Skip to main content

Get your finger out of the end of my gun!

Support Your Local Sheriff
(1969)

(SPOILERS) James Garner was, of course, no stranger to the western, having made his name in Maverick, which if not actually spoofing the genre, coasted along with easy-going comedic undertones. The actor’s greatest claims to fame would be on the small screen, but between his heyday bookends of that show and The Rockford Files, he delivered several memorable movie roles; he’s likely best known for the Scrounger in The Great Escape, but coming in second was this super-relaxed, super-confident Jason McCullogh in Support Your Local Sheriff.

Support Your Local Sheriff arrived in a year of revisionist westerns – Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Wild Bunch – but largely riffed on the genre’s traditional elements, courtesy of veteran director Burt Kennedy and writer William Bowers. If Blazing Saddles would find Mel Brooks going to extremes not seen since Bob Hope in Son of Paleface, Garner’s film would largely fashion a gentler template for itself, concentrating on the absurdity of certain genre clichés rather than outrageousness or fourth-wall breaking (although, we’re treated to the latter courtesy of Jack Elam in a final monologue).

The picture reportedly came in cheap and was all-but written off by United Artists until Garner persuaded them to persevere, and it became a word-of-mouth hit (it also had to dodge a lawsuit from another of the year’s westerns, Paint Your Wagon, famous for showing off Clint crooning). It was always a favourite in my home growing up, since Garner was too (The Rockford Files was a fixture), and it’s easy to see why even now. The comedy of cool is perhaps surprisingly rare, more usually revolving around pain, mishap, embarrassment and ineptitude. In Support Your Local Sheriff, Garner can do everything, is entirely unflappable and effortlessly charismatic.

You start out doubting that he’s exactly as capable as he is, especially when he shows off his gunplay skills by announcing “Bullet went through the hole in the centre” of a washer. It may be a con, as likely of being true as his running announcement that he’s just passing through on his way to Australia (and has been for four years). But no, he really is (capable). And proceeds to illustrate this once he has taken on the poison chalice of sheriff (predecessors are dead or have run off), immediately arresting the youngest of the Danby clan (Bruce Dern) for murder. The Danbys are fleecing the Colorado goldrush town by virtue of a commission charged to everyone transporting gold, which has to pass through their territory. On top of which, they’re a law unto themselves.

Garner entirely undermines them, however. Faced with the problem of a jail lacking bars on the cells, he makes a line on the floor in chalk and sprinkles red paint over it, evidence of the bloody consequences for anyone trying to escape. When Pa Danby (Water Brennan) comes to threaten him, he sticks his finger in the end of his pistol (“You know, he strikes me as being a lonely man” he tells Elam’s "town character", now appointed as his deputy). When a pack of rowdy cowboys ride in to town, he casually trips them up with a rope tied across the main street. And when the Danbys hire guns to despatch him, and he’s frustrated at being expected to shoot them every time, he sees one of them off by chasing him out of town, throwing stones at him.

A number of the cast would return for the semi-sequel. Elam, who also appeared in Leone’s film that year (in the opening sequence), is the perfect broad foil for Garner’s ease, boggling his eyes and reacting with supreme density to any situation (“Thanks for pointing me out to him” comments Garner after an assassin fails at his task). M*A*S*H’s Harry Morgan is the mayor. Kathleen Freeman has an amusing scene discussing how mad Morgan’s daughter Joan Hackett (hiding in a tree) is with Garner.

Hackett is a bit too full-on, to be honest, such that it’s difficult to work out what Garner’s supposed to see in her (aside, to be fair, from her being very rich). Her up-to-eleven schtick is not unlike the score from Jeff Alexander in that regard, inclined to punctuate every possible moment with Komedy accompaniment.

MVP is probably Dern, though, who had already sufficiently etched out western thug roles by this point (Will Penny, Hang ‘Em High) that he could spoof them. His studied thickness is a joy to behold, and his scenes with Garner sparkle even more than the latter’s with Elam: his outrage at Garner hoodwinking him into believing his gun isn’t loaded, and announcement to his family that he knew the attempts to bust him out would fail on account of how he helped to put the bars in extra securely. Perhaps not a comedy that will have you rolling around in the aisles but that’s to advocate it’s wry, knowing humour.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There