3:10 to Yuma

The two versions of 3:10 to Yuma differ greatly from one another. The later version, filmed in 2007, can be considered a revision of the original version, filmed in 1957. For example, in the original version, Dan Evans is a much more masculine character. He is very macho, which is typical of the alpha male cowboy. In the remake of the film, Dan’s character would not be considered the alpha male of the film because he appears as a much weaker man. In comparison to Ben Wade’s character, it is difficult to classify him as the alpha male. Instead, Wade takes on that role in the remake, even though he happens to be the outlaw. In both versions, Wade is playing a psychological game with Dan. He tries to charm Dan’s wife in both versions of the film, though he is much more charming with women in the original than in the remake. In the remake, he is also more aware of Dan’s relationship with his older son. Dan’s son doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for his father because Dan can barely provide for his family, financially speaking. This is why in the remake Dan begs to take Wade to the train station in Yuma. He’ll get paid for his services, and he is ready to risk his own life in order to make some cash. The remake sends the message that men will do anything for money, which speaks for the time in which the film was made. In today’s society, that is the attitude that people in the United States often demonstrate. Our country is also much more violent today, which the remake shows with the increase of violence. The violence in the remake is at times over the top and totally unnecessary, but it says that our country is violent today and people enjoy seeing more violence in films.

The Unforgiven

The Unforgiven can be considered a revisionist Western film because ideas in the film are different than the ideas that traditional Westerns films present. The portrayal of the alpha male cowboy, Will, is significantly different from the portrayal of alpha male characters in more traditional Westerns. When the Schofield Kid offers Will to split a money reward for killing two men, Will turns to another ex-paid killer, Ned. Throughout the film, Will refuses to continue with the plan to kill the men without his companion by his side. This is not typical behavior of an alpha male, whom we are used to seeing live a life of solitude in films such as The Searchers. Another interesting thing about Ned is that he is African American, which would have made him an inferior “other” in earlier Westerns. In this film, however, he is never inferior to Will. Will also makes decisions guided by his emotions, which we rarely see in the alpha male cowboy. Will is obviously deeply affected by the passing of his wife, and he is emotionally connected to every decision he makes in the film. He has two young children to care for, and part of the reason he accepts the Schofield Kid’s offer is because the money will help support his family. He is always dwelling on his wife’s death, and we can read that emotion on his face. Traditional alpha male cowboys rarely show their emotions, which makes The Unforgiven a revisionist film in that respect.

Johnny Guitar/Two Mules for Sister Sara

In West of Everything, Jane Tompkins says, “Westerns either push women out of the picture completely or assign them roles in which they exist only to serve the needs of men” (Tompkins 39-40). This is certainly not true of Western films that present revisionist ideas about women, such as Johnny Guitar and Two Mules for Sister Sara. For example, Vienna, the lead character in Johnny Guitar, is a business-minded woman in a Western. She has a strong presence from the start of the film. She first appears on screen at the top of the stairs in her saloon when Johnny Guitar comes in to talk with her, establishing her power we see throughout the rest of the film. She is aggressive and strong-minded, and she doesn’t get along well with another woman in the film, Emma Small. The two women hate each other, and when Emma persuades the town to hang Vienna for her involvement with The Dancin’ Kid, Johnny saves her at the last second. Johnny’s presence in Vienna’s life brings her the strength to act as she does throughout the film; however, she still portrays a strong woman and she handles her own confrontation with Emma by killing her at end of the film. Vienna possesses the qualities of an alpha male, such as the ability to shoot, and she even dresses androgynously. Although Johnny Guitar is considered a classic Western, it certainly raises revisionist ideas about women.

Another film that doesn’t push a woman out of the picture is Two Mules for Sister Sara. At the beginning of the film, Hogan, a gunfighter, saves Sara from three men who are trying to rape her. Sara does not display characteristics of classic Western women because she isn’t what Hogan thinks she is. She is posing as a nun involved in the Mexican revolutionary movement against the French; however, she is really a prostitute with knowledge of the French fort. Sara is a smart, tough woman who is wise to play the victim in order to keep Hogan around. Some of her actions definitely cause Hogan to question what kind of a nun she is, because he is surprised to see her smoking a cigar and sneaking a drink of whiskey. It is obvious that she is liberated from men because she is able to successfully pose as a nun throughout the majority of the film. Although she keeps Hogan around for protection, Hogan ends up needing Sara just as much as she needs him at the end of the film. Hogan is clearly attracted to Sara, and they stay together after they successfully help the Mexicans capture the French fort. The way the alpha male cowboy relates to Sara in this film is very different from what we have seen in classical Westerns, which is why this film isn’t classified as such.

Unforgiven

When watching Unforgiven, it is clear that you are not watching a stereotypical western. The clearest indication of this is the alpha male cowboy, Munny. The stereotypical alpha male cowboy is usually ruthless in his struggle to survive, but is also clean cut, and looking for justice. In Unforgiven, Munny is clearly ruthless. However, he is anything but clean cut. He is a pig farmer, and looks like one. He is usually unshaved. In concerns of looking for justice, it is clear that the only reason Munny accepts the job is to get money. This is later proven when he sees the hooker that was cut. He was told that her face was tremendously disfigured, and that she was completely scarred. However, when he sees her, he knows that this was an exaggeration, and that she is only slightly scarred. He realizes that its not justice to kill the people who cut her, but continues anyways. Another way that Munny differs from the typical alpha male is that he is not associated with the law at all, and instead is a former bandit. He also is beaten by the town sheriff, who he in the end kills. This shows Munny’s complete disregard for the law, and his destruction of it. Another way that Munny differs is his alcoholism. While characters like Rooster Cogburn were shown to be alcoholics, and while some characters did frown upon drinking, it was never painted in as terrible a picture as Munny made. Munny made it clear that he could only do the terrible things he had done in this life because he was drunk. This is shown again by how he gets drunk before killing Little Bill and his posy. This view of alcohol paints the picture that it releases the monster, rather than the picture that it was a typical and mostly harmless part of the west, as was shown in many other films.
Another part of how Unforgiven is a revisionist western is shown by Munny’s sidekick. Ned Logan is black, and married to a native American. But, as a sidekick, he is treated as an equal. In The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, Pompey is Doniphon’s sidekick, but is never treated as an equal. He is the person who fetches something, or puts away the horses, but never someone who adds valuable information. In Rooster Cogburn, Wolf is shown in a more positive light as a minority sidekick, but is still a very flat character. He seems simple, never saying anything very insightful. Ned is the complete opposite of these characters. Ned is treated as an equal and a friend by Munny. Ned proves to be a character with actual emotions, shown by the pain he expresses when shooting someone. Although his death didn’t say too much about how race, it does paint a better picture of brutality in the west. In Red River, Dunson buried and said a prayer over the men he killed. In Day of the Outlaw, they make sure to bury Bruhns in respect to him. In Unforgiven, Ned is put on display. This blatent disrespect for a corpse is new to the films we have watched, and paints a picture of a much more brutal west.

Johnny Guitar, Two Mules

In Two Mules for Sister Sara and Johnny Guitar, we are given views of female characters that are stronger than typical portrayals of western women. However, these females are still portrayed as the “other” in the films, and continue to provide men with problems. The first of these problems is the need for being saved. Tompkins believes that westerns portray women as the weaker sex, and that women constantly need to be saved by the alpha male. In Johnny Guitar, we see the classic version of the male saving the female. When she is about to be hung, Johnny manages to swoop in and save the day. This is the typical way of thinking that females are always the people being saved, and bringing challenges upon the alpha male. In Two Mules for Sister Sara, we see a variation on this classic method. In the beginning of the film, Hogan does save Sara from the three rapists. He then also saves her from the French army. This follows the typical damsel in distress, making extra work for the alpha male stereotype. However, this stereotype starts to change when Hogan is shot by the Indians. On the ground, injured, Hogan is in a terrible position. The Indians are in the position to kill him. However, Sara holds up her cross, and one of the Indians is convinced to let them pass. Sara then helps pull the arrow out of Hogan, something he wouldn’t have been able to do on his own. By Sara saving Hogan’s life, the story is going completely away from the stereotype. The fact that both Sara and Hogan saved the other’s life promotes more of a mutually beneficial relationship than the one shown in Johnny Guitar.
Another clear way to show female characters creating a challenge for the alpha male in Johnny Guitar is the way that Johnny is dragged into a fight that he didn’t start at all. He had nothing to do with Vienna’s decision to open the saloon, or her plans to start her own town. Instead, Johnny must wander in to save the day. Johnny plays the knight in shining armor, coming in to finish a battle that he didn’t start. In Two Mules for Sister Sara, we start off with a similar situation. Hogan saves Sara from the French, which is a battle that he had nothing to do with. However, the situation then switches from Hogan helping Sara out in her battle, to Sara helping Hogan out in his. Hogan is trying to bring down the French garrison, and is helped along the way by Sara. She gives him the layouts of the garrison, tells him about the French holiday, finds out what the French are doing at the train station, climbs up the bridge to plant the dynamite, and gets Hogan inside the garrison. All of this help is for a battle that she didn’t start. This is another way that the film promotes much more of a mutually beneficial relationship between the alpha male and the female, compared to the one way relationship in Johnny Guitar.

Red River

In Red River, we see two main male figures, Matt and Dunson. In the beginning of the film, Dunson is clearly marked as the alpha male. However, as the film goes on, this title is questioned. Matt, who began the story, as a strong boy, ends the movie by becoming a strong alpha male. The presence of two alpha males seems new for a western film, but by looking at the actions of Dunson and Matt, it is clear that they both have the skill, ruthlessness, and grit for the title.
The film starts out with Dunson breaking away from the wagon train, leaving his love, and starting a new life. It is clear from the moment that he kills one of the two Mexicans who say the land belongs to their boss that he is both dangerous, and a man to respect. While running the wagon train, he shows the ruthlessness that Matheson describes as making a cowboy hardboiled. Dunson drives his men hard, kills anyone who disobeys him, and embodies the ruthless environment that he lives in. All these things make him the stereotypical alpha male.
When looking at Matt, it is clear that he does not start off as the alpha male. While he does have the talent, shown by him drawing faster than Dunson, he still plays a back seat to him. While he often doesn’t agree with everything Dunson is doing, it is clear that he is not willing to challenge him. Eventually, this starts to change. As the men become more and more restless, and rebelling against Dunson starts to quell up, Matt is forced from the alpha male’ apprentice to the role as the new alpha male. In the starting parts of the film, Matt was shown to be a hard cowboy, but never truly ruthless. This changes when Matt takes over the cattle against Dunson’s wishes. Matt sends an injured Dunson away, and takes his cattle. Matt does this to make sure that the cattle safely get to a place where they can be sold. By committing this ruthless act, Matt shows that he is adapting to his environment, with the goal of surviving in mind. Matt must be ruthless, and this involves going against the man who raised him.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

In The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, we are given a view of three male figures. The first, Stoddard, is an aspiring lawyer from the east. He is strong willed, but new to the west, and not built in the mold of the typical cowboy. The next, Doniphon, is a surly, older cowboy. He seems to care for justice and is inclined to doing the right thing, but at the same time is incredibly rough. The last, Liberty Valance, is a despicable, ruthless villain. He seems to lack any morals, and is quick with a gun. When looking at Matheson’s article, we clearly see that Doniphon and Liberty clearly match the hardboiled male belief, while Stoddard is obviously representative of changing times.
According to Matheson, the western setting is similar to a film noir setting. In film noir, the streets are dark and grimy, which reflects the dirty lifestyle that the characters live in. While the visuals in The Man who Shot Liberty Valance don’t quite reflect the ruthless world in which the cowboys live in, the world is still a dark and dangerous place. This is shown early in Stoddard’s flashback, where his stagecoach is robber by Valance. Stoddard witnesses an attempted robbing of an old lady, and is himself left for dead. This harsh world is exemplified by its criminals. Matheson talks about how callous and ruthless the criminals are, which is obvious in Valance. During the shootout scene between Valance and Stoddard, Valance tricks Stoddard, and gets in a quick shot before Stoddard realizes what is happening. This trickery goes along with Matheson’s belief that the best gunfighter might not always win, because it is the ruthless that survives in the harsh environment. In this sense, Matheson is completely correct in her assessment of villains, by how ruthless and merciless Valance is.
In the article, Matheson downplays the heroic nature of the alpha male. Matheson claims that the alpha male can’t always be the knight in shining armor, and must instead be as ruthless as the villains. Using this film, I completely agree with this assessment. Simply by looking at the shootout scene again, we see truth in this argument. Valance played a trick on Stoddard in order to get a cheap shot at him, and gain an advantage. This ruthlessness is expected from criminals. However, Doniphon also gets a cheap shot at Valance. By hiding in the dark, he gives Valance no chance. Doniphon doesn’t challenge him like Stoddard does. Stoddard tried to be honorable rather than ruthless, and that would have resulted in his death.
In the film, I do not believe that Stoddard is an alpha male. This is why he is not hardboiled. Stoddard is an idealist, believing that the west can be contained, and that law will prevail. He is also an idealist when it comes to morals. He challenged Liberty straight up to a fight, even when he knows he may lose. This may make him a good person, but it doesn’t guarantee his survival, like being ruthless would.

Spaghetti Westerns

Spaghetti Westerns differ significantly from the standard American Western. Firstly, Spaghetti Westerns were made by Italian directors and usually filmed in Spain (because the Spanish terrestrial was very similar to that of the United States). The influence of a foreign director also shows us the outside perception on Americans. The characters which play in Spaghetti Westerns have very different personalities than those in American Westerns. They are much more self-centered and revolve their roles around self-interest rather than the well-being of the “whole,” seen in American Westerns. I find this particularly interesting because I am European, and I can see the self-centered personalities in the movie stars that Europeans are known for. the American Westerns, however, display characters with a much more work and time oriented personality who serve to better society’s quality.

The perception of American society, from a foreign point of view, is seen in the most famous Spaghetti Western, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The impression given by this film is that it was extremely violent. American Westerns do not seem to be as gory or feature so much murder. The plot of the film, the three main characters chasing after the large sum of money, also symbolizes the popular opinion that Americans care solely about money. The goal of getting the money was more important to the characters than anything else. They would do everything within their power (even kill mercilessly) to get to it. The second movie, Navajo Joe, was also radically different from American Westerns because it featured an alpha male who was Native American. This movie also revolved about restless chasing of money, concepts which are very different than what we see conveyed in traditional westerns.

Navajo Joe/ The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly

These two spaghetti westerns differ from the classic western largely in terms of violence, race, and the overall portrayal of the American Western cowboy. In Navajo Joe, the movie starts out with gruesome and violent scalpings. Unlike a traditional western where Native Americans would be doing the scalping, this spaghetti western portrays American cowboys doing the scalpings. They show no mercy or code of honor as they destroy a whole village. Evidently the Italian film makers view white Americans to be just as savage as the white Americans viewed Native Americans to be. The next notable difference was Navajo Joe's use of a gun. In traditional American westerns, Native Americans were never seen using rifles, but bow and arrows and more barbaric means of killing. Navajo Joe not only uses a rifle but has the best shot in the movie. Not long into the movie is Navajo Joe seen as the alpha male. Soon the whole town is relying on his help. This spaghetti western portrays the western townspeople as completely helpless against any bandits. Not even the sheriff could stand up to such bandits. He stated that the townspeople do not even carry guns. This is completely opposite of what a traditional western portrays a western town and its sheriff. Also, the righteousness of the cowboys and Indians is changed in the spaghetti western. Navajo Joe portrays the cowboy as being righteous, fighting for the revenge of his people, while making the lead cowboy seem like a villain. The camera always shows Navajo Joe atop a large hill with righteous music playing. In a classic western, the Indians were always shown as barbaric and mysterious. They were never a main character.

One of the most obvious differences between the classic western and the spaghetti western is the violence. Not only is there a lot more violence in both Navajo Joe and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, but the violence is much more dramatic. In a typical western gun fight, if someone was shot the camera would simply pan away without long, over-the-top dramatics. In these two spaghetti westerns, especially Navajo Joe, when someone is shot their death is drawn out to show them screaming and falling in agony. The directors of the spaghetti westerns obviously really want to accentuate the killing in their films, as they believe violence is one of the most important aspects of the western. Also in the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly there is a bit of racism. Why does the ugly have to be a Mexican? They portray the Mexican as a dirty cheater who is no match for Blondie (Clint Eastwood). The Ugly is always the one being tied around the rope and depending on Blondie. The last difference I noticed was the music. In the classic western the music seemed much more subtle. In these spaghetti westerns it seemed like there was a lot more instances where there was music for a more dramatic effect. The music itself seemed much more dramatic at times and almost too-western like for the movies. It seemed like the spaghetti westerns took every aspect of the traditional western and multiplied it by five. More violence, more music, more racism.

Spaghetti Westerns

Western films have many sub categories with Classical Westerns being the most notable. Star director John Ford made numerous Classical Western films which became instant classics with one of the most recognizable faces in all of America, John Wayne, as the lead character. Another popular subcategory of Western films is Spaghetti Westerns.

Spaghetti Westerns, named for the primarily Italian directors that made them, were characterized as being low budget films. With the majority of these films being shot in parts of Spain that resembled the American Mountain West, these films were notorious for having more action and being more violent than Classical Westerns.

The most famous of the spaghetti Westerns is the 1966 film The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. This film is dramatically violent with numerous killings. Another spaghetti Western, Navajo Joe, depicts an outlaw Duncan who has massacred an entire Indian village. The brutal violence and heavy action in directors Sergio Leone and Sergio Corbucci’s movies hoped to excite viewers about the Western film again which had become somewhat repetitive. Leone has been quoted as saying that he depicted such violent killings in his films because this was how Cowboys in the West actually were. Spaghetti Westerns were drawing on the violence that had become associated with America during the 1960’s.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly & Navajo Joe

Spaghetti westerns differ greatly from traditional American western films because they were filmed by Italian directors and provide us with an outside perception of American culture and society. They don’t follow the “classic” Western formula, which generally consisted of townspeople, outlaws or criminals who threaten the townspeople, and heroes who act on behalf of the townspeople and triumph over the outlaws. Whereas in traditional films the alpha male cowboys ultimately act on behalf of the people they are trying to help, the cowboys in spaghetti westerns act on behalf of their own self-interest. Themes that are continually emphasized in spaghetti westerns are greed and violence. As we see in the The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, all three characters are after one thing—$200,000 that is hidden in an unmarked grave in a cemetery. They stop at nothing to get to the grave, killing many people along the way. The “bad” especially displays a great deal more violence than we’ve seen in other villainous characters in traditional westerns. He is hired in the beginning of the film to kill a man after he retrieves information from the man, and before he kills him, the man gives Angel Eyes money to repay the favor to the person who wanted him murdered. Angel Eyes returns to the first man, and after sharing the information with him, murders him as well because he always goes through with something he is paid for. This kind of portrayal of Americans shows that foreigners believed Americans would stop at nothing to get what they wanted, especially if what they wanted was money. Americans acted on behalf of their own self-interest and no action was too violent to commit.

Navajo Joe is also significantly different from traditional Westerns because we see a person who was once an “other” in American films taking on a lead role in a film and becoming an alpha male character. This film focuses on revenge, as we learn that both Joe and the outlaw, Duncan, are both seeking revenge on each other throughout the film. Duncan and his band of outlaws sweep through an entire Indian village and brutality murders all but Joe. They scalp the Indians for cash, even when the sheriff says that he will arrest Duncan because he is now killing innocent Indian tribes as opposed to troublemakers. What we later learn is that Duncan’s father was murdered by Indians when he was a child, which is why he doesn’t stop murdering Indians. Joe is following Duncan and his men because they murdered his village and his woman, and he spoils Duncan’s plan to hold up a train that is carrying half a million dollars. Once again, money is the driving force behind everyone’s actions in the film, even Joe’s. He doesn’t want to protect the townspeople from Duncan unless they are willing to pay him. Both of these films represent greed and the violent crimes that men committed to get what they desired.

Spaghetti

When Watching Navajo Joe and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, there are clear differences between these and traditional American Westerns. The clearest difference comes from Navajo Joe. The main character, and apparent alpha male, is a native American. This is an immediate departure from American westers, where native americans were basically props in the background. Throughout the film, Joe is mistreated. This starts with Duncan killing everyone in his village. Then, the villages say they don't want to deal with a native american when offered help by Joe. Later on, Joe is tortured by the gang. Throughout the film, the injustices done against Joe are a clear representation of what the Europeans think of the way Americans Native Americans. While American films did not show Native Americans in a sympathetic light, the European films were not afraid to do this. In Navajo joe, we see a lot of the motivation for the characters revolving around money. Duncan is robbing a train to steal money, and Joe asks for $1 for each man he kills. However, this is even clearer in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The film starts out early with Angel Eyes killing for money, even finishing the job for someone who is already dead. Later on, we see Blondie turning in Tuco, only to save him and turn him in again for more money, showing a disregard for justice but great regard for wealth. But, after the story develops a little, all three characters begin to be driven by the gold that the soldiers stole. This is their only goal, and they are completely oblivious to anything else going on. They couldn't even be bothered by a war. The atrocities are only something that slow them down. This represents Sergio Leone believing that America is a ruthless capitalist state. He clearly paints a picture of Americans that only care about money, and are willing to kill for it.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, Navajo Joe

In our classic western films, there is template in which the film is run. It is very traditional and the alpha male’s actions are pretty similar across the board. In spaghetti westerns, we see how external countries perceive America. These films tend to be much more violent than our original westerns. Navajo Joe is a very different film compared to our original westerns. The plot behind this film is about an Indian seeking revenge on a group of outlaws. This is the first time we have seen an Indian as the main role of a film. Also, Joe successfully becomes the hero in this film because he is hired by the townspeople to protect them from the outlaws. Usually the Indians are the ones the townspeople need protection from. Not the other way around. The townspeople are usually looking to the alpha male cowboy to help keep them safe, but Joe is that role in this film. The townspeople required Joe’s protection and even almost showed a dependency. Indians were shown as more than equals in this movie. They are able to hold their own and demonstrate many of the qualities of an alpha male cowboy. This could exemplify countries beliefs on American Exceptionalism. They believe that we really aren’t independent and need others to help us get by.
In our second film, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, we see another spaghetti western with Clint Eastwood as the main character, “The Good”. The bad and the ugly are both played by non-white characters. We see some aspects of racism between the Tuco and Blondie during this film. The two of them appeared friends in the beginning of the movie, but once Blondie leaves him in the desert the two are now enemies. This constant battling after the issue in the desert demonstrated some of the race wars we had in America at the time. Another aspect of this film is the scene with the soldiers. Clint, Tuco, and Blondie were able to trick soldiers with little to no effort. America’s army took a hit from this rendition because it made them appear to be unorganized and unprofessional.

Spaghetti Westerns

The spaghetti westerns that came out of the 1960s and 70s are able to provide a differing point of view from what we are traditionally used to seeing in classic westerns. The Italian directors such as Sergio Leone and Sergio Corbucci who directed The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Joe, are a departure from the John Fordesque representation of life in the west. Most notably is the Italian directors’ use of violence in their films. When it is shown, the action is brutal and bloody. Gun fights are loud long and seem to always result in a death. The tough guys are always asserting their force on anyone that they see. They burn, punch, shot, and steal. Acts like these often didn’t appear in the classic western. The violence that existed in those films were much more subdued and controlled. Violence only seemed to be used when needed by a John Wayne character whereas the spaghetti western cowboys have an easy trigger finger. With the spaghetti westerns we are seeing what Europeans think and feel about Americans. Culturally this suggest that Americans are viewed as a violence society at the time. They are quick with the gun and lack the ability to properly reason. And it can be seen in the foreign policy that of the United States at the time. The Korean and Vietnam Wars showed the United States preference of force over diplomacy. Both resulted in brutal and bloody wars like what is played out in the spaghetti westerns.

American greed also appears in these two films. Both films are centered on groups seeking to rob seek richest quickly. Navajo Joe shows the outlaws wanting to pull off a big train robbery while The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Blondie, Tuco, and Angel Eyes all competing for the fortune that was buried in the cemetery. Both films stress on the need for getting rich quick by any means necessary. The Europeans are criticizing the American lust for money. To get that money, unnecessary and brutal force is always used. The classical western doesn’t often compete over money but rather territory or ideas. Money tends to be a secondary issue in the classical western. But in the spaghetti western it is in the forefront suggesting Americans love of money is a very powerful but brutal force. Monetary issues give American’s a negative appearance since they drive individuals to undesirable actions. And actions over money appear all throughout the spaghetti westerns.

Spaghetti Westerns

The spaghetti western, though still based in the American west and involving cowboys as the main characters, is quite a different film than the classic western. The main difference between the types of westerns is the level of violence and action. In classic westerns, while guns are certainly present, the cowboy only kills when he feels he must. The Cowboy does not make loud, violent threats in the classic western; rather the cowboy speaks with conviction and a certain calmness, never getting too emotional. In a classic western, the cowboy is clean-shaven and clean cut and always respectful. The cowboys in classic westerns even have normal names, such as Ethan Edwards and Tom Doniphon. The spaghetti westerns throw this view of the western and the cowboy out of the window. Violence and action are the main ingredients in spaghetti westerns. Cowboys, especially outlaws, kill for what sometimes seems like no reason. For example, in Navajo Joe, Duncan kills a woman and a priest with no provocation. These killings and random acts of violence seem included in the film as shock tactics, which definitely do not occur in classic westerns. In spaghetti westerns, cowboys seem a lot more emotional and trigger-happy. Alpha male cowboys in spaghetti westerns can also be just as unshaven and dirty as outlaws, such as Clint Eastwood in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. One of the strangest differences is the names given to cowboys in spaghetti westerns, such as Tuco, Blondie, and Angel Eyes in The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly. Spaghetti westerns certainly do have a different feel to them.
Within all these differences are certain commentaries on culture. The spaghetti westerns seem to say that Americans are ruthless and bloodthirsty, as Navajo Joe is so violent that at some points it can be difficult to watch, like in the end when Joe kills Duncan’s posse and then kills Duncan by throwing a tomahawk at his face. Even in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly the cowboys use violence unnecessarily, as Angel Eyes killed two people in the beginning of the film and took their money. This brings up another criticism of Americans. Navajo Joe and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly both have bounty hunters as prominent characters. This seems to suggest that Americans will do anything for money. The spaghetti western seems to suggest that there are some bad aspects of American culture that need some revision.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly & Navajo Joe

The Spaghetti Western is a different genre of western films which were produced and directed by Italians. Common themes of the Spaghetti Western have to do with Mexicans and the Mexican-American border, but also themes and characters that are not usually present in traditional westerns. Navajo Joe is a spaghetti western which portrays an unusual plot in comparison to the typical westerns we have viewed. The main difference of this western was that the main character was a Navajo Indian, and the plot surrounded him and his revenge towards a group of outlaws. Never before have we seen an Indian play a part anything other than an enemy or simply a prop. Joe on the other hand became trustworthy and the American village actually hired him to protect them from the outlaws. He does this successfully, making him a hero. This was a completely different twist in a western plot than traditional westerns. The hero was not the typical white alpha male, but Indian; someone who is usually killed by the alpha male cowboy. The power that the Indian holds over the town, because of his ability to protect them from Duncan, the outlaw, is remarkable. In traditional westerns, a village would not succumb to the need for an Indian to protect them, or to pay him for his efforts. The sequence of events that occur in this movie may reflect the idea of racism and how Indians are equal to, or even more capable than the average white man. The white village was dependent on Joe, which may be a reflection of the international view of Americans; that Americans are not superior to other races and may need the help of others to succeed.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is another spaghetti western which is very different than traditional westerns through the use of its characters. Although the main character is the typical white alpha male, played by Clint Eastwood, the two other characters who represent “the ugly” and “the bad” are not white. There is an interesting relationship between Tuco (The Ugly) and Blondie (The Good) because they are somewhat friends but then become enemies when Blondie leaves him stranded in the desert. Tuco survives and catches Blondie and almost hangs him, and then Blondie gets away. This back and forth relationship between these two seems to reflect the idea of racism going on in the country; the way different races were battling back and forth. Another interesting part of the movie was the three main characters were able to easily fool the soldiers and act as though they were part of the regiments. This showed how unprofessional the army was, and how both white and men of other races can fool them and they were simply allowed into the army.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

While both the classic and spaghetti Westerns share many of the same characteristics, it is the way in which each genre portrays the West that differentiates the two. The variation is noticed from the films' beginnings. Both The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Jo consist of a lengthy opening scene in which the Italian landscape is showcased with only music playing in the background, no dialogue is exchanged. Filmed in Italy and Spain, spaghetti Westerns always make the European mountains and desert land the focal point of the film. Music also plays a prominent role in both films. A character's appearance is anticipated by the audience with a song. This is exhibited with Blondie in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Each time he makes an appearance in the misc-en-scene a particular sound plays; it is as if someone is announcing his arrival onto the screen.

Many of the classic westerns tell of the lives of the cowboy on the frontier. They consist of the alpha cowboy who remains focused on accomplishing a task throughout the film while encountering "the other": women, African Americans or Native Americans. In Navajo Jo, the Native American is the alpha male of the film; he is no longer an object standing in the alpha male cowboy's way. This can be attributed to the time period in which the spaghetti Westerns were created. The 1960s brought about cultural revolutions, in which the line separating the rights of races and genders was slowly disappearing. It seems natural that a Native American would play the protagonist.

The Vietnam War was also occurring during this time period of the Cultural Revolution. The violence associated with war is what makes the spaghetti Westerns seen to be more adventure seeking than the plots of the classic Westerns. One of the first scenes of Navajo Jo involves Duncan's massive gang raiding the train headed to Esperanza with half a million dollars on board. This draws a connection to war, such as Vietnam, in which two sides with many people shoot mercilessly and fight each other. These films also portray the capitalistic society and its obsession with wealth. The main characters are motivated solely by their greed and the monetary rewards. Blondie, Tuco and Angel Eyes, along with Jo, only perform their tasks to gain wealth and did not care who they had to kill to do so, as long as they come out prosperous. In order to save the town, Navajo Jo tells the townspeople he will kill Duncan "for a price." Angel Eyes kills a father and son because he was hired to do so. He completes another man's task with greed as his motivation. These main characters are extremely deceiving when it comes to accomplishing a task and will use violence to kill anyone standing in their way of a reward.

Spaghetti Westerns: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly & Navajo Joe

The classic Western is diverted into what is known as “spaghetti Westerns” when created by directors generally from Italy as well as Spain. These spaghetti Westerns have different takes than the classic Westerns on what the American West actually was. Spaghetti Westerns are generally much more violent, showcasing the West as a land filled with ruthless brutes, disregarding all ‘cowboy ethics’ that the Classic western attempts to portray.
In The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, we see an entirely different approach than what we are used to from the classics. We are presented with three primary alpha male roles; “the Ugly” being Tuco, a two-faced bandit who has no morals, completely consumed by his greed and self-interest, doing anything for his own money and well-being; “the Bad” known as Angel Eyes who falls into the typical category of an ‘alpha villain’, being more wise and canny than Tuco, as well as with a posse of bad guys as his gang just like the typical Western bad guys; and finally, Blondie, who is ideally “the Good”, supposedly representing the typical ‘alpha cowboy’, John Wayne style. The irony of Blondie as an ‘alpha cowboy’ is that the cowboy ethics are inexistent. Rather than being idolized as a hero for doing good for the people and the land, the alpha cowboy is seen working in terms of greed, aiming for money for himself before anything else. All three of the characters, along with everybody else in the film, seem to have only one interest that keeps them going: money.
Spaghetti Westerns seems to make quite an emphasis on the American craze for money. Navajo Joe portrays this inhumane alpha-capitalist ideal throughout the entire film. Everybody, even Joe the Indian, is in it for the money. When an empty train arrives in town, along with the news that all the passengers inside said train were killed, all people worry about is whether the money is safe. Navajo Joe also represents the foreigner’s perspective on the struggle between the white immigrant American and the Native American. In this movie in particular, Joe seamlessly dominates the white men by using his true knowledge and spiritual connection with nature.

Spaghetti Westerns

In the traditional Western film genre there is a standard template, which each character fulfills in every movie. There is the alpha male cowboy who serves as the hero and the helpless women characters who are at the mercy of the men. In addition, there are the African American characters who serve as the subservient helpers to the alpha male and the Native Americans who consistently prove to be an obstacle for the cowboy and townspeople to overcome. These unvarying roles are constant throughout the American Western genre. The spaghetti westerns however, provide a different view on these roles, as they provide a foreign perspective of America, particularly Italian.

In several spaghetti westerns it is common, like in Navajo Joe, for the Native Americans to become the victims, as well as, the “alpha male cowboy.” The protagonist in this film, Joe, was an Indian who saved the town from Duncan and his gang. This gang was trying to rob the bank and continually terrorizing the town. Duncan’s gang initially had killed Joe’s family and scalped his wife for a mere dollar. This film and others portray a significant increase in violence and are more graphic than the typical American Western.

In terms of cultural studies, the films Navajo Joe and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly were released in 1966, which marked the end of the civil rights movement and the beginning of the second wave of the feminist movement. In the traditional American Western, these cultural issues would be represented with an increase in women’s rights and the presences of African Americans interact with the townspeople, no longer slaves. For example, in the revisionist films Rooster Cogburn and The Unforgiven, both Sister and Ned Logan previously characterized as ‘others’ maintain a significant presence throughout the films, no longer lacking a role. However, in spaghetti westerns women had little to no presence. In The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, we never even see a women except when she finds her husband and child murdered. The spaghetti westerns use extreme violence and intense music in their films. The directors also use close ups to enhance the visualization and gore. They use money in both films to show that the American cowboy is consumed by greed and will stop at no mercy until he obtains what he desires.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was a violent film that showed the American West as a battle ground on the Mexican Border. In this movie there was a lot of gun shooting, whether it was shooting the hat off someone’s head, shooting and killing three men, or shooting to cut a rope around someone’s neck. In the classical Westerns there was not as much violence, the gun was a symbol for manliness not a weapon of mass destruction. Every cowboy, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, was after money as if they were starving dogs in a meat house. In classical Westerns the cowboys had a duty or a woman to motivate their actions. The Italian Director Sergio Leone represents his thoughts about Americans through the cowboy character. During the movie every cowboy is driving by money, they are constantly stepping on other people to obtain it. They kill for information, just as Sentenza, “the bad,” did in the beginning to the farmer and his son. Clint Eastwood also is driven by money, in the end he leaves with his half hung over his horse, as he rides off into the terrain. This drive for money is a depiction of the capitalist reputation given to all Americans by the rest of the world. Spaghetti westerns seem to make a satire of this reputation by over exaggerating the violence to show how much the cowboy wants the money. These super violent men go where they want, take what they want, and do what they need to do to get the cash.

Also in Navajo Joe the characters were also motivated by money. The outlaws chase the train in order to get the money that is stashed in the vault. They destroy and kill everything just to try and steal the vault. In the movie a doctor is motivated by money and he helps the outlaws for a cut of the profits. The director depicted everyone as money grubbing low lives. An example is Navajo Joe who walks away from helping the town because no one has offers to pay his price. Navajo Joe protects the city only because everyman was willing to pay him, a dollar a kill. The villains and the hero in this were also very violent also. This violence in both films can be the directors’ thoughts on the Vietnam War which was also very violent and gory.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Explain with examples how the spaghetti western and this spaghetti western differ from the classic western. From a cultural studies perspective, what ideas are being argued?

3:10 to Yuma

The comparison between the 1957 and 2007 3:10 to Yuma is a clear example of Revisionism. Revisionism is considered to be a deviation from the traditional customs of a genre into a more modern and closer to reality approach. In the ’57 version of the film the main character is seen as a much more macho cowboy as in the ’07 version. In the modern version the cowboy seems more worried and weak than the cowboy in ’57. He is more worried about financial problems and making a name for himself. He tries to impress his own child and is weakened by a war wound.
Also in the ’07 version of 3:10 to Yuma more action is seen. Technological changes and the evolution of the cinematic world have clearly influenced the genre. The audience’s perspective into watching movies also forces modern directors to apply more special effects and use more action. This cinematic approach is more efficient in capturing the modern people’s attention more effectively.

3:10 to Yuma, 50 Years Later

The 2007 3:10 to Yuma is a revisionist Western film in comparison to the 1957 3:10 to Yuma, as the directors, writers, and producers changed multiple aspects of the original to cater to a modern audience. One of the most obvious differences between the two films is the amount of violence. It seems as though at least thirty more people were shot in the new film. While the original film already seemed violent to viewers at the time, today's society is used to violence in movies tenfold the amount society was fifty years ago. The railroad car in the beginning of the original film was not shot at for five minutes in an exciting get-a-way chase. The Pinkerton crew was not murdered in the original. Only one man was shot instead of the way all the men were killed in the new version. Despite a lack of surprises (such as being followed and saved by Dan's son) and chases through crashing railroad tunnels that the new version did have, the old version at least still had a gun fight at the end right? Well if you consider all of about five shots being fired in the last scene a gun fight. In the new film, Wade's gang had the whole town out for Dan's head. The new version had the gang kill all of the deputies instead of letting them just walk away. There were bullets flying everywhere. The intensity was multiplied by about fifty. In the old film Dan walked Wade to the Train (which was nice and on time in the original and not in the new version) pretty easily, whereas in the new version it would be a miracle if Dan made it to the Train. When he does finally make it to the train in the new version (after shooting his way through the whole town) he is finally gunned down by Wade's gang. Wade then kills his whole gang and gets on the train (without Dan who happily rode away on the train in the original).

The predictability, the amount of lesser violence, and the lack of an extreme magnitude in the situation of the original movie make most people in younger generations of today's gun crazed society favor the current one. All these things make the recent version a revisionist film. The director ups the ante in almost every aspect of the film, even changing the story where it would make the movie more intense, and at most parts over the top. The believability in the new version for someone who were to hear the story of Dan and Wade is minimal. It is a revisionist film because the new film is all about entertainment value. Where as the original version is more of a believable story for such an event to happen in 1957. The creators of the new film take the old film's traditional cowboy tale and spices it up in every way to stretch the imagination of the modern viewer.

3:10 to Yuma

When looking at the differences between the original and the remade 3:10 to Yuma, the most obvious is the role of Evans. In the 1957 version, Evans is much more of a stereotypical alpha male. He is brave, rugged, and looked up to. However, when we look at the 2007 version of the film, we see a much weaker character. Christian Bale portrays a father who doesn't command the respect of his children, and who has been embarrassed in the past for his cowardice in the war. He tries to act like the alpha male, but isn't nearly the man that Van Heflin played in the original. The reason for this is that the 2007 version is part of the revisionist western genre. In classic westerns, we were shown heroes that glorified the west, and made kids everywhere want to be cowboys. However, in revisionist westerns, we are shown that much of the west shown in these films is simply a myth. This is shown by Evans in the 2007 version. He represents the typical cowboy, that wasn't nearly as brave or talented as the legends make them out to be. However, in order to gain the respect of his family, he takes on a mission knowing he will likely be killed. In the end, we see Wade agreeng to go along with Evans. This shows how pride leads to the creation of a myth.

3:10 to Yuma

The two versions of 3:10 to Yuma are quite different from one another. Firstly, the appearance of the original is different from the latter because it is in black and white. Secondly, the second version of the film can be seen as more of a revisionist movie because the personalities of the characters are different (more modern) than those of the original film. The first difference in attitudes is the relationship with women. In the original film, Dan behaves with Alice in the same way that we have seen in the older Westerns which we have watched. He treats her as an inferior and neglects everything she has to say. Alice’s opinions are not taken seriously, and instead just ignored when she gets upset over a situation. Her role is basically that of a house servant, who cooks, cleans, and takes care of her husband and kids.

The other significant difference between the original and the revisionist film is the alpha cowboy’s role. In the original movie, Dan devotes his life to his “duty.” He takes his job very seriously and makes it his main priority. His wife and kids are notably less important to him than his duty as the alpha male. In contrast, the revisionist alpha male has different priorities. He devotes more of his time to being a good role model for his kids and an overall support system for his family. Of course, his job is very important to him, but the revisionist alpha male seems to believe that family is more important than work.

3:10 to Yuma

Although James Mangold’s remake of 3:10 to Yuma is essentially based on the same movie as Glenn Ford’s original 1957 version, it almost seems as if you’re watching a completely different movie along similar plotlines. Ford’s original version has all the great qualities of a classic western, while Mangold’s remake is more of a revisionist interpretation of the same story.
One of the key differences is the way the alpha cowboys are represented. They are less clean-cut and traditional looking in the remake of the film. While Ford did well in developing Ben Wade’s character as the alpha bad guy with a twist of good in him, Mangold’s version of the same character is more of a cold-blooded psychopath, unexpectedly becoming a better person in the end. Ford originally develops the plot in slightly surreal lines where everybody seems to follow cowboy ethics. Mangold, however, creates a much more action-packed film. You can see the difference in the part where Dan Evans escorts Ben to the train. In Ford’s version, Wade’s men seem threatening but don’t do much in the end other than create tension for Dan, letting it all happen smoothly. In Mangold’s film, however, they go crazy shooting their guns from everywhere, more people are killed along the way, and even Dan ultimately dies from one of the shots. It’s a much more ferocious and realistic approach to the Western environment, which essentially is what revisionist Westerns seem to represent.
The last scene is one of the most defining ones as to point out the revisionism in Mangold’s remake of the film. In the original film, Ben subdues into jumping along with Dan into the train. It’s almost like a happy ending, especially for Dan. However, in the remake, Dan is shot to death, which makes Ben kill everyone around him, and then jump himself in the train and leave. Needless to say, it’s all about action and violence in the remake.

3:10 to Yuma

The two renditions of 3:10 to Yuma, the 1957 version and the 2007 version convey two separate views of the western. The first major difference in between the 1957 and 2007 versions is the amount of violence. In the 2007 version we see much more brutality between the outlaws and those escorting Wade to the train stop. The later is a revision a of the previous by this increase in violence. They director may have believed that it was necessary to recreate the scenes with more gun play to demonstrate the lawlessness of the west.
Another difference between the two films is the ending. In the original both Wade and Evans are able to board the train to Yuma, and the scene ends with rain. The rain signifies the end of the drought, and a new hope for Evans. He will be able to return and start up his farm again. In the 2007 revision, Evans dies, and Wade kills all of his outlaws. He then boards the train by himself. This could represent the fact that Wade shows retribution for his actions. He understands what he did wrong and willing to pay the correct consequences.
Also, Evan’s reasons for being an escort differ between these two films. In the previous version he was doing it only for the monetary benefit. All he cared about was getting paid for this little adventure so he could keep his farm up and running from the drought. In the revision of the movie, money was still an issue because his barn was burnt down, but the main reason was to prove himself to his son. He obviously believed that his son did not respect him, and wanted to show what a man he is. He seeks to prove himself to his son and show him that he can hold his own despite his disability. He lost a leg in the war and that clearly has hit him hard.

3:10 to Yuma

With fifty years separating the two versions of the film 3:10 to Yuma, there is certainly an element of revisionism in the later version when compared to the original. The obvious changes can be seen due to the updates in technology. Color film, increased action, and explosions are all included in the remake which makes that film more appealing and marketable for a western in present day. But there are also elements of revisionism in the details of the story that play out in the remake. For instance, the alpha cowboy, Dan Evan, is shown as a much weaker man in the remake. His and his family’s struggles are really illustrated in the remake as opposed to the original. We see that his son is sick, he is deep in debt, and he has to overcome a physical challenge of having only one leg. The dire straits that his family is in can be seen with how he first chisels a few dollars out of Ben Wade moments before he knows the marshal will arrive and then how he volunteers immediately and names a price for his services. The original shows Evan in financial distress but he has to be coaxed into escorting Wade to Contention City. There is a greater sense of urgency for the money in the remake. It suggests that today people are increasingly in need of financial help. This again can be seen later in the film with how the people of Contention City mobilized against Evan when offered $200 to shoot a member of the gang that was trying to get Wade to the train station. People even in the towns were some jobs exists are still clearly desperate for money. The original never shows this as Contention City is almost a ghost town as it nears 3pm. Only Wade’s gang is out on the streets to stop Evan.

Another area of revisionism that the remake touches on is seen in the others that existed in the west, specifically the Chinese working on the railroad. In the scene where Wade comes into the railroad tunnel site, we see the Chinese and how they are being worked to the bone in order to tunnel through the mountains. Those in control seem to disregard the conditions that the Chinese are in seeing they are not equal. The Chinese are all dirty, living in make shift tents, and looking physically beaten down. The original had no mention of any “other” in the film. With the remake including this scene, the filmmakers are certainly sending a message to show the human toll and punishment that took place in bringing the railroad west. It wasn’t all smiles and roses but rather gritty inhuman brute work done by a group being taken advantage of. The 1950s values that existed in society didn’t feel the need to display how racism existed in the west. But now as society is on a more diverse and equal level, issues like the treatment of the Chinese are projected forth.

3:10 to Yuma

It is interesting to look at the differences between the 1957 3:10 to Yuma film and the 2007 version. Half a century of advances in technology and film making helped make the 2007 a blockbuster hit. With super stars such as Russell Crowe and Christian Bale this film was an Oscar nominee with a ton of bloodshed. The remake director, James Mangold, spiced things up from Delmer Dave’s black and white classic.

The 2007 Yuma version is a more action-packed film catering more towards the desires of “Hollywood” effects. The biggest difference is in the ending of the films. While in the 1957 version, the film ends with train coming in and Dan waving to Alice and Butterfield with rain pouring down. This high and happy note is far different than the 2007 version. The updated version ends with a heavy gunfight in Contention City before Russell Crowe’s character hops aboard the 3:10 to Yuma with his horse following behind.

The 2007 revision of 3:10 to Yuma is a more action packed film and gives us a real Western feel with characters that people of today’s youth can relate to. This remake was much more enjoyable to watch than the 1957 version because of the revamped script and it was certainly nice to see some color in the film.

3:10 to Yuma

The 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma is a revision of the original in a few different ways. The main character in the 2007 film is definitely a revision of the previous alpha male. Dan Evans in the 2007 film was definitely a weaker alpha male character than in the 1957 movie. In the 2007 movie Dan Evans had lost a leg in war, making him weaker than the prior alpha male, but also giving him a weakness that all the other men in the movie didn’t have. Dan’s children play an important role in both movies, but very different roles. In the 1957 movie they are confident in their father, and make him a stronger character. In the 2007 movie, the older of the two sons has no faith in his father, and is constantly putting him down. He doesn’t think his father will shoot anyone and is always out doing his father. Even at one point Ben Wade is getting away and Dan’s son saves everyone by sneaking up on Ben Wade and holding him at gun point and recapturing him. The personality of the alpha male in each movie was also different. The 1957 Dan Evans seemed to have a stronger personality, much more alike to the alpha males in traditional westerns. He seems to care much more about the savior of his farm and receiving the money from accomplishing the task. He was a lot strong in that he doesn’t allow Ben Wade to push him around in the least bit; he had his shot gun on Ben Wade at all times. The 2007 Dan Evans was very different. He was fighting for the money to help his family and to get the dignity of accomplishing the task. He wanted to prove to his sons that he could do it. This Dan Evans definitely wasn’t as confident as the 1957 Dan.
There were also some smaller differences such as the use of characters of other races. Ben Wade’s group of cowboys included a Mexican in the 2007 movie, which was a revision of the previous movie which didn’t include any characters of other races. The fact that this shooter was Mexican was hugely important because of how many people he killed. He killed many white men, which was very different to see a man of another race killing these men and having the power to end their lives.
Although these two movies followed the same plot, they had a lot of different aspects which categorize one as a traditional western and the other as a revisionist western.

3:10 to Yuma

3:10 to Yuma has two versions, the original and the remake, which differ in several aspects. The most notable change is color and revisionism. Although both films follow the same plot, the remake is categorized as a revisionist western, due to the characteristics of the alpha cowboy and the “others.”Also, as time has progressed we no longer film or view in black and white, but use color to imagery.

One of the main differences of the “others” in the film is the women. The differing roles of Alice and Emmy are clearly seen throughout the films. Alice has the ability to stand up to her husband and demand answers all the while showing her disapproval, for example, when he did not stop the robbery and murder. Emmy on the other hand is just a mere object to her husband who never questions his authority or his decisions. If a question does arise, he can easily influence her view with materialistic objects or his “kind” words.

Another way 3:10 to Yuma the remake challenges the classic Western is the alpha male cowboy’s view on duty. In the classic Western, the cowboy views his duty to protect and enforce law only when he is affected by the actions of others. He does not believe he is there to fight someone else’s battle and hardly works for a monetary value. This is seen when Dan refuses to bring Ben Wade to the train. His reasoning for refusing to the sheriff is “that’s not my job, I ain’t no deputy.” In the remake it is Dan’s son who completes this task as Dan has been shot, but in the original Dan rides the train with Ben to ensure his arrival to Yuma.