Le ranch Diavolo

Dividing the film in two acts. The first introduces the characters, establishes the quarrel and builds up tension for the second act which comprises of preparation, showdown and aftermath. Simple and basic but good enough as a blueprint. Whats not good enough is the execution.

The first act drags on for too long losing the tension it couldve built up. It has many scenes and characters that add nothing to the plot and arent visually pleasing with still boring shots of actors staring and talking. Some characters seemed like they were going to be important but just faded out as if they ran off ( fremont, the sheriff, ... ##apparently the movie was censored, so some things may be the result of that). Fortunately, the first act ends with the best scene in the film with harry "going straight" after the boy's death. The camera doesnt linger too long on the close-ups and carey and malone save the film giving the audience everything they actually need going into the second act.

The second act starts out strong but goes downhill during the shootout. Influence of griffith is pretty obvious here. Not considering how fair, the comparisons with the birth of a nation are inevitable and they arent favorable. In the birth of a nation, the audience are riding to the rescue with the actors. The cross cutting and the fighting is natural and superb. Here, its all nonsensical. With hilarious shooting and a camera thats always detached and in the wrong place (except in the interior shots). How fair is it to compare straight shooting with one the greatest movies ever considering their budget,time of release, director experience and ..... is up to you but the griffith influence certainly encourages it. It also showcases how good scarlet days is compared to other westerns of the time.

Even though i personally wouldnt recommend this to someone looking for a good film that isnt a john ford fan. I do appreciate its historical value as a base for future ford films and westerns in general (even if it is the minimum and poorly executed) and what they were able to achieve with a two reel film budget.

It's been objected that Straight Shooting uses static camera positions, but especially in the long shots fine action and scenery are captured, like lines of horsemen coming down a hillside. In the story characters make interesting choices: a cowboy aids a farmer, a bandit gets the band of a chum of his to come fight against the bad guys who want possession of the whole territory and especially its water. The Bess played by Mollie Malone (a more solid presence than some other actresses) gets her gun ready as does another woman. And Bess too makes some interesting choices. If I can judge by the hat, a Mexican guy steals a jar of jam, but he's helped save the farm, one of the ways Ford and Hively avoid the sexism and racism of D. W. Griffith's Battle of Elderbush Gulch of a few years previous. That said, the Prague print I saw has gaps following out threads of the story. There's a pretty good shootout with the two guys using long rifles--this is the older west, though already the myth had been around quite a while.

Apparently the earliest Ford film to survive intact, Straight Shooting could hardly be bettered as a prototype for so many films later in his career-- there are moments that are reproduced almost exactly in The Searchers in particular, and to a lesser extent in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, etc. While this modest genre film doesn't treat these themes with the deep emotional resonance of the later classics, it is surprisingly serious and thoughtful, and shows that the young Ford was unusually responsive to the emotional gravity that an older star like Carey could bring to a simple shoot 'em up-- the film is more mature than many of his 20s films with George O'Brien.

This is notable for being an early directorial effort by John Ford, the great Western filmmaker. It's short and simple--about a feud between ranchers and farmers over water supply. The print I saw was missing some brief footage, and the film isn't in the best shape. Still, it is clearly unimpressive. There are plenty of shots with open doorways, and one might find similarities with Ford's later work, but the static camera positioning is prosaic even for 1917.

Harry Carey's Cheyenne Harry is a bandit turned good after seeing an attractive female--a role too similar to the one William S. Hart had already introduced to the screen in nearly every one of his vehicles. And, the climax of "Straight Shooting" seems to be taken straight from D.W. Griffith; it especially resembles "The Birth of a Nation" in a clumsy, derivative way. Eventually, Ford would improve upon past films and film-making, but here he was just copying others.

This film is important, because it was John Ford's first. You can see some of the camera-work and styles, first being born in this film, that he would use in his later classics, most notably Ford's classic "Front-Door" shot. He always shot the front door from inside the house, framing the outside world in the doorway as the characters walk in. It's one of his biggest shots in The Searchers (1956) and there is one in this film too. It also begins Ford's relationship with then silent superstar, Harry Carey and they would do 22 films together just in the period between 1917-1920.

In this film, Harry's character learns that you need to see both sides of what is being said before you make your choice. Bad guy Cattleman Flint sends other bad guys to harass a farming family only to see his own men turn on him to protect the innocent farmers. There are also cool shots of the open-West and prairie, which would be a huge part of the western film's allure that would follow for the next 60 years. Wide shots of beautiful scenery always helped to drive the western forward and those shots are in this film too.

But, it is however still a very basic plot (part of the pioneering film-making evolution), and the film can be tedious at points. As always, I try to put myself into 1917. I try to enforce on myself a mind-set, an attitude and emotion that helps me understand what it was like to be a person living in 1917 and seeing this film for the first time. It's also pretty cool to think that the characters/settings in this film took place in a part of history that, for this film, only happened about 35 years before, as opposed to 135 years before for 2020. Everyone should see this entry into film-history.

7.3 (C+ MyGrade) = 7 IMDB