A Few Words About A few words about... The Searchers -- in SD (Some potential bad news See Post #139) (1 Viewer)

[Mark Zimmer]

Hopefully the color timing will be fixed for the upcoming HD DVD version, which I'm really anticipating!

 

[Haggai]

Listening to the commentary this evening, I also remembered this line, after they've seen Debbie for the first time with Scar:



I'm thinking now that he's about to tell Martin that he's going to draw up a new will, to be used under a certain condition. It might work like this: Ethan has decided that if they don't find Debbie before she's been "spoiled" by the Comanches, he's going to disown her and leave his belongings to Martin instead. He eventually presents the new will to Martin right after they escape from Scar's men, right after finding Debbie. Perhaps since they've just find out that she's been married to Scar, Ethan decides at that moment that he's now going to use the new will and name Martin as his sole inheritor.

 

[DeeF]

Makes sense to me. It's one of the more powerful elements in The Searchers, all the stuff which is mentioned but never explained. It can be analyzed lots of different ways, each in turn more tantalizing than the last. The material is very rich, and endlessly compelling.

 

[John Hodson]

Indeed. Savant has another take on things which I've been pondering on; what if Martin is Ethan's son? Interesting thought...

 

[Robert Crawford]

Interesting take, since it's apparent to me that Debbie was his daughter.






Crawdaddy

 

[Haggai]

But then why did they go back at all, once they had found Debbie? Ethan could have insisted that they wait there while his wound heals, and continue tracking Scar as well if necessary, in the event that he and his people went on the move again in the meantime.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Sometimes, we as film lovers dig a little too deep into film plots because at times there are no reasons why a certain event happens in the film except it makes it a better film or story told. I would think that Ethan probably almost died from his wounds without any medical attention and the progress of the medical profession in the 1870s. Most men of lesser toughness would have died from that type of wound and with infection setting in.

 

[Haggai]

Sure, I don't think it's that big a deal in the grand scheme of things, and I never thought about it at all in what must have been the first six or seven times I saw the movie (this was probably about the 8th time I've seen it). But I do think it makes enough sense that they go back once they've found her, and not just because Ethan was wounded. They're basically out of good options, two men against an entire travelling tribe, trying to get at one of the wives of the chief himself. Not much else they could do besides go back, muster up some help, and hope to be able to find the tribe again.

Edit: To clarify, the reason I responded to John's post with "but why..." wasn't because I thought there was no reason at all for what I was wondering about, but because the explanation I've come up with wouldn't seem to make sense in the light of John's response.

 

[John Hodson]

Journalist (about 'Stagecoach') - 'But Mr Ford; why didn't the Indians just shoot the horses?'

John Ford - 'Because that would be the end of the picture.'

 

[Robert Crawford]

John,
Too funny, you can't have Ethan/Amos dieing off before he rescues Debbie.

 

[Haggai]

Heh, indeed. Although one my friends once said it was plausible that the horses would be valuable enough for the Indians to try to steal, so that might be more important to them than merely preventing the stage from getting through. And indeed, doesn't that give some motivation to the legendary under-the-stage stunt by Yakima Canutt? Aside from the need to finish the movie and the desire to stage an awesome stunt, why else would that Indian risk his life by jumping onto the horses who were pulling a stage that all the rest of his friends were shooting at?

 

[Haggai]

An interesting detail that I had never noticed is mentioned on IMDB trivia:


The looming shadow of Scar towering over Debbie in that scene is also a similar visual effect to the gravestone scene in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon (though obviously different in story effect), where Brittles is leaning over the graves of his wife and daughter, and he notices a shadow that turns out to be Joanne Dru coming to (IIRC) give him some flowers to put by their headstones.

 

[John Hodson]

Ethan and Scar are two sides of the same coin; they both have suffered tragic loss of loved ones by the 'other' side, both are driven by a thirst for revenge. Good and evil don't really have a place here; the only issue is whether blind hatred, a soul-searing racist hate, will lead Ethan to a true hell, in which he kills the daughter of the woman he loved (and, as many have postulated, a girl who could be his daughter).

 

[Jay Pennington]

Reminds me of a quote that was shown in a recent documentary that went something like:

interviewer - How did you film that stampede in [movie X]?
John Ford - With a camera.

 

[John Hodson]

Interviewer - 'What brought you to Hollywood?'
John Ford - 'A train'.

 

[DeeF]

(sorry in advance -- I'm sure you're all tired of The Searchers)

Just a little something I've been ruminating about in the last few days -- why is The Searchers so great?

I think it might be the combination of psychological depth and richness, found in more modern films, with that Hollywood storytelling technique. In other words, it's a great old movie with something extra, something more modern.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This film is more thought of today than it was the year it was released. As we look back, we can see how groundbreaking this film actually was as well as the multi-dimensional characters it had, especially Ethan and how complex of a film that Ford made. As I stated earlier, I think this film has one of the best acting performances ever captured on film which I really didn't fully realized at my first viewings. It took me many years to recognized that observation as I watched so many different films over the years.





Crawdaddy

 

[John Hodson]

The richness and depth is a feature of many Ford films of course, but while I think he's the master, he's not the only one (far from it; an Anthony Mann western is on TV right now, which is a prime example). These days, more and more I find myself thinking that I'd like to see a modern film that has something extra, something, well, more commonly found in older films - literate, witty and intelligent, scripts, actors with true star quality, and a story that doesn't talk down to its audience.

That'll be the day.

 

[Ray H]

I find myself silently driven mad by this very question. It's odd. When I first saw the film, it was after hearing respected critics and filmmakers saying how excellent the film is. The story sounded equally fantastic. Unfortunately, the movie just didn't do anything for me. But it has had an effect that no other film has on me: I am actually bothered by the fact that I didn't like it. I read this article earlier and I agree with the general points but disagree with many of the finer points written about.

Does this get better on subsequent viewings? Will I ever learn to love this classic?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Only you can eventually answer those questions. Just remember that no film is universally loved by everyone.






Crawdaddy