Femme ou démon

. . . 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.

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.

Destry Rides Again (1939)

A brilliantly made spoof of the early American Western. This came out at a strange time for this kind of reflective comedy, because in fact the Western was just this year having a revival with three serious Westerns including John Ford's legendary Stagecoach. But the fixtures of this kind of movie were well in place--the barroom brawl, the bad men and their guns, the good sheriff coming to the rescue, the sweet untainted woman and the quasi-whorehouse type woman, and of course the final shootout. It's all here. And it's a wild ride done with subtlety, a difficult combination to pull off.

It's fun to see this movie and then compare to the later generation of take-offs and spoofs that take themselves much more seriously--the spaghetti Westerns of the 1960s. These, too, used all the clichés of the Western to make an amusing reference to those types. The reason why those movies worked so well, and why Destry does, too, is that these are attractive archetypes. We see ourselves in these people, somehow, and yet not too closely. We identify with them (especially Jimmy Stewart the sheriff and Marlene Dietrich the bad woman with a good heart who can sing, too) and yet know they are all artifice, just as in a play. The illusion of reality is damped down by the excess and the fun, and the obvious exaggerations.

As for director George Marshall, he's a hardened Hollywood veteran most famous, perhaps, for a long string of golf movies (yes golf, the sport). But his expertise, and his willingness to go for broke with scenes involving dozens or even hundreds of people, and to use the camera vigorously, and to realize he had two of the greatest actors he could ask for (Stewart toward the beginning of his career, and Dietrich still a great star though cast against her normal romanticized type from the early 1930s) is phenomenal. You'll shake your head and laugh at the same time.

In fact, it is the chemistry of the two stars that gives the movie surprising depth. It's not just a farce. It talks about pacifism just as World War II is brewing. And it suggests something about true love as much as carnal attraction. All while the world is exploding around the two leads, almost literally, as you'll see. And whatever might happen on screen by the end, it's fun to know that the two had a real affair offscreen, with some hush hush scandal to follow years later.

Watch this and laugh and maybe even cry a little. Great stuff.

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.

It is true that there are parody elements in George Marshall's delightful "Destry Rides Again" but the real humor lies not so much in these sorts of antics, nor the heavily laid on inquiries of Marlene Dietrich as to the tastes of the backroom boys, but rather in James Stewart's no-gun Destry characterization…

This springs from the same source as Ford's 'characters', recognizable frontier independent-minded eccentrics, with a firm footing in American literature; characters often with a roundabout way of making a point, or pointing a moral, as with Destry's habit of prefacing each little cautionary parable with: 'I knew a fellow once who…' A habit that inevitably drew the aggrieved riposte: 'You know too many fellows, Destry…'

The other 'characters' in this film have more than a color or two of parody—Mischa Auer's improbable Slavonic cowboy, Charles Winninger's town drunk, Brian Donlevy, unprincipled boss, and Samuel S. Hinds' nicely played judge…

In retrospect, it's odd how much this movie gains from its rather touching little postscript… Stewart, the unconventional lawman, having pacified his cowtown, strolls the streets with a hero-worshiping lad at his heels, and yet also takes a little cloud of sadness along with him…

Marshall's film is considered a classic Western which manages to encompass suspense, comedy, romance, tenderness, vivid characterization, horseplay, songs and standard western excitements, without moving for more than a moment from a studio main street set… Hollywood expertise at its very best...