|
Post by TRK on Apr 18, 2011 16:52:56 GMT -5
Since Wayne was a rookie director on a mega-budget film, is it possible that in the preproduction phase he agreed to secure Ford to assist with or consult on production in order to convince investors to put money into the film?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 18, 2011 17:25:53 GMT -5
Who knows? If Wayne was thinking straight he would have gone along with Universal and agreed to play one of the major characters (which he did, although he didn't want to), drop his role as director and turn it over to someone else, maybe Ford, and continue acting as Producer. Wayne would not be my first choice to play Crockett, but he did OK in the role and, with that and his duties as producer, his plate was already full. The role he was least qualified to fill was director and he should have dropped it. But the thing was his dream of a lifetime and he must have been determined to maintain complete control.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 26, 2011 16:01:33 GMT -5
Chuck T, I googled Steve Frazee a year ago and found a publisher in England where I bought a copy of his Alamo. It now has a hard covered and believe it or not, contains a sketch of Clint Eastward in spaghetti western attire on the cover. But the rest is exactly the same, including the map of the fort. I had that softcover copy you found, but lost it to a "cousin" who never returned it 30+ years ago.
We've gone a round the horn many times with "what ifs" about Wayne's Alamo and we all seem to agree, it could have been so much better. Someday, a new version will be filmed that may please most of us. I had such high hopes for the 2004 film. It was good, but seemed to lack something (the misplaced chapel not withstanding.) I hope I live to see it.
One last point, Beau Jeste is in my opinion the greatest romantic adventure ever filmed. But I wouldn't call it a siege movie. To me it combined love, passion, action, bravery, greed, tragedy, irony and almost perfect direction from a script that did justice to the PC Wren novel. It's probably the most watched film in my collection and I never miss an opportunity to show it to those who have never seen it. "Rapid fire you scum, rapid fire," what a movie!!
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 26, 2011 19:40:03 GMT -5
I've often thought if you combined the best elements of the Wayne film with the best elements of the 2004 version, you'd probably have a pretty darn good movie. But you know, despite their inherent flaws, I still love watching both flicks. They're both pretty good story-telling in their own ways, and the only thing that really bugs me most about the 2004 film is the location of the church in respect to the Long Barracks, etc. That drives me nuts!
But, for the most part, I like the portrayals of the various characters in the 2004 over the Wayne-amo, especially Billy Bob Thornton's Crockett. I also like the fact that the battle scene was done in darkness, as it was actually fought. At least there was some attempt at accuracy, as near as I could tell, in the 2004 movie. It doesn't mean I wasn't disappointed. I was, because I too had even greater expectations for this film. Still, it wasn't all that bad, IMO.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 26, 2011 22:38:06 GMT -5
Lou: I still look at Beau Geste as a seige film, but you are correct that they had the right combination of elements that surround the seige to make it not appear so. There is story both before and after. That makes Beau Geste. Had they done just the seige it would have been just a North African Alamo. It is that time between hopeful begining and climactic ending where seige films fall flat on their keester.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 27, 2011 18:24:39 GMT -5
In my opinion, the one "siege" film that didn't fall on its face was "ZULU." When I first saw it as a teenager, I was sure they would all die (ala Alamo) and I was shocked to see, not only did they survive, but it was a true story. From the books I've read on the battle since then, there was remarkably little license taken by the producers. Basically, the main production changes were moving the cattle coral to the oposite side of the compound and the thrilling climax with the British singing "Men of Harllott" counterpoint to the massed Zulu's war chant. That instance never happened, but it was a rouser.
The Heston movie "55 Days in Peking" was touted as an Chinese Alamo when released. I guess it was a siege movie, but the subplots were distracting and sometimes annoying.
How about "Bataan" with Robert Taylor and Lloyde Nolan? It was smaller scale, but I think an excellent siege movie. Like many films of early WWII, it was properly patriotic and made the Japanese look one dimentional and stupid. But in my opinion, it reflected its time and even included some racial harmony. Again, a rouser. Sorry for going on so long. I guess my "Alamo gene" extends to many other battles and old movies.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 27, 2011 18:30:12 GMT -5
I'd forgotten about "Zulu" but you're right. I saw that as a kid and it was pretty intense. Not a bad "siege" film at all.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 27, 2011 20:59:41 GMT -5
Lou: I agree with the three you mentioned and your mini-review. Another that comes to mind is Wake Island. I heard somewhere that the planning for that movie, which came out fairly early in 42, was actually begun as the siege was ongoing. Don't know if that's true but it is at least an interesting semi-factoid.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 27, 2011 21:44:39 GMT -5
How about "Bataan" with Robert Taylor and Lloyde Nolan? It was smaller scale, but I think an excellent siege movie. Like many films of early WWII, it was properly patriotic and made the Japanese look one dimentional and stupid. But in my opinion, it reflected its time and even included some racial harmony. Again, a rouser. Bataan is very good. It's essentially a remake of The Lost Patrol, which is one of my favorite early Ford films, and according to Ford himself, one of his personal favorites. MacLaglen is great in the lead, and Karloff chews up the tent flaps as a religious fanatic.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Apr 27, 2011 21:49:10 GMT -5
Did anyone ever see MacLaglen when he wasn't great. Maybe Prince Valiant, but no even then he was great. My favorite Jim Bowie (Sterling Hayden) was in that one too.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 27, 2011 22:35:40 GMT -5
I'd forgotten about "Zulu" but you're right. I saw that as a kid and it was pretty intense. Not a bad "siege" film at all. Paul Don't forget Khartoum
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Apr 28, 2011 18:55:00 GMT -5
"Zulu" is a great movie, but "Zulu Dawn", with Burt Lancaster, is´nt too bad either
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on Apr 29, 2011 12:04:09 GMT -5
I don't remember ever seeing a bad Maclaglen movie, espeically during his prime. I think he was better than Cary Grant in "Gunga Din," although they served very different purposes in moving the story along. Virtually all the rousing military adventure movies from the 30s to the 50s benefited from Victor Maglaglen. And his director son Andrew did pretty well too. ZULU Dawn - the "prequel" to ZULU was great with accurate historical detail. But it was more geared to exposing the folly of colonialism. Still, I think it was a good picture with a very short siege. This is fun, although we might have gotton off the tread of "John Wayne's Alamo?"
|
|
|
Post by Seguin on Apr 29, 2011 17:33:43 GMT -5
Speaking of sieges, there´s also a bunch of movies about French Legionnaires being under siege in their forts by Arab tribes in North Africa.
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 29, 2011 19:07:16 GMT -5
On the subject of sieges involving the French Foreign Legion, tomorrow is the 148th anniversary of Camerón. To my knowledge there has never been a film about that legendary battle. Now that would be a great movie if done properly.
|
|