MovieChat Forums > The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972) Discussion > Pro or anti-capital punishment?

Pro or anti-capital punishment?

posted 14 years ago by IceboxMovies
6 replies | jump to latest

In his autobiography, Huston dismisses charges delivered by a "famous critic" (whom he refuses to name) that this film endorses capital punishment--but I highly doubt John Milius would be in agreement. It's strange how this movie was basically a collaboration between one of Hollywood's most progressive filmmakers (Huston) as well as one of its most right-wing (Milius), which makes it a very interesting case.

I'm having a hard time making up my mind on the movie, though. I kind of found Judge Roy Bean to be a deplorable, ruthless figure and couldn't tell if the movie was endorsing his actions or not. The finale consists of Bean and his burnt-out gang taking back the town and supposedly killing the lawyer Gass (you never find out if he lives or dies), which bothered me. If you ask me, Gass was a much better leader of the town than Bean was: he got rid of the gross public hangings, gave civil rights to the women and helped the town prosper in business and economy. True, he hired gangs to carry out his orders so obviously he wasn't without corruption himself, but at least he's the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have a corrupt democratic leader than a reactionary, totalitarian one.

No doubt John Milius would laugh off these criticisms of mine (he once said that he "hates liberals and people who are civilized"), but I can't help it: I have a problem with the notion of rooting for a judge who is lynch-happy and rips out pages from a law book (that's another thing that makes him worse than Gass: he illegally takes away land that Gass is lawfully entitled to). But I can't tell if this movie is making out Bean to be a hero, or if it's supposed to be a case study of human corruption, as other Huston films like The Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Wise Blood are.

What do you think?

"What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter."

[–] heyuactor 14 years ago

I think what you wrote makes sense.

"Did you make coffee...? Make it!"--Cheyenne.

[–] bob-717 12 years ago

I think one sign of a good movie about a political issue is that it's not entirely either way. Apocalypse Now< & Wall Street are anti-war and anti-greed, respectively, but it's great that they show the other side of the argument too, so much so that pro-war or pro-greed people love to quote them.

If you make a film where it's really easy at every moment to tell what side it's on, it's not going to represent reality, because no political formula always adds up to the right outcome in the real world.

A recent example that occurs to me is how The Lorax (or, going back, Princess Mononoke) are pro-environment and anti-development, but they both capture the excitement & liberating feelings development can provide, unlike a more one-note film like Pocahontas.

[–] maneatingbear 11 years ago

My two cents, is that I think you were right on it being about a study of human corruption which could extend to pretty much every John Huston film. However, I disagree that Gass is the better of the two men and didn't see it that he was supposed to represent liberalism against Bean's conservative side (even if Milius did). I think they were both ruthless bastards but since Bean is a charming anti-hero type and Gass is more a scheming back-hander type, the film clearly favors Bean's up-front, iconoclast ways. Bean does not strike me a good man but is certainly an entertaining, even likeable figure. I think the film drives the point home that the men that Bean's gang hang are actually no better than their executioners. Think of the drunk who shoots Lilly picture and is then killed by the Bean gang, he certainly didn't have it coming and was probably a better human being than the gang, but you know that's the way the world works. What can you do but laugh?

[–] joe_538 8 years ago

Gass was a much better leader of the town than Bean was: he got rid of the gross public hangings, gave civil rights to the women and helped the town prosper in business and economy. True, he hired gangs to carry out his orders so obviously he wasn't without corruption himself, but at least he's the lesser of two evils.

We're never told that Gass ended the hangings in the territory, gross or otherwise. He didn't do anything for women's rights; he only used the deputies' wives to achieve his ends, and business improved and expanded significantly after Bean came and took charge.

It was more than likely that Gass sent the assassin to kill Bean but ended up killing the bear.

[–] Jes' Sayin' (5943) 5 years ago

couldn't tell if the movie was endorsing his actions or not

Don't think the film really took a position. Does it say anywhere that it had to?
Rather it's saying "these things happened and by the way, some aspects of it were inadvertently very funny".

As for the rest, you make up your own mind.

[–] liscarkat (16434) 4 years ago

It's a myth that Bean was a "hanging judge". In his entire career, he only sentenced two men to hang, and one of them escaped.