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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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 much more used to violence in movies than 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 all the men being killed such as the new version features. Despite a lack of surprises (such as being followed and saved by Dan's son) and chases through crashing railroad tunnels in the original (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 by offering money to anyone who killed him. The new version had the gang kill all of the defenseless deputies instead of letting them just walk away. In the new version 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, in a surprising act, then kills his whole gang and gets on the train (without Dan, who happily rides away on the train in the original film).
ReplyDeleteThe 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.