Couldn’t open that link Two Plus – oh you fixed it thanks….
http://www.film.com/movies/the-searchers/story/whats-big-deal-searchers-1956/30745015
I’m posting this to read later….no time now, but it’s an interesting thread/question and will read your article later too
I recall some instances of expressionistic filmmaking, characterization, performance, lighting and set-design within a framework of otherwise naturalistic, location shooting. Usually those moments provided necessary, engaging dramatic highlights to the story (the swamp, the Mose character, the fast-dolly into the daughter’s face at the moment she realizes she and her family are toast, etc.).
I think The Searchers takes a long time to come around to its marvelous beauty. It seemed dated and corny to me on my first couple viewings too. Once I saw it on a gorgeous print on film, that was another story. I see nothing wrong with the Mose Harper character, it’s the language the film travels in, just like the Scandinavian couple and John Wayne himself. America was represented differently on the big screen in the1950s and before, there was more room for the particular variety of classes and ethnicities that made up the US population.
Roger Ebert, who finds the movie flawed and “nervous,” have been the most vocal dissenters in the cult of The Searchers.
A not-to-rigorous opinion piece about other people’s opinions – like a cut-n-paste from MUBI threads.
@ Daniel – I have seen it about five times, and have liked it more each time. The last time I saw it, however, I started to wonder if I was finding more depth after each viewing, or if I was simply “getting used to it.” I wish I had a great transfer. ( I have an old version that is “sort of” widescreen- bought it for 3 dollars) Also- I love the idea of Mose Harper, and most of his lines are good. The performance just doesn’t work for me, and is distracting.
@Robert – Your review of the review is pretty accurate. It is Slate magazine after all. But I think the article sums up a common criticism of the film pretty well. A criticism I partially share. I was interested that he mentioned Godard’s reaction, which I had never heard, but I thought the omission of Sergio Leone as a Searchers fan was pretty glaring.
@ 2+2
If the Slate author quotes Ebert, that implies he thinks the film is “nervous”.
So, I want to ask the Slate author where or how it is “nervous” – i.e. provide examples.
To say Ford is a drunkard’s drunk in the review of The Searchers is the stuff of supermarket tabloids.
The piece is at best moronic.
@Robert – Out of curiosity, are you a fan of the film?
Indeed I am !
I know the frustrations that can be had with The Searchers, as it took me, like it obviously did for others, a couple viewings before it seriously clicked. I agree that Mose, along with all of the other characters, represent all of the facets of America, all of the foreigners and weirdos that settled the barren wastes of the west. John Ford really chronicles the settlement of the nation better than any other director (in my view), and his use of Europeans and eccentrics mearly adds to the verisimilitude of his work. As for The Searchers, for me it is the Great American Film.
Sorry, not particularly eloquent.
@Jack. The Searchers is loosely, loosely based on a real Texas incident- or I should say the Ethan character is loosely based on a real Texas man. The very good non-fiction book called “Empire of the Summer Moon” by S.C. Gwynne deals a little bit with “the real Ethan” and chronicles many other events involving the state of Texas and the Comanche. It might be something you’d enjoy. I thought a lot about “the Searchers” when reading it (it’s why I saw the film again recently)
Thanks, I’ll check it out.
I think sometimes when you first watch Ford films they seem a little to broad. You dig them but then around the second or third viewing you truly understand what it on all the levels you should. When I was 13 I understood the film but now I’m 31 and it has such a bigger impact on me. Until now I’ve never heard of any critics or directors not loving this film.
ps I loved in the remake of War of the Worlds how Spielberg tipped his hat to Ford with the sequence of Cruise returning to his family in Chicago. Only in this film the main character gets to stay.
—“Roger Ebert, who finds the movie flawed and “nervous,” have been the most vocal dissenters in the cult of The Searchers.”
A not-to-rigorous opinion piece about other people’s opinions – like a cut-n-paste from MUBI threads—. . . and in fact this is really not an accurate representation of what Ebert has actually written about the film. He wrote about the film for his “Great Films” series, which suggests he isn’t exactly a “dissenter” regarding the greatness of the film. Here’s the paragraph in question:
“In ‘’The Searchers’’ I think Ford was trying, imperfectly, even nervously, to depict racism that justified genocide; the comic relief may be an unconscious attempt to soften the message. Many members of the original audience probably missed his purpose; Ethan’s racism was invisible to them, because they bought into his view of Indians. Eight years later, in ‘’Cheyenne Autumn,’’ his last film, Ford was more clear. But in the flawed vision of ‘’The Searchers’’ we can see Ford, Wayne and the Western itself, awkwardly learning that a man who hates Indians can no longer be an uncomplicated hero.”
One of the worst pieces from the series, if you ask me. Rather than make a case for the film, Ebert tries to list everything he sees as a peripheral flaw in the film.
Yes, there are aspects of the film that, viewed from our 21st century perspective, seem dated and/or compromised, but, as Ebert writes earlier in the essay, the film “contains scenes of magnificence, and one of John Wayne’s best performances . . . there are shots that are astonishingly beautiful.” Perfect film, no; great film, yes.
“To say Ford is a drunkard’s drunk in the review of The Searchers is the stuff of supermarket tabloids.”
not to mention he wasn’t really a drunk. he often played up that persona a bit (along with many others) to obfuscate people’s reactions to him and his work. Ford seemed to revel in letting people think he wasn’t everything he was, often by couching very complex ideas/feelings in the plainest language possible. It’s really easy for people to fall into Ford’s trap of taking his films at face value. If anything about Ford or his work seems straightforward, it’s worth keeping in mind that it is most likely a deception.
This is what I wrote in another thread, but what the heck…
My biggest problem with this film is that it really is hopelessly stuck in its particular time, context, and ethos, even though at times it seems to try to reach beyond them. It’s quite entertaining, at times majestic in its visuals… However, for me personally, a film, or art in general for that matter, can be truly great if and only if it can be timeless and universal… A lot of people hail this particular film for its honest depiction of the racism of the hero. Well, I give Ford credit for that. But if this is a film that’s going to deal with the racism of the protagonist, would it not have been more or less imperative of Ford to “humanize” the objects of Ethan’s racism, i.e. the Native Americans? As an artist, Ford did not have the duty to either condemn or condone Ethan Edwards’ racism. His only duty to the character was to portray that honestly, and he succeeds on that account…
But the film is an abject failure at giving humanity to the non-white characters. They are caricatures, cartoons. A film with such lame half-assed lazy portrayals cannot be considered great. Look at the scene with the Indian-raised white girls. The girls literally cackle like wolves, laugh like hyenas, and move around like beasts. A character says of them, “It’s hard to believe they’re white.“ Ethan responds with a contemptuous “They’re not white.“ The film’s depiction of Native Americans JUSTIFIES Ethan’s racist view of them.
So what is this film really about? So much has been written about how it’s such a profound meditation on the issue of American racism…but I think that’s really only half true. It could’ve been a TRANSCENDENT work indeed—if Ford had been a true visionary, he would’ve fleshed out the Indian characters as human too. That would have added a layer, a certain “distancing” effect so the audience would have been able to meditate upon the racist nature of the protagonist, not to just accept it without even thinking about it. Well, it turns out that film critics in some sense have done that for Ford, and I object to that kind of interpretation. The Comanchees in the film still could have murdered his family and kidnapped his niece, but just as Ethan the white racist/killer is imbued with human, and ultimately redeeming, qualities, the Comanchee killers/rapists could have been fleshed out as human beings too. Especially in place of all the absurdly uneven-in-tone comic and musical interludes. Talk about unnecessary and uninspired.
I know what people like to say about the depictions of non-whites. Well, look at the times. It was the 50’s. That’s ultimately a weak argument. Read The Iliad which was written thousands of years ago. Achilles is the Greek hero of the poem, (somewhat of an anti-hero even), yet his chief adversary, Hector, a Trojan, is imbued with genuinely touching humanity. Read Othello. Shakespeare describes the racism directed at the black man, and is also able to portray him in a human way, warts and all. Even when The Bard chose to create characters with stereotypical traits, e.g. Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, they were still three-dimensional human beings. And as a side note, how genuinely absurd if not outright retarded is the depiction of the Mexican characters in the film? Ethan and Martin walk into a Mexican tavern, and of course, the young Mexican woman—named Carmen (LOL!!!)—is standing there with castanets in her hands and starts just dancing away!!! Umm…I guess Ford showed some progressive thinking by not putting a fruit basket hat on her head! LOL.
And ultimately, it’s also really hard for me to buy the whole “anti-hero” argument that has been advanced by many critics, because at the time the movie was released, many red-blooded American men most certainly totally identified with Ethan Edwards, and not in the least apologetic or nuanced ways…he was a hero, period. And actually, I was reminded that this kind of ethos still exists when recently Joe Horn the vigilante Texan went out of his way to kill two burglars who were fleeing. The film geeks and critics might have tacked on all kinds of attributes to it and referred to Ethan Edwards as an antihero, but to me, this is a problematic argument at best and an instance of cult of John Ford worship at worst. I know I’m being rather harsh in my evaluation, but that’s only because this film has been heralded as one of the handful of the greatest films ever made…it just puzzles me.
But I think the film resonates emotionally with a good number of people, especially because in many ways Ethan Edwards was the way that many decent white American men thought of themselves in the 50’s: “Sure, there was a time when we were racist. But we had to be. And the Indians were, well, an obstacle. And they’re not quite civilized, and at times did rape, kill, and scalp our women. Look at the harsh, vast, majestic landscape of the West that we had to tame. We were building a nation, and it took tough, real hombres like Ethan Edwards who had no time for petty little emotions. But these hombres were ultimately decent men who did the right thing (i.e. bringing his niece home) when it really counted.” To disown a film like The Searchers would be somewhat tantamount to disowning an American legacy. Now, please do not take my writing to mean that it is in any way racist to like The Searchers. That would be idiotic of me… I may still be an idiot, but hopefully not in this instance. It’s just that while the film portrays Ethan’s racism candidly, it most certainly does not “problematize” that racism in some profound insightful way as has been advertised by film school snobs.
-However, for me personally, a film, or art in general for that matter, can be truly great if and only if it can be timeless and universal…-
And there’s the rub: can we properly judge universality from a from a perspective that’s fixed to a particularly time and place? Is it possible that what seems universal now won’t seem universal at another time or in another place? Vice versa?
A fair point, Matt. But I’d say The Iliad has passed that test as have most works of Shakespeare. I mean even Ford himself more or less conceded that his depictions of Indians were stereotyped and racist by making Cheyenne Autumn, didn’t he?
Another funny thing about the cult of The Searchers is that I think that its champions do see the huge flaws in the film but are just in denial. It’s like what the Harvey Keitel tells the girl on the ferry. He says something like both Ethan and Scar are bad men. She asks him if Ethan is as bad as Scar, and he says something like, “No way. No one can be as bad as Scar.” And unwittingly, Scorsese has hit the nail on the head. The champions of the Ford love to wax poetic about how Ethan and Scar are parallel characters—but they are not. The film is already predicated on the racist paradigm that no matter how contemptible Ethan may be, Scar is inherently worse.
^^ the Harvey Keitel character in I Call First. Sorry, I can’t edit my posts for some reason.
Yeah, I agree that there is some ideologically problematic stuff in the film, and it’s revealing about attitudes at the time the film was made, but I think that’s probably true of most films. Othello in Shakespeare? Shylock?
The Searchers deserves credit for revising the Western paradigm, but, at the same time, it’s only a partial revision, and therefore not satisfying to the sensibilities of today.
I think you have to consider the time the movie was made. There wasn’t much ambiguity in film, and John Wayne’s Ethan is a relatively ambiguous character. There is the “Lost Cause” element in Ethan, as I recall he was a former Confederate soldier, which would help to explain his racism. But, the story is weak and doesn’t go very far at all in building characters. They pretty much remain racial stereotypes. Scar wasn’t all bad as I remember either. In the end, Ford did try to give him some humanity. But, what makes this movie great are the visuals. It is an absolutely stunning film to watch on the big screen.
no matter how contemptible Ethan may be, Scar is inherently worse.
I don’t think this is necessarily true. I don’t see any absolutes in the film in that regard.
I am a big fan of this film!
I first saw THE SEARCHERS when I was a kid and it played on Million Dollar Movie on Channel 9. It didn’t have much impact on me then, I was too young to really grasp it. (I watched a lot of TV western shows at the time, which were much simpler.) Ten years later, in college, I saw it on the big screen in a beautiful 35mm print. (Years before there was such a thing as a “restored” print.) I loved it. And I’ve loved it every time I’ve seen it since. Sure, there are things you can quibble about, just as there are in most Ford films. So what? He was a great director, but he had his blind spots. The thing about SEARCHERS that has always bothered me the most was the buffoonish Charlie McCorry, played by Ken Curtis. The character’s not so buffoonish in the novel (by Alan LeMay). Which you all should read. You’ll appreciate the movie more. I would describe how different the characters’ fates are in the novel, but then you’ll all cry “spoiler.” But it says a lot about Ford’s approach when you know how the characters end up in the novel.
@Matt- thanks for sharing the Ebert piece. I think Ebert phoned it in. Unlike Ebert, I don’t believe that people who love the film just ignore half the movie- that is preposterous! I think that all the goofier characters like Laurie and family, Mose, Charlie McCory etc are fantastic as ideas, and add to the richness of the panorama- I just have a bad reaction to the performances and the staging of the dialogue scenes (Capra used similar staging/angles , but it seemed to flow more). My problem, and why I wrote the original post, is that I watch “the Searchers” and its great cinematic moments make me wish that the comic/warm parts were better executed. Also unlike Ebert, I don’t find the politics of it that offensive (besides the short changing of the Scar and Look characters) because it is definitely closer to opinions of people in Texas in 1968 than say “Dances with Wolves” (sorry for even mentioning that film) – so it has a truth (ugly truth) to it. No, my problem is just technical: acting/staging – for example, I love the fact that crazy Mose Harper says “thank you dear lord for this which we are about to receive” while bracing for a Comanche Charge, I just am distracted by the performance.
.
-I just have a bad reaction to the performances and the staging of the dialogue scenes-
Yeah, some of the comic relief is very grounded in the conventions of that period of filmmaking and sort of takes some effort to become accustomed to. I think I initially had a similar issue with some of the songs and/or musical numbers in many of Ford’s films. Now they just seem part of the whole.
Sometimes this corny stuff works – I just watched Powell and Pressburger’s Contraband.
Is it me, or was Hollywood acting generally better in the 40’s than the 50’s?
For those of you who love “The Searchers” – Is this a case where you consider the flaws to be inconsequential, or do you think it is a tight, even film?-———————————————————
The “flaws”(which is actually discomfort at Ford’s style and not flaws precisely in the technical/narrative sense) are in fact inconsequential…
As for whether it is a “tight even film”…not in a million years. THE SEARCHERS is not a typical Ford film, not even a typical Ford film of the 50s and not at all a typical Ford Western. It is in fact one of two Westerns Ford made in the 50s(the other is WAGON MASTER). It’s very singular in focusing on a single character’s obsession and portraying him with great psychological complexity and also for its great deal of violence and what makes it so tough is the violence is mixed with dark jokes and intense behaviour. It’s a deeply subversive film.
@Arthur S., so you don’t consider THE HORSE SOLDIERS a western? It probably isn’t, but it sure plays like one and is generally considered a western by most observers/commentators. Funny how any and all Civil War movies, like THE RAID (1954), which is set in Vermont(!), are generally treated as westerns in all the reference books and movie guides. And they tend to LOOK like westerns, too. The town in THE RAID doesn’t look at all like a Vermont town, ca. 1864.
Two Plus Two
I saw “The Searchers” again recently and was once again struck by the cinematic beauty of the book-end shots, and was once again intrigued by the dynamic of the two main characters, but I was once again confronted with the often uneven, choppy and cornball filmmaking. (As epitomized by the “Mose Harper” performance, in my view.)
This is a film loved by filmmakers whose films I love.. but I don’t share the enthusiasm. Anyway, I found the below article (Slate 2006) and I thought I’d share it for those of you with a “Searchers problem.” I like the film better then the writer does, but I enjoyed his points. Here is the article
For those of you who love “The Searchers” – Is this a case where you consider the flaws to be inconsequential, or do you think it is a tight, even film?