Hi, north! Somehow I've never seen this movie (at least not, if so, since 30 or more years ago, therefore too long ago to actually remember). I read your post just now and want to say great job you did on it - very interesting, insightful comments and observations.

Thank you, genplant!

So . . . I have found a film between the years of 1900 - 1950 that you have not seen?!

I don't believe it. If so, I am most disappointed in you. In that case, you have clearly been neglecting your cinematic duties . . .

I suspect, however, that once you begin watching this film, you will then recollect and say, "Wait a minute, now it is coming back to me."

But regardless, if you give this a watch, I'd be curious what you thought of it. I myself only stumbled on it about 15 to 20 years ago, while watching it on TV with my grandparents. Grandmother thought it was too risque, although I don't think Grandfather minded so much:)

From what I've read, critics at the time of its original release panned it, saying that Selznick was pandering to the lowest-common denominator; although now it seems to have garnered somewhat of a cult following, among both men and women.

Again, genplant, I'd be curious as to your thoughts on it, good or bad, even months from now (or longer?). I always find your views interesting and worth the read. Good day to you.

Cool post! Thanks for sharing, northcoast; I saw Duel in the Sun earlier this year, and wasn't totally sure what to think of it. That is, I didn't hate it, but it was certainly an odd little film. I personally thought the showdown at the end was a bit melodramatic and difficult to take seriously. I was rather taken aback at the scene in which the posse rides to stop the building of the railroad; I couldn't comprehend the fact that Lionel Barrymore has to actually ride a horse along with the rest of them...as he's already in a wheelchair when he made this film. A bit unreasonable, don't you think? Well, I don't know.

Jennifer Jones was pretty hot in this film. However, my favorite film of hers is Portrait of Jenny. I love that film so very very much!

Miss Jones was a very beautiful woman and a talented actress.

I like her even in (the overall decidedly annoying) Indiscretion of an American Wife. Regarding that, ever wish you could reach out and shake a character in a movie (in this case Jones' Mary Forbes) and scream, "Snap out of it!!!"?

@northcoast said:

I suspect...that once you begin watching this film, you will then recollect and say, "Wait a minute, now it is coming back to me."

But regardless, if you give this a watch, I'd be curious what you thought of it....good or bad....

Will definitely gladly do, north (when I eventually see this again)!

By the way, following are excerpts from Leonard Maltin's review of this film (which he gave a 3 out of 4 stars rating):

....(B)ig, brawling, engrossing, often stupid sex-Western, with half-breed Jones caught between brothers Peck and Cotten. Great in Technicolor, with some memorable scenes and an unexpectedly bizarre finale....Superb score by Dimitri Tiomkin.

And here is the TCM.com article about this movie. It adds nicely to what all you observed in the OP, north.

Genplant29:

I have the Leonard Maltin review, as he is one of the few professional film critics whom I respect; I find that generally, I agree with his reviews, and that if he rates something three stars or above, it's good, and two stars or below, it's bad. Right here next to my computer I keep a hard copy of his 2015 Movie Guide, which was the final year it was printed as a traditional paper-and-ink book (my preferred method of reading). I tell you, genplant, one day when the grid goes down and all the electronics die, we're all going to be dumber than tadpoles since so much knowledge is now published exclusively in an electronic format:(

I've also liked Marshall Fine.

Roger Ebert was okay, but as others have said, he seems to have been more insightful when it came to mainstream movie reviews, but less so when it came to independent films and foreign (or should I say, non-English language) films.

Also, thanks for the link to the TCM review; it was very informative. I'll still be looking forward to your review of Duel in the Sun whenever you get around to watching (or re-watching) it.

barrymost:

Thanks for your reply. The sequences with the crippled Lionel Barrymore riding a horse were indeed fascinating; I've read varying information on his condition; it was either two bad hips, or, according to at least one rumor, it may have been the result of a syphilitic condition (I read that in a Halliwell's Who's Who in the Movies book I have, published in 2001). In any case I am not sure he was a complete paraplegic; he may have still been able to walk, but with great difficulty. Either way, the horse-riding scenes would've still been very challenging for him, obviously, and it is a testament to his dedication to his craft that he was willing to do them.

Thanks again for your reply.

@northcoast

I too have read different views on it, and personally believe his condition was due to having broken his hip on two separate occasions. At least, that is what he claims in his 1951 autobiography We Barrymores. But many sources also say he had very bad arthritis, which he also claims was not true. You're right: he was not a complete paraplegic; there's proof enough of that in the 1949 film Down to the Sea in Ships, in which he performs his lengthy, important role using only a pair of crutches. As you have already stated though, he was certainly a marvelous, dedicated actor.

north, I now recall that it was Maltin's review of this film that put me off to it, various different times during the last 12 or so years when I saw the movie was listed to air on TCM and I considered watching it. "....(B)ig, brawling...often stupid sex-Western...." didn't have a promising-seeming ring to it, nor did mention of Jennifer Jones portraying a "half-breed". (I've never cared for old movies in which an obvious Caucasian portrays - too often whatever degree of stereotypically - someone of a different race, as it usually looks and seems obviously artificial and unconvincing.)

I no longer (since beginning of this past April) get TCM. But when I eventually at some point again do, I'll definitely make sure to catch this.

@northcoast said:

.... a traditional paper-and-ink book (my preferred method of reading). I tell you, genplant, one day when the grid goes down and all the electronics die, we're all going to be dumber than tadpoles since so much knowledge is now published exclusively in an electronic format:(

I completely agree with you regarding everything you mentioned there! For any substantial reading, I prefer (if the option happens to be handily available on the premises to me) to read whatever in a printed book, newspaper, or magazine that I can hold in my hands, then be able to set aside (if desired) and save. Having said that, online texts sure are a great convenience in recent decades. Certainly beats the "olden days" of having to visit a local library to find information, or answers to questions, that now can be quickly and easily found on Wikipedia, or otherwise via a Google search. It'll be a true catastrophe if all or much of that eventually winds up zapped (such as many were concerned might occur at the time of Y2K, nearly twenty years ago).

....(T)hanks for the link to the TCM review; it was very informative.

All my pleasure, my friend.