After the American Civil War, former Union Major John Garth marries pretty settler Valerie but tragedy strikes and the two spouses end up in court where they give two different conflicting a... Read allAfter the American Civil War, former Union Major John Garth marries pretty settler Valerie but tragedy strikes and the two spouses end up in court where they give two different conflicting accounts of their marriage.After the American Civil War, former Union Major John Garth marries pretty settler Valerie but tragedy strikes and the two spouses end up in court where they give two different conflicting accounts of their marriage.
Jered Barclay
- Mingo
- (as Jerry Barclay)
Chet Brandenburg
- Trial Spectator
- (uncredited)
John Dierkes
- Bartender
- (uncredited)
Rudy Germane
- Court Clerk
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
Sterling Hayden is the biggest rancher around. He's also on trial for killing his in-laws and critically wounding his wife, Anita Ekberg. On the witness stand he tells a tale of betrayal by Miss Ekberg with handsome pastor Anthony Steel and unremitting carping by the older people. But when his wife gives testimony on her sickbed, a different version may emerge.
There's a bit of RASHOMON impulse her,e an attempt to use a subjective camera from several several viewpoints. It ultimately gives way to the objective standard; there can be only one truth. It is, however, the playing around with that uncertainty that lends this movie its initial interest. In the end, alas, it becomes a peculiarly squeamish piece of brutality, with scars from burns neatly blackened circles of smooth skin. It was the odd screen persona that Hayden cultivated in the 1950s: low-affect anger that Huston used so effectively in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE became his stock in trade, a character who couldn't feel like a human being. Unfortunately it hangs too apparently over this movie, removing all ambiguity.
There's a bit of RASHOMON impulse her,e an attempt to use a subjective camera from several several viewpoints. It ultimately gives way to the objective standard; there can be only one truth. It is, however, the playing around with that uncertainty that lends this movie its initial interest. In the end, alas, it becomes a peculiarly squeamish piece of brutality, with scars from burns neatly blackened circles of smooth skin. It was the odd screen persona that Hayden cultivated in the 1950s: low-affect anger that Huston used so effectively in THE ASPHALT JUNGLE became his stock in trade, a character who couldn't feel like a human being. Unfortunately it hangs too apparently over this movie, removing all ambiguity.
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 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.
Like in "the iron sheriff" ,which also features Hayden as the lead,the movie begins when many important events happened .
In this whodunit disguised as western, the hero wanted to piece together the past ,meeting several suspects ,during his son' s trial .We watched the story through different eyes .
The same goes for "Valerie" which is nothing but a long flashback;whereas the scenes are told by the hero or his lawyer or by the showdown's victim,the story takes an entirely new meaning .The main inspiration is not the traditional western,but rather Japanese Kurosawa's "Rashomon"(1950) -which was remade by Martin Ritt as ""the outrage" (1964) The story sustains interest throughout ,except for the final scenes which are botched.Anita Ekberg possesses enough ambiguity to pass for an angel or a demon.Sterling Hayden is ,as usual,an imposing individual,even in the scenes of his trial when he is supposed to keep a low profile.
In this whodunit disguised as western, the hero wanted to piece together the past ,meeting several suspects ,during his son' s trial .We watched the story through different eyes .
The same goes for "Valerie" which is nothing but a long flashback;whereas the scenes are told by the hero or his lawyer or by the showdown's victim,the story takes an entirely new meaning .The main inspiration is not the traditional western,but rather Japanese Kurosawa's "Rashomon"(1950) -which was remade by Martin Ritt as ""the outrage" (1964) The story sustains interest throughout ,except for the final scenes which are botched.Anita Ekberg possesses enough ambiguity to pass for an angel or a demon.Sterling Hayden is ,as usual,an imposing individual,even in the scenes of his trial when he is supposed to keep a low profile.
We get 82 minutes to appraise the character of beautiful Anita Ekberg, daughter of immigrants, who married her off to prominent land baron/cattleman Sterling Hayden, driven a bit crazy by his Civil War experiences. Her one friend is the mild-mannered Minister, Anthony Steel, Ekberg's real life husband at the time. Can her marriage survive Hayden's Jekyll and Hyde cruelties? Director Gerd Oswald excelled at directing low budget films, often on a short schedule, like five days. His staging is brilliant. His best work may have driven the early '60s TV hit, "The Outer Limits" to ratings glory, in 14 episodes. "Valerie" is a nuanced, unsettling story of domestic terror.
Did you know
- TriviaAnita Ekberg and Anthony Steel were married about six months before production began, and this is the only film they made together during their marriage. They divorced in 1959.
- GoofsAt 53 minutes in when Valerie and John are out riding, John gets off his horse to open the gate; as he moves toward it, the shadows of the camera and cameraman are visible on the ground.
- Quotes
John Garth: Valerie is alive?
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 22m(82 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content