Universal Pictures released High Plains Drifter on 7 April 1973. It had a single showing premiere the day earlier in Los Angeles. Cinema International Corporation released it outside the United States over the following months.
Clint Eastwood directed the film — it was his second feature after Play Misty For Me. I like Eastwood as a director. He focuses on telling stories. And no one has pushed him as a great director. He is what most good directors are: competent. He doesn’t get in the way of the story. And that’s more than you can say about most of the directors who people fetishize.
It is a remarkable film. I love its supernatural foundation. Eastwood did this again roughly a decade later with Pale Rider. But I find that film insipid. And it is utterly dependent on the Eastwood legend. The big problem is that the screenplay is weak — little more than a series of tropes.
Ernest Tidyman wrote the screenplay for High Plains Drifter and that is why it works so well. It is wonderfully devoid of Christian theology. And at base, it’s a revenge story. But this ghost has not just come to kill them that killed him. He’s also there to teach the weak a lesson. (And yes! I could shoehorn that into the Bible!)
The cast is great in the film. If there is one weak member, it is Eastwood himself. He’s fine. But he doesn’t take the role as seriously as he should have. John Cassavetes would have been great in the part. But it is what it is.
So let’s celebrate the 53rd anniversary of the release of High Plains Drifter by watching it!
Other April 7th Anniversaries
Actors:
- RG Armstrong (1917-2012)
- James Garner (1928-2014)
- Andrew Sachs (1930-2016)
- Wayne Rogers (1933-2015)
- Ian Richardson (1934-2007)
- Jackie Chan (1954-)
- Russell Crowe (1964-).
Directors:
- Alan J Pakula (1928-1998)
- Francis Ford Coppola (1939-).
Misc:
- Stan Winston (1946-2008).
Films:
- King Kong (1933)
- The Thing From Another World (1951)
- The Mad Magician (1954)
- Captain Kronos: Vampire Hunter (1974)
- The Conversation (1974)
- The Bad News Bears (1976)
- Eat My Dust! (1976)
- Dawn of the Dead (1978)
- Cyborg (1989)
- Dead Calm (1989)
- Major League (1989)
- Kaw (2007)
- Bled (2009)
- Disturbed (2009)
- Murder Is Like Sex (2009).
High Plans Drifter (1973) poster via Wikipedia under Fair Use.
I just found a “horror” movie (more psychological thriller, there’s little blood) which does have theological undertones, that’s actually dang good. And I suspect you’d like it. It’s got one of those tricky scripts which hint at the real meaning, and then when it’s revealed at the end, you realize what all the hints were pointing towards. https://librarydvdlove.substack.com/p/frailty
The theological meaning is strictly Old Testament. And the point is, if we absorbed those values for real, it would be BAD. The only movie directed by Bill Paxton. With Powers Boothe from Deadwood; his creepiness is part of the plot. Cinematography by Bill Butler, who shot The Conversation.
Sounds interesting! I will definitely check it out!
But are you implying that horror films must have blood? Here’s another chance to plug The Awakening (2011)!
I only SUSPECT you’ll like it; don’t burn my house down if you don’t! But it’s definitely nothing I’ve ever seen before.
I just mention “psychological thriller” because Substack encourages me to put “tags” on everything, and I don’t even know what the point of that s**t is. So I have like 50 “tags” such as “psychological thriller” or “horror” or “social commentary” I slap on a post, and I don’t see how they help anything. (What movie ISN’T “social commentary”?)
About the only “tag” I like that I’ve come up with is “Awful Rich People.” I should probably create two more tags with “Yep, Christmas Is In It” (Christmas appears A LOT) and “Mood Rain.”
Guess what’s in the first scene of Frailty? Mood Rain. That’s OK, I accept it now. It’s just something I shout at the screen. Like, “Lone Pine!” whenever a movie was shot in Lone Pine.
I like Mood Rain — in reality if not in film.
I’ve been working in this industry for decades and I don’t know what tags do either. I like creating content. After that, I’m not much interested. I should become so but I’m pretty old…
I rarely dislike films. I just saw Martin McDonagh’s The Banshees of Inisherin. I really liked it before the fingers started coming off. I’m not sure what to make of the film. It’s a bit tiring these films that set up a very standard story and then subvert it in a major way. I get the impression it is done simply because the writer thinks they can’t do something standard. But if that’s the case, maybe start with something new? The film is good in its way. And I think it is trying to say something about war — especially civil war — brother fighting brother. But I had no sympathy for the Gleeson character. His outlook on life was presented as deep but was the thinking of a 12-year-old boy. And you don’t expect people to be other than they are. It’s like beating up a neurotic dog because it barks. The first half-hour is very funny. But the script overall is pretty sloppy — and very sloppy for McDonagh.
Certainly well shot and acted — Kerry Condon was great. I think the big flaw with the script was that McDonagh doesn’t know or care what the Irish Civil War was actually about. Ken Loach’s The Wind That Shakes the Barley does — some people thought the struggle for independence was betrayed if the same landlords and power structures were still in place. Loach clearly agrees with them, and STILL manages to show how terrible all civil wars are. But he’s a political grownup; McDonagh, despite his talent, is not.
He seems to be addicted to big statements on social issues he doesn’t understand. He’s done it about social issues in America, too. You live in London, dude. Write about English social issues you do understand. Or hell, how you landed an even more talented girlfriend 15 years younger than you.
I guess his next one is set/filmed on Easter Island? That might be alright. Oh wait… the 1973 Chilean coup is part of the plot. So McDonagh will teach us that the CIA was evil. Oh crap. As the kids say, “stay in your lane!” Write about interesting characters, not archetypes that illuminate your half-assed takes on Big Themes! He’s beginning to be like if Oliver Stone and Tarantino made a movie together!
(Oliver Stone did direct a Tarantino script, I never saw the result, and nobody can make me.)
The Stone/Tarantino film was… okay? Tarantino was so angry he wanted his name removed from it.
You know much more about McDonagh than I do. I thought Seven Psychopaths was pretty good. In Bruges was better. But it seems there are always things in his films that I don’t think quite work. Critics, of course, think he is a genius. And that is never good for a creator. Another issue here is that the film is pretty realistic. The cutting off fingers is not. So it creates dissonance at the very core of the film. I also thought the Gleeson character seemed too much like the teen with his talk about music that lives on. But that could just be me. That’s how I was when I was young. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense for a man in his late 60s who has always lived on a remote island. But if I’m so smart, why do I have this life?
A few years before this film, Fingers came out. It works better because it is surreal. I’m not recommending it. But it is definitely art!
Yeah, I shouldn’t bag on the guy. There’s just stuff about his stuff that bugs me. I think it’s very much about the critical worship you mention. It never ends well. Critics saying “give this one a chance, you haven’t heard of it, it’s good!” is one thing. Critics saying “all hail genius” never helps.
I tried to find “Fingers” at the library but they don’t have it. Yet. I’ll keep an eye out. Every now and then the library adds things you wouldn’t expect.
Not sure if the line “But if I’m so smart, why do I have this life?” refers to the character in the movie, or your life (or both). If it’s you, it’s because America has kinda always been crappy at finding room for interesting oddballs. We’re great at celebrating obvious, boring oddballs, because we have a short attention span. That’s what made snake-oil salesmen successful. But we don’t get interesting oddballs. Grasping how people can have multiple, complex aspects to them isn’t generally what we do.
Really off point, but I wonder how you like this post: https://librarydvdlove.substack.com/p/the-grifters
Fingers is a micro-budget film so you aren’t likely to find it. And I’m not exactly recommending it. It is very odd and not something most people would like. A similar but much more approachable film is Chop (2011). I just love it!
Yeah, I was talking about my life. Thanks for calling me an oddball. I like the sound of that! And I think it is correct. Being me is about all I have. But I think I’m good at it. That sounds like a joke, but it isn’t. I think most people suck at being themselves!
I saw that you had reviewed The Grifters and I’ve been meaning to read it. I’ll click over as soon as I finish an article I’m working on. I have much to say already without even reading it!
They really do suck at it. Of the people I know, who are all in their 50s/60s and are either A) comfortable financially or B) have a wide circle of supportive friends (I am in neither position), about half seem to be awkward in their own skin. They’re constantly babbling like characters in Annie Hall, explaining why they’re alright (when they aren’t). And these are all nice, smart people, I have no time for dumb jerks.
You would hope that by your 50s/60s, you would be comfortable with who you are? Warts and all?
Then again…
I spend four hours a day writing about how Cool My Thoughts Are, so I suppose I want validation, too. And a few minutes checking those Substack stats! Woo-hoo! This new post got 20 views!
I’m as desperate as anybody else to know if “am I alright? Am I an interesting person?” I just don’t do it in general conversation, so I’m not as needy as those Annie Hall characters, but I do it in my head.