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

[Paul Borges]

To me, this is a film that sticks in the mind. There are some very powerful and emotional scenes that I may never forget. Plus I like John Wayne and this is one of his very best roles.

To expand, when I first saw it I thought it was ok. But as time went on, I remembered more and more those great scenes and wanted to see it again. Maybe that's why when it first got released it didn't get the respect it gets now.

 

[Haggai]

I guess I should also be grateful for having my initial reaction to this movie, which I first saw as a paying audience member at a screening, explained to me so clearly here. It wasn't that I left the theater thinking "that might be the best movie I've ever seen"; it was really that my 20-year-old non-film-scholar brain was kicking into overdrive in the "interpretation factory."

 

[David_B_K]

Posted by Haggai:

As we all know, that bit of dialog was Vera Miles', not John Wayne's. And he refers to Martin as Ethan's sidekick, a childhood friend of Debbie's, when their relationship was much closer (Martin regarded Debbie as a sister), and Martin was a man "full growed" at the time of Debbie's abduction.

I have to wonder if he even saw the movie. If he did, I question whether he watched the new version, or is merely relying on a half-remembered viewing years ago. He may have the new version, but he may have merely scanned it without paying much attention to it.

Often times, we are on the opposite side of everyone else on a given film. A film lauded as a classic might not work for some people. I know there are films highly regarded in film circles that I just "don't get". My wife, who is a gentle soul, does not particularly like the film, because she regards it as too tragic and savage for her delicate sensibilities. Yet, even she can see that it is a great film that deserves the praise it has received in recent years.

However, it seems the Slate writer went out of his way to seem to be the almost lone dissenter (along with Ebert, whose name he auspiciously dropped) on The Searchers. It was as if he picked that one movie out so he could be identified as a really cool guy who swam against the stream. Frankly , I think he could not get over his PC sensibilities long enought to appreciate that peoples' attitudes were different in the time portrayed in The Searchers. I think he found the whole idea of the film so revolting (Ethan calls Native Americans "Commanch", for pete's sake!) that he could not see past the forest for the trees. He probably felt that, given the subject matter, and today's PC times, he would be highly praised as a visionary who saw through the con job of The Searchers and its film school adherants.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Which is why I don't let any movie reviewer, critic or whatever tag you want to place on these type of writers, tell me what is or isn't a good film to me.



Crawdaddy

 

[Ray H]

I decided I would try to get into more American westerns this week and my thoughts often drifted to The Searchers. I don't dislike the film. I find it rather mediocre. Anyway, the article is actually linked to on the MSN.com page (which I have set as my browser's home page) under the title "Most overrated movie ever?". Out of curiousity, I clicked on it and was surprised that it was actually a film that I found, for lack of a better word, overrated.

In reading it, I found some things I agree with. I find the film to be unfunny, disjointed, and meandering. At times the humor feels at odds with the drama and even too silly for the material. I don't have a problem with most of the other points the article tries to make such as the main character being racist or the claims about film schools, etc.

I wanted to rewatch the movie a few months ago but didn't have the time. I'll try an give it a shot this week and see if it grows on me.

 

[seanOhara]

Being a lone dissenter is fine, even if he's only doiing it for the sake of being contrary. But saying people only like The Searchers because they've been somehow brainwashed by film schools is absolutely idiotic -- I know I've never been to film school. And on top of that, the article is full of inaccuracies -- the misattributed quote is pretty egregious since it undermines one of his points about women in the film, but he also doesn't seem to know that Wayne and Ford were completely different politically (He mentions Ford's famous line "I'm John Ford and I make Westerns" to diss people who analyze films, but he doesn't seem to know the context in which Ford said it).

As journalism, this makes Geraldo look like Edward R. Murrow.

 

[Douglas R]

To say that The Searchers has only become highly regarded in recent years is nonsense. I saw The Searchers when it was first released in 1956 when I was just 11 years old. At the time I thought it was a tremendous film and so different from all the other "cowboy" films which I enjoyed at that time.
Memories of the film stayed with me for years until I was able to re-visit it, first on Tv and now on DVD.

 

[Robert Crawford]

However, to be fair, "The Searchers" is more highly thought off today than it was when it was released back in 1956. It didn't even get one AA nomination while today, it's considered one of the best films ever made and we're not just talking about westerns, we're talking about all films in over 100 years of making them. That's not surprising since films like ''The Searchers" are more complex in their storytelling and brilliant filmmaking than most films. You discover new layers of it's greatness after repeated viewings of it. There's been other films just to name a few like "Citizen Kane" and "The Night of the Hunter" that have grown in similar stature over the years. Sure, "Citizen Kane" received AA nominations and won 1 or 2 Oscars, but its stature today is beyond that of just being an AA nominated film.





Crawdaddy

 

[Simon Howson]

I think The Matrix is a much better candidate for that award, because the entire concept of The Matrix is just a weak version of Michel Foucault social theories, deliberately added to the narrative to promote interpretation, and make people think the film is profound. But then again, that's just my interpretation.

 

[Robert Harris]

A huge part of the Vertigo problem in regard to popularity after its initial release, was that it was pulled from distribution when the rights reverted to AH in the late '60s.

It was then held out of distribution, with four other titles, until 1983, by which time the negative was already badly faded and great amounts of material had been junked. The fact that 1983 prints looked like poor quality, mustard colored dupes also didn't help things.

RAH

 

[Robert Crawford]

Am I the only one that thinks "The Searchers" is misunderstood by some people in regard to the racism and comedy displayed in the film?







Crawdaddy

 

[Simon Howson]

I've read the anecdote several times that Hitchcock saw Brian De Palma's Vertigo remake / homage Obsession, and decided to pull Vertigo, and the other films, then (around 1976).

I have no idea if that is true, but I've never read exactly when he pulled the films from distribution, and if it meant there were no 16mm prints already available in archives, libraries, and universities.

At any rate, during the early to mid 1980s Vertigo circulated in Australian universities on bootleg NTSC video tapes. So lots of film studies people initially watched the film in black and white (most video gear back then was PAL only).

My guess is Robin Wood saw the film during its first run, I have no idea if he saw it after that. Mulvey must've seen it more than once before it was withdrawn given her close analysis of point of view editing. I can't imagine how she could remember that much detail after only seeing it once, I mean, it's not like she's Bazin.

 

[John Hodson]

No; but I don't know what your take on it is Robert. FWIW, mine is that Ethan's a product of his time and his experiences - his mother, his brother and his family (and the woman he loves) murdered, crimes for which he holds all 'indians' responsible, add to that the fact that he's been through a war, seen things which has altered his character and fatally damaged any kind of faith he may have had ('By what you preach...'). The Surrender only increases his sense of injustice. His one hope of happiness is to return and claim the woman he loves, but even that is snatched away from him.

'This country...' says Lars shaking his head; Ethan's just a man, a man who's endured too much, seen too much, full of pain and bitterness. To call him just a 'racist' and leave it at that is far too simple IMHO.

Ford comedy is there to leven the tension; comedy / tragedy are two sides of the same coin. It's a fine dramatic tradition that goes back to Shakespeare; if it's good enough for the Bard, it's good enough for John Ford. Some people hate it; I laugh like Charlie McCorry 'Haw, haw, haw...'

 

[Simon Howson]

It goes back a lot further than that. But I agree, Ford's mixing of comedy and drama is masterful. Like in The Informer, McLaglen's performance, especially when drunk, is very funny, but the torment he is going through is tragic.

 

[John Hodson]

Apologies Simon; you're quite right; I forgot, Lord help me, to include the Classics.

 

[Richard Kim]

Actually, I have to agree with some of the earlier posters that the humor in The Searchers is awkward and doesn't mix well with the rest of the film. And yes, I do understand the mixing of humor and drama in Ford's films; it worked alot better in Stagecoach. That old coot Mose Harper was annoying and grated on my nerves. Charlie McCorry's overdone "hick" accent, and Martin's Commanche wife subplot (and Ethan and Martin's treatment of her) is not funny either.

 

[Simon Howson]

Poetics is very powerful, because it essentially tries to break things down into different sets of conventions, which then makes it possible to identify innovations, or (rarely) outright rejection of the conventions.

Not all film theorists endlessly 'interpret the text'. Some have developed a 'Historical Poetics' of film style mainly by analysing the changes in technologies, and the craft practices of film makers.

An understanding of the stylistic conventions present in different eras makes it possible to identify certain practitioners (primarily cinematographers, editors, and directors) as innovators, working against the general trends.

To bring this back to The Searchers, the medium shots Ford uses during interiors often feature sufficient depth of field to allow the ensemble depth staging during extended takes. This is a recognisably classical Hollywood staging method. It is a conventional approach, masterfully executed. However, given contemporary standards, it seems like a strange way to shoot a scene. So unusual that on the new DVD Martin Scorsese comments on it, and praises the depth of field (or rather the resolution) of VistaVision as assisting that style.

However, this differs from Hitchcock's use of VistaVision who used a lot more close-ups, and cuts quickly between much tighter framings. This is a style that is a lot more common now, than in the 1950s. This has made it seems less notable than Ford's longer take approach. However, at the time the films were made, Hitchcock's fast cutting was a greater innovation, or example of experimentation, than Ford's extended takes.

 

[seanOhara]

I saw The Searchers in a screening with about three hundred college students eight years ago, and every thing you mention got huge laughs. You may personally dislike broad Fordian humor, but it still plays for audiences.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, based on your latest comments in the James Stewart Collection Review thread, it appears that corrections are not being made because Warner thinks the current color timing truly represents what the Ford/Hoch film is suppose to look like. I find this very disturbing and Warner needs to address those concerns without using the patented answer that their current restoration elements are in-line to prior prints.

Why should any consumer knowingly buy a defective product, especially in new video formats (HD DVD/Blu-ray) in which the expectation levels are much higher?




Crawdaddy

 

[John Hodson]

I'm finding this increasingly disturbing and confusing. First of all, through Robert, they hold their hands up to what was apparently an incredibly stupid mistake, then Warners seemingly dismiss that by saying there is, in fact, no error.

Just what is going on? We need to be told and we need Warners to come forward and tell us the state of play themselves.