Oscar "Best Film" catagory.

[finn]

I think most people agree that John Wayne tended to play himself (or at least the personna he and the studios built for him) and just stamp that with another heroic sounding name. However he did a few good movies where the movie needed a John Wayne to make it what it was: I think the two were symbiotic in that respect.

The second movie Roster Cogburn actually matched him up with the wonderful, Katherine Hepburn and the movie, whilst not rich in plot was a charming dance between these giant characters.

I think also its hard not to remember that John Wayne was the Sargeant Rock of a generation of raw recruits into a world of nuclear weapons and cold war. Wayne was the guy who made people feel safe, kids could hear about the problems of the world, the fears of adults, but still feel OK because there was John Wayne and he'd sort them out. Today we have different people solving different problems and making the kids feel safe, Arnie, Bruce, Sly, Clint, etc...

The movies are fun kickabouts, they have no meaningful overt moral message and to hell with the politics of the actors, its good Vs bad and the good guys will shoot up the bad guys. John Wayne was the king of this genre; I'd never think like him, but I'd have loved to have met him and had a few beers with the guy. I still don't mind a walk down memory lane in some of the best Westerns and Action adventures made.

[peter]

More telling for me tho' is tho' is that Bridges plays John Wayne playing Rooster Cogburn.

Mind you in fairness Bridges is probably one of the few actors in the world that could pull even that off.
I think the use of dialogue with no 'contractions' (eg the way they always said 'do not' as opposed to don't' etc) worked really well. It introduces a 'distance' between the us and the charachters that emphasises their different way of thinking (in a sense much simpler) than ours. These were not beople who behaved as we do, their reaction to events was not as ours and the use of this outmoded way of speech emphasised that.

[finn]

Curiously, Kevin Costner speaks that way in a number (maybe all) of his roles. I can't (can not) remember an interview so would hesitate to say this is his actual speech pattern.

In fairness I'd agree with Bridges being in a minorioty of those with the ability to handle the role, however I must say, that lack of contractions is far from being enough for me to consider the movie either unique from its predecessor or worthy of consideration for an academy award.

[Rigel]

I think the use of dialogue with no 'contractions' (eg the way they always said 'do not' as opposed to don't' etc) worked really well. It introduces a 'distance' between the us and the charachters that emphasises their different way of thinking (in a sense much simpler) than ours.

While it's true that he omission of contractions introduces an artificial distance between the viewer and the characters, I call bullsh*t on the idea that people in times past were "simpler" than we are now. They didn't have all the electronic toys we do now, but they were every bit as intelligent and clever.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

While it's true that he omission of contractions introduces an artificial distance between the viewer and the characters, I call bullsh*t on the idea that people in times past were "simpler" than we are now. They didn't have all the electronic toys we do now, but they were every bit as intelligent and clever.

One can make the case that folks from a less technologically advanced time were more intelligent that we are because they came up with ways of solving mundane problems like washing clothes that we modern folks simply do not have.

I want to see a show of hands. How many people here know how to make soap? (my hand is raised because I know how). How many people can make a saddle? How many people have blacksmithing skills? (close--I can build and fire ceramic kilns) How many people are cartwrights or wheelwrights? How many people can make a boat? I could keep going on but you get the point.

[Vraith]

While it's true that he omission of contractions introduces an artificial distance between the viewer and the characters, I call bullsh*t on the idea that people in times past were "simpler" than we are now. They didn't have all the electronic toys we do now, but they were every bit as intelligent and clever.

One can make the case that folks from a less technologically advanced time were more intelligent that we are because they came up with ways of solving mundane problems like washing clothes that we modern folks simply do not have.

I want to see a show of hands. How many people here know how to make soap? (my hand is raised because I know how). How many people can make a saddle? How many people have blacksmithing skills? (close--I can build and fire ceramic kilns) How many people are cartwrights or wheelwrights? How many people can make a boat? I could keep going on but you get the point.

bah, peeps intelligence was about the same even if skill sets were different...sure, everyone learned to make soap from scratch...big deal, it's not like they all invented soap all by themselves, someone showed them. [and it really ain't that complicated].

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I know. The point was that some people think people in the past were less intelligent that we are, which is simply ridiculous.

Someone from 1911 jumping forward to 2011 would be just as dumbfounded and lost as someone from 2011 jumping backward to 1911.

[peter]

[quote="Rigel I call bullsh*t on the idea that people in times past were "simpler" than we are now. They didn't have all the electronic toys we do now, but they were every bit as intelligent and clever.[/quote]
C'mon man, say what you mean
No Rigel, you are quite right, my use of poorly chosen words has (once again) distorted what I was trying to say. To quote myself I say ".... emphasises their different way of thinking (in a sense much simpler) than ours." This does not mean that I believe the people to have been less "intellegent and clever" than us, just that their thinking was perhaps less cluttered with the 'paraphanalia' of 'modern' ideas and viewpoints than ours, and that the Coens illustrated this well by the way they presented the dialogue in the film.