What do you think would happen if Shane returned to the Starret family at the end? Do you think anything would have happened between him and Marion? Would he have become the "man of the house" after saving Joe and his family? Would Joe accept the new situation? or would he just live with them as a friend to the family helping in the work and keep his attraction to Joe's wife platonic?
shareCelebratory threesome, after which an exhaused Marion would joke how they should round up some of Ryker's now-ownerless cattle and brand them with the new Starrett brand: "DP."
shareLOL!!! No really, would Joe become a reluctant cuckold? And let Marian be with the better man and bear his children?
share[deleted]
That is an interesting question soha-rahhal that you have posed. If Shane returned to the family instead of heading off to the sunset certain problems are to be expected. There was obviously an intense and guarded love that Marion felt for Shane. With Shane returning, Marion would probably detest her situation with Joe. Shane was the man she wanted. She would have to approach one of the still standing bar patrons (ones that Shane had not blown away) and perhaps enter into a secret contract with him to eliminate Joe. She could then pursue Shane to her abandon. Of course little Joey would be shattered and he may/may not seek his revenge. The issue of little Joey's sexuality would therefore be settled once and for all. This would tie up all the loose ends that so mamy posters have questioned on this board. What a terrific sequel! However, I do not really see Shane as a hog farmer or sod buster. Perhaps he and Marion would flee to the big city and set up a bar or a rowdy house.
share"Marion would probably detest her situation with Joe. Shane was the man she wanted."
I completely disagree. Yes, Marion was physically attracted to Shane, but she had a deep and abiding love for her husband. Isn't that obvious? She would never have actually slept with Shane, it would have been a scandal that would have been unimaginable. She would never have shamed her husband by indulging in a quick affair with Shane. Nor do I think Shane would have done this. He had too much honor than to sleep with a man's wife in his own house!
Let me answer you generalusgrant. I believe your response would be correct if this scenario/sequel was played out before the audiences of the 1950's. I am responding to the original poster's question and am picturing a 2011 sequel.
Scandals and shame, as I'm sure you are well aware, are not to be found or appreciated among the 2011 viewing audience. I'm afraid those archaic concepts are somewhat passe. Hollywood would have to "update" the staid morality to current cultural mores. Thus, Marion's predicted reaction and the new Joey would have to by definition under go a radical behavioral modification. I'm sure you can appreciate that and agree with me. After all if it was as you suggested we would have a non-movie on our hands.
The 1985 Clint Eastwood movie Pale Rider http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089767/ is supposed to be an updated retelling of Shane, and in Pale Rider the handsome stranger does bed the comely mama.
Get the facts first - you can distort them later!share
Yes, but only once, and specifically to say goodbye.
"The value of an idea has nothing whatsoever to do with the sincerity of the man who expresses it."
You are assuming that Shane was even attracted to Marion, but I never saw a sign of that. Come to think of it, I thought that the way he rode his horse was kind of gay.
shareExactly. SHANE has a gay subtext. The opening 15-20 minutes of the film sets this out very clearly.
shareIt does???! . . .
shareWell, SHANE can certainly be read that way. The Ben Johnston character and his cohorts revile Shane for what they perceive as something repulsive ('other') about him. They mock Shane in a way that suggests there's something 'unnatural' about him, something deserving of the contempt of real men.
The character of Shane can also be read as a Christ-figure. He can be seen as the embodiment of a very American mythology and idealism. There are parallels between Shane and the (darker and more conflicted) character played by John Wayne in John Ford's THE SEARCHERS. Both men recognise that they are 'necessary outsiders', necessary because of their "calling" to violently intervene on behalf of those "called" to build a civilised America. They are willing to sacrifice their lives if needs be, or at the very least their aspirations to live a 'normal' life. They are willing (as Christ did in Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ) to resist the 'temptation' to live like normal men: having a family and living a long peaceful life.
Nicely explained, but sometimes we film buffs tend to over-analyse, and usually in a way to reinforce our own prejudices or points of view on any number of subjects. (Sometimes a start on the part of a character in a film when he's looking from his bed to the clock on the night-stand only signifies that he's late for work -- and nothing else.) In short, Shane is mocked and challenged because the "repulsive", "unnatural" "something" the cow-hands see in him is his willingness to work as a dirt farmer on land they see as too grand for such employ, and which they deem their own by right of possession. Not to mention, to impress the boss who's been urging such harassment for some time coming.
shareYes, I accept that a gay subtext may be a bit of a stretch here, but I was struck by the potential inference when I watched the film recently (having not seen it for many MANY years). It had to do with the cow-hands implying that Shane was 'like a woman', but there were other indications here and there that suggested a possible (admittedly subtle) sub-theme to do with intolerance and prejudice that could have sexual undertones.
You're right to say that it's easy to graft our own points of view onto films, but frankly I think that's perfectly acceptable - so long as one accepts that one's perceptions are just that, not something necessarily intended by the filmmakers. One of the functions of art is to hold a mirror up to the world. Some films (such as KILLING THEM SOFTLY for example) are very forthright in expressing their philosophical or political points of view, while others embed their ideas and perspectives within subtexts - there to be teased out by those with an inclination to do so, or to be ignored by those who just want a good story.
Films are always about something, even the most shallow and subtext-free films are, by default, commentaries of sorts, reflections of the society in which they are made and the very general interests of those who make them. The interests could be purely commercial, but this in itself says something. Likewise, films such as SHANE (poetic films [as many Westerns are] that consider the aspirations and attitudes of a nation's past - its social, political, economic and religious mores), can resonate in ways unintended by the filmmakers at the time as future generations of film viewers (and analysts) see the film from the perspective of their times. So, while it may strain credibility to say that there IS a gay sub-theme in SHANE, it's perfectly valid to use films to reflect on contemporary experiences: what some refer to as 'thinking through art', wherein divergence of thought and opinion are of course crucial.
As a little aside, and to fan the flame a little, there has been speculation over the years the Alan Ladd may have been gay, although this has never been confirmed and may be purely speculative. But his attempted suicide in 1962 and eventual death from alcohol and sleeping-pills in 1964 (he apparently attempted suicide more than once) in tandem with 'rumours' about his private life have led some to speculate that he struggled with his sexuality.
While the cow-hands were employed to do the bidding of their employer, the fact is that they were more than ready to use violence, pathologically so in the case of Jack Palance's character. Enthusiasm for violence and hatred of others more often than not stems from fear and denial. Using violence to serve greed and ambition can be seen as a calculated tool (what is an army if not a calculated tool to serve the 'needs' of a nation?), but pleasure and relish in meting out violence is something else again. It's more spiritual than political, and on a pathological level can have sexual dimensions. So the violence against Shane and the dirt-farmers resides on a deeper level than mere terms of employment and ingratiating the boss. There is hatred here.
So often it seems that the most violent societies (nations) are those who claim to be the most righteous: the land of the free, one nation under God, Liberty and Justice for all. As John Ford says in "LIBERTY" VALANCE (a valance, of course, is something that conceals), 'This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend'.
LIBERTY VALANCE: the name could suggest that 'rights of exemption from control are denied'. Put literally: freedom concealed. Could this have been on the minds of the writers who chose that name - a strange name you must admit, one that only a writer could come up with, a writer who might want to allude to something, possibly ... ? It's such an odd paring of words, and an odd name for a Western character, especially a pathological killer! Liberty Valance: a killer, someone who denies others their right to life. But the man who shot him was apparently the bravest of them all, so brave he shot him in cold blood from the shadows. But of course, it was a 'necessary' and justified killing, wasn't it? It gets murky, eh?
Clear representation of your thinking. Thanks, and I'm quite in agreement with your point of view generally. . . And, yes, it does, often, get "murky".
Best
I totally saw this too. In fact, I saw a pedophilic subtext between Shane and Joey (that line at the start of the film was quite unsettling).
It got me thinking though. Maybe we see all this in past films more so because of our socialization in today's culture. A lot of cultural development has happened since that time, and when we see certain scenes it makes me wonder if we've somehow disconnected ourselves from something that is "sexless" to something that is constantly "sexual" (as per example of this film)?
Perhaps there is a level of innocence lost in those times due to our constant bombardment of the media injecting stereotypes, prejudices and preconceptions into our lives. Due to this new unconscious curriculum, maybe we've inhibited ourselves from seeing the past for its purity.
It's funny that you mention Shane as a Christ-figure, as this sort of phenomenon ties directly to how most atheists misinterpret the bible.
Absolutely. It probably can't be helped that we read films through the prism of our times and personal world view. While it may be unavoidable, it doesn't necessarily mean that our perceptions accurately reflect the intensions of the original filmmakers. I suspect that Shane was intended to be something of a Christ-figure in the minds of those who wrote (possibly directed) SHANE. It was common in films (in Westerns too) for a character to reflect the mythic notion of an outsider with a special "calling" or set of criteria that makes them suited to sacrificial (or semi-sacrificial) service: the one who pays the redemptive price on behalf of others.
This is clearly evident in the character of Shane, but of course he is very much man too, one haunted by (and perhaps needing some kind of corrective for) the violence in his past. So, while there is a Christ-likeness about Shane, it's a likeness to which any human being (with their unique weaknesses and failings) might aspire: not the incarnation of goodness so much as a palpable and active reflection of it.
Perhaps 'Christ-Figure' is an inappropriate term (more of a convenient shorthand, really), when what we're really trying to articulate is an even older mythic notion of an Atoner or Redeemer, a Sacrificial Lamb, someone deemed worthy enough to 'clean the slate' on behalf of the wider community, someone chosen to shed their blood in an act of pure and willing (clean) sacrifice. In some societies, this "privilege" often fell upon the young and relatively uncorrupted: a child, in fact.
While one could argue that there's a paedophilic subtext between Shane and Joey, it seems unlikely that such a notion would have been considered for the film. Overall, the film simply doesn't support such a reading, just as the hint that there could be some kind of homosexual aspect to Shane isn't developed as a viable theme, so it's also highly unlikely. It's more likely that Joey recognises (or more to the point, intuits) a special (Messianic?) quality in Shane: kindness, empathy and a willingness to place himself in harms way to serve others. Shane, like many Western heroes, emanates goodness and righteousness, which Joey perceives and trusts instinctively. We see Shane from Joey's perspective in one of the very first shots, where the camera looks up at him, a glowing and saintly looking (or at the very least, kind looking) Shane framed against a vivid blue (Catholic?) sky. In terms of Shane's response to Joey, it suggest a 'Christ-like' affinity for the uncorrupted clarity of innocence: the clear-hearted perception that Knows the truth when it sees it, as yet unaffected by the compromising and corrupting influence of the world.
A "paedophilic subtext"? That's pure idiocy. Shane befriended and was kind to a boy. Prior to this century, such relationships were regarded the way they should be: as normal.
shareShane was staring lovingly at Marion after she brushed his cuts with turpentine after his fight with Chris and was looking on enviously when Joe and Marion were sharing a celebratory anniversary kiss at the Fourth of July party.
shareHe couldn't return. Times have changed, and he may be tried and hung for murder.
I can see the lawyer hollering that he went to the general store with the intent of killing two men.
Shane and Star were friends and Shane would marry Marion only if Star died.
(Didn't Star say that Shane would take care of Marion if something happened to him?)
"LOL!!! No really, would Joe become a reluctant cuckold? And let Marian be with the better man and bear his children?"
Agree with your main point. Question, though: do you think it was the intent of the filmmakers to make Shane appear the "better man"? Shane represented excitement and freedom, yet even he was trying to escape it. He was looking to ground himself (literally - to work the earth). I think Starrett was intended to be the better man - certainly he was very responsible. Shane, like Ethan Edwards in The Searchers, did not belong "in the house" (remember how Ethan could not enter the house at the end? And Shane slept in the barn...). Like Shane, Ethan was loved by a woman betrothed to another - his sister-in-law stroking his coat when he returns in the beginning is indication of this. But that love can never be - a man living a violent life like that cannot be "housebroken". Shane, likewise, would be a gunfighter until his dying day. While Shane was certainly a "better" man than Ethan Edwards (well, there are really no interactions with non-caucasians in Shane, so we don't really know if Shane was racist, but certainly Ethan Edwards was), and much more gentle a man, I think Shane was, like Ethan Edwards, what the filmmakers might view as a necessary evil in a lawless time and place (that point was made during the first fight at the general store in Shane, when one of the homesteaders comments how a Marshall is a "hundred mile ride away"). Prtotection was the role they played in these films. The real progress was made by the relatively boring lives carved out by men like Starrett. The fact that Joey - a boy, not a man - worshipped Shane and his lifestyle, was intended by the filmmakers to show that to see the gunfighters as the heroes was the more immature view.
Don't get me wrong - I get as fired up as anyone when Shane kicks some a** or wins in the end. I just think that Shane was intended as a softer version of a character like Ethan Edwards (I should say, maybe, that E.E. was intended as a harder version of characters like Shane, the perfect and infallible hero - Ethan Edwards is a more detailed and realistic character - as The Searchers came a few years later). Just a few thoughts...
"Love has got to stop some place short of suicide."
Nice post. I agree with you except that Ethan is a racist. He is not. (I've gone into my thinking on this on "The Searchers" board too many times.) The rest of what you say is, I think, right on target. And, you've described perfectly the quintessential hero of Greek tragedy -- on whom both these characters are based.
shareI don't view Ethan Edwards as a racist because he only hated the tribesmen who murdered his relatives on at least two occasions, not all Native Americans nor anyone who hadn't anything to do with the butchering of his family.
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
In response to the OP, I see your scenarios as pretty much moot, because Shane took his leave of the Starret family based on his firm decision to not do more harm than good by his continued relationship with them. Not only did Shane have enough manhood and decency to know (and act upon his knoweledge) that any further association would lead to shame and dishonor, but the question would arise, would even Shane be able to continue protecting the Starrets from any and every two-bit gun fighter who'd later come from far and wide, wanting to make their reputation by going after Shane and using the Starrets for bait?
Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!
Shane wouldn't have been the same person if he stayed. He was Shane and he had to go. There was no place for him with the Starret family. Even loving Marian, he couldn't go back to the Starret family after what he had done.
_______
Stripping under the name Malcolm Sex, I pleased the ladies by any means necessary.
His presence would have been disruptive, as he himself understood, being one of the reasons he didn't stay.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul
He would have found a local girl, married, and turned into William Muny, or something similar.
Listen to the river sing sweet songs
to rock my soul
No. Shane never return. His integrity would stop. Do not betray your friend Starret. Climbed the mountains and was lost in the cold paths chosen. He was wounded and then suddenly falls from his horse and rolls downhill. No longer is Shane. He is Jubal. And George Stevens is now Delmer Daves. Jubal is found by Ernest Borgnine (Shep Horgan), a distant cousin of Starret, and wealthy farmer on the other side of the mountain. Takes you to your farm and healing his wound. Shane (or Jubal) again arouses the passion of the woman's place (Mae Horgan). An uncontrollable passion because Mae is not equal to Marian, honest and pure. She wants Shane (or Jubal) and then we all know what happened, ie, Felicia Farr appears and steals the heart of Jubal (ex-Shane).
shareMaybe he can't come back.
There is reasonable chance that Shane is going to die, and this is why he leave Joey.
Yes, there isn't any prove that shane die but maybe there is some clue.
The fact that we discoverd that shane got shot only when he say goodbye to the boy, can indicate that he knew he going to die, so he breaks up with him before he will finds out that his hero is going to die. also the boy shout two sentences about the shoting, again maybe it's a hint about the importance of this injury.
So it is possible that all this discussion unnecessary.
In the 1966 TV series, Shane - played by David Carradine - helped Marian (Jill Ireland) manage the farm and raise the kid after Starrett's death and married her at the end.
share