Heads up - this post is rather long and full of rambling about Westerns. If you don't like the genre, feel free to skip it!
Intro.
Okay, so you know those films you've heard of for years that are supposed to be the standards of a genre? Like, Gone with the Wind is supposed to be a standard for epics or love stories or The Sound of Music is supposed to be a standard for musicals? When it comes to Westerns, I've seen a lot of the standards, mainly from the classic era (Stagecoach, High Noon) and some from the spaghetti Western era (The Good, the Bad and the Ugly). Now one Western I've always heard about but have never seen was Shane. It's been on my DVR for longer than I'd really like to admit, and I wanted to watch it as part of my now-abandoned theme for November (November was supposed to be cowboys, but that didn't really happen). Anyway, even the write-up in TV Guide said that Shane was a four-star masterpiece with rare characterizations of depth and poignancy. Who could resist a film like that?
Overview
One of the best parts of Shane is that the story is pretty easy to follow. It's iconic, really - a drifter rides up to a homestead, offers to help work the farm, then finds himself drawn into ongoing feud between the homesteaders and the ranchers who want their land. The ranchers are led by the biggest bull in the area, Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) and the homesteaders find a leader in Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) [the homesteader who has drifting gunman Shane (Alan Ladd) working for him]. Joe's wife Marian is a strong influence on both men and we wonder at her wonderment, and her son Billy's adoration, of this tall, silent stranger, Shane. The boiling dispute between the ruthless ranchers and stubborn farmers comes to a head when Shane comes to blows with one of Ryker's big men, Chris Calloway (Ben Johnson). Homesteaders get their homes burned, livestock killed, all the awful stuff you can imagine so they saddle up and prepare to get out of Dodge, so to speak. But Joe wants to make one last stand to protect what is rightfully and legally his. It's about a lot more than land at this point, but what Joe doesn't know is that Ryker has hired a really fast gunman to take care of the homesteaders. Even after learning this, he's determined to go off and fight, but Shane fights him instead, keeping Joe alive while Shane goes in his place to the final showdown. Will he live? If so, will he ever be able to settle down and live a "normal" homesteader's life? Or will he be forced to wander between the winds (oops, wrong Western!)?Highlights
First of all, I loved the simplicity (and I mean that in a good way) of the story. Like I said, it is classic and I believe part of the reason the film is such a staple or essential movie, is because it takes such a popular Western storyline and makes it work really well. That being said, I wish I had seen Shane much earlier in my Western film experience, as I feel like it could be a good basis to which you can compare other films because there are a lot of fundamental ideas, plot points and characterizations that are honed and done well here. I could write a book about all the films that it reminded me of, but that would be a book, not a blog post. Two things really made the film good - fine acting and beautiful camerawork. Now, John Ford is my favorite Western director and his cinematography is amazing. He literally based some of his storyboards on Remington paintings (don't believe me? Watch She Wore a Yellow Ribbon). The shots here are just as beautiful and well constructed and give a good feel for the isolation of the homesteaders and the rough life they have on their settlements. The landscape is just as violent as the men who control it. (More on violence later) As for the acting, I couldn't believe that the top credits went to Alan Ladd and Jean Arthur when really I found myself paying more attention to Van Heflin. He's incredible - in this sense, he becomes the everyman, the hard-working American trying to build a life for his family. He's the stuff of legends. His transformation from a quiet, peaceful man to one who wants to face certain death to preserve his principles is inspiring. It all really comes to light at the cemetery when the homesteaders bury their dead before leaving their homes for good in fear of Ryker. It does make you wonder about his intentions - is he really doing it for principle or so that his wife and son will look at him the way they admire Shane? What makes a man a real man in country so rough? What makes a man at all? And if a man survives by countering violence with violence, isn't he just as wild as the country around him and unfit for things like a wife and a home?I did enjoy Shane's showdown with Chris and then his later showdown with Ryker's hired gun and the aftermath of that shootout, but it still begs this same question about violence. I think that violence, especially the really long fight between Ryker's men and Shane and Joe, is more pronounced in this film than in earlier or even other fifties-era Westerns. It isn't on the same level as say, The Wild Bunch, but it is different and Shane is a different kind of hero. He reminds me a lot of Ethan Edwards in The Searchers (1956) which really showed the older men who tamed the West with guns and violence had fallen from their place as heroes. Tolerance, principle and the urge to settle and to build shaped the new heroes, who usually weren't as good with a gun. This changing form of the Western cowboy hero is fascinating (to me, anyway) and really interesting in light of what was happening in the 1950s. I don't know as much about Shane, but The Searchers was actually written and influenced by the decision of Brown vs. the Board of Education. Prejudice was losing ground. Gentler, less violent and more tolerant heroes were in. Shane was just prior to this, but was also in the midst of events like the McCarthy hearings and the Korean War. What role does a cowboy play in all of this? Why is Shane our hero now? He puts the good of the homesteaders before himself, using his skills against the wilderness to protect society as every classic cowboy hero does. And what does it say about us that we cannot take this hero into our fold?
Now a word about a character that really struck me in Shane. I'm talking about Chris Calloway, Ryker's big talking lead man who gives homesteaders a lot of heat and a few punches. This whole idea of subverting the usual hero type is also reflected in Chris. At first I hated his character, but I think part of that was for a wholly unrelated reason (more on that below). But one moment changed it all - after their awful, throw-down fight, it is Chris who comes to tell Shane about Ryker's hired gun, something I don't think he was supposed to do (I can't really remember clearly right now, but I remember feeling that Chris was crossing some sort of line with Ryker). He's awful and mean and ornery, but yet he feels like he has to give Shane fair warning. Maybe it's out of respect for a man he sees as just as capable of violence, or maybe it's because Chris isn't as evil as Ryker.
Before I go any farther with this very long and rambly sort of analysis, I have to make a small confession. I know a lot of people are like this, so I'm going to admit it freely here. I have a lot of trouble watching actors and actresses I like play characters that are cast against their type. I have some back up here - Jimmy Stewart only played a bad guy once in his whole career (After the Thin Man, 1936) because he was so beloved by audiences for his guy-next-door, everyman heroism. As for me, I love Ben Johnson. He usually played the good guy too, as one of the sidekicks in an old John Wayne picture (love him as Tyree in Rio Grande) or the lead in my all-time favorite Western, Wagon Master. He did a lot of stunts too, as he was born to the saddle - in Rio Grande, that's really him and Harry Carey Jr. riding and jumping as they each stand up on two horses. He even won an Oscar for his role as the town patriarch in The Last Picture Show (a role he only accepted once his dialogue was rewritten to get rid of all the cursing, mind you!). So imagine my surprise when I saw my favorite cowboy actor as a mean-talking, fight-starting bad guy in a black hat!** Anyway, after I got past my initial shock, I tried to put those other thoughts and feelings aside and focus on his role in the picture. And you know what? He's fantastic.
Last Thoughts and No Recommendation (for now)
I am now a bit lost - where was I before I went on my Ben Johnson fan fest? Oh, so all in all, Shane was sort of mediocre to me. In critical evaluation, I can see its merits and its rightful place as an essential Western. But I didn't really get what so many other reviewers are talking about - namely this "love" between Marian and Shane. I'm pretty sure I missed something and as such, I need to rewatch the film. It could also be that I have trouble watching Jean Arthur because something about her voice annoys me. Usually I can tune it out (the annoyance, not her voice), but other times it is still grating. That and I just didn't get enough of her character; I felt like I didn't get to understand her that well (another reason to rewatch!). I am doubting my own taste now, since I feel like I should like Shane and write a lot more about how wonderful it is. So before I recommend it or go on anymore and embarrass myself with a lot more random Western movie facts (and I have plenty), I'm going to close this post with a question to you guys - those of you who read this far! Does anyone have any thoughts? If you've seen it, do you recommend this film? Why or why not?
Some afterthoughts:
** I feel like I should mention that the whole white hat/black hat thing isn't infallible. Even John Wayne wore a black hat now and again; heck even Gene Autry wore a black hat once in a film (granted that was the weirdest I'd ever seen him look).
*** Okay, one last completely unrelated Western fact - did you know that Ben Johnson was an extra in the musical Oklahoma? I know, it's hard to believe. If you watch carefully, you'll see him...and then also see him clearly exit once the dancing starts.
