THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962)

(Week 10: John Wayne)

THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE (1962)

Directed by John Ford

from rikuwrites.blogspot.com

This is a film about an underdog and an unsung hero. James Stewart plays Ransom Stoddard, a young lawyer who opposes to the violence of the old west and tries to change its way by teaching the townsfolk to read. John Wayne plays Tom Doniphon, a typical western hero, except that here he finds himself at odds with a changing world. As most of the town is quick to follow Stoddard's way, Tom's merits slowly becomes irrelevant. The girl Tom likes, Hallie (played by Vera Miles), is indifferent to his valor and partial to the lawyer's intellect. 

The two men have to band together to protect the town from its villain. Lee Marvin plays Liberty Valance, the leader of a gang of outlaws that have been menacing the town. While not being as fleshed out as the two heroes, this role is crucial to the film; he presents Stoddard a series of challenges that tests his tenacity. It is unclear why Tom hadn't done anything about Liberty until now, since Liberty seems to be afraid of him to some degree. Perhaps he doesn't feel that he alone can overthrow the whole gang, or perhaps he knows that without Liberty as the town's villain, he would no longer be the town's hero. 

The film was shot in black and white, either due to low budget or to conceal the actors' age. Stewart and Wayne don't look like the young men that their characters claim to be, and to some degree that has an effect on the film. A young actor would have made Stoddard's youthful idealism more strongly felt. And with Wayne, Tom's refusal to change his way sometimes comes across as a part of his old age. A more appropriate casting would have made for a much different film. Having said that, both Stewart and Wayne give a powerful performance. They play their characters seriously and with a lot of heart. 

This is a western that offers what is familiar and expected while also providing a heartfelt story and memorable characters. This is one of those films that left me with a feeling of having experienced something really special, like it flipped a switch somewhere. It manages to tell a morality tale without being heavy-handed. THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE isn't just a good western but a really good film.

MARY OF SCOTLAND (1936)

(Week 4: Katharine Hepburn) 

MARY OF SCOTLAND (1936)

Directed by John Ford

(from katharine-hepburn.webs.com)

I don't expect every movie based on historical events to be accurate. Movies, most importantly, must entertain, while documentaries must be factual, even when the facts aren't so fascinating. MARY OF SCOTLAND, directed by John Ford, is neither historically accurate or entertaining; it makes no efforts to be factual or truthful. Overall, it is boring and depressing.

Rarely have I seen Hepburn so ineffective, so out of place in her elements. In general she exudes strength and charisma enough to play any queen, but here she seems overwhelmed by the awkwardness of the sets, costumes, and script, which underutilizes her massive range of emotions by confining her to the low octave, leaving her little room to be inspired and exercise her versatility. Not once did we see her disappear behind this role. 

The film is based on a play by Maxwell Anderson, one of the instances where dramatic writings don't translate well onto the screen. The theatrical structure seemed to have been thoroughly transformed for the cinema, leaving only its stiff, overwritten speeches. The actors, some of the best of their time, couldn't add enough color to these lines to make them sound less overwrought and irritating. The film has a serious shortage of emotional truth. You know, the truth that fiction must contain more than fact? That which makes us identify with the characters and their circumstances? It has none of that.

Watching this, it is hard not to remember two famous films that are based on the same historical events and characters: MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS (1971) and ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE (2007), both of which weren't well received by the critics, and neither allowed themselves to be bound by facts. Personally I think Vanessa Redgrave  (1971) embodies the character more gracefully than Hepburn, and both films effectively explore the complicated relationship between Elizabeth and Mary. (The 2007 version, over-the-top and mediocre as it may be, contains more moments of truth than Ford's version.) These women strongly believed they were born to be queens, and therefore they must be enemies. There is no reason otherwise for them to hate each other, and so many reasons for them to get along.

In John Ford's version, Elizabeth is portrayed by Florence Eldridge as an archetypal villain, and Mary her helpless victim. They are allowed one moment of truth, towards the end, wherein Elizabeth shows a hint of her vulnerability while explaining why Mary has to die. She almost becomes human but backs out too soon. Still, she came closer to being fully realized that most of the characters in this film.

I find the history of Mary and Elizabeth fascinating enough. It offers many possibilities of good drama. Unfortunately, this one misses all the marks and comes short of being a decent film. As a fan of both Hepburn and Ford, I'd soon rather forget all about this one.