Stephen Metcalf at Slate writes that John Ford's The Searchers is wildly overrated, calling it "the worst best movie." While Mr. Metcalf is certainly entitled to his opinion, he pulled off the neat trick of managing to alienate me completely within the first few paragraphs, calling it (derisively) "a film geek's paradise" and sneering at "film studies" (which he inexplicably surrounds with scare quotes) as a "discrete and self-respecting academic discipline." Hey, what's wrong with a little self respect? Anyway, Metcalf does his best to skewer the film's reputation, but it's clear that he's not interested in anything more than a straightforward shoot-em-up Western. I would recommend Stagecoach to him, but seeing as how film geeks seem to love that one too, maybe he'd better steer clear.
Apparently Metcalf also has an axe to grind with cultural studies, throwing up those old scare quotes again around the word "problematized" and regarding race and gender issues with what amounts to an outright dismissal. He also has a problem with using the word "subvert," which, again, he surrounds with scare quotes and claims is a "film studies byword." Are film scholars the only people to ever mention subversion in art, culture, media, etc.? It's clear that Metcalf has a problem with "film geeks." I'm not sure how he manages it, but he interprets John Ford's quote "My name is John Ford. I make Westerns" as the most "laconic a kiss-off to one's nerd-cultists [...] one could imagine." Maybe I'm missing something from the original context, but where's the kiss-off, Metcalf?
Overall, his tone is extraordinarily dismissive of film studies and academic scholarship in general. This seems to be a common problem; popular critics like Metcalf have little concern for 'problem films' and are rarely willing to engage the flaws of a work in a meaningful fashion. Often these flaws, over time, become the most intriguing and endearing parts of a text. He seems to be right on the same page with the commenter over in the discussion forums who thinks Vertigo is overrated and not entertaining. Maybe it's just because I'm a discrete, self-respecting film scholar, but you'd have to be an idiot to dismiss one of the greater films of the 20th century because it's not as "entertaining or properly constructed" as other works. Apparently only popcorn movies with tight, conventional structures deserve the critical accolades.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Ray Ellis
There's only one thing wrong with this review: the title. There's nothing to defend in The Searchers, and you did an admirable job of illustrating why this is so. The wonderful thing about the Internet is it gives everyone a chance to spew on topics they nothing about. That's also its downfall. Bryan, please continue to put the wannabe gunslingers in their place.
2 - Victor Lana
Bryan, I've long been a fan of The Searchers for what it is not rather than what it is: an homage to a stylistic type of film that is novelistic in approach and scope. Everything about the film seems well-thought out, and each scene if captured in a still is like a meaningful piece of art.
The story itself is amazingly taught and powerful, with Wayne at his best in the relentless search for his niece (Natalie Wood) who has been captured by Indians. There are the cultural ramifications (Indians are not all bad), the gorgeous color of the western landscapes, and an amazing cast.
One only has to think of the final scene (Wayne framed in the doorway) and see the contrasts of light and dark, of a man who has won but really lost and is trapped between a world of darkness and light.
That's what keeps people going back to this film and appreciating Ford's craftmanship (it's also been copied numerous times since but not done half as well).
3 - Rebecca
I studied film in college quite a bit. (It was my minor, during my undergraduate years), and I am a big fan of John Ford's work. While I think 'The Searchers' is an okay film, it's never been on my list of greats.
I'm not a big fan of John Wayne's. For whatever reason, he just has never been my cup of tea. After reading the Slate article, I have a suspicion that perhaps the authors person perceptions of John Wayne the man, may have affected his view of 'The Searchers.' I think personal feelings often play a bigger role in how a person reviews anything, whether it be a film, CD or book then most of them choose to admit.
4 - Ray Ellis
Rebeccah, a critic must work within the parameters of the genre he chooses to review if the review is to have any validity to it. If, dor instance, you've already decided you hate all hip-hop, your views on a particular hip-hop piece are invalid. The same goes for any genre.
I'm not a big John Wayne fan, either. But "The Searchers" stands as a classic, and Wayne's work in it is probably his finest, partly because it goes against type.
5 - Rebecca
I agree with you wholeheartedly. I just think some critics don't work within that framework and bring their personal bias' to the table. I also think some of think some critics write somewhat controversial reviews with the soul purpose of getting their name out there. Many a critic would like to have the noteriety and wealth of say, a Roger Ebert.