I've watched The Searchers twice now, entirely on its reputation.... It's place in the film canon is a complete mystery to me... I enjoyed the scenery, John Wayne was all right, the story was passable... Altogether a completely OK film... Someone please explain to me why this is considered by many to be the greatest ever made... It is lost on me...
shareIf you've got the time (and a genuine interest), there have been many posts on these threads which have attempted to answer your question. Not to mention several books and essays.
shareSomeone please explain to me why this is considered by many to be the greatest ever made... It is lost on me...
I ask because whether I agree with a concensus or not, I can generally understand what the appeal is when it comes to film... Not so with The Searchers... I feel like there is something critical in the film that I am failing to see... It seems to be so universally loved that I'm interested in finding the right approach to the film....
shareWell you see Viva, the appreciation of the film is not a secrete hidden in the film, the appreciation lies within the viewer. If you feel like there is something critical in the film that you are failing to see, you are looking in the wrong place. Look to yourself as to why this movie doesn't appeal to you.
Listen to The Sons of the Pioneers sing the theme from The Searchers. It may inspire you. Pay close attention to the last stanza. You may have to "go searching" yourself to find what you are looking for. Hope you find your answer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20jAtWu4CxM
Respectfully, I don't agree. It wasn't until a film scholar and teacher (who was also a film critic) explained CITIZEN KANE to me that it became one of my favorite movies of all time. Now, I see an emotional and cinematic depth to its greatest scenes that really gets to me because I intellectually understand the movie much better. It's not as cold a movie as it first appeared to me when I saw it the first time.
As for THE SEARCHERS, I could see its greatness right away (and I saw it originally in black and white on a small TV!!!), probably because the composition of the shots and the drama of the story were more overtly visceral and immediate and exciting. Then, when I saw it again and again, its greatness and multiple brilliant facets came to the fore, and even in the last couple viewings new aspects of the movie presented themselves. It's my favorite movie and will always be on my Top 10, though I fully recognize that other people don't have to have as high an opinion of it as me, though those who say it's only okay don't really know what they're talking about. It's more than just okay and is a great movie, especially for those who want to be entertained as much as intellectually stimulated.
I appreciate your views tisnyder and agree that the enjoyment and understanding of Citizen Kane does improve with some scholarly explanation. I think most viewers could see the greatness in The Searchers right off without any scholarly explanation. Maybe that is attributed to the difference between Orson Wells and John Ford.
Now, in regards to the OP when he asked: "Someone please explain to me why this is considered by many to be the greatest ever made... It is lost on me...I ask because whether I agree with a concensus or not, I can generally understand what the appeal is when it comes to film... Not so with The Searchers... I feel like there is something critical in the film that I am failing to see..."
I gave the OP what I thought it was that he was not getting the movie. How would you answer his question?
[deleted]
Some people, including myself I suppose, find any attempt at "explanation" of a differing point of view futile when responding to assertions of people who are so absolutely "certain" about their own view of things -- especially in art. I find such people are agenda driven (not exactly open-minded) and generally identifiable in their choice of words and terms: Eg., "obvious setup to malign and make fun of native indians", "white *beep* colonizers", "... ham it up ... with over the top, loud acting", "racist movie", "this crap", "prolly another clueless mindless fanboy ...", etc.
As you suggest, "... otherwise you would have offered an explanation behind your admiration of this movie". . . I agree -- why bother?
Good comments cfwente. I agree, "why bother".
shareAFI's #1 of All-Time Western
Jean-Luc Godard called this film the fourth-greatest American film of the sound era
AFI's 12th Greatest Film of All-Time
Entertainment Weekly's 13th greatest Film and Best Western of All-Time
Sight in Sounds 7th Greatest Film of All-Time
Premiere Magazine ranked Wayne's performance 87th in the Top 100 ever
In July 2015 it was voted #5 on BBC Culture's 100 Greatest American Films by 61 film reviewers and critics.
Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, George Lucas, Jean-Luc Godard, John Milius and Paul Schrader regard this as one of the films that have most influenced them and have all paid some form of homage to it in their work.
Irwin Winkler named this as his favorite film in an AFI poll.
In 2006 it was voted the 97th best screenplay of all time by The Writers Guild Of America.
Included among the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die", edited by Steven Schneider.
David Lean watched this movie repeatedly while preparing for Lawrence of Arabia (1962) to help give him a sense of how to shoot a landscape.
It was amongst the first 25 movies to be selected by the Library Of Congress for preservation in The National Film Registry in 1989.
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
I think the thing i like a lot about the searchers is the unasnwered questions that leave you looking for more information and understanding the movie differently
At it's most basic it's a revenge movie of a man seeking revenge for his murdered family. But then you reach the end where he tries to kill the person he's been looking for all those years and years, and you go "wow... didn't expect him to turn like that." Then when given the opportunity, he recognizes the little girl as she used to be, picks her up, and takes her home. All in all, a little profound at the incredible swings in characters
Then you start wondering what drives the character. Well, obviously racism, but then you realize that he's the most astute of all the characters on the native customs, religious beliefs, the language, procedures for trade, etc. He knows that shooting the eyes out of a native will doom him to forever wander between the spirit world, but he still harbors enough racism that when his niece is turned into a native, he attempts to kill her.
There are the subtle clues about his backstory. Where was he all those years? Well, a spanish medal given to his niece suggests he was in a mexican war for several years. He fought for the confederates, but he didn't surrender. He still holds his oath to a defeated confederate nation. Instead of them forcing the backstory down your throat in a 5 minute preamble, or even a 30 second narrative, or a 1 paragraph typeface, they just give clues and allusions.
There's prop on camera for seconds which most people miss, but it's a grave stone for ethan's mother which specifies she was killed by Comanches in her 41st year. That also establishes the ranch as being the family ranch that he would have grown up in. That also explains some of the hatred driving Ethan, and how a boy losing his mom would have a jaded view on the world.
A lingering hand on a jacket eludes to a possible affair between John wayne and martha. It was her he was yelling for at the ranch. It was hinted at by John Ford decades later, and gives new meaning on why Ethan was acting as he was. Were the kids even his nieces, or were one or both of them possibly his daughter?
So all in all, the movie is a bit of a mystery because it's mostly solved on screen, but there are all these clues littered in which change the meaning and understanding. It's still enjoyable at first, but then you look at everything you missed at first and realize it's a masterpiece
Insert Signature Here
I'd be really interested to see how they viewed this when it first came out.
We can now see the Wayne character as a damaged, angry and racist individual with his one redeeming feature the turning point when he takes Natalie Wood home, instead of killing her as 'damaged goods'.
Was this feeling of 'once you go black (or not white) you don't go back' prevalent in the 50s? Was he seen as a good guy or a complete psychopath?
I saw this picture on its initial release (I was only about 10 or 11 years old). I think it's safe to say, Ethan was seen as a man full of hate -- but not a racist. Racists, then, were thought of as people who burned crosses in other people's front yards if they happended to be people of a different color or creed. Couldn't see Ethan doing that, or having a "philosophy" justifying such behavior. I, at least, saw Ethan's hatred as coming from a soldier's viewpoint, in the midst of a war, and, the intensity of that hatred as coming from the brutal deaths of his brother and the woman he loved. (Even at that age, I noticed the allusions to a romantic connection with Martha.) We weren't "obsessed" with race as we are today.
I think your "don't go back" idea was no more or less "prevalent in the 50's" than it is today (a relatively small percentage of the population). It just wasn't as "noticed" and, certainly, not as commented upon. . . Everything today, it seems, is seen as essentially and necessarily having a racial sine qua non.
Ethan -- neither a "good guy" nor a "psychopath" -- but an interesting, complex, heroic, and tragic figure. Except, perhaps, to many of the critics who saw The Searchers as just another John Ford/John Wayne Western.
I can see both sides. I have probably watched this movie more often than any other over the years, and it remains engrossing to watch.
The film is a unique visual feast, and often unique visual storytelling.
There is a very strong central theme concerning the search for Debbie.
John Wayne gives a truly marvelous performance of a complex character.
on the somewhat less impressive points
I think that other than Wayne, the acting and main characters are for the most part ordinary, except for Hank Worden as Mose.
The great visual splendor of Monument Valley has the downside that there is a certain unreality to the movie. People are ranching here? The line where Jorgensen points out to his ranch and says "This land, Ethan," comes off to me as pretty close to risible. There is not a blade of grass to be seen. Why not raise cattle somewhere where there is grass? This might be something only an old farm boy like me would notice.
Many, and I admit I'm one of them, find much of the comic relief annoying. Except for Charley at times, it was okay for the first three quarters or so, but went off the rails near the end with the silly fistfight and especially with Pat Wayne's turn as the foolish young army officer. Wayne looks his age-16-and this kid being an officer in charge of an army unit and acting this fatuously is just not plausible. He detracts from the tension of the climax.
While the visual storytelling is wonderful in showing the muted relationship between Martha and Ethan, for example, the script was simply too opaque about several issues. Much is made of that medal (but how many folks would have any idea what this medal was just by watching the movie) but it still remains totally unexplained why Ethan was paid in US federal money--double eagles, and why he would become a mercenary when he maintains his one loyalty was to the Confederacy. Aaron and Martha didn't seem very interested in that medal or where it came from nor were they surprised that Ethan had it, which they should have been if he got it in Mexico. My guess is that the original intent was that Ethan got the money as a border ruffian of the Bloody Bill Anderson sort.
For all his visual elegance, John Ford could be a very sloppy filmmaker and was often so in this movie. Ethan goes into the teepee to scalp Scar while Ward Bond leads the charge through the village. The next shot shows John Wayne replacing Bond at the head of the charge. Ethan then emerges from the teepee holding Scar's scalp. This is just sloppy. The turning of the Earth scene has it snowing against a blue sky. The nighttime campfire scene is one of the least convincing indoor for outdoor scenes from the era. It is painfully obvious that the main cast was never up north for the snow scenes. The double for Jeffrey Hunter not only doesn't look much like him but is even wearing different clothes. He has a grayish coat on while when we switch to the inside the teepee scene with Wayne and Hunter, Hunter is wearing a dark brown coat.
So, to make a long story short, this is a movie with great strengths and deep flaws, so I can see both sides of the debate on its stature.
Yes and I noticed that about High Noon as well. There is enough backstory for a 2nd movie told through clues and anecdotes.
shareWhat a great idea!
shareI recently watched this for the first time in over 20 years and it hasn't aged well for me.
My biggest problem with this movie is twofold: even at 119 minutes, it feels padded out with pointless scenes that don't move the plot along or help us understand the characters better. It's John Ford doing that John Ford thing that some people don't have a problem with. The other is another of his trademarks, the scene(s) with the bumpkin characters doing their alleged comedy thing that I find really really really annoying.
What's funny to me is that I watched another Ford movie not long after this called The Hurricane and I liked it more than The Searchers. In fact, I also recently saw for the first time the Ford movie Rio Grande with John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara that I enjoyed more than The Searchers.
Mileage will vary, of course.
Good thread. I agree with most opinions here. I was expecting a LOT more from "The Searchers" and I simply cannot see the incomparable masterpiece epic that the cinema experts present in the supplement disc. I did not see the same movie, or I should have perhaps watched it on a giant screen (which I don't have) just for getting in awe at the scenery. Other than its obvious plastic qualities, I frankly consider this film as a good western, nothing more, nothing less. It is very, very dated as well and one can feel the dawn of an era setting down on movies of that kind, with their antiquated views about Native People (the Injuns...) and as the previous person was writing, its goofy characters with their decidedly forced comical stunts (who found the "rocking chair madman" funny? that was so ridicule!!). I especially hate predictable humor, and "The Searchers!" is replete with such trite, conventional repartees that it sometimes made me nauseous.
On the other hand, John Wayne plays a nice John Wayne bit in this one, albeit it called for a really good fist fight involving him rather than the two competing grooms-to-be... Overall, an 8/10. Not bad at all, but yet very, very remote from deserving its reputation, in my view. I now own the movie and who knows? it might grow on me?
[deleted]
Interesting. I too just saw Rio Bravo for the first time just a few days before seeing this one. I enjoyed Rio Bravo immensely. Great film? Nah. But a darn good one, and well worth the price of admission. I thought I was going to hate the singing cowboy scene, but I actually surprised myself and really enjoyed it.
But this one? Not even close. And part of it was that in this one, to me, John Wayne is at his John Wayne-i-est. All the acting here was soooo hammy and completely over-the-top.
Dean Martin balanced out Wayne in Rio Bravo. And even Wayne toned himself down in that one. (I'm not a huge Wayne fan.) I even dislike Walter Brennan as a one-note Charlie, and I actually liked him in Rio Bravo. The whole movie got me, took me in.
This movie I started disliking pretty instantly. Well, except for that open door shot right in the first couple of seconds. Wow. The DP deserved an Oscar for that, and the bookending closing shot as well. But I didn't like Wayne's character. I despise the Confederates, I despise every thing that they stand for. And here he is, in his friggin' uniform, 3 years after the war is over, and he's still an unapologetic stinking rebel. Really got my goat. Plus his whole racist thing against Jeffrey Hunter within the first 10 seconds of meeting him. Ugh.
OH, WHOOPS!!! You wrote Rio Grande and I read Rio Bravo! Never mind!
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Filmmakers for the last 5 decades have told you why this film is a masterpiece.
Feel free to read any of their statements.
I, too, was underwhelmed by The Searchers. Yes, the cinematography and scenery are brilliant and it's cool seeing John Wayne play a darker character than usual, but, c'mon, let's be real here. The frequent "humor" is dated and distracting, the depiction of settler life is perhaps a bit too romanticized, the romantic subplot is just plain bad and almost turns the movie into a soap opera (did anyone honestly give a damn about its outcome?), and the ending isn't dark or nihilistic enough. Not every movie has to have that sort of conclusion, but this is a movie about murder, potential rape and mutilation, revenge, scalping, homicidal racism, etc. The goofy-ass comic relief and happy ending are just so out of place. All this being said, it's not a bad movie (I'd give it a 6/10), but I think people are ignoring its flaws. I could be wrong, though.
shareAn opinion can never be 'wrong,' it just is. An opinion may be misinformed, narrow, short sighted, etc. That is, another's opinion might be about all the things you are missing that make this movie great. You have been outvoted by other movie watchers, but that means you have a different viewpoint.
I happen to love "The Searchers," and that puts me in agreement with the majority point of view. That does not always happen. There are many popular pieces of music, paintings, movies, and so forth that are highly lauded, but that I find little to nothing to admire in. You also give specific descriptions of what you find weak in the film without attacking those who like it or the cast and crew who made it.
Thank you for providing an alternate point of view in a pleasant manner.
Good, solid film...except for the saccharine, unnecessary, embarassing Young Romance. Nearly ruins the rest of the film.
shareI think it serves as a sort of relief from the dark plot. At first I didn't really like how Ford blended a mature, provocative story with over-the-top fistfights and gags, but it's grown on me and on my last viewing I thought that it worked very well.
shareFor me this is a routine western-adventure film with an intersting cast. I found the dramatic elements to be overdone and generally ineffective. The comedic aspects are frequently inane, silly, annoying and out of place. The movie was pictorially impressive, at times.
shareOne reason people may call The Searchers "dated" today is because it, like most westerns, depicts a male ethos that has been beaten out of us by feminism and oppressive social engineering. Generally speaking, men are cowards now, unwilling to fight for their personal honor. The conflict between Ethan and the Reverend is that of honorable man versus compromised man. These days, compromised man has won, and that's why everything is falling apart.
It's John Wayne's greatest role, and highest achievement as an actor, but you have to understand the fire within his character's soul or you will never relate. We can talk about the magnificent cinematography all day, and it is magnificent. We can talk about all other aspects of the film which are absolutely first-rate. But the character of Ethan is the very foundation of the film, and Wayne delivers here. Not only is there no greater western, there is no greater film.
Tristan-21
"you have to understand the fire within his character's soul"
Could you explain what exactly you mean by the "fire within his soul"--
I think everyone understands Ethan's obsession with revenge. His mother, brother, niece, nephew, and sister-in-law, also the woman he loved, had been killed by the Comanche--by Scar.
And while the transference of his hatred to Native Americans in general can not be intellectually justified, I think most of us understand it emotionally.
But,
and a big but,
His niece was kidnapped as a young girl, probably about nine. She is only about fourteen at the end of the film. His stated objective of killing her as she had gone "Comanch" strikes one as way over the top and not really how most folks would feel or react in such circumstances.
There was as great a range in how people felt about things 140-odd years ago as there is today, but the center or midpoint was considerably different from now. Do some reading of history and biography not tainted by those anxious either to whitewash the past or to distort it through the prism of "political correctness," as it presently is conceived, to perhaps get a better feel for, and understanding of, this.
Someone with Ethan Edwards's background and experience, at least as we are able reasonably to discern it in the movie, would not have been out of place at all in thinking and acting as he is depicted as doing. Please do not forget that only a few years before this, many on one side of our Civil War believed, sometimes passionately, that blacks were designed by Providence to be subservient to whites and that African slavery was, therefore, a positive good because it kept all concerned in their proper spheres. Not only that, but many on the other side were not convinced--not then--that blacks were the equal of whites even if they found the enslavement of them to be repugnant.
Anyone who doubts the "slavery-is-good" position might want to read all sorts of things published contemporaneously in books and newspapers, such as, for example, The Lost Cause, by Edward A. Pollard, editor of The Richmond Examiner during the war and published in 1867, now available in reprint from Bonanza Books. Pollard offers as good--and, to contemporary eyes, as shocking--a defense of African slavery as an indisputable good as anyone ever has done.
Is it surprising, then, that after all of the difficulties white settlers had experienced with Comanches, Apaches, Sioux, and others (forget whose fault such things really may have been) that a not uncommon view--especially given their apparently primitive and crude lifestyles and alien concepts of the value and purpose of life--was that these people were inferior and less worthy than the whites? As an undergirding of Ethan's particular searing experiences with the Comanches, can we not understand, whether or not we agree, how he might have come to feel and act as he did?
A brief word about "intellectual justification." Much that is destructive cannot be "intellectually justified," I would think, but many back then--for good or for ill--would have understood Ethan's smoldering hatred of Comanches even if many or most of them were not entirely comfortable with it.
One other thing. There is nothing wrong with referring to those descended from indigenous ancestors as "Indians" or "American Indians." Most of them use those terms themselves, including me, a fraction, like Martin Pawley, Cherokee. Nevertheless, I--like all of those American Indians and anyone else born in the United States, whatever the ethnicity--am a native American.
Yes. Interesting and helpful post. Thanks.
shareHow have you been "socially engineered "? It's "compromised" to settle disputes without violence?
share