social issues - McLintock! (1963) Discussion

[–] MovieBookLvr 19 years ago

Well, actually, if you think about it, that old Indian who is used for comic relief could be seen as another example of the wrongs white men committed against the Indians. Alcohol was often used in trade with the Indians, alcohol was very popular with the Indians once they'd been introduced it. This then often led to the rampant spread of alcoholism through Indian tribes; alcoholism then became a big problem for Indians and it still is a problem today on reservations. And when treaties were made between the Indians and the white men, the white men often plied the Indians with alcohol so that they had no idea of the terms they were agreeing to. So the fact that the old Indian keeps saying "Big party, no whiskey!", could actually be an example of the problems created by the introcution of whiskey and alcohol to the Indians.

As for the women, I can see why feminists would be angered by the spankings. But as a woman myself, I didn't take them seriously and was not at all offended. In fact, in both instances, the spankings were actually somewhat deserved. But again, they really shouldn't be taken seriously as this is afterall a comedy. As for GW's infidelity, I don't recall being given the impression that he was unfaithful. I only remember Mrs. McClintock accusing him of one case of being unfaithful to her. Remember, she said something to him about "lipstick on your collar". I'm pretty certain that he replied it was ketchup, or something like that. So I don't think he was unfaithful to her, or at least I got that impression.

As for the hat thing? I don't know. Maybe he was symbolizing the fact that the house was his home, a place where he could "hang his hat up".

Your hair's already such a disaster that the Red Cross wouldn't give it coffee!

reply

[–] liberalmedia 19 years ago

It's so hoary that it even got a mention in one feminist novel (I think it was The Women's Room). I think it's just the old fantasy that a woman needs to be shown who's boss and then she'll melt into the guy's arms. Yeah, right.

That sort of thing was expected in films back in the '50s, '60s, and '70s, and it seemed to go along with the idea that the man is always right. I kind of expected things like that back then, but now it just seems obnoxious (and a little kinky, frankly).

reply

[–] daneldorado 18 years ago

I think a lot of people who see a movie like McLintock! (1963) and try to project their 21st century sensitivities onto a 19th century story are not being fair to the movie, or to themselves.

Men spanking women came about simply because a gentleman should never punch a lady on the jaw; so, if he needs to punish her misdeeds, a childlike spanking is better than a bruised chin.

People also forget that in our society -- TODAY -- there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of women who actually ENJOY being spanked by their men. I have personally met some of them, and have spanked a few of them myself, to our mutual enjoyment.

You may say the practice is perverted, but it sure beats socking a woman on the jaw.

Dan N.

English subtitles are a MUST on all DVD releases!

reply

[–] arcturus6 14 years ago

Yeah? Well you sound kinky to the point of being a complete bore. Why don't you take off your rose colored glasses and recognize reality for what it is! As for obnoxious, most of the films being produced today are utterly obnoxious!!!! I will take the films of the 40's, 50's and 60's anytime over the crap being produced later. Of course I am sure you relish those, but then with your liberal mind, "ignorance must truly be bliss!"

reply

[–] liberalmedia 14 years ago

Yeah? Well you sound kinky to the point of being a complete bore. Why don't you take off your rose colored glasses and recognize reality for what it is! As for obnoxious, most of the films being produced today are utterly obnoxious!!!! I will take the films of the 40's, 50's and 60's anytime over the crap being produced later. Of course I am sure you relish those, but then with your liberal mind, "ignorance must truly be bliss!"

"Rose-colored glasses"? Sorry, not my prescription. Perhaps you are thinking of someone else.

As for my taste in movies, you don't happen to know them. This is a message board. You know nothing of the people beyond their user names and comments.

reply

[–] edbelfour3 12 years ago

What does the tint of the glasses have anything to do with the prescription? They could be extra dark sunglasses and still be your prescription.

reply

[–] undedavenger 13 years ago

I think most feminists have no sense of humor. The movie was playing up the fact that things worked along those lines during the Old West time period. And I think it was supposed to be a little kinky in a 60's PG kind of way. She doesn't end up with McClintock in the end because he proved he was in charge, it was because he finally stood up to her when no one else would. She respected him and that "turned her on" a little bit. My wife and I have a traditional marriage where I am head of the house, and when we have a little disagreement, and I take charge, she seems to become much more affectionate. I believe that the instincts and hormones a woman is equipped with make her want a strong, "take charge" kind of man. Feminism is a product of societal urges, not natural human progression. Even in so-called "feminist" romances (those that actually involve men), the man is usually a strong, virile man who offers the woman both respect and strength. Even feminists have the urge to have a strong man looking out for them.

I guess the meek can inherit the Earth now. It looks like the stupid aren't doing anything with it.

reply

[–] liberalmedia 13 years ago

Feminism is a product of societal urges, not natural human progression...

Nah, it's a product of the fully operational backbone and brain.

reply

[–] undedavenger 13 years ago

Yeah, but it's medically provable that men and women's brains operate quite differently. You may try to explain that, as for me, I know why, because God made us different to COMPLIMENT each other.

I guess the meek can inherit the Earth now. It looks like the stupid aren't doing anything with it.

reply

[–] liberalmedia 13 years ago

Yeah, but it's medically provable that men and women's brains operate quite differently. You may try to explain that, as for me, I know why, because God made us different to COMPLIMENT each other.

And to study the English language, in which complement and compliment have different meanings...

reply

[–] Duck (13) 6 years ago

Ahhhh, the surest sign of a lost debate, correcting your opponents grammar or spelling. :)

reply

[–] jeremy3 13 years ago

And those days were better, because at least people knew where they stand. In today's World, everyone talks about rights, but tramples on everyone else to get ahead in the World. How has the World changed? It has gotten worse. In the old days, at least one knew where they stood, and knew what was unfair. Nowadays, everything is "perfect", but everything is wrong because there is no roadmap anymore as to what is "right" and "wrong". It is just me, me, me, me, versus everyone else, and trample on anyone who thinks differently. Some change.

reply

[–] bemcdonald 19 years ago

Not only is there no implication that he had been unfaithful to his wife, but there are several references that it was she who had at least considered it. The Governor approaches her, concerned that she has spilled the beans to her husband and ruined his reputation... and she replies that he is not the only man who has approached her. Also, when GW tells the daughter that their problems are none of her business, it's pretty obvious that he's protecting the reputation of his wife, who he still loves.

reply

[–] purpleheart_2003 19 years ago

Spankings deserved? Here were two attractive women held down and beaten with metal coal shovels while men looked on amused. And it was meant to be funny! That type of scene was not uncommon in 60s movies - and I can recall a few other movies where the Duke paddled women - but the coal shovel? in public? for laughs? Any man who'd do that in real life would probably go to gaol. It's not funny at all!

reply

[–] swingbobswing 18 years ago

The movie was not set in 1963, only filmed then...In the movie time setting bigotry, racism and sexism were openly acceptable in most circles, certainly the "untamed" west...So what, are we to say that the movie is racist & sexist...what a poorly concluded arguement...As far as the spankings go, while this approach may not be acceptable today, it worked for those couples...without it, the Duke & his bride would have stayed separated...would that had been better than the spanking?...I get the sense that she wanted him to do "something", alhtough this may not have been what she had in mind, it did prove to be very effective...As a 2006 bystander it seems barbaric, but in their culture, it kept them together & happy...albeit misguided in our culture...

It seems people are so quick to judge other cultures if they do anything "barbaric" according to "our" standards...if they are happy and it's their way of life, stay out! Of course there are lines, but I think people are too quick to impose their own lines...

With all that said, the "mob" standing around and laughing had to be humiliating...that was the most distasteful thing to me...

Another thing, are those opposed to a woman being spanked in period film, as equally outraged when a woman slaps a man? Or do they brush it off as "oh, he's just an a-hole, he deserved it!"...is it all physical violence within a realionship in a movie that's offensive or just when a man spanks a woman?

reply

[–] undedavenger 13 years ago

Exactly. That is the hypocrisy of most feminists. They think it's "strong" to strike a man, but men should NEVER be allowed to hit a woman. I don't think anyone should hit the person they love (except in select intimate settings). lol

I guess the meek can inherit the Earth now. It looks like the stupid aren't doing anything with it.

reply

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 10 years ago

That is the hypocrisy of most feminists. They think it's "strong" to strike a man, but men should NEVER be allowed to hit a woman.

I do not know where you get your information from but nowhere in feminist thought is this true.

This is the perception of some on feminists wanting to do what men do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I enjoyed this movie but the "mores" of the time (1960s) is not lost on me …. thankfully this particular perception (that women should be "disciplined") is long gone in North America … now if other parts of the world could just catch up !!!

reply

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 10 years ago

That is the hypocrisy of most feminists. They think it's "strong" to strike a man, but men should NEVER be allowed to hit a woman.

I do not know where you get your information from but nowhere in feminist thought is this true.

This is the perception of some on feminists wanting to do what men do. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I enjoyed this movie but the "mores" of the time (1960s) is not lost on me …. thankfully this particular perception (that women should be "disciplined") is long gone in North America … now if other parts of the world could just catch up !!!

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2375) a year ago

He only.spanked women in two films.

reply

[–] skeeterchicakb83 18 years ago

I agree completely. You've captured the essence of the film's meaning quite well.

Becky did deserve to get something for what she did to Devlin (coming storming into the house and demanding that her father shoot him for stating his opinion). As an older brother (and if you didn't notice, the little girl playing Dev's little sister really IS his younger half-sister Aissa Wayne) Dev would have been familiar with the form of punishment that he dealt out. Not that it would have hurt all that much, Becky did have a lot of clothing on (bloomers, petticoats etc.). If you notice, he is going to just use his hand, but then the Duke hands him the shovel. That's what happens in the second spanking as well. I did hear from reading Maureen's autobiography that THIS one did hurt (and since all she was wearing was some silk, I'm not surprised)

I don't think that every woman who does what Maureen and Stephanie did deserves to get beaten, but as a woman watching the movie, I did remember that it was a comedy and I enjoyed the scenes.

The issue of the main characters' fidelity is a serious one, and it actually is addressed throughout the movie. When the Governor is trying to see if Katherine has told her husband about 'you and me', it implys that they are friends, and that they see each other out side of society, BUT Katherine's response is what you need to see. She tells him that she is 'a big girl, and can take care of myself', calling him a 'pompous windbag' - implying that whatever flirtation they may have had would not have induced her to cheat on her husband.

The looks on Katherine and GW's faces when they look at each other before they open their mouths in the first hotel room scene tell you how much they really love each other. Katherin's jealousy is what has caused her to leave, and we see it when she is in the same room as Mrs. Warren and Camille the barmaid.

You can see all through the movie that GW still loves Katherine, and he may also spend time in the saloon having a good time, but all of the flirtation comes from Camille, not him. And when Becky asks about her parent's relationship, he tells her that 'your mother's in mind', meaning that there is not another woman in the world who could stand in her place.

The hat thing... he keeps a running tally of how many times he can throw a "2 lb Stetson with a 6 in brim 53 feet in the air". The record ends at 310, without a miss. He comes home drunk and that is how they know that he was drunk. The 310 is probably not all in the 2 years since Katherine left, but it is quite a lot. Also, it is a good way for the little boys on the ranch to get their 'big hats' - in a race to see who can get to the top of that house the quickest.

Another issue mentioned in these posts is that there are racist issues. If you look closely, you see that the Indians, while Running Buffalo is an alcoholic and acts like one, you also see the powerful Chief Puma, who desires that his people have a chance to go down fighting, proud and strong, not weakened by the government's charity. There are also whites who stand up to the government and the Indian agent for the Indians. When Agent Aegard is trying to get GW to talk to the chief, GW snarls "Puma is chief of the Commanches and he speaks English very well", telling him not to insult the chief.

Ching, the cook, is seen also as a comedic figure, but is also welcomed into the family circle that he has served for so long. They threaten him with cutting off his pigtail, but never do it. They know that it is important to him, and he stays with them, all through the movie: it is he who shows how dysfunctional they all are: "crummy family".

What the audience of the 21st century needs to remember is that this is a comdedy. If you don't like some of the things, then look past them, or don't watch it at all - it was made for entertainment.

reply

[–] soruht 16 years ago

You have to remember that the people offended by this movie have no sense of humor. The concept of "just a comedy" doesn't enter their minds. They can't laugh at anything that doesn't support their ideological edifice. They're the kind of miserable bores that go around actively looking for something to be offended by so they can climb on their soapboxed and try to sound important and insightful (even though it's never their own original idea, and rarely even their original words).

It makes my heart go all atwitter to know movies out there like this, before the ever-emasculating and mind-destroying scourge of Western Civilization we call Political Correctness reared its foul, slime-dripping head, make those poor misguided cretins so twisted.

reply

[–] homer424 15 years ago

Yeah only no. I am sure we all missed the notice that if someone doesn't find something funny that you deemed funny that we are all miserable bores with no sense of humor. I'd venture to guess you are one of those miserable bores yourself, who goes around looking for people to impart your truth on(which is often sweeping generalizations) and shouting them down if they disagree.

I find this movie eye roll worthy. I am not offended but it is just not funny to me to see a woman paddled. Or for a woman to act like a spazz and smacking a man because that is the only way to get their point across. But I can assure you, I have a perfectly intact sense of humor and I also deplore political correctness.

reply

[–] RealUltimateNinja 14 years ago

Yeah only no. I am sure we all missed the notice that if someone doesn't find something funny that you deemed funny that we are all miserable bores with no sense of humor. I'd venture to guess you are one of those miserable bores yourself, who goes around looking for people to impart your truth on(which is often sweeping generalizations) and shouting them down if they disagree.

soruht said those who choose to be offended by this are the miserable bores, not those who don't find it funny. derp.

reply

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 10 years ago

In fact, in both instances, the spankings were actually somewhat deserved.

Wow ….

reply

[–] tgladek 19 years ago

I loved this movie when I was a kid, and I still enjoy it as an adult. Having said that, there are scenes in the movie voicing and showing thing's I'd be ashamed to do or say, much less think or act out (the treatment of the Indians; the corporal punishment of the wife and daughter; the "pigtail" comments towards their Chinese cook)

I think the hat thing symbolizes either GW getting laid and/or getting drunk any number of times in a row.

reply

[–] WTNMovieFan 19 years ago

The hat thing is just that...GW, drunk, hit the weather vane several hundred times in a row. With Katie away for an extended period, I don't read it meaning anything else.

A fun, light, western comedy...one of my favorites.

reply

[–] dadoo4050 19 years ago

Yes, the native American in red acts like a fool, and it is easy to criticize this "drunken Indian" stereotype.

However, nobody says a word about Edgar Buchannon's character also looking foolish, or the Douglas father and son looking foolish, or Duke himself looking foolish in his drunken scene with Mrs. Wallace and the stairs.

Or Gov. Humphries, or the Indian agent played by Strother Martin, etc.

Let's be careful before we start throwing charges of racism at a particluar work. It seems that in this film we see people of more than one race (white included) acting foolish. We also see people of more than one race making better lives for themselves and those around them (Devlin Warren and Davy the clerk).

Just like in real life.

reply

[–] tgladek 19 years ago

dadoo4050 - excellent points. I plead guilty, though, to not feeling too bad about the stereotyping of the governor - politicians havn't changed all that much. I also thought it was interesting that GW got was trying to get past his prejudice of farmers when he finally hired Devlin Warren. I think he recognized that the young man was trying to take care of his family and that impressed him.

reply

[–] dadoo4050 19 years ago

Ever notice the Governor's name--Humphries. Duke, conservative Republican, was supposedly taking a shot at then Sen. HH Humphrey, liberal Democrat who became VP during the Johnson administration.

reply

[–] blackjackxxx 11 years ago

This is an old thread, but I just have to second those excellent points.
The ridiculous liberals projecting their pearl clutching, snooty disdain for the way things were with absolutely no idea why they:

1. Were that way.
2. How they happened.
3. Why they happened.

Excellent post.

Leave it to the trolling Progressives of IMDB to cherry pick an almost 50 year old movie for some things they don't like yet, don't even pretend to understand.

Push the button, Max

reply

[–] venusthrow 11 years ago

I am a liberal and a feminist and while I did like parts of the movie the whole spanking scene was uncomfortable. I get why it was in the movie. I have read literature where the lead male spanks the lead female (the book outlander has such a scene) and I don't like it. (I am also not talking about spanking for sexual fun that is not what that scene was). But I also abhor O'hara's behavior in the movie too and the daughter. O'hara was rude to anyone and everyone. she seemed like an uppity ...But I get that this was a comedy in the 1960's and i get that this was a western comedy so I get why they decided to settle the matter by this manner rather than talk it out.

reply

[–] collin-reid 11 years ago

I actually found the most interesting was it take on social issues. John Wayne was a noted conservative that was not comfortable with either the Civil Rights Movement (released during the heights of their success of the "I Have A Dream" speech") and the women lib movement which was just starting to gather steam. Overall, Wayne did treat minorities on individual basis very fairly as minorities (African or Native Americans or Hispanic) never said a bad word about him. However, he was uncomfortable with the civil right movements in which he seemed to think the college Northern bureaucratic liberals (Humphrey or Kennedy anybody) were inciting minorities to fight and plundering a good thing. That is my take simple take. Also it sort reverses the whole evil big rancher that keeps all the homesteaders from the land and raising their family.

Otherwise, I thought the movie was a bad version of "John Wayne Knows Best" or "Ranch Improvement." Wayne and O'Hara in the hands of either excellent material director (Quiet Man/Ford) or tension situation (Rio Grande) were terrific together. However, they were not Powell & Loy who could turn a medicore rom com into a classic. I found it kinda boring to sit through the whole thing and worse the average John Wayne Western 'Programmer'.

reply

[–] ijonesiii 18 years ago

Excellent post and I think both issues you mentioned are dealt with in this film comedy but in opposits strategies. The feminists viewing this film today would probably use this film as the "before" status of women in this country. This film would definitely set the women's movement back about 300 years.

reply

[–] davehancock_134 18 years ago

Considering the offscreen relationship of Wayne and O'Hara, their iconic stature as an onscreen couple, and the fact that this was a comedy written specifically for the two of them, I think any serious social interpretation of the movie can be thrown out of the window.

reply

[–] oversplayer 18 years ago

No one mentioned the most obvious significance of the final scene - it worked for Wayne and O'Hara in "The Quiet Man," so why not do it again?

As for the Indians, whatever outrages were done to them, they are currently more than making up for it in their ever proliferating casinos.

For a comedy, this film is laced with political overtones - Wayne's dislike of bureucracies and bureaucrats, his belief that minorities should be treated fairly but not coddled, and, most of all, his strong conviction that people should have to work for everything they get.

In other words, he was a highly complex man - an old fashioned conservative, but not today's G.W. Bush brand of meanspirited right winger.

Whether you agree or disagree with his politics, he's entitled to worlds of credit for effectively, albeit without so much as a tinge of subtlety, interspersing them in a very entertaining comedy-western.

And try to think of another actress besides Maureen O'Hara who would have been willing to slide into that mud pit!

reply

[–] WaldoOtten 18 years ago

So, according to the liberal views above, minority characters absolutely cannot be involved in comic relief roles. Well, it's not worth taking a chance -- so we make sure we don't offend anyone, let's not involve majorities, either. No more comic relief roles in Hollywood. That should make everyone happy. And you wonder why today's movies are so boring and lifeless. Pretty soon they'll be listing the "Manager of Political Correctness" in the credits.

reply

[–] daneldorado 18 years ago

oversplayer wrote:

"And try to think of another actress besides Maureen O'Hara who would have been willing to slide into that mud pit!"

Sorry, couldn't help but reply. Natalie Wood most certainly would have been willing to slide into that mud pit -- for the comedy of it, and probably also for the FUN!

Of course Natalie (b. 1938) would have been too young for the part of Katharine McLintock, and too young to have played John Wayne's wife. But if you're asking "try to think of another actress who would have been willing to slide into that mud pit..." then I'm sure that Natalie Wood could have and would have. Remember, she was in the middle of the biggest pie fight ever seen on screen, in The Great Race (1965). Looked to me like she enjoyed it.

Dan N.

http://www.silentfilmguide.com

English subtitles are a MUST on all DVD releases!

reply

[–] guitarbob55 17 years ago

i DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN EVER MAKE UP FOR SLAUGHTERING HUNDREDS OF NATIVE AMERICANS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE AT THE CASINOS
GUITARBOB

reply

[–] knobcreek48 14 years ago

I DONT THINK THAT I HAVE EVER SLAUGHTERED ONE NATIVE AMERICAN SO I DON'T NEED TO MAKE UP FOR ANYTHING! UNLESS YOU ARE 150 YRS OLD CHANCES ARE YOU HAVENT SLAUGHTERED A NATIVE AMERICAN EITHER. BY YOUR LOGIC I SHOULD DEMAND REPARATIONS BE PAID TO ME BY ENGLAND FOR THE FACT THAT MY ANCESTORS LEFT DUE TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION.

reply

[–] mjp0717 13 years ago

He wasn't accusing you of slaughtering any American Indians. Unfortunately for the US it is one of the things that we haven't really recognized. To say that they are getting their repayment because they are allowed to have casinos is just ignorant. Before the Europeans came to this country there were approx 5 to 18 million Indigenous people living here. It is our silent holocaust.
You know everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects. Will Rogers

reply

[–] alighthall2000 18 years ago

spanking is soo hot! My wife and I engage in it. it should be done more and in public as it is a great way to humiliate ones signifigant other. delicious!

reply

[–] cmward1988 18 years ago

Wow! Why on EARTH would you want to brag about how much fun it would be to humiliate your wife in public?!?!?!? It's bad enough that you're participating in this sadistic behavior behind closed doors (at least I HOPE it's behind closed doors! I also hope that if you have children, you're not sending them the message that it's okay to beat and humiliate their spouses!!). This woman that you're married to . . that you swore to love, cherish and protect forever . . . is a human being and deserves your respect - not your gleeful humiliation of her! I love my husband very much. We've been married for 17 years but if he dared to raise a hand to me like that, he'd BETTER not go to sleep that night or I'd be introducing him to a literal form of "domestic abuse" when I lay a frying pan upside his head!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for the movie itself, I LOVE it! My favorite scene is the big fight at the mudhole. It's a great movie despite the stereo-typing of the Indians, the public spanking of women, etc. It's a fictional comedy and I take it as such. I'm not otherwise offended or outraged by it. It's a fictional Hollywood story and nothing more. I really don't see it as anything anyone should become upset about simply because it's not "politically correct". As someone previously pointed out, it was filmed in 1963 but the story took place before the territory they're located in even became a state (sometime in the 1800's). That was considered the "Old West" back in those days, folks. They lived a completely different life-style than we do today (thank heavens!). What we consider barbaric behavior on their part was simply just the way it was back then, whether we like it or not. It's just a fun movie and should be treated as such - that's all I'm saying.

I also enjoyed watching a very young (& brunette-haired!) Stefanie Powers perform in her role of Becky. I love the song she sings with Junior Douglas, "Just Right For Me". If she had flopped as an actress, I think she would've been a successful singer. I loved her as the fiery red-head, Jennifer Hart, in the television show "Hart To Hart", so I'm glad she DIDN'T flop as an actress. I can't imagine anyone else in that role with Robert Wagner. They were great together!

As I stated above (despite what I said regarding the frying pan), I'm completely against people beating their spouses, especially in public and with objects such as coal shovels. However . . . spoiled Becky wanted Dev SHOT simply for stating his opinion about how proper young ladies should behave (in private and in public), then was completely shocked when her father "did" as she requested! She SHOULD have been spanked!! What if that gun had really been loaded instead of just a starter pistol containing blanks????? It would have been completely senseless. If her father had been allowed to spank her when necessary as a child, she would have grown up with a little more common sense and not had such an air of arrogance and entitlement about her because of who her parents (especially her father) were. As it was, I believe she deserved what she got there. But then, there's Katherine. I can completely sympathize with her anger and jealousy over finding lipstick on her husband's collar. Whether he cheated or not, I don't know because they never really said so one way or the other from what I can remember. But he was a married man. He should NEVER have even gotten close enough to another woman where her lipstick could have rubbed off on his collar in the first place! I probably would have left him, too, if I had thought he was cheating on me so I'm not so sure she really deserved her spanking just because she had the "audacity" to leave him for what she believed was his unfaithfulness (thereby "humiliating" him in front of the McLintock townsfolk)! You get what you give. If he had treated her with a little more respect as his wife, she would've given him a little more respect as her husband in return. That's how it SHOULD be.

Otherwise, I enjoyed this movie very much. It's funny how my three favorite John Wayne movies aren't his typical roles: "The Quiet Man", "Donovan's Reef" and, of course, "McLintock". I don't care for all those war movies he did. I prefer his "romantic leading man" movies instead.

reply

[–] FilmFlaneur 18 years ago

I love this from cmward:

" I'm completely against people beating their spouses ... However . . . spoiled Becky wanted Dev SHOT simply for stating his opinion about how proper young ladies should behave (in private and in public), then was completely shocked when her father "did" as she requested! She SHOULD have been spanked!! ... If her father had been allowed to spank her when necessary as a child, she would have grown up with a little more common sense"

Your views on assaulting another are as moveable as the weathervane on the top of Mclintock's house.

Either a physical attack (especially on one smaller than urself) is wrong, or it is not. I believe strongly that it is wrong. I have never hit my children - or any adult either, come to that - and they are as well balanced as the next man's. Maybe more so.

In the film it is a different matter, although the ending is not dramatically convincing to modern audiences as the wife gives in so willingly after such treatment during the final scene which is more of macho daydream than psychologically likely. I do not approve of physical assault, but neither do I of any sort of real life casual violence, or reckless gun play. But I can laugh at them in this film and other Westerns as it is a work of exaggerated fiction.

"This could mean actual advances in the field of science."

reply

[–] GleskeJA 18 years ago

Same here! Besides, O'Hara had a sizeable, well-padded caboose, so I'm sure it didn't hurt her as much as it seemed! ;)

reply

[–] ravcon 18 years ago

I found the whole spanking thing to be embarrassingly sexist.
Very lame western to say the least.

reply

[–] orionstarman 18 years ago

I think a whole lot of people on this thread have got thier shorts in a knot over nothing.

McLintock is a work of fiction and a comedy to boot. It's not a how-to movie on how a man should treat his wife or footage from the 11:00 news. Why the hell are you people taking it so serious.

This movie was made in 1962, that's 44 years ago, how many of you were even alive at that time? You are judging this movie with PC prejudiced 2006 sensibility's.

The story take's place in the Old West of 1895 not the PC West of 2005. The movie did not depict GW McLintock balling up his fists and beating his wife into a coma. He gave her a couple of whacks on the backside. Very mild compared to the violence in a Three Stooges short or a Road Runner cartoon. But, maybe you people get your shorts in a knot over that too!

Take this movie for what it was ment to be, a bit of escapist fun, not serious social commentary.

Roy Buchanan - World's best unknown guitarist.

reply

[–] orionstarman 18 years ago

Oh yeah, and another thing. There's a whole lot of fuss and bother because GW McLintock gives his wife a couple of whacks on the backside. But, not one word about the wanton act of violence that Katherine inflicts on him.

Remember when GW, Katherine and Mrs.Warren were falling down the stairs. Katherine picks up a whiskey bottle and beats GW over the head with it knocking him out cold. I'm sure this got one of the biggest laugh's of the movie in 1963 (I bet you laughed to) but, if your shorts are in a knot about the one thing they should be in a knot about the other. Look out people your hypocrisy is showing.

It's a movie people not real life. If it were real life than the three of them would have broke their necks falling down the stairs.

Roy Buchanan - Best unknown guitarist in the world.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gabefrancis2 18 years ago

Sometimes -- not too often, but sometimes -- I get to worrying about my dear fellow boardmates.

These posts discussing the public spanking of Maureen O'Hara at the end of McLintock! (1963)... tsk, tsk. Some of you approve, some of you disapprove, and you say it as if it signalled the end of civilization.

It does not. Know this if you didn't already know it: There is a large subculture in the world, surely in America and in the U.K., where adult spankings are regularly administered, and CONSENSUALLY.

Are these people monsters? Not at all. Some of them are my friends. I have met with them, we email each other, I have even "played" with some of them. All of us think spankings are fun. Do you not see the humor in it?

Gabe

reply

[–] swat412 14 years ago

Yes and also times when an 'adult' spanking needs to be given without consent, as depicted in the movie. Normally in private I would add. In most cases it becomes the last resort, it's not beating or battering but an effective way to change a 'bad' attitude quickly.

reply

[–] BlondeVixen 17 years ago

<I found the whole spanking thing to be embarrassingly sexist.
Very lame western to say the least.>

Ravcon.....unwind thyself.

reply

[–] ravcon 17 years ago

Hey, I'm the furthest thing from PC. I just didn't find the scene or the film's lame attempts at humor to be what I would call entertaining.

Spank away...

reply

[–] Jane_Doe01 15 years ago

Hey, I'm the furthest thing from PC.

I found the whole spanking thing to be embarrassingly sexist.

All evidence to the contrary, you lying twit? (Of course doesn't every uptight, self-righteous PC douchebag deny being what they are?)
It's gotta be pretty uncomfortable walking around life with a sharp stick lodged so far up your rectum. At least loosen it a bit. And I'll also bet a million dollars that you're the type to constantly whine and cry about stuff this trivial, while never giving a second thought whenever a man is slapped or struck in the groin by a woman. Of course as was mentioned above, the Maureen O'Hara character beating her husband on the head with a bottle, and while we're at it, whacking random men over the head and poking their rears with feather tips predictably doesn't generate a peep from you. Hypocritical windbags like you a tired bore who serve no more purpose than to irritate sensible people. Oh and what a surprise you didn't even have that many posts before this one.

reply

[–] CarolVickiFan84 15 years ago

Jane very well said :-) my thoughts actually.

Maureen O'Hara, Ireland Best Actress. Got Maureen O'Hara and Julie Andrews autograpgh 2008!

reply

[–] homer424 15 years ago

I really love the people who can deduce SO MUCH about a poster from 2 measely sentences! Wow, you must be a rip at parties!

reply

[–] marktayloruk 15 years ago

What I didn't like was his intention of leaving his money and propertry to the government rather than his daughter.As an opponent of inheritance tax,that revolts me.

reply

[–] lottapaws 14 years ago

This was because he believed people should work for what they receive rather than having so much given to them. It is a concept that should it catch in today's society, we would be much the better for it. Mr. Wayne was also against an inheritance tax, but when something is freely given, it is NOT a tax!

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lizcarlo87 10 years ago

I completely agree with you. I'd like to add that Becky wanted a man killed because he"impune her honor". Now that does deserve a spanking in my opinion.

reply

[–] gabefrancis2 11 years ago

ravcon wrote:

I found the whole spanking thing to be embarrassingly sexist.

Ravcon, I dunno whether you are a man or a lady. Come to think of it, I dunno if you are even still alive, since your post that I am answering was posted almost 7 years ago. But your comment quoted above should be answered.

I''m a serious movie fan, almost as serious as agent Tony DiNozzo in "NCIS." And I know that "McLintock" which was made in 1963 was almost the last mainstream film that had a scene with a man spanking a woman. So, if you object to "the whole spanking thing" in that 1963 movie, know that right after that Hollywood decided not to show female spankings in their films anymore. Fem Lib was getting underway, and scenes of women getting paddled by men were considered seriously "uncool."

So, those of us that enjoyed seeing that sort of scene were cut loose. In the 1970s there were NO -- I repeat, NO -- mainstream American films that showed a spanking.

Unfortunately for the bluenoses, the 1960s and '70s were the period in which foreign film makers "discovered" that spankings could lure more customers into their theaters, and so overseas auteurs created numerous films that would give the audiences those scenes.

The films came from all over -- Germany, France, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Asia, South America et al. -- and were so numerous that a significant portion of the U.S. movie audience discovered these films and were attracted to them. (Titles on request.)

Inevitably, Hollywood began to notice the overseas successes, and so spanking scenes began to creep back into U.S. movies.

Just in the current 21st century, I can think of a half dozen American titles in which an adult female can be seen getting spanked. Probably most folks remember only "Secretary" (2002) in which Maggie Gyllenhaal is given a sound spanking, but there are several others, such as "Federal Protection" (2002), "Normal Adolescent Behavior" (2007), "Adrift in Manhattan" (2007), and "A Dangerous Method" (2011). In that last one, the beautiful film star Keira Nightley takes TWO spankings, though the second of them appears to be fake. No worries. Keira gets a solid spanking earlier, from co-star Michael Fassbender.

Modern TV shows have also gotten into the act. "Weeds" (2008), "Bored to Death" (2010), and "The Big Bang Theory" (2012) all feature spanking scenes.

Gabe

reply

[–] purpleheart_2003 14 years ago

You miss the point entirely. I didn't like one particular aspect of this movie and said so. You mention numerous other aspects. So what?

You've got the pic of the Duke with Maureen O'Hara across his lap on your PC? So what?

"If you are offended by the stuff you mentioned you should be offended by some of what I’m about to type." Not at all. Why should I be? I don't need to look for other things to justify my disapproval of the two scenes.

Both the wife and the daughter did behave badly. Never disagreed with that. In fact I said so earlier.

I doubt if you know the meaning of the word "hypocryte" and I'm not surprised that you find "My Name is Earl" funny.

You might like to edit your post too. Parts of it are ungrammatical and don't make sense. Duke was "spanking her spanking" was he?

Silly girl.

reply