Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

====== 1 Errors in fact ======
The first introduction to Tombstone depicts the town as unruly and full of people bustling throughout the night. Within the first few seconds of being in the town the Earps almost got killed by stray bullets. Tombstone stands as a representation for the stereotypical idea of a lawless western town. The original marshal and his deputies all quit within seconds to avoid doing their job. Everyone in Tombstone is shown as quick to anger and immediately resorting to violence. Another instance is when the town shows up at the theatre hall and when Thorndyke is not there the enter town bursts into anger and try to attack the theatre owner. While we discussed how boom towns and towns in the west often had violence, **the sheer level of violence present in Tombstone seems unlikely and is surly very embellished. So while it does show different accurate types of violence that occurred in western towns it over exaggerates the violence in one town**. --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/10/25 17:37//

While this film is one of the best westerns ever made, it is historically very inaccurate, **no surprise given that it is based on the fictional biography of Wyatt Earp written by Stuart Lake**. Clementine Carter was not a real person, the Earps did not do most of the jobs that they are seen doing before arriving in Tombstone, and Wyatt Earp met Doc Holliday way before their meeting in the film, along with a litany of other inaccuracies.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/10/26 09:31//

This film included a ton of historical inaccuracies which is disappointing considering the fact that John Ford knew the actual Wyatt Earp. One main error that I noticed is the reason the Earp brothers moved to Tombstone. In reality, Virgil got a marshal appointment there and the other brothers followed. Wyatt was friends with Doc Holliday prior to arriving in Tombstone, AZ. Also, the two women, Clementine and Chihuahua, weren’t real people. Wyatt and Doc both had women who are pretty recognizable, Kate and Josephine, but neither are featured in this movie. At one point in the movie though, when Clementine is signing into the hotel, Wyatt looks at the book and then refers to her as Josephine as if that’s her real name. And not to mention the **actual Gunfight at the OK Corral. Doc Holliday was not killed there; he died of TB in Colorado later on in life. Morgan and Virgil were both alive for that fight because they both got injured. Also, the reasoning for the gunfight was off**. --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/10/26 14:05//

**The biggest error that I noticed throughout the movie was the portrayal of Doc Holliday. In the movie he is depicted as a grouchy surgeon who fled West without telling anyone why. The reality was a dentist who fled to the West to help with his TB cough. Also Doc and Wyatt are pretty hostile to each other in the movie. To my knowledge from what we talked about in class, they weren’t.**  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/10/26 14:26//

To add on What Mary-Margret said, Wyatt Earp and his brothers were never cattle drivers.--- //[[nsciadin@mail.umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/10/26 7:48//

Errors in Facts... Where to begin? This movie was a strong representation of what a 'historical film' should not strive to match, on the other hand it is recognized as a very influential movie for the Western genre. Clementine who?  Chihuahua what? Other then the major male characters names, and almost exclusively just the names, the story happens to take a wrong turn within the first scenes of the movie. OH WOW, Tombstone, I almost forgot the movie got two things right.  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/10/26 17:22//

What's wrong with //My Darling Clementine//? What is not wrong with it? Doc Holliday was not clean shaven. He was also a dentist, not a surgeon and wasn’t as active as he is portrayed in the film. **James Earp did not die**, nor did Virgil, nor did Doc. The OK Corral was surrounded by buildings, and the fight did not even take place at the Corral itself. **The fight took place in Tombstone, Arizona, not Monument Valley, Utah**. Clementine was not real. These are just some of the things wrong with this picture. --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/10/26 18:51//

**Throughout the semester we have found that films have a tendency to romanticize and over exaggerate the past in ways that provide for dramatic effect and entertainment. Further, we have seen that historical movies tend to take names from the past along with simplified storylines in an effort to attain a respectable level of accuracy, such as in Pocahontas. My Darling Clementine is no exception to this rule. While the film touches on certain aspects of life in the West it is more accurate at depicting 1940s perceptions of the frontier life. As discussed in the readings and in lecture, women’s lives were not glamorous and leisurely. While it was implied that Chihuahua made money off of the tips of the men, they did not convey the typical life of a saloon prostitute/ dancer as it would have been. This film not only glosses over general details of historical reality but also completely reinvents the story of Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. Earp was depicted as an honest ‘hero’ trying to bring justice for his murdered brother. The Earp brothers appear to have accidentally stumbled upon Tombstone as opposed to looking for a town to reinvent themselves.**  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/10/26 21:32//

**As I recall, we learned in class that the shootout lasted 20-30 seconds.  It went a lot longer than that in the film.  I suppose John Ford wanted to add a dramatic flair.**  --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/10/26 22:53//

There were almost too many historical errors in the film to count. This is not surprising, since the author of the book, Stuart Lake, made up almost everything in his "biography." First, the random gunshots into the barber shop seemed a little extreme. The Earps seemed like they were not planning on stopping in Tombstone for very long, but were just honest cattle ranchers trying to head further west and to find a peaceful living. Both James Earp and Virgil Earp lived well past the events of the film and were not murdered by the Clantons. **T****he film also makes no mention of Josephine Marcus.**
 --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/10/27 02:22//

One of the most initial and pressing errors to address in the film //My Darling Clementine// is the depiction of Wyatt Earp's backstory before being in Tombstone, Arizona. In the film, Wyatt and his brothers Virgil, James, and Morgan are cattlemen passing through the area. While he is out doing cowboy things with his cattle, Wyatt asks two men, who //happen// to be the Clantons, where he is. They tell him he is near Tombstone and convince him to check out the town. When he arrives, Wyatt learns that his cattle have been rustled (and so has his brother, James, who ends up needing a tombstone in Tombstone). **However, Wyatt seems mildly concerned about this, as he is interested in a new job opportunity: town marshall. Wyatt is encouraged to be and feared as the town marshall because of his past in Dodge City, Kansas. After a skirmish with "Indian Charlie," Wyatt is identified as the "ex-marshall" in Dodge City, implying that he is well-known. Later in the film, when he meets the Clantons, he introduces himself as, "Earp...Wyatt Earp," instilling fear in the other men with name recognition. Wyatt Earp's backstory in the film is rooted in error. He and his brothers arrived in Tombstone intentionally to try their hand at respectability (i.e. as hired guards, gunmen). Wyatt was also not well-known in his day. His name wouldn't have instilled fear in others or given himself credibility in a new town.**  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/10/27 05:49//

For starters, based on class discussion: Wyatt Earp was most definitely NOT the ex-cop with the troubled past that the beginning of the film made him out to be. Nor did his brother James Earp die from cattle rustlers, thus giving Wyatt some kind of vengeance angle to go about becoming the Marshal in Tombstone. In fact, James Earp was the respectable older brother that ran a saloon in Tombstone and lived LONGER than his younger siblings, save for Wyatt. Plus, there was not some well-known prostitute in Tombstone named 'Chihuahua' that was pertinent to the actual story. Additionally, Doc Holliday's actual medical expertise was in dentistry, meaning that his being a surgeon in the film was purely for the sake of giving his role dramatic importance when he performs surgery on Chihuahua.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/10/27 06:07// 
====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======
There was not much historically accurate in this film. One thing they got right was the number of brothers that Wyatt Earp had. The film included the Clantons, so that is correct but it left out other “Cowboys.” --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/10/26 14:06//

**Two things that the movie got right would be that Wyatt had different jobs that he bounced from, like at the beginning he was a cattle rancher than he became the Marshall of Tombstone. In real life, he did much more, but I thought the movie did some justice by it. Also the fact that Wyatt gambled, I thought the fact that the movie got this right was important.**  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/10/26 14:43//

One thing I believe the more got right was the emotional side of Earp, they showed to him be human and have errors, though they were not as many as he truly had, but they were able to encapsulate that fact that he did have emotions. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/10/26 18:04//

The movie got the names of the Earp brothers, Doc Holliday, and some of the Clanton brothers right. It was set in Tombstone and mentioned Dodge City. It also included Doc having tuberculosis and he coughs throughout the movie.
--- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/10/26 20:03//
**
I'm not entirely sure if this can be considered an accuracy based on how white people viewed Native Americans, or an inaccuracy based on what we know, but the way that Indians were looked down on as second class citizens was accurate to the time period.** --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/10/26 22:47//

The film did get a few facts correct. Tombstone was a boomtown. It would have had saloons, gambling halls, and it would have been fairly chaotic at night. The film did show that some people moved to these boomtowns to find their fortunes, others to farm or ranch, and others to try to con people. "Doc" Holliday did have emphysema. Wyatt Earp also does pistol whip/buffalo one of the Clantons, which was something that helped start the shootout.
 --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/10/27 02:46//

**As my friend and I watched //My Darling Clementine//, I wondered if the film's explicit racism towards Native Americans was a depiction of the racism of the 1880's West, or a depiction of racism in 1940's Hollywood. The naming of a character "Indian Charlie" is problematic to me, because I see it as either another typically quirky, but racist, Western name (i.e. "Curly" Bill Brocious, Newman "Old Man" Clanton, etc.), or a racially stereotyped name in 1940's Hollywood. Maybe both? Let's explore this? ** --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/10/27 05:50//

In reference to what Nancy said, in all likelihood the character of "Indian Charlie" was meant as simply a generic Native character. However, considering the setting of the film and how even to this day there are serious racial difficulties in Hollywood, he was most likely characterized via racist rhetoric from the 1940's. Moving on, the film inadvertently was able to accurately portray how effectively a medical doctor trained in dentistry would be able to perform surgery on a patient. Which is to say very poorly as Chihuahua ends up dead offscreen because of it. And while James Earp did not die in 1882, MORGAN Earp did in fact die in March of 1882. **It seems that much like Glory, My Darling Clementine has the general truth embedded in the film somewhere, but the details are altered which would be typical considering that the film was based off of a fictional account of the events and the stories by Wyatt Earp himself to the director John Ford.**
====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======
**The two biggest issues I had with the movie were how the film depicted race along with gender roles. In one of the beginning scene Wyatt casually comes out of the barber shop to save the town from Indian Charlie. Indian Charlie is shown shooting a gun with abandon and very drunk. When Wyatt 'corrects' him by showing him his place, he plays into the trope of Native American as the responsibility of white men. Native Americans are seen as the 'other' and cannot be part of white society because they're inferior to them. Another enduring stereotype is Clementine. Clementine serves as Chihuahua's foil, because she is a civilized and proper woman. Clementine calls Doc John, and calls out Chihuahua's hysteric moment. When Chihuahua raids her room she calls the ordeal 'hysteria' further pointing the fact of traditional gender roles. Chihuahua is a prostitute and therefore an unruly woman. Wyatt makes a pointed remark that she may need to be 'spanked' for misbehaving. Pitting against these two women further plays into the trope of endorsing traditional roles and punishing unruly women. When I was watching the film I also realized Chihuahua is supposed to represent a Latina woman, but she is played a white actress. Chihuahua is depicted as sexually available and the exotic other. She is played by a white actress which is essentially similar to 'black face.'** 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/10/25 22:00//

Wyatt Earp as a character is an interesting aspect to analyze how the film falls into the typical western hero. The film is a valorization Wyatt Earp and the Earps more generally. I personally felt that this film way over glamorized Wyatt into the typical strong western hero. As we learned in lecture Wyatt Earp was not so good intentioned but acted in his own best interest in affairs. While the film chooses to more accurately represent the strong family ties of the Earps it over extends Wyatt’s role as a singular lawman fighting for the good of society. --- //[[cliberty@umw.edu|Liberty, Catherine A.]] 2016/10/26 15:48//

The glorification of what once was... the revitalized, revived, and re-spun recollection of history. Often times we as society remember things (people, places, times) for the good, and cast out the memories of doubt or impurity. With that said, I feel this movie went above, and quite frankly to infinity and beyond, in telling a story that just isn't accurate. We have talked of how a  movie can use a character to portray stereotypes or troupes of the time but why even use the Earps and 'Doc' John and the Clanton family to tell this over stereotypical Western movie? The Question then is; Would this movie not have made its impact or in that time its revenue if it didn't use these characters? to what extent? --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/10/26 17:34//

The film's depictions of non-whites was pretty troubling. Of course, this isn't a surprise, but it's still important. In the Southwest, Hispanics actually made up the majority of the population. Although Tombstone was a boomtown that would have seen a lot of white migrants from the East, it seemed that Hispanics were pretty underrepresented given the historical facts. Native Americans were represented in the form of "Indian Charlie," who was a violent drunk that was heroically kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. This again perpetuates the stereotype of Native Americans as violent drunks who caused trouble and harassed white migrants in the West. The Hispanics in the town were walking stereotypes and seemed to only hang around the saloon. All of this definitely plays a part in how we portray the Old West and westward expansion and the history of racial and social conflicts in American history.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/10/26 21:23//

Surely the character of Clementine was created for reasons aside from using the song... As has been pointed out, Clementine Carter is a fictional character.  Why create her when there were women in Wyatt Earp's life, even at Tombstone?  This obviously is not new for our class, Glory used fictional characters instead of historical ones, such as Charles and Lewis Douglass, as did Amistad.  (I won't even get into The Patriot).  But the point I'm trying to get it is why invent new characters to serve storylines that could have easily been told with real people?--- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/10/26 23:01//

The messages about gender in the movie are fascinating. First, the way that Earp treats Chihuahua, roughly grabbing her, pulling her outside, and pushing her into a water trough clearly indicates to the audience that she is not a lady. Yes, this is because she is presumably a prostitute (or at least an "immoral" woman), but she is also Mexican. In contrast, Clementine arrives and all heads turn. Earp reveres her immediately. Doc Holliday also regards the two women differently. While Holliday seems to think that because he is sick and a gambler he can not be with Clementine, being with Chihuahua is still more than acceptable (as is leaving her). While he is shown to care enough for her to go fight her killer's family, the Clantons, this ultimately leads to his downfall, doubling down on the message that w woman like Chihuahua leads to no good.
The other contrast is that of masculinity in the film. Earp is the clear hero, while Holliday's weaknesses prevent him from that and  lead to his demise. Before we know he is sick, he is shown drinking champagne instead of whiskey-- not the "manliest" choice. The fact that he is sick and the head of the gambling establishment that is not above dishonesty also contribute to this. While Earp gambles, he is honest about it, going into a righteous rage when the honesty of the game is out of line. Where Earp shows restraint with his anger except when delivering important messages or final blows, Holliday does violent things senselessly, throwing things, shooting people and kicking people out of town at random. The film sends that message that he is not "man enough" for Clementine, whereas the hero Earp is a great man.--Julia Peterson

Why was this made into a love story? Is this entangled with the gendered and racialized messages (described above)? --Julia Peterson
====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======
This film was made in a time when western genre films were becoming increasingly popular. In 1946 the west was still seen as an open land full of promise, but equally as harsh. Films like //My Darling Clementine// played off this idea, showing how the west could wrangled by one tough cowboy, while throwing in the usual western tropes such as a romantic angle, a gang rivalry, and the classic shootout. --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/10/26 09:39//

It is evident when watching the movie that it is glorifying the Wild West of the past. Hollywood is known for dramatizing parts of American history, like what we saw in Gone with the Wind. It seems as though this is what happened with Earp and the true story that happened in Tombstone AZ.  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/10/26 17:52//

The movie glorifies the west much like many other movies that come out during this time. However, the way the movie portrayed the drunk Indian and how Wyatt Earp dealt with him is fitting for the 1940s when this film came out. Depictions of Native Americans, still not perfect today, were filled with stereotypes and racist caricatures.
--- //[[nhouff@umw.edu|Houff Nicholas T.]] 2016/10/26 20:08//

The movie definitely spoke to the time in which it was made. John Ford’s success alone speaks to a general acceptance and good reception among Americans at the time toward his depiction of history. At a time when the country was being tried by war, Hollywood played a major role in cementing a (pretty unfounded) sense of national identity as a primarily white, Christian, masculine country. Ford applied this identity to history. Earp and Doc Holliday are the symbolic heroes upholding law and order, taming the rough West and paving the way for the expansion of “civilization” all the way to the coast, themselves confronting and resolving some issues of their past. This picture of America ignored the roles that non-whites, women, immigrants, and anyone else who did not fit into this mid-century “American” identity.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/10/26 22:32//

The movie was made shortly after World War II ended.  As Neal pointed out, western films were becoming increasingly popular.  I wonder if it was because following the war, people were hoping to be able to revisit a (supposedly) more simple time, when justice for your murdered brother was relatively easy to achieve.  --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/10/26 22:56//

This movie is a great primary source but an equally bad secondary source.  The 1940’s were filled with “spaghetti” westerns that dominated Hollywood.  Since the west is essential for manifest destiny, it makes sense that it is horribly romanticized.  -Christian Trout

//My Darling Clementine// was one of the original Westerns that became very popular. It was not a movie for accuracy but it was something that was becoming a new favorite genre in the movies. In a sense, it was a way to celebrate how America was a great place to live, especially after World War II right before it was released. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/10/27 00:10//

“My Darling Clementine” has no shortage of elements that characterize the 1940’s, a time when story telling was more imperative in cinema than fact telling historic events. As far as the story, this film (to me) is the embodiment of the (now Classic) Western genre which was hugely popular at that time. The film’s cast is comprised of actors who display the typical Hollywood, glamorous features/demeanors, for roles that probably don’t realistically line-up. These architypes include the suave debonair males who epitomize masculinity, or the “wide-eyed dames” who encompass feminization (for that time). In regards to the latter, this era in film also limits its female roles to one of two types, the “well reserved (behaved) woman of modesty” who ends up surviving the film’s turmoil, or the “less modest woman of loose morals” who is essentially ruined as a result of her insubordination. Both of these characters are used in the film though one, Linda Darnell’s Chihuahua, was intended to be of a different ethnicity which is another common trait of that era in film. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David]] 2016/10/27 0330//

====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ======
The movie reflects the way people romanticize the idea of outlaws and cowboys shown in the description of the Popular Account of the Death of Jesse James. In both, people who were never there and do not know what really happened tell a story of what they think to have happened even if it is not the full truth or in such detail. In the case of the primary source, they used flowery language and what they think may have went down to make the story sound better. In the movie they use a fictional retelling of an event to make it sound better. --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/10/26 16:56//

The movie didn't go into travel and homestead life very much, but the reading involving the letters from Western women were insightful in better placing the real world around the characters. The movie really took no time to make the female characters significant outside of their romantic affiliations. We never got to learn about Clementine's traveling experience from Boston to Tombstone, and we never learned about Chihuahua's history (was she from another region or country? did her family come to Arizona before it was even part of the United States? who knows). The journal and letters from the women filled in a lot of gaps that the movie left wide open. It also made the experiences of the West more realistic. We didn't meet many farmers throughout the movie, and the cattle rancher characters were doing more than well enough for themselves. The movie didn't portray the struggle of people feeding themselves or trying to fight nature or being unable to sell their crops at any real profit. Was this because it was a town and not a homestead? Were the towns any better off? Could the movie have benefited historically or cinematically by adding the details that these letters provide?  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/10/26 19:34//

In Teddy Roosevelt’s piece on ‘Cowboy Land’ in 1893, he states, “Out on the frontier and generally among those who spend their lives in, or on the borders of, the wilderness, life is reduced to its elemental conditions.” He dubs the frontier a place where passions and emotions are “simpler and stronger than those of people dwelling in more complicated states of society.” The describes men who live on the frontier as being “good fellows, hard-working, brave, resolute, and truthful.” He goes on to call the growth and civilization of the West as ‘unfortunate.’ Roosevelt is famous for his obsession with masculinity and resistance to over-civilization. But this piece romanticizes the West in just about the same way as My Darling Clementine. Holliday and Earp are likeable characters along with the men in the town. They do what they must to survive and violence tends to be inevitable in that regard. How can we hold this film accountable for romanticizing and idealizing the West if first hand accounts from the time period do the same thing?  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/10/26 21:55//
====== 6 The "So, what?" question ======
In //My Darling Clementine//, the story largely is based off a fictional biography. While the film claims to show history, instead it portrays myth. The Shootout at the OK Corral did happen, but the event itself had little social impact. By Wyatt's role of the hero, the film effectively documents the idealized view of the West. The West remains a memory of cowboys and shootouts along with unruly Indians. Instead, the reality of the American West isn't as glamorous. **Instead, the land served as an obstacle for all immigrants. Many homesteaders did not survive the first year**, and Tombstone was racked by social and political issues. Wyatt plays a key role in civilizing the lawless Tombstone by vowing to fix the town, when in reality he further added to the chaos. **The film serves as one of the best Western movies because it serves as a foundation movie in documenting the American Wests' myth.** 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/10/25 22:10//
 
I think this movie is important to study because it probably is the most important western ever made. It’s become one of those movies that you have never seen in your life but you know so much about it just from others copying it. Personally, I had never seen the movie before (which is shocking because of the amount of westerns my family watches), but if you had asked me a week ago if I knew the song I would’ve said yes. If you had asked me if I knew the name O.K. Corral I would’ve said yes. While I was watching the movie, every time there was a shot of Monument Valley I would think of how this is such a classic western movie thing without realizing this was probably one of the movies, if not the movie, that made it famous for that. This movie is important because it is one of the movies that have made such a huge impact on our culture without many people knowing. --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/10/26 10:38//

While this movie has practically no historical accuracy within it, except the names of the male main characters, it serves as a separate piece of American history categorized in the classic genre of Westerns. The themes in this movie are hardly realistic in general, capturing the idealized West better than any event in particular. The (male) characters are cool, morally defined, and interesting. The plot is exciting. But historically it means nothing. Of course, there’s no getting around its harmful stereotypes of Native American and Mexican cultures, and the women are next to nothing in terms of plot. These issues are worthy of contesting in the historical discussion of the West, and yet I have to give this movie a pass; it’s not nearly as bad as some of the ones we’ve watched so far. In fact, this is probably because the movie doesn’t feel historical at all. It doesn’t try to highlight or flesh out any of the cultures it uses in the background, so the inaccuracies and offenses can’t bubble to the surface more than a couple times. I would kill to see people of color and women who aren’t either background filler or helpless without their white men, but this movie could have been worse in those areas. I would sooner accept it as a pretty decent Western than consider it a historical account of the events at the O.K. Corral.  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|Lindsey McCuistion]] 2016/10/26 12:30//

Films and TV shows about Wyatt Earp and the Gunfight at the OK Corral have been made countless times over (Earp has probably been depicted upwards of fifty times). I am personally partial to Tombstone (1993) and have read that it is one of the most accurate of the Wyatt Earp portrayals. I have learned about Wyatt Earp a little bit on various documentaries and such and Earp’s true character always surprises me. He thought so much of himself that he actually sought after biographers and filmmakers to tell his story. Why has Wyatt Earp become such an iconic Western figure? Does he deserve this many depictions of himself? Oh, and P.S.- John Wayne actually met Wyatt Earp when he was really young and trying to get into acting and used him as inspiration for his later Western characters.  --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 
2016/10/26 14:07//

I feel like since this movie was so important, it set the bar for those to come and became a pinnacle to mimic in future films of this genre. This film sets the tone for a film fantasy we have of "The West" in film. " John Ford’s permanent authority in film history maintains his influence over today’s directors, most significantly those of the Western, few as they may be, by outlining the tools that every new addition into the genre either conforms to, or, in the case of Revisionist Westerns, uses as a platform to operate against. Ford’s themes and techniques could be found in any number of Westerns from his era or since" http://www.deepfocusreview.com/reviews/mydarlingclementine.asp    --- //[[nsciadin@mail.umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/10/26 7:56//

There is no doubt that the film is among the worst in terms of historical inaccuracy. It should be noted, however, that this film and its director helped revitalize a genre that had largely been forgotten. It led to the Western genre boom that ran up until the 1960s. It is also culturally important as shows John Ford’s filmmaking and cinematographic genius. --- //[[jgaddie@umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason]] 2016/10/26 19:55//

Why do we expect westerns to be historically accurate?  If the producer had just used different names for the characters would we still be as offended?  Christian Trout

This was one of the original westerns; it has many tropes associated with the genre. There's a love interest that needs saving, there's an town outsider who is also an anti-hero, there's a shootout, horses, and there's lying, cheating and stealing. Perfect western. This formula would be followed in many films after //My Darling Clementine//.  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/10/27 00:10//, helping make it a classic.

So there are an obvious number of historic inaccuracies within the film (so what), but while viewing it, I decided that Ford (probably) wanted to share his interpretation of the Old West and merely used the story of Wyatt Earp as a vessel for his vision. To do this, he chose to tailor history to “his story”, placing less emphasis on factual events. For example, he decided to make Doc Holiday’s profession that of a surgeon rather than dentistry. This modification would be more useful to the story when Chihuahua requires much needed medical attention. I believe Ford’s accuracies are revealed in other aspects of the late 19th century West, like Scenery (arid and treeless), and the gender roles of people living in a lawless society where violence can breakout at a moment’s notice. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David]] 2016/10/27 0330//

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International