L'homme de la loi

I rather feel the original "review" on the database misses the point of this dark film. The notion that the community is best served by a rigid, inflexible determination to enforce the letter of the law under all circumstances is indeed the view espoused by the film's main character (played with consummate skill by Burt Lancaster) but the message of the film is surely to point out the limitations of such a view.

Towards the end of the film the Marshall is offered another vision - of a life that contain more than the vendetta, the manhunt, and the inevitable killing that follows. Instead he is tempted by the possibility of a life that offers love, humanity and peace. Unable to change his spots, however, he deliberately throws all that away in a final, senseless act of violence when he shoots in the back a frightened and basically harmless man who is trying to run away - a senseless, brutal and completely unnecessary act of judicial murder. It bears a great resemblance in fact to Harry's similar cold-blooded and pointless execution of his terrorist fugitive at the end of "Harry's Game" and similarly to that, its effect is to arouse disgust at the perpetrator and to alienate our sympathies from what we had previously felt was the "right" side, and to question whether it had really been so "right" all along. The purpose, one feels, of this final killing was not because there was any need for it, but simply to demonstrate the Marshall's defiance of his critics and his determination to continue in the path he had previously followed.

To my mind the film is an intelligent critique of the whole notion of the missionary self-righteousness of this attitude that can arise among self-appointed guardians of the public good, whose original high standards and pure motives are eroded by the violence and the basic inhumanity of the methods they use until they become - as Burt Lancaster actually states in specific terms during the film - just people who are good at killing other people. Siilar themes were explored earlier in "The Searchers" (1956) and "Hang 'em High" (1968) and later in "Unforgiven" (1992) but the message was best expressed to my mind by Peter Shaffer n his play "The Royal Hunt of the Sun" where the young, idealistic but inexperienced squire, Martin, tells his master the conquistador Pizzarro how he feels that a "noble reason" can make the violence of war "glorious". Pizzarro replies: "Give me one reason that stays noble once you start hacking off limbs in its name".

It's crazy the way some films get labeled "brilliant" while others get ignored just because of bad timing or poor studio backing or any # of things.

I'm not a fan of Westerns. I don't consider this a Western. I consider it a wonderfully written, directed, and acted work of art.

Gerald Wilson's script, and its interpretation by the three leads, is so skillful that it functions almost as a poem on the themes of "man," "animal," "law," and euphemism.

Micheal Winner's direction is beyond good. Every cut--early on he uses many overlays, then as the film builds he uses jarring smash cuts--is breathtaking in its thoughtfulness and thematic effect. And he knows when to lay off the music. An eerily quiet early showdown scene with Burt Lancaster, Albert Salmi, and Richard Jordan (with Robert Ryan in the background) is probably the most creative and effective such scene I've ever witnessed, Leone notwithstanding.

Then there's the acting. Lancaster is THE great underrated American actor, and it's because so many of his best performances came after he'd turned 50. I truly think this is his best. He says so much with his eyes, and especially with a tiny flutter or break in his voice. The range he achieves within this supposedly rigid character is phenomenal. From the knockout first scene between him and Ryan, to the touching scenes between him and Sheree North--you'll never see a sadder face than his when North gets out of the bed--to the scene by the river with Jordan, he creates a full character simply by being a great actor. No gimmicks or wackiness. He just out-acts anyone on the screen today.

Ryan equals Burt's performance. This is the best of the ten or so Ryan performances I've seen. Like Lancaster as he aged, Ryan is unafraid to play an aging, weakening character. Seeing him come to life briefly when he takes on a "Bronson man" is thrilling.

Lee J. Cobb has less to do but does a heck of a lot with it. The supporting actors are, to a person, superb. But special kudos must go to Richard Jordan.

This is a film that challenges the macho stereotype and finds it wanting. Lancaster's character offers a complex alternative. An absolute must-see. Tremendous script, unparalleled acting, superb directing. Oh, and the locations are just breathtaking. It's criminal that there's no true widescreen of Lawman available. Anyway, SEE IT.

Lawman is directed by Michael Winner and written by Gerry Wilson. It stars Burt Lancaster, Robert Ryan, Lee J. Cobb, Robert Duvall, Sheree North and Richard Jordan. Music is by Jerry Fielding and cinematography by Robert Paynter.

The Lawman of the title is Jared Maddox (Lancaster), who arrives in the town of Sabbath to serve warrants on the group of rowdies responsible for the death of an old man. His cold hearted approach to his work, however, doesn't endear him to the townsfolk.

A man gets caught in his own doing. Can't change what you are, and if you try, something always calls you back.

Traditional Western that deals in the conflict between law and justice, Lawman, like the leading man, broods significantly. The overriding theme of if Maddox's enforcement of the law justify's the means, is tailor made for Winner's affinity for all things vengeance flavoured. Violence is not in short supply, the director gleefully keeping things gory, and the characterisations of the principal players are smartly complex. The excellent cast turn in equally great performances, the Durango locales are beautifully utilised by Winner and Paynter, and the production design is grade "A" quality.

It's an anti-backlash movie of some substance, where spicy and thoughtful dialogue comes forth from the mouths of deftly shaded characters. Highly recommended to Adult Western fans. 8/10

Towards the end of Lawman, Burt Lancaster says that the towns are getting fewer and fewer who need his kind of services. I guess that's a comment on civilization's leavening influence.

You're a town marshal in the old west. You're doing the job alone, maybe you have a deputy or two. Burt says you got to stick to the rules, but as we see in Lawman he wings it quite a bit.

Lee J. Cobb and some of his employees and retainers from his town of Sabbath shoot up Burt Lancaster's town of Bannock and one of Bannock's citizens is killed. Lancaster trails them to Sabbath and arrives with one of them slung over a pack horse. He gives the names to Sabbath's Sheriff Robert Ryan and the story begins.

Lancaster finds that the men he's trailing are all kinds, some professional gunmen, some family men caught up in the moment. Makes no matter to him, he's bringing them in. One of them is the common law husband of a former girl friend, Sheree North, who's settled in Sabbath.

Lawman is a pretty grim western tale. It's kind of a cross between Edward Dmytryk's Warlock and Clint Eastwood's The Unforgiven. Themes from both of those films can be found here.

Lancaster gets good support from the cast. I particularly liked J.D. Cannon as Sheree North's husband and Richard Jordan as the young cowhand from Lee J. Cobb's spread.

I think more than western fans will appreciate this film.

There are many fine performances in this film. Robert Ryan is the former hero who now admits he "eats dirt" for a living. Sheree North is at her finest as a lady with a past whose love for her man is unappreciated. Robert Duvall plays an interesting character who pleads not to have his life ruined (but watch the opening scenes closely to see just what he does to someone else's livelihood). Lee J. Cobb gives his usual strong performance as a guy who leads a wild bunch but gave up being wild long ago. I've read many of the reviews on imdb concerning this western, & I have to conclude that only a few writers have understood it well. It's about good & evil, yes, but who is good & who is evil? Does "good" have to be 100% good & does "evil" have to be 100% evil? Obviously not, & that's what this film is about. And towards the very end of the film, just when we think we've figured out who is "mostly good" & who is "mostly evil" we find that even then we may be mistaken. Throughout the film, it seems easy to understand Burt Lancaster's character, because he's so "black & white" & so one dimensional. That's what makes the ending so shocking & so thought provoking: we find out we didn't know Sheriff Maddox (Lancaster) at all, we just thought we did. And aren't appearances deceiving? When I watched it on DVD, "Lawman" caused quite an extended discussion amongst viewers following the film's conclusion, mostly about "Just what happened there?!" That's the sign of an outstanding film, so I rate it 9/10.