comment #1

Harvey says ...

Damn. I kept reading, waiting for the big, "But..." but the big but didn't appear.

Good points, all of 'em. I've had the same discussion about "The Searchers" with a lot of friends and personally I agree with all the complaints (the racism, the ignorance, the bum performances, the dead-flat notes).

But still... I can kind of accept the movie as a) a visually masterful and often moving piece of work and b) a document that reflects the period it was made as much as the story it's telling -- just like the films of Sirk, Sturges, Capra and hundreds more. Sure, the best films present concepts and attitudes that are ahead of their time -- that's what makes a transcendent masterpiece -- but there are lots of later and current films that are great but miss the mark of transcendence, that will suffer simply because of the time at which they were made and the restrictions of the period. And they probably aren't as good or as telling as "The Searchers."

comment #2

Drew Hemelstein says ...

Jeff, you are a bright guy. Why do you always bring left wing politics into everything you write? It is so tiresome. Yes, we can accuse John Ford of all these things in the context of today's overly politically correct world, but that is not the point. The point is you have to look at these films in the context of the time they were made. Do you derride BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES because it has a lot of senitment in it. I know sentiment is a threatening noun to all of those post modern, emotionally detached critics out there, but the reality is that most literati confuse "sentiment" with "sentimentality". Sentiment is not and should not be a pejorative. But sentiment is not cool, it's not cynical, it's not clean so everyone condemns it and now Ford's work becomes an easy target because of this trendy cynicism. More importantly, you have to look at these film in the context of the time they were made. Do you condemn the Parthenon or Pericles because the ancient Greeks had slaves, do you lambast Shakespeare for his portrayal of cunning, manipulative or weak feeble minded women...? Come on, Jeff, everything has a context and not everything fits neatly into the Hilary Clinton "It takes a village to watch a movie" mentality...

comment #3

M. Goedecke says ...

Jeff, of all people I thought you would get this. Movies like "The Searchers" have to be watched with a different set of eyes...you simply can't apply modern sensibility to them. If you did, even films like "Citizen Kane," "La Strada" and "It Happened One Night" look somewhat silly. I've always believed that older films have to be watched with a different mindset, allowing you to appreciate them for what they were at the time. That being said, of course the film is imperfect...I don't know of any perfect films or films that do not contain some element of prejudice. Perhaps that is what makes watching these movies important; allowing yourself to look at them and say "I can't believe people ever thought that way."

comment #4

Alexander says ...

The worst thing about The Searchers, though, is the annoying comic subplot that nobody I've ever known who's seen the film has ever cared about one bit.

Ford's films are often hurt by his attempts at humor, which usually consist or big fights (even She Wore a Yellow Ribbon descends into this for an overly long time) in bars with big Irish guys.

I sort of disagree about Fort Apache, though. To me, of all of Ford's films, I think that one just might have had the right blend of the strong "A" story, the could-have-been-bad-but-isn't love story subplot involving Henry Fonda's daughter and most of the humor for me works. It also has one of Ford's bleaker finales, with Fonda leading his men to destruction. (Interesting, too, that for a man like Ford who has received ample criticism for his depiction of American Indians, the racist Fonda character is depicted as almost psychotic, even if Ford didn't entirely disagree with him on all points.)

comment #5

Harvey says ...

I agree, the annoying comic subplot is... an annoying comic subplot. But if it hadn't been filmed, then it never would've wound up in "Mean Streets." And I love the way it shows up in "Mean Streets."

comment #6

delbomber says ...

Drew...I'll be the first guy to pounce on Wells when he's being a bleeding-heart pinko, but disdain for racism is not a partisan issue. Jeff's sentiment is right and justified...we SHOULD squirm and cringe at the overt racism that existed just a few decades ago instead of grinning and bearing it because, heck, that's just the way people were back then. Racism is a trait that is deserving of disgust and contempt across eras and across the ideological spectrum.

I believe there is a distinct difference between marvelling at monuments built by slaves and accepting overtly racist themes in a work of fiction. By looking in awe at slave-built monuments, we honor their suffering, not their servitude. Conversely, appreciating fictional racism within the context of its time is an unacceptable show of complacency and acceptance.

Just my $.02.

Cheers.

comment #7

Geoff says ...

Jeff, all good points. I recently took a film studies class at UC Santa Cruz and we watched this film. The scene we analyzed was the one in which the wife of Ethan's brother "strokes Ethan's overcoat and then barely reacts." When I watched this film in class, amidst 200 or so other people, there was laughter and snickering throughout, especially when the indian Scar first appears in close-up. Of course, many other people were looking at this thing like it was a masterpiece. It's a classic, but I agree with you completely.

comment #8

Joe Greenia says ...

This has never bothered me. I just think of it as heavily stylized performing and can enjoy it for what it is. In fact I love Hank Worden's "That which we are about to receive, we thank thee oh Lord..." I quote that one fairly often. Okay, the Ken Curtis stuff is pushing it, but I'm not wincing or choking on anything.

comment #9

Nick says ...

While in film school about six years ago, the professor showed us The Searchers and I asked him why the fuck would he bother with that? The professor simply said, 'its a movie I had to watch in film school, so you have to watch it too'. After The Wild Bunch was released, I can't believe people still consider The Searchers a classic for anything other than the visuals, as a silent movie it might make good viewing.

comment #10

Anonymous says ...

I've sat through the Searchers about 3 times including once on the big screen at the cinemateque. I've always wondered why a couple of friends and some big name directors like Scorsese praise this film so highly.

It’s true you have to watch classic films in a different mindset and Searchers does have those few subtle moments and a good ending. But some classic films hold up well today including pre-pekinpah westerns like Naked Spur, The Far country and Red River. Whereas the Searchers has far too many hokey performances and the way Wild Goose is kicked into the river by Martin is just grating.

comment #11

Manoj says ...

I've sat through the Searchers about 3 times including once on the big screen at the cinemateque. I've always wondered why a couple of friends and some big name directors like Scorsese praise this film so highly.

It’s true you have to watch classic films in a different mindset and Searchers does have those few subtle moments and a good ending. But some classic films hold up well today including pre-pekinpah westerns like Naked Spur, The Far country and Red River. Whereas the Searchers has far too many hokey performances and the way Wild Goose is kicked into the river by Martin is just grating.

comment #12

guy steele says ...

Wow what different views of this film. I feel it is hard for the younger film lovers to fully embrace films of the past. The '60's did bring a new set of sensibilities but I agree you have to look at the movies of the '50's and back with your MTV glasses set aside.

Is the Searchers the greatest Western of all time? No. Film Historians would argue and that's great... everyone takes from a movie differently. I always thought the themes of The Searchers and the character John Wayne plays was always it's best points. But beautiful photography isn't enough. For me the best later Wayne movie was his last one with John Ford: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

But picking the best western is a toughy I for visual reasons like She Wore A Yellow Ribbon best use of Technicolor and the Calvary uniform. A better story is to be found in Winchester '73 and Ride The High Country.

But still the best western? It would be easy to pick The Wild Bunch, I always look at everything to come up with a best film... thing is that doesn't always work because a lot of the time the best film isn't the most entertaining or even the best acted. For me to say something is the best it has to work on many levels but mostly story first, then acting, phtography and last the entertainment factor. This is the reason I think The Wire is the best show on TV, but Deadwood or The Sopranos is more entertaining.

So again I ask... What is the best western? For themes alone I like The Ox-Bow Incident. For photography alone it would have to be Shane. Then again Shane works on so many other levels as well. The first Dollar movie: Fistful of Dollars is just about perfect in it's style. Tombstone is a fun, fun, entertaining ride.

Aw heck see... it's not easy picking the best. Why should we have to... movies affect you on so many levels.

But I will go back to when I was a kid and pick Shane, it stuck with me ever since I saw it for the first time in the '60's.

I can only imagine how great it would have been had it been made later in Cinemascope.

comment #13

Philip Napoli says ...

Let's just say the word: Overrated. John Ford is absolutely an overrated director. I've always thought that. It took me awhile to get around to seeing The Searchers, and when I finally did, I was stunningly underwhelmed. I can think of ten westerns off the top of my head that matter more than that film.

comment #14

Rich says ...

There is a famous quote by Howard Hawks about Ford. After Ford saw Wayne in Hawks' Red River, he supposedly said, "I didn't know the big sonofabitch could act." Well, maybe it was because he hadn't previously worked with a director who knew how to direct actors. Every time I see the scene where Wayne intends to shoot Debbie and Martin replies, "No you don't Ethan! NO YOU DON'T!!!" while whipping out his gun, it's like nails on a chalkboard.

That said, Scorsese makes some excellent points in the American Masters documentary on the Stagecoach DVD. Ford appeared to be an adherent of "printing the legend" when given the choice between that and the truth. But, as Scorsese observes, he always gives you the truth, too. Though Wayne eulogizes Fonda in Fort Apache, the audience knows Fonda was really a racist, meglomaniacal ass. James Stewart tries to tell the truth in Liberty Valance, but the newspapers tell the legend anyway.

Even in the Quiet Man, which is usually held up as the epitome of Ford sentiment, we see Ireland through the eyes of Wayne the outsider. At the beginning of the film, he has idealized Ireland as the slice of heaven his mother described. He comes to see that idealization as based on a bunch of stupid, backwards customs that likely hold the people of Ireland back and keep them poor (as the Mildred Natwick character explicitly states). He spends the whole film resisting these customs. Finally, he realizes the only way he can be with the woman he loves (who also realizes these customs are stupid but is trapped by them) is to assimilate. But not before he takes out his frustrations by beating the crap out of their greatest adherent. Again, Ford "prints the legend" and leaves Wayne in his idyllic Irish Brigadoon, but not before he's punched some holes in the myth.

Anyway, Ford, visual magician that he is, is admittedly no Howard Hawks, Alfred Hitchcock or Billy Wilder. But I think his films do have more subtext than they are generally given credit for.

comment #15

Mike Gebert says ...

You know what I can't stand? That fucking Shakespeare. People are being murdered in Macbeth and you've got that comic relief guard doing his shtick trying to answer the door... who told that jackass he could write?

I see 15 people basically saying "You have to realize that Ford wasn't as smart as us about racism" and "You have to accept that people liked bad acting in the 1950s" and I realize that we've seen movies that exist on one plane for so long-- Batman good, Joker bad, Batman kill Joker, yay!-- that we've completely lost the ability to read a movie on multiple levels. We've lost the "and yet"-- Ethan hates the Indians AND YET he's the one who understands their ways, Ethan wants to keep the bright line between the two cultures AND YET he's the one living on the boundary, whose skills are all derived from the Indians, Ethan wants to protect civilization AND YET he's clearly the uncivilized one, far more of a brute and a psychopath than Scar ever was... The Searchers is far and away the best American movie about racism, the one that stares most unflinchingly at the fact that we hate the other because we know there is no difference really, we hate the other because-- we hate ourselves, we don't trust ourselves not to become savage. (It's often said that the inspiration for Ethan's character was Al Sieber. But it could as easily have been D.C. Stephenson. Google the name.)

As for the comedy, as for the performances, yeah, they're a little tall in the corn, but part of the reason you think that is that your teachers protected your young mind from another American racist cornpone humorist named Mark Twain, so you're completely disconnected from the tradition of rural humor, tall-tale-telling, broad comedy that would have been true to these people and their times. Blaming Ford for carrying on that tradition is sort of like blaming a cabaret singer for not reflecting the influence of 90s grunge. Abraham Lincoln didn't talk like he was on a sitcom either. James Fenimore Cooper is pretty low on snappy comebacks. There's more than one strain in American life, this simply reflects a different one which is, needless to say, deeply out of fashion.

It's really sad to me that so many people look at this movie and get stopped by the most trivial aspects of it-- Wood's plucked eyebrows, Ken Curtis (a godawful actor, I grant you, but imagine you're a rancher in a tiny theater in Bumfudge, Wyoming in 1892 and he's come to town playing the banjo and singing Stephen Foster, then his performance style makes sense), the lack of clearly underlined statements of the theme (maybe what this movie needs is Madea spelling it out for everybody, with Maya Angelou at her side). Now, there are "classics" that are no such thing, and part of developing your own taste is deciding that certain things which the world professes to admire just don't have the depth people claim they do. I respect honestly wrestling with this movie, this deep reservoir of conflicted feelings about the American experience in the West, and deciding it comes up short. But honestly and without meaning to be insulting (though ready to be attacked in turn), I just don't see much of that level of engagement in this thread.

comment #16

Mike Gebert says ...

P.S.

"There is a famous quote by Howard Hawks about Ford. After Ford saw Wayne in Hawks' Red River, he supposedly said, "I didn't know the big sonofabitch could act." Well, maybe it was because he hadn't previously worked with a director who knew how to direct actors."

And after reading my above comment, Jeffrey Wells said "I don't know why I even bother typing when there's writing about film like Mike Gebert's in this world."

NOBODY lied more in interviews with 60s and 70s film scholars than Howard Hawks.

NOBODY.

comment #17

richard crawford says ...

I like Stagecoach, My Darling Clementine..(think it is his best, perhaps his masterpiece) She Wore a Yellow Ribbon...i loved as a kid. Also liked parts of The Quiet Man. And Mogambo was fun....Ava Gardner!!!!! Also liked Pinky. (uncredited, I believe) Jeanne Craine was lovely in it. However, his so-called masterpieces are NOT. They do have some great scenery, however.

comment #18

richard crawford says ...

Mr. Gilbert can write. However, the Searchers is not a good movie. If you can't see THAT, you can't see it. This is not an attack.

comment #19

Rich says ...

Uh, Mike? I was defending Ford. True, Hawks' comment may well have been apocryphal, but I've never seen anything from Ford or anyone else denying that Ford said it. In fact, in light of some of the other nasty things Ford did to Wayne, it seems right in character. I just used that quote as an illustration of what I perceive to be Ford's biggest limitation.

Personally, I have no trouble at all putting myself in the mindset to enjoy films in the context in which they were presented. Heck, I just spent a fairly pithy paragraph defending the merits of The Quiet Man. You won't even find many Ford defenders that will do that.

comment #20

P. McCudden says ...

John Ford was deliberately echoing genres and motifs of American storytelling - the broad emotions of 19th-century melodrama, the cut-from-stone archetypes of Western dime novels - and then tweaking those motifs in profound ways. What he did was done quite intentionally, to draw in an audience with comforting ideas and images, and then make them feel just a _bit_ uncomfortable about what they were seeing. It's brilliant storytelling! How can this be so hard to see when millions of teenage boys flock to the latest slasher remake and chuckle along with the cliches - in fact, _demand_ the cliches - or say the movie "sucks"? Why do we LOVE cliches in filmmaking today, and then poo-poo them when they appear in fifty year old movies? Network television and most Hollywood filmmaking is so relentlessly generic (have you seen a medical or cop TV show lately, or a studio "romantic comedy"!?) that it makes Ford look like Stan Brakhage! Compare "The Searchers" to "Crash" or "Titanic" and tell me which one is filled with bigger stereotypes and cliches...

comment #21

Lewis Beale says ...

Strikes me there are three things going on here:

1. The total lack of historical perspective of the younger generation. An age group that can't find Iraq on a map sure can't critique "The Searchers" from any valid perspective.

2. The bludgeoning of the aesthetic perspective thanks to years of comic book movies, CGI films and "Star Wars" idiocy. A whole generation or two has grown up thinking this is film art.

3. The camp mentality. If you don't understand it, laugh at it or mock it. This substitutes irony for any type of coherent, and well thought-out, critique.

But guess what? "The Seachers," certainly a highly flawed film, is also a masterpiece. If it weren't, we wouldn't be having all this back-and-forth, 'cause it wouldn't be worth the space.

(And for the recod, I think the best Ford film is "My Darling Clementine")

comment #22

Mike Gebert says ...

Yeah, Rich, I know, that's why I separated the mention of that quote from the rest of my rant.

It's absolutely true that Hawks used Wayne in new ways which in turn clearly informed The Searchers, I just don't believe for a second that Ford would have said that to him-- except, perhaps, right in front of Wayne, to humiliate him publicly. Now THAT I can believe, based on what I've read about Ford....

comment #23

Michael Adams says ...

I used to think that Ford was vastly overrated, but as I have aged and my hormones have slowed a tad, I have come to accept his greatness. To appreciate any great art, you must see it with a combination of your personality/intelligence, the mores of your time, and an understanding of what the artist is trying to do. Too many of us refused to do the latter. Although all Ford's films are flawed, each, except toward the end of his career, has wonderful moments. Despite the cringe-inducing bits in The Searchers, it is a great film because of the contradictory complexity of Wayne's character: heroic and horrible at the same time. (Students, now compare Ethan Edwards to T. E. Lawrence.) And The Searchers has influenced dozens of quest films since, most recently Kill Bill II. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Ken Curtis was Ford's son-in-law during 1952-1964 and might have been indulged as a result.

comment #24

delbomber says ...

"The Searchers is far and away the best American movie about racism, the one that stares most unflinchingly at the fact that we hate the other because we know there is no difference really, we hate the other because-- we hate ourselves"

I agree with the remarks about self-loathing, but disagree Ford intented to make any sort of social commentary. Wayne's racism may add depth to his character, but it is entirely self-contained and for the benefit of the movie. An Archie Bunker-like caricature/anti-hero supports a cynical view of racism only if those that are the subject of prejudice act as foils by being shown in a positive or redeeming light. Portraying both Wayne and the Indians as inseparable savages does not support this objective.

One could continue to dig deeper and deeper to say Ford intended us to explore the Indians motives or impetus for their behavior, but now we're getting carried away...

comment #25

BL says ...

I am continuously mystified by the popularity of Ford's second-rate "The Searchers". The film's garish Technicolor is an example of how crappy and tacky technicolor can look at its worst, the performances are mostly terrible, the "indian" makeup is an embaressment and while OK, Wayne is just not that compelling of an actor to me to justify the multiple orgasms many people (mostly men) go into about him.

Not to mention racism is a small, petty and mean-minded sentiment that is not worthy of the gloss it gets in this film.

Ford pretty much lost it in his later years (not to mention him letting his freak flag fly with his spanking fetish and ruining the pretty good "Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" with his madman casting of TOO OLD Jimmy Stewart) but he made some good movies when younger.

He WAS most fortunate to work with the genius Gregg Toland, who MAKES the "Grapes of Wrath" and whose work graces many Ford films.

"My Darling Clemintine" is also a wonderful film that survives the cold-have-been-better-cast Victor Mature.

Ford made a fascinating forgotten film called "Pilgrimage" that has its flaws but is like no other movie of his or of that era I have ever seen. Maybe if John Wayne had played the middle-aged mother who goes to Europe to retrieve the body of her son it would be better remembered.

comment #26

Mike Gebert says ...

"The film's garish Technicolor is an example of how crappy and tacky technicolor can look at its worst"

Now that's just smokin' crack.

comment #27

ArchiveGuy says ...

I think the latent racism in a majority of Ford's westerns is troubling and undeniable, and the whole "you need to see it in contemporary eyes" is thoroughly crap. Take a look at the 40s & 50s westerns of Hawks or Mann or Boetticher (all of which, I'd argue, are equal to most of Ford's output). Native Americans are rarely, if ever, important to the dramatic conflict or the psychological incisiveness of the films. They are mostly, at best, on the periphery, and when they are slightly more central ("Winchester '73"), they're still characters, not caricatures. And that doesn't even include many of the one-off "classics" of the period ("Shane", "High Noon", etc.) that managed to create tension without them.

But Ford seemed to consistently and repeatedly fall back on the crutch of dehumanizing and stereotyping Indians (even in non-Calvary films like "Clementine"). Even when they're treated unfairly ("Fort Apache"), they're still depicted as ignoble or subhuman. This isn't something that can be glibly glossed over as merely "a sign of the times"; an artist may be a product of his environment, but he's certainly not a slave to it.

That said, "The Searchers", conflicted as it is, is still a remarkable treatise on the subject, one that is more complex than one might give Ford typical credit for. Something that isn't mentioned much is the subcurrent of miscegenation (and the fear of it) that runs through the film--specifically in the likelihood (and there are plenty of suggestions in the film) that Martin is in fact Ethan's son, and one reason Ethan knows so much of the cultural nuances of his enemy is that he himself was with a "squaw" for a while. Seeing the film & Ethan again in this light--his own self-loathing, his treatment of Martin--brings another layer of poignancy to the portrayal of a man who does wander, anchorless and alone.

This doesn't alleviate the other problems with the film (the tiresome "lad" humor, the tedious portrayal of women, the final "heroic" assault on the camp), but it makes for more interesting viewing than many of his other, over-revered films.

comment #28

ArchiveGuy says ...

RICH said: "That said, Scorsese makes some excellent points in the American Masters documentary on the Stagecoach DVD. Ford appeared to be an adherent of "printing the legend" when given the choice between that and the truth. But, as Scorsese observes, he always gives you the truth, too. Though Wayne eulogizes Fonda in Fort Apache, the audience knows Fonda was really a racist, meglomaniacal ass. James Stewart tries to tell the truth in Liberty Valance, but the newspapers tell the legend anyway."

You make an interesting point here (and with "The Quiet Man"), but my problem with this is that Ford is too conciliatory about perpetuating the myth. He's a classic Institution Man in the sense that he seems to prefer maintaining the comfortable status quo than in valuing the Truth on its merits. Since much of our cultural sense of the west is through his iconography, the fact that he seems to almost take pride in not being too self-examining is a serious drawback for me.

I think this myth perpetuation is why the films are so one-dimensionally masculine, another reason why I find the films trite. All women are virgin/whores, who have no real value is his world except as symbols. It's only through sheer force of personality that Maureen O'Hara was able to transcend this (though I'm still obliged to qualify such a statement), but the rest of Ford's women are largely cyphers. Again, you can't begin to say the same thing about Hawks.

comment #29

Anonymous says ...

MIKE GEBERT said: "Now that's just smokin' crack."

And low-grade crack at that. Winton Hoch may have been a photographic one-trick pony, but he certainly *got* Ford, and Ford's films are profoundly (even deceptively) better for his contributions (though I think David Thomson was right: Ford didn't really know how to use Toland, since GT was simply in another league).

comment #30

ArchiveGuy says ...

Whoops--that was me above, too.

comment #31

sean says ...

>the lack of clearly underlined statements of the theme (maybe what this movie needs is Madea spelling it out for everybody, with Maya Angelou at her side).

Mike - couldn't you have cited a bad white writer? Of all the people in the world to bring into it, when you're getting mad at people for saying the movie is racist (which it is, though not to the extent that some here are arguing), why bring one of the most honored black writers in history into it as an example of bad writing? How 'bout Dan Brown? Akiva Goldsman? David Goyer? There are so many more bad white writers that it seems odd to focus on two black people.

Personally, I'm with the guy who prefers 'Liberty Valance' to 'The Searchers'. 'The Searchers' has interesting depths that you can read into it, but fails on basic levels (though it is beautiful). I'm personally not interested in forcing myself to consider various things in order to "understand" how brilliant a movie, I'd rather watch a movie which I enjoy and naturally prompts me to realize the depths upon further reflection and conversation. If nobody told me 'The Searchers' was good, I wouldn't have made it through at all, unlike other movies of that time which have aged well.

comment #32

Mike Gebert says ...

Bringing up Madea and Maya Angelou was to specifically point to an example of a movie that simply stops dead so that its theme can be explicitly lectured upon, in the least artfully-dramatized fashion possible-- to judge by reports at least (I didn't actually see whichever of those Tyler Perry things it was, or any other, and yes, I accept all appropriate blame for talking based on reviews, yadda yadda, maybe Perry's a genius and subtle and artful and what do I know, but I doubt it).

The Searchers doesn't do that-- which is perhaps why people here confuse "racist" with "thematically about racism, featuring racist characters acting truthfully to their unthinkingly racist natures during the course of the film, in a way that at times plays to the audience's own racism, the better to smack 'em with it by the end by saying, if you bought into any of Ethan's act, if you laughed when Martin's squaw was made fun of, you've got more of him in you than you care to admit."

comment #33

Chris says ...

"... The Searchers, Ford's undisputed masterpiece that came out in March of 1956, it's enough to make you retch."

I'll dispute that. Ford's masterpiece is The Man Who Shot Liberty Vallance, and it's not particularly close, IMO

As for The Searchers, I have a friend who likes to rate "all-time classics" that he doesn't get, and The Searchers is one of my top two (along with High Noon. When it's good, it's great. When it's bad, it's really freaking bad. I also can't get around the "Indians" who look and talk like they grew up on Flatbush Avenue.

comment #34

Mike Gebert says ...

Oops, still not very clear, wish there was an edit button... the reason Maya Angelou gets dragged into this is because she's in that Tyler Perry movie, apparently standing at the side while Madea lectures the audience for five minutes. (And not because I have any racism in me. No sir. Not like that evil John Ford.)

"Oh yeah? Well, I just happen to have Maya Angelou here."

"You know nothing of my work. How you ever became a professor of anything is beyond me..."

comment #35

Rich says ...

Mike,

Whydja have to go and drag poor Woody into all of this...

comment #36

Duck of Death says ...

Interesting that these discussions inevitable come down to the political. Its hard for many to remove the artist from the zeitgeist of their era especially when it conflicts with their values. Even today, most Americans have a very hard time hearing about events in our nation's history that don't mesh w/ the kind of American Mythology that most Americans are raised on, which is partly why Fox news exists. People would rather see their world view reinforced than see something which might challenge it, irregardless of fact. That being said I'm not a fan of Ford's westerns, not because he lacked the courage to present American Indians as humans, but because I have a hard time getting past the pre-Brando stagey acting of the era.

comment #37

BL says ...

You guys just should admit your love for "The Searchers" is really just a manifestation of your infatuation with John Wayne. There can be no other explanation for all this blathering when Ford made MANY better movies.

Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I would have to accuse anyone who thinks Winton Hoch was a great color cinematographer to be the crack smoker. Just took a look at his credits on imdb, and saw he ended his career shooting such TV shows as "The Time Tunnel" and "Lost in Space" - talk about water reaching its own level!

I am not crazy about early Technicolor - but I suggest anyone who wants to see a genuinely decent example of it take a look at a good print of "The Yearling", shot in part by the great Charles Rosher who started out shooting silents with Mary Pickford yet was one of the few black and white cinematographers who really understood how to use color in a tasteful way.

The last film I believe to be shot in 3 strip (?) Technicolor was "Godfather II" - which was a great way to go out with a bang, it being one of the most beautifully shot movies of all time.

Early Technicolor cinematographers were slaves to the "China Girl" - and maybe only people who have dealt with motion picture film processing will know what I mean.

comment #38

BL says ...

A little note about Ford and the "National Mythology"

Ford may or may not rate as the greatest American filmmaker of all timem - but he ceratinly rates as probably the top IRISH filmmaker of all time (thus far)

He created the COMPLETE misconseption that in 19th Centrury America, the only people who didn't speak like Americans were Irishpeople. While it is nice that Ford may have done more than anyone else to eradicate the terrrible prejudice against the Irish that used to prevail in this country - his 'vision' of 19th century America was complete and utter hooey that has more in common with a fairy tale than with fact.

It is so sad that "Heaven's Gate" was not a better movie, beacuse I really liked how it tried to bust some of the John-Ford type stereotypes about the west. It was great, for example, that many of the film's settlers were (I think) Czechs whose dialogue was rendered in subtitles.

comment #39

PP says ...

I think on some levels the Searchers is more than one would expect from a 1956 film, while for many it is a lot less than one expects from a great film, regardless of age. I think it is a great film for 1956, and for Wayne, and that in the midst of a complete lack of subtlety on many levels, there are aspects that are incredibly subtle. When I watch it, it is a film within a film for me. I also find the visuals to be stunning, and not a mess, and of course while it could be better from the perspective of those that technically know what they are doing, I suggest that you go to Monument Valley. I think the feel is right on The Searchers.

comment #40

ArchiveGuy says ...

BL said: "Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I would have to accuse anyone who thinks Winton Hoch was a great color cinematographer to be the crack smoker. Just took a look at his credits on imdb, and saw he ended his career shooting such TV shows as "The Time Tunnel" and "Lost in Space" - talk about water reaching its own level!"

And Karl Freund, DP of German classics like "The Last Laugh" ended his career on "I Love Lucy" & "Our Miss Brooks". This idiotic argument proves what exactly?

And Technicolor was over 20 years old by the time "The Searchers" was made--hardly **early**.

comment #41

delbomber says ...

Again I completely disagree with Gebert...Why is it so hard to draw a distinction between a film that is ABOUT racism, meant to educate and enlighten, and a film that IS racist, perpetuating hatred and subjugation? Both are inherently offensive but for different reason entirely. 'The Searchers' clearly fits the latter description, especially when considering Ford's track record and the general lack of cynicism amongst moviegoers of the era...this wasn't made during the socially conscious era of the late 60s and 70s, after all.

Admit it...people love this film for nostalgiac reasons. What is so shameful about that?Nostalgia is a perfectly acceptable reason to like or love a film in spite of its faults. Conversely, trying to defend the film--or worse, its faults--on any other grounds is just silly.

comment #42

BL says ...

Archiveguy:

I would hold that Karl Freund did a great job lighting "I Love Lucy" and to have worked on a show of that high calliber is nothing to sneeze at. It is a much better lit show than many others of its era. I think I remember hearing that Freund worked out many innovative soutions for lighting for the 3 camera format, but am not sure about that one.

Can't comment on "My Miss Brooks", which I have never seen. "The Last Laugh" is a beautifully shot film, though.

I HAVE seen many of the TV shows Hoch worked on, which are mostly garish, ugly, unpleasant to look and whose only lasting artistic value is for their camp factor.

I have nothing against TV as long as it is good TV.

The Sopranos, for one, looks great, especially when viewed on Hi Def.

comment #43

Mike Gebert says ...

I am quite surprised at these people who tell me what I HAVE to be thinking (e.g. nostalgia, a John Wayne jones, etc.). I am thinking no such thing, and it's not like I'm trying to convince anyone that, say, The Comancheros is the greatest Western ever made-- in the 2002 Sight & Sound international critics poll The Searchers tied for the 11th greatest film of all time and was the highest-ranked Western by a substantial margin. No reason you have to accept that judgement (certainly there are plenty of films on that list I find insufferable, e.g., 8-1/2) but it certainly suggests that I am hardly alone and that a goodly number of smart people see things in it which you do not. They could be right, you know...

http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics-long.html

comment #44

BL says ...

Look, I don't like "The Searchers" for a lot of reasons. It is just not a very good movie, and while I find its racist elements pretty offensive, why even bother getting worked up about a film that is so second-rate in the first place?

Being that I feel it of such minor merit, I am inclined to give its racism a pass because Ford DID try to make amends later in his career for his earlierrace bating films. "Cheyanne Autumn" and "Sergeant Rutledge" are pretty bad movies - but I give Ford a lot of credit for admitting he made mistakes and making a genuine and heartfelt effot to revise his own ouvre. It takes a big person to do something like that - not to mention Ford's refusing to go along with a lot his commie hunting collegues in the McCarthy era.

comment #45

BL says ...

Yeah, the BFI could be 'right', and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences could be 'right' for never giving Gordon Willis an academy award for cinematography (and was he even ever nominated for one?)

Whatever

My favorite Western is "Unforgiven" - partly because it is to a great degree about refuting a lot of stupid ideas perpetuated by classical westerns.

As for classical westerns, I like "My Darling Clemintine" and have a big soft spot for "Westward the Women" - William Wellman was a real corker and rarely gets the props he deserves.

comment #46

PTCaffey says ...

Mike Gebert's right about "The Searchers." It's a classic in nearly every respect--save one. John Wayne's straw hat is ridiculous.

comment #47

delbomber says ...

Mike, no one is telling you what you must think, but your stance re: the justification of the racism in the movie is baseless. Ford perpetuated racist themes and characters in film after film...there is absolutely nothing to lead one to believe he was doing anything else here. Any enlightenment or realization bestowed upon 'Ethan' is self-contained and relatable only to the source...i.e. he is a savage like the Indians versus an uplifiting realization that the Indians are justified in their violence and civilized like the rest of us.

No one laments that this movie isn't any kind of visionary civil rights champion, but that doesn't mean ignoring its dark underside is acceptable either.

comment #48

Mike Gebert says ...

"why even bother getting worked up about a film that is so second-rate in the first place?"

Because you might be wrong about that.

"My favorite Western is "Unforgiven" - partly because it is to a great degree about refuting a lot of stupid ideas perpetuated by classical westerns."

Which one might observe is an excellent description of The Searchers as well. In both cases you have someone who built his career on an audience-pandering sentiment (racial manifest destiny in Ford's case, ruthless vigilantism in Eastwood's) seriously deconstructing that sentiment by confronting its ugly side square in the face.

"but your stance re: the justification of the racism in the movie is baseless. Ford perpetuated racist themes and characters in film after film, there is absolutely nothing to lead one to believe he was doing anything else here. Any enlightenment or realization bestowed upon 'Ethan' is self-contained and relatable only to the source...i.e. he is a savage like the Indians versus an uplifiting realization that the Indians are justified in their violence and civilized like the rest of us."

And yet I do believe that he did just that-- turned on the racism in his own earlier works and thought hard about where it leads in the context of one man's soul. What I do not believe that it is the job of an artist to exchange one falsehood (white settlement was morally untainted) for another (Indians were kind, peaceful, etc.) The Searchers is far more realistic than the pro-Indian westerns of the 50s (Broken Arrow, Apache, etc.) because it recognizes that the struggle for the West was brutal, marked by violence and butchery, and from the perspective of any absolute morality, the imagined differences between the civilized and the savage were just that, imaginary-- as were the clear lines between the races.

I and others (like P. McCudden, who made a very good post) have detailed numerous ways in which we believe the film works on multiple levels as an anti-racist drama. You and others have simply denied that there is any such content in it. I would say that in years to come, you are more likely to see what I see than I am to realize that what I saw was never there in the first place....

comment #49

delbomber says ...

I still think it's like saying the Cleveland Indians logo 'Chief Wahoo' is an endearing symbol of Native American pride, but hey, I'll give it a second look...it's at the top of my netflix queue...with a long wait. The Wells effect???

Cheers.

comment #50

BL says ...

Mike Gelbart:

I think I made it very clear I think Ford DID make a genuine effort to make amends for his prior race baiting, but in NO way do I see this in "The Searchers". If anything - it seems to me the film goes into more gratuitous detail about HOW these particular native americans are savages (without any context) than earlier Ford films where 'indians' were mostly figures in the distance observed shaking their bows and arrows and getting shot off of their horses.

comment #51

Jeremy Fassler says ...

For the love of god, STOP dissing this movie, people. The ones who come on here and start bashing this film without any real reasons sound like ignorant blowhards. I saw this film last night at the Academy in a beautiful print--this is one of the greatest movies ever made. And I was never a huge John Ford person and now this is possibly my favorite movie ever.
And to whoever said that this movie was made in crappy Technicolor, get the new DVD and look at it. Remember the Gone with the Wind transfer? It looks even better than that.

comment #52

SteveTeamkin says ...

I was also at the Motion Picture Academy last night. The restoration is breathtaking. I'd never seen THE SEARCHERS on the big-screen and in many ways feel as if I were seeing it for the first time. The power of Wayne's Ethan Edwards is even more searing. I grant you a little of Hank Worden and Ken Curtis' comic relief go a long way, but beyond that, I love this film. (By the way, I never noticed before, but when they uncover the body of the dead Commanche raider - the one whose eyes get shot out by Ethan - he's clearing moving. I assume they did more than one take and find it amazing this was the one they printed.) Before the film there was a wonderful panel hosted by Pete Hammond with cast members Harry Carey, Jr., Lana Wood, Pippa Scott, (unfortunately, no Vera Miles), Dan Ford (grandson of John) and Peter Bogdanovich. I'm not a John Ford junkie (my taste runs more toward Howard Hawks), but THE SEARCHERS is a great piece of filmmaking. It's a shame young audiences raised on classics like YOUNG GUNS don't get it. All in all, a great evening.