Just a quick thought on the difference of attitudes:
In Tombstone (1993) the Earps get involved into being lawmen by referencing “innocent people’s suffering” (scene with Johnny Behan talking to Earps at approx. the 55th minute of the film).
You know you men are making a lot of money in this town. That’s good, that’s good… Good for you. In the meantime a lot of decent people are suffering. But please, don’t let me take up any more of your precious time.
Johnny Behan
And later Virgil Earp (who, according to “The Making of Tombstone” represents the the Law) is guilt-driven into taking the job:
These people are afraid to walk down the streets and I am trying to make money out of them like some God damn vulture.
Virgil Earp (explaining why he took the job of the lawman)
Being the lawman is a job in the Classic Westerns, and as any other job is supposed to be done professionally to gain respect. In Gunfight At The OK Corral Wyatt says “if you can’t do your job anymore – turn in your badge”. As in “you are getting paid to do the job – so do it or resign”. It’s work ethics. It a matter of professionalism.
From watching the “Making of” I’ve gathered that Kurt Russel was really into the story, that’s why it’s so strange to me that the film turned out such a typical 90s action film rather than a good western.
The film opens with a stylized silent film sequence and a narrator voice. The sequence could have been suitable due to fact that the real White Earp lived to see the silent films era, but seeing Val Kilmer in one of the silent clips is weird, as that becomes not the 20th re-telling, but a documentary. Did have the “breaking the fourth wall” effect on me.
To sum up my first problem with the film, I will put it like this: it is an incredibly naive “Good” vs “Bad” story. Straight away, in the first scene you “meet the bad guys”, then, in scene 2, the good guys are presented to you.
The scene with Wyatt arguing with Virge and Morg about getting involved would have worked if the previous scene wasn’t such a pathetic tear-jerker – the town, oppressed by the horrible cowboys, terrorizing the citizens on a daily bases ( just for the sake of it, it seems), Virgil looking at a scarred woman, holding her little son…
Let’s make it obvious how bad the bad guys are – true maniacs. And only Earps can stand up to them
Scene 1 – Dear Viewer, let me present you the Bad Guys of this movie
“Baddie’s” evil laugh – approx 3 minutes into the film just made me laugh too. Curly Bill is a raging maniac here. Not like he was a nice guy, but shooting down an entire Mexican village is just laughable. I am guessing the origins of the scene go into the documented “practical jokes” of Curly bill who made a preacher “dance” and the villagers to dance naked. But the way it is in the film – it’s an absolute overkill.
“Of course” they are shown as a gang of “inhuman” beings who kill a number of innocent, defenseless people. Also, if that’s not enough for you to hate the “baddies” – Curly Bill tortures and kills the newly wed husband, and then Johnny Ringo shoots the priest dead. These are the Bad guys, got it now?
Scene 2 – Now, please meet our Good Guys! (Don’t forget to applaud at how touchingly good they are)
Meet Wyatt Earp, first shown protecting his horse from a whipping. Yes, real Wyatt Earp did like animals, but again the implementation of that fact is far too on the nose. I remember a book on Screenwriting I read, when I was at a film school – there was a part about writing a likeable character, presented as bullet points list – “He/she should love animals, children….” I guess they’ve read that book too.
A couple more weird bits
I find it hard to believe that Morgan has no idea about his brother’s religious beliefs. Morgan Earp: Wyatt, do you believe in God? No, c’mon really, do you?Wyatt Earp: Yeah. Maybe… Hell, I don’t know.Yes, it is true – the whole bit about Morgan being fascinated by what people see when they die, it’s just the dialogue as it is in the film seems to be unnatural way of introducing this fact
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the idea of some guy with a shotgun (his face hidden under a hood), bursting into Virgil Earp house, and unloading his shotgun just over the heads of the Earp’s women is downright ridiculous. Maybe I’ve missed some hidden meaning of that scene?
Best bits
There are some notably good scenes and lines of dialogue ‘though.
One is the scene with Wyatt getting 25% of the saloon revenue.
And the following scene with Doc sending off a guy with the shotgun “I apologise, I forgot you were there. You may go now.”
In the theater after an exerpt from Faust, where Faust sells his soul to the Devil, Holliday remarks with a nice line: “very instructive”.
The scene with Doc mocking Ringo when they first meet.
A bit of a summary
It seems that the intentions were good, there was love and interest in the story, but something went very wrong along the way. From what I read there were massive production problems and replacements, so that might be the reason.
In modern films we don’t get a chance to learn about the characters as we immediately find ourselves watching some fast-paced action and therefore indifferent to the participants, who are unknown to us.
Normally, I prefer the story to unfold slowly.
But here we get a building of a stand-off shootout between Bat Masterson and Doc Holliday right in the beginning of the film. And it is a nice way to nail the audience to the seat and present the characters at the same time.
The first stand-ff makes it to the poster
It is indeed a B-Western, so don’t expect too much of it. And certainly don’t expect historical accuracy – all that is historically correct here are the names and the fact that Bat Masterson didn’t like Doc Holliday, but was a friend of Wyatt Earp.
Still I’d say it’s a pretty cool idea to have Bat and Doc going through the film hating each other with Wyatt busy trying to keep both of his friends from killing each other.
While the script is rather enjoyable, acting and casting are the weakest points of this one. Bat and Wyatt are too similiar in manners and characters, and Doc Holliday was definitely miscast.
Still Doc gets the best lines of dialog, as usual:
Stranger: You don’t know me Doc, but I am your friend.
Doc: I choose my friends, and I still don’t know you.
Here Doc has a superstition of not killing people when is having a winning streak (same concept was later used in Maverick’s TV series interpretation of Doc Holliday’s character by Gerard Mohr in episode “The Quick and The Dead”).
(The confrontation and promise to have a shootout between Doc and Bat still stays)
From the moment I laid eyes on him, Doc Holliday’s appearance haunted me – it does to this day – with his large blue eyes set deep in a haggard face, his heavy head of wavy, ash-blond hair, and his neatly trimmed moustache, his really fine nose and his very expressive mouth.
Maverick 1994 – stunningly bad comparing to the original TV series
Mel Gibson could have fit the role of a Maverick, but, because of the script, he was spending most of the time running around like a headless chicken, which was supposed to be funny. It’s really not his fault his version of Maverick is so bad – the script is horrible.
Garner has nothing to do here too – script just doesn’t allow him. There is a second of “magic” happening when he first appears on the screen, but you would get more joy seeing him standing there quietly than you do from him saying the horrible lines.
The smart, neat humor of the original TV series is replaced with primitive physical jokes and miserable attempts at wit. Consistent mispronunciation of Bret’s name by Annabelle is supposed to be funny, not knowing how to whistle – hilarious.
From the moment you hear the narration in the beginning of the film, you know it’s wrong.
There was no way in hell I was gonna miss that game. Not just because there was a half a million dollar pot to be won, although that kind of money certainly demands attention. But because I needed to know how good I really was, once and for all.
Maverick
Maverick. Doesn’t. Care. About. Money. He puts all the effort in just to check his skills, prove something to himself… Excuse me, what did you say your name was?
Bret just gets himself into troubles, failing miserably at any attempts to outwit people and then resolves the problem by outshooting them.
In the original TV series the opponents of Bret varied from reasonably smart to really witty guys and girls, while Mel’s Bret deals with idiots to make him look smarter in the relative terms.
This Maverick is a natural sucker. Dandy Jim Buckley would have had a ball relieving this guy of his money. From the banker in the beginning to an Indian friend – everyone manages to end up with some of Bret’s money and he either never realizes it or never has the guts to do anything about it. Remember, how Garner’s Bret invented a scheme involving his brother and numerous friendly conmen to get back the money from the banker in the original TV Series – rocking chair and “I am working on it.” ? Well, something like that would never happen to Mel’s Bret – thinking is not his strength.
Mel Gibson as Bret Maverick
When he ends up in a truly life-threatening situation, do you think he finds a clever way out due to his quick-thinking and never-failing wit? Oh no, he starts praying and gets granted a miraculous escape!!
And to polish it off – Maverick apparently has superpowers to “charm” the cards and get the one he wants (just watch the competition scene at the end), which is presented under a sort of “you have to r-r-really believe and it will happen” motto. Brains? Analytical mind? Nope, just magic.
I am not even going into the details of the ridiculous plot lines, the final Poker Championship that looks like a modern real-time TV contest and Annabelle who was supposed to replace (and be a carbon copy of) Samantha from the TV series, but lacks any sort of elegance, charm or brains.
Jodie Foster as Annabelle
Such a missed opportunity too – they could have done a sequel, continuation to Bret Maverick’s story with a solid, same quality as the original script, James Garner as Bret all those years later, and Mel Gibson as his son in the changed realities of the Western Frontier.
One of the earliest cinematic tales of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday and the Gunfight at the OK Corral. It starts with a very vivid, remarkable overview of Tombstone life.
The beginning of the film, when Wyatt calms down a drunk cowboy singlehandedly and gets the job is not bad ( this time it takes a beating to get him to work for the law again).
“Frontier Marshal” – opening sequence
But the further into the film – the more boring and tiresome it gets. Wyatt has a tendancy to stick his nose into other people business and runs around trying to sort out Doc’s love affairs.
As he also does in Wyatt Earp (1994), here he considers it to be OK to buffaloe Doc for “bad behavior” ( I really don’t believe that would help their friendship).
Doc Holliday
As for Doc – he totally lacks his trademark charisma here. Again, they really didn’t bother with any historical accuracy – Doc is a surgeon, and is caught between a saloon girl and a nurse in a love triangle, with the moral views of the authors of this film firmly supporting the nurse. When she calls him by name, she calls him “John”, never “John Henry”.
He is killed even before the Gunfight. Basically, he is a “good” guy, who made some “bad” things due to being scared of his illness. Pathetically “Good Guy” towards the end. And, yes, seeing Doc drinking milk instead of whiskey made me crumble.
Doc Holliday on “Frontier Marshal”
The film is generally weak, far too righteous and naive in a “bad writing” sort of way. We get all the cheap plot devices as shot-down kids (that need to be saved by Doc Holliday, the surgeon) and flat dialogues.
Sarah: John…
Doc: Yes, Sarah?
Sarah: Isn’t it more thrilling to give life than to take it away?
Doc: Yes.
Weak. Moralistic and preaching so much your teeth hurt.
As an addition to my previous post about Doc Holliday played by Peter Breck (“Maverick” TV series) – here are some fun samples of his fine performance:
Those who are reading this blog regularly have probably guessed that Doc Holliday is my favorite Western character. Strangely, there is no Doc Holliday in the Gunsmoke TV series I was writing about in my previous post – for a western TV show that was running for 20 years that is quite surprising.
But there is an episode “Doc Holliday” in the original Radio Play – the one that the TV series were based on. It’s pretty good, definitely worth checking out:
Kirk Douglas is 99 years old today
Classic Western Movie Genre 