Shane

A gunslinger, a farmer, a wife, a little boy, a dog, and some dastardly villains....

I first saw "Shane" from the back seat of a '51 Ford, at a drive-in theater somewhere in Montana. The movie was new, and I was about 4 years old. From that time, I remember quiet male voices and the ring of spurs. Those sounds have lived in my mind for decades.

"Shane" is a classic -- no, not a bang-bang shoot-em-up B Western, but it is a solid Western that gives fans of the genre some something to think about besides "they went thataway." The scenery (Jackson Hole, Wyoming) is grand and was even moreso on the big screen. When well known Western novelist A.B. Guthrie wrote the screenplay, he kept fairly faithful to Jack Schaefer's novel. The movie makes a reasonable attempt, for that time, to look authentic in costume and gear, and gives fans of the movies of the '40s and '50s some interesting cinematic moments (see the small things, like how the camera was used to make Alan Ladd seem more "heroic").

I'd probably recast some of the secondary roles, if I had the chance, but Ladd's soft-spoken, gentlemanly way is just right for Shane, and Jack Palance is subtly evil.

Yes, "Shane" contains a few clichés, but they weren't yet quite so cliché, in 1953. Besides, they were well done clichés, so, while you may recognize them, you probably won't mind them.

But, what's "Shane" about, exactly?...

Courage. Loyalty. Honor. Friendship.

It will leave you wishing you knew what happened next.

I first saw this in the early 90s. Revisited it recently on a DVD which i own. When you love a western, it's a film like Shane that you go back to time and time again. Everything has already been said about this great film n there seems to be little left to say but as a fan of western films, lemme contribute by praising how good this film is. The single greatest asset is the wonderful cinematography. The mountains, the lakes, the hills, farms n houses all looked straight outta poetry n painting. Loyal Griggs did an amazing work with the film's cinematography. The story is about a mysterious gunfighter (Alan Ladd) who helps a farming family against cattle barons wanting the farmers land. Jack Palance in a role of pure malevolence with his evil smirk n few dialogues. George Stevens' direction is truly stunning. He made a very touching film. This film has contributed a lot towards the western genre.

After watching the massively depressing LOGAN (2017) and noticing that the closing scene pays homage to Shane (same dialog used to mark Logan's grave) I felt the need to do an update review on Shane.

According to traditional Hollywood history, Shane is one of the 100 greatest films of all time, iconic, and even the dialog is multi-layered.

There is a scene in the short-lived TV series THE OTHERS (done by the same two men who created X-Files) where one of the lead characters, who is blind, regularly goes to the movies to watch SHANE, over and over. In many ways, that has to be one of the grandest back-handed compliments you can pay to a film.

I wish however to also suggest there is a great deal of hidden irony in what otherwise appears to be a straightforward western.

For example, Ladd hated guns and, according to film legend (Wikipedia) had to do over 100 takes in the iconic scene where he teaches the boy to draw. Similarly, Jack Palance hated horses and was only able to do one successful "mount" after many takes. Director Stevens had to use this same piece of film over and over, even to the point of running the strip backwards to make it look like Jack was dismounting.

Wait, it gets better. Director Stevens hated violence and wanted SHANE to be be an anti-violence film. However, the trope he invented for the gunfight, where the actors were violently pulled backwards by ropes as bullets struck, is considered by film historians to have "forever changed the face of film action" and led to an entirely new generation of gunfighting in films where the violence increased by a factor of 100X. Even the infamous Hong Kong action film directors consider they owe a debt to Stevens.

The final irony is that, in the opinion of this reviewer, the film does not stand for what the screenwriter intended. To this reviewer, Shane is a metaphor for the evolution of the United States itself, an arc more visible when this review is penned (in 2017) than in 1953. Although even in 1953, at the end of WW2, the US as a nation was having to face introspection, as a nation which had hitherto prided itself on isolationism suddenly felt compelled to become policeman to the entire world.

Still a great film. But also an ironic one.

Considered by most a masterpiece and by a few 'a waste of film', 1953's SHANE is a mini-epic that tells of the arrival of the mysterious stranger who comes to 'town' and impresses the innocent and threatens the guilty. A good versus evil western was never been more defined. Alan Ladd plays the stranger in an outfit that has been criticized since day-one. He wears a buckskin shirt ala Davy Crockett and if I heard it once, I heard it a thousand times, "that shirt ain't right"! Well, 'pards, I ask you, "Have you ever heard of "Buckskin Frank Leslie?" Just happens to be one of the baddest-ass real life western gunslingers who ever strapped on a gun-rig. Why they haven't made westerns about Leslie I will never know. Doc Holliday, known for reckless bravery, knew enough to stay out of Frank's way. And P.S. he was known for his 'patented' Buckskin Shirt. But I digress...

Shane was directed by George Stevens who admittedly directs with a strictness that borders on fascism. And yet he pulls it off with aplomb. Ladd's character is criticized as well, because he is played by Ladd himself, an actor that is an easy target for certain critics. There's the old joke about Ladd standing in a hole (outside of camera view) to match the heights of his leading ladies, or by standing on a ramp or box so their heights in close-ups would be matched for love scenes. Is this the 'stuff' of western heroes? Not hardly. So here we have "little Alan" taking on one of the most vicious actors that ever played 'Satan Incarnate', the incomparable Jack Palance! Jack's 'Lucifer' is a messenger from hell hired by the bad'uns to save them all from Ladd's goodness. Jack wakes up shortly after arriving in town to assassinate another little man, Elisha Cook Jr., in a scene which was completely and shamelessly ripped off by Eastwood in 'Pale Rider'. The death is completely believable and establishes Palance's character as unstoppable.

The characters in Shane are cut from a woodcarving, they glisten with familiar yet surprising motivations. Ben Johnson, the Sainted actor of westerns plays a very small part that almost steals the film. The bad guys in this film are a textbook rendition of meaness.

But some say that the action is subdued in Shane. But I say the build-up is worth the wait as the final climatic shoot-out has been described by many western film scholars as the best that was ever put to film.

Shane a waste of film? I think not.

One of my favorite movies of all time. Classic good virus evil. Friendship between a rancher and and a stranger. Love between a husband and wife and also between the wife and a stranger. Admiration between a boy and a stranger. This film developed characters as well as any film ever made. There is not one unnecessary scene in the entire movie. To simply say it's a classic or even it's the best western ever made doesn't do it justice. If you've never seen this gem, please watch it. Or if you're like me and have seen 50 times, watch it for the 51st.