THOSE CALLOWAYS - Review by Ernest Rister

Ernest Rister · Post by **Ernest Rister** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:29 pm

THOSE CALLOWAYS
(d. Norman Tokar, scr. Louis Pelletier, ph. Edward Colman)

review
by
Ernest Rister

--------------

Allow me a moment of soap-box preaching. Walt Disney's history as a film producer is incredibly diverse, encompassing everything from nature documentaries to blockbuster animated features to low-budget high-concept comedies to astonishing war-time propaganda films to state of the art live-action fantasy epics. Lost amid these in the public memory are a large number of wonderful, unique personal dramas that failed or underperformed at the box office. Everyone today knows films like 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Swiss Family Robinson, The Shaggy Dog, and Mary Poppins. Few outside of the Disney buff contingent remember or know about films like The Three Lives of Thomasina, Third Man on the Mountain, So Dear to my Heart, or Those Calloways, and yet, as any true Disney buff will tell you, these small gems are among the best films Walt Disney ever made. The list goes on and on. Robin Hood and his Merrie Men. Kidnapped. Darby O'Gill and the Little People. The Light in the Forest. The Sword and the Rose. Pollyanna.

All of these films have one thing in common - they were all box office flops. I dare say, one could almost make an argument that they were too smart, too specific, too adult for the standard Disney audience.

Those Calloways is a film that falls into this tradition of wonderful Disney live-action movies that defied the expectations of the standard Disney family audience, and failed to recoup production costs in initial release. Many of Disney's better films underperformed on initial release. Films like Fantasia, Bambi, Alice in Wonderland, and Sleeping Beauty. Unlike the animated classics, the small, wonderful live-action films were not re-released every few years in cinemas, and they died an ignominious death by winding up as two-or-three-part episodes of Disney's weekly tv anthology series. Such was the fate of Those Calloways.

The film itself defies simple description. It is a film where setting, mood, theme, music, and various emotional beats are more important than a driving narrative. The film - in a nutshell - revolves around the family of Cam Calloway, a hard-drinking, hard-fisted, hard-willed man who was raised by indians. The family lives out in the timberlands of early 20th century Vermont, and they are seen as eccentric environmentalists by certain denizens who make up the local town. The totem of the indians who raised Cam is personified by the wild geese who pass over the town twice a year, and Cam is driven to protect them. Like any good Frank Capra film, the pressures of modernization and commericalism come to bear when outside forces wish to turn Cam's advocacy into a capitalist opportunity, and the Calloway family pays dearly for adhering to their simple values of tradition, family, and respect for nature. Even this simple distillation of the theme fails utterly in describing the film, which explores alcoholism, commercialism, adolescent maturity, regret, perserverance, greed, self-hatred, and community with equal measure.

A rote explanation of the story of this film would be as inadequte an explanation of the film's charm as a rote explanation of It's a Wonderful Life. Consider Capra's film for a moment -- how do you simply describe for people who have never seen It's a Wonderful Life the impact that the local characters have on the experience, or how the values of the characters touch you emotionally...how can you explain Bert and Violet, how can you explain Mr. Gower, how can you explain the tortured longing of George in a simple distillation of the plot? You can't. The experience of the film, the beauty of the visuals, the struggles of the lead characters, the importance of community against commercialism defy a simple one or two sentence distillation. Those Calloways is the It's a Wonderful Life of the Walt Disney canon, right down to an obnoxious black raven that seems to forshadow dire events. This isn't a film to be seen for the plot, it is a film to be seen for the experience.

Like any film of this kind, the acting is crucial, and Those Calloways features some of the best performances of any live-action Disney film. Brian Keith gives the best performance of his film career as Cam Calloway, a man whose values are so ingrained into his behaviour, his own life is secondary to his beliefs. Stubborn and willful, he has lapsed into alcoholism to dull the pain of his failures. His battle with the bottle is as central to the plot as his battle with the industrialists looking to turn his town into a hunter's paradise.

Vera Miles gives one of the best performances by any leading female in a Disney film as Cam's long-suffering wife, who loves Cam deeply, and yet she struggles to reconcile his love for local wildlife over his love for the family. If I were to name one of the ten best-acted scenes in any live-action Disney film, the moment she receives an unexpected gift on Christmas Eve would be in the top five.

Brandon de Wilde plays Bucky Calloway, the young man deeply beholden to his family and yet tortured by the reputation the family has within the community. His defense of the family is expressed by his battles with Whit (an impossibly young Tom Skerritt...yes, Tom Skerritt) and his longing for Bridie (an impossibly young Linda Evans...yes, Linda Evans). There is a moment in the film where Bucky manhadles Bridie and kisses her more out of rage than of love, and at that moment, both characters are shocked to learn how flawed his anger has made him. The scene ends with de Wilde immobilized over his own brutality. The audience is left in hushed wonder -- Yes, Virginia, this is a Disney film.

There are other notable contributions from the supporting cast, especially Walter Brennan as the sharp-witted Alf Simes, and we come to suspect Ed Wynn's character only pretends to be as hard of hearing as he lets on, just to play jokes on those around him. The biggest laugh in the film comes from Ed Wynn's observation of a duck blind, which I won't spoil here. It's pure small-town Capra.

The film itself is actually much longer than one would expect from a Disney live-action drama -- it clocks in at 131 minutes, and yet, after watching it, one would be hard pressed to find room to cut. On the one hand, there are moments of leisurely atmosphere, but these add imeasurably to the verisimilitude of the film. On the other, removing the character scenes removes the reason the film exists at all. Even the scene where we are introduced to Bucky's dog as he impulsively chases local critters on a hunting trip isn't filler -- we later learn these moments are essential, as this comic action sets up behaviours leading to a heart-stoppping action set-piece in the scene that follows.

One final, important contribution to the film must not be overlooked. Like any Disney film, the use of music adds immeasurably to the film's overall impact. The score for Those Calloways was composed by none other than Max Steiner, in his only assignment for the Disney studios. He provided an impeccable sense of melody and leitmotif -- Bridie's theme in particular is beautiful, and the theme for Cam's beloved geese naturally becomes, we learn, Cam's theme. Steiner's handling of the Christmas section of the film also warrants special mention.

Why did Those Calloways fail in 1965? It received solid if not ecstatic reviews. Plus, 1965 was the 10th year of the Walt Disney TV anthology show, and so, perhaps audiences needed a spectacular reason to see a family wilderness drama on the big screen when they were getting solid Disney product on TV for free.

The film has fallen into obscurity, but its reputation among Disney buffs has survived. The film is now back, on DVD, in widescreen, and it deserves the attention it should have received almost 40 years ago.

THE DVD

Those Calloways is presented in its original aspect ratio, enhanced for widescreen televisions. The transfer has been struck from an existing interpositive, and so what you'll find on the DVD is likely what you'd see if you attended a "Disney live-action revival" at a film festival. The print is in fairly good shape, and yet print flaws are rampant during the opening titles, and you'll also spot "reel change" cigarette burns. Despite these artifacts and flaws, the print is sharp, and yet this sharpness weakens the film in moments, no more so than during the occasion of some rear-projection process shots. Although the film featured location shooting in Vermont, as well as back lot shooting for the town sqaure scenes, process photography was used for some pick-up moments, and the sharpness of the DVD actually acerbates the artificiality of these moments, whereas a softer film presentation may have been intended by director Normam Tokar. Colors are vivid and natural, and I never noticed any edge enhacement or halos. This isn't on the same par with last spring's Treasure Island, but it is still a solid presentation.

The film is presented in Dolby Digital Mono. Despite this, moments of Max Steiner's score are pristine and clear, especially the bouncing strings heard for Bridie's theme. This is certainly the best audio presentation that I have ever heard for this title, perhaps even better than the original theatrical run in 1965.

SUPPLEMENTS/BONUS FEATURES
There are no supplemental features. The DVD is bare bones, save for an advertisement for previously-released Disney live-action films on DVD.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Those Calloways has an avid following among Disney live-action buffs, because, like so many other forgotten live-action Walt titles, it defies the modern reputaton of the Walt Disney live action film library. This year will finally see some of the best live-action films produced by Walt Disney released on DVD, with the powerful Three Lives of Thomasina and the marvelous Darby O'Gill, both streeting this summer. This new release of Those Calloways begins what will hopefully lead to a modern re-appraisal of the context of the Disney catalog. Yes, the man made The Shaggy Dog, and The Misadventures of Merlin Jones. He also made many wonderful, forgotten films like Those Calloways. Bonus features or not, this release is one of the highlights on the Disney release schedule for 2004, and it is highly recommended.

p.s.

An "Ultimate Disney" reviewer described this film as dull. It is, if you have the attention span of a tweener on crack. I watched this film with my 8th grade niece, and she absolutely loved the movie. Make up your own mind.

Ernest Rister · Post by **Ernest Rister** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 9:57 pm

By the way, I strongly disagree with the "Ultimate Disney" official review of this titlte. I cannot recommend this film more strongly, especially to those who value the gentle, passionate, and personal side of Walt Disney's fim career. Dull? I pity you if you think this film is dull.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:04 pm

With all due respect, why did you come back if you despise this site so much, have run it down on the other sites, and continue to critisize the moderator here?

Post by **Luke** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:06 pm

What is a Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people.

Trolls see Internet communications services as convenient venues for their bizarre game. For some reason, they don't "get" that they are hurting real people. To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction. As a result, they feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict. Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause, the greater their 'achievement' (as they see it). At the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism (constructive or otherwise). You cannot negotiate with them; you cannot cause them to feel shame or compassion; you cannot reason with them. They cannot be made to feel remorse. For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think, "Surely there is something I can write that will change them." But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

Works Consulted: http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm

Ernest Rister · Post by **Ernest Rister** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:08 pm

"With all due respect, why did you come back if you despise this site so much, have run it down on the other sites, and continue to critisize the moderator here?"

Because I just read the UD review of Those Calloways on this site, which I feel is a great disservice to Disney fans, that's why.

"What is a Troll? An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He (and it is usually he) tries to start arguments and upset people."

I'm not trying to start an argument -- I'm trying to present in the strongest possible terms a contrary opinion on a wonderful motion picture, condemned by this site as "dull". The people who run this site consider my work "too smart" for you, "over your heads" as a certain person put it. Hardly true, but it was said. Nothing I've written is over anyone's head.

Those Calloways is a wonderful motion picture, and it is well worth your time and attention.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:19 pm

Ernest Rister wrote:Because I just read the review of Those Calloways on this site. That's why.

Why are you even reading the reviews? You obviously dislike pretty much everything about this site, as you have been adament in bashing it elsewhere. Why do you waste your time coming to a place you don't like? Are you a masochist? I think both you, and us, would be happier if we parted ways perminantly.

Ernest Rister · Post by **Ernest Rister** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:27 pm

"Why are you even reading the reviews?"

Why? I don't care what this site has to say about Eisner films. They can write reviews about Eisner's films all day long. Pirates of the Caribbean #2 on their list of best Disney live action films? Whatever. Who cares? But this site attracts an audience, and when this site officially pans a film long-championed by Disney buffs, including Leonard Maltin, myself, and others, yeah, I'm gonna throw in a counter-argument. Praise a good film, you won't hear from me. Pan Those Calloways? Lock your doors, here comes the bull.

I've said what it is I had to say on Those Calloways. If UltimateDisney decides to call other wonderful Walt Disney films "dull", that's their choice. It's my choice to PROTEST. LOUDLY.

Ernest Rister · Post by **Ernest Rister** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 10:50 pm

"Why call it '2-D animation'? That makes it sound so . . . flat."

By the way, Jack, I think your signature is dead-on...I also think it is wrong to describe HAND DRAWN animation as "2-D" animation. It makes it sound like HAND DRAWN animation is like some sort of out-moded software. ALL TRUE ANIMATION FANS should follow Jack's lead, and reject the modern re-classification of HAND DRAWN animation as 2-D ANIMATION. 2-D? NO! Not 2-D! Hand-drawn! Phasing out "2-D" is easier in the corporate parlance than killing "hand-drawn" animation. Fight this Eisner crap. Champion HAND DRAWN ANIMATION.

www.savedisney.com

MickeyMouseboy · Post by **MickeyMouseboy** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:04 am

Don't get mad jack, for someone who said Pollyana is not a well known movie it's not much a Disney expert...... enough said....... oh yeah wasnt Darby o Gil that movie with Sean Connery? oh...... so dear to my heart wasnt that release on VHS on every Disney Video Collection? 3 lives of thomasina wasn't that kid from mary poppins in it? all those tittle are well known for her/his information. just because he/she's never hear of them doesn't mean alot of people haven't. To me that review is mediocre and not worth even reading - first cause "that" reviewer needs to put someone else down to feel superior. Second - Why does she/he name "this unknow movie according to he/she" at the end of his/her review? Third - Why don't we all just write our own reviews when we don't agree with the hard labour of this devoted volunteers? Fourth - this should be locked and trashed cause that's what it is........ ok Thattt..Thatt's all. all Folks!

Disclaimer: The thoughts express here are not the views of UltimateDisney.com, owner, moderators, or some member if not all of them agree with his.

karlsen · Post by **karlsen** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:57 am

Here are my oppinion on this matter, and please read because I feel that I have something important to say here.

First of all I have to say that I did not recognice this person to much so I took a little time to go thru his old posts here. I have not seen any emails he has sent Luke, so I can only comment out of what I see here.

I agree that he has some bad posts and that he could be more sensitive then he is. To me it looks like he looks upon himself as a self proclaimed Disney buff (like several others here might think about themself as well, like myself).

But I also feel that people are over reacting a little to him as well. Luke called him a Troll and from the description of what a troll is I can not say that I would call him that. He is insensitive, yes, but I can not see that he is here just to make trouble. He has a lot of constructive posts, and just a few of them are troubling.

I also read his review of "Those Calloways" and I did like it. I have not seen the movie, so I can not say that it is correct or wrong, but just as a reaview it was nice (I have not read the review on UltimateDisney though). A review will always be subject to the persons own oppinion and therefor it should be allowed for Rider to write his own to show the diffrence in oppinion.

Then I feel that somebody here acts a little bad against people that does not have the same oppinion like themselves. In this case that goes to both parts of the discussion. I think that it is childish to make a title for Rister that reads ""Those Calloways" is dull". He is entitled to a oppinion on this film as much as everyone else. But Rister should take a little time with himself and see that not everybody likes to be attacked. Rister, you should write in more of a "my oppinion" kind of way and not "this is the thruth" way.

For this forum to be a nice place to be eveybody should make an effort to not attack those we do not agree with. That goes for both sides of the argument.

Just my 2 centes.

Post by **Luke** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:11 am

Oh, he's most definitely a troll, by the Internet definition of the word. Look at his old posts again, if you don't see it.

This review is copied in its entirety from another forum with a post-script added to say that I have "the attention span of a tweener on crack."

The entire point of the thread was to rile a negative reaction. Same thing with his past posts. I have no problem with someone having a different opinion. It's someone who posts their opinions as gospels and spouts out insults at everyone who disagrees.

This Ernest fellow has a reputation for being a bit of an "animation expert," but that's no excuse to be a general ass towards everyone on Internet forums.

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:32 am

Further Information on Ernest Rister

karlsen · Post by **karlsen** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:46 am

Luke wrote:Oh, he's most definitely a troll, by the Internet definition of the word. Look at his old posts again, if you don't see it.

I read them good the first time, and a lot of them was just another post in the line of a good threed. It was just a few of them that I found unreasonable.

Luke wrote:This review is copied in its entirety from another forum with a post-script added to say that I have "the attention span of a tweener on crack."

If this is copyed that seas a lot about him. If that is true you should provide a link to prove that. The post-script is one of those things that he should not have written. You are entitled to think this is a bad movie, and he should be man enough to say that as well without writing like that.

Jack: I found that link when reading Ernest Risters other posts and I did not find it much flattering on Risters part. But when I make up my oppinion I have to look at what I find open to the public to read on this forum and altogh he has unnesesary comments I do not find him to be a troll. I have experienced lots of trolls in my time, so I know the type, Rister is only a man that does not tolerate people with another view then his. In those threds where he agrees with others you can see that he acts normal as everyone else. A troll would not write any senceble posts at all.

But I liked the fact that you changed you mind about his title Luke. That shows that you are a real man.

Grunches · Post by **Grunches** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:25 pm

Is this movie on dvd? Sorry this is kind of off the subject.

Post by **Luke** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:34 pm

Grunches wrote:Is this movie on dvd? Sorry this is kind of off the subject.

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/thosecalloways.html

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oldliveaction.htm

Site Search

Grunches · Post by **Grunches** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 9:36 pm

Luke wrote:
Grunches wrote:Is this movie on dvd? Sorry this is kind of off the subject.
http://www.ultimatedisney.com/thosecalloways.html

http://www.ultimatedisney.com/oldliveaction.htm

Site Search

Thanks Luke!

chrisrose · Post by **chrisrose** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:42 pm

Sorry but I just need to get this off my chest...

When Ernest first began posting here, I tried to be friendly and show support for his posts (despite the fact that he never acknowledged my existence

) --- because I agreed with his anti-Eisner, anti-cheapquels stance. And (unfortunately) we have very similar taste in Disney movies. Which made me like him at first.

But now I'm ashamed that I ever sided with this guy on any topic, because, while I may share some of his opinions (those concerning Disney, not Disney fans), I completely disagree with the way he expresses those opinions. I hope to Walt I never turn into such an intolerant and pompous ass!

I've never encountered someone with such a superior attitude, and so little regard for other people's feelings. Also, if he really wants to change people's minds, he should know that insulting them is not the way to go about it.

(Trust me Ernest... Walt and Roy would not want to have someone like you on their side. If anything, cruelty like yours will only hurt the SaveDisney campaign - it contradicts everything Disney is supposed to stand for. I don't understand how you can praise the values of kindness found in movies like So Dear To My Heart, and then be so unkind to people in real life.)

Ernest may have a great intellect - but what good is it, really, without a great heart?

Loomis · Post by **Loomis** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:56 pm

Jack wrote:Further Information on Ernest Rister

Yes, I found that the other day and posted it in my own battle with him in the "See y'all real soon" thread in OT. Unbelievable, isn't it?

I just don't think he understands the idea of "fan site". As far as I can tell, he isn't published anywhere offline, and despite the fact he is "too booked" to do stuff, he posts 13,000+ times on IGN. As far as we know, he is a 12 year old with a keyboard. Our collective knowledge is far greater than his, and don't let him make you think otherwise! EVERYBODY on this board knows something about Disney that the rest of us might not know, so let's just forget this guy and have fun.

However, we have wasted far too much time on this matter. Chrisrose pretty much said all that needs to be said.

As for the film itself, I guess I will have to look at it and make up my own mind. Both parties make good cases for and against, it is just that the against case is done with a little less arrogance

Captain Hook · Post by **Captain Hook** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:00 pm

Luke, have you banned this Ernest person yet?

This movie DOES look dull, and I don't think that I should be considered a teenager on crack. In fact, I enjoy a majority of the others' reviews on this site, and what's more, even if I disagree, I still have an open mind to others ideas and can see where there coming from. I hope when people disagree with my reviews they will show the same courtesy.

Loomis, "Our collective knowledge is far greater than his, and don't let him make you think otherwise! EVERYBODY on this board knows something about Disney that the rest of us might not know, so let's just forget this guy and have fun."

I agree completely, you took the words out of my mouth and made them better!

Hook

Chernabog · Post by **Chernabog** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 1:54 am

Those Calloways is not dull!
It´s a wonderful film, a little bit too long maybe but otherwise very good!
I don´t side with Rister, but I must say that this film is good!

DVDizzy Forum

Latest Movie Reviews

🎬 DVDizzy Top Stories️️

THOSE CALLOWAYS - Review by Ernest Rister

THOSE CALLOWAYS - Review by Ernest Rister