Flaws


I'm curious...

Everyone has this comment to make: "great film, albeit flawed", as though it's some sort of cliche now. Noone has made and attempt to explain the flaws.

Would one of you be so kind as to point out the flaws this movie makes. Overall, I loved this film and thought it absolutely great. There were certain places I thought scenes were taken out of, and can see if this is what is meant by "flawed". But, if you're saying flawed as in directing, acting, dialogue or anything else, then please specify what it is that irks you.

reply

Exactly, b!tches.

reply

There was only one flaw: I can't quite accept a character named Dad.

reply

Other bandits might have called him that because he was older as a nickname. I can't understand why a town would knowingly elect a guy sherrif who used to rob banks either. It was probably one of those Brando suttle ways to hint that he thought of him as a father figure.

reply

Ill tell you one. When those two guys kill his Mexican friend, one of them calls him a "greaser". I don't think they used that derrogatory term until the 1940's when zuit suit gang members used to grease their hair (and still do).

reply

No, 'greaser' has been a slur towards Mexicans since the 1800s.

http://www.davidlambertart.com

http://memphisdryrub.blogspot.com

reply

Greetings,

Not really sure if this a flaw per se. However I found some of the dialogue unintentionally humorous. More so, I found Brando's line delivery absolutely hilarious at times. Both is diction (word choice), enunciation, and the sheer "Brandoness" of him delivering lines that attempt to parody (?) conventional western dialogue. However such was Brando and I love all his work except for the film in which he plays a college professor, name escapes me though I simply did not understand the film's attraction.

I comparison, "Once a Time in the West" is breathtaking in its dialogue and delivery, even thou it is partially dubbed.

bye,

s

reply

[deleted]

brando never played a college professor in any movie

"Im just a bum sitting in a motor home on a film set, BRANDO said, and they come looking for ZEUS".

reply

Sounds like he may be thinking of Richard Burton in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?"

reply

If so, I agree that was a worthless repugnant movie.

reply

You're probably thinking of Richard Burton in "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf."

reply

The flaw in this otherwise outstanding Western is the love story. The girl is simply not up to the task of sharing the screen with the likes of these cowpokes. OEJ has the greatest dialog of any film I think I've ever seen. In this pre-cussing era, they came up with some really creative stuff. It just fires them at you one after another like a machine gun:

"Studs like you don't come along too often, Dad."

"Get up, you tub of guts"

"You gob of spit."

Get up you scum sucking pig; I'm gonna tear your arms out!"

"You got right on the edge."

"Don't be a doing her that a way."

"How you gonna look? How you gonna look Lon, kicking, snapping, spittin up your blood . . . now turn around here and get your time?"

"If I could done anything to help I'd a been in there like a streak."

"He didn't give me no selection."

"Name's Amory, Bob Amory; guess you heard of me." "Nope."

The quotes section is full of misquotes left by someone who apparently didn't remember the dialog as well as he thought. I corrected my all time favorite piece of dialog, the part in the cantina in which Harvey Johnson is about to lose "a handful of brains" by "a fella named Rio." Hopefully, IMDB will accept my correction.


reply

I couldn't disagree more. I was about ten when I first saw the film on its original release, and thought that Pina Pellicer was utterly luminous. The passage of over half a century has not altered that first impression.

To my mind, the principal flaw is the film's ending, which was imposed (it is said) by the studio. Louisa, now pregnant, meets Rio outside of town. He assures her that he'll return to take her away. Since Lon, the vicious and cowardly deputy played by Slim Pickens, is still alive to tell all and sundry how Louisa smuggled a derringer to Rio, in effect engineering his escape and the subsequent death of Monterey's popular sheriff, one is inclined to doubt that she'll be left in peace over the course of the coming months.

Other than that, the story, the dialogue, the photography, the wonderful stable of character actors...it's my personal favorite western. To those with other preferences, I still maintain that no other western shot in Big Sur compares to this one.

reply

I thought it was way too long. I like slow paced and long films as much as anybody but to me this was a 75-90 minute movie (even in 1961 film time)strectched out to 140 minutes. It badly lacked efficiency and direction.

reply

I agree, it lagged in parts.

A few too many "Isn't Brando gorgeous" shots, I'm thinking now of one that stands out when Brando and his Mexican pal have escaped from prison and Brando wants to locate Dad. They're holed up in some old adobe eating and the scene seems obviously shot to display Brando in his "conquistador" boots. They DO look good - but the scene seems to have been shot more for glamour than narrative.

A tad too much time spent on Brando's recovery at the beach house.

Brando seemed a bit strained when saying the actual words, "I love you" to Pina... it always struck me as forced and overplayed - as if to convince us of his change of heart.

Otherwise I will always champion this classic movie and (sometimes unpopularly) defend its outstanding, modern-but-completely fitting musical score.

reply

Wow. I've had a good print of this for 2-3 years, and just decided today to watch it 'big screen'. For no reason whatsoever, I decided to attempt to understand what Brando was looking to make, as opposed to what Paramount finished, or Kubrick was involved with.
For the record, Kubrick leaving makes this the 'missed opportunity' of All-Time Hollywood, IMO.
As others have stated, clearly there are entire chunks of storyline missing. I believe Marlon went in there and tried to fully develop 6-7 characters in this film. (example...the Tim Carey character. He's well known to Dad, and at the 'Chili Scene' he has anice big shiner...from where?) It seems to me a few of the characters (as edited) enter the film already developed. His Mexican partner, Dad's wife, even Lon. Luisa seems to 'grow' emotionally in between the scenes we see her. I believe Brando's cut of this would have been four hours long. This was because he was developing a common theme for them all.
The film is called "One Eyed Jacks"....plural! What Marlon was 'directing', through all of the scenes, day in, day out, was the idea every character had two faces to show. Take the business of Rio sleeping with Luisa. Luisa (pure) lies to Dad and her mother (also played fairly pure). Dad asks Mom to find out the truth, and tell him. The girl lies to Mom, Mom KNOWS IT, and in turn lies to her husband.
Everyone, even the good guys, are full of....you know what. In fact, the film, as cut, purest characters are the gang. Amory, the other guy, and Rio's jail pal.
But, as the film is edited, you know there was a ton of backstory with Rio's jail pal, as well. I mean, yeah, I grasp that they escaped from jail together, but through their interaction, it is clear there were more scenes between them on the floor.
Flawed? How about this train of thought. Kubrick was planning his 'duality of man' theme we saw developed later in "Full Metal Jacket". Marlon stepped in and tried to 'flesh out fully' every major character. This would have somewhat contradicted Kubricks style of coldness towards 'dramatic stereotypes'. Also, bare in mind, it has been said that Brando intended the ending to be completely ambiguous.
Then, when Marlon couldn't stand the pressure of editing, Paramount had to 'create' a cohesive story out of all this.
I think Marlons 4 hour 'drama' would have been a fascinating bit of film history for film geeks, but would have been DOA at the box office.
Paramount probably tried to put the ambitious vision together, but couldn't come up with a cohesive version that moved.
So what they wound up doing was this: They decided to atempt two dramatic character arcs. The Brando/Malden characters are given coinciding arcs, and all the other film/characters become plot aids. The Pina Pellicer character becomes the device that 'changes' Rio, even though her character was probably much fuller on script. And because she is the pivotal change device, she garners more film time then feels right....because there always seems to be something missing, owing to interactions involving the other characters, all of which we don't see, as they've been edited out.
Paramounts other choice would have been to edit together a simple revenge movie. This may have even played better at the box office. I'm glad they went the way they did.
For instance......here's an edit I can imagine being done.
The film opens much the same as it does, up until Rio gets captured.
Now spend about another 10 minutes in the jail, where Rio is brooding with his compadre, steaming inside. They plan their escape.
He meets Amory, goes up to Monterey. You can do the whole 'Dinner at Dads, Town Party' segueway without affecting the film. Rio seduces Luisa, the following morning, he tells her he's shamed her...and FADE THERE. She has no response. She is now just a plot tool to show Rio getting even with Dad. Now splice in either the bank robbery or the killing of Tim Carey....any reason to put Rio in jail. Get the gun on the table....get a distraction to get Lon out of the room, you can do the whole 'tension scene' involving Rio getting the gun.
He gets out, Dad and Rio shoot it out. I'm sure versions were shot with both dying. Or it wouldn't surprise me.
No love interest, not much focus on Amory, no whipping, broken hands, recovery.
Or maybe get the whippings in there, somehow.
But my point is, it seems to me Paramount made an attempt to give us something other than a simple revenge/shoot 'em up, which they could have.
OK, my very flawed writing style gives all sorts of 'flaws' in this film.
BTW, I love this movie....I really do, one of my favs.
Peace

reply

I have the exact opposite view to the OP. I'm just wondering what everybody finds so great about this film. I thought the plot was a big jumbled mess with alot of loose ends being left untied. The end was unsatisfying and Brando's character was rather unlikeable and heaven knows why the senorita would fall in love with him within minutes of meeting him. The characters could've been fleshed out more.

reply

Agreed. I thought it started out good, but then a lot of scenes seemed disjointed or unnecessary, & didn't always make good sense. For instance, why did Ben Johnson & the rest of the gang wait 6 weeks for Brando to heal so to rob the bank? And then they end up going without him anyway. And why did Brando's Mexican friend that escaped from prison with him ride all the way to Monterey with him only to turn back around and not even participate in the bank robbery? I guess it was just out of loyalty & friendship but the strength of their friendship is never shown until the end when they say their goodbyes. The scene in the jail when his girlfriend comes in with the gun hidden in the stew(?), you see a quick shot where it looks like she shows Brando she has a key in her hand, & after the deputy finds the gun she rushes to brando in the cell. I thought she was going to give him the key she had concealed. If it wasnt a key than what was it she showed him? Also, Brando tells Malden in the jail that he didnt send Ben Johnson to his house to tell him he was going to kill him. How did brando know ben johnson did this? I think this is so overated because it has brando in it, and so many people seem to think he was something great. Really though, he's not. For one thing, he mumbles too much, and i didnt buy it that he was supposed to be at least part Mexican. This is definately not a classic western.

reply

Another stupid aspect is how Brando tricks Malden to go down the mountain by having a bullet in each hand. Why would Malden trust him? I'd demand to see both hands after picking a hand. It was a dumb amateurish move. Given that both characters are unlikeable slugs who lie and cheat everyone constantly, why would one of them trust the other any further than he could throw them? Why did Brando want to stay on the mountain empty handed facing death or prison? He should have kept most of the gold so Malden had an incentive to come back. You can pick apart the writing of most movies like this. Can't Hollywood get better writers? I think they are almost all overrated hacks.

reply

Brando could have had both hands empty so he got to take the horse and the gold and leave Malden to death or prison. All the choices and thinking are naive. Who would be that dumb to cheat someone to their own disadvantage? There is no honor among thieves.

reply

I think the biggest flaw in direction was the Brando's conventional, but failed, dramaturgical structure. The story starts slowly, no problem with that, but it stays on an absurd and irrational level. But it's all subjective. No absolute truths. Overall I found the film quite interesting and enjoyable. But Brando could've done better. I wish he had directed more films.

By the way does anyone know what's with the bad quality? I saw this on TV, on a good Finnish television channel, with an extremely poor quality. Some of the faces in the back very blurry etc. It didn't bother me much as it doesn't usually, but do any of you know the reason for it? I guess many copies with good quality haven't survived? Or was it because of a low-budget or what?

reply

According to trivia, he didn't like the way they recut it.
I seem to stumble into films ruined by studios a lot lately (Orson Welles films, now this)

reply