My feed

shotswerefired added 1 item to In Praise of Marlon Brando list

On One-Eyed Jacks: "Westerns are my favorite genre, both novel - although I'm an eclectic reader - and film. This particular film has long been my favorite western, but I stand nearly alone among my peers... I've often wondered why the film was panned. Perhaps because of the time? A time when America was in turmoil and needed heroes, not 90% anti-heroes as those featured in One-Eyed Jacks. I've also engaged in some introspection as I'm generally a happy-ending kind of guy, and the ending of the film is rather nebulous. As reported from several sources this was not the ending Brando wanted, which was darker and far less upbeat. Had he had his way; the ending would have been a typical Greek tragedy ending as Brando wanted, the film might have been among those nominated for an Oscar. His very old friend and co-star in the film, and others, reported how unhappy Brando was with the studio changes. But it wasn't his ending. Be that as it may. So, why would I hold the film in such high esteem? After reading the argument that One-Eyed Jacks was not the first film to feature a protagonist, or protagonists who were equally or more so antagonists, anti-heroes, I've spent some time again watching the films of the 50s that critics say preceded One-Eyed Jacks, and again I have to disagree. Searchers is given as an example. If you think John Wayne was portrayed as an anti-hero in that film, then I don't know the definition of "hero". Yes, he threatened to gun down Natalie Wood, but for what at the time - the time portrayed in the film - was considered a good reason. It's not the first instance I've observed that critics and the public try to impose 21st century mores and morals on 19th or earlier century writings. I find it an abomination to do so, and a violation of true morals and ethics. Lying is hardly ethical. I'm a student of history and, particularly of the pre-Mexican War Californios era. If I'm any judge, it's never been better portrayed in film than it was in One-Eyed Jacks... The picture is a celebration of anti-heroes, and as such, almost totally original for westerns. One of the rules of writing drama is 'make 'em laugh, make em' cry.' Although I laughed, winced and sympathized many times watching the final version, I didn't cry, and I might have with Brando's ending. As good a film as it was, Brando's ending was likely much better. Malden said, 'If we'd made it the way Marlon wanted it to be made, like a Greek tragedy, it could have been a breakthrough western. It could have been a classic.' I agree, although I think it's a classic nonetheless. No matter Brando's many warts. No matter the film not having the ending Brando wanted. No matter its lack of rave reviews. It's my favorite western. That said, Shane and Open Range are close behind. I feel more than justified when one considers the recent praise for the film from Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg. If one wanted his opinion of a film buttressed, who could ask for stronger supporters?" On Brando's acting: "I've watched a number of films - all I've been able to get my hands on - and it's my belief he's the master of silence. The pause, when he performs one, is unlike other actors. Malden says, "Marlon took the longest pauses I have ever sweated through. Other days, he would come in too soon... Silence is a powerful ingredient, and Brando proved it time and time again in his acting. He sold his scene, his character, his products, with his silences. It seemed to be the most powerful arrow in his very full quiver. He put more into silence than dozens of other fine actors did with words, tears, grimaces or grins. Malden said Brando could fill a pause because he had '...a fire inside him that kept everything he did interesting.'"

4 years, 11 months ago

shotswerefired rated Romance