MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Discussion > A decidedly political movie, as well as ...

A decidedly political movie, as well as decidedly creaky

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8732)
31 replies | jump to latest

If you can get past the B&W photography and the creakiness (it feels like a stagey movie from the 30s), the story is meaty with mindfood:

At its core it's a tale of fascism vs. democracy: the oppression of the strong thug over peaceable honest folk. They all despise Liberty Valance (Marvin), but they're curiously impotent against him and his gang, which actually doesn't reflect the real Old West where, generally speaking, regular citizens were tough, courageous people. A good example is the James-Younger gang, who were shot to ribbons in Northfield, Minnesota, when the townspeople got word that their bank was being robbed. Same thing happened to the Dalton Gang in Coffeyville Kansas. Both of these outlaw gangs were far larger than the 3 gunmen of "Liberty Vanlance." In any case, Doniphon (Wayne) could challenge Valance and does to some degree, but since Stoddard (Stewart) is his rival concerning Hallie's affections it would be counterproductive to go overboard in assisting the man.

This is a decidedly political movie as it focuses on the founding of towns, illustrating the myriad operations of government: The important parts a free press and community assemblies play, the deliberations concerning possible statehood and the powerful role of education in civilizing a settlement & purging the lawless breed.

[–] Destinata (3317) 6 years ago

Black and white photography! Before you grab your smelling salts, remember that most of the movies critics consider the all-time greats are in black and white. And the style of acting is different, but it's not truly stagey. Watch James Cagney being George M. Cohan for stagey-ness. There is nothing in this movie that comes close to that.

I'm a fan of Mark Twain who was a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise in Virginia City, Nevada. In his book, "Roughing It," he speaks of desperados, one in particular named Slade that everyone in the territory was afraid of. The legend of the ruthless desperado was grounded in fact, in not just one man but many, who could keep the citizens of a whole town treed. The only thing that seems strange is that [spoiler]it took Doniphan that long to kill him.[/spoiler]

I agree with your points on the civics lesson the movie gives, but the real point of the film is in that line: "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Folks, watch this movie. It's a classic.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 6 years ago

I appreciate your insights, but I initially viewed the movie in 1994 -- expecting a great film from all the hype -- and it does have some quality mindfood, as noted, but it struck me as decidedly stagey and this hindered me from seeing the good in it; as far as I can tell, it was even shot on a stage. Compared to contemporaneous Westerns like "One-Eyed Jacks," "Ride the High Country" and "The Comancheros," "Liberty Valance" is positively old-fashioned.

For modern viewers to enjoy the movie they're going to have to be braced for these negatives, which obviously aren't negatives to people who favor B&W and the all-around creaky tone.

As far as that famous line goes, yes, it's a good one and I use it from time to time.

[–] Destinata (3317) 6 years ago

A lot of movies were shot on a sound stage -- and still are. But there were a number of outdoor scenes. It's been a while since you've seen it, I think. You keep calling it "creaky," but understand that's merely your opinion.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 6 years ago

A lot of movies were shot primarily on sound stages, but not the contemporaneous Westerns I listed or, say, Anthony Mann Westerns of the 50s. This was a point against the film from the get-go, along with the B&W photography, unless of course one favors stage productions and B&W.

I last saw "Liberty Valance" in 2016 wherein I was braced for its old-fashioned tone because, like I said, I first viewed it 22 years earlier. As such, I was able to glean its positives as cited above.

You keep calling it "creaky," but understand that's merely your opinion.

I'm going by how the movie sincerely struck me on my initial viewing. I'm not being mean, just honest. If the film's old-fashioned style took me aback in 1994, how much more so today? So my words might help potential viewers brace for its stagey B&W tone and appreciate the good it has to offer, like on my most recent viewing.

Being balanced and honestly pointing out a movie's positives/negatives is a part of responsible reviewing/journaling.

[–] VictorVictoria (40) 6 years ago

Right on...nothing's too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance.

[–] Destinata (3317) 6 years ago

[spoiler]And at that moment, my blood sort of ran cold as I wondered how many other misapprehensions there are that we, as a society have taken to be fact; how many men we're cheering when we should really be cheering others.[/spoiler]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

History, both on the large scale and on a personal level, is full of holes that'll never be filled.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

And yet the unfilled holes are somehow better than the holes filled with lies ;)

[–] dt123 (704) 6 months ago

That is very profound. And spot-on.

[–] degree7 (821) 5 years ago

My mother saw this when it was on television in the mid 60s, and she said even then it looked old fashioned.

[–] Wuchak (8732) 5 years ago

Maybe it was intentional.

[–] TheArgentinian (7062) 4 years ago

"(it feels like a stagey movie from the 30s)"

I was surprised it came out in the 60s. It reminded me of Shane (1953). It looks like it was shot on a backlot and not on location like John Ford loved to do. Great film, though.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

*sigh* What the hell is wrong with b&w photography?

[–] Wuchak (8732) 4 years ago

It works in some cases but, compared to living color, it makes for a flat viewing experience. Color, by contrast, makes a movie come ALIVE. Imagine watching "Apocalypse Now" in friggin' B&W.

[–] liscarkat (18373) 3 years ago

As soon as anyone says they don't like black-and-white, I know they have no credibility when it comes to movies. There's no reason to listen to what they have to say.