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 >