Connect with us

John Wayne

The Train Robbers Was A Canary In The Coal Mine For The Death Of John Wayne Westerns

The 20-year-long persistence of the superhero genre in contemporary blockbuster cinema has cause many pundits to draw a genre parallel between comic book movies and Westerns. In 2015, the Guardian published an essay comparing the two cinematic trends, largely as a predictor as to when the superhero film would finally cease its continued ascendency. That same year, Steven Spielberg compared the genres, once again using the moribund Western as an indicator of the ephemerality of any genre. Seven years since then, superhero movies have churned out several enormous hits, including several of the biggest box office bonanzas of all time. In 2022, however, the entertainment landscape has changed a lot, companies are merging into weird, gross entities, and high-profile superhero projects now stand the chance of being canceled. Pundits have been predicting it for years, but superhero movies may finally be on the downhill slope. Only time will tell.
 
“The Train Robbers,” a Burt Kennedy film from 1973, is from a time when the Western genre, at least as a dominant form in the pop consciousness, was most assuredly on the outs. “The Train Robbers” starred a 69-year-old John Wayne as an aging rogue who volunteers to retrieve a store of gold once stolen from a train by Ann-Margret’s late husband. In terms of structure, the film was classic Hollywood — coming right when audiences were souring to classic Hollywood. “The Train Robbers” came the year after “The Godfather,” and grittier, more “film school” movies were on the rise.
The makers of “The Train Robbers” knew that classic Westerns were already a retro genre when they were making it, and, according to Scott Eyman’s 2015 book “John Wayne: The Life and Legend,” they tried to outrun their fate by underspending. Needless to say, the big budget didn’t help.
The $200,000 payday

Warner Bros.The $4.6 million budget of “The Train Robbers” translates to about $30 million in 2022 dollars. It was, essentially, a mid-budget movie. Wayne’s star had fallen, and his salary was only guaranteed to be $200,000 — about $1.3 million, adjusted. Wayne was also set to get a percentage of the gross. This relatively low payout was a declarative statement. Warner Bros. had little faith in the picture and in the star.
“The Bank Robbers” was photographed by veteran cinematographer William H. Clothier, an old friend of Wayne’s whom he met on the set of 1955’s “The Sea Chase.” After that film, Clothier would sign onto John Wayne’s own production company, Batjac Productions, and he and Wayne would end up making a total of 22 films together. “The Bank Robbers” came right after Clothier had turned 70, and when Wayne was about to turn 70. Clothier, it seems, was very ready to retire. In Eyman’s book, Clothier had said that he enjoyed his work, but was simply too tired to keep doing the same thing all the time. Clothier’s attitudes seems to belie the overall fatigue that “The Bank Robbers” instilled in everyone. He said:
“I like turkey, I have it at Thanksgiving and New Year’s but I don’t want it seven days a week. If I’m working on a picture at Batjac, I’m picked up at six in the morning to go on location. Duke and I are either the first or second ones on the set. We work until the sun goes down, then I have to go into town to see the rushes. Hell, it’s strenuous to get up at 6 a.m. if all you do all day is sit in a rocking chair!”The Duke wasn’t having fun
Warner Bros.But more harmful to “The Train Robbers” than Clothier’s fatigue was Wayne’s. Clothier recalls that Wayne hadn’t been happy making movies for a number of years. Wayne had a lung removed due to cancer in 1964 and had a reputation for being a heavy drinker. He wasn’t in a spot to have a lot of fun getting up in the morning to shoot out in the desert. Clothier and Wayne were very close — they were able to make shockingly dirty jokes with one another — and Clothier could see that Wayne wasn’t having a blast.
“The Train Robbers” had great production value, but it was, in Eyman’s words, a “programmer.” That is: the film was only meant to fill out the Warner Bros. film slate. There was no ambition or originality to the project. It wasn’t an important piece of art with something to say. It was just a genre going through the motions. “The Train Robbers” was produced by Wayne’s son Michael, and even he knew that the film was automated and even a little cynical. Michael Wayne admitted that he attempted to get something meaningful together, and tried to make it look slick and entertaining, but when the story is dull, no amount of slickness will cover it up. Wayne said:
“I worked very hard on ‘The Train Robbers’ to try to make it into something, when basically the story wasn’t that good. I was trying to make up for the story in production values and cast.”The times, they are a-changin’.
Paramount“The Train Robbers” came out to warm critical acclaim and complete audience indifference. It cost just enough to make and distribute that it was all but guaranteed to lose money for Warner Bros. … which it did. According to Eyman’s book, “The Train Robbers” put the studio in the red to the tune of $7.6 million. The film was made with a dull story, starring an uncommitted star, shot by a photographer on the cusp of retirement, and produced by the star’s son … who also had little faith in the project. It was pretty clear that Westerns were done.
The film’s writer/director, Burt Kennedy, even went so far as to write a note of apology to Michael Wayne. The note read “Really feel rotten about ‘Train Robbers’ falling on its ass. Guess it just wasn’t any good.”
Had “The Train Robbers” been good, who is to say what would have happened. But it’s also safe to say that the movie landscape had evolved past the need for old-world oaters like the ones Wayne was making. By the mid 1960s, Westerns had taken a turn for the arty in the hands of filmmakers like Sergio Leone, and what constituted a hit had changed drastically. In 1972, “The Godfather” had caused an enormous splash with a box office of $86 million. The same year as “The Train Robbers,” “The Exorcist” made $82 million. This was a new generation of filmmakers appealing to a new generation of filmgoers. Westerns had no place.
Should a mid-budget MCU-connected film ever come out that seems to elicit audience indifference and apologies from the filmmakers, we might know for sure that superhero films are done, or will be soon.
Cough, “Morbius,” cough cough.

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