Glad to see there are at least a few fans of this very under-rated film from the 70's. Fonda, Newman, Sarrazin, Jaekel & Remick are outstanding. The story is an outstanding drama set against the backdrop of the Pacific Northwest. Don't let yourself become frustrated comparing the novel to the film. Ken Kesey's below-the-surface character inter-play is too subtle to ba translated to a movie.
The film still works for what it is.
Glad to see as well there are folks who love this movie. Couldn't agree with you more that one needs to let the film and the book co-exist on different levels.
Also fun to compare it to THE GRAPES OF WRATH. It could be as if the Joads moved north and changed their names to Stampers- heck Tom Joad even plays Old Henry Stamper.
Keep The Change Bob.
"The Maestro says it's Mozart, when it sounds like bubblegum."
Interesting that virtually everybody commenting on this film have positive things to say about it--yet it is seldom if ever mentioned in critical praise of films of the early 70s. I just saw it again for the first time in many years (VHS rental) and enjoyed it as much as in earlier viewings. I also think it was the last really exceptional performance of Henry Fonda's career until the final one ("On Golden Pond"). Another poster has noted accurately that in some releases it was indeed retitled "Never Give an Inch," though that is not noted elsewhere on this IMDb.com page that I saw. Anyone know why the retitling?
A measly two Oscar nominations...it deserved more.
It was probably re-titled to fit with the theme of the story, and also, if memory serves, I believe that's what Leland Stamper said at the dinner table while discussing the cut high-line cable. Indeed this is a great movie, one worthy of more kudos than it recieved.
share[deleted]
I believe "Never Give an Inch" was the title used when the film was released internationally. I don't know if the title change had anything to do with the fact that it under-achieved here domestically or not. That title change, however, seemed to have followed it around in its U.S. TV showings of the late 70's and early 80's.
The house from the film is still there on the Alsea River just north of Newport, Oregon. There has been several articles in the Oregonian about it over the years. It was never built as a proper house but more as a "set" house -- particularly the upstairs. Several owners have complained in the past about the poor original construction of the place and the cost to retrofit it. Sill looks great from across the river though!
My memory of it was that ken Kesey hated the film so much, he refused to have his name on it and sued. Title was changed to Never Give An Inch. Then as time went on he acquiesced. That was the rumor of the time. Personally, I think it was a fine job with a perfect cast. I actually pictured Paul Newman before he was even cast. And everything, everything looked as I pictured. It's a complicated book... Very hard to translate to film. But I always felt they did a better job with this than with Cuckoo's Nest.
The DVD box shown here on IMDB has the title as "Never Give an Inch" and below it says "based on the novel Sometimes a Great Notion."
Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.
I Saw it for the first time yeasterday and i loved the movie very underrated movie
"I guess I look like a rock quarry that someone has dynamited." - Charles Bronson
Well, the novel is one of the best books I have ever read. It's Great! And while it can't come up to the level of the novel, the movie is good and I hope to see it come out on DVD soon.
So the original post here got me thinking.....could the film be redone?
If there is one director that could pull it off it would be John Sayles. He could capture the sense of place that Kesey so effectively infuses the novel with...the sense of place and the characters.
[deleted]
Werner Herzog could also do a spectacular remake of Sometimes a Great Notion.......and it would fit in so well with Herzog's epic Man the Individual versus Nature/God/Society ouvre and his bleak view of American society....albeit 1960's Western US. Yep, either John Sayles or Herzog.
shareYes, how about a remake?
Herzog or Sayles could do it justice.
Maybe even an HBO mini series if production values are kept.
It's a complicated book in terms of film adaptation.
I liked the film when I saw it...years ago but felt it was missing some of the power built up in the novel that erupts towards the end.
As others have said, it's missing one of the key driving forces in the novel, Leland's plan to avenge his brother using Viv, his brother's wife.
There's a lot of ways a director or scriptwriter could approach this novel.
It's an expansive story, and two hours might not do it any more justice on a second go around, either. So, that's why I'm thinking...longer run time, or mini series.
I'd like to see the entire unedited film, if any, restored on a DVD, with...if any, commentary and extras.
The novel is an American Classic.
Who would you cast as the principle characters?
I can't think of anyone at the moment.
Hank:
Leland:
Viv:
Old Henry: Paul Newman
I agree totally!!!!
"The only person to celebrate Valentines Day the right way was Al Capone!". John Becker, M.D.
All I have to say to those who are obsessed with re-making all of these great films from the 60's and 70's is - thank god for DVD! The original can live forever, while your re-makes languish in mediocrity!
shareUnfortunately I don't think it is on DVD. And it's hard as hell to find on VHS. I have a recording I made off of tv 15 years ago which is fading fast.
shareJust finished watching the movie again. This time on cable channel "Retoplex". The film did not appear to have been digitally re-mastered but was much better viewing quality than the VHS I own. Wonderful movie with a great cast. The scenes I remember most from my first viewing 30 plus years ago were Fonda's arm falling off; Jaekel's drowning scene with his laughter under water; and the towing of the logs down the river.
shareBut does anyone really believe that a person couldn't stop laughing when his life depended on it? I didn't believe that scene when I first saw it on tv years ago, and it still didn't look believeable when I saw it yesterday on retroplex. The first comments the brother under water made made it sound like he was worrying what "old Henry" would think about the two men looking like they were kissing each other. Then he continued to clown around, even though Paul Newman was trying his best to get air to him. To me, it sounds like a writerish, inauthentic idea.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Upbeat and born-again, yes, but I think he also recognized how absurd the situation was. Even facing death, there was a sense of, "Wow, this is how it's going to happen?" Obviously, that's conjecture, but his laughing during the scene is one of the things that makes it so realistic, not to mention memorable. It also sets up a very nice counter-balance to the obvious tension -- something a great many directors wouldn't think to add, going for blatant drama.
shareWell, I don't know how you feel about it a decade later, Fillumfan, but I found the drowning scene believable, probably because I've always had a weird and inappropriate response to fear, which is to laugh. (Got me into trouble a few times, but saved my life once.)
They were already acting giddy, which I chalk up as a stress reaction to the ridiculousness of a situation that should have been simple to remedy but just got more and more dire. So when the log rolled and escalated the fear and tension to the point where it was overwhelming, I could accept that keeping cool and getting through it would be a very small possibility.
I acquired a Korean-made DVD version through eBay or Amazon, can't remember which. It's pretty obvious that it's a VHS version transferred to DVD, but hell, I don't care!
share[deleted]
For some reason this movie got brought up at the donut shop this morning. It was one of my favorites[even if I just saw it once, years ago]!!! One guy was trying to tell me the movie was Spencer's Mountain[another great movie], so I came here for a refresher. I know several people[myself included] who would go out joking if trapped under a log with no chance to make it. Oh, by the way was there a 71 Chevrolet Blazer with the top off; in the film? I owned one of these and it was the" most funnest" vehicle to drive.
share[deleted]
gamelon222: Thanks for your previous post regarding the mangling of "Never give a inch." What bothered me even more was that they used (sort of) that phrase, but never put it into context. Where is the Jesus-among-the-lambs plaque that Henry slathered with yellow machine paint, and scrawled across it "Never give a inch"?
And yes, Joe Ben was terrified, trying desperately not to laugh...
You can see the plaque in a few scenes in the living room of the Stamper home, but they never delve into the story behing it. It actually looks more like a varnished piece of wood with "Never Give and Inch!" scratched into it.
shareThere is a piece of cedar log on the fireplace mantle with 'Never Give and Inch' on it. That piece of cedar has bark incuations that is the bark has not kept up with the tree's growth so there are places where the bark is two or three inches inside of the surface of the tree. When the loggers sell logs/trees to the sawmills, the logs are scaled to determine how much lumber can be cut out of the logs. This is done measuring the log length in feet and the diameter of small end of the log in inches then finding those measurements in the log scale book. The problem is in measuring the diameter of the small end; the logger wants the largest (most lumber) and the sawmill wants the smallest (least lumber) and the log should be measured smallest inside the bark. On big, long logs, one inch can be thousands of dollars. So the logger never wants to give an inch.
shareYes it is. It's one of my favorites.
shareI first saw this movie on network television back in the 1970s when I was a teenager. I thought it was excellent then and I still do. I am baffled that this movie is so obscure. I agree, it's good to know that others agree.
share