Resurrecting the Movies thread...

[Front-Ranger]

The Missouri Breaks is by far the most unconventional, unpredictable "Western" I have ever seen.  Just watched it today, via Netflix delivery.    And hey, it's got Nicholson and Brando and Harry Dean Stanton!

Little Big Man, also from the same director, is in the same vein.

Sounds like 3:10 to Yuma is a must-see!!

[serious crayons]

But as thrilling as it was to watch both of them (and it really was - so much so that I think I'll watch both of them again this weekend)

I'm thinking of seeing it again, too. I wished I had taken my sons. It's rated R, so I thought I'd better vet it first, but it's probably the most PG-13ish R I've ever seen. True, there's a high body count and a little swearing, but neither seemed quite enough to warrant that rating.

I told my husband, who I later learned had also wanted to see it, that he should take the boys. But maybe I'll go, too!

Some reviewers didn't like the bit of a twist (so to speak) in the ending.  I loved it.  I thought it made perfect sense.

Me too. The ending couldn't have been more fitting. I saw a reviewer on Rotten Tomatoes criticize it, I figured he must have just been looking for something to complain about.

Sounds like 3:10 to Yuma is a must-see!!

You bet! I don't want to oversell it to the point that people come out disappointed, but FRiend, I'm pretty sure you'd like it.

[Kd5000]

3:10 to Yuma. Should I stay away from this film.? I'm not that thin skin, but I thought society was evolving beyond this. Stereotypical gay acting villians are popping up everywhere in Hollywood film.   Interesting quote in the review by the director of  the 300 as well.   

After all, as Zack Snyder, director of 300, said about his movie's version of the villainous god-king Xerxes, “'What's more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?''


I'm just posting an excerpt as the review as it had quite a few spoilers.  For the full review, see http://www.afterelton.com/movies/2007/9/310toyuma

========================================================================================
The new film 3:10 to Yuma delivers yet another coded gay villain to add to the already crowded pantheon. A remake of the 1957 film starring Glenn Ford, Russell Crowe plays the role of outlaw Ben Wade. Christian Bale co-stars as Dan Evans, the down on his luck Civil War veteran desperate enough to try to bring Wade to justice despite the near certainty he’ll die trying. And Ben Foster stars as Charlie Prince, Wade’s villainous henchman and second in command who oozes gay subtext.

To be perfectly clear, Foster’s part is actually rather small, so don’t expect GLAAD to issue a press release taking director James Mangold to task for denigrating the gay community. That being said, there is also no mistaking that Foster’s character is indeed coded as gay and is done so to make him even more unsettling to filmgoers since being a murderous sociopath apparently isn't bad enough.

When we first see Charlie Prince, he is astride his horse, one hand draped delicately over the other with the limpest wrist this side of the Mississippi river. He is by far the nattiest dresser in the entire cast, and if that isn’t mascara he’s wearing when we first meet him then I’m Buffalo Bill.

Foster’s casting tells us a great deal about what Mangold intended for the character. He is a slight man, probably best known as Angel in X-Men: The Last Stand and as Russell, Claire’s sexually ambiguous boyfriend in Six Feet Under. Macho isn’t a word likely to often be used in describing Foster.

[serious crayons]

First, I want to say: Anyone wanting to see this film without pretty big spoilers should skip the second page of this review. The first page seems OK.

The essay is interesting. As a straight person, I'm no doubt more oblivious, but to be perfectly honest it didn't cross my mind that the character seemed gay -- except for the fact that his devotion to Russell Crowe's character is so intense. That I did wonder about a bit. But I didn't catch any of the supposedly stereotypical gay acting or any of the other subtle signals the writer mentions.

And maybe I'm out of it, but I don't necessarily think of a sterotypical gay character as an outlaw who goes around brutally killing people. And even if this character IS supposed to be gay, I'd be tempted to argue that the vast majority of outlaws and brutal killers in movies are straight, so if we occasionally see a gay brutal killer, isn't that just sort of giving equal time in a way that could be seen as normalizing gayness?

The essay makes some interesting points, but it also seems a bit hypersensitive. But again, maybe that's just me. Barb and anyone else who's seen it, what do you think?

[ednbarby]

I didn't find the character stereotypically gay at all.  I agree that the reviewer is being hypersensitive.  I do think there is some serious homoerotic tension between Wade and Prince, but I liken it to the homoerotic tension I feel, in a way, between Jack and Sawyer on "Lost."  They're both indeed straight, but the intensity of their emotion toward each other (in their case, it's an intense hatred rather than devotion) is super-charged and makes someone like me REALLY want to see them make out.

I think the homoeroticism in 3:10 was intentional, but I didn't think Mangold/Foster were making the Prince character seem stereotypically gay.  Like Katherine, maybe I'm out of it, but I didn't see anything the least little bit limp-wristed about him.  In fact, he kind of scared the crap outta me, and no overtly gay character has ever done that before.  I do think his sexuality is meant to be ambiguous, though.  And I think the sense I got watching him and Wade interact that Wade knows this and plays on it in his own favor (i.e., plays Prince a little to get that dogged devotion out of him) was intended.

I also think this is a love story.  An unconventional one, and one about platonic, filial love and not sexual love.  I think Wade and Evans come to love one another - they come to respect the decency and morality they each find in the other and come to realize they're really very much alike, and that if one event in either's lives had gone the other way, they would be exactly like the other.  It's really lovely to watch their respect and ultimately love for each other grow over the course of the film.  Without giving too much away, I think Ben does what he does in the end more out of love for Dan than because it is his nature (but both are true).

[serious crayons]

Well put, Barb!

I noticed no limp-wristedness whatsoever. There is, however, something extreme and fanatical about Prince's devotion to Wade. It did cross my mind that Prince could be in love with Wade.

But, to take an analogy from an entirely different genre, it's also a little like the over-the-top devotion the character Dwight has for his boss, Michael, on The Office. Dwight is not gay (although at times Michael seems uncomfortable with those undertones). Though it's also a little like the devotion Smithers, who apparently IS gay, has for Mr. Burns on The Simpsons.

But so what if Prince IS supposed to be gay, and that he loves Wade in a romantic way? Would that, in and of itself, be so wrong for the movie to depict?

I think Wade and Evans come to love one another - they come to respect the decency and morality they each find in the other and come to realize they're really very much alike, and that if one event in either's lives had gone the other way, they would be exactly like the other.  It's really lovely to watch their respect and ultimately love for each other grow over the course of the film.  Without giving too much away, I think Ben does what he does in the end more out of love for Dan than because it is his nature (but both are true).

Interesting take, Barb. I don't know that I would have thought to describe their feelings for each other as "love," exactly, though certainly there's deep respect. And they come to see what they have in common. I think one of the most important moments in the film is in the hotel, when Dan's son says Wade won't (whisper whisper) because deep down he's really (whisper whisper), and then Wade responds by saying (whisper whisper) -- but actually (whisper whisper). Don't you?

[ednbarby]

Yes, I do. 

And I do think it's love - platonic love.  I have a couple of long-time female friends - one of them is my sister-in-law - with whom I can talk on the phone for hours (they both live far away).  And whenever we do that, which is only a few times a year, and get to the end of the conversation, one of us always says "I love you," and the other one says, "I love you, too."  And we mean it.  Maybe men look at it differently, but to me, deep, abiding mutual respect and understanding is love.  It's not the only kind of love there is, but it is love.

[serious crayons]

Maybe men look at it differently, but to me, deep, abiding mutual respect and understanding is love.  It's not the only kind of love there is, but it is love.

Sure! I'm not saying men (and women) can't love each other platonically. And I agree that mutual respect and understanding are among the prerequisites, which Wade and Evans certainly share.

The only reason I would hesitate to call it "love" between them is that they've only known each other a couple of days. When I think of love, especially the platonic kind as opposed to the romantic kind, I think of emotions that need a bit longer to develop.

To me, they've barely gotten past the point where they're supposed to be mortal enemies (especially in the case of Evans, who is more resistant to Wade's appeal than Wade is to his). By then, maybe seeds have been planted of something I might imagine conceivably developing into love, under the right circumstances (which these aren't).

So I might say they reach something like ... an unexpected closeness. You see that particularly in the scenes where Evans tells Wade about his war experience and his reason for staying on his farm. And certainly in Wade's behavior. But I, personally, think of the feelings as stopping short of out-and-out love.

But that's just me!   

It's a really interesting movie, you all! And BTW, there are a couple of discussions of the homophobia issue on imdb's 3:10 to Yuma message board. I only glanced at a few of the posts, but it looks like most people don't think it's homophobic (either because they don't see Foster as gay, or they don't see a gay Foster as offensive). Not that imdb posters are necessarily the most sensitive analysts. 

[Meryl]

I saw 3:10 to Yuma today and thought it was terrific.  I felt like I was watching an old-fashioned Western, like the ones with Jimmy Stewart or Henry Fonda.  Very good performances, and worth a second look to pick up on the subtleties of character.  The gay thing?  Would not have picked up on it at all without having read some of the comments here.

[ednbarby]

I concur on all counts, Meryl.  Well-said (and so much more briefly and succinctly than I ever could)!