Can I Ask: Why Do People -Like- This So Much?

Shakespeare is overrated

"The first one of you moves, and I'm gonna kill the whole lot of ya."

"That'll be the day."

Touché!

Please don't feel you're alone in your estimations of The Searchers. I am largely left with the same feeling as yours. Now, I'm sure some IMDB-visitors will already figure I know nothing about film-craft, well, I'm no expert but I know a bit. I did two years of studies in Film & Drama and 3 years of English Literature recently. And for sure, anybody putting this on the same level as Shakespeare really ought to lay off the mind-altering dope.

The Searchers has its merits - I can recognise many of the praised dramatic qualities and meaningful layers and significant subtexts and profound universal truths and what-else's, without having to do repeated viewings. It is there to see, and I already had quite a bit of practice since I had to analyse The Wild Bunch in detail for my course. Doing these things is the main reason why I love the cinema so much.

Having said that, I am still somewhat bewildered by the high praise The Searchers receives. The script and the directing is not as flawless as many disciples proclaim it to be. I can go into detail on some other aspects like acting and mise-en-scene which, although there are deft touches in some scenes, I personally found somewhat lacking in others. It is only my personal opinion, and I'm open to be proven wrong, but in my estimation I'd call it a great western and a must-see for John Ford & John Wayne fans - but not a supreme cinematic classic by any means.

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

Thoughtful response. As far as Shakespeare and the "language" is concerned, I said "close". Remember, too, each is of its own time and its own genre: "Where for art thou" is poetic, beautiful, and appropriate, but so is -- "That'll be the day" . . . as you cleverly pointed out.

Btw, don't you agree Ford's visual poetry, to which the Bard had no access, can be an adequate substitute, at times, for Shakespeare's verbal poetry?

I think you answered your own question by saying "I do intensely dislike it."

Sorry, that is the point.

What I find interesting is that you sound like you've watched it several times.

Could it be that it stirs something in you that you're not comfortable with?

If you've read all the other comments, then I'm sure I can't add others that would convince you. I can only say, like all great movies, it's first and foremost a love story.

Chew on that, perhaps that will help.

I hope I can understand a little bit of how you feel. When I was in college, we were assigned to read "The Bluest Eye" by Toni Morrison. I hated it. When I gave my honest opinion, the reaction of the professor and the rest of the class made me think I had just drowned 10 kittens and needed a psychiatrist immediately. For God's sake, it's TONI MORRISON!!!!!! How dare I not like something she wrote!!!! The book is about a poor black girl who wants blue eyes because those are the children who have happy lives. I'm supposed to root for that.

Fine. I got that. But Morrison's style and choice of narrative and dialogue literally made me nauseous.

OK, enough about that.

Now, I do like "The Searchers." As to why it's a critically acclaimed film, I will say that it's a combination of factors -- it's a John Ford film, with gorgeous cinematography -- it's John Wayne -- it has a QUEST (a quest is a necessary element, from stories about Camelot to Lord of the Rings.)

It's something of a character story. Ethan is a strong man, a warrior in his own right, who is having trouble accepting that he was on the losing side of the Civil War. He's a loner -- that adds an element of interest. He's focused, like a hero; he doesn't give up. He's determined -- to find Debbie and kill her, for her own good and for the peace of mind of her family and himself. It's a form of rescue, in his mind, and he's determined not to fail.

It reflects an historical period in the old West. The conflict between Native Americans and white settlers is legendary. This one seems to parrot the Great Commanche Raid (which took place before the Civil War), when Commanche Chief Buffalo Hump (a man whom Larry McMurtry featured in one of his Lonesome Dove prequels), gathered a large force of Commanche warriors and went on a killing spree for revenge.

There's some suspense - imagine the terror of realizing you're surrounded by "savages" and there's no way out. You can see it when Lucy's mother blows out the lamp, and Lucy suddenly realizes why. There's a primal hatred between the white and the Commanches, and Ethan's savagery is made quite clear when he shoots out the dead Commanche's eyes so he can't get to the happy hunting ground.

The humor is almost a necessary break from all the fear and terror and deadly intent. Life goes on, and people even laugh, no matter what.

Ethan's journey, which is character-defining throughout, culminates in his ability to actually change his mind and his intent when he finds Debbie. A great and powerful man with a fierce determination is actually able to see the situation from a different perspective, and accept something he never would have thought he could. So, while we are all sure about what will happen when Ethan finds Debbie, we are left to think about this when it doesn't happen.

There's a tiny bit of learning going on about Commanche culture, when Martin accidentally buys a wife. You feel sorry for her when she is killed. During those times, it was much more accepted for white men to marry "squaws" than for a white woman to have an Indian husband. It's a reflection on the white attitude that white women are "sullied" by any contact with men of another race -- still an item of contention today.

Don't know if this helps -- just my opinion and observations.

So, 99.9% of the time you 'get' art? Well guess what? Here's that .01% you don't 'get'.

"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl"

Exactly. That's not a quality movie, yet it's a helluva lotta fun. But I would never, ever say that it was a cinematic tour de force, a work of art to be discussed through the ages.

I don't get it.




I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.

yj270,

I don't believe "Manifest Destiny" plays any part in understanding "The Searchers", though anyone can draw from any film whatever he likes.

The progressive idea implicit in Manfest Destiny, the Monroe Doctrine and much later concepts such as Pax Americana would have fallen on deaf ears before virtually anyone living in south Texas at the time the film is set. Remember, they called themselves "Texicans" (a small, localized family of families -- like the Comanche) not Americans, or "nationals" expressed by any other name and with a cohesive set of policy objectives. They were individual families of settlers looking for a new and, it shall have been hoped by them, a more prosperous life -- just like the similarly migrating Comanche.

Bear in mind, too, the personalities of Ethan and Scar are, dramatically and, I think, thematically the "same man" each representing his own community, at least in terms of its "survival". To the Comanche, the European immigrants were simply invaders (competitors for control), as the Comanche (from Canada and Minnesota) had been invaders earlier and with more immediate and devastating objectives than the settlers had (annihilation of males and the enslavement of females and children to be sold, primarily, to Mexicans across the river and confronting, with force, tribes who'd settled the territory well before them). Neither side in this horrifying contest had anything like nationalistic or, imo, racist* motivations behind their collective behavior. "Control" and "survival" are the motivators here.

* Sadly, racism is the default position for too many people in the 21st century. It seems, "always", to be the underlying reason, in their minds, for any kind of nasty business. Nothing so "philosophical" involved in the dynamic of "The Searchers", though "race", not "racism", does play a minor role (like the soldier in 1942 who calls the guy who's trying to kill him a "Jap" -- nothing very philosophical or representing a national or global vision there either, just . . . a "human" reaction).

Best

"Scar is Ethan"

I don't think so.

What is the worst Ethan does? He mutilates the corpse of a dead Comanche who was part of the party that murdered his family. He scalps a dead Scar who not only murdered Ethan's family but bragged openly about scalping. He shot some bison in a rage. His motives here were cruel, but I think the audience understood where his rage was coming from.

And what about Scar? He rapes and murders women. He murders children. He kidnaps a 9 yr old girl and forces her into sex at puberty. He leads "murder raids."

Scar does tell us a white man killed his two sons and so he is taking scalps, but we have no way of knowing if this was the original reason for him leading murder raids. Off the dialogue, he massacred Martin's family and scalped Martin's mother when Martin was so young he can't remember that it was Ethan who found him. Scar must have been a young man at that point. Were his sons murdered as boys? No facts to go on. And anyway, Scar is certainly calling and raising the murder stakes.

As for Ethan, I think the only guys he kills are the three white men who tried to murder him in his blankets. He goes to the edge but never over it, including with Debbie.

Quite a bit different from Scar.

I wish some of these posts had "like" buttons. I completely agree with you regarding the ending.