First and foremost, what makes this a Blind
Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?
Probably the most well-known, most critically revered film of John Ford-John Wayne combo. Considered as one of the best Westerns by many including AFI and Entertainment Weekly, The Searchers(1956) has also been a frequent site in Sight and Sound lists and even went as high as no.7 in 2012's poll. Also the fact that I have heard so much about racism in it that I kind of felt compelled to give it a watch. Not that it needed any more but you know, as they say, sometimes any publicity is good publicity.
So, what is the story about?
Ethan Edwards is a Civil war veteran who fought for the confederate states. In one of the most legendary opening scenes, he comes home to his Brother's ranch 4 years after the end of war in hope of finding a family and settling down with them. However just a few days after his return, Comanche Indians raid their house, kill his brother, brother's wife and their son and kidnap two of young nieces. Rest of the film follows him looking for them for years to follow, initially with a group of Rangers and then with his 1/8th Indian nephew Martin. Most intriguing aspect of The Searchers to me was Racism involved in it. I know a lot of people hate the brazenness of John Wayne's character's hatred towards Indians. I am usually quite oblivious of such things but since I was aware of it beforehand, I definitely felt it too but maybe it is my Indian sentimentality where the whole system is based on the cast system, I am not sure if I feel the pang that deep.
Maybe it doesn't have to be Indians but his hatred of Debbie's abductors was essential to his character and to story. It added new dimensions to both Ethan's character and to the story which incidentally is what I loved the most about them both. Ethan is angry, revengeful and once his search gets in a full swing, there is a distinct feeling that he is more interested in avenging his brother's family than finding her. Maybe it is his deep hatred of Indians that fuels that revenge in him and drives his continual search for many years but it was very much integral part of the story. Even the otherwise likable character like Laurie seems to support, if not participate, in his hatred which I think is because she accepts as a part of life. Maybe Ford wanted to show exactly how deep this was rooted in the everyday life of Americans then as his way of condoning racism.
What did I think of it? What did I like the
most about it and what didn't I like?
As I mentioned before, I had heard a lot about it's opening scene and I have to say that cinematographically, opening and the closing scene were both stunning. The ending worked really well even from the context of movie as well. By then we have seen Ethan as this loner, sullen, hard-boiled guy. He spends many years of his life tirelessly looking for his niece, Debbie but as more time passes and it becomes clear that she has spent that time with Indians, his deep hatred for Indians slowly seems to be seeping into his search. Second half of the story does a good job of giving this moral ambiguity to his search. It almost seems like he wants to find her so that he can kill her for being with Indians. But, in one of the most weird scenes I have ever seen (I have no idea what to make of the way he holds Natalie Wood high-up), he also proves his humane side albeit ephemeral as the ending seems to suggest his relapse to his stoic nature.
As for the opening, I found it very distracting. Stunning to look at, especially the very first shot of camera looking from inside of house at the sprawling old west outside with John Wayne walking across the vast prairie towards the house, but unfortunately void of much else. everyone in his family, except his brother, felt way over the top like they are trying way too hard to impress and it wasn't just their acting, even the background score in the first 15-20 minutes felt was very forced, over dramatic. And on top of that, it introduced more characters that I downright hated in the movie throughout. Fortunately it got better as movie progressed; maybe because I got used to it a bit or maybe because Ford eased up on few things.
From the acting point of view, John Wayne was perfect for his role. Even though he was center of attraction for most of the film and even though I have seen him in similar roles before, his effortlessness in bringing all the transformations of his character to life was definitely praiseworthy. However, the character that impressed me the most was Vera Miles' Laurie. She did have a kind of flashy character but she actually lit up during her limited screen-time. Watching her do her thing was real treat for me. I was also excited to see Natalie Wood as I have never seen her in any movie before. And even though whole story revolves around her character, we only see her on-screen in about four scenes.
After having seen it, do I agree with its
'essential' status? And why?
The more Westerns I watch, the more confused I get as to what to make of them. I still haven't seen too many and I certainly haven't hated any of those I have seen; on the other hand I quite like many of them. So it certainly isn't like I don't like the genre. But for some reason, I don't go from one western to other eagerly either; the way I do for other genres, maybe for something like anime or noirs. Being touted as 'One of the Best', I was certainly hoping for The Searchers to help me form an opinion on westerns as Genre. Unfortunately, I am not quite sure as yet. On the outset, it certainly doesn't look like it drastically changed my opinion.
Once again, I don't dislike it. I haven't seen many John Ford films but looking through his filmography, it seems that he had a lot to say about period in which Indians(i.e. native Americans) and Americans fought incessantly. As a film I think it is still a good film but the only aspect of this film I think is legendary is cinematography. John Ford was no stranger to Monument Park in Utah which forms the old Texas in the film and yet again he captures the breathtaking beauty of those landscapes beautifully. But if someone asks me for a recommendation to watch a western, I will rather go with fist John Wayne - John Ford collaboration Stagecoach(1939) which incidentally was also shot in Monument Park and High Noon(1952) or if it counts, yet another Wayne - Ford combo The Man who Shot Liberty Valance(1962) and even Dollar Trilogy if spaghetti westerns count.
Does it open few new doors for me? Does
this inspire to watch any other movies?
Once again, this wasn't much about opening new unventured avenues but about filling up certain gaps. There must be literally hundreds of lists that The Searchers is part of. It just felt weird that I still haven't seen it, every time I encountered that name. It was about time to check it off. I would love to say that I will like to watch more John Ford films(counting this, I have only seen four) but the man has 144 directorial credits on his IMDb profile. That is Crazy! Though I will still try to watch some more of his Western, maybe the ones he did with John Wayne as 2 of the 3 films I noted above are, after all, films of this legendary combo. Just don't ask me When?
One of the questions that we are so
frequently asked and one that I can never answer is what is your favorite
trilogy ? Even the current poll at LAMB asks the same question and I still do
not have the answer. There just are too many options to choose from like
(a) Nolan's Batman trilogy: with The Dark Knight Rises(2012) epic ending to the trilogy this summer, we have
another brilliant option available.
(b) Three Colors trilogy: White(1994) is
inferior of the three only because it has likes of Blue(1993) and Red(1995) alongside and together they just hit it out of the park.
(c) Satyajit Ray's Apu trilogy: After I saw
all three movies earlier this year, it has become a serious contender as my
favorite. Only thing keeping me is the quality of the competition.
(d) Lord of the Rings trilogy: Another one
of personal favorites and certainly one I have seen most. More than everything
else put together in this list
(e) Toy Story trilogy: Probably the weakest
of the list but I love Toy Story 3 and can not argue with the iconic status of first one.
(f) Bergman's Faith trilogy: probably the
best trilogy I haven't seen yet.
and I am sure there are quite a few more I am forgetting here but then this labor day when I sat down in
front of the TV and saw all 3 movies from Sergio Leone's Dollar trilogy, I
added one more name to the list.
Starting out with A Fistful of Dollars(1964) as the first installment, it is adaptation of Kurosawa's Yojimbo(1961) set in the west. Eastwood's iconic character Man with no name, arrives in one of the small towns on Mexican border where there are two gangs fighting with each other over the control of the town. One of them is Gang of Rojo Brothers - Don Miguel, Esteban and Ramon while the other is so-called sheriff of the town John Baxter. Because of the constant feud between these two families, rest of the town is pretty much dead as there are no more businesses alive except one hotel. After this stranger arrives in the town, he decides to make use of this divide in the two families to make some quick money. He gets his chance to play these two families against each other pretty soon as Ramon, with the help of his gang dressed in American uniforms, steals the gold being delivered to Americans by Mexican soldiers. He feeds false information to both the gangs that couple of American soldiers survived Ramon's attack and are hiding in the cemetery. Both the gangs rush to cemetery, Rojos to silence these soldiers and Baxters to use them against Rojos. When they both square up against each other in cemetery, Ramon becomes successful in killing both the soldiers who are actually just the dead bodies planted by stranger. With this success under his belt, stranger tries to do something bigger and soon realizes that he is biting something bigger than he can chew. But, he is the Hero right? So, he has to win in the end and with the help of couple of friends in the town, he does. Of all the three movies, this is probably the weakest in my opinion but for the first film in trilogy, it does a lot of groundwork for more greatness to follow. It establishes the character which pretty much made Clint Eastwood Clint Eastwood, that is of of 'The Man with No Name', though he does have a name in the other two, in his signature costume with his typical hat, poncho and munching the cigar. We never know anything about his background, here we don't even know what he really does, he speaks only when it is necessary and rather prefers to let his gun do the talking for him. It also sets you up with what to expect visually because lets be honest, if I ask one thing that is of prime importance in this movie I am sure majority of us will say it is visual style. It also marked first collaboration of Leone and his composer Ennio Morricone which would bring us to another very important aspect of the trilogy - background scores. Even though the weakest of the three, it certainly is marks a great start to the trilogy.
Rating(out of 5):
For the second installment of the trilogy, we have For a Few Dollars More(1965), only movie of the trilogy that I could remember properly before I saw it again that day. It may be isn't the most popular or even the best of the trilogy, but in my opinion it is most compact of the three in a sense that I may be in the minority who thinks so but it is better than A Fistful of Dollars and is shorter than The Good, the Bad and the Ugly(1966). This time around, as I said, The Man with No Name has a name - Monco and we also know that he is a bounty hunter. There is also another bounty hunter in picture by the name of Colonel Douglas Mortimer. After getting their hands on some smaller bounties both happen to set their eyes on the big prize of Indio and his gang. Being good at their job, they both guess correctly that Indio who has just escaped from prison, his first target will be Bank of El Paso which is considered as the safest bank of all. When they both arrive in the town of El Paso and square off against each other, they have already learned about each other from different sources. After testing each other out, they both realize that the best thing for either of them will be to join forces against Indio. Mortimer proposes an idea of one of them joining Indio's gang so that he can work from inside and Monco reluctantly agrees to be that man. However, not everything can go according to plan, after all there is a reason why Indio isn't an easy target. This duo of bounty hunters also try to come up with a counter plan to make up and with some more twists and turns we get to the eventual ending but not without revealing why Mortimer is so badly behind Indio. Building on the elements from first installment, it adds a lot in various departments, especially characters. We get to know Clint Eastwood's character a little more in depth here after first installment. He still has all his signature articles - his poncho, cigar, his hat and he still prefers to let his gun do the talking which should be clear from the scene when Monco and Col. Mortimer face each other. But to tell you the truth, Van Cliff's Douglas Mortimer is much better and even more interesting character in this. He is the brain of their partnership whereas Monco is pretty much of a follower. Even Indio's villain is little more dangerous as he is just as savage as Ramon but this time around works more with his head than his heart. If not better, this movie has as much visual flair as the first one and also Morricone scores again with his whistling soundtrack. Something else that did stand out for me this time is sound editing in general but specifically the use of echo mostly in their gun fights and the use of chiming of a watch in final duel was amazing.
Rating(out of 5):
And finally, we come to the most iconic, most popular and certainly the best of the trilogy The Good, the Bad, the Ugly(1966) as the final installment. Now, I had seen it before but it was long ago and I almost remembered nothing about it. So, despite the fact that it would mean I will be watching 3 movies in a row, 10 hours non-stop, I sat down for this classic yet again. This time we have three men we are focusing on. The Man with No name goes by the name of Blondie here who is a professional gunslinger, Angel eyes is a man on hire who makes sure that the job he is hired for is done gets done while Tuco is a wanted criminal. Tuco and Blondie have a kind of partnership where Blondie will arrest Tuco and give him to police, collect the bounty on him and when he is about to be hanged, he will rescue him and then they share the bounty. After a while Blondie gets tired of doing this every time and he ditches Tuco in the desert with not even water to drink. Tuco not only survives the scare but he soon enough finds Blondie out and makes Blondie go through the same routine he did. Just when he is about to bolt Blondie to death, he sees a stagecoach full of confederate soldiers. Only one of them, by the name of Bill Carson, is alive and he tells Tuco about cemetery where he has hidden a lot of gold but he is dying of thirst and will not tell the name on grave unless he has water to drink. By the time, Tuco finds water for him and brings it to him, he is dead but not before giving Blondie the name on grave. So, the two men again have to form an uncomfortable partnership and keep each other alive to get that gold. Now Angel eyes has also been looking for this gold for quite some time. He knows that Bill Carson is the one who knows everything about it but unfortunately he hasn't been able to get hold of Carson. Through a lot of interesting twists and turns where at one point Tuco and Blondie disguised as confederate soldiers, even fall in hands of Angel eyes in Yankee prison Camp, where he is disguised as Yankee Captain; we finally get to the cemetery and to the grave where we witness probably the most iconic moment in western movies ever - all three men for themselves in a three-way shootout. Almost all the elements Leone has been building so far have been almost perfected in this movie. Characters are much more richer, deeper and best example in this case is Eli Wallach's Tuco who is like chameleon changing its color and he gives probably the most entertaining performance of the whole trilogy. It has much better storyline which maybe isn't really complex but there is a lot that happens in it. Soundtrack is unforgettable, I am sure even those who haven't even seen movie know about it(e.g. my parents). Cinematography is breathtaking. Even though I do feel like it is little too long, especially towards end and sudden disappearance and reappearance later in the film of Van Cliff's Angel Eyes bothers me a little, there is no denying at all that this is Western Cinema at it's very best from any angle you choose to look at.
Rating(out of 5):
