Experts claim it's not a Western, but I'll still go with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Best score to an Eastwood Western, too.
I agree with you, except I've not ever heard any expert (or anyone non-expert, for that matter) claim it's not a Western.
Neither have I. Some people seem to think that Bad Day At Black Rock & No Country For Old Men are westerns, they aren't, but I've never heard of The Good The Bad & The Ugly not being a western, that's just crazy talk
My two picks would be, The Outlaw Josey Wales & For A Few Dollars More.
Experts claim it's not a Western, but I'll still go with The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
Best score to an Eastwood Western, too.
I agree with you, except I've not ever heard any expert (or anyone non-expert, for that matter) claim it's not a Western.
Neither have I. Some people seem to think that Bad Day At Black Rock & No Country For Old Men are westerns, they aren't, but I've never heard of The Good The Bad & The Ugly not being a western, that's just crazy talk
My two picks would be, The Outlaw Josey Wales & For A Few Dollars More.
yes, Xebec, i agree, what kind of complete twat would claim something as ludicrous as that, eh?!! Obviously nobody round these parts, eh pilgrims?
My favourite Eastwood western is "Hang 'em High". I don't like "Unforgiven", despite having to teach it in high school. It's cold and cruel with no redeeming characters with which to empathize. I lose interest in film if I cannot empathize with a character.
W is the kind of guy who hates SHERLOCK because it's "not faithful" to the original stories
You have a lot of nerve. SHERLOCK is okay. It doesn't hold my interest much, but it's okay.
I much prefer the Holmes novels by Donald Thomas. Of all the people writing cover novels, Thomas is the most successful in evoking Conan-Doyle's literary world. Thomas' novels are both believable new Holmes-Watson adventures and legitimate crime fiction with real substance and ebullient portrayals of Holmes and Watson. They'd make great films, even with Cumberbach in the lead, though I'd prefer Daniel Day-Lewis.
My favourite Eastwood western is "Hang 'em High". I don't like "Unforgiven", despite having to teach it in high school. It's cold and cruel with no redeeming characters with which to empathize. I lose interest in film if I cannot empathize with a character.
Just out of curiosity, what high school class were you teaching where you had to teach Unforgiven?
WILLIAMDMCCRUM: It's strange that we look at today's crop of 'historical' movies and lambast them for stylised costume and art design and 'modern' dialogue, yet allow the old '50s westerns a free pass.
Most of the details of those post-'40s, pre-'60s westerns are tokenish at best in terms of authenticity. The thigh-tied holster was invented in the 1950s to help 'quick-draw' competitors, and I think it's true that the western holster you see in all movies of the particular kind that slings low on the leg simply didn't exist before the 1920s. And those Gus-crease Texan hats with the upturned sides (to accommodate passengers in Model T Fords) were not 19th Century. The 'western' style is not western at all, any more than the tight jeans. It was shamelessly modern for the decade.
Yet that '50s era is strangely the enduring, if totally false, fashion that the world thinks of as 'western'. No period photos bear it out. In the 1950s, if you wanted to pay lip service to historicity, you just had your actors don very small fake sideburns and tied a black Victorian neck-tie on the town villain.
Actually, I have worked with 19th century photographs dating back to the 1860s west in which men wear Gus-creased hats and tied down their holsters. Since most holsters were worn high on the hip and close to the body there was no need to tie them. Putting a crease in your hat was a personal thing and I see all kinds of hat-creasing in 19th century western photos. Jeans were then called canvas workpants and were widely worn; there are thousands of photographs of western men wearing them as far back as the 1860s. Although you are correct about curled hat-brims and low-slung holsters not coming into fashion until the 1920s with the exception of the military holster worn by the U.S. Cavalry.
An entire science devoted to clothing has developed in the last thirty years. There are positions for clothing and textile historians now. Clothes worn in Montana were a little different than those worn in Arizona. Clothes and hats were manufactured items, and the patterns and textiles and plants can be documented. The Civil War re-enactors, of which there are thousands, got 19th century clothes all figured out. Hollywood isn't as scientific, but recent westerns have done a good job matching clothes worn in photographs to the diagrams in the 19th century store catalogs to dress actors. Lonesome Dove and Tombstone were very good at costuming. So were Open Range, The Assassination of Jesse James and Appaloosa. Tombstone might be a little over-dressed, but it started a fashion craze in the southwest historical towns like the actual Tombstone that still going strong. There are occasional mistakes but movie costuming after the 1980s is more authentic than it used to be.
Actually, I have worked with 19th century photographs dating back to the 1860s west in which men wear Gus-creased hats and tied down their holsters. Since most holsters were worn high on the hip and close to the body there was no need to tie them. Putting a crease in your hat was a personal thing and I see all kinds of hat-creasing in 19th century western photos. Jeans were then called canvas workpants and were widely worn; there are thousands of photographs of western men wearing them as far back as the 1860s. Although you are correct about curled hat-brims and low-slung holsters not coming into fashion until the 1920s with the exception of the military holster worn by the U.S. Cavalry.
An entire science devoted to clothing has developed in the last thirty years. There are positions for clothing and textile historians now. Clothes worn in Montana were a little different than those worn in Arizona. Clothes and hats were manufactured items, and the patterns and textiles and plants can be documented. The Civil War re-enactors, of which there are thousands, got 19th century clothes all figured out. Hollywood isn't as scientific, but recent westerns have done a good job matching clothes worn in photographs to the diagrams in the 19th century store catalogs to dress actors. Lonesome Dove and Tombstone were very good at costuming. So were Open Range, The Assassination of Jesse James and Appaloosa. Tombstone might be a little over-dressed, but it started a fashion craze in the southwest historical towns like the actual Tombstone that still going strong. There are occasional mistakes but movie costuming after the 1980s is more authentic than it used to be.
I agree that authenticity is more of a priority now. Yes, and they did indeed use Gus-creases. When I mentioned jeans, I was only referring to TIGHT jeans, which would've been restrictive, though the gaucho flared trousers of the early Californians were likely tight enough.
I liked the 'Tombstone' feel: the only thing not authentic in that film was the pronunciation of 'lunger' and 'Behan'!
Stevens' 'Shane' was highly authentic costume-wise, except maybe for Ladd's flashy rodeo gunbelt!
By the way, was it you who posted the great tintypes of Billy the Kid some years ago, that suddenly disappeared? Did you work on those?
Did I post pictures of the Kid? I don't think so. This is not the place for that. Yes, I worked on those. See Wild West Magazine, August 2012 and October 2014 if you can find them for my reports on the Kid's tintype.
There was more wrong with Tombstone than how some names were pronounced. The female characters are real but largely speculated; there is little to no evidence on what they said or did, except stay home. In the film Wyatt has retired from the law, but in fact, he wanted to be Sheriff, and did serve as Sheriff for a short time. When the new county was formed he had to run for office, but then withdrew so that his friend Bob Paul would win. That became very complicated, because the election was stolen through the chicanery of Ike Clanton and his cowboys. The Earps were morally driven, although it did not always seem that way, because they were trying to "play" the stagecoach robbers and livestock thieves into thinking they could split the reward money when in fact the Earps were trying to trap them, a fact not widely understood at the time. The allegiances were all very complex. But the film is an intelligent and stylish western with a terrific cast.
