Fonda as Villain


Which is Fonda's best Villain - Fort Apache's Thursday or Once Upon A Time...'s Frank?

reply

I don't think you'll get much agreement that Thursday was a "villan."

reply

Thursday was a villain. He could have shown sympathy as well as laid down the law, but didn't, and instead charged a war band against all odds.

He deserved to die, and the film makers made sure of that.

reply

Deinitely Frank. Thursday was blinded by his idea of duty, but not a villian. Frank was a child-killing sadist.

"And me? I go on to become a big star in Italian Westerns."

reply

I agree, Frank. I am not a huge Fonda fan and I didn't find him a convincing authoritative figure in Fort Apache. I do think though that Frank is arguably his best performance alongside his Manny Balestrero in Hitchcock's The Wrong Man.

reply

You bring up an interesting point: I'd never considered Thursday to be a villain. Maybe I should. Let's see, we usually think of a villain as evil, but actually a typical villain is simply a person who puts his own desires above the wants and needs of others, and doesn't care what happens to anyone else, as long as he gets his own way. Well, that certainly describes Fonda in this picture.

Of course, Frank is still the best villain - but you've given me something to think about at least.

reply

I never thought of Colonel Thursday as being a villain. He was definitely an antagonist, the person who opposes the protangonist, but it is too simplistic to call them villain (antagonist) and hero (protagonist).

Colonel Thursday was not evil. He was rigid and infuriating, but wasn't really evil. He was a by-the-book soldier. Thursday had spent years doing desk duty and, if I remember correctly, a stint in Europe. He had never experience combat. He was leading by what was written in army manuels and regulations. He wanted to carry out his commission without taking common sense into consideration. My opinion is that he was so by the book that he couldn't adapt, and that brought abought his downfall. Philadelphia, on the other hand, was able to adapt, and by the end of the film she became a true army wife, as shown by her appearance on the balcony, stoically watching the troops ride out, just as the older wives did earlier in the film.

Spin

reply

He had never experience combat.


Incorrect. True, he had no experience in combat with the Indians, and was unwilling to take much advice from those who did. But the conversations between Thursday and Captain Collingwood (although intentioanlly vague on details) make clear that Thursday, who was a general at the time, saw combat in the Civil War.

reply

As we all know, Thursday is a model of general Custer. Thursday was not evil. He was flawed martinet. He understood the Indian Agent was a crook and a cause of the problem. But he saw his duty was to follow his government. Many a general has viewed glory as a reason to expend other people's lives. In Thursday's case he joined them in the end and strangely enough got his glory.

Custer's last stand was exactly the same way. Though I would say Custer was more mistaken than just plain wrong underestimating his enemy like Thursday.

Hence, I think Thursday character was meant to be a flawed man, not an evil man.

reply

I agree with most of the posters on this page. Thursday isn't a villain; rather a flawed, over-ambitious, ego-driven martinet, whose actions drive much of the narrative in the film.

I really don't see any relationship at all between Thursday and Frank except to say IMO, they were both very good performances in westerns by an iconic actor.

reply

I'm about to make the first objective response to your question, Ben.

It's unfortunate that modern movie goers see villains as one dimensional versions of Hollywood's dull "my sadist can out-sadist your sadist" formula. That's all that the spaghetti villains are.

The best villains are the credible ones, the ones you can believe exist. Yes, Thursday is clearly Custer, and clearly a villain. Not a horrible one, but a realistic one. A villain doesn't have to be the ridiculous Hollywood formula of the boogie man.

A good villain should be "motivated", as should any film character. We lost that in the late sixties and seventies. The scariest villains are the ones who might be living next door to you.

The classic villains aren't cardboard cutouts, unless you are deliberately making a cardboard cutout movie like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or STAR WARS. And even they try to make their villains two dimensional.

Col. Thursday was more than just a great villain. He was the most honest portrayal of what Custer was like according to the way he is recorded. That wasn't lost on the realistic mind set of the people from the great generation.

It's easily Fonda's greatest role, and probably the greatest "villain" in film History. Other great villains are just as three dimensional. Martin from TARZAN AND HIS MATE, Bogie in TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE, DEAD END, BLACK LEGION, and THE CAINE MUTINY, Lee Marvin in SEVEN MEN FROM NOW, and so forth.




Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time

reply

In my opinion,
From the very beginning of the movie, Thursday came off as an obnoxious, blue-nosed easterner, disgruntled with what he viewed as a demotion, and had contempt and disdain for everything and everybody in the territory. It was also evident that he would do absolutely anything to get back into the good graces of those in DC. This became clear in his conversation with Collingwood. Collingwood implied that he, Thursday, with all his connections, spotless record and past glories, had also ended up at Ft. Apache. To which Thursday replied, “Not by a jug full.”

There may have been other villains whom I disliked more, but having seen this movie just recently, his character is still fresh in my mind and I can think of no other who deserves so much enmity. He did make me smile when this omniscient, arrogant, A-hole ,in total disbelief, learned that a lowly NCO could be a MoH recipient. But predictably, a few scenes later, he was regurgitating his anachronistic, blue-blood mantra of how marriage between classes was unacceptable. His demeanor reminds me very much like that of the George Macready character in “Paths of Glory”. I understand the by-the-book martinet, tight a$$ed, rigid disciplinarian, after all, he is an officer. But his egomania and insatiable lust for glory, is totally unacceptable for a person who has been entrusted with lives of those in his command and eventually lead to the decimation of same. I don’t think villain is a strong enough word to describe a human who would purposely send his troops to their deaths, in exchange for his immortality.

I saw this movie for the first time, maybe 50 years ago, and to this day, I can’t understand the ending. Capt. York, the beloved veteran, the compassionate officer is in his office, surrounded by reporters. He doesn’t go out of his way to focus the spotlight on Thursday, but on the troops. And because he is so compassionate, he doesn’t dish up any truth either (De mortuis nihil nisi bonum) because of the daughter. That behavior appears to be consistent with his character. What I can’t understand is, at the very end, he seems to be paying homage to or emulating a piece of human filth, when he dons the very cap that Thursday made famous. York and the other survivors were witnesses to the massacre of their comrades and they must certainly have a profound hatred for the man who was directly responsible. These men were forced into a predicted, albeit avoidable situation, by a man who viewed them as nothing more than mere steppingstones on his path to glory/immortality. I can’t believe that the York character, who I came to know throughout the movie, the selfless, seasoned veteran, who displayed so much reverence and respect for his fallen comrades, would exhibit this 180° behavior.

Four bottles of cool beer, Ma.
And I'll have the same... with a whiskey chaser.

reply

To quote another John Wayne/John Ford film, "When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Nothing would be served revealing the truth. However, the legend of Thursday turned Fort Apache from a posting no one cared about to a posting to be proud of. To York, that means better men and supplies which he can use to aid in his duties and keep more men alive.

reply

I saw Thursday as more of an antagonist than a straight up villain (some might say anti-hero) but they're both good performances.

reply

To pigeonhole him as a simple villain misses the point, IMO.

reply

He was an american.
Americans can never be villains.
What are you talking about?

reply

There are no villains, in any film, more like antagonists in a sense of representing an obstacle for certain characters, but then again, even from the antagonists's side the protagonist is an antagonist too. The viewer is supposed to observe objectivelly, not to side with anyone, hence why there are essentially no villains in movies.

reply

Ford came through with the legend becomes fact segment at the end when the press kept wanting to talk of Thursday's heroism. Wayne obliged them but tried to brush them off at least somewhat. Stressing the competence of the everyday cavalry soldier.

reply

more of a by the book man who was in over his head and wouldn't listen to the more experienced soldiers.

reply