The Power of 7

 

 

This is an entry for the Legends of Western Cinema Week hosted by Hamlette's Soliloquy and Along the Brandywine

 

 

The magic of 7 has a power. The number 7 is "universally considered one of the most fascinating and mystical digits, holding deep significance across mathematics, science and human culture". (quoted from AI)

It is important in many religions. For instance, in the Judeo-Christian mythology, 7 is the number of days assigned to the creation story (6 days creating and 1 day of resting for the efforts God put into making the Earth). In the Islamic mythology, there are 7 Heavens, and one must circle Mecca 7 times when visiting. In the Hindu mythology there are 7 higher worlds and 7 underworlds. In the Buddhist mythology, it is a legend that the Buddha took 7 steps on the day of his birth.

There were 7 Wonders of the Ancient World: (The Colossus at Rhodes, The Great Pyramid of Giza, The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, The Lighthouse at Alexandria, The Mausoleum at Halicarnassus, The Statue of Zeus at Olympia and The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus).  As well as there are 7 Wonders of the Modern World: (Chichén Itzá, Christ the Redeemer, The Colosseum, The Great Wall of China, Machu Picchu, Petra and Taj Mahal).

There are "7 deadly sins" (envy, gluttony, greed, lust. pride, sloth and wrath). There are 7 continents on the Earth (Africa, North America, South America, Antarctica, Asia, Australia and Europe). Pretty much every school child is familiar with the mnemonic ROYGBIV, which denotes the 7 colors of the rainbow (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet). And, of course, 7 is considered a lucky number by a major portion of the human race. 

And let's not ignore the fact that there are numerous films with "seven", or 7, in the title: Snow White and the 7 Dwarves, 7 Men from Now, Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and one of my favorites, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (just to name a few). It is clear that the number 7 has had a profound influence and for good reason.

So, to celebrate the mystical number, as well as celebrating western cinema, I present these two great westerns, both about 7 iconic figures.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Magnificent Seven (1960) and The Magnificent Seven (2016):

 

The inspiration for the 1960 version of the film came from a Japanese samurai film by Akira Kurosawa, Seven Samurai. The Kurosawa film was such a huge impact on many of the actors and people behind the cameras. Interesting to note, in 1960, a band of fairly unknown actors came together to produce an iconic film. 

In retrospect it might look like an all-star dream cast, but here's something you may not know: Yul Brynner gets the starring role and he had a pretty good cache of roles (12 or more), including an Oscar winning performance in The King and I. But the rest of the cast were basically just starting out. Steve McQueen, who was second headliner behind Brynner, had become well-known through his starring role on the TV series Wanted: Dead or Alive, but he had only been credited in 3 movies prior to this one. Charles Bronson had been in a few movies (about 15 or so), but many of those had been in uncredited roles as minor characters. Robert Vaughn had only 7 movie roles under his belt, Eli Wallach had only 3, and James Coburn was the "newbie" with only 2. The guy with the biggest background in film, Brad Dexter, had 17, although many of those were minor roles, like his co-star, Vaughn. Horst Buchholz, credited here with an "introducing Horst Buchholz", also had a pretty good background, with 15 movies, but those were all in his native Germany. It was indeed his first appearance in an American film. 

On paper, this film might have been a second feature to a more cast-enhanced major picture, but it did become an iconic film, possibly because of the retrospect of it's perceived "all-star" cast. Indeed, the talents of the seven do come through, some more than others. Aside from it's ostensible star, Brynner, the characters played by McQueen, Wallach and Buchholz make this film worth the time. The rest of the cast do hold their own in the scenes they are in, although a couple of them don't really stand out. (I would put Coburn's "knife guy" in that category, but if I have to be honest, it's probably just because he didn't get that much screen time).

The basic premise is that a Mexican bandit by the name of Calvera (Wallach) has been raiding villages and using his band of outlaws to take whatever he wants to survive, (instead of, I don't know, actually working for a living...?) The band raids many villages for this purpose, but the focus is on the one village that is the center of the film. The villagers are at a loss as to how to get out from under the thumb of Calvera until they are advised by an elder of the village, played by veteran Vladimir Sokoloff. (Fortunately, with the exception of Wallach and Sokoloff, most of the Mexican characters were actually played by Mexican actors).

The old man suggests they actually fight to save their village. Since none of them apparently know how to use guns, they end up deciding to hire gunmen. In a town across the border in America they find a guy who is willing to take on the role of finding some fellow gunmen to help the villagers, despite the pittance that the villagers are able to scrape together to hire them. Chris (Brynner) is their first, who manages to attract some other gunmen, including Vin (McQueen). This gang is rounded out with a Mexican/Irish gunman, Bernardo O'Reilly (Bronson), a knife expert, Britt (James Coburn), Lee (Robert Vaughn) and Harry (Dexter), a guy who is absolutely sure there is a hidden stash of valuables that Chris is not being honest about. The last member, Chico (Buchholz), is an ambitious but immature kid who wants to prove himself, despite Chris' reluctance to include him in the band.

The interplay between the main characters is what drives the film, as needs be, and even the minor characters, the townspeople put in a good appearance, especially when their unfamiliarity with firearms comes into play. Although, how an entire village could be comprised of only incompetent people with regards to guns in an Old West setting is a bit of a mystery. You mean to tell me that absolutely none of them have ever even gone on a hunting trip? Maybe you could find one in modern-day, when the panty-waist PC crowd is doing it's best to eradicate the existence of guns, but this is set in a time where the primary food source, outside of the farm, involved good old-fashioned hunting for it yourself.

I think the primary downfall of the story was this need to add a love story into the mix, as Chico attracts the attention of one of the native girls. Given the relative short window of the seven in town, it seems highly unlikely, and you just know, even before it happens, how this is going to turn out. (To be fair, there was a love interest subplot in the Kurosawa film, too, so maybe I'm just being overly critical, but it still comes off as contrived to me...)

In this later era it seems that the story may be somewhat reminiscent of modern movies of the same theme: a band of strikingly different "heroes" come together to defeat a common enemy. MCU's The Avengers, anyone? Easy ones would be Chris as he enigmatic duty bound leader compared to Captain America and the eager but over confident newbie Chico compared to Spiderman. A case could be made to compare Britt, who comes off as rather stoic and introverted to Hawkeye and Harry as a rash and maybe loose cannon type to Hulk. I can also see similarities between O'Reilly and Thor, both of whom are hiding a compassionate heart behind a gruff exterior.

The ultimate showdown occurs as Calvera gets the drop on the seven and encourages them to leave town with their lives intact (although not necessarily their dignity, which is why they ultimately have to return to the town and do battle with the enemy. Not all of them are going to come through intact, however, and it's probably a sure bet you can figure out which ones will be the last men standing if you know anything about how Hollywood played out these kinds of stories.

The essence of the film is the message that it flings, without shame, into your face, along the lines of "would you rather die on your feet or live on your knees?" If the answer is the latter, then maybe this movie is not one that would appeal to you, but if you are like me, a staunch believer in not letting any man govern how you will live your life, you will love the message, even if you feel sorrow for the heroes who have to "die on their feet".  

In the 2016 sequel, although the basic premise is still there, the characters and their goal is a bit different. In this outing, instead of a roaming bandit, we get the ultimate enemy, a capitalist land grabber who is trying to muscle the townspeople to sell their land and move, so he can have sole exclusive rights to the gold mine in the neighborhood.  

The same basic background comes into play as the villagers in the remake seek to find some hardy heroes to help them drive off the land grabbers. The bad guy in this film, Bartholomew Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard), is basically a cardboard cutout of the unscrupulous industrialist you get in most films of this type these days. Your opinion of the characterization may hinge just on which side of the political fence you are on. To me it seems that the film makers went out of their way to present a negative depiction of a capitalist. In other words, Bogue is a Republican and, therefore, the ultimate in evil as far as Hollywood is concerned. Not to defend his character, but would anybody really go to such lengths in real life to get what they want? For God's sake, they even have him intentionally burning down the town church. 

Sam Chisolm (Denzel Washington) is hired by a citizen of the town, which is called Rose Creek (and if that isn't an apt name for a town full of innocent "flower children" {my observation}, then I don't know what is...). Chisolm goes about gathering an assortment of malcontents to help him go to Rose Creek to take charge of the town over the nefarious Bogue. 

His first compadre is a man he meets in a bar, Farraday (Chris Pratt). Next he tracks down an outlaw named Vasquez ( Manuel Garcia-Rulfo). Chisolm is basically an officer of the law / bounty hunter, but he promises Vasquez, who is a wanted man, that if Vasquez joins his team, and comes out alive, that Chisolm will no longer be one of his, Vasquez's, hunters. Next up is the Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), who just happens to be accompanied by a fellow outlaw, Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee). After convincing these two they track down a mountain man, Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio). The last man to join the team is a renegade Comanche, Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeir).

Note: One of the things I like about this film is that the main characters are not, as was true in earlier days of filmmaking, white people posing as other races. Vasquez is played by a Mexican actor, Billy is played by a an Asian actor and Red Harvest is played by a Native American. 

The first battle in Rose Creek is a bit on the unbelievable side, if you ask me. Sure, the seven catch Bogue's men unawares, but they kill off an astounding 22 of the bad guys without so much as a nick from a whizzing bullet. (I think Robicheaux just hurt himself on his hand in the fight...) Chisolm sends the town sheriff off to tell Bogue the battle is on, and then the seven begin their preparations for what is bound to come next. (You don't REALLY think Bogue is going to throw in the towel and say "oh. well, it was worth a try...", do you?)

There are many similarities to the 1960 film here, not the least of which is that the town is basically full of incompetents who seemingly have never fired a gun in their life. But, stacked up against Calvera, Bogue could put him to shame when it comes to sheer determination to win at all costs. The characters that Chisolm amasses to help in the fight are a bit more intense than the original seven. They are sympathetic members, to be sure, but somehow most of them don't really exude the charisma to make themselves likeable. 

I personally would like to hang around Billy, just because he's a real "knife" guy, but I would be nervous about ticking him off.  The standout character, for me, however, is Horne. Maybe it's just because I have an affinity for loners who prefer the company of nature as opposed to the company of people. (Also, I can't think of any role that wasn't improved just by having D'Onofrio in the role. Even his much-maligned stint as Edgar in Men in Black).

Ultimately, as in the first film, the plot boils down to an action packed battle between the good guys and the bad guys, and in case you were hoping differently, some of the seven don't walk away from the fight unscathed. 

In terms of box office, the remake just barely made a profit in the U.S. ($93 million to a budget of $90 million), but if you include the European sales. which added another $68 million to the coffers, it fared fairly well. By comparison, the original also struggled initially. It would be ranked as a "bomb" by today's standards if it had only relied on it's original release. But after becoming a huge box office bonanza in Europe, it was re-released in the U.S. and really hit it's stride on the second release.

The 2016 version paled by comparison to the 1960 version, as per the critics. The 1960 version stands on Rotten Tomatoes at 93% Fresh, while the 2016 version only gets a 64%. This could be easily understandable, since remakes are usually viewed through a lens that distorts it. If you already have a high opinion of an original, then anything that comes along and tries to create the same magic in a bottle will usually have at least some negativity associated with it, pre-viewing, unless the viewer is astoundingly open-minded to it. (I can't be eternally classed as "open-minded" to a remake... God forbid they ever follow through with the threat to remake The Warriors. But I think I'm more receptive to them than most.)

All in all, I would say I much prefer this remake, plot-wise, to the original, although if I were picking one solely on the acting, I would go with the 1960 version. Despite the aforementioned fact that I like the Billy character, I wasn't overly impressed with Lee as an actor. Even Pratt and Hawke pale by comparison to the likes of McQueen and Vaughn (whose characters they are embodying in this remake). Washington, on the other hand, (dare I say it? or is it sacrilege?) gives Brynner a run for his money.

Once or twice over the span of this blog I have referenced an older blog that I had run that has since gone on to the cyberspace ghetto of "Where Is It?". That earlier general interest blog had a weekly feature that involved me reviewing a movie. So, at that time, I did a watch of the first incarnation of the theme, Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. I remember it only vaguely here, some 20 years later, but as I recall it was a fantastic movie. I'm going to add it to my re watch list and hopefully visit it once again for The Midnite Drive-In. Warning: If you decide to watch all three "Seven" movies in succession, better set aside a whole day. You are going to need 8 hours, not including restroom breaks! Which is one of the reasons why this entry only covers the two American productions.

That's it for this time. Drive safely, folks. 

Quiggy