Here’s something that’ll add another day or two to our current Anthony Mann/James Stewart/Dan Duryea fixation.
Anthony Mann’s Winchester ’73 (1950) is one of the first, and best, of the 50s Westerns. It’s one of the greatest films I’ve ever seen. And it’s playing in 35mm at Emory University in Atlanta.
Winchester ’73
White Hall, Emory University
Atlanta, GA
March 27, 1913
7:30 PM
Thanks for the tip, Paula.
What a treat to see Winchester 73 on 35mm. One of my favorite westerns too. Such a good cast, including Millard Mitchell who really needs an article showing all his good performances .
I will be at this screening… if any other readers of 50 Westerns from the ’50s plan to attend, it would be fun to meet up.
I would LOVE to make it to this thing.
Toby…. YOU WILL COME TO ATLANTA FOR THE SCREENING. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE. Do it — book your flights now!
You’ll want to stay at the Emory Conference Center Hotel (if rooms are available).
I have learned not to pay attention to most “expert” critics when they proclaim one movie or another to be a shining example and rate other movies with 1 star. I have found the 1 star movies to be invariably more entertaining and enjoyable than most of the self-proclaimed expert’s “excellent” rated movies always, of course, filled with great meaning and messages. Yes, I enjoyed “Night Passage” but not nearly as much as “Ride Clear of Diablo”, a movie the experts haven’t proclaimed as worthy as the depressing somber & usually over the top violent quotient in the approved Mann westerns. GIve me an enjoyable western like “Big Jake” or “Chisum” over a “Searchers” anytime. Give me a Wild Bill Elliott movie over a critic’s approved movie anytime. In fact, anytime I see a Leonard Maltin 1 star movie I know it’s got to be good esp. when I see him many many negative and derogatory comments on movies I found totally enjoyable. You can really base how you’re going to like a movie on how little a critic likes it, if they say it’s bad it’s invarably great, and vicey versey, their idea’s of greatness are usually the opposite of the reality of those movies. Getting back to “Night Passage” I really enjoyed seeing Jimmy sing his songs, because that’s something Jimmy never does, I enjoyed the color scenery and the character actors, but Duryea’s bad guy in this one was totally lacking as compared to the way he played the bad guy in “Ride Clear of Diablo”. “Night Passage” had it’s enjoyable momets, but overall “Ride Clear…” was the more pleasant to watch. Just my view, I don’t expect any “experts” will agree and that’s even more comforting to me than if they did.
If you’ve followed the whole discussion, Johnny, you’d know the issue was not “Night Passage” against “Ride Clear of Diablo”–it was “Night Passage” against the five James Stewart movies that Anthony Mann did direct, and plenty of us have felt that “critics” (whoever this vast group is–you make me kind of timid to own up to my own work as a professional critic) were unfair to “Night Passage” simply because of Mann’s absence and that it had qualities that made it a worthy film. Meanwhile, “Ride Clear of Diablo” has had nothing but praise here, as well as in Laura’s piece on her blog, and has always been enjoyed and appreciated by genre aficionados, especially for Dan Duryea’s performance, generally considered one of his best.
Anyway, I’d just like to point out two things–1) The “critics” and “experts” you speak of so negatively do not have uniform opinions and there are many critical points of view, not simply one that’s monolithic, but 2) most lovers of Westerns do give high marks to Anthony Mann for his contributions to the genre–and I definitely include myself here–and wouldn’t recognize the “depressing somber and usually over the top violent quotient” characterization you make about him. There’s nothing wrong with serious character studies, in which an actor like James Stewart is so valuable, or dramatic intensity even including some memorable violent scenes. Greek Tragedy knew this just as surely as Westerns (especially 50s ones) did and the two forms arguably have much in common, not least popularity with audiences in their day.
This isn’t to start an argument, Johnny G., but just to point these things out to you. And more obviously, in this blog, our host, who is a serious student of Westerns and working on a book, is constantly taking up for unsung Westerns more than for the movies usually championed. It’s one of the things that he does most here and which hopefully we all appreciate.
Thank for those kind words, Blake. And Johnny G, I see where you’re coming from — from time to time, I’ve felt the same way. Looking at how the movies were treated by “critics” upon their release is sometimes baffling. And today, there are only about 25 Westerns that “experts” seem to acknowledge the existence of — and that makes me angry.
Obviously, I’ve seen a lot of Westerns, and I’ve found something of merit in every one. (Then there’s Young Guns…)
Thanks to this blog, I’ve been called an expert and a historian — because I toss a lotta info around about cowboy movies, evidently. One thing I’ve learned over the last few years while earning those tags (which I’m uncomfortable with, by the way), is that you shouldn’t come at these films with any kind of preconceptions. To do so can spoil your fun.
Westerns can be both a shoot-em-up and a message picture at the same time. Issues like Communism or racism can be stirred into an unassuming “programmer” without lessening their entertainment value one bit. I’m gonna hold up Silver Lode (1954) and Reprisal! (1956) as evidence of this. There are plenty of others. It works in the other direction, as well. Winchester 73 or 3:10 To Yuma (the 1957 one) are a couple Westerns critics really appreciate. They should, they’re Great Films. They’re also very exciting, entertaining cowboy movies — and to write them off as critics’ darlings would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Something Westerns do especially well is find a balance between Art and Entertainment, or between highbrow and lowbrow. It’s one of the reasons I love them so much. (In fact, suddenly I’m wanting to watch Reprisal! again.)
Here’s a personal story to illustrate this another way. Growing up, we had a 16mm print of The Searchers. Bet I saw it more than 75 times. Today I see it as the truly landmark film that it is — not just a great Western, but one of the greatest movies ever made. But as a kid, seeing it all those times, it was just a damn good John Wayne movie — as gripping the 67th time as it was the first. Funny, too.
We all have our personal tastes and preferences. We like what we like. John Knight, for instance, likes the smaller, cheaper films — and I’d love the chance to watch a Regalscope picture with him someday. Paula’s all about Ben Johnson, as we all should be. Colin and Blake seem to look at the genre as a whole and find where a film fits into that whole — this is the approach I’m trying to take.
These different attitudes about these films, and the debate they generate — as long as it stays friendly — is one of the great joys of riding herd on this blog.
Of course I meant the five Westerns James Stewart meant with Anthony Mann and should have specified since they made eight movies together overall.
Just to follow up on Blake’s comments. I don’t believe it’s necessary to regard an appreciation of what consensus has come to refer to as the canon and the less well-remembered pictures as mutually exclusive. I think it’s fair to say that the widely acknowledged classics have much to recommend them, and that they have achieved their status by standing the test of time. However, most serious critics are aware of the merits of the so-called lesser movies and give them their due when they can.
On this site alone, there are generally a broad spectrum of opinions, with different people rating different movies according to their own tastes and preferences.
Personally, I’d never fall back on blanket generalizations with regard to the worth of films. I feel each movie should be judged on its own merits and take account of its aims and ambitions. I guess there are many reasons why some pictures have been afforded less attention over the years, but I don’t think genre critics or aficionados are unaware of the importance, or the entertainment value, of the mid-range efforts.
Good stuff, Colin. Wish I’d seen your comment before writing my own.
There’s something I’d like to add to your thought. I collect records, have since I was 12 (a long time ago), and I’m a bit of a Frank Zappa fan.
Someone once said of Zappa’s music (it might’ve been Frank himself) that you can’t really appreciate a particular piece of FZ’s mammoth output till you were acquainted with it all. There’s a lot of truth to that, and I think that idea applies to these films.
My appreciation of Fury At Showdown (1957) is enhanced by my knowledge of what was typically possible with a similar budget and schedule.
We note how the Ranowns rise above the usual “Randolph Scott movie.” Of course, there is nothing better than a “Randolph Scott movie.”
So as you say, “each movie should be judged on its own merits… aims and ambitions,” but I think its context is a huge deal, too. For me, that context — all those cowboy movies! — is where a lot of my enjoyment comes from.
Just to add to your comments (and Colin’s), I especially agree with what you said earlier about Westerns being both art and entertainment–I don’t feel a need to separate these levels. I regard Westerns as art, obviously, but one thing I especially appreciate about them is that even the most profound and evidentally artistic ones are never pretentitious, and any audience can enjoy them. That to me is one of the genre’s great strengths
Amen, brother.
Re critical responses: I recall that when THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE was released in 1962, it was generally dismissed by critics for valid reasons: quite old-fashioned in comparison to other westerns of that era; too much comedy (a fault of several Ford westerns IMO); obvious use of studio exteriors; exaggerated performances by nearly everyone but John Wayne; dragged on too long after the climax; James Stewart was far too old to be playing a young buck fresh out of law school.
I still agree with much of the criticism. It’s a decent movie which, at the time, was considered something of a disappointment coming from John Ford, yet now the film is widely considered a classic and one of Ford’s best. Go figure.
I love all westerns from the mid ’30′s thru the early ’60′s, this to me was the best period for western making, including the many great TV westerns of the ’50′s and ’60′s. I just don’t like it when westerns I found to be very entertaining and after watch I look it up and invariably they are trashed and dismissed with one star or 2 and it makes me sick. Perfectly fine and entertaining movies trashed for no good reason. Look at most of Howard Duff”s or Dale Robertson’s or even Robert Montgomery’s movies and they are usually low rated and dismissed in reviews as time fillers or other crap type descriptions. It makes me mad, that’s all. I’m sick of all the fawning official critics give over message (always liberal messages, of course) movies that are, yes fine, but no finer than any other western. I never realized for all the years I had watched “Searchers” that I was watching a bigot, this is how modern critics describe Duke’s character. It never occurred to me that this man who was only trying to get back his niece from being kidnapped by Indian savages should now be considered a bigot for doing so. Ridiculous, but modern critics have re-defined Duke’s character to be such. So then this this movie is considered great, whereas a Chisum or The Trainrobbers are just crap. It’s not that I didn’t like THe Searchers or the Stewart-Mann movies, I do, I just don’t consider them to be towering over 98% of any other western from these same eras. Good example, the recent discussion of “3 Godfathers” vs. “Donovan’s Reef”, yes “3 Godfathers” is a good movie and I like, but “Donovan’s Reef” is a much more enjoyable and fun movie to watch. GIven a choice I’d choose Donovan. Given a choice Mann western or “Hellfire” I’ll choose Elliott anytime. Call me nuts, I like my heroes to be good guys who are good people doing the right thing even when it’s difficult.
I love watching Jimmy in a Mann western, but the overblown unmerited hoopla I can live without. And I do think Jimmy always portraying some sort of borderline psychotic in these Mann movies was NOT a plus or a reason to enjoy them. One reason I like Jimmy better in Night Passage is he isn’t a nut in this one, not to mention his singing. Maybe it’s just me, I like to be entertained when I watch a movie. I don’t need to be preached to or have liberal messages lowered on me like a ton of bricks. For instance, Wild Bill Elliott knew how to make a good movie, they were filled with action, a lot of humor, and good guys vs. bad guys type storylines. That’s what I like in a western. I don’t need preachy messages just a good story and a good hero who is straight and fair, not nuts and re-defined as bigoted.
I think, when all is said and done, the important thing is whether or not any given movie works for us. And it also should be remembered that all critics, be they amateur or professional, are ultimately just people coming at the subject from from different perspectives. As such, we all see movies in our own way and draw our own interpretations from them. Personally, i prefer to take a positive view of this and regard it as an opportunity to view the movie again and see if I can pick up on that alternative slant. Whether or not I agree with this new perspective isn’t so important, what matters is that I’ve been encouraged to give something another viewing.
All drama depends on conflict. The deeper that conflict goes, the more layers it has, then the more complex and compelling the story. In Mann’s westerns, that conflict operates on many levels, not the least of which is the hero’s internalized version. It’s the hero’s struggle with the inner turmoil, and his ability to finally overcome it, that often draws critical praise. However, the viewer doesn’t need to become hung up on this if he/she chooses not to – the best western movies have a strong enough narrative structure to be appreciated on those terms alone.
A final comment on the nature of film criticism. The man or woman who appreciates all genres/eras equally is an extraordinarily rare breed, although the best ones at least try to do so. Still, human nature being what it is, certain types of film will resonate more strongly with each individual, and that’s almost always reflected in their assessment. When a film is rated lower than I would like, I try to remember that the writer may not be as enthusiastic about the genre as I am and that affects their judgement of it. Let’s put it this way: I may sing the praises of a neglected western and try to point out the successful elements as I see them. However, if were to attempt the same with a genre picture that has less appeal to me – maybe a musical – then I’m sure aficionados of that type of film would find my analysis lacking. I guess what I’m trying to say is that all film criticism is colored by the baggage we all bring with us and it’s simply a matter of opinion in the end.
That’s true all citiques are just opinions. I have learned over the years not to take them as “the word” as I used to when I was young. But just to let you know, none of my opinions here were meant as an insult or slight to anyone here. I enjoy reading each & every one of these very knowlegable and wise opinions on all these westerns by the very intelligent writers here. Even if our opinion on one movie or another may differ, I appreciate the valuable background information on these films that one finds here, like gold in a cave. I do thank all of the good writers here and do not wish to appear hostile to any of you, I appreciate everyone and all their collective knowledge. Thank you to all.
By the way, I also like many different types of movies, comedies, particularly the classic comedies of Laurel & Hardy, WC Fields, 3 Stooges, Charlie Chase and many more including some of the more modern comedies too. I also have always loved Hitchcock, film noir, Polanski, Frankenheimer, Chayefsky, and dramas both from the ’40′s and ’50′s and today. I used to enjoy action movies too, but as I’ve gotten older I find I’m no longer really interested, most are now too farfetched, I still love a good Bronson or Eastwood movie though. So just to let you know I’ve been watching all kinds of movies since I was a kid.
One of the great things about TV back in the ’60′s and ’70′s is you could still see all kinds of great old movies on normal TV. As a kid I used to watch L & H, Fields, Bowery Boys, Blondie, Abbott & Costello movies and all kinds on regular TV. I remember being scared to death when I was about 10 or 11 watching Diabolique on a regular broadcast channel. Too bad classic comedies of Laurel & Hardy and their peers are no longer shown on TV, kids today will never know the pleasure of true classic comedy or for that matter where all the ideas of comedy today come from. Believe it or not, there were masters of comedy practicing and teaching others who followed them how to do it long before Tyler Perry.
I had intended to maybe take a break from making too many further
comments on this blog;purely because I feel that I have run out of steam,
there is only so much I can say about personal favorites like George
Sherman and Lesley Selander and I feel I have already said it.
Also I feel that I am going too far off track;too many diversions away
from Westerns so I have decided to reign myself in,for now at least.
Having said that I was really touched by Tobys comment about sitting
down watching a Regalscope film together,yes Toby,that would be
wonderful.
So here I go again.The reason I do not say much about the real classics
is because I feel that it has already been said.There is nothing I can add
to the mix.There is a LOT to say about such unheralded gems like
POWDER RIVER,THE SILVER WHIP,THE HARD MAN and SHORT GRASS.
Growing up as a kid in the Fifties I was lucky to see all the Fifties “classic”
Westerns on the big screen in REAL cinemas.Seeing NIGHT PASSAGE
in Technirama was really something,furthermore I was able to watch
it again in various revival houses.The films even I was too young to
see first time around like RED RIVER were a staple of revival picture
houses.I feel somewhat blessed to have seen all these great films
on the big screen,Ford,Mann,Daves,Sturges,I saw them all where they
should be seen.Then Chris Wicking turned me onto Boetticher so that
opened a whole new chapter.I spent a frantic time chasing around London,
tracking down all the Boettichers that I had missed,first time round.
Later came the TV Westerns:Saturday night CHEYENNE Sunday BONANZA
Monday WAGON TRAIN,Tuesday RAWHIDE Wednesday LARAMIE
what a great era for a cowboy mad kid.
I too like many other types of films,especially Film Noir.Yes I also like
lots of trash too; later Albert Zugsmith films with Mamie Van Doren,well
at least the four Charles Haas directed films released by MGM.
Universal Fifties Sci-Fi,Sam Katzman,William Castle (everything) and
anything with Vincent Price! Before people start getting on my case I
certainly do not regard the Castle or Price films as trash.
I love the UK made Warwick films;for more about them please refer to
my well off topic piece at the tail end of the PONY SOLDIER thread.
Actually some of these Katzman films were pretty darn good,I recently
purchased THE HOUSTON STORY (directed by Castle) a model B
movie IMHO. Whats so good about collecting movies is being blown
away by something that would not normally be on your radar.
Michael Winner who passed away the other day is someone who has
drawn more than his share of critical flak;yet one of his earlier films
WEST 11 is marvellous an unheralded gem;I hope it gets a DVD release
someday.
There I go again,I just cannot stay on track which is why I am going
to give a rest for a while,……I think.!
Finally,to echo what Johnny G sail about political messages and The Duke
in particular,I recall in the early Seventies when he was getting an
avalanche of flak from the left;Linda Ronstadt (who has always talked
a lot of sense in my book) chipped in with ” just because John Wayne
is a right-winger does that mean I am not allowed to sit down and
enjoy his films?”
Toby,I am not saying that its keeping me asleep at night (yet) but I
do worry about whats going to happen to your blog once your book
is published……will it continue or perhaps morph into something else?
Toby,my last statement should have read …….keeping me AWAKE at
night………sorry!
Yes, I like lots of schlocky Castle & Katzman films, they are usually always fun, esp. their monster movies and Vincent Price is a master and one of those actors whose movies I collect. Have almost a full shelf of Price movies. “50′s monster movies and horror movies from the ’40′s thru the ’60′s are my favorite scary movies. You can keep the slasher movies, they’re mindless trash, in my opinion. I used to have a poster in my bedroom as a teenager of a very sexy Linda Ronstadt in a roller skate outfit. I remember it still. Hey, just because her opinions are way off doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy her ’70′s looks.
Forgot to mention, about the only Castle film I saw and was disappointed in was “Zotz” st. Tom Poston. I like Tom Poston too, so was sorry to see this movie and find it to be such a simple minded bore fest. But the color was beautiful.
Those TV westerns you mention are the kinds I watch on Friday nights, Gunsmoke, Laramie, Cheyenne, Have Gun Will Travel, Lone Ranger is what I’m currently watching and also 1 different Sat. matinee star each week of those shorty westerns from the likes of either Tim Holt/Roy Rogers/Hopalong Cassidy/Sunset Carson/Lash Larue/Eddie Dean/Wild Bill Elliott etc. When you think about it, we are so lucky to live in this modern world of DVD technology where the good old days live again each day and we are no longer slaves to whatever TV networks choose for us to watch. I practically never watch any live new TV, anytime I turn on TV I’m usually watching a DVD of either old TV classics or movies.
Taking a viewing tip from John K, I chose to watch “Hard Man” tonight as the first of a double feature of ’50′s westerns for Saturday night. The 2nd one was “White Feather”. I don’t remember seeing either movie before, unless I saw them as a kid. Of the 2 “Hard Man” was the type western I prefer, good guys and sneaky bad guys. Hard Man was also enjoyable for it’s many familiar faces in different roles. Trevor Bardett, who I remember best as the oldest of the Clanton’s in the “Wyatt Earp” tv show, in Hard Man his hair was dark brown, I’ve never seen him like this before, he always has white or gray hair in other shows. He just had a bit role, also seen was Robert Williams, who played the mailman on both my favorite show Hazel and Dennis The Menace. Lorne Greene was a good bad guy in this one, sneaky and always hiding behind hired guns to do his dirty work. Also in an even sneakier role the guy who was supposed to be Lorne’s lawyer, don’t know his name, I’ve seen him before he make’s a great weasel or coward. He was really just biding his time so he could get with Lorne’s wife. Anyway, the movie was thoroughly enjoyable, I haven’t seen many Guy Madison movies and I am glad I started my Guy movie watching out with this one. He’s very good, not a real typical hero type look to him, but a great voice and a firm grasp of his part. One of the neat things about film noir and ’50′s westerns is that sometimes the hero isn’t always the type you’d expect. This movie was in great ’50′s color, I love color ’50′s westerns, it’s one of the main reasons I will choose to collect them.
White Feather was next, this one had more big name stars in it, Robert Wagner is a sort of dude version of Davy Crockett, Debra Paget the beautiful Indian girl, an Jeffrey Hunter the angry son of the wise Indian chief. Good scenes of Indian camp with tee-pee’s everywhere drums going, yelling Indians, scary atmosphere. THere were times I thought to myself why didn’t Wagner just stay in his quarters, why was he always putting himself out there to possibly get killed? His job didn’t ask that of him. I guess you wouldn’t have a movie if it didn’t have a character to root for, so I guess that’s why, the old “because it’s a movie” answer. Anyway it was a poor Indians type story even though the Indians in this movie were the only one’s I saw continuously getting away with one murder after another. Even in the end when Hunter shoots a soldier for no reason other than to get himself shot by others, we’re then supposed to feel sorry for Hunter and just dismiss the death of the innocent soldier who he just killed without a 2nd thought. The color in this movie was a bit faded, esp. when compared to “Hard Man”. THis was a good movie though, I enjoyed it as I do all ’50′s westerns, Debra Paget was a truly beautiful girl. When they showed a scene of real Indian women walking by carrying their babies on their backs you realize Debra Paget was no real Indian girl. She even wore lipstick, but I’m not complaining, she was beautiful. So this movie wasn’t the type of western I prefer (good guy vs. bad guy) but still a good one.
This ones for you Johnny……….
Glad that you enjoyed THE HARD MAN Johnny and I liked your review
of the film.
A film you should track down is RETURN OF THE GUNFIGHTER just
released by Warner Archive.Its presented in widescreen 1.85 in
lovely saturated color.
This was Robert Taylors last starring Western and its a good one to go
out with. Sure we have seen it all before but Taylor is so good in the film
you sort of overlook this.Its the one about the veteran gunslinger who just
wants to be left alone. The likes of Lyle Bettger,Michael Pate,Harry Lauter,
Mort Mills,John Crawford and the supremely creepy John Chandler
Davis make sure he is not! Of course Chandler Davis will always be remembered for his iconic moment in THE OUTLAW JOSEY WALES
which gave Clint one of his best one-liners “dyings not much of a living
boy”At any rate I think the film is much better than other Taylor Westerns
like RIDE VAQUERO! and THE HANGMAN. I also prefer it to SADDLE
THE WIND which I have a problem with due to the fatal mis-casting
of John Cassavetes.I have liked Cassavetes in other films and even liked
some of the films he directed but he is so wrong in SADDLE THE WIND.
I hope you get round to seeing RETURN OF THE GUNFIGHTER
Johnny,its well directed by James Neilson and is srtikingly photogrtaphed
in lovely Old Tuscon locations by Ellsworth Fredericks.
I enjoyed your feedback to my recent post.Regarding Linda Ronstadt;
I fell in love with her after seeing her on that album cover where she was
pictured with a couple of pigs.Linda and her friend Emmylou can do no
wrong whatsoever in my book!
I like John Cassavetes in Saddle the Wind. He really steals the movie.
Whoops,just in case people start getting on my case regarding Robert
Taylor Westerns;of course RETURN OF THE GUNFIGHTER is not
up there with DEVILS DOORWAY and WESTWARD THE WOMEN
but it is better IMHO than the films I mentioned. RIDE VAQUERO! in which
Taylor is outstanding, is ruined by a bombastic OTT Anthony Quinn.
THE HANGMAN is just a complete bore.I would like to re-evaluate
CATTLE KING,have not seen it since it was released.
By the way Johnny I am totally with you regarding what you said
regarding slasher movies none of them have the stlye of the
Price/Corman Poe films or Hammer films come to that.You can give an
audience a white knuckle ride without showing gallons of guts and gore.
We agree again, Emmylou Harris is one of my favorites, last year I transferred all my ’70′s and ’80′s albums of her onto CD. You can get about 2 lps on one CD. I had a Linda poster that was a close-up of her with her head slightly turned sideways, black auburn hair lit perfecty, what a beauty she was.
I watch Robert Taylor in “The Detectives” every Monday night as part of my own b/w night. I’ve seen Hangman & Saddle the Wind, a while back, I don’t remember much except “Saddle..” was weird and I do remember what you say, Quinn’s role was bombastic and over the top. I don’t even think Taylor’s role in this one was very big. Taylor also appeared as host in Death Valley Days before he died. I haven’t seen these episodes yet though. I had Return of THe Gunfighter from another collector but just a couple days ago it was shown on Encore Westerns so I recorded it for myself there, quality better. Same story for the recently shown, and hard to find, by the way, Randy Scott movie, “Shootout At Medicine Bend”, the quality on Encore’s Sunday broadcast was excellent and a big improvement from the one I bought from a collector which looked like a 16mm copy. I believe I saw Cattle King, but have no memory of it. That’s one to watch again. I guess that’s one of the good things about old age, you forget a movie and get to enjoy it all over again like you’ve never seen it. One of these Saturday nights I’ll make it a Robert Taylor Westerns night and catch up on the westerns you named. Once again, thanks to DVDs and mod technology, we can watch exactly what we want and when we want it. I guess this is why I started collecting as soon as beta recorders became a reality for the home, to me I still can’t get over the miracle of it, watching and recording what you want and watching it at your own time. Another thing young people today just take for granted, to them it’s no big deal. Well, I guess I take TV for granted in the same way, while the previous generation must have marveled at the miracle of a TV as they were previously only used to radio.