I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey (Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey (Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
On 2/11/2025 1:52 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying.
Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero
worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
Also fun to see Metacritic's 17 reviews, bookended by two luminaries:
Bosley Crowther, who's overawed, and Pauline Kael, who's unimpressed.
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/shane/critic-reviews/
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying.
Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero
worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan Ladd's career.
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The >>> audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with >>> good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped. >>>
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average >>> height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying.
Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike >>> him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero
worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long >>>> Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The >>>> audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of >>>> the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with >>>> good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and
Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan >>>> Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking >>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch >>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers.
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped. >>>>
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook >>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average >>>> height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that >>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid, >>>> it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age, >>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance, >>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his >>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike >>>> him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero
worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns >>>> both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly.
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a corpse on its back.
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long >>>>> Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay. >>>>>
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The >>>>> audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of >>>>> the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with >>>>> good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its
merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan >>>>> Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the >>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking >>>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch >>>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped. >>>>>
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers >>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the
henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a
famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook >>>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average >>>>> height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that >>>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >>>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid, >>>>> it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age, >>>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance, >>>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his >>>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike >>>>> him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship
phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero. >>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He
claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than >>>>> the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns >>>>> both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's
stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly.
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you >> would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during >> any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a >> corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone
have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well
with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they
had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long >>>>>> Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay. >>>>>>
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The >>>>>> audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of >>>>>> the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with >>>>>> good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its >>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan >>>>>> Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the >>>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking >>>>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch >>>>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped. >>>>>>
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers >>>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the >>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a >>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook >>>>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average >>>>>> height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that >>>>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >>>>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid, >>>>>> it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age, >>>>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance, >>>>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his >>>>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike >>>>>> him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship >>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero. >>>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He >>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than >>>>>> the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns >>>>>> both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's >>>>>> stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly.
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a >>> corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone
have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well
with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they
had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in college 50 years ago.
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about
"perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long >>>>>> Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay. >>>>>>
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The >>>>>> audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of >>>>>> the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with >>>>>> good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its >>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan >>>>>> Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the >>>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking >>>>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch >>>>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped. >>>>>>
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers >>>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the >>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a >>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook >>>>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average >>>>>> height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend
disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that >>>>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >>>>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid, >>>>>> it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age, >>>>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance, >>>>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his >>>>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike >>>>>> him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship >>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero. >>>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He >>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than >>>>>> the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns >>>>>> both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's >>>>>> stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly.
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a >>> corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone
have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well
with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they
had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five
years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in college 50 years ago.
On 2/12/2025 11:33 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about >>>>>>> "perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long >>>>>>> Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay. >>>>>>>
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of >>>>>>> the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its >>>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan >>>>>>> Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the >>>>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking >>>>>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch >>>>>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers >>>>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which
predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the >>>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a >>>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook >>>>>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend >>>>>>> disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that >>>>>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >>>>>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid, >>>>>>> it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age, >>>>>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance, >>>>>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his >>>>>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand.
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship >>>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero. >>>>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He >>>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than >>>>>>> the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns >>>>>>> both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's >>>>>>> stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly. >>>>>
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a >>>> corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone
have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well
with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they
had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in
college 50 years ago.
Is there definitive authority on the matter? On the 'dead' side, there
seems little dramatic reason for his wound (and for us seeing it) than
to presage his demise. On the 'not dead' side, the idea of a kid
yelling to a propped-up corpse is a bit Grand Guignol for '53 Hollywood.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/12/2025 11:33 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about >>>>>>>> "perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay. >>>>>>>>
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its >>>>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the >>>>>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking >>>>>>>> out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch >>>>>>>> onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers >>>>>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which >>>>>>>> predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the >>>>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a >>>>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook >>>>>>>> isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend >>>>>>>> disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that >>>>>>>> he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey
(Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying. >>>>>>>> Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age, >>>>>>>> we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance, >>>>>>>> and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his >>>>>>>> father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand. >>>>>>>>
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship >>>>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero. >>>>>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He >>>>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than >>>>>>>> the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's >>>>>>>> stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly. >>>>>>
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a
corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone >>>> have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well
with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they
had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in >>> college 50 years ago.
Is there definitive authority on the matter? On the 'dead' side, there
seems little dramatic reason for his wound (and for us seeing it) than
to presage his demise. On the 'not dead' side, the idea of a kid
yelling to a propped-up corpse is a bit Grand Guignol for '53 Hollywood.
I can’t find definitive authority. It seems to be split equally between he’s dead, he’s not dead yet, but soon will be and he’s peachy keen, but
there are metaphors for his way of life dying.
Ian’s Wikipedia article doesn’t mention it at all but then it doesn’t even
get right what the final scene is.
On 2/13/2025 1:31 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/12/2025 11:33 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The
literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about >>>>>>>>> "perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay. >>>>>>>>>
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its >>>>>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the >>>>>>>>> plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers >>>>>>>>> are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which >>>>>>>>> predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the >>>>>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a >>>>>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend >>>>>>>>> disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey >>>>>>>>> (Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying.
Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand. >>>>>>>>>
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship >>>>>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero. >>>>>>>>> Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He >>>>>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>>>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than >>>>>>>>> the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's >>>>>>>>> stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly. >>>>>>>
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a
corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone >>>>> have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well >>>>> with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they >>>>> had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in >>>> college 50 years ago.
Is there definitive authority on the matter? On the 'dead' side, there
seems little dramatic reason for his wound (and for us seeing it) than
to presage his demise. On the 'not dead' side, the idea of a kid
yelling to a propped-up corpse is a bit Grand Guignol for '53 Hollywood. >>>
I can’t find definitive authority. It seems to be split equally between
he’s dead, he’s not dead yet, but soon will be and he’s peachy keen, but
there are metaphors for his way of life dying.
Ian’s Wikipedia article doesn’t mention it at all but then it doesn’t even
get right what the final scene is.
From some poking around, my guess is 'not dead' ...based on such
inconclusive clues as the kid's last lines:
Shane. Shane! Come back! Bye, Shane.
That last "Bye Shane" drifts into grisly humor if spoken to a corpse.
(Also, Shane apparently doesn't die in the book ...though I'd have to acknowledge that Stevens may have meant to increase that possibility.)
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2025 1:31 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/12/2025 11:33 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
On 2025-02-12 08:34:35 +0000, anim8rfsk said:I only heard about this for the first time within maybe the last five >>>>> years. Might’ve been on TCM. And I first saw the movie in film class in >>>>> college 50 years ago.
moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 2/11/2025 8:53 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
I first saw Shane (1953) in junior high English class. The >>>>>>>>>> literature-appreciation curriculum loved teaching the kids about >>>>>>>>>> "perfect" story structure, so everybody reads The Lonliness of the Long
Distance Runner.
We were also taught to write the highly-structured three-three essay.
As a tv viewer, there's nothing wrong with structured story telling. The
audience expects developments to occur at certain points; the writer of
the teleplay should meet those expectations. This doesn't interfere with
good writing, but it doesn't enhance it either.
It's just structure.
As a kid, I really never liked the movie all that much. It has its >>>>>>>>>> merits: gorgeous scenery, excellent performances from Van Heflin and >>>>>>>>>> Jean Arthur and the supporting cast, and the iconic performance of Alan
Ladd's career.
But the story is simplistic and the characters serve the needs of the
plot. Van Heflin and the nice settlers in the valley are barely eeking
out a living. The evil Ryker family wants to expand their cattle ranch
onto land they don't own if only they could drive away the settlers. >>>>>>>>>>
This is the movie in which the womenfolk are stampeded and cattle raped.
Everybody else but Van Heflin wants to move because, well, the Rykers
are murderous. Van Heflin keeps talking them into staying which >>>>>>>>>> predictably gets them killed because he has no plan.
Jack Palance, excellent in an early role and also nominated, is the >>>>>>>>>> henchman hired by the Rykers who flat out murders Elisha Cook in a >>>>>>>>>> famous scene. (Quick: Come up with more than three roles in which Cook
isn't murdered on screen or killed off screen.)
The tall dark stranger rides into the valley, but he's blond and average
height Shane as played by Alan Ladd and we really have to suspend >>>>>>>>>> disbelief about the men he's killed in backstory.
Shane's motivation is less Truth Justice and the American Way but that
he's in love with Jean Arthur.
Then you've got the infuriating performance from the kid Joey >>>>>>>>>> (Oscar-nominated Brandon deWilde). The kid is SUPPOSED to be annoying.
Success! But he doesn't work as a point-of-view character. For the kid,
it's all self indulgence and instant gratification. Well, at that age,
we might believe it but there's nothing natural about the performance,
and even if he were a better actor, that he's got zero respect for his
father throughout much of the picture makes the audience kind of dislike
him, impatient with him because he never learns to understand. >>>>>>>>>>
Nor is it a coming of age story. The kid goes through hero worship >>>>>>>>>> phases, things don't go the way he wants them, and he hates his hero.
Then a responsible adult tries to explain the situation to him. He >>>>>>>>>> claims to understand, forgives his hero then goes right back to hero >>>>>>>>>> worshipping him.
We get better performances from several of the well-trained dogs than
the kid.
My opinion is in the minority. This is one of the most popular Westerns
both at initial release and viewers over the decades who think it's >>>>>>>>>> stood the test of time.
You forgot to mention that Shane dies at the end.
He rides into the sunset, which, as we know, circles Earth endlessly. >>>>>>>>
Seriously? You don’t know about this? I would think that of all people you
would have understood that.
It had to be pointed out to me as well.
Shane is dead on that horse. Deadman riding. He doesn’t move at all during
any of those ending shots. The horse just rides off into the sunset with a
corpse on its back.
Did they have test audiences back then, or did the studio moguls alone >>>>>> have that function? Shane dying at the end couldn't have tested well >>>>>> with the general public so perhaps that's why it's ambiguous.
Shane was released a couple of years after it was filmed IIRC so they >>>>>> had plenty of time to mull the finished product.
I've owned the DVD for about 12-15 years so Shane can come back
whenever I cycle around to him.
Is there definitive authority on the matter? On the 'dead' side, there >>>> seems little dramatic reason for his wound (and for us seeing it) than >>>> to presage his demise. On the 'not dead' side, the idea of a kid
yelling to a propped-up corpse is a bit Grand Guignol for '53 Hollywood. >>>>
I can’t find definitive authority. It seems to be split equally between >>> he’s dead, he’s not dead yet, but soon will be and he’s peachy keen, but
there are metaphors for his way of life dying.
Ian’s Wikipedia article doesn’t mention it at all but then it doesn’t even
get right what the final scene is.
From some poking around, my guess is 'not dead' ...based on such
inconclusive clues as the kid's last lines:
Shane. Shane! Come back! Bye, Shane.
That last "Bye Shane" drifts into grisly humor if spoken to a corpse.
(Also, Shane apparently doesn't die in the book ...though I'd have to
acknowledge that Stevens may have meant to increase that possibility.)
The thing is, if you watch the end of the film, looking for it you’ll notice that the guy on the horse is at the very least comatose.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 26:21:42 |
| Calls: | 10,390 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,064 |
| Messages: | 6,417,048 |