Shane (George Stevens, 1953)
The essential story of classic Westerns is pretty simple: they're all about the conflict born from the transition between the lawless world of the frontier and the gradual settling down of civilization. The protagonist is always a man torn between both worlds: he recognizes the change going on and generally embraces it, but must come to the realization that he is a man of the old world, and can't cope with civilization. At the same time, he is essential to protect those who are able to build that new world (often women) from his like. He's a Christic figure, sarificing himself for a world that he cannot participate in. Classic westerns have this ambiguous relationship to violence in their DNA: it is both evil and necessary. As it turns out, this is a fascinating enough paradigm to have sustained a whole genre for a few decades.
Shane is a pretty straight-forward execution of that story, with perhaps a bit more sympathy for its villains than would usually be the case, simply through Emile Meyer's Ryker explaining how the homesteaders use of water is actively harming him - an open range cattle rancher. We also get the more traditional gunsliger villain (Jack Palance), who simply enjoys the thrill of the kill. Aside from that, everything I described above plays out pretty much exactly as expected (spoilers I guess): Shane tries to be peaceful but can't, and heroically stops his homesteader friend from going on a suicide mission, and then uses his frontier skills to ensure that civilization can advance. In that process, we get an exchange that could fit in basically any film of this type, between Shane and Ryker:
“You’ve lived too long. Your kind of days are over.”
“My days? What about yours, gunfighter?”
“Difference is I know it.”
One has to admire the simplicity of that line I think, summing up the whole archetype quite effectively. There are two additional elements of some interest here as well. One is Jean Arthur as the homesteader's wife, who the film clearly establishes as pining for Shane, The other is their kid, who idolizes Shane. I don't know that the film does much with either though. Perhaps the issue is that Alan Ladd just isn't that charismatic as Shane, and Jean Arthur isn't given that much to do. As for the kid... well, I'm pretty sure 75% of his dialogue consists of the word "Shane", which gets slightly annoying after a while. This dynamic between the kid and the idol feels like a hint of what Unforgiven would explore much later, but a very thinly sketched one.
Stevens is no John Ford, but he does use his Wyoming setting pretty well in some shots with the Rockies looming over the plains. The inciting incident for the climax is also pretty notable for having an almost Leonesque ramp-up to the single burst of violence, certainly the best scene of the film. However, the whole climax is shot in surprisingly poorly covered day for night cinematography, which feels pretty strange for a film I'd guess had a pretty reasonable budget for the time.
Overall, I don't know that Shane really brings enough to its uber-classic story. It has a pretty languid pace and an obvious sense of self-importance, and a bit of a charisma void at its center. It's generally well-executed and does bring some welcome nuances, but I don't know that it's quite enough for me.
5/10