News: Having trouble registering?  Please feel free to contact us at help[at]clinteastwood.org.  We will help you get an account setup.


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Clint Eastwood/John Wayne  (Read 8562 times)
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4941


His job ..... steal it.


View Profile WWW Email
« on: August 11, 2003, 04:45:55 AM »

Some time ago there was a terriffic discussion here comparing Eastwood and Wayne and their respective careers... Does this thread still exist, can anyone point me in the right direction ?
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
Matt
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9239



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2003, 03:40:33 PM »

Sorry, Gant... it's lost in cyberspace.  I checked all the threads that I had saved from the old board when we moved here, and that thread isn't among them.  Cal had to free up the board by purging most of the older threads every few months, so that must have been one we lost.
Logged
D'Ambrosia
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2003, 10:27:07 PM »

John Wayne hated Eastwood's High Plains Drifter so much that he wrote a letter to Eastwood telling him that this was not the spirit of the West and that he had it all wrong.

Now, I'm a fan of the Duke as well as Eastwood and I wish that they could have seen eye to eye and maybe had worked together but Wayne was old school and Eastwood knew the limitations that a hero (or anti-hero) could push and Wayne did not.  Waynes expectations were unrealistic in that everyone rides off into the sunset all happy as opposed to Eastwoods more gritty realisim of how human nature really is.  There is good and evil in everyone and when pushed to extreams the worst come out in most people (The towns people in HPD )

I remember that great thread Gant, it's been years ago.  I wish it were still around... :(
« Last Edit: August 11, 2003, 10:28:43 PM by DAmbrosia » Logged
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4941


His job ..... steal it.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2003, 12:16:56 PM »

If you had to name 3 (or more) main differences between Wayne and Eastwoods careers what would they be......
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
D'Ambrosia
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2003, 09:39:21 PM »

Three? :)

Eastwood was willing to take more chances with his characters and Wayne was not.  When Eastwood took chances with his characters it paid off where as when the Duke did it didn't.  Wayne started off in B movies of the 30's and a lot of them.  Eastwood shot to sucsess as soon as he made his jump from TV to his first shot at  movies in the 60's.  Eastwood ran for office and Wayne didn't...
Logged
Matt
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9239



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #5 on: August 12, 2003, 09:43:19 PM »

I just happened to read an article tonight where an interviewer asked Clint pretty much the same question.  Here's the excerpt:

Quote
PLAYBOY:  Ultimately, your career will be judged by the evolution of your Western heroes. It seems that your characters are not part of a routine struggle between good versus evil; rather, the Westerns you have directed are highly existential and the question of what separates good and evil is raised to the highest level in Unforgiven.  How should we understand the difference between the realism in your Westerns and those of John Wayne?

EASTWOOD:  I'll tell you a story just so we can demystify the difference between John Wayne and me.  It has nothing to do with existentialism. Don Siegel was making a western with John Wayne.

At one point, a guy shoots at Wayne, misses, and leaves the room, thinking Wayne is dead.  Siegel tells Wayne: "Okay, now you get up and shoot the guy as he's leaving."  Wayne refuses to do the scene the way Siegel wants. "I can't do that," he says. "A cowboy with any self-respect can't shoot another man in the back, even an enemy."

So Siegel gets annoyed and tells him, "Oh yeah? Well, Eastwood would have shot the guy."
Australian Playboy, July 1993, p. 25
Logged
KC
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28571


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #6 on: August 12, 2003, 10:18:30 PM »

Eastwood became one of the foremost filmmakers of our time ... an Oscar-winning director, he also won an Oscar for his body of work as a producer. Wayne is credited with directing two films.
Logged
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4941


His job ..... steal it.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2003, 12:48:51 AM »

Well, I'll come clean guys....
I've managed to get myself embroiled in an Eastwood vs Wayne argument..(and I'm vastly  outnumberd)
before I went wading in with all guns blazing I wanted to take stock.. I actually quite like some of Waynes films although I tend to think of them more as John Ford films really.... and I want my arguments to hold water and not simply be a "My cowboy is faster than yours" kinda debate.
Obviously there are a lot of differences between these two actors and their careers and so I thought it would be interesting to hear what some of you guys thought the main differences were.
I personally think that Wayne's character only really works in a handful of films wheras nearly all of Eastwoods films have something of interest... or am I just biased ?
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
Philo Beddoe Jr
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1750



View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2003, 08:19:57 AM »

I've read suggestions in this thread that Wayne's westerns didn't take chances, or that when they did it didn't pay off.  This is not entirely true.  

Off the top of my head I can think of one clear example of Wayne taking chances.  'The Searchers'.
In 'The Searchers' he portrays an out and out hateful racist.  And that portrayal and the chances he took with it resulted in one of his most respected works of art.

He did also experiment to a lesser degree by playing a character who loses it mentally in 'Red River'.  In this film he let Montgomery Clift play the level headed good character while he portrayed the character who turned into a vengeful psycho.  (Of course he comes to his senses in the end, but it was still an exploratory role in which he stretched the boundaries of popular Hero themes).

WKC.
Logged

eustressor
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 480


Undeterred.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2003, 09:23:29 AM »

Quote
So Siegel gets annoyed and tells him, "Oh yeah? Well, Eastwood would have shot the guy."

Priceless. Thanks for sharing, Matt!
Logged
D'Ambrosia
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2003, 09:41:28 AM »

Yeah, but in both of those movies you mention he comes to his senses at the end.  If Clint were playing those characters he would have killed Natilie Wood(Searchers) and lead the cattle drive into despair resulting in a muntiny against him(Red River).   Could you ever see the Duke playing The Stranger.  Hell no!   I can picture Clint in everyone one of Waynes movies but I can't picture the Duke in most Eastwood Westerns.  I agree with your Red River and Searchers comparison.  Wayne does play a baddie in both (infact, in my opinion, Waynes best acting comes in Red River)  but even with playing the baddie he still has that same cowboy code thing going on.  Don't shoot anyone in the back, don't kill women and children, etc.  I like John Wayne and his movies but to play every character with that Cowboy Code is a bunch of crap.  That's not the way it was in the west.  I'm betting that more people were shot in the back then face to face back then.  To come along and break Waynes myth of the how people acted back then was a chance Eastwood took and it was huge.  

OK wkc :), I agree to a point with you, I'll say that the Duke did take some chances but not nearly as big as chances that Eastwood took.  I've never seen a Wayne movie with an ambiguous ending.  They are always wraped up nice a tidy and, with a few exceptions, they all ride off into the sunset all happy.  Not Eastwood's endings.  Your left there thinking what the hell?  What happens next?  Does he go on to another town or what?
 
Like I said before, I like Wayne and there is no one I'd want more in a gunfight on my side.  That is except Clint of course ;)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2003, 09:44:12 AM by DAmbrosia » Logged
Philo Beddoe Jr
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1750



View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2003, 10:54:34 AM »

Agreed on most points DAmbrosia,

There is no way that it can be intelligently suggested that JW took as many creative chances as Clint has taken in his career. I was only trying to add a little balance to the discussion by indicating that  JW was no 'goodie two shoes' actor.  

Nonetheless, I must still stir the pot   :)  by adding:
I personally feel that the ending of 'The Searchers' is quite comparable to the ending of 'Pale Rider'.  I do wonder what happens next for Waynes character as he wanders off to who knows where. He has fulfilled his  mission, but I feel that he is still an embittered and partly amoral man with an uncertain and dangerous future...  In fact if that film had been made today, the studios would be clamouring for a sequel, and probably a prequel (telling us about his dark days after the war/before arriving at his brothers homestead).

WKC.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2003, 10:59:42 AM by wkc » Logged

D'Ambrosia
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: August 18, 2003, 10:17:45 PM »

This is cool about a time when Eastwood came over to the Dukes house to show him one of his early Leone Westerns

Quote
"):

"I remember when Clint Eastwood was up-and-coming, he brought one of his early films for my grandfather to watch. He was very unassuming and down-to-earth..."

The Trail Beyond A Tim Lilley Book, with an interview with JW's grandson.

Can you just see it now.. The Duke saying "Awww come on Clint, you didn't have to shoot that guy in the back.  And you didn't even look him in the eye... :) ;) :D ;D 8)

« Last Edit: August 18, 2003, 10:19:43 PM by DAmbrosia » Logged
Lt. Briggs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


From the Crossroads of the World


View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2003, 12:07:02 PM »

Quote
Eastwood was willing to take chances with his charactors & Wayne was not.

In Wayne's later days in the movies, he tried to go with the flow of movie making at the time. In the mid 70's, he tried a Dirty Harry type of cop. In the films "McQ" (1974) and "Brannigan" (1975).  Then he did two more Westerns before passing away.  During the mid 70's  the Western was just about die at the box office. Only a few stars could pulloff this type of film and make some money.  As the times changed police type action pictures was were the money was at.  At  that time Wayne was in his mid 60's in age.  And to try to make a film about a maverick, rule breaking cop, in the Dirty Harry tradition. Was quite a change in his charactor for him and his fans.  Ok, "Mc Q" did not leave the world asking for more. He followed that one up with "Brannigan".  "Brannigan" was a better film but at the age of 67.  There is not many roles left to play other than grandfathers. Eastwood has handled his career very well. He changed as did the industry and the movie going public. I'm both a fan of Eastwood and Wayne films.  One thing you have to look at is the times they worked in this industry. Wayne was from the 30's to 1979. And Eastwood from the mid 50's to now. This industry and the world has changed so much in that time frame.  Both actors put out good to great films during their eras.  The last few films Clint has put out have been  good, I have enjoyed them and have gone to the theatre to see them.  Not waited till they came to video or cable to see them.  
Logged

I hate to walk up to a door with Harry.
To many people don't like him.
D'Ambrosia
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3839



View Profile Email
« Reply #14 on: August 21, 2003, 08:50:48 AM »

Nice write up Briggs... ;D

I liked McQ (1974) and Brannigan(1975).  I had heard that the studios wanted to cash in on the success of the Dirty Harry and Magnum Force thing and simply stuck John Wayne in there to attract moviegoers.  The Car in McQ kicks ass.  In some respect the movie reminds me of a cross between Steve McQueens Bullet and Clint's Dirty Harry.  Although not able to hold a candle to those two I still like the Duke in that role...  I love the final shoot out scene on the beach in the cars.  If I remember correctly McQ either has an Uzi or a Mac 10 that he turns those cars, (and culprits) into swiss cheese... ;D
Logged
Lt. Briggs
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67


From the Crossroads of the World


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: August 22, 2003, 12:12:50 PM »

Thanks

Quote
 Movie reminds me of a cross between Steve Mc Queen's Bullet and Clint's Dirty Harry.

Thats what it reminded me too of those two films

Think it was an Uzi he used.
Logged

I hate to walk up to a door with Harry.
To many people don't like him.
dane with no name
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1198


I dont think it's nice you're laughing...


View Profile Email
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2003, 04:33:20 AM »

To my mind, The searchers, and True grit is the finest wayne movies ever made because his characters are more down to earth than the other more "idealised" westerns he made.
The less "idealised" a movie and the characters are, the more realistic it seems, i usually say.
even though they made westerns in their own style clint didnt seem to "hold a grudge" against wayne.
Ive read that the part of fletcher in josey wales vere originally offered to wayne, but he turned it down due to the script (our hero rides out to shoot some bluecoats, makes peace with the indians, then rides out to kill some more bluecoats)  ;D and because he wanted to tour the nam to give pep talks to the marines (i believe he received the congressional medal of honor for that)
 
Logged
John Omohundro
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 36


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2003, 03:22:49 PM »

DAmbrosia, Lt. Briggs:

The submachinegun used by John Wayne in "McQ" was a MAC-10 (also known as an "Ingram Model 10"), built by Military Armaments Corporation (who was mentioned in the lead credits, BTW). The guy playing the gun dealer in the film had it pretty much right: the little monster weighs about 6.75 pounds (3.06 Kg), the suppressor another 1.5 (0.68 Kg) or so. It fires both semiautomatic (one shot with each pull of the trigger), and fully automatic (continuing to fire for as long as the trigger is held back or ammunition remains in the magazine), with a rate of fire of about 1100-1200 rounds per minute in the case of this particular weapon.

The weapon purloined by the Duke in the film was most likely a Dealer Sample, and one of the fellows demonstrating it was probably supposed to be a Federal Class III Licensed Firearms Dealer--legally licensed to buy and sell such stuff as submachineguns, silencers, sawed-off shotguns (barrel length under 16.5" or overall length under 26", or both) and the like, as well as demonstrating them to potential customers. What he was most likely doing here was attempting to interest the Seattle Police Department's Special Weapons and Tactics (S.W.A.T.) team in the weapon.

If I remember what I read once, possession of a Class III firearm (like the MAC-10) or device (like the suppressor for that weapon) *WITHOUT THE PROPER PERMITS* (obtainable ONLY from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment for up to five years, or BOTH, and the penalties are *CUMULATIVE*--which means that, had it been a real-life scenario, The Duke would've been in MAJOR legal trouble with Uncle Sam (for having  *BOTH*  the SMG and the suppressor) the moment he walked out of that gun shop with the MAC-10 in the athletic bag. I'm not even going to go into the problems he'd have for possessing a Dealer Sample (primarily because *I DON'T KNOW* the penalties involved), but suffice it to say that it would've been considerably more than just Grand Larceny, because *ONLY* a  Federal Class III Licensed Firearms Dealer is legally entitled to possess such a weapon, unless its status has been reclassified from "Class III Dealer Sample" to "Class III Weapon or Device" by the BATFE. There would also have been the Washington state or local laws to consider... <SHUDDER>

Incidentally, did you know that Clint was Warner Brothers'  *THIRD* choice to play "Dirty Harry" Callahan?
John Wayne was offered the role first, but turned it down. Frank Sinatra was their second choice, and actually shot some footage, but had to drop out after he suffered an injury (to either his hand or wrist; it depends upon which source you consult). Clint Eastwood was next asked to tackle the project and the rest, as the saying goes, is history. :)

--John
Logged
skippy
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 64


cool


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2003, 11:18:48 AM »

i didn't hear anything about that                   :-[
Logged
hamtv5
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3



View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: January 21, 2004, 08:41:58 PM »

clint is the best he is areal cowboy thats all ::)
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T