On to the next phase of watching the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a calendar year.
I've gotten through 25 of the 100 thus far, but my total for the list in my life is now at 75.
Make that 76. These next 5 are all films I've not seen before, for whatever reason.
Make that 76. These next 5 are all films I've not seen before, for whatever reason.
Film 26
26. "Shane" (AFI Rank #45)
I confess, I find the Western to be my least favorite film genre. The moral code exhibited is often too black and white, too archetypical for me. I also am reminded, when watching a Western from the 50s, of Sunday dinners at my Grandmother's house in Geneva, when Disney came on at 6, or of rainy Saturday afternoons when there was nothing else to do, and "Family Classics" or whatever was showing a film that I wasn't really all that interested in. "Shane" certainly falls into a lot of these categories. And then again, it doesn't. I watched it on a Saturday afternoon, when I was incredibly sick, but had already slept 17 hours, so I was just going to be awake...
Lavishly beautiful, the setting of "Shane" is a wonder to behold. George Stevens and his crew did an outstanding job scouting locations for the film, because every time one sees the landscape, one gets a real sense of why so many were willing to brave so much to settle it. Shot in glorious color, I did find the vistas, etc. comforting, and familiar...and somehow immature. This film is from 60+ years ago, but it looked, as I have alluded to above, like an old episode of the Disney show of the early 70s that I'd watch at Grandma and Grandpa's house. Those, it seemed, were always some kind of western, or nature film, or whatever. At least, that's the way I recall it. As such, I often found myself less enthralled by the set than I should have been...until the repeated trips to Grafton's broke that for me. That particular set piece felt so authentic, that the rest of my complaints went by the wayside after the second trip to the location.
I should probably watch these films I've not seen before twice before commenting on them. I find my lens focuses on different things once I know the story. I don't have time for that (this is TWO MOVIES A WEEK, ALL YEAR), so my thoughts on unfamiliar films are going to be not nearly as symbolic/etc. as the ones on films I've seen before.
Well, Randy, you've expressed a disdain for Westerns, said that the film looks like an old episode of Disney, and hinted at greater depth. So, let's hear it.
"Shane's" story is pretty simple, an obviously talented gunfighter, whom we know only as Shane (Alan Ladd) wishes to hang up his six-shooter and change his life. He arrives at the home of the Starrett family in Wyoming, where he is given a warm welcome by the father, Joe (Van Heflin), and treated to a meal cooked by the mother (Jean Arthur), and shelter for the night. He awakes the next day, greeted by the son, Joey, (Brandon De Wilde) and begins work chopping at a stump that Joe has been trying to remove from his property for two years. Hired by the Starretts to help them with their smallish farm, Shane goes into town to buy some fence wire and work clothes. While there, he decides to treat little Joey to a soda pop, against the wishes of his mother. Having begun his business in Grafton's general store, he concludes it in the back room, Grafton's bar, populated with rough cowboys who have no love for the farmers building fences, as they built them right across their cattle ranges (recognize that?). Shane is confronted by the chief hothead, Chris Calloway, who insults him by throwing a drink in his chest, and telling him never to come back. Shane doesn't do a thing, and just takes the humiliation.
What we learn over the course of the next bit of film is that there is a cattle rancher named Ryker (Emile Meyer), who believes that the farmers are staking claim to land that is his, and that he intends to do whatever it takes to drive them from the land. The farmers, unwilling to be afraid, travel into town for supplies together one day, where Shane joins them. This time, Shane walks into the bar and delivers a beating to Chris. Outnumbered, Shane is then forced to fight his way through all the cowboys in the bar once Chris is subdued. Unable to let Shane fight his battles, Joe joins the fray, and he and Shane do a number on Ryker's gang. Ryker determines that the farmers won't be bullied out of their land, so it's time to start scaring them. He hires a gunfighter out of Cheyenne, named Jack Wilson (Jack Palance), to start dispatching the farmers as they resist. Lots of ol' timey Western action follows, and Shane eventually realizes he has to take up his six-shooter again, and finish the business with the Ryker gang once, and for all. He does what the hero is supposed to do, and rides off into the sunset. The end.
My understanding of the list of 100 films is that amongst the qualifications are "historical significance," and I think that is why we find this film so near the top of the list, while a far more compelling (storywise, anyway) Western like "Unforgiven" finds itself in the bottom half of the list. The acting in this film is not overwhelmingly expert. Even Jean Arthur, whom I enjoyed so much in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," is nothing short of a whiner with a voice that just grates on me. And don't get me started on the kid. He's brutal. But, he's a kid. No, the acting chops in this film are carried by two people - Van Heflin and the guy who played Chris (Ben Johnson). The rest of the characters, even Ladd's tortured, self-reflective Shane, are played with rather little depth. I probably need to watch Ladd again, for the subtle, but first viewing fell flat for me. Palance, of course, is exactly as he should be, menacing and evil, and Ryker is played by a man much younger than the one he is portraying, so kudos for that.
So. Why did I actually enjoy the film? The Grafton's set feels like exactly what it should be, an isolated hub for all the people so far spread out to gather in and conduct business. It felt real. The cinematography, for the most part, is stunning. The layers of stories presented are fairly sophisticated, if not particularly well acted. I also, frankly, love Ryker's speech about what he and his fellow ranchers went through to tame the land. "Cowman and the farmer should be friends," indeed. It fleshed out the character, and took him from fairly easy to box in evil guy to a guy that you actually understood. And that's why I liked the film. The archetypes, no matter which way they leaned, were muddied with gray. Sure, we like Shane, like we're supposed to, but who was he before? We see a wedding ring on his finger. Where's his wife? What has he lost? He's not really a good guy. The only guy not fleshed out is the man in the black hat, Wilson. I realize I may sound contradictory in describing the acting as shallow, while describing the characters as deep. I think that contradiction is right. The script has the depth. The actors don't. We have real, symbolic characters, flawed as they are...being portrayed by actors out of their depth...it appeared to me...
on this viewing.
I need to comment on one other thing. Recognizing him as the guy with the assignment of roughing up Sam Spade in "The Maltese Falcon," Elisha Cook, Jr. does some nice work as the hotheaded southern settler "Stonewall" Torrey. It is his death that leads to the inevitable conclusion of the film. His death, so expertly choreographed, is chilling and heartbreaking. It feels real. So many Westerns feel like "well, guys just died in gunfights, and that's the way it was." This death has weight, and feels like a loss of a human life. It's a real moment.
I look forward to watching this film again sometime, probably with my sons. I'd like to see the subtle things I missed, so that I may better understand just how great this film is. As of now, I don't see it, I think, like I should.
I see the roots of "Unforgiven" in this film. And if that is the logical conclusion of a film like this, then, well done. I think my thoughts on this are a little scattered. I think I'd like to do another draft of this piece. I'm not going to, however, as that isn't my style.
HOLY SHIT. I swear, I never read Ebert's stuff before I write these. FUCK ME, I nailed it. I skipped the sexual tension (it was obvious, but I so disliked Arthur's voice, I couldn't comment on it). Dammit, Roger. I see it like you...
I confess, I find the Western to be my least favorite film genre. The moral code exhibited is often too black and white, too archetypical for me. I also am reminded, when watching a Western from the 50s, of Sunday dinners at my Grandmother's house in Geneva, when Disney came on at 6, or of rainy Saturday afternoons when there was nothing else to do, and "Family Classics" or whatever was showing a film that I wasn't really all that interested in. "Shane" certainly falls into a lot of these categories. And then again, it doesn't. I watched it on a Saturday afternoon, when I was incredibly sick, but had already slept 17 hours, so I was just going to be awake...
Lavishly beautiful, the setting of "Shane" is a wonder to behold. George Stevens and his crew did an outstanding job scouting locations for the film, because every time one sees the landscape, one gets a real sense of why so many were willing to brave so much to settle it. Shot in glorious color, I did find the vistas, etc. comforting, and familiar...and somehow immature. This film is from 60+ years ago, but it looked, as I have alluded to above, like an old episode of the Disney show of the early 70s that I'd watch at Grandma and Grandpa's house. Those, it seemed, were always some kind of western, or nature film, or whatever. At least, that's the way I recall it. As such, I often found myself less enthralled by the set than I should have been...until the repeated trips to Grafton's broke that for me. That particular set piece felt so authentic, that the rest of my complaints went by the wayside after the second trip to the location.I should probably watch these films I've not seen before twice before commenting on them. I find my lens focuses on different things once I know the story. I don't have time for that (this is TWO MOVIES A WEEK, ALL YEAR), so my thoughts on unfamiliar films are going to be not nearly as symbolic/etc. as the ones on films I've seen before.
Well, Randy, you've expressed a disdain for Westerns, said that the film looks like an old episode of Disney, and hinted at greater depth. So, let's hear it.
"Shane's" story is pretty simple, an obviously talented gunfighter, whom we know only as Shane (Alan Ladd) wishes to hang up his six-shooter and change his life. He arrives at the home of the Starrett family in Wyoming, where he is given a warm welcome by the father, Joe (Van Heflin), and treated to a meal cooked by the mother (Jean Arthur), and shelter for the night. He awakes the next day, greeted by the son, Joey, (Brandon De Wilde) and begins work chopping at a stump that Joe has been trying to remove from his property for two years. Hired by the Starretts to help them with their smallish farm, Shane goes into town to buy some fence wire and work clothes. While there, he decides to treat little Joey to a soda pop, against the wishes of his mother. Having begun his business in Grafton's general store, he concludes it in the back room, Grafton's bar, populated with rough cowboys who have no love for the farmers building fences, as they built them right across their cattle ranges (recognize that?). Shane is confronted by the chief hothead, Chris Calloway, who insults him by throwing a drink in his chest, and telling him never to come back. Shane doesn't do a thing, and just takes the humiliation. What we learn over the course of the next bit of film is that there is a cattle rancher named Ryker (Emile Meyer), who believes that the farmers are staking claim to land that is his, and that he intends to do whatever it takes to drive them from the land. The farmers, unwilling to be afraid, travel into town for supplies together one day, where Shane joins them. This time, Shane walks into the bar and delivers a beating to Chris. Outnumbered, Shane is then forced to fight his way through all the cowboys in the bar once Chris is subdued. Unable to let Shane fight his battles, Joe joins the fray, and he and Shane do a number on Ryker's gang. Ryker determines that the farmers won't be bullied out of their land, so it's time to start scaring them. He hires a gunfighter out of Cheyenne, named Jack Wilson (Jack Palance), to start dispatching the farmers as they resist. Lots of ol' timey Western action follows, and Shane eventually realizes he has to take up his six-shooter again, and finish the business with the Ryker gang once, and for all. He does what the hero is supposed to do, and rides off into the sunset. The end.
My understanding of the list of 100 films is that amongst the qualifications are "historical significance," and I think that is why we find this film so near the top of the list, while a far more compelling (storywise, anyway) Western like "Unforgiven" finds itself in the bottom half of the list. The acting in this film is not overwhelmingly expert. Even Jean Arthur, whom I enjoyed so much in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," is nothing short of a whiner with a voice that just grates on me. And don't get me started on the kid. He's brutal. But, he's a kid. No, the acting chops in this film are carried by two people - Van Heflin and the guy who played Chris (Ben Johnson). The rest of the characters, even Ladd's tortured, self-reflective Shane, are played with rather little depth. I probably need to watch Ladd again, for the subtle, but first viewing fell flat for me. Palance, of course, is exactly as he should be, menacing and evil, and Ryker is played by a man much younger than the one he is portraying, so kudos for that.
So. Why did I actually enjoy the film? The Grafton's set feels like exactly what it should be, an isolated hub for all the people so far spread out to gather in and conduct business. It felt real. The cinematography, for the most part, is stunning. The layers of stories presented are fairly sophisticated, if not particularly well acted. I also, frankly, love Ryker's speech about what he and his fellow ranchers went through to tame the land. "Cowman and the farmer should be friends," indeed. It fleshed out the character, and took him from fairly easy to box in evil guy to a guy that you actually understood. And that's why I liked the film. The archetypes, no matter which way they leaned, were muddied with gray. Sure, we like Shane, like we're supposed to, but who was he before? We see a wedding ring on his finger. Where's his wife? What has he lost? He's not really a good guy. The only guy not fleshed out is the man in the black hat, Wilson. I realize I may sound contradictory in describing the acting as shallow, while describing the characters as deep. I think that contradiction is right. The script has the depth. The actors don't. We have real, symbolic characters, flawed as they are...being portrayed by actors out of their depth...it appeared to me...on this viewing.
I look forward to watching this film again sometime, probably with my sons. I'd like to see the subtle things I missed, so that I may better understand just how great this film is. As of now, I don't see it, I think, like I should.
I see the roots of "Unforgiven" in this film. And if that is the logical conclusion of a film like this, then, well done. I think my thoughts on this are a little scattered. I think I'd like to do another draft of this piece. I'm not going to, however, as that isn't my style.
HOLY SHIT. I swear, I never read Ebert's stuff before I write these. FUCK ME, I nailed it. I skipped the sexual tension (it was obvious, but I so disliked Arthur's voice, I couldn't comment on it). Dammit, Roger. I see it like you...
No comments:
Post a Comment