philip-davies31
I used to run a film society. My tastes are very eclectic. But this parade of tortured perversity masquerading as art makes a foolish exhibition out of the Western genre. The film is a highly-elaborated and unreal contrivance of introverted pretension. It is so full of 'meanings' that it is utterly incomprehensible, and so hysterically excitable as to be revolting and ridiculous. The airless narcissism is stifling. The whole thing is like finding oneself at a fancy-dress party where everybody is drunk or drugged to the point of delirium yet no-one is happy, and where confusion and oblivion are the suicidal social dynamic. The whole film degenerates into something like a drug-induced nightmare, offering nothing more than a glimpse into the desperate and doomed attempts of a confused and disordered mind to clarify itself by indulging in ever more of the vivid but febrile fantasies that seem to promise so much illumination, yet deliver only madness. 'Switch on, tune in and drop out' as the hippy mantra had it.Fascinating to those of uncertain temperament who like playing with their own peculiar failings, the movie is utterly revolting to those who need to engage with some experience that can be measured against a more recognisable reality. Many people still do not recognise the camp or the kitsch this film represents as anything more than a certain form of self-indulgent vulgarity that is content to perversely parade itself as the height of artistic sensibility. Count me as one of those who doubt the value of such a futile exercise. The entire cultural model in which this film is steeped disqualifies it from being taken seriously - except insofar as it is an offence against good taste. It is an ugly parody of anything artistic. It might amaze the perpetrators of such schlock to reflect that Oscar Wilde had the intelligence and taste to avoid all such vulgarity in his work! But then he wrote long before this self-congratulatory and self-indulgent cult of campness elevated outrageous eccentricity and egomania above serious talent. And, yes, I am calling out Nicolas Ray and I'm saying that, if he's a genius, then so is Ed Wood.
jakob13
Nicholas Ray has taken a theme of America's expansion westward to the Pacific and brought us two strong women who embody landownership, cattle barons and the ever widening industrial revolution and urbanism that will challenge and ultimately vanquish older capitalist forms of power. Love is a theme but the women, Vienna played with nerve and steel by Joan Crawford and the impulsive Emma Small by Mercedes Cambridge overshadow the men in the film. And it's a duel in sun between the whore that made good as a bar girl and now has a title for land the railroad will develop and she will build a town on it, and Small the gun totting land and cattle baroness. is 'Johnny Guitar' a precursor of feminism? It's up to you to judge. Nonetheless, it's Crawford's finer hour.
MattyGibbs
This is one of the more interesting old westerns featuring screen legend Joan Crawford. Two strong willed women fight a power battle against the backdrop of a murder. Most westerns featured women mainly as the love interest but this is different in that the women featured are both tough and both willing to use a gun. This to me is a more realistic version of the old west. Joan Crawford is excellent as the feisty hotel owner waiting for a railroad to come through town and make her rich. Her nemesis played brilliantly by Mercedes McCambridge wants her out of town and seeks to do this by blaming her for the murder of her brother. The acting is excellent and it features an early appearance by the excellent Ernest Borgnine. There are good performances too by John Carradine and Scott Brady. The only downside coming from a predictably wooden performance by Sterling Hayden as Johnny Guitar. The action and story rattle along at a good pace and the smart script mainly steers clear of many of the old western clichés. It all culminates in a great final few scenes. This is a very good entry in the western genre and all the better for making the women the lead protagonists. Highly recommended to western fans.
dougdoepke
Hard to know what to say about this florid concoction except that it's truly one of a kind. Taken as a western, it's plain god-awful. Taken as parody of a western, it's sharp as a doorknob. Taken as an experiment in Technicolor, I can think of cheaper ways. To me, the movie is best taken as a collection of insider indulgence. How else to explain Crawford's Park Avenue get-up, or her desert island casino, or McCambridge's manly fierceness, or a bookish bank-robber, or a showdown for toughest woman of Lesbos. Now, scholars can play around with symbolism all they want. But first, the subject has to be interesting enough to play with. Seems to me there are worthier movie subjects than this one for analysis. Sure, I've read how the story's really a color-coded allegory of McCarthyism, with the black-clad posse as HUAC and the bank robbers as commies. After all, the Dancin' Kid is left-handed and the gang does stick together and they do rob banks. Probably this is as good a subtext reading as any, that is, if you're looking for some such. Me, I just take it as a slice of Hollywood weirdness with Crawford playing dress-up and in charge, with the estimable Nick Ray trailing somewhere behind.
AD
