UCLA will run William Wellman’s Track Of The Cat (1954) as part of its Tracking The Cat: Robert Mitchum In The West series. The chance to see this CinemaScope picture on a big screen, with its incredible use of color (or lack thereof), is something not to be missed. It runs Sunday, July 17 at 7:30PM.
The whole series is certainly worthwhile, presenting everything from Blood On The Moon (1948) to El Dorado (1966). You can’t go wrong with anything they’re showing.
Thanks to Laura for the tip.
Thanks for the heads up on this one, Toby. I’m going to make it a point to attend some of these (especially TRACK OF THE CAT and EL DORADO).
p.s., I will be at The Autry for this weekend’s screening of Once Upon a Time in the West that’s part of What Is A Western film series, too, thanks to you.
I’m really jealous of all of those — and glad I’ve been able to hip people to them. Have fun!
If you can, check out Wonderful Country. If ever a movie was unjustly overlooked, it’s that one. Plus, it has Satchel Page in it — and Mitchum in that crazy sombrero!
Oh yeah, Wonderful Country. I’m recalling Colin’s review. Will do. Thanks.
Colin’s write-up on that one was really well done. No surprise there.
http://filmjournal.net/livius/2010/09/28/the-wonderful-country/
This is a tremendous series and cannot be recommended enough. Almost everything on it is above average (can’t speak for the two early ones NEVADA and WEST OF THE PECOS I haven’t seen yet and my memory of Australian-set THE SUNDOWNERS is lukewarm but it’s been a long time). Some of the greatest Westerns ever made are on this series, specifically PURSUED and the still criminally underrated THE WONDERFUL COUNTRY. (will note I read Colin’s thoughtful piece on COUNTRY and I disagree about the resolution–I’ve always seen Brady as following his very complex path to a moment of self-renewal; this is one of the most spiritual of all Westerns).
But best of all on the series is a film only marginally a Western, yet deeply tied to the Western ethos, THE LUSTY MEN, which is one of my favorite films of all time, and I do mean among a handful. It was announced today in the L.A. Times that there will be a collector’s print without Spanish subtitles. I won’t get started on this but you if you haven’t seen it and have the opportunity, please don’t miss.
The notes to the series are correct that Mitchum is identified with film noir because of OUT OF THE PAST and some lesser films of the period, but it shouldn’t be that way. More of his most outstanding films are outside film noir and especially these Westerns. But in any genre, he is one of the greatest screen actors–because he knows how much he needs to do and what the camera will pick up on its own and judges this perfectly. So when he’s engaged, he has trmendous depth without being showy.
If anyone has DEFINING MOMENTS IN MOVIES (ed. Chris Fujiwara), I wrote entries on both THE LUSTY MEN and THE WONDERFUL COUNTRY for that book.
Lusty Men is a great, great film. That’s a laserdisc I still pull out from time to time. (I’ll watch about anything with Arthur Kennedy in it.)
I agree that Mitchum’s Westerns are perhaps better, as a whole, than his noir stuff. Starting this book, there were certain people, companies, processes, etc. that I wanted to make sure were included. Mitchum was one, but I can’t decide on which of his pictures to include. They all have so much about them that’s great.
Thanks for the link there Toby, and the comments guys.
Mitchum did make some average noir pictures that seem to get more attention than his better westerns. Of course, genre straddling work like PURSUED and BLOOD ON THE MOON help to bolster the quality of his noir output.
Colin, do you think PURSUED and BLOOD ON THE MOON are actually genre straddling (I know this is often said), or are they, like RAMROD and a few other films of the period, noir-inflected Westerns that are Westerns first and last and unimaginable in some other setting?
Noir was a bracing influence on Westerns in the late 40s, but “influence” is the key word and I cannot imagine these films existing other than as Westerns.
That’s a good point, Blake. I can’t see those two as non-Westerns, where something like, say, Station West might work well.
Well firstly guys, I don’t use the term “genre straddling” to mean a movie has to be capable of functioning fully as one of those genres, totally independent of the other. Of course it helps that noir isn’t really a genre at all and (although essentially rooted in the post-war urban setting) was able to weave in strands of many types of movie.
Of the films mentioned, I guess BLOOD ON THE MOON is the most western. Yet even there, the lighting, cinematography, characterization, the whole tone of the picture is highly typical of film noir. STATION WEST is an obvious crossover candidate since there’s so much of Powell’s wise ass and hard-boiled dialogue on show. Personally, I’d call all these movies westerns, but I do think they contain the necessary elements to permit the noir tag to be bolted on as a suffix.
I’m really not sure that the stories told in many westerns couldn’t be transferred to another setting though with some tweaking – stuff like BROKEN LANCE and COLORADO TERRITORY are clearly westerns yet they’re adaptations of of stories that originate in other genres. I think the western setting adds a layer to a story, allows the filmmaker to exploit the landscape and the mentality to greater effect. The period setting and half-civilised nature of the old west certainly emphasises and lends credibility to many a scenario, but the themes and story don’t have to be fixed immovably there. In a sense, that’s the beauty of the western as a genre: almost any tale can be told within its framework. But I also think the reverse is at least partially true.
“I think the western setting adds a layer to a story, allows the filmmaker to exploit the landscape and the mentality to greater effect. The period setting and half-civilised nature of the old west certainly emphasises and lends credibility to many a scenario, but the themes and story don’t have to be fixed immovably there. In a sense, that’s the beauty of the western as a genre: almost any tale can be told within its framework.”
Colin, I think this is very well-expressed. In truth, there’s even more that could be said–as I’m sure you’d agree–about what a Western will do to a story. This should still be true, and Monte Hellman, a modernist, once said this same thing that any story could be done as a Western, but now it seems the genre has narrowed, or perceptions of what it is and can be have narrowed. So its classical period, in which there was great flexibility of story, tone, mood, theme, meaning–is long over.
No one has said film noir did not inflect the Western, especially in the late 40s, but as you say youself, film noir is really a style, and that is mostly where its influence is felt. Just speaking of 1947 Robert Mitchum films, compare the end of OUT OF THE PAST to that of PURSUED. in OUT OF THE PAST, all the fatalism of film noir catches up with the characters and the story ends tragically, if with some subtlety and considerable nuance even as regards Kathie Moffat (my favorite film noir heroine). The thrust of Westerns, even those with a tragic element, is always toward renewal, reconciliation, redemption, and that is the way it works in PURSUED. As I wrote in my Magill’s Survey of Cinema piece (and this acknowledges the noir influence I believe): “…as a result, a mature romantic union with Thorley is now possible. and a Walshian couple rides away in the final image, not into the sunset, as in most Westerns, but out of the darkness.”
Though BROKEN LANCE and COLORADO TERRITORY are indeed based on films in other genres–both fine, especially HIGH SIERRA with the same director himself remaking it as COLORADO TERRITORY–i believe it can be argued that the Western remakes are superior, turning the stories into something much richer, and both do pick up specific Western motifs and themes in the process even while keeping the same basic stories.
It’s worth some real consideration, I believe, why Niven Busch, who contributed so much as a writer in this period, was drawn to the Western to tell psychological stories with links to Greek tragedy, and not to some other genre. He seems to have intuitively understood that this is where it would work, with the depth but without any pretension.
I must acknowlege that for me, for all that it gave a lot to cinema, film noir is now oversold. It is thrown like a net over anything somone believes it might catch, whether that movie is in any meaningful way a film noir or not. Movies like THE NAKED SPUR and RANCHO NOTORIOUS do not belong in encylopedias of film noir–they are Westerns and it is unjust to treat them as anything else.
Sorry, Colin, reading back I see you said that film noir “isn’t really a genre at all,” but not as I said that it was really a style. Of course, these two ideas are connected, so I simply jumped from one to another, but wouldn’t want to represent what you wrote inaccurately.
Apologies but want to add two things to the above:
I agree that STATION WEST has the most affinities with film noir of the films discussed–and can we agree that it is also the least and most minor of these films? It plays well but I don’t remember any of the profundity or beauty of a great Western. And that says something about how film noir style can be superficial thing, not necessarily of great value when not aligned with something more meaningful.
Also, I want to amend the following:
“The thrust of Westerns, even those with a tragic element, is always
toward renewal, reconciliation, redemption.”
That sounds very doctrinaire, I know. Let me say “The thrust of Westerns, even those with a tragic element, is characteristically toward renewal, reconciliation, redemption.” And I would say that’s accurate, at least until 1962-1964.
I wouldn’t really take issue with anything you’ve written there Blake. Your central point about the essentially positive thrust of westerns of the classic period vs the pessimism of film noir is well made, and it probably is there that the two diverge.
I also agree that, of the movies we’ve mentioned, STATION WEST is the lesser one as a western. I’m not sure though that Film Noir can be regarded as purely superficial in itself just because there are pictures that display a lack of profundity among its ranks. The best noir movies do dig a little deeper, and I think their enduring popularity supports this. I’m just back from seeing the Australian film ANIMAL KINGDOM, which I’d say qualifies as a neo-noir, and it’s nicely layered and is one of those movies that helps keep the genre/style alive. I think the western, on the other hand, has lost much of its appeal by paradoxically aiming for what was/is perceived as being popular. While the revisionism that started to creep in from the mid-60s onwards gave it a temporary shot in the arm, it also represents part of its undoing. The redemption and renewal that you refer to was lost in the process and narrowed the genre to such an extent that it’s now severely limited in its scope.
Your mentioning Niven Busch makes me think of THE FURIES, another dark, noirish western.
Colin, of course I agree that “the best noir movies do dig a little deeper”–my concern was of two kinds, one that the more superficial noirs foreground a kind of facile cynicism that for some reason has become attractive and hip at the expense of movies in other genres that don’t have it. But the pessimism of a great noir, like say, KISS ME DEADLY, can be profound, worthy of the greatest films, while a director like Nicholas Ray can turn his film noirs (THEY LIVE BY NIGHT, IN A LONELY PLACE, ON DANGEROUS GROUND) in a different direction, more romantic and toward the light one might say and the tragedy of the first two has deep tenderness behind it. For what it’s worth, of the two 1947 Mitchum films, PURSUED and OUT OF THE PAST, I’d rank them about equally and both very great.
It’s certainly true that the Western has declined, way too big a subject for us to even begin discussing right now, and so many reasons for it. But I will say of the classic period, that having an essentially positive thrust doesn’t mean the genre is ever unmindful of serious, challenging human realities or that it just looks on cheerfully at some abstract notion of abstract destiny or something like that. The Western in its glory years was nothing like that simplified version of it. I believe we do agree about that.
That was supposed to say “abstract notion of manifest destiny…”
(haven’t quite figured out how to make corrections here yet).
And my second concern re film noir was of course, already stated, that the term is floated around and attached to so many films where it really shouldn’t be.
Have very much enjoyed all these comments, the more so since I saw the double bill of PURSUED and BLOOD ON THE MOON last night, and I just saw STATION WEST a few days ago!
Last night Alan Rode commented in his introduction that one could imagine some of the dialogue in BLOOD ON THE MOON being delivered in raincoats and fedoras, rather than chaps and spurs — definitely true, although the plot is Western through and through. One could imagine certain aspects of the plot (i.e., the swindler taking advantage of the woman giving him tips) translated to modern day, but major plot points, including the stampede and the final shootout, are strictly Western.
I saw NEVADA on DVD about a year ago. Nothing great but it was enjoyable, including great shots of Lone Pine, and you could see why Mitchum became a star.
It’s a shame they could only get RACHEL AND THE STRANGER in 16 mm. I’d be strongly tempted to go if it were in 35 mm as I’ve always been fond of that one.
TRACK OF THE CAT is being shown during what they’re calling it “Carmageddon” weekend in L.A., as a significant chunk of the 405 Freeway will be completely closed for construction, making it difficult to get to UCLA. I’d love to see that one but am not sure I’m brave enough to deal with the traffic — will have to see what the traffic reports are like.
I’ve also really enjoyed this discussion, which kinda builds on one that took place on this blog a few months ago. It’s been a lot of fun to just sit and read the back and forth.
It’s hard to really pinpoint what makes noir noir, so charting it’s influence or how a noir picture could become a Western or vice versa gets very hard.
To me, noir’s a look and feel rather than plot or anything else. Tone and Style vs. Story.
These Mitchum Westerns have a noir LOOK to them regardless of the story. And something like The Gunfighter, where Peck can’t escape his past, has the noir vibe in spades. It’s easy to see Alan Ladd as some sort of aged hood having young punks after him to prove themselves.
There, that’s my too cents. Back to y’all —
“To me, noir’s a look and feel rather than plot or anything else. Tone and Style vs. Story.”
I’d generally go along with that, but then I tend to take a broad rather than a narrow view of noir. I can accept it in a western or rural setting, within a gothic picture etc. However, I know lots of people draw a line and insist that the framework must be tighter. So be it; it’s such an intangible cinematic term that I’m prepared to at least consider all options.
I’d say story or plot is important in the sense that it has to be dark, fatalistic and threatening enough to allow the classic noir themes to be explored. On th other hand, I don’t believe that there *has* to be a femme fatale present, or that all stories need end on the most pessimistic note possible. When such features are present then the end result may be more satisfying, but I don’t feel they’re absolutely essential.
That’s probably why the term western-noir sits comfortably with me, the characters may find themselves in a dark place yet not have the classic noir trappings surrounding them. To my mind, the stetson can double for the fedora, the Colt can take the place of the automatic, and the grimy boardwalk of a cow town or the shadowy canyon can stand in for the rain-slicked, neon-lit sidewalks.