MovieChat Forums > The Master Gunfighter (1975) Discussion > Why The Interest In Laughlin?

Why The Interest In Laughlin?


Hey folks,

I just do not understand why anyone found anything of interest in any of Laughlin's films. Obviously there are many folks out there who would disagree with me, but I simply do not understand it.

This film is supposed to take place in 1830s Southern California, yet he has folks shooting Colt and Remington revolvers that were not invented until decades later, and to top that, the characters also use swords as in Japanese Samurai swords. I guess the swords were to be used after the six shooters ran out of bullets after 30 or 40 shots? There is no story. Any semblence of a story is lost in Laughlin's desire to shoot and slash.

It almost seemed like I was watching some perverted version of the original "Star Wars" film. In "Star Wars" they used a light sabre in spite of the fact they also had some version of a pistol that never ran out of "laser bullets." I don't know why one would use a light sabre when one could shoot the enemy with a laser pistol, but at least "Star Wars" was a fantasy set in a "far off land and a far off time."

This film has absolutely no historical connection, and, in my opinion, is a waste of time and film.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

reply

Hey David,

I have not seen this movie, but I have seen the three "Billy Jack" movies, and I always thought Laughlin was a pseudo, wannabe director/actor/writer. His acting was always 'hammy', over-dramatic and maudlin. (He's even worse than Shatner). He should be referred to as Tom Laughable. Other than that, he's okay I guess.

reply

There are actually four Billy Jack films:
The Born Losers
Billy Jack
The Trial Of Billy Jack
Billy Jack Goes To Washington
The Born Losers is an odd, off canon story that was originally supposed to be Billy Jack but apparently the films backers didn't believe people wanted to see a movie about a "Crusading Indian". Instead, the detail of Billy being half Native seemed to be mentioned but overlooked and his being a Vietnam War vet took the limelight. Either way, the character and ideas behind the movies seemed wildly unpopular with mainstream media outlets.
Jump ahead a few years and the popularity of anti-war/anti-establishment movements made for the perfect climate for the other three films.
Personally I believe the films tackled too many topics for people to really grasp. Todays society is, in a lot of ways, too black and white for the ideas presented in the films. That gray area of mystery no longer exists in modern society to allow the films to present the concepts openly and gracefully.
It's funny; the generation that these films originate from wanted desperately to instill equality and guarantee the rights of future generations. In turn society chooses to label every person and belief as it suits their own being or position.
Though I do not agree with many of the Laughlins political positions and agendas I do applaud them for doing what they thought to be right for themselves and the world in the work the pursued. Many of the incidents and most of the topics they tackled are a very real part of this nations history as well as its current state and future. I do admire Tom Laughlin for his portrayal of a mixed race individual trying to find his place in the world despite the obstacles that come with existing between worlds. In a way the films presented truths denied to them by post war America and the tumult of the Cold War.
The main characters are polar opposites that are later revealed as more alike than is comfortable for some: a violent protagonist that brutally murders several people in vengeance killings, protects the outcasts of American society, and eventually becomes a politician. His partner and love interest is a pacifist with goals to heal the world and take care of its children peacefully but eventually resorts to violence to protect those children. if that doesn't make members of opposite political parties/ideals uncomfortable I don't know what does.
Seeing as there is no pleasing people these days, the Laughlin films don't come recommended by many, I would highly recommend them for people studying film and society in the last four decades of the previous century. Issues and topics presented in the films seem more prevelant than ever. Perhaps the way people fight for their issues today would be more effective if they could take the mistakes from the past and learn from them.

reply

Never could understand how Eula could go off with the silly-looking ass who killed her brother.
Incidentally, Ron O' Neal made a very handsome Spaniard.


I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

I agree. Especially in this film Laughlin came across looking like a silly impotent ass most of the time.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

reply

He was the Steven Seagal of the 60s-70s, and he touched on many themes that the hippies and burners related to.




Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?

reply