Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

SHANE (1953)


MissGoddess
 Share

Recommended Posts

*Thank you for not being the fan programmer who chose Gone With the Wind. It just doesn't get any worse than that. I cannot imagine a person selecting such a trashy film. But there are some that came close. Meet John Doe? Gary Cooper? Dreadful!*

 

Hey Shiftless,

 

You should be more careful with your words. By this time Saturday morning, you may be eating them.

 

Need a little Cajun seasoning to make them taste better? Let me know and I'll pass you the Tony Chacres'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy again, cinemafan!

 

>

> This part stands out for me - in the first confrontation, when Shane is surrounded by a bunch of Ryker's gang, and Joey says to him 'There's too many, Shane' or close to that. In fact, he says it twice. Reminds me of choosing to live to fight another day. That's also the wisdom that Torrey lacked.

>

 

I love this scene. I even like how little Joey wasn't afraid to walk in there and

try to save his "friend". What I like most of all, is how Shane responds to him:

 

Shane-180.jpg?t=1239585140

 

Shane-181.jpg?t=1239585263

 

Shane-182.jpg?t=1239585300

 

Shane-183.jpg?t=1239585335

 

Shane-184.jpg?t=1239585368

 

Shane is willing to take on all of them, but Grafton tries to interject. Grafton is an

interesting character to me. He's clearly a peaceable man who is pained by the growing

violence, but he is weak. He may even be getting some sort of cut from Ryker, who

seems to make himself very much at home in the establishment.

Shane-185.jpg?t=1239585450

 

 

Shane-186.jpg?t=1239585408

 

Once Joey comes running out for help, Joe seems to realize this is his fight, too,

and that Shane is one of their own. It's almost like the two men are fighting for Joey---

that is, for a better world for the children.

Shane-187.jpg?t=1239585612

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Shane is willing to take on all of them, but Grafton tries to interject. Grafton is an*

*interesting character to me. He's clearly a peaceable man who is pained by the growing violence, but he is weak. He may even be getting some sort of cut from Ryker, who seems to make himself very much at home in the establishment.*

 

That's a very good point, too. There are some indications (don't remember the exact scene) that Ryker actually has held back on getting violent due to pressure from Grafton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote Burl Ives as Big Daddy, there is a powerful and obnoxious odor of MENDACITY in this room that is all too familiar.

 

Miss G., thank you for pointing out those "light and dark" bookends -- I'm ashamed to say I didn't pick up on it at all. Also about how a "good man" and "bad men" enter into another person's space; that was revelatory to me.

 

When Marian says to Shane "Did you do it for me?", he replies: "For you, Marian?" almost sarcastically I thought, putting her at a distance, to cover his true feelings perhaps?

 

I'm enjoying reading and absorbing everyone's comments on SHANE, and I REALLY need to see the movie again because it's obvious I've missed a lot of important details. I'm not sure if it's because I don't normally associate George Stevens with "symbolism", so I wasn't "looking" for it? (but I guess that's just an excuse for my obtuseness)

 

Message was edited by: Bronxgirl48

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*And in that regard, it may be something that a person would NOT want to discuss publicly, due to privacy concerns.*

 

And as such, we are all respecting of what you wrote and I don't believe anyone is asking or forcing you to go into greater depth.

 

I still see no personal attack or criticism but those judgments aren't up to me.

 

I'll take my lumps if I've been out of line.

 

As for *Shane*, well, he'll still be riding off into the mountains no matter what.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*I'm enjoying reading and absorbing everyone's comments on SHANE, and I REALLY need to see the movie again because it's obvious I've missed a lot of important details. I'm not sure if it's because I don't normally associate George Stevens with "symbolism", so I wasn't "looking" for it? (but I guess that's just an excuse for my obtuseness)*

 

Bronxie,

 

I think more than any other director who took part in WWII, you can draw a demarcation line between Stevens' pre-war films and his post war films.

 

The war changed him in many ways. Pre-war films included *Gunga Din*, *The More the Merrier*, *Swing Time* and had a relative balance between dramas and comedies.

 

Post-war Stevens is a director with a very different frame of mind. Gone for the most part are the comedies and the light hearted comradeship of his pre-war films . They are replaced by films with big themes like *Giant* and *The Greatest Story Ever Told* or the dark side of drama like *Shane* and *A Place in the Sun*.

 

His experience during the war seems to have changed Stevens in a more emotional way than his fellow war-time directors such as Ford, Capra and Huston.

 

They all experienced the brutality of war (perhaps in different theaters of the war and in different ways) but all were impacted by their service to their country and to some degree that is reflected in their post-war movies, perhaps by Stevens the most.

 

Hopefully, I haven't strayed off-topic by talking about Stevens, the director of *Shane*.

 

Message was edited by: lzcutter because reflected needs to be spelled correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*Hopefully, I haven't strayed off-topic by talking about Stevens, the director of Shane.*

 

I should think not. I found that biographical information very interesting, because it helps to understand where *Shane* fits into Stevens' body of work and how his war experience may have had an effect on this and other movies of his. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shane.jpg

 

I looked at an old photo from "Shane" just now and started thinking about Joey's dog, especially in light of the "canine" motif that someone else pointed out in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon". I wonder if the decision to have Joey have a dog was entirely coincidental, or if there was some additional meaning to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy, Cinemafan! -- FrankG, For some reason, you have quite a following

here. Looks like you have many more friends than foes though.

 

The critical word being "following." I suppose I should be flattered that some follow me

wherever I go. I guess I'm their idol.

 

Ok,ok, Marian did want to look nice for company. She probably hadn't had any in

quite a while. But, I'm sure she was glad to get out of those pants - which to me

indicated that she had to do "men's work" with Joe because there was no one

else, and so much work to do. No wonder she liked Shane, he took over half the

load. Just keeping up a house and garden was killer back then.

 

I believe you are very correct about her wearing dresses because she doesn't have to do

"men's work." This in turn made her feel more like a woman and very prideful of that fact.

I absolutely love that observation by you. It's been my favorite of the many brilliant points

and observations that have been brought up on this thread. I've really liked what Movieman

has written about the film, too.

 

The only other movies where I've seen women wear pants in those days were

tomboys or wearing super tight pants and shirt, in a different kind of western, with

a different director.

 

Now that's fascinating to me. I would never catch something like that.

 

Re: Torrey. He just didn't have the understanding of other men's psyches - the

extent that people would go to. I guess you could say he was a simple man, who

was ruled by his emotions. Too bad for his family though, as they were left alone.

 

Nicely said. I completely agree with you. I think Torrey let his emotions think for him

and this can be costly in the long run. His stubborn pride blinded him.

 

This part stands out for me - in the first confrontation, when Shane is surrounded by

a bunch of Ryker's gang, and Joey says to him 'There's too many, Shane' or close to

that. In fact, he says it twice. Reminds me of choosing to live to fight another day. That's

also the wisdom that Torrey lacked.

 

Very true. But Shane decided to power on. The difference between Shane's decision to

fight and Torrey's was who they were fighting and the weapons at play.

 

FrankG, if you have not seen 3:10 to Yuma (old version of course), please do. I think

you will like it. Van Heflin plays a similar sort of guy there. Glenn Ford, another one of

my favorites, is great in it.

 

Ironically, I have seen the remake of 3:10 to Yuma but not the original. I really liked

the remake.

 

I'm also a Glenn Ford fan, so I'm guessing I'm really going to like the original

3:10 to Yuma. I've yet to see Glenn play a baddie. I may get the DVD next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=FrankGrimes wrote:}{quote}

> Very true. But Shane decided to power on. The difference between Shane's decision to fight and Torrey's was who they were fighting and the weapons at play.

>

 

The decisive fight, for both Shane and Torrey, was Wilson, wasn't it? In the case of fighting an experience gunfighter like Wilson, Torrey would always have been at a disadvantage, because he was no gunfighter. Shane had been a gunfighter, and he'd always be in a better position to take on Wilson, under nearly any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

© 2022 Turner Classic Movies Inc. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...