Why is "The Searchers" Such a Great Movie?

Cafe Society
41

[QUOTE=Loach]
I don’t agree with you. I have had a problem with some of the things lissener has said in the past (or more accurately how it was said) but I don’t see it here. Fact is some people can not get past things such as contemporary acting styles in movies to take them on their own merits. You can not judge a 50 year old movie by today’s standards (like or dislike: yes, bad or good: no).
[/QUOTE]

Well, sure you can. It’s perfectly legitimate to accept that in some respects movies have gotten better. There is a balance to be struck in taking things in their context and admitting that the medium has advanced. The cool thing about questions like “What do you think the best Western ever made was?” is that there’s a multitude of ways to answer the question.

Admittedly, it would be silly to watch a movie released in 1956 and express surprise that it’s not as technically advanced as a movie from 2008. If you don’t adjust for context you’d have to conclude that *Pale Rider * was a better movie than Shane (if anyone has not seen both movies, just to clue you in, Pale Rider is a shameless copy.) However, even against its contemporary competition, I don’t think “The Searchers” was the best Western of its time. I think that’s a reasonable position to take.

42

I think it’s more than just “technically advanced.” It’s also pacing and cinematography style, just to name a few. Modern movies tend to be extremely fast paced. Ford’s cameramen would lovingly pan the scenery, or THE SEARCHERS starts and ends with those incredible shots through the doorway, or they’d do all that “shtick” with the incidental characters. Modern movies don’t “waste time” doing that, they often don’t even tell a story (beginning, middle, end) the way that movies did 50 years ago.

Ford’s camera tends to be very fluid, cuts are meaningful. The modern film is so fast-cut that I have trouble following it.

I don’t think these are “technical advances” – we’re not talking about a CGI band of 10,000 Comanches. These are stylistic fashions or changes. The movie viewer today has a wealth of past information from past films, and tends to be movie-wise. Today’s filmmaker can short-cut much of the story-telling in a shot or two.

43

Even granted that Ethan Edwards was a flawed hero (though he wasn’t the first, even in Ford’s work), the movie is overall not one of Ford’s best.

If I were picking a top western, I’d go with She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. If you wanted a flawed hero, then it’s Fort Apache (though it’s Fonda, not Wayne, who plays that role.

44

[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
If I were picking a top western, I’d go with She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.
[/QUOTE]

I could almost go with this, were it not for the presence of Joanne Dru. Otherwise it is one of my all-time favorites.

45

[QUOTE=Loach]
I don’t agree with you. I have had a problem with some of the things lissener has said in the past (or more accurately how it was said) but I don’t see it here. Fact is some people can not get past things such as contemporary acting styles in movies to take them on their own merits. You can not judge a 50 year old movie by today’s standards (like or dislike: yes, bad or good: no). Some people do it out of ignorance “The acting was so unrealistic!” Some people understand that acting styles have changed but still can’t get past it. In every John Ford movie he has his cast of buddies, Ward Bond, Harry Carey, Hank Wordan… Not exactly method actors. If you want Deniro and Pacino don’t watch a John Ford movie. The Searchers is a great movie if taken in context. Look at all the westerns done before it. It stands out in theme and story line. Add to that Ford’s signature directing and you get a great movie. It’s like dismissing Citizen Kane because it’s nothing new. It was when it came out. Context matters.
[/QUOTE]

Well I certainly agree that context matters, and I quite like some old movies despite contemporary changes. I didn’t say I thought searchers sucked, in fact when it came to our local old movies on the big screen night a couple of years ago I went and saw it an left with an improved opinion of the movie. But I still don’t think it’s great and to call it *The Great American Film * is just silly.

46

[QUOTE=outlierrn]
Well I certainly agree that context matters, and I quite like some old movies despite contemporary changes. I didn’t say I thought searchers sucked, in fact when it came to our local old movies on the big screen night a couple of years ago I went and saw it an left with an improved opinion of the movie. But I still don’t think it’s great and to call it *The Great American Film * is just silly.
[/QUOTE]

Well that is not my opinion. I think it is a great American film, not The Great American Film. I never said I thought it was. I don’t feel qualified to say if it is the best western of the era or all time. It isn’t my favorite Ford western either. That would probably be Fort Apache.

47

[QUOTE=C K Dexter Haven]
I think it’s more than just “technically advanced.” It’s also pacing and cinematography style, just to name a few.
[/QUOTE]

It wasn’t the best choice of words; I was going for something that would include what you described (as well as the already mentioned differences in acting styles) but I can’t come up with one all-inclusive term.

Depends on the film; I think you get a lot of variety these days if you look for it. Some films are so hacked up in editing that you almost get seasick watching them. Sometimes they’re deliberately filmed this way; fight scenes in “Bourne” films are often nausea-inducing. But, you can find movies out there that do let you look at something for longer than a second or two.

48

[QUOTE=carnivorousplant]
Hombre is the best Western.
“How you going to get down that hill?” :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

The only classic western I own on DVD.

Audra Favor: I can’t imagine eating a dog and not thinking anything of it.
John Russell: You even been hungry, lady? Not just ready for supper. Hungry enough so that your belly swells?
Audra Favor: I wouldn’t care how hungry I got. I know I wouldn’t eat one of those camp dogs.
John Russell: You’d eat it. You’d fight for the bones, too.

49

[QUOTE=don’t ask]
The only classic western I own on DVD.

Audra Favor: I can’t imagine eating a dog and not thinking anything of it.
John Russell: You even been hungry, lady? Not just ready for supper. Hungry enough so that your belly swells?
Audra Favor: I wouldn’t care how hungry I got. I know I wouldn’t eat one of those camp dogs.
John Russell: You’d eat it. You’d fight for the bones, too.
[/QUOTE]

I love that scene, I remember being a suburban middleclass kid and getting some real insight out of that scene

‘‘Have you ever eaten dog?’’
‘‘Ate one, lived like one’’

50

[QUOTE=Loach]
Well that is not my opinion. I think it is a great American film, not The Great American Film. I never said I thought it was. I don’t feel qualified to say if it is the best western of the era or all time. It isn’t my favorite Ford western either. That would probably be Fort Apache.
[/QUOTE]

Well that’s all good, I don’t think we’re all that far apart. ‘‘The Great American Film’’ idea is from a review linked to upthread, I guess I just have a low threshold of irritaion to critics expounding about where each artist succeded or failed.

51

[QUOTE=RickJay]
High Noon sure wouldn’t be my first choice for Best Western, though. I’d go with Shane.
[/QUOTE]

Good discussion above. If I can come in late to this, I’d say there’s a distinction between a film that is essential to a particular genre and one that demonstrates the best qualities of that genre.

Shane IMO is the textbook definition of a western; if someone who knew little or nothing about this film tradition wanted to learn the basics, this is probably the film they should see first (Fort Apache and The Magnificent Seven–despite it’s Kurosawa origins–also fall in this category). It demonstrates the basic motifs, presents the basic conflicts, and relishes in archetypal characters; in short it’s the film you use to demonstrate the “rules” of the western. As a bonus, it’s a pretty entertaining picture; much better to get the basics here than from those Randolph Scott pictures or the old “Broncho Billy” silents.

But I wouldn’t call Shane the best western. Personally I’d go with The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, with My Darling Clementine a close second. As Dex expertly noted, these films include comic relief schtick and a deliberate pacing that is no longer in vogue, and in the case of Clementine the historical inaccuracy would not be tolerated today. Still, they each unravel a complex. multi-layered story with flesh-and-blood characters, and each slowly but surely builds up that famous Western mood of barely-contained menace.

Properly cultivating that mood, IMO, is what makes for a great Western. It’s a delicate balance between inevitability and suspense, where the expected shootout and its aftermath need to be both cathartic and surprising.

52

[QUOTE=outlierrn]
Right back at you.
When I read the opinion of an art critic that makes a definitive statement that such and such is the great american movie, despite ample dissent, my ‘‘critic wank’’ alarm goes off. Despite your very minor attempt at a disclaimer, you lived up to my expectations with your speech on how the educated palette will see it your way, but the rest just don’t get it.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion, but many don’t share it, doesn’t make them provincial.
[/QUOTE]
Good thing I never said it did then.

And when a critic makes a statement about the relative greatness of a film [newsflash coming>>] he’s stating his opinion. It’s ridiculous to interpret that as a “definitive statement,” because what movie critics do is, see, they get paid to state their opinion. They’re not scientists publishing the results of exhaustive double-blind tests. [<<end of newsflash]

And once again, I was not talking about a hierarchy of educated palates, but about the different contexts of different works of art made in different times and places, and whether one has taken those different contexts into account or not.

53

[QUOTE=RickJay]
I find it absolutely baffling that you got “liar” out of my comment. I characterized your post as useless, not dishonest.
[/QUOTE]
Not to fan any long-cooled flames, but just to clarify something that needs clarifying, at least if, as it appears, you’re asking for clarification, RickJay.

I believe you that you didn’t intend to imply that I was lying, but just as a demonstration of how important it is to be aware of how what you say is likely to be taken:

When you say–
[QUOTE=RickJay]
The Searchers has been ridiculously overrated by a succession of film students and DVD nerds, who are engaged in a collective refusal to admit that at least forty minutes of the movie is awful.
[/QUOTE]
–you are explicitly suggesting intellectual dishonesty. If I’m refusing to admit that 40 minutes of the movie is awful, what you’re saying is that deep down I *know *it’s awful, but I’m dishonestly refusing to admit that I know this; that my stated opinion of the movie as a masterpiece is not entirely honest. You’re saying that your opinion of the movie is so definitive that anyone who disagrees with you is in denial; their stated opinion is not their honest opinion.

Again, I accept that this was not your specific intention. Nonetheless, that’s the implication.

I will try to remember to keep my criticism to the work at hand in CS threads, and not to make it about the perceived motivations of those who disagree with my opinion. I hope that you can do the same.

54

[QUOTE=lissener]
Good thing I never said it did then.

And when a critic makes a statement about the relative greatness of a film [newsflash coming>>] he’s stating his opinion. It’s ridiculous to interpret that as a “definitive statement,” because what movie critics do is, see, they get paid to state their opinion. They’re not scientists publishing the results of exhaustive double-blind tests. [<<end of newsflash]

And once again, I was not talking about a hierarchy of educated palates, but about the different contexts of different works of art made in different times and places, and whether one has taken those different contexts into account or not.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I apologize for creating a confrontational part to this thread, but in my opinion there are plenty of art critics who need that newflash more than I do.

Look, I don’t think it’s a bad movie, just an overrated one. I watched it again this week and could speak to it’s merits. But you linked to the review and called it a ‘‘more credible voice’’ it’s a little disingenous to try and distance yourself from it.

55

[QUOTE=outlierrn]
Well, I apologize for creating a confrontational part to this thread, but in my opinion there are plenty of art critics who need that newflash more than I do.

Look, I don’t think it’s a bad movie, just an overrated one. I watched it again this week and could speak to it’s merits. But you linked to the review and called it a ‘‘more credible voice’’ it’s a little disingenous to try and distance yourself from it.
[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t trying to distance myself from it. I think you can take it as absolute fact, no equivocation, that Dave Kehr, late the reviewer for this paper and now a reviewer for the New York Times, is a more credible critic than I am. I don’t see where pointing that out is in any way disingenuous. Especially since I’ve stated my detailed opinion on this movie–without any kind of equivocation or “distancing” at all–in more than one previous thread. Simply restating my own previously posted opinion seems much more obnoxious, to me, than linking to a one-paragraph review published in this very paper. I apologize if you feel differently.

56

[QUOTE=Slithy Tove]
If it’s great one-liners that make a Western, there’s always “Buzzards gotta eat, same as worms.”

What’s the Searchers got? “That which we are about to receive, we thank thee, O Lord.”
[/QUOTE]

I was going to say that’s pretty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man, but on double-checking I realized I was thinking about the wrong movie, and in fact I have probably never seen The Searchers. In good SDMB fashion, though, that is not going to make me shut up.

I think that a genre is typified by certain common conventions. Movies will be made that follow the genre conventions–some will do a good job at this, and others will come off as slavish copies of the good ones. Eventually there will be entries that subvert the conventions. If they are particularly good, then they will contribute new conventions, that become typical of the genre. Other entries will be made that deconstruct the genre–they will show how ridiculous the conventions are. If the genre survives, new entries might manage to reconstruct the conventions, with a new appreciation.

In the genre of Western movies, I think *High Noon * or maybe Shane typify movies that follow the conventions. *Liberty Valance * subverts the conventions, and *Unforgiven * deconstructs the whole genre. Western movies are currently moribund, so I don’t think anything has yet come along to remake it.

As another example, Superhero Comic Books had their conventions set in the 40’s and 50’s by Batman and Superman. In the 60’s Spider-man came along to subvert the conventions, and create new conventions. In the 80’s Watchmen deconstructed the genre conventions. Astro City, according to Kurt Busiek, was in part a response to Watchmen and a reconstruction of the genre conventions.

I don’t think it is really very useful to directly compare a movie that follows the conventions with one that subverts or deconstructs those conventions. I love Silverado, but it deliberately follows the conventions of the genre; is it a better movie or a worse one than Unforgiven?

57

John Wayne says sure as a turn of the world in The Searchers, which I’m pretty sure shows up in Serenity/Firefly

58

We’ll find them. As sure as the turning of the earth, we’ll find them.

59

I tend to agree with the general reaction to The Searchers. A good western, wonderfully filmed but not Ford or Wayne’s best, but a good western. In a discussion I overheard the other night came up with a good line. “It is interesting to note that John Ford’s best western wasn’t done by Ford at all. It was Red River and it was done by Howard Hawkes.”

I think that at least part of the reason The Searchers has had the reputation as a great flim is because of the classic “quest” theme that is at its core. It goes back to the Odyssey and the search for the Holy Grail (and to a lesser extent, Beowolf) where despite all other problems, the hero goes after the object of his obsession until he achieves it. It is a classic tale and in The Searchers’ case done in an almost mythic land with the monoliths of the Canyonlands surrounding them. It even has the classic aspect of the older (wiser?) man tutoring his charge on the correct aspects of the quest. At the end of the quest - a return to reality.

As for my favorite John Wayne line in a Ford movie, it comes from Fort Apache. Henry Fonda has just arrived at the fort claiming that all the way to the fort he nad seen Apaches around and something should be done about them. Wayne responded, “If you could see 'em, they weren’t Apache’s.”

And Reno Nevada, I know that the Unforgiven is seen as a total deconstruction of the traditional western, but some of the aspects were held onto not quite lovingly perhaps, but still held on to. I mean, the hero takes on a roomful of bad guys and comes out without a scratch? And when asked about it, basically comes away with an almost Gary Cooper “Aw shucks.”

It’s what Ladd does in Shane and Wayne does in the Shootist and Stagecoach. For that matter why does Eastwood’s character go back anyway. Isn’t it the old “A man’s gotta do…?”

I hate to bring in the Wild Bunch, but is it the western that is moribund or is it people who value that code that have become moribund? Who knows** Reno**, you me, Dex, and a few others of us are like William Holden, Ernest Borgnine, et al, as we watch new cinima pass us by.

Hell, I am going to break out a William S. Hart movie and a six pack of beer and enjoy myself.

60

M o r i b u n d ? I do not think that word means what you think it means.