I posted this as a comment on the blog of some friends (wilsfordandyoung.blogspot.com), but here it is for all of my loyal readers.
I like complex westerns. For the most part, the post-Civil War American West has gained a well-deserved reputation as the quintessential setting for high contrast stories of good v. evil. The setting lacks external controls: The law is either non-existent, ineffective, or easily corrupted; the elements are harsh and unforgiving; there is nothing that a person can depend on outside of his own character. Hence, the John Wayne hero. All guts, pride, and self-reliance. The strong slient type. The icon of American will. Most traditional westerns play on this archtype, and most traditional westerns bore me. The over-simplified, unrealistic nature of the John Wayne cowboy presents little insight into the human experience. Sure, those characters are easy to admire and fun to see triumph over the villian du jour, but their stories have little to say about real life.Complex westerns, on the other hand, reject the simplistic deification of the western hero. Many modern Amwericans feel just as helpless and small in the face of the 21st century urban wilderness as John Wayne looked on the deserts of Arizona. We, though, are not able to solve our problems with an iron will and a six-shooter. That's why I like westerns with flawed characters, guys that are beaten down by the harsh elements, who are just looking for a way to survive, and who sometimes make bad decisions and lose. (Examples? The Wild Bunch, The Left-Handed Gun, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly, Unforgiven) 3:10 To Yuma falls somewhere in the middle. (Yes, I am going to actually address the movie, and it will contain SPOILERS.) I loved Bale's character. He's a classic "everyman" who can't shake his past and struggles to make ends meet in the present. There is no false bravado or glorification of his self-reliance. (Aren't we all unable to rely on ourselves?) I also liked Crowe's outlaw, in the sense that I believed him as a very bad person with some truly redeemable characteristics. When he tried to convince the son toward the end that he really was a terrible person, you could see him almost trying to convince himself as well.My favorite part of the movie, though, was the allegorical nature of Bale's rancher. He is abused, disrespected, and ignored throughout this film. He cannot care for his family, or protect his property. His son doesn't respect him. Yet, his life is full of examples of self-sacrifice. He lost his leg serving in the Civil War (in less-than-heroic circumstances), he forgoes personal needs to provide medecine for his younger son, he risks his life to earn the money to keep his family together. And in the end, he sacrifices his lfe to redeem the souls of both the outlaw and his own son.I have not seen the original version of this movie, but I gather that the rancher doesn't die at the end. I would also be surprised if his character is as run-down as Bale's is. Those touches elevate this version of the movie from a simple good v. bad morality tale, into a complex and gripping story of self-sacrificial love.
