There haven't been nearly as many rodeo films as boxing films, but both genres have some of the same appeal, to filmmakers and actors as well as audiences. Both are macho subcultures in which men's courage and determination are regularly tested. One pits man against man. The other, man against beast.
While both genres feature, by necessity, strong roles for male actors, there are occasionally some memorable parts for actresses, such as Audrey Totter in The Set-Up. In The Lusty Men it's actually Susan Hayward who is at the core of the movie, and arguably its leading character. Hayward gives a great performance, capturing all the nuances in what's a complex, well-written part. And she's a hoot giving her rival, a rodeo groupie, a kick in the butt, her way of "branding." I think this is maybe Hayward's best performance, as in her more famous roles, like in I'll Cry Tomorrow and I Want to Live, she tends to go in for chewing the scenery. Here, she gives a more subdued performance that really works. There are several other good women's parts in this movie, as we see the cameraderie among the wives and girl friends of the rodeo riders. But though Hayward finds friendship there, she becomes determined that she's not going to end up like one of them, living a gypsy life in trailer parks and being constantly in fear of seeing her man injured or losing him to booze or another woman. (Side note: Eleanor Dodd, who plays the vamp Hayward battles, gives a funny and sexy performance, yet after this she made only one more film. What happened?)
Mitchum is good as always when he's being Mitchum. Arthur Kennedy is a very good actor but I think he was miscast in this one. I just don't buy him as a burgeoning rodeo star. He usually plays intellectuals of one sort or another, and doesn't have a strong physical presence. He also seems a bit too old. Arthur Hunnicut is fun, playing essentially the same grizzled rodeo old timer he did in a less rodeo film, Born Reckless, starting Mamie Van Doren.
I did find the ending a bit pat, and can we really buy that after a sensational first season on the rodeo tour Kennedy is happy to give it up for the hard life of farming a tiny spread? How long before he'd been yearning for the applause (and rodeo groupies) again? Yes, I get it, he's seen his buddy killed, but it still didn't ring true to me.
By the way, just as boxing movies often show the downside of the sport by having characters who are washed-up or punch drunk ex-fighters, The Lusty Men may go even further. Pretty much all the rodeo veterans we see are emotionally and/or physically scarred, alcoholics, and cripples, barely eking out a living. (But those parties they throw sure look like fun!)
A couple of other notes. There is what I consider a pretty egregious editing error. In the scene where Mitchum is in the chute, ready to go out on his bucking bronco, there's a cut to the crowd, and when we cut back to the chute for a brief second there's a different man sitting on the horse, not Mitchum. No doubt a stunt rider. It's something you'd expect in an Ed Wood movie, not a Class A production. How did they miss that?
It was fun seeing a "young" Burt Mustin in a sizeable speaking role, and he does a good job in his extended scene with Mitchum. This was one of Mustin's first roles, and he was 67 at the time. He didn't make his first on-screen appearance until he was 66, then spent three more decades doing mostly small TV parts. Great story.
While both genres feature, by necessity, strong roles for male actors, there are occasionally some memorable parts for actresses, such as Audrey Totter in The Set-Up. In The Lusty Men it's actually Susan Hayward who is at the core of the movie, and arguably its leading character. Hayward gives a great performance, capturing all the nuances in what's a complex, well-written part. And she's a hoot giving her rival, a rodeo groupie, a kick in the butt, her way of "branding." I think this is maybe Hayward's best performance, as in her more famous roles, like in I'll Cry Tomorrow and I Want to Live, she tends to go in for chewing the scenery. Here, she gives a more subdued performance that really works. There are several other good women's parts in this movie, as we see the cameraderie among the wives and girl friends of the rodeo riders. But though Hayward finds friendship there, she becomes determined that she's not going to end up like one of them, living a gypsy life in trailer parks and being constantly in fear of seeing her man injured or losing him to booze or another woman. (Side note: Eleanor Dodd, who plays the vamp Hayward battles, gives a funny and sexy performance, yet after this she made only one more film. What happened?)
Mitchum is good as always when he's being Mitchum. Arthur Kennedy is a very good actor but I think he was miscast in this one. I just don't buy him as a burgeoning rodeo star. He usually plays intellectuals of one sort or another, and doesn't have a strong physical presence. He also seems a bit too old. Arthur Hunnicut is fun, playing essentially the same grizzled rodeo old timer he did in a less rodeo film, Born Reckless, starting Mamie Van Doren.
I did find the ending a bit pat, and can we really buy that after a sensational first season on the rodeo tour Kennedy is happy to give it up for the hard life of farming a tiny spread? How long before he'd been yearning for the applause (and rodeo groupies) again? Yes, I get it, he's seen his buddy killed, but it still didn't ring true to me.
By the way, just as boxing movies often show the downside of the sport by having characters who are washed-up or punch drunk ex-fighters, The Lusty Men may go even further. Pretty much all the rodeo veterans we see are emotionally and/or physically scarred, alcoholics, and cripples, barely eking out a living. (But those parties they throw sure look like fun!)
A couple of other notes. There is what I consider a pretty egregious editing error. In the scene where Mitchum is in the chute, ready to go out on his bucking bronco, there's a cut to the crowd, and when we cut back to the chute for a brief second there's a different man sitting on the horse, not Mitchum. No doubt a stunt rider. It's something you'd expect in an Ed Wood movie, not a Class A production. How did they miss that?
It was fun seeing a "young" Burt Mustin in a sizeable speaking role, and he does a good job in his extended scene with Mitchum. This was one of Mustin's first roles, and he was 67 at the time. He didn't make his first on-screen appearance until he was 66, then spent three more decades doing mostly small TV parts. Great story.