The Myth of Redemptive Violence (Part Two): The American Western

The Searchers John Wayne In Part One of this two-part series on redemptive violence in American Westerns, we considered how the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma significantly changed the ending from the 1957 film. In making the change, the movie embraced the myth of redemptive violence, a concept explained by writer Walter Wink in several books.

“The Myth of Redemptive Violence” appears in the media and popular culture to teach the lesson that violence provides redemption. In these scenes of redemptive violence, the audience feels a release and joy that the hero, often in an apparent beaten state, rises up in a flurry of violence to save himself or herself, save another, or save an entire town.

It is through the act of violence that the hero and society is redeemed and saved.

{Note: This post and the previous post discuss the ending of classic Western film and thus include spoilers.}

Classic Westerns: Shane, High Noon, & The Searchers

high noon Although redemptive violence seems more common in today’s action films like in the updated 3:10 to Yuma, it has been present throughout film history. Many classic Westerns perpetuate the myth of redemptive violence.

But the best of them add a layer of complexity and avoid the simple violence-as-redemption lesson. For example, the classic Shane (1953) fits Walter Wink’s pattern of redemptive violence with Shane beaten until he rises up to redeem himself through violence. But the movie adds something more.  Shane’s acts of violence do not bring him a happy life, it was not done out of his own vengeance, and it also may have brought about his sacrificial death.

Similar underlying complex themes are present at the end of High Noon (1952).  The movie at first glance ends with a typical redemptive violence shootout, where we are relieved that Gary Cooper killed the bad guys. But his redemption comes from his fulfilled duty more than the violence. Ultimately, he rejects the violence when he throws his badge on the ground at the end and rides off with his Quaker wife to be a farmer.

Similarly, Robert Altman’s beautiful McCabe and Mrs. Miller (1971) still offered a nod to redemptive violence with the killing of the bad guys.  Yet, it also showed us the hero’s tragic death and the consequences of violence.

The Searchers (1956) bucked the redemptive violence myth further. Although the film promises violence at the end, instead we get mercy.  The hero then is left with a troubled future because of his violent past.

In the scene below, we see Ethan Edwards, played by John Wayne, finally capturing his niece stolen by the Native Americans. Edwards is an angry violent man who hates the Indians so much he plans to kill his niece who was taken into their culture. But near the end of the film, his character finds redemption through a small nonviolent act.

Naked Spur (1953), starring Jimmy Stewart, features a similar ending.  Stewart’s Howard Kemp is angry and seeks revenge throughout the movie, only to break at the end to find himself in something besides violence.

Modern Westerns: Unforgiven, Appaloosa, Dances with Wolves

In this new century, movie makers often create movies that fail to grapple with the complexities of violence and instead offer violence as redemption. Even in the highly regarded “anti-Western” of Unforgiven, where many critics praised its realistic treatment of violence, the movie ends with acts of redemptive violence just like other Clint Eastwood Westerns. The movie promises more, but in the end it slips back into the pattern of redemptive violence as we enjoy watching Eastwood kill the wounded and unarmed Gene Hackman.

Similarly, Appaloosa (2008) offers us a complex vision of the West.  But it still settles on a final shootout so viewers are satisfied that the bad guy is killed.

Dances with Wolves (1990) attempted to get out of the cycle of redemptive violence. It does have flashes of it though, such as where the white men – whose evil is shown by the fact they kill Kevin Costner’s horse and the wolf – are killed in a battle at a river. Had the movie ended there, it would have been a redemptive violence lesson:  Good guys kill bad guys.

But the film continues and the ending is something different.

After the bad white men are killed, Kevin Costner’s character remains troubled by what the future might bring.  And the movie ends with him and Stands With a Fist, in effect, sacrificing their lives living with the tribe to leave on their own to protect the tribe. Thus, the movie ends with an act of sacrifice rather than an act of redemptive violence.

The ending of Dances With Wolves, though, is somewhat unsatisfying. Perhaps it is because the movie led us to believe that it would provide us with redemptive violence due to its previous acts of violence. But at the end there is no big act of violence to put an end to the bad guys and make the good guys heroes. Maybe because the good guys of the movie are the Native Americans, and we all know they do not win, the movie could not end differently. Costner and the tribe never get their redemptive violence because the Native Americans of history never did.

Conclusion

The themes of Shane, High Noon and The Searchers — with their ambiguities and troubled heroes – almost seem too complex in comparison with the modern version of 3:10 to Yuma. The modern movie says, “the bad guy is now good because he killed the bad guys.” But in these older movies, it was not enough to vanquish the bad guys.  There was something troubling that lingered even after the final acts of violence.

Of course, not all old Westerns were as complex as The Searchers, so maybe it is unfair to make a comparison across time to a few classics. Still, watch for redemptive violence messages in any modern action film you watch.

Because so many films teach us that redemptive violence solves problems, we must consider what our entertainment teaches us.  And we must consider how that entertainment may reflect our society today.

What do you think about the use of violence in film? Leave your two cents in the comments.

Buy from Amazon

  • The Myth of Redemptive Violence: 3:10 to Yuma (Part One)
  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • Gary Cooper’s Three Oscars
  • The Unsatisfying Ending of Scorsese’s “Silence” That Is Still Perfect
  • Ira Hayes Won’t Answer Anymore
  • New “Man of Steel” Trailer
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    J. Edgar (Short Review)

    j. edgar
    J. Edgar Hoover’s long career in the FBI spanned a number of significant historical events, and the new film about the man, J. Edgar (2011), captures some of the scope of that history while trying to understand a very complicated person. In the film, we see terrorist activity from the early twentieth century through the gangster era into the Depression through the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the Civil Rights movement through Kennedy’s assassination, until finally Hoover’s paranoia is passed onto the incoming president Richard M. Nixon. It is a big span for a movie, but Director Clint Eastwood never loses sight of its goal of telling the story of the main character.

    When I first heard Leonardo DiCaprio was going to play Hoover, my initial reaction was to think he was miscast. While some critics may still believe that (and also criticize the makeup on the aging characters), DiCaprio does a surprisingly excellent job filling the shoes of the larger-than-life Hoover. DiCaprio is one of the few actors who could convincingly play Hoover at a young age and at old age.

    Judi Dench plays Hoover’s domineering mother, and Naomi Watts plays Hoover’s long-time secretary. But much of the movie focuses on the relationship between Hoover and his longtime assistant, Clyde Tolson, played well by Armie Hammer. Many speculate that Hoover and Tolson had a romantic relationship, and the film focuses on Hoover as a repressed man. Whether or not they had a physical relationship, their close bond, among Hoover’s other repressions, is one of the devices used to try to understand Hoover’s secretive nature and interest in the sexual lives of others.

    While not perfect, the movie was fascinating, thoughtful, entertaining, and informative. Although the movie jumps back and forth through time, Eastwood was masterful in doing it in a way that never seemed confusing. But while I was never bored, watching the film is not necessarily a pleasurable experience. If there is a weakness in J. Edgar, it is that you have to spend two plus hours with someone who is not very likeable. Even when Hoover was doing some things that benefited the country and busting criminals, he seems less like a hero and more like a troubled person who happened to do some heroic things as a side effect.

    Conclusion? J. Edgar is a very entertaining film that is epic in scope but personal in focus. If you do not mind spending time in the company of an unlikeable character as long as the character is interesting, and if you are curious about American history, you will like this movie.

    Check out some other reviews because why should you listen to me? The Rotten Tomatoes website currently indicates a low critic rating of 40% with a higher audience approval of 66%. Mike Giuliano of ExploreHoward.com calls the movie “a worthwhile character study that’s able to transcend its various flaws.” On Flick Filosopher, Maryann Johanson, by contrast, concludes that the film “is too staid and static, and too unfocused, to make us feel much of anything at all.”

  • The Missing Marine From the Iwo Jima Flag Photo
  • Bryan Cranston As LBJ in “All the Way” (Short Review)
  • Why Did God Make Oklahoma?
  • Don’t Miss “Philomena” (Short Review)
  • Bob Dylan Believes in Detroit in Super Bowl Commercial
  • Ira Hayes Won’t Answer Anymore
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    Troy Davis & Clint Eastwood’s True Crime

    Georgia executed Troy Davis tonight, as his supporters claimed he was innocent of the murder for which he was executed. Davis was convicted of shooting and killing a young police officer who intervened in an altercation involving a homeless man and one of Davis’s friends. In the years since the 1989 crime, several witnesses who testified at trial have recanted their identification of Davis, and other witnesses have come forward to claim that someone else did the shooting. People from around the world fought to prevent the execution because of the questions about Davis’s guilt. Yesterday, the Georgia pardons board denied clemency, but through today, Davis’s attorneys were requesting the opportunity to have Davis take a lie detector test.

    Clint Eastwood True Crime

    With the discovery of a number of innocent people on death row in recent years, there have also been questions about the guilt of some people who were executed. A number of media sources, including The New Yorker, raised questions about whether Texas executed an innocent man when it executed Cameron Todd Willingham. That case was based on questionable scientific evidence and has been prominent in the news because the governor who oversaw the execution, Rick Perry, is now running for president. At one point there was a commission that was reviewing the case, but the governor’s office instituted changes that limited the inquiry into the case.

    A number of movies focus on the death penalty and executions, perhaps because the time leading up to an execution permits a large amount of drama on the screen. One movie that focused on questions about the innocence of a death row inmate is True Crime (1999). That movie, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood, focused on a journalist covering an upcoming execution who eventually comes to believe the condemned is innocent. The movie did not do well commercially or critically, but it has some good moments.

    {Contains spoilers, so stop reading here if you do not want to know about the ending of True Crime!}

    Most of the movie is fairly traditional, so I understand why most critics and viewers did not get too excited about the movie. But if True Crime happens to be on television and it is near the end, I will watch it every time. The coda to the film, like the coda of the Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and unlike the coda of Wyatt Earp (1994) (discussed previously), is quite beautiful and exceeds everything else in the film.

    The movie follows its somewhat predictable route of having newspaper writer Clint Eastwood racing to try to stop the execution with the newly discovered evidence of innocence. The camera flashes between Eastwood and the execution as it begins. We see the lethal injection begin, and then the phone rings. The warden rushes to stop the execution but the injection has already started. The condemned is unconscious when they pull out the needle. But is he dead or alive?

    Most movies would let us know right then what happened, with a tragic ending or a feel-good rescue. Instead, the beautiful coda to the film then begins. It is Christmas, and we see the grumpy Eastwood doing some Christmas shopping, exchanging some conversation with the sales person, where we learn that good things have happened to the character’s career. As Eastwood leaves the store, he looks across the way and sees the formerly condemned man, alive with his family. The two acknowledge each other across the way without words, showing respect for each other, and then go on with their lives. Diana Krall sings the haunting “Why Should I Care” and the movie ends. Below is the song’s video, which includes scenes from True Crime.

    Unlike most films, and even the rest of True Crime, the coda is so subtle and unusual that it grabs your attention. Like the jazz song that plays, it conveys something complex, revealing more than words. I wish more movies had at least a few minutes of such intelligence.

    A clip of the ending used to be on YouTube but it is no longer available, so below is the trailer for the film. Overall, although the movie is not great, it is a decent movie and worth renting at least just to watch the full ending.

    But sometimes life does not come out like in the movies, as Tim Robbins’s character discovered while trying to make a death penalty movie in The Player (1992). Tonight, for Troy Davis, there was no Clint Eastwood rescue.

    What do you think about Eastwood’s True Crime? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • Chronicling the Struggle for Justice in “True Justice: Bryan Stevenson’s Fight for Equality”
  • “Nebraska” and the Death Penalty
  • Dylan’s “Julius & Ethel”
  • The Journey of “Hang Me, Oh Hang Me” From the Scaffold to the Screen
  • The End of Maryland’s Death Penalty and “Green, Green Grass of Home”
  • One for Ten: Traveling Online Film Series on Capital Punishment
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)