MovieChat Forums > Doc (1971) Discussion > More claptrap Hollywood revisionism...

More claptrap Hollywood revisionism...


This movie made me gag as much as any of the hero-worshipping films about the OK Corral incident and events leading up to it.

Typical revisionism for the time periiod, where the anti-hero is the hero and everything representing authority is corrupt and worse than any of the criminals. Just as lamebrained as all the films taking the opposite approach and whitewashing the whole thing.

And those who herald such revisionism for whatever it represents which meets their agreement and approval, are as singularly-minded as the ones who tout the traditional Western. But at least those people have a sense of morality that's understood and dependable. The others have no idea of morality because they see everything as ambiguous or promote the idea of moral equivalency.

And the worse part of it all was seeing "Sons of Katie Elder" last week, and then having to deal with a film that has a character with the same name, but can't stand one-tenth as tall as "Sons".

I'm really getting to the point of not watching any films from this period that claims to tell the way things really were, because they all seem to have been produced or written by the anti-establishment crowd that was rebelling against what actors like John Wayne represented, and I'd rather have John Wayne around even with his faults.

-----
The Eyes of the City are Mine! Mother Pressman / Anguish (1987)

reply

Well I guess they tried to make the characters more realistic like having doc and Wyatt discussing how to control the town - which is what the Earps did in real life though the law, prostitution and gambling.

But what I never get is why they still change history, like Doc knew Kate before this time and Kate knew Wyatt before Doc did as she worked for one of the Earp wives (a madam) as a hooker.

reply

Never heard of this film before last night. They probably got more history wrong than most adaptations of the story.

1. Somehow Wyatt is a "County Marshall" when in fact Virgil was acting town Marshall (i.e. chief of police) for Tombstone

2. Johnny Behan is "Town Sheriff" instead of Cochise County Sheriff. This essentially reversed the authorities of the factions.

3. Behan is portrayed as "honest" when he was clearly on the rustlers' side. The Earps probably weren't better, but Behan was clearly as corrupt.

4. Like most versions, far more people get killed in the Gunfight than did in reality.

5. John Clum, and Earp friend and ally, is against Wyatt becoming Sheriff.

reply

Not sure where you got the idea the film claimed to be telling things the way they really were. Although it wasn't a very good film, your complaint seems to boil down to being upset that things aren't simplistically black and white, which isn't much cop either.

If John Ford said "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend" this film seemed to be saying "When the legend becomes fact, you have the right to change the legend".

reply