For some reason, the Western as a Genre of film making has all but vanished from our screens (the writer has his views on the subject, but that would constitute a different article!). The Western was the quintessential embodiment of the Great American myth; the promise of the New Land, the wide open Frontier where a man could become rich irrespective of his class and background, and of Men who in wild and brutal times, stood for justice and fair play that was the heart of the American dream. They featured the lone Hero, who stood up for truth and honour and acted with courage when required. The Western genre has been used as an allegory (High Noon – 1952) and also as an ode to the Romantic outlaws who had to give way in the face of commerce and early capitalism (Sergio Leone’s all time classic, How the West was Won, and Sam Peckinpah’s spectacularly bloody The Wild Bunch). Clint Eastwood gave the genre another twist altogether in the 1990’s with Unforgiven, a dirty unflinching look at the entire myth of the Western and the American Dream. And now after years, we have 3.10 to Yuma.
Director James Mangold has helmed several films before, but never a Western. Indian viewers might remember Identity, a complex murder mystery, which was on show around five years ago. Let me state right at the outset, this film is not an action film. If as a viewer you are interested in chases and gunfights, well, then this film is not for you. This is not to say that there is no action; in fact it has a first rate stagecoach chase, quite a few gunfights, and a great climax featuring lots and lots of guns and shooters. But the difference is that the action is not meant to entertain and elicit “oohs and aahs”, but is instead used to give us insights into the possible personalities of the characters. This requires a well forged screenplay which pays attention to small nuances to delineate characters and also an accomplished director, and it is here that both Mr. Mangold and the writers distinguish themselves.
The screenplay works wonderfully to give us a whole bunch of people whom we remember long after the film is over. A ruthless and yet quite honest criminal who is also a charmer when it comes to women, a war veteran rancher deep in debt, a veterinarian who cannot shoot, a grizzled bounty hunter on contract, a trigger happy young outlaw, the young but somewhat fearful railroad man, an adolescent boy struggling to be a man; they somehow seem so real and present, that you empathise deeply with them and their circumstances. The director has followed one of the truisms of cinema, about cinema being all about reaction rather than action, and he gives us tight close ups of the characters’ faces, as contrasted to the panoramic country that they are traveling in. The dialogue is laconic and terse, and weaves in themes of justice and morality.
The film does not sing hosannas to the American dream; instead it very subtly shows us the hypocrisy, the exploitation, and the greed that made America what it is today. There is a sequence where we are shown Chinese laborers building railroad tunnels, cheap labour that was brought to America to build most of its railroad and also work the mines. In a passing shot we see an encounter between the young adolescent white boy and a Chinese laborer of nearly the same age, and the reaction on their faces says it all, about race and class. We also come to understand that law and legal rights are almost always subordinate to economic interests.
Russell Crowe is outstanding as the bad guy Ben Wade, his puffy face and the lines around his eyes speak volumes about his dissolute, yet intelligent personality. Christian Bale’s hard planed face is something that is not easy to forget either; his misery and anguish come through in his muttered dialogues and in the set of his jaw.
The film ends in a bloody and brutal climax which is well staged and leaves us feeling vindicated, in a manner that we really do not understand. Again here the director shows his class, the final interactions between the outlaw and the rancher as well as the closing scenes, weave in the earlier themes and bring them to a most satisfying resolution. The end remains true to the genre; about how Men must make their stand irrespective of how the bullets may fly and what it means to be a Hero.
Thank God for the Bollywood multiplex brouhaha, let us have more such films please.
PS And for all those who love pulp Western novels and films and the guns that feature in them, this movie has the works, the Spencer carbine, Colt revolvers, Remington sawed off shotguns, and the Gatling.
This review is by guest reviewer Anand S. Anand lives in Pune and is a Miscellaneous Culture Vulture. He is deeply interested in music, food, books, films, and intelligent women. He views himself as a Falstaffian figure, who does his best to indulge his appetites.
Comments (10)
Dear Anand, It seems you have not seen 3:10 to Yuma (1957) by director Delmer Daves. I'm sure after watching that, you will not like this one. If you are comparing this movie with hindi movies yes then you are right, its worth watching, coz in Hindi anyways we see crap. Sorry to be so forthright, but this version lacked one big thing and that is logic. With the same storyline the old one was much much much well told. Anyways, if this one was made in Hindi, I would love to see Salman Khan in Ben Wade's role and Hritik in Christian Bale's role. If only they work this hard. Thanks, Anand Sachdev
Hi, No I have not seen the original one but given the time period it was situated in, it would have been difficult for the director to have woven in the "revisionist" aspect of this film, in terms of its take on morality and the role of commerce in the West. This is my understanding based on the full synopsis of the original as given on imdb. The original also had a much happier ending, here it is much grimmer. High Noon, itself did not go down too well with viewers of that time period because of its allegorical nature. Well, yes, the plot has lots of holes in it for sure, but then which Western was logical? They in most part either acted as a sort of morality play or else propagated the myth of the true American hero. Maybe the original was much better told no doubt, but here I have highlighted the work of the director as well as the actors, which I found quite good.
Anand Sachdev, that's my issue with comparisons. Because the 'original' was done well doesn't make the remake bad in itself. I understand comparisons are inevitable if you've seen both but if you leave it out, you've enjoyed two movies - if they are reasonably well made that is. Comparing 3.10 to Yuma to Hindi films is just...well extremely weird. How many Hindi 'westerns' are there? And if you compare across genres then there'll only be 1 great film for each person. In comparison to that one, no other film will be as enjoyable. I loved 3.10 to Yuma. After a really long time I've seen a western that was so well captured. Though I had my issues with how quickly the conflict took resolution, but I loved the way the characters built towards the climax.
Hi Anand, Meetu, Thanks for your responses and explanation. I do agree that this one is a good one when it comes to action, storyline, performances, & cinematography. And as a movie based on western this is one of the best movies made in long time. I had seen this movie with great expectations. Unfortunately when remakes are made they tend to make subtle changes to the original script, these changes instead of adding some value to the movie, spoil it all. When one is watching a remake, the minimum expectation is it would be as good, if not better than the original. Here, the changes made to the script are not just that the original has a happy ending and this one didn't. (contd.below)
(contd. from above) They are too many for me to mention here and enough to spoil my joy of watching a great movie. for eg. the transition of Russels character was not justified enough, at the end why would he himself kill his men who were only trying to save him. I mean he could have just asked them to meet at Yuma from where anyway he was confident he would runaway. Ben wade's transition was gradual in the original and that is the crux of the entire story. Also Christian Bale’s character in the original was much well defined. If you get a chance see the original and then my friends you can decide for yourself if this one deserved a rating of - Must see - on the big screen. Thanks & Regards Anand Sachdev
Hi, I have absolutely no issues with your opinion, and the fact that you did not very much like this one. Even after seeing the "original" we can keep arguing till the cows come home, in this case till the horses come home! For me the important point is that, each film when made embodies a particular spirit of the times as well as the director's understanding of the story and characters. Well, this film seems to have Mangold's point of view; there is no "gold standard" whereby one can compare and say that this objectively better or not. And if you were happy with the first one so be it. Cheers.
Hi Anand, You're points are quite valid, and the remake is indeed watchable, but not, in my opinion a truly great film. I would disagree with the realistic tag you've given the film. The makers themselves admit in the DVD commentary that this movie is anything but realistic. Horses wouldn't be able to pull a stagecoach with a machine gun that large at the start of the movie. Also, bullets being shot into wooden scaffolding in the gunfight toward the end of the movie wouldn't make a zinging noise. I of course agree with your other opinions.
Yes, possibly it is not a truly great film, I agree, but it is indeed pretty good. And by "realistic" I meant, the aspects of exploitation and greed, and how it debunks some of the myths of the American dream. I was not referring to the points you made, those are left to better qualified people than me. Usually imdb has a long list of goofs for each movie, but as a movie goer I prefer to believe in what is shown! We all know that movies are fantasy, aren't they, but like all fables they speak to us of of some things that are relevant in our lives.
To add, "realistic" was meant for the characters too.
I love your review and this movie. I watched this with my dad when he saw a preview and was convinced it was gold; I'm not particular to westerns at all but this one was great.
Leave a new comment