MovieChat Forums > The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) Discussion > A decidedly political movie, as well as ...

A decidedly political movie, as well as decidedly creaky

posted 5 years ago by Wuchak (8184)
30 replies | jump to latest

If you can get past the B&W photography and the creakiness (it feels like a stagey movie from the 30s), the story is meaty with mindfood:

At its core it's a tale of fascism vs. democracy: the oppression of the strong thug over peaceable honest folk. They all despise Liberty Valance (Marvin), but they're curiously impotent against him and his gang, which actually doesn't reflect the real Old West where, generally speaking, regular citizens were tough, courageous people. A good example is the James-Younger gang, who were shot to ribbons in Northfield, Minnesota, when the townspeople got word that their bank was being robbed. Same thing happened to the Dalton Gang in Coffeyville Kansas. Both of these outlaw gangs were far larger than the 3 gunmen of "Liberty Vanlance." In any case, Doniphon (Wayne) could challenge Valance and does to some degree, but since Stoddard (Stewart) is his rival concerning Hallie's affections it would be counterproductive to go overboard in assisting the man.

This is a decidedly political movie as it focuses on the founding of towns, illustrating the myriad operations of government: The important parts a free press and community assemblies play, the deliberations concerning possible statehood and the powerful role of education in civilizing a settlement & purging the lawless breed.

[–] Destinata (2655) 5 years ago

Black and white photography! Before you grab your smelling salts, remember that most of the movies critics consider the all-time greats are in black and white. And the style of acting is different, but it's not truly stagey. Watch James Cagney being George M. Cohan for stagey-ness. There is nothing in this movie that comes close to that.

I'm a fan of Mark Twain who was a reporter for the Territorial Enterprise in Virginia City, Nevada. In his book, "Roughing It," he speaks of desperados, one in particular named Slade that everyone in the territory was afraid of. The legend of the ruthless desperado was grounded in fact, in not just one man but many, who could keep the citizens of a whole town treed. The only thing that seems strange is that [spoiler]it took Doniphan that long to kill him.[/spoiler]

I agree with your points on the civics lesson the movie gives, but the real point of the film is in that line: "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Folks, watch this movie. It's a classic.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 5 years ago

I appreciate your insights, but I initially viewed the movie in 1994 -- expecting a great film from all the hype -- and it does have some quality mindfood, as noted, but it struck me as decidedly stagey and this hindered me from seeing the good in it; as far as I can tell, it was even shot on a stage. Compared to contemporaneous Westerns like "One-Eyed Jacks," "Ride the High Country" and "The Comancheros," "Liberty Valance" is positively old-fashioned.

For modern viewers to enjoy the movie they're going to have to be braced for these negatives, which obviously aren't negatives to people who favor B&W and the all-around creaky tone.

As far as that famous line goes, yes, it's a good one and I use it from time to time.

[–] Destinata (2655) 5 years ago

A lot of movies were shot on a sound stage -- and still are. But there were a number of outdoor scenes. It's been a while since you've seen it, I think. You keep calling it "creaky," but understand that's merely your opinion.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 5 years ago

A lot of movies were shot primarily on sound stages, but not the contemporaneous Westerns I listed or, say, Anthony Mann Westerns of the 50s. This was a point against the film from the get-go, along with the B&W photography, unless of course one favors stage productions and B&W.

I last saw "Liberty Valance" in 2016 wherein I was braced for its old-fashioned tone because, like I said, I first viewed it 22 years earlier. As such, I was able to glean its positives as cited above.

You keep calling it "creaky," but understand that's merely your opinion.

I'm going by how the movie sincerely struck me on my initial viewing. I'm not being mean, just honest. If the film's old-fashioned style took me aback in 1994, how much more so today? So my words might help potential viewers brace for its stagey B&W tone and appreciate the good it has to offer, like on my most recent viewing.

Being balanced and honestly pointing out a movie's positives/negatives is a part of responsible reviewing/journaling.

[–] VictorVictoria (40) 5 years ago

Right on...nothing's too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance.

[–] Destinata (2655) 5 years ago

[spoiler]And at that moment, my blood sort of ran cold as I wondered how many other misapprehensions there are that we, as a society have taken to be fact; how many men we're cheering when we should really be cheering others.[/spoiler]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

History, both on the large scale and on a personal level, is full of holes that'll never be filled.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

And yet the unfilled holes are somehow better than the holes filled with lies ;)

[–] degree7 (821) 4 years ago

My mother saw this when it was on television in the mid 60s, and she said even then it looked old fashioned.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 4 years ago

Maybe it was intentional.

[–] TheArgentinian (6483) 4 years ago

"(it feels like a stagey movie from the 30s)"

I was surprised it came out in the 60s. It reminded me of Shane (1953). It looks like it was shot on a backlot and not on location like John Ford loved to do. Great film, though.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

*sigh* What the hell is wrong with b&w photography?

[–] Wuchak (8184) 3 years ago

It works in some cases but, compared to living color, it makes for a flat viewing experience. Color, by contrast, makes a movie come ALIVE. Imagine watching "Apocalypse Now" in friggin' B&W.

[–] liscarkat (16652) 2 years ago

As soon as anyone says they don't like black-and-white, I know they have no credibility when it comes to movies. There's no reason to listen to what they have to say.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 2 years ago

Like I said, B&W works in some cases. However, if filmmakers have the choice between making their movies in B&W or color, it's obvious that they should choose color, with few exceptions. Why? Because B&W offers a 'flat' viewing experience whereas color makes everything come 'alive' for the viewer. It's not rocket science.

Yet I leave room for preference. Some people might curiously prefer B&W and that's wonderful. More power to 'em. Most people, however, understandably favor color, including me. I'm a fan of plenty of B&W flicks, like "Day of the Outlaw" (1959), but I'd rather see most of 'em in color if given the choice.

If that discredits me in your eyes then, by all means, ignore my posts.

[–] vilafire (609) 3 years ago

Couldn’t disagree more. Color film would ruin the movie. B&W helps suspend disbelief, which I believe is what Ford himself said.

I agree about the sound stages though. I think it was a studio cost-cutting measure. I always wince when they look bad in otherwise good movies (calling Mr Hitchcock) but they weren’t too bad in this.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 3 years ago

With rare exceptions, color is always preferable to flat B&W, especially for a flick from 1962 when the days of B&W major releases had been over for a dozen years. But to each his/her own.

[–] BillySlater (4110) 3 years ago

I think the colour v B&W really depends on the genre. For example, I feel like neo-noir films generally don´t work as well in colour as their predecessors. Same with the mystery genre. The old B&W Hitchcock movies have more mystique about them than his colour films.
As far as westerns go, I prefer them in colour although, I am not that pedantic since there have been some great B&W westerns like Treasure of the Sierra Madre and The Ox-bow incident.
The problem with this movie is that its just not very good imo, even though it is highly rated by critics.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 3 years ago

I almost noted film noir as an example of those "rare exceptions." It explains why the color in neo-noir flicks like "Payback" is so muted. I didn't mention it though because I prefer color even in noir. For me, color makes everything come alive. But B&W works artistically in, say, "The Wizard of Oz" for obvious reasons.

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

Nah, movies like ‘In Cold Blood,’ ‘Repulsion,’ ‘Doctor Strangelove,’ ‘Paper Moon,’ ‘To Kill a Mockingbird,’ ‘Persona,’ Schindler’s List,’ ‘Night of the Living Dead’ are post-1962 and would look terrible in colour. B&W adds gravitas and depth to the imagery.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 3 years ago

"Would look terrible in colour" is a matter of opinion. I say it would make them better, at least most of 'em.

[–] degray9 (1126) 3 years ago

Care to elaborate? Many of these movies have gothic overtones which the lack of colour accentuates. Night of the Living Dead, for example, is arguably creepier in b&w compared to its colourized version.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 3 years ago

I can live with B&W and enjoy it if the film's good, but I almost always prefer color. Take for instance reading a comic, aka graphic novel: I've never read a B&W one that would've been more enjoyable in color because color makes the pages come alive. It's the same with motion pictures. Now I realize that color wasn't the norm pre-1950 and it was much cheaper to shoot in B&W, so I give all pre-1950 movies a pass. Since that time, though, there's really no excuse for a major release to be in B&W -- especially post-1960 (which gives a generous ten-year leeway) -- unless there's some artistic reason for doing so, e.g. "Schindler's List."

"Night of the Living Dead" is rightly hailed as a horror classic (my wife & I visited that cemetery seen in the opening a few years ago). It works in B&W and I relish it as is but, I gotta admit, I'd still prefer to see it in color. But that's just me. I respect cinephiles who sometimes prefer B&W for one reason or another.

[–] Befus (494) 3 years ago

That is entirely your opinion. I and many many more people happen to like B&W movies.

[–] Wuchak (8184) 3 years ago

Yes, that's why I closed the post with "But to each his/her own."

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

John Ford was criticized on set while he was making the movie for the soundstage-bound rather cheap look of the movie and its main sets.

He replied "if they don't like it, we'll give them their nickel back."

The sets didn't matter. The story did. It was great.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] KutWrite (1220) 4 months ago

For me, the political propaganda is especially hollow in 2023, when "our" government is much bolder in showing the boss is not "We the People," or as they said in that Star Trek episode "E Pleb Nista."

[–] Wuchak (8184) 4 months ago

The OBiden regime is the greatest administration in the history of the USA!

Anyone who disagrees is an alt-right bigot (and no doubt a racist, homophobic, transphobic misogynist as well)!!!

[–] KutWrite (1220) 4 months ago

Haha! Thanks for that.