Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Ed Harris: APPALOOSA

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    261

    Ed Harris: APPALOOSA

    THE MILD WEST

    APPALOOSA
    Written by Robert Knott and Ed Harris
    Directed by Ed Harris
    Starring Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger and Jeremy Irons

    Virgil Cole: That’s the law.
    Randall Bragg: That’s your law.
    Virgil Cole: Same thing.

    Before an image even appears on screen, you can hear the galloping of horses. Their slow stride announces the tone for the hours to follow and within the first five minutes, you know you’re in for a long ride. A slow and steady pace can work easily, especially for the western genre. Only there is a difference between a leisurely gait and dragging your feet. Ed Harris’s second directorial effort and first time out at the writer’s table, APPALOOSA, is a modern western stuck in a conventional frame that tries so hard to be authentic that it ends up coming across as farcical. As Harris and sidekick, Viggo Mortensen, swagger down the dirt roads of their busted down town, they say things like, “Watch you don’t spook the horses,” or, “while the bees are in the butter.” All the while, you’ll shiftin’ in your spurs, waiting for the men folk to ride off into the sunset so you can mosey on outta there.

    Harris and Mortensen plays Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch. They are the law, or at least they are their own brand of the law, and they’ve come to the town of Appaloosa to rid it of an evil tyranny otherwise known as Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons). Bragg basically has his way with the town and has no respect for the current law while Cole has his way with the town under the guise that he is the law. It is Cole’s job to take down Bragg and bring him to justice. He does just that with very little trouble or excitement and he must then accompany the prisoner to a neighboring town so that he may be executed for murdering Appaloosa’s former sheriff. Of course, the journey doesn’t go smoothly and of course there is an inevitable shoot out. In between all that, there is a lot of talking. Long conversations about nothing particularly relevant go on incessantly and finish long after the fields have been plowed (or in other words, the point has been made). Every turn is expected making every moment as flat as the western plains of New Mexico.

    Enter Renee Zellweger as Allison French. Her character is just as lame as her name and her purpose is unbearably offensive. She appears out of nowhere, descending from a train car, dressed in a costume that borders on circus clown, and her arrival announces the obvious intention of ensuring that female viewers have someone to identify with (and not just Mortensen to stare at). Recently widowed, Miss French is clearly in the market for a new man. Cole wants to fill that hole. Miss French knows a good catch when she sees one and before what seems like just a week has passed, they are buying up property and she is nagging him that he never brings his friends round for dinner. She is woman as temptress; she is woman as bothersome and controlling; she is woman as distressed damsel; and she is woman as devil that should never be trusted. Perhaps Harris and co-writer, Robert Knott, thought they were being authentic to the period but all they come across as is misogynistic.

    APPALOOSA is at times laughably melodramatic. It is so staged and so awkwardly paced that it often feels like amateur theatre. A central theme of men facing difficulties with having feelings, let alone expressing them, runs throughout. If only the men behind the camera had infused some actual feeling into the film, it might then have felt as though there were a purpose greater than just an excuse for the cast to get dressed up like cowboys and play with their guns.


    www.blacksheepreviews.com
    I have no idea what I'm doing but incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm.
    - Woody Allen

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,884
    I didn't think it was that bad; in fact I didn't think it was bad at all. But my trouble is that I simply don't "get" Westerns, and have not sufficiently studied the great ones to talk intelligently about the new ones. But your review is timely since this title has been coming up in the Blineness thread, and now it has a thread of its own.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    261
    Well, that's silly. Get your own thread already, APPALOOSA. Leave BLINDNESS alone already. I feel bad for BLINDNESS. Sure it is flawed but it died at the box office. The studio really mucked that one up. Anyhow, I'm no Western expert either ... although I loved last year's 3:10 TO YUMA .. so much more energy and urgency. APPALOOSA was one of those films for me where five minutes in, I knew I was screwed for the next two hours. The only thing I enjoyed, and it is so minute I don't even know if it warrants mentioning, but I liked the chemistry between Mortensen and Harris. It was cute whenever Harris couldn't think of the word he wanted to use and Mortensen was there as his personal dictionary. What did you like about it? I fail to see anything redeeming or appealing about it. It wasn't the worst film I've seen this year by any means but it just felt totally flat to me.
    I have no idea what I'm doing but incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm.
    - Woody Allen

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,884
    What did I like? Not much, but I couldn't find huge faults either. As I mentioned I liked Zellwegger, even though I'm not a fan. I agree Viggo and Ed meshed well but as I said they're too alike physically. I had much the same feeling right at the beginning too, but neither of us is a Westerns fan. Maybe that's why we both liked the jazzy, exciting 3:10 to Yuma while Western devotee Jubis "hated" it.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843
    *I offered a link to the post in which I explain the rationale for my hatred for the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. Post mentions what I believe are that film's assets. The link was offered in response to your positive comment about that film in another thread. I don't understand the reason you bring up my reaction to that film here.

    *I commend you for disclosing that you don't "get" Westerns and that you're not a fan of the genre. This display of honesty and transparency is sorely missing from many reviews written by both amateur and professional reviewers.

    *Like you, I liked Zellwegger in Appaloosa. What I found disconcerting about mouton's review is the claim that Harris and co-writer Knott "come across as misogynistic". It seems to relate to her character being dressed "in a costume that borders on circus clown" and characterized, at least partly, as "woman as devil". The fact that Ms. French is Appaloosa's sole significant female character renders her as representative of women in the world of the film. This leaves the filmmakers open to criticism about their depiction of women. I don't suscribe to such criticism. I think Mr. mouton is judging Ms. French extremely harshly. What is it about her that merits the "devil" label? Would that designation be applied to a man displaying similar behavior? In a male-dominated environment like the one in which the film is set, isn't her behavior not only logical but self-sustaining? What can a woman do to improve her prospects in such circumstances but attach herself to the most powerful male around?

    *What I like most about Appaloosa is the development of the theme of justice and the rule of law in a primitive frontier. It's perhaps paradoxical and certainly ironic that the same gentlemen who hire Cole and Hitch to apprehend Bragg end up cozing up to him by film's end. The way Bragg utilizes his political influence to evade paying for his crimes has obvious contemporary resonance.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    261
    I liken Zellwegger's character to a misogynistic representation because she is a device and not a character. She shows up and within what seems like a week, she is playing house and nagging her fiance to bring his friends around ... and then she tries to get with Viggo ... so she clearly has no actual caring for Harris; she is merely predatory. Oh, and then she's a damsel in distress that needs saving from the men folk ... and then, as if we hadn't had enough already or dragging her character around through so many phases in order to appease the paper thin story, she is apparently in with the bad guys ... great, now she isn't to be trusted ... but then Harris takes her back anyway because he really needs a woman ... and then she barely appreciates that and aligns herself with the man with the power ... I suppose if you consider power hungry women who nag at and cheat on their fiances while all the while serving their best interests at all times to be a strong representation of women, then so be it. My costume quip was just because she looked silly.
    I have no idea what I'm doing but incompetence has never prevented me from plunging in with enthusiasm.
    - Woody Allen

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,884
    I don't think I'm alone in admitting to not "getting" Westerns. Surely some reviewers occasionally admit to genre blind spots. As a kid, I chose crime movies instead. Both were big at the time. As a reviewer, one only has to confess real and serious blind spots; one has a responsiblity to be open-minded toward genres generally. When I said I don't "get" Westerns, that shouldn't be taken to mean I never enjoy them. I just don't quite see their deep fascination. Probably it's something about toy guns and cowboy outfits seeming retro and infra dig to me as a kid. The same kinds of story have worked well for me when enacted in period Japanese costume.

    Zellwegger and her character are two different things. I would agree with mouton that her character gets switched back and forth awfully fast. But Zellwegger digs into the role with enthusiasm and makes the character appealing and real . I would agree with Oscar that the character's behavior gibes with the lack of options women had in that situation in those days. I don't think her clothes make her look like a clown .

    mouton and I simply agree in finding the new 3:10 to Yuma more exciting than Appaloosa, or as he says having "more energy and urgency." Oscar's review says he"hates" it because of its nihilism and what seems like killing for the sheer pleasure of killing, "abject cruelty," illustrated by a torture scene he finds unjustified, while the movie "treats psychological motivation as an afterthought."

    I haven't seen the old 3:10 to Yuma and maybe mouton hasn't. That may be why we simply find the new one exciting and not a sad commentary on contemporary degeneracy. No doubt the new 3:10 reflects how movies have upped the ante violence-wise. Treating psychological motivation as an afterthought is better than not treating it as anything at all.

    In Appaloosa the similarity of Ed Harris and Viggo makes them work well together as partners, but also means there's less contrast going on there. There's something a bit tame about a Western plot focussed on a main character whose aim in life is to settle down with a little woman.

    Probably it's safe to say that opinon generally, as reflected in both reviews and box office, favors the recent 3:10 to Yuma, despite Oscar's loathing, over the current Appaloosa. Oscar may have every right to be disgusted. Ultra violence injected into a period genre may appear unjustifiable anachronism. This might be a good point to bring up discussion of Peckinpah but I'm not the one to do so, nor I guess is mouton.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 10-19-2008 at 01:22 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •