Customer Reviews

Red River (BFI Film Classics)

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Buy this book.

The previous reviewer counseled the opposite. He then went on to say some things about this book that either missed the point or ignored its many virtues. Yes, there are some extremely minor inaccuracies. I'll add one. She writes that in MONKEY BUSINESS that Cary Grant concocted the formula that caused so much mischief, whereas in fact one of the chimpanzees did. But nitpicking on some details like this is dancing around inessentials.

Like with the best books in the BFI Film Classics, this one provides numerous insights into a great film. With regard to Howard Hawks, we have an embarrassment of riches in the series. Robin Woods wrote one on Hawks's other great Western, RIO GRANDE, and there are also books on BRINGING UP BABY and THE BIG SLEEP. Hopefully there will be others.

Suzanne Liandrat-Guigues is French so her field of reference is a tad more continental than the other books in the series. Perhaps the earlier reviewer found this off putting. But if one has read much in film theory her continental orientation should present no difficulty.

She presents a host of insights into the film. For instance, by suggesting that the character of Dunston represents something of a turning point in the history of the Western, as representing the first morally ambiguous lead character found in the genre. She is also superb at highlighting some of the visual aspects of the film. There are also some interesting insights about some of the odder aspects of the film, such as the last minute jettisoning of the narration of Walter Brennan in favor of a series of handwritten intertitles that do not add any content to the film.

So if you are looking for a solid discussion of the Western in general and Howard Hawks and one of his two greatest Westerns in particular, you should absolutely get this and read it.

The short review: Do not buy this book.

The long review: If you hope to find an analysis and some real inside information on this classic western, you will be severely disappointed. Not only does it lack the kind of critical thinking about what makes this a classic, but also it commits the most serious kind of error - it gets the facts wrong. Did Ms. Liandrat-Guigues watch the same movie I did? She states twice that Dunson "murdered" the Mexican gunman. I believe, even in France, that Dunson would have been allowed to shoot in self-defense. It is clear from watching the movie that the Mexican is shown drawing his pistol, then Dunson is shown drawing his pistol and killing him. Which gives rise to another clear factual error - She states that Dunson kills Cherry Valence. I believe if she had bothered to watch the movie, she would see that Dunson shoots Cherry, but that Valence is still looking at Dunson as he walks off.

There is no evidence of any real research for this "essay" as she calls it and certainly no interesting "inside" information. For an example of how a movie analysis should be written, I highly recommend the BFI Film Classic for Shane.