It's almost a messy accident that sympathetic movies can be made about the Indian tribes in the Wild West. I doubt that was a concern of most of the early Western creators.

And since none of that was on-topic, I'll say that we watched The Science of Sleep the other night, which was a lovely mess of a movie. Gondry's commitment to making his dreams live on-screen is admirable, but he asks too much of the viewers when he wants us to see that Charlotte Gainsbourg puts up with his stand-in naif because she's filled her apartment with childlike crap. If he'd spent more time on her character, showing us, for instance, why she never filed a restraining order against Bernal's man-child, rather than focusing on Bernal's increasing retreat from reality, the movie might have more there there.

(I personally think the western impulse from Firefly came from the "space ship low-fly freaks out the horses" image, and the rest of it was cobbled together from there.)

It's interesting, when I look at westerns, that most people look at westerns always in relationship to each other over time; my insitnct is to look at westerns in relation each to its own time, and what other movies are being made in that time. Except for the landscapes -- and those vary wildly too -- I don't see a consistency of theme like a lot of people do.

Whereas, I think Carter from Get Carter, and Lee Marvin in Point Blank, and Clint Eastwood in the Italian westerns -- have a lot in common.

I doubt that was a concern of most of the early Western creators.

I think you're right, although I think John Ford became more sympathetic to the humanity of his Indians over his career.

It's interesting, when I look at westerns, that most people look at westerns always in relationship to each other over time; my insitnct is to look at westerns in relation each to its own time, and what other movies are being made in that time. Except for the landscapes -- and those vary wildly too -- I don't see a consistency of theme like a lot of people do.

Oh, I do think most Westerns share a basic morality tale. The better ones are the ones where that morality has lots of shades of grey. Actually, despite the statement I made about Ford's growing sympathy for the Indians, I was just thinking about one of Ford's earlier movies - Fort Apache, I think - which had a very sympathetic view of the Otherness of Indians.

But I think you're right in the sense that Westerns, like any movies, are definitely a product of the times. I think it's more complex than that, though: there's a dialogue between Westerns as a genre over time, too, and I think that dialogue is sometimes more interesting than the context of time.

Whereas, I think Carter from Get Carter, and Lee Marvin in Point Blank, and Clint Eastwood in the Italian westerns -- have a lot in common.

Definitely. Spaghetti Westerns aren't like US Westerns. Those are good comparisons, because they're more like stylized gangster movies.

Edit - apologies for the serial Western posts.

Reavera as Indians iare not really the antagonist, though. The true antagonist in Fierefly is civilization versus savagery. Many Westerns use Indians to represent savagery--although nature itself is also savage and can be just as strong an antagonist. In Firefly, the crew is constantly fighting that savagery in themselves and in others. Greed, violence, fear, clannishness, selfishness, ignorance--those are the elements they fight and that is what makes it work for me. To say we have to have a group which equals Indians, seems reductivist to me.

The true antagonist in Fierefly is civilization versus savagery

What I meant was, you can do civilized vs. savage in many contexts -- you don't need cowboys and Indians. So although there is imagery of cowboys and Indians all over the show, the thematics are not, in fact, about cowboys and Indians at all. Or else there would be dispossessed natives on all those planets the crew keeps visiting. The term "Indian" in the phrase "cowboys and Indians" turns out to be an empty category.

It's cowboys and crazier cowboys, which is not the same kind of story. (And could as easily have been gentlemen and debauched gentlemen, if Joss had had a thing for duels at dawn.)

points toward "Shindig"...

Maybe Jane does?

Whereas, I think Carter from Get Carter, and Lee Marvin in Point Blank, and Clint Eastwood in the Italian westerns -- have a lot in common.

I must sit zazen with this for a while. I do think Carter is less of a cipher than the other two. He's more rooted and less enigmatic. Though once that particular story gets going, Carter is just as implacable. Might be interesting to compare Lee Marvin in Point Blank with Joe Don Baker in Charley Varrick. (Have you seen Charley Varrick, Nutty? You should.)

It's cowboys and crazier cowboys

More like space cowboys and cannibal pirates.

Space cowboys and cannibal space pirate cowboys!

Ipso facto quod erat demonstrandum.

I have not seen Charlie Varrick. I agree that Carter is the least enigmatic of the three of them; but the thing they have in common is the stylish implacable antiheroism as antidote to contemporary anxiety about masculine roles. I might even have put Bullitt in the mix as well, because Bullitt's biggest accomplishment was wearing a turtleneck to avoid the question of whether he ought to wear a necktie; but Bullitt is a good guy so it's kind of moot.