Open Range
- Thread starter Dr.Rob
- Start date
- Status
First, I don't like Costner's politics.
However, this was not some hippie communal bliss theme wrapped in a Western. It was based off history. Range use has been a sore subject in the West ever since we got there. Until the 1870's to 1880's there were no fences. The vast majority of the range was community property precisely because no one really owned it. If you had a piece of land you wanted left alone you were expected to fence it off instead of the cattleman fencing in his cows. This is a little like it is today, unless you're on BLM land which apparently everybody but nobody owns. The tensions of property rights in the West are history, not some invented leftist plot to make a movie.
However, this was not some hippie communal bliss theme wrapped in a Western. It was based off history. Range use has been a sore subject in the West ever since we got there. Until the 1870's to 1880's there were no fences. The vast majority of the range was community property precisely because no one really owned it. If you had a piece of land you wanted left alone you were expected to fence it off instead of the cattleman fencing in his cows. This is a little like it is today, unless you're on BLM land which apparently everybody but nobody owns. The tensions of property rights in the West are history, not some invented leftist plot to make a movie.
longeyes
member
Any man who paints Susan Sarandon's toenails is politically suspect.
I haven't seen the film but will check it out on DVD for the always
good Robert Duvall (loved THE APOSTLE).
I haven't seen the film but will check it out on DVD for the always
good Robert Duvall (loved THE APOSTLE).
Sheesh whats next? Are there gonna be more rants and raves about Lord of the Rings being an ultra left, Pro-environmentalist, Anti-Capitalist / Anti-Industrialist propaganda? So should be shunned by all thinking conservatives and Republicans?
Just because a movie may be pro-environmentalist or pro abortion or anti-whatever; does not mean its a movie or book that only caters to "Republicans" or "Democratics". And if you're conservative you can't be an environmentalist or be suspicious of the motives of big business? That's rather dogmatic.
I do believe most great artists or at least most of the ones that are considered "great" can be considered to have leftist or "progressive" leanings. If you look hard enough you'll find it. I think it has to do with the fact most great artists have their "heads in the clouds", are very idealistic, and many are outcasts or rebels railing against established society. From classical composers/rock artists (Mozart, Beethoven, The Beatles, Rolling Stones) to writers (Shakespeare, Twain, Dostoevski, Nietzsche) to painters (Da Vinci, Goya, Delaroix, Picasso). I'm not saying they're strictly "leftist" but art tends to be more exciting when it taps into a conflict or struggle usually involving an underdog against the establishment. Does that mean conservative values have always been dead in art? No. Many great artists were conservative by todays standards as well as their own with many conservative values in their art. But art makes people idealize things even though they tend to be unrealistic or over-idealized. And well, strict conservative values just don't have a tendency to promote great works of art. Besides life is more complex than simply a struggle between left/right or liberal/conservative forces and most intelligent people recognize art is an escape and not always a true reflection of reality.
Back to Open Range. Doesn't Boss (Robert Duvall) and his cattle represent "capitalism, business, commmerce, and everything else that uses natural resources" as well? And members of the Sierra Club and Green Peace identify with free ranging cattlemen? We're talking cattle here. They chew up the land and eventually get slaughtered. Quite a stretch because most of them wouldn't even buy a ticket to see this movie in the first place I would think. I actually saw it as a conflict between two businessmen. Not about environmentalism or rise of industry. But more about two people who had very different ideas on how to do business relevant to their time. And throughout the movie the main protaganists often made a point to say this wasn't about cattle or land. It was about going where they had a right to go simply because thats the way it was done in the West at the time. And it was simply a conflict between what is right and what is wrong. I'll concede people with lots of power (businessmen, corporations, lawyers, and politicians) have always been portrayed as the bad guys (okay, often unfairly possibly) but I just didn't see that strong of a message against them in Open Range as you did.
Anyways, Open Range is as "conservative" a movie you'll find these days, esp concerning the 2nd Amend, and despite what Costner may say to the contrary.
Just because a movie may be pro-environmentalist or pro abortion or anti-whatever; does not mean its a movie or book that only caters to "Republicans" or "Democratics". And if you're conservative you can't be an environmentalist or be suspicious of the motives of big business? That's rather dogmatic.
I do believe most great artists or at least most of the ones that are considered "great" can be considered to have leftist or "progressive" leanings. If you look hard enough you'll find it. I think it has to do with the fact most great artists have their "heads in the clouds", are very idealistic, and many are outcasts or rebels railing against established society. From classical composers/rock artists (Mozart, Beethoven, The Beatles, Rolling Stones) to writers (Shakespeare, Twain, Dostoevski, Nietzsche) to painters (Da Vinci, Goya, Delaroix, Picasso). I'm not saying they're strictly "leftist" but art tends to be more exciting when it taps into a conflict or struggle usually involving an underdog against the establishment. Does that mean conservative values have always been dead in art? No. Many great artists were conservative by todays standards as well as their own with many conservative values in their art. But art makes people idealize things even though they tend to be unrealistic or over-idealized. And well, strict conservative values just don't have a tendency to promote great works of art. Besides life is more complex than simply a struggle between left/right or liberal/conservative forces and most intelligent people recognize art is an escape and not always a true reflection of reality.
Back to Open Range. Doesn't Boss (Robert Duvall) and his cattle represent "capitalism, business, commmerce, and everything else that uses natural resources" as well? And members of the Sierra Club and Green Peace identify with free ranging cattlemen? We're talking cattle here. They chew up the land and eventually get slaughtered. Quite a stretch because most of them wouldn't even buy a ticket to see this movie in the first place I would think. I actually saw it as a conflict between two businessmen. Not about environmentalism or rise of industry. But more about two people who had very different ideas on how to do business relevant to their time. And throughout the movie the main protaganists often made a point to say this wasn't about cattle or land. It was about going where they had a right to go simply because thats the way it was done in the West at the time. And it was simply a conflict between what is right and what is wrong. I'll concede people with lots of power (businessmen, corporations, lawyers, and politicians) have always been portrayed as the bad guys (okay, often unfairly possibly) but I just didn't see that strong of a message against them in Open Range as you did.
Anyways, Open Range is as "conservative" a movie you'll find these days, esp concerning the 2nd Amend, and despite what Costner may say to the contrary.
Last edited:
Dorrin79
Member
sometimes people on both sides of the fence spend too much time looking for any hint of bias in fictional works.
It's just a movie. And, by all accounts, one that is very approving of indivdualism and self-defense.
I think the appropriate phrase is "lighten up"
It's just a movie. And, by all accounts, one that is very approving of indivdualism and self-defense.
I think the appropriate phrase is "lighten up"
CZ52GUY
Member
re: Lighten up...
I respect the right of each individual to determine that which they choose to consume or avoid for entertainment, and for whatever reason...
That being said, my better half and I in the post 9/11 world have taken a hard look at the 140 or so DVD's we own and the 100+ Video tapes we have (whether store bought or taped off of our dish which we no longer subscribe to).
Within that context, we've been amazed at the subtle and not so subtle messages that we previously absorbed without much contemplation. We find that upon careful examination, which requires some effort, there is a lot more "propagandizing" than we ever imagined. We found the slow and steady influence it had on our day-to-day thinking through 9/10/01 frankly disturbing.
We've become more cautious about that which we consume for entertainment, and for news, whether it be in print, televised, the movies, or on the web.
I think that a healthy discussion about the relative merits of characters within a film and intent of the "artist" who seeks to bring the character to life is worthwhile.
One can see conspiracy where there is none, that is true.
It is also equally possible to deny the presence of more synister intent, because it is inconvenient and often stressful to realize how very often the entertainment and "news" and "academia" seeks to promote an agenda which is contrary to our values.
Within this thread, a "you're just being paranoid" followed by a "no-sah" is evidence that the other side is winning...at least in one household.
Enjoy the arts, but beware many of the "artists", many are not our friends...after all, it is they who voted for the fraudulent maniac Michael Moore.
If we don't hold them to account, who will?
If we continue to fund their endeavors, how will they ever understand our displeasure?
I applaud careful scrutiny of that which is provided to us to entertain, and each "work of art" should be judged on its own merits, with the likelihood that there will be some legitmate differences of opinions as to conclusions to be drawn and actions (or lack thereof) to be taken.
Healthy debate is useful, blissful ignorance can be very dangerous.
Best wishes,
CZ52'
I respect the right of each individual to determine that which they choose to consume or avoid for entertainment, and for whatever reason...
That being said, my better half and I in the post 9/11 world have taken a hard look at the 140 or so DVD's we own and the 100+ Video tapes we have (whether store bought or taped off of our dish which we no longer subscribe to).
Within that context, we've been amazed at the subtle and not so subtle messages that we previously absorbed without much contemplation. We find that upon careful examination, which requires some effort, there is a lot more "propagandizing" than we ever imagined. We found the slow and steady influence it had on our day-to-day thinking through 9/10/01 frankly disturbing.
We've become more cautious about that which we consume for entertainment, and for news, whether it be in print, televised, the movies, or on the web.
I think that a healthy discussion about the relative merits of characters within a film and intent of the "artist" who seeks to bring the character to life is worthwhile.
One can see conspiracy where there is none, that is true.
It is also equally possible to deny the presence of more synister intent, because it is inconvenient and often stressful to realize how very often the entertainment and "news" and "academia" seeks to promote an agenda which is contrary to our values.
Within this thread, a "you're just being paranoid" followed by a "no-sah" is evidence that the other side is winning...at least in one household.
Enjoy the arts, but beware many of the "artists", many are not our friends...after all, it is they who voted for the fraudulent maniac Michael Moore.
If we don't hold them to account, who will?
If we continue to fund their endeavors, how will they ever understand our displeasure?
I applaud careful scrutiny of that which is provided to us to entertain, and each "work of art" should be judged on its own merits, with the likelihood that there will be some legitmate differences of opinions as to conclusions to be drawn and actions (or lack thereof) to be taken.
Healthy debate is useful, blissful ignorance can be very dangerous.
Best wishes,
CZ52'
My wife and I have seen it twice. The second time it was better. This is but a story in which there are people who portray characters many can relate to.That is but one factor making this an effective movie. Costner held the lead but could not have done so without Dyvall or Benning. Byron
Dorrin79
Member
CZ-52 -
I agree with much of what you said.
I also think it is smart to not support artists who are active campaigners against our rights and liberties.
With regards to bias, I don't worry about it personally. I am certain in my knowledge and beliefs. I do sometimes get slightly concerned for other people who are in the "undecided" column on various issues, but the fact of the matter is, there's not much we can do for them except offer a counter-example to the negative stereotypes that are propogated in the media.
Take Care,
Dorrin
I agree with much of what you said.
I also think it is smart to not support artists who are active campaigners against our rights and liberties.
With regards to bias, I don't worry about it personally. I am certain in my knowledge and beliefs. I do sometimes get slightly concerned for other people who are in the "undecided" column on various issues, but the fact of the matter is, there's not much we can do for them except offer a counter-example to the negative stereotypes that are propogated in the media.
Take Care,
Dorrin
CZ52GUY
Member
Dorrin79
Thanks,
...and you take care too.
Best wishes,
CZ52'
Thanks,
...and you take care too.
Best wishes,
CZ52'
Johnny Guest
Moderator In Memoriam
Okay, back to the shoot-'em-up - - -
Finally managed to see the movie this afternoon. Frankly, I think Costner did a lot better job than I expected. I was fully ready to see Duval sturggling mightily to carry Costner thru the plot, and was happily surprised.
I liked it, a lot. I was a little disappointed in the paucity of the variety of firearms shown. There were a couple of gold-plated receivers on some Winchesters, and I guess these were supposted to represent 1866 models. There were a goodly number of '73s shown, but didn't I also see a lot of '92s there?
Given that the date of the action was 1882, you'd think there would be some earlier model guns still in use. Just because a new model comes out, people don't immediately junk the older ones. This would be due both to economic considerations and also because not everyone 'way out in the west would immediately order the latest gun out of New England. I didn't see any Henry repeaters, no trap door Springfields, either rifle or carbine length, nor any other single shots, and no percussion revolvers. You'd think someone would have brought a Sharps, a Spencer, or some muzzle loading rifles to Colorado with them.
And, yes, I liked seeing them reloading the SA revolvers, but, has no one ever heard of using the ejector rod? Ol' Charley sure took a long time, indexing his cylinders and shaking the revolver. I think I could have reloaded in a third the time he took, even accountig for nervousness. And, wasn't he the old time mankiller?
For all that, I did like the show.
Best,
Johnny
Finally managed to see the movie this afternoon. Frankly, I think Costner did a lot better job than I expected. I was fully ready to see Duval sturggling mightily to carry Costner thru the plot, and was happily surprised.
I liked it, a lot. I was a little disappointed in the paucity of the variety of firearms shown. There were a couple of gold-plated receivers on some Winchesters, and I guess these were supposted to represent 1866 models. There were a goodly number of '73s shown, but didn't I also see a lot of '92s there?
Given that the date of the action was 1882, you'd think there would be some earlier model guns still in use. Just because a new model comes out, people don't immediately junk the older ones. This would be due both to economic considerations and also because not everyone 'way out in the west would immediately order the latest gun out of New England. I didn't see any Henry repeaters, no trap door Springfields, either rifle or carbine length, nor any other single shots, and no percussion revolvers. You'd think someone would have brought a Sharps, a Spencer, or some muzzle loading rifles to Colorado with them.
And, yes, I liked seeing them reloading the SA revolvers, but, has no one ever heard of using the ejector rod? Ol' Charley sure took a long time, indexing his cylinders and shaking the revolver. I think I could have reloaded in a third the time he took, even accountig for nervousness. And, wasn't he the old time mankiller?
For all that, I did like the show.
Best,
Johnny
Very good movie.
I'd give it 3.5 stars.
I thought the plot and story was good, and the acting very good.
I thought that they exagerated the gunfight though. It seemed to me that Costner was firing more than 6 shots in his revolver without reloading. Thats not unheard of with movies though.....they tend to exagerate.
I'd give it 3.5 stars.
I thought the plot and story was good, and the acting very good.
I thought that they exagerated the gunfight though. It seemed to me that Costner was firing more than 6 shots in his revolver without reloading. Thats not unheard of with movies though.....they tend to exagerate.
greyhound
Member
Anyone know how it did at the box office?
I too will be getting it on DVD...
I too will be getting it on DVD...
It is ranked 13th and has taken in almost 56 million.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/
This site will take one to the rankings and ammounts taken in. Byron
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/
This site will take one to the rankings and ammounts taken in. Byron
Frohickey
Member
I liked it. Saw it at 5pm. Long movie, but it was pretty necessary for plot development.
Saw it as a big landowner buying the sheriff off to bully everyone else, and it showed when some in town stood up against them. If anything, the big landowner would be akin to Ted Turner, who is allied with the environmentalists because he's got his already.
There was a point in the movie where there was a 8 to 9 round string coming from a single 6 shooter. But as others have pointed out, people did not just drop when shot. It took multiple shots from a pistol to bring them down. Naturally, the preferred way to really stop someone is by head shots. No Mozambiques here. Thats half your gun!
Saw it as a big landowner buying the sheriff off to bully everyone else, and it showed when some in town stood up against them. If anything, the big landowner would be akin to Ted Turner, who is allied with the environmentalists because he's got his already.
There was a point in the movie where there was a 8 to 9 round string coming from a single 6 shooter. But as others have pointed out, people did not just drop when shot. It took multiple shots from a pistol to bring them down. Naturally, the preferred way to really stop someone is by head shots. No Mozambiques here. Thats half your gun!
Moparmike
Member
I liked it too. I saw it about 2 weeks ago.
Hot brass
Member
I liked the movie, went with the wife and kids. May go and see it again tomorrow.
Smokey Joe
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,617
To the analysts...
Jeez, I haven't seen such heavy-duty arguing about the message in a movie since I don't know when. Guys, it was just a movie.
Even Sigmund Freud is reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
This was a simple, old-fashioned, B-grade western, like they don't make no more. It was really well done. The bad guys got their come-uppance and one of the good guys got the girl. The young kid lived. The story was grippingly told and the scenery was beautiful. For 110 minutes or however long it went, the show took me completely away from whatever troubles I might have brought into the theatre, and I walked out feeling good.
Isn't that enough to hope for from any movie?
BTW, the characters Boss and Charley both were aware that their way of doing business (i.e. open-ranging the cattle) was dying, and that they had to get into some other line of work, and soon. That was made clear early in the film. They didn't waste any effort rebelling against this, though; they just wondered what they would do for a living after the current cattle drive. That conflict was resolved at the end of the film with Boss offering Charley a partnership in the town's saloon after they go and do the job of rounding up and disposing of the remains of their herd and equipment.
BTW-2: I didn't know there were any small specwar units in the Civil War such as Charley describes having served in. Not that this detracts from the movie, if it is inaccurate, any more than the missing Henrys and Springfields mentioned above.
Jeez, I haven't seen such heavy-duty arguing about the message in a movie since I don't know when. Guys, it was just a movie.
Even Sigmund Freud is reputed to have said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
This was a simple, old-fashioned, B-grade western, like they don't make no more. It was really well done. The bad guys got their come-uppance and one of the good guys got the girl. The young kid lived. The story was grippingly told and the scenery was beautiful. For 110 minutes or however long it went, the show took me completely away from whatever troubles I might have brought into the theatre, and I walked out feeling good.
Isn't that enough to hope for from any movie?
BTW, the characters Boss and Charley both were aware that their way of doing business (i.e. open-ranging the cattle) was dying, and that they had to get into some other line of work, and soon. That was made clear early in the film. They didn't waste any effort rebelling against this, though; they just wondered what they would do for a living after the current cattle drive. That conflict was resolved at the end of the film with Boss offering Charley a partnership in the town's saloon after they go and do the job of rounding up and disposing of the remains of their herd and equipment.
BTW-2: I didn't know there were any small specwar units in the Civil War such as Charley describes having served in. Not that this detracts from the movie, if it is inaccurate, any more than the missing Henrys and Springfields mentioned above.
CZ52GUY
Member
re: Analysts...
I wear that title proudly...both vocationally, and personally .
Freud was no role model.
Neither is Costner.
The industry that made that fraud Michael Moore an icon and bestowed upon him one of its highest honors bears careful scrutiny.
That individuals are carefully scrutinizing the message of entertainment they consume and the values of those who participate as actors, directors, producers, etc., is a very good thing.
Yes, to paraphrase Freud, sometimes entertainment is simply harmless entertainment.
Too often in 21st century America, it is not.
It is very easy to follow the direction of the herd...it takes some effort to break away from the pack and find ones own way. I've found the rewards to be worth the effort.
Best wishes,
CZ52'
I wear that title proudly...both vocationally, and personally
.Freud was no role model.
Neither is Costner.
The industry that made that fraud Michael Moore an icon and bestowed upon him one of its highest honors bears careful scrutiny.
That individuals are carefully scrutinizing the message of entertainment they consume and the values of those who participate as actors, directors, producers, etc., is a very good thing.
Yes, to paraphrase Freud, sometimes entertainment is simply harmless entertainment.
Too often in 21st century America, it is not.
It is very easy to follow the direction of the herd...it takes some effort to break away from the pack and find ones own way. I've found the rewards to be worth the effort.
Best wishes,
CZ52'
- Status
