I ahve little to add to this thread, except this. I thought Tombstone
deserved a lot of credit for taking chances. The Latin argument, for
example, the flourish with the gun and the drinking cup. There were  alot
of times when I felt that the movie went out on a limb.
BTW is there any historical basis for the Latin argument other than that
Doc was an educated man.
MBennett (Latin teacher)
 
 
On Thu, 1 Sep 1994, Gerald Forshey wrote:
 
> Stephen O'Riordan <[log in to unmask]> says in discussing Tombstone and
> Wyatt Earp
>     ~Let us not Forget Ford's MY DARLING CLEMENTINE.  The touchstone for
>     ~all Earp Films.
>
>     This is one of my favorite films and one which I show to classes
> frequently, but it is of a different order than the others.  Scenes like
> Fonda playing foot tag with the pole, the dance at the church, Doc's
> operation on Rio, all tend toward myth.  The facts are unimportant.  Doc
> dies at the OK Corral, Wyatt heads off with his brother's body, etc.
>     Tombstone seems to me about revenge, and I think that is why it strikes
> such a deep chord in the American people.  It has little of the
> self-consciousness that Clint Eastwood brings to the topic.  It tends to
> seem like the normal reaction to a violation, much like the American mood
> when terrorists strike and there is no way to retaliate.  That kind of
> energy, the ability to control the world and get revenge in the name of
> justice, is a powerful myth and drives the last part of Tombstone in a crowd
> pleasing way.
>     On the other hand Wyatt Earp goes back to the mythologizing.  Wyatt,
> like Ford's Wyatt, is a family man, and the violation happens between the
> distorted families.  The Earp family is based on blood and the legalities of
> marriage (except for Wyatt), and the other is conceived in greed and power
> and passion.  They represent more the gangs in the urban centers than the
> classical savagery of the Western.  In Ford's Clementine,  they were the
> harbingers of civilization, and if civilization is to survive, the Clanton's
> dysfunctional family must be wiped out.  In Earp's world, as by the way in
> the real Tombstone, the continuing ambiguities of society--seen in Dances
> with Wolves and Unforgiven--make their way so that only the individual is
> capable of acting, and thus Wyatt's revenge has no moral quotient.
>     I think what disappointed me  is Costner.  He takes a lot of time with
> Wyatt, setting up the family, working through the conflicts, giving each of
> the family members time  to establish themselves with the audience in their
> moral ambiguity.  As such,  it is a  good effort.  But Costner himself is a
> limited actor, likeable as in Bull Durham, idealistic as in Dances, but more
> like the opaque characters of A Perfect Day and The Bodyguard.  In
> Eastwood's hands, he gives a solid performance, but in his own hands, he
> seems limited.  If he is going to be an interior actor, he needs to give
> gestures and signs of what is going on.  That doesn't happen in WE, and for
> that reason, the film comes off without the emotional charge that we expect
> in these films.
>         Gerald Forshey, Humanities Dept.
>         Daley College
>         City Colleges of Chicago
>