Femme ou démon

1939 that celebrated high point of the Hollywood studio system turned out to be the break out year for James Stewart. His career kicked into high gear with Destry Ridges Again and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. From just a good leading man these films guaranteed Jimmy Stewart screen immortality.

Destry was equally an important film for Marlene Dietrich. Her career had come to a standstill and she had been let go from her original American studio, Paramount. A whole lot of people said she was through in Hollywood, but Marlene showed them all.

This is the second film adaption of the story, a 1932 version was done by Tom Mix, one of his last films and one of his few sound ones. This one however is THE standard version.

Destry Rides Again was directed by George Marshall who was very good at mixing humor and drama to make some great films. This one is probably Marshall's greatest. Among Hollywood directors from the studio age, he is sadly forgotten.

The town of Bottleneck is one rip roaring place with a whole lot of promiscuous shooting going on. It's a pretty corrupt place run by saloon owner Brian Donlevy and his stooge mayor Samuel S. Hinds. When the sheriff is killed they 'elect' the town drunk Charles Winninger as the new sheriff.

But Winninger who was a deputy sheriff at one time sends for the son of his former boss Thomas Jefferson Destry played by Jimmy Stewart. Destry makes quite an entrance into Bottleneck, running afoul of saloon entertainer Marlene Dietrich. His arrival in Bottleneck up to his first encounter with Marlene are some of the funniest moments ever put on screen.

Destry Rides Again gave Marlene one of her classic ballads, See What the Boys in the Backroom Will Have as well as Little Joe, the Wrangler. Who would ever have thought that the girl from Germany would wind up having one of her most noted film roles as a western saloon entertainer. But Marlene created an indelible character, so much so that Mel Brooks and Madeline Kahn gave her a real heartfelt tribute in Blazing Saddles. I'll bet Marlene enjoyed that one also.

James Stewart did not return to the western genre until Winchester 73 and Broken Arrow eleven years later. But this was one great film to make a debut in that film art form.

You won't indulge in any promiscuous shooting while Destry is on the job.

When the Sheriff of Bottleneck asks one too many questions about the legitimacy of Kent's card games, he winds up dead and the new sheriff is the town drunk. The corrupt forces behind Bottleneck think that things will be just how they like it from now on but don't figure that the drunk will call in help in the form of a deputy, Tom Destry – son of the famous lawman. However Destry Jr turns out to not only be against carrying guns but also be soft-spoken and good humour – not characteristics that Wash hoped for in his deputy. However with a culture of silence, gun crime widespread and the town in the grip of the sultry and dangerous Frenchy, can Destry make an impact? Although I always find it difficult to watch large sections of this film without recalling the hilarious Blazing Saddles I do enjoy the mix of comedy, drama and dark content in this film and find it eminently enjoyable. From the very start, the tone is raucous and comic and the addition of Stewart only serves to make it seem even more whimsical. And for the most part it is just like this – broad fun with gentle laughs and good-natured playing all round. This is fine and makes for a fun film but it is the extra stuff that makes it gain momentum towards the end and not just end up like a big puff of nothing much; the drama is tense, the writing is brave and the action is pretty enjoyable. It isn't amazing stuff though and it could be argued that the sudden rush of blood at the end doesn't sit that well with the relaxed pace it had early on but for me it phased from one aspect into the other pretty well and the conclusion actually made it feel weightier than the majority had actually been.

The cast make it work of course, despite the risks taken. With events as they were at the time, Dietrich was considered a risk but she pays off well and is a great central character providing laughs and some real energy in her character and the musical numbers. Stewart has great chemistry with her, even if the script didn't make their relationship totally convincing. He plays his usual type of role but he does it very well and he mixes his gentle comic touch with Dietrich's bawdry style. The support cast are roundly great and people like Auer, Winninger, Donlevy and others all make sure that the film is not being carried by the two leads but is rather a group effort.

Overall a great comedy western that has more to it than you think. Unlikely to win over younger viewers weaned on constant action or big gross-out laughs but it is an effortless watch with gentle humour, great musical numbers, some tension, good action, great acting and a whole experience that has an enjoyable swagger to it while also winking to the audience for the most part.

. . . this is what they mean.

I'm intrigued by the voting on this movie as I can't imagine any scale on which it wouldn't get top marks. Where exactly does it drop the ball? Cast - inspired; performances - stellar; script - faultless; direction - millimetre perfect; score - find me one better, ("See what the boys in the back room will have" has gone into the language).

Is it because it's not an arthouse movie? Or because of the dangerous idea that restraint, cool and smarts are more effective weapons than playground bully tactics?

As far as I am concerned, if you want to know how to put a movie together, you can start here. 10/10 is the only possible mark for a masterpiece.

This was the first great Western pastiche - reviving the genre (with Stagecoach) to A-movie status. How many classic Western adventures have real comedy, poignant love scenes and great songs, plus Marlene Dietrich and James Stewart in the leads? All the character (stereo)types are convincing - villains, cowboys, ordinary townsfolk and the Dietrich/Frenchie-Stewart/Destry relationship adds depth. Easily on a par with Stewart's other 39/40 greats (Mr Smith, Philadelphia Story). Entertaining bar-room brawl scenes. Even the score is wonderful! Very highly recommended.

This movies had three strikes against it at Oscar time. 1)It was made in 1939 arguably the single year when more great films came out than any other year, 2) It was a western(no western had won best picture since "Cimaron" and would not again until "Dances With Wolves"and 3) It was a comedy and movie fans know how well comedy movies do at Oscar time. I know people who simply will not watch a black and white film or an old movie. Well, in my opinion, this movie has a story that is thoroughly enjoyable and stands up well even today. It has an excellent cast not only in the lead roles but also in the supporting cast. So, anyone who might not watch this film because it is not color is cheating themselves of an enjoyable film. And for any who just don't watch a film just because it is old, may I suggest that if you haven't seen a movie it is new for you. As for myself, I just did not endorse this film, but I put my money where my mouth is and forked over the greenbacks not once but twice. I got the film on VHS, and enjoyed it thoroughly. Upon finding it newly released on DVD, I got it again. The picture quality in the DVD is great. I'm a little surprised that there were no special feature extras included since these kind of bonuses are so common with DVD releases. But I suppose that would be like criticising a painting because of a lack of a fancy frame. This film certainly deserved to sweep the Oscars, and probably would have in a different year. 'Nuff sed.