Great movie, but... - Hard Times (1975) Discussion

[–] fightfan1 17 years ago

He wasnt British, he was supposed to be from Chicago; that was Nick Dimitri. I thought he was great in the final fight, but you DO have a point that Robert Tessier (the big bald guy) was alot more menacing looking. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if thhey had switched places......

reply

[–] skatepunkkid 16 years ago

No way, this is a perfect movie as it is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Ya never know what ya don't know, ya know?

reply

[–] fightfan1 16 years ago

Oh definetly, and anyway Robert Tessier and charles Bronson are both dead!

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] pkryder-1 8 years ago

What the hell does THAT have to do with anything ??

reply

[–] flickfiend 16 years ago

No way, this is a perfect movie as it is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

I agree.

reply

[–] blackbrown 16 years ago

Holy crap, fightfan. You realize this was a movie right. If the two actors swithced which CHARACTER they played, the outcome still would have been the same.

And to the OP, you're half retarded if you think that the last fight wasn't obviously the only fight in which Bronson was given a run for his money.

reply

[–] Chaarles 16 years ago

Yes, blackbrown, we realise Hard Times is a movie. And yes, if two actors switched which characters they played the outcome of the story would still have been the same, but not necessarily the effect of the movie, because how a character is played, and thus by implication also by whom, is crucial to the effect a movie has.

Which is why, of course, casting is a crucial and specialised part of the movie-making process.

So, if the two actors switched roles it would have had a huge impact. I'm surprised you don't seem to understand this, most people with a basic knowledge of what goes into movie-making realsie the implications of casting.

And in this particular instance the change would have detracted from the movie's commentary on its gladitorial theme; because the point, it seems to me, was being made that it is not about who is biggest and strongest but about who is a better fighter, and the better fighter would prevail, not merely the biggest and strongest man.

But by your clumsy logic, Strother Martin and Charles Bronson could have changed roles and the outcome would have been the same, except that the movie would then have been a comedy. So you really display not merely a marked lack of any real grasp of what is involved in the basics of movie-making, but also an absence of any real sensible argument; and too, I might add, you also display a very unpleasant, arrogant and rude attitude which is entirely unnecessary in discussing movies. You realise it is just a movie, right?

reply

[–] blackbrown 16 years ago

Wow, C, you actually think what fightfan said has any merit? Maybe you should think a bit about what you're defending before you make condescending judgements, smug guy.

reply

[–] Chaarles 16 years ago

Hello again, blackbrown. I'm not quite sure what point you are trying to make; your post doesn't make much sense. I haven't defended what fightfan1 said about actors switching roles, because I disagree with fightfan1 on his point about the actors switching. I don't think it would have been interesting if the actors had switched; I think it would have detracted from the impact of the movie, for the reason I previously outlined.

But fightfan1 at least recognises a switch of actor would have had an effect on the movie, a basic and obvious point on which we are agreed. The plot might not have changed but the movie would have been very much affected; and in my view the outcome of such a change would have been a greatly dimished movie, for the reason I stated in my initial post on this thread.

You say I should think a bit about what I'm saying, but actually I have already given thought to the matter, and that's how I came to the conclusion I contributed. It is you yourself who seems entirely unaware of the issues surrounding casting. Perhaps it is you who might benefit from a little reflection.

You might not have liked my response to your post, but that does not mean I am condescending or smug. It is you who first appeared with comments like 'You realize this was a movie right' and calling people 'retarded'. I suggest it is actually you who has come over condescending and smug. You appear far more judgemental in your abusive and sweeping comments than does my response to you in which I merely pointed out a few home truths for your consideration.

Permit me to repeat my point that casting is a crucial and specialised part of the movie-making process. Perhaps, bb, before dashing round dishing out your ill-considered, smug, condescending and abusive judgements, you might give a little time and effort to thinking about that point, and perhaps consider the issues in a little more depth. And then, if you find you disagree with what I or anyone else thinks and you wish to contribute to the discussion, perhaps you might consider further stretching yourself by trying to contribute a post which is neither condescending nor absusive. Just a thought. See how you get on.

reply

[–] Chaarles 16 years ago

I always felt the point was being made that, in the context of the logic of the movie, there is more to being a fighter, a gladiator one might say, than being big and strong. I felt the question was posed, "Okay, that one was biggest and strongest and most menacing looking, but now let's deal with something more, now let's consider what it is to be a gladiator".

And that, I think, was the point of the big bald guy being relegated to carrying the Chicago guy's bag. Big and strong and mean ain't enough. There is something head and shoulders above that, something to be truly admired.

And the Chicago guy's role as epitomising that something more was confirmed when he rejected the fist fillers (I don't know what they're actually called) near the end. He was the real deal, he was the spartan, the gladiator, the samurai. And that's what made Chaney's victory so impressive. It was two of a kind, two of a rarer kind, and Chaney won even that fight.

That's my take on it.

reply

[–] flickfiend 16 years ago

...He was the real deal, he was the spartan, the gladiator, the samurai. And that's what made Chaney's victory so impressive. It was two of a kind, two of a rarer kind, and Chaney won even that fight.

Well said- Chaarles!

reply

[–] JohnHarold 14 years ago

Chaarles wrote: "And the Chicago guy's role as epitomising that something more was confirmed when he rejected the fist fillers (I don't know what they're actually called) near the end. He was the real deal, he was the spartan, the gladiator, the samurai. And that's what made Chaney's victory so impressive. It was two of a kind, two of a rarer kind, and Chaney won even that fight."

That's a great insight, and I agree with the logic of your point. I think the filmmakers were aiming for the kind of effect, and dramatic progression, that you describe -- in the climax, we see Chaney confront, not another brawler, but fighter on a higher plane, effectively a gladiator or samurai (a great way of putting it).

But my problem is still that the last fight was just not a strong enough scene. As the climax of the film, in which everything was on the line, it needed to be the most intense fight of all, but it was not, imho.

In theory, if the the fight had been better staged, I think they could have made it work with that particular actor, even if he wasn't as intimidating in appearance as the baldheaded guy. If for example they had somehow managed to convey, say, his superb technical skill as a boxer, to the point where we as viewers began to think, okay, Chaney has finally met his match, there is no way he can beat this guy. And if the guy had then proceeded to take Chaney apart, with surgical precision, such that it appeared Chaney was actually going to lose. Of course, Chaney would gather his resources and win in the end; we would see him "solve" the other boxer's style, and gradually prevail, then triumph.

And in fact, the fight does proceed somewhat along these lines, but as it stands, it's just not good enough. It's a flat scene dramatically. The final boxer has a more polished style, but the fight is not really exciting or tense; in particular, it pales in comparison to the drama and excitement of some of the earlier fights.

So in sum, I think the filmmakers had the right idea - Chaney vs. samurai as climax - but the execution was just not there.

That said, I still love the film.

reply

[–] SeanJoyce 14 years ago

I'd really like to know what propels your argument. Bronson's fight with Dimitri at the conclusion of Hard Times is one of the greatest pieces of hand-to-hand combat that the movies have to offer us. It's 5 minutes in length, and the momentum constantly switches between both hardened warriors. Chaney is up against something we haven't seen him confront the entire movie. It's the first time we see him get knocked down, and our trust in his superiority is questioned.

Compare it to the legendary Lee/Norris Colosseum showdown (enough gladiator symbolism for ya?) in The Way of the Dragon; it's the ultimate in how not to choreograph a climactic fight spectacle. Norris manhandles Lee for a period not exceeding two minutes before Lee destroys him for five straight. We know that after Lee "focuses" and the music kicks in that Norris doesn't have a chance. It's all downhill; no counter, no reversal, no brief offensive, nothing.

Now think back to Bronson and Dimitri duking it out. There's no sound or musical accompanient; just grunts and the sounds of their bodies being pounded on. It's brutal and primitive. Above all else, it's suspenseful.

There's absolutely no reason to doubt that Chaney is going to walk away victorious in the fights that precede it. In the first two he avoids being hit once. The truly disappointing fight is the cage mixup with Tessier. For Big Jim's size, evident prowess, and enormous buildup, it should have been much more close and exciting than it was. Other than a few combos, Chaney picked him apart like a KFC special.

So I'd really like for you to elaborate on your grievances with the final fight. In my mind and that of many others, it's perfect.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

reply

[–] JohnHarold 14 years ago

SeanJoyce wrote: "So I'd really like for you to elaborate on your grievances with the final fight."

Here's the deal. I dig this film. I thoroughly enjoy it.

But the last fight scene felt flat. It was not as exciting or suspenseful as the earlier fights. In particular, it did not have the kind of emotional power that I wanted to see in the climactic scene (and the filmmakers certainly did everything they could to build up to the final battle).

It could have been, should have been great, but it wasn't, for me.

You dug it. It worked for you. That's fine. You make some good points.

Mine is essentially a gut reaction: it just didn't work for me. It's an okay fight, but not the topper it needed to be.

Still love the film. The ending, after the final fight, is beautifully played -- just right.

But the climactic fight just didn't do it for me.

reply

[–] SeanJoyce 14 years ago

This is a long overdue response, but while I'm here, I'd still like you to elaborate. What was precisely wrong with the fight, and what do you feel it needed to the "topper" you envisioned?

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

reply

[–] JohnHarold 12 years ago

SeanJoyce wrote: "I'd still like you to elaborate. What was precisely wrong with the fight, and what do you feel it needed to the "topper" you envisioned?"

In my prior two posts, I offered some detail about what I thought was wrong with the final fight, and what I felt it needed to be a "topper."

That's all I got. Take it or leave it! :-)

Cheers, and apologies for the long overdue reply.

reply

[–] joeparkson 16 years ago

I would love to have seen Woody Strode as one of the boxers that Bronson faces.
Woody Strode had an impressive physique and a fearsome presence. He was the black gladiator who refused to kill Kirk Douglas in "Spartacus".
It would have given Woody a chance for some payback for getting killed by Bronson in "Once Upon A Time In The West".

reply

[–] gloriamichaelc-1 16 years ago

lbflb hard times is the best of its kind. I kinda agree save jim henry for last..but then there might be no cage fight.. so its perfect.. coburn ah he sure was somethig.

reply

[–] Fourdot 14 years ago

That was not a British import. It was Nick Dimiti who was absolutely perfect in the understated way he played the role. Instead of playing it as a cartoon character he played it as the PROFESSIONAL he was supposed to portray.He had a lot of respect for his profession and the man [Bronson] he was there to fight.

One other thing. It's the quiet ones you need to be wary of.

eldo77

reply

[–] pocomarc 13 years ago

I agree 100%, JohnHarold.

reply

[–] RSBonos 11 years ago

I loved the fact that all the fights were very realistic and that there was a sporting conduct and skill to what they were doing.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Bronson boxed in his youth (though it's not mentioned on wiki), he puts his punches together and has a sharp jab and left hook. Part of that is good choreography but he looked like a natural, not to mention how old he was.

The last thing this film needed was a cartoon final boss.

reply

[–] DracTarashV 11 years ago

Ultimately, they didn't use the physically imposing bald guy as Bronson's last opponent... and I loved that! I mean seriously, let's save the most intimidating looking guy in the film for last? Too banal in my opinion. Not to take credit away from that guy of course, he was a beast. But at the end of the day, it wasn't about how dangerous one appeared to be; it was about skill.

That being said, the final fight scene is outstanding and one of the best I've ever seen.

Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

reply

[–] R_Redbeard 11 years ago

After making my way through 41 Pride FC events this year I can say that the fighting in this film is not very realistic at all. That being said, most of the punches looked a lot better than what you'd see in a film like this today. The kicking on the other hand was sort of pathetic. But great to hear realistic sounds (or no sound) from the punches instead of the "PCH!!" thing.

Size doesn't necessarily matter in fights and I don't think it would've helped to put Jim Henry in the end match because the entire film was emotionally flat. Much of the acting was grey-faced except for the performances of Tessier and Coburn. I don't want the actors to convince me to care about their characters... I want them to make it seem like they care about their characters.

reply

[–] liwfz 11 years ago

R_Redbeard said: "After making my way through 41 Pride FC events this year I can say that the fighting in this film is not very realistic at all."

Thank GOD this film was made in 1975 instead of today. If it were made today, they would be rolling around and doing all that UFC bullsh!t. Yes, UFC fighters are tough, but I have more respect for a guy that knocks someone down and is man enough to wait for him to get back up - there's more honor in that, and honor means something to me.

reply

[–] RSBonos 11 years ago

Kickboxing wasn't a thing in America during that era and besides Bronson had better stand-up technique then the majority of MMA fighters, Pride included.

reply

[–] gryg-58 9 years ago

I don't know man. I was on the edge of my chair. To the very end I wasn't sure what the outcome will be.

reply