Shane, el desconocido

No need to echo consensus points from 300 reviews. What follows is my brief effort at characterizing the movie's important social subtext.

Besides the first-rate cast, majestic scenery, and excellent script, few Westerns capture the mythic history of the West better than Shane. The battle is really one between two types of society. The Rykers represent a feudal type with their land baron ownership of huge swaths of as yet barren land. I'm glad the script includes struggles they've had in taming the territory for their huge cattle-grazing purposes. It's not like they've sacrificed nothing for their dominant position. No doubt it would have been easy for the film to portray them as unadulterated bad guys.

On the other hand, The Starretts and their neighbors may be squatters on the land, but they represent a different future, one of broad settlement, farming pastures, and cooperative community. In short, they're a communal threat to the Strykers dominance. That's shown in their family gatherings, common purpose, and common desire to come together; that is, if they can resist The Strykers' effort to drive them apart. Actor Heflin's dad Starrett represents this resolve and dedication to the community dream, as well as a strong sense of personal morals, which are just the sort needed in order to lead the transition. He has the guts, but does he have the skills, and that's where Shane comes in.

Of course, it's Shane and little Joey that represent the drama's appealing heart. In short, Shane amounts to the vital transition figure between the old and the new. As a gunfighter, he's a product of the open range of the Starretts, but as an exceptional man who's sampled the Starrett's family life he senses the need for constructive change and is willing to risk his life for it. Meanwhile, Joey, in a meaningful sense, represents the power of Shane's enduring norms, which Joey will no doubt carry into his own and the town's future. Ironically, however, Shane realizes that his strength is also an unintentional threat to the Starrett's cohesion as a family unit-- mom (Arthur) is attracted to him, while he's replacing dad as Joey's adult model. Thus, in the celebrated closing, Shane must ride away into an uncertain future, his contribution to civilizing the West his lasting legacy. At the same time, Joey will chase after the hope of somehow being the good man's equal in his coming years. And our last shot is Shane as he rides toward the majestic peaks he has now earned. Thus concrete events in the film transform into a spirit of the new West.

Anyway, this is my take on what I think is the film's powerful subtext embodied in characters and events. All in all, the movie was a critical hit when I was a kid, and I think it still is.

This movie starts off pretending to be Old Yeller and moves slowly and ominously into death and carnage mode. Great performances by Alan Ladd and Van Heflin with a disturbingly wicked portrayal of an assassin by Jack Palance turn this from a standard cowboy flick into a masterpiece. The trope of the stranger come to help the beleaguered family is worked to its best effect. A classic western not to be missed.

A gunslinger, a farmer, a wife, a little boy, a dog, and some dastardly villains....

I first saw "Shane" from the back seat of a '51 Ford, at a drive-in theater somewhere in Montana. The movie was new, and I was about 4 years old. From that time, I remember quiet male voices and the ring of spurs. Those sounds have lived in my mind for decades.

"Shane" is a classic -- no, not a bang-bang shoot-em-up B Western, but it is a solid Western that gives fans of the genre some something to think about besides "they went thataway." The scenery (Jackson Hole, Wyoming) is grand and was even moreso on the big screen. When well known Western novelist A.B. Guthrie wrote the screenplay, he kept fairly faithful to Jack Schaefer's novel. The movie makes a reasonable attempt, for that time, to look authentic in costume and gear, and gives fans of the movies of the '40s and '50s some interesting cinematic moments (see the small things, like how the camera was used to make Alan Ladd seem more "heroic").

I'd probably recast some of the secondary roles, if I had the chance, but Ladd's soft-spoken, gentlemanly way is just right for Shane, and Jack Palance is subtly evil.

Yes, "Shane" contains a few clichés, but they weren't yet quite so cliché, in 1953. Besides, they were well done clichés, so, while you may recognize them, you probably won't mind them.

But, what's "Shane" about, exactly?...

Courage. Loyalty. Honor. Friendship.

It will leave you wishing you knew what happened next.

SHANE is an entirely visual and iconic example of the western genre that also standards as Alan Ladd's most famous role. The thing that makes this film is the direction from George Stevens, which is really something else. Stevens carefully crafts a film that looks a treat and his direction of the action sequences is second to none, making them some of the strongest of the genre. My only real complaint with this film is the incessant use of day-for-night filming; everything else is great.

The story is one of those ones which has plenty of mileage in it. Alan Ladd plays a retired gunslinger who joins up with a group of settlers, including Van Heflin who is fine in support and bags a more interesting character than Ladd's. The settlers find themselves up against Emile Meyer as the cruel Ryker, and his various men including veteran genre star Ben Johnson and Jack Palance in a truly evil, star-making performance. Elisha Cook Jr. is here too, playing a tougher character than you'd expect.

A lot of the material is told through the eyes of your typically annoying American kid, but thankfully he's not too grating and at least his heart is in the right place. There's plenty of suspense and drama to keep the tale moving, but it's the action which really hits home. The excellent climax is a given - and Eastwood would later reference it in UNFORGIVEN - but it's the bar-room brawl which is something else, one of the most powerful fist-fights I've seen on a film. Top stuff indeed.

This film begins with a retired gunslinger by the name of "Shane" (Alan Ladd) riding up to a small house somewhere in Wyoming to get some water. Although the owner of the ranch house "Joe Starrett" (Van Heflin) initially has no problem with this, his hospitality changes when some other cowboys are seen in the horizon riding toward him causing him to suspect that Shane is part of this group of men who have been harassing him and other settlers in the area. However, it's during the subsequent altercation with these men that Joe realizes that he has judged Shane wrongly and hires him to help out as a ranch hand. But what neither Shane nor Joe fully comprehend is just how badly a cattle baron by the name of "Rufus Ryker" (Emile Meyer) wants every last settler out of the area. Now rather than reveal any more I will just say that this is one of the best Western films made during this particular time period due in large part to the new wide screen technique which captured the beautiful Wyoming scenery along with a couple of graphic scenes of violence enhanced by certain innovations which were introduced to audiences worldwide. Naturally, the special effects are much more advanced now but even so this film was not only enjoyable but clearly ahead of its time as well and for those reasons I have rated it accordingly. Definitely above average.