joanna-105

I wasn't born in US and I'm only in my 40's, so I never even heard about "Shane" before this summer. One reason being: I don't like westerns in general - just find them formulaic and violent for the sake of violence (although I'm a great fan of the Godfather franchise, so maybe it's not the violence that turns me off in westerns). The other reason being that while John Wayne and Clint Eastwood westerns dominate our TV screens, westerns featuring Alan Ladd (including "Shane") are shown with the frequency of Halley's Comet. I finally saw Shane on Netflix two months ago (only after reading glowing praises of the film from Woody Allen, because, frankly, "Shane's" poster is a huge "turn-off") and I've been watching and re-watching it ever since!!! I even bought a DVD of this film to join the only seven other movies I watch whenever possible (yes: "Godfather I" is among them). "Shane" is filled with great performances: from the "slinking" dogs, to the title role of Shane - and everyone in between. I cannot imagine other actors playing these roles, just like I cannot imagine a different director, different cinematography and different musical score. It's like reading a "Great American Novel" but in pictures. It's timeless. And this is largely due to the excellent editing and George Stevens - Alan Ladd pairing (unhappily never repeated). Alan Ladd is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors (since "Shane" I looked up some of his other movies - his "noirs" are excellent). Despite great talent, most directors (and certainly the studio executives) didn't know how to use him at all. Not so with George Stevens: he knew he got the right stuff here (the fact that he wanted to work again with Ladd on "Giant" shows how much he appreciated Ladd's talents). Stevens worked him hard but he got what he wanted in spades. The intensity Alan Ladd portrays on screen is electrifying. Even when he is off center in the shot, the eye travels to him. His body language is subdued but his eyes are especially expressive. While Brando needed cotton balls to produce the truly memorable performance, Ladd just has to shift the light in his eyes to make the chills run down one's spine. Actors don't operate in vacuum and excellent cast helps make Ladd's appeal even greater. On a flip side, however, other players are shown against Ladd's persona as if he was the canvas that makes their colors stand out. In short: it's a symbiotic relationship. A lot has been written about the fact that the only people on the set shorter than Ladd (other than the kids) were Jean Arthur and Elisha Cook Jr. So what? He was larger than life - especially as Shane - and that's what the movies are about - the illusion. There are also some criticisms about his buckskin outfit and long golden locks. If you think they are too effeminate for a gun slinger, just watch the scene where Shane shows off his shooting to Joey. I sure as heck wouldn't want to be at the business end of his gun. And again: the face Shane shows for a split second when he fires the gun - you know this guy can kill (and most likely has killed) a man. If you want action like Die Hard 8 or Mission Impossible 7 - don't bother to watch this movie. If you are looking for western of "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" ilk (or any Wayne vehicle) - don't bother with Shane either. But if you like to watch Kurosawa, Jean-Pierre Melville or Coppola (especially The Conversation) - give it a shot. You might really enjoy it. Then again, you might have to watch it a couple of times to really get into it. I'm not sorry I did.