MovieChat Forums > Odds Against Tomorrow Discussion > Why should Robert Ryan have apologized t...

Why should Robert Ryan have apologized to Wayne Rogers?

posted 16 years ago by hobnob53
18 replies | jump to latest

In the scene in the bar, where Wayne Rogers as the soldier is acting like a tough guy and showing off his supposed judo skills, an annoyed Robert Ryan disses him a little, then is challenged and mocked by the macho Rogers to just try to hit him. Well, Ryan does, decking Rogers with one blow -- after which, everyone rushes to Rogers's side, the bartender scolds Ryan that "The kid was only showing off," and he's verbally attacked by Rogers's friends as they try to comfort Rogers...all of which leads an abashed Ryan to mumble his apologies and take off.

My question is -- why? Rogers was a loud-mouthed jerk; he tossed his friend into Ryan while Ryan was trying to have a private drink and didn't apologize (the friend did); and while maybe Ryan shouldn't have made his cutting but minor off-hand remark against Rogers, Rogers immediately blew it all out of proportion, swaggered around, insulted and belittled Ryan, and literally asked for it. Well, he got exactly what he asked for -- and deserved. So why did Ryan feel any need to apologize? If Rogers was so sure of himself, then he should have been able to take the consequences like a man -- instead of which, he cried like a sissy on the floor. Ryan had nothing whatsoever to apologize for or be ashamed about.

And that's about the only kind thing you can say about his character in this movie, who's an otherwise reprehensible, bigoted loser. But in this one instance, his actions and attitude were justified.

[–] layton59 16 years ago

Perhaps the Wayne Roger's character was a bar regular and the Robert Ryan character was a total stranger.

Most people make excuses and defend their friends even when they are obnoxious.

The bar owner is going to side with the ones buying drinks on a regular basis.

************************************************
Ye Olde Sig Line:

Liberals kill with ABORTION.
Conservatives kill with the DEATH PENALTY.
I kill with THOSE and WORDS.

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

That might explain why everyone demanded that Ryan apologize, but it doesn't explain why he did apologize. He should have refused, unless Rogers also apologized.

And Ryan clearly was a bar regular, probably more so than Rogers's character. The bartender knew him very well.

[–] johnpoole (5) 17 days ago

I sense that Earl in rare occasions knew his temper was inappropriate. He was embarrassed he had given in to a macho response.

[–] FreddiesDead 13 years ago

Robert Ryan's character Earl was the regular. As Earl is placing his suit in the the bar stool, the bartender makes his way over to him and says "same Earl?" And there's not many soldiers who are regular bar customers. Maybe because the Roger's character is a soldier they felt that Earl should have taken it easy on him

[–] LtdTimeAuthor 16 years ago

I agree with your assessment, & my guess is the scene has a broader purpose. Ryan's character is very insecure about his masculinity. He's carrying a dress for his girlfriend, he's passively acting out against her by stopping in the bar, he's worried about being old, & here's a soldier from the Korean War, while he was in WW II. Ryan's character should know better, while the soldier's friends are younger, and empathize with him as making dumb macho moves after a few drinks. To me it seems like Ryan's character can only be either submissive or way over the top. You're dead right: in this instance, Ryan's character is justified, but in almost all his actions we see or hear about - he's not. For me, the scene provides the audience with maybe the only opportunity to empathize with Ryan's character. He slinks rather than struts out of the bar, so he's still got some scores that he needs to settle. Ryan's character beat a younger version of himself, who'll maybe learn something important from this situation.

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

And I agree with your assessment, entirely. I guess what makes this a somewhat tough scene to swallow is that it's the only instance of Ryan's showing any remorse or something other than self-regard, while at the same time it's the one occasion when his usual self-righteousness would have been justified!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hobnob53 16 years ago

Very likely -- good point.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Zayode 14 years ago

I think the bartender said that because Ryan was obviously much stronger and more skilled than the kid but he let the kid get to him and hit him as if he were his equal. Didn't Ryan break his arm or something? It looked like he hit him really hard in the elbow which is a bit extreme for a kid mouthing off.

[–] Nic_hse 11 years ago

@radic14all

Wayne Rogers' character would have been more likely a Vietnam War soldier than Korea. Korean War ended in '53 and Vietnam started in '55.

[–] thepooles-1 13 years ago

For a guy like Earl- military conscription was perhaps his defining crucible-maybe the only one he ever met without trying to side step responsibility. I think he knew he should have and could have begged off on the challenge in the bar by a younger less experienced soldier and still maintained his manhood image. Earl was old school WWII and he sensed the young soldier was a blowhard. Earl was vaguely self aware of his racist and mean temperament a few times in the film. Perhaps his upbringing doomed him like it does for many.

[–] hobnob53 13 years ago

Perhaps. It's significant that the only person Earl acted civilly, or apologetically, to was the one person he encountered who really provoked him and actually deserved some retribution.

But I wonder what he would have done had the soldier been black? I doubt he'd have been constrained by the kid's military uniform then.

[–] thepooles-1 13 years ago

I'm only going so far with the conscription as crucible idea since there was rampant racism of course in the military and Earl's cracker demeanor I'm sure was in full bloom as perhaps as corporal or buck sergeant with a little clout over any black soldier of lesser rank. Racial tension and animosity were well done by all involved. Belafonte having to don the delivery uniform and Ryan enjoying Belafonte's humiliating assigned role in the heist was very grim to ponder but
a scene in THE KILLING between Timothy Carey and the black parking lot attendant is unwatchable for me. Once was too much.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ironman54 9 years ago

Rogers was 26 at the time this film was made. I imagine the screenplay was already written before Rogers was hired for the role. Had they hired say an 18 year old 'Ron Howard' type for the soldier and he went up against 6'4" 200 lbs still fit Ryan (not to mention WWII vet), we would probably have more sympathy. Considering both 'adults' felt bad for the kid, I think this was how the scene was written. No doubt Rogers was asking for a smack but Ryan decked him with a nasty punch to the gut.
Ever see 'To Sir With Love' when Portier gives the exact same to a wise ass student of his? And they were both wearing boxing gloves, no bear knuckles. Sydney Poitier's character had pretty much the same feeling about having hurt the kid.

[–] hobnob53 9 years ago

I don't understand your point, ironman. Obviously the script was written with a particular "type" in mind, and Rogers just happened to have been hired. The whole point was not to have a weak or easily bullied soldier. Therefore my question is why should Earle (Ryan) have felt guilty about decking the arrogant soldier played by Rogers? It's the one time in the film he tried to show restraint and was pushed into violence against his will. This has nothing to do with hiring another "type" of actor for the soldier, since the script plainly intended the man to be a belligerent jerk.

[–] liscarkat (19418) a year ago

Rogers's character was a belligerent, drunk blowhard and bully who thought he could score some show-off points by intimidating an older guy. He got what he asked for and thoroughly deserved. No apology was necessary.