Tuesday
Mar242009
Get off your horse and drink your milk
Tuesday, March 24, 2009 at 11:22PM
So here's the thing I had a great post all about how westerns are highly underrated and that it was strange how, when all things were circular it seemed that westerns never really seemed to come around in popularity. I was all set to put the post up and then I had a wee look about and realized that this was not really true.
See the thing is I love Westerns. You name it and there is a chance that I have seen it. From the classics through to the new films I have watched most of them and own quite a few on DVD. I, like many others, grew up on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood as Cowboys and would regularly watch the matinee Western at the weekend with my Dad and I loved them. They were simple films, often with great soundtracks that you could just loose yourself in. Pale Rider is, to this day, one of my favorites (though you cant help but love two mules for Sister Sarah)
When I looked into it further it is not that Westerns are not cyclical in their nature but rather that they cycle quickly and in shorter bursts than other films. Just looking at rough numbers there were 30 Westerns released in the 1990's and another 25 from 2000 -2008. Now admittedly not all of these got into the cinemas but they were released so there must be some kind of audience for them. In the lists I have seen about 12 of the films in the 1990's and 6 of the films in the past 8 years did well while the others did not really make much of an impact
Just out of interest I had a quick comparison with superhero films. In this case there were 21 films released in the 1990's and 48 released between 2000 - 2008. Again looking at these results about 10 did well in the 1990's and at least 24 did well in set starting in 2000.
So why do Westerns seem to come and go far more quickly than other films, but still seem to be fairly prolific based on the numbers I found. I think that it may be to do with how the films are evolving. Look at the simple plots of a lot of Western, it is white hat v's Black hat. It is, much like the superhero film a story of good v's evil, yet as the audiences have evolved so have the plots. you have films like Young Guns where it is all about the action and then you jump forward to something like Brokeback Mountain where it is about emotion and relationships. When you have films of other genres I guess you know what you are going to get, with Westerns not so much.
What does seem to happen is that when there are westerns that do not do so well it knocks back the chance of there being new Westerns which can do well. It probably links back to supply and demand. If no one is willing to pay to see a movie then there will be no backing for the film and it is likely when a writer looks to sell the option on their script then likely buyers will look to see how the genre has done in the past and if it is down then they are unlikely to invest. if this is soley the way that films were financed then new genres would be unlikely to ever come into being as there is no historical data. In these cases there must be something else which has an effect.
If you look at some of the Westerns that did well then you can see that there are quite a few cases of a 'star' investing in their movie. This way you get a name in the frame and they help with the cost. The other way seems to be that you get some bug named actors to be in it and rely on their fan base to pull in new people, revitalizing the film industry.
So anyway what inspired all this thinking? Well at long last I got to see a film that I have been desperate to see since it came out - Appaloosa. It is an unusual film, in that it is not a Tombstone or a Wyatt Earp, that is to say that is does not rely on gun fights and action, but is more of a Dancing with Wolves (though not as long). The film is definitely dialogue driven and focuses on the relationships between the main characters rather than action to drive the plot forward.
Both Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are (IMHO) very believable as men of the old west. The gruff attitudes and conflicts shown in he film go some of the way to showing you the difficulties and challenges that could have been in play at this time, but it is not really romanticized. All in all it is a film that I can watch time and again and seem to get something else out of it
So while John Wayne did not say the title of this post, and while the Western is unlikely to ever be a huge box office hit I am glad they are still made and I am glad I got to see this film and add it to my collection. It is not my choice when I want more action but as far as stoic contemplation goes this is a great film and definitely worth watching
See the thing is I love Westerns. You name it and there is a chance that I have seen it. From the classics through to the new films I have watched most of them and own quite a few on DVD. I, like many others, grew up on John Wayne and Clint Eastwood as Cowboys and would regularly watch the matinee Western at the weekend with my Dad and I loved them. They were simple films, often with great soundtracks that you could just loose yourself in. Pale Rider is, to this day, one of my favorites (though you cant help but love two mules for Sister Sarah)
When I looked into it further it is not that Westerns are not cyclical in their nature but rather that they cycle quickly and in shorter bursts than other films. Just looking at rough numbers there were 30 Westerns released in the 1990's and another 25 from 2000 -2008. Now admittedly not all of these got into the cinemas but they were released so there must be some kind of audience for them. In the lists I have seen about 12 of the films in the 1990's and 6 of the films in the past 8 years did well while the others did not really make much of an impact
Just out of interest I had a quick comparison with superhero films. In this case there were 21 films released in the 1990's and 48 released between 2000 - 2008. Again looking at these results about 10 did well in the 1990's and at least 24 did well in set starting in 2000.
So why do Westerns seem to come and go far more quickly than other films, but still seem to be fairly prolific based on the numbers I found. I think that it may be to do with how the films are evolving. Look at the simple plots of a lot of Western, it is white hat v's Black hat. It is, much like the superhero film a story of good v's evil, yet as the audiences have evolved so have the plots. you have films like Young Guns where it is all about the action and then you jump forward to something like Brokeback Mountain where it is about emotion and relationships. When you have films of other genres I guess you know what you are going to get, with Westerns not so much.
What does seem to happen is that when there are westerns that do not do so well it knocks back the chance of there being new Westerns which can do well. It probably links back to supply and demand. If no one is willing to pay to see a movie then there will be no backing for the film and it is likely when a writer looks to sell the option on their script then likely buyers will look to see how the genre has done in the past and if it is down then they are unlikely to invest. if this is soley the way that films were financed then new genres would be unlikely to ever come into being as there is no historical data. In these cases there must be something else which has an effect.
If you look at some of the Westerns that did well then you can see that there are quite a few cases of a 'star' investing in their movie. This way you get a name in the frame and they help with the cost. The other way seems to be that you get some bug named actors to be in it and rely on their fan base to pull in new people, revitalizing the film industry.
So anyway what inspired all this thinking? Well at long last I got to see a film that I have been desperate to see since it came out - Appaloosa. It is an unusual film, in that it is not a Tombstone or a Wyatt Earp, that is to say that is does not rely on gun fights and action, but is more of a Dancing with Wolves (though not as long). The film is definitely dialogue driven and focuses on the relationships between the main characters rather than action to drive the plot forward.
Both Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are (IMHO) very believable as men of the old west. The gruff attitudes and conflicts shown in he film go some of the way to showing you the difficulties and challenges that could have been in play at this time, but it is not really romanticized. All in all it is a film that I can watch time and again and seem to get something else out of it
So while John Wayne did not say the title of this post, and while the Western is unlikely to ever be a huge box office hit I am glad they are still made and I am glad I got to see this film and add it to my collection. It is not my choice when I want more action but as far as stoic contemplation goes this is a great film and definitely worth watching
in Flims
Flims
Reader Comments (1)
lol, Clint Eastwood is so funny! I love him.