No Name on the Bullet

When hired killer Audie Murphy rides into town, everyone gets nervous. Not so much because he's a killer, but because they all have something to hide. This is a wonderfully suspenseful, very low budget western, directed by Jack Arnold, from near the end of Murphy's period as Universal-International's resident cowboy star. His filmography may not be so distinguished as that of Gary Cooper or John Wayne, but it's an awful lot better than many have made it out to be. This fine-tuned gem is a heck of a lot better than North To Alaska.

In No Name on the Bulllet, Audie Murphy got to star in one of the most unusual and best westerns in his career when he was cast in this off beat tale of a hired killer. As John Gant, Audie reverses type and becomes a coldblooded, yet very philosophical hired killer.

His modus operandi is simple. He gets hired by someone to do someone else in and he goes to wherever his target is, baits him into a fight and then shoots him dead. It's pretty well known in the west that's how he operates.

So Murphy arrives in a particular town, everyone knows he's there to see that someone dies. The town grows crazy with panic and speculation as to who his target might be.

It's a nice original concept for a western and the credit has to go to scriptwriter Gene L. Coon who all Star Trek fans remember as the writer on the original series.

Some of the townspeople are blacksmith R.G. Armstrong, doctor Charles Drake, banker Whit Bissell, mine owner Karl Swenson, judge Edgar Stehli, bartender Charles Watts, and store clerk Warren Stevens. Just who has Audie come to dispatch.

All of these players fill out the roles of the panic stricken townspeople very well indeed. But it is Murphy's film and one of the best westerns ever done and I believe his personal best.

Movies like No Name on the Bullet uncover the depth of talent in Hollywood. The roles are filled almost exclusively by familiar faces with unfamiliar names - R. G. Armstrong, Willis Bouchey, Edgar Stehli - with the result that one can concentrate on the story characters rather than being distracted by "star presence".

Without a top-heavy cast, the story itself also gains focus, and I think the story of No Name on the Bullet is fascinating. What happens when a notorious contract killer rides into town and...does absolutely nothing?

The one star of the movie, Audie Murphy, plays the gunman. I love Murphy, one of Hollywood's misspent talents. Does this also apply to the the character actors I refer to above? Not really.

Character players, though quite talented, rarely attain stardom - Edward G. Robinson, Claire Trevor and Claude Rains are notable exceptions - not through neglect or misuse but by some limitation of range or persona. Audie Murphy's talent was misspent because, though obvious, it was never developed, either by studios, who, myopically, only wanted to exploit his war hero status as a box office draw, or directors who, in Murphy's career, were usually "line directors," good for getting a movie in the can on time and on budget rather than for getting great performances out their players.

Which brings me to director Jack Arnold, who does a journeyman's job, but who I believe is the cause for what another reviewer wrongheadedly calls Murphy's shortcomings. Stilted lines and studied movement are the results of "hands-off" direction. This is OK for the character parts, where skilled players in simple roles don't need much direction, but not for lead roles. Watching Murphy I'm reminded of another sadly underdeveloped star, Alan Ladd, whose talents always shone under a great director, but who didn't get those directors consistently enough, in my opinion, to fulfill his promise. Coincidentally, both Murphy and Ladd died prematurely. Perhaps not coincidentally, both had drinking problems. I wonder if they might have been experiencing similar frustrations.

Since No Name on the Bullet contains complex secondary parts, it's fortunate, that the players cast for these parts are outstanding, so the characters are interesting. Unfortunately, the budget constraints force the runtime of the film to be far too short. The result is a number of unresolved character studies. I want to know more about the blacksmith, the ex-flame and the judge - and more about the gunfighter. I'd also like to see more denouement. The main plot ends too abruptly, as if the producers were saying, "That's all we can afford to give you, Folks." That said, I wouldn't call the ending dumb, again as the wrongheaded reviewer cited above asserts, just shortchanged.

Returning to my opening thesis, that watching a cast of talented character players carry a movie is a special treat, I highly recommend this little gem of a Western.

I'm not normally a big Audie Murphy Western fan, but the overall concept of the story is really interesting. A hired assassin comes to town, and everyone is worried. Who is he there to kill? Of course, the obvious bad guys are worried, and you wonder who he really is there to kill.

There is a lot of philosophy about Justice, ethics, the rights of one over the many.

Audie Murphy is not perfect in the role (he is known for playing good guys, he is short, and he has the face of a 16 year old) but he does a pretty convincing job.

Overall, a really interesting western, and probably my favorite Audie Murphy flick.

No Name on the Bullet is possibly Audie Murphy's best western. Only Destry is on a par with it. These two films demonstrate clearly that Murphy could give a creditable performance on the rare occasions when he was given a good script, cast, and director to work with. In this film Murphy plays John Gant, an apparently easy going man who, in fact, is a hired killer with a deadly reputation. When he comes to town many apparently-respectable citizens with concealed guilt become panicked, each thinking that he is the one whom Gant is in town to kill. If you think you don't like Audie Murphy westerns, give this one a try. It will probably surprise -- and impress -- you.