YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Discuss anything you want.
Post Reply
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:55 pm

Colonel Kurz wrote:Beltrami also did a good western score for The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada.
I haven't seen that film.

Frankly, I have seen a number of the movies in his filmography at the link I provided, but I don't recall the soundtracks for any of them. Nor do I recall thinking the music was no good. So it must not have stunk up the place. He's been fairly busy. Always good if you're a composer of film soundtracks.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:30 pm

Well, I got the 3:10 thumbnails and banners done for the essays, and built the banners for the reviews, this afternoon.

The essays are mostly completed, except for fine-tuning, and building necessary graphics. The 3:10 essay broker post now has all the thumbnails in place, although The Scores is still the only one with a link.

The reviews will require one more viewing of each film and a re-reading of the short story, all while taking copious notes.

But, did I already say that I have banners for them done? :D

Image

Image
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Quite-Gone Genie
Posts: 22840
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Quite-Gone Genie » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:55 am

Those are some pretty spiffy banners.
"So, you see, he was condemned to walk in darkness a quadrillion kilometres (we've adopted the metric system, you know)..."
██████████████████████████████████████████The Devil, The Brothers Karamazov
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4749
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by MrCarmady » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:08 pm

Quite-Gone Genie wrote:Those are some pretty spiffy banners.
This.
I should re-watch the remake...
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:32 pm

Thanks, Guys!

I'm gonna stick in some placeholders for the reviews, which I will do last in this weematch.

Today I'll post a rather long essay, the first of two that will more or less compare the styles of the films, the first one also compares the films with the short story. It's coming up soon as I put placeholders for the reviews.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:33 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
The 1957 Film

Image
IMDb link RT-link

Year: 1957 Director: Delmer Daves Cast: Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, Felicia Farr, Henry Jones Length: 92 min. Monochrome/Monophonic


I want to make it clear right up front that I had no interest in seeing this film or its remake. But I made a flippant response to something Bandy wrote.
Bandy Greensacks wrote:I was mainly ughing the fact that they're remaking Carrie. Why bother?
Gort wrote:They know that I will eventually complete the eight Rematches currently running and I'll need something to use for the next pair of films. I mean, that's clear as glass to me.
MrCarmady wrote:Are you taking suggestions, Gort?
I said yes, "Suggestions for potential Rematches? Certainly." So, MrCarmady came forth with his: "3:10 to Yuma was the one that popped into my mind since I saw the original recently...." And he gave an intriguing reason: "It's one of the best shot and tensest classic westerns I've seen."

A Classic Remake!
I thought immediately of High Noon. Then I found a comparison of the two films somewhere. That interested me. I did a library request for both of the films made from the mid-twentieth century Elmore Leonard short story, and even requested a book that contains the story, along with the DVDs, "Three-ten to Yuma and other stories."
Image
I read the story, watched this 1957 version of the adaptation, then watched the 2007 film, which is basically an expansion of the Delmer Daves production (and that fact makes it a classic Remake!). A 24-page short story that first appeared in Dime Western Magazine in March 1953 became a major Columbia motion picture four years later. I made a mental list of the things that were added. The first film explains what is called backstory in modern parlance. The 2007 adds other layers of backstory, sidestory, and explanation. In addition, it jumps genres.

Daves made a film that centers on Dan Evans. A rancher who has hit hard times, not all due to Nature, and who fancies that $200.00 to buy water rights would solve his immediate financial problems. After a three-year drought during which he has seen his wife and children go hungry at times, and has watched his cattle grow thin and die, he is weary of what he has put them through. When he and his sons ride into a stagecoach robbery in progress, he also stumbles into an opportunity to earn the needed amount of money. All he has to do is go with Alex, the town drunk, and the gang leader responsible for the daylight robbery. Of primary interest to Evans is that Mr. Butterfield, who owns the coach line that was robbed, has promised $200.00 to each of the men if they can get Ben Wade to Contention City overnight, and put him on the 3:10 pm train that departs for Yuma in the Arizona Territory.
Image
Where the short story picks up with the arrival of a Deputy Marshall and his already convicted charge at Contention City, and follows them to a successful mounting of the train, this story presents a different line, and changes the names of the characters. (An essay, "Accessorize!" presents more on that layering idea for both films.) We're interested in the layers added for the 1957 movie, right now.

Alterations and Additions
The short story introduces a full-time deputy, but why not make the man a temporary designee? Show how he came to be escorting a prisoner to Contention. Screenwriter Halsted Welles faces the problem of inflating the story to feature-length by making a series of changes up front (which naturally lead to interesting plot developments) and adding some characters. Some of these characters can be inferred from the short story. The deputy has a wife and three children. Okay, so a wife is a given. Eliminate one child. Scant mention is made by Leonard about the sex of the kids. "The little girl," in the short story reveals that one of the three is female. Keep both boys, and they can ride out with dad for some reason. Whereas the short story has the outlaw, Kidd, already convicted and sentenced, why not reel the story back to the very commission of the crime? And, whereas the short story has Kidd found not guilty of murder by a jury, why not show the replacement outlaw, the notorious Ben Wade, shooting someone to death, and have him being transported to trial? This ups the stakes greatly in a typical Hollywoodish mode: 1) murder is involved, one of the worst crimes on the books, and 2) tension will be increased if he hasn't even been tried yet. "Get him to trial" will become the goal.

This new tack plays out very well. Welles is judicious in his use of details spun from his own version of the yarn, but the new origin point lets him devise some interesting events. A secret transfer of Wade (who is now much older than the 20-something Kidd in the original story). It lets Wade's off-screen background lead to the foible that gets him ensnared. Evans and his family are involved in the secret transfer. It's all very cleverly mounted, and in Delmer Daves's hands it is transferred very well to the screen.
Image
I LIKE How Alice Evans doesn't just sit at the ranch and pine away, and worry about her husband. Her subdued conviction that his heart is in the right place, and that he has not actually brought on these hardships for her and their young-uns overwhelms her to the point that she does something about it. Knowing (surely she knows) that she may be riding into a firefight, she nonetheless hitches up the wagon and rides to Contention City to apologize for what she has said, and let her man know that she will continue to labor beside him to build a ranch, even if there is no rain. Having him there in the drought is better than telling a colorful story of how he died (that must be what she figures).

LIKE The dialogue leaves it up to Van Heflin to make this point with his facial expressions in the scene, but when Alice shows up at the hotel in Contention, and is in fact more aware of how ugly the scene has turned than her husband is at the moment, he is genuinely torn between two things that he holds dear. Respecting the sacrifice of others (Alex, in this case) and respecting the sanctity and wholeness of Family (his own family in this case). Suddenly, getting Wade on that train is not a matter of 200 needed bucks, but of A Principle. In a sense, Dan makes his choice in ignorance, because Alice has just walked in through what's going on in the streets and the hotel lobby. But he decides on the basis of what he knows, which is what we all do.
Image
LIKE The small amount of "action" in this Western. Even though certain types of films thrive on "action" (a Hollywood euphemism for blowing holes in people's body parts) and Westerns are one of those types, the visual language of cinema works against action sequences. If you stay in close where the booms of the discharging guns are bone-rattling in a way that makes perceptual sense, then the camera lens cannot show the lay of the land. If you back off to a sufficient wide shot so that viewers can tell where everyone is, then it lessens the tension. That's why action sequences ought to be kept to a bare minimum, or why they should not be relied upon to give a film its oomph. Most directors cannot resist the oomph of action sequences, so they substitute incomprehensible frantic sequences for storytelling in an attempt (usually in vain as far as I'm concerned) to keep the audience awake.

LIKE The rain at the end. Mainly because we all know that rain is not necessarily a thing that saves you. This might not be a two-day rain. It might merely be a passing thundershower. It could be the start of a flash flood event. Is this another set-up? Well, it isn't presented as anything but a cleansing, renewing rainfall, and I'll take it as that. Besides, the neighbor's part of the stream is still dammed-up, and that water isn't going to flow to Dan's land.
Image
LIKE The fact that the Evans boys have an unspoken problem with Dad just letting the horses be taken by the outlaws, as he does. And the fact that it is played by facial expression and the like, rather than being blatantly stated from lines of script. Boys don't understand pragmatism, and tend to go by some internalized sense of propriety. They know their father to be a sharpshooter. They wonder why he doesn't just shoot the dirty robbers. (It probably doesn't occur to the boys that he doesn't start banging away because of the risk to them, and because he doesn't want them to see him do something like that. Shooting a man is not like shooting a rabbit.) Or am I merely inferring this?

LIKE The photography. I have tried to include some of the excellent compositions among these graphics. Not only that, the camera is hardly ever totally frozen, instead moving fluidly with and beside characters as they traverse the environments of the movie. Charles Lawton Jr. is the man responsible for how the film looks on screen.
Image
LIKE The barmaid is treated as a person, even by Ben Wade who has the idea of drilling her before he goes south to Mexico to meet up with Charlie Prince and the rest of the gang. She also functions as a femme fatale in this case. And the film is shot with a bit of noir-ish flair, come to think of it. A Western Noir! What High Noon could have been. I wonder if Delmer Daves and Halsted Welles talked about that idea. Maybe it was Lawton's idea to make certain sequences into Western Noir.

LIKE The major beats from the short story are retained. Even where transformed.
Image
I DON'T LIKE That the specific plot devices used to motivate the characters are all old hat, if you've read or seen even two dozen Western stories. Drought, inconsiderate next-door rancher, somebody steals my herd, murder during a robbery, a woman of ill-repute leads to a man's downfall because he can't keep his fly buttoned on a post-murder psych-high, the town drunk comes along and is heroic. All things I've seen before, and so have you. Seems like the only cliché missing is the villain with a name that starts with a "K" sound. "It's Kincaid, again."
LIKE The way Welles weaves these clichés together, because his script does have a compelling narrative power. And Daves and the cast manage to provide the right acting touches and embellishments to make these things play with some degree of freshness. Now, it's not as fresh as High Noon was in its day. It doesn't have much that would have been controversial, but what's wrong with a good yarn well-told? I'll be brazen enough to assert that 3:10 to Yuma (1957) is the Unforgiven of its day, melding clichés together, subverting some, inverting others in order to freshen the story. (NOTE: the 2007 film is not the Unforgiven of its day!) I may not be the first to make this claim. I'll even speculate that the stark, dialogue-free scene of the funeral in this 1957 model film, might have inspired similar scenes in the Spaghetti Westerns that sprang up half a dozen years later.
Image
DON'T LIKE The inclusion of the motivation, "He killed my brother." It's in the short story, true. But it's an over-used sort of thing for Westerns. In fact, by 1957 it would come off as a parody of earlier Westerns, while still carrying its easily-readable motivational force. But I got tired of it when I was a mere strap of a lad, and it doesn't settle well on my viewership even now (when I no longer see Westerns every day of my life).

Please See This Film if You Get a Chance
Although I had no interest in this film beforehand, I'm glad I took MrCarmady up on his recommendation. And I can recommend it to anyone, even those who aren't fond of Westerns, although I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who vehemently hates the genre. It's not good enough to pull you into even a temporary love of Westerns. If you, like me, grew up on a daily diet of Westerns out of sheer glut on the supply side, and if you became one of those who don't ever want to see another Western, not even a good one, avoid this. But, in an idle moment, you mild-to-moderate Western-haters could give it a shot; remember, I had no desire to ever see the film.

Go back using these buttons.Image
ImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:33 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
The 2007 Remake

Image
IMDb link RT-link

Year: 2007 Director: James Mangold Cast: Russell Crowe, Christian Bale, Logan Lerman, Ben Foster, Peter Fonda, Alan Tudyk, Vinessa Shaw Length: 117 min. Color/Surround

The question on everyone's mind when they watch a movie remake would be, "Is this as good as--?" No, wait. They wouldn't ask the question I was thinking of unless they had already seen the original film. Still, no doubt they wonder which is a better film. But what if the films are so alike that comparisons are inevitable? What if they are in effect different genres?
Image
As I wrote in the 1957 3:10 to Yuma review, I read the short story, then watched the first film, then moved on to this one. So I saw them in the order in which they were created. That made it extremely easy to see the accessorization from story to story, as baubles were added to put the desired marks of the new creators on the latest version. Taking in these three items in the order of creation also made it very easy to notice stylistic differences. It made it easy to tell when entire scenes of dialogue were lifted from the 1957 script and used without significant changes in 2007.

There is More to the Remake Than I Thought at First!
The 2007 film affected me quite differently on the first viewing, when it was all new to me, and on the second viewing when I was watching very closely in order to get frame grabs for graphics. I saw it the first time, and noticed that the young character William is in the film, but I was still trying to reconcile it to my memories of Film One. So, I missed a lot. One thing I didn't comprehend until second viewing: the second film is about William. The 1957 film is about his father.

There is far too much gunplay in this movie. It just gets...well, silly. I think intentionally so, though. I think the producers intended for it to be silly in that regard, yet they keep it from becoming comic. That's pretty nifty, right there.
Image
I am about to type something I thought I never would about this film: it is the equal of or perhaps superior to its predecessor, which is in itself an outstanding motion picture. Keep in mind that I didn't realize that until I had seen each of them three times. This is not the impression I had on first viewing. But the Mangold 3:10 to Yuma is a very heavily-layered film, exactly like an onion, with more to see the more layers you peel back, revealing smaller and smaller things, all of which add to the overall size and shape of the whole.

With each viewing my regard for the points that I like have become stronger

LIKE Carlo Beltrami's music. Wow. It's just superb. It never intrudes. It is as natural a part of the story as the sound effects track with chuffing trains, lowing cattle, and clacking spurs. (Please note that you will actually hear all of these sounds in the film!)

LIKE The way the film becomes a modern Spaghetti Western without the marinara. It's a bit gratifying, to those of us for whom it isn't grating, that what was intended to be hyper-violent parodies of Hollywood Westerns became a sub-genre of their own over the years. I'm not too surprised, though, to see such a strong influence from that cinematic region, on this film. More kids have probably seen Sergio Leone Westerns than have seen John Wayne at this point.
Image
(wagon wheel during exchange)
LIKE The re-writers didn't bother to totally rewrite scenes that played quite well in the 1957 version. In fact, for those scenes, the only placement of a stamp by the 2007 cast and crew is in where and how these scenes are played. That shows intentional reserve, I think.
Image
LIKE The expanded role of William Evans in this film. He plays the archetype of "The Boy Who Has Seen Too Much." At first I didn't like it. I admired the cleverness in the written part of a foul-mouthed fourteen year old boy, but as a person, a character, I didn't think he needed to be there. He reminded me of Birn in the 2002 Planet of the Apes, generally useless, but an obvious hook for other boys of that age to get them into the film via identification (I fancy that the ego of most teenage boys would have them comparing themselves quite favorably with the handsome, charismatic young actor who plays William, by the way). This worried me because William lives in a different time, and does things that modern boys have no business doing. But after a second pass, I realize that this is William's film. He has become the main focus in the 2007 remake. Nothing actually revolves around him, but this incident changes him into a different kind of man than he would have been otherwise. He becomes a man, but not because he is like Ben Wade...he becomes a man because he is like his father. He attempts to act, and at least once has a profound effect by his actions. The things that happen swirl around him, and through him over two short days. And, by the end, these things teach him that many abstract ideas that he held to be "true" a couple days before, clearly were and are not true. Remember the match-lit Western dime novels he has on his nightstand in the beginning scene of the film? Well, by the end of the film the boy is no longer measuring his father against those trumped up fictions, but he is measuring himself against his father's character.

LIKE The film compares well to the 1957 movie, as long as you recognize that the audience for the Delmer Daves production was very different from the audience for the Mangold remake. As a "classic" Western film, the 2007 3:10 to Yuma doesn't run on time. But as an updated Spaghetti Western it manages to be admirable. What I don't know is whether films should be compared for what they are "expected" to have in common, rather than compared on their own, individual merits and flaws. Different ones of us probably have different opinions about that. My bold assertion above is based on using the second criterion.

LIKE The film is a repository of quotable lines. Of course, the best ones of them often are carried over from the 1957 script. But that's why they were re-used. They are clever. And the 2007 script adds a heap of its own. Expect a long Quotations post.
Image
With each viewing my objections to some of the points that I don't like have become weaker. Just thought I should point that out.

DON'T LIKE The ramping up of the "action" aspect in this version of the film, at least not to the beyond-Leone level that the remakers selected. It doesn't actually help any, story-wise or character-wise. They are telling the same story that Welles devised in 1957. But the writers add additional characters to be killed. That's about the only purpose they serve. And an extra day is added for the trip from Bisbee to Contention in order to allow all this killing off to take place. It doesn't keep the film from shining if you look past all that. But I really doubt the film would be harmed if 2/3 the gunfire and bloody-squibs were removed.

DON'T LIKE The general absence of women in the 2007 film. This changes its texture greatly from that of the 1957 film. Oh, yes, there is the barmaid, and there is Alice Evans. But they are props. The Alice in 1957 took some action to attempt to alter events that were unfolding. The 2007 Alice merely, well, does hardly anything besides stay home and tend to Mark. Shouldn't we expect the opposite based on what we're supposed to know about filmmaking and public attitudes in those two eras? Is this done because the film is more or less from William's perspective? I can't figure it out.
Image
DON'T LIKE The cynical attitude that prevails when Charlie Prince offers $200 to anyone who kills one of the posse party on the way to the train. Okay, that existential idea is all right, but it strays into unnecessary body-count territory, because when Evans and Wade are on the way to the train station a score of greedy goons from Contention are gunning for Evans, "necessitating" their wounding or killing by Dan. Charlie Prince shoots three citizens because he thinks they are shooting at Wade instead of Evans, who is right beside him. My fear is that a lot of kids in the audience laughed at this as if it were a joke. (Was it meant as a joke?) What would seem more realistic to me is that Charlie Prince, after shooting the first townsman, would be cut down in a barrage of gunfire from irate fellow citizens. Now, that I could have laughed at! What we forget is that in those days you couldn't be rushed to the emergency room and be pumped full of antibiotics and sutured back together. Calling for a doctor was probably a pointless ceremonial thing. If a bullet did the wrong kind of damage it was deadie bye-bye for you. And many bullets did just that kind of damage. Death by bullet in them thar days was not glamorous, nor is it today. In the West it was probably a lingering death in some cases from bacterial infections even after the bullet was removed. Maybe I'm just being crochety.

DON'T LIKE The additional needless conditions heaped upon poor Dan Evans in this remake. There are too many of them. Perhaps the writers take their cues from Greek tragedy. In the short story the only condition is that the deputy is doing his job. It is a dangerous job at the moment, but he is up to it. In 1957 the movie shows a Dan Evans besieged by draught, debt, and a neighbor who is selfish. By 2007 the writing team has hit him with 1) the loss of a foot in the Civil War, 2) a drought, 3) a mortgage held by a greedy man who could make more money if he sold the property to the railroad that wants to come through Bisbee, 4) the mortgage-holder's amoral choice to burn the Evans barn and threaten to burn their house in order to get Evans and family off the ranch. That's terribly unsubtle writing, if you ask me. Did I forget anything in my list? Shouldn't the scriptwriters at least have changed his name to Job Evans?
Image
DON'T LIKE The line, "Ben Wade gunned down my kid brother. In front of me. Six years ago in Abilene." Come on. Gah.The moment when this is said seems like an inappropriate time to try interjecting humor by lampshading a cliché. Of all the things that were imported well from the 1957 film, this one...wasn't. Could be your favorite line, though.

DIDN'T LIKE but NOW FEEL OKAY WITH The reduction of the film to mere myth, forcing stereotypical archetypes to exist within its framework, rather than real characters. But having said that, the writers do a good job of maintaining tension and emotional connection even with these flat characters. And that emotional connection grows from viewing to viewing.

In this film, some aspects of the movie leave me ambivalent:

DON'T LIKE The film is too complicated, too full of action and people to be easily understood.
LIKE The film reveals itself to be better-made than you think at first, if you get a chance to see it a second or third time.
Image
LIKE The film, in the end, as with all Spaghetti Westerns of note, becomes a deconstruction of the Western genre. It is an attempt to demonstrate the fallacies of that imagined time in American History as promulgated by Hollywood. William's Western novel collection kept bedside at the very start of the film is the bigest clue. While living in the West the boy is sucked into the romantic claptrap about the place where he lives, and "The Code of the West." Is that a parallel to urban youngsters today?
DON'T LIKE The attempt to make an anti-violence film by depicting violence, because it doesn't really work. Not in anti-war movies. Not here. Those who are opposed to violence are still prone to say, "Violence is sucky," while those who like ultra-violence (at least on screen) will still rise to their feet, hooting and shouting, "F*ck yeah!" No one's attitude is changed by such artistic tactics...merely intensified. But those who sell squibs and blanks are probably very happy.
Image
DON'T LIKE The blatant nature of the badness of certain characters. Charlie Prince and Ben Wade are the most prominent members of the gang, and they are given lines and business to make it clear that they are creeps. The general actions taken by Prince and Wade in '57 are enough to signal their untrustworthy nature and mean-spiritedness. But in this 21st century era, when even "good-guys" are written as Dirty-Harry bad-asses, something else has to be added. The trouble is, once you go into badassness in a dramatic sense, you've got the character summed up. Even if he's Dan Evans, rancher-cum-deputy. I guess the only way to show that the robbers are "worse people" is to have them say and do things that are meant to be shocking. Prince is not allowed to be anything but a pathological-bad-badass, but Wade can sometimes act in ways that require him to say something mean-spirited in order to remind viewers that his seeming level-headedness and artistic bent only obscure that he is a piece of shit with legs. Why go to the trouble?
LIKE The almost literary way in which character traits are mixed up between the protagonists and antagonists in this script. Yet that creates a problem with clarity that the predecessor film doesn't suffer from. Thus, the Don't Like entry just above. Still, the exaggerated characters remind me of Trinity is my Name and the parasol. The incongruities create interest, but incongruities also make parsing the story a bit more difficult. I don't mind the difficulty, but kids might have a struggle figuring out who's good and who's not good. Great for most High School literature class students, maybe not so great for some seventh graders. Well, the writers possibly didn't care about those distinctions.
Image
DON'T LIKE That the revised ending doesn't wash. It's a great literary come-about, a marvelous deconstruction of the genre; but this is not presented as a thinking person's film. It is not structured on the surface as a thinking person's film. So to many viewers I'll bet this simply doesn't come off as plausible at all.
LIKE The ill-fitting semi-reformation of Ben Wade, who, on his own, climbs aboard the prison train. Twice. Wow, what a reversal of expectations. Not entirely successful, as I pointed out above. But it's so ballsy of the writers. But there are clues dropped throughout the film, not always with dialogue from Wade. And after the third trip through it, I think I've found all the clues:
The screenwriter for the 1957 version started this, by making the decency of Dan Evans have a positive effect on Ben Wade. So, for the 2007 remake the writers amplified each aspect of it. Some of this applies to both films. Some only to the '07 one.

1) Ben Wade sees the Evans family up close, and as a unit. In other words, he gets to see them as people because he has dinner with them. ('57 & '07)

2) On the journey he sees Evans being consistent to his values of decency and fairness. He sees that William has not been deprived of time to develop useless skills, such as handling a deck of cards impressively. He also sees that a man who seems spineless, like Dan Evans, has raised a kid who seems pretty much like the kind of kid who could shoot a man he admires in the back of the head in order to save his father and the Doc. ('07)

3) Wade sees that Evans cannot be bribed. In fact, when Evans asks how he would explain suddenly having $1000 as he spent the money, Wade loses the argument with his lame comeback, "No one needs to know." He struggles to understand things in the "normal" way. ('57 & '07)

4) He hears Dan bargain with Butterfield, the Southern Railroad exec, and he gets the $1000 that Wade has offered as a bribe, as a legitimate payment for what he plans to do. ('07)

5) Thus, believing that Yuma Prison cannot hold him, he decides to let Dan put him on the train so that Butterfield has to legitimately pay the $1000 cash, pay off the ranch, stop Hollander blocking water from Dan's ranch, and so forth. It is an "easy" way to get back at the railroad, and Grayson Butterfield. Remember that when Wade is taking a piss he says something about how doing one decent thing could become a habit. Then he saves the posse from the Indian attackers. (He could have killed them all right then, but he doesn't). Then they help each other escape from the railroad workers. These are the things that William "accuses" him of when the boy says that Wade isn't all bad. Wade denies it, of course, but the boy's confidence in him seems unbendable. In other words, the man Evans, has taught his son to think of people in this way, rather than to think of them as means to an end, or mere living barriers that should be killed and gotten rid of. In spite of what the boy has seen Wade do that is not good, he sees something good in him. But the route to the train gets a little bullet-infested, so Wade tries to change his mind again. "I ain't doin' this no more, Dan." And he backs out of the deal that only he knows about, even going so far as to try strangling Dan with the chain of the handcuffs.

6) In the '57 version all these things are telescoped into Alice's visit, which seems to have no effect on Dan, but I think it moves the inwardly reasonable outlaw to decide that he's escaped from Yuma Prison before, and he could do this for Dan and Alice and the boys. At least he comes to believe that it's worth the risk. Also, Charlie Prince's exhortation for Ben to get down so that he can kill Evans, doesn't square in Wade's heart with the fact that Evans is not trying to kill Wade personally, and has in fact saved his life from the Moons brother. He boasts about having escaped from the prison before, which is our only solid clue about why he jumped onto the train instead of letting Prince kill Evans.

6) Perhaps the final blow ('07) is when Evans confesses to Wade that he has never been a hero. He was injured by friendly fire. But how could he tell his sons that? Perhaps he actually did tell them that, which is why he says, "You try tellin' that story to your boy. See how he looks at you then." Wade breaks, at that moment. Thinking of how he has escaped the prison twice before, he decides to go along with this to the end. It is in that moment that he realizes that Butterfield can be forced to keep his end of the bargain with Evans. So, when Ben is on the train he turns around and says to Evans, "Well, you did it, Dan." He seems ready to say, "You got me on the train," but he sees crazy Charlie Prince coming toward Evans with his gun drawn. Charlie is not in on "the deal." He is still gonna bust Wade out if he can. As a first step he kills Dan Evans. Wade sees just how corrupt his followers are, and wipes them out. After that, he is momentarily put on trial by William, who cannot keep from seeing Wade as a human being. He aims his gun surely, but he cannot squeeze the trigger, although he wants to. He tries very hard to do so, but he is not like Wade. He is like his father. A person who loves people. Who desires to help them out; not to help himself to whatever they have that he wants. Even revenge would not be sweet to William if he has to kill someone to get it.

Do you think I got any of this right?
Image
LIKE The attempt to interject social commentary into the film is mostly subtle. It is almost all visual. There is one nice trio of shots that shows William's silent identification with a nameless young Chinese boy who is pushing a wheelbarrow at a train tunnel construction site.
DON'T LIKE The attempt to interject social commentary into the film, overall. When it fails to be subtle it is way too obvious. For example, all the verbal interjection of this commentary is way over the top, lest you should miss it. Although, one comment made to denigrate the "laziness" of the Chinese immigrant workers at the same time compliments the ability of African people to work. Wut? And, non-verbally, in a totally stupid disregard for the humanity of the Chinese workers inside, people fire bullets into a tent where Ben Wade is attempting to get a Chinese woman to help him remove his handcuffs, as they attempt to injure or kill Ben Wade. Did people really think like that in those days, or do we simply hold ourselves in delusional higher esteem than we hold them?
Image
On balance I think this film is very recommendable, and makes a dandy double feature with the original film. The script gives a viewer who likes to ponder construction and stagecraft plenty of fodder for that kind of contemplation. Plus, it has those literary layers that I talked about, that at least this viewer didn't notice until multiple viewings. But it can probably also function as a pure blood-and guns-fest for those who simply like to watch things and human beings blow up. Except for the ending, which would betray my second artificially-created group of viewers.

Go back using these buttons.Image
ImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:41 pm

DELICIOUS SPOILERS, OF COURSE!
A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Encrusted Like an Old Door
Image

The 1953 Short Story
In the paperback book that I borrowed from the library, the short story "Three-ten to Yuma" occupies only 24 pages. It begins with Paul Scallen, a deputy from Bisbee, Arizona, arriving in a town called Contention with his prisoner, Jim Kidd. The story is linear, all in the present. The reader creates his own flashbacks to the crime, Kidd's trial, and the overnight ride in the darkness to Contention from Fort Huachuca.
Image
Kidd is in his early twenties. We don't know how old Scallen is, but Kidd is also described as "a few years younger than Scallen." We learn that the deputy is married and has three children. Having been convicted on several counts, but found not guilty of murder, Kidd is now being transferred from Fort Huachuca to the Federal Prison at Yuma. A decoy was sent on a train the day before to throw off Kidd's gang. Kidd was the only one taken alive. It is Scallen's job to get the prisoner aboard the 3:10 pm train to Yuma without Kidd's gang managing to free him. No one is supposed to know that Kidd is in Contention, and a hotel room has been arranged by Mr. Timpey of Wells Fargo (the line that Kidd robbed) for the deputy and the prisoner to stay in during the day...until the train arrives at the station.

But some of Kidd's gang show up, of course, and complicate matters. This is not unexpected. Scallen is a deadeye sharpshooter, and that's why he was sent with Kidd in the first place.

The entire short story takes place at the hotel, and on the walk to the train station, where Scallen must evade Charlie Prince and a few members of Kidd's gang, who have arrived in town. It is not difficult to imagine that Prince and probably most of the gang are teenagers, following this 20-something outlaw with the bravado and chronic perception of invulnerability that men of that age often possess.

The tension of the story includes this cat-and-mouse episode, but also revolves around Scallen's $150.00 a month salary, and what he has to do in order to earn it; Kidd points out that he just takes what he wants and has a lot of money. But Scallen has freedom, and Kidd is bound for prison if Scallen can do his job. He does. In the process he lets Charlie Prince have what's in both barrels of his snub-nosed shotgun, killing him. He takes out a few other gang members, and gets Kidd on board the train.
Image
The 1957 Movie Adds Layers
The 1957 screenplay has to add a bit to the story, which is adequate for, say, a Twilight Zone episode, but would be a very slow-paced feature film. The choice of writer Halsted Welles is to back the story up to a robbery crime in progress, and to move forward from there, while retaining linear storytelling. Glenn Ford plays Ben Wade (not Jim Kidd), who has a long history. He is certainly not a young 20-something outlaw with a flock of likely teenagers as his gang. Paul Scallen becomes Dan Evans, and Dan Evans is a rancher, not a full-time deputy marshall. Welles dispenses with the trial altogether, by saying that Evans, who needs money to keep his family and cattle alive during a drought, has to get Ben Wade to Contention overnight in order to put him on a train to Yuma, where he will stand trial for murder. In the process Evans can earn a couple hundred bucks. To establish Evans, Welles creates a scenario where the rancher's cattle have been let loose, and he takes his two young sons, Matthew and Mark, along to provide help. While the three are searching for their herd, in fact as they find the cattle being used as a roadblock for the oncoming stagecoach, the robbery is already in progress. This makes them witnesses, which automatically puts them in danger.
Image
The screenplay adds several layers of action, a few additional characters, and changes the ending of the story. The redesigned plot involves money paid by the owner of Butterfield Stagecoach to anyone who will ensure that Wade makes it to Yuma for trial. Two men accept, rather than one, and they set out overnight for Contention from Bisbee. Evans's ranch is used as a spot for a secret swap of Wade for a lawman, because Charlie Prince is following. The stagecoach carrying Wade derails on a wooden bridge, and during the crowded attempt to get the right rear wagon wheel back onto the board bridge, Wade is hustled out, his hat and coat are put on another man, and when the coach leaves, Prince follows it away. A romantic streak is added to Wade for the film. He woos and beds a saloon girl in Bisbee, then chats up Evans's wife during supper at the ranch while the posse allows time for Prince and the decoy coach to get down the road a good ways, going in the wrong direction. The additions and changes are well thought out and embellish Leonard's original story nicely.
Image
Later, Mrs. Evans rides to Contention to beg Dan to just let Wade go. To not risk his life for $200. Evans refuses, of course, having taken the job, and wanting to pull himself up in the estimation of 14-year old son Matthew, who doesn't consider his father to be courageous after the encounter with Ben Wade and his gang on the road (during which the family's horses are taken to keep them from going to the Sherrif). This is a clever addition, an intervention to try to ward off certain death. But Mrs. Evans is sent away with Butterfield, and the rancher presses forward, taking Wade to the train successfully.
Image
At the last moment, Wade even assists with his own deposition onto the train, perhaps realizing that Charlie Prince is a psychopath, even before that word existed in English. And the men ride off down the rails together. It begins to rain. Evans's ranch is saved, and he will have $200.00 for the benefit of his wife and sons.

The 2007 Movie Adds More Layers
During the 50 years when the Delmer Daves version of the story was the only extant filmic version, a lot changed in the movin' pitcher bidniss.

Consequently, just as Hallsted Welles had added to Leonard's original short story, the writers of the 2007 remake, Michael Brandt and Derek Haas, added layers to Halsted Welles's original screenplay. In fact, Welles gets credit as a writer on this version, although he died in 1990, because many scenes are lifted from the 1957 film with dialogue intact. Many scenes are remarkably close. For example, the right rear wheel runs off the bridge in 1957, while the left rear wheel leaves the planking in 2007.
Image
Brandt and Haas abandon the "realistic" style of the 1957 screenplay (and of the original short story) for a mythical scope and social commentary. The men in Delmer Daves's movie are not symbols, except in a rather literal sense: Wade symbolizes those who would rather not recognize any ownership beyond their own; Evans symbolizes those who recognize ownership, and having recognized it realize that there are rules they should follow so that others can live their lives, also; the boys and their mother and the ranch symbolize the extraverted nature of being a husband and father, even if you're an introvert; the owner of the stagecoach line becomes a symbol of those who honestly earn a buck and who offer 'fair' pay for work done; Charlie Prince symbolizes those who mindlessly follow the whims of others, even when they misinterpret those whims and take things too far. All this is direct symbolism by traditional literary extension, not by design of the writer, I think.
Image
The characters in 2007 are offered with a broader, more archetypical kind of symbolism. Of course, the symbols that we can impose from the outside are there, and remain significantly similar to those of the 1957 film. But Brandt and Haas add other, sometimes obvious symbols. And they follow modern preconceptions as well: so, for example, the Southern Railroad executive who is awaiting the arrival of what is now a mythic steel-armored stagecoach with armed guards inside, and a gatling gun on the outside, becomes a heartless symbol of corporate greed. It is not me who sees that, it is explicitly stated in the movie. But with intentional irony, it is Ben Wade the murderous robber who makes the observation that Grayson Butterfield is poignantly concerned about the money stolen from his bosses, but is not upset at all about the people that Ben Wade has killed in the process of seizing the cash. Ben Wade can see these ironies because he is an artist, who sketches to calm his nerves and to fill time, in between shooting people through the heart.
Image
The largely realistic 1957 Dan Evans has no afflictions other than financial. His mythical 2007 successor has lost a foot and lower leg in the Civil War. Both are sharpshooters, as is Scallen in the story. Mrs. Evans remains at home in the 2007 picture, but the 14-year old son, renamed William (instead of Matthew) not only has a potty mouth, and like his predecessor disses his old man, but he also disobeys the man and comes after him when a much larger posse leaves to take Wade on a two-night trip to Contention. And, because he has to leave his brother and mother in order to show that he is a smooth-faced badass, he saves the lives of his father and the few remaining lawmen and volunteers who haven't already been killed. Then the kid sticks with the party and is present in Contention, to take the role that his mother had in 1957: to briefly suggest to his dad that he could back off and just let Wade go. Oh, the boy also becomes a figure that I call "The Rock Innocent" (named after that Nic Cage flick) who learns that in real life you have to take up guns in order to be a man. Especially if you start out in the story as a pacifist, which William doesn't.

Changes of Style, Changes of Scope
Everything in the 2007 film is ramped up in size. The human scale of the short story and 1957 film are left behind, and the movie becomes...well, a movie. Not a story told in cinematic form, but a gladiatorial entertainment, couched in a modern version of the satirical framework of the Spaghetti Western. The characters are no longer men, boys and women, but they are mythical Archetypes. Their behavior is constrained by being archetypes, with their actions being those of mythical figures, and the only unexpected actions taken by anyone are given to the robber/murderer for the sake of Irony. Perhaps Hipster Irony. I don't know enough about hipsters to say. But the 2007 version of Ben Wade climbs aboard the train himself after William tries in vain to blow his ass away. The boy learns the truth of what his father said at dinner two nights before, "It's a lot harder to kill a man than it is to kill a rabbit." Because this is true, we are not surprised when the 14-year old cannot squeeze the trigger with an unarmed Wade in his sights, even though the outlaw is just standing still and waiting to see what will happen. The boy feels like a failure. But he remains alive, and able to learn; unlike his father who is dead at his feet.
Image
One interesting change, again focused on one of the two characters who are allowed to change significantly during the run of the play, is that Wade himself kills Charlie Prince and all his gang members. Is this him rejecting his past? Maybe because he's seen what a good man truly is? Perhaps. But it is not necessarily permanent; as the train pulls away, Ben Wade whistles for his horse. Mythic.
Go back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
pwiedenheft
Posts: 1419
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2011 11:43 pm

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by pwiedenheft » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:07 pm

Is there anyone that has the Beltrami score for The Three Burials of Melquiadas Estrda? I've been looking for it online forever and can never find it. I love the score and that film deeply.

Also, I've always struggled with 3:10 To Yuma. I just find the ending to always be a stretch. I just don't buy it. I love a lot of the movie up till that point but I can never get behind the ending. I've watching it several times, maybe I'll give it another try in a few years and see if it's changed for me.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:16 pm

pwiedenheft wrote:Is there anyone that has the Beltrami score for The Three Burials of Melquiadas Estrda? I've been looking for it online forever and can never find it. I love the score and that film deeply.

Also, I've always struggled with 3:10 To Yuma. I just find the ending to always be a stretch. I just don't buy it. I love a lot of the movie up till that point but I can never get behind the ending. I've watching it several times, maybe I'll give it another try in a few years and see if it's changed for me.
Indeed. They changed it from the short story, where the deputy shoves the convict into the train at gunpoint.

The ending of both films requires massive willing suspension of disbelief. The remake, especially so. :)

As for the Beltrami scores, nice as his music is, it seems to go out of print quickly.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:35 pm

The 1957 3:10 to Yuma review has been posted. Without this post no one would know, because it's an edit of a post from three days ago!

I hope you enjoy it, Carmady! And I hope you have some comments, positive or negative, after you read it.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 9068
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Location: Reducing some planet to a burned out cinder.

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Gort » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:45 pm

Well, now that you have that done, YTMN, I'm shutting down the computer so I can install the new cooling fans front and back. Maybe there will be boodles of comments when I return.

(Yeah, right!) :D
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4749
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by MrCarmady » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:46 pm

I did enjoy your review, glad my recommendation came across that well.
The 'killed my brother' thing is necessary for the ending to work, no? Also, revenge as a theme can hardly be described as old-hat, it simply is the cornerstone of the genre, for better or worse.
Agreed with pretty much all your positives, though. I assume you've omitted the praise of Glenn Ford's cunning performance because you will return to it later?
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:47 pm

MrCarmady wrote:I did enjoy your review, glad my recommendation came across that well.
I'm glad it did, too. Otherwise I'd have never moved on to a Rematch. :D
MrCarmady wrote:The 'killed my brother' thing is necessary for the ending to work, no? Also, revenge as a theme can hardly be described as old-hat, it simply is the cornerstone of the genre, for better or worse.
I don't see how "you killed my brother" is necessary for the ending to work. But before I write anything else about that, I'd like to read more of your thoughts on that idea.

"Old hat" in American lexicon means it's been used and used, is all. Not today's new thang. I learned in my classic literature classes that the classic themes have been repeated since time immemorial. Certainly since writing of stories, for permanence, began. It doesn't keep themes from being tiresome, does it? Do you find yourself relishing the idea of a new film that shows a boy and girl falling in love? I don't. The film has to have something else.

Revenge is indeed an old, classic motive for drama. That's so true. I find it boring. What do you think about it as a theme?
MrCarmady wrote:Agreed with pretty much all your positives, though. I assume you've omitted the praise of Glenn Ford's cunning performance because you will return to it later?
An essay, my man. An essay contains an analysis and contrast of Ford and Crowe as Ben Wade.

But what's to keep you from writing something about your impressions of Ford's performance? Or Crowe's performance? This Weematch, indeed this thread isn't meant to be monolithically a YTMN thing.

And thanks for responding. That was cool.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:47 pm

MrCarmady wrote:I did enjoy your review, glad my recommendation came across that well.
I'm glad it did, too. Otherwise I'd have never moved on to a Rematch. :D
MrCarmady wrote:The 'killed my brother' thing is necessary for the ending to work, no? Also, revenge as a theme can hardly be described as old-hat, it simply is the cornerstone of the genre, for better or worse.
I don't see how "you killed my brother" is necessary for the ending to work. But before I write anything else about that, I'd like to read more of your thoughts on that idea.

"Old hat" in American lexicon means it's been used and used, is all. Not today's new thang. I learned in my classic literature classes that the classic themes have been repeated since time immemorial. Certainly since writing of stories, for permanence, began. It doesn't keep themes from being tiresome, does it? Do you find yourself relishing the idea of a new film that shows a boy and girl falling in love? I don't. The film has to have something else.

Revenge is indeed an old, classic motive for drama. That's so true. I find it boring. What do you think about it as a theme?
MrCarmady wrote:Agreed with pretty much all your positives, though. I assume you've omitted the praise of Glenn Ford's cunning performance because you will return to it later?
An essay, my man. An essay contains an analysis and contrast of Ford and Crowe as Ben Wade.

But what's to keep you from writing something about your impressions of Ford's performance? Or Crowe's performance? This Weematch, indeed this thread isn't meant to be monolithically a YTMN thing.

And thanks for responding. That was cool.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:28 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Image The Players

Here's who played the major/memorable roles in both films; you've seen their faces many places, although most of the names wouldn't trip to your tongue.


Image
Dan Evans In 1957 the rancher is besieged. Frustrated. Humbled. Desperate. Van Heflin plays him that way. Sometimes you can see the desperation in his eyes. By the time they are in the hotel room and it's close to 3pm, he's at the edge of his capability to handle everything that's going on. He draws on his last reserves during the walk to the train. You can see this in Heflin's performance. But Christian Bale's role as The Decent Man Who Loves Justice and his Family, dooms him. He seems to be moving through jello the whole time. He is beaten down before all this begins and has no reserves. It is a different character to play, so I can't really compare the performances. I think both performances are on the money, but Heflin's Evans is more likeable.


Image
Ben Wade I would find it difficult to believe that Russell Crowe has never seen Glenn Ford's performance as Ben Wade. I assume that he has. Ford set the mark by playing the man as a polite, somewhat considerate, but nonetheless antisocial type. His facial expressions make great use of his long upper lip and wide mouth. He is by turns cautious, devious, sensual, enthralled. And Ford does all this with a change in mouth expression more than anything else, it seems to me. His voice also comes into play. Sometimes he speaks in a soft near-hiss which comes across as threatening no matter its volume. If a loud voice is necessary he usually enlists Charlie Prince to do the yelling. I don't recall Ford's Wade hollering except at the end when his life is on the line and he must tell Charlie Prince to back off. I find the performance to be quite nuanced and impressive. Russell Crowe is given some lines to say that must have colored his take on the performance he turns in for the 2007 film. Whereas there were few lines or stage directions that would have constrained Ford's performance, when you have to deliver the line, "No it isn't, not in my opinion," in regards to a statement that there is a difference between killing an animal for food and shooting a man to death, that keeps you from coming across in the same way. I like both performances, but I'd rather have a whiskey with Ford's Ben Wade, I guess.


Image
Charlie Prince Although The '07 version of Charlie Prince moves from wily and untrustworthy to psychotically violent, I still prefer Ben Foster's Psychopathic Inhumanoid to Richard Jaeckel's loyal gangster. Perhaps this isn't fair. Foster's guy has a bigger role.


Image
Alice Evans Leora Dana's Alice gets a chance to try something. She rides into fire, and Dana plays her as someone determined, and not afraid to take last-ditch chances. Gretchen Moll is merely there because Dan Evans is supposed to be married. The script gives her virtually nothing to do.


Image
Emma: the Girl in the Saloon In both cases this is the temptation that leads to Ben Wade's capture. So, without Emmy there would be no movie. I prefer Felicia Farr's 1957 performance. She seems more alive than Vinessa Shaw's take on the character. Of course, Emmy is a woman who works in a saloon in Contention City. Emma Nelson is The Woman who Has Fallen and No Longer Dreams, which is largely the fault of the script.


Image
Matthew/William Evans Matthew in the 1957 film has few lines. You know that he is disappointed in Dad because he weeps when the horses are taken by the Ben Wade gang. And he frets that his father won't return from Yuma. Barry Curtis is sympathtic in the role, though he hardly gets to speak. The same son, transformed into 2007's William Evans becomes a pivotal role, and I think Logan Lerman is pretty much up to carrying it. Sometimes he resorts to open-mouthed stunned looks when something else would have worked as well...but that could be Mangold's direction. He doesn't play the part with all the insight of someone twice his age, but William is mostly a boy whose world is being remade all around him in the space of two days. This is a moral crisis for The Boy Who Has Seen Too Much, and it will mould him into a different man than he would have been. The question is, what kind of man will these events create? The boy changes just as much as the outlaw does, but all his changes are internal. At the end of the film he doesn't act all that differently, but you can tell that he now thinks in a vastly different way about the West in which he lives, and The Code that his dime novels have painted into the recesses of his brain. I think it's to Lerman's credit that he manages to get that across, or at least to not stand in the way of the viewer realizing that it is happening. See, knowing what not to do is just as much a part of good acting as knowing what to do.


Image
Mark Evans The boys who play this part are given different roles, just as the men who play their father are. The 1957 Mark is the vocal one who moves things forward, always egging his father on. Boasting about his father's and grandfather's capability to kill Ben Wade. Jerry Hartleben is charmingly bratty as this loudmouthed little guy. Benjamin Petry takes over the role in 2007. Besides being cute as a bug, this Mark has been demoted to The Little Brother. William is now the loudmouth. But Petry makes you want to pat his head and smile at him in a nurturing way. He strikes me as the kind of boy who would brag about things when I was a Cub Scout dad, but at the same time the bragging kid was never really any trouble. Petry plays him as a boy who is there to help when he can.


Image
Alex Potter/Byron McElroy Once again, the remakers have altered a role, placing a different character into a function in the plot. In 1957 the town drunk, Alex Potter volunteers to go to Contention with Dan and Ben Wade. Henry Jones plays the character with just the right amount of self-directed awe. He wants to rise above his role as Town Drunk, and he does, but he can hardly believe what he is doing. "For the first time in as long as I can remember, I don't want a drink." In 2007 this function is given to The Self-Aggrandizing Veteran, played by Peter Fonda with just the right amount of arrogance. "I've been shot before." He is the man who might put a bit too much stock in his bible verses when he's riding beside the Devil. Byron is fated, as are a lot of figures in Spaghetti Westerns. And Fonda's version of him just walks right into it blinded by his own overblown sense of his importance. But he isn't a person. He's a function in the story.


Image
Butterfield Plump, affable Mr. Butterfield owns the stagecoach line that Ben Wade's gang robs. Robert Emhardt plays him as by turns confident, and cautious, and you can believe that he wants revenge through the courts at first, then decides "it's only money, after all," as things look more and more impossible in the hotel at Contention. But in 2007 the name shifts to The Money-grubbing Capitalist Mook, played by Dallas Roberts as Grayson Butterfield, a Southern Railroad executive. Since his part is a Johnny One Note he plays it well enough.


Image
Doc Potter There is no counterpart to this role in the 1957 film, although he has the same last name as Alex from that film. And he does ride on the trip to Contention. And he does...well, he is still a new character, and I've never seen Alan Tudyk play any part that I didn't enjoy.


Go back using these buttons.Image
ImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:31 pm

That was neat.
User avatar
JediMoonShyne
Posts: 22425
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:26 am
Location: Cittàgazze
Contact:

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by JediMoonShyne » Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:53 am

Excellent. Odd that there's no Doc Potter in the original, though.
“Bisogna essere molto forti per amare la solitudine.” - P.P. Pasolini

WCoF I II IIIL'EtàL'Eau한국88ShadowsBerlin thırd ISOLATIONVistaVision
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:48 pm

Colonel Kurz wrote:That was neat.
Jedi wrote:Excellent. Odd that there's no Doc Potter in the original, though.
Thank you, gents. I did a similar comparison for Lord of the Flies, but haven't for any of the others. So far. Unless I just forgot. Something similar is coming up for The Maltese Falcon, but who knows when I'll get it finished and posted. At least the graphics are all created.

I could go back and make comparisons like that for each of the movies in the Rematches. If I wanted to.

As for Doc Potter: based on the name, I'm assuming that the re-writers consider him to be a bit buffoonish, like Alex Potter, and probably made him a veterinarian working on a human (Byron) for comic effect. Alex is comic relief in the '57 film. But the functions that Alex Potter has in the 1957 version of the story get divided between Doc Potter and Byron McElroy in this film, which necessitates giving each of the parts some new characteristics. So Fonda gets to be an SOB. The comic relief gets to be a doctor.
They both get to be murdered. More time to Contention City, more opportunities for death.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:01 pm

The 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma is ridiculously quotable. Although a lot of its good quotes are lifted from the '57. I expected to make my last note-taking run this morning with the subtitles on, and I've run out of time. So I'll have to take it up later and get through it! But I want to get all teh good quotable lines, so I can select what to use in the Weematch.

I'd have done the whole thing last night, except I had the Flix DVD of Chungking Express to watch, and didn't get home until 9:00 pm after work.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Derninan
Posts: 7547
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 9:24 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Derninan » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:59 pm

Everyone prefers Ben Foster, because he's Ben Foster. What a great young actor.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:09 am

Derninan wrote:Everyone prefers Ben Foster, because he's Ben Foster. What a great young actor.
The only other thing I've seen him perform in is Pandorum.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:11 am

I wish someone had pointed out to me that the 1957 film was directed by Delmer Daves instead of what I had misread as Delmer Davies. Sheesh, now I have to change a graphic. The text errors are easy to fix. But a graphic! :(
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:41 am

YouTookMyName wrote:I wish someone had pointed out to me that the 1957 film was directed by Delmer Daves instead of what I had misread as Delmer Davies. Sheesh, now I have to change a graphic. The text errors are easy to fix. But a graphic! :(
I guess it wasn't really all that hard. :)
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Trip
Posts: 70527
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:47 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Trip » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:43 am

This here's some extensive shit.
Please TRIP and Die
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Fri Apr 27, 2012 5:45 am

Trip wrote:This here's some extensive shit.
Yeah. "Weematch." Haha.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 28, 2012 2:49 pm

The 2007 review for 3:10 to Yuma is now posted.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 28, 2012 5:13 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Image Web Links

The last thing I do for rematch, usually, is go hunting for interesting links on the 'net. I don't read all these exhaustively. Some of them I simply post in case someone else might be interested. I figure hardly anyone ever clicks through to these sites. But each time, I notice that my ideas about many aspects of any of these films are shared by others. I suppose if I read these first I'd never bother with a Rematch at all!

Lest you should fear its absence, rest assured that Wikipedia has an article about the 1957 film, as well as the 2007 remake. There is a Wikipedia article about the author of the short story, Elmore Leonard, who wrote crime tales much of his career. You've probably seen other films made from his ideas.

A website called big think has a transcript of an interview with writer Derek Haas. At the beginning he talks a bit about scripting the 2007 film.

Metacritic is a review aggregator, sort of like RottenTomatoes.

It's no surprise that not everyone likes the 2007 film, and the dislike seems to focus on things that I didn't like on first viewing.

Sid Is Alive has a post in his blog about the ending.

Gary North's review pans it hard. He calls it "The Most Spectacular Clunker in the History of the Western." In this review he writes: "I am now going to review the entire plot and highlight the memorable scenes in this incomparable monstrosity. My review will not ruin the movie for you. The movie will do that on its own, with no help from me." He notices things that sort of put me off the film on the first viewing. But the film grew on me as I watched a second and third time. I wonder if North bothered to give it a second chance.

Roger Ebert seems to see a lot more in this movie than Mr. North does. He gets one fact wrong, though. Elmore Leonard didn't write the story as seen in the 2007 film.

The New York Times has a review of the 2007 movie, of course. It's by Terrence Rafferty, Published: September 2, 2007. This article provides a bit of background about Elmore Leonard. It includes this passage: "Fifty years after his swift, terse yarn appeared in print, Mr. Leonard, who is now 82, told the book’s editor that when he saw the first two movies based on his western stories, Delmer Daves’s 3:10 to Yuma and Budd Boetticher’s Tall T (both 1957), he was dismayed to realize how easily Hollywood could foul up “a simple story”: a puzzling judgment because those pictures are among the best westerns of their time, and they’re both pretty faithful to his stories."

There is a link in the 2007 NYT review that takes you to a 1957 review of the Delmer Daves film By Bosley Crowther, Published: August 29, 1957! The reviewer concludes, "Except that the ending is romantic and incongruous, in the face of what goes on, this is a first-rate action picture—a respectable second section to High Noon."

Goodreads.com has an unflattering comment by Heather about the short story, on its page about the book I checked out of the library: Three-Ten to Yuma and Other Stories. Be sure to read the other comments.

Normally I can link to some free source for the original print versions of the tales behind the flicks. Not in this case. But you can check out the book from your library, or if you would like to own it for some reason, it's at Amazon.

That seems like enough weblinks for a Weematch!

Go back using these buttons.Image
ImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:43 pm

As usual, no responses! I'm forging ahead. Apparently people are looking in here, based on "views" numbers.

*waves to people peeking in*
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sat Apr 28, 2012 7:43 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Image The Crews
Directors, Writers, Producers, Designers, SFX Creators. Who is in the crew? Everyone is in the crew unless they are in the cast, right? So when we compare crews of two films, what should be our criterion? In this case my criterion is that I don't want writing this Weematch to take months! I will compare Directors and Writers. I will mention Directors of Photography, because their work is discussed at length in one of the essays. The set design and decoration will be noted in this post. I will provide links to the Full Cast and Crew pages on IMDb so that you can do searches if you're so inclined. These matchups are kind of remiss to not include Film Editor and Sound Design discussions. But I didn't make buttons for them! Perhaps it's because the most tedious part of my production career was the editing phase where I selected shots, their duration, graphics, transitions, special effects, and how the various sounds and music were mixed. I enjoyed that the least of all the phases of video production. Possibly because it generated the greatest number of all-nighters. Sometimes for ten days back to back. So when I did the first Remake Rematches in 2008, it just slipped my mind to discuss these important folks. I should probably go back and add an essay about Editing and Sound to each of the Rematches. (Don't hold your breath, but it is an itchy idea).

Image

The Directors
Delmer Daves (whose name I assume is pronounced like Davis), is credited with 50 stints as writer of filmed entertainment. He directed 30 titles. If you scour his IMDb bio page you'll see that he worked in many departments of film production companies over his career. The 30 features he directed were released between 1943 and 1965. I remember studying some of his films in my History of Cinema class, that is, they were written about briefly in one of our textbooks. By the way, that picture of him with Glenn Ford came from a blog.

James Mangold had already directed films of some critical success between 1999 and 2005, before he tackled the 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma. He was the director of Girl, Interrupted, Kate & Leopold, Identity, and Walk the Line. I've heard of these, but have never watched any of them. In fact, 3:10 to Yuma is my first Mangold experience. According to IMDb Mangold is quoted with this statement: "We should be writing more great roles for women, period. Another problem is that movies are generally made for 14-year-old boys and 14-year-old boys want to watch 25-year-old action heroes." Well, there is certainly a lack of women in prominent roles in his Western! He didn't do much to remedy the problem. The image of him and his wife came from a website.

The Writing Teams
The 1953 short story was fleshed out to feature length by Halsted Welles. Of his 44 IMDb writing credits, two are for versions of 3:10 to Yuma, while a third is for The Hanging Tree, a 1959 Delmer Daves production which is characterized as another unconventional Western. The rest of his credits are for TV series, which kept him very busy. He wrote 6 teleplays for "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" (counts as one IMDb credit). He penned 6 episodes of "Rod Serling's Night Gallery." He wrote many episodes of dramatic anthology series. He has 27 credits for the 1948-1953 series "Suspense." But he was apparently unwilling or unable to break into Hollywood, per se. Jay Fernandez wrote about Welles in an article in the LA Times when the 2007 movie came out, because Welles gets top billing as the writer for that version, as well. Fernandez explains, "According to Writers Guild credit rules, when it comes to remakes, the original film's screenplay is not considered 'source material' like a play or a book; rather, the writer with screenplay credit on the original is automatically included as the first participating writer in the credit arbitration for the updated version, which is why Welles ended up in first position on the posters (and why his estate will reap residual benefits equal to those of the other credited writers)."

The additional writers are also written of in the same article. "In early 2003, Mangold and screenwriters Michael Brandt and Derek Haas (2 Fast 2 Furious, Catch That Kid) sold the remake pitch to Columbia Pictures."
Haas is also a novelist. Brandt and Haas have worked together on all their produced screenplays.

Who Created the Worlds on the Screen?
Delmer Daves worked with Charles Lawton Jr. in 1957, to get his imagery committed to film. Lawton had been a cinematographer for 20 years when he directed his first camera setup for Daves's movie. The DP for the 2007 remake was Phedon Papamichael, whose work you have no doubt seen, although you may not know his name (I didn't). But I have seen nine films for which he supervised photography (IMDb shows 50 credits). I've seen only four from the 113 photographed by Lawton.

DPs (and film editors) control how we see what we see. What we see is handled by the set designers and production designers, the costumers, and other people who don't get first billing on these artworks. In 1957 the work of Frank Hotaling (Art Director) along with William Kiernan and Robert Priestley (Set Decoration) were in evidence as audiences watched Delmer Daves's movie. The men involved with the 1957 film have a much greater number of credits, not only because they had careers longer than those associated with the 2007 film have had so far, but because they worked under the studio system. Priestly won two Oscars and was nominated for a third. I find some of my favorite films listed for Hotaling and Kiernan, also.

The set design for the 2007 film was overseen by Gregory A. Berry with Jay R. Hart as the Art Director. Andrew Menzies served as the Production Designer on the film. Look at the listings for these men. You have seen their work before, too. Hart was nominated for Oscars for Set Design for Pleasantville and L.A. Confidential.

Go back using these buttons.Image
ImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:02 am

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Image A memorable quote or two from the 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma

Mark (to Dan): You gonna let 'em do this to you?
Dan: Not much else I can do.


Wade: We'll need those horses.
Dan: Why?
Wade: So you don't ride to the marshal.
Dan: All right, boys. Get off.
Mark (to Wade): You wait! My pa will kill you!
Dan: Mark!


Alice: What if you went into town and borrowed the money?
Dan: You know I hate to go begging for help.
Alice: Borrowing isn't begging.


Dan (to Alice): All this will be green in six months. The cattle will be fat, and the boys. Maybe you and me won't be so tired all the time. In six months we'll be happy, won't we?
Alice: Sure. We'll be happy.


(A drunken Potter is trying to get on a horse, to go and join the posse who have gone after the stage robbers)
Alex Potter: Ain't cha gonna help catch 'em?
Ben Wade: Ah, wish I could.
Alex Potter: What'd they look like?
Ben Wade: Oh, they'll be easy to catch. There's three big men on three white horses.
Alex Potter (as he starts to ride away): Three white fellas... on three big horses, huh?


Ben Wade (to Emmy, the barmaid): Didn't I see you some place? Did you ever work in The Blind Irishman in Dodge City?


Ben Wade: Hey, you know you look kind of skinny.
Emmy: I feel skinny.
Ben Wade: That's all right. I don't mind a skinny girl - just so she has blue eyes to make up for it. You got blue eyes?
Emmy: Brown.
Ben Wade: That's all right. They don't have to be blue.
(they kiss)


Dan: If it's all right with you, you can give me two dollars extra for makin' me nervous.


Mark (to Wade, after his mother is done praying): I didn't close my eyes once. I just squinted. 'Cos you could run away.


Matthew: Do you think anything will happen to him?
Mark: Sure. He'll come back with $200. Two hundred dollars is a lot of money.
Matthew: Not if he don't come back, it isn't.


Ben Wade: Mind telling me where we're going?
Dan Evans: No, I don't mind telling you. We're going to Contention City. We're going wait in a house by the station and when the 3:10 comes in we're going to put you on it.
Ben Wade: Thanks. Now if we get separated I'll know where to wait for you.


Ben Wade: I mean, I don't go around just shootin' people down... I work quiet, like you.
Dan Evans: All right, so you're quiet like me. Well then shut up like me.


Hardly any websites are filled with the quotes from the 1957 film that I loved and wrote down, but the few I could find also have some I was too lazy to write down! I found the most on Quotefully and IMDb quotes. Note that there are links to pages with lines from other characters on this Quotefully page.

Image A memorable quote or two from the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma

Wade: I've seen you some place before.
Emma: Have you?
Wade: You ever work for a blind Irishman in Leadville?


Wade: Hey, you know you look kind of skinny.
Emma: I feel skinny.
Wade: That's all right. I don't mind skinny girls - long as they got green eyes to make up for it. You got green eyes?
(Emma turns to reveal brown eyes)
Wade: That's all right. They don't have to be green.
(they kiss)


Dan: You can give me $5 extra.
Wade: What's that for?
Dan: For makin' me nervous.
Marshal (gun drawn, behind Wade): Hands up, Ben Wade!


Grayson Butterfield: Twenty-two robberies. Over four hundred thousand dollars in losses. More in delays. The Southern Pacific will have Ben Wade convicted in a federal court. Hanged in public. An example made. And we will pay to make it happen.
Ben Wade: Y'all notice he didn't mention any of the lives I've taken.


Mark (to Wade at dinner): If my pa wants to he can shoot you dead. He can shoot a jackrabbit at 50 yards!
Dan: Shootin' an animal's a lot different than, uh, shootin' a man, son.
Wade: No it isn't. Not in my opinion. We could ask Byron, here. Now, Byron, he's killed dozens of people: men and women and children, miners, Apaches.
Byron: Not a soul taken didn't deserve what it got.
Wade: Every way of man is right in his own eyes, Byron. The Lord ponders the heart. Proverbs 21.


Alice Evans: Don't do it, Dan. No one will think less of you.
Dan Evans: No one can think less of me. Six months from now everything's gonna be green. The cows are going to be fat. We might even see the steam from the train coming over the ridge. We'll be all right. But we won't make it through the next six days if I don't do this.


Ben Wade: So, boys - where we headed?
Byron McElroy: Taking you to the 3:10 to Yuma day after tomorrow.
Tucker: Shouldn't have told him that.
Ben Wade: Relax, friend. Now if we get separated, I'll know where to meet up.


Ben Wade: I've always liked you Byron, but you never know when to shut up. Even bad men love their mommas.


Wade (holding the posse at bay with Byron's shotgun): Now, I think it's time for everybody to go home.
William (stepping into the shot behind Wade, with a cocked pistol pointed at the man's head): Don't you move Mr. Wade. Let go of that shotgun.
Dan: William...what the hell are you doing here?
Wade (to William): Now, I don't think you're gonna shoot a man you admire in the back of the head, boy. (William diverts his pistol slightly and fires a shot in front of Wade's face) Dan, tell your boy it's over.
Dan (to William): You think you can keep your gun on him, William?
William: I'm doin' a damn sight better than you did.


Zeke: Damn coolies. They work just fine with my left boot up their ass.
Boles (playing with his pet capuchin): Well, if I could teach a monkey to lay track...
Zeke: What we need are some Negroes brung in here, Mr. Boles. Show these Chinamen what real work is.


Boles (to the posse): Ben Wade gunned down my kid brother. In front of me. Six years ago in Abiliene.
Wade: Your brother was a lyin', bilkin' card sharp. That is, if he's the asshole I remember. Could of been some other asshole I killed that I've forgot about.


(Wade offers Dan $1000 to let him walk out of the hotel)
Dan (grinning): Would you give me a bank note, Wade? Or would you be kind enough to make a deposit for me?
Wade: Cash.
Dan: Well, you tell me, Wade, how would I account for--for that amount of money?


Ben Wade: They’re gonna kill you and your father, William. They’re gonna laugh while they do it. I think you know that.
William Evans: Call ‘em off.
Ben Wade: Why should I?
William Evans: Because you’re not all bad.
Ben Wade: Yes, I am.
William Evans: You saved us from those Indians.
Ben Wade: I saved myself.
William Evans: You got us through the tunnels. You helped us get away.
Ben Wade: If I had a gun in them tunnels, I would have used it on you.
William Evans: I don’t believe you.
Ben Wade: Kid, I wouldn’t last five minutes leading an outfit like that if I wasn’t as rotten as hell.


There are many pages with quotes from the 2007 film, including one with a transcript of the entire spoken dialogue from the film. No character names in it yet, though. How weird. So you can find any of these quotations, you just won't know who's speaking. Ha ha!

All Subs. org has a page of quotations.

IMDb has a good number of quoted passages.

CoolNSmart.com has a page with quotes from this film.

Movie Mistakes.com's quotations page for the 2007 film.

People must not know about WikiQuote, but a few have posted dialogue.

There are no actual scripts available on the internet for 3:10 to Yuma in either form, because Twentieth Century Fox has gotten aggressive with take down notices.
Go back using these buttons.Image
ImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:10 am

3:10 to Yuma is done except for four essays. They are written, and need graphics.

Then I'll be able to change the word "current" to the word "complete" on page 1, for the Weematch, and move its link to the bottom of the signature. That will feel good.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4749
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by MrCarmady » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:14 pm

Grrrrrrrrreat stuff. I'll comment in more detail after I acquire the remake.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:35 pm

MrCarmady wrote:Grrrrrrrrreat stuff. I'll comment in more detail after I acquire the remake.
Wow. I thought you'd seen them both already! :D

Let me just say that I hope you see the movie that I did on my third viewing, rather than what that North guy whose link I provided saw on what has to have been his only time through the 2007 film.

And hurry. I want to talk about this with somebody. Anyway, it remains an excellent recommendation for a Rematch.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 9068
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Location: Reducing some planet to a burned out cinder.

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Gort » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:36 pm

YouTookMyName wrote:rather than what that North guy whose link I provided saw on what has to have been his only time through the 2007 film.
F*****ck, man, did you sleep through your English classes?
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:36 pm

Wow, for some reason I was only aware of that actors post and the scores one. A lot of catching up for me.
User avatar
MrCarmady
Posts: 4749
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 1:29 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by MrCarmady » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:03 pm

YouTookMyName wrote: Wow. I thought you'd seen them both already! :D

Let me just say that I hope you see the movie that I did on my third viewing, rather than what that North guy whose link I provided saw on what has to have been his only time through the 2007 film.

And hurry. I want to talk about this with somebody. Anyway, it remains an excellent recommendation for a Rematch.
I've seen most of the remake, but never the whole way through.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:03 pm

Colonel Kurz wrote:Wow, for some reason I was only aware of that actors post and the scores one. A lot of catching up for me.
Hee hee! In my signatures for YTMN and for Gort there are links to the "Initial Posts" for each Rematch. For example, the link for 3:10 to Yuma takes you to the post where you can see what's new, you can get to the Essay broker post from there, and see what essays are up. Plus, I have a little list of the last few latest posts, after each of the Rematches in the signature.
Gort's Signature wrote:3:10 to Yuma Weematch. 1957 Review. Cast. 2007 Review. Weblinks. Crew. Quotes.

It helps me keep up, so I figure it might help you to catch up. And when I put in placeholders for the reviews, I had to have some other way for people to find the posts once they were done.

I have a system, but maybe I didn't explain it very well. :(
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:07 pm

YouTookMyName wrote:I have a system, but maybe I didn't explain it very well. :(
Sometimes it just takes time to appreciate a good thing.
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:31 pm

pwiedenheft wrote:Is there anyone that has the Beltrami score for The Three Burials of Melquiadas Estrda? I've been looking for it online forever and can never find it. I love the score and that film deeply.
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:44 pm

Gort, what you're saying about myth greatly interested me. I never thought of the characters of the 2007 like that before, but you make a good point. It made me wonder, if since the spaghetti westerns and the revisionist American westerns of the '60s and '70s it has become impossible not to deal in myths and archetypes in westerns, on the rare occasion that they still get made.

Though, on the other hand, westerns have always been about myth. It's been a long, long time since I've seen the 1957 version, but aren't most western characters mythical, to a certain degree, and archetypal, since the western used to be the primary vessel for the American myth in the first half of the 20th century?
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:03 am

Colonel Kurz wrote:Gort, what you're saying about myth greatly interested me. I never thought of the characters of the 2007 like that before, but you make a good point. It made me wonder, if since the spaghetti westerns and the revisionist American westerns of the '60s and '70s it has become impossible not to deal in myths and archetypes in westerns, on the rare occasion that they still get made.

Though, on the other hand, westerns have always been about myth. It's been a long, long time since I've seen the 1957 version, but aren't most western characters mythical, to a certain degree, and archetypal, since the western used to be the primary vessel for the American myth in the first half of the 20th century?
Yes, I think you're correct. And if I understand what I've read by and from you, you are a much better-educated-on-Westerns viewer than I am.

In fact, in the 2007 review I point out that the "deconstruction" of "the Western" begins in the opening scene of the 2007 film with William lighting a match and looking at the covers of three dime novels that he has beside his bed. The top one is entitled The Deadly Outlaw. Is this a cinematic foreshadowing of the man he is about to meet?
Image
The difference between the '57 and '07 films, in my opinion, is that Delmer Daves tried to make the story grounded in "realism," which was popular for the day. The hero of the film is not an outsized, blustering cowboy, but a rancher who's on the skids financially, and who is determined to keep his little family fed and together. If he can. A "real man" despite the archetypical characters in John Ford's earlier movies. And I have to say that this largely works. Even Ben Wade is "downsized" in the 1957 3:10 to Yuma.

Yes, I suppose the 1957 characters are archetypes in true Western format, but they don't seem to me to be presented that way. What confused me about Mangold's remake at first, and my misperception made me hold it in much lower esteem than I do at the moment, is that the archetypes returned. I didn't notice that until I pondered the film afterward. And, as you noted, the archetypes are "warped" by the revisionist Westerns, and the Italian and Spanish productions that flourished in the 60s and 70s.

You make a good point, also, Kurz. And I could be wrong in seeing the two as so different in style and scope. But that's what I saw on first viewing. As I have written in the rematch, there is more to both films than I saw initially. Furthermore, and I think this is a very important point, I'm not tired of seeing either film at this point, even though I don't plan to watch either again presently. I'd like to see both in future. And I'm considering adding a DVD of the '57 film and a Blu-ray of the '07 film to my collection of video discs.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:25 am

Reading your words makes me want to revisit them both. As I keep pondering the question I myself asked, on whether it is even still possible to not use mythical archetypes in westerns, I originally had films like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford in mind, which deals with those themes in a very literal sense, but just now I thought of Meek's Cutoff, whih has main characters that transcend archetypal characterisations. So it is possible!

Also, should you be interested in reading more about what I was talking about with westerns and the American myth, I recommend Gunfighter Nation by Richard Slotkin.
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:45 am

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Two Times Evans Plus Two Times Wade
Image

If someone is taking you to jail you probably have a very natural antipathy toward him. No matter that he is simply doing his job, or trying to earn money in order to feed his wife, children, and herds of cattle. It is a natural dramatic development that two men thrown together in such a situation might develop a bit of respect each for the other. Or not.

Cop and Crook. Rancher and Killer.
The short story source sets up a more likely antagonism. Scallen is a cop, and Kidd is a crook. Kidd is also a kid, a kid convicted of armed robbery, so he's looking to escape because a relatively large part of his life is scheduled to be spent behind bars. Yet he develops a grudging respect for Scallen's abilities by the time he is lying prostrate on a train mail car floor, on his way to incarceration. During the stay at the hotel before that, he mentions how little money Scallen makes in plying his trade, and that it isn't worth dying for, but he doesn't attempt to bribe him.

The first film adaptation sets up a moralistic tale, one that I don't see in the rather existential words of Leonard's short story. It isn't that we're going to be taught right and wrong, it's that we're going to be shown that some people are out for the betterment of all, while others focus only on bettering themselves. Then, surprise, the bad guy is usually rather polite toward others, but is also looking for a way out of his predicament. Having killed Bill Moons, the Butterfield stage driver (as well as one of his own gang), Wade is concerned that the stage-driver's body get back to his home in Contention.

This man has not been tried in court; he is on the way to a court. The law is already looking for him, so having been captured but not yet brought to justice, as he sits in the hotel in Contention City, escaping from Potter and Evans would put him back into exactly the situation he faced when he woke up the previous morning, before the stagecoach robbery.
Image
The Glenn Ford version of Ben Wade wants to be free, but seems genuinely interested in Dan Evans as a person. Perhaps this is only so that he can learn how to press the other man's buttons, get him to distract himself for just enough time. Or how to buy him off and get him to look away for a while. But Evans isn't willing to be played. He wants to save his little ranch setup, feed his hungry growing boys, and buy a nice dress for his devoted wife. And he wants to do this within the bounds of his personal sense of rightness and wrongness. He is constantly expecting Wade to try some trick to get loose. And at the end, he seems surprised that Wade gives up and hops aboard the train when ample gunpower is present to spring him...if that's what he wanted.

So is this genuine change of heart plausible? Probably was in the 1950s. Because we judge stories by other stories we have seen or read, maybe it's not so plausible to a 21st century viewer. Within the context of the film, though, it seems to come off without a hitch. I didn't question it until hours afterward. So, I guess the message is that we're all people. We're all trying to get what we consider to be goodness out of life. Some of us do it, like I wrote above, in a way that's not for the betterment of all. Others take the people around them into consideration in all things. The thing is, in the story and the earlier movie, both men are clearly human beings, and both clearly regard the other as a human being first of all.

In that regard, I think the short story and the 1957 film are mostly on the same wavelength.
Image
Cynicism, or Irony?
I'm not sure what the message is in the 2007 film. Dan Evans, who took on the job of shepherding Ben Wade to the train at Contention, lies dead in the dust at the end of the film. Ben Wade has shot down all his gang with his own gun, nicknamed "The Hand of God." This is definite 21st century existentialism, not moralism, because the "good guy" is dead, and the "bad guy" hauls himself up into the detention cell on the prison train! In '53 and '57 the outlaw is going to justice of one sort or another, and the marshal or rancher is riding beside him at the end. The gang is not all dead, which leaves open sequel possibilities.
Image
In 2007 Ben Wade whistles for his horse, but he has handed his gun to a marshal, who is on the other side of a locked iron grating. He has climbed into the prison car from the dust encompassing a slaughtered Dan Evans and his bewildered son, who now stands staring at the body of his dad, and the bodies of Wade's entire gang. That Wade shot down. The question that remains: Can the horse keep up with the train?
Image
The 1957 film has Ben Wade taking a step toward redemption and repaying Evans for saving his life, by staving off an attack from Charlie Prince. Perhaps in 2007, Ben Wade's slaughter of his entire gang is repayment for Charlie Prince needlessly pumping Evans full of bullets right outside the train car. Perhaps it is supposed to be redemption in blood? Atonement for leading those self-same men into perdition? But it only adds to Wade's visceral crimes. It does not bring William's daddy back to him. Is this cynicism on the part of the writers? An attempt to be ironic in a strict literary sense? I can't tell. In the remake there are not only the two Archetypes represented by Wade and Evans. We have to factor in William, because he is the central character of this film, a fact that is not self-evident on first viewing. At least it wasn't for me.

An exchange that takes place in the hotel room before the elder Evans takes Wade to the train may provide some clues:
Ben Wade: They’re gonna kill you and your father, William. They’re gonna laugh while they do it. I think you know that.
William Evans: Call ‘em off.
Ben Wade: Why should I?
William Evans: Because you’re not all bad.

The Short Story Ending is Clear
In the original short story the deputy discharges both barrels of a stubby shotgun right into Charlie Prince as he and the convict make their way to the train. The short story ends with Scallen prodding Kidd toward the train using the barrel of a pistol. They run and leap into the moving train car as a bullet breaks a window in the mail car where they are headed. One of Kidd's gang members shouts out, "You'll hit Jim!" Another shot is fired, anyway, but it's too late. The men are in the train car and Kidd is beyond rescue.

The ending is changed from the short story in both film scripts. In the 1957 film Ben Wade prevents Charlie Prince from shooting Evans to death. He and the rancher jump aboard the already moving freight train while Charlie shouts, "Ben, get down!" and plans to puncture Dan Evans with a couple of bullets. Ben doesn't get down, instead saving Evans's life as Evans has saved him from Bob Moons. Charlie chases the train, trying to kill Evans, who returns accurate fire and drops him with a couple of bullets of his own.
Image
But the 2007 Ben Wade is unable to save Dan from Charlie's bullets. He has already climbed aboard the train, when Prince opens fire emptying his gun into the rancher's torso. To express his disapproval, the Russell Crowe Wade leaves the train car, and slaughters his entire gang, making sure to put two bullets into Charlie. The second is fired point-blank into his withered heart, using Prince's own pistol. But both Charlie and Ben have hints of tears in their eyes in this moment. Glenn Ford's Wade actually seems more likely to do what he does, having presented himself as a human being with little regard for social conventions, but no total lack of regard for human beings during the entire story. Thus, he functions as a character, as a human being, and his motivations need to be fairly clear and believable. They are, on the whole.

The 2007 Film Ending is Outwardly Implausible
The two men and the boy in the second story function as archetypes, not as persons. The Outlaw Who is Not Entirely Bad, The Decent Man Who Loves Justice and his Family, and The Boy Who Has Seen Too Much. So, it is not clear whether the Mangold Evans and Wade see one another's humanity. At least not until the final scenes, where they are allowed to drop out of Archetype. Dan Evans wants and needs money, and taking Ben Wade to the train at Contention is a way for him to get the money he needs. Perhaps the culture of the 1950s was one where people, even those who disagreed, were seen as compatriots. "We're all fighting Communism together, here." And the generation for whom the 2007 film was created is made up of many individuals who view everyone else as competitors. That might explain the difference in the relationship between Wade and Evans in the two films. In our day do we really seek to know first of all, the differences between us and everyone else? Do we not seek out likenesses, similarities these days? If not, then that is the audience the writers aimed for, and maybe they are part of that group of personalities as well. Maybe someone reading this can provide some helpful insights on this point. I hope so.

At the end of the 2007 film, William is The Rancher. It is now his ranch that Wade has saved. It is to him that Wade has offered potential proof that he is, as the boy claimed, not all bad.
Image
In the review of the 2007 film I included a spoiler-tagged section where I try to work out the ending of both films as something that makes sense. Rather than link to the review here, I'll just reproduce the spoiler-tagged analysis.
The screenwriter for the 1957 version started this, by making the decency of Dan Evans have a positive effect on Ben Wade. So, for the 2007 remake the writers amplified each aspect of it. Some of this applies to both films. Some only to the '07 one.

1) Ben Wade sees the Evans family up close, and as a unit. In other words, he gets to see them as people because he has dinner with them. ('57 & '07)

2) On the journey he sees Evans being consistent to his values of decency and fairness. He sees that William has not been deprived of time to develop useless skills, such as handling a deck of cards impressively. He also sees that a man who seems spineless, like Dan Evans, has raised a kid who seems pretty much like the kind of kid who could shoot a man he admires in the back of the head in order to save his father and the Doc. ('07)

3) Wade sees that Evans cannot be bribed. In fact, when Evans asks how he would explain suddenly having $1000 as he spent the money, Wade loses the argument with his lame comeback, "No one needs to know." He struggles to understand things in the "normal" way. ('57 & '07)

4) He hears Dan bargain with Butterfield, the Southern Railroad exec, and he gets the $1000 that Wade has offered as a bribe, as a legitimate payment for what he plans to do. ('07)

5) Thus, believing that Yuma Prison cannot hold him, he decides to let Dan put him on the train so that Butterfield has to legitimately pay the $1000 cash, pay off the ranch, stop Hollander blocking water from Dan's ranch, and so forth. It is an "easy" way to get back at the railroad, and Grayson Butterfield. Remember that when Wade is taking a piss he says something about how doing one decent thing could become a habit. Then he saves the posse from the Indian attackers. (He could have killed them all right then, but he doesn't). Then they help each other escape from the railroad workers. These are the things that William "accuses" him of when the boy says that Wade isn't all bad. Wade denies it, of course, but the boy's confidence in him seems unbendable. In other words, the man Evans, has taught his son to think of people in this way, rather than to think of them as means to an end, or mere living barriers that should be killed and gotten rid of. In spite of what the boy has seen Wade do that is not good, he sees something good in him. But the route to the train gets a little bullet-infested, so Wade tries to change his mind again. "I ain't doin' this no more, Dan." And he backs out of the deal that only he knows about, even going so far as to try strangling Dan with the chain of the handcuffs.

6) In the '57 version all these things are telescoped into Alice's visit, which seems to have no effect on Dan, but I think it moves the inwardly reasonable outlaw to decide that he's escaped from Yuma Prison before, and he could do this for Dan and Alice and the boys. At least he comes to believe that it's worth the risk. Also, Charlie Prince's exhortation for Ben to get down so that he can kill Evans, doesn't square in Wade's heart with the fact that Evans is not trying to kill Wade personally, and has in fact saved his life from the Moons brother. He boasts about having escaped from the prison before, which is our only solid clue about why he jumped onto the train instead of letting Prince kill Evans.

6) Perhaps the final blow ('07) is when Evans confesses to Wade that he has never been a hero. He was injured by friendly fire. But how could he tell his sons that? Perhaps he actually did tell them that, which is why he says, "You try tellin' that story to your boy. See how he looks at you then." Wade breaks, at that moment. Thinking of how he has escaped the prison twice before, he decides to go along with this to the end. It is in that moment that he realizes that Butterfield can be forced to keep his end of the bargain with Evans. So, when Ben is on the train he turns around and says to Evans, "Well, you did it, Dan." He seems ready to say, "You got me on the train," but he sees crazy Charlie Prince coming toward Evans with his gun drawn. Charlie is not in on "the deal." He is still gonna bust Wade out if he can. As a first step he kills Dan Evans. Wade sees just how corrupt his followers are, and wipes them out. After that, he is momentarily put on trial by William, who cannot keep from seeing Wade as a human being. He aims his gun surely, but he cannot squeeze the trigger, although he wants to. He tries very hard to do so, but he is not like Wade. He is like his father. A person who loves people. Who desires to help them out; not to help himself to whatever they have that he wants. Even revenge would not be sweet to William if he has to kill someone to get it.

Do you think I got any of this right?

Go back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm

Hobbyist forges ahead with hobby. Tries to get last three essays posted today.

Likely to not succeed, but here comes the first one! :D
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue May 01, 2012 3:36 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Creating the Roles
Image

Do you ever see someone in a film and feel convinced that you have seen him/her in another movie or television show? That happens to me all the time; I look on IMDb for the filmography of the individual and learn that I have never seen the actor in any film. It comes down to having watched trailers. I have seen these men/women/girls/boys before, in trailers for films that I have not seen. So most of the time it is shots in trailers that lodge in my memory, faces I see in movie ads that linger in my recollection, but not necessarily faces seen in the entire films from which those trailers are cut. I'm not talking about the stars, here: Glenn Ford, Van Heflin, Christian Bale, and Russell Crowe. Not any doubt where I've seen each of them before. The character faces, the background faces are the ones that haunt me.

Full of Familiar Faces
Both versions of 3:10 to Yuma feature such faces. This contributes to a feeling of comfort with a film, I think, if you recognize the faces on the screen. But sometimes this leads me to thinking I've seen someone I've never really seen working before.
Image
For instance, I was certain that I had seen one of the two boys who play the uncredited roles of Van Heflin's young sons in the 1957 film. In something. TV? A film? But, no, I haven't seen anything he was ever in, beyond this film. I knew the sources of other characters as I watched. Saw her in a TV show. Saw him in another western. But even background faces can fool me. And those in the '57 film are mostly uncredited, so I have no way to trace the recollections.

But is the acting good? It is certainly competent. Even the two kids in the film present a fairly coherent sense of being these boys rather than playing at being these boys. Delmer Daves manages to extract naturalistic performances from his entire cast. No one seems over the top. The style of the film is naturalistic, and "realistic;" the set design is realistic; the costumes are realistic. The young woman in the bar at Bisbee seems to be someone, rather than an actress. Her interactions with Glenn Ford are believable. She was never a star, but she appeared in television shows when I was young. So maybe that's why she looks familiar. The same goes for the woman who plays Alice Evans. Looks familiar, but I can't point to anything in her filmography that I've seen. If you asked me whether I've heard of Felicia Farr, I'd say 'yes,' but I wouldn't claim to have ever heard the name Leora Dana. Richard Jaeckel was everywhere on TV in the 1960s, so that's where I saw him before I saw him as Charlie Prince.

Wait! I'm Sure I've Seen Logan Lerman in Something Before
Image
The 2007 version presents even more of these moments, though. I was staring at Logan Lerman, trying to figure out where I had seen his face before, once I realized that his role as William Evans was substantially larger than that of Barry Curtis who played his counterpart, named Matthew Evans, in the 1957 film. When the film was done and I hit the IMDb site, I learned that Lerman's was a trailers-only face to me at that time. His portrayal of William Evans is all I have ever seen him do, other than snippets in trailers. But I was very impressed by his role in 3:10 to Yuma. Maybe his presence would rescue Percy Jackson? I'm not sure I want to find out.

The other faces in 2007 ranged from very familiar, Peter Fonda, to "I'm certain I've seen Vinessa Nelson in something before." I ran into the same blind alley that I did with Felicia Farr from the 1957 film. I knew that Gretchen Moll's face was new to me when I first saw the new Alice Evans.

The Acting is Solid in Both Films
Image
But aside from these cognitive distractions, I think the parts are played well enough by all concerned. Ben Foster is over the top as Charlie Prince, but this Charlie is supposed to be beyond the pale. Psychotic. As I keep writing in these essays, the 2007 cast do not play characters in the sense that the actors did in 1957. Instead, they function as roles in an archetypical myth. They, thus, play functions and not people. They must behave in the way their "function" would, not as their character would in any given situation. Truly, each one has to skirt the line of parody in order to do what is required by this script. Even Ben Wade's artistic hobby of sketching is part of being the archetypical atypical villain (The Outlaw Who is Not Entirely Bad). Fortunately, at some moments, such as the conversation between Wade and Evans after Evans is wounded in the train station, the actors drop out of archetype for a moment or two.
Image
Even the bit parts are played with earnestness. As an example, the blacksmith in the 1957 film has no lines, but he seems like a real person. If there is any lightweight stuff going on it might be in the people with throw-away parts in the streets in the 2007 film. Yet, overall, when you see someone on the screen they seem to be what they are supposed to be. Luke Wilson is given a kind of wasted role in the 2007 film, and he does the best he can with it. The film would be just as good without the entire sequence he appears in, though. I'd have to rate the acting in both films as well done. But you have to keep in mind that I'm judging the 1957 acting against good Westerns from that era, and I'm judging the 2007 acting against Spaghetti Westerns that I have seen.

Another Opinion of These Films
I read this upcoming final section of this essay to my brother so I could be sure it accurately depicts what he told me after watching both Yuma films. Our discussion started off being about the acting, but grew to summarize both movies in general. My brother is 56 years old, and he doesn't like black and white films, which is a point of note (it's not only kidlets who dislike black and white films). He told me the only black and white movie he ever really liked is Bringing Up Baby. He doesn't like the 1957 Yuma movie because it is not in color, and has Glenn Ford in it, and he never liked Glenn Ford. Says the guy always plays the same part, is always a drab character, speaking in a monotone. He noted that films of the 50s are very "sheltered."
Image
He sees the 2007 movie as the superior of the two films, as a truly good film in its own right, and as a more realistic depiction of life. The family is living their lives on the ranch, and in the course of living they come into contact with the murderous gang led by Ben Wade. This changes everything for them. He was placed on the side of Dan Evans from the start because someone was burning down his barn. He hated Tucker, and was happy when Ben Wade killed him. He liked Ben Foster's portrayal of Charlie Prince in the remake. He's also seen Foster in Pandorum.

I just thought I'd put that in for what it's worth. Someone's reaction to the film besides mine. I guess his notions are generally in line with my analysis of each of the movies. Except I don't mind black and white, or Glenn Ford! And I see the "realism" in the 2007 film as a perception of realism, not true realism. People think of "the world" as a mean place nowadays (and 2007 is considered part of nowadays). And each of us confuses our perception of the world with the truth of how the world is. When we watch films we take our perception of the world with us, it's impossible to do otherwise, so it takes a conscious effort to step back from how we think things are in order to analyze any movie we see.

My brother wanted me to add to my observations on this point that his perceptions of film in general are colored by an experience he had when his firsborn son was 11 years old. They watched Scarface on a tape at my house in Memphis. Two weeks later they were back home, watching Dog Day Afternoon and my nephew said about Al Pacino, "Dad, I thought they killed that guy." He was confusing film and real life, and that disturbed his father. But the boy had been raised by his mother up to that point, living in a different family environment. Whatever environment you are raised in and what you know (or think you know) has an influence on how you approach a film, or the acting in it. In your overall understanding of it. And I agree with him on that point.
Go back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue May 01, 2012 7:25 pm

A Comparison of 3:10 to Yuma (1957) and 3:10 to Yuma (2007)
Photography & Editing
Image

Airiness
For some reason, the 1957 film seemed visually darker to me as I recalled the two films following the first viewings of each. Of course, before I did graphics for this post I watch both of them twice more to grab stills, and that impression faded somewhat. But the "darkness" is a mental thing, I think, not necessarily the result of negative density. The use of color means that not many areas of any image become actually black. But when photographing in black and white, in order to have sufficient contrast, some areas of each image have to be crushed to black. This is why the old NTSC television system would so often mess up the impressions I got of many films, because the blacks were merely dark gray, and never black. So much for reliving my childhood.
Image
Thus, 3:10 to Yuma in grayscale seems visually much bleaker than the 2007 color version. The dry landscape is 'even drier' in the imagination when there is no color to be seen in anything. But the story of the remake is far bleaker than that of the original. The situation in which Dan Evans finds himself is more hellish, as his creditor wants to sell the mortgaged ranch to the railroad (making a dual villain of himself and the railroad companies) and fully intends to offer no help for the struggling family.
Image
Opening Bonfire
The 2007 film opens at the Evans ranch. The boys, and then their parents awaken to sounds outside. In the darkness of the night, the creditor's henchmen have come to burn down the barn. They succeed. They promise to come back on Tuesday and burn down the house, unless Evans gives up and leaves. The boy William, and his father free the horses, but Dan won't let young William drag the feed bags out of the flaming structure. This sets up an antagonistic relationship between son and father. And the camera is always in the midst of the fire until the boy is persuaded to stop. The burning barn lights them, frames them, collapses behind them as they try to save their horses. The set design and photography in the film is very apropo and effective.
Image
By contrast, the grayscale imagery of the first film opens on the range, not in bedrooms, and shows the immediate complicating incident: the robbery of a stagecoach. We don't meet the Evans family until father and sons stumble upon the criminal undertaking while out looking for their stray herd. Sunlight illuminates the landscape as we ride on the coach toward a herd of cattle across the road. The camera position is not as much in the midst of the action with this original, but it doesn't stray very far from it. There are not many ultra-wide shots in the movie. In general, I get the feeling that James Mangold elected to mimic, although not to reproduce the style Delmer Daves and his DP settled on in 1957.

Moving Cameras
Neither DP keeps his camera totally stationary. Both move it frequently, and frequently move it within the shot (something very difficult to demonstrate with stills. I don't have the capability to pull and post action examples). This camera motion helps create a sense of depth, reality, dimensionality to the world on the screen. Both are good at using the length of shot (CU, Medium, Long) to signal us whether the space is open or confining. The set designers keep the look of a prospering 19th century Western village for Contention.
Image
Are the bars authentic? The hotel lobbies and rooms? I have little way of knowing, but they feel genuine. The costumes may be totally fanciful in the 2007 film, but they seem to fit the semi-fantasy of 3:10 to Yuma. But something about the 1957 Contention set decoration says "clean" while the 2007 film creates a growing but grubby Contention. Perhaps that is because the film is shot in color, rather than black and white. Both Bisbee and Contention look grubby and "used" in the 2007 film. A bit tawdry, as if our image of the Wild West should include a Medieval atmosphere. A shit-in-the-roads kind of thing that existed in the American West (horses as transportation, you see) but which we don't see, even in this film.

For my money, I'd have to vote for the 2007 film in a contest for "most realistic looking." This even applies to a section of the film that was shot in stud-walled buildings. The making-of featurette says this was not an entirely artistic decision, but one made out of opportunity in the moment. According to an interview in the featurette, those sets were not completed by the scheduled shoot date, so Mangold simply filmed some of his chase scenes in the unfinished buildings. It looks cool.

The presence of blood in the 1957 film, as in nearly every film of the era, is reduced. Some people get shot, but they don't bleed all over the place...nor do their wounds spurt blood. As you would expect, in the post-Peckinpah era the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma sports both volumes and spurts of blood.
Image
Chocolate Syrup? Quick Pace? Editing
The casting crew, set designers and costumers provide what is photographed. The director of photography sets the way in which these things are photographed, but the editor selects the various available takes and conforms what was actually shot to the script provided by the writers. Frequently, as any of you who do production on any scale in any format know, when you get to cutting your filmed entertainment product you find gaps and holes that no one could see until you got into post-production. Everything in the script is marked. All the lines of dialogue were recorded. But you need a shot that no one thought of during production. That's why there are reshoots scheduled into most production contracts. (At my level of production, of course, we rarely had the luxury of reshoots.)

For its day the editing in the 1957 film was quite rapidly paced, with an average shot length of about 6.4 seconds. I can't find data on shot length for the 2007 remake, but you won't confuse it with a Tarr film at all.

It isn't fair to say that the editor creates the film, because of his/her position as final assembler. But the editor can be said to create the film that we get to see. There are a lot of elements to be looked at, logged and selected. The director might do part of this by selecting which takes to print. But some directors print every take, so they will have all possibilities covered. I have no information on how either Daves or Mangold work in this regard.

But the editor of the 1957 film, Al Clark didn't have the finely-tuned digital tools that Michael McCusker had at his disposal when preparing the 2007 remake. Instead, he had the experience of having edited 105 films using the old manual method that I was taught in film school in the 1970s. After a certain number of editing jobs you just get a sense for what will work, what will work even better, and what won't work well at all. Interestingly (because information videos was all I ever managed to get to do) Clark started out with a series of four golfing instruction short films: How to Break 90, numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5! Then in 1933 he was the editor hired to cut The Important Witness, an action-adventure-comedy starring not a single name I've ever read before. Clark was nominated for 5 Oscars, no wins. But most people nominated for Oscars don't win.
Image
McCusker had six editing credits when he sat down to begin the process of assembling all the elements that Mangold had done into a finished movie. But don't discount the 13 titles on which McCusker had acted as Assistant Editor.

When you're the editor it's your job to make whatever is provided to you look the best it possibly can. To create a narrative story line. To make the images on the screen look as memorable as possible. The two men who edited these two versions of the same story managed to accomplish that. Clark has a good sense of variable pacing. But McCusker is able to slow things down a bit for night-time scenes around campfires. What he seems to need to work on is the ability to build and hold tension. Perhaps he has done that in the past five years. Having sat in his place in admittedly less stressful post-production situations I know that he did what he could to make the story gripping. But his task was either enabled or thwarted by decisions made long before he got to touch the first digital file and begin assembling them into the film we can see. Sometimes adding two more frames can seem to make all the difference. For Mangold's film, McCusker didn't have a lot of trouble doing that.
Image
Al Clark, on the other hand, had to physically splice those two frames back into his workprint if he wanted to add them. Making a change was not easy. Looking at two or three possible alternate edits for a sequence was...quite possibly not done! In 1933 he might still have been using the film in hand method, or an early Movieola. Later a Steenbeck editing table. At least he didn't have to go through color-timing with the director in 1957, although I'm sure they did passes to compensate for shifts in negative density. That's an era I missed for the most part. Electronic editing is much more humane to all concerned, except for, perhaps, the audience. When you're editing footage you've seen several times over, it is difficult to determine pacing, narrative and all that from the point of view of a first-time viewer. When you listen to the 1957 film you will hear changes in audio levels and background ambiance that were too difficult to control in the 50s for it to be economically worthwhile. McCusker had much more control, of a much finer level at his fingertips, due to the use of computers as tools to manipulate audio and visual materials. Just keep in mind when you watch these films, or any other, that a certain native skill is necessary to come up with a final cut that really works. And both of these final cuts work pretty well.


Go back using these buttons.ImageImageImageImageImageImage
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
YouTookMyName
Posts: 2227
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:53 am

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by YouTookMyName » Tue May 01, 2012 8:55 pm

The 3:10 to Yuma comparison is done. I looked over the sixth essay and decided that every point I made in it had been made elsewhere in the other essays.

So, MrCarmady, thanks for the rec, and thanks to everyone who has followed this for the past three weeks. Also, to all who read in the future and post comments.

Now I'm back to needing to finish these five Rematches:
The Maltese Falcon still needs Script, DP and Weblinks tech posts, plus 10 planned essays.
The Day the Earth Stood Still still needs the Weblinks tech post, plus 7 planned essays.
Nosferatu still needs the Weblinks tech post, plus 7 planned essays.
Dorian Gray lacks 9 planned essays.
Planet of the Apes needs the Weblinks tech post, and 5 planned essays.
Haven't made any posts in any of these since April 13, 2012.
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Gort
Posts: 9068
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 8:50 pm
Location: Reducing some planet to a burned out cinder.

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Gort » Thu May 03, 2012 10:13 pm

I wonder what 21866 views actually means.

At least people are peeking in here, going, "Damn! This guy uses too many words an' pictures!" and maybe leaving then. Without footprints it's difficult to know. :D
Gort/YTMN left the forum due to trolling on August 25, 2018.
I had fun. Thanks for reading!

"The wealthy and powerful always remind us that cream rises to the top.
What they fail to acknowledge is that pond scum also rises to the top.
And there is a lot more pond scum in the world than there is cream.
If you become rich and powerful, I hope that you will be cream rather than pond scum." --YTMN

Rematch Resurrection Catalog for Rounds 1-4 New post 180721 -- YTMN's Remake Rematch Thread.
Thread Resurrected 21 Jul 2018. Thread abandoned 1 Aug 2017. Thread COMPLETE 25 May 14 (2d time!)


The Future Unreels
User avatar
Colonel Kurz
Posts: 14847
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 3:07 pm
Location: Floating in a most peculiar way

Re: YTMN Presents a Remake Rematch Thread

Post by Colonel Kurz » Thu May 03, 2012 10:14 pm

How about the print of a cowboy boot?
Post Reply