[Peter Pallotta]

One that I recently came across: Director Howard Hawks asking Robert Mitchum to star in his new picture:

Hawks:     It's a western, Bob - you and the Duke. We'll shoot near Santa Fe.
Mitchum:  Well that sounds just fine, Howard, thanks. What's the story?     
Hawks:      Oh no story, Bob - just character.

"Just character". Lovely. And just because Hawks was so good at what he did, here's a couple of quotes/analogies:

"A good movie is three good scenes and no bad ones".
"The western is the simplest form of drama -- a gun, death."

Peter

 

[Tony_Muldoon]

NOt sure where you're going with this Peter. Along the lines of round up the gang it's time to get back to work and something good may come out of it?
 
 
Anyway in spirit I think you are a going a million miles away from the overanalytical approach that leads to stasis.
It's what the internet can do to you. Like this.
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film1618
 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tony - my reaction to that line by Hawks was mostly instinctive/intuitive, and I haven't thought it through. But yes: I think in the face of the 'over analytics' about routings and hazards and hole lengths and the 'story' that is a golf course, the focus on "character" is a good and useful corrective/balance. A story can 'work' perfectly well and be totally understandable (and from the writer's/architect's perspective, wholly defensible) and yet still fail to truly come
to life, and neither inspire, engage and/or enrich if the character/characters aren't that story's driving force and heart and soul.
Peter

[Peter Pallotta]

In other words - it is the character(s) that create the story, not the story that creates the characters.
Peter

[Thomas Dai]

Golf at the peak of performance, even when 'The Man' of whatever era or generation is playing at his absolute perfect best, can sometimes be boring but watching this chap play, even when he wasn't necessarily playing that well, was always interesting


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g5JfA1D1pkc


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vc6Dnt5LkHM


 


Atb

[Sean_A]

Character???  I don't recall who said it or in which film


The woman: "I heard you got a raise...what are you gonna spend it on?"


The man: "A little on beer, a little on women...and the rest foolishly." As he gives the room a sidways peer.   


That guy had character, even if it was just a bit part.  For some reason, I am thinking of Petticoat Junction for these lines, but that can't be...just doesn't make sense.


Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

In other words - it is the character(s) that create the story, not the story that creates the characters.
Peter

Peter,

Gotta disagree here a bit.  They picked one of the best ever actors to play a character study for "Cast Away"...

But the plot was lacking, most of the movie was slow and plodding, and it put me to sleep 1st time I saw it.  Sure it had its good moments, but overall, the movie was a miss despite its good cast and interesting premise.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kalen - I hear you; it can go wrong for sure. But in movies I'm thinking of a film like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" -- everything that happens, all the "story", is based on who Butch and Sundance are.  There wasn't a pre-made narrative into which a couple of ciphers were plopped to act robotically in service of the plot; instead, it felt as if the plot "emerged" out of the characters of the two leads. In architecture/courses, I'm thinking of all the "average English courses" that serve all the purposes that golf courses are supposed to serve; they do so without much fanfare (or expense), and what seems to make them special/memorable despite their "averageness" is their character , i.e. the feeling one gets (from photos at least) that all the elements of the golfing journey/story come out of/are part of the course itself in its wholeness. 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen - I hear you; it can go wrong for sure. But in movies I'm thinking of a film like "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" -- everything that happens, all the "story", is based on who Butch and Sundance are.  There wasn't a pre-made narrative into which a couple of ciphers were plopped to act robotically in service of the plot; instead, it felt as if the plot "emerged" out of the characters of the two leads. In architecture/courses, I'm thinking of all the "average English courses" that serve all the purposes that golf courses are supposed to serve; they do so without much fanfare (or expense), and what seems to make them special/memorable despite their "averageness" is their character , i.e. the feeling one gets (from photos at least) that all the elements of the golfing journey/story come out of/are part of the course itself in its wholeness.

Fair enough.

To me the "Cast Away" version of golf courses would be something like the old Poopy Hills.  Fantastic location, big expectations, had its moments....but overall a disappointment and thinking what a miss it was.

[Peter Pallotta]

Kalen - I don't know "Poopy Hills", but I think I know why Castaway didn't work -- it's because though ostensibly a "character piece" it was actually a "star vehicle".  (Butch and Sundance was written by one of the best in the business and so managed to be both.) At some level, it was never actually intended (nor designed) to work as a classic character study -- it was conceived and financed because someone figured they could bank on Tom Hanks' talent and likability to carry a story, as if Tom's character was enough. With the golf course, maybe something similar happened: "the setting" (they thought) bestowed instant character.
P   

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D has designed a reversible course. Does that mean that 'the story' will be like reading the same book backwards, or is it more likely that "character(s)" will be what brings both courses to life, and in different ways?
Peter

[Joe Hancock]

Tom D has designed a reversible course. Does that mean that 'the story' will be like reading the same book backwards, or is it more likely that "character(s)" will be what brings both courses to life, and in different ways?
Peter

Or is it more like the scene from Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" where, at a stoning, the characters are men impersonating women who are impersonating men?

[Eric Smith]

Tom D has designed a reversible course. Does that mean that 'the story' will be like reading the same book backwards, or is it more likely that "character(s)" will be what brings both courses to life, and in different ways?
Peter

Or is it more like the scene from Monty Python's "The Life of Brian" where, at a stoning, the characters are men impersonating women who are impersonating men?

Judean People's Front?
                  :::::::
People's Front of Judea!

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen - I don't know "Poopy Hills", but I think I know why Castaway didn't work -- it's because though ostensibly a "character piece" it was actually a "star vehicle".  (Butch and Sundance was written by one of the best in the business and so managed to be both.) At some level, it was never actually intended (nor designed) to work as a classic character study -- it was conceived and financed because someone figured they could bank on Tom Hanks' talent and likability to carry a story, as if Tom's character was enough. With the golf course, maybe something similar happened: "the setting" (they thought) bestowed instant character.
P

Very well said Pete, makes sense to me.

Just a shame cause it coulda been something special...

[Peter Pallotta]

Don't oppress me, Joe. And by the way, I'd like to be called "Loretta".

Peter

Thank you, Kalen. I have always relied on the kindness of strangers. In his piling on, Eric proved himself a brute! Oh, I hate him, I hate him, I hate him....oh....

[Kalen Braley]

Don't oppress me, Joe. And by the way, I'd like to be called "Loretta".

Peter

Thank you, Kalen. I have always relied on the kindness of strangers. In his piling on, Eric proved himself a brute! Oh, I hate him, I hate him, I hate him....oh....

Touche' Pete..

P.S.  What have the Romans ever done for us?.......The Aqueduct

[Peter Pallotta]

Kalen - those damn Romans, they've bled us white!  They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, but from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers, and our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers. And what have they ever given us in return? Nothing! Well -- okay, the aqueduct, they gave us that, that's true. But what else? Nothing, I say! Oh, actually, sanitation is better nowadays, and the roads. Okay, I grant them that: but other than water, sanitation and the transportation system - what else? Well, sure, okay, there's also irrigation, and medicine, and education, and it's safe to walk the streets at night -- but besides that the Romans have given us nothing at all!! Bastards! Down with the Romans, Down with the Romans...

 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen - those damn Romans, they've bled us white!  They've taken everything we had, and not just from us, but from our fathers, and from our fathers' fathers, and our fathers' fathers' fathers' fathers. And what have they ever given us in return? Nothing! Well -- okay, the aqueduct, they gave us that, that's true. But what else? Nothing, I say! Oh, actually, sanitation is better nowadays, and the roads. Okay, I grant them that: but other than water, sanitation and the transportation system - what else? Well, sure, okay, there's also irrigation, and medicine, and education, and it's safe to walk the streets at night -- but besides that the Romans have given us nothing at all!! Bastards! Down with the Romans, Down with the Romans...

 

Love that movie.  The haggle scene is one of my faves too!!

http://www.montypython.net/scripts/LOB-hagglescene.php

[Rich Goodale]

Peter

To paraphrase from the initial post (and bring this thread on topic and a la mode):

"A 'Great' golf course has 3 world class holes and no 'Meh?' ones."

Using this definition I think that the number of great golf courses in the world is ~30-40, and it seems to apply to the 15-20 of those that I have played.

[Peter Pallotta]

Rich - thanks for that post. I was hoping that someone qualified to do so would comment on that quote. Your conclusions - ie 30-40 great courses - are of interest. I think I understand what Mr Hawks means in regards the movies -- that a film certainly has to 'work' throughout, scene by scene, and in its sequence of scenes/narrative, but that its heart and soul and meaning and greatness reside in/are driven by only 3 crucial and defining scenes.
Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Peter, but I'm only "qualified" to express an opinion, as is everybody else here. from the wettest behind the ears newbie to Tom Doak.  "Greatness" in golf courses (or movies, or pop songs, or wines, or even whether or not to use the "oxford comma") is all in the mind of the beholder.  The 30-40 paradigm fits for me, but probably not for others.  I think that 30-40 of anything is the limit beyond which one should not pass unless her or she is a complete fanatic.  For me, for somethings, I can hard budge myself to go beyond 1 (e.g. ketchup, best versions of "The Macarena" etc.).

That being said, I think that the "Three WOW's!"/no mehs..." rule (and all its combinations and permutations) is a useful key to discriminating between the quality golf courses.  At the  very least, it supports my long held opinion that neither The Old Course nor Pinehurst #2 are "great" golf courses, the latter for violating the "Three Wow's" criterion and the former for violating the "no mehs..." one.

All the best

Rich

[Kalen Braley]

Rich,

Interesting formula there.

Given the controversial nature of CPC and the 18th hole, would that mean CPC is not great despite consistently being rated in the top 10?  Or does the fact that it has more than 3 Wow holes, make up for it?

Just curious.

P.S.  I thought the 18th was more a WTF, than a "meh"....

[Rich Goodale]

18 (and 17) are goofy, but not "meh?"  CPC makes the cut.

[Kalen Braley]

18 (and 17) are goofy, but not "meh?"  CPC makes the cut.

Interesting you would call 17 goofy.  I would consider one its wow holes along with the few others.

Yes there is the tree thing, but its right on the ocean with choices a plenty in terms of how one is going to attack it.

For me the other "weak" CPC hole is #1, but its not in the meh category.

[Sean_A]

I really wonder how many courses pass the Meh test (though I am not exactly sure what that word means...indifference to poor?).  If word of mouth is anything to go by...Pine Valley?  I have not played a single course without an indifferent hole, one which doesn't add anything to the design or is just a poor hole.  Not even on the two courses which I think if were presented properly are the best two I have played...Merion and Ballybunion.  While I applaud Rihc's distaste for course inflation, for me, the +3/-1 bar is way too high for greatness.  The determination of greatness for is not down to a simple formula. 


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()