Great movie! Definitely not the usual western I'm used to. Also very realistic, but what's up with hotel in the middle of nowhere? That was weird. Who would build a hotel in the middle of nowhere, especially in those times?
shareThey were sometimes called "Railroad Hotels" and land speculators would buy up a bunch of land in the middle of nowhere, build a hotel, and then start laying out streets, planting trees, etc. A lot of times they would have inside information as to where the new rail lines were going to be laid out in advance. They would then bring out wealthy investors from the east who would buy lots and put up big houses, bringing their businesses, etc. with them. Most of Southern California was developed in this way, but it was by no means the first area to do so.
shareIt wasn't a "Railroad Hotel" it was a paper town. Con artist land guys used to build them and stake out streets and such to sucker money out of wealthy New York investors, some of whom never ever came out to see the "town." These con artists would sometimes raise as much as $150k (a fortune back in 1850) and then vanish, leaving the hotel to rot. No streets were ever built, no other dwellings/businesses were ever built, no town ever sprang up. It was all just a con. If you read the book by Glendon Swarthout, there's an afterword by his son, Miles, about these things and the research Glendon did before writing the book. There's an interesting bit about these "Paper Towns."
share[deleted]
I could accept the hotel. I just had problem with the Jones character committing mass murder because he wasn't given a room. That seemed like an over-reaction to being inconvenienced by an innkeeper. The bartender with the shotgun stuck in the back had every right to blow the gun-wielding, threatening stranger away, but he didn't. They let him go.
shareYou miss the point. You HAD to accept it, as a reflection of who the character really was. He had his own set of moral compasses, on the one hand to take care of those he knew needed food and water, on the other hand destroying those who didn't see his point of view.
That encounter helps to understand everything else in the movie, including the ending.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.
Corporate demographic Hollywood film making has really killed the audiences' understanding of what stories are made of. Especially those films arising from book sources. After reading the board comments, there seems to be such a huge disconnect from the reality that is Earth and humanity, in the glare of our technology and Disney's Time Square keeping us safe from this past.
Historical context given, the hotel makes perfect sense out in the middle of no where, because a lot of men sought to find wealth in the frontier west. The stakes of plotted land, and even the street names to unpaved streets, are indication of the towns that would spring up over night, and be turned into the ghost towns we've forgotten today. These men's greed were often their undoing, waiting for riches that would never come.
But for those who don't understand why TLJs' character burned the hotel down only have to look at history. How many of you have ever been denied service based on your class, your race, your creed, your sexuality, your outward appearance?
I bet in 2015, not a lot of you. But in the 19th century past, denial of service was part and parcel of the social structure. The film made inroads on the woman experience on the frontier, but it also touched on the notions of societal segregation in the west. The Indians were seen as murderers (not people defending their own homes from invaders), women were property (not significant contributors to surviving in the frontier), and class was still class on the frontier (as seen at the hotel, where TLJs' character could not even get a bite to eat, despite the resplendent table of food right in front of him).
The discrimination of the hotel owners was so subtle to be missed by those never faced with such a situation. Why did TLJs' character burn down the hotel in the blaze of glory portrayed? Because there TLJs' character was in the middle of no where, in need of a meal and place to stay with the money to pay for it. But the greed and the classist discrimination of the hotel developers was far too great, that they choose to deny TLJ service - to wait for travelers still weeks off from arriving. And TLJ saw this, and in his rage, of what he had been through to that point, was left to act as the righteous retribution and the justice that the hoteliers deserved.
Many Indians *were* murderers. And it's difficult to describe simple farmers/settlers as "invaders."
Also, I believe the hotel guests were scheduled to arrive momentarily. Having riffraff and crazy women there might well have put them off.
That's ridiculous. The ulterior of that straw man fallacy is just as true. "Many simple farmers/settlers "were" murderers. And its difficult to describe simple Indians as "invaders."
share...to wait for travelers still weeks off from arriving...
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.share
I could accept the hotel. I just had problem with the Jones character committing mass murder because he wasn't given a room. That seemed like an over-reaction to being inconvenienced by an innkeeper.
And like no one would be able to somehow jump out of the second story window...
...and no one else was around to confront Jones' character after he set fire to the place.
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.share
and it is perfectly believable that the men in the hotel were the only people around; especially when you consider that the investors were due to arrive very shortly.
The part of the film that I had the biggest trouble with, as far as realism is concerned, was Hilary Swank's character - who was shown throughout to be a devout Christian - having sex out of wedlock and then committing suicide the next morning; for some completely inexplicable reason. That was completely and utterly unbelievable for that character, in that time period...
I realize this; my point was: Why did only the leader come down to confront Jones. He had a couple of heavies with him that "chased" him off earlier in the day. At the very least they could have ran down the stairs (jumping through any flames) to take him on; at least that would've been better than going up in flames on the second floor.
It wasn't unbelievable in context of her story arc. She wanted to marry and couldn't find a man (which I couldn't buy, particularly in the Old West; although she might not have a conventionally beautiful face, you can't deny her hot body). When Mary Bee (Swank) was lost for a couple days on the open prairie it was her breaking point mentally. She resolved at that point to finally have sex and depart this earth. Devout Christian or not, the West broke her and she fell into a hopeless state. Here's my explanation:
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.share
there is no way known that a devout Christian would have committed suicide back then.
the reality is that there is no way it would have happened. People of that time truly believed - wholeheartedly - that they would spend an eternity in hellfire if they committed suicide so they simply did not do it.
her committing suicide; which would NEVER have happened under any circumstances
a gay Christian
No offense, but being redundant and emphatic about a point doesn't make it true.
For one thing, how could you possibly know with absolute certainty that no genuine believer on the face of the earth committed suicide in the 19th century?
It's ridiculous to even suggest this and diminishes your credibility.
Before I say anything more I want to emphasize that I'm thoroughly against suicide. It's definitely a sin because it's the taking of an innocent life; it's just that the life happens to be the person's own. But just because a Christian dies after committing an unconfessed sin -- in this case, suicide -- it doesn't necessarily mean that they are automatically condemned to damnation. It just means that they will be accountable to that transgression when they stand before the Lord. Believers are judged at what the bible calls the Judgment Seat of Christ where they'll receive what is due them for what they did in the body, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10-11 & Romans 14:10,12).
With this understanding, if Mary Bee was a genuine believer (and the movie offers evidence that she was, despite how her life ended) then she would be held accountable for the sins of fornication and suicide, but this doesn't necessarily mean she's automatically condemned to damnation. Only the LORD knows a person's heart, which is why only God can judge in these situations.
Yes, a devout Christian -- back then or today -- would not have committed suicide unless they "fell from grace" and were thus in a state of disillusionment. You can say it never happened in the 19th century all you want, but there are historical cases of devout Christians committing suicide after falling into depression. True, you could argue that this indicated that they weren't actually devout, but no one can deny their devoutness before becoming disillusioned, which means that they were devout Christians.
You can do a Google search for case histories for yourself, but let me offer evidence straight from the Bible of strong, godly people who seriously wanted to die: Moses (Numbers 11:13-15 & Exodus 32:32), Elijah (1 Kings 19:4 ), Jonah (Jonah 4:3,8-9) and Job (Job 3:11 & 10:18-19). Then there's Samson who willing killed himself in order to get revenge on the Philistines and yet he's hailed in the New Testament for his faith (Judges 16:23-30 & Hebrews 11:32). You can argue that he didn't commit suicide in the technical sense but the fact is that he killed himself while killing the Philistines, even though the latter was his divine commission.
Actually, this is an oxymoron. See 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 for definitive proof. While all believers have sinful proclivities -- that is, areas of the flesh that tempt them, including homosexuality, but also fornication, adultery, gossip, arrogance, theft, lying, slander, drunkardness, legalism, etc. -- Christians are called to "keep in repentance" from sin, which keeps them in a state of grace (1 John 1:8-9, Matthew & Luke 3:8). Those, by contrast, who arrogantly walk in transgression with no care of repentance block themselves from God's grace and will eventually be uprooted from the kingdom; that is, if they remain stiffnecked (Luke 13:1-9). By the way, I'm not interested in debating this issue with you; if you want to believe that a person can be a genuine believer and simultaneously a practicing homosexual then so be it; we'll see what God has to say about it when the individual stands before the Almighty at the Judgment Seat.
You might say that it all comes down to what a person believes. While what a person believes is important to a point, it actually all comes down to what the truth is; and truth is reality -- the way I really is -- regardless of what someone believes. And, of course, only "the truth will set you free" (John 8:31-32).
You can have the last word; I've said everything I care to say on the matter and don't have time for an ongoing discussion.
Have a good one, my friend.
We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.share
The Hotel was surreal. It was all by itself. Were was the support? Where were the liveries, blacksmith shops, carpentry shops? Anything else? Where did supplies come from? It wasn't that big. Looks like the "staff" would have taken up most of the rooms.
Also, regardless of how callus the operator may have been. It is hard to believe he would have turned away starving people with out at least providing bread and water. Their larder must have been pretty well stocked to put out the spread they had plus feed the staff. Their line of supplies appears pretty substantial.
Of course the purpose of this is to set up the hotels destruction. Biblical Sodom and Gomorrah. Some interpret those cities destruction due to inhospitality. Inhospitality, not in the sense of good manners, but to abuse and not shelter travelers. Pending those cities destruction the Angel to the Lord instructs Lot's wife, someone residing there, but perhaps not culpable, to leave and not look back. Here George Briggs instructs to cook, someone who resides there but not culpable, to leave and not look back. Fire and destruction is then brought down.
There's a scene in the book that greatly connects with the hotel scene. When the wagon is out underway near the beginning of their journey, they come across three wagons going to where they were from.
Cuddy stops by and asks them if they can spend time, thinking it'll be good for the women. But the wagon people don't want anything to do with the crazy women and sort of just say no. They offer food but Cuddy refuses and balks at how cruel they are that they won't even converse and just hang out.
Briggs does warn her not to do this, and Cuddy didn't realize how stigmatized the women were. It would also explain why nice simple folk just moving out there would not want the crazy women around (as it would paint the frontier as a bad thing), then there's no way paper Town investors would give up two rooms for them either.