MovieChat Forums > My Darling Clementine (1946) Discussion > It's good, but too fictionalized

It's good, but too fictionalized

posted 19 years ago by broadwaymary12
24 replies | jump to latest

I liked this movie, but I wish more of it was true to fact instead of what it is. Holliday didn't die at the OK Corral in real life. John Ford had met Wyatt Earp and supposedly portrays an accurate depiction of the shoot out, but I feel like he took advantage of the valuable information since it was written in the script that Holliday dies, when in reality, Holliday dies of TB some years later in bed. It is a really interesting story, and I love Fonda's performance, but I feel like it would be better if it were based more on the actual events. Also, they should have changed the title when the part of Clementine was drastically cut. She's hardly in the film. I do recommend it for entertainment value though, but don't rely on it for any biographical information.

"You're not drunk if you can lie on the floor without holding on"

[–] zackbrown2-1 19 years ago

I agree 100%
That's why I preferred Tombstone.

www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=zackbrown

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 18 years ago

As far as art goes, it is superior; Tombstone, though, is more historically accurate. When are they going to make a musical of it?

Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.

[–] Samoan Bob 19 years ago

But I'd prefer if everyone went by a different name so as to disassociate it from history.

I like pie.

[–] buckboard 18 years ago

When James Jones wrote "The Thin Red Line" he made it clear he was writing from experience as he knew it, but otherwise the story was fiction. His forward stated that he could have placed the action on a mythical island (as Norman Mailer had in "The Naked and The Dead") but that the name Guadalcanal evoked a feeling in the American people.

John Ford filmed "My Darling Clementine" in just the same fashion--the name Wyatt Earp and the characters surrounding him are evocative. As f'rinstances, Wayt Johnson and Wade Hatton don't. Not everything is or should be a docudrama. Clementine is the factually most fanciful of the movies--but the best IMHO. "Hour of the Gun" has Hollywood costuming and a totally fictional climax--but it's the second best. That said, I enjoy "Tombstone" and "Wyatt earp" too--each for their own reasons. But NONE is "historically accurate". We weren't there; we'll never know.

[–] rgcustomer 14 years ago

"We weren't there; we'll never know.".

On that basis, every court in the land is over-reaching its authority, and every quantum and astro-physicist in the world is just making stuff up. They weren't there; they'll never know. Of course, that's nonsense. We have standards of evidence.

Using characters from history, and an event from history, if the writer isn't even going to try to present the facts, is done for exactly one reason: to con more money out of the pockets of suckers who think they are seeing the truth. You'll hear people leaving the cinema saying things like "I had no idea that he was such a nice person" or whatever, not knowing it's all nonsense.

Writers that are any good will make their own characters with their own names, if they don't like what history has already written. Poorer writers will steal characters and stories from other writers. It's the genuinely incompetent who try to rewrite history.

6/10

[–] sutcal 19 years ago

Yet for a movie made in 1946 it has still stood the test of time. Its interesting that it has a rating of 8 on here (but with not enough votes to push it into the top 250).

I agree that historical inaccuracties plague the movie and wonder if there is any history/trivia around the movie that might explain why this occured. Perhaps in 1946 the entertainment drive was greater than the accuracy that seemed to become more important to historical movies over the year.

If the movie was never made to be or reflect historical accuracy then enjoy the movie for the entertainment.

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] apiticanejare 18 years ago

This is the west, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Blake-31 18 years ago

How could anyone prefer any other film about Earp and the OK Corral...About the fact that this one it's just too fictionalized...well, did anyone know that Mr. Ford used to talk about the subject with the very real Earp?...How could anyone but feel deeply shocked by this wonderful masterpiece...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] tyurbrner 18 years ago

yes..why spread misinformation?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] johnburrows51 18 years ago

Ford may have known Wyatt Earp, but this movie was more of a tribute to Wyatt's legend than about any factual information regarding his life in Tombstone.

[–] DrGlitterhouse 10 years ago

Because it's the only recreation of the gunfight at O.K. Corral I've seen where Doc Holliday is killed. That's too jarring a discrepancy for me to get over. Plus, there's this fictional Hispanic character whose name is Chihuahua? Strike two! Dracula killing Van Helsing is one thing, but this...

Plus there's hardly anything in the film about the relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday.

"He IS Redstone."

[–] MovieMan0283part2 18 years ago

Well, when I saw it I could have cared less whether it was "historically accurate." I haven't seen Tombstone so I can't compare the two, but this film was beautiful, poetic, and entertaining, one of the great Westerns. Who cares if it accurately depicts the shootout at the OK Corral? Or, even if one does care, why should that affect the value of the movie as a movie?

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]