Commentary on the message of the movie ***SPOILERS***

The movie debuted a year after Nixon resignation due to the Watergate scandal and “Posse” takes advantage of the public’s loss of trust in politicians. Nightingale (Kirk Douglas) and his deputies are subtly juxtaposed with Strawhorn (Bruce Dern) and his losers. There’s no overt message, however, until the last 20 minutes. Speaking of which, the twist of the climax initially turned me off and filled me with disgust. But, after reflecting on it, I saw what the movie was trying to get across and respected it. It’s just that the way the message is conveyed is awkwardly implemented. It could’ve been done more smoothly.

Some critics mistake the film’s message as comparing a (supposedly) corrupt politician with a (supposedly) honest lawbreaker, but this is inaccurate. For one thing, “honest lawbreaker” is an oxymoron, particularly where Strawhorn (Dern) is concerned. Right out of the gate the movie plainly shows him to be a murderous thug and, while a smooth-talker, he’s never made out to be the good guy. He’s a scumbag criminal worthy of hanging, impure and simple. Nor is Nightingale (Douglas) shown to be wickedly corrupt. He’s a commanding marshal of the territory, which is a good thing; he has political aspirations and ties to the railroad, so what? Even when tempted by the blond hottie, Mrs. Ross (Beth Brickell), he charmingly turns her down on the grounds that it wouldn’t be advantageous to his political goals. Isn’t that what wisdom is — having the scruples to recognize and deny foolish, immoral or destructive desires/behaviors?

But Nightingale's deputies are a different story. The film’s called “Posse” for a reason.

I didn’t find the deputies’ sudden shift to the life of outlawry to be believable. True, they would each have $6000, which would've taken three years for them to make doing honest work, but it wasn’t like this was enough moolah to radically change their lives, not to mention they’d lose the prestige that came with being deputies; and the possibility of becoming marshals or sheriffs one day. No matter how you slice it this was an awkwardly implemented twist.

That said, there were signs that the ‘posse’ were already bad (with the exception of one deputy who refused to betray Nightingale and turn to crime). For instance, at least three of them are shown secretly bedding some babes from the town in a conveniently available boxcar. These nubile ladies were obviously attracted to the “bad boys,” which just so happen to be ‘upstanding deputies,’ members of the brave posse. What else is new?

So what’s the movie saying? The line between respectable profession and outlawry can be very thin. People can be in an honest occupation and be corrupt; they’re essentially just masquerading. It happens everywhere all the time. It brings to mind 1961's "One-Eyed Jacks" and the relationship of Rio (Brando) and Dad Longworth (Karl Malden); they used to be bank robbing partners, but the latter ironically decides to become a sheriff in California. So Rio says to Longworth: "You may be a one-eyed jack around here, but I've seen the other side of your face."

One critic lambasted the film for it's "tortuous confusion of good and evil." Actually, the movie just sheds light on the existence of evil in places where people naively pull the wool over the eyes not to see it. Look no further than HiLIARy.

What about Nightingale? Was he shady or just his men? I personally don’t think he was. He struck me as an ambitious marshal with political aspirations and he refused to even consider an illicit sexual liaison, as noted above (if it were Bill Clinton he woulda jumped on the occasion). Nevertheless, it’s not a good reflection on Nightingale's character that the majority of his men were corrupt, so maybe he was too, at least a little; and it would overtly manifest down the line in office.

Any movie that can spur such questions is a good one.


My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/