Western Wednesdays: Hondo (1953)

     Hondo was released on November 27th, 1953. Adapted from a short story by Louis L'Amour it was produced by John Wayne's newly formed production company, Batjac, and directed by John Farrow. In it Hondo Lane (Wayne), an army dispatch rider, becomes the protector of Angie Lowe (Geraldine Page) and her son Johnny (Lee Aakar) during an Apache uprising in Arizona.

     Hondo presents complex view of American/Indian relations. Hondo, we learn, was once married to an Apache woman named Destarte who died. He has great respect for the Apache and their way of life. What's more, he blames whites for stirring the Indians up, "We broke that treaty, us Whites." The main Apache character in the film is there chief Vittorio (played by Australian actor Michael Pate and loosely based on the real-life Apache chief Victorio). Vittorio is portrayed as a ruthless but wise and honorable leader. He spares Mrs. Lowe and her son after Johnny openly defies him. Impressed by the boys courage he adapts him into the tribe and makes him a blood brother. He has some rather sexist views about marriage (views not really in line with Apache culture) and insists that Mrs. Lowe choose an Apache husband if her own husband doesn't return before the next rain because "Small Warrior should have father." When he mistakes Hondo for Mrs. Lane's husband he accepts him as a suitable guardian and the two men gain respect for each other when Hondo promises not to help the Calvary fight the Apache, though refusing to lie about the tribes whereabouts. "Indians hate lies" he says.

     Of course Hondo is ultimately forced to fight the Apache when Vittorio is killed, leaving Mrs. Lane and Johnny without an advocate. In the end, when the Calvary discuss the imminent arrival of a larger force to subdue the remaining Apache, Hondo reflects that this will mean the end of their way of life. "Too bad, it's a good way," he muses. This line is pretty indicative of the attitude that so many Hollywood films would take toward Native Americans during this period. Despite this Hondo's portrayal of the Apache is still more nuanced then one might think.

    In general, the film is refreshingly atypical. When Hondo is forced to kill Angie's husband Ed (Leo Gordon) he initially hides this from her, as she has fallen in love with him and he doesn't want to burden her with the real reason for her husband's death. When she inevitably finds out, rather then hold it against him, she simply accepts it. "Poor Ed," she says "I guess he wasn't the sort of man to die well. Sorry now I hated him so much. I guess he couldn't help being weak and selfish." When Hondo tries to tell Johnny what he did, Mrs. Lowe intervenes, as it would scar Johnny unnecessarily. Most films would use this event to force drama between the romantic leads, but Hondo doesn't.

     The film has an interesting production history. It was shot in 3-D (yes Hollywood was toying with the format as far back as the early 50s!) and, as the popularity of the format was starting to wane at the time, Warner Brothers promoted their own 3-D camera process, claiming it was superior to the 3-D films found elsewhere. The director, John Farrow, opted not to put many gimmicky shots of objects flying at the camera in the film, instead using it to produce a greater depth of field in the film's may panoramic landscape shots. Farrow was unable to complete the film as he was under contractual obligation to do another movie and Hondo went over schedule. As a result, John Ford was brought in to complete the film, directing the wagon train attack. Ford was uncredited for his contributions.

     Farrow's direction is competent and restrained. The few times he throws in a gimmicky 3-D shot stick out in a bad way, but they are few and far between. He and cinematographer Robert Burks (a frequent collaborator of Hitchcock) really capture the rugged Mexican landscape beautifully. John Ford does a bang up job with his (uncredited) scenes, creating a really memorable climax for the film. The score by Hugo Friedhofer is memorable and effective. All the actors do a great job, particularly Geraldine Page. She imbues Mrs. Lowe with a quiet dignity. She may be caught between various male figures (Ed, Vittorio and Hondo) but she holds her own and makes the best of it. Page was nominated for an Academy Award for her role. Wayne is at his best as Hondo Lane, combining his rugged, swaggering demeanor with his more romantic, seductive side. He makes Lane a uniquely independent and single minded individual. Ward Bond is also quite good in a small but memorable supporting role as Buffalo Baker. Also look out for James Arness in an early, pre-Gunsmoke role.

     The film is not without its faults. As I said, despite treating them with more nuance then is typical, Hondo still treats Native Americans in a somewhat cliche and stereotypical manner. (I'm not an expert but, to my knowledge the Apache didn't encourage widows to marry nor did they make blood oaths). Though I like where it ends up going the drama surrounding Lane's killing of Ed Lowe is rather tiresome. It's also awkwardly paced with an, at times, episodic structure and a rather rushed denouement.

     Despite this Hondo remains a really solid western with featuring steady direction, a really good script and stellar performances from Wayne and Page.

Score: 8/10

Lent Reviews Year 5 Week 1: The Young Messiah (2016)

     The Young Messiah was released on March 11th, 2016. Based on Anne Rice's novel Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt it is directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh and written, for the screen, by the director and his wife, Betsy. It chronicles a year in the life of Jesus Christ (played by Adam Graves-Neal) beginning with the Holy family's return to Nazareth from their self-imposed exile Egypt and ending with the finding of the child Jesus in the Temple in Jerusalem during Passover.

     Director Cyrus Nowrasteh had a rather controversial career before making this movie. He had directed two made-for-TV films dealing with historical subjects one of which was criticized by American conservatives (The Day Reagen was Shot) and the other by liberals (The Path to 9/11). He had also directed The Stoning of Soraya M a film which raised awareness about human rights violations in Iran and which was met with a great deal of stir in that country. Given the dark and inflammatory nature of his earlier work, it's somehow seems fitting that he should make this more uplifting, if still somewhat divisive film. The movie was met with mixed reception from Christian critics, some of whom took issue with its unorthodox portrayal of Jesus.

     The Young Messiah has a rather interesting perspective on Jesus, particularly as it relates to his humanity and his divinity. Jesus appears unaware of his divine nature. He performs miracles, raising a young boy from the dead and healing his sick uncle, Cleopas, but he doesn't understand why he can do these things. Some might think this is blasphemous but it's really not. Jesus has two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man. How much he knew, as a man, is not made clear in the scriptures. He may, like most children, have had to discover for himself who is is and where he came from. At the end of the film Jesus is told, by Mary, that he is God's Son, prompting Him to reply, "But we're all children of God." To which Mary says, "Yes. Yes, we are. But you... You are begotten of God."

     Many films dealing with the life of Christ attempt to build a conflict around either the Pharisees and/or the Roman authorities opposition to Jesus. This film is no exception. In this case Herod Antipas (Jonathan Baily), the son and heir of Herod the Great, finds out that a child, who can reportedly perform miracles, has survived his father's purge. Herod feels threatened by this and assigns a Roman Centurion named Severus (Sean Bean) to find and destroy the boy. Throughout the film Mary and Joseph are frightened for Jesus' safety from the Romans and, because of this, they discourage him from displaying his miraculous powers in public. This comes to a climax when Joseph decides to travel with the Holy family to Jerusalem for the Passover, giving Jesus' an opportunity to ask his Heavenly Father for answers. The screenwriters re-imagine the finding in the Temple as a climatic event, where Jesus leaves Mary and Joseph, who are preparing to turn back to Nazareth for fear of the Romans, and travels to the temple himself where he learns of the slaughter of the innocents in Bethlehem, which he escaped. He is found there by Severus who, ultimately, can't bring himself to kill Jesus, though falsely reporting to Herod that he has.

     The Romans aren't the films only antagonists however as Nowrasteh (or perhaps Anne Rice) borrows a page from Mel Gibson and includes Satan in the story. Played by Rory Keenan, the devil is seen early on in a scene where a young boy who is taunting Jesus dies. Throughout the film the devil tries to turn people against Jesus, though he is doesn't know that the child is actually God's Son. Jesus is able to see Satan, though no one else can, and the demon tries to torment Christ at one point, when he is suffering from an illness, telling Him that His miracles will do no good in the long run. Jesus speaks to Satan with authority, commanding him never to touch him.

     Adam Graves-Neal performance as Jesus is one of the more convincing ones I've seen. He imbues Christ with real humanity while also making him feel divine and otherworldly. His interactions with Rory Keenan's demon are particularly strong. The supporting cast are all solid as well, especially Sean Bean, who is great as always. His Severus is really a broken man and he garners our sympathy despite serving as the film's antagonist. Vincent Walsh is a good Joseph, though perhaps a little stiff at times. Sara Lazzaro is unfortunately a little sidelined as Mary but she does the best with what she has. Jane Lapotaire has a small but memorable role as Grandmother Sarah who saves the Holy Family from a group of Roman's looking for Nazarenes to blame for the recent insurrection. The direction is a little by-the-numbers, with a visual style reminiscent of Gladiator and The Passion of the Christ. The cinematography was done by Joel Ransom, who has mainly done TV work. It's competent but rather unremarkable. The score, by John Debney, is also a little bland but still effective. The film is carried, mainly, by the actors and the script.

     While not a masterpiece The Young Messiah offers a fairly fresh take on the childhood of Jesus. If your willing to accept a somewhat unconventional take on Christ's childhood I would definitely recommend it.

Score: 8/10

Update: Lent Reviews

      You might have noticed that there has been a bit of a slump in the activity on my blog as of late. The reason for this is that I'm doing student teaching this semester and have had far less time for writing as a result. Nevertheless, I have decided to do lent reviews once again this year. For those of you who don't know, every year during the lent season (it's a Catholic thing) I review religious films every week. This will be my fifth year doing this. Hopefully I will also be able to do a few non-lent related posts as well. 

Western Wednesdays: Hang Em' High (1968)

      Hang Em' High was released on July 31st, 1968. Directed by Ted Post it stars Clint Eastwood as Jed Cooper, a cattle driver who is falsely accused of murder and lynched by a posse of nine men. Saved from death by Federal Marshal Dave Bliss (Ben Johnson), Cooper is made a Deputy Marshall by Judge Adam Fenton (Pat Hingle) and sets out to find the men who tried to hang him and bring them to justice.

     Hang Em' High is a fairly ambitious western. It attempts to balance themes concerning justice, vengeance, and the law. Jed Cooper isn't really interested in upholding the law, he simply wants retribution against the men who hung him. He, like them, wants to take the law into his own hands. The difference is he wears a badge. He is backed up by the authority of the law, represented by Judge Fenton, and this is where his character's central conflict arises. Fenton is a bit of an authoritarian. He is the supreme arbiter of the law and criminals live or die according to his whims. His is a primitive forerunner to the law of civilization. The two men clash when Fenton condemns two cattle rustlers, who Cooper feels are worthy of reprieve, to death. He tells Cooper, "if there's no justice in Fort Grant, Cooper, there will be no statehood for this territory." This evokes the classic western theme of the necessity of violence to make way for civilization, in this case putting in a somewhat subversive light. The film's ending, which I won't spoil for those who haven't seen it, is very ambiguous and the conflict between justice and vengeance is never satisfactorily resolved. This impressed me.

      Hang Em' High is a little heavy handed at times and is also lacking in humor and levity. It's definitely a dark film, given its themes and a little black humor, as is common in many of Eastwood's later films, would have been welcome. There is a romantic subplot involving Cooper and Rachel Warren (Inger Stevens), a local shopkeeper looking for her husband's killer among the Judge Fenton's prisoners. I also found the inciting incident of the film a little shaky. Cooper is hanged after Joe Hanson, the man who he purchased his cattle from, is brutally murdered. The lynchers assume that Cooper killed him and stole his cattle and they ask him to describe Hanson but the description he gives doesn't match that of the murdered man. While watching this scene I immediately deduced that the real murderer must have pretended to be Hanson and then sold the cattle to Cooper. After all if Cooper had killed Hanson, why would he lie about his appearance. I suppose one could argue that the men in the lynching party are caught up in the moment and not thinking clearly but surely at least one of them must have some doubts? It's not awful but it is a little contrived.

     Ted Post's direction is very competent and restrained. The man was not a audacious filmmaker by any means but he clearly understands the basic language of cinema and how to employ it effectively. Similarly the performances, though not groundbreaking, are all pretty solid. Eastwood carries the film with his usual taciturn, stoic personality. His Jed Cooper is a somewhat inscrutable character, one who is driven by vengeance but not unaffected by compassion and conscience. Pat Hingle is, at times, over-the-top as the self righteous Judge Fenton. Inger Stevens does her best as the underwritten Rachel Warren, imbuing her with a real sense of  pathos and bitterness. Ben Johnson is great as always in his brief but memorable role. The score by Dominic Frontiere, who is mainly distinguished for his TV work (The Outer Limits, The Rat Patrol) is also quite good. The main theme (which became a top-ten hit when covered by Booker T. & the M.G.'s) is incredibly memorable and contributes greatly to the films heavy, oppressive tone.

     Hang Em' High is far from perfect but it does juggle some really interesting thematic ideas and features solid performances, a memorable score and proficient direction from Ted Post.

Score: 8/10

My Favorite Films: Iron Man (2008)

     This might come as a surprise to some people, but I'm fairly new to the geek culture scene. Seven years ago I'd never seen a super-hero movie in my life. Along with works of science fiction and fantasy, comic book inspired movies were generally discouraged by my parents. That all changed when I watched Jon Favreau's Iron Man back in 2011. Iron Man seemed like a different kind of superhero. He had no superpowers, no secret identity and he didn't fight flashy supervillains (or so I thought). Surely this was an exception my parents superhero prohibition. Then I watched the movie.

     It initially drew me in with it's Rambo/James Bond style story-line of a man who uses his wits and skills to overcome a superior foe but, as it went on, the comic book world-building (personified by Clark Gregg's agent Coulson) started to draw me in. At this point I was already aware that Iron Man was going to cross over with Hulk, Thor and Captain America in The Avengers, but I never for a second thought that that would ever work. This film and the ones that followed it would prove me wrong. This was the first step in a long journey to my becoming a comic book geek. Seven years later, I've watched every movie and television show in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (sans Inhumans), as well as countless other DC and Marvel films, and am now a regular patron of my local comic book store. And I owe it all to Iron Man.

     So what about the film itself, does it hold up as a piece of entertainment? As should be obvious from the title of this review, yes it does. In fact, it seems even more fresh and exciting than it did when I first saw it. One thing that surprised me was how much of a sleaze Tony Stark is at the beginning of the film. He misses the award ceremony presided over by his friend Rhodey to go gambling, he sleeps with the "crusading" journalist who questions the ethical implications his company's selling of weapons, and he treats the sale of the new, powerful Jericho missile like he's selling a sports car. Taking a self-centered, egotistical but still likable jerk through a redemptive arc has become a staple of the MCU, the origin stories of Thor, Star Lord and Doctor Strange are all variations on this theme, but none of them have felt quite as risque or degenerate as Tony Stark.

     In the comics, Tony Stark doesn't initially stop producing weapons after becoming Iron Man, rather this is something the writers introduced later on, as the comic book industry became more socially aware. Incorporating this into his origin was an ingenious move on the writers' part. The movie does a really good job, in general, with condensing different elements from 40 years of Iron Man comics into a single narrative and with capturing the spirit of its source material. At his core Tony Stark is a man who is constantly trying to atone for the sins of his past in order to build a better future, and that is exactly what the character from the movies is. 

     One thing that really distinguishes this film from many of the other movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe is its sense of earnestness. There is a scene about halfway through the movie where Tony asks Pepper Potts to hack into Stark Industries computer system in order to uncover who else Obadiah Stane has sold weapons to. Pepper, at first, refuses to help him, as she feels that Tony is endangering his life through his endeavors. Tony, however, is insistent telling her that he shouldn't be alive, "unless it was for a reason. I'm not crazy, Pepper. I just finally know what I have to do. And I know in my heart that it's right."

     Heart is a theme that runs throughout the film, being symbolized, most explicitly, by the arc reactor in Tony's chest, which also serves as the movies maguffin. He builds this in Afghanistan, after being attacked and kidnapped by terrorists, who use his own weapons against him, leaving him with shrapnel traveling toward his heart. Along with this new, artificial "heart" comes the sobering realization that he has lived, up to this point, a lie, deluding himself into thinking that all of his weapons development served the good of humanity. This is emblematic of his life in general, one of constant partying and indulgence but one with no real meaning. At first, Stark's predicament leads him to defeatism and it's only through the encouragement of his fellow prisoner, Yinsen, that he decides to build the Iron Man suit and attempt an escape. Yinsen is killed when he draws off the terrorists to buy Tony time to power up the suit. With his dying breath he tells Stark, "Don't waste it. Don't waste your life." Watching this good man die to save him gives Tony the final push he needs. He decides, from this moment forward, to use his resources and his genius in service of humanity.

     Tony Stark is, front and center, the focus of this film but the supporting characters are still adequately fleshed out and their relationships with Stark feel genuine. Obadiah Stane is a much more unassuming and restrained supervillain then had been typical up to this point. Though it's clear that he is envious of Tony's fame and success he never let's this get in the way of his plans. Rather he is able to subtlety manipulate Tony so that the revelation that he was behind Stark's kidnapping feels both a shocking and, somehow, like something we should have seen coming. Pepper Potts is also a more fully formed character then your usual movie love interest. She clearly has feelings for Tony but won't pursue them because she knows he's irresponsible and self obsessed. As he grows as a character we see her grow closer to him yet, even by the end of the film she is not ready to fully commit to a relationship, turning the tables when he tries to win her over by reminding her of their almost-not-quite kiss earlier in the film. "Are you talking about the night that we danced and went up on the roof, and then you went downstairs to get me a drink, and you left me there, by myself?"

     The film is subtly subversive like that and the romance between Tony and Pepper owes more to screwball comedies like His Girl Friday then to comic books. The typical hand wringing the protagonist would go through over revealing his secret identity to his significant other is simply not present here. Pepper just stumbles upon Tony as he's changing out of his Iron Man armor and he immediately takes her into his confidence. Similarly, the scene at the end where Tony reveals his secret identity to the world may not seem surprising 10 years later but, at the time, it was unprecedented. In the movie world up to this point every super-hero had a secret identity and this usually played a big role in the story of the film. By having Tony say "I am Iron Man" on national television the film was breaking precedent and opening the door for a different kind of superhero movie moving forward, one less beholden to the conventions of soap opera romance.

     Like most Marvel movies Iron Man is filled with subversive humor but it works dramatically in a way many others don't because having Tony's bravado undercut by a humorous moment serves as a comeuppance for his egoism and vanity rather than undermining the character's heroism. Similarly the characters own sardonic sense of humor is not just there so the audience can have a laugh at the expense of the story, rather it comes from a character place. Tony uses it as a shield, hiding his personal trauma behind a public face that is snarky, irreverent and supremely self-confident.

     One element that really makes Iron Man stand out among it superhero brethren is Jon Favreau's direction. He approached the film like an indie comedy (a genre that Favreau cut his teeth in) making generous use of improvisational acting and overlapping dialogue. Indeed, at the start of production Favreau had more of an outline then a full-fledged script, so most of the dialogue was improvised by he and Robert Downey Jr. The scene at the press conference, where Tony announces that his company will no longer produce weapons, was scripted by Downey himself the night before it was shot. Allowing his actors this level of input into his film allowed them to really shape their characters and bring them to life. It also resulted in more genuine, spontaneous human interaction in the actors' onscreen exchanges. As a result, Iron Man has a realistic, down-to-earth tone that is really unique within the superhero genre.

     Of course, Robert Downey Jr. absolutely carries the film. He was an inspired choice to play Tony Stark. When he was cast the actor was coming off of a six year recovery period after a long struggle with substance abuse, arrests, and numerous legal troubles. His own life had been something of a redemption story and Downey really clearly channeled his life experience into the role. He worked exceptionally well with Jon Favreau, improvising and "creating" his character as the production went along. He also has great chemistry with his fellow cast members, particularly Gwyneth Paltrow. Paltrow and Jeff Bridges really convey the fact that their characters have a long, complicated relationship with Tony that extends beyond what we see in the film. Some actors embody the characters they play but Robert Downey Jr. made Iron Man his own. The success of the film would lead the actor to an unprecedented level of fame and popularity, and he topped Forbes list of highest paid actor's for three years in a row, from 2013 to 2015.

     The world of Iron Man is filled with technology that seems just out of reach, from the computer program's Tony uses, to the weapons he builds, to the suit itself everything feels really believable. This is largely thanks to the many effects artists who worked on the film. This is the last film Stan Winston, the special effects artist behind Jurassic Park and Alien, would ever be involved in and, while there's nothing here as groundbreaking as his earlier work (but really, what is?) the special effects of Iron Man are still spectacular. I would go so far as to say that there as good or better as any Marvel movie made before or since. CGI is always more convincing when used along side practical effects, it gives the effects artists a more realistic basis for there work and helps the audience to believe what there seeing on screen. The suits built by Stan Winston Studios lend Iron Man a sense of realism you couldn't attain otherwise. The sound design, by Skywalker Sound, is also great, helping to breath life into all of Stark's tech.

     For better or for worse Iron Man changed cinema. It made both Tony Stark and Robert Downey Jr. into household names and it kicked off the Marvel Cinematic Universe, an idea the rest of Hollywood is still struggling to try and replicate. Personally it helped me to begin my journey as a comic book fan and led me to a heavier involvement in modern cinema. Besides this, its a great piece of entertainment with witty dialogue, energetic performances, and jaw-dropping special effects all in service of a focused, character-driven origin story with genuine heart and emotion.