 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would point out that I did not initiate the analysis of the themes in the film. The original poster, Thor, did so when he revived his own thread yester-day.
Mr McCrum employs a standard, and intellectually dishonest liberal tactic in his “rebuttal”: he assigns to me a conservative political viewpoint (which I lack), and then claims that by standing for Liberty and rational (as opposed to subjective and infinitely variable) morality, I must be some sort of fascist—meaning in this case one who favours using the power of government to impose some particular values on all. In fact, Liberty means an absence of authority and coercion. Rationally, human interaction can be moral only when it takes place on mutually voluntary terms. It is interaction by force—whatever the reason—that is predatory.
Now let us examine Mr McCrum’s expressed ideology. The only way that the socialistic society he favours can exist is by force. This is because individuals vary greatly in their ability and enterprise, and those who have more of these attributes will not necessarily willingly be the slaves of those who have less. Most productive people will not willingly accept the amount of robbery that is required to equalise their outcomes with those of the unproductive. Socialism requires an oppressive, tyrannical government. And even this will not prevent the inevitable decline in the production of value, and in consequence, the overall economy, that results from the destruction of incentive.
A society of slavery, where talent is a liability and incompetence a virtue, where enterprise is crushed and sloth rewarded, where the ever-present fist of a massive government so constrains or directs action that mind and soul are inexorably drained of vitality: this is the lovely, beneficent world promised by the likes of Mr McCrum. He presents the lie that Liberty is tyranny, and that his evil way in some perverse manner represents freedom.
Another lie is the concept of “social Darwinism”. In nature, there is no morality. Thus, animals may thrive not only by means of their fitness and the characteristics of their environment—but also by preying upon other animals. When some proponent of Liberty advocates a world in which individuals are free, and thus on their own to succeed or fail as they may, the liberal levels the false accusation of “social Darwinism”, implying that this freedom must necessarily involve predation. But even a modicum of logic will show that where there is predation—animals, or people, acting forcibly against each other—Liberty does not exist.
Liberty, which is the right of all men, can exist only in the absence of the initiation of force. This means that both government authority and directly forcible actions (such as robbery, assault, or murder) are inconsistent with the rights of individuals. Liberty is thus not only an absence of “official” power, but also a condition in which the rights of individuals are equal: it is a moral condition.
In Liberty, individuals may fail to provide for their own needs. There is nothing wrong when others voluntarily help them. But, rationally, there can be no legitimate claim to the help of others. In order to claim an obligation on the part of another, one must be able to show, logically, how that obligation arose. And of course it is impossible for individuals who have done nothing to others to wind up with unchosen obligations to them. In fact, the liberal claim that people are obligated to help those in need is always a categorical assertion, unsupported by a reasoned argument proceeding from rational premises. In the end, it is always exposed as an appeal to emotion: surely, people care about the unfortunate? Some do, and some do not, and both sorts have the right to act according to their values. No individual can have a “right” to be a parasite, for this contradicts the rights of those from whom he would steal. In other words, the champions of socialistic concepts repudiate human rights altogether. It is they who stand for predation, of the successful by the unsuccessful, by means of the tyrannical bully of government.
It is one thing for individuals to choose, on their own volition, to behave charitably. Such actions may or may not be reasonable, depending upon the circumstances. But there is nothing beneficent about using force to help some people at the expense of others. A man can not be responsible for the lives of people he did not breed, and whose problems he did not cause.
Liberals often present social programmes as things that are in the interests of all, implying that in the long term, people will likely receive in return about as much as is taken from them. A fantasy of some unrealistically homogeneous community is implicit in this absurd claim. In reality, social programmes represent the permanent, forcible transfer of wealth from one class of people to another. And there has never been a plausible reason advanced why it is in the interests of the productive class to maintain, at exorbitant cost, a perpetual class of useless parasites. The blackmail concept—that if the poor are not fed, they will violently revolt—is not only morally monstrous, but it is poorly reasoned as well: one does not feed marauding, man-eating animals in order to placate them; rather, one promptly puts down such beasts, in a triumph of man over nature........
........and in fact, contrary to Mr McCrum’s assertion above, liberals are generally the ones who wish to be ruled by nature; after all, they increasingly oppose the technological means, as well as mutually voluntary trade, whereby men improve their lives over those of animals. And by promoting the predation of the productive by the unproductive, on the basis of raw, brutal force—supplied in this case by government—they stand also for the law of nature: the law of the jungle, where there are no rights, and the inhabitants battle relentlessly, without concern for morality.
There is absolutely nothing predatory or parasitic about declining to help others. Predation and parasitism are actions—actions taken by some against others. Inaction can not be predatory or parasitic, nor can inaction violate the rights of others.
Like most liberals, Mr McCrum equates all killing with murder. The gang in “The Cowboys” no longer had the right to life. Rationally, it is impossible to violate the rights of others and yet retain one’s own. Such an idea would be a repudiation of the very concept of rights. Once the gang members had attacked the cattle drive, they forfeited their rights to their victims. It is immaterial what an outside party like Mr McCrum has to say about the matter, for he has no right to be involved. If he were the victim, he would have the right to decide how to proceed (and we may imagine that he would express his “pseudo-civilised” nature by forgiving the miscreants and possibly inviting them to do more harm; after all, they can hardly be held responsible for their lot in life, and Mr McCrum can not grasp the concept that men are responsible for their actions).
But putting the moral issues aside, we can quite reasonably ask just what sort of psychological disorder leads some men to place a positive value on those who rob, assault, and murder others. For this valuation is implicit in a claim that violent retaliation against such aggressors is somehow “uncivilised”. Is it more civilised to permit such creatures to continue their predation, or to keep them alive in prison for decades at extraordinary cost that reduces the lives of decent people—in essence helping these aggressors to rob indefinitely?
I do not favour official capital punishment, primarily because it is never possible to be absolutely certain of guilt after the fact (in fact, I oppose legal imprisonment or fine for the same reason, and because many of the laws that are broken are immoral to begin with). But when actual aggressors are interdicted in the act of violating the rights of innocent people, as in “The Cowboys”, there is no question of guilt, and no reason why the aggressors should not be killed on the spot.
Contrary to popular conceptions, the Old West was peaceful in comparison to most places to-day. There was far less personal and property crime, per capita, than at present. This was in part due to a low population density; but even the towns that were considered wild were comparatively safer places for the ordinary residents. And a significant reason for this was the ability and willingness of most people to use deadly force in defence of life and property. The Old West was a highly moral setting, and it was very civilised, if not as technologically and culturally advanced as the East.
Another aspect of Thor’s misanalysis of “The Cowboys” is a lack of understanding of the characteristics of children and young people. It is one of the great peculiarities of human nature that adults can accurately recall events from childhood, but not their earlier differences of sensibility. Children are not “angels”. Because they lack, or have little, empathy, compassion, and remorse, they can more readily engage in violent acts. At the end of the second world war, facing a dearth of adult recruits, the Nazis sent boys of the Hitler-Jugend to fight in the Volkssturm. They turned out to be ferocious and merciless. The same phenomenon has been observed to-day, in war-torn parts of Africa.
Children are naturally competent and tend toward independence, but are deliberately suppressed by parents and adults at large. It might be more accurate to say, with reference to previous aspects of this discussion, that the cattle drive did not so much impart independence and self-reliance to the boys, but help to restore these characteristics by interrupting their suppression and requiring their exercise.
Thor, and Ms Kael, were dissatisfied with “The Cowboys” not because it was defective in story-telling, but because its moral sensibility is in opposition to their irrational liberal values, and because its depiction of children and young people is not congruent with popular conceits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As opposed to you lecturing us, Thor?
Sneering at every element of old films through twisted politically-correct glasses is tiresome and boring and the pastime of poisonous social workers. The films were of their time. Get over it. They may not be perfect but enjoy them for what they were. Or dont watch them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is supposed to be a thread on a film and a score. It is now hijacked into a third rate political debate.
I'm not going to respond to Colston's 2D debating society drivel. The simple fact is that this is the classic 'conservative /liberal' polarization that infects America at the moment. Polarise. polarise, polarise.
He can tell these fairy-tales and distorted refractions to the mothers who lose babies as result of the strangely high infant mortality rate, for example. God forbid that government should take away a child's basic freedom to die without medicine. Probably they deserve it for not having parents who were 'free' enough. I seem to recall a similar debate about 2,000 years ago .... what was that book I read it in?
It's funny. We all accept that the world needs regulations. Traffic regulation, police, etc. etc.. But some people seem to think we should never have financial regulations. That's SACRED. That's the REAL god. And so we have a credit crunch. Even those of us who aren't Americans.
If I ever meet Mr. Colston face to face, I'll be reassured that his Colt Peacemaker has an accurate range of five feet. They were only ever used to dispatch wounded animals. He'd probably miss me, as ever. But then, he might use a Winchester, or an AK 47. A man's gotta hold onto his free rights y'all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well thanks to thor , i pulled out the score and listened to it not once but twice , i was really taken with it, exciting , moody , action infused, and downright enjoyable. had not played this for quite awhile and thanks to thor, it will be getting more plays. as for the film, i have not seen it for such a long time . first did the novel have the brutal ending, or were hollywood liberities taken with it, i mean given the fact that it followed on the heels of BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH, two of the most bloody finales of major films in the history of film, at least in my eyes , plus they made big , big bucks, so it would make sense for a studio to want make that kind of money with those kind of endings, this is pure conjecture on my part, and as for thor being upset or whatever at that ending in THE COWBOYS, thats his opinion and i always like the fact he sticks by what he says , no matter what, and in reality he was just talking about the film and score, but everyone of us sees things differently , imagine how boring it would be if we all thought the same way and thanks again thor for bringing THE COWBOYS score and film to the forefront again. will re-watch the film again tonite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 24, 2009 - 4:18 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Thor
(Member)
|
or were hollywood liberities taken with it, i mean given the fact that it followed on the heels of BONNIE AND CLYDE and THE WILD BUNCH, two of the most bloody finales of major films in the history of film,
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, that they were going for an ending in that vein because of its popularity at the time. However, Rydell is no Peckinpah, and there was nothing in the film before this that suggested such a shift in tone or character. COWBOYS is a much more traditional Western, even down to classic John Wayne-isms, so this ending came out of the blue, totally unmotivated.
Glad that you pulled it out again, though. It's a great listen no matter how good or bad the film is!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The ending “unmotivated”? Surely you slept through the preceding parts of the film. Bruce Dern’s vicious, insane character, and his gang of murderous, thieving thugs, terrorised and brutalised the boys, stole the cattle, murdered Wil Andersen (Wayne), and were about to hang Mr Nightlinger, after degrading him. And you think that the boys’ actions were “unmotivated”? What happened in the film is exactly what would have happened in reality, in that time and place. Even had the boys not had an overwhelming—and righteous—desire to avenge the hideous wrongs done to them, or to do justice, they would have had to kill the gang members simply to get back the cattle herd, which represented the life savings of Mr Andersen, and all that his widow would have left. And the loss of the herd was a terrible blow to the boys’ justifiable pride in their accomplishments on the drive.
But I think, Thor, that you must lack any concept or experience of true pride or justice. You have been brought up to believe in a fantasy world where evil men do not actually exist (violent criminals being “decent people in unfortunate circumstances”, as if that would be a justification for their acts), and where problems can always be solved in some sanitary, pseudo-civilised manner.
It has been asked if the book has a similar ending. It does, and the sequence may be even more graphic. Long Hair (Dern’s character) wakes up just in time to have his throat slit by Four Eyes (Dan, the boy with glasses in the film, portrayed by Nicolas Beauvy). Four Eyes then wipes the knife on Long Hair’s shirt and takes his gun belt and revolver. And Charlie Schwartz is killed in the battle with the gang, rather than accidentally trampled by cattle as in the film.
In fact, in the book, at least one gang member understands children better than you, Thor. Toward the end of the battle:
[A rustler passed, screaming, “We’re done for! They got us all!”
Smiley and the Boys stared after him.
“Let’s get the hell out of here, Smiley!”
“Leave the herd?”
“You know how kids are! They won’t let up till there’s nobody left!”]
The last, two-sentence dialogue line is in italic letters, to emphasise this critical point.
The book was very carefully researched by author William Dale Jennings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dale_Jennings
Indeed, at the end, there is a 19th century time line, and a glossary of Western terms. And I might point out that Jennings, a homosexual rights activist(!), was hardly the sort of posturing, “macho” cowboy you may imagine.
The reason the film seems wrong to you and others is not that it is illogically plotted or conceptually faulty; rather, your viewpoint is irrational and disconnected from reality. What would you have done in the circumstances? Reached for your cellular telephone to call the police?
I did not bring up the political/philosophical ideas in this thread to start a debate, or to “bait” any-one. I don’t get emotionally involved on internet forums. Rather, your objections to the film were so startlingly contrary to reality and reason that they were a clear demonstration of the grievous results of the relentless ideological programming that has poisoned and stunted too many people.
Finally, you repeatedly refer to the boys in the climactic sequence as “killing machines”, implying that their ability was unrealistic. In fact, boys in that time and place had guns and were expert in their use from early childhood. The boys in the story would have plenty of experience hunting, and some might have had to help defend the homestead. But it seems that the concept of self-reliance, and the competence, strength, and integrity it breeds, are alien to you, having been branded by the propagandists as archaic and contrary to the inter-parasitic collectivist society they promote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stoop to what, Thor? I approach all discussions in the same reasoned and unemotional manner. The reason you liked my comments on your “Baroque Jazz Melancholy” thread (and it was an excellent topic you thought of!) was that I offered no disagreement, and simply added useful information. However, one is bound in life to occasionally encounter views that oppose one’s own. There is nothing intrinsically terrible about this, and no reason at all to take it personally.
Surely you can not expect to post opinions about a film on a public film score forum, with a guarantee that there will be no critical responses. Too many people these days wish to have their comments answered by agreement, or not at all. That does not make for a scholarly venue, let alone the advance of scholarship.
You posted comments highly critical of the climactic sequence in “The Cowboys”, but failed to provide any substantial supporting arguments. I then carefully demonstrated that your assertion about the film was erroneous, and I explored at length the reasons for it. Unlike you, I took the trouble to thoroughly support my assertions, even providing information and a quotation from the novel. You respond emotionally, with ad hominem attacks, but still decline to attempt to prove your points. And you think I am the one who has behaved poorly in this thread?
Perhaps you have become accustomed to lazy scholarship, or to none at all. If so, I think it would be constructive to suggest that you consider adding a bit of rigour to your analytical processes. You can not but profit from it.
Estgrey, of course the actions of a hero in a film are not necessarily moral. This is especially true of some of the more complex Westerns of the 1950s to the 1970s. Some films are explorations of flawed characters and situations. Others do reflect some form of moral standard, essentially placing a stamp of endorsement on the actions of the hero or heroes. “The Cowboys” is of the latter kind, with Wil Andersen (Wayne) presented as an exemplar of morality, who has successfully transmitted his values to the cowboys.
But it is very important to distinguish between characters (even heroes) who are morally conflicted in thought or action, and the false idea that “right” and “wrong” can have no definitive meaning. This latter idea is often a reflexion of the problem that most people define morality subjectively, basing it upon irrational religious precepts or personal preferences. However, it has been long established that morality can be derived logically, and in this case, an act can be either moral or immoral, but never a mixture. I do not refer to severity of harm, which is something only the victim of aggression can evaluate, but simply to the problem of determining if an act is moral or not. People, and characters in films, can undertake a combination of moral and immoral actions. While such characters may be complex and “grey” (meaning that they have both good and bad traits), their individual actions are either black or white, and can not combine to make some sort of “grey” balance. A man can not cancel out a wrongful act by a righteous act, or even by a great many beneficent acts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 26, 2009 - 7:14 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
estgrey
(Member)
|
Philip Colston: However, it has been long established that morality can be derived logically, and in this case, an act can be either moral or immoral, but never a mixture. I do not refer to severity of harm, which is something only the victim of aggression can evaluate, but simply to the problem of determining if an act is moral or not.
I think you were doing, more or less, okay up until this point. "Morality can be derived logically"? I am afraid that here I must agree with Thor that you seem to be lapsing dangerously into Hobgoodian nonsense. The man who robs others (let us say others who can afford the loss) to feed his own family may think that he is acting morally, although those robbed will certainly think otherwise. The whole idea of Morality is a complicated and debatable issue, but perhaps best not debated in a film music forum.
For a film, such as "The Cowboys," the writer, director and producer may have one position on the material presented, and each viewer another. Who gets to say whether or not the acts depicted in a film are moral? The answer is -- everyone who sees it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I confess, Mr. Colston's material looks tongue-in-cheek. But I fear it's not. Phil-eye Dan.
I shouldn't say this. I'm breaking all Lukas' rules in a way, even though this isn't religion or politics, but here goes.
Phil, baby...
You are not a scholar. You just aren't. I don't care how many papers you think you've published etc.. You aren't.
Firstly you are insufferably smug. No true 'scholar' (actually I hate that word in many ways) would ever represent himself as the paragon of objectivity as you have.
Secondly you are very naive. You assert that ultimately things are either right or wrong. There are no layers in your world-view. The problem is ... who are YOU to think you have all the data, all the perspectives, all the variables in your data-banks to make the conclusive call? Most great systems, including the great religions, define LOVE as the only genuine 'perfected' perspective from which to judge. But you, I think see that word as merely a term to denote an EMOTION, rather than a cool transcendental multi-dimensional truth hard-wired into the universe. You're like a deaf man who feels he must denounce music to an audience of hearing musicians.
Thirdly, you talk like someone who hasn't been dealt a full set of cards ... you no doubt see modesty and self-consciousness as totally false and parasitic. Yours is a universe without paradox to clutter it up. But the paradoxes don't go away just to make you feel clever and in control. The more you oversimplify, the more complex life gets.
Fourthly, you forget how often emotion and intuition are in fact RATIONAL interlinked components of unconscious awareness and so VALID. Any psychologist could show you this, by common sense.
Fifthly, you abuse these discussions to inject Logical Positivism. That's the agenda. Thor may well have been premature in seeing the film as un-PC, but that's not a reason to open the postern gate to the Gestapo.
Has it ever occurred to you that you chose that type of philosophy (I'm assuming that if you're not Hobgood, you're a fellow-drowner) because it covers your own failings and makes you feel comfortable, just like everyone else? Miss Rand's mess of a private-life shows that she couldn't carry it across to reality herself. Yes, an ad-hominem (ad-feminam?) attack. But not irrelevant. She has a habit of appealing to the naive, the 2D, the people who overvalue academic philosophy, the narcissistic, the smug boy bachelors with 'high' mothers, the Miss Jean Brodies who have been hurt by bad boys.
You need to look at yourself. Non ad-hominem, sed ad-SELF.
Now, let's get back to the topic, to that movie, to that music.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 27, 2009 - 2:30 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
pp312
(Member)
|
Even had the boys not had an overwhelming—and righteous—desire to avenge the hideous wrongs done to them, or to do justice, they would have had to kill the gang members simply to get back the cattle herd, which represented the life savings of Mr Andersen, and all that his widow would have left. And the loss of the herd was a terrible blow to the boys’ justifiable pride in their accomplishments on the drive.
Sorry to jump in here at the tail of a very verbose discussion, but the above paragraph strikes me as highly relevant. I don't for a moment agree that the boys' desire to kill was "righteous", but it was certainly understandable in terms of what had gone before and in the historical context. (I do think though that they would have had a lot more trouble killing experienced killers).
I was never offended by "The Cowboys". I always thought it a superior western with a fine sense of period. Yes, it was a Wayne western, but so was True Grit, and that too had a fine sense of period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually We Echo Summa Our Asgardian’s Reservations ‘Bout the Film BUT Department:
Seems to us what makes The Duke’s death in this film easily one of, if not THE, most shocking sequence in a Wayne film is it’s such a sobering contrast and unsentimental counterpart to what audiences so enjoyed about the myth he embodied (and was justly rewarded for affectionately lampooning in
Whatever quibbles you wanna make against Mr. Rydell,
he’s essentially a Realist in his handling (and choice) of material, in addition to being a no-nonsense, hard-driving task-master (which is also why he was able to handle, guide, stand up to and earn the respect of such marshmellows as Katharine Hepburn, Henry Fonda, Bette Midler and even madman McQueen).
When Mr. Dern takes his already over-the-top, beyond redemption Long Hair and crosses over into the totally-despicable arena with his vicious bush-whacking of Mr. Wayne, the audience is totally thrown because they’re witnessing something that previously just wasn’t allowed – let alone DONE – in a Wayne western.
Now, whether he consciously was aware of it or not, it’s one of the proudest moments in his career ‘cause it’s also as grave a statement about the consequences of unvarnished violence as Mr. Wayne ever sanctioned or appeared in …
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
) something along the lines “Y'know, folks are REALLY gonna hate you after you kill me!”
.jpg)
