Classic movie site with rare images, original ads, and behind-the-scenes photos, with informative and insightful commentary. We like to have fun with movies!
Archive and Links
grbrpix@aol.com
Search Index Here




Monday, March 24, 2025

Lay Those Pistols Down ...

 

No Guns for Our Home, Sweet Home, Counsels Mrs. Cody

Movies Taming Toxic Males --- Part One

Wasn’t enough teaching us to be civilized, movies had to constantly remind us to stay civilized, responsible moviemaking when such thing prevailed long ago. Violence was abhorred except as a last resort, as in provoked, defending life, so on. Now that we had our empire called America, it was incumbent to keep hearts and prairies pure. Dodge City only half-kidded when Alan Hale, formerly of wild inclination, joins the town’s “Pure Prairie League” to tame his fighting instinct. Gunplay we’d get in films came always with a lecture deploring such conduct. Gary Cooper as The Plainsman kills on behalf of advancing civilization, to make the frontier “safe” as President Lincoln directs in an opening segment. Hollywood agreed that the only way to tame the west was with guns, but never was this to be openly endorsed. Always there had to be spinach with the sweets. Cooper as Wild Bill Hickock, real-life personage of untamed times, is shunned and feared by polite society taking over his former free range, Hickock a bad influence and told so. Lifelong pal Buffalo Bill Cody marries, and a first command from wife Helen Burgess is for him to lose Wild Bill for a friend. Hickock’s counterargument is persuasive but ignored: I never was a murderer. I never did fight unless put upon, to which Mrs. Cody simple-replies, Though shall not kill, putting us all on defense for having enjoyed Cooper/Hickock on kill setting and hopeful he’ll stay there. After all, isn’t this why we pay ways in to see The Plainsman? Put away your guns, Mr. Hickock, she insists, what right have you to judge who is to live or die? Here was cold bath we got for heroes conquering the west. That being done and finished well before 1936 when The Plainsman was made, no more should we view these as figures to emulate. To admire them in hindsight was sentiment to be moderated, The Plainsman careful to collect tolls for each ounce of lead Coop pours into villainy. Today we want and largely get modern “heroes” that massacre willy-nilly (look at John Wick), and ache at old films that preach over each fallen varmint.

Wild Bill Writes His 30's Epitaph with Every Skunk He Shoots

Hickock totes up a body count but knows for each one he’s closer to oblivion that will be his own. The west is gettin’ to be a new kind of place. What room is there goin’ to be for a two-gun plainsman?, admission he makes moments before being shot from behind by town-dressed cowardice that would never take him face-on. The film industry, in fact every sort of industry, had more than vested interest in keeping the west, in fact all points, safe for folk to gather in close quarters and be entertained by right thinkers who’d keep a lid on whatever violent or anti-social impulse might awaken the animal within us. That’s why there needed to be a Helen Burgess/Mrs. Cody to amend applications for manifest destiny, scold and party pooper she’ll invariably be, but along always to remind us that gentle ways are best ways. If killing had to be done in bulk, let it be Indians stood in the way of expanding empire, and so it was that Hickock and Cody spend cartridges countless upon pre-approved targets figured for block to progress. Cecil B. DeMille directed The Plainsman. He believed in big brooms to sweep off frontiers we aimed to cross. Mrs. Cody probably annoyed him much as she does us, but laws of the 1936 west unlike ones of mere sixty years before when real-life Hickock/Cody stories took place had to give voice to those who’d now abhor random gunplay. This I suspect was as much a Production Code provision as anyone’s nod to good citizenship. Orderly systems must prevail in a final analysis, rough roads ultimately paved. To revel in violent means of carving a country was to endorse them, and this was dangerous in a country, any country, where conflicts threatened always to bubble to a surface and find expression in possibly hostile action.

Incorruptible Sheriff Errol Spurns Temptation By Bruce Cabot and Gang

Here was what an Establishment feared most, and why Law and Order as an overriding theme defined most if not all westerns. Dodge City was 1939 recognition of the west as wilderness tamed, a wilderness submitting to man’s control and man’s impulse to harness and control other men. Posters promised what the film could not hope to deliver: West of Chicago There Was No Law! West of Dodge City There Was No God! Neither legend was borne out by content of Dodge City, agents for order constrained from action outside rigid realm of due process, lest vigilantism prevail and “we” become no better than “them.” In this case, we are Errol Flynn and comic cohorts (Alan Hale, Guinn Williams), them being Bruce Cabot and outnumbering horde abiding by his instruction. There is plentiful law west of Chicago, too much in fact if we are to get value for leisure time and money. Villainy is rampant yet protectors in the person of Flynn plus unhelpful help are impotent to stop it, even after “Wade Hatton” is driven by a series of unpunished murders to don a badge and presumably put right to multiple wrongs. First John Litel, then Bobs Watson, then Frank McHugh --- how many must die before Errol straps on sixes? Response goes slow and we are frustrated by grinding wheels of justice amidst wide-open town that is Dodge. Action means suddenness and that is not what due process is about. To sate customer appetite comes a saloon donnybrook that relates in no way to narrative otherwise plodding, even as it would linger as Dodge City’s most memorable highlight. The fight among seeming hundreds begins over nothing, continues over less, and fails to resolve any aspect of conflicts at hand. It is instead fan service as defined for Errol Flynn admirer base as constituted in 1939, a harmless if empty nod to those coming to Dodge City for their fill-up of action.

Friends First to the Hoosegow, While Baddies Still Run Loose

The brawl is a nervous substitute for facing up to threat Bruce Cabot and his gang represent. They are by this point responsible for much carnage and unimpeded from starting more. We begin to wonder what outrage must ensue till finally they are subdued. Flynn’s is a relaxed authority, forbidding firearms on streets and arresting his friends first for violating it. We could wonder if Sheriff Wade is on the take, an offer Cabot’s “Jeff Surrett” extends but Hatton rejects, at least initially. Did small-part Ann Sheridan initially play a larger role and tempt the sheriff to turn corrupt? Something seems to slow him down. A fiery finish, too long delayed, sees nature more/less dispose of threats, good folk escaping fire that will engulf evildoers. At no time does Flynn go head-to-head with criminals as Walter Huston startlingly did in Beast of the City made seven years earlier but a seeming century before in terms of resolution it proposes to crime problems. 1932 was far more disordered than 1939, at least on a domestic front, Beast of the City and similar ones proposing swift and wholesale disposal of civic disorder. That would not do for stabler environment that was 1939, Dodge City upholding the new creed by never shooting first, but asking questions, endless questions, toward tie-up both tepid and frustrating. For gloss and Techicolorful entertainment, Dodge City succeeds brilliantly. Audiences loved it and would remember it. Warners staged a rail junket to the actual Dodge City, packed with stars for a world premiere. The trip was itself a model of precision and orderly demonstration, nothing whatever left to chance or possibility of objection … casts, guests, hosting dignitaries all models of good citizenship and beacons for American yesterdays and even better tomorrows.


It's easy to forget that the production Code was as much for curbing violent expression as it was for containing sex content. What loosed hounds for a couple years, primarily 1943, was urgency of war and necessity of our winning it. 1942 was for finding the formula, 1944-45 easing off in slight because by then overseers figured we’d prevail. 1943 however gave way to rage, this for a home front and public far removed from combat. The why was pressing need to sell bonds, see that civilians buy them, simplify same going in and out of theatres that would offer bonds through days and nights. China was designed to stoke domestic fires. We needed to know barbarism our enemies were capable of. The Japanese especially, them more so “other” than Germans. They could be made to look dangerous and jabber like monkeys. Americans wouldn’t realize until years after how they were understood by the Japanese. US soldiers were madmen, murderers gathered out of prisons and asylums loosed upon a civilized people who saw their country under siege now that Yanks was retaking islands and advancing toward the homeland. Japan’s conception of us was every bit as horrific as ours of them. Propaganda saw to that, as aggressively expressed as what US movies propagated. China was a Paramount A picture starring Loretta Young and Alan Ladd. Ladd is a trucker prior to the war selling oil to whichever side will pay, China to him an ongoing cash register. Like Casablanca’s Rick Blaine, he must be brought into the fight by events that will enrage and motivate him. Worst of these is rape of a young Chinese woman by “rapacious Japs,” a term I looked up when first I saw an ad for China in a book published years ago. “Rapacious” means “aggressively greedy or grasping,” which I’d guess would define most in times of war, but hanged if I’ve accused anyone in civilian life of being rapacious. Should I float the word next time I get annoyed? 

Hands Up, Guns Down, but They Forget It's No Longer a Code-Compliant War Ladd is Fighting



Such graphic was sugar water beside what else merchandisers resorted to in selling China. Sample ads are here to tell the tale. Ever seen any raw as these? One proposes China as “The Picture to Make You Fighting Mad.” So how well might that have worked? Civilians could do little more than buy bonds, save scrap, tires, bacon grease. Getting mad enough might lead to a bad day at Black Rock, for real rather than fictionalized like by 1954 when such possibility could be openly addressed. A shirtless Ladd “Turns the Heat on Hirohito” while sporting a body that looks borrowed from Gordon Scott, him vowing that for “every girl trapped, a thousand Japs die,” this then-expected of breathless promotion. China came close to promise of such ads with what ranks among steeliest of get-even moments in movies made during the war. Here was where Code counsel against excess violence was suspended, due process of Dodge City and restraint for Wild Bill Hickock shelved for emergency conditions. Ladd, a civilian as noted, stands Japanese soldiers against a wall and shoots all three in cold blood for committing the brutal and offscreen rape. This was shocking in 1943, the more so now as we assume such extreme never got into films far back as China. Well, they did, and follow-up discussion by Ladd with Loretta Young is every bit as serrated. “Just shot three Japs. Blew them to bits against a wall and I’ve got no more feelings about them that if they were flies on a manure heap. As a matter of fact, I kind of enjoyed it.” Now keep in mind, Laddie was the hero, not a heavy. Not even an “anti-hero.” His action and talk to follows makes Henry Hull’s Objective Burma speech sound like an address to Rotarians.

9 Comments:

Blogger MikeD said...

The finale of Dodge City is pretty much a letdown for me. All the bad guys need to do in order to get away is stop their horses. Instead they ride along side the train to get picked off like shooting gallery ducks.

10:04 AM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

The Production Code ruined the movies by forcing them to lie. The lawless laugh at, "Thou shalt not kill." Always have. Always will. The lawless bend the law to their purpose. Always have. Always will.

11:11 AM  
Blogger Tommie Hicks said...

I always rolled my eyes when I saw 30's, 40's, and 50's westerns depict James B. Hickcock as a handsome, upright, God fearin', law enforcer. Many actors would not don the goatee Hickcock wore to cover his duck lips.

12:27 PM  
Blogger DBenson said...

With or without the code, Hollywood and pop culture in general had formulas to deliver sex, violence, and more to audiences loathe to admit they wanted it. As you noted, heroes had to be pushed to violence. They couldn't take pleasure from it -- except during wartime -- nor could they seek profit. Vengeance for its own sake was wrong. The hero had to be answering to a higher law, or protecting others from the villains.

Sinners who enjoyed sinning could transgress for several reels so long as there was repentance before fadeout, ideally with some suffering.

Sometimes, especially in comedy, various sins would be allowed if the opposition was worse than the hero: pious hypocrites, bigger crooks, or jerks (the last including people who were technically right, but needlessly nasty about it). As a family man W.C. Fields was as tormented as Cinderella, and as a rogue (always in period costume) he was less unpleasant than his marks.

Haven't read "Count of Monte Cristo", but assume all the adaptations are following the book in having Dantes's betrayers grow more evil and corrupt as well as rich and powerful. When he proceeds to take them down, it's easy to frame it as heroic and morally praiseworthy rather than merely Getting Even. In the 1934 film Dantes actually states it's no longer revenge, but doing what's right. What would have happened if he came back to find his targets had all repented and were now genuinely virtuous citizens? Guessing there must have been a few westerns on that theme.

4:06 PM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

I'm not talking about Hollywood convention. I'm talking about life, not the life the Catholic Legion of Decency and moral crusaders approve of but life in its wonderful complexity and its pulsating, throbbing vitality. The movies are an art form, yes, but they have yet to become a great art form.

5:50 PM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

Gee Reg, life can be pretty hard or simply tiring for some people sometimes, and more than a few look to the movies not for life, nor for lessons about life, but rather to escape from, or to forget if only for a few brief hours the trials and tribulations of their life - to recreate themselves, by losing themselves in the fantasy being presented by the light and sound moving about on the screen for a brief time.
I'm not saying that you're wrong, but rather that movies and film are a medium that can serve many human needs, none necessarily more valuable or valid than the other.

7:00 PM  
Blogger RichardSchilling said...

I recently watched CHINA for the first time via the recently released KinoLorber bluray. I really had not expected much but since I like Loretta Young and it was only 79 minutes, I bought it on sale. Well I was completely blown away by the film. The plot and characters (and its unusual-for-the-time all-Asian supporting cast) went in such unexpected directions. Thanks to your column I now understand the filmmaker's rationale. (All I really got from IMDB were various quotes from Loretta Young talking about how much she disliked Alan Ladd.)

11:26 PM  
Blogger Reg Hartt said...

THE PLAINSMAN is poor history, yes, however it is one Helluva movie.

11:12 AM  
Blogger Filmfanman said...

A comparison with how others do things can be instructive.
The British Board of Film Censors, who look over any movie proposed to be released to British cinemas, is an industry-funded body - but I'm not sure who chooses its members. Even with that Board's approval, local municipalities in England can yet ban films from their area's cinemas - but rarely do so. The Brits have always regulated public entertainments, and it was not a stretch for them to add cinemas to that mix, as early as the 1910s.
Be that as it may, the Brit censors always looked for there to be an 'educational" component in the films they were reviewing - perhaps lessons as simple as "crime doesn't pay", but nevertheless, the instructional character of the entertainments as described in this post would not be an unexpected thing to encounter in any British film.

9:32 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

grbrpix@aol.com
  • December 2005
  • January 2006
  • February 2006
  • March 2006
  • April 2006
  • May 2006
  • June 2006
  • July 2006
  • August 2006
  • September 2006
  • October 2006
  • November 2006
  • December 2006
  • January 2007
  • February 2007
  • March 2007
  • April 2007
  • May 2007
  • June 2007
  • July 2007
  • August 2007
  • September 2007
  • October 2007
  • November 2007
  • December 2007
  • January 2008
  • February 2008
  • March 2008
  • April 2008
  • May 2008
  • June 2008
  • July 2008
  • August 2008
  • September 2008
  • October 2008
  • November 2008
  • December 2008
  • January 2009
  • February 2009
  • March 2009
  • April 2009
  • May 2009
  • June 2009
  • July 2009
  • August 2009
  • September 2009
  • October 2009
  • November 2009
  • December 2009
  • January 2010
  • February 2010
  • March 2010
  • April 2010
  • May 2010
  • June 2010
  • July 2010
  • August 2010
  • September 2010
  • October 2010
  • November 2010
  • December 2010
  • January 2011
  • February 2011
  • March 2011
  • April 2011
  • May 2011
  • June 2011
  • July 2011
  • August 2011
  • September 2011
  • October 2011
  • November 2011
  • December 2011
  • January 2012
  • February 2012
  • March 2012
  • April 2012
  • May 2012
  • June 2012
  • July 2012
  • August 2012
  • September 2012
  • October 2012
  • November 2012
  • December 2012
  • January 2013
  • February 2013
  • March 2013
  • April 2013
  • May 2013
  • June 2013
  • July 2013
  • August 2013
  • September 2013
  • October 2013
  • November 2013
  • December 2013
  • January 2014
  • February 2014
  • March 2014
  • April 2014
  • May 2014
  • June 2014
  • July 2014
  • August 2014
  • September 2014
  • October 2014
  • November 2014
  • December 2014
  • January 2015
  • February 2015
  • March 2015
  • April 2015
  • May 2015
  • June 2015
  • July 2015
  • August 2015
  • September 2015
  • October 2015
  • November 2015
  • December 2015
  • January 2016
  • February 2016
  • March 2016
  • April 2016
  • May 2016
  • June 2016
  • July 2016
  • August 2016
  • September 2016
  • October 2016
  • November 2016
  • December 2016
  • January 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2017
  • April 2017
  • May 2017
  • June 2017
  • July 2017
  • August 2017
  • September 2017
  • October 2017
  • November 2017
  • December 2017
  • January 2018
  • February 2018
  • March 2018
  • April 2018
  • May 2018
  • June 2018
  • July 2018
  • August 2018
  • September 2018
  • October 2018
  • November 2018
  • December 2018
  • January 2019
  • February 2019
  • March 2019
  • April 2019
  • May 2019
  • June 2019
  • July 2019
  • August 2019
  • September 2019
  • October 2019
  • November 2019
  • December 2019
  • January 2020
  • February 2020
  • March 2020
  • April 2020
  • May 2020
  • June 2020
  • July 2020
  • August 2020
  • September 2020
  • October 2020
  • November 2020
  • December 2020
  • January 2021
  • February 2021
  • March 2021
  • April 2021
  • May 2021
  • June 2021
  • July 2021
  • August 2021
  • September 2021
  • October 2021
  • November 2021
  • December 2021
  • January 2022
  • February 2022
  • March 2022
  • April 2022
  • May 2022
  • June 2022
  • July 2022
  • August 2022
  • September 2022
  • October 2022
  • November 2022
  • December 2022
  • January 2023
  • February 2023
  • March 2023
  • April 2023
  • May 2023
  • June 2023
  • July 2023
  • August 2023
  • September 2023
  • October 2023
  • November 2023
  • December 2023
  • January 2024
  • February 2024
  • March 2024
  • April 2024
  • May 2024
  • June 2024
  • July 2024
  • August 2024
  • September 2024
  • October 2024
  • November 2024
  • December 2024
  • January 2025
  • February 2025
  • March 2025