I grew up in the 70’s (age 10 in ’76) and hated westerns – the at-the-time John Wayne-as-symbol for pro-American “love it or leave it” mentality turned me off, as well as TV’s annoying Bonanza and that awful Big Valley TV show with the ever unappealing brillo-skulled Barbara Stanwyck – but, alas, I grew up and made nice with the genre (I now, of course!, appreciate the pre-True Grit Wayne westerns, and pre-butch Stanwycks). Anyway, without getting too obsessive compulsive here, I’ll throw my hat in for McCabe and Mrs. Miller – a masterpiece. And The Wild Bunch, and Dead Man, and Once Upon a Time in the West. I don’t think Eastwood’s Unforgiven has aged well.

Anybody see that freak show “My Name is Nobody?”

What do you have against TGTBATU? On second thought, don't answer that.

Does Tears of the Black Tiger count? I'm actually rather partial to Duck, You Sucker (aka A Fist Full of Dynamite) with Rod Steiger and James Coburn. And Red River for the homerotic undercurrent between Wayne and Clift. Dead Man and McCabe and Mrs. Miller both manage to expand the genre. I haven't seen Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, never cared too much for The Wild Bunch, but I love Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia; does that count as a Western? I guess I need to look at that list. Does Johnny Guitar make the cut, and how about Yojimbo? How about Douglas Sirk's Take Me to Town, with Anne Sheridan and once again Sterling Hayden, I haven't seen it in more than thirty years, but I watched it a lot on television when I was a kid. I guess, since it's Sirk, it must be a Woman's Picture, not a Western.

DIGITRAMP--unlike yourself i've never made peace with the genre, which the idiosyncratic list undoubtedly makes clear * but at least nobody's up in arms about alleged slights to anthony mann, raoul walsh, andre de toth, etc (not to mention hawks, whose auteur "masterpieces" i'm mostly allergic to), which i remotely thought might happen * not a matter of ignorance--for the most part anyway--so much as just not getting what all the fuss is about * but maybe one of these days i'll finally get around to dissing DEAD MAN: just about every logistic error an elementary film student can make (white hats and villains entering from the same side of the frame in approximately successive shots; using half a dozen edits--isn't the guy supposed to be a minimalist?--when one could give you exactly the same narrative information) jarmusch manages to make here

BRIAN--i've nothing against GB&U and actually rather like it, but it seems bizarre to elevate such an oxymoronic jumble (or is it meant to be camp?) into the eternal pantheon

DALE--re DUCK, YOU SUCKER!: my thought as well, though i still wouldn't put it in a top-five list * as for TEARS OF THE BLACK TIGER: another favorite of mine, and i did think about it, believe me--but it's doing too much violence to terminology that still has its semantic uses ... so 'fraid not!

PAT G.,
Yes, DEAD MAN may break the rules but it never bothered my viewing, and, really, is that reason enough to to diss it -- Rules!?!

And come to think of it, not sure I as well have made true peace with the Western. I must usually be dragged. Must be why I really love MCCABE while my friends, who are true Western fans, silently roll their eyes at anyone's praise of that Altman revision, as if (under breath) "that's not a real Western."

That said, certainly THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE is over-rated (stylistically stale and morally a little too high on itself).

And those hoisting DEADWOOD are absolutely justified.

DALE -- The end of RED RIVER has always bothered me when Clift folds under the Duke's pressure to fight. I see no dramatic or moral breakthrough there, only a weakling giving into the world of the bully. Though my friend has claimed that ending is really about Clift and Wayne finally expressing their love for eachother, still I don't buy it; I think its message is secretly or overtly that violence is the answer.

DIGITRAMP--less a matter of breaking "rules" (conventions of blocking, distinguishing characters visually, etc) than showing minimal awareness of what they might be ... which on the evidence of DEAD MAN (except his other films are no better) seems to be the case with jarmusch

an example to suffice--the sequence with blake (depp) propped against a tree as nobody (farmer) exits the scene: 1) close-up of blake watching nobody leave, 2) long shot of nobody leaving through the trees, 3) close-up of blake still watching, 4) long shot of nobody still leaving, 5) another close-up: yep, still watching, 6) another long shot: yep, still exiting ... * so: six discrete shots ... AND WE HAVEN'T GONE ANYWHERE--or not anywhere that, development-wise, and in terms of the filmmaker's allegedly minimalist aesthetic, we couldn't have gone with one * what's sad in all this is it's all too typical: fine to violate "rules" of basic film literacy if you know what they're meant for and why they're there in the first place * but sometimes i wonder if jarmusch has a clue ..

Interesting. Is craft, rules, or knowledge important for something to work? I think of the “actor” Nick Apollo Forte in Woody Allen’s BROADWAY DANNY ROSE – it is widely considered a good performance (one of the many elements that work in the film), though it was his first and only movie. Do we dismiss him because of his lack of training or experience or awareness? (and/though, yes, I really don’t know a thing about the man).

I know, Jarmusch has a career and our expectations might (must) be higher, but even when he (or any other similar artist) don’t get it “right,” aren’t they still able to get it Right?

Still, the scene you mention, which I don’t remember clearly, seems, just simply by your description, to signify that Nobody leaving Blake took a toll on Blake. But that’s not really the point, is it? The question is was Jarmusch’s ignorance wasting our time? Was the “minimalist” maxing, especially to no end!?
I think not (but I can’t rightly remember). I don’t remember that scene or any other cinematic language missteps “taking me out of the film.”

I’m a Jarmusch fan, and it sounds like you, Mr. Pat G., are not. Could it be you just don’t like his style?

And I’m not saying that he’s not (even unknowingly) flubbing the language of cinema, or stepping outside of his minimalist corner. I am saying that DEAD MAN works, and works exceptionally! (And, how can you deny that sublime canoe ride ending, Neil Young noising all over the place! Loved it!).

And that schizoid stylin’ of the great THE SEARCHERS also doesn’t bother me.

And I can’t wait to see …. THE COWARD ROBERT FORD.

DIGITRAMP--"rules": an unfortunate word choice, since it's more about connotation, how we're culturally "trained" to expect that, e.g., a movement continuing from one frame to the next won't reverse literal direction in the process (as one of those canoe interludes does, for example) * there are ways of cushioning this kind of switch, by moving in, by moving out, by angling in depth rather than laterally, but when it's not done it's jarring: the change hasn't been adequately prepared for

it's this lack of consciousness that jarmusch's endemically guilty of--how his shots connote, the follow-up expectations they stir * now, e.g., godard (and you know i'm no friend of his work) might do exactly the same thing, but he'd always be attuned to what effect his shot choices have, how they reinforce or undercut responses--just as every decent writer (which i'm not saying i am) tries to parse out all the myriad ways his work MIGHT be read: responsible for what it says as well as what it doesn't * but jarmusch doesn't do that, or even apparently know what it's about, which is what i meant when i said he "doesn't have a clue"

ps: i wouldn't be so hard on the guy if he weren't so ritually lionized ... since actually i like at least a couple of jarmusch's films * take BROKEN FLOWERS, arguably the most opulently upholstered, technically sophisticated thing he's ever done ... except what business has an avowed "minimalist," who's won his spurs thumbing his nose at exactly this kind of plush, making an elegant objet d'art like this? * e.g., that swooning 360-degree pan at the end: is it michael cimino or what?

what i THINK happened is that FLOWERS cinematographer frederick elmes took over the film's visual logistics: jarmusch provides the bare bones, his army of celebrity "collaborators" decides how to execute, filling in all the existential details--e.g., "nobody walks into the forest" ... duhhh--that the nominal auteur can't or won't * which happened a couple times too with robby muller in the past--e.g., the irrelevant rack focusing in DOWN BY LAW: it's just poor, desperate robby trying not to be bored * and there's utterly no reason (i.e., "artistic," as opposed to crassly commercial) to hire the trendoid accessories--au courant actors, cinematographers, editors too, if there are such--to do what jarmusch's undernourished scenarios require: point camera, exeunt omnes ... any ordinary film school grunt could do that!

Well, we cannot attest to what Jarmusch was thinking, nor his editor, when these filmic lines were (criss-)crossed, but I will agree with you, Pat G., the evidence (without “cushion”) COULD point to cluelessness. But beyond appropriate film language or cultural training, yours and my response differed, offering a different sort of evidence. Sure, I didn’t have my film school goggles on, but I was entranced and involved, while you were taken out of the film.

Maybe Jarmusch’s disjointed shot choices, unlike Godard’s (obvious/academic), invited a more mysterious or awkward or dreamlike response.

Pat G., you hate Jarmusch so much, or distrust him so, that it’s hard to defend him! But I would say that you should pay less attention to his “minimalist” tag (don’t fence him in! Even if he, at one time, fenced himself in.), ignore his Uber-hip fan clubs, forget how he earned his spurs (it’s called growth/change), stop challenging the auteur theory (“army of celebrity collaborators") only to take down our white lion Jarmusch, and … just … get … into … his vibe, vision (aided by “collaborators”), intelligence and ambition. The man is consistently one of the few most interesting American filmmakers.

By the way, that BROKEN FLOWERS Cimino/360 shot at the end was awesome. Its revelation – that his story was not about a boy looking for his father, rather a man looking for a son – was overwhelming. Jarmusch certainly knows how to end a movie: Mystery Train, Dead Man, Broken Flowers, to name a few.

And finally saw THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and, being a PT Anderson fan already, was impressed, but, not to open up old post wounds, found the ending (bowling alley scene) annoyingly way over-the-top. It’s as if Anderson put down his bullhorn and consequently lost control – the acting, the choreography, the almost-campiness. UGH!!! It actually dropped the movie down a whole level.