I hated this movie, for many reasons...

I won't comment on the politics, since I hate politics

On the production itself, this movie is flawless...

The way the movie was shot changed the way western were made.
Long takes within indoors while retaining outdoors elements (Windows, Doors).
Open shots that end up being close ups (Citizen Kane, had some, but not this stylized)
Shots that start at a close up and end up in a big open shot, like the one when the Marshall get off to meet the outlaws(You see him big first with the close up, and very slowly, he start to get small as the crane lifts up the camera, perfect allegory of the Marshall at the time. The camera work is pretty amazing.

The cinematography is flawless, the whole thing is perfectly lit and exposed. Do you know how hard is it?, to make an indoor shot with windows like that, and maintain such fine detail in everything inside and outside as well. I dare you to find a modern movie with such detail in the backgrounds, such fine example of deep focus. And speaking of focus... my god, such perfection, not once did I notice something out of it, this film is 61 years old, and it has better camera work than your average Hollywood movie.

The editing, its also very very refreshing, considering, all we see its a Marshall looking for deputy's, and 3 guys waiting for a train. The way the film is put together, makes you glued to your chair the whole time.
Not even mention, that the whole "last will" sequence, has been copied like hell ever since

I won't comment on the use of time, because there plenty to read about that, and its for the most, the "obvious" great feature of this film

All your "story" issues are all pretty much subjective, so is a matter of opinion. I personally think the story is, if not, one of the most realistic and human westerns ever made. Humans are completely capable of doing what you saw in this film, as a matter of fact, there are several real life examples of it

It should be made clear that Joe McCarthy disgraced himself with some of his bizarre accusations. He even accused Pres. Eisenhower of being a "card-carrying communist", as if that makes any sense. Many decent people were blacklisted back then, including Dalton Trumbo, whose novel Johnny Got His Gun make a profound impact on me. Actor/director Kirk Douglas courageously brought certain people back from the blacklist in certain of his movies. It should also be remembered that during the 1930's, some Americans went to Russia to try and get work when it was scarce in the US. Communism was still a very new concept. To some, it probably made good sense, theoretically. Communism is, after all, just another form of government. The secrecy of the Iron Curtain made Communism frightening.

[deleted]

Who gives a *beep* if there were communists? Isn't that one's right, as guaranteed in your fabled Constitution? Or do those guarantees only apply to those with whom you agree?

You - and McCarthyist's in general - remind me of Frank Burns' line from MASH: "Individuality is fine, as long as we all do it together".

We must not check reason by tradition, but contrawise, must check tradition by reason - Leo Tolstoy

You are absolutely right about McCarthy, as the Venona Papers show declassified documents that point to massive communist infiltration. I'm sure there was some unjust blacklistings, and that's very tragic. But McCarthy should not be villified.
I disliked High Noon for the above reasons, and also because they played the theme song constantly (yes, CONSTANTLY) throughout the entire film.

The movie is a critique of the fact that Hollywood DID act that way, when McCarthy was blacklisting actors. No one had the guts to say anything about it or do anything about it.

In the film context of a potential gunfight, a lot of Gary Cooper's erstwhile "friends" proved that their greatest loyalty was to saving their own lives. I'm not so sure that most people would behave all that differently, given the chance to back down and justify their cowardice by pointing at their neighbors. 1950s Hollywood is one example of that, but the number of places and times in history in which the evil have ruled over the good provides ample corroboration.

There is some validity in what you say about the plot in your first paragraph. For the same reason I gave the movie 9 /10 instead of the maximum . Despite that flaw I still think it is a great film.

I also agree with you to some extent about the Communists and their sympathisers . There is absolutely no reason no believe that if the American Communist Party had ever came to power they would not have done what their comrades did in every other country which fell into their hands, i.e impose a one-party dictatorship and executed or imprisoned those who disagreed with them in labour camps,

However, democracy has to be stronger and more principled than it's enemies and the blacklist only played into the far Left's hands .It was also morally wrong. In the last analysis , democracy best proves it's point by allowing it's enemies to express their opinions so long , of course ,that they do not advocate violence.

Gordon P. Clarkson

A number of people took issue with the film for the very reasons you cite in your first paragraph. Gary Cooper himself thought the portrayal of the townspeople was unfair. John Wayne angrily railed against the film. Sam Fuller and Howard Hawks both made westerns in response: FORTY GUNS and RIO BRAVO. Hawks thought the idea of the hero running around seeking help from amateurs was way off base. However, Hawks was a little off-base there. In real life, whenever an outlaw threat emerged, ordinary townspeople took up guns to ward off the threat and there are many stories of towns saving themselves from outlaw bands because the citizens were armed and willing to shoot at outlaws. Northfield, Minnesota, anyone? So, in real life, the citizens of Hadleyville would definitely have taken up arms to stand with the sheriff.