MovieChat Forums > The Man from Laramie (1955) Discussion > Will Lockhart was really a peripheral ch...

Will Lockhart was really a peripheral character.


SPOILERS




The main story involved the ranch owner Alec Waggoman, his dangerous son Dave and his loyal main ranch hand Vic Hansbro. You could take Will Lockhart out of the film and it wouldn't have mattered. In fact it would probably have made the film better because the time wasted on Will Lockhart could have been used to focus on the characters critical to the story.

Vic Hansbro should have been the main character and the film should have been seen through his eyes. He is a tragic figure really. Alec Waggoman ensured his loyalty by promising him a stake in the ranch and cynically used Vic as a minder for his son Dangerous Dave. But Vic thought Alec was being sincere and so his loyalty was freely given. He looked up to Alec as the father he never had.

Vic was very wrong to have been involved in selling repeating rifles to the Apache but it was Dave's idea and he was the driving force behind it. Vic was willing to do it while it was only a small number of rifles but when Dave bought a few hundred Vic objected, they fought and Vic killed him. But in the end Vic was blamed as though it had all been his idea. But apart from that one thing he was basically a good man and his fate was a tragic one.




reply

While I don't necessarily agree that Will was unnecessary and removing his presence would make the film better, I do agree that Vic was ultimately by far the more interesting character. I think a large part of the issue is that Vic was the one with the major conflicts with Alec, Dave and Will, while Will only really had a conflict with Dave (which didn't feel all that significant since Dave's main conflict was with Vic) and eventually Vic but only right at the end. We also don't ever really come to know anything about Will's brother so the motivation for Will's revenge seems a little weak - as it is, it's sort of difficult to care about the death of someone we only know as the kid brother of the protagonist without knowing anything about them as a person. A lot of it is probably also that James Stewart (as great as he was) was only really playing "angry" in this particular film, while Arthur Kennedy (especially around this time) kind of excelled at playing morally dubious or flat-out criminal characters whom you still couldn't help liking in some way, and played a far wider range of emotions in this film so that his was the story one ended up invested in; they had a much better dynamic as a pair in Bend Of The River.

I also think the film kind of falls apart towards the end when all the characters just assume Vic is some kind of irredeemable monster and Alec is given a free pass by the rest of them for what essentially amounts to the likely years-long emotional abuse of Vic and likely Dave too. In the end, Will and Alec ultimately come off as looking more than a little jerkish for leaping to the conclusion that Vic was responsible for everything and dragged Dave along when everything we saw about Vic and Dave's dynamic suggests that it was the opposite - that Dave approached Vic and said "how do we make this happen?" and Vic decided to go along with it. Overall, it just kind of felt as though the film couldn't quite decide to commit to Vic being a full-on villain.

reply

Yeah, I found Vic a more sympathetic character than either Alec or Dave.

reply

[deleted]

Good point. “Raiders if the Lost Ark” is another famous example of a movie where the hero doesn’t affect the narrative.

reply