"And why in the fuck does she shoot this movie in New Zealand and call it Montana and say, ‘This is the way it was.’ That fucking rubbed me the wrong way, pal. And the myth is that they were, you know, these macho men out there with the cattle.... I just come from fucking Texas where I was hanging out with families.... Not men, but families—big, long, extended, multiple-generation families that made their living, and their lives were all about being cowboys. And, boy, when I fucking saw [Power of the Dog] , I thought, ‘What the fuck? Where are we in this world today?'... I mean, Cumberbatch never got out of his fucking chaps!"
Said Sam Elliott, on Marc Maron's podcast, quoted in "Sam Elliott Proclaims ‘Power of the Dog’ a ‘Piece of Sh-t’/The veteran actor is not a fan of Jane Campion’s Oscar-nominated cowboy movie" (L.A. Magazine).
Posts
141 comments:
If Sam Elliott says a Western is crap, it’s crap. If a retired law professor says he’s wrong, then she’s the one that’s wrong.
But at least the producer of “Power of the Dog” didn’t shoot anybody, so already it’s better than “Rust.”
If I walked into a classroom full of students expecting a class on Constitutional Law, and spend the hour explaining how I make apple pie, you'd be correct to deride my ability as an instructor in ConLaw, no matter how good the pie turned out with my recipe.
Same rejection of dissonance applies to making US Western cowboy movies that are merely homosexual love stories with guys in chaps. I'm not saying homosexual love is problematic, or that the movie is bad, or New Zealand can't have cowboys, or that I make bad apple pies, or that ConLaw needs more apples in it.
I think My Beautiful Laundrette is a fine film, and Brokeback Mountain was a hoot. The Piano was a masterful, disturbing film, and The Man From Snowy Mountain is still a romantic fave. Shooting LOTR in NZ was genius. But I agree with Sam and his mustache, which rivals that of John Bolton in his prime.
But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?
It would be fun to watch a bunch of people from Alabama make fun of the insular bubble people that live in Madison right?
They could use their outsiderdom to randomly pillory you and make a mockery of your life and how you live.
It is even better to have them skew their pet peves into your life. Constantly misrepresenting.
What's next, tranny cowboys?
If they weren't White this wouldn't have happened - and they would be able to stop it. Since they are White, they sound as silly as this kind of thing really is.
Remember when the movie about gay cowboys eating pudding hailed as a cinematic masterpiece was a joke on South Park and it was funny because it was so absurd?
Welcome to the world where movies about gay cowboys eating pudding are hailed as cinematic masterpieces.
If the movie did not have allusions to homosexuality, transgenderism or race, it couldn't be shown in America. No distributor would dare take it on.
I was watching "Darkest Hour" about Winston Churchill and the crisis in 1940. There was the obligatory Diversity Scene, completely fictional nonsense, inserted because no movie can be made without a Diversity Scene. One simply chuckles at the silliness of it, and the mentality of the sheep who run the entertainment industry. "We now pause this movie, about events more than 80 years ago, to pander to contemporary sensibilities. Back in a moment."
"why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?"
Sure, sure. Cultural appropriation is wonderful.
He looked better with his mustache. Without it, he has this big white mizzenmast sail of an upper lip.
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
Elliot is decrying cultural appropriation, isn't he?
Is he seriously complaining that movies paint an unrealistic picture of cowboy life and the taming of the West? Because that isn't a new thing invented by Kiwi directors.
Elliot’s not wrong. I love a good “oater”, but that was a strange movie. IMO, Cumberbatch is a talented actor, but he came across as someone playing cowboy. New Riders of teh Purple Sash, heh…
I'll tell you exactly why the movie was made in New Zealand rather than Montana: tax credits.
Fucking snowflake.
American culture has been reduced to black issues and gay/trans issues.
Heterosexual, white America is an afterthought.
Sounds like this could be an offshoot of your astute observation that you can highlight any difference between men and women so long as the difference is a net positive to women.
Make a movie that highlights macho men taming cattle and the West, and you'll hear from the usual suspects that it's historically wrong and ignores the efforts of women.
Make a tamer version of Brokeback Mountain, and, hey, why are you complaining that there's no women in the film?
all new westerns HAVE TO BE about homosexuality (see Brokeback Mountain), because;
all new movies HAVE TO BE about homosexuality (see ANY New movie)
Actually, that's old milk... NEW movies HAVE TO BE about trannies
The One Thing that you can count on, is: The western will be 'said' to take place in Wyoming..
But, will be filmed in Canada or New Mexico
For some people it’s a just story, for others it’s their family history. Is it supposed to be an accurate portrayal of the west? If it’s just an entertaining story then let it go. Unless we are all supposed to play by the same rules - then it’s appropriation.
Your last paragraph is correct. But I'm siding with with Sam on this one. That Hollywood "likes it" is a warning flag waving in the wind for me. Just saved me the price of an admission I probably wouldn't have paid anyways.
This is the exact same thing as Scorsese bitching about superhero movies.
Women love Gay cowboys. Let them watch it.
Althouse says "Why can't a cowboy movie be about anything ..." Exactly. Westerns are the chardonnay grape of movie genres. Just as a winemaker can make different wines starting with the chardonnay grape, moviemakers can go in lots of directions with westerns. Look at McCabe and Mrs Miller. A western that is more about the disillusionment of 1970s America than a mining camp in the early 1900s. Sam Elliot does not come off as very bright.
Weren't the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns shot in Spain?
“Why can't a cowboy movie be about anything?”
Because then it becomes a movie about anything with “cowboys” in it, which is not a cowboy movie.
Cowboy movies are mainly stories about the American West during the 1800s, featuring hard work, courage, adventure, independence, heroism, and risking your life daily. Plus shooting and wide open spaces.
That’s why people love them. And that’s why a movie about anything with cowboys in it pisses people off.
Growing up in Montana, I can empathize. Campion is ascribing a sheepman's ethos to a cowboy. Even Annie Proulx (who did her writerly research next door in Wyoming) never made that mistake.
But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?
It certainly can be. But the movie isn't being pitched to us as an auteur's fancies, telling us about her inner life and artistic vision in the guise of a "western". The movie's being pitched to us as Jane Campion having something important to say, some outsider's insight into the nature of the American west and the American cowboy.
Jane Campion is a horrible director. The Piano was a piece of shit, and Anna Paquin was the only good thing in it. She makes pretentious tripe that tries far too hard for gravitas and meaning. I can only imagine how awful a cowboy movie that she made would be. New Zealand is full of these snooty types aspiring to European arthouse chic, but overegging it every time. It's quite insufferable living there and putting up with it.
This is pretty far down my list of things to worry about. Or even think about.
I'm happy for Sam Elliot that he was able to get some press out of it.
A prime example of American Western/Cowboy culture appropriation. Maybe she can make a sequel which focuses on Argentinian gaucho experiences......
The Hollywood Western genre is heavily mannered fantasy. Even if one was created that ticked all of Sam Elliott's boxes, it would still be a load of crap as a representation of how it really was or really is.
In Elliott's world, Kurosawa probably had no business setting Shakespeare's King Lear in ancient Japan, in the movie Ran, because it was inauthentic. Maybe's he's got a gripe with director John Sturges for setting Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai in the Old West as The Magnificent Seven. WTFK
So when I read that Sam Elliott was offended by Power of the Dog, I thought, yeah, yeah, but no director has a responsibility to perpetuate the myths of the Hollywood Cowboy--which is what Elliott is really carping about. Genres are canvases for painting your picture. They have little to do with reality.
I had been looking forward to seeing Power of the Dog. But I see that I gave 2 stars to all the Jane Campion movies I have seen - The Piano, In the Cut, The Portrait of the Lady, and Holy Smoke! Sam Elliott has made his share of 2 star movies. I did like Sam Elliott’s character in The Ranch. He wants to pass his ranch on to his two sons, but they are both fuckups. I haven’t seen the final season yet, but it wasn’t on track for a happy family ending.
It’s a tribute to Power of the Dog that Sam Elliott got so worked up about it. Canadians didn’t bother to get worked up about Sam Elliott’s turn in The Man Who Killed Hitler and Then the Bigfoot.
From a Sam Elliott point of view (he's a "cowboy" who was born in Sacramento) the worst thing you could say about the pair in Brokeback Mountain was that they were sheepherders. And he did say that they were sheepherders, although I'm not certain that's correct.
But I don't know that his rant about "outsiders" was wrong. After all isn't what she did "cultural appropriation"? And isn't "cultural appropriation" bad--or so I'm told by a gazillion wokesters. I mean a New Zealander---coming from a country where honest to goodness the greatest source of air pollution is methane gas from flatulent sheep--wants to do a movie about cattle ranchers set in Wyoming or Montana? I agree with Elliott---give me a break.
Yeah. For a western it was pretty bad.
I told my wife that it would have been a brilliant movie if it were filmed in New Zealand about New Zealand. Much of the world, let alone Americans, don't understand the history of the American west.
At least they removed the gay orgy at the end, in which all of the characters participate. That will be in the director's cut.
But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?
Careful, you're on a path leading to cancellation.
I tried to like the much awarded The Piano, which had a most impressive cast from Harvey Keitel to then newcomer Anna Paquin, and the terrific Holly Hunter, but I couldn’t get into it. Campion is good at making films that win awards.
That was sort of a western come to think of it.
A new genre: Arugula Westerns.
This was already done in the smash hit musical "Lease," with its catchy number "Everybody Has AIDS":
Everyone has AIDS
AIDS, AIDS, AIDS
AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS
Everyone has AIDS
And so this is the end of our story
And everyone is dead from AIDS
It took from me my best friend
My only true pal
My only bright star (He died of AIDS)
Well I'm gonna march on Washington
Lead the fight and charge the brigades
There's a hero inside of all of us
I'll make them see everyone has AIDS
My father (AIDS)
My sister (AIDS)
My uncle and my cousin and her best friend (AIDS, AIDS, AIDS)
The gays and the straights
And the white and the spades
Everyone has AIDS!
My grandma and my dog 'ol blue (AIDS, AIDS, AIDS)
The pope has got it and so do you (AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS)
Come on everybody we got quilting to do (AIDS, AIDS AIDS, AIDS, AIDS)
We gotta break down these barricades, everyone has
AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS
AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS
AIDS, AIDS, AIDS, AIDS AIDS, AIDS!
I just read the plot of this movie - Son of Brokeback Mountain. A Kiwi director making an American Western gives pause immediately. Jesse Plemons and, especially, Benedict Cumberbatch as rough and tumble American cowboys doesn't work at all well conceptually. And the gay cowboy shit, please...who needs it.
And if Sam Elliott thinks it sucks, that's it.
And here I thought I couldn't love Sam Elliott more....
I find Campion kind of a snooze, and I admire Elliott’s plainspokenness (but only if that’s a word).
I've always liked Sam Elliot. His first starring role was in "Lifeguard," which was a cult movie for a lot of doctors my age.
Maybe, Sam Elliott didn’t like The Power of the Dog?
I started watching this movie and really wanted to like it…but I couldn’t. The Harvard educated brother was mean and just such an angry bully to his brother that it made me very uncomfortable. I must be getting sensitive in my old age to bullying. Anyway, my impression was that the movie was going to be a real downer, so I turned it off.
Nightmare Alley was a very good movie, IMO. Also, dark, but with Bradley Cooper starring, I didn’t mind dark. I would recommend it.
I have not seen Drive My Car yet and I’m really looking forward to that one.
But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom
We throw around the word appropriation nowadays. This is it.
We can decide if appropriation is okay or not okay. What chaps the ass is the selective acceptance of appropriation- okay for some, not for others.
Let Ken Burns try to make a movie about Jazz music today...
The guy in a cowboy hat who sipped sarsaparillas at the bowling alley in The Big Lebowski is now concerned about how cowboys are portrayed in film?
He must hate all those spaghetti westerns.
The movie should be evaluated on its own merit, not on all that extraneous stuff. That said, if it’s another gay cowboy movie I’m not interested.
I watched the movie last week. It is supposed to represent "hyper masculinity" as illustrated by Phil, as well as the suggestion that he has repressed homosexuality. Phil is abusively "masculine" towards everyone around him. He is off the charts an outlier in his behavior. To me he doesn't represent any kind of "type", he is just an abusive man who may be abusive because of his repressed sexuality. So what? It's just a movie. Artsy people think it is really cool.
After I watched the movie I sat through 2 hours of zoom discussion by a group of psychoanalysts including three who made formal presentations of the meaning of the movie. They thankfully didn't proclaim that Phil represented American masculinity or any such crap. They had interesting things to say about what may have been going on in Phil's head, but they treated him as an individual, not a type. So in sum, it's just a movie.
Elliott complained about the "allusions to homosexuality throughout the fucking movie," and Marc Maron suggested "that’s what the movie’s about." And, really, why can't a cowboy movie be about anything?
Well, if it's being billed as a "cowboy movie", it should be about cowboys.
If it's a "gay romp though a cowboy scene that never was", then it should be billed as that.
If you're lying to your audience about what you're trying to sell to them, then you're clearly in the wrong
I guess it's irritating to see excessive honoring of a movie that's in your genre and made by an outsider to that milieu. But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?
What would happen to a conservative white who made a movie about "Blacks", and focused on things that "Blacks" don't like / don't want focused on?
Why shoudl this outside (Jane Campion) be treated better than that hypothetical outsider?
Is "cultural appropriation" a thing, or isn't it? If it is, then she shoudl be slammed for engaging in it
The main problem is the sort of movies that get nominated for awards. We went from mainstream films normally getting nominated and winning, to admittedly good films being made specifically to win awards despite them having smaller audiences, to pretty much the entire process being dominated by niche films that target the interests of the academy and no one else to the point that most people have never even heard of these films much less watched them. The awards are essentially irrelevant as far as filmmaking success is concerned and this includes artistic merit. The goal now is to impress a small number of people with very peculiar interests while tossing in sufficient amount of virtue signaling. "Gay cowboy" puts it on the short list just by its premise. It is not even an original premise.
It is certainly one way to go bankrupt.
Got to be honest, I watched it and it couldn't end soon enough. Depressing, pointless and the lone cello soundtrack was soul crushing. I assumed it was just because I wasn't hip enough to get it. I agree with Sam, horrible.
While Sam Elliott may not be very articulate (when taping a podcast), I agree that this dog was not Campion's best effort. I too was put off by the Cumberbatch character never getting out of his chaps and wearing spurs to bed. Minimalist acting by all. None of the characters had any appeal. The "Dog" telegraphed its point about repressed homosexuality from the giddy-up, but didn't seem to have much else to say. And the ending was a total cop-out. Campion basically stopped filming and walked away. So I give ol' Sam a pass.
But I liked the scenery. Though it clearly wasn't Montana, it was a pretty good substitute and added to the film's austerity.
So apparently it's based on a novel that was not initially successful. But it was republished to acclaim with an afterward by the author of Brokeback Mountain who said it influenced her work.
'From a Sam Elliott point of view (he's a "cowboy" who was born in Sacramento)...'
Apparently you know nothing about Sacramento in the '40s. Or the '50s, or '60s, or '70s...
Now do Bakersfield.
I identify as a billionaire.
My bank disagrees...
"We don't cotton to no swishes here at the Circle Z ranch. We're butch and manly all the way."
Yeah, well, Jane Campion can make a movie about whatever she wants, but, my guess is that she has a thing for butch gay stuff. It's far from unknown among women. It's good when you can foster your perversion and turn them into movies (see the oeuvre of Roger Vadim as an example).
Maybe, Ms Campion always wanted to grow up & be Joe Gage (Google "El Paso Wrecking Corp", if you're curious. I'm not linking, for obvious reasons).
"I've always liked Sam Elliot. His first starring role was in "Lifeguard," which was a cult movie for a lot of doctors my age."
The movie "Lifeguard" is when I became aware of Sam Elliot.
I take Sam Elliot's point but I liked the movie. Also, I'm a big fan of Kirsten Dunst, I think she is a really good actress.
"At least they removed the gay orgy at the end"
Did they score that scene with Tex Ritter singing a duet with Gene Autry on "Heading to the Last Roundup"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e29aaJuG-1w&ab_channel=GeneAutry
One of my favorite cowboy depictions was the stop-action film shorts cowboy that traveled around by scooting on his ass on the old Glen Campbell Goodtime Hour. Had to be there… trust me, it was funny!
Howard said...
Fucking snowflake.
So, Howard, do you get paid by the number of Althouse posts you ahve a comment in?
Or are you really just half the "wit" you think you are?
AZ Bob said...
What's next, tranny cowboys?
--------
I will take tranny horse >>> but consent will be night mare
Best cowboy and/or Indian movies ever are The Outlaw Josey Wales and Dances with Wolves. So well done and entertaining!
Another good thing about Sam Elliot is that he's been married to Katharine Ross since 1984, they have one daughter.
They'll never come close to the level of masculinity I saw in Montana. Men who could build, and fix, and fight.
They are almost all gone now. My spouse is one of the last.
!!! NZ Director must have had advance info ????
We've reached peak - yeah we get it... teh gay teh gay teh gay... worship teh gay.
fine. Ok. Stop.
Elliot is not wrong. The Western genre may be heavily mythologized, almost to the point of cliche. It is, however, an American mythology and I can understand him being riled at Campion disrespecting it. I'm sure Campion would be upset with Sam Elliot doing a film that gave a less than flattering picture of New Zealand's nation mythology, that is if New Zealand has a national mythology. (Do they? I can't be arsed to find out!). But, then again she might be such a nihilist that she wouldn't care.
There were things I liked about the film--the filming, the music, and a lot of the performances--but the whole idea of repressed homosexuality was spelled out too obviously. I told my friends that as soon Cumberpatch started teasing the kid in the hotel dining room, I expected a sign that flashed "repressed homosexual" onscreen. "Really?" Um, yeah. I wonder if my friends are thick. I also thought Jesse Plemons was a smear on the screen, as Pauline Kael used to say. Despite those weaknesses, and the fact that some of the seques could have been smoother, I thought it was a good film.
"I guess it's irritating to see excessive honoring of a movie that's in your genre and made by an outsider to that milieu. But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?"
Have you learned nothing?
Repeat after me: cultural appropriation is not ok.
"If Sam Elliott says a Western is crap, it’s crap. If a retired law professor says he’s wrong, then she’s the one that’s wrong."
There's no basis to accept this remark as valid in any degree.
"Power of the Dog" was a baaaaad movie.
"Is he seriously complaining that movies paint an unrealistic picture of cowboy life and the taming of the West? Because that isn't a new thing invented by Kiwi directors."
And...there can be no doubt there were homosexual relationships among men on the frontier...so WTF is Sam Elliot bitching about?
Just finished watching the finale of 1883 I thought Sam Elliott was all that a cowboy should be in that. Filming and locations were beautiful. I think they were all in the US west but were all the scenes for Wyoming actually shot in Wyoming? All the scenes in Kansas shot in Kansas? and so on.
So many westerns have been shot in Italy that we have a name for them "Spaghetti Westerns". Lots shot in Spain. In many cases, they can't even be bothered to speak in English. Many "westerns" supposedly taking place in Texas, Montana and other places have been shot on backlots within 50 miles of Hollywood.
One long running police drama, supposedly taking place in NYC, was shot in Toronto or Vancouver.
I think Elliott is full of shit complaining about a western movie being made in New Zealand. A good movie can be shot anywhere.
And if Elliott is such a stickler for authenticity, I question the entire premise of 1883, as much as I liked it. Why would Tom Dutton drive a wagon from Tennesee to Fort Worth to get to Oregon? Why would the settlers be in Fort Worth looking to go by wagon to oregon?
In 1883 there were no wagon trains. You loaded your wagons and goods on a train and got to Oregon in 6-7 days.
I still loved the series once I got over that gaping plot hole and highly recommend it. I thought it even better than Yellowstone because the characters were much more decent. Not the gang of crooks of the present day Dutton Ranch.
John Henry
"The Hollywood Western genre is heavily mannered fantasy. Even if one was created that ticked all of Sam Elliott's boxes, it would still be a load of crap as a representation of how it really was or really is."
There's zero evidence that the movie Elliot is criticizing is more realisitic. In fact gay new zealand cowboys are about as unrealistic as they come. Liberal/Leftists always want to decontruct and subvert any art/entertainment they think of as "conservative" or "white" or "Western culture".
They usually start with the "Gosh, why can't we mock it, what's the big deal?" or "Hey, we're just doing something different." And then before you know it, anything that doesn't reflect their liberal/left viewpoint is either eliminated, or if something gets through -critically attacked as white surpremist/sexist/homophobic etc.
“'Why can't a cowboy movie be about anything?'
"Because then it becomes a movie about anything with “cowboys” in it, which is not a cowboy movie."
Sez who?! Stories are not about the settings; stories are about human beings, the settings are just the dressing.
Isn't it wonderful: Anybody can make a movie about anything, and everybody can say whatever they want about it, whether they went to see it or not. Thanks for the unvarnished heads up Mr. Elliot.
"Well, I don't think they require ass-less chaps, OK?"
Blogger Michael K said...
I've always liked Sam Elliot. His first starring role was in "Lifeguard," which was a cult movie for a lot of doctors my age.
The posters of him from the movie adorned the walls of half the rooms in my girls dorm in college. I always liked him as well.
In the mid-80's there was a western made called "Silverado" with Costner, Kline, Glover, Denehy, Glenn, Arquette, and a few others I can't remember now. The director (producer?) said he wanted to make an old-fashioned western for the whole family. It was on Netflix in February (may still be). It was a hit with my extended family - including the teen/tween age.
But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?
Because "artistic leverage" works that way only for milieus in which most of the characters are white and male, that's why. Try it on in any other context and it's automatically "cultural appropriation." So I could make a movie about gay cowboys or British sailors in WWII, even though I'm not a cowboy or a sailor -- or, for that matter, a man. But if the subject were Black, or Asian, or Native American, or mestizo, or Australian Aborigine, or Samoan, it is for practical purposes obligatory that I belong to the culture being depicted.
There is vastly heightened sensitivity to "authenticity" these days. Only Jews can play Shylock; only Blacks can play Othello. But an all-Black crew performing Fidelio? Anne Boleyn as a Black woman? Le Nozze di Figaro (as happened at SF Opera recently) with a Black Susanna and a Black Countess? Fine! The more the merrier.
I am reminded of John McWhorter's essay in the NYT last week, about what is treated as "classical music" in awards like the Grammys. Nearly all of the music labeled as "classical" isn't; it's all "crossover" or mixed-genre in some other way. Not that there aren't actual classical composers still writing, or vast amounts of existing classical music that can endlessly be reinterpreted. But nearly all of those are DWEMs, while the living ones tend to write things longer than three or four minutes. This happens to no other genre, b/c classical is the one that actually reverences the past and preserves it. The entire genre is politically incorrect. So the point is to destroy it, dilute it, nullify it.
"What in the wide, wide world of sports is a-goin' on here? I hired you boys to try to get a little track laid, not to dance around like a bunch of Kansas City faggots."
There's nothing new under the sun.
Robert Cook said...
“'Why can't a cowboy movie be about anything?'
"Because then it becomes a movie about anything with “cowboys” in it, which is not a cowboy movie."
Sez who?! Stories are not about the settings; stories are about human beings, the settings are just the dressing.
******************************
OK. Try setting "West Side Story" in Imperial Rome. Try setting a Spider Man movie in the 1850's.
Sam Elliot was a cowboy in a movie definitely not about cowboys: The Big Lebowski.
I think we can all agree cowboys are pretty gay.
Oh dear, wonder what Mr. Elliot would think of westerns set in space? See: Firefly...
Let's face it, realistic or not, that movie, "Power of the Dog", sucked ass.
Were there lots of gay cowboys? Probably. Why else would you want to only be around other men. Lot's of sailors were probably gay to. The macho ideal of either role is just a way to cover it up.
After all, who are generally the fittest guys in the gym? The gay ones.
I like Benedict Cumberbatch (great voice), but I don't need to see him running around without his shirt. Pass.
“He looked better with his mustache. Without it, he has this big white mizzenmast sail of an upper lip.”
Most noticed that in We Were Soldiers. Loved the scene where he explained to Mel Gibson that if he needed a gun, they would be all over the place.
The thing about Sacramento is a bit off. His family was from West Texas. Moreover, his father’s profession was predator control. That meant hunting coyotes, mountain lions, and maybe a black bear on occasion. At that time, it was very likely on horseback. He rides like someone who grew up on horseback. I grew up with people who could, and you know. That’s why, in mind, the westerns of the 1930s up into the 1950s were, in my mind, the best. The horsemanship back then was so very often awesome.
Both my partner and I had a grandfather who was, essentially a cowboy. Mine left the farm in the OK panhandle, got a college degree, and moved to Denver while Buffalo Bill was still living there. And, indeed, 30 years later (in the 1950s), I remember seeing well dressed gentlemen downtown there in suits, boots, Stetsons, and six guns. When my grandparents retired, they bought a ranch an hour SW of Denver, ran a girls camp there, which meant a bunch of horses. We were riding with my father and his parents, by the time we were a couple years old. My partner’s grandfather was born in the Midwest, but adopted the cowboy mindset when he moved out west around the time he was 20. He was still breaking horses when he turned 90, which wasn’t much more than a decade or so ago. The breaking of mustangs was his hobby. His job was riding ditch for the irrigation company. They offered him a truck. He preferred doing it on horseback, claiming he was more efficient. This was into the 1980s. Was he a cowboy? Maybe not - he never liked cows much, and sheep even less. But the only person who he preferred over his horses was his wife of 70 years. Partner’s mother grew up glued to a horse, and was a crack shot.
What it comes down to is some males are overly defensive because of their uncomfortable position on the sexuality spectrum. It's a known law of mathematics.
Cook: "Stories are not about the settings; stories are about human beings, the settings are just the dressing.'
Different settings in story-telling are chosen specifically to elicit a certain emotional response to the story, or to establish a (formerly) universally accepted set of assumptions about the characters. The Western is a story about a flawed but basically good man, who is faced with a difficult and violent choice; sometimes the problem is mother nature, but usually it's a Bad Man who must be faced. The hero is sometimes changed (see "Silverado") and sometimes chooses to leave rather than corrupt the people he just saved ("Shane"), but his actions are always transformative. Those themes can be subverted in clever ways (Johne Wayne dying at the end of "The Shootist"), but good storytellers are going to honor the themes.
It sounds like this film is not a cowboy movie or a western, but just another story about gays, that happens to have the window dressing you mention.
I saw "Power of the Dog" and liked it very much. Strong acting, interesting story that which had an ending that she (Ms. Campion) showed us hints of coming along the way. That said, this movie could have been made in any time, in almost any place. It did not have to be done in the American West and really wasn't a movie about the American West.
I also just finished watching Sam Elliott in the TV series, "1883" which I found to be outstanding, both in its historical coverage of immigrants as part of the trek west as well as the cinematography, really showing how courageous the trek across the plains for those first few. One had to be as ignorant as they were courageous. Elliott played a great character and played it in an outstanding manner.
John Henry was right about the wagon train period being before 1883. I'll also note that the 'friendly' Comanches that showed up in the early episodes were a far cry from the history of the Comanche peoples, famous for their horse riding abilities and their brutality- to everyone. Age and gender did not matter. Whites or other Native American tribes- it did not matter. But that said, the series was outstanding and I highly recommend it, especially to those who like Yellowstone. It might be better.
Am I the only one who hears Sam Elliot's voice while reading his quotes?
Anyway, I saw the movie a few months ago and thought it was pretty good. Now I can barely remember a damn thing about it, so I guess it wasn't all that great.
well, i just broke down; and read about the plot of this movie on wikipedia
Serious Question.. How is it a 'western' ? because it takes place in montana?
Was The Last Picture Show, a 'western'? It took place in texas
What about Temple Grandin ? Was THAT a 'western'?
Or, is the gay part required?
John Henry (Not the Steel Driving Man, but someone else) asked..
Why would the settlers be in Fort Worth looking to go by wagon to oregon?
I actually figured that one out! The show 1883 was sponsored by the Texas Tourism board.
when i quit watching (about week 4, or so); They STILL hadn't crossed the Red river
(Fun fact! IF you were taking a wagon from Ft Worth; it wouldn't take you 4 weeks to cross the Red)
IMDB says that Everything not filmed in Texas was filmed in Montana
I thought 1883 was stupid, as was glad i'd never watched yellowstone.
it DID have Veronica Duncan (Isabel May) in it; and that was good;
Not as good as seeing Veronica take Jesus as her personal savior though (or as being a slut)
After reading some of the comments here from people who have seen the movie, I wonder if Sam Elliott found the repressed homosexuality to be homophobic.
Greg the Class Traitor: “So, Howard, do you get paid by the number of Althouse posts you ahve a comment in?” Greg, we are all getting paid for our comments here. Aren’t you?
It seems to me that Elliott's ire might be better directed at the people who funded this movie. Why do they think this kind of movie might be profitable? I'm not gonna fault a director for making a movie that someone else wants to bankroll, even if I think the movie topic (or filming location) is a poor choice.
He comes from a time when Men were Men and Women were Women and no spoke of the sheep.
Readering said...
"He must hate all those spaghetti westerns."
Watch any one of those and then watch ,"The Searchers"
I don't think I've ever watched one of Sergio Leon's 'westerns' all the way through.
John henry said...
"
Just finished watching the finale of 1883 I thought Sam Elliott was all that a cowboy should be in that. Filming and locations were beautiful. I think they were all in the US west but were all the scenes for Wyoming actually shot in Wyoming? All the scenes in Kansas shot in Kansas? and so on."
Closing credits list Texas and Montana.
“Power of the Dog” needed an Italian director. Nothing beats a good Spaghetti Western.
I didn’t say the movie is crap. I don’t know. I haven’t seen it. I’m not interested in it.
I just think it’s fine to take an old format and do whatever you want with it. There’s no heresy.
I can see having a problem with misleading advertising but you usually find out before you go out and invest your money and time.
I’m just surprised Sam supported traditional American genres. He is a hard lefty. He did campaign work for Biden for goodness sake. What an embarrassment.
If you read his comments he states that cowboys and ranching is not just about the men. It is about generations of FAMILIES working ranches. An entire lifestyle that is being denigrated. He isn’t just disgusted by the homosexual fantasies. He is disgusted that American traditions and American families are being thrown in the trash to make way for the gay cowboy parade. Good for old Sam. I still can’t forgive the Biden propaganda work he did but this goes a long way towards it.
Hope his current employers, kids and wife don’t make him back down.
I agree that artist should be given freedom of expression. As a consumer, I think this movie sounds awful. I am curious if anyone will make a movie about Brandon Straka or if you can make a movie about a homosexual that disagrees with Democrats. In the meantime, I’ll take a historical period movie portraying 1930s Hollywood stars being fascist and communist sympathizers.
Transgender conversion therapy (e.g. surgical, medical, psychiatric corruption), especially insidious training by Choice and force, may be politically congruent ("="), but is not in popular demand. Quelle surprise.
This movie didn’t interest me. But it reminds me of a conversation my husband had with a woman he met who took issue with him liking Black Swan by Darren Aronofsky. She went on and on about how it didn’t represent the reality of ballet and pointed out all the inaccuracies. The thing is, my husband noted later, it wasn’t a documentary about ballet. It was more about obsession, which ballet suits quite well. I’m assuming this same thing about Campion’s movie. It’s not about the Old West. It’s simply the setting…accuracy to that setting being secondary. But, again, it doesn’t interest me.
"…what the fuck does this woman from down there, New Zealand, know about the American [West]."
That's L.A. Magazine quoting (or misquoting) Sam Elliot. I doubt the accuracy since the editor spells the American West with lower case w. West isn't just a direction. I doubt Miss Campion knows fuck-all about the 19th-century West, but she does understand its significance to the American identity, which means it must be corrupted. How else can Kamala Harris become President 47?
"And why the fuck does she shoot this movie in New Zealand and call it Montana?"
The Searchers: The opening title, 'Texas 1868', is blatantly belied by a view of John Ford's beloved Monument Valley, Arizona, where much of the film was shot.
We watched the movie, at home, during Covid. It was so bad I left after an hour or so to read. My wife toughed it out to the end, and pronounced it the worst movie she had endured in the last 20 years. Didn't mind the gay, it was the idiocy of the entire premise of the movie. My wife really likes Benedict, but she was really disappointed in this movie. Waste of either 3.99 or 4.99. I will say the popcorn was good. But when it was gone, I went and read.
I just watched The Kindness of Strangers on Netflix. The best part- how individually real the people were. Not a T-n-A movie- more of a movie where people function as best they can: emotionally injured. And it’s not necessarily visible- it’s palpable.
Really liked it.
----But why can't that be the artistic leverage, the filmmaker's outsiderdom?
That's a rationalization for anything. A Western is a genre movie. Genres have certain rules -- or, if you don't like that word, a genre creates certain expectations and promises to play its melody on recognizable keys. If you want to break the rules, you have to really know what the rules are before you do it. Otherwise it's going to be pointless crapola.
The use of the f bomb here is a masking for insecurity about what he’s stating.
It happened to me when I’ve posted it. Its just blustery.
I just think it’s fine to take an old format and do whatever you want with it.
And thus you’re wrong.
I watched the movie. I kept waiting for a reason to like it. It never came.
When I saw it praised and nominated I thought they were talking about a different movie. The movie was horrible. The homosexual undertones were actually a glimmer of hope there might be something interesting. Nope. Just a big thud of an ending.
Oddly, I didn't feel like I was even watching a western. Elliot was for the most part right.
As far as Elliot, I have enjoyed everything he did, particularly "Once an Eagle" (a great show) and "The Big Lewbowski", the latter in a minor role. He is very qualified to have an opinion, but used careless profanity. Probably just blowing off in a podcast. I will watch anything he is in, and did not see Brokeback. May try to watch this one to see the scenery of NZ.
One of my peeves is when I am typing a post and after I submit it, I see that a tranche of moderatedness has been unleashed and revealed. Regardless, I will endure, even if it appears I am copying someone else.
It's a wink to the woke that masculinity is just a mask for gayness.
They can't accept that for the vast majority of men, the butt is for kicking, sitting or farting.
And why the fuck does she shoot this movie in New Zealand and call it Montana?
For the same reason everyone shoots in Boston and call it New York City…
The Searchers: The opening title, 'Texas 1868', is blatantly belied by a view of John Ford's beloved Monument Valley, Arizona, where much of the film was shot.
Also the guns (with the exception of the single shot muzzle loader used by Mose) are utterly anachronistic. The revolvers you see onscreen are Colt Single Action Army, which came out in 1873. And John Wayne uses a Winchester Model 1892 carbine, which — as the name suggests — would not be invented for 24 more years. It’s a great movie, but they should be using Henry rifles or Winchester Model 1866, and cap and ball revolvers. Kind of spoils it for me.
(Though not as much as Val Kilmer shooting three shots from a double barreled shot gun that he never reloads in “Tombstone.”)
I'm sure Campion would be upset with Sam Elliot doing a film that gave a less than flattering picture of New Zealand's nation mythology, that is if New Zealand has a national mythology.
I'm a New Zealander, and that sounds like a fantastic idea. Though, come to think of it, that movie already exists - it's called Invictus. It's about how the New Zealand rugby team lost the World Cup to South Africa in 1995.
I remember someone asking me once if I liked that movie, and I commented that it was like asking a German what they thought of the Dambusters. Not cool.
"Waste of either 3.99 or 4.99."
Its on Netflix Sparky. You pay the same monthly fee whether you watch POTD or you don't.
there can be no doubt there were homosexual relationships among men on the frontier...so WTF is Sam Elliot bitching about?
It is one thing to suggest there were gay cowboys; it is something else to suggest that cowboys were gay.
Westerns keep up with the times. The genre can accommodate a lot. There was much talk in the Fifties (or was it the Sixties?) about the "New Western" whose characters were tormented by all manner of Freudian complexes. A movie set in the 1920s isn't a classic western, and Elliott's idea of the family-based ranch life of today may not match the realities on 19th century ranching, which was still part of the memories of early 20th century ranchers.
Still, that doesn't mean that The Power of the Dog was any good. It sounds a little like Legends of the Fall or any number of other westerns, but with the homosexuality theme replacing the usual rivalry of two brothers for the same woman.
I wonder if she has the balls to make a movie about big city gang bangers, with all the black ghetto criminals being homos?
I just think it’s fine to take an old format and do whatever you want with it. There’s no heresy.
Haiku, sonnet, what's the diff? There's no heresy...
I'm siding with the commenters who say that Westerns are genre films with specific themes and tropes - so in my mind there is the possibility of heresy. I'm not an aficionado of that genre so, aside from loving Silverado when it came out, I have no other relevant thoughts here.
Except maybe one: it is possible to work within a genre and do something different. See for example "i carry your heart with me" and a bunch more e. e. cummings.
I'm hard pressed to recall images of any folks in cattle country shirtless.
There could be a problem when upper class folks allow liberation doctrines so far and so long, they can deny themselves tradition and knowledge. Often it can misincentivize the arts. What smart, forward people do certainly does have effects on everyone else.
---Westerns keep up with the times. [Lurker21]
Good point; everything changes. But genres did evolve because they satisfied something fundamental for viewers. Maybe the Western genre is used up; maybe that's what this NZ film is in part indicating. But I think filmmakers who respect the history of their form are more likely to satisfy an audience than those who take a know-nothing approach and figure what's the dif. The history gives you something to build on and then you can ring your own changes on that.
If you want a cowboy movie with sheep, try "The Sheepman," a 1958 American Western comedy film directed by George Marshall and starring Glenn Ford, Shirley MacLaine, and Leslie Nielsen. It is intentional as it tries to be funny, at least.
https://www.imdb.com/video/vi3767190297?playlistId=tt0052190&ref_=tt_ov_vi
The book and movie were based on the actual life of Thomas Savage, the author of the book. He wrote other books that were even more autobiographical.
From Wikipedia: In his writing, Savage dealt with themes of fatal provincialism and the claustrophobia of sexual boundaries. He used his novels to denounce the bigotry he considered entrenched in the western towns and ranches of his upbringing. Savage loosely modeled several character types on his own family. His beloved mother inspired the character of a culturally refined young mother, driven by isolation to alcohol. His grandmother Emma Russell Yearian inspired the character of an iron-fisted matriarch. His stepfather Charles Brenner inspired the character of an honest but slow-witted rancher. His uncle William Brenner inspired the character of a manipulative, calculating ranch hand. Savage wrote himself into many of his novels in the character of an outsider, unsuited to ranch life. These characters appear in many of his novels under different names and different circumstances.
He worked on a cattle ranch as a young man, and his adoptive family actually was very big in the sheep herding business. Savage himself was gay (his description) even though he married and had children.
We ought to be able to agree that the book (especially) and movie aren't "appropriation." At the same time, the movie has parts that are not explicit in the book, such as (Phil's secret collection of "manly" magazines). Other bits are not in the book at all, IIRC, such as fan service of shirtless cowboys washing in the river.
Always with what Mugabe called "the gayism", Hollywood is nowadays. Everyone wants to be Brokeback Mountain but it's already been done, and as mainstream gay-themed dramatic features go, Tom Ford's "A Single Man" was a much better film with a better narrative storyline, as was that 1990s Kevin Kline film about the gay schoolteacher.
But hey, gotta be edgy with the "deconstruction" or no one's gonna greenlight the script.
"OK. Try setting "West Side Story" in Imperial Rome. Try setting a Spider Man movie in the 1850's."
Either could be done easily. Adjustments would have to be made for them to fit their different settings, but stories of extraordinary or god-like humans (Spider-Man) and tragic lovers (Romeo and Juliet) are as old as story-telling.
Josephbleau: "As far as Elliot, I have enjoyed everything he did, particularly "Once an Eagle" (a great show) "
If you haven't already, you truly owe it to yourself to read the book. I picked it up at the HS library after watching the miniseries; then I bought a copy and have read it multiple times over the years.
"I’m just surprised Sam supported traditional American genres. He is a hard lefty. He did campaign work for Biden for goodness sake. What an embarrassment."
Oh my fucking god! To believe that someone who did campaign work for Bide--of all people--is a "hard lefty" is to reveal complete derangement of the senses.
Talk about embarrassment!
"'I just think it’s fine to take an old format and do whatever you want with it.'
"And thus you’re wrong."
No. She is absolutely correct.
Lurker21 (if anyone is still reading this thread) my thumbnail picture was taken in the early 1900’s in Deming, New Mexico. The little girl on the left, second up from the bottom is my grandmother. My extended family still owns land in the area that is used for grazing cattle. According to my pictures and the stories told by my grandma it was definitely a family oriented culture.
When the male butt shots surpass the female skin shots, I don't mind. Everybody in the audience deserves to be titillated. But what I want to know is when are we gonna get a good movie about all the gay KKK members and Nazis?
so Eliot get paid for those Internet meme images because this is gonna generate a whole bunch more for him.
Post a Comment