Valerie

The western was generally a male-dominated genre, so it is unusual to come across one bearing the name of a female character for its title. Even a film like Nicholas Ray's "Johnny Guitar", which features two strong women played by Joan Crawford and Mercedes McCambridge, bears the name of one of the male characters. "Valerie", however, is not a typical western. Most westerns from the fifties tended to revolve around a few well-worn themes- Cavalry versus Indians, lawman versus outlaws, wagon train, range war over grazing rights, cattle drive, etc. This one is different. Indeed, it might be more accurate to describe it not as a western but rather as a courtroom thriller or domestic melodrama which just happens to be set in the Old West. Unlike most westerns, the story could, with only a few minor changes of detail, be transferred to virtually any other part of America- or, indeed, to many other countries- at virtually any other period in history. This perhaps explains why it was made in black-and-white; although colour was increasingly becoming the norm for traditional westerns in the late fifties, monochrome was still commonly used for psychological dramas.

As the film opens, a wealthy rancher named John Garth is tried for shooting his beautiful young Hungarian-born wife Valerie, critically wounding her, and murdering her parents. Most of the story is told in a series of flashbacks, using for a framework the testimony given in the courtroom by various characters. The two main witnesses are Garth himself and Valerie, who has by now recovered sufficiently to give her evidence from her hospital bed. As might be expected, the two give very different accounts of their marriage. His testimony is that she was a cold, unloving wife who was unfaithful to him with his own brother and with the local preacher, the Reverend Blake, that her parents constantly interfered in the marriage and that the shooting was either a crime of passion or self-defence. She testifies that he was a brutal, foul- tempered husband who wrongly and unreasonably accused her of adultery in an attempt to justify the violence he wreaked on her in his frequent rages.

The film has been compared to Kurosawa's influential "Rashomon", which also told its story from several different viewpoints, although as another reviewer points out, there is a difference. In Kurosawa's film the various conflicting viewpoints were all presented as equally valid, implying that truth is something subjective, whereas here truth is treated more objectively. One of the parties is telling the truth and the other is lying. Which of the accounts is true and which is false is revealed in the final denouement.

This made Valerie a difficult role to play, as the actress playing her needed, effectively, to play two quite different characters, both the innocent wronged wife which Valerie claims to be and the heartless, promiscuous seductress which is how her husband depicts her. The role therefore needed someone more accomplished than the Swedish sex symbol Anita Ekberg who always, or so it seemed to me, got by more on looks than on talent, at least in her English-language movies. (She was perhaps fortunate that the early part of her career came in the fifties, at a time when the film industry seemed particularly obsessed with voluptuous blondes- Monroe, Dors, Mansfield, Bardot, Van Doren, et al.) Here she is rather disappointing, failing to portray either of the two Valeries with any great conviction. Sterling Hayden, however, is more convincing as Garth, possibly because the difference between the two versions of Garth's character is not as great. Even on his own testimony Garth is an unhappy, tormented man, haunted by memories of the Civil War in which he was responsible for torturing Confederate prisoners in order to extract information from them. The Reverend Blake is played by Ekberg's real-life husband, Anthony Steele.

I had never heard of this film until I caught it when it was recently shown on television, and I note that mine is only the third review it has received, suggesting that it is not very well known. Yet despite the weakness of its leading actress, I feel that this is one of those westerns that deserves to be better known. Its German-born director Gerd Oswald handles his material well and the unusual subject-matter makes the film a welcome and refreshing change. 7/10

This film is a film noir Western. It opens with a murder and then unfolds as a courtroom drama with flashbacks. A marriage is described from three different perspectives. I thought Anita Eckberg and Sterling Hayden's performances were very good in rather unlikable roles. Miss Eckberg was effective in portraying her character from two opposite points of view. It was a movie featuring sadistic behavior and was unsettling to watch.

If not for Ernest Laszlo's competent photography, "Valerie" would be a complete fiasco, exploiting the points-of-view concept of "Rashomon" minus any humanistic insights. In the first scene, a Civil War veteran, 40-year-old rancher John Garth (Sterling Hayden), is arrested for shooting his 26-year-old wife Valerie (Anita Ekberg) and her parents. She survives; they don't.

The trial commences with testimony which is shown in flashbacks. We start with Garth's point of view, in which Valerie is a wine-swilling gold-digger who, once she finds out he is still paying off his father's debts, shuns him in favor of playing footsie with his brother Herb (Peter Walker) and seducing the local padre, Reverend Blake (Anthony Steel), whose child she is carrying when Garth shoots her.

Testifying from a bed in the infirmary, Valerie claims to be an innocent victim. Her parents, recent immigrants, persuaded her to marry Garth, who mistreated her, pouring liquor down her throat before taking her to bed, and striking her. In her distress, she sought only rapport with her brother-in-law and only counsel from the handsome Rev. Blake, who eventually rescued her and returned her to her parents' homestead, where Garth found and shot them.

Who's telling the truth? Who cares.

Lurid marketing focused on Ekberg's upper assets, including whorls of blond hair, and I was rather amazed none of the buttons popped off her taut blouses and bodices, which are typical of the total lack of subtlety in the entire melodrama. Ekberg plays her part and displays her parts well enough, but Sterling Hayden breaks his own personal record for stiff acting.

The whole debacle was cheaply filmed at the Iverson Ranch in California, the location of a raft of TV westerns from "The Lone Ranger" to solid fare like "Gunsmoke" and "Bonanza," any episode of which is better than "Valerie."

After the Civil War, Union Major John Garth (Sterling Hayden) marries immigrant Valerie Horvat (Anita Ekberg). Somehow it ends in murder. John is surprised that Valerie is still alive, barely. Most see that she got what she deserves. He goes to trial as different people testify.

I like the idea of the Rashomon structure although different witnesses describe different incidents. It can be a bit of a grind with the differing accounts. I do question a few things. I would think that her injuries would be very obvious and that the sheriff would figure it out before going to trial. He should have questioned the doctor who would know the situation. It was probably done to be absolutely clear to the audience of its time. As for the acting, Ekberg's shortcomings can be attributed to her injured character's limitations. I like this movie challenging a 50's audience although it may not be completely successful.

I've seen another movie entitled "Valerie" but it was a bit different from movie I saw last with same actors, and actress! The story was similar in that the husband thought his wife was cheating on him with his brother and with their church pastor. I remember events being different how Sterling Hayden told Valerie that he paid her parents for her hand, not they paid him. Her parents didn't have a lot of money. True that she didn't love him cause she was courting both his brother outright, and the pastor on the sneak. I'm NOT understanding why if he had lots of valuable land then why would he accept money from her parents selling Valerie to him?!? He wasn't a poor man! I know this is weird but I know I watched two different versions of this movie at different times. The first time I watched movie I DIDN'T catch it from the beginning but saw enough to remember movie. The second one I saw last night was a bit different. The same storyline and characters but the details were a but different.😒🤔