about Charlene's hatred of John Wayne's face, than Akroyd looks pitching a brand of vodka you can buy in a bottle shaped like a human skull. It makes perfect sense. :)
There's actually an official site for Crystal Head Vodka, but I'd hesitated to give the link in case the dreaded spam filter thought it was evil. Now I'm curious - let's see if the spam filter rejects it!
http://crystalheadvodka.com/
Note: it's currently on sale at Gary's Wine for $44.99. Once the bottle is empty moreover, I bet you could turn it into a lamp or even a bong. Ooo, and speaking of bongs...
I see someone has mentioned Robert Mitchum. :)
Mitchum was cool. The Night of the Hunter, Cape Fear, Two for the Seesaw, Ryan's Daughter, The Sundowners - he did more than just westerns! He did film-noir! And played Marlowe. Good guys, bad guys, all kind of guys. Oh, and get this - his mother, Ann Harriet (née Gunderson), was a Norwegian immigrant and sea captain's daughter; I wonder if her dad ever met John Wayne?
Cape Fear: one the scariest movies I've ever seen in my whole life ever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73lZPln-A2I
Whatever his faults or failings as a human being, the thing I liked about Mitchum was the very "grey" to be found in his character - which some don't like quite as much (too muddy) and why they prefer John Wayne. But I like grey - Payne's Grey to be precise. :)
I think of True Grit as a father-daughter story, in a way. Some look at the film and see a movie about vengeance, others will see a story about a relationship. As viewers, we all bring our own lives to the movies we see. I saw True Grit with my dad on its first run in theaters, and my feeling about the film, which is a nostalgic and happy one, will certainly be different than someone who sees the film for the first time as an adult, so many years after the movie was made. I wonder how much of our opinions of film have to do with where we are in life when we see those films, and who is with us when we see them.
dear ron,
sadly, i admit that i haven't seen chinatown yet. my bad, G.
as for jack being jack, the two questions are 1. who's to blame? and B. is there need for blame? he's got a right to select roles that are easy for him, which would be those that are so similar. he's got a right to give less effort and more money. perhaps blame an agent or casting director? maybe an executive producer caring more about the profit margin than the "thumbs up"? it's not impossible to get both.
should the shining be tossed on the heap?
i didn't, nor will i, see the bucket list. can anyone confirm or deny that it's another example of jack being jack?
as for robert mitchum, he scared the hell out of me in cape fear and the night of the hunter.
speaking of cape fear, or really the remake, i think robert de niro has a tendency to play the same character. however, he's such a public opposite of jack that i have no clue of what he's really like.
Funny, with all the mentions of serial killers and lunatics, I'm surprised nobody posted (or if they did, I missed it in all the myriad commentary) this: that the ex-wife of James von Brunn, the terrorist who killed a guard at the Holocaust museum, compared her former husband to John Wayne. She said von Brunn's desire to make a big splash before he died had parallels to Wayne's cancer-stricken character in "The Shootist." I suspect Wayne, whatever his politics, would have been dismayed to know someone considered such a heinous, barbaric act a way of emulating his movie heroism.
Remember an episode of Star Trek called "Spectre of the Gun" when, as a punishment for trespassing on their planet, the inhabitants condemn Capt. Kirk and his landing party to a surreal recreation of the Gunfight at the OK corral?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es93EXd_5PE
Which obviously explores a Western theme, right? And this is a thread about John Wayne, who made Westerns. Thus, I have now connected The Duke to Star Trek and can legitimately segue into my review of Star Trek 2009, which I have just seen.
Roger seems to have liked it more than I did - as I was picking it apart even before it finished playing and courtesy of the Russians yet again. :)
I can't speak for all women of course, as maybe some us actually do like arrogant, self-assertive F'ups who like starting bar fights, but I personally thought James T. Kirk was behaving like a JERK for want of any back story to account for his rebellious "bad boy" behavior. What's the matter Kirk, did the step-Dad not love you enough? Did he care more for his antique car collection than you - like Cameron's Dad in Ferris Buller's Day Off? Is that why you drove it off a cliff? Or maybe you were channeling Marlon Brando? Or Luke Skywalker? Or Anakin? They all had motorcycles of a sort, too. That's how we know you're a rebel. You drive a cliché.
And what's up the weak admissions requirements for Starfleet Academy? Unless being governed by non-sentient testosterone and serious anger management issues is one of the prerequisites for young men entering the Academy? I'm speaking of the three male cadets who appear supposedly to "assist" a female classmate - Uhura, who was being hit on at the bar by that horn-dog, Kirk. Why - because she can't handle him herself? Or because one of the guys thinks "if I get this jerk off her back, maybe she'll let me get her onto hers?" Seriously; unless it's your girl friend or she's asked for some help dudes, stay out of it. Oh that's right, you can't, you're MALE. Sigh.
And speaking of Uhura... hated the casting. Her hair was stupid (really long pony tail?) and her face too narrow and so she doesn't look enough like Nichelle Nichols. I'm being nit-picky I know, but bones don't lie; it's a skeletal thing and it bugs me. I'd have looked more to cast someone akin to a modern day albeit shorter Tamara Dobson. And yes, I've seen Cleopatra Jones; smile.
The fans boys got to see the "new" Uhura undressing though, so she served her purpose. Sigh. How RETARDED was that?! Nichelle Nichols' character goes from being the very first African-American female on a TV show where she's "not" playing the maid or some such, and in 2009, she now in a requisite panty shot for the fan boys living vicariously through Kirk peeking up from under the bed - not content with the green-skinned hottie he'd apparently just banged. LAME!
That said, I liked that they paired Uhura up with Spock - her character that is. Cool idea! It gave the fan girls something to enjoy; Spock was always my favorite at any rate. Even if, as Roger put it, this version of Spock was a bit of a prig. Oh and let us not forget Spock and Kirk - the fight scene on the bridge! I can only imagine how many homoerotic/slash posts were written about that inside forums. :)
Otherwise, to me, it was like a rehash of Star Trek: Nemesis - no real plot, and yet another angry bald guy with BIG WEAPONS and short-term thinking decides to take his angst & pain out on the Universe, but only so as to provide Captain and Co. with an enemy to fight so they can be heroes and win one for America, er the planet.
The CGI was cool, so I can't complain about the visuals, unless you count wanting to grab the film editor and force him to allow more breathing room in between his cuts. Yet another film where it's hard at times to follow the action because I can't track it. Oh, and who in his right mind designs a Romulan ship with a floor plan consisting of bridge ways likely to get its crew members accidentally killed?! Oh well, doesn't matter, it's all gonna get sucked into a perfectly plausible black hole made of red jello or something.
I enjoyed it enough to watch the whole thing, even as I picked it apart, but once it was over, I can't ever see myself wanting to watch it again. I mean, it speaks volumes when you want a monster on a frozen planet to catch Kirk and kill him, eh? I was okay with Spock though despite everything, and also Scottie - Simon Pegg was awesome in "Hot Fuzz" and so I can never dislike him. I haven't mentioned the others because they failed to make enough of an impression.
In this place, of all places, I thought I would not see the word "Retarded" used as a pejorative.
Please people, don't use that word. I'm not a very PC guy, but my son has Autism, and every time anyone uses that word to imply stupidity, all it does is encourage people to demean people like my son.
Think I'm being oversensitive? Wrong. One day my son came home from public school, in the clutches of the repetitive behavior of Autism, repeating over and over "You're a Retard, You're a Retard, You're a Retard". I'm sure the kids at school found that hilarious. The teachers thought that he must have picked it ups someplace else. (Right).
Don't even think that the excuse "language evolves" holds water. In the late 20th century, we removed quite a few words that were cruel to people or groups. I can't imagine most people going up to the parents of a child suffering - and I do mean suffering - from clinical mental retardation - and saying "You retard", or "that is so retarded". If you wouldn't do it in person, to one's face, why should one feel that it's appropriate at all under any circumstances? Please have the grace not to use in in a public setting, or preferably, ever.
http://www.r-word.org/
Roger,
Hope all is well! With all the talk of how bad "Green Berets" is (sun setting in the East?!? Really?!?), I was anxious to read your scathing review but alas the website link doesn't work.
Minor glitch or is the review missing from the massive archives?
Cheers!
Chris Ortman
Ebert: Works for me:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19680626/REVIEWS/806260301/1023
Fastest way to find a review here is via "External Reviews" link on IMDb.com
To Marie Haws: Lady, methinks thou dost Spin too much. You drag the 'John Wayne connection' in by the heels on the flimsiest of pretexts. I'm not complaining; as Ben Bradlee said of the young lady who fabricated the Pulitzer-winning story's facts, "she wrote like a dream." You can always say "Off topic, but . . . " and everyone will forgive you, I'm sure. You've got such a spritely playfulness.
Now, I'm surprised your review of STAR TREK didn't include some kind words about the fellow who played Bones. After all, he was gruff, cantankerous, rough-spoken . . . why, he was a lot like John Wayne . . .
I think it was Henry Winkler who said John Wayne's oft-used phrase "New York actors" was Wayne's euphemism for "Jewish actors." Yet Wayne admired Kirk Douglas, so much so that he took Kirk to task for playing Vincent van Gogh, whom Wayne characterized as one of "those queers." "Queers" was also the source of Wayne's repugnance for MIDNIGHT COWBOY. That the man was a homophobe, there can be no doubt--but was he anti-Semitic?
If so, maybe he just didn't know that Kirk Douglas was Jewish. And I'm imagining, with what I'd call a Marie Haws playfulness, Kirk, on location shooting with John Wayne, doing to Wayne what he did to an Anti-Semitic woman, according to THE RAGMAN'S SON.
Hey, DUKE! I'M JEWISH! You're FRIENDS WITH A JEW! YOU HEAR THAT, DUKE? YOU ARE NOW BEING ACTING WITH BY A JEW!!
All in good fun, Marie. I'll still toast Duke Wayne with that vodka, may my mother and stepfather forgive me . . .
Cheers,
Gary
Chinatown: must see. As Good As It Gets: should see (get over the Kinnearphobia; he's not bad in this). Bucket List: don't see (light, modestly entertaining, but nothing you haven't seen 100 times before).
PS I recall, I think, Nicholson giving some interview at the time in which he thought he'd made a mistake by doing The Shining right after Cuckoo's Nest. He thought it would make everybody think of him as "the crazy guy," and to a certain extent, that perception's held up over time.
If you haven't seen it, I'd recommend it anyway: for Jack and for Kubrick's visual style (not to mention the Berlioz-scored gorgeous opening [?] shot of the Torrances driving through the mountains).
To Matt Kaufman: You have a point, but I think you're fighting a losing battle, and maybe not fighting wisely. ("Reprimand in private; apologize in public.") (Walking the Tightrope of Possible Hypocrisy here.) The use of "retarded" and "'tard" (not to mention "man, that's gay") is more and more prevalent in middle and high schools here in the Valley of the Sun, and I imagine elsewhere. Probably most of the users would tell you they mean no offense to the developmentally disabled, or the alternately lifestyled.
Do Gypsies bristle when someone says they've been Gypped? I know that Jews tend to bristle when someone says they've been Jewed.
It's a tough call: making an issue of it at minimum threatens making the word-user feel like something the cat drug in. Sometimes the word-user, in their ignorance, doesn't know they're doing anything wrong.
And--back to John Wayne, who, honest Inj---ah, Honest to Goodness, used words like "queer" without shame--perhaps making a public issue of it has a polarizing effect, and does more harm than good. I say "perhaps" because that's my best guess and I don't know for sure.
Thanks for that insider's view of an underrated actor. Sounds like Wayne viewed his iconic stature with some humor and was far more concerned with playing his role and living his life. There's a marina out here in Washington named for him; he'd bring his boat up during the summers to cruise the islands, and was, according to the account I heard, down to earth and friendly. As an actor, his range may have been limited, but you couldn't help but watch him -- he had that same magnetism as Eastwood, Brando and Mitchum, which is hard to explain and seems more rare these days. Clooney might have a touch, maybe Denzel Washington and Harrison Ford...Anyway, I still rent True Grit and The Quiet Man every couple of years, and they hold up very well, especially the latter, which makes me want to arise and go to Innisfree...Ford and Wayne are known for their westerns, but I think their best collaboration was in the west of Ireland.
Cheers Indeed,
John
was interested in the thread about ethan being debby's father. Checked dailyscript.com and was a bit surprised by screenwriter, frank nugent plainly stating that 'ethan was, and always has been, in love with his brothers wife and she with him.'didn't know that, but nada on the debby thing. then found a review of le may's book at brothersjudd.com. nothing about ethan possible siring little debby there either i could discern. but there was something in the the book review that got my attention. they state that when the fiancee sees, who he thinks, is lucy at the indian camp and reports this back to ethan(amos in the book),only to be brutally told that what he actually saw was a young buck wearing luvy's SCALP, not her dress as is nugent's description in the screenplay and the film of course.
now this image from the book may have been a bit strong for 1956 audiences,don't know and really haven't a clue why it was altered, but it sure helps clarify ethan's motivation throughout the proceedings for me, especially near the end when he scalps the villanous indian,scar, and then proudly desplays his trophy from horseback-a very unjohnwaynelike move. don't remember the duke ever scalping anyone before or after. yet this shot in the movie i still find astonishing now( holds up well,as you say), although not anywhere as shocking as when i first was mesmerized by 'the searchers'...in CinemaScope no less... as a 10 year old in the 50's. thought i'd share that little chestnut with you, in case you hadn't picked up on it.
Look forward to your comments in 'the answer man' about lucy's parentage.