Robert E. Lee Clayton
-
Edward_de_Vere — 18 years ago(June 01, 2007 11:01 AM)
To answer question #1, it's pretty clear that "Robert E. Lee Clayton" is a pseudonym.
For #2, it's possible that he's not Irish at all, but uses it as yet another Ruse to hide his identity.
For #3, it's just part of his eccentric behavior.
#4 was a true weakness in the plot of an otherwise good movie. -
ash-131 — 18 years ago(July 12, 2007 09:29 PM)
In answer to #4, is it possible that Lee Clayton actually believed Tom Logan had burned up in the house? Not that he naively took Cal's word for it, but in assuming Tom was there because his horse was (Tom left his horse behind when it turned up lame). Knowing Clayton's apparent fondness for horses, can't we assume that in his thinking a man and his horse are not easily parted
And when he said something like "Granny's very tired now," I heard a finality to it that sounded like he felt the job was done. This might make Clayton's quick and easy demise less of a weak point in the movie, but at the same time this interpretation makes him out to be more of a fool than previously establishedespecially since he had the opportunity to see Tom with the new brown horse through his binoculars but was too busy scoping out Tom's cohorts. -
Captain_Augustus_McCrae — 18 years ago(December 26, 2007 02:53 PM)
I believe the character of Robert E. Lee Clayton was about 40 in the film (I'm talking about the character, not the actor). If the film's date is 1887 or 88, not 1880, then the name fits perfectly. Robert E. Lee was a distinguished officer in the Mexican War of 1846-48, and it would not be unusual at all for a man to name his son after his commanding officer (Wyatt Earp's father did just that, Wyatt Berry Stapp was the senior Earp's CO in that war).
-
CaptainClaudius9 — 15 years ago(January 27, 2011 07:06 PM)
Jon,
Within in the context of the film I think it becomes clear that Brando's character is "good" at what he does because he's so unorthodox and, as the other poster pointed out, most likely insane.
Taking the insanity notion further: a man would probably have to be insane or at least a sociopath to want to hunt down and kill others for money, again making Clayton good at what he does as evidence in the film.
So my response to Questions 1, 2, and 3 are: Clayton is insane or of a vastly differently mental state than most and therefore his effectiveness at being a killer is aided and complemented by his wayward mental state. An example of this would be the wearing of the bonnet: it may look silly, but it would be enough to distract a person long enough for Clayton to kill them. I think Clayton purposely did things that confused others so that he could use that opportunity to always have an advantage.
The answer to Question 4 is more complex and I use the quip "it takes one to know one" to justify my answer. I think the reason Tom bested Clayton was that Tom, by the end of the film, had lost everything and therefore had nothing to lose and no longer cared about life, death or love. I don't think Tom went crazy I think he just was able to calmly calculate a way to get to Clayton as he was no longer dealing consequences so whether he made it or not didn't matter and he was fortunate that he caught Clayton asleep.
Great film and I'm glad I watched it. -
lorenzb-2 — 13 years ago(November 26, 2012 06:39 PM)
Perhaps he was Robert Lee Clayton, and he added the "E" as a condecending joke. Or perhaps he really was Jim Furgison. Or neither. I heard at least 4 diffrent accents. The main one was the Irish brouge, but I sort of doubt he was really Irish. Redneck Furgison, which was clearly a put on but convincing. British (Fletcher Christian?) when taking to his beloved horse and "harlot" mule. And near-normal Brando when talking to Cal before killing him. So, which was the real him? I think probably the last one. But then again, if the Irish one is a put on, why revert back to it when only his animals were present? Who would he be trying to fool? The entire film constantly keeps you off balance with no easy answers. And I think that's exactly what both Clayton and Brando wanted.
-
Wuchakk — 13 years ago(February 15, 2013 03:20 AM)
1.) for one thing Brando was 51 years old during filming, not 60. As far as the name goes, I don't see the problem. His name was Lee Clayton and he probably just added the "Robert E" to it. Or "Lee Clayton" could just be his alias as a regulator (assassin) and not his birth name at all. Who knows? Remember, he said to Quaid's character that he was a preacher and then switched to saying he was a horse thief so it didn't seem like he had any qualms about switching identities to suit the needs of the moment.
2.) He was a loner and eccentric loon. He probably had numerous accents or voices to entertain himself in solitude in the wilderness. As another poster pointed out, he acts like a chameleon, changing accents when needed or simply when he feels like it. He doesn't feel obligated to tell anybody the truth about who he really is.
3.) A disguise to fulfill his mission or simply more of his extremely eccentric antics.
4.) I can't decide. It's a toss-up between these two perspectives from two previous posters:
"Clayton doesn't believe at all that Logan has been stubbornly engulfed by the fire. "I'd just about like anything better than bein' burned to death," says Clayton to the suggestion that Logan accepted this demise out of pride. So Clayton knows Logan is still out there. But why is Clayton so relaxed? It is because he is supremely confident. After all, he already escaped a previous point-blank encounter with Logan the legendary bath tub scene."
" Not that he naively took Cal's word for it, but in assuming Tom was there because his horse was (Tom left his horse behind when it turned up lame). Knowing Clayton's apparent fondness for horses, can't we assume that in his thinking a man and his horse are not easily parted And when he said something like "Granny's very tired now," I heard a finality to it that sounded like he felt the job was done. This might make Clayton's quick and easy demise less of a weak point in the movie, but at the same time this interpretation makes him out to be more of a fool than previously establishedespecially since he had the opportunity to see Tom with the new brown horse through his binoculars but was too busy scoping out Tom's cohorts."