John Ford

Even though the golden age of classic Hollywood is long gone, many of its legends still command huge respect today. One such icon is John Ford, a massive figure in American cinema who directed over 140 films between 1917 and 1966.

His influence was so profound that even his contemporaries, like Frank Capra and Howard Hawks, went out of their way to highlight his greatness. It wasn't just peers, either—Japanese masters like Akira Kurosawa and Kenji Mizoguchi looked up to him, while New Hollywood heavyweights like Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, and Sam Peckinpah have all paid him tribute. Even the French New Wave directors and countless film buffs across the globe consider him a giant.

But enough about the critics and the legends. Let’s see what the folks here on the forum have to say.

Just signing up here 😁

Anyway, I’m genuinely curious to see how many people end up joining this thread...

If my memory serves me right, Dylan once said, "Americans made the greatest films ever, and John Ford is the strongest"...

He was one of the absolute greats, produced so much work... Back then, man, they were just pumping out movies constantly...
While he's most famous for his Westerns, he tackled plenty of other genres too...

What I really want to know is how many people have actually sat down and watched his films. Personally, I can't exactly brag about having a high number.

Wasn't there some myth floating around that Welles watched Stagecoach fifty times in a row before he even started filming Citizen Kane?

I’m embarrassingly behind on my Ford viewing—I’ve barely scratched the surface with just over ten films. It's honestly not even enough to cover the basics! I did spread those dozen or so movies across westerns, dramas, and comedies, so the variety isn't terrible, but still... with 140 films in his catalog, you'd need an entire year just to catch up on Ford. 🤣

My absolute favorites have to be Stagecoach and The Grapes of Wrath.

I’ve sat through those "famous" flicks, but if you ask Roger Allen3, there’s a pathetic lack of substance in them. Personally, his top pick—and one of the absolute greatest films ever made—is How Green Was My Valley. It’s a phenomenal masterpiece; I distinctly remember being moved to tears while watching it.

What the hell am I even typing here? 🤦

John Ford is undeniably one of the greatest filmmakers to ever grace the screen...
For me personally, his absolute masterpiece has to be The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance... honestly, it stands as one of my favorite films of all time, easily making its way into my personal top ten list.
As for his other brilliant works, I can still vividly recall several others:
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
Autumn of the Chejen
The Searchers
Fort Apache
Stagecoach
She Wore a Yellow Ribbon
Three Comrades, Two Riders, My Dear Clementine
The Quiet Man
Two Riders
My Dear Clementine

Personally, *The Informer* stands out as his best work for me. I’ve always had a bit of a complicated relationship with his Westerns—and don't even get me started on those occasional forays into comedy. To be honest, I’m still not entirely sure why so many critics insist on placing *The Searchers* among the greatest films ever made. It was a massive favorite with the French New Wave crowd—Wenders, for instance—but while the film is certainly good, I find it absolutely overrated. There’s no question he knew how to tell a story—that much is indisputable—but still... I never quite understood the purpose of having Walter Brennan in his films, playing that old comic drunk all the time. And then, of course, there's John Wayne—one of the most polarizing presences to ever grace the screen.

I can't claim to be some massive expert on his work (yeah, I know, my bad), but I watched a few of his movies back when I was just a kid.

A few months ago, I sat down with two of his westerns, The Searchers and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, so I can give you my take on them right now.

Both films have perfect openings and endings. That said, the opening and closing shots of the first one are among the most memorable in cinema history. That shot of the door opening to reveal the valley—showing a character who slowly morphs into an anti-hero as the story unfolds—always felt like a wink from Ford. It’s like he’s saying, "Here, I'm opening the doors to the Wild West for you, but don't expect Wayne to play his usual, unquestionable hero role." When those same doors close in the final shot, you get a perfectly rounded narrative. Personally, though, I think the middle drags due to some silly scenes and terrible acting from Wayne's sidekick.

As for the second film, which basically aims to demystify Wild West legends, I have to say it's the best Ford movie I've seen so far, and arguably the best performance of Wayne's career. He throws Jimmy Stewart into the mix, who—unlike his usual persona—plays a confused, immature lawyer forced to face Liberty Valance. Meanwhile, Wayne, my favorite face (even if he turned out to be a bit of a wimp during his military enlistment), plays a man who is easy to love despite being incredibly arrogant and abrasive.

I probably need to watch more of his stuff before I can pass a definitive judgment on Ford, but based on these few, the man knew how to tell a story effortlessly and make me connect with the characters. In a way.

Great director, no question about it.

I would trade three Fords just to get one Huston back.

I absolutely loved The Grapes of Wrath. I was totally blown away by John Steinbeck's novel first, and then I was just as surprised by how incredible the movie turned out to be..

To be honest, I'm not usually a huge fan of those old Hollywood classics from directors like Ford, Wilder, or Capra... though I have one big exception: I absolutely adore Hitchcock.

Samuel Scott54 said:I absolutely loved The Grapes of Wrath. I was totally blown away by John Steinbeck's novel first, and then I was just as surprised by how incredible the movie turned out to be..

To be honest, I'm not usually a huge fan of those old Hollywood classics from directors like Ford, Wilder, or Capra... though I have one big exception: I absolutely adore Hitchcock.

Honestly, how can anyone possibly not love someone like Wilder or Ford? 😳🙂

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Searchers, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, Stagecoach, Two Riders... in that exact order.

Ford is often cited—sometimes even broadly—as the most essential filmmaker of classic Hollywood; the New Wave directors practically worshipped his work, and later, so did Scorsese, Bogdanovich, and Milius.

For me personally, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance firmly secures a spot in my top ten favorite films.

I’ll admit, I can find some slight sentimentality and an occasional tendency toward melodrama in Ford's work, but any serious, deep dive into his filmography only confirms what we already know: he was a master.

One of the absolute greats.

Watched Stagecoach yesterday. Now I get why Orson Welles studied it so intensely before making Citizen Kane. He wanted to craft something ahead of its time, just like Ford did. This 1939 masterpiece features one of the most gripping action sequences ever put to film, but it’s the layers of detail that really showcase Ford's absolute genius. Watching this feels like watching a history lesson. From how Ford introduces John Wayne to the specific camera angles during the final showdown, you see techniques that have been copied endlessly for decades. And rightfully so. Unlike some of Ford's later brilliant works, this one manages to touch on sentimentality without being overbearing—a rare feat for him.

😍

Look, I get why people watch him—if they’re trying to check a box on film history class—but otherwise, I just don't see the draw. Especially when you compare him to what Welles or Kurosawa were pulling off back then; Ford's camera work feels sloppy and dated in that context.
Same goes for a good chunk of Hitchcock's catalog—just another director who's been mythologized endlessly.

Jerry Martinez50 said:Honestly, how can anyone possibly not love someone like Wilder or Ford? 😳🙂

But what about Capra? Is his style clear to you? 🙂

Dennis Martin6 said:Look, I get why people watch him—if they’re trying to check a box on film history class—but otherwise, I just don't see the draw. Especially when you compare him to what Welles or Kurosawa were pulling off back then; Ford's camera work feels sloppy and dated in that context.
Same goes for a good chunk of Hitchcock's catalog—just another director who's been mythologized endlessly.

Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...

I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.

If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.

Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.

As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on.
Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.

Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.

Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.

How Green Was My Valley, The Quiet Man, Stagecoach, The Informer, Judge Priest, Young Lincoln... Man, Ford really knows what he's doing. I've checked out about 15 of his films so far, and I guess there's still plenty left to see.

Maybe Judge Priest is actually my favorite one so far.

Mark Wood79 said:Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...

I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.

If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.

Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.

As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on.
Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.

Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.

Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.

General vibe on Ford’s stuff from the 40s and 50s—compared to someone like Welles? It's night and day. Ford is all about that raw, grounded energy, while Welles is out here playing with shadows and ego. One builds a world you can actually feel under your boots, the other builds a puzzle for you to solve. Different leagues entirely.

Mark Wood79 said:Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...

I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.

If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.

Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.

As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on.
Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.

Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.

Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.

No surprise there—just another case where the students outdid the teacher. 🙂

Mark Wood79 said:Sorry for responding to a post from almost four months ago, but I just hadn't seen this until now...

I'm not quite sure if this is a standalone thought that isn't referencing anything previously written, or if you're partially replying to Joshua Smith regarding Ford's style and then adding your own take on his camerawork.

If it's the latter, Reed is talking about a film from 1939. Neither Welles nor Kurosawa were even filming back then, and it’s actually interesting that you picked those two specifically, since they were both huge admirers and fans of John Ford's work.

Even setting aside "The Searchers" and "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance," I consider Ford's peak creative period to be between 1939 and 1941. During those years, he made four pivotal films that truly cemented his legacy; besides "Stagecoach," you have "Young Lincoln," "The Grapes of Wrath," and "How Green Was My Valley." When you watch those movies, I honestly don't see anything sloppy or outdated—they have aged incredibly well. At the time, some of them represented the absolute pinnacle of social realism in American cinema, and they still hold up perfectly today.

As for the Hitchcock comment, that's even further from the truth. His stylistic choices and camera movements in many of his films and across various periods are incredibly inspiring and can still serve as a textbook for filmmakers today. Look at the car chase ending in a close-up in "North by Northwest," the subjective shots in "Rebecca" or "Notorious," the entire composition and camera movement within rooms in "Rope," or again, the way he builds tension in a single room through subjective shots in "Rear Window." Then there's the famous framing (subjective vs. objective) in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and the techniques used in "Vertigo," and so on.
Look, Hitch knew how to pull a fast one, I won't deny that, but generally speaking—he isn't overrated or mythologized; he is a truly great director.

Besides, De Palma, who is one of the greatest stylistic masters in film history and responsible for some of the most iconic sequences ever filmed (like that museum scene in "Dressed to Kill"), has expressed his lifelong inspiration and the influence of Alfred Hitchcock multiple times.

Anyway, talking about Hitchcock here is a bit off-topic. It feels a little silly to be debating Hitchcock in a thread dedicated to Ford.

Aside from 'Young Lincoln'—which I haven't seen—and 'Stagecoach', which is actually solid, everything else was just unbearable, banal, and dated. 'The Grapes of Wrath' holds some weight for me, but strictly because of Gregory Peck. It’s wild that in the same year Ford shot 'Valley,' Welles dropped 'Citizen Kane.' It's night and day.

I'm split on Hitchcock—he’s got absolute masterpieces, but man, he also makes some total garbage. Aside from a handful of films (most of which you already listed), the guy is basically just a director of static shots. Plus, all those experiments he messed around with throughout his career? They practically fit into a single Welles film—'Mr. Arkadin'. 🙂

Mark Wood79 Asks:
Look, De Palma is easily one of the greatest stylists to ever pick up a camera—we’re talking about a guy who crafted some of the most iconic sequences in cinema history (that museum scene in Dressed to Kill? Pure genius). He’s been vocal about it plenty of times, too: he’s constantly citing Alfred Hitchcock as his ultimate inspiration and biggest influence.

It just comes down to sensibility—plain and simple. I could never get into De Palma; I couldn't even sit through Dressed to Kill without turning it off. 😁

Dennis Martin6 said:General vibe on Ford’s stuff from the 40s and 50s—compared to someone like Welles? It's night and day. Ford is all about that raw, grounded energy, while Welles is out here playing with shadows and ego. One builds a world you can actually feel under your boots, the other builds a puzzle for you to solve. Different leagues entirely.

No surprise there—just another case where the students outdid the teacher. 🙂

Aside from 'Young Lincoln'—which I haven't seen—and 'Stagecoach', which is actually solid, everything else was just unbearable, banal, and dated. 'The Grapes of Wrath' holds some weight for me, but strictly because of Gregory Peck. It’s wild that in the same year Ford shot 'Valley,' Welles dropped 'Citizen Kane.' It's night and day.

I'm split on Hitchcock—he’s got absolute masterpieces, but man, he also makes some total garbage. Aside from a handful of films (most of which you already listed), the guy is basically just a director of static shots. Plus, all those experiments he messed around with throughout his career? They practically fit into a single Welles film—'Mr. Arkadin'. 🙂

Mark Wood79 Asks:
Look, De Palma is easily one of the greatest stylists to ever pick up a camera—we’re talking about a guy who crafted some of the most iconic sequences in cinema history (that museum scene in Dressed to Kill? Pure genius). He’s been vocal about it plenty of times, too: he’s constantly citing Alfred Hitchcock as his ultimate inspiration and biggest influence.

It just comes down to sensibility—plain and simple. I could never get into De Palma; I couldn't even sit through Dressed to Kill without turning it off. 😁

Even though Hitchcock isn't exactly a "director of static shots," I’m curious what you mean by that. It feels like you're treating it as some kind of qualitative judgment—as if a static shot is automatically a sign of being outdated, lacking directorial skill, or just generally poor filmmaking.

I mean, I definitely have a soft spot for dynamic camerawork—which is exactly why I was so drawn to *The Tree of Life*—and I love those sweeping pans and fluid, slalom-like movements. But just because a shot stays static doesn't mean the director lacks skill. Sometimes, staying still is a choice, not a limitation.

So, if you look at directors like Ozu, who leaned into those static shots, or even Mike Leigh, Hsiao-Hsien Hou, Radu Muntean, and Haneke... where does that leave us?

Look, I’m not trying to start any debates about these directors; I’m just bringing them up as examples.

Look, just because a shot is static doesn't mean the mise-en-scène has to be stagnant. Even within a fixed frame, the way actors are positioned and how they move can be incredibly dynamic. That kind of internal movement is exactly what gives a shot its sense of rhythm.

Dennis Martin6 said:General vibe on Ford’s stuff from the 40s and 50s—compared to someone like Welles? It's night and day. Ford is all about that raw, grounded energy, while Welles is out here playing with shadows and ego. One builds a world you can actually feel under your boots, the other builds a puzzle for you to solve. Different leagues entirely.

No surprise there—just another case where the students outdid the teacher. 🙂

Aside from 'Young Lincoln'—which I haven't seen—and 'Stagecoach', which is actually solid, everything else was just unbearable, banal, and dated. 'The Grapes of Wrath' holds some weight for me, but strictly because of Gregory Peck. It’s wild that in the same year Ford shot 'Valley,' Welles dropped 'Citizen Kane.' It's night and day.

I'm split on Hitchcock—he’s got absolute masterpieces, but man, he also makes some total garbage. Aside from a handful of films (most of which you already listed), the guy is basically just a director of static shots. Plus, all those experiments he messed around with throughout his career? They practically fit into a single Welles film—'Mr. Arkadin'. 🙂

Mark Wood79 Asks:
Look, De Palma is easily one of the greatest stylists to ever pick up a camera—we’re talking about a guy who crafted some of the most iconic sequences in cinema history (that museum scene in Dressed to Kill? Pure genius). He’s been vocal about it plenty of times, too: he’s constantly citing Alfred Hitchcock as his ultimate inspiration and biggest influence.

It just comes down to sensibility—plain and simple. I could never get into De Palma; I couldn't even sit through Dressed to Kill without turning it off. 😁

To me, *Mr. Arkadin* always stands out as a prime example of style over substance—something that, if I’m being honest, even happens in De Palma's work sometimes.

Mark Wood79 said:Even though Hitchcock isn't exactly a "director of static shots," I’m curious what you mean by that. It feels like you're treating it as some kind of qualitative judgment—as if a static shot is automatically a sign of being outdated, lacking directorial skill, or just generally poor filmmaking.

I mean, I definitely have a soft spot for dynamic camerawork—which is exactly why I was so drawn to *The Tree of Life*—and I love those sweeping pans and fluid, slalom-like movements. But just because a shot stays static doesn't mean the director lacks skill. Sometimes, staying still is a choice, not a limitation.

So, if you look at directors like Ozu, who leaned into those static shots, or even Mike Leigh, Hsiao-Hsien Hou, Radu Muntean, and Haneke... where does that leave us?

Look, I’m not trying to start any debates about these directors; I’m just bringing them up as examples.

Look, just because a shot is static doesn't mean the mise-en-scène has to be stagnant. Even within a fixed frame, the way actors are positioned and how they move can be incredibly dynamic. That kind of internal movement is exactly what gives a shot its sense of rhythm.

To me, *Mr. Arkadin* always stands out as a prime example of style over substance—something that, if I’m being honest, even happens in De Palma's work sometimes.

It’s just a style thing for me, honestly. When you pair it with the reactionary ideological baggage in most of Ford's stuff, I just can't get into it. 🤷
Like I said, I'm not denying his historical importance or whatever, but since I'm not some film historian, I don't feel the need to constantly sit through his movies.

I dig Ozu, not really feeling Mike Leigh, rarely watch Hsiao-Hsien Hou, and Haneke is hit or miss. Depends on a ton of other factors, obviously.

Mr. Arkadin definitely isn't a case of style over substance (even if the mainstream critics claim it is), because the story is actually one of Welles' most gripping and complex pieces. The real issue with Welles is that you have to watch everything he did after Citizen Kane through the lens of what he actually wanted to make versus what he was actually allowed to make.

I’m certainly no film historian, and I wouldn't say Ford's ideology really aligns with mine, but I still love watching him. In fact, I count him—along with Welles—among my all-time favorite directors. But hey, I get it... it's pretty clear you aren't exactly a huge fan of Ford's work.

I can't really speak to any "conventional" takes on it. I watched Mr. Arkadin about three or four years ago, and if I remember correctly, the style definitely left a bigger impression on me than the actual plot, which felt a bit like it was rehashing older films. Who knows, maybe a rewatch would change my mind. I'll probably get around to seeing it again someday.

Let's actually move the conversation about Welles and his cinematic journey over to a different thread.