Tag: High Noon

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

    What Do “Hoosiers,” “The Purple People Eater” and “Star Wars” Have in Common?

    Sheb WooleySheb Wooley, who is famous for writing and recording his 1958 chart-topping song “Purple People Eater” and for much more, was born April 10 in 1921.  His website captures the range of Wooley’s talents by saying he has been a “cowhand, rodeo rider, country and western singer, Hollywood actor, writer, and comedian.”

    Over many decades Wooley appeared in classic films like High Noon (1952) and The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). And he was on TV’s Rawhide.

    Wooley in Hoosiers

    I was most surprised to discover that I already knew the singer of “Purple People Eater” as an actor for his role in Hoosiers (1986), a movie I have seen many times. In Hoosiers, Wooley played Cletus, the school’s principal who hires Norman Dale, played by Gene Hackman.

    Later in Hoosiers, Cletus (Wooley) helps Dale as an assistant coach before Cletus’s health prevents him from continuing.  Then, Dale recruits Shooter (Dennis Hopper) to take Cletus’s place.

    There was not a good scene with Wooley available on YouTube, but you can catch a little bit of him sitting on the bench in a suit with Gene Hackman (around the 30-second mark).

    “Purple People Eater”

    Below is Sheb Wooley in June 1958 singing about the “Purple People Eater,” who ate people but came to earth because “I wanna get a job in a rock ‘n roll band.” The song got its inspiration when Wooley heard a joke from a neighborhood kid.

    The song “Purple People Eater” later inspired a 1988 movie of the same name. Of course, the film also had a role for Wooley.

    Like most depictions of the song’s subject, the movie showed the monster as being purple.  But the song’s lyrics reveal that purple is the color of the people that the monster likes to eat, not the color of the creature: “I said Mr. Purple People Eater, what’s your line / He said it’s eatin’ purple people and it sure is fine.” Check out Wooley singing his hit song.

    Wooley also wrote the Hee Haw theme (“Hee-hee, hee-haw-haw . . “).  And he often appeared on the country music-comedy show too.

    For his acting roles in Westerns, check out this post on some of his classic movie lines.  Below is a short bio film about Wooley and his diverse talents.

    Wooley and “The Wilhelm Scream”

    Finally, Wooley’s voice possibly may be heard in many more classic films, including Star Wars. This connection and “The Wilhelm Scream” takes some explaining. . . .

    Wooley’s connection to more than a hundred other films goes back to the early 1950s. Wooley played Private Wilhelm in the 1953 western The Charge at Feather River. In a scene where Wilhelm is shot, he lets out a scream that has been used as stock scream footage in numerous films.

    The scream has become known as “The Wilhelm Scream,” although Wikipedia reports that the scream had actually appeared in an earlier movie, Distant Drums (1951). Wooley played an uncredited role (Private Jessup) in Distant Drums, and he is listed as a voice extra for that film.

    Thus, Wooley “is considered by many to be the most likely voice actor” for the scream, according to various sources, including Wooley’s website. The scream is so well-known that sometimes filmmakers add it because they think it is funny.

    If it is correct that the scream originally came from Wooley, he has indirectly appeared in numerous movies.  The films cross a broad spectrum, including Them! (1954), Star Wars (1977), Return of the Jedi (1983), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), Batman Returns (1992), Reservoir Dogs (1992), and Toy Story (1995).  This video collage collects a number of uses of the Wilhelm Scream, beginning with Wooley’s famous scream in The Charge at Feather River.

    Wooley passed away on September 16, 2003, but his humor, his movies, and his other work lives on. And his scream will probably continue to appear in more new movies to the delight of filmmakers and audience members alike.

    Photo of Wooley via public domain.

    What is your favorite part of Wooley’s diverse career? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Visiting the Hickory of “Hoosiers” Today
  • NBA Finals: Take the Hoosiers Quiz
  • Senator Robert Byrd Played Fiddle On Hee Haw
  • Movie Tributes on “The Simpsons”
  • The Star Wars Holiday Special 1978
  • Weird Al Summarizes “The Phantom Menace”

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    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)

    The Myth of Redemptive Violence: 3:10 to Yuma (Part One)

    3:10 to yuma

    {This two-part series examines the use of redemptive violence in some movie Westerns to present a message that violence brings healing. This post contrasts the choices made in the original and the remake of 3:10 to Yuma. Note these posts discuss movie endings and thus contain spoilers.}

    Recently, the Trayvon Martin case in Florida has raised a number of complicated issues, including ones about the use of violence and when one should be able to use deadly force. Thus, it seems an appropriate time to consider portrayals of violence on the big screen. The original 1957 version and the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma, based upon an Elmore Leonard novel, show different treatments of violence, perhaps reflecting different views we have today than we had in the late 1950s.

    The key difference is in illustrated by how the movies end.

    In both versions, an upstanding farmer, Dan Evans, shows his courage by taking the bad guy, Ben Wade, from a hotel in the town of Contention to a prison-bound train.  As they try to get to the train, Wade’s gang tries to kill the farmer and free Wade.

    Also, in both versions, Evans believes that his family does not respect him.  His act of getting Wade on the train will not only give him payment to save his farm, but it will gain him respect from his wife and sons, who are children in the original version and young men in the 2007 version.  In the 2007 version, Evans is a Civil War veteran with a wooden leg, symbolizing that his family does not see him as a whole man.

    The Original 1957 3:10 to Yuma

    3:10 to Yuma original In the original 1957 version of 3:10 to Yuma, the movie ends with Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) and the farmer (Van Heflin) going through the streets of town as the gang shoots at them.  They get close to the train and the gang closes in.  Then, at the last minute Wade saves the farmer’s life by risking his life to stand between the farmer and the gang.

    Wade’s act allows the farmer and him to board the train for the prison. As both Wade and the farmer ride off on the train, Wade says he saved the farmer because the farmer had saved him earlier when the brother of one of Wade’s victims tried to kill Wade. But the subtext is that Wade respects the farmer, who has inspired Wade to be a better man.

    Wade also mentions that he has escaped from Yuma Prison before.  And the farmer replies that his only obligation was to get him on the train.  As the train goes out of town, the farmer’s wife sees that her husband is alive with Wade on the train.

    The 2007 Remake

    In the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma, Wade (Russell Crowe) also gains respect for the farmer (Christian Bale) throughout his captivity.  But throughout the 2007 film, Wade and his gang commit additional acts of violence that are not in the original. For example, the original film does not have the gang burning alive a man to find out where Wade has been taken.  In the scene where the farmer is taking Wade to the train, they face not only the gang, but a number of townspeople who have been promised money by the gang if they kill the farmer.  This change in plot allows the farmer to shoot some people on the way to the train while leaving most of the gang members alive for the final scene.

    gun in 3:10 to Yuma As Wade and the farmer finally get near the train, the farmer explains he is doing what he is doing so his sons respect him.  And then, Wade begins to help the farmer get to the train.

    Once they get to the train and Wade is just on the train, though, the farmer is mortally wounded by the gang members.  The gang members give Wade his guns back.  Wade, who had discussed the Bible in several earlier scenes, looks at the stock of his pistol, where there is a gold image of Christ on the cross.  Wade looks at the dying farmer, and he pulls out the gun and shoots all of the gang members.  After a few words, the farmer dies, and Wade gets on the train by himself.

    The farmer’s sons are present to see that their father died getting Wade on the train.  Wade had earlier stated that he had escaped from Yuma Prison in the past.  And as the train takes off, he whistles and his horse follows the train, implying that he will not be on the train when it arrives in Yuma. (Embedding is disabled, but you may see Wade’s act of “redemption” here.)

    In many ways the movies are very similar, and much of the dialogue in the original is used in the remake.  The remake is longer, though, and adds some more background on the farmer’s plight.  We learn more about Wade and some new characters on the trip to Contention.

    The Myth of Redemptive Violence

    A key difference in the messages of the movies is the different endings.  In the original, the turning point and Wade’s redemption comes from Wade’s sacrifice for another.  Wade risks his life to save his captor and then gives himself up to get on the train to Yuma prison. It is redemption in the Christian meaning of self-sacrifice.

    In the 2007 version, while Wade does similar acts and implies connections to Christianity in symbols, Wade’s redemption is not getting on the train at the end.  After he gets on the train, the movie leaves us with the promise of immediate escape.  The true moment of redemption, we are led to believe, is Wade’s act of shooting all of his former gang members. Wade’s act of killing is apparently motivated by vengeance for their killing the farmer, a man he now respects.

    Thus, the 2007 film implies that killing is the character’s act of redemption.  To make sure the audience realizes it is a moment of redemption, Wade looks at the gold Jesus on his gun handle right before he does the killing. Apparently, Jesus now saves through acts of violence.

    The 2007 ending of 3:10 to Yuma portrays what Prof. Walter Wink calls “The Myth of Redemptive Violence,” in the ways that media and popular culture teach us that violence provides redemption.  Wink describes the typical movie practice of featuring a fallen hero beset by various troubles who finally provides release for the audience in a final act of violent revenge.

    The ending of the original 3:10 to Yuma was not enough, apparently, for 2007 audiences.  We can only feel the release and satisfaction if the hero’s redemption comes with an act of violence.

    The redemption is misleading, though.  Is Wade a new man if he kills all of his gang and then escapes from the train?  Are we to believe that he will no longer kill, and instead may go back to the farmer’s wife?  I don’t think so.  Because his redemption is violent, there is no hint that he will stop killing.  In the original, though, we might have some hope for Wade in that his redemption was an act of self-sacrifice to save another person.

    Why Do We Love Redemptive Violence?

    I am not sure why the 2007 version preaches redemptive violence and the 1957 version does not, and my discussion is not meant to imply that I did not enjoy the remake, as I did.

    But I do not believe the difference is merely a matter of the films being made in different eras, though perhaps we expect more violence in our movies these days.  Still, there are many old Westerns that also perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence.

    In Part Two of this discussion, Chimesfreedom will consider 3:10 to Yuma and its illustration of redemptive violence in the context of other classic Western films.

    Why do you think the 2007 3:10 to Yuma changed the ending from the 1957 version of the film? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • The Myth of Redemptive Violence (Part Two): The American Western
  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • The Unsatisfying Ending of Scorsese’s “Silence” That Is Still Perfect
  • What Song Does the Sergeant Sing About a Sparrow in “Hostiles”?
  • 8 Reasons to Watch the Sterling Haden Western”Terror in a Texas Town”
  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars

    • (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)