Might there be a hole in the plot?
Simmons' father promised that both Ives and Bickford should have completely free access to water - Simmons tells us many times that she has followed through with the promise - and maintains very friendly relations with Bickford's ilk - and is at least on talking terms with Ives+Co. So how does Bickford ignore the promise of Simmons' father while seemingly maintaining cordiality with Simmons - and vice versa?
Not a bit of sense.
You've apparently missed out on the fact that hostilities between the Terrills and the Hannesseys, prior to McKay's arrival, had not yet reached the point of Terrill (Bickford) chasing the Hannesseys and their cattle away from the water. This is the stuff of range wars and an actual all-out war between the two hadn't happened until after the incident at the beginning of the movie when the Hannessey boys did their "welcomin' committee" with newcomer James McKay (Gregory Peck.)
With Clem Maragon now long dead and the Major using the incident with Hannessey boys as his pretext to shoot up Rufus Hannessey's community and round the Hannessey boys up and have them beaten, tensions could only escalate well beyond every ugly thing that had ever occurred in the past between the two ranchers.
So, no plot hole here -- at least, not the one you've brought up. And it makes plenty of sense.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
(So, no plot hole here -- at least, not the one you've brought up. And it makes plenty of sense. )
Yes - agree that film opens with rift widening.
But still Simmons has complete legal control over who gets water or not - so it's disingenuous of her to be playing footsies with the Bickford crowd while maintaining - as she does throughout the film - of Ives' possibility to have the water he needs.
'Hole' remains.
'Hole' remains
...disingenuous...
Still a hole - Simmons was super cosy with Bickford - and was letting Bickford deny water to Ives - AGAINST her father's promises - but at the same time she was claiming to be a Goodie-goodie continuously saying she always honored those promises.
And if she was always honoring them there was no need for there to be any sale. And if Bickford was forcing her to neglect that promise it would seem she could not be so buddy-buddy with Baker, etc. And since she owned the Big Muddy she could damn well apply the law to her permission and Bickford be damned. And no point saying that there was no law then because Bickford was very much interested in the 'legal paper' he asked Peck to sign.
Still a hole
...and was letting Bickford deny water to Ives...
And if she was always honoring them there was no need for there to be any sale.
Frankly, I don't think even Clem Maragon, if he had still been living, could have prevented the Major from eventually doing just as he did, considering the kind of man he was. There were many long years of "cold war" between the Terrills and the Hannesseys and the Major had been festering and itching all that time for a real war. But to expect Maragon's daughter and heir, Julie, a lone woman (and needless to say how little power women had at their disposal and how subjugated they were in the 19th Century) to be able to equal or surpass her late father's effectiveness in maintaining an unbroken and perpetual peace is expecting a bit much, methinks.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
I can understand the reality of what the background might have been - but my whole point was that the JS character would not have been the big buddy-buddy person with the Bickford family! And there would have been a lot more 'disagreement' out in the open. And the sale would have been irrelevant - as you say Bickford was ready to do whatever in any case - Peck's ownership would not affect that any more than JS' would have.
It boils down to a defective xcript/plot - call it a hole or whatever. Or just attribute it to shoddy Hollywood and watch the landscape.
No plot hole, just the way things are in the Big Country. If the Major wants water from Julie, he's just going to take it. Likewise, if he wants to deny Rufus water, he'll do that too. What is Julie supposed to do about it, shoot it out with him? The Major is obviously the law in that part of the country and there isn't a thing Julie can do about it. Rufus of course can, (and eventually does.) McKay and Leech both oppose the Major to some extent, albeit with different results. But the typical single woman in frontier Texas? Not likely. The most you can say is that Julie lacks the stomach for a prolonged feud with the Major and prefers to unload Big Muddy onto someone who is a little tougher, but that's hardly a plot hole--it's more like a character flaw. And the more I think about it, maybe "flaw" is too strong a word.
shareNo - the point I'm making is that it makes no sense for Simmons to be claiming to the world that she keeps her father's promises while AT THE SAME TIME she is being buddy-buddy with the whole Bickford clan - a gang that is nullifying the 'promise.'.
No doubt that is not beyond the usual human proclivity towards hypocrisy - but she is shown in the film to be some kind of Goodie-Goodie - and even in Hollywood parlance that does not include such hypocrisy.
I want tight, logical scripts - and when they're not, I let it be known.
she is being buddy-buddy with the whole Bickford clan
Yeah - but Ives was pretty level-headed about it all
I still go back to Simmons' 'sipping tea' with the Bickford bunch - and retain my wish for better writing.
Obviously not your cuppa tea, and more power to you for holding your own set of preferences, likes and dislikes.
Nevertheless, human society in the sparsely populated area of the Terrills, Hannesseys and Maragons is not something you can partake of just any day, anytime considering the era and the 19th Century's level of transportation and communication technologies. Julie Maragon was of the same social class and age bracket as Pat Terrill and they doubtless went to the same school and church together. Julie had more in common on a social and class level with the Terrills than she did with the grubby and roughshod Hannessey bunch. But her heart was in the right place and she desired to maintain her late father's wish to allow ALL of their neighbors access to the river running through their property, so as to keep the peace. Of course, obstinate and arrogant men like the Major would eventually break the peace even over the flimsiest of pretexts and NOBODY could stand in the way of someone with the Major's power of doing whatever he damned well pleased.
You are the first and only person I've ever encountered who has ever raised this objection and I and other posters have endeavored to mitigate the points which you found objectionable, but in the end your views are your views; you and we have stated them, stick to our guns regarding them, and can only agree to disagree from that point on.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
But her heart was in the right place and she desired to maintain her late father's wish to allow ALL of their neighbors access to the river running through their property, so as to keep the peace.
Be that as it may - she didn't have to snuggle up to them when she was being so obviously run over regarding such an important matter. And not even bring the matter up in the script!
Of course, obstinate and arrogant men like the Major would eventually break the peace even over the flimsiest of pretexts and NOBODY could stand in the way of someone with the Major's power of doing whatever he damned well pleased.
But when she snuggles up to McKay, the 'NOBODY' you declare - disappears!
You are the first and only person I've ever encountered who has ever raised this objection
Funny - every bad restaurant meal I've gotten has been met by the waitress or waiter with a 'No one ever complained before"
can only agree to disagree from that point on.
Let's do that.
Vindici's correct here, the wonderful thing about this film is that all of the characters are well developed and quite human. What you believe to be a plot hole is Julie discovering Terrill's ruthlessness. As V. pointed out, there was no way that she knew the Hannassey cattle were run off until Rufus showed up at the party. As was pointed out, this was an escalating problem.
It's clear that Julie and Pat are childhood friends, how can she not be cozy with the Terrills?
The Hannassey's were rough people, not at all likeable. Clearly she didn't like Buck, and was borderline fearful of him. Certainly she must have known him all his life.
Until the party, as far as Julie knew, her grandfather's wishes had been honored.
What this film shows very well is how a slow-brewing problem can quickly escalate with a catalyst. If McKay doesn't show up in town, it's likely that the problem keeps simmering. There had clearly been small incidents along the way, but McKay's defiance of the major bumped up the emotions at the Terrill ranch, and stirred the major to lash back in a way he'd avoided so far.
I think Julie also sees the Terrills in a different light through McKay's eyes. She always knew her best friend was spoiled, but what are friends for but to love each other for their flaws?
Since it was a big country, it's likely the Hannasseys and Terrills largely avoid each other as they had until then.
All well and good.
But this is absolutely impossible to be true in that tiny 'social network' there: --
"Until the party, as far as Julie knew, her grandfather's wishes had been honored. "
And thus the 'hole.'
her grandfather's wishes were not that they all get along, but just that both ranches had access to water at Big Muddy.
Julie had no interaction with the Major after the party. When she was told at Blanco Canyon that water had been blocked to the Hannasseys, she was surprised and upset. No hole.
The hole has now become a chasm - the 'thirsty cattle' and denial of water had been going on for some time. How could local yokel Julie not have heard about such a 'serious' situation in such a jerkwater town and area? Even without Facebook and Twitter it would have been a trending item impossible to be ignorant of :-) . So it's worse than I thought for poor script writing.
shareyes, right, certainly there would have been some sort of phone tree or something..
Rufus finds out from Buck when Buck rides in. One presumes the rest of the Hannasseys are back at Blanco, or tending the thirsty herd. Who goes into town to complain to the townspeople so Julie can hear?
The Terrills are guarding the Big Muddy or later looking for McKay.
Julie is at her ranch, doesn't get back to town but to record the sale, then is soon kidnapped. The townspeople couldn't have heard yet, and McKay didn't know.
So who would have told whom up to that point such that Julie would know, given the distances people had to travel between the key places?
It is, after all, a big country.. ;
Sure - but my real point was that the water 'problem' was going on for some time and Julie would have had to be living under a very big rock not to have known anything about it - LONG BEFORE any parties - Blanco fights - etc.
We don't blame Julie - just the writer. ;-)
I prefer tighter scripts.
In real life rural, there are neighbors who have land disputes with each other, water rights battles, etc, who have kids, who's kids grow up together, become best friends, help each other out of crises.
The two patriarchs hate each other, but both got along well with Clem Merrigan apparently. Is it a plot hole that Clem managed to get along with the two men who hated each other and promise them each water if they needed it?
That's how the world works. The hatred and hypocrisy of the major was difficult to see for most people because the major probably treated everybody very well, was likely a resource of help for all of his neighbors. The party showed that. Rufus was apparently not very popular amongst his neighbors, nor did he particularly care.
As the film pointed out, with what I consider EXCELLENT writing, was this feud between the Hannasseys and Terrills had nothing all to do with water rights to the Big Muddy. They were just two hateful old men, that in the end managed to do the right thing for the people they loved by not drawing any more people into their evil.
So what you consider a plot hole, is actually the plot. McKay's pacifism and strength of character is what exposes Terrill's (and eventually Rufus's) hypocrisy for what it is.
Yes I understand all that - but there was no way that Julie could not be an active member of the 'community'(and it was SMALL!) - and not know there was a 'water' problem going on - I am not a rancher but getting cattle and water together must be close to a daily operation (I heard nothing about them being camels).
As was clear Julie's father had passed on much earlier - so this all had been going on for a significant amount of time - thus would be no surprise to anyone in that 'community.' Anyone writing it as a 'surprise' didn't have a good understanding of what the real world 'out there' was or they just wrote in a sloppy manner.
As said I give rather full respect to tight scripts. I didn't think it was a bad movie but I did point out what was indeed a hole (in the writing).
Maybe we should just agree to disagree and move on.
Your original question was that there was a possible plot hole when the Terrills and Julie had a strong friendship even while Terrill was betraying that:
"So how does Bickford ignore the promise of Simmons' father while seemingly maintaining cordiality with Simmons - and vice versa?"
As has been pointed out, Julie was unaware until she was kidnapped, so we have no chance to see what she would have done, they had no contact. She did react with indignation when informed.
There was no chance for her to find out from others, so it was well within the plotline to find out from Rufus that he'd been denied.
The major was grossly betraying this friendship, and not just in this way. As you recall, he was eager to march into the canyon and start a war even with the possibility of McKay's success and that he might be taking her out when he charged in. This, Leach pointed out to him. So this was consistent with a bitter, hypocritical, hateful old man that was willing to have his hands killed, friends betrayed or killed to have his way.
Both old men saw themselves as morally correct and dominant, and McKay exposed each of their hypocrisies, not just to others but to themselves - interestingly through the ultimate failures of their children, Buck, Julie, and Leach, a sort-of son who defied him.
"There was no chance for her to find out from others"
Why not? She was not on holiday in the Canary Islands. She was on the spot in a micro-community the whole time.
Weren't the cattle driven off her land after the party? Before they'd shot their water. I can't remember off the top of my head if there was a plot reason other than the hatred for the Terrill's driving the cattle off, but I'm sure it was after the party, and Julie didn't find out what they'd done until the Hannassey's had kidnapped her. And if she was living in town during that time there was no way she'd have been able to find out about it until she went back.
shareYes, mlynsbtt, you're right. Cattle aren't driven off until later. When Rufus came to the party with his shotgun, he said the men could take a beating because they're "full grow'd", but mentions riding into Big Muddy like they was God Almighty.
So they'd shot up the ranch already but not run off the cattle from water.
Rufus' speech is on imdb quotes.
So it further discredits the whole 'plot hole' thing. In any case, as you say, Julie first learns that cattle had been denied water after being kidnapped.
late to the party--but
Rufus mentioned HIS homestead--which wasn't the Big Muddy--
as to why Julie couldn't enforce her grandfather's wishes--
1--she is a woman in a land where men rule--even if she owns the property
2--the law is 200 miles away and probably what law there is, is in Major Terrill's back pocket
3--Force is what the people in that area respect--
Julie has no way to force anyone to do anything---she has no cowboys to work her ranch and even check on who is getting water from Big Muddy...
In the real world of post civil war TX, I am surprised she could pay the taxes on a school teacher's salary and keep ownership of her land or that she didn't have squatters living on it with so much going unsupervised...
the fact that Steve and the Major's men were waiting on the cattle and knew right where they would show up means it had been happening and likely that spot was the closest from the Hannesy land to watering at the Big Muddy and they had driven the cows there numerous times before--in other dry seasons if not this one...
What Terrill's men did was trespass--and in the real west, they would have been in as much jeopardy as Hannesy's IF there were any cowboys working for the Big Muddy...
"...That's the beauty of argument, Joey. If you argue correctly, you're never wrong..."
Thanks for the reinforcement, sul-4. I've sort of recused myself in this discussion because it seems that the honorable OP and I have gone about as far as we can in the argument and neither of us are going to easily knuckle under in our respective views.
Slight disagreement about the Hanneseys being "not at all likeable." Except for ne'er-do-well Buck, they didn't strike me as being such a horrid bunch. Actually, the Hannessey brothers with their "welcomin' committee" at the beginning of the movie WERE quite likeable. Rufus is one of those roughshod, yet "hard but fair" types we've all met. Grungy and rough around the edges? Sure! But not particularly evil, except for their sorry-excuse-for-a-man brother, Buck.
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
I suggest robwoods watch the movie again. No plot hole. No water in this heat statement suggests a lack of water or the start of a drought. Cowboys running cattle away from water is not something they would be proud of and go about bragging. If they did it wouldn't be until after some time in the saloon which would not give the girl time to have heard that it had happened.
shareThe answer is provided early in the film, when the Major tell's Jim that the law is far away, and you have to provide your own. So, the biggest gang makes the rules. Even if Rufus gets a marshal to come out, or a territorial judge - it won't provide much help. The cattle would quickly die.
shareGlad to say the question has come back to what I saw as a problem - what Simmons knew and when she knew it.
It may turn out that she didn't know what she didn't know.
I understand the poster's concern with Julie socializing with the Terrells. Rufus said the sane thing. But I agree with the other poster that she grew up with Pat and was of their class. And, these issues escalated after Buck's welcoming party.
shareThere's no plothole whatever. Julie and Pat grew up together, quite likely the only girls of high social standing in the area. So they were close. But despite this, she kept her grandfather's promise.
Pat being how she is, had probably besieged Julie to sell to her father. At the same time Rufus Hennessy made her offers, too. Knowing that would escalate the animosity between the main clans, she kept it. Then she sold it to McKay who promised to keep up the access to all neighbours.
By then the situation had escalated too much for it to matter.
The only valid remark in this thread against this scenario, is about property taxes. Though maybe she sold most of the old ranch off to the neighbours, only keeping the waterhole and river, to prevent what happened anyway.
I did not save the boy, God did. I only CARRIED him.share
I still believe Julie's behavior was inconsistent with what she knew and what she knew were her father's intentions and what her relations were with the Bickford family - and since this is the only real plot of the film - it is a 'hole.'
Maybe we should just leave it there and maybe both re-watch the film sometime.
Interesting tidbit of the day - I just finished the TBC novel, and in it Julie's friendship with the Terrill's had been ruined by refusing to sell Big Muddy. I wonder why the film decided to change it?
shareWhere did you obtain the novel? I'd like to order a copy!
Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!
Where did you obtain the novel? I'd like to order a copy!
I just finished the TBC novel, and in it Julie's friendship with the Terrill's had been ruined by refusing to sell Big Muddy. I wonder why the film decided to change it?
I found a copy just a few weeks ago for $50 for my wife who loves this film and loves to read. Found it on ebay.
A bit too much to pay, I think, but it's a special case.
I haven't read it yet, I'm away from home for a while.
The OP was obviously quite enjoying being stubborn about his "plot hole". Julie's behavior is consistent. If this had been a quickie Roy Rogers adventure for the Saturday matinee crowd, a simplistic black-and-white plot with Julie immediately rejecting the Terrills might have made sense. But "The Big Country" is a subtle, adult story about characters with realistic nuances and flaws. Julie's continuing relationship with the Terrills makes perfect sense in that context, and she can still be plausible as a good, well-meaning person. There was no plot hole.
share