3:10 to Yuma
I've loved Westerns since I was a toddler, so I'm always up for a new one. The iconography of the Western--the long duster coats, the image of a group of horsemen riding into town, the sparse yet elegant dialogue, the windmill slowing creaking, all get my movie juices flowing. So I was looking forward to 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of the 1950s film (which I have never seen) based on a short story by Elmore Leonard (which I have never read). Sorry to say, I was disappointed with the result.3:10 to Yuma ploughs familiar Western ground. A rancher, played by Christian Bale, has hit hard times because the local bigwig wants his land for the railroad. He lost his leg in the Civil War, and his oldest son thinks he's a coward for not standing up to the thugs who are trying to force him out. He and his boys witness a stage robbery by the gang of notorious outlaw Ben Wade, played by Russell Crowe. Wade, due to a weakness for female green eyes, is captured, and Bale offers to assist Pinkerton agents escorting him to a nearby town, where they will put him on the titular train to prison and then the gallows. Of course Wade's gang, led by flamboyant hothead Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) will try to rescue him.
It's a nice simple plot that owes something to High Noon, Once Upon a Time in the West, and Shane, but is never as interesting as those pictures. We are led to believe that Crowe comes to admire the decency in Bale, but I didn't buy it for a second. There are also scenes that are directed by James Mangold as if he were blind, full of a confusing series of closeups. I don't know if I've ever seen such mangled shootouts in a Western before. I also can't remember a Western where the landscape plays such an insignificant role. Along the way we get reminders that we're in the West, such as an ambush by Apaches and a visit to a railroad camp, complete with Chinese workers, but this just seems like tacked on verisimilitude.
I did like the acting. Crowe is effective as a philosopher-bandit, almost making this character seem believable, and Bale is very good as the rancher. Ben Foster is dynamite as the sociopathic baddie, but I'm not sure it was necessary to insert a line that casts aspersions on his sexuality. I also enjoyed Peter Fonda as a grizzled old bounty hunter. But some of the characters in this film do things that are beyond the pale. There's a scene toward the end of the film when Wade's gang rides into town while Bale has Crowe in a hotel room. Bale has a clear shot at Prince, but for some reason doesn't shoot him. I mentioned this to the manager of theater when I walked out--"Why didn't he shoot him?" and the answer, quite correct, was, "Then they don't have an end for the movie." The ending is wildly unbelievable, and I won't spoil it here, suffice it to say Crowe does something that goes against the grain of everything he's done for the entire movie. I was tempted to boo the screen.
I think I've seen all of James Mangold's films: Heavy, Copland, Girl, Interrupted, Identity and Walk the Line. I've liked them all, though found none of them great. He seems to be a kind of workmanlike director, not really an auteur, flitting from genre to genre. I hope he doesn't do another Western, though.
What line cast an aspersion on Ben Foster's sexuality? I don't remember that...
ReplyDeleteI was also telling my wife that Bale should have shot them all from the window while they were milling around downstairs. My guess is that it's what makes Ben different from Dan. Dan would shoot them if they were shooting at him but he is still "cowardly" I guess in that he won't stir the pot from upstairs....
When Foster asks Peter Fonda if he's ever heard of him, Fonda replies something to the effect, I've hard of Charlie Princess. I've read in articles that the character is supposed to be gay, and this has some gay groups up in arms.
ReplyDeleteAs for that scene, Bale didn't have to shoot them. The Pinkerton agent and the town marshall was also in there. They knew the gang members had been in on the robbery. I would have started blasting.
That should "I've heard of Charlie Princess."
ReplyDeleteAh. See, I don't take that as a gay innuendo. It's just something immature guys say to rile up other immature guys. I've definitely done it...usually in sports if someone does something "unmanly" or leaves a putt short or can't throw something far enough. I'm not justifying it, but it's something guys have always done.
ReplyDeleteNow, Charlie may have been intended to be that way. I know Wells had a big bruhaha over the posters and even Ebert thinks Charlie is completely in love with Ben Wade, but it didn't come across that way to me. There was not enough in the film to give him a genuine swing one way or the other for me.
And about the ending...I think there was enough in the film to justify what he did, though it was certainly the beginning of a change and we didn't get to see the full outcome. Though I would have much preferred it if young William shot Charlie to pieces...but it's nice to have one character who hasn't killed anyone.
You know, I would have been a lot better with the ending (SPOILER ALERT) if Wade had not jumped on the train. Realizing your gang is a bunch of sleazeballs and obliterating them is one thing, but then committing suicide by getting on the train is another. I could haved lived with an ending in which Wade rides off into the sunset. Maybe he tells the kid they might see each other again some day.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right about Charlie, but I have a feeling he was supposed to light in the loafers. Yes, he appears to be in love with Ben, and the light-blue jacket may be another tip-off. But given what he see, nothing can be proved either way.
continuing the SPOILER ALERT...
ReplyDeleteI think jumping on the train was the only way he could ensure that the Southern Pacific guy gave Evans' family the money. Also Wade let it out that he'd been to Yuma and escaped twice before so the whole thing was no big trip for him anyway. He only needed his horse which is why he was always so protective of it (him/her) and whistled at the end.
My guess is that since he knows how to escape he just needs his quick getaway. Also, he re-entered the train handcuff-less and I would assume he could break out of the train at the next stop (if there is one) with his horse right there.
I really think he was keeping up appearances to make sure Dan got the $1000
That's an interesting take. I thought it was intended to be a noble sacrifice kind of thing, like Sidney Carton in a Tale of Two Cities; "Tis a far, far better thing I do now, that I have ever done before," etc. But you make a good case.
ReplyDeleteI saw it the same way Olaf did. If he hadn't whistled for the horse, I would have wondered more. But it was obvious he was not planning to have his horse live outside the Yuma prison forever.
ReplyDeleteI liked the film. I bought Wade's motives more, perhaps because I saw his speech to Dan's son about the fact he has no good in him as a sign he had a bit of good in him. He seemed to be trying to point the son back toward his father.
And for Foster-was there ever a face better suited for a western? Look up "varmint" in the dictionary, and there's his photo. I half expected him to say "dagnabbit."
Didn't read any more into the princess remark-I just saw it as a grizzeled guy tryin' to piss someone off.