I have a confession to make. I do not like Westerns and I have never really understood the fascination of the Wild West; it  just seems so distant and alien to me. Perhaps this is down to my gender, or my age or maybe because I happen to be from the U.K. Whatever the reason may be, I can not deny the fact that I just can’t seem to get the appeal of the western; and I feel like I’m missing out on something important.

Nowadays, the Western film is no longer a staple of cinema, however there still seems to be this appreciation for the genre and it’s clear that it deeply resonates with many contemporary filmmakers. There’s no denying the genre’s significance and impact on shaping the cinematic landscape, not just in American filmmaking but on a global scale. The old fashioned John Ford/John Wayne style of Western may be gone, but the fact that these films still remain part of the cultural discussion remains something to be marveled at.

These films have their faults, especially in terms of their political correctness and their representation of the indigenous people of Northern America, Latinx people and the representation of gender. So, when visiting these films I want to be conscious of whether they stand the test of time or not, but also be fully aware that these films are a product of their time.

When I asked Twitter for their recommendations, the response was phenomenal with over 600 replies. The recommendations ranged from Golden age Hollywood classics such as Stagecoach, to Spaghetti Westerns such as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, to New Hollywood ultra-violent flicks such as The Wild Bunch, to contemporary Westerns such as Slow West.

I certainly didn’t anticipate such a response, but it’s clear that the Western genre still resonates with many of us. For my first piece, I will be taking a look at High Noon, a Western with a very interesting background and rocked the Hollywood studio system in such a way that led to Western star John Wayne to deem the film as “Un-American”.

Directed by Fred Zinnemann and written by the blacklisted screenwriter Carl Foreman, High Noon is shown in ‘real time’. We open on the marriage of the Marshall of Hadleyville Will Kane (Gary Cooper) to Amy (Grace Kelly). However their big day is threatened by the arrival of the return of Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald), and his gang who are arriving back in town at noon with revenge and murder on his mind.

Kane is keen to leave Hadleyville for good but when he learns that Miller is back to kill him for putting him in prison back when his gang ruled town, he immediately makes the decision to stay and face his nemesis one last time for the good of the local community. However, Kane can’t face Miller’s gang alone, and tries to recruit deputy Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges) who is now shacked up with Kane’s former lover, Helen Ramírez (Katy Jurado), but Harvey refuses to help. Kane’s other friends including Sam Fuller (Harry Morgan), and Martin Howe (Lon Chaney) along with the other townsfolk are also reluctant to help. With time running out, it seems that Kane may have to face the gang alone.

Gary Cooper is fantastic in the role of Kane, bringing a stern faced determinism to the performance. We believe that Kane has led a long-tough life trying to uphold the law, we can see this in his eyes. Apparently, Cooper insisted on not wearing any makeup, in order to emphasize his character’s anguish and fear. At the time of filming, he was also recovering from recent surgery to remove a bleeding ulcer.

Originally the role John Wayne was offered the role but turned it down because of Foreman’s script, and Wayne actively supported the Hollywood Blacklist. In my opinion Wayne wouldn’t have suited this role, he’s too gung-ho and trigger happy, while Cooper looks like a man who believes violence is only a last resort.

While, the age difference between Cooper and Kelly (he was 50 and she was just 21 years old), is perhaps the most jarring aspect of the film, both actors deliver strong performances although Kelly seems a little bit amateurish. Her performance in High Noon caught her the notice she sought and would be the spring-board for her short career in Hollywood. Kelly’s role is somewhat upstaged by the wonderful Katy Jurador as Helen Ramírez. Jurador dominates the screen in every scene she’s in, easily proving herself as the better actress. She would go on to win the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress.

Kane is a hero that still stands up in our day and age. This is a man who continues on with his duty and loyalty to a town that doesn’t even lift a finger to return the favour. It isn’t a surprise that High Noon has remained a favorite film for several politicians (including president Bill Clinton), there’s something deeply commendable about the character of Will Kane that could only exist in the Western. Kane stands for truth and justice, but in reality things aren’t always as black and white.

While High Noon remains a solid, well shot and well-acted film; it’s the backstory of the film’s production which is the most fascinating aspect. The story and the character of Kane is steeped in isolation and frustration that the screenwriter Carl Foreman must have been personally dealing with when he was placed on the Hollywood Blacklist. For those who aren’t aware of the Blacklist, it was a list that consisted of 151 entertainment industry professionals who were denied employment because they were believed to be or to have been Communists or sympathizers.

Foreman was even summoned to defend himself in front of McCarthy’s witch-hunt committee, which saw him exiled and blacklisted when he refused to name names of fellow “sympathizers”. Foreman wasn’t the only one who had been placed on the Blacklist, the film’s cinematographer Floyd Crosby was also accused of communist leanings. While, Foreman and Crosby may have been accused of ‘communism’, High Noon was  actually criticized in the Soviet Union as “glorification of the individual”

After watching High Noon, it isn’t hard to see why and how it has remained significant in the cinematic and cultural landscape. It’s a film with an universal and timeless story, good versus evil. It’s an straightforward film with a clearly defined hero and villain. To say that they don’t make films quite like High Noon, is an understatement.

1972 was a remarkable year for American cinema, with the release of such classics as The Godfather, Cabaret, The Getaway, Deliverance and The Candidate to name a few. Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather was the highest-grossing film of the year, followed by Ronald Neame’s disaster film, The Poseidon Adventure. The third highest-grossing film of the year is probably a film that many of you haven’t heard of before, Peter Bogdanovich’s screwball comedy What’s Up Doc?. To this date, the film remains Bogdanovich’s most profitable film, grossing $66 million on a budget of $4 million. Prior to the release of What’s Up Doc? Bogdanovich had received critical praise for his black and white drama, The Last Picture Show which came out the year before. Side by side, these two films couldn’t be any more different but they both reflect the director’s appreciation and admiration for the films of classic Hollywood.

For those who aren’t aware, What’s Up Doc? is a romantic comedy starring the delightfully quirky Barbra Streisand and the heart-throb of the day, Ryan O’Neal.The plot (used in the loosest of terms) revolves around four identical plaid overnight bags which end up causing a mix-up at the same hotel as our main characters are staying. O’Neal is Dr. Howard Bannister, a musicologist  who has travelled to San Francisco with his tightly wound, overbearing fiancée, Eunice Burns (Madeline Kahn), to obtain a grant offered by Frederick Larrabee (Austin Pendleton).

He crosses paths with the eccentric, quick-witted and spontaneous Judy Maxwell (Streisand) who becomes intrigued by Bannister. At first, Judy seems to be interested in winding him up, but it quickly becomes apparent that she’s genuinely interested in helping him and interested him as a person. There’s also a mysterious government agent now turned whistleblower called Mr. Smith (Michael Murphy) who is being followed by another agent known as Mr. Jones (Philip Roth). As well as the wealthy socialite Mrs. Van Hoskins (Mabel Albertson) who has her bag full of priceless jewelry stolen. If this all sounds completely chaotic and totally bonkers…well that’s the point!

The film’s final act descends into utter madness when a car chase occurs in the fashion of a Warner Bros. cartoon including a hilarious gag involving two men trying to transport a glass pane across a road. It’s whacky and over-the-top in all the right ways. While not all of the joes have aged practicularlly well, (there’s an uncomfortable joke about sexual assault that left me whincing), there’s still plenty of gags that land. Bogdanovich manges to recreate the essences of a Howard Hawks screwball comedy with the fast-paced dialogue and the stinging one-liners delivered perfectly by O’Neal and Streisand.

The story behind the film’s production is rather interesting. Hot off the success of The Last Picture Show, Bogdanovich was approached by studio executive John Calley to direct A Glimpse of a Tiger and Steve McQueen also approached him for The Getaway. Neither of these films interested him. McQueen wasn’t the only talent wanting to work with him, Streisand was also very keen. Bogdanovich was even asked to direct The Godfather but reportedly turned it down because he didn’t want to work on another drama.

According to Bogdanovich, Calley asked him what he wanted to film, to which he replied with  “A screwball comedy, like Bringing Up Baby, with Barbra. A square professor and a daffy dame who breaks him down live happily ever after.” Calley was onboard with this idea, as long as Bogdanovich ensured the script was ready in time for shooting to begin in August 1971 because of Streisand’s schedule, meaning there were only a few months for Bogdanovich along with screenwriters Robert Benton, David Newman and Buck Henry to work on the script. Even while Bogdanovich was filming, jokes and gags were still being schemed up. It sounds like a recipe for disaster but luckily everything worked out. In fact, Bogdanovich described the whole experince as “It was absolute heaven from beginning to end” and has stated “What’s Up, Doc? was the most fun of any picture I’ve ever made.”

The script is a work of genius, full of many little in-jokes which poked fun at the screwball comedy genre, but Bogdanovich isn’t simply ripping off these traits and mocking the films of the past. Richard Bordy’s piece for The New Yorker sums Bogdanovich’s intentions perfectly: “He was in full-retro mode, but he was no nostalgist. He borrowed genres and tones from the past because that past seemed, to him, neither dead nor past.”

lso poked fun at the corny romantic films at the time which focused on a young couple coming from different backgrounds and falling in love at first sight. In the film’s closing lines, O’Neal repeats the line from Love Story, “Love means never having to say sorry” which Streisand’s character replies back with “That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.” What’s Up Doc? works because of the chemistry of Streisand and O’Neal, who were dating at the time. Streisand and O’Neal even get a chance to show off their singing talents, in a duet. O’Neal delivers a great performance, but this is really Streisand’s picture and she truly dominates here.

According to Bogdanovich, he remembers how “Barbra Streisand told me before we did the picture, “I’ve never been directed. Nobody’s ever directed me in a picture.” I said, “Well, you’re about to be directed,” and I directed the hell out of her.” Her character is well-written and plays to her talent as a comedic actress. Judy Maxwell is very much a young woman of her time, intelligent and independent who uses her brains rather than her looks to get by. Even in 2020, it’s still very rare that we see characters like Judy Maxwell being depicted on the big-screen and propelling the narrative forward.

During self-isolation, I am finding myself going back and revisiting classic films. What’s Up Doc? may not be an absolute masterpiece but it’s a great distraction from what’s currently happening. It’s a lot of fun and compared to other comedies from the era, it’s actually aged pretty well. And, that’s all folks.