High Noon vs. Rio Bravo
Talk to any impassioned, ahead-of-the-curve film snob about classic westerns, and he/she will probably tell you that Howard Hawks‘ Rio Bravo (1959) is a much better, more substantial film than Fred Zinneman‘s High Noon (1952). More deeply felt, they’ll say. Better shoot-em-up swagger, tastier performances, more likable, more old-west iconic. Many people I know feel this way. And now here‘s director Peter Bogdanovich saying it again in a New York Observer piece — Rio Bravo is even better than you thought, High Noon doesn’t hold up as well, etc.
Something snapped when I read Peter’s article this afternoon. Goddamn it, the Rio Bravo cult has gone on long enough. Bogdanovich calls it “a life-affirming, raucous, profound masterpiece” I’m going to respond politely and call that a reach. I admire Hawks’ movies and the whole Hawks ethos as much as the next guy, but it’s time to end this crap here and now.
High Noon may seem a bit stodgy or conventional to some and perhaps not as excitingly cinematic to the elites, but it’s a far greater film than Rio Bravo.
It’s not about the Old West, obviously — it’s a metaphor movie about the Hollywood climate in the early ’50s — but it walks and talks like a western, and is angry, blunt, honed and unequivocal to that end. It’s about the very worst in people, and the best in a single, anxious, far-from-perfect man. I’m speaking of screenwriter-producer Carl Foreman, who was being eyeballed by the Hollywood right for alleged Communist ties when he wrote it, and receiving a very tough lesson in human nature in the process. He wound up writing a crap-free movie that talks tough, cuts no slack and speaks with a single voice.
You know from the get-go that High Noon is going to say something hard and fundamental about who and what we are. It’s not going to poke along some dusty trail and go yippie-ki-yay and twirl a six-gun. It’s going to look you in the eye and say what’s what, and not just about the political and moral climate in some small western town that Gary Cooper‘s Willl Kane is the sheriff of.
Both are about a lawman facing up to bad guys who will kill him if he doesn’t arrest or kill them first. The similarities pretty much end there.
High Noon is about facing very tough odds alone, and how you can’t finally trust anyone but yourself because most of your “friends” and neighbors will equivocate or desert you when the going gets tough. Rio Bravo is about standing up to evil with your flawed but loyal pallies and nourishing their souls in the bargain — about doing what you can to help them become better men. This basically translates into everyone pitching in to help an alcoholic (Dean Martin) get straight and reclaim his self-respect. High Noon doesn’t need help. It’s about solitude, values…four o’clock in the morning courage.
We’d all like to have loyal supportive friends by our side, but honestly, which represents the more realistic view of human nature? The more admirable?
The first 10 or 12 minutes of Rio Bravo, I freely admit, are terrific in the way Hawks introduces character and mood and a complex situation without dialogue. Let it be clearly understood there is nothing quite like this in all of High Noon. I also love the way John Wayne rifle-butts a guy early on and then goes, “Aww, I didn’t hurt him.” But once the Duke and Walter Brennan, Martin, Ricky Nelson and Angie Dickinson settle into their routines and the easy-going pace of the thing, Rio Bravo becomes, at best, a somewhat entertaining sit-around-and-talk-and-occasionally-shoot-a-bad-guy movie.
More than anything else, Rio Bravo just ambles along. Wayne and the guys hang out in the jailhouse and talk things over. Wayne walks up to the hotel to bark at (i.e., hit on) Dickinson. It tries to sell you on the idea of the big, hulking, 51 year- old Wayne being a suitable romantic match for Dickinson, who was willow slender and maybe 27 at the time but looking more like 22 or 23.
Plus the villains have no bite or flavor — they’re shooting gallery ducks played by run-of-the-mill TV actors. Most of Rio Bravo is lit too brightly. And it seems too colorfully decorated, like some old west tourist town. It has a dippy “downtime” singing sequence that was thrown in to give Nelson and Martin, big singers at the time, a chance to show their stuff. Then comes the big shootout at the end that’s okay but nothing legendary.
Does Rio Bravo have a sequence that equals the gripping metronomic ticking-clock montage near the end of High Noon? Is the dialogue in Rio Bravo up to the better passages in Zinneman’s film? No. (There’s nothing close to the scene between Cooper and Lon Chaney, Jr., or the brief one between Cooper and Katy Jurado.) Is there a moment in Rio Bravo that comes close to Cooper throwing his tin star into the dust at the end? Is there a “yes!” payoff moment in Rio Bravo as good as the one in High Noon when Grace Kelly, playing a Quaker who abhors violence, drills one of the bad guys in the back?
Floyd Crosby‘s High Noon photography is choice and precise and gets the job done. It doesn’t exactly call attention to itself, but it’s continually striking and well-framed. To me, the black-and-white images have always seemed grittier and less Hollywood “pretty” than Russell Harlan‘s lensing in Rio Bravo, which I would file under “pleasing and acceptable but no great shakes.”
Dimitri Tomkin wrote the scores for both High Noon and Rio Bravo, but they don’t exist in the same realm. The Bravo score is settled and kindly, a sleepy, end-of-the-day campfire score. High Noon‘s is strong, pronounced, “dramatic” — so clear and unified it’s like a character in itself. And I’ve never gotten over the way the rhythm in that Tex Ritter song, “Do Not Forsake Me O My Darling,” sounds like a heartbeat.
Bogdanovich writes that Rio Bravo didn’t win any Oscars or get much critical respect, but “it was far more popular with audiences than High Noon.” He’s right about this. The IMDB says Rio Bravo earned $5,750,000 in the U.S. when it came out in ’59, and that High Noon brought in $3,750,000 when it played in ’52. Big effin’ deal. High Noon whipsRio Bravo‘s ass in every other respect.
That said, there’s an intriguing Hawks assessment by French director Jean-Luc Godard in the Bogdanovich piece. Godard doesn’t argue that Rio Bravo is pretty much what I’ve described above, but says it’s still a better film than High Noon because — I love Jean-Luc Godard — the exceptionally good things in Rio Bravo can be ignored, and therefore may be unnoticable to a good-sized portion of the audience.
“The great filmmakers always tie themselves down by complying with the rules of the game,” he states. “Take, for example, the films of Howard Hawks, and in particular Rio Bravo. That is a work of extraordinary psychological insight and aesthetic perception, but Hawks has made his film so that the insight can pass unnoticed without disturbing the audience that has come to see a Western like all others. Hawks is the greater because he has succeeded in fitting all he holds most dear into a well-worn subject.”
remember back when people that enjoyed a older film created cult buzz around it to get attention to the movie. Nowadays it isn’t good enough just to create buzz for your film – you have to blast someone else’s favorite movie. Did the cult of Bogart exist by bitch slapping the films of James Cagney. Does Peter think in terms of the Larry King-ism “if you only see one Western movie in your entire life let it be Rio Bravo and not that sucky High Noon?” Although if I have guests over from Iceland and they want to see a Western, I’m pulling out Wild Bunch.
I remember reading on Ebert’s website that he was thinking about including High Noon in his Great Films series but, after seeing the film again in order to write a fresh review, he decided that it wasn’t that good after all. I know he wasn’t happy about the film being included in AFI’s recent 100 best list.
Speaking of classic films, apparently the New Beverly is back in action. I wish I could have
Minus the last part.
It’s not often I agree with Wells, si I have to say it: right on with the comments.
I would take The Searchers over either of these any day and Red River as the Wayne/Hawks collaboration that’s my favorite.
Rio Bravo reminds me of the Hawks of Hatari or it is at least on that path.
I always thought that Zinneman was under-appreciated, mostly because of his precision in making movies that some people think makes his movies cold and without passion, but which I really love.
Day of the Jackel. The Man For All Seasons. These are classics. Heck, I even like 5 Days One Summer, but I admit I haven’t seen it in 20 years.
Though he opens with a put down of High Noon, the rest of it is mainly just another appreciation of Rio Bravo from a long time Hawks booster. It’s too bad PB had to frame it in a way that tries to detract from the Zinneman film, but that’s exactly what his hero Hawks had done.
PB is still stuck in the 60′s trying to rehabilitate Hawks’ image as an artist even though it’s not really necessary anymore.
Is it ok to like both for different reasons?
I haven’t seen High Noon in years but always find it a tad stodgy, while Rio Bravo, though flawed, is always fun. Rio Bravo is often cited by directors and screenwriters as a favorite, serving as an inspiration for Carpenter’s Assault on Precinct 13. Truffaut and Robert Benton are among its fans. Hatari, a real bore, was cited by Spielberg as influence on J. Park.
High Noon wins hands down. The haunting score. The classic plotline. The glorious editing and B&W cinematography. Capping it all off: Gary Cooper’s wonderfully nuanced and humane performance as Will Kane.
Rio Bravo is great and all, but, hell, I prefer El Dorado to Rio Bravo.
“High Noon is about facing very tough odds alone, and how you can’t finally trust anyone but yourself because most of your “friends” and neighbors will equivocate or desert you when the going gets tough.”
That explains why Wells relates to HIGH NOON so much more than RIO BRAVO. I suppose if you’re a jerk who’s dismissive of others the way Wells is, you wouldn’t have too many people standing with you when the going gets tough.
I hate that Tex Ritter song that plays over and over again during the film, and I can’t stand Gary Cooper. I’d take OUTLAND over HIGH NOON, for chrissakes.
I agree with Reedyb. The Searchers is infinitely better than Rio Bravo which is a Hollywood western, unbelievable by almost any standard, just entertaining fluff. High Noon on the other hand tackles real problems but is so godawful in the way in which it hits you over the head with its obviousness that it makes Shane look good. Hawks was handcuffed by the ridiculous casting of Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson.
Jeff, I’m confused, I thought that you were one of the ‘elites’?
However, I do agree completely with your evaluation of ‘High Noon’ and your preference of it over ‘Rio Bravo’.
“I hate that Tex Ritter song that plays over and over again during the film, and I can’t stand Gary Cooper.”
Wow. Couldn’t disagree more. I adore Tex Ritter’s voice and “Do Not Forsake Me” is one of the great movie songs.
High Noon ends well, though in doing so completely betrays its characters (specifically Grace Kelly). It’s very simplistic, and has a not-to-well hidden commentary. It also is loaded to bear with wrote and cliched characters, who – as Robin Wood noted – are played by actors straining. The ticking clock devise manages to add tension to otherwise route sequences, but on repeat viewing, it really is all about the opening and closing sequences.
The reason why the two are compared is as Bogdanovich said, Hawks hated Noon and took the concept and turned it on its ear. Bravo’s a mellow film, but I’d trade the ticking clock for Dude’s shakedown of the bar, and the bloody glass of beer. Also, there is no performance in High Noon as great as Walter Brennan’s Stumpy. “Nothing in his stomach, nothing but guts.” But I must also admit I think RB is one of the finest Hollywood achievements. It’s probably the nature of certain temperments, but Hawks always does it for me, he’s my favorite director.
“High Noon on the other hand tackles real problems but is so godawful in the way in which it hits you over the head with its obviousness that it makes Shane look good.”
Makes Shane look good?? Shane is one of the all time greats! Have I somehow crash landed on Bizarro-world?
I also prefer El Dorado to Rio Bravo. All the performances are equal to or better than Rio Bravo, and it’s a leaner picture.
I’ve always been annoyed by people/critics who feel the need to tear down a much better known product to elevate another one. Usually this is done to show us how much smarter the person is than we are.
I’ve noticed this for example lately when the subject of 1967 is brought up. (40th anniversary of Summer of Love and all)
Yes, I know the 13th Floor Elevators put out a great record and I know that DaCapo by Love is a masterpiece and thanks for pointing out how bright you are for appreciating the greatness of Moby Grape but there is NO FUCKING WAY IN HELL they blow away Sgt. Pepper.
Did you know the Old West was the Victorian Era in the U.S.?
Who’s the guy in the forground who’s hair folicles I can see?
El Dorado had Robert Mitchum, who was Dino’s equal in the humor department and far outdid him on the macho factor. Otherwise, the two pretty much amble along, like the Duke having a bunch of his pals around for a good time, which they interrupt every now and again to move the plot along a bit. Both movies are professional, competent works; whatever Wayne’s flaws, he made professional competent films, but they are not inspired.
High Noon is deceptively simple, beautifully photographed and edited, a marvel that knows just how long to go on, what to say and what not. There’s not a single wasted frame of film it it, and few title songs have captured the entire essence of a movie the way Do Not Forsake Me does.
While I am partial to the Wild Bunch as the best Western ever made, High Noon is not behind by much and is by far the best classical Western of all time.
I like them both, and arguing that one is better than the other is like saying you love one child more than the other … king lear aside, both of them have great songs also … my rifle my pony and me
Though he opens with a put down of High Noon, the rest of it is mainly just another appreciation of Rio Bravo from a long time Hawks booster. It’s too bad PB had to frame it in a way that tries to detract from the Zinneman film, but that’s exactly what his hero Hawks had done.
PB is still stuck in the 60′s trying to rehabilitate Hawks’ image as an artist even though it’s not really necessary anymore.
Is it ok to like both for different reasons?
So, Jeff, when are you going to talk about the fact that “The Simpsons” got better reviews than “Zodiac”?
Hey Wells:
Nice pompadour!
Go grease you bike.
Seven Men From Now is better than both of them.
So’s The Naked Spur and Ride the High Country.
Yeah, really this is a last gasp in the fighting of an old war left over from the 60s (thank God there’s none of that anywhere else on this site). The auteurists had to attack their prestige/message-picture adversaries head on in order to get appreciation for craftsmen like Hawks (let alone Budd Boetticher or Edgar Ulmer). In many ways they’re right, of course, the great performances and the keenest understanding of the medium are in movies that weren’t trying to sell a message or make a self-conscious statement, while so many of those big prestige pictures turn out to be portentous humbug.
But more than a few babies got thrown out with the bathwater; look at the directors relegated by Andrew Sarris to “less than meets the eye” and try to imagine a time when cinema was so rich that you could throw out the likes of Zinneman, Wyler, Kazan, Huston etc. in order to promote a full team of replacements like Hawks, Lang and Hitchcock. We could certainly do worse than rehabilitate a lot of them now.
It seems like Bogdanovich’s piece is an ad for “the deluxe edition of Rio Bravo (they interviewed me for the DVD featurette, which also has Hawks√¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢ voice from our interviews together)” and he tosses Fred Zinneman overboard because Hawks hated High Noon on account of Gary Cooper’s sheriff not doing his job! Wells shot that down.
I’ll take High Noon sight unseen. Still interested in who’s in the black and white 2-shot above.
Wells to Ogami Itto: “Outland” over “High Noon”? Good God.
Ditto on THE NAKED SPUR. Phenomenal film.
High Noon v. Rio Bravo…..good lordy!!!
there is a great article on Howard Hawks shooting Rio Lobo in a 1970 (?) TV Guide (Dick Cavett on the cover) by George Plimpton who was an extra on the set and writes about that experience … there is also a great Bogdanovich TV Guide article on the western (maybe its the show Virginian) in a 1967 issue (?) that has Peyton Place on the cover ….
I think both “High Noon” and “Rio Bravo” are great. But, as Mgmax said, “Seven Men From Now” and “The Naked Spur” are phenomenal (as is “Ride the High Country” — now there’s a movie that ends when its over). When are we gonna start a parade for Anthony Mann and Budd Boetticher(not to mention screenwriter/director Burt Kennedy)? And “El Dorado”, man, ABC used to show that all the time on their old Sunday Night at the Movies and it never failed to entertain. Just a really fun movie.
berg, I’m getting used to your videos delivering. Who else doesn’t think Wells should give a shred of webspace to The Simpsons?
RIO BRAVO is better than EL DORADO.
dean martin is great in RL. so is john wayne kissing stumpy. angie dickinson is hot and cool. and i love that rugged individualists like the duke and hawks made movies praising collective action.
but christopher george is a great bad guy in ED. or is that the third remake with james caan…
i guess i should watch HIGH NOON. i..uh…ain’t seen it.
but i can attest that i have seen OUTLAND.
a bad movie with great sean connery/frances sternhagen roles.
but i can attest that i have seen OUTLAND.
a bad movie with great sean connery/frances sternhagen roles.
Ye Gods, this argument is still going on? I agree with Walter that tearing down one to butter up another is pointless and wrong. I do admit from the start of the article I expected Wells to be among those carrying the sword for RIO BRAVO, but while it’s nice he’s defending HIGH NOON, I think both are brilliant. Zinnemann’s film is tightly plotted and suspenseful, and I thought Cooper was brilliant. Hawks’ movie is what I would call a hangout movie, where you just sit back and enjoy all the characters. The relationship between Wayne and Martin is terrific, as are the ones between Wayne and Angie Dickinson, and Wayne and Ricky Nelson. It’s a lot of fun.
And I also love THE WILD BUNCH, THE SEARCHERS, and RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY. I’ve never seen SEVEN MEN FROM NOW, unfortunately, though I hope to catch up to it one of these days.
“Seven Men From Now” is one of those movies that gathers a powerful emotional momentum as it moves along and never lets up (and I think that it’s all of 90 mins. long.) I saw it for the first time a few months ago and now I feel it is a must see movie. I didn’t know what the title meant until the movie started and once that sunk in…”Seven Men From Now” & “Ride The High Country” crystalize that line from “Blazing Saddles”, “You’d do it for Randolph Scott.” (“Randolph Scott!”)
Seven Men From Now is better than both of them.
So’s The Naked Spur and Ride the High Country.
Yeah, really this is a last gasp in the fighting of an old war left over from the 60s (thank God there’s none of that anywhere else on this site). The auteurists had to attack their prestige/message-picture adversaries head on in order to get appreciation for craftsmen like Hawks (let alone Budd Boetticher or Edgar Ulmer). In many ways they’re right, of course, the great performances and the keenest understanding of the medium are in movies that weren’t trying to sell a message or make a self-conscious statement, while so many of those big prestige pictures turn out to be portentous humbug.
But more than a few babies got thrown out with the bathwater; look at the directors relegated by Andrew Sarris to “less than meets the eye” and try to imagine a time when cinema was so rich that you could throw out the likes of Zinneman, Wyler, Kazan, Huston etc. in order to promote a full team of replacements like Hawks, Lang and Hitchcock. We could certainly do worse than rehabilitate a lot of them now.
I prefer Rio Bravo myself, but it is kind of nice to see someone standing up for High Noon. But I don’t see why you can’t like both films, even if Hawks did intend for Rio Bravo to be the antithesis of High Noon.
I admire High Noon, but it has a sort of cold atmosphere that I can’t really love. Rio Bravo is such a warm-hearted movie that it is easy to love. So many revered Westerns are dark affairs that I don’t see why there can’t be a classic feel-good Western. Both films represent aspects of human nature and I don’t see how one viewpoint is more admirable than the other.
Isn’t RIO BRAVO the prequel to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?
I haven’t seen High Noon in years, so I won’t comment on it. I understand the argument, but why anyone, even Bogdanovich, is still writing about it surprises me. My enjoyment of Rio Bravo comes less from that argument than just simply my appreciation for the way that it dabbles and combines successfully in many of the genres that Hawks worked in.
Of course, there’s only really one good way to settle this dispute among a group of grown men. Debate who was hotter — Grace Kelly or Angie Dickinson.
As others have indicated, part of the problem is that in the 50s Zinneman, Stevens, Wyler, Kazan, etc. were making films that appealed to middlebrow tastes while Hawks, Ford, Hitchcock, Boetticher, Mann, Hathaway, Fuller were making mainly genre films that didn’t hit us over the head with their importance. Others, like Wilder and Minnelli, played both sides. These genre films remain fun and are often art, while the more the work of the more “respectable” directors seems more dated, less energetic, and, worst of all, too often preachy. Look at most of the films nominated as best picture in the 50s and notice how many are self-satisfied civics lessons posing as entertainment/art. That said, I love Day of the Jackal, and the Nun’s Story is pretty good. The other Zinnemanns don’t hold up to repeated viewings. Of course, my favorite genres are film noir and screwball comedy, so what do I know?
“Seven Men From Now is better than both of them.
So’s The Naked Spur and Ride the High Country.”
Three seriously underrated movies; I saw “The Naked Spur” for the first time about a month ago and loved it.
In defense of “Outland” (whose basic plot is based on High Noon), Connery and Sternhagen are great, as is Peter Boyle. Both movies are pretty lousy, though for different reasons (IMHO).
“Isn’t RIO BRAVO the prequel to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?”
If you think that, just wait till you see Red River. “I was kinda admirin’ the look of his gun.”
“That said, I love Day of the Jackal, and the Nun’s Story is pretty good.”
I quite agree, and would add A Man For All Seasons, the chilliest, most Stalinist Olde Englande movie ever made. (I don’t mean that Zinnemann was a Stalinist, but that the movie draws clear parallels to contemporary prisoners of conscience in Communist countries like Cardinal Mindszenty.) By the way, watch The Nun’s Story again and tell me it wasn’t the model for the first half of Full Metal Jacket, down to depersonalization through head-shaving and the rigidly gridded compositions in the ceremony where she becomes a nun.
“I admire High Noon, but it has a sort of cold atmosphere that I can’t really love. Rio Bravo is such a warm-hearted movie that it is easy to love.”
I think one of the problems with High Noon– and to some extent with Shane, too– is that the filmmakers don’t really love the western genre and don’t feel at home in it; they use it as a vehicle for a statement, and do so skillfully, but they’re not happy to be there like Ford or Hawks are.
Yeah! Fight that fight, Wells!
Seriously, though, I think Godard has it most right: that High Noon and Rio Bravo are similarly serious works about complex and important issues at heart, but, as much as I love HN (and I do – that music and editing and Cooper’s sweaty desperation are great), RB is ultimately a greater film because it’s a serious work of art _and_ a piece of mass-market mainstream entertainment at the same time. It’s a lot more than just an entertaining piece of fluff.
“Isn’t RIO BRAVO the prequel to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?”
If you think that, just wait till you see Red River. “I was kinda admirin’ the look of his gun.”
“That said, I love Day of the Jackal, and the Nun’s Story is pretty good.”
I quite agree, and would add A Man For All Seasons, the chilliest, most Stalinist Olde Englande movie ever made. (I don’t mean that Zinnemann was a Stalinist, but that the movie draws clear parallels to contemporary prisoners of conscience in Communist countries like Cardinal Mindszenty.) By the way, watch The Nun’s Story again and tell me it wasn’t the model for the first half of Full Metal Jacket, down to depersonalization through head-shaving and the rigidly gridded compositions in the ceremony where she becomes a nun.
“I admire High Noon, but it has a sort of cold atmosphere that I can’t really love. Rio Bravo is such a warm-hearted movie that it is easy to love.”
I think one of the problems with High Noon– and to some extent with Shane, too– is that the filmmakers don’t really love the western genre and don’t feel at home in it; they use it as a vehicle for a statement, and do so skillfully, but they’re not happy to be there like Ford or Hawks are.
@Mgmax:This is what Hawks said when confronted with the gay interpretastion “I′d say it′s a goddam silly statement to make. It sounds like a homosexual speaking. People attribute all kinds of meanings and everything”. Quted after McBride, Joseph: Howard on Hawks. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982, p. 147
He can say that, but the movie is what it is.
“Pull my joint, Spike.” — a title in Hawks’ silent A Girl In Every Port (1928)
He can say that, but the movie is what it is.
“Pull my joint, Spike.” — a title in Hawks’ silent A Girl In Every Port (1928)
While I don’t even think Rio Bravo is Hawks’ best western (that would be Red River–my favorite of all time), I must have seen it 25 or 30 times. I don’t plan to watch it, it’s just on TV and before you know it, I’ve seen it again.
High Noon, on the other hand, as short as it is, I can’t get through. It’s so stuffed with self-importance, and is shot with such tired Hollywood cliches of “class,” that it’s stifling (as are most Zinneman films–Sarris was right).
The 50s were filled with westerns weighted with too much significance, and High Noon helped kick off that unfortunate trend. Rio Bravo, in addition to being a lot of fun, and having surprising depth, was a useful corrective to Hollywood middlebrow masquerading as highbrow.
RIO BRAVO is one of my three favorite movies, period. Everything else is swimming in its wake. A movie doesn’t have to be “about something” to be a masterpiece.