L'homme de la loi

Michael Winner's "The Lawman" reveals that a sheriff - traditional officer responsible for law and order, symbol of virtue and right - is 'not' always morally excellent and virtuous or that his prey thoroughly bad...

Burt Lancaster is cast as a merciless avenger, unmoved by love or pity, determined to one end: Exterminate the opposition...

The criminals here are, in fact, some law breakers, drunken cowboys - who by bad luck - have killed an old man during a rough enthusiastic drinking bout...

Lancaster - blind to his faults, unwilling to judge or to be less severe, and with no intention to arrest - hunts his prey down, one by one, until the last man...

There is no poetic eloquence here, no tension as the two protagonists walk slowly towards their duel, no feeling that right is victorious, no good has conquered evil, no decisive clash to capture the audience's imagination... This is pure brutality: Gratuitous graphic sequences - sickening and revolting - of destroyed shoulders and collapsed faces... Uncalled details of death that may damage the sonorous knell of the 'classic Western' with its ideal behavior and precise rules traditionally observed...

The Western showdown is strictly ritual, quick, clean and purely emotional... The outcome predictable... The moment of suspense exciting as anything the cinema has ever produced...

The showdown in "The Lawman" is disturbing in the way of vision... It follows on in the tradition of Palance/Elisha Cook Jr. ultimate confrontation in "Shane," and excels Sam Peckinpah's commitment to an ideal of self-expression through violent death... It may well mean that a film like "Shane," "High Noon," "Vera Cruz," or "The Fastest Gun Alive," can never be made again...

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".

Director Michael Winner is a controversial figure, at least in his native Britain, partly because of his political opinions, but chiefly on account of the `Death Wish' movies, which were widely seen as advocating wild-west style vigilante justice in a modern urban setting. I was therefore interested to learn that, before making these films, Winner was also responsible for `Lawman', a traditional Western that takes a more subtle, nuanced view of law and order.

Burt Lancaster plays Jered Maddox, the Sheriff of the small Western town of Bannock. Maddox has travelled to another small town, Sabbath, to arrest the cowboys who were responsible for the death of a man in Bannock. The local people of Sabbath, however, are not willing to help him, and the local Sheriff, Cotton Ryan, is a coward whose motto is `anything for a quiet life'. Despite this lack of cooperation, Maddox remains determined to do his duty, come what may.

The above summary might suggest that this is a story of right versus wrong along the lines of `High Noon', with Maddox standing as the lone representative of truth and justice against the forces of evil and cowardice. Things, however, are not so simple. It appears that the death was not deliberate murder, but an accidental shooting resulting from drunken gunplay. The cowboys' employer, a wealthy rancher named Vincent Bronson, is a popular figure in the town. Maddox himself admits that, even if he succeeds in bringing the men back to Bannock, they are unlikely to receive condign punishment, as the local Judge is notoriously corrupt and could easily be bought by a man of Bronson's wealth.

At first Maddox does seem to be a heroic figure, and he certainly shows great physical courage in facing his adversaries. Fearlessness alone, however, is not enough to make a man a true hero, and as the film progresses we begin to question whether he really is doing the right thing. Although the cowboys are likely to be acquitted if tried, and to receive a lenient sentence if convicted, their false pride and obsession with honour means that they cannot bring themselves to surrender without a fight. One by one, unafraid of his reputation as a lethal gunfighter, they challenge Maddox and are shot down. As the death toll mounts, we begin to see that he too is guilty of false pride and an obsession with upholding an abstract idea of justice, no matter what the human cost. `Fiat justitia, ruat caelum', said the Romans- let justice be done, though the heavens fall. When Maddox takes this idea to its absolute limits, the result is tragedy.

There are a number of good performances. Lee J Cobb gives a poignant performance as Bronson; cattle bosses are usually shown as villainous figures in Westerns (Bruce Cabot's character in `Dodge City' being a classic example), but Bronson is a decent man, regarded as a generous benefactor by the people of Sabbath. His tragedy stems from the conflict between his sense of personal honour and a growing realisation that violence is not the answer to life's problems. Robert Ryan is also good as Sheriff Ryan, a once-brave lawman whose character has been corrupted by years of compromise, as are Sheree North as Maddox's love interest and Richard Jordan as a young gunfighter out to make a name for himself. The real star, however, is Burt Lancaster as the steely, inflexible Maddox. This is a role which combines the two distinct sides of Lancaster's talent as an actor. On the one hand, he could play a swashbuckling action hero in Westerns and other films such as `The Crimson Pirate'. On the other, he was also the thoughtful, star of intelligent films like `Birdman of Alcatraz', `The Train' or `The Swimmer'. Maddox is a fearless gunfighter, but he is also a man whose actions give rise to philosophical questions about law enforcement, the nature of justice, and the nature of honour. One could therefore almost say that it is a role that Lancaster was born to play, and he does so brilliantly. The result is a complex film that asks difficult questions without providing easy answers. It is unfortunate that Winner did not make more films like this; none of his other films that I have seen come close to it in quality. 8/10

This movie stands out as one of the best of a subgenre that doesn't have a lot of great movies representing it. The Post-Western Westerns starting coming out in the mid-sixties until Westerns were hard to come by during the mid-seventies.

These "modern" westerns are distinguished by turning the "white hat good guy" and "black hat bad guy" on their ear. The good guys are not only not perfect, but ruefully flawed, and the bad guys are often people who made mistakes along the way and would not be a threat to society if they were left alone. Examples of other "modern" westerns are Unforgiven (The Clint Eastwood movie), Hang 'Em High (notice a pattern- another Eastwood movie), and Dances With Wolves.

Lancaster's Marshall Maddox is doing his job, but at this stage in his career, he is a walking, talking, killing machine who is ready to kill anyone who gets in his way, and some people who want very much to get out of his way. He is typical of the modern western. Where older westerns emphasized clear moral and ethical boundaries, modern westerns portray a world much less certain and easy to navigate. A world full of shadows and lots of gray ambiguities.

This is a perfect representation of how people felt in 1971. This is a very good 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.