Hawks. The last five years have not been kind to Howard Hawks on my rankings here. He was not just a supervisor as a director. He’s no byproduct and benefactor of an efficient studio system. He worked within it much like John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock though his visual style is nowhere near as ostensible or exceptional and for me that’s critical. The depth of his filmography is probably better than Godard’s or Welles’. I did this thing where I scored each director on my spreadsheet and awarded points for masterpieces, must-see’s and top 10’s. I essentially score their filmographies. Hawks rated out better than several of the directors above him on the list. But, he isn’t the visual master the previous auteurs on this list were and probably isn’t as strong as several that will come after him. Eventually I’ll have more modern directors ahead of Hawks (the real difficult thing is picking which one(s)). But, for now, I have to respect Hawks rhythms (both dialogue and editing), genre work, gender work, and filmography. One would be very lucky to be stuck on a desert island (relatively) with all of Howard Hawks movies.
Best film: The Big Sleep I don’t feel extremely confident about this though – not that it’s not a worthy film. It’s my #100 film and I have three other Hawks’ films between 100-171 and 2 others within 11 slots of Big Sleep (Bringing Up Baby and Rio Bravo). Needless to say it’s very close.
total archiveable films: 20
top 100 films: 1
top 500 films: 6 (The Big Sleep, Bringing Up Baby, Rio Bravo, Red River, His Girl Friday, To Have and Have Not)
top 100 films of the decade: 9 (Bringing Up Baby, Only Angels Have Wings, Scarface, The Big Sleep, Red River, His Girl Friday, To Have and Have Not, Sergeant York, Rio Bravo)
most overrated: Hatari! is the #544 on TSPDT – a good film but it’s not Hawks’ 8th best film as TSPDT would have you believe. I’m a little shocked to see it on the top 1000 to be honest but I haven’t seen it since the VHS days so perhaps I’m missing something on this one.
most underrated: The Big Sleep is #296 on TSPDT and I have it at #100 on the dot. I dare you to pick 295 better movies like TSPDT does. It’s one of the best purely engaging narratives (even if it’s unfollowable), a Mount Rushmore film noir, and one of Bogart’s best performance.
gem I want to spotlight: Scarface– if you haven’t seen it check out it out and really pay attention to the opening as it will blow you away. Clearly the best of the early 1930’s landmark gangster films (including Edgar G Robinson’s Little Caesar in 1930 and 1931’s The Public Enemy with Cagney).
stylistic innovations/traits: Papers and books have justifiably been written about the male bonding relationships, strong females and fast pacing in Hawks’ films. Amazing work. Look at how important Hawks was to film genres. His top 10 includes: two film noirs, two screwball comedies, two westerns, two war movies, a sci-fi movie, a gangster movie. All of them are considered amongst the very best of their genre or the very best. The rest of his filmography includes a great prison film (The Criminal Code-1931), a desert epic (Land of the Pharaohs), and an African safari film(Hatari!). He also gave us some of the very best performances/films from Bogart, Wayne, Marilyn Monroe, Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, Gary Cooper, Dean Martin, Montgomery Clift, Lauren Bacall.
top 10
- The Big Sleep
- Bringing Up Baby
- Rio Bravo
- Red River
- His Girl Friday
- To Have and Have Not
- Only Angels Have Wings
- Scarface
- The Thing
- Sergeant York
By year and grades
| 1931- The Criminal Code | R |
| 1932- Scarface | HR |
| 1934- Twentieth Century | R/HR |
| 1936- Ceiling Zero | |
| 1938- Bringing Up Baby | MP |
| 1939- Only Angels Have Wings | HR/MS |
| 1940- His Girl Friday | MP |
| 1941- Ball of Fire | R |
| 1941- Sergeant York | HR |
| 1943- Air Force | R |
| 1944- To Have and Have Not | MS |
| 1946- The Big Sleep | MP |
| 1948- Red River | MP |
| 1951- The Thing | HR |
| 1952- The Big Sky | R |
| 1953- Gentlemen Prefer Blondes | R |
| 1955- Land of the Pharaohs | R |
| 1959- Rio Bravo | MP |
| 1962- Hatari! | R |
| 1967- El Dorado |
*MP is Masterpiece- top 1-3 quality of the year film
MS is Must-see- top 5-6 quality of the year film
HR is Highly Recommend- top 10 quality of the year film
R is Recommend- outside the top 10 of the year quality film but still in the archives
His Red Line 7000 (1965) very much deserves a look. It’s ambitious from Hawks to make a film with all newcomers and no established stars. And also having multiple plot threads. But it’s such a cool film if you give it a chance and stick with the changes from one couple to another. And all the multiple plot threads are woven well. Some of the leads fare better than the others (Caan, Marianna Hill, etc.). But the acting overall is not a distraction as one could hope with a film starring newcomers. I think both the bar and inn they hang out on are real characters in the film and so well designed. It’s a thoroughly unconventional but excellent film and I would say it is a high R at least. I haven’t seen El Dorado in a hot minute (Hawks’ follow-up to this) but I would put Red Line 7000 above that one. El Dorado is filled with cliches and Hawks is just rehashing Rio Bravo to a lesser effect. Unlike the narrative ambition and uniqueness of Red Line 7000. And superior world building.
Is Red Line 7000 (1965) any good? Apparently Tarantino is a fan of the film and it is now in the TSPDT top 2500 I believe.
@Drake – Wondering if you have seen Man’s Favorite Sport? from 1964, it’s essentially a retracing of Bringing Up Baby but I honestly think I like it a little more (not to say it’s “better” of course) and I think it’s absolutely worth study if you haven’t already caught it.
@Chase- Thanks for the recommendation- if I have seen it- it was 20 years ago with no notes- but I don’t believe I have. I’ll look for it on TCM and try to grab it the next time through. Thank you
Could you give a quick explanation for Bringing Up Baby’s spot in the new list ? It’s been a long while but it didn’t stand out to me visually any more than something like The Apartment to stay within Hollywood comedies. Seeing it ahead of films like Harakiri, Written on the Wind, A Matter of Life and Death and Double Indemnity is… very surprising.
I like it a lot for the humor, dialogues, costumes and performances, but I wouldn’t expect you to regard it so highly.
I think this is a fair argument. I can see room for it to drop in my own estimation, even if for now I believe it to be a masterpiece – but I would also rank it beneath each of those films that you mentioned. I put my full thoughts together here: https://scenebygreen.com/2023/08/25/bringing-up-baby-1938/
Ah that’s interesting, you seem to have imported the format from the Archives, but in a more essay-like manner. Seems like there’s some good stuff that isn’t covered here (yet). I’ll take a look, thank you.
@Vaanilla- It is a fair question – the list is fluid as some of these films have been seen really recently (watched The Third Man last night) and others it has been 10, 15, 20 years). The goal and my hope is that the site and lists are getting a little better with each update.
@Drake I see, but more than challenging the list itself, I was hoping you had some notes on what I should be looking out for formally during my next watch ?
@Vaanilla – For Bringing Up Baby, the Criterion Edition includes audio commentary from film director and historian Peter Bogdanovich. It’s not for everyone but I do like listening to commentary with certain films though it is obviously time consuming
This may not answer your question but I really like this guy and his “What Makes This Movie Great” YouTube channel (link below)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPNDKWM4hK4
Yes it doesn’t answer the question because I know why the film is generally acclaimed by critics and cinephiles, the reasons always brought up are in the same vein as those for Some Like it Hot and The Apartment who rank very high on the TSPDT (script, acting, double entendre, subtext, gender play), quite higher than Baby, except those arguments don’t hold much weight on this site and the first two dropped considerably accordingly. But not Baby.
I just don’t see where Bringing Up Baby stands out a lot more formally in comparison, not for hundreds of spots anyway. Even Declan’s (nice) review mostly gravitates around the points I mentioned above, in what is otherwise a mostly consistent methodology on visuals, ranking-wise. I want to be proven wrong though, I love BuB much more than Written on the Wind, so give me reasons to love it even more, but the latter seems an undeniable cut above visually.
@Vaanilla – It is very possible you are not wrong regarding your assessment. I do agree with you regarding this site having a consistent methodology, I noted this on the top 1000 page
“I love BuB much more than Written on the Wind, so give me reasons to love it even more”
I am curious as to whether you separate objectively best from favorites? Perhaps I am getting too hung up on semantics but you say you are looking for reasons to love it more. But it sounds like you are looking for reasons to be more impressed by it.
@James I separate the two to an extent, as theoretically cinematic language should be priorized to “filmed theatre” as an ideal of the art form the way I approach it, hence why I would expect, say There Will be Blood to be above All About Eve in a film ranking that claims an attempt at objectivity, despite my strong personal preference for the latter. So from there we can conclude that my liking a film isn’t strictly based on where it falls on the scale towards that cinematic ideal.
At the same time my top 10 all falls somewhere in the top 130 on here, so clearly cinematic tools are of importance to my appreciation and love for a film. The ideal is at the back of my mind and does influence it.
So “objective” conventions of cinematic quality definitely factor into it but I just can’t pretend it’s solely a hierarchy of that. Let me put it this way:
If forced to name the best candidate for the greatest movie of all-time “objectively” on the ideal above, my choice would fall between The Passion of Joan of Arc and Citizen Kane. I would pick Joan. But Joan is in my top 10 favorites, CK is not. So is my picking Joan still “objective” or does my personal preference overtake my view of objectively best ? After all, the objective great cinematic qualities are the overwhelming reason why I love Joan so much, but CK doesn’t get me that way (it’s still a 10/10) despite being of similar caliber, and that of course is because themes, aesthetics, actors, dialogues, music and etc. come into the equation. Personally, trying to make a truly objective list would be foolish, even if it would still look similar to the TSPDT and Cinema Archives.
So yeah, when it comes to Bringing up Baby it’s just that what stands out to me is mostly the “filmed theatre” aspects (I could be wrong), although I would still call it the most cinematic screwball comedy, which is enough for me to like it more than a more competent cinematic effort that leaves me cold or annoyed, but kind of puts a glass ceiling on that appreciation at the highest level. And on here it makes me puzzled at its ranking in the context of the methodology used.
Hope that answers the question.
And you ?
@Vaanilla – well said. All my rankings for my director studies are intended to be objective rankings although the actual lists in and of themselves are not what really matters to me. They are a tool for learning about Cinema and having discussions with fellow cinephiles, that is the real value.
Similar to you I do acknowledge that they are not exactly the same although my personal favorites are usually not too different from “objectively best” based on Cinematic Qualities
I think it is fair to ask what factors separate “objectively best” from “favorite”
# 1 Reachability
Generally, when I refer to a film as “one of my favorites” they tend to be films I have seen many times such as Goodfellas, The Godfather, and Seven Samurai are endlessly rewatchable and are some of the greatest films cinematically. Films like American Psycho, Shawshank Redemption, The Usual Suspects, and The Departed are just as rewatchable and great films but not on the same level as the former list
# 2 Genre and subject matter
I love film noirs and gangster films and films that could be labeled as “dark comedies” such as American Psycho and Fargo. I have come to learn that a film’s subject matter does not have much if anything to do with cinematic quality. I actually think this is something of a blind spot for me as I have avoided certain films for these reasons. For example, I did not really care for films in the “Fantasy” Genre. There are films that I have not watched since I was a kid that have serious Cinematic merit according to other cinephiles. I have not watched any of the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars since I was a kid; I do intent on watching these at some point
# 3 Nostalgia
Nostalgia is quite powerful, and it can be obvious. I love the Rocky Franchise; I watched Rocky IV for the first time in a Hotel Room during a family vacation when I was 13. My brother and I went on a Rocky binge shortly after plus I started watching actual boxing shortly after that. I watched Rounders (1998) around 2003 during the Poker Boom when online and TV Poker exploded in popularity. My friends and I watched Rounders and quoted it endlessly. Films like Rocky and certainly Rounders are not Cinematic Masterpieces, but I love them
# 4 Misc
Since we are on the Howard Hawks page I will say I put Angels Have Wings (1939) # 6 during my Hawks study, but if you asked me my favorite Hawks film Angels would probably be my pick even though I could not tell you why or at least not with a simple answer. Red River (1948) would be the other film I would consider for my favorite Hawks film and that one I ranked # 1 on the Study. Generally my favorite film from a director is the film I ranked # 1 or # 2 in the Study but there are exceptions
* Rewatchability
Separating some kind of objective best from your favourite is honestly pretty impossible: the human brain just simply isn’t smart enough and “good filmmaking” isn’t enough of a clear-cut science for this to really work. Even if you’re trying to assess some kind of objective beauty, that ultimately at least somewhat comes down to which images cause certain neurons in your brain to fire, and differences between everyone’s brains will mean that certain images rank higher or lower for everyone.
This doesn’t mean of course that you can’t critically look at films for which feature superior direction or formal structure (there’s obviously something there and it’s a topic which is very worth discussing), just that expecting the ability to 100% fully separate this from your subjective favourites will be sort of a dead mission by definition. This is why I ultimately don’t pay all too much attention to the distinction between the words “favourite” and “best” for myself (barring extreme cases like praising an intentionally bad but very amusing movie) even though I’m definitely a form and style > subject matter film watcher like most on this site are
@ga – I agree to a certain extent but it does depend somewhat on one’s definition of “favorite” as you could define it simply as the movies you most frequenty watch. There are numerous ways you could define “favorite” as I noted above
I agree that it is not an exact science, maybe the best one can strive for is consistency in making any type of “objective list”
@Harry – mini Robert Siodmak study on 7 of his noirs then I was thinking Spielberg although the Coen Brothers is also a possibility
@James – exciting, I only saw The Killers a week ago and was really impressed so will keep an eye out for your notes.
@Harry – The Killers is amazing both visually and the narrative, its got all the staples of a great noir; hitmen, use of shadows and silhouettes, doomed protagonist, femme fatale, complex plot, etc.
Final Ranking and Grades:
MP
Red River (1948)
The Big Sleep (1946)
Rio Bravo (1959)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
MS/MP
His Girl Friday (1940)
MS
Only Angels Have Wings (1939)
Scarface (1932)
HR
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
To Have and Have Not (1944)
R
Twentieth Century (1934)
El Dorado (1966)
Sergeant York (1941)
Ball of Fire (1941)
The Thing or The Thing from Another World (1951)
Hatari! (1962)
Study Summary:
If you’re a fan of Genre Cinema it is pretty much impossible to not appreciate Hawks. He excels at Screwball Comedies, Film Noirs, and Westerns in particular but also gives us one of the early great mob films with his version of Scarface (1932) Prior to this study I knew little to nothing about Screwball Comedies so that was in a way the highlight of the study for me even though my top 3 for Hawks consists of 2 Westerns and a Film Noir. Peter Bogdanovich, who I did a mini study on, was a big admirer and I believe friends with Hawks, he does the commentary on Criterion Blu Ray for Bringing Up Baby (1938I initially planned on watching The Big Sky (1952) which was on Amazon for rental, but the quality was brutal, so I ended up skipping it
Hawks does not have incredible visuals like many of great auteurs, but he is a tremendous storyteller and gets excellent performances from his actors/actresses. Tarantino calls Rio Bravo the one of the greatest “hang out” movies as you feel like you are bonding with the characters. Still I think Hawks uses framing effectively in his John Wayne films particularly. In Red River Wayne is often shot as the lone person in the frame, highlighting his lone wolf mentality compared to the Montgomery Cliff who usually shares the frame with the other characters he leads when he gradually overtakes Wayne as the leader on the way to Missouri. One of my favorite shots is the first shot of Wayne’s character in Rio Bravo when Hawks uses a low angle shot of Wayne’s sheriff towering over Dean Martin character, the town drunk. Red River is packed with great shots with Hawks filling the frame with cattle and men on horses, particularly with the stampede scene. Scarface starts with an incredible tracking shot of an assassination using shadow and of course the X’s in the mise-en-scene which Scorsese would use in The Departed 74 years later.
While he is not the greatest American director, he may be the most quintessential American director covering very American genres like Westerns, Noirs, Gangster, and Screwball Comedies. Hawks worked with American legends like John Wayne multiple times as well as Gary Cooper several times, Humphrey Bogart, and Marilyn Monroe once.
Hawks has consistent themes involving male bonding through groups working together on a job or some common goal, the strong-willed woman who breaks through the tough male exterior. He also was an adventure seeker with an interest in planes, safaris, boating, etc. Only Angels Have Wings (1939) might be my favorite of all his films even if its not his best, you have it all with that film, a perfect blend between adventure, comedy, intriguing narrative, and romance.
@James Trapp – Excellent stuff here- it feels like you were cranking through these as a quick pace. It’ll be interesting to see if you still hold Hawks in such high regard 3, 5 or 10 years for now.
@Drake – thanks, it’s funny because I actually thought about that while going through it, I admit I probably paused for note taking less than some prior studies and given my awareness of his lack of stunning visuals I perhaps graded a little easier although I was not doing it consciously so hard to say. I think there are other interesting things to consider. For example I think Hawks benefits from working with some legends like Wayne, Grant, Bogart, Cooper, etc. That doesn’t make him a better director but l know you’ve said that for Orson Welles to name an example his biggest enemy aside from Hollywood was himself and his ego. Films are art but also a business and Hawks was able I think to really maximize his abilities and talent resulting in one of the best filmographies even if he wasn’t the most talented.
@James – who is next?
@James Trapp – For sure – and hey – I admire the hell out of Hawks, what he did and his films. We don’t have to pit these films and directors against each other as a competition. I just sort of can’t help it. Even know I’m looking at this “29th Best director” on my own page and I’m shaking my head.
@Drake – have there been any other Hawks films downgraded from MP since the Rio Bravo page?
@Harry- Yes- a few here and there- all have moved down a grade or half grade I believe.
El Dorado (1966)
Notes:
Starts with a montage of paintings depicting men riding horses
2:15 a classic “Old West” setting with town with Saloon and narrow dirt roads
3:20 John Wayne and Robert Mitchum
11:15 medium shot of Wayne on horse, Hawks frequently shoots Wayne characters as the sole person in the frame
15 min close up shots back and forth between Wayne and Luke who is dying after being shot
16:21 frame in frame as Wayne rides horse in middle of frame
25:25 doorway frame
28:28 James Caan makes his entrance, immediately turning up the tension
31:01 amazing rapid edit to a Wayne close up as he shoots gun out of hand
39:18 dissolve edits to Wayne on horseback
55:30 jail scene hard not to think of Rio Bravo
56:36 dissolve edits to Wayne and Caan walking through street
59:56 filling frame to the brim with men (and one woman) riding horses through town
1:05:18 Mitchum playing a lawman turned pathetic drunk like the Dean Martin character in Rio Bravo
1:12:55 the bell tower is a great set piece with frame in frame in low angle shot and then switch to high angle shot through the other characters POV
1:15:17 character shot and killed falls to ground from 180 degree shot with body falling toward camera
1:16:44 close up shots establish intimacy between team
1:27:30 creative use of framing
1:47:22 prisoner exchange like in Rio Bravo
1:54:27 Hawksian woman rides with Wayne
Shootout begins right at 2-hour mark
Thoughts:
Hawks with John Wayne and Robert Mitchum, other than in Ford’s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance with Jimmy Steward this is the biggest star I’ve seen in a Wayne film
Even after seeing many John Wayne films, I still am not sure about his chemistry with much young women, I think he usually pulls it off
This is in a way a weaker version of Rio Bravo
Verdict: R
@James Trapp- I adore those paintings to open the films- the Western oil paintings from artist Olaf Wieghorst