Very strange...

Tro og viden

2008-01-24T10:25:00.001+01:00

En tilbagevendende debat i danske medier handler om forholdet mellem religion og videnskab. Tilsyneladende mener man, at der kun findes de to måder at forholde sig til verden på. Debatten føres kun i religiøse - ikke i naturvidenskabelige - kredse og formålet er altid at redde troen fra videnskaben. Det gøres naturligvis bedst i form af et angreb, og angrebet består altid i at forsøge at vise, hvor fattig "naturvidenskaben" er i sit "menneskesyn".

Noget meget mærkeligt ved den debat er, at den næsten altid fremstilles som en debat om forholdet mellem "tro" og "viden". Man forestiller sig åbenbart, at man på den ene side har "tro" og "religion" - og på den anden side "viden" og "videnskab". Det er tydelivis en ekstremt sejlivet opfattelse, at så snart man taler om tro, er man inden for religionens domæne. Engang imellem opdager religionernes forsvarere dog, at videnskabsmænd også taler om tro - hvilket straks får dem til at forsøge at bevise , at videnskab i virkeligheden er religiøs tro! Men tro er jo på ingen måde noget specielt religiøst. Efter den mest almindelige definition er viden "justified true belief" - altså en begrundet sand tro/formodning. Jeg tror, at der er kameler i Sahara. Jeg har rigtig mange gode grunde til at tro, at der er kameler i Sahara. Hvis der faktisk er kameler i Sahara, så kan jeg sige, at jeg ved, at der er kameler i Sahara. Hvis jeg ikke tror, at der er kameler i Sahara, selvom der faktisk er det, kan jeg ikke sige, at jeg ved, at der er kameler i Sahara.

Tro er altså en forudsætning for viden - uanset om man kalder sig videnskabsmand eller religiøs. Heraf følger *intet* om videnskabens karakter af religion. Religion har på ikke patent på begrebet "tro". Lige nu *tror* jeg, at klokken er ca. kvart i ti om aftenen. Det giver mig på ingen måde et religiøst forhold til spørgsmålet om, hvad klokken er.

Det, denne debat i virkeligheden drejer sig om, er altså forholdet mellem videnskab og religion. F.eks. vil man gerne have svar på, om man ikke fornuftigvis er nødt til at antage, at universet blev skabt og ikke bare opstod af ingenting. Man synes at mene, at hvis svaret er "jo", så må videnskaben bøje sig for religionen. Men det spørgsmål, man her stiller er jo et fuldstændigt neutralt logisk spørgsmål. Man er slet ikke nået til religion endnu. Selv hvis svaret er "jo", følger der *intet* om, hvad vi så skal mene om - eller stille op med - en evt. skaber af universet. Hvem siger, at skaberen er god? Hvem siger, at skaberen skal tilbedes? Hvem siger, at vi skal gøre, hvad han ønsker? At forsøge at svare på de spørgsmål er en helt anden diskussion end at forsøge at svare på, hvorvidt universet er skabt eller ej. Kreationisme-debatten efterlader meget stærk det indtryk, at tilhængerne af ideen om intelligent design på ingen måde gør sig det klart. De synes at mene, at når først man har fået vist, at verden er skabt, så følger alle de normative spørgsmål af sig selv. Formentlig er det aldrig gået op for dem, at der skulle være nogen vanskeligheder ved at slutte fra "er" til "bør".

Desværre synes det også at gælde de, der går direkte til de normative spørgsmål. For eksempel de, der mener, at religion har en fordel i forhold til "begrundelsen af moralen". Det synes ikke på nogen måde, at være faldet dem ind, at uanset, hvad nogen kunne finde på af udlede af påbud eller forbud af påstanden om denne eller hin guds eksistens, ville man altid kunne stille spørgsmålet: "Hvorfor?"

Forholdet mellem religion og videnskab er, kort sagt, det, at en religion er et tankesæt, der under henvisning til en eller flere løst funderede *logisk/videnskabelige* hypoteser (f.eks. at universet må være skabt) forsøger at udlede forskrifter for, hvordan livet bør leves. That's it. Og kan vi så ikke komme videre...

Winchester ' 73 - Groundbreaking or deeply traditional?

2007-11-18T15:27:00.001+01:00

It seems to me that Anthony Mann's Winchester '73 (1950) suffers severely from a heavy-handed and highly moralistic script by Borden Chase. Much has been said about the fact that James Stewart's character is at the verge of madness and some see this as a sign of complex morality. The logic seems to be that the presence of a mentally unstable hero surely must express an attempt to deconstruct the myth of the hero. However, this view overlooks the simple fact, that the extreme emotions of the hero are not first and foremost expressions of his own disposition but caused by the severity of the crime committed by the bad guy. It is true that one could imagine less extreme reactions to this crime - but that is just what makes Lin McAdam a hero: his sensitiveness and his deep moral integrity. A Western Hamlet, so to speak.

In other words, the morality of the movie is disturbingly primitive. We have a sensitive and highly moral hero on one hand and an extremely slimy bad guy on the other. This is stressed right after Lin McAdams has killed his brother. High Spade - the trusty friend of Lin McAdams who throughout the movie has served as our source to the history of the McAdams-family, is sitting on the doorstep to a stagecoach together with Lola. She is anxiously waiting for Lin to return but High Spade slowly rolls a cigarette and says:

"Well, that's how it was. The old man sired two sons. One was no good...never was any good"

and then gives us a list of the crimes of the bad brother. He is in no hurry. He knows that the good brother will be the one returning from the shoot-out. He does, and after the obligatory enthusiastic embrace by the worried girl, the camera zooms in on the sign on the "1 in a 1000"-rifle which states that it was won in a competition. The whole scene is one long justification of the murder and the effect is that the movie seems to be disappointingly traditional in its morality: there are good guys and bad guys and the bad guys has to die for their sins whereas the good guys are rewarded with a pretty girl with a heart of gold and with the admiration of society.

The Searchers - An anti-revenge movie?

2007-11-18T15:23:00.001+01:00

In my opinion, John Ford's The Searchers (1956) is an anti-revenge movie that makes the point that love, not revenge, is the cure for bitterness. Ethan is exceedingly bitter when the search begins. But face to face with Debbie, his love for her wins over his hate of anything indian and he appears to be much more at peace with himself at the end of the movie.

But it is not a sappy resolution of bitterness such as the one in "The Naked Spur" og "The Far Country" (both by Anthony Mann and from 1953 and 1954, respectively) where James Stewart (once again) gets the girl and everything is good. Ethan is still a loner at the end of the movie. With all his experience and knowledge of the dark sides of humanity, he does not belong in the almost satirically portrayed "normal life".

An interesting parallell is Henry King's The Bravados (1958), which is clearly an anti-revenge movie. Gregory Peck is on a very similar search for a girl abducted by ruthless bandits whom he has very personal reasons to hate. He finds the girl, and kills the bandits - except the one which makes him realize that the bandits are not guilty of the crime he hates them for! At his return to the village of the abducted girl he is celebrated as a hero - but the irony is very sharp! "You will always be in our hearts", the sherif says in his speech. "Thank you - and in your prayers...please", Gregory Peck answers. The priest of the village, to whom Peck has just confessed, praises Peck for not being like other men in his shoes, who would excuse their crime by saying that the bandits were evil and deserved to die anyway. It is heavily hinted that the villagers are not among those who understand the fine line between justice and murder.

In this day and age where so many seem to think that a really good western is one where a tough guy gives the bad guys what they deserve, it is interesting to see that two of the most powerful westerns ever made are anti-revenge movies.

Venstre - et bredt og folkeligt parti?

2007-11-17T15:30:00.000+01:00

Anders Fogh Rasmussen sagde idag på Venstres landsmøde:

- I sidste århundrede var det som om, at det var Socialdemokraterne, der havde førstefødselsretten til regeringsmagten i Danmark. Men nu har vi vist, at Venstre får en tredje valgperiode og kan lede det politiske arbejde. Dermed er der skabt et nyt mønster. Et nyt mønster med Venstre som det brede folkelige parti, der ligeværdigt kan påtage sig den politiske ledelse af Danmark.

(Citeret fra Berlingske Tidende, lørdag d. 17/11 2007)

Han har tilsyneladende glemt, at Socialdemokraterne dengang, de var brede og folkelige, var et langt større parti end Venstre. Venstre er nu langt om længe blevet ligeså store som Socialdemokraterne på disses hidtige lavpunkt!

Venstre er med andre ord langt fra at være et bredt, folkeligt parti. De er snarere end højre-version af Socialdemokraterne. Spørgsmålet er, om denne opsplitning af socialdemokratisk politik er udtryk for, at danskerne dybest set er meget enige - eller meget splittede?

Formentlig først og fremmest forvirrede. Ingen - hverken Anders eller Helle - har endnu fundet den tidsvarende model for det brede folkelige parti.

Some recent shots

2007-11-17T12:50:00.001+01:00

Just to get this blog going again are here three shots from a fairly recent visit with my son, Sikker, to our family retreat near Gribskov, Denmark. click on the images, if you would like to see them in larger versions.

A rose in late sunlight

2007-08-15T10:42:00.001+02:00

Shot across the fence of a small garden in Guldbergsgade - one of the strangest streets in all of Copenhagen because of its intense mix of people with all kinds of income-level and ethnic background. On the one hand it's a street that's kind of tucked away - for years it was a street with *very* little traffic. For this reason it was often used by less kind people to dump worn out (or stolen) cars. It was not uncommon to see "new" old cars every week - without license plates and with broken windows (often without doors and seats as well). In recent years the area has seen a tremendous growth in small shops, restaurants, kindergartens - and one of Copenhagen's most popular cinemas. For this reason it is now a very popular street with all kinds of trendy people moving around between the local drunks :-)

First day at the next level

2007-08-01T21:20:00.001+02:00

Kirstine had her first day in kindergarten today. The kids in the kindergarten always enjoy the new kids first day (or first days). It's great to meet the new cellmate - and it's also interesting to meet the new parents. Do they listen to kids? Will they play? Will they help getting the pears down from the pear-tree?

Just testing mobile blogging...

2007-08-01T00:00:00.001+02:00

I should be sleeping now...

A few more "After the rain"-shots

2007-07-31T10:04:00.000+02:00

The wheather changes fast in Denmark this summer - so it is quite challenging to plan anything that depends on the wheather. On the other hand this gives lots of possibilites for photography. Massive bursts of rain suddenly stops and strange and beautiful light rules for a while. Grabbed these shots while playing with Kirstine after taking her home from daycare yesterday.

A Rainbow over Copenhagen

2007-07-29T22:13:00.000+02:00

A fantastic rainbow over the popular café-area, Sankt Hans Torv, on Nørrebro in Copenhagen. People were all over the place taking photographs of this rainbow - coming out of the cafés where they had been hiding for the massive rain today :-) I had to look after my kids who were busy dancing in the pits of water around the most ugly fountain in Copenhagen (possible even: in the world) - so I couldn't concentrate very hard on photography :-) But I do promise to get my sensor cleaned very soon!

A very short visit to the National Museum

2007-07-29T08:27:00.000+02:00

Went to the National Musem of Denmark with my son, Sikker. Unfortunately, we had been too slow to get going, so the musem were closing only twenty minutes after we arrived. As usual the museum guards were awfully pushy when they were telling the children and their parents that time was up. We went for a quiet stroll through an "after the rain" Copenhagen instead.

The brightness of a rainy day

2007-07-27T14:57:00.000+02:00

For two rainy days now, Sikker and I have basically been lying on our backs watching Wallace and Gromit or reading Tintin. Great stuff :-) Sikker is full of increadibly funny and wise observations of life and greatly enjoys having his parents full (well, almost) attention for two full days, while his sister is away with her grandmother :-)

The shot below is from another recent (extremely) rainy day, when Sikker and I went to see my grandfather.

Recent flowershots

2007-07-26T02:19:00.001+02:00

I have done a couple of flowershots that I have been fairly pleased with recently. See what you think:

All of the images can be seen here (together with other recent shots).

The End of GSM?

2007-07-25T13:46:00.001+02:00

A recent study has shown that IP Telephony has been slow to catch on in Denmark. Leading analysts have been quick to conclude that everybody will be much better off by ditching both PSTN- and IP Telephony in favor of the GSM-net: more and more people are only using their mobile - thus making it more expensive to call them via IP-telephony or PSTN than via GSM, it is argued.

However, this argument fails to take into account several very important recent developments: numerous new high-end mobile-phones - such as the entire E- and N-series from Nokia have build support for IP Telephony. This means that it is possible for you to phone your contacts either cheap or free - and for them to call you either cheap or free. Of course, you need to either use a WLAN-connection or to have a decent plan for data-usage with your carrier - preferably a flat-rate plan.

Some people seem to think that the IP Telephony in these phones are only to be used with a WLAN-connection - thus limiting the usefulness of the whole idea severely. But this is simply mistaken. IP Telephony can be used perfectly well with 3G-connections.

Furthermore, some new providers of IP Telephony are focusing exclusively on IP Telephony on mobile phones - prominent among them is the very interesting London-based Truphone - who is also offering excellent software to manage an account with them on your phone (with automatic switching between WLAN- and 3G-connection, for example). Another very interesting new piece of software in this category is Fring - which will allow you to chat with and/or call your Google Talk-, Skype- or Fring-concacts for free or to call landline and mobile phones using either an account with a SIP-provider or SkypeOut.

Another indication of the future of IP Telephony on mobile phones is the fact that flatrate dataplans are getting much more common. Here in Denmark the mobile carrier 3 is offering so-called Mobile Broadband which can be used both with a computer or a phone. In my opinion, this a very powerful product with a bright future as it enables you to collect all your internet- and phone-activities in one package (not to mention being online on your laptop wherever you go). I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of product should turn out to become leader of its kind both in the internet-field and in the phone-field - just because it combines the two fields in a very efficient and powerful way. Most probably it will soon become even more poweful - for example offering interesting content-packages which you can access from you pc or from your phone as desired (TV-channels, for example, as 3 is already offering Mobile TV here in Denmark).

Excellent article on all this at BBC

A Review of the Western "The Violent Men" (1955)

2007-01-04T22:41:00.000+01:00

Glenn Ford in "The Violent Men" (1955)

Glenn Ford is former cavalry captain John Parrish, who has settled down temporarily in a western valley to recover from his war-wounds. He has promised to go back East with his girlfriend when he has recovered.

When the story opens, he is on his way to see the doctor. On the street he almost gets run over by a gang of baddies - the hired hands from the Anchor-ranch led by Lew Wilkinson (Edward G. Robinson). Lew wants to own the entire valley and has for many years been using very ruthless means to achieve this goal. This way of doing things has got him crippled, though, and he is now set on a more gentle approach. Unfortunately, his crippled physics and his new softness - comparatively speaking - has made his wife, Martha (Barbara Stanwyck) despise him. In fact, it was always his brother Cole she loved - but Lew was the successful one, so her ambition led her to choose him. After Lew's accident she has manipulated him to bring back Cole to help them run the Anchor-ranch. Without Lew's knowing Martha and Cole resume their old relationship and run the Anchor-ranch as ruthlessly as Lew ever did.

Lew Wilkinson (Edward G. Robinson) with pretty but fierce daughter Judith (Diane Foster) and John Parrish (Glenn Ford)

One of Cole's most important "tools" in running Anchor is his right hand, Wade Matlock - a very brutal gunman. It's Wade and other hired hands from Anchor that gallop down the main street as we meet John Parrish on his way to the doctor. As expected, the doctor tells Parrish that he is now completely recovered and wishes him a happy honeymoon-trip to the East. When the doctor learns that Parrish is going away for good and that he intent to sell his ranch to Wilkinson, he gets very disappointed. He thinks Parrish should stay and help the farmers of the valley resist the dominance of Anchor. Parrish' reply is the classic "hardened loner"-one: "What happens in this valley is no concern of mine!" We know that we are in for yet another version of a classic western-formula.

Sure enough: when Parrish gets back on the street he arrives just in time to see the friendly - and righteous - old sheriff being gunned down by Wade Matlock when he tries to stop Matlock and the rest of the Anchor-men from harassing a farmer who has been complaining about the low price Wilkinson paid him for his farm. Watching this event without interfering gives Parrish greats qualms about selling his place to Wilkinson - and he tells his fiancée Caroline (May Wynn) and her family so. This upsets Caroline a lot as she is *very* eager to leave the town. In fact, a little later Caroline tries to brush off another suitor by saying that he will never be able to take her out of town - to which he replies: "What do you want? A man or a railroad ticket?” Thus we learn that Caroline is a pretty ruthless girl who does not have any qualms about using other people as means to reach her goals. We are never told why she wants to get out so badly, but it is made very obvious that her reasons are severely selfish - and this makes her *very* different from Grace Kelly's character in "High Noon". "I want to get out of here - and nothing is going to stop me" she says - and persuades Parrish to sell to Wilkinson after all. This earns Parrish the utter contempt of the other farmers in the valley. Of course, Parrish is not one to bother about what other people think of him - so he goes to see Wilkinson about the deal. To his surprise this also earns him the scorn of Wilkinson's daughter, Judith (Dianne Forster). She is well aware of what is going on between her mother and Cole and how they run the Anchor-ranch. Parrish gets a very low offer for his ranch and 24 hours to think about it - indicating that he will be forced to sell when the time is up.

Caroline (May Wynn) nagging the poor John Parrish (Glenn Ford)

Nonetheless, Parrish is still determined to keep his promise to Caroline - until he learns of the brutal killing by the Anchor-people of one of his loyal men. When it becomes obvious that the new sheriff is controlled by the Anchor and nothing is going to be done about the murder, Parrish decides to take up the fight. The rest of the movie shows us how he does that using the skills he learned in the army. This "cleverness-against-force"-theme is played out with great strength and is probably what will attract modern viewers most about the movie.

Of course, the theme of ruthless people using other people to reach their goals will also be very familiar to modern viewers - but this is certainly one of the greatest problems of this movie: although played by great actors such as Edward G. Robinson and Barbara Stanwyck, the ruthless characters are all highly unconvincing. Just as in - say - "Dynasty" or "Dallas" (or other soap-operas) they are two-dimensional people used to propel a lot of action. It's all incredibly smoothly done with lots of great vistas and an absolutely wonderful score by Max Steiner - but the emotional conflicts in this movie is not very likely to engage anyone. It's an action-flick disguised as a morality-play.

Still, even though it is not as great as "Jubal" (1956) or the masterly "3:10 to Yuma", this is definitely a worthwhile Glenn Ford-western.

"Three Violent People" (Rudolph Maté, 1956)

2006-08-31T10:39:00.000+02:00

I consider this movie to be one of the greatest westerns I have ever seen (which means one of the best westerns out of more than hundred of the most interesting and important movies in the genre)! Some people seem to think that it is a rather ordinary western about people fighting for land - but it is definitely primarily a film about three characters who has been having rather rough lives and who, in the course of the movie, all get a chance to get things back together. The interest of the movie simply is whether they will succeed in this.

The three characters are played by Anne Baxter, Charlton Heston and Tom Tryon and, in my opinion, they all put on a fantastic show. First and foremost, though, Anne Baxter. It is definitely her movie - although she gets tough competition by Gilbert Roland in a fantastic role as Charlton Heston's Mexican "grand vaquero". In my humble opinion Anne Baxter and Gilbert Roland simply creates two of the most memorable characters in the history of the western genre!! The scene where Charlton Heston brings Anne Baxter to his ranch and she is greeted by Gilbert Roland and his sons is hilariously funny and deeply moving and is a great example of the virtues of this great off-beat western.

Ekstremt undervurderet - en kommentar til John Ford's "Two Rode Together" (1961)

2006-01-29T11:05:00.000+01:00

Stewart er en desillusioneret og lettere korrupt sherif, der hyres af hæren til at bringe efterlyste hvide tilbage fra fangenskab hos Comanche-indianere. Widmark er en officer - og gammel ven af sheriffen -, der følger Stewart til Comanche-lejren. Stewart mener, at hele projektet er dødsdømt på forhånd, da alle de efterlyste har været hos Comancherne i mange år og derfor må formodes at være mere indianere end hvide af sind. På forskellig vis bliver han dog alligevel overtalt til at påtage sig opgaven. Det lykkes Stewart og Widmark at få to hvide frigivet. Den ene er en ung mand, der nu er Comanche i en grad, så han ikke længere taler engelsk og intet husker fra sin tid som hvid. Den anden er en spansk officersdatter, der har været hustru for en af de førende Comanche-indianere i fem år. Hun husker udemærket, hvor hun kommer fra, men nærer intet ønske om at komme tilbage - da hun ved hvordan man vil se på hende blandt hvide. Hun vælger dog af følge med alligevel. Resten af filmen handler om den modtagelse de to frigivne fanger får "hjemme" blandt hvide.

Der er tale om en *meget* sortere film end "The Searchers". Filmen skifter dog - på karakterisk Ford-vis - mellem komedie og drama og gudskelov for det. Den ville ellers have været ubærligt rå. Filmen skæmmes noget af mangelfuld fotografering, instruktion og scenografi. Temmelig mystisk i betragtning af, hvor velfungerende den ellers er.

Efter min mening en af John Ford's vigtigste westerns. Under alle omstændigheder giver den et ekstremt vigtigt perspektiv på "The Searchers" - først og fremmest fordi den har samme tema, men sandelig også fordi den forekommer meget mere realistisk i sit syn på muligheden i 1800-tallets USA for en genoptagelse blandt hvide af kvinder og børn, der har levet lang tid blandt indianere.

"Hangman's Knot" (Roy Huggins, 1952)

2005-11-30T11:24:00.000+01:00

En håndfuld sydstats-soldater er blevet sat til at få en masse guld tilbage fra fjenden. Det gør de - og udsletter samtidig en hel deling soldater. Desværre ved de ikke, at krigen er forbi. De er nu ikke længere soldater, men fredløse.

Inden længe har de en "posse" af slyngler efter sig, der hævder, at de er "deputies". Vore venner kaprer en dilligence, der indeholder smukke, kyske Donna Reed og hendes lumpne bejler (der arbejder som indianer agent), og bringer dem med sig til en lille hytte, der beboes af en gammel knark og hans datter, der har mistet sin mand i krigen. Hun finder snart ud af, at hendes søn var blandt de soldater, vore venner myrdede for at løse deres opgave. Vore helte har altså både fjender indenfor og udenfor murerne (da forfølgerne naturligvis hurtigt finder dem). Resten af filmen handler om deres forsøg på at vinde over mistroen fra "fjenderne" indenfor med ærlighed og nobelhed og over den brutale vold fra fjenderne udenfor med snuhed og mod.

God filosofisk western - en kommentar til Jack Arnold's "No Name on the Bullet" (1959)

2005-11-30T11:10:00.000+01:00

Et godt eksempel på 50'ernes filosofiske western - i dette tilfælde måske snarere: den social-pyskologiske western (a la "High Noon", "Warlock" osv). Audie Murphy er en berygtet revolvermand, der ved sin blotte tilstedeværelse i en lille by forårsager angst og selvmord, da alle tror, at han er kommet efter dem. "Alle har en hemmelighed", som det hedder i filmen. Heltene er den lokale smed og hans lægesøn, der som de eneste møder den berygtede lejemorder som "just another man". Godt manuskript, god instruktion, temmelig fantastisk underlægnings-musik (af Hermain Stein) og glimrende casting i alle roller.

Best western - "The Bravados" (Henry King, 1958)

2005-10-25T10:55:00.000+02:00

I believe, that I have seen the better part of the most important westerns (see if you agree). This is without any doubt the best. It's that simple. Everything works in this intense revenge movie: Gregory Peck's extremely understated dark avenger, the sublime trio of bad guys, the *very* original locations (original mexican village), fabulous photography, incredbly intense music, enganging and clever script and wonderfully inspired direction. The only little weak spot is Joan Collins :-) A (very) dark, overlooked classic.

"Forty Guns" (Samuel Fuller, 1957)

2005-06-24T10:32:00.000+02:00

Yet another meditation on the Wyatt Earp-myth. Sure, it's a bizarre meditation - with the Clantons replaced by "a woman whit a whip" and her forty gunmen - but that doesn't save it from being a bad movie. Mainly because of the terrible script - which is corny to the bone - but also because of terrible acting in some parts and lots of camera-movements that seems designed to attract attention to themselves rather than to the story. Furthermore, the score is probably among the most uninspired ever composed for a western.

The super-corny style of it all and the focus on a strong woman and her passionate love for a taciturn newcomer isn't even very original - it was all in Nicholas Ray's "Johnny Guitar" from 1954. The corniness of that movie also made it tough to sit through - but at least it had some very witty dialog.

"Warlock" (Edward Dmytryk, 1959)

2005-06-14T10:43:00.000+02:00

This western is obviously very original and well made. Still, on closer examination it does not appear to be very deep. On the one side are the bad guys, on the other side we have the good guy. The bad guys are the citizens of Warlock - who hire a gunman to clean up their city - and the gunman and his friend - who clean up cities for a living. The good guy is the reformed bandit who take the deputy-job when nobody else wants it. Just because he feels it right. The good guy gets his girl and wins over the bad guys: the citizens are turned into good guys who support their deputy at the final showdown and the gunman leaves town without his girl and having shot his friend dead.

The originality of this story is in the way it handles the Wyatt Earp-myth. Instead of trying to recreate a more or less "authentic" version of the events in Tombstone, it takes interesting parts and use them to create an entirely fictional story. This obviously is the way to go. Unfortunately, it seems have been done in a much too schematic way here. In spite of lots of clever dialog-writing the characters simply appears far too one-sided. Particularly underdeveloped are the romantic relationships. The "bad" girl falls for the good guy, and the "good" girl falls for the bad guy with very little explanation and in *very* short time.

The relationship between the "wyatt Earp"-character and the "Doc Halliday"-character is also oddly "underdescribed". The "Doc Halliday"-character are fond of the Wyatt Earp-character to the point of killing anyone that threatens this friendship in any way - just because the "Wyatt Earp"-character does not see him as a cripple. And what does the "Wyatt Earp"-character see in the "Doc Halliday"-character? We are given no hint of an answer and in fact the "Wyatt Earp"-character most of all wants to end the friendship and settle down with a woman. A woman he hardly knows and whom he suddenly announces that he is going to marry after a bizarrely sudden "romantic" scene. It's hard to avoid the impression that the story only gives him this romantic interest in order to be able to punish him later when he has to leave town without the girl.

Still, in spite of all this it's an entertaining and exciting movie with lots of good acting and excellent cinematography.

"Tombstone" (George Pan Cosmatos, 1993)

2005-05-24T10:51:00.000+02:00

Dødkedelig tegneserie-western. Fyldt med klichéer og latterlig "filosofisk" dialog. Absurd stereotyp karaktertegning - i nogle tilfælde næsten ingen karaktertegning. F.eks. er det eneste vi får at vide om Wyatt Earps kone, Mattie, at hun er opiumsjunkie og ikke forstår hans drøm om at leve et liv med permanent "roomservice" - en drøm, filmens stakkels Wyatt ikke engang selv har formået at udtænke, men som han har fra Josie Marcus. Tilgengæld bruger filmen så lang tid på Josie Marcus, at der ikke levnes nogen tvivl om, at hun i denne fortolkning er aldeles overfladisk og uudholdelig. På dette punkt glimrer imidlertid en sjælden logik i filmen: kun en så fantasisløs dødbider som den her afbildede Wyatt kan falde for en så endimensionel person som den her afbildede Josie.

"Lonesome Dove" (Simon Wincer, 1989)

2005-05-11T11:19:00.000+02:00

Definitely the worst western, I've seen so far. Generally good actors, but awful story, horrible dialogue and completely lifeless cinematography and direction. Please watch "Red River" (Howard Hawks), "The Far Country" (Anthony Mann) or "Cowboy" (Delmer Daves) instead. All movies about troubled friendships which develops - or comes to an abrupt end - during long travels with cows!