The Duke playing an old man


The Duke was very believable playing a 60-year old man when he was the young age of 42. Good age-old makeup and mannerisms. He should have been nominated for the Oscar!

reply

Nathan Brittles is my favourite of the Duke's roles; strong, touching, and memorable.



You can lead a horse to water, but a pencil must be lead.

reply

Agreed. Wayne is outstanding in this role. There's a brief little moment when Joanne Dru is upset over the "love triangle" and appears to shed a tear. Brittle subtly pats her shoulder to comfort her. No great swells of music or gaudy inserted pickup shot. A wide shot, both on their horses in the midst of the calvary soldiers. Wayne simply gives her a paternal, comforting touch. It seemed a spontaneous but true moment. Same with his quiet scenes in the cemetery talking to his wife. Very subtle and tender, yet not cheesy or forsaking the true, gruff character of Nathan Brittles.

This is an under appreciated role for John Wayne. I found it unbelievable that he was only 42, younger than ME! (I still can't quite fathom that!) Yet he convincingly portrays 60ish Capt. Brittles, conveying grit, experience, and war weariness. What a great performance!

(spoiler warning is more of a character development point...but felt it's better to be careful than tick someone off who might consider it a giveaway...)

Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

reply

You're right. Nathan, as well as Tom Dunson and Ethan Edwards were all Oscar-worthy, more so than Rooster - not that I'm arguing with his award for it.

It ain't like it used to be. But it'll do.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Another memorable role was Tom Donofan in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence"

reply

Well, lookie-here, mister, an' lem'me tell ya, pil-grim: All the Duke ever needed to turn in a respectable performance were stellar directors (like John Ford and Howard Hawks) and the able acting support of the likes of Victor McClaglen, Maureen O'Hara, Jimmy Stewart and Ward Bond!

reply

[deleted]

I beg to differ a little, Mcqueen. I grew up on the Dukes pictures and can tell you with all candor that he made many more mediocre-to-bad flicks than the relative few standouts that have catapulted him into his much-deserved screen immortality.

reply

That's probably true of any star during the Studio system: they had a difficult time rejecting films without severe repercussions. Look at Bette Davis: when she bucked the system it about wrecked her career.

Kinda like Babe Ruth: not only was he the home-run king of his era, he's also "highly" ranked in strike-outs -- he's #95 of all time according to the Baseball Almanac(http://www.baseball-almanac.com/hitting/histrk1.shtml)

--If they move, kill 'em!

reply

This is true, Bry, but I had meant that it was Wayne himself, not necessarily the vehicles to which he was assigned, who could often turn in less than stellar performances. Still, even most of the lesser Wayne pictures are entertaining enough--I grew up on a lot of that stuff and when I was a kid thought they were great! But growing older generally makes a person more discerning and tastes change as we mature.

I have stuck up for the Duke in many posts and threads over the last few years here at IMDb, so I guess this and my previous posts are disclaimers, "sorta," to dispell anyone's notion that I'm slavishly devoted to *His Dukeness* to the point of being blind to his occasional turkey flicks and weaker deliveries as an actor.

reply

I agree. And I also think he was the kind of actor who needed a strong director whom he respected, if a good performance was to be had. John Ford was one, for him -- Henry Hathaway, to a lesser degree, possibly, but the material and Wayne's personal involvement (didn't Portis say he'd had him in mind for Cogburn when he wrote it? What would THAT do for an actor's ego??) probably helped him come to the high level he achieved in True Grit.

One the other hand, and perhaps contradicting what I just said, the Duke was pretty bad, IMHO, in some of his more personal films, like The Green Berets and The Alamo.

But he was always fun to watch! Even his worst films are still entertaining.

--If they move, kill 'em!

reply

Actually, the Green Berets wasn't so bad as it was ill-advised and a huge "miss" in Wayne's ability to guage the mood of the public when he made that flick.

The Alamo is actually OK but could have been better.

Agreed that certain directors knew how to bring out the Duke's best performances; Howard Hawks, along with Ford and Hathaway, was another one of them; Don Siegel was on hand and behind the camera for Wayne's final--and one of his best--pictures and performances.

reply

Duke certainly turned in some fantastic performances and a some bad ones. Green Berets and most of the late 60's movies. I think of it as the Burt Reynolds Syndrome. A fine actor who get paid more money to turn in mediocre performances than he does for great performances. Perhaps when you are producer and star, the director is hard pressed to enforce discipline?

reply

Disagree about the Babe Ruth part. As long as he got his hits and home runs and RBIs, which he certainly did, who cares how he made his outs. Is a ground out or fly out really that much better than a strike out in most situations? Doubt it.

reply

[deleted]

Actually Captain Brittles would have turned 64 on the day of his retirement marked on the calendar, making him born in November of 1812. Thus he would have left his farm to join the army (by going to West Point or by enlisting as a private?) at the age of 18 between between November 1830 and Novemember, 1831.

1876 was a few years after a mandatory retirement age of 64 for officers was enacted by congress, dashing the hopes of many officers from long-lived families that they they would eventually become generals through sheer seniority.

I think that with today's longevity officers should be given the chance at age 50 to decide to retire at age 75, if they accept being demoted to Second Lieutenant if they are field officers, to First Lieutenant if they are Brigadier or Major Generals, or to Captain if they are Lieutenant Generals or higher, and starting to climb the promotion ladder over again.

reply

That probably wouldn't fly with those senior officers who've proven themselves still capable leaders and strategians.

reply

Also in the Civil war a lot of officers were Brevetted with higher ranks. Meaning a Captain may take over a Regiment thus becoming a Brevet Major or Colonel, he would have the title and function of a Regimental Commander but being a haste or temporary promotion would return to Captain (or possible promotion) after the War/Battle/Conflict was over.

I seem to recall Custer was a general by the end of the Civil war but in the Indian wars was returned to Lt. Colonel.

reply

William Wellman with "Island in the Sky" managed to stretch Wayne's talents even further than Ford ever did (and that's saying a lot), and Mark Rydell got a performance out of him in "The Cowboys" that equaled anything Ford, Hawks, and Hathaway did with him. Wayne even gives perfectly fine performances for Andrew V. McLaglen in "McLintock!" and "Chisum" and But Kennedy in "The War Wagon". Though these are also the directors who respectively did "Cahill: United States Marshal" and "The Train Robbers", among Wayne's least inspired movies and performances.

reply

As much as I admire Wayne's work and career, I think I have not seen half of his performances. None i can think of before Stagecoach. For later films, never seen The Green Berets, for example.

But of the ones I have seen, probably the roles in The Searchers and Liberty Valence stand out, with The Quiet Man right behind them (as much as anything for his, for him, incomparable chemistry with Maureen O'Hara), and this film right behind that. Rio Bravo, Rio Grande and Fort Apache are also excellent. In Harm's Way is a surprisingly nuanced peformance in a hoot of a film that is a bit of a mess at times.

A less talked about Western that he was great in and is a great film was Tall in the Saddle. Check out his work there with Ella Raines.

reply

Also in the Civil war a lot of officers were Brevetted with higher ranks. Meaning a Captain may take over a Regiment thus becoming a Brevet Major or Colonel, he would have the title and function of a Regimental Commander but being a haste or temporary promotion would return to Captain (or possible promotion) after the War/Battle/Conflict was over.

I seem to recall Custer was a general by the end of the Civil war but in the Indian wars was returned to Lt. Colonel.


You are in error about the nature of brevet ranks.

A junior officer can take over command of a regiment in the absence of his senior officers (killed, wounded, sick, on leave, on some other assignment, etc.) without being promoted or having any special type of rank such as a brevet rank.

The United states regular army was always very small in the 19th century. The highest it ever got in that period was probably about 50,000 men from 1866 to 1869. In the War of 1812 (1812-1815) the Mexican War (1846-1848), the Civil War (1861-1865) and the Spanish American War (1898) the states and territories would raise units of volunteers who would then be mustered into the Federal government service. Since the volunteer armies were many times as large as the regular army and needed experienced officers, many regular army officers took leave of absence from the regular army to serve in the United States Volunteers at much higher ranks.

Those officers had ranks in both the regular army, known as the United States Army or U.S.A., and the United States Volunteers or U.S.V., at the same time. For example, George Armstrong Custer was a newly commissioned second lieutenant in the regular army in 1861 and was a captain in the Fifth United States Cavalry in 1865, very rapid promotion for the regular army. Custer was also promoted to brigadier general U.S.V. in 1863 and major general U.S.V. 1n 1865, but when the volunteer army was disbanded his commission was terminated. Then in 1866 when the regular army was enlarged Custer was appointed lieutenant colonel of the Seventh US Cavalry.

The states and territories also had their militias, ancestors of the National Guard of today, which also had their generals. For example, George Cadwallader (1806-1879) was brigadier general of the First Brigade, First Division of the Pennsylvania Militia from 1832, a brigadier general in the regular army in 1847-1848, a major general of Pennsylvania Volunteers in 1861-1962, and a major general of United States Volunteers from 1862-1865.

These ranks in the regular army or United States Army, the United States Volunteers, and the state and territorial militias were what is called substantive ranks or grades. Officers had authority to command in those ranks and were paid the salaries for those ranks (at least in the regular army and the volunteers, perhaps also in the militia).

Brevet ranks were different from substantive ranks in the United States Army, the United States Volunteers, and the state and territorial militias. Brevet ranks were mostly (but not totally) honorary. Many officers in the Civil War - including those who had substantive ranks in both the United States Army and the United States Volunteers - were awarded brevet ranks in either the United States Army or the United States Volunteers or both.

Brevet ranks are not the same thing as ranks in the United States Volunteers. Officers in the United States Volunteers (as well as officers in the United States Army) could have both substantive and brevet ranks at the same time. And the majority of officers in the United States Volunteers were never awarded brevet ranks.

George Armstrong Custer had commissions as brevet brigadier general and brevet major general in the United States Army while he was lieutenant colonel of the Seventh US Cavalry. Thus he was both a lieutenant colonel and a major general at the same time, even though his brevet generalships had a very weak and unsatisfying status compared to substantive generalships.

So Custer was often called General Custer. And likewise he is quoted as calling Captain Frederick Benteen "Colonel Benteen" when ordering him to make his scout at the Little Big Horn, because Captain Benteen was a brevet colonel.

If you look at the biographies of officers in Historical Register and Dictionary of the United States Army Francis R. Heitman https://archive.org/stream/historicalregis03heitgoog#page/n5/mode/2up you will see that many of them had substantive ranks in both the United States Army and the United States Volunteers, as well as brevet ranks in both the United States Army and the United States Volunteers. This shows that volunteer rank and brevet rank were different things.

reply

Yes, but you don't want to wait for all those officers to die off so you can get promote. Nowadays, many officers, NCOs, and enlisted men would not stay in the armed forces if they knew that they would not get promoted for the next 20 to 50 years and being stuck. Back in the 19th century US Army, depending on the time period, it took anywhere from 37 years to 58 years to because a full colonel. You had many US Army captains and lieutenants in the 19th century who serve 30 to 40 years in the service and never got promoted to captain or major by the time they had die or left the service. Advancement in the 20th century US Army was not any better until after World War II. General Patton was a lieutenant colonel for about 17 years and General Eisenhower held the rank of captain for 16 years.

reply

Actually, it wasn't until June 1882, that Congress finally passed a retirement pension system for Army officers, but you had to be 64 years old and/or put in 40 years of military service before you could collect your pension. Source of information The Old Army by Edward Coffman.

With regards to First Sgt. Quincannon's pending retirement, it wasn't until February 1885 that Congress passed a retirement pension system for enlisted personnel and NCOs but you had to put in 30 years of military service before you could collect. Source of information The Old Army by Edward Coffman.

Until Congress passed both those retirement systems, the only way enlisted men, NCOs, and officers could get a pension was if they had fought in any of America's 18th and 19th centuries wars with the exception of the Spanish American War (Mexican War, War Of 1812, various Indian Wars before and after the Civil War, or the Civil War itself)and had been physically disabled in those wars. Until then, officers, NCOs, and enlisted men serve in the US Army until they had died or were incapable of serving due to old age or render physically incapable due to the harsh working and living conditions of military service.

In the case of Captain Brittle and First Sgt. Quincannon, they would have gotten nothing for their services except being lucky enough to get a place in the Old Soldier's Home which was established after the Mexican American War.

reply

I agree part of what makes this performance so great is Wayne's believability as a much older man. It is quite impressive.

reply

Wayne first played an older man for Howard Hawks in RED RIVER. Ford, not to be outdone, cast the Duke in SHE WORE A YELLOW RIBBON, where he plays an even older man, as a result. The roles Wayne said he loved the most were Nathan Brittles, Captain Ralls in WAKE OF THE RED WITCH, and Ethan Edwards in THE SEARCHERS.

reply

I thought he gave a great performance, but he really didn't look anywhere close to 60 to me.

Poorly Lived and Poorly Died, Poorly Buried and No One Cried

reply

This was a great performance by John Wayne, and undoubtedly there are people who age in this manner. But at the age of 64, my mannerisms, posture, and movement are not elderly. They are the same as they were when I was 42, or even 24.

reply

I just have never been able to form a liking for this film, or, for "Rio Grande." Only the 1st of the Trilogy "Fort Apache" struck my chord. The other's are syrupy & forced. Parts of "Apache" are trip hammered into the other 2.

There are times in "Apache" when it's almost too much, but, you have Fonda navigating & balancing it. There is no balance in the latter 2. Wayne is overbearing in both.

reply