Sue Matheson, in her article titled “The West-Hardboiled: Adaptations of Film Noir Elements, Existentialism, and Ethics in John Wayne’s Westerns” attempts to describe and explain many of the characters and actions that viewers witness while watching John Wayne movies. Matheson describes these movies and the western genre in general when she writes that westerns are, “collisions of civilization and the frontier, the ordering of a chaotic wilderness in which a romantic figure, the lone rider, achieves epic stature by accomplishing superhuman deeds and saving ‘civilized’ settlers” (889). Nowhere is this assessment truer than in the John Wayne film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. This film, starring John Wayne as cowboy Tom Doniphon, Lee Marvin as outlaw Liberty Valance, and James Stewart as greenhorn lawyer Ransom Stoddard, exemplifies much of what Matheson talks about in her article, but there are also some points that may be a little off target when she applies them to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
In her article, Matheson makes many claims that I agree with. For instance, Matheson writes, “One can usually determine how aberrant characters are by their layers of grime-the dirtier their faces, the darker their hearts” (892). I believe that this is true in the film, as Tom Doniphoin’s and Ransom Stoddard’s faces always seem clean and shaven while Liberty Valance and his gang look grimy and dirty throughout the movie. This simple judge of cleanliness is a great way to determine who is “good” and who is, well, not so “good”.
Another point that Matheson makes which particularly applies to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is the point about the law and corruption. In the film, Ransom Stoddard comes to Shinbone expecting to become a lawyer and to solve everyone’s legal issues “by the book” and in a civilized manner. However, the gun is the law in shinbone, not the book. Ransom tries to put Liberty in jail, but eventually resigns to solving his problems with a gun just like Tom Doniphon. As Matheson writes, “thus, decent, normal, law-abiding citizens tend to find themselves enmeshed in situations that require them to become criminals” (896). Ransom had no choice but to use his weapon, just like any other cowboy, to enforce frontier law.
The one main point of disagreement that I have with Matheson regarding her article in relation to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is the statement that, “characters who appear to be civilized men may in fact actually be savages” (895). I believe that in the film the men who appeared savage were savages and the men who appeared decent were in fact decent men. From my perspective, Tom Doniphan and Ransom Stoddard seemed decent men. One could argue that taking matters into their own hands and using weapons to solve their problems is savage, but I believe that this is just western law. However, there was no reason for Liberty Valance to savagely beat Mr. Peabody to death and then ransack his newspaper office. Liberty Valance seemed like a savage to me throughout the entire film, from the moment he robbed and beat Ransom. I just do not see where Matheson bases this argument as the viewer can judge characters in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance fairly well from the beginning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sue Matheson, in her article titled “The West-Hardboiled: Adaptations of Film Noir Elements, Existentialism, and Ethics in John Wayne’s Westerns” attempts to describe and explain many of the characters and actions that viewers witness while watching John Wayne movies. Matheson describes these movies and the western genre in general when she writes that westerns are, “collisions of civilization and the frontier, the ordering of a chaotic wilderness in which a romantic figure, the lone rider, achieves epic stature by accomplishing superhuman deeds and saving ‘civilized’ settlers” (889). The film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance perfectly reflects Matheson’s assessment. This film, starring John Wayne as cowboy Tom Doniphon, Lee Marvin as outlaw Liberty Valance, and James Stewart as greenhorn lawyer Ransom Stoddard, exemplifies much of what Matheson talks about in her article, but there are also some points that may be a little off target when she applies them to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
ReplyDeleteIn her article, Matheson makes many claims that I agree with. For instance, Matheson writes, “One can usually determine how aberrant characters are by their layers of grime-the dirtier their faces, the darker their hearts” (892). I believe that this assessment proves true in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, as Tom Doniphoin’s and Ransom Stoddard’s faces always seem clean and shaven while Liberty Valance and his gang look grimy and dirty throughout the movie. This simple judge of cleanliness is a great way to determine who is “good” and who is, well, not so “good”.
Another point that Matheson makes which particularly applies to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is the point about the law and corruption. In the film, Ransom Stoddard comes to Shinbone expecting to become a lawyer and to solve everyone’s legal issues “by the book” and in a civilized manner. However, the gun is the law in shinbone, not the book. Ransom tries to put Liberty in jail using civilized law, but he eventually resigns to solving his problems with a gun just as Tom Doniphon does. As Matheson writes, “decent, normal, law-abiding citizens tend to find themselves enmeshed in situations that require them to become criminals” (896). Ransom had no choice but to use his weapon, just like any other cowboy, to enforce frontier law.
The one main point of disagreement that I have with Matheson regarding her article in relation to The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is the opinion that, “characters who appear to be civilized men may in fact actually be savages” (895). I believe that in the film the men who appeared savage were savages and the men who appeared decent were in fact decent men. Tom Doniphan and Ransom Stoddard seemed like decent men. One could argue that taking matters into their own hands and using weapons to solve their problems is savage, but I believe that this is just western law. However, there was no reason for Liberty Valance to savagely beat Mr. Peabody to death and then ransack his newspaper office. Liberty Valance seemed like a savage throughout the entire film, from the moment he robbed and beat Ransom. I just do not see where Matheson bases this argument as the viewer can judge characters in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance fairly well from the beginning.