Howard Hawks makes his stand in Rio Bravo

 Howard Hawks and the Art of the Stress-Free Western

In the mid 1950s the career of Howard Hawks hit a bit of a bump. After directing some of the defining films of the 30s and 40s (The Big Sleep, To Have and Have Not, Bringing Up Baby, Red River etc) Hawks found himself slightly out of place in a changing Hollywood landscape. 


Films of the 50s tended to be bigger, noisier and more spectacular (in glorious Technicolor, breath-taking CinemaScope, and Stereophonic Sound, as Cole Porter put it) while Hawks was more comfortable directing character-based stories that placed emphasis on the screenplay and the actors. 

After attempting his one and only "sword-and-sandal" epic (the disastrous Land of the Pharaohs in 1955) Hawks took a break from Hollywood and film-making. He spent some time travelling in Europe and it actually started to look as if his career as a film-maker might be over.

That changed in 1958, when Hawks and John Wayne decided to team up to make another Western together. Wayne's career was also in a bit of a slump at this time, and the two friends discovered they shared a mutual dislike (although for slightly different reasons) for the highly successful 1952 film High Noon.


High Noon is widely understood to be an allegory for the Anti-Communist McCarthy-Era Witch Hunts that were tearing Hollywood (and the fabric of American society) apart at the time. In that film, Gary Cooper is an ageing Sheriff who learns that a killer he had sent up for murder is out of jail and returning to the town (on the noon train) with revenge on his mind. Rather than run away (as he is urged to do by everyone) he elects to make a stand, and proceeds to spend the remainder of the film trying to enlist the aid of the townsfolk. One by one, everyone in the town abandons him (including his new bride, a Quaker) so he must face the ruthless killers alone.


It was no secret that screenwriter Carl Foreman had intended High Noon as a rebuke to everyone in Hollywood who were standing by and doing nothing while colleagues and friends (including Foreman himself) had their careers and livelihoods destroyed by the House Un-American Activities Committee. This was the reason why John Wayne disliked it so much; as a staunch anti-Communist and a supporter of the blacklist, he resented the (slightly unsubtle) message of the film.

Howard Hawks' reasons for disliking High Noon were more nuanced. He felt the film was dramatically weak, and he had no respect for a Sheriff who spent the entire film begging the rest of the town for help. In his eyes, a Sheriff is hired to keep the town safe, not vice versa. If he can't do his job without putting civilians in harm's way (said Hawks) then he has no business being a Sheriff.


Rio Bravo was Hawks' explicit response to High Noon, but it was also his stand against modern Hollywood. Although it was made in 1959, the finished film is cheerfully (almost defiantly) old-fashioned; the work of a master film-maker who doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. No more embarrassing Egyptian epics for him; he had returned to his roots and had made the sort of film he was (very, very) good at.



Most discussions of High Noon and Rio Bravo follow the received wisdom that High Noon is the Liberal commentary on society, and Rio Bravo is the Conservative response.

Nerts to that, say I.

My personal view (and I am unanimous in this) is that High Noon is far less liberal than it thinks it is, while Rio Bravo is considerably more democratic (more about that in due course).


Whatever the political reading of the two films, Rio Bravo remains a masterpiece of the genre, and is frequently described as one of the best Westerns of all time. John Wayne gives one of the best performances of his career and the rest of the ensemble cast are on top form.



We will be screening Rio Bravo at 7.30pm on the 21st of October at the Victoria Park Baptist Church. As ever, the screening will be completely free and open to everyone. I look forward to seeing you there!


RH, if you're reading this; this one's for you, and for all those Monday afternoons, back in the 20th Century. 

You're a treasure. I don't know what I'd do without you!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The calla lilies are in bloom again...

Image
At the beginning of last week's film, Ellen Wagstaff Arden has been lost at sea (missing; presumed dead) while engaged as the photographer for an anthropological expedition to Indo-China. While that back-story was obviously developed to establish the premise of the entire film (that she returns after a long absence to find her husband re-married) it is, I think, very notable that her character is shown to have a successful  career . Irrespective of the fact that she is supposed to be married with two young children, the (husband-and-wife) writers of My Favorite Wife saw no conflict in depicting a female character who had a life and a vocation that extended beyond her identity as merely wife and mother. Women in the 1930s were generally seen as people . They were allowed to have ambitions and aspirations that extended beyond "finding a man" and "becoming a mother". It was in the post-war years that mainstream society explicitly attempted to re-define womanhood a
Read more

A Wife in Every Room

Image
In Bringing Up Baby , Cary Grant became the first person to use the word Gay (in its modern sense) in a Hollywood movie. One might hypothesize that by 1938, the film censors were starting to become more permissive about the subtext that was regularly being slipped into films of the era. One would be completely wrong to thusly hypothesize ( to hypothesize thusly ; excuse me). Film censorship in the late 1930s was just as draconian as ever: a year earlier they had insisted that a shot of a  gravestone  be cut from a film because the character in question had committed suicide, and it was "inappropriate" to show her receiving a proper burial. The word gay had only slipped through in Bringing Up Baby because no one at the Hays Office knew what it meant in that context. (I won't tell them if you don't.) Cary Grant certainly knew what it meant, and it's very interesting that he was the one who got to introduce the word to American film audiences. Because Cary Grant, th
Read more
Image
  Movie Nights at the  Victoria Park Baptist Church And so life goes on. Some of you may remember that our film series in early 2020 was rudely interrupted by a Global Pandemic. The subsequent year and a half has been, well... You know things are pretty bad when you find yourself wondering if there is a plural for "Apocalypse". But at any rate, here we are ( Apocalypses? Apocali? That's going to bother you now, isn't it?) facing the prospect of attempting to pick up the pieces of Civilisation - assuming of course we don't go into another Lockdown first. ( Apocalyae?   Apocalim? ) Movie-going, like so many communal activities, has taken a severe hit during the Pandemic, and I'm willing to hazard a guess that most of the films you have watched over the last eighteen months have been from the comfort of home, with, at most, a family member or two. But watching a film like this: ....isn't really the same as watching a film like this : Sadly we don't quite
Read more

We re-visit stage comedy (in more ways than one) on Thursday the 7th of October

Image
 We are continuing with the "stage comedy" theme next Thursday, after last week's screening of The Importance of Being Earnest. Noises Off began life as a stage comedy which premiered in London's West End in 1982. It is a farce about a farce, which presumably makes it a meta-farce.  This meta-farcical comedy(!) centres around a company of actors rehearsing (and then performing) a play (entitled Nothing On ) which becomes increasingly incoherent as the story progresses.  The original stage version is a merciless (and painfully funny) analysis of just how a farce works - or doesn't work, as the case may be. The film adaptation cranks things up a notch by attempting to film the staging of... the staging of a farce (a meta-meta-farce?) and in the process shows just how difficult it can be to translate a stage play to the screen.  While the film may not be 100% successful, it does manage to be one of the funniest things you will ever see (the first time I saw it, I la
Read more

Carry On... #populist demagogues

Image
Last week's film ( It's Always Fair Weather ) was a fun, feel-good MGM Musical that laughed at the rapidly growing power of television (and television advertising in particular) in 1950s American society. Our next film also examines the power of television, but without the "feel-good" part. A Face in the Crowd was released in 1957, but the story it tells is one that feels uncomfortably close to the bone in our present day.  It's no coincidence that the film received a widespread re-evaluation in 2016, just as a certain vulgar media personality was gaining devoted populist support in the political arena. Written by Budd Schulberg and directed by Elia Kazan (the pair who had brought you On the Waterfront three years earlier) A Face in the Crowd follows the career of Larry "Lonesome" Rhodes, an obnoxious, hillbilly media personality with "man-of-the-people" appeal and a devoted, almost cult-like following (played with frightening power by Andy
Read more