MovieChat Forums > Emperor of the North Pole (1973) Discussion > For the love of Joe Frazier, throw a pun...

For the love of Joe Frazier, throw a punch!

posted 15 years ago by SeanJoyce
10 replies | jump to latest

Much hulabaloo has been made over Marvin's and Borgnine's climatic confrontation at the end of the film. I concede that it is an impressive piece of action...exciting and well-choreographed (but damn, couldn't they find some more convincing blood? I was half-expecting Keith Carradine to dip a french fry into Ernie's shoulder.)

Their epic fight that ultimately determines the winner of their personal feud has earned a place in the upper-echelon of screen scraps.

Its violence and reputation prevent me from being too harsh on it, but I have a bit of an opposing argument, a caveat if you will:

I have to deduct points for the simple fact that NOT ONE PUNCH IS THROWN. Well, technically Borgnine throws a few at the end of it in a futile attempt to outlast his hated adversary, but that's a dead issue because none connect.

Simply put, a great movie fight must have at least a couple bone-crunching punches, no matter how enthusiastically you can extol its other virtues. Here, there's a nice tackle and a few well-placed kicks, but that doesn't assuage the fact that there's nary any fist-flying to behold.

Is this as big a deal as I'm making it out to be? Yes, because aside from the fact that it doesn't fit in my self-set parameters for what a good fight should be, either combatant would have benefited greatly had they acknowledged that their arms/hands had uses that extended beyond frantically grabbing for the nearest weapon. Case in point: Marvin gets his axe entangled in Ernie's chain, and he furiously struggles to extricate it. Um, hello Lee...jack him in the face, and you'll get it back much easier, I promise ya!

Anyhow, it graces the annals of my movie fight collection, but this glaring defect never ceases to grate me.

Here endeth my rant. For those of you who have expended your vitriol, do you have anything left to share your thoughts on this scene?

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] loughsprng 15 years ago

Well the only thing I can tell you SeanJoyce is if I had Ernie Borgnine coming at me with a hammer, or a chain, or a 2x4, the last thing I'd be doing is trying to fight him with my bare hands. I think Lee handled the situation with his axe snared by Shack's chain just fine. Technically he'd won the fight at that point when he knocked Shack over the side and not only got the axe free, but got rid of the chain as well!
I have to disagree with you on this. When I watch this film the thing I'm struck with is the symbolism throughout this movie. I think the hammer, as well as the chain, not to mention the pin used to pummel the bo's riding down train, are all representative of brutal oppression. I think the same could be said of the axe that Lee Marvin turns to towards the end of the fight. It's a weapon, or a tool, used to "cut down" the oppressor, and bring to an end his cruel reign over the nomads struggling to survive their plight during the great depression.
It's an interesting point you make, but if I want to see a good fist fight I can always watch a John Wayne movie.

[–] SeanJoyce 15 years ago

loughsprung,

Whether it was intended or not, right you are that the weapons assume symbolic importance...as a matter of fact, the whole movie can be interpreted as a metaphysical allegory for the struggle to survive, or even capitalism.

That does not diminish the fact that some fisticuffs were woefully missing, and would have only enhanced this battle. Borgnine's chain was heavy and cumbersome, and considering the rather short distance between them at some points, some punches would have been advantageous to scurrying about for the closest weapon. A few precise combos would have felled Borgnine before he was even able to raise it.

In short, keep the weapons if you want to retain the unique symbolism, but for christ's sake, land some punches as well!

Now that I think of it, what better symbolism is there for the struggling proletariat than his bare hands?

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] loughsprng 15 years ago

SeanJoyce,

I think the fight scene is great the way it is - and holds more meaning to those who "get" the movie.

All I can say is we saw what happened to A#1 in this fight when Shack got him with that "cumbersome" chain and he was without a weapon. He nearly choked him to death. This was no ordinary brawl - this was a battle to the death. Shack was out to kill this bo, and A#1 knew it. He also could see that Borgnine's character was a psychopath.

When you have a brute coming at you with a sledge hammer, or swinging a chain at you, or jabbing you with a 2'x4', you better have something more than your bare hands to fend them off.

That's the way I see it. I know you wanted a fist fight between Marvin and Borgnine, but I think the conflict is much more exciting the way Aldrich directed it.

I do agree with you however about the blood used in the scene. Certainly those kind of effects have come a ways since 1973.

[–] SeanJoyce 15 years ago

loughsprng,

Your points are understood and agreed upon, for the most part. However, you seem to still not understand the fact that a person who skillfully uses his hands in combat can be deadlier than an opponent semi-crafty with a weapon. Also lost on you is the revelation that they could have made it much easier on themselves had they deigned to fend off their rival with their body before a weapon could be procured. I've watched the fight quite a few times, and there are several moments when, instead of trying to evade a blow or scamper away, they would have been better served doling out a swift 1-2. In Marvin's case, what could Borgnine have done had he stood put clasping his chain while Lee knocked him one square in the face? Chances are that he would have dropped the chain for Marvin's benefit, and sent into retreat himself.

But the major source of dispute here is that, as an expert in film fights, I can tell you that any clash lacking a strike with the hand ala a punch, karata chop, etc. gets points deducted. That's just the rules of the game.

Btw, I haven't mentioned the blood yet, but the stand-in for it is truly awful.

Cheers.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] szickelb 13 years ago

SeanJoyce: Have you ever been in a real fight? Real people fight like the ending of this movie, not like the million other movies where guys throw punches all day long and have perfect balance.

The fight in this movie is far more realistic (and compelling, considering it's Borgnine and Marvin). Throwing a punch in real life is not like the movies. Connecting to a person's face is as likely to break your hand as it is their face.

What makes this fight scene so effective is that you have two archetypal characters squaring off with NO illusions of Jackie Chan-esque moves or Fight Club theatrics. They're two men who represent powerful, primal ideals (freedom vs. oppression) who attack each other as real men would, off balance and leading with their bodies, not fists.

As far as the blood color goes, you can thank the censors of the day. Any showing of blood could not look too realistic in a movie, so filmmakers were basically forced to make the blood look less realistic or not have any at all.

[–] SeanJoyce 13 years ago

SeanJoyce: Have you ever been in a real fight? Real people fight like the ending of this movie, not like the million other movies where guys throw punches all day long and have perfect balance.

I've been in plenty...heaps more than your post indicates you've been in. In all of them, I can assure you that punches were thrown; desperate attempts to scavage for chains, two-by-fours, and axes weren't taken.

The fight in this movie is far more realistic

This can only come from a person who has seen very few actual fights and participated in less.

Throwing a punch in real life is not like the movies. Connecting to a person's face is as likely to break your hand as it is their face.

A myth perpetrated by those with precious few fist-fights to their experience. I'm really sure that Marvin and Borgnine, who were beating each other senseless with the instruments mentioned above, worried about hurting their hands

You and everybody else can defend the action of this scene all day, but my point still stands: There are several instances during it where a simple rush followed by a fusillade of punches would have rendered his weapon-toting opponent impotent. Passing up such opportunities to duel it out with a weapon was logic-defeating.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

[–] tokyostreetkiller 8 years ago

Whoa, watch out. We got an Internet Tough Guy over here. Dude, your original post was funny and insightful. But this defending of your "manhood" is stupid. Nobody cares about how many fights you've been in.

"Let's get out of here before one of those things kills Guy!"

[–] TonopaTwoThumbs 15 years ago

Have you guys seen Electraglide in Blue? The same red-paint-blood is used in that film as well. Shhh!! no spoilers!

[–] Prismark10 8 years ago

That red paint was commonly used for blood in the 70s.

It's that man again!!

[–] roger1 (2277) 7 months ago

That red paint was commonly used for blood in the 70s.

---

In 2005, I attended a "salute to Don Siegel"(already dead by then, the director of Dirty Harry and other movies) and Clint Eastwood attended to make some remarks. It was at the Motion Picture Academy Theater in LA.

They showed some Siegel/Eastwood movie clips(Siegel directed Eastwood five times) including the one from Dirty Harry where Harry shoots it out with the bank robbers and makes his "Do you feel lucky?" speech for the first time. In the scene, Harry gets winged by a bullet on the thigh and some blood is shown on his pants leg.

When the clip ended, Eastwood said "generally I am not in favor of changing a movie years after it is locked in -- but I can't say I like how that blood on my pants leg looks like red paint."

He got a knowing laugh.

Years later, I watched Dirty Harry on cable and...lo and behold...the blood on Harry's pants lege had been recolored "blackish."

So Eastwood made an exception.