While the film shows Kemp in dogged pursuit of Vandergroat, it does not show him as fully reconciled to being a bounty hunter. He tells himself rather that being so is a means to an end, that is getting the money for the ranch.
As a result I don't agree it was all that much for him to give up to get the girl in the end. On purely practical, even mercenary, reasons which would be the better future for him? Going back to collect the bounty money, dragging the dead body with him, and then what? Or put it all behind him with the prospect of a hottie wife in the new land of CaleeforneyeAAA!
I can see choosing the latter, too.
In fact there is a flaw here. I loved this film. Great outdoor locatoin shooting. I found the narrative mostly plausible, the performances excellent, especially for the eye opening performance of an earlier Jack Palance. Stewart once again showing what he does best, the kind of troubled, complex, mixed motives character he does best with. Great cinematography for its time.
But yeah, I did think the narrative arc of Leigh's character was problematic. It only makes sense, and would be plausible to Kemp, if one finds that arc to be plausible. It's a stretch. To put it kindly. 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.
reply
share