Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TheDom
Okay finally got to my computer.
I 100% agree with this and I wish Ford's legacy could be purged from Wayne. All of the best Ford films either don't have Wayne or he's counterbalanced by another lead actor(s) i.e. Fonda in Fort Apache, Stewart in Liberty Valance and Stagecoach is basically an ensemble film.
That slow walk is exemplary on why I love the film so much.
Ford's politics can be a cause for contention at times, I agree (look at Cheyenne Autumn - sheesh!). However, I always see a bleak subtext to his Americana; no one is ever satisfied or redeemed. The 'idea of America' maybe represented with 'the undiscovered country' (which is more about Doc's death than anything, imo) or the building of Tombstone or any other town in the west. But I think Ford both celebrates it and questions it by setting up the hero (the individual) who has to bring law and 'society' but gains nothing in return. What good came of Earp avenging his brother and bringing this 'law' to the lawless land? He lost another brother, a family gets murdered in revenge, Doc and Chihuahua still die, and then he has to ride off alone with what remains of his family (he doesn't even get his cattle back!) and leaving Clementine, who also lost everyone she knew in the West, alone. Ultimately, I think Ford realizes that this idea of America could be great, in theory, but ultimately will still leave the individual unredeemed.
'in the case of the searchers, to me, it's saying that in order to protect the frontier home and save the white princess from the savages you need some sort of atrocious asshole, warts and all. a bit like "a few good men" but from the other side of the fence. "everything he's done, it's worth it"'
I could just have a bias because I love his films so much, but with what I said above in mind I question if 'it's worth it'. Ethan is an asshole and isn't doing anything for society; he is doing it for himself. So this 'saving of the white princess' is the product of the passion of selfish asshole (apt metaphor for the US maybe!). Sure, the family homestead is saved but everyone is just as alone and unredeemed as when the film started. The hope for a 'civilized society' is only hope in what may never come and, if it does come, it is still questionable if it will save them.
Another of his films that describe what I mean is 'The Long Grey Line'. I don't know if any of you have seen it but basically it's a military film about West Point and the main character (the 'Fordian hero') basically lives and dies at West Point while preparing people to die as soldiers (which they do) and watches his life and everything he loves drift away (it is also hinted that he is impotent). On the surface, yes, it does celebrate that the sacrifice of the individual for 'Murica is worth it (they throw him a parade - Yay! I guess?). But there is a tragedy in the fact that he is only a mere 'spectator' in his life suffocated and pacified by routine in the American myth. America rolls on at the expense of the individual.
I recognize that Ford was very patriotic and not afraid to hide it but I always see at least a hint of questioning the patriot's ideal.
Let me know if any of that makes any sense lol
|
I certainly agree that his attitude to the 'civilising' of the West was bitter-sweet. In Liberty Valance, the statement about the wilderness becoming a garden is undercut with a sadness at what had been lost in that process. But I'd say ultimately Ford was less interested in whether it was worth it than in the role that people who had no place in the new America would have in constructing it. Ringo in Stagecoach, Tom in Liberty Valance, Doc in Clementine, Ethan in The Searchers, etc.
The fly in the ointment that makes Ford westerns difficult to tie to a single convenient understanding is the fact that while the outlaw is pivotal in their contribution to progress, they do this by killing another outlaw. Doc helps Earp in defeating the Clantons, Tom shoots Liberty Valance, etc. So there's a 'good' outlaw, who does contribute to progress, but there's also a 'bad' irredeemable one who has to be defeated before that progress can take place. Not sure how that fits with any kind of general position on the role of the outlaw in the West, but that's not just a question for Ford's westerns but for the classical western in general. In Shane, Alan Ladd has to kill Jack Palance, and so on. Saying that, the 'good' outlaw invariably has a connection to a woman whereas the bad outlaw usually doesn't, which might be significant.
Re his army films (WW2 and cavalry), Peter Bogdanovich has argued (in an interview with Ford) that they take the position that the traditions of the army are greater than any individual. Ford refused to confirm or deny this but it seems like a fair reading.