Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: moviePig 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: References: <1361009588.761017331.091225.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <539596988.761041353.928473.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <349679015.761070406.305781.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com> <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 wrote: >> On 2/12/2025 11:33 AM, anim8rfsk wrote: >>> super70s wrote: >>>> On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said: >>>> >>>>> moviePig wrote: >>>>>> On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote: >>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman 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.)