MovieChat Forums > Gunsmoke (1955) Discussion > Just wondering...

Just wondering...

posted 8 years ago by vestdennis
13 replies | jump to latest

In the episode "The Tarnished Badge" & "Mannon" Matt is urged to either shot the bad guy in the back or let others hide and take shots too. Matt always says he can't do that (that he must face them one on one).

Can you imagine if today toen police chiefs or sheriffs had to meet in a showdown? Today if a gunman is robbing, killing, etc a dozen police can legally fire on the one gunman. I mean if a killer is loose, like Mannon, why give him a sporting chance? Just getting him off the streets is what's important.

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

I mean if a killer is loose, like Mannon, why give him a sporting chance? Just getting him off the streets is what's important.

One of the points Gunsmoke repeatedly makes is that the arresting officer is not judge, jury, and executioner, something modern policemen don't seem to get.

[–] vestdennis 8 years ago

That's not whatI'm talking about. Mannon and others are dangerous killers. Why should Matt have to face Mannon alone? Why not have Newley or Sam ready with a gun in case Matt is shot? That's not being "judge and jury"- it's getting a dangerous killer off the streets.

[–] soffee83 8 years ago

I agree with vestdennis and have thought of that a bunch of times myself. Mannon in particular was one that bugged me, or the one where Harry Morgan takes down a dangerous criminal and then is shunned by the whole town when they discover he was shot in the back. If a professional heavyweight boxer with a long police record of violent crimes starts beating on a thirteen year old boy and the kid stabs him or something, people would applaud. He's not expected to be a match for a guy who has made a career of fighting and is much larger/experienced. The boxer would be considered the coward for picking on such an opponent in the first place.

The whole "fastest draw" thing just doesn't make much sense with dangerous criminals. A skill like that shouldn't dictate whether or not they go free any more than challenging a guy who just shot two people in a convenient store robbery to an arm wrestling match to determine the outcome. I enjoy these shows though, and must admit they wouldn't be the same without some of these nonsense rules.

Take Care

[–] Tresix 8 years ago

There is a difference between the boxer beating on the kid and what happens with Mannon. In the boxer analogy, the crime is in progress and the kid would be given leeway with using violent force. The thing with gunfighters like Mannon is that they have to be caught shooting or about to shoot someone. Also, it would be considered cowardly to have shot Mannon in the back or something. Then again, it would kind of remind me of the shootout in Northfield, MN. when the James/Younger gang tried to rob the bank and the townspeople blasted them. Now, in "Milligan", the episode with Harry Morgan shooting the robber in the back, I always felt that Milligan (Morgan) was justified because the robber was running for his gun hanging on the wall. I considered it the same as if the robber were wearing his gun on his hip.

Annoying the world since 1960!

[–] soffee83 8 years ago

I can't remember Mannon 100%, but didn't he sort of announce that he was waiting for, and planning to take out Dillon when he returned? With his reputation, letting that happen would be sort of a gamble where the town might lose their only real lawman, and somebody that they all liked, not to mention what he might do afterward. Sounds more like the Northfield situation you mentioned. It would also seem like if someone who was clearly no match for him (like Doc or Kitty) walked up and wasted him while he was sipping beer, it would be even more acceptable. ;)

Speaking of that, didn't Doc sort of do that once to that guy he "didn't understand at all"?

Take Care

[–] Tresix 8 years ago

The thing I think of why they didn't just shoot Mannon was that more than a few of them (probably Kitty in particular) wanted to see the showdown.

I remember a couple of times when Doc gunned down someone:

1. There was the one where the man (I think he was a Civil War veteran) wanted to kill the man who was abusing his wife (the man was played by William Windom and his wife by Katherine Helmond). The vet took a rich man hostage and threatened to kill him unless the wife beater faced him. The wife beater worked up the courage to face the vet and was about to shoot it out with him in the street when Doc shot the vet from a distance with a rifle.

2. In the two-parter "The Guns of Cibola Blanca", Doc and a lady friend (Dorothy Tristan) get taken prisoners by some comancheros. One of the men, played by James Luisi, rapes Doc's friend. Doc vows revenge. In the second part, Matt, Newly, and Festus show up posing as gunrunners for the rescue. Luisi's character tries something and Doc shoots and kills him. "I told him I'd kill him!" Doc yells after the deed is done.

Annoying the world since 1960!

[–] soffee83 8 years ago

Tresix- I think that "Guns of Cibola Blanca" is what I was remembering, if he keeps telling the guy "I don't understand you at all".

Take Care

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

Why should Matt have to face Mannon alone? Why not have Newley or Sam ready with a gun in case Matt is shot? That's not being "judge and jury" -- it's getting a dangerous killer off the streets.

Well, that isn't the way you phrased it.

Gunsmoke repeatedly shows Dodge's citizens as cowardly blowhards, rarely willing to help Matt when he needs it. There's one in particular (can't think of his name), and I feel sorry for the long-forgotten actor who played him.

[–] Tresix 8 years ago

Maybe you're thinking of Nathan Burke played by Ted Jordan. From what I've seen, the men of Dodge would accompany Dillon on posses without a moment's hesitation. Even Burke.

Annoying the world since 1960!

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

That isn't my sense of the series. But I never took notes.

Someone with a few years to waste should make a thorough study of Gunsmoke. It deserves a deep study.

[–] sege3 8 years ago

I don't think anyone pointed this out but there is a big difference between the "Hollywood West" and the real west. A gunfighter like Mannon who acted as boldly as he did, if there was any that ever existed, did not live long. Also, very doubtful he would have died in a showdown in the street with a lawman although this does make good TV.

I'm not sure what cops today could learn from Matt Dillon. He is generally pretty calm and does give people the benefit of the doubt most of the time. However, he does threaten to beat up a suspect or two like he did in Half Straight and Quint's Indian, which would not work in today's world.

[–] Tresix 8 years ago

For the record, Matt didn't kill Mannon in the episode. Mannon turned up as the bad guy in the TV movie "Gunsmoke: Return to Dodge".

Annoying the world since 1960!

[–] grizzledgeezer 8 years ago

For the record, Matt didn't kill Mannon in the episode.

But he shot him.

I wrote a spoof in which Ma Smalley carries him off to her boarding house and secretly helps him recuperate. In return, she demands "favors" of him.