MovieChat Forums > The Ox-Bow Incident (1943) Discussion > Two important characters somewhat overlo...

Two important characters somewhat overlooked


So much happens ,so quickly ,in this movie that it takes a while to sort out one's feelings about it. There are clearly decent men amongst the posse, as shown when two or three of them step forward to side with Henry Fonda's character, in favor of waiting for the sheriff.

But what I find fascinating are two characters who don't usually receive much analysis. Major Tetley's son Gerald, and the older black man Sparks, each bring a certain low key influence to the story, that makes it different than it would have been without them. Sparks volunteers to go along because he feels someone should be there to pray for the men who are to die. His own brother was lynched, so it's a very solemn mission for him. Gerald is forced to come along by his callous father, who remarks that it might finally make a man out of him.

The importance of these two characters is revealed in small, seemingly insignificant moments, that could easily pass unnoticed. When the three men have been captured, and are seated on the ground, Gerald assists them in some way, perhaps by loosening their bonds so they can eat, or something like that. There is a silent exchange between Gerald ( William Eythe) and Dana Andrews as the rancher who bought the cattle, but has no proof. Gerald gives him a shy, awkward smile, and the rancher smiles back warmly at him. It's a small but touching moment, and quite unexpected in the midst of the cold blooded mob. Another small detail shows Sparks kneeling and embracing the weeping old man, crying along with him. Again, it's a moment that could easily slip by unnoticed, but it adds so much to the drama of the events unfolding.

Finally, as the rest of the mob rides back to town after the hanging, Sparks kneels, hat in hand, beneath the bodies, and sings a hymn. It's possible that he has volunteered to stay behind and give the men a decent burial, though the idea isn't mentioned specifically. In any case, it shows him as the only person present who sees a spiritual meaning to the mens' deaths, and not merely rough frontier justice. It is an unforgettable portrayal by Leigh Whipper, especially unusual at a time when most black actors were assigned buffoon roles in movies.

reply

Good point mlr. What is also puzzling is that the actor who played Sparks (Leigh Whipper) did not get any billing at all according to imdb when this movie was released. He did a great job. He passed away in 1975 at about 99 years of age. He was born in 1876.

reply

I assumed that Gerald was gay. I noticed the quick exchange of recognizing glances between Gerald and Donald Martin (Dana Andrews), and wondered if the film would go anywhere with this. Of course it did not -- this was 1943, after all.

I haven't read the book -- is some sort of backstory between the two characters implied there? (I almost wrote "brokebackstory"; I'm so proud I'm more mature than that.)

reply

Yeah ... and Gerald seemingly melts when confronted with the opportunity of carving into Anthony Quinn's body. And his father calls him a girly man. There is definitely something up there.

reply

I thought Gerald gave a knowing glance to Anthony Quinn's character, and the father made at least two references to Gerald's manhood. It was so overt for the time that my jaw hit the floor. I waited till the after movie discussion to here how the censors and public reacted back then, but no mention. I'm glad others picked up on that as well.

reply

I thought Gerald gave a knowing glance to Anthony Quinn's character, and the father made at least two references to Gerald's manhood. It was so overt for the time that my jaw hit the floor.

Get real.
He wasn't queer.
He was a coward. That's all. Probably partly a result of an overbearing father.
Remember, gay just meant happy in 1943 and men could look at each other with sympathy and it didn't mean anybody was queer.
Thanks a lot, queer-agenda people.
First it was 'gay' and now you can't even say 'partner' in a western anymore.

reply

I'm not so sure Gerald was a coward. It took a brave man to vote against his father and the mob. He may have been the bravest of them all.

reply

"He may have been the bravest of them all."

Nope. That would be the man who shot Liberty Valance.




Watch 'em Abe, I seen 'em do some things!

reply

He wasnt a homosexual, he was a coward, jeez, I hate people always trying to make homosexuals out of charachters that show NO SEXUAL orientation either way, man, oh since Peter stared at Jesus that makes makes him gay too, or how close Danny Glover was to Melvin Gibson's character in the Lethal Weapon series, well then they're gay too... Jeez even the thought ANY character in the Ox-Bow incident was Gay is ludicrous, Get a life. The story was how a Mob can get out of control and Kill Innocent people, and how some righteous people can exist amongst psycho's...plain & simple.. One of the greatest films ever made, please don't tarnish it with Brokeback talk....sheeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...




reply

Yeah! I mean SHEEEEEZZZZZZZ, it's LUDICROUS! GET A LIFE...I mean, a mob or groups of people never reduced Black folks with insensitive dehumanizing jokes that reflected a perception that lynching them was okeedoke because they were 'less than' everyone else. Nah, LUDICROUS! And SHEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZ mobs or groups of people never ever reduce Gay people with insensitive jokes and attack and bash them, KILL THEM because they're different, because they're 'less than' everyone else...(Ummm, did anyone notice a 15 year old kid was recently shot in the head and killed by a classmate at school who clearly felt that it was "okay" because the victim was Gay?! Wonder where he got that impression?). 'TARNISH IT WITH BROKEBACK TALK?!!! You mean bring up an issue that was intergral to Pulitzer Prize winner, Annie Proulx's story and A CENTRAL THEME TO BOTH THE OX BOW INCIDENT AND BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN?!!! My God does no one see the parallels? Or the irony here with all the anger toward Gay people in these comments?! I mean, what if the son was Gay? It's really immaterial for he was brave enough to BE HIMSELF and not be bullied by his abusive father who was hiding behind his government issued (by the people, for the people) uniform (perfect word) which supposedly gave him some sort of authority to justify the lawlessness and the immorality of the so-called righteous people. Folks, this movie is SO modern in that it covers everything from the mindset that brought about the 'pre-emptive, justifiable' attack upon Iraq with evidence being subverted for the sake of 'revenge' to those who can justify hurting anyone be it with words or a fist, a knife, gun, or rope who is different so long as they can rationalize it within themselves. A lot of the people writing here may recognize the lesson but they're sounding far more like the lynch mob in their dehumanizing commentary toward Gay people.

reply

Especially with the censors back. Homosexuals were portrayed as evil inhumane people per censor rules.

-Nam

reply

We don't know if Gerald was gay but I can DEFINTELY tell you the actor William Eythe who played him WAS INDEED OPENLY GAY and had a long term relationship with fellow actor Lon McCallister. I'm sure his gay sensibilites imbued the role of Gerald and I as the viewer got the distinct impression Gerald was gay with his brooding sensitivity, impugning of his manhood and ultimate rejection by his father.

reply

He was a coward. That's all. Probably partly a result of an overbearing father.

Wrong! Gerald was NOT a coward. He stood up to his father and the entire posse by voting against the lynching. He also told off his tyrannical father at the end.

Remember, gay just meant happy in 1943 and men could look at each other with sympathy and it didn't mean anybody was queer.

Wrong again. In 1938 "Bringing Up baby" Cary Grant most emphatically uses the word "gay" to mean "homosexual" when he's caught wearing ladies lingirie.

reply

I agree with you....People nowadays try to make everybody gay...It helps to justify themselves....

reply

Homosexuals like Don Rogers push their agenda 24/7.

Even on movie discussion sites like IMDB.

reply

I assumed that Gerald was gay. I noticed the quick exchange of recognizing glances between Gerald and Donald Martin (Dana Andrews), and wondered if the film would go anywhere with this. Of course it did not -- this was 1943, after all.


The emphasis wasn't on sexual orientation. It was on mob mentality and the characters who made up the mob. They had their own senses of inadequacy and made up for it by standing up for justice and manliness and courage, all of which were false, and ignoring simple truth and reason.

A few decades ago, manliness was important as a gender and role distinction, not so much as a consideration of sexual orientation. Men were strong and women were weak. It was important that a man not do women's things, nor even talk about the way people think and behave, or the fair or right thing to do, because such behavior was not manly.

In the movie, those who stood away from the mob were courageous individually, and maintained that courage in the face of the mob, in spite of other feelings, and in spite of appearances, not because of them.

There may have been a sense of friendship or attraction between Gerald and Donald (I thought it was on a naive level), but this was important only because it was another facet of the conflict between reason and perceived inadequacy.

Nowadays, now that many gender distinctions have dissolved and roles have merged, sexual orientation has become more important as a defining characteristic of our self-perceptions.

.

reply

A few decades ago, manliness was important as a gender and role distinction, not so much as a consideration of sexual orientation. Men were strong and women were weak. It was important that a man not do women's things, nor even talk about the way people think and behave, or the fair or right thing to do, because such behavior was not manly.

I mostly agree with how you've sized up a previous era's definition of "manhood," except for the part I've italicized. I think of men like my grandfather, who most would say was "hard, but fair" and who had a sense of right and wrong and had his own moral code and standards. I firmly believe that any viable definition of "manhood," regardless of era, includes moral courage and the backbone to stand up for what is good and right. I see nothing "feminine" about such a quality and men who lack it usually live diminished, dysfunctional lives and our prisons are full of such men.


Whatever you do, DO NOT read this sig--ACKKK!!! TOO LATE!!!

reply

Your definition is a good one, no doubt. But few men spoke of such things, especially in public.

.

reply

donrogers42 says > I assumed that Gerald was gay.
I can buy this explanation; at least that's what his father thought of him.

I noticed the quick exchange of recognizing glances between Gerald and Donald Martin (Dana Andrews), and wondered if the film would go anywhere with this
I refuse to accept that Dan Martin was gay. He didn't exchange a knowing look with Gerald; he was just trying to be friendly. At that point he didn't know what the idiots had in mind for them. He was a kind person who recognized Gerald's timidity and was trying to show he was not a threat. He was confronted by a lot of people and was hoping to make a friend. As it turns out, he was able to get some of them to side with him; just not enough.

Martin was a married man who clearly loved his wife and children. To believe he was gay, it would mean he was using them to perpetrate some fraud about what he was. Plenty of people do that, I know, but Martin didn't strike me as that type of selfish person; the type who could use and lie to a person every single day. When he breaks down contemplating his death, he's really thinking about his family and, as we learn later, the souls of the hateful people who are about to hang innocent people.

Also, Martin was from a neighboring town and had only just moved there recently. He had bought a rundown farm and was trying to set his family up in their new home. That means he would have been plenty busy. When would he have had time to meet up with Gerald? It would be completely out of character given what we know about Martin.

I truly wish people would not say random things off the top of their heads. It makes me think they didn't really appreciate the message of the movie. It's a terrible thing to accuse a man without proof.


Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]

reply

In an ensemble piece such as this, everyone plays a key role, and you have hit the nail on the head: Sparks and Gerald are actually the conscience of the movie, far more than Carter.

reply

There was certainly no evidence to suggest that Gerald was gay- an issue that is completely immaterial to the film, anyways. The "issue" with Gerald was that his father deemed him a coward or a "girl." The problem was that his father defined bravery and manliness as callous ruthlessness. However, Gerald is very brave in that he stood up to his father and did what he felt was right, which was far more brave than what all but seven men in the posse had done.

reply

[deleted]

You people are forgetting that Gerald wore a plaid jacket. Obviously he was gay.

Spark's character is a Magical Negro stereotype. They even had that creepy holy music every time he speaks.

reply

I do not believe Gerard Tetley was "gay," but more of what is coined as a "metrosexual." He was sensitive to the men who this mob had honed in on. Given the callous nature of his father, Gerard was most likely raised primarily by his mother and through her learned to be more sensitive, nurturing and gentle (or in one sweet word: androgynous). But these qualities were viewed as feminine and weak and this is why his father called him a coward and a girl and made other demeaning comments. But Gerard was a man and was not afraid to stand up to his father at the voting and refuse to whip the horse. Gerard's smiles for the prisoners and his eagerness to remove the bullet from Juan's leg did not spawn from homosexuality but from the defiance he felt against his father, the empathy he had for these men and the feminine qualities he learned from his mother.

Oh, and his plaid jacket? It made him stand out from the rest of the crowd and set him apart just as Sparks lack of jacket did. They are significant and this is one way to show that.

And just because you wear plaid doesn't mean you're gay. In the case of Gerard Tetley he was making a very good (and the actor does look good in plaid) fashion choice, which is a trait most metrosexuals have. I should know. I am married to one.

reply

Spark's character is a Magical Negro stereotype. They even had that creepy holy music every time he speaks.


Oh, brother!

The preacher of color is in the story because he represents an element in society who were subject to lynchings and generations-long, grossly unfair and inequitable treatment. Sparks' character empathizes with the three men whom he feels are probably no more worthy of hanging than many maltreated African Americans ever were.

Actually, I give props to the writing for having the other characters, all white men, treat the black preacher with some degree of respect, allowing him to accompany them and minister to the spiritual needs of the (wrongly) accused men.

And "creepy holy music?" Methinks your galling cynicism is showing! It's merely a conceit of the film's narrative to make it clear to the audience that Sparks was a godly man who deplored the ungodly behavior of the lynch mob. Spark's scenes and dialogue and your "creepy holy music" are there to imply that a loving and just God could not possibly be on the side of these vigilantes who are about to take the lives of three innocent men.

Okay folks, show's over, nothing to see here!

reply

I do agree that Sparks and Gerald Tetley contributed significantly to the film, and that without their performances, the film would not have been what it was. However, I do not believe that the significant moments they had could be easily overlooked by any viewer. Many of their most poignant moments had added elements for emphasis such as the score or the use of close ups. These close ups allowed us, the audience, to see the depths of Gerald Tetley’s soul when he refused the whip the horse or when he made eye contact with Donald Martin- trying to show him that he believed he was innocent.
Sparks was the most unique character in the movie. Black actors during that time period were limited to roles as the house help or anything subservient to white people. That is why the role of Sparks was different. His character was not some ignorant, uneducated black man. He had a brain of his own and enough courage to stand up for what he thought was right, even though he was in the minority along with Gil Carter and Arthur Davies. Sparks had a personal experience with lynching, therefore adding more sensitivity to an already sensitive situation. Overall, these two men were the conscience of the film, and allowed the audience to associate their feelings with them and, in turn, project themselves onto these characters.

reply

Gerald was probably the bravest man there. Too bad he wasn't a bit braver and told both the mob and his father no, and more forcefully. Sparks was decent, but should have been gutsier too. Still, it's different being there as opposed to critiquing as observers.

reply

Interesting that the outsiders repudiated the mob of fascists. The question of Gerald seems to me to be bound up with this so I favour the gay subtext theory.

Marlon, Claudia and Dimby the cats 1989-2005, 2007 and 2010.

reply

@mlraymond

Excellent OP and analysis of the humanity and consciences of Gerald and Sparks. I was most struck by the alacrity with which the posse, aka mob, wanted to leave the hanged men. Only Sparks really looks at them and sees what has happened to them.

A bird sings and the mountain's silence deepens.

reply