Maybe someone can explain this... how is it that 36-year-old Steve McQueen is playing the role of a "kid"? It's not like he looks a lot younger than his years. Even when he rides into a town where no one knows him, the stable hand calls him Kid, the saloon keeper calls him Kid.
Does anyone else think there's something odd about this?
((CONTAINS PLOT SPOILERS))
I see the movie occasionally and it always irritates some unknown part of me. First there's what you mention: this weirdness of him being a "kid" and then an Indian as well. In the scenes with Brian Keith, who's acting is terrific IMO, they look the same age.
For some reason the violence seems over-the-top and gratuitous. Every few minutes someones getting cut, blasted, burned, dragged, punched...it seems endless. The same director did "True Grit" in 1970 but for some reason all the violence there seems just about right.
I saw this film as a kid, and it disturbed me then. Even as an adult it's hard to swallow. Those descriptions of his mom and dad being killed are almost pornographic in detail. Man, it's creepy.
McQueen seems distant and lifeless in this character for some reason. In the Great Escape he came off as heroic, same also in the Sand Pebbles, but here he accomplishes his goal, but with a twist of character that doesn't work artistically. The end is sort of a dead end in spite of letting the bad guy live.
You're supposed to believe and to like the guy, Nevada Smith, and what he's doing. But how can you really root for him when he's being as despicable as the worst bad guy shown?
In spite of all this i still watch Nevada Smith for it's arch performances and sincerity.
not really sure how any of that has to do with the original question, but nevada is supposed to be like 16 or 17, steve looked no where close to that age range but he really pulled it off with his acting, i thought he was very beliveable as a teenager, except for the look.
shareYou're supposed to believe and to like the guy, Nevada Smith, and what he's doing. But how can you really root for him when he's being as despicable as the worst bad guy shown?
You're supposed to feel this way. That's the point. That's why he doesn't kill the bad guy at the end. If he did, he would remain a dispicable murderer and the movie would end on a very black note. But in the final scene he realizes, helped along by the influence of the priest that he had been staying with, that killing that man will just leave him empty, and he needs to look for something more in life.
Thanks for that. What you explained as the ending to Nevada Smith, sure that's what literally happened. We see him not killing the baddest bad guy depicted throughout the film, but that still isn't enough for me as a viewer. It's a piss-poor ending in my opinion.
He has this revelation, but why? Why not kill the baddest guy? The film provides no justification, hint, or foreshadowing. Is this a temporary change or does he hunt down the Karl Malden character later? And how about all the shots to his body, which can be seen as torture. So the film says that torture is acceptable, but outright killing isn't. Again Why is that?
The film doesn't have any guts, just like the Malden character tells the McQueen character at the end. It doesn't take a stand. It's "yella"!
He has this revelation, but why? Why not kill the baddest guy? The film provides no justification, hint, or foreshadowing.
It's not an instintaneous revelation that comes out of nowhere. He crosses a threshold in choosing not to kill him, but the turning away from hatred and revenge is the result of everything he'd gone through prior, like the death of that girl while escaping from prison, and the time he spent with the priest.. Rewatch the movie with this in mind, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
this a temporary change or does he hunt down the Karl Malden character later?
He obviously doesn't go kill him later, or it would make the not-killing at the river thematically pointless. Is the movie obligated to make it clear that McQueen dies without killing the villian?
And how about all the shots to his body, which can be seen as torture. So the film says that torture is acceptable, but outright killing isn't. Again Why is that?
He realized that killing him was the wrong thing to do after delivering the shots to his body, not before.
The film doesn't have any guts, just like the Malden character tells the McQueen character at the end. It doesn't take a stand. It's "yella"!
It's not the movie's lack of guts, but your lack of brains that is the problem.
So we disagree. I'm pushing you and other viewers to justify your acceptance of the plot points. Just for now, the film IS torturing the Karl Malden character at the end. So the McQueen character is now repeating the death scene that presumably happened to his parents, but at the last minute skirts away from it. Yeah, that's noble in theory, but we're talking emotional truth here--and does that feel surprising or revelatory to you? To me, it seems tacked on, not logical or even surprising. In a sequel, lets say, the Malden character makes it back to town filled with a revenge plan of his own. Again McQueen would have to confront him...
It something that George Lucas might want for a super-long trilogy or something, but I can't swallow what the film proposes.
Is this the first movie you've ever seen or something? No, it doesn't feel suprising or revelationary, unless you expect movies to be nothing but pointless violence. It was predictable that he either wouldn't kill the villian in the end or that he would kill him and then be presented as feeling empty and unfulfilled, because the movie builds up the idea of his desire for vengence being self-destructive. The not killing the villian is the more predictable ending, because it's a Henry Hathaway movie and that's more the type of thing I'd have expected from him, but either ending that I described would have been one of two predictable ways to end the story.
"In a sequel, lets say, the Malden character makes it back to town filled with a revenge plan of his own. Again McQueen would have to confront him...
It something that George Lucas might want for a super-long trilogy or something, but I can't swallow what the film proposes."
I don't even understand what point you're trying to make with this, but I have a feeling that it isn't very good.
For others reading this thread:
I'm taking apart the film in places for a couple reasons. It has the late Sixties nihilism that crept into narrative films that I remember as a kid and resented. Nihilism here means that the hero may not be a hero after all-but life's tough so accept it. But the film really just flirts with it, not consummating it. (my spelling may be rough in places).
The violence in the film departs from the more entertaining violence,(the knocking down henchmen stuff, like playing with toy soldiers) say that is depticted in "The Magnificent Seven", also a McQueen movie BTW. That's the typical popcorn munching, crowd rousing stuff. Nevada Smith has a more malevalent violence happening that borders on S&M, and I guess that type of stuff bothers me more.
The film still is fascinating, and I always find myself staying with it at whatever point I see it. Brian Keith's performance is nuanced just perfectly. He's a joy in the piece. The film got backing from the AIP independents like Joe Levine, meaning that they were encouraged to depart from censor and studio standards; I'm sure the director and writer just loved the idea of this, but there's ten year old kids watching this in 1966...
Sorry, billgbg, intelligent analysis is not allowed.
sharebillgbd,
Not to flame anyone, but I don't need to justify my enjoyment of anything to anyone. If you feel you have the right to cross-examine me or anyone else about what we enjoy, then lame film plots are the least of your problems.
This bothered me too. As you mentioned, Steve McQueen was 36 when he played this role, and with his rugged, weathered face, he looks 46! And though McQueen acted like a teen, his mature look just made him seem like an immature or mentally-challenged adult as opposed to a kid.
I felt like the screen writer or director or whoever wanted all the other characters in the film to keep referring to him as a "boy" or a "kid" to try to manipulate the viewer into thinking of him as a boy or a kid. They were trying to use the power of suggestion.
Though he is legendary, and a great actor, let's face it: McQueen was miscast as a teen. If the producers wanted to tell this story as it was meant to be told, they would have cast an actual teen or at least a guy in his twenties, who would have had a better chance of passing himself off as a kid. I think money was the bottom line, as usual. Why cast a young, possibly unknown actor, when Steve McQueen means box office bucks?
This probably doesn't bother a lot of other people, but it drives me nuts when a 25 or 30 year old is playing a high schooler (Beverly Hills 90210), or a 30 year old is referred to as a "boy" (The Village). It makes the movie less believable, and I feel my intelligence is being insulted by the film, like I can't tell the difference between someone in their mid-thirties and a 16 year old. It just steams me!
[deleted]
The mother threw me also. I'm disappointed that there is no credit/bio for the actress portraying Max's mother, as I am curious to find out her age at the time of filming. She looked YOUNGER than McQueen. At first, I thought she must be playing his sister. Confusing casting indeed!
>>. It would've worked better, with his blond hair and blue eyes, they had had him searching for the men who killed HIS wife and his father! But, as a Steve McQueen lover, I just liked watching him act/overact!<<
The thing is this was loosely based on a real person. The boy was around14 when it happened,and he spent years chasing down the ones who murdered his parents. The character Johnas Cord was a real man also,and he later went into business with Howard Hughes. One of the businesses Huges was in was the new moving picturs business,and when Huges told Cord to find him a genuine cowboy to star in his cowboy movies instead of the Hollywood actors who couldn't even ride a horse that he had been dealing with,Cord asked the Max Sand character from this movie if he wanted to be in the movies. He had been working as a bodyguard. He became famous as Tom Mix.
"The thing is this was loosely based on a real person. The boy was around14 when it happened,and he spent years chasing down the ones who murdered his parents. The character Johnas Cord was a real man also,and he later went into business with Howard Hughes. One of the businesses Huges was in was the new moving picturs business,and when Huges told Cord to find him a genuine cowboy to star in his cowboy movies instead of the Hollywood actors who couldn't even ride a horse that he had been dealing with,Cord asked the Max Sand character from this movie if he wanted to be in the movies. He had been working as a bodyguard. He became famous as Tom Mix."
I doubt it.
Jonas Cord is a character from a Harold Robbins novel, loosely based on Hughes. This tale doesn't fit with the biography of Tom Mix.
[deleted]
I am also watching it right now, and had to come to IMDb to try and understand why they kept referring to him as "Kid". Guess I was not the only confused one.
shareI found it funny because McQueen was indeed a little long in the tooth for this role.
share[deleted]
The sequel to this movie is "The Carpetbaggers". In the Carpetbaggers, Nevada is in his late 30s to early 40s. He's also played by Alan Ladd.
I watched the movie for the first time last night and was also irritated with the casting of Steve McQueen, he looked nothing like a teenager.
In my opinion one of the most miscast films I have ever seen all around. All good actors, sadly miscast.
Yes this bothered me throughout and honestly, it is a flawed film, supposed to be epic but instead it's just... long. And if he really wanted to do something honorable in the end, he would have put a bullet in the criminals head... He would have been much better off dead then left alone in a stream with some 3 bulletholes. Way to become a good person, leave someone to die a long and horrid death!
sharei noticed this but i didnt realize it bothered so many people. this is without a doubt my favorite western. as far as the paradox of mcqueens age, a willing suspension of disbelief.
shareI'm watching this right now and started losing interest so came to read up a bit about the movie.
Yeah that bothered me too.... the Kid comments. He looks 30.
The other things that bothered me:
Why doesn't he just get a job at the prison to get near the 2nd killer? Getting sent to prison is a stupid idea.
And those women working in the fields. Why would they suddenly once a week become prostitutes? Why wouldn't they be trying to marry the guards and be a respectable woman? And they couldn't have gotten paid by the convicts, many of whom are murderers and rapists and could easily have hurt or killed the woman they were paired up with.
By the time Pilar died the snakebite, I was about done with this film. Who says, "Leave me here [in this swamp]!" and means it?! And she just closes her eyes and dies? Geez. How unbelievable.
You should get ahold of the Robbins' novel The Carpetbaggers. The second part of that book tells the story of Nevada Smith. The movie is not that faithful to the book. The basic premise is the same: Max Sand seeks revenge on the three men who killed his father and mother. But the story is told over a 15-20 year time span. The violence is pretty graphic--one of the killers has his eyes slit open and skin sliced up and then Max dumps red ants onto the man's body and the ants eat him alive over 3 days as the man cooks in the hot sun. Makes the violence in the movie seem very tame by comparison. Max ends up in Louisiana prison, but that's for killing a man in a whorehouse where Max works as a bodyguard. The prison scenes are very brutal; there's no Pilar character, but we do have the scene where the rice paddie girls come into the barracks for a conjugal visit. I like the movie Nevada Smith, but it's a bit too long. I have trouble accepting McQueen at first as a boy, but he's perfect later in the movie playing a very tough and determined killer.
shareive not seen the carpetbaggers, but its on my list of things to watch. however, after you made the comments you did, im probably just going to find time to read the novel. thanks for the info.
shareThe age thing really bothered me too., And then the young "Indian" woman didn't look old enough to be his mother., More like his sister, and not even authentically Indian at that (just my limited perspective).
I only watched for 20 minutes or so and also thought Steven McQueen unfortunately ended up looking like a mentally challenged man, rather than a desperate teenager seeking to avenge his parent's deaths.
Learning about the violence and anti-hero perspective only made me glad that I didn't stick it out.,
Disappointing.
Weird. I found myself respecting the actor transforming from young and innocent to wizened and hardened by vengeance. I liked the overhandedness of the sappy priest and the preachy love interest (bob newhart's TV wife). I liked that the nice couple early on was torn, with the wife egging on his quest and the husband holding him back. The teacher who helps him become a killing machine and then recognizes him later, when he is almost unrecognizable. I hated the '1/2 of you is wild' philosophizin. It's raunchy and over the top. But definitely watchable. Felt like 60s Disney done by the mob.
share