Hi Friends,

here in Germany we have a discussion long years about Red River and Montgomery Clift. What think John Wayne about Montgomery Clift about his sexuality? Many people tells me, that John Wayne didn't know that Montgommery was a fag.

Sorry for my bad English but may you knows the truth story

Dukes German Home (http://www.dukemorrison.de)

http://www.berlinernetz.de/wayne/images/movies/chisum/mm457cd3ff0a1e3a62.jpg


Torsten
from good old Germany

I don't know the answer to this question, but I can tell you that it isn't terribly obvious to me in this movie that Monty Clift was gay. I knew before I saw it of course, but still... he seems pretty tough & masculine and the like. He was a very good actor.

I will say, however, that IMO there wasn't much chemistry between Clift and Joanne Dru. Partly this was because Dru wasn't that great of an actress (she really blew it at the end, IMO), but since Dru was good in the scenes with Duke, I think some of this lack of chemistry was due to Clift's sexuality.

Anyway, I don't know the answer to your question. I have heard that there's gay symbolism in this movie, which irks me, if you want to know the truth. Can't some of these intellectual critics leave ANYTHING alone?

Duke made several movies with gay men, like Laurence Harvey in The Alamo and Rock Hudson in The Undefeated besides working with Montgomery Cliff. The only problem Duke had with Cliff was that he thought people (the audience) would have trouble believing that he could really fight John in the movie and not make it look laughable. I think he pulled it off. As for his sexual preference, I don't think he was bothered by it. Has anybody else heard different? Let us know. dukefan1

Viery

Good to see you back on this board.

Regarding "Red River" Duke and Walter Brennan felt uncomfortable with Clifts sexuality and spent a lot of the time off-screen away from him because as they said they didn't understand it.

Mark is right about Duke also being worried that Clift would look laughable fighting him but after the mutiny Duke is reported to have said "The kids going to be all right".

Interestingly enough Hawks wanted Clift to play the part of 'Dude' in "Rio Bravo" but Clift was ill at the time so he couldn't play it. So in conclusion Duke was a very mature and sensible person whom didn't care too much about it although like a lote of hetrosexuals didn't really understand it which is very understandable.

:agent:

Hi guys,
The only thing I read about it in Aissa's book (John Wayne my Father)it says, Montgomery Clift, straight out of the theatre, said he arrived on the set not knowing how to ride a horse or shoot a gun or walk in cowboy boots. Without condescending, my father coached them both. Meaning Howard Hawks the other. He came to Red River a novice to Westerns, unable to descern healthy cattle from those half dead, or true Western actors and stuntmen from big-talking pretenders. Howard Hawks said he couldn't have made Red River without John Wayne.
Little Duke

According to the book, John Wayne: American, Clift didn't give Duke a good first impression. He would not look Duke into his eye, and there was a size difference. Hawks convienced Duke that this would work, he saw Clift's work on Broadway, and knew his poteintial. When Duke saw the rushes, he confessed that he was wrong, but still worried about the fight scene, but Hawks still wanted Duke to trust him. When the fight scene took place, it took four (4) days to shoot, but it did work. Clift learned film technique from Hawks, and Duke. Hawks had to tell Clift to not over play the scene with Duke, and finally realized how to play the part on screen.

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/timetraveler/avatars/johnwayne2.jpg

Though Clift had a lot of respect to Hawks and Duke's professional abilities, he didn't like them at all on a personal ability. Didn't like the playing cards, drinking, and telling dirty jokes. Thought of them as a phoney type of people, and was forcing thier manhood on him.

http://www.angelfire.com/zine/timetraveler/avatars/1234.jpg

Hawks wanted to cast Clift in Rio Bravo, but he refused the part. He didn't want anything to do with that movie. Duke didn't work with Clift again. I don't think he liked Montgomery Cilft.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Hi Hondo:

Interesting to hear about Clift & Duke not enjoying each other on a personal level - and certainly not surprising. Clift was known for being extremely high-strung and hypersensitive and as I understand it was quite an insecure and unhappy person. I could see where someone with Duke's brand of masculinity would rub him the wrong way and vice versa.

Still, I am impressed that they carried the relationship on film off so well and managed to make it seem so genuine. That's what professionals do, I guess.

Jen

Jen,

The book I have did not mention anything on a personal level between Duke & Montgomery Clift. Usually when Duke finishes a movie, he stays in touch with his costars for years, but there was no mention of anything with Clift.

They did not do any projects again, or seen together. But the one thing that caught my attention was the fact that when he first started working with Cilft, he made the comment that his work ethic was different, and he was queer about things.

That is what drew me to the conclusion of their strained relationship throughout the shooting of Red River.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Hondo,

Hey, I really like your signature picture, and I got a kick out of your signature quote -

"If everything isn't black and white, I say why the hell not." - John Wayne quote

. . . and this, from a guy who really enjoys watching colorized John Wayne movies.

:rolleyes:

Chester

Hey Chester,

I guess I had to get with the game, I mean if Kevin did it, I have to do it, too.

At least, I know what a genuine movie is, and what a colorized version is. I go for the real thing! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers, Hondo B)

P.S. I copied your word. I'm not going through all that trouble. :lol:

Hondo,

Thanks for that information, I didnt know that there was tension between Clift and the Duke. Do you know of any particular events that would have highlighted this.

I know that politcally these two men at opposite ends but according to the IMDB web site it was agreed that they wouldn't discuss politics and filming went smoothly.

:agent:

Originally posted by Hondo Duke Lane@Aug 27 2003, 11:43 PM
According to the book, John Wayne: American, Clift didn't give Duke a good first impression.* He would not look Duke into his eye, and there was a size difference.* Hawks convienced Duke that this would work, he saw Clift's work on Broadway, and knew his poteintial.* When Duke saw the rushes, he confessed that he was wrong, but still worried about the fight scene, but Hawks still wanted Duke to trust him.* When the fight scene took place, it took four (4) days to shoot, but it did work.* Clift learned film technique from Hawks, and Duke.* Hawks had to tell Clift to not over play the scene with Duke, and finally realized how to play the part on screen.

Though Clift had a lot of respect to Hawks and Duke's professional abilities, he didn't like them at all on a personal ability.* Didn't like the playing cards, drinking, and telling dirty jokes.* Thought of them as a phoney type of people, and was forcing thier manhood on him.

Hawks wanted to cast Clift in Rio Bravo, but he refused the part.* He didn't want anything to do with that movie.* Duke didn't work with Clift again.* I don't think he liked Montgomery Cilft.

Cheers, Hondo** B)
Robbie,

In my quote above from an earlier post, I told where I got the information about Duke and Clift. As for the speculation concerning after the picture shoot, and could not find anything else in any meetings or appearances together after Red River, except when Hawks asked Clift to shoot "Dud" in Rio Bravo.

I like Dean Martin better and think that's what made that movie great.

The only other possible tie-in they could have is the relationship with Elizabeth Taylor. She was friends with Montgomery Clift until he died, and was a good friend with Duke. I think (of the top of my head) they were neighbors. I couldn't find any cross-reference with the three except that Taylor was good friends with both, but not together. I did the search in several books.

I didn't say there were tensions, but they had some conflicts in acting styles, but with director Howard Hawks, he seemed to work through that, and made the picture work well. Clift didn't like their life styles, and didn't associate with them socially.

Hope that answer's your question.

Cheers, Hondo B)

Thanks friends,
now it gives us a litlle light in the background. Now I will try to write a short story on my Website.

Dukes German Home (http://www.dukemorrison.de)

http://www.berlinernetz.de/wayne/images/highquality/thumbs/Piktogramm/9967-0017_jpg.jpg


Torsten
from good old Germany

Viery,

Could you put a copy of your article on this thread, so we may read what you will put on your web site. We'd love to see what you found out and reported. We are always interested in stories that our members put together from info they get from us.

Thanks in Advance
Cheers, Hondo B)

John Ireland's line to Montgomery Clift in ``Red River'': ``There are only two things more beautiful than a good gun--a Swiss watch, or a woman from anywhere. You ever had a Swiss watch?''

That's the whole "gay-subtext" deal in the movie...

Regaurdless of whatever it's still is one of my favorite Wayne flicks...

Remember, Hawks was a casting genius. The roles of Dunson vs. Matt were calling for a TENSION, which becomes evident even before Monty Clift steps into the role. From the very first scene with Matt we know there has to be a fight some day, and Tess says everybody can see they LOVE each other. A good director will cast accordingly. I don't think Hawks cast Clift because he sensed he was gay but because he was a Broadway actor and with that quite the contrary of JW's natural style. So he knew all along what he was creating with casting.
I always loved Tom Cruise's quote when asked about the "tension" between him and Brad Pitt on Interview with a Vampire. Everybody reported that the two stars were head to head on this one, and Cruise simply said: The script called for a tension between the two characters; and if anybody thought that two actors would not carry that around between shots understands nothing about movie-making.

So I would say the "tension" was just "nothing personal". When Monty earned his spurs working with the stuntmen, Wayne simply told Hawks "He'll do".

Hawks tried the same situation in The Big Sky, 2 or 3 years later, casting beauiful Dewey Martin (looks very much like Clift) along with Kirk Douglas (by the way, that film uses a scene Wayne did not want to do with Red River), and there is sexual tension between the men as well.

John T. Chance, is there something that I don't get about this gay subtext? I've read this before too and I don't get it. I realize there may be a correlation between "gun" and a certain part of the male anatomy, but I just don't see what else the rest of this has to do with sexuality. Is it because he doesn't ask him if he's ever had a woman, but asks instead about the Swiss watch?

:huh:

Well Jen, my take on it is that by making that statement Cherry is in essence acknowledging the fact that Matt is gay. By stating that the only thing better than a good gun is any women or a Swiss watch then asking Matt "Have you ever had a Swiss watch?" and not asking him "Have you ever had any women?" Cherry assumes that Matt has not had any women because he is gay so asking him would be a mute point. Why not just ask have you ever had either? The Screenwriters of the day had to be tricky when writing scenes with gays in them because back then people would absolutely freak out…

I personaly don’t care whether Matt is gay or not. This is still a fantastic movie.

I'm sorry that this irks you but it is fact that screenwriters going back 100 years have put gay subtext in thier movies and have readily admitted putting in subtext. I'm just simply acknowledging the fact that it does exist and that line is a direct sub-text in the movie. I myself really don't care one way or the other but if your saying there is no gay-subtext in this movie then I'm telling you that you are mistaking. ;)

TO READ THIS TOPIC YOU MUST BE 21

:lol:

The Gun – especially a Lawman’s – has indeed been used as a sexual symbol several times. I think director Anthony Mann used it to best effect in „The Man from Laramie“ when he has some badman shoot Jimmy Stewart’s gun-hand, crippling him – meaning: sexually disabling him, making him impotent. Volumes have been written about that. There are indications similar to the ones in „Red River“ found in John Sturges‘ „Warlock“ when gunfighter Anthony Quinn (himself handicapped – impotentely – by a crippled foot) admires Henry Fonda for being „the highest gun“. The two men have a fall-out over a woman – Fonda threatens Quinn to „leave him“ (!) and the two have to shoot it out. In the same movie, Richard Widmark, his gun-hand crippled, has to stand up against Henry Fonda. So there’s quite a lot of sexual sub-text going on – but only if you really want to look for it.

A provocative western was the 1961 film „The Last Sunset“ by Robert Aldrich in which it is indicated that Kirk Douglas is having an affair with a girl that could actually be his daughter.

On the other hand, when Sturges remade the Japanese „Seven Samurai“ into „Mag 7“, he did not use scenes from the original in which the samurais really admire their „long swords“ (phallus symbols) because he felt a colt is a much smaller thing and that would be ridiculous.

But to circle back to Red River: when Matt and Cherry shoot cans, it's also a sexual contest in "who's the best man", same when Kurt and Chips shoot bottles and will be sexual rivals over Dallas, in Hawks' later film.

Sure, there's gay subtext in lots of places. I guess I just don't see it in this movie. It doesn't leap out at me, that's for sure. That comment could also just be taken as a snide insult from Cherry - in other words, "I know you're not man enough to have had a woman." I've seen heterosexual guys tease each other this way before. And considering the fact that they're not the best of friends at this point in the movie, it's not impossible.

And what exactly is the point of putting in a gay subtext? Is it to appeal to Monty Clift the actor? Because the character Matthew Garth is clearly not gay - or if he is, he has a strange way of showing it falling in love with a woman. I realize they weren't about to feature a gay character in this movie, but even so... what is the point of it? Next someone's going to tell me that there is a man-boy love affair between Dunson & Garth - like there supposedly was between Shane & little Joey in another famous western.

The reason comments like this from critics (was it Roger Ebert who pointed it out?) irk me is because often I feel they are wholly unfounded. Often I feel that they are latched onto by people who want to believe that they are there. I was an English Lit major in college, and essentially what you do as a lit major is look for symbols. Believe me, I know how to look for symbols. :) Sometimes I think they're legitimate. Other times, a rose ain't nothin' more than a rose.

Anyway, thanks for further explaining the comment to me. We certainly agree about one thing - it's one of my favorite Wayne flicks too!

Cheers! :)

I'm with Jen on this one.

What was the point in inputting this line about the swiss watch when Matt is clearly hetrosexual. If it was a gay subtext wouldn't Duke or Hawks have picked up on it these men were not stupid.

I know that John T Chnace has already explained the line but I still dont understand it.

What can people make of this line in Sand Of Iwo Jima from the Duke which he says to a numer of men "I'm going to ride you into the ground" like this could easily be interprutted wrong.

Roland sorry but it will be a while before I'm 21 but I still took a look at your post sorry ;)

I have a few questions.

Regarding "The Man From Laramie" Stewart shot the other man in the hand in a shootout although he was trying to kill him and when Stewart was captured the man got his revenge by shooting Stewart in the hand I feel there is no gay subtext here.

Secondly do you not feel that in prefernece to there being gay subtexts in the movies you mentioned do you not feel that it was simply the innocence of the time.

Thats just my opinion I could be wrong and I am not trying to say that I'm right and you all are wrong.

Red River is one brilliiant movie thats a line with little interpretation needed.

:agent:

You know something. I guess people will get out of a movie what they want, and film makers will try to convey any kind of message they want to also. I look for symbols also, but I am a simple kind of person. I am not into abstract art, I'm into art that is clear without trying to figure it out. I guess that is what my mind is all about.

I saw Pulp Fiction, and they tell me that it's an abstract movie, alright I agree with that, but I really didn't get it. I only saw it once, and really don't want to see it again. It didn't tell me a story, that's my opinion! Though it's in the top 100 of AFI's all time great movies (who'd figure), I wouldn't put it in my top one million (My opinion).

When the Star Wars trilogy came out in the '70's, there were some who tried to put Christian Symbols into this movie, like the three representing The Father, The Son, & The Holy Ghost (That is Ben Obi-Wan Kenobi, Darth Vader and Yoda). George Lucas denied any of that. I just enjoyed that movie, and didn't want to put too much into it.

Red River might be one of those movies, but I enjoy the value of this movie, and will leave this up to those who want to read what they want to read into this. Movies are for entertainment, and I am entertained by their climax and not symbols, especially those that are hidden that film makers like to convey.

I watch for the message and not the hidden contex.

Cheers, Hondo B)

I think you've got the right attitude, Hondo.

Even if you are someone who likes to look for symbols, most people don't notice them until they've seen a movie lots and lots of times and really until they're making a point of looking for them. You've got to enjoy the basic message first.

Hey, this reminds me of something I want to ask about The Quiet Man. I think I'll start a new thread for it, though.

Are there symbols in Films? Are they meant to be there? And do they MEAN anything?
YES!
In a film by Ford or Hawks, for instance, or the others, like Hitchcock or Mann, nothing is coincidence. Just think how long it takes to set up a shot, to even write the script... the motion picture is a big canvas on which the painters of the seventh art work basically with the same elements as a painter would: using the visuals as symbols.

Ever heard of the „psychological“ Western? It has been there for a long time, it came into his own after WWII, and Red River is one of the very first of this sub-genre. That’s when the western became „adult“, when the characters had psychological debt, when you in fact could psychoanalyze that: One can’t deny the psychological western was a sub-genre in his own right, you can’t deny that there was a sub-genre like the Italo-western either, whether you liked it or not.

Ford, being the Catholic that he was, used a lot of Christian symbols to deepen the characters. Just a few examples that come to mind:
When Pedro approaches the wagon in „3 Godfathers“: he is framed by the round wagon top, giving his character relegious depth. In Ethan’s first scene inside the house, there is the wooden cross of the ceiling directly over his head. First: it is not seen again in the whole picture after that, composed like that,. Second: this set was built on soundstage, and sets are mostly constructed without ceiling (the lights need space. How often do you get to see the roof in a scene?) So: the cross, the most Christian of symbols, over Ethan’s head, and shooting from a low angle to have it there, is surely not conicidental, don’t you think? Certainly the framing of doors, caves and tents in that picture has to mean something, no?

What makes me sad if someone is saying: there are no symbols. For me, that’s basically a step backwards. When critics reviewed those films they overlooked the depth of these films, rather turning to pictures like Citizen Kane where you would expect things like that, dismissing the great westerns for what they were considered at that time: just another John Wayne western. Those films have been denied the praise and awards they should have gotten. We should not be so careless to dismiss them today as they were dismissed when first released: just as pure entertainment. A lot of time went by. In the meantime, with the writings of noted film historians, those films finally were considered the masterpieces they are. Entertain they do, indeed – but under that surface there is more to explore.

About Red River, think about the following:
Matt’s character in Borden Chase’s orginal story was more of a he-man. Under Hawks‘ direction, Matt is really the female part in contrast to Dunson’s „male“. Dunson’s cow was killed (his girl was killed), Matt brought the cow. And the large herd was bred by a steer and a cow. In all love scenes with Tess, Matt is the passive one (also in the composition of the shot – she is dominant). Dunson gives the bracelet to his girl. Then he gives it to his adopted son – and he gives it to a girl again. Being good with a gun is indeed a sexual symbol in this film (that doesn’t mean you could use it that way in every film concerning guns). Dunson is getting old and slower with a gun while Matt and Cherry (not Jerry – Cherry) have a shooting contest – and a contest over the girl. Dunson threatens Matt to take the gun – manhood - away from him, later on gives him a gun – and he in the end wants to take it away again. Matt is good with a gun, but he is „too soft“.
So – does all that mean Matt is gay or that there is something going on between Dunson and his son? NO! Yak! Of course it doesn’t. Symbols are meant to be symbols. Let’s not be afraid of them – they don’t turn upside down what we already know from the plot and can take for granted. They are rather meant to be seen in metaphysic proportions. But dismissing them means dismissing a masterpiece for plain entertainment. Now I’m not saying that everybody who happens to think he saw a „hidden“ sign is right. They didn’t decay it, you know.

Yes, for what it's worth, symbols are there, like it or lump it, whether the creator intended them or not. Once an artist releases one of their creations to the world, it becomes fair game - open to all sorts of interpretation. Actually, I think westerns are some of the most symbolic and creative films made.

I guess we just can't get bent out of shape one way or the other if we disagree about interpreting symbolism or deeper meaning, and my last point was that on initial viewings, a person isn't going to be able to do much more than follow the story. Without being able to ask John Ford or Howard Hawks or whoever what their intent was, it all becomes a matter of personal interpretation anyway.

Really I was reacting to the statement John T. Chance made when he said that Cherry is acknowledging the fact that Matt is gay. This I think is going too far. There simply isn't evidence to support this, IMO.

Btw, what does the name Cherry Valance symbolize? ;) A sidenote, for those who have seen or read the teen classic The Outsiders - Diane Lane plays a girl named Cherry Valance.

I will never deny that there are messages in films. I have read many interpretations and found myself saying, "Hmmm. Never caught that one!". I guess I am a little slow on picking them up. I guess you can find symbolism in many things if that is what you look for. I wonder, Itdo, did you pick up these symbols in The Three Godfathers, or were they pointed out to you. My hat's off to you for taking deeper meanings out of films. I miss most of them. I know I will start looking for more of these now that I know most of Duke's movies well. Thanks for explaining these to me. I learn more and more every day through this group. That is the pleasure I look foward to here. Dukefan1

itdo,

You bring a depth and perspective to this board that is rare. It's one of the things that make this place so enjoyable.

I agree with Jen that the first time you watch a movie, it is all you can do to just become acquainted with the characters and follow the story line (I can't even always do that - one reason I really like having it on VHS or DVD - I can rewind, or even watch it again). However, upon subsequent viewings, many other things can be discovered.

For me, anyway, deep symbolism is lost. When it is pointed out, I will be watching for it, but I'm simple-minded in that way. I'm not likely to see it unless it so obvious it would be like a hammer in the head :headbonk: .

I appreciate your views so much, itdo!

Mrs. C

When you had a director like Hitchcock, it would of course be much easier - for he was willing to sit down with Truffaut and point it all out in an interview that became a whole book! So directors really DID give away those symbols and what they intended. But then "Pappy" Ford - he not only led interviewers to believe he really never thought about it... he even told his crewmembers to shut up talking about films (one had to pay a penalty when talking cinema on a Ford-set). So it's sad but it's really Ford himself who was a mighty obstacle in getting him the praise he so deserves.

A LOT of writing has been done about those films (see the post JOHN WAYNE BOOKS - and, hey, thanks for pinning that one), so you really can go with the film theorists - they mostly agree on some points. But keep your own point of view. The interpretation of art and the artist is never just one opinion. Myself, I feel these symbols have been put in to help you and the plot along UN-concious (like the framing of Pedro with the wagon-top to give you the feeling he's very religious - that helps character development and gives a character more than he is actually doing or saying in the film). It might be interesting to start a new topic with SYMBOLS and what you think they could mean. It won't be an easy discussion, I'm sure! But let's give it a start right now. I'm writing down just a couple that come to mind.

Oh yes, the difference between "Cherry" and "Jerry"? simple, it's rather a girl's name. So even though it's pronounced pretty much the same, they used this name in the script to make a difference: to indicate the relationship Cherry/Matt and a sexual contest.

Now before I get carried away and even though I love film theory I think we all agree it can go too far. Get this:

http://www.latimes.com/features/printediti...ol28jul13.story (http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-filmschool28jul13.story)

I went and read that article you linked to, Itdo. I was left feeling....well...confused. I even said "huh?" aloud a few times. Way above my head. Thanks for sharing that with us. Dukefan1

Well, reading the loooooooooooooooooooong article, I guess I got out of it what I already knew before I read that article. That is "OUR TAX DOLLARS IN THE UNITED STATES AT WORK!"

I am outraged at what our youths are learning from the communist, and we keep hearing that we are not giving enough of our money to teach them, though we as a nation are giving more money from the federal government than ever in U.S. history compared to the rest of the world, and over 50% of the budget. They were given over $746 billion in 2001-2002 year, and only about $127 billion for defense the same year. Yet I hear that is too much, but what about the education? They are not accountable for our money?

I know that is not the topic, but I am upset at the fact that we are degrading values for other methods of learning. Duke would be pissed off right now at the way we teach our children, grandchildren, etc.

Cheers, Hondo B)

You said a mouthful! B) I work in a huge state research university and I can tell you right now it's one liberal environment. I don't have anything against liberals on a personal level; I know a lot of them and some of them are truly kind people. But I can tell you I don't care for a lot of the liberal ideologies and I don't like that these ideologies are crammed into college kids' brains without the other side of the issue ever being presented. They supposedly believe in self-expression and the freedom to make up your own mind, but that only works for them if you express the views they want you to have.

Oh well. I suppose it's better not to talk about politics, huh? We don't want it to get all :angry: around here. ;) I sure hope I haven't offended anyone.