MovieChat Forums > MAGolding > Replies
MAGolding's Replies
Or, who knows, maybe his gal was named Purple. After all, in 1879 the Mexican Dictator's first name meant "purple".
Picture a series of movies about Willie Scott or Short Round, with Temple of Doom one of them.
Imagine Willie Scott is the protagonist of Willie Scott and the Temple of Doom, who by a twist of fate gets involved in a terrifying series of adventures and dangers that pretty much ruin her life and seem very likely to end it. She can blame Indian Jones for it without being too unfair, thinking that he kidnapped her and put her in constant danger and discomfort. It would not be too unfair for her to blame Indy for everything terrible or disgusting that happens to her. So if she thinks of Indy as her kidnapper falling for him by the end of the movie could be considered a type of Stockholm syndrome behavior.
So a protagonist who complains about their troubles to the one who sort of kidnapped them seems reasonable to me.
IMHO the audience is supposed to have two conflicting and yet simultaneous reactions to Willie Scott, to agree with Indy and Short Round's annoyance at her screaming and complaining and also to sympathize with her suffering.
Now consider Temple of Doom with Short Round as the protagonist and action hero, not too different from the actual movie. Shorty lived a normal life until his family was killed in a Japanese attack, and lived as a street orphan until he found a new home with Indy and Wu Han. Then Wu Han was killed and Shorty fled with Indy and a stranger into a series of one deadly danger after another, helping his friend Indy and the stranger Willie escape from each deadly peril.
I read a review that described Short Round as adorable. I didn't think that Short Round seemed adorable. Short Round seemed too busy yelling and screaming in terror and fighting to be adorable. But that is the fault of the villains who kept putting Shorty and others in deadly danger. When things were peaceful and quiet Shorty seemed like a nice enough kid.
Suppose that Temple of Doom was a Willie Scott movie and she's the protagonist. By a twist of fate she gets involved in a terrifying series of adventures and dangers. Her life has been pretty much ruined with a high probability of being ended and she can blame Indiana Jones for it without being too unfair.
It is almost true that Indiana Jones kidnapped her and put her in constant danger and discomfort and so she only has to be a little bit unjust to blame Indy for everything terrible or disgusting that happens to her. So if she thinks of Indy as her kidnapper falling for him by the end of the movie could be considered a type of Stockholm syndrome behavior.
So would you approve of a protagonist who meekly follows her kidnapper (because Indy can easily appear like a kidnapper to Willie) into danger and discomfort, or one who complains about their troubles instead of silently enduring them?
IMHO the audience is supposed to have two conflicting and yet simultaneous reactions to Willie Scott. One is to share Indy and Short Round's annoyance at her screaming and complaining and the second is to sympathize with her suffering. And those who find her too annoying clearly share the first reaction and not the second.
Continued.
By the early 1880s the only hostile Apaches were the 500 or so Chiricahuas and members of other bands who lived in the Sierra Madre Mountains of Mexico and raided in Mexico and the USA. General Crook brought them back to Arizona in 1883 and 1884.
In 1885 some of the Chiricahuas, about 150 men, women, and children, left the reservation, returned to Mexico, and resumed raiding. The majority of Chriicahuas remained on the reservation and provided Indian scouts led by Chato to chase the hostiles in Mexico. In March 1886 the hostiles surrendered to General Crook and most of them stayed surrendered. But a group of them led by Naiche, Geronimo, and Mangus changed their minds and bolted. The 34 holdouts finally surrendered to General Miles in September 1886. President Cleveland ordered all of the Chiricahuas, including those who had remained on the reservation in 1885-1886, exiled.
They were first sent to Fort Marion, Florida, then to Mount Vernon Barracks, Alabama, and finally to Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Many Chiricahua women, children, and old people died in the unaccustomed climates they were sent to. The Chiricahuas were released from prisoner status in 1912. 183 went to the Mescalero Reservation in New Mexico and 78 remained in Oklahoma.
In the movie Geronimo: An American Legend (1993) Chato tells Geronimo that Geronimo was right while they are riding on the train to Florida. In real life the scouts and the hostiles blamed each other for the exile of the Chiricahuas. And certainly Chato and the Chiricahuas who served as scouts would have a lot of reason to blame the hostiles for the Chiricahua exile. Thousands of Apaches had made peace in the 1870s and stayed on the reservations and had not been exiled. Only the Chiricahuas who had still been hostile in the early 1880s had been exiled, and only because of Geronimo's outbreak in 1885.
Clearly keeping up the old Apache way of life and being unable and/or unwilling to support yourself without stealing and killing led only to disaster for the Chiricahuas.
To be continued.
Continued.
To enlarge on the flaws in the Apache lifestyle, the various Apache bands were at war, on and off, with all of their neighbors for centuries until the Americans finally fought and negotiated a permanent peace with the Apaches.
General George Crook, a prominent 19th century practical student of Apache society, believed that the Apaches raided and stole from their neighbors because their land was too poor to support them entirely by farming, gathering, and hunting. And that was largely true.
Much of Arizona and New Mexico was so harsh that General Sherman often made official suggestions to give them back to Mexico and even once suggested that the USA should fight another war with Mexico to force Mexico to take them back.
So many Apache raids were caused by dire necessity, the need to steal to stay alive, which could be blamed on inefficient Apache farming techniques.
However, when Major John Green chose the site for the future Fort Apache in the territory of the White Mountain or Coyotero Apaches in 1869, he said that it was the garden spot of Arizona. Perhaps because the White Mountain Apaches found it easier to support themselves without raiding and stealing, they were the first Apache group to make peace with the USA after the wars of the 1860s.
So some of the non aggressive tribes in Arizona, such as the Hopi and the O'odham (Pimas and Papagos) lived in regions just as arid or more so than most Apache tribes lived in, but managed to survive without aggressively raiding their neighbors.
Thus part of the problem with Apache society was that they raided and stole more than was necessary to survive, probably because the major way for men to gain prestige and influence was by raiding and stealing.
But by the early 1880s most of the Apaches had settled down to a more peaceful way of life. General Crook wrote to Herbert Walsh of the Indian Rights Association in 1884 that the 5,000 or so Apaches on the San Carlos Reservation were as peaceful and law abiding as any similarly sized community in Pennsylvania.
To be continued
If someone is put in charge of a military operation, he is in charge of all personnel assigned to the operation. No matter what service they are in. Or even what country they serve if the operation involves an alliance.
For example, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is an American four star general or admiral in command of Nato forces in Europe that includes the armies, navies, and air forces of many NATO nations. And many subordinate NATO commanders command forces from mixed services and mixed nations.
So I find it easy to believe that Colonel Evans could be in command of the Air Force test and the Army's defense of NYC.
actually if the octopus was big enough compared to the shark, it might kill the shark. It has happened.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFOEZh1Lbbg
I don't think that Elrond took Isildur into the fire mountain in the book. The last combat between Elendil and Gil-Galad, assisted by Isildur, Elrond, and Cirdan on one side, and Sauron on the other, was on the slopes of Mount Doom, presumably in full view of the armies of Elves and Men.
Only Elrond and Cirdan were close enough to see that Isildur picked up The Ring, and they didn't shout loud enough for the armies to hear what they discussed. But if Elrond and Cirdan had fought Isildur the soldiers in both armies would have noticed it and a civil war might have erupted in the moment of victory.
I suspect that instead of asking Isildur to follow him into the tunnel in the volcano and then asking him to toss The Ring into the lava, Elrond told Isildur out on the slops of Mount Doom that destroying The Ring would be a good idea and Isildur said he would keep The Ring. After Isildur's refusal Elrond would have no reason to go inside the dangerous and sinister tunnel and Isildur would not have accepted an invitation to go in with Elrond - The Ring would make Isildur suspect Elrond intended foul play.
I don't know if there is any canonical proof in the books that Elrond and Isildur never went inside the mountain, but there is certainly no evidence that I remember that they ever entered the mountain.
Elrond and Cirdan didn't know what evils would come from not destroying The Ring, and they were comrades in arms with Elendil and his son Isildur for seven years in the siege of Barad-dur. They had just gone through a terrible and almost unwinnable combat and suffered the trauma of seeing their king Gil-Galad and their great ally Elendil killed, and were experiencing the euphoria of unexpected victory and also post-combat exhaustion and were not in the mood to quarrel with their comrade Isildur - who had just seen his father killed - about their vague misgivings of trouble.
I'm sure that Tolkien enjoyed watching occasional western movies, but your comments might make him spin in his grave!
Tolkien's greatest fandom was as a fan of "northerns", and I don't mean movies set in Canada. He really loved northern European myths and legends, especially Germanic, Icelandic , Scandinavian, and Finnish myths and legends. And if some persons may think that was a rather odd choice of myths and legends to enjoy, we can forgive that quirk because it resulted in Middle-earth.
Gandalf and Aragorn were not plotting to replace Denethor, they were hoping to put Aragorn on the entirely vacant throne of Gondor, not make him steward of Gondor. They hoped that Denethor and his descendants would continue to be stewards of Gondor under the restored kings.
It was only because Denethor lusted for power that he didn't want that to happen. And in the end his surviving son and heir Faramir had a much better life as the steward of the restored king of a mighty and once more powerful Gondor and as the Prince of Ithilin than he would have had as the ruling steward of a tiny Gondor facing attacks from far more powerful enemies.
Basically the usual rule in most 50s westerns was that Indian characters would be usually be portrayed by white or "whitish" actors and Indian background figures and (sometimes literal) spear carriers by white or Indian extras depending on various circumstances.
Jay Silverheels was one of several well known Indian actors with a lot of roles in those days.
Michael Pate was one of the most commonly used actors as Indians in movies in those days. He played Vittorio in Hondo, Pachacutec in Secret of the Incas, Gokliya (Geronimo) in three episodes of Broken Arrow, Chief Four Horns (uncle of Sitting Bull) in The Canadians, Watanka in Sergeants 3, Thin Elk in Advance to the Rear, Sierra Charriba in Major Dundee, and Sitting Bull in the Great Sioux Massacre.
Michael Pate also portrayed Captain Benteen in The Seventh Cavalry and thus portrayed men on both sides at the Little Bighorn.
Just like J. Carrol Naish portrayed Sitting Bull in Annie Get your Gun (1950) and Sitting Bull (1954) and General Sheridan in Rio Grande (1950).
But of course only any possible Apache members would know if Emberado is a real Apache word or one made up for the movie.
If Ethan might possibly be the father of Lucy and/or Debbie, what about Ben?
Pippa Scott turned 21 in 1956, So Lucy would have been born about 1846 if her age in 1867.
Robert Lyden turned 14 in 1956, so Ben would have been born about 1853 if his age in 1867. (Some sources say he quite acting because of how John Ford treated him in this movie.)
Lana Wood turned 10 in 1956, so Debbie would have been born in 1857 if her age in 1867.
Natalie Wood turned 18 in 1856, so Debbie would have been born in 1855 if her age in 1873.
But Natalie Wood is listed as 15-year-old Debbie, so Debbie would have been born in 1857 to 1858 if age 15 during some moment in 1873.
And any of the kids might have have been a year or two younger depending on when their scenes were filmed.
So Ben chronologically could have been the child of any hypothetical affair between Ethan and Martha. And so Ethan could have been seeking to avenge Ben's murder and save his sisters, if the theory is correct.
By the way, there is a story that Ford had Walter Coy film the scene where he pulled on his boots over and over again. Finally Coy asked Ford what was up with putting on his boots. Ford said "You are putting on your boots while John Wayne is in the next room with your wife." Coy said "why didn't you say so the first time." and did the scene just like Ford wanted.
This is not an answer, but see the thread Geography:
https://moviechat.org/tt0040724/Red-River/59ffa3d3bd52ec00120657cb/Geography
Matt__Garth said:
"Tom and Matt both deserved to live and to be reconciled at the end."
Tom Dunstan was a thief, stealing the land for the ranch, and a murderer, killing the landowner's representative. Tom Dunstan was so picky about finding the perfect place for a ranch that they traveled hundreds of miles through Texas country suitable for raising cattle, from the Red River to the Rio Grande, to find a spot he liked, and when he learned that someone else already owned the land he wanted he killed to take it by force instead of finding some place that was almost as good.
Tom Dunstan already deserved to die in 1851.
Don't forget that Dunstan killed the representative of the landowner that Dunstan stole his ranche from.
Dunstan was a murderer.
I have now seen a number of soldiers wearing caps with the number 2 in both She Wore a Yellow Ribbon and and Rio Grande. It is definitely the 2nd cavalry cap insignia in both of them.
So was captain and later lieutenant colonel Kirby York in Fort Apache the same person as lieutenant colonel Kirby Yorke in Rio Grande? Was the regiment in Fort Apache the 2nd US Cavalry?
Bruce7 wrote:
"The Regiment(or Troop, if that is the correct term) flag at the end had a "B" on it. Could not make out the "Calvary"(if that is the correct term) number on a flag."
United States army battalions and regiments have regimental flags called colors.
Cavalry regimental colors used to be called standards and up to about 1895 they were made of blue silk fringed with yellow, 2 feet 3 inches high on the lance and 2 feet 5 inches long on the fly, with the United States coat of arms.
By about 1895 each cavalry regiment had two standards made of silk fringed with yellow, three feet high on the lance and four feet long on the fly, one a national standard with the stars and stripes design and one a regimental standard with a yellow field and the United States coat of arms.
A pair of standards are seen in all three movies, Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, and Rio Grande.
Each company or troop in a cavalry regiment had and has a guidon, a fork tailed flag.
The guidons in Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, and Rio Grande don't show the regimental number. The ones in Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon have crossed sabers in the upper red part and the company letter in the lower white part and are totally fictional. The guidons in Rio Grande use the 1834 to 1862 pattern with the letters "U.S." above and the company letter below.
I Have seen Rio Grande (1950) and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1949) and online stills from them since making my original post. Thus I haves seen various officers and soldiers in both movies wearing caps with crossed saber insignia and the number 2. Thus the Second US Cavalry appears in both movies. By the way Captain Brittles's troop C in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon would thus be the same company that lost about 27 men in the Fetterman Massacre 21 December 1866 in real history.
The guidons in Fort Apache and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon use a non historical design with crossed sabers on the red part above and the company letter on the white part below. Rio Grande uses an anachronistic but historical design with the letters "U.S." in the red and the company letter on the white below, the pattern actually used from 1864 to 1862. Thus the guidonsi those movies don't show which regiment is involved, unlike the designe used from 1885 to the present.
If Lieutenant Colonel Kirby Yorke of the Second Cavalry in Rio Grande in 1879-1880 is the same person as Captain and later Lieutenant Colonel Kirby York in Fort Apache presumably Fort Apache and the epilogue would be a few years earlier than Rio Grande. And Kirby York(e) would either be in the same regiment in Fort Apache and Rio Grande or else have transferred from his original regiment to the Second Cavalry between the epilogue of Fort Apache and Rio Grande.
Thus it is unknown which regiment fought in Thursday's Disaster in Fort Apache but the one that seems most probable is the Second Cavalry.
And together, Fort Apache (fictional date 1860s to early 1870s?), She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (1876) and Rio Grande (1879-1880) would put the Second Cavalry a lot farther south than it was actually stationed in those years.
And of course I have to wonder why Fort Invincible wasn't more invincible in the first place. Why didn't the original builders of Fort Invincible build a series of high stone walls across the narrow pass and have them manned by soldiers with guns and cannons pointing down the pass?
If the enemy have no other pass through the (totally fictional and imaginary) mountains and the hostile Apaches would have to ride for days to get around the mountains if the pass was blocked, why not have the soldiers or whoever built Fort Invincible do a little more work and physically block the pass with walls?
Or maybe plant thorn bushes in the pass and leave space between them small enough for a single soldier to squeeze through with a watering can to water the thorns but not enough space for Apaches to ride their horses through.
Would those walls be washed away by unmentioned seasonal flash floods? The pass certainly seemed dry as dust from what I remember.