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)

    James Arness: 1923-2011

    Gunsmoke James Arness James Arness passed away today at the age of 88. Arness was best known for his role as Marshal Matt Dillon on Gunsmoke from 1955-1975. I remember regularly watching the show as a kid, as well as his performance in the mini-series How the West Was Won (1978-1979). Those were the days when a man was a man and we did not have politicians lying about a mistress and sending crotch shots. Oh wait, there was Watergate, and maybe some other stuff. But Arness was the real deal. For his army service in World War II, he received the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, the World War II Victory Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

    Several websites have stories about Arness, including Entertainment Weekly’s explanation why Arness was the greatest TV lawman and E! Online’s list of 5 reasons Arness was a legend. He was so cool, he apparently had had not one but two “official” websites.

    Although the role of Matt Dillon was originally offered to John Wayne, Wayne recommended Arness. The Duke introduced the first episode in 1955 with high praise for his friend Arness.  In Wayne’s introduction, he predicts Arness will be a big star, “so you might as well get used to him.” That was pretty easy for us to do.

    What are your memories of James Arness and Gunsmoke? Leave a comment.

  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • True Grit ’10 vs. True Grit ’69
  • Bury Me Not on the Lone Prairie
  • “Westworld” is Coming to HBO
  • Moral Ambiguity and “Lawman” (Missed Movies)
  • 8 Reasons to Watch the Sterling Haden Western”Terror in a Texas Town”
  • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)

    True Grit ’10 vs. True Grit ’69

    True Grit 2010

    I first learned that there was going to be a remake of True Grit when I saw the preview for the new movie. My initial reaction was, “Why would anyone remake a classic John Wayne western?” As the preview rolled on, I noticed that Jeff Bridges was in the movie, and he is one of my favorite actors. Then, in the preview, there was Matt Damon playing the Glenn Campbell role, which looked good. Finally, at the end of the preview it said that the movie was created by the Coen Brothers. I was on board.

    True Grit 1969The movie lives up to expectations. The new True Grit (TG2010) is a faithful tribute to the John Wayne classic from 1969 (TG1969) as well as to the novel upon which both movies are based. The acting is excellent. Although the stars Bridges and Damon do a great job as always, the movie depends on the role of Mattie, played by 13-year-old Hailee Steinfeld. Steinfeld carries much of the movie on her shoulders well. The original role of 14-year-old Mattie was played by the 21-year-old Kim Darby, who did a good job but is not quite believable as a child for today’s viewers.

    Unfortunately, movies often portray the bad guys as brilliant pure evil characters. Such portrayals are unrealistic, as real-life criminals are generally less intelligent than movie portrayals, and instead of pure evil spirits, they are human beings (and often mentally disturbed as appears in the recent Arizona shootings of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others by Jared Lee Loughner). Although the villains in TG2010 have little screen time, the Coen brothers add some complexity to roles that others may have portrayed as caricatures. Here, the villains are played as characters with limited intelligence or with realistic conflicting qualities. Barry Pepper does an excellent job in the role originally portrayed by Robert DuVall. TG2010 is a little more violent than TG1969, but the Coen Brothers used violence in a realistic way without raising the violence to a level they have done in some of their other movies like No Country for Old Men and Fargo.

    The Coen Brothers also give some complexity to the three main heroes. Although I like the final scene from the original True Grit, the Coens ended the movie in a way that was both faithful to their vision and more faithful to the novel, both in changing the coda as well as changing the fates, to varying degrees, of the three main characters.

    Westerns, by their nature, are often elegiac in nature, and True Grit 2010 is no exception. The American Heritage Dictionary defines “elegiac” as “of, relating to, or involving elegy or mourning or expressing sorrow for that which is irrecoverably past.” The movie seems elegiac for both its portrayal of a western past and for its version of how we saw movies in the past.

    One of the haunting elements of the movie is its use of a limited musical score, often allowing us to hear the silence and the wind blowing on the plains. Throughout the movie, the ongoing musical theme is the spiritual “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms,” which also played a key part in the movie, Night of the Hunter (addressed in a previous post). The musical connection is appropriate, as True Grit and the Robert Mitchum movie both feature the fellowship of good people triumphing over outside threats. When True Grit ends and the credits role, we are given the song once again, this time with Iris DeMent providing the vocals. The words from a specially written song would not fit True Grit’s portrayal of the three-person fellowship better: “Oh, how sweet to walk in this pilgrim way,/Leaning on the everlasting arms.”

    Conclusion? True Grit 2010 is a worthwhile remake of a good movie, tweaking the original without obliterating the memory of the first movie. The character studies, the sparkling dialogue, the scenery, and the action make it an entertaining adventure. How does it compare to the 1969 movie? I missed John Wayne’s charm, but overall the 2010 movie has a more believable cast with some nice realistic story twists. Watch and enjoy both.

    Bonus “Listen to this Song Instead of Watching the Trailer Advice”(above):  Although I loved the preview for True Grit 2010, if you are going to see the movie, you do not need to see the trailer (or you may find it easily on YouTube). The trailer’s focus on retribution is misleading, and it shows a few good lines and scenes that are better left to your movie viewing, especially if you have never seen the 1969 movie. What might help you enjoy the movie is familiarity with the beautiful musical theme of the movie, so instead of the preview, above is Iris DeMent’s version of “Leaning on the Everlasting Arms.”

    Bonus Reviews (1/13/11 update): If you would like to read more about the plot, check out this review from Cinema Viewfinder, which reminded me that the Coens had echoed Night of the Hunter in Raising Arizona too (with the “Hate” and “Love” tattoos on the outlaw biker).  Here is another review that is much more critical of the original True Grit, but it has a nice discussion of Night of the Hunter, noting that the line, “The Dude abides” from The Big Lebowski was also inspired by the Robert Mitchum movie.

    What did you think of the movie? Leave a comment.

  • Top 10 Coen Brothers Movies
  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • The Dude Abides (Really)
  • James Arness: 1923-2011
  • 2011 Oscar Predictions Roundup
  • Oxford American Southern Music Issue
  • (Related Posts)

    Buy from Amazon