Reviews

I watched this for the first time this afternoon. It was certainly more complicated than most westerns of this period. There is no one who is really a hero All of the main characters have a dark side. It was interesting to see Richard Widmark who usually plays the good guy in the role of a man (Johnny Gannon) who is conflicted by his past with a band of rowdies of whom his brother is a member and his attempt to be on the side of law and order. I don't understand why many see the partnership between the high class gunslinger Blaisdell hired by the town, (Henry Fonda) accompanied by his lame self-appointed bodyguard/gambling enterprise partner played by Anthony Quinn, as in any way homoerotic, unlike the scene in 'Spartacus between Lawrence Olivier and Tony Curtis, instead of which it is co-dependent. I guess many who watched missed Morgan explaining his loyalty to Blaisdell (Fonda), saying, "He is the only man who never saw me as a cripple." As Blaisdell's sidekick/bodyguard, Morgan shares in his reputation and as well, Blaisdell's protection from being disregarded/pitied as a 'cripple'. Morgan has no other relationships in his life, and his dismay at Blaisdell's considering marrying Jessie and settling down is that of someone being abandoned. I think we have all heard of a close friend viewing a new relationship as a full or partial abandonment of the friendship and so displaying jealousy. I enjoyed DeForest Kelly as an agitator, albeit one who didn't really care to hurt anybody, in one of his pre-Star Trek 'Bones' McCoy roles. And it is only fitting that the new sheriff/reformed rowdy played by Widmark ends up in the arms of the former saloon girl played by Dorothy Malone.

I have just finished watching "To Walk Invisible"

I read "Wuthering Heights" as a teenager, and fell in love with Heathcliff. Over time and the advent of feminism,my views on the character have changed considerably, but not my views on the writing of Emily Bronte and her sisters.

This presentation, filmed where the Bronte siblings lived and died as well as the realistic portrayals of the siblings and their father give this film an authenticity that opens a window into their reality.

What is amazing is that given the harshness of their existence and everyday lives complicated by the the alcoholism and debauchery of their brother Branwell, the siblings led such rich interior lives in spite of the drabness of their surroundings and the precariousness of the their small security. Like Austen heroines, the security of their situation depended on either a favorable marriage-unlikely in their situation - or as with Jane Austen herself, an income generated by their literary talents. The roof over their heads was provided by the Church, and would disappear if their father died. Their brother could not be depended upon to support them; indeed it is the sisters who care for Branwell. In this film,it is the austere and domestic Emily, shy, awkward and too attached to home and family to care for fame, who worries about their future, and writes with such passion to express herself and without concern for being published. Nevertheless, the three sisters are successful enough during their short lives to keep the wolf at bay. I do wonder if Charlotte's acceptance of her father's curate, Arthur Bell Nichols after originally turning down his proposal was moved by concern for help with the care of her aging father as well as securing the home in which her siblings and she had lived all their lives. The final scenes of Ann and Emily tending to the body of their deceased brother, are incredibly moving when one learns that Emily was soon to follow, and then Anne: three siblings gone within a year, followed 8 years later by Charlotte. Their father living to the age of 84 under the care of his son-in-law after the death of a wife and all of their children, must have considered his long life anything but a blessing. Unlike other reviewers, I don't agree that too much of the film was devoted to Branwell and his problems. Rather,it points up the wonder that was the brilliance of the works produced by these quiet industrious women in spite of all the obstacles they faced.

I just finished watching this movie, and I was impressed by the simple meditative mood: Mary at the end of her life reflecting on her journey as the mother, not only of her Son, but of the Apostles and disciples He left in her care. She shares her reveries, her pain at the slaughter of the Innocents as she and Joseph flee to Egypt to save the Child, the ordeal of participating in His suffering and death and the lifting of that sorrow replaced by the joy in her heart when He is resurrected. As the end approaches, Mary encourages Peter, whose faith in himself is challenged by the conflict among the early disciples, as well as the others who have gathered around her, by reminding them that Jesus lives within each of them, will strengthen them for the work ahead,and that like Him she, too, will remain with them always. Bahia Haifi as a believable older Mary realistically portrays the mother of Jesus, serene in the face of her approaching death.Her face with its gentle lines and loving smile as she shares her memories is just as I would imagine Mary to look in her latter years. Noam Jenkins effectively plays Peter,struggling with the weight of the role he feels that Jesus has placed on him as the leader of the disciples, and later renewed by his time with mother Mary, is strengthened to take up his task anew. Altogether a quiet reflective film for those who believe, and maybe even those who don't.