Tags
B, Jimmy Stewart, John Ford, John Wayne, Paramount, Westerns
Credits
Director: John Ford
Studio: Paramount Pictures
Cast: John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Vera Miles, Lee Marvin, Edmond O’Brien, Andy Devine, Ken Murray
Language: English
Content
Not Rated: One Occasion of Language, Violence, Gun Fighting, Drunkenness, Death
Plot (Previewing)
“If you want to stay healthy, there are two ways of doing so: get a gun or get out of town.”
Ransom Stoddard (Jimmy Stewart) is a US Senator who comes to a small western town of Shinbone to attend a funeral of an old time friend, Tom Doniphon (John Wayne). The arrival sparks the curiosity of the local media and Ransom is forced into retelling his story of how long ago he came to Shinbone and squared off with the notorious villain Liberty Valance (Lee Marvin).
A flashback to Ransom’s arrival just outside of the town begins his story. There he encounters Liberty Valance and his gang for the first time. Ransom is a lawyer from a well established and civil eastern area. His encounter with the villain begins what is too be a mission to bring law, order and even education to the western frontier. Ransom finds his services not much in need in the rugged town. He instead picks up work at the local restaurant and uses the local press and school to educate the citizens of the governmental system. Along the way, Ransom meets Tom who is a tough cowboy but a moral opposition to Valance’s ruthlessness. Ransom is dedicated to show the town a peaceful and ordered resolution, but Tom, at first, is convinced only a law of self reliance can be achieved. The judicial system to Tom is being the first one to draw his gun. To Ransom, on the contrary it is a due process of arrest and trial.
The region is in a fight for statehood to protect the rights of the townspeople from the wealthy ranchers. Tom and Ransom team up in order to prevent the town from the mayhem of Liberty Valance and his gang. Dutton Peabody (Edmond O’Brien), a local newspaper man, also lends assistance to Ransom in exposing Liberty Valance and his motives. With the heart of the restaurant owner’s daughter Hallie (Vera Miles) up for competition, Tom and Ransom must put aside their own interests in order to do justice for the town.
In the film’s climax, Liberty Valance is shot and Hallie’s heart is won, but everything is not as it seems. With the town now coming to some order, Ransom is nominated to be a representative in Washington. However, Ransom is overcome with guilt and it is none other the Tom that comes to aid in his time of need. The conclusion brings upon an infamous quote “when legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
Critique (Spoilers)
Even though John Ford is a Catholic, the film portrays no religious significance. I do not recall a mention of God at all. There is an absence of pastors, priests, or other religious figures in the film. There is also a lack of faith expressed in the people. Take as an example, when Ransom is on his way to meet Liberty Valance for a duel, Hallie runs to Pompey to fetch Tom and in her fear she never seeks out in any for of prayer for Ransom’s safety. However, for the lack of religious tone, the movie shows a morality especially in tension between the two main characters, Ransom and Tom. I personally, however, may have thought a consistent non gun carrying Ransom may have played an even more powerful part; taking on Liberty Valance without a pistol and living up to his initial position of order over shoot outs. The film has a heavy emphasis on governmental law and none on faith or belief in God, which, in my opinion, is erroneous. For the time, however, it may have been the climate of social injustice overcoming the town. With this injustice, it is rightfully showed that it is defeated with order over mayhem and individualism.
One of the most humorous characters in the film is the newspaper man Mr. Dutton Peabody. He provides many of the best lines of the movie. On one hand he is a respected man who is dedicated to his craft of the press. On the other hand he is a notorious drunk. At first, his drunkenness is not evident but it comes to light very quickly on voting day. “Just one beer” he begs to Tom as he is continuously refused as required by law that bars are closed during voting. Peabody is irritable about the closing and his body language and actions towards the crowd are hilarious. Then, when nominated with Ransom to be a representative, Peabody delivers the comical but incredibly truthful refusal “I build them up and then I tear them down.” However, he does go on and accept the nomination largely for the purpose that an opposition is needed against Liberty Valance.
The issue of drunkenness continues to present itself later on, this time with Tom. With the loss of Hallie, Tom is a broken man who resorts to burning down his house. The last we see of Tom, his appearance points to the fact he is still unsettled. He does, however, come to lift the guilt off Ransom, or so it seems. It seems Tom wants to rightfully set the record straight for his own interest, but at the same time he wants Ransom, who Tom does believe can make a difference for his town, to have the guilt of killing Liberty Valance lifted off him so he will accept the nomination for Washington. Tom, overcome by his own brokenness, believes his killing was cold blood murder, but in reality that is not true. In a perfect world, it would have been more pleasing to see Tom continue his virtue but in the end, even the tough cowboy cannot cope with his broken heart. As we learn that Tom stopped carrying a gun long before his death, it can mean either he remained broken or that he embraced law and order that had come to Shinbone.
Ransom may be the least likeable of the main cast, but partly because the overall cast in phenomenal. He is a softer contrast to Tom’s rigidness. This seems to be reinforced by symbolism of wearing an apron much of the film. He stands for something good only until he is tired of being pushed around. While it may be just to take up arms for defense, it was contrary to his initial position. It would have been more beneficial to see Ransom beat Liberty Valance at his strengths, instead he lowers himself to a resolve of violence. His accession into higher office takes off after the shooting but it seems that it cannot happen without this act of violence happening first. I think his guilt is a witness to a loss of his integrity and it is only resolved when he finds out that he is not responsibly after all for Liberty Valance’s death. The legend propels him into a long career in office. A single monumental event like this, however, would be enough to propel anyone in today’s politics as well.
There isn’t much to the scenic features of this film but the camera angles and lighting are solid. The story even with knowing, by the title, that Liberty Valance will be shot, projects some mystery and suspense. However, if one pays enough attention during the movie, one would know there is no way that Ransom could have shot Liberty Valance from that distance, especially with his opposite hand. It seems evident all along that there was another shooter.
Noticeable Errors
A few scenes of noticeable cut offs where action had stopped and started.
Ransom is conducting class at school and asks a question concerning the US Constitution. Pompey, however, starts to recite the beginning of the declaration of independence.
The direction of Liberty Valance’s fall is questionable. It seems that if the shot that hit him came from his left, then the momentum of the impact should have carried him in the opposite direction. Instead it carried him into the street back towards Tom.
The train in the last scene, according to the conductor, is going 25 mph; but the background is going much faster and is almost not viewable. This would not be the case if you were only traveling 25 mph.
Recognitions
United States Library of Congress
United States National Film Registry
Breakdown
Trailer
Update: Because of comments from viewers, I have given this movie an additional 3 points.
Traditional Thought 
Jimmy – quiet a system you have of grading and reviewing movies. I appreciate your effort and meticulousness.
My question for you is this: do you think a movie must be overtly religious/Catholic to be great? Why or why not?
I don’t think a movie has to be religious at all to be great. My purpose is to convey which movies are religious/virtuous and set a rating based on it. I wanted to be different from everyone else. I don’t think many, if any, movie ratings have this kind of detail. There are plenty of reviewers out there! The blog is about expression of faith so I am simply trying to be true to my own prerogative. In reality, I do side with movies with some religious content being more superior because they deal with the highest object. How Green Way My Valley could have still done very well without the religious content but that extra element provided an extra that few other elements can achieve, in my opinion.
I think I understand what you’re saying. I took “Even though John Ford is a Catholic, the film portrays no religious significance. I do not recall a mention of God at all. There is an absence of pastors, priests, or other religious figures in the film. There is also a lack of faith expressed in the people… ” to mean that you thought the film would have been better if it had been religious. A second reading of what you wrote shows me that that isn’t necessarily what you were implying.
If God is Goodness, Beauty and Truth, and all good art deals in what is Good, Beautiful and True, how is it that religious films stand out as dealing with the highest object? I ask because, though I could be persuaded differently, I’m not at present convinced that religious films are better/higher in general, though I do like and appreciate them.
To be clear, I have no intention on persuading anyone that religious films are better. It’s just another perspective that I will offer. I do personally favor them because all the sciences are relevant to God, as you say. It just needs to be shown in that context. That’s my personal opinion. I will say that “It’s a Wonderful Life” is one of my favorites. It is not necessarily religious but does express a significance to what exists outside of the material world. I personally find the expression of faith to be the greatest of any expression. Another film I have recently watched is “Romero” and it will not get a achieving a higher score then this film. Not all art deals with beauty. Just have a look at modern art and architecture to see this. I’ll be posting some others soon enough. In the mean time, feel free to share what you think makes a film great or not so great. We’ll see if we have any contrasts!
I said all GOOD art deals with what is Good, Beautiful and True 🙂
Depends on what you consider good.
No it doesn’t. Good art deals with what is good, true and beautiful, whether *I*, or you, consider it good or not.
My point was that an artist can express something in such a way that distorts what is beautiful. I have seen bad depictions of God, Christ, Mary, etc. The art is yet dealing with what IS good, true, and beautiful, but may have a disordered way of presenting it. Hence, I wouldn’t consider it good art. So there must be some objectivity in distinguishing good art, right?
Rewinding, this film has a lot of good in it. Morality does come from God but this film to me does not embrace that as it does a democratic system. The founders of this country found it right and just to add God into foundation of our country, why not this movie?
Religious films may not be better then this movie but giving a proper context to beauty, truth, etc. is important. If a film is trying to relay to the viewer a beauty or truth, then because God IS beauty and truth, shouldn’t He be given context? Theology is the study of God and His order. It is the study of deepening our knowledge of the creator and the created. Because religious films usually deal with this, then it is easy for me to say they have more capacity to convey a greater beauty and truth then a film that forgoes religion.
“So there must be some objectivity in distinguishing good art, right?” – That was just my point. Your other comment, “Depends on what you consider good” implies that what makes art good is a subjective matter.
I think there are some films that, if they added the outward God/Religion aspects, would just seem preachy or unbelievable. This movie is one of them. I could be wrong – maybe it could be done in a good way.
On a related note, Flannery O’Connor was a devout Catholic. Have you read any of her stories? Her thoughts on reflecting the faith through art might be interesting to you interesting. Her art was writing short stories and novels, but I think her principles would apply to your discussion here.
Basically, I think it’s very important to have art that deals in what is true, beautiful and good on a natural level alone AND art that deals with those on a supernatural level.
My intention of the comment was to imply the objectivity. Some think art is good but it really isn’t.
If the notion of God was brought into this film it would be unbelievable? This film deals with fundamental principles of the founding fathers. God was among those principles, it’s just not mentioned in the film. The film certainly had the chances of doing so, especially when they are reciting the declaration of independence. His sentence, if completed, would have said:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
In modern times, we are stripping the understanding of having a creator in our government. We base it on “science” but of course science has everything to do with God. We just decide to leave that detail out.
I completely agree with art dealing with a natural level and ones with supernatural level. I think Thomas Kinkade is an interesting subject for this matter. His paintings were extremely popular and very beautiful, but they also received a lot of criticism because they lacked a real truth to them. I would recommend reading the articles after his death to hear the arguments.
I know a little of Flannery O’Conner. Haven’t read much of her. Her transformations somewhat represent the character development of John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart but her allegorical meanings are lost on me if they exist in this movie. Maybe I am only going off the little I know of her. I have always admired natural art but I always thought that it was raised to another level through allegories, typologies, or some type of symbolism. I really appreciated “Babette’s Feast” for it’s allegorical Eucharistic banquet.
All in all, my personal opinion is I like a sense of the divine, even if He is not mentioned specifically. God is all that is beautiful and true, and with this movie I just felt unsettled if that was being upheld or not. Many i am bias towards today’s politics but then again…..
I appreciate the dialogue. As I post more, maybe a base can be built and this conversation can expand. Your points do resonate with me. I am considering adjusting my score for the movie. One because, with the absence of faith in the movie, you do see even the heroes fall into vice. John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart are never the same after Liberty Valance is killed. Thinking about it more, that would be a correct context. We attempt to fill our hearts with our own desires but without God our hearts are restless.
My heart is restless O Lord, until it rests in thee – St. Augustine