Thanks for the extended commentary, Stranger.
Thanks for this. It’s one thing to call it a deconstruction, but it helps when there’s an explanation (I sometimes need my hand held). I watched it years ago and my memory is vague, so it sure didn’t make an impact on me. Maybe I’ll re-watch it with this in mind.
Personally, I figure Stoddard deserves the accolades for being the man who faced Liberty Valence. Compared to that, just shooting Valence is a relatively simple task requiring a steady hand but no real character.
Though watching the scene again, I gotta say Stoddard’s kind of an idiot, approaching Valence the way he did. At least make a plan, dude!
That was nicely done, Stranger. I’ll add a thank you as well.
I disagree. What good is a Ranse Stoddard, who is willing to spend a lifetime fighting injustice and championing the betterment of others, if said lifetime is going to get cut short before he accomplishes any of that – because he done gets himself killed when he tries to supply a dose of single-act heroism?
Imagine a movie that played out how the Printed Legend goes: an idealist with law books sets to bring democracy and education to the frontier, reluctantly takes up arms only because he must, kills the bad guy, gets the girl, and dedicates the rest of his days to public service as The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: that’s a movie with no twist. That’s the story we tell to kids. It has a moral we can all get behind.
That is, in essence, a lot of movies.
That’s not this movie.
This movie says, yeah, that’s not how the world works. You’re a darned nice guy who stands up to bad men? You’d die attempting a single act of heroism. You’d fail at it, is what I’m saying. Wait, what? You’ve read about a noble protagonist who decided to fight back for the first time, and triumphed because his heart was pure? Well, that story was a lie. Yes, I know they’ve made movies like that; whenever you see one, remember that, no, we just tell that story because we like that story.
The only reason he gets to press forward in representing the interests of the public is because someone killed Valance: Stoddard tried to do it; Stoddard failed. Stoddard would’ve succeeded in representing zero public interests, if the plan that started with “don’t tuck tail and run” had ended with “stand up to Valance and lose.”
No. The moral of the story is, without someone who can actually do what needs to be done, all the “real effort” in a good cause is useless – pathetic – a punchline.
This isn’t a story where a dewy-eyed exponent of reason can stop the bad guy with fearlessness; he’d get laughed at and shot, and die in the dirt without accomplishing anything, unless someone who can get the job done saves the day.
So, how exactly is Doniphon a hero for spending years letting Valance beat and terrorize the citizens of Shinbone, doing nothing but laughing at their weakness for not being able to stand up to Liberty Valance and his gang? Stoddard stood up and made a stand, knowing he was outmatched and literally outgunned, but doing ‘the right thing’ morally, which is the only thing that made the self-interested Doniphon act at all. That Doniphon killed Valance (shooting from concealment) only after seeing someone else make the kind of sacrifice he wasn’t interested in making, even though for him it would have been good odds, shows a lack of interest in the well-being of others that Stoddard brought with him and applied through his career.
If Doniphon was the hero, the film should have ended after his shooting Valance, striding away rifle in hand. Instead, we get another two reels of the aftermath where he pushes Stoddard to suck up his self-hatred and pride and do what needed to be done, both in leading the territory to statehood and giving Hallie the future she deserved.
Stranger
I don’t think I said Doniphon was a hero.
How is that a continuity error?
A child on foot will easily outrun a walking horse. If the distance is anything over ~10km a child on foot will only be a few minutes behind a *running *horse.
People always overestimate how fast a ridden horse can travel and grossly underestimate how fast a child can travel.
Looked like it from here.
Most people like predictable movies. That’s why they make so many of 'em.
I just rewatched the film last night to refresh my memory, and Doniphon is as I remembered; pretty much a self-absorbed dick who only comes to Stoddard’s aid after realizing that his death would crush Hallie. The story following the death of Valance is instructive; Stoddard is ready to give up until Doniphon assures him that “You didn’t kill anybody, pilgrim!” and explains what really happened.
What I’ve forgotten was the performance by Woody Strode. Strode had a long career and occasionally more visible roles, but he’s kind of the silent moral center of this film; the looks he exchanges with Hallie and Ranse over Doniphon’s coffin; his attending Ranse’s schoolroom and stuttering over the Declaration of Independence, protesting that he knew the words but just couldn’t remember them; his constant presence with a Winchester, ready to aid Doniphon against Valance and his dudes; his escorting Doniphon home after shooting Valance, and then rescuing him from the burning house; his unremitting support for Doniphon long after anybody in Shinbone even remembered him. It’s really a great performance despite the very limited number of lines he actually has. He was also badass in the beginning of Once Upon a Time in the West as one of Frank’s men sent to kill Harmonica, drinking drip water off of his hat, but of course he doesn’t last beyond the opening scene there.
Stranger
Well, sure, if you cut the rest of the quote I copy-and-pasted in my reply.
But I didn’t place my “I disagree” after the sentence about Tom Doniphon; I carefully placed it after the next sentence, about “the real point of the film”.
That’s why, in all the passages that follow, you see me noting that Stoddard would’ve been a useless punchline who’d have gone on to accomplish nothing if he’d stood up to Valance and lost – I go on and on about it – but you don’t see me take it one step further, to mentioning that Doniphon was a hero.
It’s a terribly long post; I had oodles of opportunities to toss in that claim. But all I wanted to disagree with, was the idea about “the real point of the film” – or, as I later quoted and replied to, the idea about the “moral of the film”.
AFAICT, the point was that the very impulses that would llead Stoddard to accomplish so much later are – well, the same impulses that first put him in a situation where he would’ve lost everything and died as a laughingstock. Because, as good as he is ever after, he can’t get there unless someone handles a problem that can’t be reasoned with: in a storybook legend, that would’ve been Stoddard; here, it’s not.
See how I carefully stopped short of slapping one more sentence on the end, there? Because I totally could’ve slapped one more sentence on the end, there. But I didn’t.
I never liked the ending. The message is important to here, as a warning, not as justification. Stoddard and Doniphon were both self absorbed dicks IMHO. The movie fails because the viewer doesn’t take away the understanding that the “Wild West” was crock of lies made up to sell books, and the movie itself should be taken the same way. YMMV.
The way I see it, Doniphon had so far lived by an older ethos in which he had no duty to save those who would not stand for themselves. But then he sees Stoddard stand for himself in his own way, and comes to conclude that Hallie and the children will have a better life only if the old frontier “be deadly or be prey” ethos gives way to civilization and rule of law. Yet, he also knows that Valance stands in the way willing to use deadly violence to prevent it, and will only let himself be removed the old-fashioned way. So now Doniphon must intervene – but the only way to do so AND allow Stoddard’s reforms to progress is to sacrifice all that would rightly be his by the old values.
Stoddard, himself, realizes that to make that sacrifice worth it he has to accept from Tom the “borrowed valor” and play the role.
The key part in this story is that both men decide to themselves keep their lip buttoned and “live the legend” for the good of the others.
Mad Dog Tannon does the sauntering around while limply holding his gun in Back to the Future.
“Mad Dog? I hate that name! I hate it! You hear? Nobody calls me ‘Mad Dog’, especially not some duded-up, egg-suckin’ gutter trash!”
Stranger
Not really… the “classic” way of telling the story would have been for the green, untested lawyer Stoddard(Stewart) to toughen up on the frontier, and eventually face down Valance and shoot him, and get the girl, while Doniphon(Wayne) would have been more of an avuncular supporting character in toughening up Stoddard.
Instead, we get the situation where Stoddard didn’t really toughen up, didn’t kill Valance, but still got the girl and the renown as a hero, which he parlayed into a long and successful political career. Meanwhile, Doniphon was the real hero, shooting Valance secretly, as he wanted the girl he loved to have the man she loved (Stoddard). He basically sacrificed his own happiness and fame for the woman he loved, and ends up messing up his own house and ending up with Woody Strode at the end.
That’s why the newspaper editor says the bit about printing the legend rather than the truth. And, the older style western about the same story would have been about the legend, not the truth.
Please forgive a brief highjack, but I’ve asked this before and never gotten an answer…
In the scene where Liberty Valence gets shot…was this filmed only once, with two cameras, or did they film the scene twice? I’ve tried and tried and tried to compare the two death scenes – the floppings and twistings and thrashings of Lee Marvin’s demise – and can’t figure if it’s exactly the same in both. Anybody know?
ETA: I love that movie! I’m mostly fond of Lee Marvin in just about anything. He’s a right cool actor. He’s the best thing in “Cat Ballou.” The second best thing in “Cat Ballou” are the two minstrel singers performing the ballad.
The Big Red One and The Professionals come to mind.
“yes, Sir. In my case an accident of birth, but you, Sir, are a self made man.”
Or Point Blank: “I want my money. I want my ninety-three thousand dollars.”
I believe by the lighting that the scene was shot twice, but I’d have to trace out the sightlines to be sure.
Stranger