Post by criterionmaster on May 6, 2007 19:00:40 GMT -5
Okay, I had to write this for that American Literature Goes to the Movies class I am taking. It basically turned into a rant when I started talking about the kid. This is slowly lowering and lowering. I think I might actually give it a 6/10 now. It isn't a very long review, but I started a new thread for it just in case someone has seen it, or likes it, wants to talk about it, or something, because I would like to hear about it. Has anyone seen this film, or have any thoughts on it?
Shane (George Stevens; 1953)
Review by: Dan Kinem
Shane, called by many critics “one of the best westerns ever made”, made by one of [supposedly] cinema’s masters, George Stevens, who I have yet to delve into yet. It is a pretty classic, and timeless, tale, a stranger travels into town, (which is always a classic start to any western), in the middle of a ‘fight’ between a bunch of settles, and a man named Ryker, who gives these settlers trouble all the time because of the land.
Westerns aren’t necessarily my forté, although I do think there are some classic from the genre, although most of those come more from the non-traditional American western, ala Wild Bunch, or ‘Spaghetti Westerns’ (Italian), ala Once Upon a Time in the West. This one though, falls in between being a film I love, and a film that is just good. There are many flaws to the film, which sadly, took me out of the film: the odd cutting to the kid’s reactions to certain things seemed just fake to me. The director was continuously cutting to him, with forced expressions on his face. His performance was just god-awful. Most people though, I think, will get the way his character behaved, and the performance, mixed up, I have nothing wrong with the way he [his character] actually acted, really, it was that right before he was on the screen it always felt like he was just being told what to do, and never felt natural at all. His reactions, and interactions, were so ridiculous most of the time. When Shane shot the rock in front of the kid, the camera showed his reaction and it was one of those clichéd “wide-eyed, jaw-dropped” looks. I have seen some terrible kid performances, and just like when I see a terrible adult performance, I am taken out of the film. They could have easily gotten someone who felt more natural in the role. It always felt like he didn’t have a clue what was happening. I don’t know exactly what the circumstances were when casting the kid, but I can just guess they didn’t actually think he was a good choice; a terrible miscast. I could go on, and on, about him, about the way it always felt he was reading the lines, about how he didn’t look at all like the parents, and for some reason is in the movie, how he was nominated for an Oscar and Ladd wasn’t, but I need to stop myself. Another flaw, but one that I don’t fault the movie too much for, is the overabundance of melodrama, especially from the wife in the film.
I did think the directing was amazing, it is beautifully shot, and each scene feels like it was shot from like 20 different angles, then edited together. The landscapes were beautiful. The shootouts were also very well-done; it is easy to see how they can be called classics.
I am sad I don’t enjoy it as much as a lot of classic cinema fans, but I can see why people admire it so much, it just feels to me they are too forgiving, as there are flaws. The messages in the film have also sadly become sorta out-of-date today; fighting for your land, pride, integrity, etc. Glad I got to see it, but won’t be revisiting it often.
Overall Rating: 7/10 (although, sadly, I missed a little of the beginning)
Shane (George Stevens; 1953)
Review by: Dan Kinem
Shane, called by many critics “one of the best westerns ever made”, made by one of [supposedly] cinema’s masters, George Stevens, who I have yet to delve into yet. It is a pretty classic, and timeless, tale, a stranger travels into town, (which is always a classic start to any western), in the middle of a ‘fight’ between a bunch of settles, and a man named Ryker, who gives these settlers trouble all the time because of the land.
Westerns aren’t necessarily my forté, although I do think there are some classic from the genre, although most of those come more from the non-traditional American western, ala Wild Bunch, or ‘Spaghetti Westerns’ (Italian), ala Once Upon a Time in the West. This one though, falls in between being a film I love, and a film that is just good. There are many flaws to the film, which sadly, took me out of the film: the odd cutting to the kid’s reactions to certain things seemed just fake to me. The director was continuously cutting to him, with forced expressions on his face. His performance was just god-awful. Most people though, I think, will get the way his character behaved, and the performance, mixed up, I have nothing wrong with the way he [his character] actually acted, really, it was that right before he was on the screen it always felt like he was just being told what to do, and never felt natural at all. His reactions, and interactions, were so ridiculous most of the time. When Shane shot the rock in front of the kid, the camera showed his reaction and it was one of those clichéd “wide-eyed, jaw-dropped” looks. I have seen some terrible kid performances, and just like when I see a terrible adult performance, I am taken out of the film. They could have easily gotten someone who felt more natural in the role. It always felt like he didn’t have a clue what was happening. I don’t know exactly what the circumstances were when casting the kid, but I can just guess they didn’t actually think he was a good choice; a terrible miscast. I could go on, and on, about him, about the way it always felt he was reading the lines, about how he didn’t look at all like the parents, and for some reason is in the movie, how he was nominated for an Oscar and Ladd wasn’t, but I need to stop myself. Another flaw, but one that I don’t fault the movie too much for, is the overabundance of melodrama, especially from the wife in the film.
I did think the directing was amazing, it is beautifully shot, and each scene feels like it was shot from like 20 different angles, then edited together. The landscapes were beautiful. The shootouts were also very well-done; it is easy to see how they can be called classics.
I am sad I don’t enjoy it as much as a lot of classic cinema fans, but I can see why people admire it so much, it just feels to me they are too forgiving, as there are flaws. The messages in the film have also sadly become sorta out-of-date today; fighting for your land, pride, integrity, etc. Glad I got to see it, but won’t be revisiting it often.
Overall Rating: 7/10 (although, sadly, I missed a little of the beginning)
