I did eventually find the pieces I was looking for, which were from 2005 (in a general discussion of the Western movie tradition) and then 2008 (in a discussion of heroism in Hollywood movies).
It's not a movie to watch if the concept of gun violence alarms you. Everyone in the movie is heavily armed at all times, with the fairly explicit message that unreasonable behavior will be resolved with projectile weapons, very likely wielded by spontaneous militias. There's not a single speech about how violence never solves anything.
It's hard not to imagine the town bad guy wishing he'd figured out a way to disarm the populace. The screenwriter started with the unspoken, casual assumption that no populace would allow itself to be disarmed, and instead concentrated on how hard it was to gear oneself up to a gunfight when it's necessary. He spends some attention on the damage a man can do to his life by excessive violence, but refuses to equate pacifism with either compassion or courage.
Thanks for posting the discussions on Westerns. I know many people who disdain them because they think the movies are shallow. Your posts prove otherwise. College-level political science classes should have a double feature of "Open Range" and "Shane." Both are about the same issue but the heroes and villains switch sides. Should the range be open and bring benefits to all until it suffers the tragedy of the commons or should it be carved up into private property which will allow some to accumulate more wealth than others? The college kids could see how emotional techniques in the hands of a master will drive the answer to that question.
You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoyed them. There are lots more posts about Westerns in the archives. That was just going back for comments on that one movie! I agree, it’s a genre that can handle the full range of drama.
3 comments:
It's not a movie to watch if the concept of gun violence alarms you. Everyone in the movie is heavily armed at all times, with the fairly explicit message that unreasonable behavior will be resolved with projectile weapons, very likely wielded by spontaneous militias. There's not a single speech about how violence never solves anything.
It's hard not to imagine the town bad guy wishing he'd figured out a way to disarm the populace. The screenwriter started with the unspoken, casual assumption that no populace would allow itself to be disarmed, and instead concentrated on how hard it was to gear oneself up to a gunfight when it's necessary. He spends some attention on the damage a man can do to his life by excessive violence, but refuses to equate pacifism with either compassion or courage.
The movie is full of grownups. I really like it.
Thanks for posting the discussions on Westerns. I know many people who disdain them because they think the movies are shallow. Your posts prove otherwise.
College-level political science classes should have a double feature of "Open Range" and "Shane." Both are about the same issue but the heroes and villains switch sides.
Should the range be open and bring benefits to all until it suffers the tragedy of the commons or should it be carved up into private property which will allow some to accumulate more wealth than others?
The college kids could see how emotional techniques in the hands of a master will drive the answer to that question.
You’re welcome. I’m glad you enjoyed them. There are lots more posts about Westerns in the archives. That was just going back for comments on that one movie! I agree, it’s a genre that can handle the full range of drama.
Post a Comment