Note: This is #30 in my 52 Classic Movies in 52 Weeks challenge for 2009.
Unlike last week’s High Noon, the movie Shane seems to fit more of the prototypical Western (non-spaghetti) movie. You’ve got your eponymous lone hero, mysterious Shane (Alan Ladd), who is trying to atone for his previous life by sloshing masculinity all over the place and helping out Starrett family (Joe, Marian, and that brat lil’ Joey). The Starretts are trying to get the sparse community of home steaders in their region to resist being pushed off their lands by the crooked businessman Rufus Ryker and his gang of leering thugs.
I liked Shane fine enough, even though the ratios of wood chopping to gun slinging were a bit off. Every one of the main cast gives a pretty good performance, with the exception of the actor playing little Joey, whose whiny schlock made me hope he would be killed in crossfire at some point. Alas, he was not. The movie also has some great scenery and settings, and it really gave a sense of (I presume) authenticity and place. These didn’t feel like actors; they looked and talked and felt like realy people from that era. Great sound, too, especially when it came to the roaring gunfire.
I also appreciated that the film’s villain eschewed the swaggering, mustache-twirling archetype that you might have expected. Not only that, but while his methods get out of his own control towards the end he actually does have point of view and motivations that you can understand. During one showdown between Ryker and Shane we learn that he does have a semi-legitimate claim on the land where the homesteaders have …steaded their …homes. The question becomes one larger than simple ownership of land, and I get the sense that this was exactly the kind of thing that people of that era had to deal with.
So, not bad, though not particularly deep or riveting. For a Western, there was relatively little action or tension. I mainly got out of it a sense of place, time, and character. Which isn’t that bad, either.
Published by