XPost: rec.arts.tv
In article <vog69f$1tbcr$
1@dont-email.me>,
ahk@chinet.com wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The >literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long >Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The >audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan >Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average >height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey >(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
What, nothing to say about Adam West?
--
Not a joke! Don't jump!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)