I took a shot at assessing another John Wayne movie (since I’d been doing quite a few of those lately). Here’s what I came up with:

Donovan’s Reef (1963)

This is a difficult film to defend, much less recommend, for many reasons, most of which have to do with director John Ford. Still, if I may refer to Glenn Erickson who, in his review, refers to Andrew Sarris in The American Cinema, “…Donovan’s Reef was like some kind of heaven that Tom Doniphon and Liberty Valance, both fun-loving uncivilized types, had retreated to in the afterlife. And it’s the key to appreciating this broad comedy.”

In other words, Donovan’s Reef is fantasy. It also recapitulates many of the themes and sentiments that characterize the John Ford canon. You could call it a kind of executive summary. Unfortunately, many of those themes and sentiments are more than a little disagreeable, even offensive, to a modern sensibility, like the racial and gender characterizations.

Compounding that is the structure and style of the film which is somewhat clunky. I think Erickson describes it pretty well when he writes that it is, “…a surreal, almost abstract progression of kabuki-like rituals from the world of John Ford.”

The movie comes across as a collection of set pieces that are only loosely tied together. It’s almost episodic. These set pieces, however, are like a highlighting of key aspects of Ford’s work – again, almost like an executive summary. Many of these conclude with brawls – many of them seem to be excuses for brawl scenes – fights that involve almost everyone and where no one gets hurt.

It’s all set in an idyllic, mythical South Seas world called Haleakaloa. It stars John Wayne and Lee Marvin as two brawling pals who like drinking and fighting, and being their own men. There is a romance that reiterates Ford’s vision of relationships between men – antagonistic, but in a charming way.

But is it a good movie? I would have to say no even though I did enjoy it. Despite the similarity to North to Alaska, the film it most reminds me of is Hatari! That movie, directed by Howard Hawks, is long and meandering. It seems to be more about spending time with the characters. This how Donovan’s Reef strikes me. The story is flimsy at best. The movie is more about spending time with Wayne, Marvin and, in behind the scenes, Ford in a fantasy paradise. It’s almost like sitting around with old friends and having a few beers.

This is why I can enjoy the movie. If you’re familiar with Ford/Wayne movies, if you grew up with them and liked them, you can enjoy the movie, though you couldn’t credibly argue for it being a “good” movie. At least, I don’t think so.

And if you didn’t grow up with these guys, if you’re unfamiliar with the sensibility and are unwilling to turn a blind eye to some of the stereotyping and so on (rather like sitting down with a politically incorrect grandfather who, smiling, unthinkingly throws out inappropriate remarks) … No, you won’t like this movie.

But then, the movie was never made for you. It’s more like a greeting card sent to old friends from Ford, full of the John Ford “stuff,” from the characters to the scenes.

1½ stars out of 4.

Directed by John Ford

This is a difficult film to defend, much less recommend, for many reasons, most of which have to do with director John Ford. Still, if I may refer to Glenn Erickson who, in his review, refers to Andrew Sarris in The American Cinema, “…Donovan’s Reef was like some kind of heaven that Tom Doniphon and Liberty Valance, both fun-loving uncivilized types, had retreated to in the afterlife. And it’s the key to appreciating this broad comedy.”

In other words, Donovan’s Reef is fantasy. It also recapitulates many of the themes and sentiments that characterize the John Ford canon. You could call it a kind of executive summary. Unfortunately, many of those themes and sentiments are more than a little disagreeable, even offensive, to a modern sensibility, like the racial and gender characterizations.

Compounding that is the structure and style of the film which is somewhat clunky. I think Erickson describes it pretty well when he writes that it is, “…a surreal, almost abstract progression of kabuki-like rituals from the world of John Ford.”

The movie comes across as a collection of set pieces that are only loosely tied together. It’s almost episodic. These set pieces, however, are like a highlighting of key aspects of Ford’s work – again, almost like an executive summary. Many of these conclude with brawls – many of them seem to be excuses for brawl scenes – fights that involve almost everyone and where no one gets hurt.

It’s all set in an idyllic, mythical South Seas world called Haleakaloa. It stars John Wayne and Lee Marvin as two brawling pals who like drinking and fighting, and being their own men. There is a romance that reiterates Ford’s vision of relationships between men – antagonistic, but in a charming way.

But is it a good movie? I would have to say no even though I did enjoy it. Despite the similarity to North to Alaska, the film it most reminds me of is Hatari! That movie, directed by Howard Hawks, is long and meandering. It seems to be more about spending time with the characters. This how Donovan’s Reef strikes me. The story is flimsy at best. The movie is more about spending time with Wayne, Marvin and, in behind the scenes, Ford in a fantasy paradise. It’s almost like sitting around with old friends and having a few beers.

This is why I can enjoy the movie. If you’re familiar with Ford/Wayne movies, if you grew up with them and liked them, you can enjoy the movie, though you couldn’t credibly argue for it being a “good” movie. At least, I don’t think so.

And if you didn’t grow up with these guys, if you’re unfamiliar with the sensibility and are unwilling to turn a blind eye to some of the stereotyping and so on (rather like sitting down with a politically incorrect grandfather who, smiling, unthinkingly throws out inappropriate remarks) … No, you won’t like this movie.

But then, the movie was never made for you. It’s more like a greeting card sent to old friends from Ford, full of the John Ford “stuff,” from the characters to the scenes.

1½ stars out of 4.

Having come across 3 Godfathers in a number of “top Christmas movies” lists, I decided to watch it. A second time. I had watched it about two years ago but I couldn’t recall it, and definitely didn’t recall the Christmas aspect. Now, having seen it again, I see the Christmas angle but I don’t personally consider it a Christmas movie. It plays like a western – an odd one, granted – and with no Christmas “feel,” at least not for me. Here’s the review I wrote:

Review – 3 Godfathers

The 1948 John Ford movie 3 Godfathers is, if nothing else, damn odd. And, to be honest, I’d have to say it’s ill-considered. It’s a western as Christmas-tale where three outlaws become something akin to the three wise men of the New Testament, but not really, and in the process reveal themselves as three bad guys who are really, really nice once you get to know them.

The film is dedicated to Harry Carey. John Wayne is the star. It co-stars Carey’s son, Harry Carey Jr. (in what I believe to be his first film). It also co-stars Pedro Armendáriz. The three, Wayne, Carey Jr. and Armendáriz, are three outlaws who arrive at the town of Welcome, Arizona, roughly around Christmas time, with the intention of robbing the bank.

When they first arrive they meet a friendly fellow with whom they begin to josh and converse. As the encounter ends, they discover he’s the town’s sheriff (Ward Bond), a man who has a pretty good idea of what kind of men they are and what they’re intentions might be.

So they rob the bank and in short order the sheriff has a posse out after them. Soon, the sheriff realizes that Wayne’s character, Robert Hightower, is a clever man and the chase becomes something of a game for him, the sheriff. It’s a challenge – he looks forward to catching Wayne and playing chess once he’s in prison.

The chase takes the outlaws out into the desert where they are in search of water and shelter. It’s not easy – one of them is wounded. Each time they come upon water, the sheriff and the posse are there ahead of them so they have to go searching for water elsewhere.

So far, so good. It’s an average western – not great, but not bad. But then they come upon a dying woman who is about to give birth. They help her with the birth. The child is born but his mother is dying. Before she does, however, she names the child after the three outlaws, appoints those same outlaws as the child’s godfathers, and makes them promise to care for the child.

The story movie now takes a weird turn where the western continues but a variety of religious elements – symbols and speeches and so on – begin to populate it. (These actually begin back with the woman giving birth to her baby – it is Christmas time.)

The three men care for the child passionately. Two of them perish in the end, for the sake of the child, and the third, Wayne, all but dies. He manages to survive, saving the child, but is caught by the sheriff. He’s taken back to the town of Welcome where he will face trial and a potential sentence of 20 years if found guilty.

The odd thing here (as if things haven’t been peculiar enough) is everyone is friendly, best buds, even though Wayne is in jail and going to court.

As might be expected with a Christmas film (that never really feels like a Christmas film), there is a happy ending to it all.

And it’s all just so damn odd.

On the plus side, however, I think this movie has one of the most interesting performances from John Wayne. He seems more emotive than we usually see him, and there is more animation in his face than usual. He has a nice speech in a scene where he tells the other outlaws about finding a pregnant woman in an abandoned wagon. It’s hard to say whether it’s one of his better performances, though, since the film is so strange. Is he good? Is it over the top? I really don’t know.

I can say this, though: Ward Bond is very good. And so is Harry Carey Jr., especially for a first film. (It’s not his fault the part is written the way it is.)

Also excellent in the film: the cinematography. The shots in the desert are really quite magnificent. The visual look of the movie is very John Ford, very good.

Overall, however, I’d have to say this is a wrong-headed film. It’s the wrong kind of story for John Ford. Apart from being a Christmas western (which just sounds weird), this essentially sentimental, feel-good story is Frank Capra country, not John Ford. Ford doesn’t seem to finesse this kind of story where we can accept the sentimentality – probably because of the western austerity and harshness that plays through most of the film.

Mind you, in its historical context, the Christmas aspect might have played better to an audience of the day than a contemporary one. But for me this is a curious movie but not a particularly good one.

2 stars out of 4.

Directed by John Ford

The 1948 John Ford movie 3 Godfathers is, if nothing else, damn odd. And, to be honest, I’d have to say it’s ill-considered. It’s a western as Christmas-tale where three outlaws become something akin to the three wise men of the New Testament, but not really, and in the process reveal themselves as three bad guys who are really, really nice once you get to know them.

The film is dedicated to Harry Carey. John Wayne is the star. It co-stars Carey’s son, Harry Carey Jr. (in what I believe to be his first film). It also co-stars Pedro Armendáriz. The three, Wayne, Carey Jr. and Armendáriz, are three outlaws who arrive at the town of Welcome, Arizona, roughly around Christmas time, with the intention of robbing the bank.

When they first arrive they meet a friendly fellow with whom they begin to josh and converse. As the encounter ends, they discover he’s the town’s sheriff (Ward Bond), a man who has a pretty good idea of what kind of men they are and what they’re intentions might be.

So they rob the bank and in short order the sheriff has a posse out after them. Soon, the sheriff realizes that Wayne’s character, Robert Hightower, is a clever man and the chase becomes something of a game for him, the sheriff. It’s a challenge – he looks forward to catching Wayne and playing chess once he’s in prison.

The chase takes the outlaws out into the desert where they are in search of water and shelter. It’s not easy – one of them is wounded. Each time they come upon water, the sheriff and the posse are there ahead of them so they have to go searching for water elsewhere.

So far, so good. It’s an average western – not great, but not bad. But then they come upon a dying woman who is about to give birth. They help her with the birth. The child is born but his mother is dying. Before she does, however, she names the child after the three outlaws, appoints those same outlaws as the child’s godfathers, and makes them promise to care for the child.

The story movie now takes a weird turn where the western continues but a variety of religious elements – symbols and speeches and so on – begin to populate it. (These actually begin back with the woman giving birth to her baby – it is Christmas time.)

The three men care for the child passionately. Two of them perish in the end, for the sake of the child, and the third, Wayne, all but dies. He manages to survive, saving the child, but is caught by the sheriff. He’s taken back to the town of Welcome where he will face trial and a potential sentence of 20 years if found guilty.

The odd thing here (as if things haven’t been peculiar enough) is everyone is friendly, best buds, even though Wayne is in jail and going to court.

As might be expected with a Christmas film (that never really feels like a Christmas film), there is a happy ending to it all.

And it’s all just so damn odd.

On the plus side, however, I think this movie has one of the most interesting performances from John Wayne. He seems more emotive than we usually see him, and there is more animation in his face than usual. He has a nice speech in a scene where he tells the other outlaws about finding a pregnant woman in an abandoned wagon. It’s hard to say whether it’s one of his better performances, though, since the film is so strange. Is he good? Is it over the top? I really don’t know.

I can say this, though: Ward Bond is very good. And so is Harry Carey Jr., especially for a first film. (It’s not his fault the part is written the way it is.)

Also excellent in the film: the cinematography. The shots in the desert are really quite magnificent. The visual look of the movie is very John Ford, very good.

Overall, however, I’d have to say this is a wrong-headed film. It’s the wrong kind of story for John Ford. Apart from being a Christmas western (which just sounds weird), this essentially sentimental, feel-good story is Frank Capra country, not John Ford. Ford doesn’t seem to finesse this kind of story where we can accept the sentimentality – probably because of the western austerity and harshness that plays through most of the film.

Mind you, in its historical context, the Christmas aspect might have played better to an audience of the day than a contemporary one. But for me this is a curious movie but not a particularly good one.

2 stars out of 4.

Directed by John Ford

First of all, this is NOT the movie with Denzel Washington. This is a John Ford directed film from 1937. There is absolutely no connection between the two stories. But it is called The Hurricane.

Secondly, this movie falls into a category I think of as Saturday Afternoon Movies. Ages ago, when I was a kid, I use to see movies such as this on Saturday afternoons, Sunday mornings and so on.

In fact, I probably saw this one. Most of them were on one of the Buffalo stations we would get when our family lived in Toronto. This is worth noting because it means there is a nostalgic quality to these movies for me and probably colours my perception of them to some extent.

These films won’t have the same appeal, I suspect, for someone who hasn’t grown up with some of the technical limitations and censorship requirements of older movies. (Though it should also be noted, sometimes it was the limitations the filmmakers dealt with, and they ways they got around them, that made these films stand out.)

The Hurricane is really a swash-buckling romance in the South Seas. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that the writers and director were heavily influenced by Joseph Conrad. The movie is very much like a Lord Jim story – a doomed, tragic hero thing (though with a different ending that I suspect Ford had to give it.)

It’s not a great movie, though it is good. Some of it is hard to swallow (those limitations again) especially the idea of two Polynesian natives (Jon Hall and Dorothy Lamour) who are remarkably white. But if you can buy into it, even if reluctantly, it’s a fun, enjoyable film.

And there are those last 10 or 15 minutes, the highlight of the film. They put most special effect sequences to shame, even today’s with computers and so on. This may be the best effects sequence ever made, especially when put in the context of the period the movie was filmed – 1937.

Part of the reason it succeeds is because it’s in black and white – certain elements would be far less convincing and seamless if it were done in colour.

These last 10 minutes or so are, as you can surmise, the hurricane. Ford builds to it beautifully. It doesn’t just show up; it develops slowly. When it gets going full tilt, it is utterly convincing and arresting.

The end, however, is not. This is yet another of those imposed restrictions. It’s hard to believe (given the convincing storm) but on the other hand it is a fantasy.

3½ stars out of 4.
(Originally posted 2003.)

Directed by John Ford

“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”

A lot of people begin their comments about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance with the quote above. While it may be applicable to the theme of the movie, I’m using it in relation to director John Ford, of whom I’m sure a number of biographies have been written – but who cares? The legend is better and if there is any truth in it, well that’s nice too.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is considered by many to be one of the great American westerns, and who could seriously argue that? Still, the same claim could reasonably be made for many of Ford’s movies, from Stagecoach to She Wore a Yellow Ribbon to The Searchers.

They’re all good and they’re all informed by what I would call Ford’s rugged, masculine romanticism. While he’s known as a kind of “tough guy” due to his legend and the films he made, to me the defining characteristic of his movies is romance. I don’t mean this in terms of love stories, but in terms of a stoic sentimentalism – and I don’t use that word in its negative sense. But it’s clear that Ford loved these kinds of stories, these kinds of landscapes and this kind of life.

In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, we get one of Ford’s best considered, best structured and most thoughtful, resonating western films.

Shinbone has a problem. A man named Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin), who has no regard for the law or anything other than his own interests and whims, is terrorizing the town with his uncontrolled violence. He represents a capricious, dangerous chaos.

Into the town on a stagecoach rides Ransom Stoddard, a young, naive lawyer (Jimmy Stewart). Even before arriving in the town he meets Liberty and encounters his lawless violence.

The young attorney is appalled and immediately determines Shinbone needs the rule of law to restore order – it doesn’t need guns and a perpetuation of the violence. There is one man in the town, however, who is willing to stand up to Liberty on Liberty’s terms – meaning guns – and that’s Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). Tom doesn’t believe the law can help situations such as this. Right will prevail only in terms of the western code, man to man, gun to gun.

So while Ransom and Tom are united in the sense that both would like to see Liberty dealt with, they aren’t united as to how. Tom’s way is almost barbaric to Ransom and the young lawyer’s way is all but useless to Tom.

They also have a growing conflict in their relationship with the young woman who works in the town’s eatery, Hallie (Vera Miles). When the movie begins, she’s pretty much “Tom’s girl” and it seems only a matter of time before the two will marry. But Ransom’s arrival represents something Hallie hasn’t had before – opportunities, education and the kind of order that allows for families to flourish.

As the movie progresses, Hallie comes to represent the town’s growing desire for order and increasing detachment from the old western ways, embodied by Tom.

The story is told in flashback, beginning as it does with Ransom and Hallie arriving in Shinbone as husband and wife for Tom’s funeral. Ransom is a senator now and what this opening shows us is life after the old west has vanished and the new world is in place.

There’s a certain superficiality to Senator Stoddard, a false note to most of what he says, until he focuses on Tom and their shared story. When the movie is seen as a whole, the opening comes to suggest a certain loss of integrity due to the change that has come to the west. The ending, however, suggests that what has been gained is a degree of prosperity, even beauty.

It all adds up to an elegiac film. It was one of the first of many westerns from the sixties that addressed the dying out of the old western ways and the arrival of the modern world. (See movies like The Wild Bunch, Once Upon a Time in the West and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.)

Ford is too good of a director to make it a simple black and white equation, though. If he mourns the passing of the old, he also celebrates the arrival of the new, though not without some equivocating. (While Stewart carries a kind of wide-eyed, innocent moral background through the film, his life as a senator appears to have somewhat compromised this with politics.)

The ending (spoiler)

The movie’s denouement, the shooting of Liberty Valance, is also equivocal – deliberately so. Everyone, including the audience, believes the lawyer has shot Liberty, that the law has won out. And it has won. But as we learn, Ransom didn’t kill Liberty.

It’s Tom, the old west, violence meeting violence. Against such an opponent, the law can’t win. The law requires that everyone buy into it. When someone such as Liberty refuses to, the recourse is to meet his violence on the same terms.

However, while it’s required to defeat Liberty, it can’t survive. The reason it can’t is because Hallie, the representative of the town, ultimately does not choose it (Tom). She chooses Ransom (the law). It’s the collective will that prevails, and it’s the collective will that informs and supports the law.

In the face of this, Liberty is just a passing trouble that is finally eliminated. Tom, who actually saves the town from Liberty, is also eliminated. He can’t ultimately win because he can’t provide what Ransom (the law) can: peace and stability. (Hence, the home he is trying to build burns to the ground – and by his own violence.)

While none of these thoughts occurred to me when I first saw The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (which must have been around the time I was twelve), and they don’t really register as I watch the film play out – it’s too engrossing dramatically for that – they do come to mind afterwards as I think about what I’ve seen and consider how it all adds up.

While I don’t know what movie I would call “the greatest western,” I would definitely be among those who place The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance among the best ever. And it’s no surprise it’s a John Ford film, the man who in many ways defined what westerns were and where they would go.

Westerns are morality plays and Ford did them better than anyone because, while his westerns always have a strong moral centre, they are never black and white. Sometimes they appear that way, but when you really look at them you see they aren’t that simple.

Random thoughts:

• If you have ever wondered why John Wayne impersonations always have him referring to people as “Pilgrim,” you need to watch this movie. This is the film it comes from, as in, “Whoa, take ‘er easy there, Pilgrim.”

• Lee Marvin’s naturalism, his evocation of a sadistic, violent criminal, is frighteningly good – similar to the nasty guy he plays in The Big Heat.

• And what about that Gene Pitney song, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valanace? Written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, it was meant as the movie’s theme song but due to some snafu was never used. They actually used music from the 1938 film, Young Mr. Lincoln. And it’s all too bad. I always liked the song: “When Liberty Valance rode to town the women folk would hide, they’d hide …”

Other John Ford movies:

• The Searchers (1956)
• The Treasure of the Sierre Madre (1948)
• The Hurricane (1937)
• The Quiet Man (1952)

Four stars out of four.

(Originally posted 2004.)

Directed by John Ford

This film is an old favourite of mine and seeing it again after all these years didn’t disappoint. It’s wonderful. However, a cautionary note needs to be sounded …

This movie is sentimental. It’s politically incorrect. It is not Ireland. If these sorts of things get your shorts in a knot, avoid this movie.

The Ireland of The Quiet Man is an Ireland that never existed. It is loaded with every Irish cliche imaginable. For all I know, this movie is responsible for generating many of them. While it doesn’t include leprechauns, it might as well with the drunken Irish priest played by Barry Fitzgerald (Going My Way).

So what is this movie? It’s the other side of the John Ford coin. As a director, he may have been the apotheosis of the American macho Hollywood filmmakers of the 40′s and 50′s. Like Howard Hawks, his films were about men – stoic and tough and articulated best through John Wayne. It was directors such as these that made the western what it was, creating the formula that would be worked and reworked and improvised on in so many later films.

Despite their surface toughness though, all these films were high romanticism. They were idealized images of what men were or should be. The North American stoic is, like the cynic, an inverted romantic. Imagine Oscar Wilde as an introvert.

The movie The Quiet Man perfectly illustrates this. This is a movie made by the same man who gave us Stagecoach, She Wore A Yellow Ribbon, Rio Grande and The Searchers.

This time, however, rather than the spare-talking tough warrior, we see the Ford male in domestic surroundings. The warrior at home, as it were; the patriarch in love.

And if the westerns and war films are excessively tough-minded, here we see the same excess mirrored as sentimentality. Everything is idealized (hence, the Ireland we see). Everything is fantasy.

Essentially, it is a fairy tale and one that works tremendously well. A large part of the reason is the combination of John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara (Miracle On 34th Street). They always worked well together but never more so than in this movie.

And the relationship they have – at odds, somewhat embattled, and a bit appalling to a contemporary audience with the surface submissiveness of the Maureen O’Hara character – is thoroughly engaging.

And just to remind us we’re in the macho world, we get a brilliant brawl at the end of the film. This is the man’s Harlequin romance. And while it may be a guilty pleasure, it is a pleasure nonetheless.

(Originally written in 2002.)

Directed by John Ford

I’ve been making my way through all those John Ford-John Wayne movies that are contained in the John Wayne-John Ford Film Collection set. I’ve also received my copy of Stagecoach – Special Edition (and watched it last night). So my head’s pretty full of Ford imagery and Wayne’s voice.

But let’s start with The Searchers, possibly the best of the lot. In this set, I have Ultimate Edition. Let’s just say there are a lot of features, all pretty good (some much better than good), and of course the film.

I wrote about the previous DVD release a few years ago and, while I don’t usually comment on the video qualities (not my strong suit), in that case I did, saying, “For such a great film, it’s unforunate the DVD is less than spectacular. While not poor, it falls far short. There are scratches etc. throughout. The sound is also a bit lame, though not unbearably so.”

Well, this new edition corrects all that. It looks and sounds great. I loved it.

Below, I’m putting in my review from a few years ago. I find it interesting because I don’t necessarily agree with all I have to say in it now. Perhaps it has more to do with emphasis. I’d like to watch the movie again and, one day soon I hope, write a new review, if only to collect a few new observations and update some of my previous thoughts.

For now, however, here’s the old one, flaws and all:

The Searchers – earlier review

In the list of great westerns, The Searchers ranks very high. It’s one of the great movies, period. But it’s a troubling one, too. While cinematically brilliant with its stunning photography of Monument Valley and now famous shots, it’s the story of a racist, a man filled with hate.

John Wayne plays Ethan Edwards, an ex-Confederate soldier who returns home several years after the war has ended and who, while no longer fighting, stubbornly asserts that while others may have surrendered, he never did.

Where he has been or what he has been doing for the past few years is never explained. He is left mysterious to us and in a dark way. We see he’s a man with a grudge. There’s an anger in him that he contains, though just barely. We also see traces of his racism and innate hate in his attitude toward the informally adopted son of his brother’s family, Martin played by Jeffrey Hunter. Martin is one-eighth Indian, and this is the reason Ethan treats him poorly.

There is then a Comanche raid on his brother’s home. The family is killed except the two daughters, who are taken. Later, one of the daughters is killed and there is only the youngest daughter, Debbie, left alive. She is still with the Indian raiding party. (The older Debbie is played by Natalie Wood; the younger Debbie by her sister Lana Wood.)

Ethan is now consumed with his hate for Indians as he and Martin set off to find Debbie. Martin’s reasons for going are twofold: he wants to get Debbie back but also wants to protect her from Ethan, whom he senses is a threat to her.

Ethan is. His plan is to find Debbie and kill her since, in his mind, she is now Comanche. As the film progresses we see the pair on their quest. We see more and more of Ethan’s racist hate as their journey goes on.

Director John Ford tries to balance the darkness of this with lighter moments and storylines, such as Martin’s relationship with the young woman Laurie (Vera Miles), an unspoken romance that is failing for want of articulation.

However, the lighter elements seem a bit forced. It’s Ethan’s story that is the heart of the movie.

But what is that story, and what is Ford attempting? An audience of today is likely to be appalled by Ethan’s overt hate and racist attitude. Roger Ebert suggests that a contemporary audience (roughly 1956-57) would probably identitfy with his attitudes and this is likely true – perhaps not with the overt hate but certainly with the racist attitude toward native North Americans.

I think a clue to what Ford is attempting lies in the character of Scar (Henry Brandon), the Comanche chief responsible for the raiding party and the taking of Debbie. His character isn’t deeply drawn but we do get one scene where he explains himself, at least to an extent. He tells of how his two sons were killed by white people and how, because of that, he is taking revenge.

This is essentially what Ethan is doing. Scar is the native mirror of Ethan, ruled by hate and revenge. Both men are racists and it is their hate than informs it. It is revenge that Ethan seeks but revenge is also the reason for the tragedy that sends him on his hateful quest.

If this is what Ford’s movie is about, and I think it is, then what we have in The Searchers is flawed masterpiece. It’s a great film that doesn’t quite achieve what it attempts.

The failing is in the character of Scar, Chief Cicatrice. The film needs a much deeper exploration of the man. An audience needs to get to know and understand him better. He simply doesn’t have enough screen time.

There aren’t enough scenes that allow him to be humanized (as there are in a film like Dances With Wolves where we can connect and relate to the native North Americans).

This failing is reflective of the period the film was made. Not only were full characterizations of Indians unheard of, where they do have a presence that goes beyond being extras, the characters are played by white people.

This makes The Searchers something of a conundrum. It is a film about racism and its evils that fails because of an innate social racism that conditioned the making of it. This is not to say the film is racist. I don’t think that is either a conscious or unconscious intent. But to some degree we’re defined and thus limited by our place in social and cultural history, and so was Ford. The flaws in The Searchers are due these kinds of limitations.

The Searchers – Ultimate Collector’s Edition:

• Amazon.com (U.S.)
• Amazon. ca (Canada)