Talk:The Searchers (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the priority scale.

Contents

[edit] Influenced Directors

I removed the part about the directors who were influenced by John Ford. It came right after the list of directors who were inspired by the film. Since this page is about the film, and not strictly Ford, I removed it. Besides, some of the directors who were listed, like Capra, made most of their big movies before The Searchers came out.

[edit] Cleanup

This article needs cleanup. Because it has been written piecemeal it lacks structure, the overall content is OK but it needs put into sensible order. PatGallacher 17:02, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

I've had a go. The Analysis section has a lot of POV in it but I've left it in for now.--Shimbo 23:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely too kind. The "analysis" is entirely POV. The opening para references the open door shot--without noticing it's a bookend shot. Ethan is seen riding up through the door--and at the end of the movie he walks away (to the verse of the ballad "ride away") through the exact same perspective at Jorgenson's, and the door closes, exactly as a book closes. The analysis' conclusion that it's "family" vs. "a man's world" is illogical, the attacks on Alan LeMay unwarranted, the description of the final charge as "nothing more than a massacre" absurd (it's a remake of the final scene in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon--watch and you will see that no one is shot in either--Ford uses his favorite scenes and shots over and over in his films--the Comanche charge at the river is the same as the Apache charge in Sgt. Rutledge, filmed at the same location), and pretty much leaves Ford's love of the visual out of the "analysis". John Ford loves texture in color films--detail, color, panorama--obvious from as far back as Drums Along the Mohawk--which is the main reason he returned to the Monument Valley and Moab for his locations time and again--anyone who has been to west texas knows there is no similarity. LeMay studied old west mores regarding Indians in all his books--he described, not judged--but clearly (see The Unforgiven) did not sanction racism. (It is no accident his Texans refer to Indians as "red niggers"). Ford stayed remarkably true to the novel--note: novel, a story, entertainment, a western, not a message--until the finale. Amos Edwards did not suddenly decide to take Debbie home (which is my only gripe with the film). IMO 90% of the analysis is someone's unsupported opinions, therefore OR and deletable. btw despite all the analysis, Ethan's motive (as was Amos' in the book) was simple: revenge. He was in love with his sister-in-law, Martha Edwards.--Buckboard 22:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That would be true except that the movie does not reflect the book at all. In the book, Brit Johnson bought back his wife and children, which evidently happened in real life. The purchase price was 7 ponies. In the movie, a Ranger attack on the village allows the killing of the chief who took the girl for a wife, and her recovery (which you never know is willing or not) by force. This mirrors absolutely the Parker case. (Look at the article in wikipedia on the Battle of Pease River. Film historians have noted for years that the movie reflects the real life events of the Parker case far more than the book by Alan LeMay. Stillstudying 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debbie wants to be rescued

Just wanted to mention that if you think you're sure that Debby doesn't want to be rescued, you need to watch the scenes with her as a teenager more closely. The second time we Debby, when she is telling Ethan and Marty she doesn't want to be rescued, she has a whole tribe in ambush waiting for her and the boys to make the wrong move, so she is motivated to say whatever that will prevent people from getting killed, and in this case that would be saying that she wants to stay with the tribe.

In a later scene when Marty later wakes her from her slumber to rescue her, she is noticeably more recipient to being rescued, and in fact seems almost like a different person. This dramatic shift in behaviour would make a lot of sense if she was merely pretending to want to stay with the tribe in the first scenario, and actually wants to be rescued. This isn't in your face evidence of her willingless to return, but in a very well respected movie with layers of subtlety underneath a seemingly simplistic facade, what's true isn't always what's obvious.Krymson 10:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The critical scene is the scene chronologically missing from your gallery, between the third and 4th image. Debbie's reaction to Marty and her willingness to leave the tepee is not indicative of someone who has found their home with the Comanches. Also, you have ignored the "50 billion Indians with knives spears and guns at my back" point.Krymson 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Error in Analysis

In the analysis, it explains that Ethan says "there's more at stake here than your sister!" near the end of the film. However, it was not Ethan that said this, but rather Sam Clayton. This can be verified by either watching the film (at approx. 1:49:40) or reviewing the screenplay (http://www.aellea.com/script/searchers.html). However, the line as said in the film differs from that of the screenplay cited. The actual line said in the film can be seen on the script (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/searchers-script-transcript-john-ford.html) near the end. The complete line as said by Clayton in the film is as follows: "Now son, I know that this is a bitter thing to say, but there's more at stake here than your sister". Ethan simply agrees by responding with "there sure is".

Bwiegand 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The error is much worse than this first note indicates. The analysis in the piece is quite inaccurate and I have, therefore, removed it. Clayton's point is that the removal of the Comanche threat outweighs any personal concerns that Martin might have about Deborah. Czrisher 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influence

A recent edit adds Brokeback Mountain to the list of films influenced by The Searchers. If this is a serious comment (and it strikes me as more opinion than fact), could someone explain just how this influence reveals itself? I'm trying quite hard to think of anything plot-wise or theme-wise in Brokeback Mountain that draws exclusively or extensively from The Searchers. I realize this is the cue for a lot of people to make jokes, but I'd love to have a thoughtful response. Monkeyzpop 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know this myself. I cannot imagine how this movie influenced Brokeback Mountain, except in some of the scenary, perhaps. Stillstudying 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resources to use

  • Telotte, J.P. (Fall 1998). "A Fate Worse Than Death: RACISM, TRANSGRESSION, AND WESTERNS". Journal of Popular Film and Television 26 (3): 120-127. 
  • Clauss, James J. (Fall 1999). "DESCENT INTO HELL: Mythic Paradigms in The Searchers". Journal of Popular Film and Television 27 (3): 2-17. 
  • Sickels, Robert C. (Winter 2003). "A Politically Correct Ethan Edwards: Clint Eastwood's The Outlaw Josey Wales". Journal of Popular Film and Television 30 (4): 220-227. 
  • Thomson, David (Fall 2004). "The last frontier". Sight & Sound 14 (2): 12-15. 
  • Sharrett, Christopher (Fall 2006). "Through a Door Darkly: A Reappraisal of John Ford's "The Searchers"". Cineaste 31 (4): 4-8. 
  • Nachbar, Jack G. (Winter 2003). "As Sure as the Turning of a Page: A Bibliography for The Searchers". Journal of Popular Film and Television 30 (4): 228-229. 
The last resource lists over 60 other resources that can be explored for The Searchers. I am not sure if it is acceptable to duplicate the details here, but I encourage anyone who wants to add critical interpretations for The Searchers to locate this citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I found the collection of 60 resources publicly available at FindArticles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Link expired; here's the archived link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More listed resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk These are all good sources - I think we need to discuss the movie and its take on racism, and the other topics Ford tried to explore. I will start that section, and I hope others will assist. Stillstudying 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I usually work with more recent films, so I don't find as many critical interpretations of these films. There was a discussion with WikiProject Films recently, though, about including critical interpretations from those involved with film studies or studies of a topic that was in a film. Not all films will have that available, but films like Jaws and Sunset Boulevard almost definitely have them and actually lack them, being FA articles. I hope I can encourage this encyclopedic expansion -- will try to do that for Fight Club, American Beauty, and Dark City on my side. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Erik (talk I am going to try to be more involved with WikiProject Films, including working on this one. You listed some really good source material on this movie, and I have long felt that it needed a section on Ford's messages in the movie - I am going to try, and I think others will help. You take care, and I will see you over on Dark City or Jaws! Stillstudying 11:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing citation tag

I am going to finish citing this article today or tomorrow, and unless someone objects, will remove the citation tag at that time. I appreciate everyone's help in how to cite, and think the article is better for it. Stillstudying 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss wholesale changes in peer review

Monkey, obviously I think your changes were poor ones. Please discuss wholesale revisions in the peer review, as the rest of us do. I remind you of the 3 edit rule. Stillstudying 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Having studied this film for forty years, written about it, been published on the topic, interviewed many of the players and crew, and collected possibly the largest private collection of material relating to the film, I obviously have some sense of awareness of the film and its background, themes, and the critical responses it has gotten over the years. Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are. But that's not as important as reaching a clear-cut encyclopedic version for Wikipedia of what this film is and what the responses to it are. Let's take some of your objections one at a time. But first: let me apologize about the three-revert rule. I was thinking of reverting the material on this page in one fell swoop, but found it physically easier to do it section by section. If I'd done it all as one revert, I'd have not broken the 3RR. I forgot about that. Sorry. (I do note that you edited the same page 23 times within 48 hours, a clear and pretty large violation of 3RR itself. ;-) ) Now on to your objections. You've asked for peer review. That's fine. But peer review does not mean no one can now edit a page without "permission" or consensus. It just means you're asking for and (hopefully) receiving commentary. Some of the peer review comments about my submissions make sense to me. Others don't. But the first "rule" of Wikipedia, the one that is trumpeted loudly whenever someone new comes aboard, is "If you don't want your material edited brutally, don't submit it." ANYONE can edit a page, whether that page is under peer review or controversy. So I'm sorry if you're unhappy that someone has "edited your material brutally" but there's nothing wrong with that, not by my reading of the rules of Wikipedia. Next: the fact that John Ford "never talked" about Ethan's love for Martha is both wrong and irrelevant. He certainly talks about it -- on-camera! -- in Bogdanovich's Directed by John Ford, but the main point is that Ford doesn't have to be on record talking about something for it to be relevant to the article. As you will note, I referenced about eight different citations regarding the Ethan/Martha love and how it is the unspoken but driving force of the story. That takes nothing away from the racism theme; in fact, it's absolutely interwoven into it and inextricable from the racism theme: Ethan loves Martha, already-hated Indians kill Martha and steal her child, Ethan seeks revenge for Martha, rescue for her child, and then purifying death for the child once Indians have defiled it. The fact that the love between Ethan and Martha has been a topic of scholarly discussion for fifty years is both verifiable and notable. To discard it shows a comparative unfamiliarity with the film's historical analysis and criticism. It's like throwing out all references to outer space in an article on Star Wars just because no one actually says "outer space" in the movie. Next: some of the items I deleted were deleted only because you say them in almost identical words three, four, or five times. In the case of these repetitive items, I did not delete all of them, just the redundant one or misplaced ones. I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think anyone who would dare change what you wrote must be wrong or deliberately interfering. I assure you I am not deliberately interfering, and in this case I don't believe I'm wrong. I've been a published author for many, many years, and before that an English composition teacher. That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credential to critique writing style. I appreciate your efforts, and some of your points are quite wonderful. But your writing style can use some help, and I have tried to help (not so much help you as to help Wikipedia, which to be trustworthy should at least be as well-written as possible). Next: I've spent a lot of time with the LeMay book, and while it differs from the film in notable ways, to say that it "does not resemble the movie at all," as you did, is to ignore willfully what is in the book. Of course the book resembles the film: it has the same characters. It has the same locale. It has the same basic plotline of loss and rescue. These are resemblances! Even if the book takes liberties or detours from the detail of the novel, to say there is no resemblance is demonstrably erroneous. The fact, and I bow to your research on this, that the filmed version may indeed resemble MORE CLOSELY the Cynthia Parker story is no reason to state that it thus bears no resemblance to the book. No one who has experienced both the book and the film is going to take you seriously if you purport that. And I don't believe I edited anything of yours to suggest that the Parker story is not more relevant to the film. I only changed your POV that the book is IRRELEVANT to the film, and suggested that there is a middle ground. Which there is! Clearly these are matters of opinion, which, in Wikipedia terms, means that we can state that there ARE differing opinions (citing them is good), but we cannot insist that one opinion is the ONLY one, which is what you are doing in denying a relationship between the book and the film. You may believe that. I may believe differently. But neither of us can say that the other opinion doesn't exist or is wrong. You bolster your argument by citation, not deleting. I believe I have adhered to Wikipedia rules and tried to bring an objective awareness of this film which I have spent my life studying to this page. You can argue with my placement of certain things. But to insist that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (which if not in so many words is very much the tone of your edit summaries and talk page contributions on this subject) is quite the antithesis of what Wikipedia aspires to be. I'll post this on the peer review page as well. Monkeyzpop 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I am sorry you chose to take this tact. However, I should not have written I felt your edits were poor, that was uncalled for, so I will take a lighter tact in responding, and hope we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. First, let me say in plain english that I never said I was right and anyone who disagrees with me wrong - if you read my messages to other editors I have worked with, you would find the opposite to be true, that I seek consensus, and seek third or fourth party opinions when my work differs from someone elses in order that I may find whether mine is lacking. You left a somewhat different message on my talk page, which I responded to differently, and would hope that message would govern our responses. Frankly, I always sigh when someone begins to trumphet their academic achievements. I was educated in the good old law, to answer your question, not as a movie reviewer. But I have a degree in history also, (and another in legal studies), I suppose that qualifies me about as much as you to write an article on this film. To get to the issues and avoid more personal nastiness. First, I never suggested that there is NO relationship between the LeMay book and the Ford movie, I said that there was no nexus to point to except Brit Johnson did rescue his family by ransoming them. I think that needs to be pointed out, and I was careful to cite the close relationship between cold hard facts of the Parker saga and the Ford movie - Schneider said it better than I ever could! I wrote, and mean it, that I seek to work with you and craft an article we both can agree on, rather than engage in an edit war. I note that your edit summary in answering Erik's reversion was at least as tactless as mine. But I don't feel that we have to engage in this sort of unpleasantness, or "how many college degrees do you have, because I have three and that means WHAT?" (I have to admit amusement that you are a published author - I have articles published in the "real world" also, and I taught history in Texas, before the law seized on me! Your insinuations I lack your education please, the personal attacks on my academic credentials - it brings to mind the old saw, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, if you have neither, call names. I will post this also on the peer review page. I say in closing that I respectfully ask you to not attack me personally - the worst thing I can be acused of in this disagreement is saying I thought your edits were poor. You, on the other hand, stated I am uneducated, (without a clue what my education is), rather suggested I said things I plainly did not, and made this quite personal. I think your attack on me speaks for itself. But I believe we can do differently, if you cease the personal attacks. By the way, the 3RR rule applies to such situations as ours, where one editor reverts the other without discussion and reverts 3 times in 24 hours. You can edit 1000 times in 24 hours if the edits are not reversions. Stillstudying 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpopgreetings! I know you are on the road now, and probably cannot take time to even look at this, but when you return, I really would welcome your assistance to finish up this article. I added several pictures, the first, of Ethan and Martha, for obvious reasons - I think that thread runs through the movie, and the picture of her staring yearningly into his face, is a great one. The second is one of a rider against the vastness of the plains, and emphasizes the incredible power of the land itself in the movie, emphasizing how puny two men must have felt as they searched the vastness of the southern plains! The third, of Debbie looking desperately up, goes with the themes of racism and miscegenation than ran throughout the movie. Please let me know when you return, I am very curious for your reaction to the totality of the changes in the article. Thanks! Stillstudying 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Less Parker, more Searchers

I'm sorry for the people that worked so hard on this article, but it looks more a case on the influence of the Cynthia Parker story over the film, than a true analysis of the movie. As other contributors said, nothing is said about the cinematographic achievements of the film which, I would say, are at least as important as the analysis of the plot (and any possible real life influence on it) or the racism -and how it is depicted- in it. Nazroon 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about condensing the Real-life inspiration section to something more neutral like this: “Several film commentators have stated that “The Searchers” was inspired by the story of Comanche captive Cynthia Ann Parker, who was abducted in Texas in 1836 and recovered in 1860. Novelist Alan Le May studied a total of 64 captivity cases from Texas while writing the book on which the film was based. In real life, a number of relatives of captured children went in search of their missing kin, including Parker’s uncle, James W. Parker, who made several journeys during an obsessive but unsuccessful search for his missing family members. Le May’s surviving research notes for the novel suggest that his real-life model for the searchers was Brit Johnson, an African-American teamster who ransomed his wife and children from the Comanches in 1865 and kept searching for other captives until his death in 1871.”Grossville 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)