Jerahmia Johnson question?

[brew]

There is a sceen in the movie where before going to takeback Del Gue's possible from the Black Feet Indians that stole his horse and pelts,Jerahmia intentionaly runs his hands several times along both sides of his horses neck. Does anyone know why he would be doing this? Does he want the horse sweat on his hands for some reason? Just curious. By the way, my 3 year old daughter cant get enough of this movie.
I guess it's just in her blood.

 

[tx50cal]

I always figured that he was using the scent to cover something that was on his hands.

 

[beaudro]

I think it's because he was hiding his scent from the horses he was stealing back. Otherwise the horses would have spooked and woke the indians. That may be an authentic trick, I wish I could find a real story on that.

 

[SAJones]

Folks, I hate to be a wet blanket on this, but ever since I had to psycoanalyze a long winded Russian writer in a college Literature course, I have avoided trying to read into what fiction authors or movie producers put in their works. It's Hollywood, which has a history of ignoring real life & history. It probably was nothing more than "Hey, pet the horse." Please don't use Hollywood for a source.

By the way, based on my reading of old journals & descriptions of mountain men, the latest being Warren Ferris, ain't no way your're gonna hide their odor.

 

[PaulN/KS]

It is just good "horse manners" to rub a horse's neck when ya go up to it.Calms the horse and in this case was probably supposed to keep the horse quiet.if ya plan on going behind a horse I was always taught that you kept a hand touching it as you went behind it to keep ya from getting kicked.

 

[SAJones]

Paul: yer're absolutely right about horse manners, but I've seldom witnessed good horsemanship in modern westerns. The way some of those folks ride makes my butt hurt. I still rely on my father's training & the lessons a fiesty 3 year old half-Morgan taught me. My point was to ignore Hollywood as a source or example.

 

[Norskie]

Having owned both horses and guns all my life, I wouldn't take the movie industry's horse handling as an example of how to do it any more than I would their gun handling, which I know to be horribly unsafe...

 

[brew]

I understand your point regarding Hollywood but if you are familiar with this particular scene you will notice the way he intentionally walks to the horse, and deliberately and systematically rubs the horse’s neck with both hands. He is not just patting the horse with affection or concern for getting kicked.
Yes Hollywood is "Hollywood" but it's obvious that the director Sydney Pollack made every effort to recreate authenticity throughout this movie and I am sure there is a particular reason for this motion. Any body else have any suggestions?

 

[Darkhorse]

After spending a lifetime around horses, including raising and breeding Arabians today. And this includes maintaining a stallion which is a horse of a totally different breed than geldings or mares.... I digress...
Anyway my take on the rubbing of the horses neck and hollywood is the same as the scene where he is shooting buffalo and he hears the mule braying as the wolves attack. Just before he pours powder from his horn down the bore he claps his hand over the muzzle so that he can listen better.
No matter how many times I see this movie and so far it must be about 50... that scene just stands out as totally ridiculous.

On the other hand I might be totally wrong and there might be a purpose I'm missing in both actions. Scent does count. Not only in deer hunting but horses also.
An old trick for the Liberty class is to wear gloves with a little mare manure from a mare in heat in the finger tips of the gloves. Even though the stallion knows who you are and how you smell and that you are going to catch him and put a halter on him, he still can't resist the smell.
Stud horses are a lot like us men sometimes.

 

[Darkhorse]

While we are on this subject; I just saw this movie again last week. It was on one of the cable movie channels and I watched it all the way through with no interruptions.
A couple of things I noticed.
The first was; Only two rifles are accounted for in the movie. A .30 caliber Hawken and a .50 caliber (Hatchet Jacks). But while watching the movie again I noticed at the least 3 different sideplates on the rifles he was using. One was a steel washer like was used on the TC Renegade. One was a Tennessee mountain rifle type sideplate (for want of a better description) and one seemed to be a brass sideplate off a Longrifle. Next time you watch the movie look for this and see how many you come up with.

Another thing was; Remember early in the movie when he woke up and his horse was dead and laying in the snow? After that he was leading his pack mule. Then when he first met Bearclaw "That's far enough Pilgrim" he was also leading the packmule.
But, when it shows him and Bearclaw riding Jerimiah was riding a really good looking, well bred horse with stockings (white feet). He continued to ride this horse through the rest of the movie.
Where did this horse come from?

And I wonder what kind of black powder they used as the stuff sure didn't make a lot of white smoke.

But Jeremiah Johnson is still one of my all time favorite movies.
I just wonder about some things is all.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I've always been amazed at how hard his rifles kicked. My Hawken .54 hardly kicks at all, and my .62 caliber long rifle--it weighs about 7 1/2 pounds--is a delight to shoot. It would seem that Jeremiah didn't handle recoil very well.

 

[dwarvenchef]

Just watched it last night and was thinking the same thing about the recoil. You would think he was shooting with spikes in the butplate. I enjoy this movie alot but put little faith in it as I really don't like Redford.

 

Maybe he didn't like the smell of horse flesh so he rubbed his horses down with castorum. :rotf:

 

[flintlockmdj]

Hollywoodism?

 

I enjoy this movie alot but put little faith in it as I really don't like Redford.

I don't like Redford either, the Liberal Hollywood Weenie ...

Redford was totally wrong for the Jeremiah Johnson part. Redford was just too small to use for the part, if you know something about Johnstons size, which was 6'-4", 250 pounds.

The part should have gone to someone such as Clint Walker, since he and John Johnston were about the same size. Walker would have looked a lot more credible in the part ...

Bill

 

[shmrck1]

Redford's name was needed to get the movie on the
screen and the rest is history IMHO
snake-eyes
I still watch it when ever it shows up on cable,
but not because of Redford.I don't like Richard
Geer either but he would have been great for the
part. Tom Berringer would have been my pick.
He is a stickler for historical accurrecy and in
my opinion a better actor than Geer or Redford.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Since the film was made in 1972, I vote for John Wayne. Even at 65 years old, he would have been a better choice than Redford.

 

[davy]

Since the film was made in 1972, I vote for John Wayne. Even at 65 years old, he would have been a better choice than Redford.

I have wondered what Clint Eastwood would have done with such a role. " Ya gonna pull thet Hawken Smokewagon ... Pilgrim .. or stand thar n bleed! :hmm:

Davy

 

[oomcurt]

Just adding my two cents. Kinda amuzing actually...this thread. I think the thing to bear in mind is...This is a movie! It is not, nor have I ever heard it termed as a documentary. I wonder what would be written here if the title was "Joe Black" or something. Did/do I enjoy the movie? Dang right I did. Did I watch it as a study in historical accuracy? Hell no I didn't. Now I am not knocking those who are into that thing, but I do wonder why every bloomin thing that hollywood puts out HAS to be accurate to the nth degree, expecially if one considers that the movie industry is geared to entertainment not teaching history. Man, I feel sorry for those whose only enjoyment seems to be nit picking.

 

Just adding my two cents. Kinda amuzing actually...this thread. I think the thing to bear in mind is...This is a movie! It is not, nor have I ever heard it termed as a documentary. I wonder what would be written here if the title was "Joe Black" or something. Did/do I enjoy the movie? Dang right I did. Did I watch it as a study in historical accuracy? Hell no I didn't. Now I am not knocking those who are into that thing, but I do wonder why every bloomin thing that hollywood puts out HAS to be accurate to the nth degree, expecially if one considers that the movie industry is geared to entertainment not teaching history. Man, I feel sorry for those whose only enjoyment seems to be nit picking.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Excellent point. Every movie that comes out has its critics to the point its almost irritating. I've heard negative comments about Patriot, Last of the Mohicans, Mountain Men, Jeremiah Johnson, Madness of King George, Barry Lyndon, etc. and all of these movies I enjoyed the heck out of. And in some cases I read the books and liked them as well. The fact that the movie is different than the book is a plus for me. Ya get two stories from the same beloved characters. :thumbsup:
Don