// : || ~ ~ : |------->

    F I L M - P H I L O S O P H Y
    Journal | Salon | Portal (ISSN 1466-4615)
    http://www.film-philosophy.com

    Vol. 4  No. 24, October 2000

                            <-------| : ~ ~ || : \\



    Bob Sitton

    Refocusing the Western



Edward Countryman and Evonne von Heussen-Countryman
_Shane_
London, British Film Institute, 1999
ISBN 0-85170-732-7
78 pp.

The lamentably scarce attention paid George Stevens's most important film
receives a major corrective with the appearance of this slim volume in the
BFI Film Classics series, which sets out to honor 360 'key works in the
history of the cinema'. Edward Countryman, University Distinguished
Professor of History at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, and Evonne
von Heussen-Countryman, a medical researcher and victim's rights advocate
in the United Kingdom, have admirably reviewed the available documentation
and literature on the film and sought the perspective of the filmmaker's
son and biographer, George Stevens, Jr. The result is a study that offers a
close reading of the film, informative details of its production, and a
multifaceted framework for its understanding.

The simplicity and power of _Shane_ (1953) stands like a totemic image in
need of interpretation. How could a film with so few characters -- filmed
in such a majestic yet spartan setting, weaving an uncomplicated narrative
through laconic dialogue -- nonetheless have such impact? It must be
because the dramatic foci of the film have deeply resonant meanings. The
narrative of the film is simple: a lone rider descends from the majestic
Grand Teton mountain range of Wyoming to a valley farmstead maintained
against great odds by a man, his wife, and small son. The rider seeks only
a drink of water, but soon is drawn into the lives of the family, for a
time sharing their status as persecuted farmers subjected to the bullying
of armed ranchers who covet their property. The rider, the eponymous Shane
(Alan Ladd), is a gunfighter who would relinquish his weapons if he had the
chance. Finding mutual magnetism with the golden-haired wife of the farmer
(Van Heflin), played by Jean Arthur, he lingers in their domestic world and
becomes a role model for their pre-pubescent son (Brandon De Wilde). In the
stresses caused by the ranchers' terroristic raids upon the settlers, and
those placed upon the family by the presence of such an alluring and
charismatic outsider, Stevens finds his theme of individuals buffeted by
personal and historic forces.

The Countrymans are at their best when setting forth the film's historical
context. They recognize that the West of the post-Civil War period was a
place in which control of property was everything. In this they pay not
unexpected homage to the Turner Thesis, the view of historian Frederick
Jackson Turner that upon the defeat of Native Americans the old frontier --
the nineteenth century romantic ideal of an Edenic paradise -- was defunct.
[1] What remained was an unseemly scrabble for control of property and the
presumably unlimited resources of the West.

The Countrymans also rightly point out that race is not an issue in the
film. They acknowledge Stevens's personal belief in civil rights, and
linger briefly on the possible relevance of the film to Martin Luther King,
and end up steering possibly too widely around another epochal
pronouncement (by W. E. B. DuBois in _The Souls of Black Folk_) that the
challenge to America in the twentieth century is the problem of the 'color
line'. Stevens's film is not about race, but it is about an inseparably
connected issue: the need for resolute communal resistance to evil. In this
the film also bears relevance to another film, inexplicably ignored by the
Countrymans: Fred Zinnemann's _High Noon_ (1952), produced one year before
the Stevens picture.

Stevens relentlessly pares away extraneous elements to focus intently on
matters that concern him, matters about which he is at times more sensitive
than articulate. For example, the possibility that the Shane character
might fit neatly into a mould of 'giant killers', turning the film into a
fairy tale rather than a drama, was cancelled by Stevens in the editing
process. Scenes in which the story of Jack the Giant Killer are read to
young De Wilde were dropped along with allusions to the absence of giants
in the contemporary world. (This did not deter critic Pauline Kael from
dismissing the film as a shallow medieval epic). Even a cursory reading of
the film reveals a motion picture with sets and cast so minimized as to be
reaching for something universal.

Detecting this essence gives the Countrymans their greatest challenge.
Seemingly trying to cover all their bets, they hang interpretive overlays
on just about every character and element of the film. The villainous
rancher Rufe Ryker suggests to them a 'pagan god', as evidenced by his use
of the expletive, 'By Jupiter!' They find his accent New Yorkish instead of
Bostonian. Victor Young's music, solidly in the tradition of elaborated
American folk music going back to Virgil Thomson, Ferde Grofe, and Darius
Milhaud, is heard by them as 'Wagnerian'. Even before we learn of their
identities, the Heflin-Arthur-De Wilde trio appear to the Countrymans to
'carry an overtone of the Christian Holy Family' (14) (they do not,
however, explore the possibility that Shane might be a Christ-figure, which
is some ways he is).

Such metaphors need not be blocked, as the old _The New Yorker_ might have
put it, given that they are offered as speculations by the authors and are
quite innocuous, although a reader seeking for the gist of the Countrymans'
interpretation can be led down some unproductive paths. The sheer number of
interpretations do, however, betray a reverence for  Stevens that misses,
somewhat, his true achievement as a director and credits him for things he
did not achieve alone.

Although George Stevens was not, as one might conclude from the
Countrymans' book, single-handedly responsible for the film's austerely
beautiful cinematography (Loyal Griggs won an Oscar for it, as the book
mentions but does not elaborate). Undoubtedly, 'Stevens paid great
attention to the costumes on the film' (34) and may have vetoed Van
Heflin's request to wear an expensive Abercrombie and Fitch shirt as part
of his costume, but nowhere in the book is the name of costumer Edith Head
even mentioned. Likewise, the total mise en scene of frontier austerity so
marvellously achieved by the film must have owed some debt to the art
direction of Hal Pereira and Walter Tyler.

Such omissions, however well-intentioned, fail to recognize one of
Stevens's most admirable traits: his distinguished career as a
producer-director, marked by an uncanny ability to select and work well
with talented collaborators who could help him realize his purposes.
Stevens produced all but one of his own films between 1938 and 1965 (he
co-produced _Giant_). His genius lay not in hang-loose improvisation but in
a clear understanding of what he wanted to achieve, combined with a
dedication to work and re-work his films in post-production with a
thoroughness bordering on the obsessive.

I don't believe this is news to the Countrymans. I think in their effort to
honor George Stevens and to recognize the fullness of his achievement they
have placed him on a pedestal slightly different from the one he deserves.

The Countrymans are right-on in their view that the film is centered on the
Turnerean problem of property use. To their excellent discussion of this I
would only add that they sketch, but do not fully delineate, the argument
that the film makes about the need for communal action in the face of evil.
Given that the use of open space is the critical challenge facing American
expansion, Stevens also hints that little help is to be found from rank
capitalists in the process. The store owner in the film, a man with the
suggestive name of Grafton (Paul Mc Vey) who is fond of inquiring, 'What
can I do you for?', is actually the one unqualified villain of the film.
Even the hired gunman, Wilson (Jack Palance), is viewed more as the
professional opposite of Shane (both are referred to as passe) than as the
film's true 'heavy'. Jean Arthur is described in the book as having found
'the heavies . . . the most interesting people in the picture' (56). In
fact the true 'heavy' of the film is indifference, as exemplified by the
store owner Grafton's willingness to trade with both sides of the divided
town without taking a stand. He tells the ranchers that he 'likes' Joe
Starrett, the Heflin character, but his affections prove meaningless in the
face of violence.

Violence, of course, is central to the film and to Stevens's intent, which
the Countrymans dutifully report. 'We had a shooting . . .', they quote
Stevens as saying in 1973,

'that we wanted to make something out of [notice the generous and accurate
use of the inclusive pronoun], because the film was really about shooting.
The film was really for the deglamorizing of the six-shooter that was
becoming a graceful object in the fictional hands of the illustrators and
particularly the film people. And it was a time, I remember, when kids had
gone very Western. There were Western chaps and hats and cap guns
everywhere . . . . We wanted to put the six-gun in its place, visually, in
a period, as a dangerous weapon. And we did.' (42)

Stevens's intentions are realized through some of the most stark, corporeal
violence ever filmed, in which bullets entering men's bodies propel them
across rooms or into the mud, and the sounds of gunfire, both real and
simulated (by De Wilde) are amplified by echo chambers and the use of Army
howitzers.

Stevens's concerns about violence gain contemporary urgency when one
considers the role of handguns in American life. In the film one of the
townspeople remarks, 'I don't want no part of gun-slinging. Murder's a
better name for it.' In fact, as Michael A. Bellesiles reports in _Arming
America_, [2] the myth of America as having been 'settled' with the aid of
guns is countered by the fact that sidearms were largely unreliable until
the invention of the Colt revolver after the Civil War, and virtually every
call to arms issued in the United States until after World War II revealed
a largely unarmed citizenry. Murder, indeed, was the principal function of
the handgun, then and now.

Here one finds a difference of perspective that, if readjusted, might have
made the Countrymans' book even better. In their historical analysis, they
focus largely on the relevance of _Shane_ to 19th century dilemmas, whereas
in its heart and sensibility the film reflects Stevens's deeply felt
ambivalence toward contemporary matters about which he has proven
prescient. The issue of gun control has become an even more pressing matter
for concern in our own day, and Stevens's call for morally driven
collective action is central not only to the witch-hunting period of
McCarthyism and the later civil rights movement through which he lived, but
his skepticism of the moral leadership of business raises questions about
the contemporary benefits of a global economy.

Another of the interpretive overlays the Countrymans place on _Shane_ is
the lens through which the film views gender. Here, again, the authors
offer valuable insight. Young Brandon De Wilde (who is identified in the
book as 'the best child actor available', despite the fact that _Shane_ was
his first film) is wonderfully androgynous (which the Countrymans point
out) as, indeed, is Alan Ladd himself (which they do not), and in the
relationship between the male gunfighter and the impressionable boy-child
the coming-of-age dynamic is fiercely at work. The boy identifies
gunfighting and fisticuffs with being manly, and despite his obeisance to
his more taciturn father, it is clear who the father-figure really is. The
boy's reverence for the exotic older man has distinct homophilic
undertones, lending significance to Shane's parting advice to grow up
'strong and straight'.

At the same time Stevens continues his focus on independent women (_Alice
Adams_, 1935/_Woman of the Year_, 1942) by evoking from Jean Arthur her
most complex and interesting performance as the strong but discontent
frontier wife who stands by her husband while at the same time recognizing
his male pridefulness and the obvious allure of a beautiful rival like
Shane who draws her femininity out like an opening flower. This is a
wonderful dilemma: how, given marriage vows and dependent children, can two
people made for each other find happiness? The potentialities are alluring.
Young Joey (De Wilde) could have the real dad he wants, Shane could settle
down and end his fugitive existence and Arthur could have a man who
understands and loves her.

That Stevens draws this real-life conflict out with such power attests to
its importance to him as the film's maker. He wanted to make a statement
about the irony of relationships, about how in reality questions of
fidelity and honor supervene strong human desires. Here the
backward-looking orientation of the Countrymans' historical perspective
causes them to miss a critical aspect of Stevens's sensibility. Stevens was
profoundly influenced, as were so many of his generation, by the world war
just ended. He had seen others make, indeed himself made, the difficult
choice of leaving home and family for higher responsibility; he also
experienced the pain of a dissolving marriage in his divorce from his wife,
Yvonne.

Among the many intriguing documents referred to by the Countrymans is an
interview with Stevens on deposit at the Margaret Herrick Library of the
Motion Picture Academy. In it Stevens calls marriage 'the greatest of all
human -- I'll say human problems. You know the problem of the male and
female relationship . . . Now, the only solution we know in our community
is marriage and marriage takes much else with it. It means a lifetime of
companionship and association, you know, not just for the purpose of
bearing a child. So to protect the child, to conceive the child, you need a
lifetime of association.' (62)

Clearly, the state of being married meant a lot to Stevens. It rendered
ideal realignments of personal relations unrealizable, despite the pain
their impossibility might entail or the greater good they might portend.
This, exactly, is the point-of-view of _Shane_. It is, in a broad sense, a
Kantian argument for the supervention of duty over pleasure.

Steven's personal beliefs found their way into the film in several ways. It
is evident in the choice of the hymn, 'Abide With Me', which, curiously
enough, is sung both on the occasion of the couple's tenth anniversary and
at the funeral of a settler (Elisa Cook, Jr) shot down by the hired gun,
Palance. Most forcefully they surface in the dialogue between Jean Arthur
and Van Helflin when their marriage reaches the crisis point (when he
decides to risk certain death to kill Ryker and she charges him with
pridefulness and confesses that she hates their meager frontier existence
and willingly would pull up stakes). Heflin's counter that honor is worth
dying for is unflinchingly delivered along with a statement that his wife's
attitude wouldn't 'make any difference' to his decision. This is stark
domestic conflict. Its unvarnished realism places the film in the forefront
of post-war, 'psychological' Westerns.

The psychological complexity of _Shane_ is worked in two other ways the
Countrymans only implicitly acknowledge: it daringly took the perspective
of a child at a time when children were still thought of as better seen
than heard (two years before Nicholas Ray's epochal acknowledgement of the
'generation gap' in _Rebel Without a Cause_), and it distilled to a
chilling essence the World War II experience of facing death at the hands
of tyrants. Loyal Griggs, Stevens's cameraman, no doubt at the director's
bidding, filmed most of _Shane_ from the point-of-view of the boy, giving
audiences a subjective vulnerability only to be found elsewhere in the work
of Yasujiro Ozu. This amplifies the empathy one feels for the young person
and gives poignant resonance to De Wilde's plea at the end that Shane not
leave, that his mother 'wants you, I know she does!'. Secondly, the film
reflects in its inert citizenry both American reluctance to go to war (the
isolationist United States entered over six years after Hitler took charge
in Germany), and the particular horror, experienced in the jungle warfare
of the Pacific island campaigns, of the difficulty of standing up against
seemingly insurmountable odds. These lend _Shane_ a maturity shared by many
post-war films, whose anti-heroes and ambiguous good and bad guys reflected
a world sobered by war.

Finally, there is the film-historical overlay. In this I feel the
Countrymans most unfortunately come up short. _Shane_ is indeed a major
film, but the yardstick used by the authors manages to diminish its
stature. The Countryman's idea of film-historical scholarship seems to be
to look up contemporary reviews of the film, which of course can be
revealing. But one begins to squirm when reading that 'the other major film
about end-of-the-frontier Wyoming is Michael Cimino's _Heaven's Gate_'
(71), that 'Warren Beatty (and not Arthur Penn) drew on the Stevens
howitzer technique for gunshots in _Bonnie and Clyde_' (74), or that
Stevens was both a 'master improviser' and 'as in control as either Ford or
Hitchcock' (26). One is tempted to completely lose heart at a statement
like: 'If _Stagecoach_ marked the onset of the Western's great cycle and
_Josey Wales_ marked its conclusion, _Shane's_ release in 1953 came at the
cycle's mid-point, not strictly in chronological terms, but rather in terms
of the genre's development.' (32) Please, _Stagecoach_ was made in 1939,
and Clint Eastwood's _The Outlaw-Josey Wales_ came out in 1976, not at all
a meaningful time-frame for understanding the Western.

It becomes apparent that the Countrymans believe that the film-historical
significance of _Shane_ lies principally in the influences the film seems
to have had upon filmmakers who came *after* Stevens, thus ignoring the
fact that Stevens himself was an astute observer of film history and sought
a role in it. Hence they note the debt of Sam Peckinpah, who in _The Wild
Bunch_ tortured Stevens's pacifism into a blood-splattered travesty, or
point out that Clint Eastwood, who has consistently respected film history,
remade _Shane_ as _Pale Rider_ in 1985. This, however, is movie trivia. (I
like to play, too, and wonder what the Countryman's would think of the
transformation of Shane's pre-fight remark, 'Are you speaking to me?' into
Robert DeNiro's ominous inquiry in _Taxi Driver_ (1976), 'Are you talkin'
to me?') More importantly, _Shane_ has a place in film history left
undelineated by the Countrymans.

'Is it merely a coincidence,' William K. Everson and George N. Fenin wrote
in their excellent study, _The Western_, 'that some of the best Westerns of
recent memory -- particularly John Ford's superlative _Wagonmaster_ (one of
the few sound Westerns to really deserve the description, 'poetic') and
George Stevens's _Shane_ -- have still been Westerns basically in the old
mood, stressing the austerity of the frontier, and telling their stories in
a superbly pictorial manner? The other Ford Westerns of the same period
(_Fort Apache_, _Rio Grande_, _She Wore a Yellow Ribbon_, _The Searchers_)
and, to a lesser degree, Zinnemann's _High Noon_, Jacques Tourneur's simple
and very pleasing _Wichita_, and John Farrow's _Hondo_, were also devoid of
sensational eroticism and, significantly, can be counted among the best
Westerns of the period.' [3]

It was Everson and Fenin who identified the skein within the Western genre
that _Shane_ so admirably fits. _Shane_ is what they would call a
'reluctant gunfighter' film, a film about a proven warrior who wants
nothing more than to lay down his weapons and settle in with wife and
family. This, of course, is impossible. Everson and Fenin quote the actor
Tom Mix, who spoke for all reluctant gunfighters when he said: 'I ride into
a place owning my own horse, saddle, and bridle. It isn't my quarrel, but I
get into trouble doing the right thing for somebody else. When it's all
ironed out, I never get any money reward. I may be made foreman of the
ranch and I get the girl, but there is never a fervid love scene.' [4]
Stevens's film is among the great examples of the 'reluctant gunfighter'
genre, a realistic streak of Westerns going back to the films of William S.
Hart (_Hell's Hinges_, 1915, and _Tumbleweeds_, 1925) extending through the
work of John Ford, which spanned both silent and sound periods, and
distinguished by the films of Henry King, Fred Zinnemann, and Howard Hawks.

That Stevens was deliberately paying homage to this genre is evident in the
austerity with which he approached his subject. Long ago William S. Hart,
who grew up among the Sioux and spoke their language, had set an example of
dedication to realism Lars von Trier and the Dogma group would admire
today. He despised the glamorization of the West, the fancy chaps and movie
six-guns that led to the fad for kiddie cowboy suits that stuck in
Stevens's craw. He felt a need to portray the West straightforwardly,
showing all the dust and heat and deprivation the Western settlers had
experienced. George Stevens knew about Hart. It is apparent in his film. He
also knew about the great Westerns to immediately precede him on the scene:
Henry King's _The Gunfighter_(1950), in which Gregory Peck turns in what
may well be the best reluctant-gunfighter performance of them all, and Fred
Zinnamann's _High Noon_(1952), in which Gary Cooper 'get(s) into trouble
doing the right thing for somebody else' (ref???)[5] as a sheriff trying to
marshall a passive citizenry into action against a trio of killers coming
in on the noon train.

What is fascinating is what Stevens adds to this: he amplifies the
reluctant gunman theme by placing the hero in a mature domestic dilemma,
and shows unflinchingly how guns and fists can harm a man, who is, after
all, a mere mortal. He demythologizes the genre like nobody before him,
and, also unnoticed by the Countrymans, he does so by giving the reluctant
gunman a measure of revenge.

In 1950 Henry King had top gunslinger Jimmy Ringo, the Gregory Peck
character, ride into town in hopes of anonymously paying a visit to his
estranged wife and the child who never knew him. He sets up in the town
hotel, and orders steak and eggs in the hotel bar from an old acquaintance
(Karl Malden), now the town bartender. With his trademark cup of coffee
before him, sitting with his back to the wall much as Jack Palance does in
_Shane_, he coolly outfoxes young wannabe Skip Homier by calmly holding a
gun on him from under the table before Homier can get the drop on him. Well
and good. Age and skill pays off. But after Peck has his visit with his
family, and his hope of settling down proves as hopeless as does Shane's,
he is brutally shot down by a towns person seeking to make a name for
himself. The fatal blow comes from a shotgun secreted on an upper story, a
cowardly undercutting of the cowboy mandate to face one's opponent squarely
and draw. George Stevens settles this score. His reluctant gunman is not
leaving town humiliated. The De Wilde boy may call after him, and the boy's
mother may want him badly, but Shane leaves town on the terms he rode in
on: his own.

In a larger sense George Stevens himself is a victim of the auteur theory.
The view that motion pictures are the product of a single mind, a director
who also controls the total mise en scene, lingers on in the propensity of
film scholars to elevate the director to the status of a god. But although
many great films can be viewed from this perspective, and the theory itself
can be illuminating, in fact a great deal of filmmaking is collaborative.
It is naive to think that an art form involving the related fields of
literature, drama, visual art, and music -- whose content can span the
intellectual and historic spectrum -- can in all its aspects be controlled
by one man or woman. The feature film is notoriously complex. As such it is
time for us to acknowledge its true nature, and to recognize as one of the
geniuses of collaborative art, George Stevens.

Marylhurst University, Oregon, USA


Footnotes

1. See Frederick Jackson Turner, 'The Significance of the Frontier in
American History', in Richard Etulian, ed., _Historians at Work: Did the
Frontier Experience Make America Exceptional?_ (Boston, Mass.: Bedford-St
Martins, 1999).

2. Michael A. Bellesiles, _Arming America: Origins of a National Gun
Culture_ (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000).

3. William K. Everson and George N. Fenin, _The Western: From Silents to
Cinerama_ (New York: Orion Press, 1962), p. 275.

4. Ibid., p. 117.

5. Ibid.


Copyright © _Film-Philosophy_ 2000

Bob Sitton, 'Refocusing the Western', _Film-Philosophy_, vol. 4 no. 24,
October 2000
<http://www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy/files/sitton.html>.

    **********

Send your thoughts on this article and its subject to:

    [log in to unmask]

    ********************************




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%