Tag: Gary Cooper

The Babe Ruth Story (and Funeral)

Babe Ruth Funeral

The great baseball player George Herman “Babe” Ruth, Jr. passed away on August 16, 1948 at the age of 53. Ruth, who was born in Baltimore on February 6, 1895, died from cancer, which had been diagnosed two years before his death.

Ruth’s Funeral

After Ruth’s death, his body lay in state at the entrance of Yankee Stadium (“The House That Ruth Built“) for two days.  During that time, fans lined up to pay their last respects.

This video shows people lined up outside Yankee Stadium to Ruth one last time. It also includes scenes from Babe Ruth’s funeral, as well as some archival footage of the Sultan of Swat. Check it out.

Ruth Movies

In the month before Ruth’s death, Allied Artists released a bio-pic about the slugger, The Babe Ruth Story (1948), starring William Bendix as Ruth. Many critics have called the film, which includes scenes of Ruth healing sick children (a legend parodied by John Candy on SCTV), one of the worst movies of all time.

Regarding The Babe Ruth Story, people also note that the film could not even get little things right.  For example, Bendix plays baseball as a right hander.   Ruth was a lefty.

But if you watch The Babe Ruth Story with the right attitude and do not expect a realistic biography, you might have some fun. You can check out the trailer below.

Perhaps Ruth was so larger than life and so well known that it is difficult to make a good film about him.  Like The Babe Ruth Story, 1992’s The Babe — with John Goodman in the title role — generally received poor reviews.

One of my favorite Babe Ruth movies was not really about Babe Ruth. Pride of the Yankees (1942) tells the story of Lou Gehrig’s career through the discovery that he had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), what became known as “Lou Gehrig’s Disease.”

In Pride of the Yankees, Gary Cooper pays Gehrig and Ruth plays himself. What I always admired about Ruth’s self-portrayal is that he took part in a scene that makes Gehrig look much better than he does.

In the scene, Ruth visits a sick kid surrounded by reporters covering his visit. Then Gehrig visits the kid in private, showing his sincere concern and promising to hit two home runs for the child during the 1928 World Series. Reportedly, the Gehrig incident never took place and is loosely based on when Ruth promised a home run during the 1926 World Series to a hospitalized boy.

The movie’s version of the story makes Ruth look bad in comparison to Gehrig. But his generosity in playing the scene in tribute to his former teammate says a lot about the The Bambino as a person. Unfortunately, that scene is not available on Youtube (although another scene featuring Ruth is available on the Turner Classic Movies website).

Baseball would not be the same had Babe Ruth not come along, and there will never be another one like him. Thanks Babe.

What is your favorite Babe Ruth story? Leave your two cents in the comments.

Buy from Amazon

  • Hammerin’ Hank
  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars
  • Harold Ramis: The SCTV Years
  • Take the Baseball Movie Quote Quiz!
  • Limitless Barry Bonds in the Asterisk Nation
  • Kenny Rogers: “The Greatest”

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars

    Gary Cooper Oscar

    On May 7, 1901, Frank James Cooper was born in Helena, Montana. After some work as a salesman and promoter, he started working as an actor in 1925, changing his first name to Gary when he signed a contract with Paramount. Reportedly, a casting director suggested the new name after her tough hometown of Gary, Indiana.

    Gary Cooper went on to star in many memorable films including Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936), Meet John Doe (1941), Pride of the Yankees (1942), For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943), and The Fountainhead (1949). Cooper was nominated for the Best Actor Oscar and lost for Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, Pride of the Yankees, and For Whom the Bell Tolls.

    Cooper’s First Best Actor Oscar

    He received the Best Actor Oscar twice. First, he won the honor in 1942 for Sergeant York (1941).

    Sergeant York features a terrific performance, even if some note that Hollywood may have been motivated to honor the World War I film about a pacifist becoming a soldier to encourage Americans to sign up to fight in the new war. Below is the trailer.

    Cooper’s Second Oscar & The Meaning of High Noon

    More than a decade later, he won the Best Actor Oscar for High Noon (1952), the last time he was nominated for Best Actor. It is hard to pick a favorite Gary Cooper movie, but I am not sure anything tops High Noon (1952).

    We liked Cooper as a hero.

    At the 25th Academy Awards in 1953, Cooper was filming another movie in Mexico and was ill.  So, John Wayne accepted the award for him.

    Below, actress Janet Gaynor announces Cooper’s win, and Wayne accepts the statue.

    Interestingly despite Wayne’s joke wondering why he did not get the High Noon role, Wayne reportedly did not like the movie. There are various theories about why, but Garry Wills in John Wayne’s America explained that Wayne thought the movie ended on a note of disrespect for the law when Cooper dropped his badge in the dirt at the end.

    Like Wayne, a number of people found political messages in High Noon. Some suspected High Noon had a “leftist” message. By contrast, though, others believed the script, written by Carl Foreman, who would later be blacklisted, was not sending a left-wing message but exploring the way people had cowered to the bully Sen. Joe McCarthy.

    Other viewers find in High Noon a conservative message about how one man has to stand up when the justice system breaks down. Or they find an allegory about the Cold War. In Bright Lights Film Journal, Prof. Manfred Weidhorn summed up the contrasting theories about the movie, saying “High Noon, bristling with ambiguity, is a veritable Rorschach test.”

    But High Noon is deep down a great movie, however you want to interpret any messages about the man (and his wife) standing up to the bad guys. And maybe the possibility of so many interpretations adds to its American character.

    Many years ago when I was in college in the pre-Internet days and had some friends visiting from Sweden, I took them to a revival theater to see High Noon.  I thought it was a wonderful example of an American movie, or at least of an example regarding how Americans see themselves.

    Another former actor, Ronald Reagan, recognized how the movie remained in America’s consciousness decades later. He invokes the movie in this clip, discussing what it was like for a Republican to be in Democratic territory.

    Cooper’s Third Oscar

    Nearly a decade after High Noon, Cooper would be awarded a third and final Oscar. In April 1961, the Academy gave Cooper a Lifetime Achievement Oscar for his great career.

    Cooper again could not accept the award.  But this time, unknown to many, it was because of a serious illness.

    When viewers saw Cooper’s friend Jimmy Stewart give an emotional speech at the Oscars, though, they realized Cooper was not well. The news soon came out that Cooper was suffering from prostate cancer.  He died one month later on May 13, 1961, leaving behind a collection of great films that would be the envy of any actor.

    What is your favorite Gary Cooper movie? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • The Myth of Redemptive Violence (Part Two): The American Western
  • War Horse (Short Review)
  • Ayn Rand, Justice Thomas, & The Fountainhead
  • That Time George Kennedy Gave a Great Movie Its Name
  • The Circus Town’s Been Born
  • The Babe Ruth Story (and Funeral)
    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    Buy from Amazon

    The Myth of Redemptive Violence (Part Two): The American Western

    The Searchers John Wayne In Part One of this two-part series on redemptive violence in American Westerns, we considered how the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma significantly changed the ending from the 1957 film. In making the change, the movie embraced the myth of redemptive violence, a concept explained by writer Walter Wink in several books.

    “The Myth of Redemptive Violence” appears in the media and popular culture to teach the lesson that violence provides redemption. In these scenes of redemptive violence, the audience feels a release and joy that the hero, often in an apparent beaten state, rises up in a flurry of violence to save himself or herself, save another, or save an entire town.

    It is through the act of violence that the hero and society is redeemed and saved.

    {Note: This post and the previous post discuss the ending of classic Western film and thus include spoilers.}

    Classic Westerns: Shane, High Noon, & The Searchers

    high noon Although redemptive violence seems more common in today’s action films like in the updated 3:10 to Yuma, it has been present throughout film history. Many classic Westerns perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence.

    But the best of them add a layer of complexity and avoid the simple violence-as-redemption lesson. For example, the classic Shane (1953) fits Walter Wink’s pattern of redemptive violence with Shane beaten until he rises up to redeem himself through violence. But the movie adds something more.  Shane’s acts of violence do not bring him a happy life, it was not done out of his own vengeance, and it also may have brought about his sacrificial death.

    Similar underlying complex themes are present at the end of High Noon (1952).  The movie at first glance ends with a typical redemptive violence shootout, where we are relieved that Gary Cooper killed the bad guys. But his redemption comes from his fulfilled duty more than the violence. Ultimately, he rejects the violence when he throws his badge on the ground at the end and rides off with his Quaker wife to be a farmer.

    Similarly, Robert Altman’s beautiful McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) still offered a nod to redemptive violence with the killing of the bad guys.  Yet, it also showed us the hero’s tragic death and the consequences of violence.

    The Searchers (1956) bucked the redemptive violence myth further. Although the film promises violence at the end, instead we get mercy.  The hero then is left with a troubled future because of his violent past.

    In the scene below, we see Ethan Edwards, played by John Wayne, finally capturing his niece stolen by the Native Americans. Edwards is an angry violent man who hates the Indians so much he plans to kill his niece who was taken into their culture. But near the end of the film, his character finds redemption through a small nonviolent act.

    Naked Spur (1953), starring Jimmy Stewart, features a similar ending.  Stewart’s Howard Kemp is angry and seeks revenge throughout the movie, only to break at the end to find himself in something besides violence.

    Modern Westerns: Unforgiven, Appaloosa, Dances with Wolves

    In this new century, movie makers often create movies that fail to grapple with the complexities of violence and instead offer violence as redemption. Even in the highly regarded “anti-Western” of Unforgiven, where many critics praised its realistic treatment of violence, the movie ends with acts of redemptive violence just like other Clint Eastwood Westerns. The movie promises more, but in the end it slips back into the pattern of redemptive violence as we enjoy watching Eastwood kill the wounded and unarmed Gene Hackman.

    Similarly, Appaloosa (2008) offers us a complex vision of the West.  But it still settles on a final shootout so viewers are satisfied that the bad guy is killed.

    Dances with Wolves (1990) attempted to get out of the cycle of redemptive violence. It does have flashes of it though, such as where the white men – whose evil is shown by the fact they kill Kevin Costner’s horse and the wolf – are killed in a battle at a river. Had the movie ended there, it would have been a redemptive violence lesson:  Good guys kill bad guys.

    But the film continues and the ending is something different.

    After the bad white men are killed, Kevin Costner’s character remains troubled by what the future might bring.  And the movie ends with him and Stands With a Fist, in effect, sacrificing their lives living with the tribe to leave on their own to protect the tribe. Thus, the movie ends with an act of sacrifice rather than an act of redemptive violence.

    The ending of Dances With Wolves, though, is somewhat unsatisfying. Perhaps it is because the movie led us to believe that it would provide us with redemptive violence due to its previous acts of violence. But at the end there is no big act of violence to put an end to the bad guys and make the good guys heroes. Maybe because the good guys of the movie are the Native Americans, and we all know they do not win, the movie could not end differently. Costner and the tribe never get their redemptive violence because the Native Americans of history never did.

    Conclusion

    The themes of Shane, High Noon and The Searchers — with their ambiguities and troubled heroes – almost seem too complex in comparison with the modern version of 3:10 to Yuma. The modern movie says, “the bad guy is now good because he killed the bad guys.” But in these older movies, it was not enough to vanquish the bad guys.  There was something troubling that lingered even after the final acts of violence.

    Of course, not all old Westerns were as complex as The Searchers, so maybe it is unfair to make a comparison across time to a few classics. Still, watch for redemptive violence messages in any modern action film you watch.

    Because so many films teach us that redemptive violence solves problems, we must consider what our entertainment teaches us.  And we must consider how that entertainment may reflect our society today.

    What do you think about the use of violence in film? Leave your two cents in the comments.

    Buy from Amazon

  • The Myth of Redemptive Violence: 3:10 to Yuma (Part One)
  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars
  • The Unsatisfying Ending of Scorsese’s “Silence” That Is Still Perfect
  • Ira Hayes Won’t Answer Anymore
  • New “Man of Steel” Trailer

    • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    War Horse (Short Review)

    War Horse Consider the movie poster on the right as well as the name of the movie. You can tell that a horse is going to play a big part in the movie, as is a war. Animal movies and war movies usually mean one thing: this movie is designed to tug at your heartstrings and maybe make you cry. Throw in that the movie was directed by Steven Spielberg, and you already know whether or not you are going to like this movie without me saying anything. So, if you think you will like a movie about a horse with war scenes, then go buy your ticket.

    That said, for those of you still reading, I will add a little more to say that I enjoyed the movie and it lived up to my expectations as someone who likes both animal movies and war movies. Although the film seems a little formulaic and predictable at times, the film gradually draws you into the story.

    It is difficult to build a story around an animal where the animal changes hands among different owners. The people we care about continue to change, and that we do not have two hours with any character besides the horse. But War Horse does a good job of keeping your interest as the horse travels through different owners in different situations, and it is all tied together as we also periodically follow the original owner (Jeremy Irvine in his first film role) through the movie’s conclusion. The structure of the film reminded me of Anthony Mann’s excellent western, Winchester ’73 (1950), a Jimmy Stewart movie that followed a rifle through various hands. That movie used the device effectively, and Spielberg does so here too.

    If I had one complaint about the movie it would be that it is hard to believe that in a war where more than 8 million horses died there were so many decent people appearing as often as they did throughout the movie. Such portrayals may reflect that War Horse started off as a children’s novel by Michael Morpurgo, who unlike the film told the story from the horse’s point of view. At the same time, I do not mind that Spielberg often comes along with a film to challenge my cynical view of the world.

    Finally, I also enjoyed the film because there are too few movies about World War I. The paltry pickings may be because World War I is so far in the past without a clear storyline (unlike World War II) and because American audiences may be less interested in a war that occurred off American shores (as compared to the Civil War). It is a shame that movie makers have not delved more into the Great War. Spielberg does a good job with the war scenes to capture the horrors of trench warfare and the horrendous battle conditions of this war that straddled old and new technologies, using both horses and tanks. The film also works in a nod to one of the most amazing stories of the real war.

    Still, there are some good DVDs to rent if you wish to watch more about World War I. There are a few good documentaries on World War I available on DVD, including The Complete Story: World War I and World War I in Color (both available on Netflix as well as at the Amazon links). Some other classic films of the war include Sergeant York (1941) with Gary Cooper, Paths of Glory (1957) with Kirk Douglas, Lawrence of Arabia (1962) with Peter O’Toole, All Quiet on the Western Front (1931), and Joyeux Noel (2005). Now we can add War Horse to the list.

    The story is also a play on Broadway, which Saturday Night Live re-imagined (but unfortunately the video is no long available).

    Bonus Reviews Because Why Should You Listen to Me? Currently, Rotten Tomatoes has a critic rating and audience rating both at 77% for War Horse. Film & Felt did not like the film, concluding that the movie “hammers you over the head with sap.” By contrast, QNetwork.com liked the film, giving it 3.5 stars and calling War Horse, “an ambitious, anthological portrait of both the devastation of war and the potential for human decency.”

    What did you think of War Horse? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars
  • Coldplay Video Uses Archival World War I Footage
  • Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures (short review)
  • Last Surviving U.S. WWI Veteran Passes
  • The WWI Christmas Truce: a Beatle, a Beagle, and a Brooks
  • The Circus Town’s Been Born

    • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    Ayn Rand, Justice Thomas, & The Fountainhead

    John Aglialoro, the producer of the movie Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 (2011), recently announced that due to bad reviews and poor box office, he is abandoning the plans for parts two and three of the story. As someone who read Ayn Rand’s long book Atlas Shrugged many years ago, I was interested when I heard they were making a movie version. But when I saw the trailer, the movie looked terribly boring, so I am not among the few who have seen it. I might have watched it on DVD when it came out, but now that I know it may leave me hanging without any resolution, maybe not. Yet, some recent reports indicate the second movie still may be coming out next year.

    Justice Clarence Thomas

    One person who might be disappointed if the sequels are abandoned is Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the book The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (2007), Jeffrey Toobin (p. 119) wrote that Justice Thomas often requires his law clerks to watch the movie, The Fountainhead, which is based upon another book by Ayn Rand and directed by King Vidor. That one sentence in Toobin’s book jumped out, raising questions about the connection between the movie and Justice Thomas’s judicial philosophy, and what it means for America.

    Ayn Rand incorporated her philosophy of Objectivism into her novels. The philosophy has several parts, but she described one of the basic tenants this way: “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”

    One may debate the value of a philosophy of self-interest. A number of conservatives have embraced the philosophy as connected to laissez-faire capitalism, so one might understand why the conservative Justice Thomas admires Ayn Rand’s work. In his memoir, My Grandfather’s Son, he wrote about reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and how the books affected him: “Rand preached a philosophy of radical individualism that she called Objectivism. While I didn’t fully accept its tenets, her vision of the world made more sense to me that that of my left-wing friends.” (p. 62) A website devoted to Ayn Rand’s fiction writing, The Atlas Society, has more about Justice Thomas’s connection to Ayn Rand.

    Still, The Fountainhead (1949) is an odd movie choice, even though it features excellent actors like Gary Cooper, Raymond Massey, and Patricia Neal. One reviewer summed it up as “one of the strangest and most florid pictures of its time, possibly of all time.” The Fountainhead is about an architect named Howard Roark (Cooper) who has his own vision and does not want to compromise his beliefs and art to popular ideas. When the people who hired him to create a public housing building do not let him do it his way, he blows up the modified building. And he’s the hero of the movie. Okay, I get the idea about not compromising, but isn’t blowing up the building going too far?

    One might wonder why Justice Thomas loves this unusual movie so much that he has the recent law school graduates who work for him watch it. And one might speculate what message the new lawyers take from the self-interest theme of the movie regarding one’s lack of compassion for the poor and underprivileged.

    Considering Roark’s destruction of the building in the movie, and in today’s atmosphere of terrorism, I hope Justice Thomas has selected another movie. Maybe watching the new Atlas Shrugged will lead him to opt for another movie to show his clerks. And he could even stick with films featuring Republican and anti-Communist Gary Cooper. If Thomas wants an excellent movie that teaches about the importance of the individual and duty, he might select High Noon (1952). Or if he wants to go further, he might choose Cooper in Frank Capra’s Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) or Meet John Doe (1941), both which would give the new lawyers lessons on the importance of common people and the corrupting influence of power.

  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars
  • The Myth of Redemptive Violence (Part Two): The American Western
  • It Was the Third of June, Another Sleepy, Dusty Delta Day
  • William Howard Taft: From the White House to the High Court
  • The Babe Ruth Story (and Funeral)
  • What Do “Hoosiers,” “The Purple People Eater” and “Star Wars” Have in Common?

    • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)