MovieChat Forums > The Searchers (1956) Discussion > Can I Ask: Why Do People -Like- This So ...

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

posted 12 years ago by mail-2217
170 replies | jump to latest

Not a troll post... I -sincerely- want to try and understand why so many people educated people talk about this movie with such reverence.

I consider myself a fairly savvy film lover. If a movie is considered a 'classic' I make a sincere effort to try to 'get it'... even if there's no visceral appeal. And most of the time, I can at least -see- what all the fuss is about.

But this is my 3rd shot in 20 years at this thing and frankly? It just strikes me as dated, hammy and almost a caricature. I love 'classic' movies as much as the next guy... and I understand that 'westerns' are something of a world of their own, but jeeez. Most of these characters are like cartoon characters.

I've read just dozens of critical essays talking about the 'multi-layered depth' of this things and all the hidden meanings but at the end of the day? I think it's the Emperor's New Clothes.

It seems to me that it simply fed into the prejudices of moviegoers in 1956 and is nowhere near the equal of movies from that era.

OK... what am I missing. If you just like Westerns as a guilty pleasure? Or it has great memories of childhood? Or you just think John Wayne is cool Fine. I've got dozens of movies like that---but I don't go on about how 'great' they were. I just -liked- 'em.

SO: What are all these 'depths of greatness'?

TIA,

---JC

[–] jsully9 12 years ago

I like the movie because I got to see a squaw get her ass kicked out of bed. I laughed my ass off..

[–] VirtualMark 12 years ago

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There's plenty of stupid people on here that like to pretend to be clever, hence the snotty replies to your honest post. These stupid people like to post things like "try watching it again, maybe you'll get it", yet they fail to realise that you shouldn't have to watch a movie a dozen times for it to be good.

For example, i watched The Godfather once and loved it straight away. First time i saw Pulp Fiction i watched it again right away as it totally blew me away. These are movies i consider to be great.

The Searchers wasn't a bad movie, but i certainly wouldn't consider it one of the best! And no amount of idiots telling me to read reviews or watch it 200 times to "get it" are going to change my mind.

[–] mail-2217 12 years ago

As I said... people like what they like. My only objection to many of the replies is how rude they've tended to be.

I agree, Godfather and Pulp Fiction are pretty great movies.

And the whole, 'you have to watch it several time to get it' -may- be true once in a blue moon, but I have what I think is a much more useful rule: a movie is truly great if you can watch it over and over without getting tired of it.

I've never gotten tired of The Godfather. In fact, I think they get better with repeated viewings. Not sure yet re. Pulp Fiction.

I just re-watched Saving Private Ryan and was reminded that it was Spielberg's gushing about The Searchers that got me interested. And for the first time, I watched the 'Bonus' crap. There's a featurette about Spielberg's youth which is telling.

His father was in WWII (Burma...as was my father). But his father had very 'happy' memories of the war. Apparently he did not have a terrible tour of duty and even had the time to take many colour movies riding bicycles. (Apropos of nothing, my father had a far more typical Burma experience: unbelievable disease/jungle/horror. I recommend the HBO series 'The Pacific' for a nice companion piece to Private Ryan.)

The point is that Steven grew up -really- digging John Wayne war movies. And his father came back from the war not all messed up (like so many guys) but able to encourage that and get into it as well. Steven's first movies were war movies... with his father as an actor!

In short: I started this topic with a clearly incorrect assumption: Steven didn't dig The Searchers because of any deep 'artistic analysis'. He just grew up like a lot of kids... bonding with his Dad over the movies -he- liked. And those just happened to be all these cheesy John Wayne war movies. And his dad took it one step further--encouraging his love of movies in a way they could both enjoy. I over-thought the whole thing.

[–] stephan-128 12 years ago

This has been a fascinating thread to read.
I am a 42 year old movie buff going back to the silents. I'm vrey familiar with the AFI Top 100 list and the Sight and Sound lists. Over the years I've tried to seek out all the movies that are considered alltime classics.
I saw The Searchers for the first time tonight. When I came here the first thread I went to was this one, because I shared some of the puzzlement of the OP. It was clearly a very thoughtful post from a film fan, and I too felt some of the early responses were needlessly dismissive. But I kept reading, and most of the folks who weighed in subsequently had very nuanced and informative points of view and I learned a lot and gained a lot of insight.
Visually, it is clearly a masterpiece. John Wayne was as good as I've ever seen him.
In the early scenes, the music was so distracting. There were all these tableaus of actors taking their positions while the music blared away. It was oddly like broadway theater, very artificial and frustrating.
That got better, and oddly, I find myself appreciating the humor in the later scenes (especially the fight at the wedding), but I kept thinking this was broad comedy for a 50's audience.
The shot when he lifts Natalie Wood up...I was all primed to feel the moment, but it just...was too quick, too perfunctory, and the drama was lost. If it had just been a few seconds more...
As I said, visually it is stunning, but I feel it didn't quite make it as a "masterpiece"...I feel like Ford pulled his punches, for lack of a better phrase, he didn't go all the way, and showed almost a discomfort for going all the way, and thus demonstrated a limitation as a filmaker of his time, whereas many other films that predate this don't feel like that to me. They are timeless, they are art, they go all the way.
I enjoyed the film, but this is one classic that I don't feel the need or the urge to see again.

[–] mail-2217 12 years ago

I am the o/p. Since my original post, I've had this 'discussion' with several big time 'critics' in the Seattle area who -really- dig this movie. I still think it's far from 'masterpiece'. I made a joke that Ford was like that guy 'The Painter Of Light'... every shot really -is- composed like a painting.

That said, what you write about the audience of the 50's is exactly my point: At that point, Ford, like many great artists in all art forms, had outlived his own style. Everything but the 'message' would fit right in---if the movie had been made in 1940. Ford's mistake, in my view, was not realising that his conventions no longer fit with that message.

I earlier compared The Searchers with The Quiet Man--a movie made near where I grew up. They are -very- similar.. even 'the message' to a certain extent. But to me, TQM works 1000% better because it's not depicting ugliness. So all it's quirkiness fits together well.

In 1956, cinema had moved beyond the shtick... 'Thank You Kindly', 'Ya You Betcha', 'That'll be the day.'

In short, I see The Searchers kinda like those 'Missing Link' skeletons... It's a transitional movie from the popcorn movies I love so much (Casablanca, etc.) to the realism of In The Heat Of the Night or To Kill A Mockingbird. But it's a failed attempt that died out because it just isn't sustainable. It tries to have it both ways (action! laughs! adventure!) while telling a seriously brutal anti-hero story. I'm having trouble thinking of too many movies that blends those together successfully... Clockwork Orange, perhaps?

As I said before, I know how revered this movie is and how sensitive people are about it. But to me, it just hasn't aged very well. IMO the best way to watch it these days? With the sound turned off. Concentrate on the amazing imagery and it's a great experience.

--JC

PS: It just occurred to me that this is one of the -very- few movies I would LOVE to see a re-make of. You'll never make a better looking version, but I can see something like what the Coen Bros. did with True Grit working far better with The Searchers than TG (as much as I like The Coens, the original is much better.)

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Hmm ... How is it possible for an artist to "outlive his own style"?

And, why do you think Ford's Dickensian approach to character ("Thank you, kindly", "That'll be the day", etc.) can't work in a film about "ugliness"? I would think it would work to the audience's benefit and, pari passu, the drama's - to provide a respite from an otherwise unrelenting ugliness. An oft-used technique since the first Greek drama trod the first Greek stage centuries ago (not just a little ironic since Ethan is the perfect transposition of the classical Greek hero into a Western setting). All such theatrical efforts being, after all, entertainments first, last and always.

Lastly, remember John Ford was never after the "realism" you suggest as a kind of standard (everyone today seems to consider it the sine qua non of movie-making). Eg., he refused to show blood in his films in any of the decades in which he worked, and Monument Valley isn't in Texas -- but he wanted it to be! Ford didn't make movies for "his time". Like most great artists, he made them for himself -- hoping to bring his audience along with him. I've enjoyed the ride! You are, imo and however thoughtfully, looking thru the telescope from the wrong end.

[–] turtletommy 12 years ago

First off I'll say right away I agree with cwente2's reply. I can't improve upon any of his arguments for what he has to say about The Searchers.

"Ford was like that guy 'The Painter of Light'...every shot really -is- composed like a painting."

Ouch!!! Poor Ford must be turning in his grave even in joking being mentioned in the same breath with that hack Thomas Kinkade, self-named "Painter of Light".

And how exactly is Casablanca a popcorn movie? There are some serious and timeless issues and themes central in that film.

[–] mail-2217 12 years ago

Oh... this is such a humourless place at times. It wss actually kind of a compliment.

Look. I assume everyone's DVD player can do a screen saver (even my 5 year old machine can do that.)

1. Pop in The Searchers.

2. Hit Play.

3. At any random place where there's no dialog? Hit the screen save button on yer remote.

You probably have an image so beautiful, that Kincade guy -wishes- he coulda done that. Some directors have that gift of composition... like a painter. Kubrick was another.

OTOH, the reverse ain't true... someone paints a canvas that looks like the opening shot of The Searchers and... you got something fit for a Holiday Inn near the airport.

I've acknowledged Ford's awesomeness in that regard over and over. If beauty was all it took, Barry Lyndon woulda been a masterpiece instead of one of the most boring movies of all time. Some movies are better with the sound off. :D

[–] turtletommy 12 years ago

I understand what you're trying to say that pretty images alone don't always equate with great film masterpieces. But IMO there's more to The Searchers and most of Ford's work than just pretty images. Now Barry Lyndon is a masterpiece AND Kubrick was indeed a gifted compositional director. Well opinions vary as they say...

[–] emncaity 12 years ago

Getting in really late here on a very interesting discussion that has a lot to do with older films in general versus newer ones, but anyway...if somebody asked you this already, I apologize (I don't have time to go through every post at the moment), but you say in your original post that you don't have any problems liking older films, etc., but I'm just wondering -- can you name a few you actually like?

See, I'm listening to what you say, and although I agree with many or most of the particulars, so much of it falls under the category of "old films are more theatrical in style, less subtle thematically, etc." It's possible that old Westerns and war films are even more so, since the stories tend to be about very strict and unambiguous ideas of right and wrong, since harshness and violence tend to polarize thinking even in real life, etc. That is, it could be that Westerns and war films (and, I guess, some crime-and-punishment films) tend to amplify what already seems anachronistic and sometimes annoying about older films.

On the other hand, you sound more thoughtful than somebody who wouldn't take that into consideration in the first place, so I don't know. Which is why I'm asking about some of your favorite older films.

[–] stephan-128 12 years ago

I'd read all the posts, so I was familiar with the points you restated above, but it certainly didn't hurt to touch on some of those points again. Your analogy of this being sort of a missing link movie is very apt. I wrote the tail end of my last post in a bit of a hurry (time constraint), but you expanded on it perfectly and said what I was trying to get at better than I did.
I completely agree with your post above.

[–] cppguy 12 years ago

OK, I just finished watching this and checked for comments and saw this thread. These were my thoughts exactly. It's not that it's a bad movie or anything and I know it's just not fair to compare it to more modern movies which have decades of Hollywood history to learn from, but I don't think it's better than "Stagecoach" which preceded it and I don't think up to the quality standards set by other films released that year ("The Man Who Knew Too Much" or "The Ten Commandments"). Some things in life seem to be considered great out of either inertia or pretension.

That said, maybe this film, like "True Grit," might gain from a make-over.

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Of course everyone's entitled to his own opinion. But . . .

One of the problems with "more modern movies" is not that they've learned from "decades of Hollywood history" but that they haven't.

It is true that "some things in life seem to be considered great out of either inertia or pretension". But, it's also true that some things in life seem to be considered great because they are.

Btw, I don't think "True Grit" gained anything at all from the, ah, "make-over".

[–] kbarada 12 years ago

That said, maybe this film, like "True Grit," might gain from a make-over.

The movie "The Searchers" as directed by John Ford, stands alone as work of movie art. There is no such thing as making this movie over just as there is no way one can make over the Mona Lisa. It is what it is. Any attempt to make it over is really just creating another, stand alone version of the original.

Now, why would one make another version of the original? Is it that the story is so great that one wants to tell it on film in their own way? Maybe a newer version of the story would be better or worse than John Ford's version, but in no way could Ford's version be altered , diminished, or improved from a make over. John Ford's version of the Searchers is his version, just as the Mona Lisa belongs to Leonardo da Vinci. Another version of "The Searchers" could be compared to Ford's version, but his will forever be the original.

[–] marbleann 12 years ago

I just want to add that I do not believe Wayne's character was meant to be heroic or good. I believe the nephew who was part Indian was his conscience and we can see he feels his uncle might not be so benevolent about his niece because of her living with the Indians and assimilating with them. I understand Ford was a big Liberal and I believe he was showing how seemingly good people are racist look at how he tells his nephew not to call him Uncle. And his racism might be the one reason he is looking for his niece. He seems to feel that killing her is rescuing her. I believe fords later movies like this and Sgt Rutledge dealt with racism during the fifties. Like High Noon was really dealing with the cowards during the red Scare who never stood up for anything even after when their friends were being targeted. These are movies that are making political statements that were relevant then and now. This, High Noon, Red River, Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, and Fort Apache are my favorite westerns.

[–] emncaity 12 years ago

It wouldn't need to be "altered" in the sense of replacing it in any way. But as much as I detest the obsession with remaking so many older films, which seems to me to be more related to Hollywood simply being out of ideas and out of writers, in this case (as with True Grit) I couldn't agree more with the OP's idea that a remake according to contemporary standards of less theatrical acting and presentation, more subtle sensibilities, etc., might make for a great film on its own. You're right to say it would never overwhelm or obliterate the original, of course.

[–] aasoloway 12 years ago

I don't get it either. I keep trying it. It has nice scenery. Westerns aren't my favorite but I like "The Gunfighter" and "Shane" a lot.

I guess what I find least appealing is the John Wayne screen persona. He's a self-righteous jerk who doesn't seem to do much thinking. He's not an interesting jerk like Hud for example. He's just a jerk bellowing at Jeffrey Hunter in scene after scene or not listening to Ward Bond when he should. The racism, sexism and animal abuse are par for the course 1956 so I can look past that - even learn from it.

I guess it's guys - mostly white guys romanticizing the past or Hollywood's version of the past.

[–] cwente2 12 years ago

Well, if you don't "get it" -- you don't get it. But, how do you arrive at the "racism", "sexism", and "animal abuse" you see in TS as representing what was "par for the course" in 1956, as compared to the 1880's in which the tale is set?

Btw, I've heard of a few white gals romanticizing the past too and, frankly, I'm not so sure what you think is wrong with either. And, considering TS is a Hollywood product it most certainly presents a "Hollywood version" of the people and events depicted.

[–] mail-2217 12 years ago

It will rankle, but some of it -is- 'white guy romanticism'... or rather, there were different standards for 'acting' and 'beauty' and 'patriotism' and <insert whatever>. The world changes. When I first came to American in 1974 it was still common to hear people in the factory I worked at say *beep*

For people who -really- like 'acting' I can recommend the video series 'Acting Shakespeare' where young members of the Royal Shakespeare Company act various bits of plays and discuss why they do what they do. It was done in the 80's and you get to see young Ian McKellan, Patrick Stewart, Ben Kingsley, etc. 'working out'. At the end, they show recordings of 'Hamlet' done before WWII and -everyone- cringes because they are ---so--- over the top. But apparently -those- guys were considered 'very real' with -their- preceding generation.

Old American Films? I have a weakness for Frank Capra... that 'farce' thing. Little Caesar. White Heat. Casablanca. Fred Astaire. Again, when I came to America, it was common to have an 'Afternoon Movie' show in a lot of cities... and they showed -all- the B&W 'classics'.

I think the 50's were a transitional period. A LOT of 'big' movies from that time stink because they're old actors in a new age. CINERAMA was like '3-d'. They didn't know what to do with a lot of subjects or the technology. I think Wayne was one of those who had great difficulty. But some guys like Gary Cooper and Bogart got -better- as they got older.

I only got interested in TS because I read so many RAVES from critics and directors like Spielberg. I finally figured out that they have 'guilty pleasures' just like I do. He got into it because his dad liked war movies. Tarentino worships some of the most god-awful movies ever made. I still watch old sci-fi. People like what they like. I just object to idealising something beyond what it -is-.

TS is, like all the Ford movies I've seen, BEAUTIFUL... I mean even by today's standards it's still one of the best composed/lit movies of all time. But beauty ain't enough to make a 'classic.'

All the weak bits I've decided are because it is a transitional movie---made by an old school guy, with old school actors, who are attempting to do something -new- and frankly, way beyond their depth. The realise they are now in a time where they can make 'a statement', but they're just not part of the new generation (Brando, et al.) that know how to do that. It's like Louis Armstrong trying to go bebop, or all those opera singers who used to go on Johnny Carson and try to sing 'rock and roll'. Looks silly, but you feel bad criticising because hey they -are- masters... but in their own genre.

If I could speak with John Ford my only grouse with be that, even at the time, it was, like 'the N word'.. politically incorrect. But I am convinced that, like the guys I used to work with who said *beep* left and right, he just didn't realise how offensive a lot of it had become---even for 1956. That's what happens to old guys, I found out---we think we're 'with it' decades after we've become not just 'uncool' but 'borderline inappropriate'. But because he's 'JOHN FORD' people let him get away with it.

Put another way: If 'Frank Nobody' had made the same movie in 1956, my guess is that there would've been -howls- about a lot of the content.

YMMV

---JC

[–] gtbarker 12 years ago

Movie appreciation is in the eye of the beholder and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I can't agree with your point about it pandering to the movie-goers prejudices of the day. Instead I think it shows that there is good and bad on both sides and never more so than in Wayne's personally deeply flawed and unnecessarily prejudiced character. So rather than pander to movie-going prejudices of the day I think the film tries to make them think twice and is certainly part of its greatness.

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 12 years ago

Op Why- do- you- use - hyphens so much?

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] mail-2217 12 years ago

Because I am an old guy. Back in the stone age of internetdom, they were commonly used for emphasis (italics).

For some reason, junk like ;) and :) survive but -this- kind of thing has gone the way of the buggy whip. Regardless, I still find them very useful.

[–] spidey_man 12 years ago

I -get it- mail. ;)

It does survive, but sadly english composition is a lost art.

[–] turtletommy 12 years ago

Apparently proper "E"nglish spelling as well. (-:

[–] deeveed 12 years ago

That's how I feel about this movie. By 1956, there were plenty of movies that weren't written in this archaic style. It's a throwback and that's why it's so disconcerting to me. All that subtext jazz can't reach me because, like old Shakespeare recordings, I just can't get past all the silliness--which may have been OK in 1936 but definitely not by 1956.

mail..I do commend you about trying to come to the grips with the film. There have been some real good posts here noting why the film is 'great'. I think there's something here with the relationship of Ford's film and Shakespeare and his works.
I think it's amazing to know that Shakespeare's plays, poems and sonnets are probably one of the greatest productions to depict, explore and probe what it is to be a human being. Shakespeare at bottom is an archaeologist of human nature.
Funny thing is that he wrote hundreds of years ago. He's still around and from the looks of it will be around for quite a while. No doubt all of literature after him is indebted to him and in awe of him for his depiction of 'personalities' which in a sense are a part of us.

Now I thought Ford in the medium of film is just like the Bard. His films particularly the Searchers perhaps acts like a mirror to us reflecting back our prejudices, wants, needs and turmoil. Great characters like Ethan or Hamlet can do that. I think Ford's film still does that no matter that the years have gone by since its creation. Like Shakespeare's plays, perhaps there's no limit as to where analysis can go.

And one final thing. In Henry V, Henry has his back to the wall in France looking forward to dying a bad death with his army at Agincourt. Shakespeare gives him a speech that he makes to his army. Well the words written were made centuries ago but I can get a sense of a person by the reaction to that speech. You see when you read Shakespeare you judge as well get judged. His characters are so constructed that they are not just one thing but made of many 'things'. Now when you watch the Searchers, I know we judge and at the same we get judged. Great art is that way and there's alot going on in the mirror!.....just my opinion! And now to read that 'great' speech again....;-)...Old Shakes is rather good I think even though his sentences are funny...;-)....