MovieChat Forums > Lawman (1971) Discussion > Burt was right

Burt was right

posted 13 years ago by 398
12 replies | jump to latest

Reading through the reviews of this film, from big-name critics as well as ordinary Joes, I noticed most criticize the character of Maddox as too rigid, a mere killer, etc, causing a great deal of harm by a too rigid adherence to the law. After all, the arguments go, the killing was accidental, these were good men, Sabbath was a peaceful town, etc. I can't agree with any of this.

1. They not only shot up a town, they set fire to buildings, destroyed property, and killed a man. Their claim is the killing was an accident, but is it an accident if you fire a gun into buildings with people all about. At best, that is not exactly an accident. Actually, because they were committing felonies (arson), under American law I think it was first-degree murder. But there is a second issue--declaring this an accident is simply pre-judging the case. How do you know one of these men didn't deliberately shoot the old man? That is what a trial decides.

2. All Burt Lancaster wanted to do was take them back to stand trial. After what they did, they all should have gone back.

3. One by one, these men tried to kill a law enforcement officer who was merely doing his duty, either by forcing a shootout (Salmi) or by outright drygulching (Waite and Duvall, the final shootout).

4. The rich rancher admits he is going to bribe public officials and corrupt the legal process, as he has done by buying the local sheriff.

5. The local sheriff does not do his duty, and is on the take to the rancher.

6. Maddox is a breath of fresh air in this putrid town, which is corrupt to the guts. My only real criticism of Maddox is that he buckled and went "bleeding heart" at the end. The guys who got killed at the climax would have gotten away with it if they had just been smart enough to let him ride off without trying to backshoot him.

7. And what about J D Cannon? Well, this is the best argument against Maddox, but he was fleeing arrest and had just taken part in and drawn a gun on Maddox in a shootout. As for the "backshooting" argument, there is a distinction between shooting a brave man in the back because you don't have the sand to face him and having to shoot a coward in the back because he turns his back and runs after trying to kill you.

[–] Cimmerian_Dragon 13 years ago

I agree on every count. Some commentators seem to be confusing the film's honesty with the grim and seldom clear-cut nature of Maddox's task, with an intention to denigrate said task. Just because the audience may not be able to stomach it all easily, does not mean the filmmakers were using trying to get a rise out of them in order to make a moralistic judgement.
----------------------------------------------------
If there were reason for these miseries,
Then into limits could I bind my woes.

[–] barister-252-786083 12 years ago

This film has all of these classic Western stars, from leads to stock character actors and yet they hired a cameraman who acts as if he just got a new super 8mm movie camera for Xmas. Every few minutes, the camera zooms all the way in or zooms all the way out!! After you notice this, you can't help but be completely distracted by it. Any comments?

[–] peter-buchmann-1 12 years ago

There are a few zooms during the pursuit in the Sierra to give an impression of the vast distance between the Lawman and Price/Adams.

There is another zoom in on a cactus blossom indicating possible romantic happy end.

Both zooms do not bother me.

[–] kiddglock 11 years ago

I'm not an expert on camera shots, etc. but IMO it's more a reflection of the era than a straight-up condemnation of the cameraman's skills. Lots of movies in the seventies seemed to be this way.

[–] peter-buchmann-1 12 years ago

The movie demonstrates the principle of equal law for everybody - no exceptions - no denial of responsibility.

The lawman harbors no personal grudges, and he has few illusions about the rotten justice system. He has seen all of his lawmen friends crippled or killed. His career path is blight. He longs for a farm and family. He is weary of the lonely killings, which are forced upon him. He only refuses to compromise his own integrity, because "without a rule, you are a nothing".

The citizens of Sabbath, Sheriff Ryan, but also rich Bronson and his henchmen - they all fall into the "nothing" category then. They all have a bad conscience. They all lash out against the lawman, denying that he is right. They all resent and envy the lawman, who reminds them of their menial existence.

The brothel owner declares the lawman's "point of view" to be "wrong". Later he explains how the townspeople dislike his "smell". Young cowboy Crowe serves as a character who is still undecided between integrity and corruption.

Many critics fall into line with the decent citizens of Sabbath or the sentiment of Bronson's henchmen. They reject their guilt. They distort the case - calling the lawman cruel and evil and brutal.

Sabbath and the Bronson ranch are today's America.

The movie is rejected for pretended reasons. Aesthetical reasons. Bad camera. Too much violence...

The real reason may be guilt.

[–] tabari 12 years ago

I agree with Peter.
Our society today, as a whole, does not see things as right or wrong. Relativism is the norm or shades of gray. Many do not believe in evil which I think is a very present force.
Burt's Lawman saw his job. Bring back the killers who killed an old man. He was realistic and even sent a message via the local sheriff that a bribe would probably get them all off.
But.....these were men with no honor or no code of honor. They would rather kill him. They didn't see them themselves as being in the wrong. they were the employees of a man with too much power and had reaped the whirlwind of his example.
I have to admit that his shooting D J Cannon's character, in the back, took me rather aback. I did not want to think it was jealousy because of his wife. I rather think he was just sickened by all the killing and for some reason he broke his own rule.....never shoot someone who had not shot at himself. However, Cannon's character had been with those who planned to kill him. He wiped the slate clean except for the fortunate one in the jail.

[–] chrisasiama 11 years ago

Burt had his flaws but he was actually quite fair initially. He accepted that the killers would probably get off lightly once their boss made a bribe. All he wanted to do was take them in and do his job. The killers didn't even seem to feel any remorse over the accidental death. That for me was the real crime, accidents happen and we can all make mistakes. To not feel any remorse or pity though for an accidental death is callous. Things would of been so much easier if the killers had just let themselves be taken in. Instead they make matters worse and try to kill the lawman.

Bronson tried to settle things in a more peaceful way but one of his men ruined that plan with a boneheaded move. He challenged the lawman to a draw and ensured the whole thing would end in more bloodshed. Even at the end of the movie Maddox still decides to leave the town and prevent further bloodshed. Unfortunately the local store owner had other ideas. It's like fate would not allow Maddox the opportunity to live a peaceful life. People kept trying to kill him even when he tried to walk away. Then at the end of the movie, resigned to his fate he realizes that there is no non-violent, peaceful way out.

Killing J.D Cannon's character broke Maddox's code of honor and was unexpected. By that stage maybe he was vengeful after one of the shopkeepers tried to shoot him in the back. Or maybe the F.A.Q explanation was right.

[–] TzRipper 9 years ago

They all had a choice: straight up or draped over the saddle.

Despite their protests of unfairness, they each reveal their true nature when they try to murder the lawman rather than face a trial. In short, they all got what they deserved.

The simple solution to the whole thing would have been a scapegoat. Each of the accused crew swears the body Lancaster brings to town in the beginning was the man who fired shots, and was responsible for the crime. They all plead guilty to drunk & disorderly charges, Lee j, Cobb pays fines and compensation, and everyone feels there was closure. But then there wouldn't be a movie, I suppose.

Regarding the zooms in the cinematography, I don't know why there is a thread within a thread here, but they were an attempt by less creative people to try to copy the great Leone's masterpieces.

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

the great Leone's masterpieces

Yeah, right. "Lawman" may be obscure, bit it's superior to all of those overrated Spag Westerns. The spectacular Southwest locations (Durango & points nearby), including a nice waterfall sequence, plus the superlative cast and heavy theme make “Lawman” an undeservedly ignored standout.

[–] milo44 8 years ago

If I had lived back in that time .. Lancaster would be the only man that I would have wanted as sheriff .. If he wasn't in my town .. I would move to where he was .

"A man that wouldn't cheat for a poke don't want one bad enough".

[–] Washingtonnative (2613) 5 years ago

That's right!

[–] Wuchak (8104) 4 years ago

This undeservedly obscure Western compels the viewer to choose sides. The days of the Wild West are over and civilization has arrived, which means there are legal consequences to radical unruly behavior that results in unintentional death. The townsfolk want the matter swept under the rug and everyone simply paid off by the rich baron. However, lucre isn’t what interests Maddox (Lancaster), but rather fulfilling his responsibility and ultimately justice.

I’m wholly on the side of Maddox for the simple reasoning: Those who play and wreak havoc have to pay regardless of the social status of their employer.

The "tragedy" was wholly unnecessary. All the cattlemen had to do was go back to the Maddox' town, face trial and pay the consequences, if any (since the judge would've likely been bought by the cattle baron). Problem solved. Instead they each foolishly chose to defy the law with murderous intent and they had to pay the price.