DVD Review: The Searchers
Published May 07, 2007
In short, Ford may have been trying to both embody the best of his era’s America while critiquing its worst aspect, yet he would up merely embodying its worst aspects, in a superficial film that offers little of intellectual dining, and certainly nothing in a league with the best films of a Kurosawa, Fellini, nor Bergman — in spite of film critics' attempts to cast Ford in that role.
Despite winning four Academy Awards as Best Director (for The Informer [1935], The Grapes Of Wrath [1940], How Green Was My Valley [1941], and The Quiet Man [1952]), Ford never developed a soft touch in dealing with politics in his art, and certainly he never possessed the humor and great screenplays, much less political touch, that his great rival for best American director in that era, Frank Capra, did. Think of the mangled and melodramatic ending of the film of The Grapes Of Wrath, and compare it to the beautiful, subtle, and poetically political ending of John Steinbeck’s novel. Again, those who claim any skill in that area are critiquing what they believe Ford’s intent was, not his result, or mixing up his undeniable technical excellence with his often cardboard cutout narrative constructions.
The film was mostly shot in Monument Valley, on the Arizona-Utah border, even if the film takes place in Texas of 1868-1873. Other scenes were shot in Mexican Hat, Utah, and the filmically ubiquitous Bronson Canyon, near Los Angeles. The studio set shots, however, are not nearly as well composed as the on location shots — as well as being manifestly fake. This striking difference is a detriment, as the film cannot seem to make up its mind whether it wants to be realistic or allegorical (such as in German Expressionism). Subsequently, it does not wholly succeed at either. Frequent Ford cinematographer Winston Hoch, however, captures both mindblowing colors and exquisitely framed outdoors shots of the Old West that leave no doubt that when one speaks of ‘John Ford Country’ there is no doubt as to what is meant.
Yet, many critics damn the film with false plaudits when they praise the ‘visual poetry’ of Ford’s onscreen creation. While there is no denying the manifest beauty of many of the scenes’ backdrops, mere beauty itself is not poetry, for poetry (in the non-verse sense) connects and communicates certain ideas and emotions that transcend the mere image, beautiful or not, while beauty is just beauty. John Ford films are undeniably beautiful, but to call them poetic, visually or otherwise, is to simply not understand the term nor how it should be properly applied.
And there is even less poetry in the screenplay. It was adapted by Frank S. Nugent (Ford’s son-in-law) from Alan Le May’s 1954 novel of the same name, and simply falls flat. The actual tale was inspired by the legendary 1836 kidnapping of young Cynthia Ann Parker (mother of the great Comanche Chief Quanah Parker) by Comanche warriors who raided her family’s home. After a quarter century, her family recovered her. That ‘incident’ has inspired stories, books, and even poems, but none as vivid as the tale The Searchers tells, despite its many flaws. And while many call the film an American epic, the film clearly is not, for the term epic describes not only a tale told involving great time and space, but also great characters who somehow discover deep and powerful things within themselves. There’s not a single character in this film who ends up significantly different at its end from what they were at its start. Even Jeffrey Hunter’s Martin merely grows up and becomes a bit more assertive.
- DVD Review: The Searchers
- Published: May 07, 2007
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Westerns, Video: Historical, Video: Drama, Video: Classics, Video: Action
- Writer: Dan Schneider
- Dan Schneider's BC Writer page
- Dan Schneider's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Well, all I can say is that you've approached the movie with pre-concieved notions about what a Western is and in particular what a John Wayne western is and nothing that happened on the screen was allowed to challenge that. Which is a pity as you are missing out on one of the best movies ever made. Certainly better than 2001 or Once Upon A Time In The West, both of which I like.
The Searchers IS poetry. It is a complex, realistic, moving, funny, dark and entertaining visual poem of metaphor about a man's journey to the door of Hades, only to pull back at the last moment from it as he has every other door in his life. Unable to enter Hades and having long lost Heaven, he ends the film where he started - in Limbo while the living get on with their lives. Far from being a flaw, the fact that he is unable to even change for the worse is one of the major points of the story. Ethan is a futile man living a futile life.
The movie carefully lays out the characters and their history without shouting about it. Why is Marhta with Aaron and not Ethan? The film tells us, slowly and subtly, through the "silly" interaction of Marty and Lauran. It seems that this sort of story telling is not "in your face" enough for your tastes, but it is sophisticated and much more powerful in the long run than having reams of exposition.
You constantly undermine the story for yourself by insisting on applying 21st Century morals to a 20th Century telling of a 19th Century story. You need to try actually watching the movie instead of trying so hard to filter what you're seeing.
The Searchers was a semi-radical film for its time - the Indians are portrayed as trapped and thrashing hopelessly, the Indian-hunter is a monster not a hero. Again, it's subtle, but this is, for example, one of the first Westerns to portry Indian women and children running screaming from the whiteman, or come to that slaughtered without mercy in their own camp. True "Native viewpoint" westerns were still to come, but The Searchers is pointing out the direction from where they will appear and doing a far more honest job of it than, say, Dances with Wolves.
Watch it again but leave your post-modern bourgeois deconstructionist theories at the door. If you still feel the same way, then my advice is to give up watching movies.
1) it's called reading. My dad had preconceptions about Wayne, not me.
2) 'Certainly better than 2001 or Once Upon A Time In The West' A sense of humor is always good.
3) Paragraph 2- it is not poetry, and your paragraph, ironically, details why the film is trite in many ways. Thanks for making the argument.
4) I applied no moral filter, and this is another time you've imbued into the review things to defend weaknesses in the film.
5) Subtlety is not anything this film is, as I said in the scene where Ford has to zero in on Wayne to tell us 'he's bad.'
6) 'post-modern bourgeois deconstructionist theories' Define that. And if you can, show me anything that even remotely is deconstructivist in the review. I revile such stupid -isms. They are as silly as deliterates who want to try to explicate art.
That would be you, TWW.
This is quite an insightful review. To be honest, it's refreshing to read someone who didn't automatically think TS a complete masterpiece, and poetry in motion. I agree with you complete, it was a good film, enjoying and more engaging that I first thought it would be, but I can't see why people fall head over heels in love with it.
May have to use this for my essay (with citations of course!)
Yayu.
Yayu:
You can always tell bad critics and folks who love something out of proportion by the way they react to a review. Of this film I state: 'It does, however, take its place as a worthy entry in the pre-modern western canon, alongside other classics like High Noon, Shane, Red River, and Ford's other western classics like Stagecoach and The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, as a good action film.'
I use words like worthy and good, yet because I do not gush over it, and recognize manifest flaws, folk like TWW automatically get enraged. Silly, really.
I myself was never partial to the old Hollywood Westerns. They're good, but they're flawed. I always prefered Sergio Leone's Clint Eastwood trilogy (the central character's much cooler than any of Wayne's characters), and especially Once Upon a Time in the West, which you mention.
I'll take love over "artistic merit" every day of the week, professor.
That's why your opinion is not that enlightening.
I am ahuge fan of John Wayne,The Searchers, was one of his best ever. So full of emotion.Stands out as a classic because he played the part so well.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/63587)
Should be interesting to see how Searchers 2.0 (Cox film starring Del Zamora, Fall 07) spoofs this...