Connect with us

John Wayne

Pairing John Wayne With A Giant Squid Proved A Winning Move For Paramount

When was the last time you were truly dazzled by a special effect? Our mainstream media landscape has been consumed by CGI to the point where we don’t even think about the logistics of what we see anymore. In the series premiere of “House of the Dragon,” Were you awed by the presence of multiple dragons, or did you just go, “Oh, yeah. Dragons. Sure?” Bear in mind, these creatures don’t exist in real life and look entirely real.
At a time where effects are more seamless than ever before, we no longer feel their power because entire movies and television shows go by without a single frame using them. Before digital effects, you had to build this stuff by hand and have them ready to shoot on the day. Because they took so much time, money, and manpower to create, productions would focus their special effects on one single thing: a set piece, a creature, or just a moment of magic. While this was usually done for practical reasons, what it did was give these effects more of a “wow” factor, making audiences wonder about how the thing they just saw was done. They couldn’t just say, “Computers.”
One such instance of this kind of practical effect magic comes from Cecil B. DeMille’s 1942 sea-faring adventure film “Reap the Wild Wind,” starring Ray Milland, John Wayne, Paulette Goddard, and a whole host of familiar faces. That film’s climax features Milland and Wayne’s characters underwater, battling a gigantic squid. Even today, the creature work leaves you slightly slack-jawed, and it riveted audiences at the time, making it the fourth-highest grossing film of the year. And people were clamoring to know how they made it.
A bathtub thought

ParamountWhen breaking the story for “Reap the Wild Wind,” Cecil B. DeMille and his trio of screenwriters, Charles Bennett, Jesse Lasky Jr., and Alan Le May (plus the uncredited contributions of Jeanie Macpherson and Theodore St. John), could not come up with an ending to the picture they were all happy with. As recounted in the book “Duke: The Life and Image of John Wayne” by Ronald L. Davis, Charles Bennett, who wrote the screenplays to many of Alfred Hitchcock’s pre-Hollywood films, was taking a bath one morning and had his own “Eureka!” moment. His big thought was “Giant squid!” Well, he had a little more than that. He had the whole scene in his head.
Bennett recalls the meeting where he pitched the scene to DeMille:
“I was John Wayne, I was Ray Milland, I was the squid … I acted the whole scene out in front of DeMille.”DeMille was satisfied, adding that it all needed to be, “In Technicolor.” The giant squid was in the picture, and it was going to kill John Wayne’s character, a rarity for the actor so often held up as the bright, shining hero of his pictures. His second-billed turn in “Reap the Wild Wind” is for a character who makes some not-so-savory choices, and him meeting his fate at the hands (or tentacles) of the giant squid is his punishment, even if he does save Ray Milland’s character’s life while doing so.
They had the scene, but they still had to construct how this underwater beast would actually function on film.
Ten days in a tank
ParamountIn order to have a giant squid, you need a giant set to put it in, or in this case, you need a giant tank for underwater photography. Luckily, Paramount had a gigantic tank on the studio lot ready for them to utilize. Ray Milland says of the massive underwater set that was constructed for the scene:
“The tank was almost the size of a football field and about twenty-five feet deep at the deepest part … Down there they had built a marine wonderland: the hull of a wrecked ship, strange and jagged rocks, a slowly moving aqueous forest. And caves, dark and frightening.”Then came the giant squid itself. In total, the squid was 14 feet long. The head of the creature was not particularly articulative, and if you watch the scene, it’s fairly obvious. The thing was clearly quite heavy, and once they got it in the water, it was going to lay where it lay. That was not the case with the tentacles, which are quite remarkable in their dexterity, able to seamlessly wrap around and grip the two actors. They are so convincing that they cover up any deficiencies the squid’s head presents. Its eyes, while clearly fake, do hold some strange menace in them. Cecil B. DeMille said of the creature, “It was truly a marvelous piece of work.”
The whole sequence cost $250 thousand, which is a bit over $5 million today. As for the film’s box office, it grossed $4 million, or nearly $73 million today. Pretty good return on investment.
Won’t say how they did it
ParamountAs movie fans in the age of home video, we have been lucky to dive deep into the special features on a movie and watch all of the behind-the-scenes documentaries. They have been invaluable for us who have ever wanted to know what goes into the filmmaking process, even if it meant breaking the reality of a film to do so. For some people, finding out this information enriches our love of the medium. For others, though, it makes the film not seem as special as it once was.
For “Reap the Wild Wind,” Paramount wanted everyone to be in complete awe of the giant squid. They received letters from people of every walk of life inquiring about how they made the squid for the film (Remember, kids, this was before the Internet). To maintain the air of magic, Paramount’s standard reply to this was simply:
“It is the policy of the studio to release no information on technical details of any motion picture because it would detract from the dramatic illusion.”I can’t help but respect the whole “Accept the mystery” element of the statement. They have even carried that forward onto the Blu-ray release, which features no “Making Of” documentaries (and that comes to us from Kino Lorber, who are usually pretty good about including those kinds of features).
I also wish that Paramount would do a better job of letting people today see this film. Currently, that Blu-ray is the only way you are able to watch “Reap the Wild Wind.” It’s not on a streaming service or available to purchase or rent digitally in any way. That is fine for a physical media fiend like me, but Paramount … let people watch your “John Wayne vs. Giant Squid” movie.
Read More: https://www.slashfilm.com/587316/alfred-hitchcocks-15-best-films-ranked/?utm_campaign=clip

John Wayne

Why John Wayne Turned Down the Chance to Work With Clint Eastwood

Clint Eastwood and John Wayne are the two biggest legends in the history of Western movies, however, they never worked together. The duo did have the opportunity to work together once in the 1970s. Here’s why the film never came to fruition.

How John Wayne responded when Clint Eastwood tried to work with him

Firstly, a little background. According to the book John Wayne: The Life and Legend, it all starts with Larry Cohen. Though Cohen is not a widely known director like Steven Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino, he’s a huge name to fans of B movies. He directed famous B movies like The Stuff, Q: The Winged Serpent, It’s Alive, and God Told Me To. He also wrote a script called The Hostiles shortly after Eastwood released his classic High Plains Drifter.

The Hostiles was about a gambler who wins half of an estate of an older man. The gambler and the older man have to work together despite the fact that they don’t like each other. Eastwood optioned the screenplay with the intent of playing the gambler alongside Wayne as the older man.

Eastwood sent a copy of the script of The Hostiles to Wayne. Although Eastwood felt the script was imperfect, he saw its potential. However, Wayne was not interested. Eastwood pitched the film to Wayne a second time and Wayne responded with a letter. Wayne’s letter complained about High Plains Drifter. Wayne was offended by the film and its portrayal of the Old West as a cruel, violent place.

Continue Reading

John Wayne

Ann-Margret Refused to Call John Wayne ‘Duke’ While Introducing 1 of His Movies

Ann-Margret once starred in one of John Wayne’s lesser-known movies. However, she refused to call him by his popular moniker Duke. Here’s a look at the film they made together — and why she declined to call him by a nickname.

The one time Ann-Margret and John Wayne made a movie together

Ann-Margret is probably most known for her work in musicals, specifically Bye Bye Birdie, Viva Las Vegas, and The Who’s Tommy. However, she also dabbled in the Western genre. She starred alongside Wayne in the mostly forgotten movie The Train Robbers.

Wayne was also known as The Duke or just Duke. According to USA Today, the nickname was derived from his childhood dog. It stuck with him for many years. It continues to be used today — even on the box covers of the DVDs for his movies.

John Wayne | Silver Screen Collection/Getty Images

During an interview with Interview Magazine, Ann-Margret explained why she didn’t refer to the Rio Bravo star by this famous name. “When I came to this country, first of all, mother and I didn’t know English,” she said. “I would curtsey, then say, ‘Thank you,’ and then when I was leaving, curtsey. For example, we went to Dallas to introduce a film I did with John Wayne. And I never called him Duke. I just couldn’t. That’s the way I was raised. When you meet someone, you say either Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. You stand up.”

Ann-Margret revealed she treated other famous people in much the same way. For example, she worked with director George Sidney on Bye Bye Birdie and Viva Las Vegas. She always called him Mr. Sidney.

What Ann-Margret thought about John Wayne

Ann-Margret refused to use Wayne’s most famous moniker. However, she had a positive view of the actor. During an interview with Fox News, she was asked what she expected when she met Wayne. “Oh, I didn’t know what to expect,” she revealed. “But when he hugged me, it’s like the world was hugging me. He was so big and wide with that booming voice. 

“We were shooting in Durango, Mexico and my parents came down to visit me,” she added. “He was so great with my parents. So absolutely welcoming and gentle with them. And anybody who was great to my parents was on a throne in my eyes.”

How the world reacted to ‘The Train Robbers’

Wayne starred in many classic Westerns, including The Searchers, Stagecoach, and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. However, The Train Robbers is mostly forgotten. It didn’t gain a cult following like Once Upon a Time in the West or Dead Man. It wasn’t a critical success either, garnering a 33% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. However, Ann-Margret had some fond memories of making the film — even if she refused to call Wayne by his famous nickname.

Continue Reading

John Wayne

True Crime on Amazon Prime: ‘Lorena’ Reexamines a 90s Tabloid Sensation

True crime might not be the first type of show that comes to mind when you think of the offerings on Amazon Prime Video. The perpetually buzzy genre is usually more associated with the likes of Netflix and HBO.

However, the streaming service boasts at least one standout docuseries from 2019. It’s one that can scratch the true crime itch for fans, but also give them a much needed new perspective on a well-worn tabloid sensation from the 1990s.

‘Lorena’ was produced by Jordan Peele of ‘Get Out’ fame

Jordan Peele, Head of Amazon Studios Jennifer Salke, and Lorena Gallo attend the 'Lorena' Premiere during the 2019 Sundance Film Festival.

Jordan Peele, Head of Amazon Studios Jennifer Salke, and Lorena Gallo attend the ‘Lorena’ Premiere during the 2019 Sundance Film Festival. | Rich Fury/Getty Images

Lorena, as the simple, to-the-point title suggests, chronicles the sordid story of Lorena and Jon Bobbit. The series was produced by Jordan Peele, the comedian-turned-director best known for Get Out and Us, and released on Amazon Prime Video in early 2019 following a premiere at the Sundance Film Festival.

In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt infamously cut her husband, John Wayne Bobbitt’s penis off in his sleep with a kitchen carving knife. She drove off with it, tossed it out the car window into a field, and eventually called 911 to report the incident. After a search followed by 9.5 hours of surgery, John Bobbitt was able to get his penis reattached and functioning normally.

Thanks in large part to the salacious and sexual nature of the Bobbittss story, it quickly became a tabloid and late-night talk show sensation. Sadly, as one might expect from a male-dominated culture, the media spectacle largely focused on John Bobbitt as a sympathetic victim and cast Lorena as a hysterical victim. John Bobbitt went on to become something of a cult figure for a time, even starring in two pornographic films.

Part of the mission statement of Lorena, the series, was to use the true crime format to recontextualize the Lorena Bobbitt story. Despite the prevailing perception of the incident beforehand, in reality, John Bobbitt had subjected Lorena to years of domestic abuse and rape, up to and including the night of her attack.

John Bobbitt was eventually acquitted on rape charges. Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty by a jury for reasons of insanity.

“25 years later, Lorena is a groundbreaking re-investigation of the deep moral issues and painful human tragedies buried at the heart of this infamous American scandal,” Amazon’s official description of the series reads, as reported by Deadline. “Lost in the tabloid coverage and jokes was the opportunity for a national discussion on domestic and sexual assault in America.”

Lorena saw a positive reaction upon its release, currently boasting an 82% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It was the biggest project yet from director Joshua Rofé, who previously helmed Lost for Life, a documentary about juvenile offenders sentenced to life in prison.

Continue Reading

Trending