Comments on: Rio Bravo (1959) http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2006/09/01/rio-bravo-1959/ Film reviews and commentary tonight, before I forget tomorrow Mon, 21 May 2012 23:53:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Susanne http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2006/09/01/rio-bravo-1959/comment-page-1/#comment-5686 Susanne Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:03:07 +0000 http://thisdistractedglobe.com/?p=708#comment-5686 Wow, that is an incrediably shallow reading of the film, when analysing the film, I found it is to be so complex and rich in characterisation, relationships, values and meanings. The movie is a classic example of intextual intergrity. The story is driven by the characters of the movie and they are presented as human beings with flaws like the people in real life. Chance represents the masculine authority and strength that everyone looks up to. However throughout the movie we constantly see that it is not true all the time. He can be impulsive, quick to judge and lacks humanity. While he presents the image as someone who is strong he is shy and insecure when he is expressing his emotions and that is where the character of Feathers comes in. She brings out the humanity in him and she constantly challenges this image of him sometimes reducing him to look like a goof which is incrediably cute and something which reflects reality. What is the huge deal with age difference? It is not like they were doing anything illegal, she's not a child, there are a lot of relationships with age difference. You have to get out more often. The romance also can be up for debate because it is so rich with textual intergity because Feathers is not someone who is weak, she is a strong and dominate woman who lives by her own rules, she can stand toe to toe with Chance and be his equal while at the same time bringing in some vunerablity to her character without making her look like a bitch or a whimp that requires someone to save her. There are scenes when she does help chance. There is so many different critical readings of this film like feminist, marxist, psychoanalystical etc. They talk a lot but when you analyse this film closely it is about language, power and relationships between men and women. What made this movie a classic is the use of characterisation and how fully rounded and developed they are and the story is not plot driven, it's character driven. Dude is the center of the story from beginning to end, it was really his film, in search for redemption, trying to get back his confidence and his mascaulity that was stripped from him due to his heartache and because of alcohol. It is a long battle for him tp kick the habit and this is done through the eyes of Chance who is his friend and mentor, Chance is the reactor. Dude looks for the strength to redemn him to the man that he once was. Stumpy represents a loss of mascuality due to his limp and inability to walk which is symbolic of a man's mascuality. I strongly disagree with your analysis and I know why those appreciate this film being a critic myself I can analyse this film over and over and still walk away with something new. This film is filled with endless critical readings and interrpetations and rich with characterisation that represents humanity and reality. Wow, that is an incrediably shallow reading of the film, when analysing the film, I found it is to be so complex and rich in characterisation, relationships, values and meanings. The movie is a classic example of intextual intergrity. The story is driven by the characters of the movie and they are presented as human beings with flaws like the people in real life. Chance represents the masculine authority and strength that everyone looks up to. However throughout the movie we constantly see that it is not true all the time. He can be impulsive, quick to judge and lacks humanity. While he presents the image as someone who is strong he is shy and insecure when he is expressing his emotions and that is where the character of Feathers comes in. She brings out the humanity in him and she constantly challenges this image of him sometimes reducing him to look like a goof which is incrediably cute and something which reflects reality. What is the huge deal with age difference? It is not like they were doing anything illegal, she’s not a child, there are a lot of relationships with age difference. You have to get out more often. The romance also can be up for debate because it is so rich with textual intergity because Feathers is not someone who is weak, she is a strong and dominate woman who lives by her own rules, she can stand toe to toe with Chance and be his equal while at the same time bringing in some vunerablity to her character without making her look like a bitch or a whimp that requires someone to save her. There are scenes when she does help chance. There is so many different critical readings of this film like feminist, marxist, psychoanalystical etc. They talk a lot but when you analyse this film closely it is about language, power and relationships between men and women. What made this movie a classic is the use of characterisation and how fully rounded and developed they are and the story is not plot driven, it’s character driven.

Dude is the center of the story from beginning to end, it was really his film, in search for redemption, trying to get back his confidence and his mascaulity that was stripped from him due to his heartache and because of alcohol. It is a long battle for him tp kick the habit and this is done through the eyes of Chance who is his friend and mentor, Chance is the reactor. Dude looks for the strength to redemn him to the man that he once was. Stumpy represents a loss of mascuality due to his limp and inability to walk which is symbolic of a man’s mascuality.

I strongly disagree with your analysis and I know why those appreciate this film being a critic myself I can analyse this film over and over and still walk away with something new. This film is filled with endless critical readings and interrpetations and rich with characterisation that represents humanity and reality.

]]> By: Vincent http://thisdistractedglobe.com/2006/09/01/rio-bravo-1959/comment-page-1/#comment-1786 Vincent Thu, 11 Oct 2007 07:02:42 +0000 http://thisdistractedglobe.com/?p=708#comment-1786 Maybe i can give you some clues :) "Rio Bravo" is a truly masterpiece, in the full sense of the word. The achievment of Hawks's research in a cinematographic form. It is not a western ? Yes ! it is a comedy, as all Hawks's movies. It is about relationship between men and women and the way they work and live together. It is more than a western because it is pure cinema. That's why Hawks doesn't care about ths "real things", like Hitchcock does or even Ford. They doesnt care about history, they care about legend, about something right, not true. "Rio bravo" is something of an experimental movie in its way, an abstraction of western, a territory of imagination. That's why it is great. The story whith "Hight noon", i think it is some kind of joke. Maybe not for Wayne, but if you think back of the movie, you'll see that Chance always refuses help, but in fact, he is always force to accept it. He thinks he is strong, but in fact, he is always too impulsive and not very bright. All the others characters helps him against his will. In this way, it is not a typical Wayne movie, because it plays with Duke's image. An dit is so so so funny. Last, the relationship between Feather and Chance : I love it. It is as unbelievable as the one between Stewart and Novak in "Vertigo", or the real story between Bogart an Bacall (!) They talk a lot, it is true, but the important thing in this movie is what they do, the way they do it and what goes beteween them, far from the words. And the dialogues are brilliant. So, i think of Rio Bravo as the more beautiful of all Hawks 'movies, and for me, one of the best movies ever made. But you can dislike Hawks work, it is your absolute right. But maybe you can try to see it again, with another way of seeing it, and maybe you'll discover all his beauty. Sorry to be so long and for the approximative english. Maybe i can give you some clues :)

“Rio Bravo” is a truly masterpiece, in the full sense of the word. The achievment of Hawks’s research in a cinematographic form.

It is not a western ? Yes ! it is a comedy, as all Hawks’s movies. It is about relationship between men and women and the way they work and live together. It is more than a western because it is pure cinema. That’s why Hawks doesn’t care about ths “real things”, like Hitchcock does or even Ford. They doesnt care about history, they care about legend, about something right, not true.

“Rio bravo” is something of an experimental movie in its way, an abstraction of western, a territory of imagination. That’s why it is great.

The story whith “Hight noon”, i think it is some kind of joke. Maybe not for Wayne, but if you think back of the movie, you’ll see that Chance always refuses help, but in fact, he is always force to accept it. He thinks he is strong, but in fact, he is always too impulsive and not very bright. All the others characters helps him against his will. In this way, it is not a typical Wayne movie, because it plays with Duke’s image. An dit is so so so funny.

Last, the relationship between Feather and Chance : I love it. It is as unbelievable as the one between Stewart and Novak in “Vertigo”, or the real story between Bogart an Bacall (!)

They talk a lot, it is true, but the important thing in this movie is what they do, the way they do it and what goes beteween them, far from the words. And the dialogues are brilliant.

So, i think of Rio Bravo as the more beautiful of all Hawks ‘movies, and for me, one of the best movies ever made. But you can dislike Hawks work, it is your absolute right. But maybe you can try to see it again, with another way of seeing it, and maybe you’ll discover all his beauty.

Sorry to be so long and for the approximative english.

]]>