{"id":17822,"date":"2012-04-11T11:02:16","date_gmt":"2012-04-11T16:02:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/?p=17822"},"modified":"2012-04-21T09:06:45","modified_gmt":"2012-04-21T14:06:45","slug":"the-tao-of-rio-bravo-or-a-yakky-way-of-knowledge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/2012\/04\/11\/the-tao-of-rio-bravo-or-a-yakky-way-of-knowledge\/","title":{"rendered":"The Tao of RIO BRAVO; or, A Yakky Way of Knowledge"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Too long has this scrolling site ignored the Sacred Text. In a gesture of penance, I return to the true path. Like all Sacred Texts, this one attracts worshippers in different degrees: the Seekers, the Initiates, the Adepts, and the Exegetes. There are Heretics too. Today, I wish merely to introduce you, who may not yet be even a Seeker, to the serenity of The Way.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Word, in plenty<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Seekers who have become Initiates agree: Their blinding moment of conversion came when they realized that the words of the Sacred Text speak to all times, all places.<\/p>\n

Other Sacred Texts dispense a few trinkets of wisdom (\u201cI have a bad feeling about this.\u201d \u201cWe\u2019re gonna need a bigger boat.\u201d \u201cShow me the money.\u201d) These are tag lines, sound bites, not poetic glimpses of glory.\u00a0Uniquely and universally, passages in our Text raise the spirit and cast out doubt and despair.\u00a0But far from being otherworldly, they carry practical wisdom and illuminate every situation. What crisis in your life, brother or sister, would not be piercingly clarified if you were able to utter one of these lines?<\/p>\n

It’s nice to see a smart kid for a change.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019d say he\u2019s so good he doesn\u2019t feel he has to prove it.<\/span><\/p>\n

That\u2019s what I\u2019d do if I were the kind of girl you think I am.<\/span><\/p>\n

Sorry don\u2019t get it done, Dude.<\/span><\/p>\n

You look a little used.<\/span><\/p>\n

Aw, I\u2019m not gonna hurt him.<\/span><\/p>\n

If I\u2019m gonna get shot at, I might as well get paid for it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Let\u2019s take a turn around the town.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019m glad we tried it a second time. It\u2019s better when two people do it.<\/span><\/p>\n

Borachone talking big.<\/span><\/p>\n

You\u2019d better go easy on that stuff.<\/span><\/p>\n

Don\u2019t set yourself up as being so special. You\u2019d think you invented the hangover.<\/span><\/p>\n

Aw, hell, what\u2019s the difference? We\u2019d all be dead by then.<\/span><\/p>\n

Nobody\u2019s run in here.\/<\/span> We\u2019ll remember you said that.<\/span><\/p>\n

Found yourself another knot-head who don\u2019t know when he\u2019s well off?<\/span><\/p>\n

A game-legged old man and a drunk. That\u2019s all you got?\/<\/span> It\u2019s what <\/em>I\u2019ve got.<\/span><\/p>\n

Think you\u2019re good enough?<\/span><\/p>\n

Is he as good as I used to be?\/<\/span> It\u2019d be pretty close. I\u2019d hate to have to live on the difference.<\/span><\/p>\n

To become an Initiate, the Seeker must commit these to memory and meditate upon them intently. An Adept will be able to summon them up, half-consciously, in a range of situations–the more far-fetched, the more enlightening. One will always be appropriate<\/em>.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

The Name<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Exegetes have pointed out that the figures of light in the Sacred Text do not have the usual names. They are, emblematically, called Stumpy, Dude (aka Borachone<\/em>), Colorado, Feathers. He Who Is Called Chance is named John T., but even the middle initial is turned into an epithet (\u201cT for Trouble\u201d).<\/p>\n

Far from being an accident, the names in the Sacred Text are there to impel the Initate into deeper mysteries. Is, for instance, Stumpy The Elder called Stumpy because of his lameness\u2014always a sign of grace in sacred texts? Because of his inertness (as stiff as a stump)? Or because a tree, even though harvested, retains its attachment to the earth by remaining rooted? Perhaps He Who Is Called Stumpy is \u201cgrounded,\u201d as the current saying has it.<\/p>\n

The Text is figural, both metonymic and metaphoric. Young Colorado is son of Rocky Ryan from Denver. He Who Is Called Wheeler is a man of wagons. She Who Is Called Feathers wears feathered clothes, but also has a teasing lightness of manner. He Who Is Called Dude constitutes a crux. Is he a \u201cdude,\u201d an Easterner who has come west, or is he a dude because he favors fancy outfits? (See \u201cRaiment,\u201d below.)<\/p>\n

The central fact is that in this text, the mystery of naming opens on to the Mystery of Being. Everyone is named something, but many are not named by their name.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Raiment<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Once the devout Seeker has sensed the limitless depths of the The Words, the more inquisitive will turn to the images. In the opening scene of the Sacred Text, a largely wordless series of encounters in barrooms, a world is created before our eyes. It is a world of debasement, treachery, and sudden death. A contemporary text called Variety<\/em>, secular but still enlightening, notes: \u201c\u2026gets off to one of the fastest slam-bang openings on record.\u201d<\/p>\n

Exegetes have long praised this eloquent passage. They note that a text so replete with Words benefits from an extended passage of muteness. Not silence, for the almost continuous music attributed to Dmitri Tiomkin provides its own wordless \u201ccommentary\u201d on the action. This sordid, barbarous world will be redeemed; those who are left low on the saloon floor will rise three days afterward (note!) to triumph.<\/p>\n

Serious study of the Text\u2019s images drives the Adept to note the raiment in which the figures are clothed. The Nemesis Joe Burdette wears a bright cowhide vest, suggesting his animalistic anima. He Who Is Called Dude begins in dirty garments, earns the right to garb himself in splendor, but through weakness of soul he is once more soiled.<\/p>\n

She Who Is Called Feathers manifests the most dazzling changes in raiment.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hers receive commentary within the Text, while the garments of He Who Is Called Chance are noticed only by her.<\/p>\n

Those things have big possibilities, but not for you.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Hey, Sheriff, you forgot your pants.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But these may be interpolations by later hands.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Disputed passages<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Like all Sacred Texts, this contains stretches that excite puzzled commentary. What, in the opening scene, is Wheeler supposed to \u201ctell his men\u201d? Why so many flying insects at night? Why is He Who Is Called Chance once, and only once, seen awkwardly grappling with his rifle, trying to hold it while he shrugs into his jacket?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There is the curious verbal slippage in the song sung by He Who Is Called Dude.\u00a0He sings of \u201cMy three good companions\u2014my rifle, pony, and me<\/span>.\u201d To the heathen mind, this is a flagrant error. You can have a rifle and a pony as a companion, but you can\u2019t have you as your companion. Can you?<\/p>\n

To doubt the Sacred Text at this point is to underestimate the subtlety of the Authors. Recall that the tale told by the song is a dream (“It’s time for a cowboy to dream<\/span>“). As in other venerable texts (e.g., Bible, Ramayana), dreams are to be taken as warnings, prophecies, or hints as to the true meaning of the story. And so it proves here. We know that He Who Is Called Dude is a divided man: Borachone<\/em> and pistolero<\/em>, drunk and deputy. The singer, as we\u2019ve seen, has an untamed side that bursts out into violence against nearly everyone, including his Savior, He Who Is Called Chance.<\/p>\n

Hence the split identity of the rider in the song. He is a me, but he also has<\/em> a me. And around the bend, waiting for both of them, is another divided figure, a woman called \u201cmy sweetheart darling<\/span>.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are Exegetes who would see in this passage the source of another worthy text, Western Redundancy Playhouse Theatre<\/em><\/a>, but exploring that would take us too far afield.<\/p>\n

More obvious is the Text’s great cosmic sign: The sun rises and sets on the same horizon.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

No further proof is needed of the miraculous nature of this narrative.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Heresies<\/strong><\/p>\n

I do not refer to callow efforts to dishonor the Text (e.g., “I think we need a few more scenes in the jail”). Instead, I mention simply the most important efforts by believers, often Adepts, to sow petty doubts. There is, for instance, the efforts to replace the canonical status of this Text by later, more derivative ones (El Dorado<\/em>; Rio Lobo<\/em>). Uneven and fragmentary, they have never achieved widespread recognition of Sacredness. Other heresies claim our text itself is derivative, and one offers the biggest challenge to the devout.<\/p>\n

I refer of course to the Heresy of the Spittoon.<\/p>\n

In the Genesis section already mentioned, Nemesis Burdette flips a coin into a spittoon, and He Who Is Called Dude, needing to buy drink, stoops to retrieve it from the rancid vessel.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Only the intervention of He Who Is Called Chance saves He Who Is Called Dude from this act of degradation. This passage has a parallel later in the Text, when another nemesis must fish a coin out of a spittoon.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The reversal in power is also a step in the redemption of He Who Is Called Dude.<\/p>\n

But Adepts have noticed that in Decision at Sundown<\/em>, a text attributed to one Budd Boetticher and dated 1957 (the Sacred Text we have is dated 1959), a sheriff refuses to accept the money of the protagonist and drops the coins into a spittoon.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Consider another passage in another Boetticher-signed text of the era, Buchanan Rides Alone<\/em> (confirmed to be from 1958). Here the protagonist, prosaically named Buchanan, disarms a young gunslinger and drops the boy’s bullets into a spittoon.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The vessel, offscreen below frame, announces its presence by the tinkling sound made by the falling rounds.<\/p>\n

Heretics have hinted at plagiarism, especially in the light of a reference in another text of the period, Ride Lonesome<\/em> (dated February 1959, two months before the appearance of our Sacred Text). Here a nemesis tells of a poster \u201cgun-tacked to every tree and stump (!) between here and Rio Bravo.\u201d<\/p>\n

While undeniably puzzling, these correspondences do not point to plagiarism. There may have been an earlier, Ur<\/em>-version of our Sacred text, that has simply not survived. In moments like these we must put our faith in the Authors.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Recurring formulae<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Finally, we must return to the Word. Seeker, Initiate, Adept, Exegete: All acknowledge the Text\u2019s verbal echoes. As with Homer\u2019s wine-dark sea<\/em> and Vergil\u2019s pious Aeneas<\/em>, formulaic tags recur in our tale, but with more variation than in classic texts.<\/p>\n

Our first business is business.<\/p>\n

We have important business \u2026. Me and my friend we make our business alone.<\/span><\/p>\n

I\u2019ll tell you what I\u2019m a lot better at, Mr. Wheeler. That\u2019s minding my own business.<\/span><\/p>\n

I figure why is not my business.\/ You\u2019ve got peculiar ways of choosing what is<\/em> your business.<\/span><\/p>\n

You think I\u2019ll ever get to be sheriff?\/ Not unless you mind your own business.<\/span><\/p>\n

As if to signal to the devout the importance of every word, the Text provides its own meta-commentary. As a French exegete has said: “Discourse cleansing discourse, backchat ruling over chatter and chitchat.”<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll go outside so you can talk more freely.<\/span><\/p>\n

I guess I talk too much.<\/span><\/p>\n

He\u2019ll keep talking till we get out of here.<\/span><\/p>\n

Can\u2019t you talk plainer than that?<\/span><\/p>\n

Young Colorado says that Nemesis Nathan Burdett is \u201c<\/span>talking now\u201d through the Deguelo tune.\/<\/span>\u00a0I guess we made him talk after all.<\/span><\/p>\n

Me, I just talk all the time.\/ You most certainly do.\/ You\u2019ll get used to that. You\u2019ll have to. Either that, or start talking to me.<\/span><\/p>\n

Now I\u2019m running out of breath. You talk if you want to.<\/span><\/p>\n

Like all Sacred Texts, for all this talk of talk, this one knows that the ultimate truth lies beyond words.<\/p>\n

Just stop talking. Just let it be.<\/span><\/p>\n

Good advice.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Before I followed the Way, the spittoon was a spittoon. As I began to learn the Way, the spittoon was more than a spittoon. When I had learned the way, the spittoon was once again a spittoon.<\/em><\/p>\n

Addendum 15 April 2012:<\/strong>\u00a0This humble guide to the Text has aroused further passion among Exegetes. Three have pressed even more fiercely the Heresy of the Spittoon, claiming that it derives from a much more ancient text than the Boetticher-attributed ones mentioned above.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Antonio of the Red Palace<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0writes:<\/p>\n

Regarding the scene involving the\u00a0spittoon, I think it’s a shout-out to another one from Sternberg’s Underworld<\/em>. You know, that one involving an equally “Borachone” character (Rolls Royce Wensel) being\u00a0humiliated\u00a0by “Buck” Mulligan. Interestingly, the “hero” (in this case Bull Weed) stands for the weak one.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Even in both films, the female character is called Feathers. \u00bf\u00a0Coincidence?\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Exegete declares a heartening willingness to believe, as all Seekers must, that\u00a0There are no coincidences<\/em>. From\u00a0David Cairns, Sifu of Shadowplay<\/a><\/strong>, Exegete Extraordinaire of many other texts, comes further observations:<\/p>\n

The spittoon . . . derives first from Sternberg’s Underworld<\/em>, which also has a leading lady called Feathers. We do know that Sternberg and Hawks were (unlikely) friends and unofficial collaborators. Hawks claims to have suggested Dietrich’s tuxedo in Morocco<\/em>, which, given his interest in androgyny, may be true.<\/strong><\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Interesting that the scene made it out West and stayed there — I guess because the spittoon just seems to naturally belong there. But Sternberg’s version, in which a man tries to humiliated a drunk by throwing money in a spittoon, is closest of all spittoon scenes to the one in Rio Bravo<\/em>. It’s also so close to Sterberg’s typical concerns that it must surely have either been devised by him, or else by Hawks in a spirit of “I bet he’ll love<\/em> this…”<\/strong><\/div>\n

Like Antonio of the Red Palace, Shadowplay Sifu displays admirable historical awareness and interpretive ingenuity. But there is still room for disputation about sources and the path of influence. Here is Lea Jacobs<\/strong><\/a> of the School of the Badger<\/strong> to open another avenue:<\/p>\n

The earliest version of the coin in the spittoon that I know is Underworld<\/em>. Charles Furthman, brother of Jules [scribe who co-penned Rio Bravo<\/em>], worked on the adaptation [of Underworld<\/em>]. So I have always assumed the bit was “in the family.”<\/strong><\/p>\n

It is a measure of the spiritual power of the Sacred Text that it so stirs the imagination of the devout. And in truth, this scrolling blog’s little guide should have pointed out the strongest evidence for the Spittoon heresy (as well as the philological question of “Feathers”). These Exegetes are hereby thanked for extending the already vast commentary on the Text. But let us remember that the earlier text in question is regarded by many Adepts as itself derivative<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In Underworld<\/em>, the nemesis who flings a ten-dollar bill into the spittoon is called “Buck” Mulligan–a transparent trace of literary lineage. For what readers text do not recognize the reference<\/a>?<\/p>\n

Stately, plump Buck Mulligan came from the stairhead, bearing a bowl of lather on which a mirror and a razor lay crossed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Let us not forget that this literary “Buck Mulligan” has the proper first name Malachi, usually translated as “God’s messenger.” This surely changes our understanding of the blowhard who mockingly offers the ten-dollar bill to Rolls Royce; for he starts Rolls Royce on his path toward sobriety and self-respect.<\/p>\n

For such reasons, Ulysses<\/em> is most fruitfully read as a gloss on Underworld<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, consultation with wiser heads than this chronicler’s yields a change in the Canon. Henceforth the Heresy of the Spittoon will be known as the Cuspidor Crux.<\/p>\n

Addendum 21 April 2012:<\/strong>\u00a0Another Adept,\u00a0Simone Starace<\/a><\/strong>, has disclosed more evidence for the Cuspidor Crux. She points to a passage in the secondary writ,\u00a0\u00a0Joseph McBride, Hawks on Hawks <\/em>(1982), p. 131:<\/p>\n

JMB: There are several things in Rio Bravo<\/em> that are similar to Underworld<\/em>, which you and Furthman also helped write.<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/strong>HH: I stole two things, the dollar in the spittoon and the girl’s name, Feathers.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Simone adds that on page 159, according to McBride’s filmography: “Hawks claimed to have contributed to the script of Underworld<\/em>.” The palimpsest thickens.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Too long has this scrolling site ignored the Sacred Text. In a gesture of penance, I return to the true path. Like all Sacred Texts, this one attracts worshippers in different degrees: the Seekers, the Initiates, the Adepts, and the Exegetes. There are Heretics too. Today, I wish merely to introduce you, who may not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[67,74],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17822","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-directors-hawks","category-film-criticism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17822","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17822"}],"version-history":[{"count":35,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17822\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17876,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17822\/revisions\/17876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17822"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17822"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.davidbordwell.net\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17822"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}