So-so movie, read the book . . .
Added 11/20/2009
Given the post-war publication of Jack Schaefer's novel "Shane" and the early 1950's Hollywood adaptation by George Stevens, it's a bit easier to understand the immense popularity of the film at the time. Shane, the gunfighter, appears out of nowhere, befriends and eventually defends a frontier family, and then disappears again. In a way, he represents every returning soldier from the killing fields of WWII and Korea who needed to be reintegrated into the communities they came from. The difficulty of this process is reflected in Shane's hyper-vigilant behavior and unwillingness to talk about his past, in both the book and the film, which suggest a man more than a little afflicted with PTSD. So the coming together of the western-movie gunslinger and the peaceable nuclear family in this story was surely a way for audiences to understand in fictional form the real drama going on in so many of their personal lives. That the gunslinger disappears, the family is saved, and the next generation is now free to grow "strong and straight" must have been greatly reassuring.
The original Shane in Schaefer's book is far more dangerous-looking and acting than Alan Ladd's warm and friendly portrayal of the man, dressed in buckskin and tan hat instead of the much darker outfit and black hat that the boy Bob, who narrates the book, describes. The original Shane also more deliberately refuses to wear his gun, a sign that he has a violent past to hide, while at the same time preventing another man from drawing on him. (Code of the West: never shoot an unarmed man.) As some have said already, Jack Palance would have been a better choice for the role - able to convey the more sinister aspect of the character conceived by Schaefer. But on the big screen, this would have given movie audiences a more troubling image, especially as the attraction builds between Shane and Marian. The erotic appeal of a dangerous man would have converted this family-friendly entertainment into something a bit different.
Schaefer's original story (though not a long one) is aggressively telescoped to fit into 90 minutes of movie time, and it's also constricted by the conventions of the movie western. While the cattleman Ryker (aka Fletcher in the novel) doesn't make an appearance until half way through the novel, he and his cowboys come riding up in the opening scene of the film to begin making their threats to the Starrett family to get off their land. Shane's gun and gunbelt are on full display, where Joey can exhibit his open fascination with them, and Shane uses the gun to give a lesson to Joey in drawing and firing it. Schaeffer gives much less emphasis to firearms. When near the end there is a conflict between Joe Starrett and Shane about who will go to town to confront Ryker/Fletcher, Shane simply pistol-whips Joe, but true to the genre, there has to be a protracted fistfight between the two men in the film.
Sacrificed are the many nuances Schaefer records in his rendering of the shifting relationships among his central characters - the male-bonding of the two men, the emotional attachment of Marian to Shane, and the hero worship in the boy Bob, who is torn in his admiration for his father and this friendly stranger. Lost, too, is the character of Chris, a young cowboy (played well but by a somewhat older Ben Johnson in the film), whom Shane reluctantly subdues in a fight and who appears at the Starretts after the shoot-out in the saloon, offering to work as Joe's hired hand. It's a touching moment which shows the maturation of a character who has been awed by the integrity and honesty of Joe and Shane. The film, of course, ends before this, with the iconic scene of Joey calling out as his hero rides off, "Shane, come back!"
Schaefer also set his story in the Powder River region of Wyoming, south of Sheridan, within sight of the Big Horns. This is Johnson County, site of the well-known "wars" between cattlemen and rustlers in 1892. Stevens, wanting a more picturesque location, went to the area around Jackson, within sight of the much grander Tetons, in western Wyoming. A small matter, maybe, but it demonstrates how historical accuracy in movie westerns is typically neglected for the sake of cinematic effect.
Wrapping up here, I have to give the film only 3 stars. While working well as a kind of time-capsule of the early 1950s, it seems dated fifty years later. The novel has stood up much better with time. I encourage readers to give it a try.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
If I call this movie `dull' will you hate me?
Added 9/24/2009
Okay, please don't pounce all over me right away for this one. Far be it for me to ever completely trash something so many others absolutely adore, but I just can't help it here. I mean, I will remove myself a bit from this, beings that I am not a fan of the Western to begin with, but genre aside, `Shane' is just all sorts of wrong. Even if this were in a completely different setting it has almost no real worth.
Ouch, that was harsh.
Okay, so here it is in a nutshell. The plot is intriguing, but it is poorly handled. The acting is very subpar, except for one particular standout, and so it suffers from lack of real connection due to that very fact; no one is interesting. In fact, some of the acting (in particular the Oscar nominated ones) are so ridiculous they are comical. The fact that Brandon De Wilde received an Oscar nomination for what may be the most irritatingly annoying child performances yet was snubbed for his richly developed work in `Hud' is almost nauseating; and Jack Palance's ridiculously overdone grinning is a worthless nomination if I ever saw one (in fact, Palance WON the Oscar for another `worthless' performance in '91).
As one reviewer mentioned; beautiful cinematography is not the only basis for judging a Western, yet is seems that so many have used that to defend the fact that `Shane' is a classic. There are far more beautifully shot Westerns out there that actually have the goods to back them up, so the fascination with this dull clunker is beyond me.
The film revolves around a group of farmers who are being pressured by some cattle barons to give up their land. The more they resist the angrier (and more violent) the barons get; led by the aging yet harsh Rufus Ryker. The film mainly focuses on the Starrett family, Joe and Marion and their young son Joey, who stand up tallest against Ryker with the aid of mysterious drifter Shane; a man who shows up at their home and makes his way into their hearts. When Ryker hires nasty gunman Jack Wilson it seems as if there is no use in opposing him any longer, but Shane is mysterious for a reason.
Okay, one major issue here is Alan Ladd, who plays Shane. His performance is stale beyond belief; so much so that his impact on everyone around him is entirely unbelievable. Why does young Joey `love him' so much? Why is Marion smitten with him? Why is Ryker noticeably shaken by him? There is nothing there to interest us in the least. The other big issue is De Wilde, who grates on my nerves with every wide eyed still shot. This is `child acting 101' with no real warmth of delivery or realistic authenticity. He appears to be acting the entire time; which is annoying to put it kindly. How Jack Palance got a nomination for merely smiling like a moron is beyond me; and Jean Arthur, who is usually just stunning, is dreadful here. This is her final performance, so maybe I should be nice, but what she does is absolutely unconvincing and amateurish. Emile Meyer has a few good moments, and Ben Johnson is underused; but really the only actor who walks away unscathed is Van Heflin, who actually turns in a believable and rich performance full of life and authentic emotional connection; even if the film lacks all of that. If ANYONE deserved an Oscar nomination, it was him.
The film doesn't establish well the storylines it tries to create. For one, the chemistry between Marion and Shane is not there, so their apparent (overly obvious) attraction is unwarranted and takes away from the film to be honest. Like I said, the character of Shane is more boring than anything else, and so the entire film loses all its steam by failing to give us anything to care about.
Snore.
I know that I am supposed to rave this movie and totally tote it as a classic and a marvelous Western, but it isn't, and the fact that so many think it is so great baffles me. I know I'm not a fan of the genre, but I know a good movie when I see it, regardless of what section of the DVD store you find it. This is mediocre at best; at the very best.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Still Golden Age Hollywood's Must-See Western, Still a Masterful Work
Added 9/4/2009
Filmmaker George Stevens' (A Place in the Sun) meticulous mastery over the cinematic medium has never been more present than in this 1953 classic, a film that managed to reinvigorate the then-tired Western genre thanks to the director's stunning sense of composition and his sure hand with an excellent cast. Haunted by his traumatizing experience heading up a combat motion picture unit during World War II, Stevens made far more sober, serious-minded films afterward that focused on the plights of society's outsiders. This time, the outsider is primarily the eponymous gunman, but that sense of personal isolation is felt one way or another by every principal character in the film. Written by A.B. Guthrie Jr. and inspired by the infamous Johnson County War (which also inspired Michael Cimino's infamous disaster, Heaven's Gate), the story unwinds slowly as a reformed gunslinger stumbles upon a resolute conflict between peace-loving "sodbusters" and threatening cattle ranchers in 1870's Wyoming. Tensions escalate when Shane's bloody past comes back to haunt him as he defends the homesteaders, in particular, the Starrett family.
Shane becomes close to the family, especially the young son Joey who worships him as the hero figure that his father cannot seem to be. Complicating matters is corrupt cattle baron Rufus Ryker, who wants to rid the valley of the farming families to allow his cattle to roam free. When Ryder recruits a ruthless outlaw named Jack Wilson to instill fear into the farmers, it forces a showdown with the inevitable consequences. For a western, there is one major fist fight and surprisingly little gunplay; however, the impact of those events has strict dramatic purpose and brings a pervasive sense of mortality to this oft-told story. Character actor Van Heflin (Airport) is often overlooked in reviews of this picture, yet he effectively provides the film's sometimes precarious backbone as Joe Starrett, the moral compass for the homesteaders. In her last big-screen role, Jean Arthur brings a subtle poignancy with only a hint of her past scintillating charm as his wife Marian. Stevens coaxed the 51-year-old Arthur to make the film after a five-year absence from the screen, and she slips easily into the painterly backdrop emerging almost fleetingly as a conflicted woman with an unspoken affection for Shane.
Much more demonstrative in his love for the gunslinger is ten-year-old Brandon De Wilde, who gives an indelibly memorable performance as Joey. In one of his earliest roles, Jack Palance barely has any dialogue or screen time for that matter, but he makes every menacing moment count as Wilson. Nevertheless, it is the underrated Alan Ladd (This Gun For Hire) who brings the picture together with a superbly rendered performance in the taciturn title role. Known unfairly for his misperceived diminutive stature (he was actually 5'6"), the actor vividly captures Shane's sense of honor and remorse with a barely concealable fury. You will likely recognize Ben Johnson (The Last Picture Show), Edgar Buchanan (Petticoat Junction), Ellen Corby (The Waltons), and Elisha Cook Jr. (The Maltese Falcon) in smaller parts. The 2000 DVD offers a pristine print transfer as well as an excellent commentary by the director's son George Stevens Jr. and the film's associate producer Ivan Moffat. A theatrical re-release trailer is also included on the DVD. If you haven't seen it, you should and on a big screen if possible.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Filmmaking Ahead Of Its Time
Added 8/18/2009
Not only one of the greatest Westerns of all time, but the production was well ahead of its time. It's captured beautifully on this disc--the color, choreography, detail, combined with outstanding acting and an excellent Western story. You'll be glad you purchased your own copy.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The Greatest of All Western Films
Added 7/14/2009
There is a magnificence to the look of this film and a deep and complex honesty to its characterizations -- not to be found in 99 percent of films of any type. Shane seems drawn from the weathered, weary, existentially saddened but quintessentially heroic Jesus Christ to be found in the Gospel According to Mark. The ending brings tears and goosebumps.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
So-so movie, read the book . . .
Added 11/20/2009
Given the post-war publication of Jack Schaefer's novel "Shane" and the early 1950's Hollywood adaptation by George Stevens, it's a bit easier to understand the immense popularity of the film at the time. Shane, the gunfighter, appears out of nowhere, befriends and eventually defends a frontier family, and then disappears again. In a way, he represents every returning soldier from the killing fields of WWII and Korea who needed to be reintegrated into the communities they came from. The difficulty of this process is reflected in Shane's hyper-vigilant behavior and unwillingness to talk about his past, in both the book and the film, which suggest a man more than a little afflicted with PTSD. So the coming together of the western-movie gunslinger and the peaceable nuclear family in this story was surely a way for audiences to understand in fictional form the real drama going on in so many of their personal lives. That the gunslinger disappears, the family is saved, and the next generation is now free to grow "strong and straight" must have been greatly reassuring.
The original Shane in Schaefer's book is far more dangerous-looking and acting than Alan Ladd's warm and friendly portrayal of the man, dressed in buckskin and tan hat instead of the much darker outfit and black hat that the boy Bob, who narrates the book, describes. The original Shane also more deliberately refuses to wear his gun, a sign that he has a violent past to hide, while at the same time preventing another man from drawing on him. (Code of the West: never shoot an unarmed man.) As some have said already, Jack Palance would have been a better choice for the role - able to convey the more sinister aspect of the character conceived by Schaefer. But on the big screen, this would have given movie audiences a more troubling image, especially as the attraction builds between Shane and Marian. The erotic appeal of a dangerous man would have converted this family-friendly entertainment into something a bit different.
Schaefer's original story (though not a long one) is aggressively telescoped to fit into 90 minutes of movie time, and it's also constricted by the conventions of the movie western. While the cattleman Ryker (aka Fletcher in the novel) doesn't make an appearance until half way through the novel, he and his cowboys come riding up in the opening scene of the film to begin making their threats to the Starrett family to get off their land. Shane's gun and gunbelt are on full display, where Joey can exhibit his open fascination with them, and Shane uses the gun to give a lesson to Joey in drawing and firing it. Schaeffer gives much less emphasis to firearms. When near the end there is a conflict between Joe Starrett and Shane about who will go to town to confront Ryker/Fletcher, Shane simply pistol-whips Joe, but true to the genre, there has to be a protracted fistfight between the two men in the film.
Sacrificed are the many nuances Schaefer records in his rendering of the shifting relationships among his central characters - the male-bonding of the two men, the emotional attachment of Marian to Shane, and the hero worship in the boy Bob, who is torn in his admiration for his father and this friendly stranger. Lost, too, is the character of Chris, a young cowboy (played well but by a somewhat older Ben Johnson in the film), whom Shane reluctantly subdues in a fight and who appears at the Starretts after the shoot-out in the saloon, offering to work as Joe's hired hand. It's a touching moment which shows the maturation of a character who has been awed by the integrity and honesty of Joe and Shane. The film, of course, ends before this, with the iconic scene of Joey calling out as his hero rides off, "Shane, come back!"
Schaefer also set his story in the Powder River region of Wyoming, south of Sheridan, within sight of the Big Horns. This is Johnson County, site of the well-known "wars" between cattlemen and rustlers in 1892. Stevens, wanting a more picturesque location, went to the area around Jackson, within sight of the much grander Tetons, in western Wyoming. A small matter, maybe, but it demonstrates how historical accuracy in movie westerns is typically neglected for the sake of cinematic effect.
Wrapping up here, I have to give the film only 3 stars. While working well as a kind of time-capsule of the early 1950s, it seems dated fifty years later. The novel has stood up much better with time. I encourage readers to give it a try.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
If I call this movie `dull' will you hate me?
Added 9/24/2009
Okay, please don't pounce all over me right away for this one. Far be it for me to ever completely trash something so many others absolutely adore, but I just can't help it here. I mean, I will remove myself a bit from this, beings that I am not a fan of the Western to begin with, but genre aside, `Shane' is just all sorts of wrong. Even if this were in a completely different setting it has almost no real worth.
Ouch, that was harsh.
Okay, so here it is in a nutshell. The plot is intriguing, but it is poorly handled. The acting is very subpar, except for one particular standout, and so it suffers from lack of real connection due to that very fact; no one is interesting. In fact, some of the acting (in particular the Oscar nominated ones) are so ridiculous they are comical. The fact that Brandon De Wilde received an Oscar nomination for what may be the most irritatingly annoying child performances yet was snubbed for his richly developed work in `Hud' is almost nauseating; and Jack Palance's ridiculously overdone grinning is a worthless nomination if I ever saw one (in fact, Palance WON the Oscar for another `worthless' performance in '91).
As one reviewer mentioned; beautiful cinematography is not the only basis for judging a Western, yet is seems that so many have used that to defend the fact that `Shane' is a classic. There are far more beautifully shot Westerns out there that actually have the goods to back them up, so the fascination with this dull clunker is beyond me.
The film revolves around a group of farmers who are being pressured by some cattle barons to give up their land. The more they resist the angrier (and more violent) the barons get; led by the aging yet harsh Rufus Ryker. The film mainly focuses on the Starrett family, Joe and Marion and their young son Joey, who stand up tallest against Ryker with the aid of mysterious drifter Shane; a man who shows up at their home and makes his way into their hearts. When Ryker hires nasty gunman Jack Wilson it seems as if there is no use in opposing him any longer, but Shane is mysterious for a reason.
Okay, one major issue here is Alan Ladd, who plays Shane. His performance is stale beyond belief; so much so that his impact on everyone around him is entirely unbelievable. Why does young Joey `love him' so much? Why is Marion smitten with him? Why is Ryker noticeably shaken by him? There is nothing there to interest us in the least. The other big issue is De Wilde, who grates on my nerves with every wide eyed still shot. This is `child acting 101' with no real warmth of delivery or realistic authenticity. He appears to be acting the entire time; which is annoying to put it kindly. How Jack Palance got a nomination for merely smiling like a moron is beyond me; and Jean Arthur, who is usually just stunning, is dreadful here. This is her final performance, so maybe I should be nice, but what she does is absolutely unconvincing and amateurish. Emile Meyer has a few good moments, and Ben Johnson is underused; but really the only actor who walks away unscathed is Van Heflin, who actually turns in a believable and rich performance full of life and authentic emotional connection; even if the film lacks all of that. If ANYONE deserved an Oscar nomination, it was him.
The film doesn't establish well the storylines it tries to create. For one, the chemistry between Marion and Shane is not there, so their apparent (overly obvious) attraction is unwarranted and takes away from the film to be honest. Like I said, the character of Shane is more boring than anything else, and so the entire film loses all its steam by failing to give us anything to care about.
Snore.
I know that I am supposed to rave this movie and totally tote it as a classic and a marvelous Western, but it isn't, and the fact that so many think it is so great baffles me. I know I'm not a fan of the genre, but I know a good movie when I see it, regardless of what section of the DVD store you find it. This is mediocre at best; at the very best.
0 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Still Golden Age Hollywood's Must-See Western, Still a Masterful Work
Added 9/4/2009
Filmmaker George Stevens' (A Place in the Sun) meticulous mastery over the cinematic medium has never been more present than in this 1953 classic, a film that managed to reinvigorate the then-tired Western genre thanks to the director's stunning sense of composition and his sure hand with an excellent cast. Haunted by his traumatizing experience heading up a combat motion picture unit during World War II, Stevens made far more sober, serious-minded films afterward that focused on the plights of society's outsiders. This time, the outsider is primarily the eponymous gunman, but that sense of personal isolation is felt one way or another by every principal character in the film. Written by A.B. Guthrie Jr. and inspired by the infamous Johnson County War (which also inspired Michael Cimino's infamous disaster, Heaven's Gate), the story unwinds slowly as a reformed gunslinger stumbles upon a resolute conflict between peace-loving "sodbusters" and threatening cattle ranchers in 1870's Wyoming. Tensions escalate when Shane's bloody past comes back to haunt him as he defends the homesteaders, in particular, the Starrett family.
Shane becomes close to the family, especially the young son Joey who worships him as the hero figure that his father cannot seem to be. Complicating matters is corrupt cattle baron Rufus Ryker, who wants to rid the valley of the farming families to allow his cattle to roam free. When Ryder recruits a ruthless outlaw named Jack Wilson to instill fear into the farmers, it forces a showdown with the inevitable consequences. For a western, there is one major fist fight and surprisingly little gunplay; however, the impact of those events has strict dramatic purpose and brings a pervasive sense of mortality to this oft-told story. Character actor Van Heflin (Airport) is often overlooked in reviews of this picture, yet he effectively provides the film's sometimes precarious backbone as Joe Starrett, the moral compass for the homesteaders. In her last big-screen role, Jean Arthur brings a subtle poignancy with only a hint of her past scintillating charm as his wife Marian. Stevens coaxed the 51-year-old Arthur to make the film after a five-year absence from the screen, and she slips easily into the painterly backdrop emerging almost fleetingly as a conflicted woman with an unspoken affection for Shane.
Much more demonstrative in his love for the gunslinger is ten-year-old Brandon De Wilde, who gives an indelibly memorable performance as Joey. In one of his earliest roles, Jack Palance barely has any dialogue or screen time for that matter, but he makes every menacing moment count as Wilson. Nevertheless, it is the underrated Alan Ladd (This Gun For Hire) who brings the picture together with a superbly rendered performance in the taciturn title role. Known unfairly for his misperceived diminutive stature (he was actually 5'6"), the actor vividly captures Shane's sense of honor and remorse with a barely concealable fury. You will likely recognize Ben Johnson (The Last Picture Show), Edgar Buchanan (Petticoat Junction), Ellen Corby (The Waltons), and Elisha Cook Jr. (The Maltese Falcon) in smaller parts. The 2000 DVD offers a pristine print transfer as well as an excellent commentary by the director's son George Stevens Jr. and the film's associate producer Ivan Moffat. A theatrical re-release trailer is also included on the DVD. If you haven't seen it, you should and on a big screen if possible.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
