The American Film Institute recently judged Shane to be the 53rd most inspirational movie made in America. My reading of the film is undoubtably unorthodox, because I can't figure out quite what is inspiring about it.
The movie is a fine example of Westerns made during this period. The conflict between good and evil is clearly delineated. In fact, the symbols of each category are pretty common for the Western:| Good | Evil |
| Civilization | Wilderness |
| Settlers | Cattlemen |
| Women | Men |
| Law | Lawlessness |
| Diplomacy | Violence |
The other two characters who are either outside this dichotomy, or straddle it, are the gunfighters - Shane and Jack. They combine features of both worlds, in the guise of Experience.
There's no question the gunfighter is masculine, for his resolves disputes with his (phalic) gun. On the other hand, he is very concerned with his appearance. He wears a fancy or elaborate costume; he has a pearl-handled pistol. His movements are deliberate, almost balletic.
When Shane enters the picture, he is wearing buckskins. The movie takes place after the Civil War, and I wonder whether buckskins wouldn't be archaic. But this unique garb sets him apart from both the ranchers and the cattlemen. If the buckskins are indeed anachronistic, they mark Shane as one outside time.
This element of being outside of time marks Shane as a type of hero. The character remains nameless for the first ten minutes or so of the movie; he does not share his name until after the conflict between the cattlemen and the ranchers is introduced. He is also super-humanly strong: he helps remove a stump (which also gives Alan Ladd a chance to display his well-defined musculature); he wins a barfight single-handed when he is incredibly out-numbered; and he wins the final gun fight, when the odds are four to one.
There is clearly a sexual tension between Shane and the wife. She notices his toned body. She is aware of his strength, and the thrilling danger just below the surface of that strength. There is a moment when their faces are very close, and there is a look in their eyes which would lead to a kiss in a romantic movie. When Joey, the son, says he loves Shane, we know he is speaking for his mother as much as himself.
I claimed in the first paragraph that this movie is perverse. I make that claim primarily because of the relationship between Shane and Joey. It's clear there is a level of hero worship here, and that Joey begins to see Shane as a surrogate - or even replacement - for his father. Since the boy is presexual, it may be stretching the bounds to read too much into this relationship, but ....
There is a scene near the end, at the dance, of tenderness between Shane and Joey. Shane is standing tall and noble, and Joey is standing next to him with his had cradled near Shane's lap. Vince Packard and Freud both would have field day with the subtext of that image.
Although it's clear that Shane is attracted to the mother, it is a chilvaric affection. In fact, the barfight I mentioned earlier erupts when one of the cattlemen sees the affection as sexual and a form of adultery. Like any good knight, Shane fights to defend the mother's honor.
When the conflict is introduced in the first few minutes of the film, it's clear the settlers are the good guys because they want to resolve disputes through the rule of law and diplomacy. The cattlemen are the bad guys because they lack respect for the law, and seek to resolve their dispute through violence and intimidation.
Shane, the hero beyond time, chooses to lend his strength to the good guys. He enters the civilized world, and human time, by adopting the clothes of the time. But, especially in the context of this type of myth, his entry must be balanced by his dark other.
In order to go into battle, Shane must re-enter the realm of the mythic heroes by adopting his ritual armor (the buckskins). He must renounce the ideal of diplomacy, and resolve the dispute by adopting evil's violent methods.
He wins the gunfight, as he must, against impossible odds. Civilization is maintained, but at a great cost: not only is good preserved by adopting evil's means, but the good guy is mortally wounded. There is a hint, in the final sequence, that Shane is either riding to his death, or to Valhalla.
This is inspirational? Shouldn't the good guy survive?
The movie may be read as a re-telling of the Jesus myth, in which case Shane is the hero/god who sacrifices himself for the good of humanity/civilization. In which case, the message would be inspirational, and we would assume that Shane survives or resurrects in the former of future heroes (e.g., John Wayne).
There is sufficient ambiguity in the movie to read it as an existentialist fable. In a key scene, Shane tells Joey that a gun is not intrinsically good or bad; it is a tool, and the person using it determines whether it is put to a good or bad use. But the primary use of a gun is to kill people. It's primary use is violent, which within the black-and-white morality of the story is evil.
So, again, there is some perversity in the fact that civilization and order are preserved by "evil" means - that is, by violently taking the law into one's own hands. In this reading, the existential hero stands beyond good and evil (to use Nietzsche's phrase) and creates his own ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment