MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Discussion > I just don't buy it...(spoilers!)

I just don't buy it...(spoilers!)

posted 13 years ago by polytourist97
16 replies | jump to latest

I think the movie is great, AWESOME, up until the "twist" where Tom reveals who actually shot Valance.

A lot of people clamor that it was "selfless" and "noble" that Tom shot Valance and let Ranse take the credit for it. But I'm just not buying it. Ranse's whole deal from the start of the movie was he wanted to fight his own battles, win or lose. If Tom really didn't believe Ranse could fend for himself in that shootout scene (which he obviously couldn't), well ok; call out Valance and shoot him. But why hide in the alley and time it so it appears to be Ranse that does the shooting? To preserve Ranse's pride? He knows that's not what Ranse's interpretation would be. Is it to allow the people to admire Ranse for the action? Ranse already established his respectability by standing up to Valance on multiple counts. Backing him up in this by shooting Valance in cold blood before Ranse could get a shot off, and thus preserving Ranse's morality would make a whole lot more sense to accomplish what other people are claiming he realized he was accomplishing (paving the way for a new west, realizing his own place in the past, granting Ranse credibility in the future, etc.). Might Ranse have been angry at first because it would seem Tom "bailed him out"? Probably, but the point was (as per Tom admitting "I can live with it") that Tom was saving Ranse from becoming the very thing he set out to rid the world of. Ranse's character would have come around to understanding that.

I just feel like the "twist" is not an organic way to progress the ideas of the story. I feel it's more of a narrative "trick" to get people to empathize with Tom and a heavy-handed attempt to turn him (and the idea of "the old west") into a tragic figure. The movie insists that "The REAL hero turned out to be Tom all along!" and cries "isn't it sad where he ended up?" But I fail to understand to what extent Tom's actions actually make him heroic. He had noble intentions and purpose, yes, but he went about it in an underhanded, and in many ways a petty manner. I already empathized with Tom's character as it was, I didn't need to be "tricked" into it, and thus I actually didn't admire his character as much at the end, because the movie presented him in a way that his actions did not lend to.

I think the film is still very good, but I felt the twist sort of "cheapened" what otherwise was a completely engaging story.

[–] kiddglock 13 years ago

I've never liked the movie. The Jimmy Stewart character claims he wants to stand on his own two feet, but does nothing in order to do so. He could have practiced with a gun long enough to get good enough to take Vance out. Or he could have shot him with a rifle at a distance that Vance's pistol was no good. Instead he wanted to talk about how bad everybody was because they were shooting each other and how he was so morally superior. Vance needed killed from the very beginning. John Wayne's character just hadn't got around to doing it yet. The whole movie was off.

[–] move_over_fatso 11 years ago

I suspect the movie twisted the perspective on Valance.

1) There is no "Law" in the territories. It was merely what people were willing to do when aggrieved.

2) My theory is that Valance only robbed/killed people passing through. He probably never killed anyone inside of town. That's part of the reason why the town never decided to do anything about Valance, even though they knew he was a bad man.

3) I believe that it would have been a "bigger deal" if Donophin made it known publicly that he shot Valance with a rifle in the alley. There were practical reasons for Donophin to keep his participation quiet.

Instead he wanted to talk about how bad everybody was because they were shooting each other and how he was so morally superior.

4) Being morally superior was a big deal back then. Murder made you a pariah, if not hanged. Rance was a symbol of civilization, which had advanced notions about what society was required to do, and how they did things. The "talk and judging" is the exposition used to set the story. People weren't that stupid, in real life.

5) Note that Rance was all talk and stupidity, but he did risk his life to confront the bad guy on principle. You can "stand on your own two feet" and still be stupid enough to get killed for it. Donophin was merely being "kind hearted" and practical by initially letting Rance get the credit for the killing.

[–] Picasner 13 years ago

Boy, you make some good points. I justified it to myself by giving Tom the benefit of the doubt. He realized that law and order had to become the way of life in the west and that Ranse was the symbol for that. Ruling with the gun would be a thing of the past. If Tom stood up for Ranse right out in the open, Ranse would have been shamed and perhaps thought his time wasn't right yet and left town. Tom had no problem "murdering" Valence, because he was still part of the gun-slinging old west and a self-proclaimed tough guy.
I think Ranse saw that too, when he found out the truth: that valance had to die and that was the impetus that would give Ranse the chance to civilize the west. Tom knew that what he did was okay in the old west, but not in the new civilized west that was coming. ...and, "I can live with it."

[–] Likes_Ninjas90 13 years ago

Isn't that point of the myth of the West?

As in people falsely believed in Ranse being representative of the "fact" that no matter how wimpy you are you can take the law into your own hands and survive?

That's what people wanted to believe in the old West, rather than being interested in civil law and such.

Wish You Were Here Film Review!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1684925/reviews-2

[–] richardnj908 11 years ago

No one seems to notice that this is a love story. Donophin's selflessness and nobility came about when he murdered Valance for Hallie's sake - NOT Ranse's. Donophin loved Hallie (hence the bedroom addition to his house - that he subsequently burned), but realized that Hallie loved Ranse, and he felt that Ranse was the better man for her, in that Ranse represented the "new" west. The result is that Donophin had to carry the burden of being a murderer till the day he died. Ranse, on the other hand, was a weak, pathetic character who didn't have a clue how to defend himself, and had no qualms about rising in politics under the guise of "the man who shot Liberty Valance", and even though he knew the truth for quite a while, he only admitted it to the newsman when he realized that Hallie had loved Donophin, and had placed the flowering cactus on Donophin's coffin/grave. - "There's nothing too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance".

YOU'RE - contraction of "you are", as in: "you're stupid".
YOUR - possessive of "you", as in: "your head is up your ass".
TO, TOO, and TWO are NOT the same word!
WOOD and WOULD is Not the same word!

[–] GeorgeBailey 11 years ago

I just feel like the "twist" is not an organic way to progress the ideas of the story.

The story is great and can be seen as a metaphor for the passing of the old west. Think of Ranse as representing the new west with law and order, cities and railroad, and civilization. Tom represents the old west with independence, self reliance, and taking the law in to your own hands. Hallie represents the people have to choose between the two.

Now even though Tom is part of the old west, he knows that the new west is coming and the land will be better for it. Remember that he supports statehood and all that it entails. That's important because ...

... speaking metaphorically, when Tom kills Liberty he's also killing the old west. And he does so because he knows that its for the best even though it will mean a west that people like him will no longer be held in high esteem and respect.

How's that for an organic way of progressing the ideas of the story?

[–] information_police 11 years ago

I hear what you are saying but I like the irony of the ending. Ranse wanted to be known as someone who got justice by means other than a gun, and yet he became known as "The man who shot Liberty Valance".

Life does have its twists and things don't come out the way you intend them to.

Nobody's looking for a puppeteer in today's wintry economic climate.

[–] goodthingsjohn 11 years ago

You bring up a good dilemma. But the answer to this is simple.
What Tom did was cowardly and totally unacceptable in the west: He stepped into what was another man's fight. People DID NOT do that back then. It was supposed to be man vs. man, even if one of them was bad. You fought your own battles. Shooting someone who doesn't know you are there from the alley not only breaks this unwritten rule, but it also makes you seem the coward since you shot from a dark place. But this is why Tom did it:

He knew Liberty was a bad man, and knew in his heart that Ranse was a good one. He knew Ranse stood absolutely no chance whatsoever against Liberty and that the fight was not a fair one. He heard the shots, and by the time he got there to the alley he had no choice but to shoot from the alley since he coudln't waste any more time since Liberty was taking his final aim. At that point, Tom couldn't tell anybody because this would cause him to lose some respect in town. He is not seen as someone who shoots people from the dark in alley ways who are trying to fight other people, even if it is Liberty. And Ranse probably would have been mad at him, too, but knew he didn't stand the chance.
So I don't think it really has anything to do with him wanting Ranse to get credit. I just think he doesn't want to ruin his reputation and be known as a "back-shooter"...but he had to do what he did because he knew it was the right thing to do.

That's the reasoning.

Liberalism is a mental illness, and it's the only one that's contagious.

[–] olliemankz 11 years ago

Plus, even if forensics was virtually non-existent then, they couldn't really have escaped noticing that there was a different bullet or at least that it came from the wrong direction.

[–] cwente2 11 years ago

The point, I think, is: They were all so happy to see him dead, including the doctor and the sheriff, no one was interested in "noticing". And, I doubt Valance's mother would have shown up to demand an investigation and a fair trial. Valance's half-witted sycophants made a squawk in a saloon and got beaten up and thrown out in about 30 seconds -- to cheers and applause.

[–] rtw416 11 years ago

The films final scene sums it all up.
Not much dialouge and the films last line.
The characters expression and demeanor followed by the Conductors line-
The End