The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Full Length REACTION!
Added 2023-02-01 16:16:11 +0000 UTCFor Film Friday #62, Madison watches The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for the first time.
Preorder GONE OUTLAW: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BRQVVQX9?...
Follow @goneoutlaw on Facebook and Instagram for the latest news and updates.
Become a channel member: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCRO...
Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/madisonkthames
Website: madisonthames.com
Instagram: @madisonkthames
Twitter: @madisonkthames
Facebook: @madisonkthames
Comments
Thanks for reacting to this excellent movie. Great performances by both John Wayne and James Stewart even though both were moving into their senior years in this one, not that that slowed either of them down. I also echo the recommendation of Red River (1948) one of John Wayne's best performances where he plays against type in a different way than he played against type in his Oscar winner, True Grit. And also rec El Dorado (1966) which is just a fun Western with Wayne, Robert Mitchum and James Caan. The only other movie I can think of that had both Wayne and Stewart in it would be How The West Was Won (1962) a great Western anthology movie with three directors (John Ford, Henry Hathaway, and George Marshall) with Wayne, Stewart, Gregory Peck, George Peppard, Debbie Reynolds and other greats, that would be a great reaction for this channel.
Mike LL
2023-02-05 20:17:52 +0000 UTCThat being said, now that you're doing consecutive westerns, among the usuals like "Unforgiven" or the Young Guns movies, "El Dorado" is one of my favorite John Wayne Flicks, that is actually a plot line they recycled a couple times, but my favorite of the three. Not a spaghetti western, but a Clint Eastwood flick from that ers that gets overlooked, "Two Mules For Sister Sarah", John Wayne's last "The Shootist" that is a little different but has relevance to the reality that you may or may not get.
Richie Cabral
2023-02-02 06:28:54 +0000 UTCOh, boy! How do I do this? Hmm. So there was a few minor things I thought I might comment on, but I basically decided not to because I knew what it would open up into so much more, and I really would've prefered that I could have spared you this, but here I am. Just so much, though. Your interpretation of how westerns have changed wasn't necessarily wrong, but I think there's a lot more to it maybe. It's kind of hard to delve into it all while attempting to keep it brief, but for starters since this was a John Ford flick, if you didn't already know, you kind of have to understand that John Ford is basically the grandfather of all American film in general. He actually once said that he didn't want to be remembered for making westerns, but ironically, with "Stagecoach" he kicked of an era of Hollywood westerns that lasted maybe four decades. That's not to say that he created the first western. I wouldn't even know how to even quantify that statement. He does go back to the silent era, was there at the beginning of so much, and even made films prior to "Stagecoach" that could be considered westerns, but the reality is that the "cowboy" and "The West" is just our lore as Americans as such a young nation, and has always been a focus since the beginning of motion pictures. William S. Hart was a silent era producer/director/writer/actor of westerns who actually grew up in frontier towns as they were dying out. So, to him, he was a real stickler for authenticity since he had lived it, or at least had grown up hearing about it second hand from people who had. I'm skipping a lot, but then westerns went into an era where they were referred to as "kiddie westerns" or "three and a half day westerns" because nobody thought they were worth investing money in, so they were basically no plot and a lot of action, and they'd be shot on a budget for three and a half days so that they could afford to make enough of them that could be pumped out for double feature Saturday matinees for kids to watch. John Wayne once said that in his early days in that era that you'd see a shot of a guy riding away on a horse, then a separate shot of another guy chasing him on a horse, but you'd never see them in a shot together because they could only afford one horse, and both guys were riding the same horse. John Ford found the script for "Stagecoach" and just decided he wanted to make it, but no studio thought that an adult audience would pay money to see a western. He ended up finding a way to make it on half of what he would normally get. There's so much more back story to "Stagecoach" and the relationship between John Ford and John Wayne who went on to make more movies together than any other collaboration between director an actor. A lot of it isn't even relative to my larger point, but I will tell you that John Ford discovered John Wayne when he wasn't an actor and that wasn't his name, he convinced him he should be and hooked him up with some friends, that didn't work out for other reasons, John Wayne was stuck doing mediocre stuff for a long period to some fame, and then John Ford put him in "Stagecoach" because he couldn't afford anyone better, which made John Wayne a star. Again this isn't relevant, but John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Henry Fonda, and I'm sure others all starred in John Ford movies and referred to him as "pappy", but I think the relationship with John Wayne was deeper because due to John Wayne's relationship with his own father, and that his entire career was initiated, and then made successful by John Ford, he genuinely considered John Ford like a father figure to himself that he looked up to and wanted approval from, and I think John Ford loved him too, but at least in the early days, looked on him as his own kid, in the sense that, "He's cute, and I love watching him, but he's only really good when he does what I tell him to." John Ford actually did say that he first respected John Wayne as an actor after seeing him in Howard Hawk's "Red River" even though he'd already casted him in so many of his own movies. But they maintained whatever their close relationship was until John Ford died, and they say that John Wayne never in his life disobeyed a direction from John Ford, but I imagine as all father/child relationships get, that's probably not true. I got way off track there, but John Ford made "Stagecoach", and NO SPOILERS, but William S. Hart totally did cridicize it. "There's no way that would've happened! This is is what would've happened!" But John Ford's response was, "Yeah. You are correct, but then that would've been a shitty ending to my movie. That's not what I do. I make good movies!" What he did was prove that adults would pay money to put asses in seats to see westerns, which was a trend that followed for decades. The thing I think isn't always recognized as much is just the change in the culture in general. Every generation is going to have their own take on westerns. The biggest of which was in the 60s and 70s when there was an obvious and climactic change in culture. If you know Lee Van Cleef, I'm guessing you know the spaghetti westerns, which initiated that change of the young that were in defiance of the old, and changed in structure from the John Wayne to the Clint Eastwood. Then wasn't necessarily any more historically accurate, but I think you're right that it came with time, but I also think there was a mish mash of old and new, sometimes more historically accurate, sometimes dramatic, sometimes just silly, but I'm in to it
Richie Cabral
2023-02-02 06:18:19 +0000 UTC
