The Life and Times Of Judge Roy Bean (1972)

THE FILM:
In 1971, John Huston was feeling a little depressed. His last three films had failed both critically and financially, and his next project was a bleary boxing movie. He had met Paul Newman, and always wanted to make a film with him, but had never found the opportunity. A script by John Milius, based on the true story of a western legend, gave him the opportunity. A oddball western was bound to find some financial difficulties, but Newman's star power was enough for the film to get made.

The shoot was very relaxing, and Huston had a great time with Newman. However, on release the film underperformed, as a western wasn't exactly the most popular kind of film at the time of release, and the film faded into semi-obscurity. Today, the film isn't held in high regard, it has a 6.9 on IMDb, and a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes. It isn't hated, but it isn't loved. Which is really too sad, as it is a great film.

THE PLOT:
Roy Bean, a notorious outlaw rides into a small town in west Texas, where the arm of the law does not reach. After he is beaten and robbed, Roy Bean retrieves his gun with the help of Maria Elena, a local who takes a liking to Bean. He then proceeds to shoot everyone, and take control of the town. When a local preacher stops by, Bean decides he is now a Judge, and they bury the dead men. Then Bean sets up a courthouse and hires a couple deputies, where he transforms the dusty town into a fully functioning town.

Bean names the town Langtry, after the object of his dreams, eastern stage actress Lillie Langtry. Then one day, a man named Gass comes by, and asserts that he owns the land Bean is ruling over. Bean proceeds to put him in a cage with a bear and have Gass feed the bear beer. Bean decides to let Gass live, but this action has it's consequences. Gass begins to undermine Bean using the local female populace, and soon Bean finds himself in a tough spot.

THE CRITICISM:
I'll make one thing clear, this is a strange film. It is eccentrically comedic in the first half, and very dramatic in the second. I know little about the real Judge Roy Bean, but I doubt his life was as strange as this film. In the paragraph, I made the plot sound almost like a thriller, which it definitely isn't. So what is it then? I truthfully have no idea. This film should not work, the comedic first half becomes dramatic in the second, and the film's pace is all over the place.

It works though. Huston pulls a fast one on you, using the first half to get you to like the characters, and then making you root for them in the second. It's certainly strange, but the result is a flat out masterpiece. I don't mean masterpiece in the technical sense, the film has flaws. But somehow, I was completely oblivious to them. Perhaps it was the performances. Paul Newman turns in some of his best work ever as Roy Bean. The character sparkles with wit and determination. He makes you like this man so much that when the last twenty minutes come up, you are firmly on his side.

He plays against type, but Newman does it with ease. It's an excellent performance. In supporting roles, Anthony Perkins, in his one scene as a priest is absolutely wonderful. His character is such a contrast to his role in Psycho, that soon that comparison leaves your mind as quickly as it came to it. There is a scene when he is talking to Newman about where to put a woman he wants to live with. Perkins uses the Bible to keep her from hearing what he is saying. I don't know why, but I found it hilarious.

Also good is Victoria Principal. She doesn't match Newman, but she is still quite good. Ned Beatty turns in a good performance, to be fair he doesn't have much to do. John Huston and Stacey Keach both have one scene, and they make they best of it, turning in great comedic performances. Roddy McDowall plays the villain Frank Gass, and does it with ease. Jacqueline Bisset isn't as good as she was in Under the Volcano, but she was still good here.

Finally, as the coveted Lillie Langtrey, Ava Gardener turns in a virtuoso performance. To be fair, she is only in one scene, but the build up she gets is off the charts, and she matches it deftly. You can tell Huston picked Gardener himself, he wrote her debut film The Killers in 1946. As the aging Langtry, she is perfect for the role. And she doesn't disappoint. 

The screenplay by John Milius is excellent, as it somehow manages to balance the eccentric first half with the more dramatic second. The score by Maurice Jarre is a big highlight, especially for me. I've always found that Huston has a lot of scores in his films that, for lack of a better word, are really quite awful. However, here the score is just excellent and the song that was written for the film also fits in well. The sets are beautiful and capture the legend of the west well.

The cinematography is terrific, and the scene where Newman and Principal take a walk at sunset is almost as beautiful as anything in Days of Heaven. I found the films tone to be quite satirical. The film is an unabashed western, and it doesn't mind exploiting all the typical traits of the genre for comedic purposes. There are no gunfights, but there is a set up to one, and it fails hilariously.

The direction by Huston sparkles with wit and humanity. By that I mean that despite all that occurs by the end you feel quite good indeed. I have often criticized him for being too laid back, but here the exact opposite occurs. The direction feels laid back, but in the way of a master cruising towards something he knows he'll achieve. However, that's not to say the film doesn't have flaws.It goes on for a little too long, Newman's obsession with Lillie Langtry is never explained and the character of Gass seems a little too patient.

However if you are willing to overlook these flaws, as I was, you'll be in for a fun ride, straight through to the end.

The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean,
1972,
Starring: Paul Newman, Victoria Principal and Ava Gardner,
Directed by John Huston,
8.5/10 (A-)

RANKED:
1. The African Queen
2. The Dead
3. The Man Who Would Be King
4. Moby Dick
5. The Asphalt Jungle
6. The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean
7. The Misfits
8. Beat the Devil
9. Fat City
10. Wise Blood
11. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
12. The Unforgiven
13. Under The Volcano
14. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
15. Prizzi's Honor
16. Phobia: A Descent Into Terror 
 

The Unforgiven (1960)

THE FILM:
In 1959, Burt Lancaster and his production company decided they wanted to make a film called The Unforgiven. The original director, Delbert Mann envisioned a gritty, civil-war era western, like The Searchers, but Lancaster wanted to ensure the film was commercial. He fired Mann and hired John Huston to replace him. Huston originally wanted to make the film as a comment on race relations. Lancaster wanted to make it commercial. You can see where this is going.

There were conflicts everywhere during the making of the film. Lancaster and Huston were so at odds that at one point, Lancaster steamed off to play a game of golf. Huston hired an airplane, bought 2000 golf balls with Mexican swear words on them, and dumped them on the golf field so Lancaster couldn't play golf. At one point, Audie Murphy went boating and his boat capsized.  He was saved from death by a female photographer. That was not the end unfortunately.

Audrey Hepburn suffered a bad fall from her horse, and spent six weeks in the hospital. When she came back for shooting, she had to wear a back brace. Then she had a miscarriage. This was her only western.

THE PLOT: 
The Zachary's are a proud family of five on the Kansas frontier. Mattilda is their mother, and she rests easy. Ben is the eldest son, he is charming, and well respected within the community. Rachel is his adopted sister, who is carefree. Cash is quick and easily made angry. Andy is still a boy, yearning to experience manhood. Their father was murdered in a Kiowa raid, so they hold a grudge against the tribe. One day, Rachel sees an old one eyed man, who stares at her peculiarly.

When the man visits her home, her mother picks up a shotgun, and threatens to kill him. She doesn't, and in no time, her brother Ben comes home from a cattle drive to Wichita. They hold a dinner for a neighboring family, and Ben's partner in the cattle drive. Flirtations abound, and Charlie Rawlins, a neighbor, asks Ben permission to date Rachel. He begrudgingly agrees, as he loves his sister.

Then one day, a local Kiowa tribe shows up on the Zachary's doorstep, claiming that Rachel is one of their tribe. The racist town quickly begins to turn against the Zachary's, and even the family itself begins to question their loyalties.

THE CRITICISM:
As you read above, the film had a tough time making it through production, and Huston and Lancaster were constantly at odds. One meant for the film to be a straight up western, while the other meant to make a serious commentary on racial relations in America. Obviously their visions clashed. This could have made for a very interesting hybrid, but unfortunately, it was Lancaster's vision that reigned supreme, and the film was a pretty ordinary western, stylistically.

I do wish that Huston could have had his way with the film, and created something different. However, some of Huston's vision still remains. These parts feel stylistically different from the rest of the film, which made the film a little muddled. However, it is still an interesting film.

I am a big Hepburn fan, and this was a very interesting performance. She gave her typical charm in the first half,  but in the second half she showed her shame, and confusion at her circumstances. It reminded me of a similar performance in The Nun's Story. Lancaster has always been an interesting actor, at least for me. At his best, he shows man ferociously in love with his sister, and yet ashamed of her roots. At his worst, well, he is stilted and his delivery feels forced. Thankfully, he is at his best for most of the film, especially during the thrilling climax.

War veteran Audie Murphy gives the best performance of the film, however. Cash is a force of nature, his blithe hatred of the "injun" runs deep. He is the most fully realized character in the film. Lillian Gish is good as well, and her performance reminds me of her similar character in The Night Of The Hunter. The cinematography perfectly captures the sun-baked landscape of the west, as most westerns do. I found nothing particularly special in the way it was shot, nor in its overall look.

The score is over the top on strings in the way all Tiomkin scores are. It is unmemorable to say the least. Huston's direction is good, but I feel as if he was holding back a little. The film was certainly ambitious, for a western at the time, and I cant help but feel as if the film had great potential, but it wasn't carried out in the way it should have been. I really do wish that Huston could have had his way, it would have made a much more interesting film.

There are of course two things that some may find shocking. For one, Ben's love for Rachel. It goes farther than brotherly love, and indeed, at the end SPOILER ALERT! they decide to get married. SPOILER ALERT! I understand that they are adopted siblings, but I find it shocking that this kind of taboo subject was seemingly okay in 1960. Still, that was the year of Psycho...

The other concern of mine applies not only to this film, but most westerns of the period as well. The racism is so rampant and seemingly accepted, that I felt incredibly sorry for the native Americans who are killed because one of them wants to see his sister. Indeed the prejudice is so shocking, that it even surpasses The Searchers, which is incredibly racist as well. I don't want to seem all PC, but at points it can be shocking. Cash threatens his sister, whom he loved and grew up with and knew all his life, just because of her origins.

I can see why Huston would want to make this film a political allegory, especially for the times, with the civil rights movement and all the turbulence that would come along with it. However, getting back to the film, the racism is bad, and it doesn't sit well or the viewer to watch people being slaughtered. It isn't as if they are completely innocent, but they are not the scalping monsters the film makes them out to be.

I do wonder what the title has to do with the film. Who is The Unforgiven, is it Rachel, can she not be forgiven because of her roots? Is it the town, for rejecting a respected member just because she was born of native American parents? Is it Ben, for wanting his adopted sister? I guess given the date and context, the first explanation is the one that is most applicable. Or perhaps they just thought the title sounded really cool (it does).

Anyways, I am not saying the film is bad. It is quite watchable, even entertaining. It is suitably dramatic, at points and light at other. The climactic shootout and the first hour are a bit too long, but it gives you time to meet the characters. It may not be Huston's best film, but it is interesting enough to hold your attention for 121 minutes. It sounds like a failure, but it feels like what it is: a western.

The Unforgiven,
1960,
Starring: Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Audie Murphy
Directed by John Huston
7/10 (B)

RANKED:
1. The Dead
2. The Man Who Would Be King
3. Moby Dick
4. The Asphalt Jungle
5. The Misfits
6. Beat the Devil
7. Wise Blood
8. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
9. The Unforgiven
10. Heaven Knows, Mr. Allison
11. Prizzi's Honor