High Noon

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

To give my thoughts on Paul bringing up the issue of how much should the backstory of the movie affects how we regard the movie.  Given that the movie served as a metaphor for the real life events going, then I feel it should be treated akin to how we process movies that are based on a true story.  Well, ones that we perceive as being historically accurate.   I would guess that for most people, the weight of certain actions and events are greater when they are a reflection of something that happened.  And a lot more weight when it's something that the film maker is actually experiencing.

High Noon itself, I won't lie, I'm not big on Westerns.  So I did enjoy the background context from the podcast.  It gave me context for the events of the film and how it subverted the genre.  I will say, watching it before the podcast, not having the backstory, not knowing that it was subverting the genre at that point, the general theme of, "man stands alone for principle of society and rule of law, even when everyone else deserts him, but becomes disgusted with everyone for doing so," felt broad enough that I wasn't sure what political slant it was taking (i.e. metaphorically, what were the values that were supposed to be upheld and who in real life was running away from that responsibility).  But maybe that was just me and my ignorance.  Though writing that broad theme out, I guess we might be revisiting it as a whole when we get to Apocalypse Now.

 

[ol' eddy wrecks 212]

On 9/20/2018 at 11:29 AM, AlmostAGhost said:

Yea I missed this part. I knew his wife was a Quaker, but didn't think how that maybe affected his actions/progress.

While he wasn't confronting them head-on at the end, I still think it's an heroic takedown there.  Maybe I haven't seen enough normal Westerns to realize it isn't though, but outwitting and outsurviving is what heroes do.  He was indeed trying to save the town, a town of cowards no less, and I get that needed to be shown.  

I don't think that he's a hero is in question (unless you're John Wayne); to me it was, is this effective heroing on a storytelling/film level?  And I feel some of the impact could have been expressed and felt stronger.

I need to rewatch McCabe & Mrs. Miller, it's been at least a decade, but my recollection is the final shoot out (if you can call it a shoot out), goes somewhat similarly in terms of strategy; scrambling around the town, trying to take people off one by one.  Not in control, mostly just desperate. But I was getting shades of that while watching the ending of High Noon.  And I don't think anyone would say McCabe at the end of that was a heroic gunslinger (or in control of the situation).

He mostly got by on luck and his wife breaking her religious vow not to kill people.  I think it might be the execution of the final fight didn't convey to you the sense of luck he needed to win.  I suspect it would have worked better for you then (based on your list of possible outcomes).

[DannytheWall 196]

I laughed when I heard Paul's first reaction. It was literally the exact thing I said after the movie ended. "Well, that was... fine." So I guess that means my immediate response was that it was a bit better than "OK" but not high enough for "great." It almost felt like a TV movie or episode. But maybe that says more about how "cinematic" television has grown over the past 60-some years 

This was the first movie on the Unspooled list that I had never watched previously. I was excited to be able to experience fresh. Didn't know any of the context or backstory. I'm not a young viewer, but maybe my sensibilities are, as I grew a bit restless. Still, the pacing of the movie is notable as it fits the conceit-- this film is one long study in suspense. Very Chekhov/Hitchcockian in some senses. This really does set it apart, and might be why people call it a "Western for non-Western fans." If all things were equal and it didn't have this element, I feel the film wouldn't deserve such distinction.  

Edited to add-- I could really take or leave Will Kane. I don't know if it's because of Cooper or because of how familiar (cliche?) the archetype might be. But whenever the Helen Ramirez character appeared, I brightened up considerably. I found her fascinating. I wanted to know all about her, and would have enjoyed a movie about her story way more than Kane's, I think. 

 

 

[DannytheWall 196]

On 9/20/2018 at 10:24 PM, AlmostAGhost said:

How I see it is this.... there's 3 possible heroic endings:
 

Maybe there's more alternative endings:

1. The sitcom ending. Will Kane finishes off the final bad guy, the makes a quip with a pun on the word "high" or "noon," and the surrounding townspeople all have a hearty laugh. Credits.

2. The Twilight Zone ending. In the next town, where Kane and his wife are scheduled to arrive at noon, one of his enemies is raising a posse to wait his arrival. Dun dun dun!   

3. It was all, say it with me, a Jacob's Ladder scenario. 

[Cameron H. 23786]

One thing that was especially interesting was that Kelly not only shoots a man, but actually shoots him in the back. It’s really interesting to watch that character go from complete pacifist, to accepting violence in self-defense, to accepting  violence as a preventative measure.

[David Lambert 1]

I know we're all supposed to shit on John Wayne for his abhorrent politics but I'm going to defend him on a few points. Everyone loves to proclaim that he was a coward during WWII because he didn't serve but 1. He was deemed too old and had prior injuries that had previously ended his athletic career 2. Republic Pictures threatened to sue him if he left his contract with them (read up on it) and 3. There is documentation that he enlisted in the OSS but the letter of acceptance went to his estranged wife's house and she never told him about it. Whether or not you find these excuses compelling, I would still hold off on exclamations of cowardice. 

And while I find High Noon to be true on an emotional level, Wayne is correct that it is not anything close to the reality of the Old West. There are numerous instances of outlaws riding into small towns to rob and terrorize the populace and without fail the town always banded together and shot them to pieces. For examples, read up on what happened to Jesse James and his gang in Northfield or what happened to the Daltons in Coffeyville. Considering the time High Noon takes place in, most of the men in town would probably have been veterans of the Civil War and not ones to run from a fight. It's not a slight against High Noon because I don't think authenticity was the goal. 

Also, Parke's info regarding sheriffs and marshals is a little off. There were US Marshals but most Westerns aren't about them. Sheriffs actually had a higher standing than the marshals we picture in Westerns. Sheriffs were the law for entire counties, while marshals were the law for towns only.