Hit yet another of the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) last night.
Let me just say...thank God for hard drives and TCM. I've got 31 of these films sitting on my DVR right now. Netflix and Amazon Prime have filled in the rest, mostly...and I did have to sign up for Netflix DVD for a few. Not as many as I thought, though.
Film 42
42. "The Searchers" (AFI Rank #12)
I don't like Westerns, as a genre, generally. I often used to joke that they were films made about a time "when men were men, and the sheep were scared." I really, really don't care for John Wayne.
I watched "The Searchers" last night.
I'm not sure I can talk about it. I have to, of course, because that's why you're here. I read something as I was desperately trying to find information about why this film is great. It basically said that there is the movie that was made, and then there's the movie the audience makes by filling in the holes. I guess I get that with this film, as there is a great deal to fill in...but why should that make me love what I saw? I don't know. I'm deeply, deeply troubled by this, (as much as I can be with something like this) as I'm a pretty smart guy, and usually get most things. I don't get why a film that seems to just hint at things, while grossly playing everything else to classic archetype deserves heaps and heaps of praise, or study, or whatever. Perhaps I'll get there by the end of this essay. I really, really doubt it though.
The film is gorgeous to watch. Shot in Monument Valley, where John Ford apparently decided he'd paint his particular endless study of water lilies, the scenery is breathtaking. Looking out the front door of homes shown throughout the film, one sees the beauty that attracted normal people to seek a better life out on the western frontier. That one of the characters in the film is a poorly played stereotypical Scandinavian is testament, and perhaps tribute, to that. Lots of films have stuff like this, though, and lots of Westerns give us stunning vistas. So, no, it's not the scenery that gives this film its gravitas. At least I don't think so.
What else happens? Good people die, killed by marauding Comanches. Nothing terribly groundbreaking there. That two of the girls were taken away, alive, and raped...maybe. Maybe that's getting there. Maybe not. That we see two guys search for one of the girls for years, without cease, is different. Again, I'm no expert on Westerns. Eventually, the bad guys get theirs, and the film ends with an uplifting (heh) moment. That's typical Western stuff. Again, not much there that hasn't been done before.
SO...maddeningly...what is it? What separates this from other "Family Classics" dreck?
Well. Let's start with Ethan Edwards, portrayed by John Wayne. Obviously in love with his brother's wife, but for whatever reasons, not with her, Edwards appears to be a deeply tortured man. And that, THAT I can finally sink my teeth into. We see lots of things that establish Ethan's character. An unwillingness to hold onto anything material, a gravestone that marks the spot where his mother, slaughtered by Comanches, rests, a moment spent with his brother's wife in which their passion for each other is expressed, a deep hatred of the "Commansh," an education in Spanish and Native American culture, and a guy who hates the "Commansh," but somehow, sleeves his rifle in something that looks decidedly like something they would have. It's a fascinating character, I guess. Yeah, I'm getting there, slowly.
Unfortunately, that character is acted by John Wayne. Substituting volume and a nearly unintelligible growl for emotion, Wayne plays those moments that should grip us in their pain with all the subtlety of a backhand to the face. I can imagine what this material might have been in more skilled hands. Imagine someone like Charlton Heston (not exactly a master thespian, but better than Wayne) with this material. Hell, imagine Van Heflin, whom I discussed in "Shane," if we have to go "Western" guy. So much there that is missed. So much there that others have filled in. I will give Wayne one moment, though. His shooting of the dead Commanche (whom I swear I saw MOVE) in the eyes (hell of a shot, that Ethan - couldn't shoot a fucking buffalo later without looking like he'd never held a gun before, but could hit a dead body, in the eyes, from an impossible angle while on a horse) was well played.
Most of the rest of the actors in this film are stereotypical performances, not full of great depth. I particularly liked Ward Bond's Rev. Captain Clayton. I really liked him. Jeffrey Hunter, however, sucked. Just sucked. Playing Ethan's "searching" partner (did I mention these guys search for the little girl for - well - Scorsese says 10, someone else says 7, the film mentions at least 6 - years?), Hunter is a stiff.
Still not there. I suppose Ford should be commended for understanding that we were never going to understand what was going on with Ethan and his sister-in-law if he hadn't stuck Ward Bond in the "awkward moment." I suppose, also, that this film does ask questions, lots and lots of them. It becomes clear about three quarters into the film that we are made to believe that Ethan is not necessarily hunting for his niece, Debbie (the sumptuous Natalie Wood) so that he can save her...but so that he can kill her. She's been with a "buck," Ethan's term for a male Comanche, and she'll never be "white" again. That asks us questions, I guess. We also have to question ourselves, and who is the good guy/bad guy as a result of these events we see. Are the Comanche really intrinsically evil, or are they just being protective of their lands, which is being taken from them? When does hatred supersede altruism? Goddammit. I'm rambling about a film I didn't particularly like. So, I'll sum up. Here are the real, serious problems:
1. John Wayne is out of his depth playing a character with depth.
2. Jeffrey Hunter sucks. Just sucks.
3. Why is there almost no chemistry between Wayne and Hunter after 5+ years of constant companionship?
4. Why do they have to kill Futterman? He was coming to steal the $1000 that Wayne was claiming he had? This, maybe I missed it, but this seemed like a story that didn't need to be in the film.
5. The scenes with "Look" were almost comically cruel. I get that we needed that to have the moment of remorse when Ethan and Martin find her body...but that scene...sucked...because the guys playing it sucked.
6. Natalie Wood is too pretty. Just too darned pretty.
7. Mose. 'Nuff said.
8. Charlie. See #7, above.
9. Jorgensen's accent. Just where the fuck is he from?
10. The river is like Tolkein's Ford of Bruinen. Good guys can cross it, bad guys, not so much. HUH?
11. The Native Americans are so completely sterotypical. Look at the headdress.
12. There is no need for the love triangle, nor any romance in this. Laurie is a waste.
13. Wayne was 49 when this was filmed. His "mother" by her tombstone, would have been 58 when this was filmed. Yup.
Good, bordering on great stuff:
1. Scenery. Gorgeous.
2. Real adult themes.
3. Fleshed out characters, if played poorly.
4. A deep sense of moral conscience.
5. The head of the Texas Rangers is a reverend. Nice "duality of man" thing.
6. That the film tries, tries so desperately, to get to what the critics think they see.
7. John Wayne ages. No one else does, but John Wayne does.
There. That's it. I'd rather this was in more skilled hands. Perhaps a remake is in order. It's not coming, but perhaps someone could have the balls to do it. Maybe. Get the costumes right, get the acting right, bah.
Watch "The Searchers," because you should. I just can't recommend it for any other reason. It's so close...but misses.
#12 all time. Uh huh. I suppose if a bunch of great directors were inspired by this, then its significance is secure...even if I can't see what those guys think they see.
Ebert discusses this film in his "Great Movies" series. He discusses its flaws, and dismisses the bad, saying those who love the film filter that part out. Why should I, as a viewer, dismiss part of a film and still marvel at its brilliance? I'm sorry. I can't do that. A lot of time in this film is devoted to this stuff. It doesn't belong. Period. Its inclusion makes me not trust that what I've seen in the rest of it is on purpose.
Dammit.
Goddammit.
No comments:
Post a Comment