Whenever someone says how much they dislike Seven Women I always feel like requoting Robin Wood's Marnie comment.

But I won't!

If its further consolation to you, david, I hate 'Marnie' too
(and I've tried it three times!)

Something like "If you don't like Marnie, not only do you not like Hitchcock, you don't like cinema"

Upstream, a lost John Ford Film from 1927 has been found in New Zealand. It is being preserved, along with 75 other films found in the archive. the restoration will premiere in september at the academy. It is probably a fox film, but it is doubtful it will get a release. the restoration may tour though.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/ne ... 0101.story

Had a John Ford binge session this weekend:

Six of the seven films I watched were comedies, but none made me laugh as much as the Shamrock Handicap. This is the first silent Ford feature I've seen, and I look forward to more because this Irish horseracing romantic comedy was a total charmer. Ford tempers his usual inclinations towards broad, unhinged physical comedy with some subtler comedic mannerisms, particularly those found in Willard Louis' hilarious benefactor, Finch. Even when Ford does indulge in coarse broadness, it has a twinge of peculiarity: one of the running jokes in the film concerns an odd-looking black valet's recurring bizarre run-ins with seemingly-otherworldly occurrences, all met with the same space cadet stare. It works sometimes, but then in a total miscalculation, Ford puts the valet, staring out blankly at the audience, in half the frame for the big emotional moment of the film! The plot hardly matters, but there's some decent class commentary and a fair share of good ol' stereotypes. One of my favorite jokes is found near the end of the film, as the crowd is cheering on the climactic horserace, and the Jewish jockey's cheers are presented via Hebrew intertitles. A total cheap joke, but it still made me chuckle.

I'm from Oklahoma, where we're institutionalized to Will Rogers' genius and importance at an early age, so I genuinely have no concept of what it's like to not grow up with him as an accepted hero. But it's my understanding that the rest of the world has pretty much left him behind. None of the three comedies he made with Ford ranked real high with me, but Rogers certainly came off best. His lowkey charm is put to good effect in Doctor Bull and is even better in Steamboat 'Round the Bend. I think he overplays the mawkishness of his persona in Judge Priest, though. While I find Judge Priest to be the least of the three, I was surprised at the cynical take on the South's propensity for saluting its own historical import both here and to a lesser extent in Steamboat 'Round the Bend.

Transitioning from real water to, uh, not, Up the River was as weak as its print. I saw it earlier today and already I can barely remember it. When Willie Comes Marching Home fares better, but it seemed to me that as a 1950 film, this patriotic bit of comedic propaganda was made a good six or seven years too late. The basic idea-- that someone who really wants to see combat and is celebrated by his neighbors as a hero then gets stuck in the very same town and sees his popularity plummet-- is a good one, but it can't sustain a full narrative. This leads to that third act that seems to have been birthed from another film. There is probably one running gag too many in play here, but the always-reliable William Demarest saves this one from being a washout.

As for The Fugitive, well... it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd heard, but it still wasn't all that hot. The first ten minutes or so of the film are jarring-- surely someone involved had to have been self-aware enough to stop the cinematic piety so solemn and laborious that it takes on parodic airs. Maybe someone did and that's why the whole film isn't quite as static and laughable as the opening. I haven't read the source text, but the actions of Fonda's priest alternate between aggravatingly-self-sacrificing and boneheadedly-self-sacrificing. Just having him acknowledge what a tool he is for letting a stranger die in his place does not excuse it, especially given that it wasn't even the dumbest thing he'd done in the film to that point. How could idiocy of this magnitude take itself so goddamn seriously? Feel free to apply that to either the character or the film

A couple more Fords down: Wee Willie Winkie finds Ford somewhat skeptical of his starlet, which leads to that great sequence near the end of the film where all the members of the military, forced with an actual crisis, ignore and dismiss Shirley Temple's inane cuteness. I don't see anything particularly lurid here, as Graham Greene famously did, but I think Ford is tweaking the Temple image by highlighting its limited value: she's a fine distraction, but can't provide any real help. And the finale doesn't really disprove this: Getting kidnapped and then rescued is hardly a service Temple provided. Also, I loved the speech about how the Indians were different than the Native Americans, and then Ford later proceeds to have the Indians attack just like the Native Americans in his films. Brilliant!

I've seen some bad Ford films in my time (Tobacco Road, Wings of Eagles, the Long Voyage Home, Wagon Master -- yes, I know I'm alone on the last two) but I think I'm ready to declare What Price Glory? winner-- or is that loser? How? How could this film be so inept on every level? Cagney is completely unreigned and paired with two of the least-photogenic stars Hollywood ever let in the gates for a total slog through a muddled WWI narrative that is borderline incoherent. The hyper-fake sets never earn their falsity and the character's motivations seem to change with the film's whims. The only saving grace of the picture is that it never becomes quite as grating as Tobacco Road, but at least that film was a well-made POS.

Yes, I think you are.
But 'Born Reckless' must surely be his worst
(although he only shared directorial credit)
'Mary of Scotland' pretty bad also

Don't forget the LeRoy collab Mister Roberts

Was Greene referring specifically to the treatment of Temple in this film, or was he using the review of WINKIE as an occasion to ponder the appeal of Temple in general?

For which he was sued for libel by Fox on behest of Temple, lost, and fled extradition in Mexico where he wrote... the Power and the Glory, source material for Ford's the Fugitive

He was sued for that? I guess the truth hurts. Domino, what's so bad about Wings of Eagles? I was going to watch it this weekend (along with They Were Expendable), but I wasn't aware of its reputation.

It's an interminable biopic made by someone far too close to the subject to produce a work audiences could penetrate. But, like even bad Ford films, it has a saving grace, here in the form of Ward Bond's portrayal of... John Ford himself! They Were Expendable is fantastic though, one of my favorite Fords, so you'll still end up even

Yes, I was surprised by how involving and emotionally draining I found Expendable. It may have something to do with my grandfather being on a PT boat in the Philippines in WWII, but it's up there among Ford's best for me. I'm with domino on Long Voyage Home, though. Yinyer beer. Sheesh.

When I read it was based on plays I thought I was going to hate it as, Shakespeare apart, filmed plays don't make for particularly great cinema: but I think Gregg Toland helps elevate it to the top rank, and not just for the look of the film, as DP's essentially do, but the whole mood, and feel.
I also think John Wayne's performance is one of his most underrated, whatever about his 'Swedish' accent.
Superb ensemble playing, also

The Long Voyage Home is one of my absolute favorite Fords, while They Were Expendable left me a bit cold. Maybe it's because the former (like Wagon Master) had less action and more character development which is where Ford really excels.

I love it how Long Voyage begins anchored just off Paradise and ends in a dark ugly city where J.M. Kerrigan plays the Devil, almost identical to his role in The Informer; only then he was a social climber; this time his actions are much more murky. It's amazing how Ford places greater tension and horror in this last chapter on land, than the preceeding bombing raid by the Germans. I think Wayne plays his role great and his accent is fine, people seem to have more of a problem that it's "John Wayne" playing a Swede than his actual performance I think...

"Come on lads, to Joe's Place!"

Yeah, that was about my reaction too. A few years ago, somebody published in book form the contents of Night and Day, the short-lived magazine Greene founded as a sort of British New Yorker, where the review appeared. Above the review, there's a box that informs the modern reader that Greene's insinuations are utterly, ludicrously, transparently false and are reproduced for historical purposes only, wink, wink. British libel law still at work...

In his introduction to The Pleasure-Dome, the 1972 collection of his 1935-40 film reviews Greene wrote:

The Pleasure-Dome includes a report on the libel action (also against the magazine itself, its printers and publishers) but the review itself is indeed missing from that volume.

From a couple weeks ago, rescued via Google Cache:

John Ford and women. First, Pilgrimage, which I found kinda terrible, especially after all the high praise it got on this forum. The lead actress is grating and plays to the back row, the plot is obnoxious and tonally schizophrenic, and the humor is leaden and ultimately a mistake. There's certainly a tangent of Ford fans who loves these sort of cinematic com-dram messes, like Wagon Master, Fort Apache, and the Long Voyage Home, which explains the fanfare for this one. While I'd rank this above those, it's still not very good.

Much better and stranger is 7 Women. While it too is flawed, the overall effect is far more successful. The film has a real sense of dread, to the point that I've heard it described as "apocalyptic," and that seems apt. This is a world of real and terrible consequences, presented under the veneer of gorgeous classical Hollywood studio fakery while operating under new codes-- here's a film where the viewer is not entirely convinced there can be a happy Hollywood ending no matter which way the narrative goes. Indeed, the ending is defiant and powerful, but certainly not positive, regardless of those who escape. My biggest problem with the film, and I understand why it's taken to grotesque extremes, is the cartoonish portrayal of Christianity in the form of the head of the missionaries, the one who "favors" Sue Lyon. The idea is that Anne Bancroft, the corporeally-concerned doctor, is the only true Christian among a group of uber-Christians. I get it. But the same effect would have been just as powerful if not more so without the forehead-slap-inducing histrionics of the matronly Christian. I'm surprised she didn't just tie a plague-baby to the railroad tracks in the third act.

Some thoughts on a couple of military Ford films, the slim the Lost Patrol and the Looooooooong Gray Line. I was pretty skeptical on the Lost Patrol for the first half, as it seemed a little too aimless for such a short film, but the bleakness of the second half won me over. I honestly didn't expect the film to be as fatalistic as it was-- there are some terrifically memorable death scenes-- and the pic could almost be named the Last Patrol instead. On the other end of the spectrum, what I believe is Ford's longest film, the Long Gray Line, has a great first half which meanders in its second half and starts to merely go through the motions on its slow march to the end. But when this proto-Mr Holland's Opus works, it works well. The film is somewhat skeptical of its protagonist, a delightful change from the hagiography of Ford's later biopic work on Wings of Eagles that gives the film buoyancy and charm. It's also quite funny, and the episodic nature of the film allows Ford to indulge in his requisite broad humor without it derailing the plot. But midway through the film takes a turn for tragedy it never quite earns and thereafter never really returns to the winning qualities of its first half. Still, despite my reservations, I enjoyed both films on the whole.

I have to pace myself on Ford films: Every time one ends, I find myself just wanting to watch another!

A review of the Lost Patrol which doesn't mention Boris Karloff???
Shurely shome mishtake!!!
(not forgetting, of course, 'Assault on Precinct 13')

I have a question that I could use the forum's expertise on. Doc Films at the U of Chicago was promising a 35mm screening of the restored original British version of Gideon's Day tonight, so having never seen thh film of course I traipsed on down there to see it. Only, when it started, it began with the Columbia Pictures logo, and the onscreen title was Gideon of Scotland Yard. Immediately, I thought they had been shipped the truncated American version by mistake, and went out to ask about it. Unfortunately, no one seemed to have any idea what was being shown, only that it had "been shipped from Britain." They offered my money back and I accepted.

I sort of wish I had stayed now but at the time I was overcome with the idea that I was being suckered. Now I get home and read that the American version was black and white, but this print was in color, or at least the opening credits were. And I'm thoroughly confused as to what I was being shown. Was the full version released somewhere along the line as Gideon of Scotland Yard? Or was I correct in my hasty assumption that it was the shorter version?

Any light that anyone can shed would be appreciated. It doesn't do me any practical good now, I guess, but maybe in the future it'll come along again and I'll know what I'm looking at.

Interestingly, Tag Gallagher's Ford book doesn't address the cuts (only the title change and lack of B&W prints), and lists 91 mins as the running time-- but his vidcaps are pulled from a bootleg vid that is color sourced

There is a complete, uncut (and correctly masked to WS) color print of Gideon of Scotland Yard which you should be able to track down fairly easily......

It's very very fine indeed. Ford's fities feels very much to me like Hitchcock's fifties or Bunue's 60s/70s - a real peak of density and layering... but having said that I then feel ridiculous as I'm still really only starting to come to grips with his 20s 30s and 40s!! He really is a lifetime occupation.

Ive been watching a short 13 minute vid essay by Tag for a screening of Mogambo earlier this year in Berlin, in which he parses and analyses the four to five minute sequence in which Grace Kelly leaves the compound alone and wanders into the bush, only to fall into the Panther's trap, be rescued by Gable, with the sequence then ending on one shot of her face in which she goes through a range of expression and meaning that defies spoken description. The opening 26 shots which carry a persistent rhythmic dynamic (with Kelly walking out of frame right for each shot, forcing us and the film to continue the journey with her, creates a dual dynamic of wild nature and civilization in collision which is literal, for the first half of the sequence, and then becomes a means of taking her character from its typically Fordian opening anecdotal significance to a creation of depth and profundity, in which she is filmed, simply with barley any dialogue to respond to Gable, and what's happening to them. Five minutes of screen time that would take anyone else an hour.

No wonder Welles watched Stagecoach 46 times before starting Kane.

And Gideon has sequences like this, as does all the best Ford.

The quite nice-looking color TCM rip on that-site-which-shall-not-be-named is 91 mins, is there another longer version making the rounds?

That's the one, it's identical to one sent me by TG but his audio was out of synch. The TCM I thought was full. ???????