MovieChat Forums > The Missouri Breaks (1976) Discussion > Why I consider it a great Western

Why I consider it a great Western

posted 4 years ago by Wuchak (8079)
7 replies | jump to latest

The plot concerns a rich, educated, big-time rancher (John McLiam) hiring an eccentric sharp-shooting assassin (Brando) to take care of a gang of rustlers (led by the Jack Nicholson character), who are severely diminishing his profits.

Is there anyone to root for? John McLiam is very unlikable as the rich rancher, Braxton. His "family" is completely dysfunctional: His wife ran out on him years before and the film hints at the reason why; his daughter, played by Kathleen Lloyd, is so mentally warped and starved-for-love that she jumps in bed with the head outlaw that's stealing from her father the first chance she gets. Jack Nicholson as Tom Logan is certainly likable in a down-to-earth type of way, but he & his gang are thieving scum. It makes no difference that Braxton is unlikable. He doesn't deserve to be ripped off as he toiled hard to build his ranch over many years.

This leaves us with Brando's character, Lee Clayton, the Irish sharp-shooting assassin, who's a serious nutjob. This is an intriguing character, to say the least. He's utterly fearless, eccentric and intimidating.

Despite Clayton's weirdness, I was definitely rooting for him in the story. I wanted him to annihilate the criminal scumbags. Hey, they CHOSE to make their living outside the law and so they must reap the wages of their actions. Living on the Western frontier was hard enough without having to contend with outlaws who want something for nothing.

One of the rustlers gets a break in the story; let's just assume he learned a lesson from his bad experiences and goes on to live a more honest, productive life.

One great scene is when Clayton visits Logan's farm, which is actually a relay station. He makes it known that he KNOWS Logan is one of the rustlers and not-so-subtly warns him in a decidedly intimidating way.

There's an odd bubble bath scene where Clayton (Brando) is threatened with a gun. His initial reaction is typically fearless and bizarre, yet then strangely turns his head and body as if to submit to it. This made no sense to me at first. It later dawned on me that, despite his merry/crazy antics, great skills and evident genius, the Clayton is a lonely, miserable outcast. I think he was WELCOMING the man to put him out of his misery.

"The Missouri Breaks" features numerous such intriguing contradictions and points to ponder. For instance, there's a scene showing an innocent colt stuck & dying in a world of man-made horror, yet the animal is ultimately rescued because of the compassion of a man, a criminal no less.

One perplexing question is: Why does Clayton insist upon finishing his job (assassinating each member of the outlaw gang) even after Braxton states that he's not going to pay him anything? Clayton points out that he doesn't care about money. What then are his motivations? The simple thrill of killing? Or does he believe he's a some sort of righteous agent carrying out universal justice?

The picture has a modern vibe and has therefore aged well, indicating that it was a good 15 years ahead of its time (by contrast, many Westerns, like "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," are very dated). But I should emphasize it's not an action film (which explains why some criticize it as "listless") and doesn't have that quick-editing style of many modern pictures. "The Missouri Breaks" is similar in style and pace to Clint Eastwood's hailed "Unforgiven" (1992).

The locations are fabulous, by the way; the film was shot in the Billings/Red Lodge region of awe-inspiring Montana.

"The Missouri Breaks" is a well-made Western with top-of-the-line directing, cinematography, actors, locations, costuming, sets, realism and, perhaps best of all, it leaves the viewer pondering the experience afterward with a few puzzling questions. The inclusion of acting giants Brando and Nicholson propel the picture to greatness.

The film has re-watchable merit; every time I see it I'm captivated and get more out of it. This is a sign of a great (or, at least, deep) film. The polarized reviews also show that it's a love it or hate it piece.

As for the ending, it ends the only way I guess it could *** MINOR SPOILER *** with one man redeemed and another finally released from his misery -- or getting his comeuppance -- whichever you prefer.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The gang in The Missouri Breaks are generally actors we like -- led by Nicholson and with familiar faces like Randy Quaid and Harry Dean Stanton. Though one of them(the one who gets killed while, er, fornicating) was an actor who also seemed to have a "mean, sick face" to me. But they are still a gang, they are still stealing the horses of people who are trying to make an honest living and when Brando's "regulator" starts killing them off, one by one(quite brutally)....one almost feels justice being done. Almost.

----
This leaves us with Brando's character, the Irish sharp-shooting assassin, who's a serious nutjob. This is an intriguing character, to say the least. He's utterly fearless, eccentric and intimidating.

---

Yes. Brando was starting to show that weight gain that would eventually overtake him, but here he seems physically intimidating, believably a "man of righteous violence." And he's still got Marlon Brando's great, handsome face and weirdly toned voice...with a delicious Irish accent.

Great line readings, too. I love EXACTLY the way he says "adios, Amigo" to one of his victims, who is drowning at the time.

---

Despite Brando's weirdness, I was definitely rooting for him in the story. I wanted him to annihilate the criminal scumbags. Hey, they CHOSE to make their living outside the law and so they must reap the wages of their actions. Living on the Western frontier was hard enough without having to contend with outlaws who want something for nothing.

---

Yes, Brando had his justifications. But the Nicholson side of the story is how these are generally downtrodden men with a certain humanity to them. Interesting: Nicholson makes the point to Brando that what he detests about regulators(meaning BRANDO) is that they kill their prey with a long rifle, offering no chance to the victim and no "man to man confrontation." And yet Brando kills (drowns) one victim "up close and personal" after befriending him for a night and a day. Still, the other murders ARE from a distance. But as Brando says to Nicholson about his long rifle: "I would say what is most important is that the weapon performs the task at hand."

--
One of the rustlers gets a break in the story; let's just assume he learned a lesson from his bad experiences and goes on to live a more honest, productive life.

--

I see the ending that way. Brando's vengeance upon his peers changed his view of the criminal life.

---
CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

One great scene is when Brando visits Nicholson's farm, which is actually a relay station. He makes it known that he KNOWS Nicholson is one of the rustlers and not-so-subtly warns him in a decidedly intimidating way.

---

This scene is "what we paid to see." And Brando -- to his credit -- elected to play a straight-out villain, even if a righteous one. Nicholson is the "good guy" of the two -- an "honest crook" with a code of honor. "Bad guys versus worse guys."

What's great about the scene is that both Nicholson and Brando seem to know that Nicholson is the horse thief leader in question, and that Brando is here to kill him....but they keep talking in the abstract, insulting each other indirectly without confronting each other directly. A "deadly showdown" can wait -- this is a staple of Westerns far less weird than The Missouri Breaks.

---

There's an odd bubble bath scene where Brando's character is threatened with a gun. His initial reaction is typically fearless and bizarre, yet then strangely turns his head and body as if to submit to it. This made no sense to me at first. It later dawned on me that, despite his merry/crazy antics, great skills and evident genius, the Brando character is a lonely, miserable outcast. I think he was WELCOMING the man to put him out of his misery.

--
That's a great analysis of that. I guess I shouldn't mention who is doing the threatening, but it is a scene we have been waiting for...and Brando turns it on its ear. Consequently, the other person elects not to "shoot Brando in cold blood." Which is a mistake..because Brando, allowed to live, starts killing a lot of the other person's friends.

There is also the issue...sorry, but with movie stars, it IS an issue...that Brando by doing this scene nude in a tub , shows off a bit too much of that once-trim body which was now turning into something else. It renders the character oddly vulnerable.

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

"The Missouri Breaks" features numerous such intriguing contradictions and points to ponder. For instance, there's a scene showing an innocent colt stuck & dying in a world of man-made horror, yet the animal is ultimately rescued because of the compassion of a man, a criminal no less.

---

A criminal, no less. Here is a movie that shows us the various scenes of man.

---

One perplexing question is: Why does Brando insist upon finishing his job (assassinating each member of the outlaw gang) even after McLiam states that he's not going to pay him anything? Brando points out that he doesn't care about money. What then are his motivations? The simple thrill of killing? Or does he believe he's a some sort of righteous agent carrying out divine justice?

---

Any and all of the above. Brando's explosive anger over the dead body of a ranch hand suggests that he just plain doesn't like criminals...and feels that people are too timid and sheeplike against them. When McLiam is ready to quit, Brando refuses to .

---

The picture has a very modern vibe and has therefore aged well, indicating that it was a good 15-20 years ahead of its time (by contrast, many Westerns, like "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," are very dated).

--

The film felt very 1976...Brando, rather a "relic of the 50's" as his greatest period, seemed right at home in this offbeat, oddball Western. HE was ahead of HIS time...it arrived just in time for him to stop caring much about film acting. But he never "slummed." He's entertaining here...he must be doing SOMETHING right.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

But I should emphasize it's not an action film (which explains why some criticize it as "listless") and doesn't have that quick-editing style of many modern pictures. "The Missouri Breaks" is similar in style and pace to Clint Eastwood's hailed "Unforgiven" (1992).

--

I like the "Unforgiven" analogy. Both of these films are "dramas first, Westerns second." And there IS a certain "demand" being made on The Missouri Breaks to be worthy of its two great stars in tandem. Better to err on the side of artiness that to make a simple action picture. Nicholson and Brando would not have AGREED to a simple action picture.

---

The locations are fabulous, by the way; the film was shot in the Billings/Red Lodge region of awe-inspiring Montana.

--

Well, one reason we like Westerns(or Western dramas) is the scenery. Here, scenery of a particular sort. Also, I love that scene where Nicholson leaps out of a stopped train he's robbed -- only to find out he's on a trestle hanging over a long drop(only at the last second does he grab onto something to avoid the fall.) I like his Nicholson-rage after "That's it! NO MORE TRAINS!")

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 4 years ago

The film has re-watchable merit; every time I see it I'm captivated and get more out of it. This is a sign of a great (or, at least, deep) film. The polarized reviews also show that it's a love it or hate it piece.

--

I remember my main beef at the time when I saw it in 1976 is how Jack Nicholson -- particularly after his rambunctious and moving performance in Cuckoo's Nest and his classic always-on-screen work in Chinatown -- just seemed rather boring and "off to the side." Brando keeps killing the other characters with Nicholson -- their leader -- off screen and doing nothing til the end.

Also, it takes a long time to get Brando into the movie, and Nicholson doesn't seem to get enough to do to hold the screen until Brando shows. Well, that's what I thought THEN. I was a lot younger. The movie and the performances seem more alive now(I watched the film again just last week, as I post this in 2020, though I still have reservations about Nicholson's tentative sexual romance with Kathryn Lloyd -- these are scenes about SEX, and yet none is shown and we don't see the sparks.)

---
As for the ending, it ends the only way I guess it could *** MINOR SPOILER *** with one man redeemed and another finally released from his misery -- or getting his comeuppance -- whichever you prefer.

--

One steals. One kills.

One dies.

[–] Wuchak (8079) 4 years ago

Thanks for the insights, ecarle. I particularly liked your interpretation of why Clayton (Brando) insists on completing the job of wiping out the rustlers:

Brando's explosive anger over the dead body of a ranch hand suggests that he just plain doesn't like criminals...and feels that people are too timid and sheeplike against them. When McLiam is ready to quit, Brando refuses to."

It's a low-key, but potent scene when Braxton (McLiam) informs Clayton that he's not going to pay him as originally agreed and the latter simply says he doesn't care about money. The most dangerous (or effective) person is one who isn't primarily motivated by lucre.

I like the ambiguity of Clayton (Brando) as the "antagonist," ironically fighting thieves, i.e. the actual villains. Yet, as my original post points out, I saw Clayton as the fearless hero, despite his entertaining eccentricities. He was a misfit loner, not worthy of this world. In effect, his life & death enable Logan (Nicholson) to live... with a second chance at life.