Why No John Wayne?
Absent from the film? Why?
What we have here is failure to communicate!share
I have been a John Ford fan for decades, but just recently watched this film in its entirely (so many good character actors!), but I wonder the same thing, in spite of ?me being a Widmark fan, where is John Wayne ???1
shareWhy?Reading between the lines of IMDB trivia, it may well be the case that Richard Widmark suggested to Ford some years before, that he make this movie. Eventually Ford did get around to it and returned the favour to Widmark, asking him to star. share
And Wayne would have been all wrong as a potential love interest for Carrol Baker....though even Widmark was a little too old as was. The only real roles for him would have been cameoing as Earp or Schurtz
shareI don't know the exact timeline, but John Wayne was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1964 and underwent surgery that same year to remove one lung (and part of the other?). This film was released in October, 1964.
John Wayne would have filled Richard Wydmark's role well and the Duke was a regular member of John Ford's "Family." I think John Wayne must have been high on John Ford's list for the lead role. However, it also seems likely that John Wayne was seriously ill at the time of casting and/or filming. Either John Ford considered him and passed on him due to the illness, or got so far as asking. They were friends off the set and John Ford is likely to have known as much about John Wayne's health as Mrs. Wayne, so he would know before needing to ask.
I am speculating, of course, but the Duke's cancer seems to be the most likely reason he wasn't in the movie.
Could be, I remember his PSA's about it. "It cost me a piece a'lung." But he did release a film in '64 that apparently was a pretty big budget film. 'Circus World'. I don't think I've ever seen it!. It had twice the budget of Cheyenne A. It is in the trivia of CW that he was sick during the filming but unaware of the cancer. It may be that he was already involved in this big production of Henry Hathaway.
What we got here is... failure to communicate!share
Yeah, really. What a glorious opportunity for him to kill some more Indians - this time they wouldn't have had any braves to fight back even.
shareJohn Wayne would have been uncomfortable in a role where
he was expected to have some empathy for " native-Americans". This is by no means an attack
on " The Duke " but apparently he " never shed a tear" for what
occurred to the " native- Americans" during the European expansion in
America.
Give me COFFEE to CHANGE the things that I CAN change and WINE to ACCEPT
the things that I CAN'T
In Hondo he lived with them and had an Indian wife.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
He lived with them and had an Indian wife
You haven't watched Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, have you?
shareCertainly have seen both many times. His role in The Searchers was close to his attitude
towards Native Americans.He could not have been convincing in the role played
by Richard Widmark.
So there's a HIGHWAY to HELL & only a STAIRWAY to HEAVEN
Says a lot about predicted traffic nos.
you haven't seen fort apache.
share[deleted]
Cost him a piece 'a lung, Pilgrim.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Yeah, right, I am sure that such is the case. Certainly, being two hundred miles downwind from an atmospheric nuclear test must have exposed him to almost as much radioactivity as a few days worth of his 3 1/2 pack a day cigarette habit - cigarette by-products include radioactive thorium. So, it must have been the nuclear test and not forty years of cigarette smoking.
By the way, he lost all of one lung and one lobe of the other.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
He did a lot of anti-smoking PSA's after that surgery.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
I remember them. I also remember that he always had trouble staying away from cigarettes.
Of course, the most famous and dramatic PSA's against smoking were those by Yul Brynner that were released after his death. I can't quote him accurately, but to paraphrase he said, "I'm dead and I died because I smoked. Just don't smoke."
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.
John Wayne was generally depicted as the western hero valiantly fighting against hostile Indians. If he had been cast in the film, audiences would have expected more of the same. There were times that he played characters sympathetic to the Indians, but Ford would have wanted something dramatic and more honest than what Wayne's presence would have depicted.
At the most, he could have been given a cameo role like James Stewart or Edward G. Robinson. Maybe they could have had him play a retired "Indian fighter" who talked about how he defended his homeland in times of conflict, but that this was kicking someone when they were down and he didn't approve. The Polish character already filled that role and did it far better than Wayne would have due to his parallel about Cossack persecution of Polish people. I wouldn't have given that up just to be able to squeeze in a cameo for John Wayne.
Is this your opinion or something you read about the making of this film?
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Sorry. I don't know if Wayne was ever contacted to be a part of this film. I wasn't trying to state opinion for fact, but Wayne's typecasting probably would have misled people who would have been expecting another film like The Searchers or Fort Apache.
What type of film would you have expected if John Wayne had been the star?
In Hondo he had lived with Indians and was married to one.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Yeah. His character was part Indian. The movie also ends with him lamenting the end of the Apache way of life. Hondo is a good movie. I've seen it three or four times. But even with his character being sympathetic to the Indians, it's still a considerably different film from what this one was.
When the Cheyenne are dealing with hunger, we're not impatient to get back to the next scene with Richard Widmark. If John Wayne had been in Widmark's place, I think it would have taken the focus away from what the film was meant to be about.
Possibly. This is an excerpt from a John Ford site: "THE ALAMO was John Wayne’s “vision of America’s greatness” — a simpler, more heroic America. He had been trying to get it made with himself as the director for years. Now at the height of his fame he was able to finally secure financing as long as he also starred. Under great pressure to prove himself he began production. He was barely a third of the way through when Ford showed up in Texas to “lend a hand.” Wayne was beside himself, he couldn’t just turn his mentor away. Finally Duke’s cameraman suggested they give Ford a second unit to shoot pick-up shots far away from the first unit. So Wayne, out of his own pocket, financed Ford to shoot a second unit. Very little was used in the finished film, but the rumors that Ford had to “save” Wayne were humiliating for the star.
By now it must have been clear to Ford that the son, so to speak, had surpassed the father. While THE ALAMO was hardly a huge success, it was now Wayne who wielded the power in the industry.
In later years as Ford struggled to get pictures made Wayne was always there for him, even on LIBERTY VALANCE, when the Duke had serious reservations about his part. If Pappy wanted him, that was it, the Duke showed up."
Two years later Ford made C. Autumn.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
That's a very interesting history. Kinda sad too. I understand that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance was looked down on when it first came out. Cheyenne Autumn is hit and miss, but Liberty Valance was as solid as ever. The only downside to that movie was that Wayne and Stewart were much older than the characters they were playing.
But yeah, that had to be pretty rough for John Ford.
IKR? One of the all time greats and influential to so many other directors.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share