MovieChat Forums > The Naked Spur (1953) Discussion > Smart and compact, but deeply flawed?

Smart and compact, but deeply flawed?

posted 19 years ago by luise-6
33 replies | jump to latest

The Naked Spur shows some amazing character interaction -- I was moved by the conflict Janet Leigh's character faces as she decides between the familiarity of the 'bad boy' and the uncertainty of a conventional life settling down with a basically good guy.

This said, I found the ending quite surprising. Jimmy Stewart's character was tortured throughout the film, desperate to get his ranch back, but when actually gets something far better he still seems tormented. I felt like his agony was built up throughout the movie without ending with its release, and so I left the theater still feeling his tension.

What's the deal? Is this intentional?

reply

[–] missrljane 18 years ago

James Stewart's character Howard is a basically good guy and a lot of his torment comes from knowing he is leading a man to his death. He obviously can't handle this as he can't kill Ben and won't let Roy do it. At the end, although he has what he needs to get his ranch back, he accepts that a man's life can't be sold like that and this will ultimately make him easier with himself than if he had sold Ben in and got the money.

He would never have been happy on a ranch bought by killing someone. This way he can start a clean life in California.

joyfital

"Don't drink the wine!"

reply

[–] counterrevolutionary 17 years ago

Frankly, I don't see what the moral dilemma was. I kept thinking it was going to turn out that Ryan was innocent of the murder and Stewart knew it. That at least would explain why turning in a wanted man for a reward was supposed to be such a terrible thing. But if he's actually a murderer, what the hell? Take the money and let him swing.

Then of course, once he's dead, it seems to be even less of a problem. I mean, he's already dead. Y'know?

reply

[–] missrljane 17 years ago

I used to think The Naked Spur was the best western I'd seen, but in the last year or so I've gone off it quite a lot.

However, the morality still makes sense to me. Taking a man in to be executed is akin to murder. Whether or not that man is a murderer, killing him will only make more murderers. You cannot punish a crime with the same thing as the crime, that makes no sense. I think that is why Howard (James Stewart) can't take the money and let Ben (Robert Ryan) swing.

More to the point, taking the money means Howard's not taking Ben in because it's 'justice' but because he's greedy, which is really why he can't do it.

Whatever happens, whoever is dead, whether it was inevitable or not, whether they were innocent or guilty, doesn't matter in the end, because selling someone was wrong, no matter what. That's the point, right?

Joy Fital

"Don't drink the wine!"

reply

[–] counterrevolutionary 17 years ago

"You cannot punish a crime with the same thing as the crime, that makes no sense."

Retributive justice has made sense to people throughout history, from "An eye for an eye" to "Let the punishment fit the crime." What you mean by "that makes no sense" is that you personally oppose it. Which is fine, but it's not the same thing.

Anyway, if this is supposed to be an anti-capital-punishment movie, they should have made some sort of argument against capital punishment itself and not focused so much on the money.

"More to the point, taking the money means Howard's not taking Ben in because it's 'justice' but because he's greedy, which is really why he can't do it."

So if he'd been taking him in out of a sense of justice, then could he have properly taken the money? Is anyone who accepts a reward for turning in a criminal wicked?

I just don't see it. He's doing a public service, and a reward was offered to anyone who did that service. Whatever his motives, he would have earned the money by delivering a murderer for punishment. If he is less worthy of praise or respect than someone acting purely from a sense of justice, so be it.

"Whatever happens, whoever is dead, whether it was inevitable or not, whether they were innocent or guilty, doesn't matter in the end, because selling someone was wrong, no matter what. That's the point, right?"

Well, yeah, that does seem to be the point. I just think it's foolish.

reply

[–] tomok97 17 years ago

"You cannot punish a crime with the same thing as the crime, that makes no sense."

What about false imprisonment? How should we punish that? ;)

reply

[–] mixmastermind 14 years ago

"What about false imprisonment? How should we punish that? ;)"
The death penalty, I suppose.

reply

[–] DoctorStrangelove 17 years ago

It's been a long time now since I've seen this film, but I gotta agree with counter's posts.

Last seen:
The Shop Around the Corner - 10/10

reply

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 13 years ago

Never mind.

reply

[–] DoctorStrangelove 18 years ago

** Spoiler **

I too felt the ending was deeply flawed. There was a lack of justice (in not bringing in the wanted criminal) which rendered everything that came before a waste of time, from the characters' point of view. Not only that, but the deaths were needless.

And besides that, the subplot/undercurrent of the dishonorably discharged cavalryman never went anywhere. Meh... I can see why I'd never really heard anything of this movie before. Compared to the other great westerns, this one feels like a TV show.

Maybe it's just something about 60's westerns.

Last Seen:
The Naked Spur - 6/10

reply

[–] kmcalind 18 years ago

Spoilers!!!!

Saying "There was a lack of justice (in not bringing in the wanted criminal)" seems a bit odd seeing as the wanted criminal is dead at the end. It is highly unlikely that they would bother trying and "re-executing" him.

This film, like "Treasure of the Sierra Madre" and most Film Noirs, is a variation on "The Pardoner's Tale" where the characters' desire for something material becomes a pursuit of their own destruction.

reply

[–] jiw2 17 years ago

This "60's western" was made in 1953.

reply

[–] amobilio 16 years ago

It's not only that Stewart is reluctant to found his new home and life on another man's blood (however justified, on the movie's moral terms, Robert Ryan's execution may be). He also takes stock of the mortal toll that follows from his quest to claim the bounty: several Indians and his two "partners," in addition to the condemned man. It's quite a loss of life for this onetime rancher. That's why at the movie's end he is agonizing and ultimately why he must repudiate this quest and its consequences. In order to cleanse himself of all this bad business he must begin by burying Ryan rather than claiming the money.

reply

[–] the sphynx 13 years ago

That's as good an explanation as any I've seen. But I've only watched this movie once, and the last minute stung as feeling out of character and way sentimental. Maybe it will strike me differently when I see it again.

reply

[–] Brocardi 9 years ago

Yes I agree, Howard finally realized the entire venture was cursed from the beginning and decided to cut his losses to redeem his future, taking the money would only have brought more misfortune upon him

reply

[–] Errington_92 8 years ago

Moving from being an accessory after the fact to a murderer, potentially his girl, and then will go off to California with Kemp as not only a dutiful wife but also going to stick with the hard work of making a go of it? Hm.

Whilst I can understand the ending in terms of Kemp's conflict of characterisation regarding the money, it felt unrealistic in Kemp coming to the decision from Lina's influence. Chemistry between them is nothing like a loving couple, yet Kemp gives up his goal of $5,000 to start anew with Lina.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not.

reply

[–] dirtyharry16 17 years ago

"I too felt the ending was deeply flawed. There was a lack of justice (in not bringing in the wanted criminal) which rendered everything that came before a waste of time, from the characters' point of view. Not only that, but the deaths were needless.

And besides that, the subplot/undercurrent of the dishonorably discharged cavalryman never went anywhere. Meh... I can see why I'd never really heard anything of this movie before. Compared to the other great westerns, this one feels like a TV show.

Maybe it's just something about 60's westerns."

What other westerns have you seen? I think The Naked Spur is an amazing film. Intelligent and well done, at least in my opinion.

"You're on stakeout, Callahan!" - Magnum Force

reply

[–] DoctorStrangelove 17 years ago

My vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=1105705&g=Western

What I have on DVD: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=1105707&g=Western&s=uservote

Everything I've recorded, including the ones I haven't watched yet:
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=14514927&g=Western&s=uservote
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28137529&s=uservote&g=Western (I just got a DVR.)

Last seen:
Red River - 8/10

reply

[–] bigtallcubsfan 17 years ago

I felt the ending was unsatisfying for completely opposite reasons to the original poster. The ending is so completely rubber ducky, blah blah blubber blubber in contrast to the cold, calculating precision of his character -- and the others -- in the preceding 88 minutes. I had no problem whatsoever with R. Ryan's character being carried off by the waters. S*** happens and the universe is indifferent to our needs for closure, justice, rewards for our labors. My problem is with the blubbery true-love ending. Otherwise a fine film. A precursor to Wild Bunch, Magnificent Seven (all three films synopses could begin with the phrase "a rag-tag bunch seek justice for...) and perhaps a first step in the door to later Westerns that would explore themes of moral and personal desolation.

reply

[–] The_Dying_Flutchman 17 years ago

I agree that the ending is false, but I think this has something to do with the fact that the movies still had not completely grown up yet. This ending is a typical 1950s ending and as such destroys an otherwise fine piece.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

reply

[–] deforest-1 11 years ago

"The movies still had not completely grown up yet."

You sound like you actually believe movies have gotten better over the past century in a linear progression. Each one is individual, depending on the source writer, director and other factors -- in the Forties and Fifties most often studio interference, censors and audience expectations. Actually I'd say dumbed-down audience expectations are a much big factor today, and that's why all the blood and gore and participative plots are coming in. In terms of the theme of "Greed" -- ever seen anything of the 1926 film of that title by Erich von Stroheim? Very, very grown up, I'd say.

reply

[–] ravenosa 17 years ago

"There was a lack of justice (in not bringing in the wanted criminal) which rendered everything that came before a waste of time, from the characters' point of view."

That's part of the beauty of the ending, if you ask me...

reply

[–] J. Spurlin 17 years ago

I'm not sure what I think of Jimmy Stewart's moral decisions throughout the film. I'm pretty sure he did the right thing at the end. By that point, the money would have been very tainted by the blood of the two strangers.

It was also the right thing for strictly practical reasons. Janet Leigh admired him more for it than she would have otherwise. He paved the way for his future happiness with her.

... Justin

reply

[–] marvel88 16 years ago

I rewatched it tonight for the first time in over a year, and the ending was even better to me. I had forgotten a little, and the way Howard Kemp put the bounty aside and all of his pain in hopes for a new, bright future was really moving and had an impact. Seeing it again, I saw much more conflict between the characters and within themselves.

Certainly a top-notch western, with a great story, acting, and scenery. Very great...I love the Stewart and Mann films.

"I know you're in there, Fagerstrom!"-Conan O'Brien

reply

[–] InsideTheCastleWall 16 years ago

I didn't like the end either.

Ben was dead -- no changing that. And Kemp didn't kill him so why not get the reward? The way it ended made Ben's death for nothing because Kemp got nothing and Ben was in an early grave that he probably wouldn't have been in if not for Kemp "hunting" him.

reply

[–] rick-220 16 years ago

It felt very much like a transitional movie to me, linking elements from the earlier Treasure of the Sierra Madre - trust, mistrust, motivations, redemption - and the later Clint Eastwood Western Hang 'm High - innocence, guilt, motivations, vengeance.

voting history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=629013

reply

[–] elm0catt 15 years ago

only Amobilio has answered correctly.

Time was taken in the film to point out that Stewart's character was and is a rancher and not a bounty hunter or lawman. Ryan makes a comment to the effect of 'Didn't think someone like you could handle doing something like this'.

Whether you wish to believe it or not, the fact is that it is not easy to kill a man or hunt a man for money. Whether you need the money desperatley or not, whether the man is guilty of a crime or not. It takes a very specific type of person and personality to do something like that.

Stewart's central conflict with himself was just this. He was not this type of person but he felt his desperate need for the money to get his ranch back (lost to a bad person)would make it possible or easier to hunt a bad man for money. As more time passes and he sees firsthand the toll of his actions towards this end he realizes he is wrong but still tries to convince himself because he wants the money. Once all the obstacles are cleared and the end is within reach he is able to see and understand without distraction that his chosen path is ultimately wrong.

Also worth pointing out is a comment by Bathwater regarding the 50's ending. As we are all aware, the production code was still in effect in 1953 and would be for another 15 years as well. The code would have forbid basically any other ending than what you have in the film. I won't go into all the specifics of the code but in the early 1950's it was VERY restrictive!

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] intexor 12 years ago

This movie was underwhelming to me. And I did roll my eyes at the conclusion, even though I can understand the possible reasoning of "burying the past". The reason I found it underwhelming though is because I didn't "buy" most of the interaction between these five people.

reply

[–] SeanJoyce 12 years ago

Some great pro-ending arguments, but there's something else there that only J. Spurlin alluded to:

It was also the right thing for strictly practical reasons. Janet Leigh admired him more for it than she would have otherwise. He paved the way for his future happiness with her.

Exactly. This whole time he's been doggedly pursuing a dream that an epiphany shatters. Buying the ranch back won't bring his wife back, and he'll always be tethered to her as long as he remains there. He's severing ties with a soiled past, and starting over...beginning anew.

"...if that was off, I'd be whoopin' your ass up and down this street." ~ an irate Tarantino

reply

[–] Bob_Zerunkel 12 years ago

Stewart plays a man who was played for a fool by a woman. It cost him everything. If he was a man, he'd be chasing down the woman who did that, but he is not. Everyone in this movie sees him as weak and challenges him. He lets an old man become his partner simply because the old man says so. He lets his prisoner make fun of him. He lets the disgraced officer take over. Eventually, he throws away hiw fortune because a woman who wanted to kill him tells him to do so. I'll bet Jimmy will make a good little wife for her -- until she tosses him aside. No real tension, but a lot of agony for being a testosterone-free wuss.

reply

1
2