Quel treno per Yuma

Van Heflin plays rancher Dan Evans whose family and livelihood is at breaking point due to a devastating drought. Needing money fast, Evans gets thrown a financial lifeline when a reward is offered to escort a recently captured outlaw, Ben Wade (Glenn Ford), on to the 3:10 train to Yuma prison. But as Wade's gang closes in to free the shackled outlaw, and the clock starts to tick down, Evans finds himself torn between a sense of social duty and an easy option courtesy of Wade's mind game offer.

Based on a story by Elmore Leonard, this is a tight and tense Western that harks to the wonderful High Noon five years earlier. Directed by Delmer Daves, 3:10 to Yuma sees two of the Western genre's most undervalued performers come together in perfect contrast. Heflin's Evans is honest, almost saintly; but ultimately filling out his life with dullness and too much of a safe approach. Ford's Wade is the other side of the coin, ruthless (the opening sequence sets it up), handsome and very self-confident. This coupling makes for an interesting story-one that thankfully delivers royally on its set-up. As Wade's gang closes in, led by a sleek and mean Richard Jaeckel, Wade toys with Evans, offering him financial gain and gnawing away at him about his abilities as a husband, the tension is palpable in the extreme. Nothing is ever certain until the credits role, and that is something that is never to be sniffed at in the Western genre.

The comparison with High Noon is a fair one because 3:10 to Yuma also deals with the man alone scenario. A man left alone to deal with his adversaries and his own conscience; money or pride indeed. Daves' direction is gritty and suitably claustrophobic, with close ups either being erotically charged {watch out for Felicia Farr's scenes with Ford in the saloon} or tightly wound in room 207 of the hotel; where Heflin & Ford positively excel. His outdoor work, aided by Charles Lawton Jr's photography, also hits the spot, particularly the barren land desperate for water to invigorate it. While the piece also has a tremendous George Duning theme song warbled (and whistled by Ford in the film) by Frankie Laine. Great acting, great direction and a great involving story; essential for fans of character driven Westerns. 8.5/10

Footnote: The film was very well remade in 2007 with two of the modern era's finest leading men, Russell Crowe & Christian Bale, in the dual roles of Ben & Dan respectively. One hopes, and likes to think, that they remade it purely because it was such a great premise to work from. Because Daves' film didn't need improving, it was, and still is, a great film showcasing how great this often maligned genre can sometimes be.

Long before it was re-made, I treasured this modest gem of a western.

From the first notes of its mournful, affecting theme to to the poignant finale it draws you in and keeps you riveted as the tension mounts. It accomplishes this by keeping to the Aristotelian unities: a single theme about a single protagonist on a single day. Yes, there is an obvious parallel to **High Noon**.

Though cast as a villain for the only time in his career, Glen Ford's natural likability shines through in the role of gang boss Ben Wade. Van Heflin's Dan Evans is Everyman--no hero but spurred to heroism by desperate circumstances and devotion to family. In contrast to Heflin's homeliness is the godlike physical perfection of the young Richard Jaeckel as the outlaw gang's second-in-command, smart, dangerous, utterly amoral yet loyal unto death to his boss.

There is not a bad performance anywhere. But I must single out Felicia Farr as the lonely barmaid who gives Ford a last, quick good time, and craggy-faced Ford Rainey as a town Marshal with a plan.

With its mix of deep focus shots and closeups of the actors' faces, the cinematography was the obvious inspiration to Sergio Leone in his spaghetti western series.

I've liked this movie for a long time. Watching it last night, though, it finally occurred to me to wonder about the character played by Glenn Ford. I don't really understand what motivates him, or his gang.

Some people have commented that the closing scene is unbelievable, but I think that's only true because we never get a fix on Glenn Ford's character. Is he a psychotic killer, or is he a gentleman thief?

The psychotic killer label is supported by his actions in the opening scene of the stage coach robbery. He didn't even try to talk himself out of that situation, even though the driver was one against twelve and couldn't carry out his threat without being gunned down instantly. It's also supported by the fear that his name strikes into the hearts of all the townspeople. A man doesn't generate that kind of fear by simply robbing stage coaches. Obviously, he and his gang have done a lot of killing.

The gentleman thief label is supported by his complete lack of bullying characteristics. In every other situation of the movie except that opening scene, he uses his charm to try to get around people. He doesn't attempt to run roughshod over them. That completely contradicts the image of a guy who shoots first and asks questions later.

As for his gang, they show an extraordinary amount of loyalty to him and each other, which makes the shooting during the stage coach robbery that much more unconvincing. Why would they be loyal to a leader who didn't even try to save one of his own? Maybe that was just an anomaly. Ford tells us later in the movie that his gang will always go to extraordinary lengths to save one of their own, and they do just that to try to free him. Yet, at the end, he chooses to save the life of Van Heflin rather than go with his gang. Okay, so he decided that Van Heflin was a good guy worth saving, even if it did get his second in command killed. I don't mind that. What bothers me is, why is he so confident that, having turned his back on his gang, they are going to try to rescue him again in Yuma??? If I'm in that gang, he's made his choice and he can swing for it.

I normally don't comment on movies others have already commented on, but this one's been really bother me because no one really noted just how outstanding the cinematic compositions are. They're eye-poppingly gorgeous and remind me of a western Citizen Kane. In some scenes the Deep Focus technique (lots of hot light so that the background is in sharp focus) is outstanding. The artistry is almost out of place in this exciting but preposterously noirish western. There doesn't seem to be anything else in Lawton's repertoire (maybe parts of Two Rode Together?) as good, but director Daves' respect for good pictorials is evident in most of his efforts. It's a great collaboration, and a pretty good picture that's not as great as the sum of its parts. *** Most of the other comments rightly comment on Glenn Ford's cool acting. Isn't it time for him to get a Lifetime from AFI?

Wherever possible, I like to see the original version of a film before I see its remake. Set to attend a screening for James Mangold's '3:10 to Yuma (2007)' the following night, I quickly decided to rent Delmer Daves' 1957 original, which was adapted from a short story by Elmore Leonard. Unsurprisingly, given its source, the film's plot is extremely simple, unconcerned with the need for a large cast of characters and complicated story lines. After a fatal gold robbery, infamous outlaw Ben Wade (Glenn Ford) is captured in a small town, and a group of honest volunteers agree to transport him to Contention to board the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. One of these volunteers is Dan Evans (Van Heflin), a poverty-stricken small-time rancher with a thirst to proves his worth to both his wife and two sons. Meanwhile, Wade's loyal gang ride in hot pursuit of their leader, intent on rescuing him and avenging his capture. As the tension mounts, and loading Wade onto the 3:10 train begins to seem impossible, the other volunteers rationally retreat from their task, with only Evans staying true to his word.

It's only recently that I've begun to concern myself with the Western genre, but '3:10 to Yuma' seems an ideal example. The story's brilliance lies in its own inherent simplicity; the interactions between the two main characters form the picture's emotional core, and it's the incredible depth of these interactions that allow the film to rise above its B-movie foundations. In one case, at least, the minimalism of the film's production allows for the perfect atmosphere in the story's climax, as Wade's bandits begin to surround the hotel room in which their leader is being held. Even before the gang rides into town, the streets have become almost completely vacant; Contention has become a ghost town. It seems likely that this was partly a result of the film's low production budget – money spent on extras was probably considered money wasted – but the escalating sense of foreboding created by the chillingly empty streets is perfect, as though, indeed, everybody in town figures that "a storm is blowin' up."

Both Glenn Ford and Van Heflin do a very good job considering the film's straightforward plot, and it is their believable characterisations that prove the picture's greatest asset. At first glance, Ben Wade appears obnoxious, sarcastic and detestable, but reveals more likable trait – and even a streak of nobility – as the film progresses. Likewise, Dan Evans is portrayed as a conservative man {whose logical unwillingness to take risks might easily be misattributed to cowardice}, one who only agrees to escort Wade in order to claim the much-needed $200 reward. However, as the situation continually progresses towards guaranteed disaster, and all the other volunteers back down regretfully, Evans refuses to surrender. In his captor's inflexible perseverance, and unflinching integrity, Wade discovers a man that he himself respects and admires, and the mutual understanding – however tentative – that the two men develop proves crucial in the picture's final moments.