Film Forum (NYC)

[Gregory]

El Dorado (1963) and Rio Lobo (1970).

[Polybius]

El Dorado is a little later than that, '67 IIRC. They're all fun films that reward multiple viewings, but I still prefer El Dorado to the other two by a bit.

Hawks and Leigh Brackett just remade the same movie a couple of more times, adding and subtracting plot elements and character development here and there. Hawks and Wayne are terrific together. Wayne shows more of his comic side and the scripts don't emphasize the bullying aspect of his personality that often mars his films with Ford.

I've said it before and I'll say it again now: I like Ford better with Fonda than Wayne and I like Wayne better with Hawks.

[Gregory]

Also, I think Wood makes a very good case for a trilogy of Rio Bravo, To Have and Have Not, and Only Angels Have Wings in the second chapter of his book on Rio Bravo.

El Dorado is a little later than that, '67 IIRC.

[Polybius]

^ No biggie, it just happens to be a big fave and it was released the year I was born, so it sticks in my mind.

Caan tells hilarious stories about how Hawks would tell them to do that walking-down-the-street-on-patrol scene and then when he went to get back behind the camera, Wayne would totally contradict Hawks and tell him to do it another way.

[Martha]

Alright, I'm going to see Johnny Guitar and Forty Guns on Thursday-- I've never seen either one, but expect great things from the Fuller and at least something interesting from Ray. (So I'll probably come back complaining about both of them being boring.)

I also will probably be unable to resist Inferno in 3D over the weekend. Should I stick around and watch The Charge at Feather River as well? Has anyone alive even seen that one? I know nothing at all about it.

[GringoTex]

Alright, I'm going to see Johnny Guitar and Forty Guns on Thursday-- I've never seen either one, but expect great things from the Fuller and at least something interesting from Ray. (So I'll probably come back complaining about both of them being boring.)

Those were probably the two favorite Westerns of the Nouvelle Vague. Expect the genre conventions to be blown to smithereens. Can't wait to see what you think of Fuller's musical bathtub scene.

[Polybius]

In the long (and fascinating) profile of Ray in last month's Vanity Fair the writer mentioned in passing that he (Ray) disdained Johnny Guitar, thinking he had allowed Crawford too much say in it's final form.

[Elephant]

So did anyone else who caught yesterday's double feature feel like they watched the same movie twice? Twenty minutes into Boetticher's Comanche Station I realized that it was the same movie as Ride Lonesome, which I'd just watched. They were only made a year apart, with the same director and screenwriter. Both star Randolph Scott as a lone bounty hunter who ends up riding along with criminals looking to steal his bounty (a murderer in Ride Lonesome and an abducted woman in Comanche Station). In both films his wife is absent (murdered in one and missing in the other) and this plays somewhat heavily into his motivations. In both films his life is saved by one of the criminals who informs him (in nearly matching dialogue) that they only saved him so that they could have the honor of duking it out with him later. I was admittedly pretty bored with the second film, since it was unravelling scene-by-scene the same way as the previous film; I was thinking surely there were other Boetticher westerns with which they could have replaced one of these two films? The only other film of his I'd seen was The Tall T which screened last week, and which I loved . . .

[Brian Oblivious]

They could have screened Buchanan Rides Alone which is more of a tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of the Western hero, or Decision at Sundown which is Boetticher's response to High Noon (like Rio Bravo was Hawks's). Ride Lonesome and Comanche Station are probably the two Boettichers I've seen most similar to each other. (And I'm one of the few I know who prefers the later film to the earlier one).

[Anonymous]

I went to the Forty Guns/Johnny Guitar double feature yesterday, and I am very upset. Forty Guns was an underrated, very creative Western that takes cliches from all Westerns that came before it and embraces them. It predates Blazing Saddles as a great Western parody, also.

I had to leave during Johnny Guitar, however. Little did I know how much gay subtext was in the film, because a lot of the gays in the crowd (including the two sitting next to me) were VERY rowdy during the homoerotic moments. I have absolutely no problem with gays whatsoever, but this was bothering me because I can't take hooting, hollering or inane comments during a movie. If it wasn't that, it was every body else laughing at the cheesy lines. Grow up. I went to see a double feature of two Westerns, not The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I could do without the audience participation. At least nobody threw rice at me.

While Forty Guns was one of my best theatrical experiences thus far, Johnny Guitar is by far one of my worst. I've only had to walk out of two movies in my lifetime, one of those times because of a noisy/annoying/violent audience member. Since the admission was pretty much buy a ticket to Forty Guns and get Johnny Guitar for free, I didn't really mind, but I really would have liked to see the whole thing. I was enjoying (scratch that -- TRYING) to enjoy what was on screen, but there were far too many distractions to do so.

The DVD for Forty Guns is coming out in May, I highly recommend everyone checks it out. As for Johnny Guitar, a R2 DVD is coming in April, from Universal. Republic Pictures owns the US rights to the film, so who knows when we'll see a R1 release. The widescreen print for Forty Guns was practically pristine, while the full frame print for Johnny Guitar (was this originally meant to be in full frame, or what?) looked fine, if not a little washed-out. A friend of mine rented Johnny Guitar from the local library for me, so I'll be watching it in the comfort of my own (QUIET) home this week, I'll check back with comments.

[Martha]

I tried to see Inferno in 3D yesterday, and while the gays kept quiet, one of the projectors was screwed up and they had to cancel the damn screening. Did anyone try to go to the later shows? I wonder if they ever got it sorted out.

[Elephant]

I tried to see Inferno in 3D yesterday, and while the gays kept quiet, one of the projectors was screwed up and they had to cancel the damn screening. Did anyone try to go to the later shows? I wonder if they ever got it sorted out.

I was at that show. The immaturity level of the audience was astounding. Clearly Film Forum knew there was a problem and were doing their best to try and fix it, but that didn't stop audience members of all ages from screaming SOUND! SOUND! like the projectionist couldn't tell there was no sound. I didn't return for the later shows and considered going back tonight but to be honest those 3-D glasses give me a headache.

[BWilson]

I tried to see Inferno in 3D yesterday, and while the gays kept quiet, one of the projectors was screwed up and they had to cancel the damn screening. Did anyone try to go to the later shows? I wonder if they ever got it sorted out.

That sucks. But you got a fantastic demonstration of why the first wave of 3-D failed. It was too complex and unwieldy for theater managers and projectionists to present properly.

[Martha]

Elephant, you weren't the guy at this afternoon's show who came in late and sat right down on my bag, were you?

And am I a bad person for finding Inferno really boring? I really love some westerns, I swear, but the ones I've seen in this series (except for 3:10 to Yuma, which I adored) have not exactly blown my mind-- I'm starting to think I have the wrong mindset, or something. Inferno really looked great-- 3D is a perfect medium to show the amazing size and space of the desert, and the fight scene in the fire at the end was awesome. Plus, William Lundigan (who?) is very sexy. But the voiceover was awkward and the story really dragged: for me, the tension seemed assumed rather than created. Anyone else make it to the show?

[Elephant]

Elephant, you weren't the guy at this afternoon's show who came in late and sat right down on my bag, were you?

Sorry, not me. I'm like the most obsessively-polite moviegoer on the planet (because I expect the same in return), which generally backfires because then I'm that much more sensitive to the completely unacceptable behavior of 90% of moviegoers. But I didn't get back for Inferno but I'll be there tomorrow night for the two John Fords.

I've seen all but a few in this series so far, and the only ones I found dreary/dull/boring/uninteresting were Garden of Evil and the second film of the Boetticher doubleheader where the second film was the same film as the first film. I should be around for the rest of these. Partially my unwavering interest in these westerns is that I remember watching them on television (not these particular ones) with my grandfather when I was young , who adored war/westerns/cartoons/kung-fu movies. I brought a friend of mine to one of the double-features last week and had to plead with her to stay for the second film, she really didn't see the appeal at all.

[Andre Jurieu]

I had to leave during Johnny Guitar, however. Little did I know how much gay subtext was in the film, because a lot of the gays in the crowd (including the two sitting next to me) were VERY rowdy during the homoerotic moments. I have absolutely no problem with gays whatsoever, but this was bothering me because I can't take hooting, hollering or inane comments during a movie. If it wasn't that, it was every body else laughing at the cheesy lines. Grow up. I went to see a double feature of two Westerns, not The Rocky Horror Picture Show. I could do without the audience participation. At least nobody threw rice at me.

Well, even though I don't know exactly how to pick out "gays" in the crowd, I have to say that this was a similar experience to what I encountered at Film Forum last summer when they screened Johnny Guitar. It was a rowdy crowd for a film that was rather cheesy at times, but I sure couldn't tell their sexual preferences just based on their reactions. Guess I lack that skill. I can't say I was completely innocent though, considering I had to laugh a few times at some of the more ridiculous parts in the film (Joan Crawford dressed in white playing a piano anyone?). I have to admit the audience participation was a bit distracting (though that may be part of the fun of watching the film), but I don't know if I could (or would want to) specifically lay the blame at any specific demographic within the theatre.

[rossbrew]

Chances are when you hear two balding men wearing pink acrylic sweaters loudly conjecture on the benefits of anal rings you can pretty well assume they're of the gay persuasion...

[BWilson]

And am I a bad person for finding Inferno really boring? I really love some westerns, I swear, but the ones I've seen in this series (except for 3:10 to Yuma, which I adored) have not exactly blown my mind-- I'm starting to think I have the wrong mindset, or something. Inferno really looked great-- 3D is a perfect medium to show the amazing size and space of the desert, and the fight scene in the fire at the end was awesome. Plus, William Lundigan (who?) is very sexy. But the voiceover was awkward and the story really dragged: for me, the tension seemed assumed rather than created. Anyone else make it to the show?

Well, prior to this Film Forum write up I'd never heard anyone even pretend that Inferno is anything more than a diverting B picture of interest only because of the 3-D process.

INFERNO (1953, ROY WARD BAKER) 3-D�s ultimate unknown classic: nasty millionaire Robert Ryan, dumped to die in the desert with a broken leg by his cheating wife and her lover, slowly wins back audience sympathy by sheer will to survive. �Tight and involving essay in suspense. . . one of the best movies made in 3-D; its use of space emphasizes the dramatic possibilities.� � Time Out (London).

It's low budget and low quality, and as I've said before, IT ISN'T A WESTERN. Film Forum hyped it as being the lost classic which it definitely is not.

[GringoTex]

I can't say I was completely innocent though, considering I had to laugh a few times at some of the more ridiculous parts in the film (Joan Crawford dressed in white playing a piano anyone?).

That's why this film should always be viewed the first time alone or with a non-participatory crowd. It's a poetically haunting film, which a rambunctious crowd can ruin. It operates a fine line between camp and melodrama.

I once programmed this film in downtown Austin, and then again in an old movie theater in a ranching community about an hour outside of Austin. It was like watching two different movies- a mindblowing experience.

I have to admit the audience participation was a bit distracting (though that may be part of the fun of watching the film), but I don't know if I could (or would want to) specifically lay the blame at any specific demographic within the theatre.

It's become an established gay camp text, but that doesn't mean the straights don't have their fun with it, too.

[Michael]

anal rings

What are they?! rossbrew, your description is utter horror and I will make sure that I will never come to this point - wearing pink sweaters that is! I still look like a lumberjack.

Johnny Guitar is among the most wonderful films ever - a very beautiful and unconventional western. I can certainly understand the gay men's response to this film and films of that sort. Joan Crawford is a gay icon. I will never forget my experience watching What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? in the theater full of gay men in San Francisco more than ten years ago. What a rush that was.

But anyway, guncrazy, the audience was rowdy because Johnny Guitar is hysterical - whether you're gay or not.

[Anonymous]

Film Forum in New York will show Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME in a brand new 35mm restoration that is said to look stunning. Click here for more info and a beautifully looking though stupidly cut and scored trailer.

Is there a chance that Criterion will re-release the film using the new restoration?

[HerrSchreck]

Film Forum in New York will show Renoir's THE RULES OF THE GAME in a brand new 35mm restoration that is said to look stunning. Click here for more info and a beautifully looking though stupidly cut and scored trailer.

Is there a chance that Criterion will re-release the film using the new restoration?

Read it again, and note what they're advertising. It's a "new 35mm print", as they always strike them & tout them in film calendars for rereleases of important old films. I got the calendar too.. though I really doubt they meant a brand new restoration, i e "just completed". I'd wager my cojones that the "new" digital restoration they mean is the one they performed for the (relatively) new disc CC/Janus of the film from 2004. (They're even tying in the exhibition with the disc.. see where it says "click here for info on CC's special edition disc of the film"?

The whole idea of "seeing the film the way the director intended" is what Jean Gaborit and Jacques Durand intended when reconstituting the film from various sources, constructing the ragged materials that reorganized the butchered continuities & editing disasters the film notoriously went thru... though their resto resulted in a ragged assemblage of celluloiud thought to be the best case scenario for those who wanted to enjoy the fim back then in mid- 20th century. It was Janus/CC who scoured the vaults of the planet to create the miraculous restored image & sound of the aforementioned reconstitution (which according to Renoir, was 100% of his original content-wise but for a single scene concerning "the sexual habits of maids".

Any longtime fan of this film, who owns CC's sublime (feature-loaded.. definitely one of their very very best releases ever) release of this film knows that another edition from these guys could never happen... at least not in the next 10 yrs, or.. ever-- at least barring discovery of first generation intact materials. If they did another resto that rendered the 2004 release defunct I'm SURE they wouldn't be hawking it in tandem with the superceding roasdhow. Use your noodle!

Incidentally, there's a thread for every CC release where you could have stuck these remarks... countdown to thread-locking... tick... tick...

[Anonymous]

I of course know that Gaborit and Durand's restoration is the definitive one of the film, what I meant was restoration as it is always done (i.e. restoring picture and sound quality). You must have misunderstood my post, because by "brand new restoration" I refer to the cleaning-up of the picture, both video and audio quality.

And they don't "always" make new prints for re-releases of classic films, as you said it. The Janus series at NY has a lot of Bergman, Ophüls, Fellini and Kurosawa but they're not all in new restored prints. The one film that they say is "beautifully restored" is THE RULES OF THE GAME and that's why the screening of the film at Film Forum will be introduced by Paul Schrader and why it runs there for two weeks.

[HerrSchreck]

I of course know that Gaborit and Durand's restoration is the definitive one of the film, what I meant was restoration as it is always done (i.e. restoring picture and sound quality). You must have misunderstood my post, because by "brand new restoration" I refer to the cleaning-up of the picture, both video and audio quality.

When I said:

It was Janus/CC who scoured the vaults of the planet to create the miraculous restored image & sound of the aforementioned reconstitution (which according to Renoir, was 100% of his original content-wise but for a single scene concerning "the sexual habits of maids"

where was it unclear that I said Janus/CC did anything besides image sound resto?

And they don't "always" make new prints for re-releases of classic films, as you said it. The Janus series at NY has a lot of Bergman, Ophüls, Fellini and Kurosawa but they're not all in new restored prints. The one film that they say is "beautifully restored" is THE RULES OF THE GAME and that's why the screening of the film at Film Forum will be introduced by Paul Schrader and why it runs there for two weeks.

Are you saying they take archival vault prints out on the road? Again it sounds like your mixing "new print struck" with "new restoration done". Granted they're not always new enough print-strikings where they can tout that they just struck the new print at schedule/calendar printing time. But of course they use new-ish prints, as they are going get their asses kicked via repeated projection.

Sign up fo NYFF's calendar... comb thru the dozen's of listings. On every calendar you'll "always" see "NEW 35mm PRINT" a few times over the page. It's a very common thing. When they say brand new print, that's always what it means: they struck a brand new print so they don't go on the road with a speckled, projector worn & light-faded print from previous tours. Striking a print doesn't mean that a resto was just completed immediately previously. I'm saying that you mistook the restoration as the "brand new" element in the flyer advertisement, rather than the print, which was the thing that was created for this tour of the film.

Yes. The film has been beautifilly restored. Janus' work on this film and the resulting CC disc is one of the finest digital vehicles of film presentation on the face of the planet. But what's going on here should be quite obvious: they're striking a brand new 35mm print of their beautiful recent spare-no-expense restoration... and after seeing it in NYFF, if you really like it, you may go to your (r)etailer and purchase the exact same thing for yourself on disc.

I wonder if you have the CC disc of this, and how familiar you are with the film's backstory and Janus' place in resurrecting it to a level of aural & visual clarity that absolutely no cineaste on the face of the earth ever thought was even remotely possible... Now they can go and witness this miracle in person on the big screen.

[Anonymous]

Of course I own the CC disc and I am extremely happy with it. I was just surprised to read that they're showing a new print at Film Forum as a kind of very special occassion. Maybe you're right and I mix up "new print struck" and "new restoration done", sorry for that.

What I basically did in this post was report the news of the Film Forum showing the film for two weeks.

And with the sentence "Is there a chance that Criterion will re-release the film using the new restoration?" I just expressed my surprise in that they made yet another restoration. It sounds as if some kind of new print was made that (utopically) is even better than the CC DVDs restoration. I was confused by all this promotional hick-hack because every website talks about brand new restorations etc. etc.

Referring to your sentence "[...] at least barring discovery of first generation intact materials": the lines on the Janus page like "NEW 35mm PRINT—THE FIRST STRUCK IN DECADES! COMPLETE DIGITAL RESTORATION!" make it sound as if that quote of yours was right.

I am very familiar with the film's history by the way, I just got confused in all this news.