MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Discussion > IMO the Villains were more entertaining ...

IMO the Villains were more entertaining than the heroes

posted 9 years ago by burun100
14 replies | jump to latest

Did anyone else find the badguys played by Lee Marvin, Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin to be the more interesting characters.

I don't know maybe its because I don't really like John Wayne or Jimmy Stewart that much, but I've always been a huge fan of Lee Marvin and Lee Van Cleef.

I also don't really like Hollywood Westerns, my faves were the Dollar Movies as they just had more interesting performers and characters in them I also prefer the Spagheti westerns too, so maybe that's why the badguys in this film appeal to me more. They seem like they belong in a Leone movie.

Still I found their dynamic to be more interesting overall. As evil as they were I think that this film tended to give the badguys more humanity than a lot of other westerns.

Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin's characters always prevent Lee Marvin from going too far. They stop him from basically beating two people to death, Lee Van Cleef even holds him back and drags him away when he attacks Jimmy Stewart. Compare them to the villains in say A Fistful of Dollars or For a Few Dollars More or The Great Silence who egg their bosses on when murdering children!

Also I found it interesting the way that all of the three main villains were genuinely friends with one another. Cleef and Martin weren't just his lackeys. Liberty didn't mistreat them and further more both Lee Van Cleef and Strother Martin seemed actually upset when he died.

Strother Martin plays it with genuine concern and panic when Liberty is shot. You get the impression it isn't just a lackey worrying that his boss is dead and, but a friend. Then later when they both want Jimmy Stewart hung for shooting again its played with genuine anger and injustice and even grief.

At the same time I liked the way that whilst Liberty's thugs were more loyal to him even in death, Jimmy Stewart's character kind of stabs John Wayne, his friend in the back by running off with his girlfriend.

Obviously I am not saying that the villains are more sympathetic, but I quite like that idea that actually the badguys were more loyal to each other and better friends to each other than the main hero was to his friend.

Anybody else see it this way.

[–] hammer4 9 years ago

Liberty Valance is pure, unadulterated, animalistic evil. A tool of the cattle barons to harass, intimidate and murder law abidding homesteaders thereby depriving them of their rights guaranteed by the government. He is a metaphor for the brutal and lawless aspects of the "old west". He has no redeeming qualities. His "sidekicks" help him perform his mayhem. Remember the Strother Martin character giggling while Valance beats newspaperman Peabody within an inch of his life. At the end of the sequence, Martin exclaims "he's dead, he's dead", with obvious glee.

It's true that the Van Cleef character shows some restraint by stopping Valance from actually killing Peabody, and Stoddard earlier. This reinforces what a loose cannon Valance is. Even thugs have limits as far as how many they're willing to kill, but it's okay to beat people half to death for no reason.

And Stoddard does not back stab Doniphon nor does he "steal" his girl after Valance is killed. Stoddard and Hally had already fallen in love; moreover while Doniphon took it for granted that he and Hallie would be married she had never seriously committed to HIM. Remember her line "You don't own me Tom Doniphon"!".

[–] burun100 9 years ago

Oh don't get me wrong I know they are meant to be vicious but like I said I actually found these villains not more sympathetic, but more human than other western badguys.

Look at El Indio in For a Few Dollars More. El Indio guns a man down in cold blood for no reason and then rapes his wife to death. He also later tortures a man in front of his wife and infant child and then makes the guy watch as he has them both shot dead. His men go along with this I might and laugh at it and in the case of murdering the infant they are actually the ones who carry it out!

On top of that he and another one of his men plan to basically *beep* all the others and betray them, and one of them is in turn stabbed in the back (literally) by another who then manages to convince El Indio to help him betray the others instead.

Also look at Angel Eyes in The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly. He intimidates a man into giving him info about something then takes his money which the man gives him in exchange for killing the person who hired Angel Eyes to murder him and then shoots the man and his son in cold blood anyway and then goes on to murder the man who hired him in the first place. In both cases he does so just simply to follow the job through IE because he can and he enjoys doing it. He even laughs as he murders all three of them. Might add one is a child the another is a sick old man!

He also orders Tuco who it is established was his friend of sorts to be brutally tortured and relishes in the torture and makes jokes "how's your digestion now?"

I might add that even Tuco and Blondie the main characters of the film stab each other in the back and try and kill each other too.

Liberty and his thugs in comparison seem tame. Liberty doesn't murder children or as far as we know rape women. Indeed it is hinted that when he tries to shoot Jimmy Stewart that is the first time he has ever killed someone as even the people there are shocked and to be fair Jimmy Stewart did challenge him first.

Liberty's two thugs meanwhile like I said both restrain him, in fact drag him away when he is attacking Jimmy Stewart not just Strother Martin. Also when he is attacking Mr Peabody Van Cleef pulls him back. I also always took Strother Martin saying he is dead to be more an attempt to stop Liberty. Its more of a "he's dead already don't bother with him" as he says it as Lee Van Cleef is pulling him back.

Also like I said the two are genuinely loyal to LV as even after his death they still try and bring the man who killed him to justice and seem genuinely upset over his death, as opposed to say El Indio's gang who were all willing to literally stab each other in the back and took on people who killed members of their gang cause they thought were useful (like Lee Van Cleef's character who murders Klaus Kinski's character) or Angel Eyes who murdered the people who hired him and tortured his supposed friend Tuco.

IMO these villains had a bit more humanity to them which I found interesting. I mean obviously I like Angel Eyes and El Indio too, but most Western villains are the absolute worst of the worst These guys at least were loyal to each other and Liberty's lackeys at least showed some restraint.

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

Something else noteworthy in Liberty's characterization is that he shows some hesitation to "finish the job" while in the act of brutally thrashing Stoddard and Peabody. It's as if some part of him, some twinge of conscience, is telling himself, "Stop it, you've already gone too far but don't go any further!"

Disagreed, however, about Stoddard "stabbing Tom in the back and stealing his girlfriend." Ranse was practically COMMANDED by Tom to take Hallie. Ranse's only true sin in this story is to continue propagating the lie that Tom had told him he must henceforth live out. This lie had its immediate benefits, including fame and political success, but they were "benefits" based on the lie.

[–] vinidici 7 years ago

and to be fair Jimmy Stewart did challenge him first.

Actually, Liberty was the one who'd called out Stoddard for the final showdown, leaving Stoddard two alternatives: either accept the challenge or flee for his life on the next stagecoach. Ranse NEVER uttered any invitation to a gun duel, but he did accept Liberty's invitation after first considering if discretion would be "the better part of valor.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] hammer4 8 years ago

Valance is stopped from possibly killing Stoddard and Peabody by one of his partners in crime. He never displays any sense of a conscious or emotional restraint. He is depicted as a purely evil character. It's not a "three dimensional character", but still interesting.

I think some posters are simply reading into the part attributes that simply aren't there.

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

I've seen the movie at least a half dozen times. Liberty DOES show a look of conscience, a facial expresion that suggests him thinking "Maybe I'm going too far, here," towards the end of each thrashing he gave Stoddard and Peabody. That doesn't negate the fact that he's evil. If anything, it makes him even MORE evil because he chooses to continue in his malign ways.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] PhineasAppleby 8 years ago

I see no regret from a conscience stand-point with Valance. He might think if I take this any further than battery becomes murder. Certainly murder is nothing new for Valance but that doesn't mean every man he's angry at he's going to kill in cold blood.

[–] vestdennis 8 years ago

Liberty isn't having feelings of guilt. He just doesn't need another murder added to his record. Most villians kill only when it's necessary.

[–] mplo (2304) 6 years ago

Inotherwords, Liberty Valance has no conscience. He's a sociopath.

[–] TheEngineer (199) 5 years ago

"Villains were more entertaining than the heroes."

Uh yeah, welcome to fiction.

[–] Tabbycat (748) 3 years ago

^^That.

Darth Vader v Luke Skywalker, anyone?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Ain't that always the case? I'm thinking 'Star Wars', 'Hellraiser', 'Lord of the Rings' etc.

[–] TheArgentinian (6413) 4 years ago

You missed the point of the movie, then. This ain't a gang movie.
Did you also find Atticus Finch boring?

[–] KutWrite (1220) 4 months ago

In good films, I often find the villains more interesting. E.g. "The Dark Knight." I can't even stand the Batman comics, but have watched Dark Knight twice, the second time skipping all but the Joker scenes.

Martin and van Cleef gave their roles personality, especially Martin did. The little touches like his giggle, and other facial tics, and how he pats Valance with such care, apparently hoping he's still alive (which he might be).

I like Wayne, and less-so, Stewart, and o'Brien over-acted, but was still OK. But the villains did more for me... I'll include John Carradine with them!

Having Wayne, Carradine, and Devine together reminded me of a stronger favorite, "Stagecoach."