Le clan des irréductibles

A terrific view of life in the late 60s early 70s northwest, before tech moved in. An early Alaska- if you wanted to survive you logged, farmed, fished or worked for Boeing or Kenworth. I had to watch this as a school assignment and was never sorry for it. There are some clumsy moments which I think a movie fan is able to overlook. Sarrazin was kind of an odd addition but wasn't that much of a distraction. I especially liked Jaeckel's role as the comedian. Newman was, well Newman. Pretty much good regardless, as was Fonda. Anyone in the northwest that hasn't seen this should give it look, though it may be hard to find.

Definitely an old school movie where the drama is tied up in day to day living. No great examinations just a family trying to go about their own business and the impacts that their choices have on themselves and their community.

Fonda is great and Newman just looks like he has been logging his entire life, super convincing.

The conflicts within the family are frequent but they never allow them to go too far, family is family.

It won't knock your socks off but its a nice film :)

Unfortunately, as much as I love Paul Newman as an actor, the movie version of Ken Kesey's incredible book could have used a more seasoned director for its translation to the big screen. The perfect cast (the book even mentions Hank Stamper as looking like a muscular Paul Newman!), and some great performances (Fonda, Jaeckel, Remick), but the story just doesn't come across on film the way it should. I remember the first time I saw this movie was in the late 70's on TV (Portland's KPTV-12). It was so chopped-up for television that the story, character motivations, and ending made no sense at all to me. I loved Kesey's book "Cookoo's Nest" so read the novel of "Sometimes" to try to make some sense of what the story was all about. The book was an amazingly nuanced work of fiction with a great deal of depth and under-story (reading between the lines); none of which I saw on the TV screening. I later rented the video but even with the unedited version of the film, I found the story very lacking and barely comprehensive. I've recently watched the rental again (2005) and found more in the film than I had remembered, but I still feel that unless you've read the book, you can't truly understand what this movie and the character motivations are all about. They're just barely eluded to in the film version. In spite of all that, it's still a worthwhile movie to watch. If nothing else, it chronicles some great, authentic-looking logging footage. If you can, however, read the novel first and then catch the film. Also, if you ever make it to Newport, Oregon, visit the harbor bar "Bay Haven" where the scenes for the "Snag" were filmed. Tell them the old bartender from the "Embarcadero" sent you. ;-)

The date i don't remember, but the day I do. what i did that day i should say. and the movie is still vividly in my mind. I can see the family interplay pretty clearly, but there is 1 scene clearer then all the others.

And more worried about creating a spoiler,

i will only describe it in general terms.

And that is the Death Scene in the picture, I don't want to mention the players in the scene for fear of spoiling it for others. it isn't a short scene, it felt like an eternity, for me anyway.

It is heart wrenching, and has haunted me all these years.

I would like to see this picture again to feel that emotion again.even now just talking around it i feel emotions welling up in me.

worthwhile movie I would recommend it for anyone.

I have read Kesey's novel several times over the last 30 years or so. While I see some merit in this movie version, I'd like to see someone have another go at it. The movie only captures the novel in broad strokes. It hits the major point (brother returns to hometown to exact revenge on older sibling), but misses a lot of the flavor. I think Paul Newman, Henry Fonda and Lee Remick were perfect, as were many of the supporting cast. But Michael Sarrazin didn't quite do it for me. Maybe it was the hair, idunno. I always pictured a sort of geeky-looking, bespectacled, beatnick-looking guy with scruffy hair, but still fairly short, and sideburns. Sarrazin probably could have pulled it off, but back in the early 70s, actors were into looking like people from the early 70s.

But more to the point, the movie needed more back-story. We needed to see Johah Stamper "heading west" with young Henry and his brother. We needed to see Jonah fail and surrender to the dampness of the Pacific Northwest and desert his family. We needed to see young Henry take charge ("we're gonna whup her") and begin the logging business that becomes the crux of the story. Also missed were a lot of great scenes when Henry and Leland were children (Henry rescuing Leland from the Devil's Stovepipe, for one). Also missed was the passing of narrative from character to character. One small portion of the novel is actually narrated by a dog. The novel is written, mostly, in the first person from various points of view. There is a little second person narrative at the beginning of most chapters that pull the reader out of the story to offer additional flavor for the surroundings. Obviously, a novel needs to be pared in order to fit into the standard movie length. It would have to be a rather long movie, three hours or so, to portray the texture presented in the novel. But I'd like to see another go at it, maybe even starring Paul Newman as Henry.