Geächtet

There are films that are great, films that are not so great, films that are bad...and then there are films that are so bad, so grandly misconceived, one can only gape in wonder or roar with laughter (or both) at their foolishness. Thus an awful film can sometimes provide more entertainment than many good films. (THE DEVIL BAT, starring Bela Lugosi, comes to mind.) Watched THE OUTLAW on DVD the other night with some friends, and we were falling off the couch. I'd always heard there was a homoerotic subtext to the picture, but this was no subtext -- gay porn must be more subtle than this film! Walter Huston's Doc Holliday (or Halliday -- I've seen it spelled both ways in regard to this picture) is CLEARLY the stud, Billy is a petulant young hustler who piques his interest (despite his having stolen the older man's cherished horse!), and Thomas Mitchell's Pat Garrett (Doc's "oldest

friend") seethes with jealousy throughout until he degenerates into the very apotheosis of a passed over, frantic, shrieking old queen. "You're not going with him! Everything was fine between us till he came along!" It has to be seen to be believed. Hilarious! The film's musical score is the worst -- THE WORST -- I've ever heard. There's less Mickey-Mousing in a Three Stooges short. So I recommend this one highly for parties. I guarantee a laugh riot. The thought of the great cinemotagrapher Gregg Toland (CITIZEN KANE) laboring on such camp trash is depressing, but he did give the film a fine look.

Outlaw, The (1943)

** (out of 4)

Notorious Western had to battle the Hayes Office for two years before eventually getting released where it ended up battling more censorship issues but a certain pair at least got people into the theater. Doc Holliday (Walter Huston) has a falling out with Pat Garrett (Thomas Mitchell) after he sides with Billy the Kid (Jack Buetel). Billy and Doc become friends and head off but they are soon battling over a woman (Jane Russell) as well as constantly having Garrett trying to track them down. The aspects of this that were shocking in 1943 are pretty much tame and dated by today's standards but what I found so shocking about THE OUTLAW is how poorly made it was and how many awful things here in it. I don't mind the changes in history that the film made but for the life of me I couldn't understand what Hughes was trying to do with this thing other than to show off Russell's big breasts. I found the screenplay to be a complete mess as it never seems to know what it wants to do or what type of story it wants to tell. Is it meant to be a real Western? If so why are there so many silly moments? Was it meant to be a silly comedy? Well, that's fine but if so why on Earth were there so many darker moments? The movie contains one of the worst scores in Hollywood history as the thing is embarrassingly bad. The thing is over dramatic when there's nothing going on in the scene and sometimes the score is so loud and over-the-top that you can't even hear the dialogue. The film has also become legendary due to the homosexual aspect of the story. Again, I'm not certainly a love triangle between Billy, Garrett and Holliday is what Hughes was going for but that's how it comes off. I'm going to guess this is just part of the film being poorly made because at times the three men seem to be flirting more with one another and just letting Russell be on her own. The film has some really weird and out of touch comedic moments including various sound effects that happen during times when something serious or dramatic is going on. As far as the performances go, Huston comes off the best as he at least seems to be trying to give a performance. Buetel has no personality and comes off very stiff and appears to be bored. Mitchell was a fine character actor but he's miscast here and is never believable in the part. As far as Russell goes, she certainly looks beautiful and I enjoy the fact that Hughes wanted to show off her certain parts but he didn't give her much of a chance to act as she's simply used as eye candy. Hughes direction is all over the place and in the end he delivers a pretty big turkey. I understand this movie having a cult following due to its reputation and troubled history but for the life of me I can't understand some of the positive reviews I've read.

In all my many years (80) on this planet, I have never seen a movie that comes close to challenging ones senses as "The Outlaw". With both Doc and Pat vying for the friendship of Billy the kid, this seems curious. Then when Doc shoots a chunk out of both Billy the kids ears, with no apparent pain or bleeding, wonderment begins as if to say, "this is really a cartoon," wherein no one really gets hurt or bleeds. Finally, at the tormented conclusion, when Billy the kid starts to ride off, stops, turns in his saddle to look back at Jane wherein she gives him a stupid look, then smiles and jumps on the back of the Kids horse and they together ride off. The end follows and not a moment too soon. What a goofy movie!

Not too many movies create myths.

Anyone who read Harold Robbins', "The Carpetbaggers", (some 40 years ago) which in turn spawned "Nevada Smith", gets a superbly fictionalized accounting of Howard Hughes. Such fiction prefixes reality. It took a great number of years before I finally saw "The Outlaw" - an eagerly awaited event.

I've attempted to view the AMC-aired movie some three times - but got so antsy that I abandoned it. Few movies of this caliber have been so uneven. And yet it endures. Vintage alone gives the film status.

There's nothing wrong with anecdotal (vignette) - points-of-view movies, but in "The Outlaw", it was like watching one of those lumbering, exasperating silent films: where the actors stand across from each other, and each speaks their lines as if orchestrated by an off-stage conductor. Spontaneity is not this movie's long suit.

The actors: Jack Beutel is one of the most beautiful men to ever stand before a camera. His eyes are smoldering, his gaze laconic, his smile cheeky one moment and sensuous the next. Walter Huston is a young man in a middle-aged body; Thomas Mitchell (Scarlet's daddy in 'Gone With the Wind') is shifty, Irish, as conniving as Wally Beery, sniveling and crafty. And then there's the statuesque Jane Russell. Robbins gave us the intimate details of the suspension bridge-designed brassier - and Jane herself speaks of how she finally pulled the damn thing off and lined her breasts with a few Kleenex. She is as luscious as a near-nude Barbie doll, she is 19 years old, her lips inspire poetry - yet her voice is as monotonous as the Valley-inspired Val-speak of 25 years ago.

I wouldn't hazard to guess Howard Hughes' emotional consistency in the movie, however something went hellishly wrong. Someone fell on his face when it came to editing and scoring. Take the music, for example. It's Scoring 101, embarrassingly manipulative, often overriding the dialogue and ranging from 'Pathetique' to 'The Lone Prairie' mélange.

And then there's the acting: the Mexican senora rolls her eyes with all the panache of a 1940-Mexican B-movie bit actress. There is no spontaneity; she delivers her lines badly and with burning self-consciousness. And when Huston shoots Beutel in the hand, the latter doesn't even flinch; ditto, when he pierces both his ears with bullets. Staggering disbelief.

As to the scene where Jane Russell falls for Jack Beutel and kisses him, it's like watching two trains headed straight for each other. Overblown, top-heavy, agonizingly overreaching...it nonetheless has the sexual potency of an orgasm. The music, the god-awful Close-CLOse-CLOSE UP of Jane's lips bearing down on the half-delirious Beutel. Wow, what power! The men watching this film back in (ca) 1940 must have had to cover their laps.

I leave it to those with a sense of adventure to debate the movie's homoeroticism. There's no such implications from Beutel toward the two older men.

The movie, finally, has to be taken for the time in which it was made. The cinematography is as splendid as if it were turned 10 years ago. It is impossibly uneven, anecdotal, horrifyingly edited, pathetically scored, wretchedly acted...yet the actors are painful in their beauty. Many of the IMDb comments suggest that the film wants watching several times. I second that. It can be slow, cantankerous, giddy, sullen - but Jane's and Jack's beauty are undeniable, Walter is everybody's favorite grandfather. Toland can be thanked for giving us the movie's clarity. --And Howard... Howard was just having fun.

I have seen this 'film', "The Outlaw", on a number of occasions. Frankly, I don't understand what all of the hubbub is about. The film is absolutely dreadful. Great talent (Walter Huston and Thomas Mitchell) is wasted in this film with an 'identity crisis'. It doesn't know if it wants to be a western, or a romance, or a comedy. Maybe it did introduce Jane Russell to the screen, but that appears to be the only justification for making this celluloid nightmare. Her acting talents are virtually non-existent, though she looks good. Jack Beutel is forgettable as 'Billy the Kid', and he gives an un-inspired performance that is something far beyond lackluster. One gets the feeling he is reading his lines 'cold' from cue cards. The film moves very slowly, is not particularly well written ( despite its hightly acclaimed screenwriter credits), is dreadfully acted, and is a very difficult watch, almost the equivalent of Chinese Water Torture. Fortunately, the film never takes itself seriously. And it's a good thing. It isn't the kind of film to be taken seriously !! I would recommend that it be shown in maximum security prisons as a substitute for lethal injection ! The film stunk then, it still stinks, and if it's part of film history, it isn't one of the high points, and the student of film needn't spend too much time here. The creative Victor Young music score and the innovative cinematography of Gregg Toland make the film watchable, but aren't enough to salvage this dreadnaught. Hughes shouldn'a had'da ought'a done it !! He should have hired a REAL director to crack the whip, and he should have taken the gag and handcuffs off of the writer and restored him to his artistic creativity. This didn't happen. Instead, some of the best talent of the period--both in front of and behind the camera--is wasted, and what masquerades to some as film history is seen by this writer as 'Film Misery'!!