Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Don't come back, Shane
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 12:23:20 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <vol9qa$306pl$1@dont-email.me>
References: <1361009588.761017331.091225.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <voh5rj$22b2g$1@dont-email.me>
 <539596988.761041353.928473.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <vohsso$29lji$1@dont-email.me>
 <349679015.761070406.305781.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
 <voil9h$2dp8e$1@dont-email.me>
 <345442940.761110212.616845.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2025 18:23:22 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="df7279077ff9e4bb596b1d48b59a0b19";
	logging-data="3152693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18T7SbvFEcwmnee4Hlj/An1EWOkyARmBJI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WjoN2p7WJvkktJnnXEwjDI5fz7U=
In-Reply-To: <345442940.761110212.616845.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 7603

On 2/13/2025 1:31 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 2/12/2025 11:33 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
>>>>
>>>>> moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
>>>>>>>> literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
>>>>>>>> "perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
>>>>>>>> Distance Runner.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
>>>>>>>> audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
>>>>>>>> the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
>>>>>>>> good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's just structure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
>>>>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
>>>>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
>>>>>>>> Ladd's career.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
>>>>>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
>>>>>>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
>>>>>>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
>>>>>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
>>>>>>>> predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
>>>>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
>>>>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
>>>>>>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
>>>>>>>> height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
>>>>>>>> disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
>>>>>>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
>>>>>>>> (Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying.
>>>>>>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
>>>>>>>> it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
>>>>>>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
>>>>>>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
>>>>>>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
>>>>>>>> him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
>>>>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
>>>>>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
>>>>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero
>>>>>>>> worshipping him.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
>>>>>>>> the kid.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
>>>>>>>> both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
>>>>>>>> stood the test of time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
>>>>> would have understood that.
>>>>>
>>>>> It had to be pointed out to me as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
>>>>> any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a
>>>>> corpse on its back.
>>>>
>>>> Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone
>>>> have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well
>>>> with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
>>>>
>>>> Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they
>>>> had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
>>>>
>>>> I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
>>>> whenever I cycle around to him.
>>>>
>>> I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five
>>> years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in
>>> college 50 years ago.
>>
>> Is there definitive authority on the matter?  On the 'dead' side, there
>> seems little dramatic reason for his wound (and for us seeing it) than
>> to presage his demise.  On the 'not dead' side, the idea of a kid
>> yelling to a propped-up corpse is a bit Grand Guignol for '53 Hollywood.
>>
> 
> I can’t find definitive authority. It seems to be split equally between
> he’s dead, he’s not dead yet, but soon will be and he’s peachy keen, but
> there are metaphors for his way of life dying.
> 
> Ian’s Wikipedia article doesn’t mention it at all but then it doesn’t even
> get right what the final scene is.

 From some poking around, my guess is 'not dead' ...based on such 
inconclusive clues as the kid's last lines:

        Shane. Shane! Come back! Bye, Shane.

That last "Bye Shane" drifts into grisly humor if spoken to a corpse. 
(Also, Shane apparently doesn't die in the book ...though I'd have to 
acknowledge that Stevens may have meant to increase that possibility.)