By Peter Lenihan
Finding Ford is a biweekly series on the films of John Ford.
Apologies for the EXTREME tardiness of this week’s post—as some of you may or may not know, I live and work at a small provincial college in a fairly remote area on the border of Thailand and Burma, where power outages, not to mention internet disconnections, are a daily reality. Ideally I would have my pieces scheduled here at WitD well in advance, but that rarely happens, and when the power is out the power is out.
I have found in the past few weeks that I have less and less time to dedicate to these entries, and that I find myself repeating the same ideas from essay to essay. It’s for these reasons that I’m deciding to suspend the Finding Ford series for the time being—it may very well be resuscitated some time in the future, but for now I think it has run its course, and it’s unclear to me where it has left to go. (And if anyone feels like continuing the series themselves, perhaps offering fresh perspectives on the films I haven’t yet covered, they absolutely have my blessing; just throw Sam or me an email).
The Searchers has been written on twice before at Wonders in the Dark. Here Allan Fish called it the ninth best film of the fifties. And here Maurizio Roca contrasted it unfavorably with Michael Cimino’s striking Heaven’s Gate—I don’t agree with a word of the latter piece but there’s no denying it stakes out a position that many today agree with, and does so in a way that is far more palatable (and less self-centered) than the Stephen Metcalfs of this world are capable of.
It’s a S&S poll year, and it will be interesting to see how highly The Searchers places this time around. Of all the very recognizable titles (think Rules of the Game, Tokyo Story, Seven Samurai, Vertigo, Citizen Kane) that appear on these sorts of lists year in and year out—or decade in and decade out—Ford’s film is arguably the most controversial, and the fact that many people consider it to be one of the medium’s greatest masterpieces frustrates some in a way that may be unique even within the prissiest cinephilic circles. It is, of course, ultimately pretty irrelevant—polls can only track the critical fashions of a given moment and often inadvertently end up embalming the films that are most kinetic and alive. The Searchers isn’t always thought of as one of these, and I’m not sure any Hollywood director of Ford’s time moved the camera less frequently (it’s worth remembering here what Renoir said of The Informer), but it’s also true that few directors consistently filled the frame with as much movement as Ford was able to. Still, at some point the opening shot of The Searchers, complemented by Max Steiner’s lovely score, becomes indistinguishable from the fact that we are watching the shot, slavishly recreated in only the Lord knows how many fifth hand pastiches—the inky blacks of the opening title card slowly dissipating as Martha Edwards opens the door of her cabin and grasps one of the columns of the porch as she spots her brother-in-law (and, more likely than not, the love of her life) on the horizon.
That opening shot is undeniably big, and its size and emphasis on the moment’s own larger-than-life-ness is pretty well sustained throughout. There’s some of the small of Wagon Master and She Wore a Yellow Ribbon here (particularly in the breakfast table conversations and a botched wedding ceremony), but overall Ford emphasizes the iconic grandeur of Ethan’s and Martin’s quest, and I’d be lying if I said I thought it was a better movie for it. On the other hand, there’s only one Searchers, and for all its similarities with earlier and later Ford oaters, it’s pretty unlike anything else he did—Ford’s protagonists may or may not be men on missions, but his films are rarely about that mission, and the sometimes single-minded attention he pays to one here certainly works within this context. There was always something a bit Russian in Ford’s compositions—many of his early silents have the same possessed quality one finds in Dovzhenko, and his close-ups always have this deeply unsettling, grand quality that can’t help but remind one of the masters of the Soviet cinema (it is perhaps not coincidental that Eisenstein stated that Young Mr. Lincoln was the one movie he wished he had made). It makes sense that in The Searchers, with its unusual focus on Ethan Edwards and his maniacal quest to murder his niece, Ford would find a way to synthesize both his preoccupation with the Russian qualities and the mysterious expressionism that he had been developing (both in chiaroscuro and Technicolor) since seeing Sunrise in 1927. Not even Ford’s harshest detractors (which include Manny Farber, the most inconsistent and infuriating of the great critics) can deny the film its striking, unusual visual beauty.
And the story, of course, everyone knows. Ethan Edwards, a Dixie, a racist, and more likely than not a bank robber and bandit, spends seven long years tracking down his only remaining family member so that he can “save” her from a fate worse than death (that is, by killing her). He is accompanied by a quarterbreed Cherokee he once saved from a similar murder raid, and together they don’t end up learning too much about themselves, each other, or the strange, forbidden land they call home. Edwards will probably remain Wayne’s most iconic performance (although it could be argued that his conventional, not particularly convincing hamwork as Rooster Cogburn is more beloved), and it’s a turn of terrifying ferocity—there will probably never be a successful film adaptation of Moby-Dick, but he would have been the perfect Ahab (and of course, in some sense, The Searchers is the cinema’s Moby-Dick).
Ford doesn’t often tip his hand here, but the film’s secret lies, I think, in one line that could easily be interpreted as a throwaway: I’ll meet you on the far side. Before he gets there, of course, he must bury Lucy’s desecrated body, and the next time we see him he appears disheveled and possessed. The Searchers is like that—it’s about men pushed to the breaking point so that even the living world resembles the hereafter, and so that all they can see is their own deaths looming ahead. That was what always gave the rituals Ford’s characters clung to meaning, and it’s certainly all they have here, so that the fact that Martin walks in on the wrong wedding or Ethan can only stand in a doorway takes on ominous, almost heartbreaking proportion.
It is sad that I get the first opportunity to comment on this great series in what seems to be its last entry in a undetermined period of time. Why the first time? Well, I just haven’t seen much movies by Ford, and this is one of the few that I’ve seen, and it’s clearly one that sticks in your mind just because of its technical and emotional marvel that it is.
Maybe one is shocked by our main character, and no matter how much people tell you that the movie makes you care and like a character that is racist and even misogynist, I didn’t actually care for him, but whatever, I do appreciate the effort of the director, but in terms of our main character, he barely fails in making me care about his mission.
But that’s not demeaning to the film itself, I think it’s a great one, a near masterpiece, one of the best westerns I’ve ever seen, and I’m not an usual fan of those. Every frame, as you say, is filled and may I add, beautifuly filled with a striking and telling imagery that will make you think deeper about every decisssion and dialogue the characters utter.
Peter, I want to extend my thanks and appreciation for the stupendous and exhaustive job you’ve done with this great series. As it’s even attracted the eye of the film scholars out there, you know you’ve made your mark. i completely understand the kind of work-load you presently have, and frankly it’s rather remarkable you have managed to write what you have to this point. Your final post in the series is wholly extraordinary, as I have come to expect. You have brought a fresh approach and interpretation here of a timeless film, one that I would say is probably the great western in movie history, and a prime example of existwentialism on the screen. As Ethan Edwards John Wayne gives one of the greatest performances ever recorded for the screen, which is ironic considering the attitude by many towards his work in general. But Max Steiner’s music, the stunning color cinematography by Winton hoch, and the unforgettable screenplay by Frank Nugent, well one could go on and on. I didn’t know about the S & S poll coming up this year, and am very excited about that and the potential high placement of THE SEARCHERS.
You have my friend, greatly enhanced the Ford literature, as they say.
Sam, the S&S poll comes out later this year and if ‘Kane’ isn’t dethroned I’ll eat my copy of Kael’s ‘Raising Kane’. Too many critics and scholars are tired of its dominance and, alas, I look for ‘Vertigo’ to take the crown this time (I’ll be rooting for ‘Tokyo Story’). And I’m also hoping for the return of Antonioni to the Top 10.
Mark–
I’m rooting for TOKYO STORY too, though I’d love to see Mizoguchi’s SANSHO DAYU enter the pantheon, as I would Bresson’s BALTHAZAR, and Dreyer’s JOAN OF ARC. Of course the Dreyer has placed before. Even in light of what you say here I wouldn’t be too sure that KANE will be detroned, though if that many are tiring of it, this might be the time. I’d love to see VERTIGO up there as well, and Chaplin’s CITY LIGHTS.
Of course, the Sight & Sound winner also becomes the Most Overrated film ever made by default, if Tokyo Story isn’t that already. A fine film, sure, but …
Does anyone really think that Kane will be dethroned? I can’t even imagine that happening. I highly doubt it will fall from the top, not at least for another 50 years is my guess. Maybe never. It’s not my favorite film by any means, not even my favorite Welles. But still, I can’t see it falling anytime soon
I’m pretty certain David Thomson would like to see ‘Kane’ replaced — it’s been sitting atop the poll for half a century now. Personally, I’d like to see ’2001′ fall out of the Top Ten with a Bresson stepping in. But that omits Godard, Fassbinder, Keaton, Hawks, Satyajit Ray, Scorsese, Tarr, Kurosawa, Resnais, Lang, Griffith and on and on. The poll never satisfies anyone, though I suppose it’s a good barometer of the changing (or unchanging) tastes of the cinephile community — did we overrate Bergman and underrate Sternberg or Sirk?
Whatsa matter, Samuel? LOL. ‘Tokyo Story’ overwhelms me whenever I see it, and I’m sure there are films that affect you the same way, that make you levitate out of your chair as you watch. You must have a favorite film.
Yeah, while Samuel is one of my best friends online, and while I respect his opinion and taste immensely, on the matter of TOKYO STORY I am completely baffled. Allan and virtually every else here at WitD considers it one of the greatest masterpiece of all-time, and for me a #1 annointment would be cause for celebration.
Keeping Kane on top reflects critical laziness — not that Kane deserves to go down necessarily, but haven’t our ideas about cinematic potentials and imperatives evolved just a little since 1962? As for Tokyo Story, I’ll probably have occasion to elaborate once Allan gets to its year — and I may well pick it for that year. For now: a great film of its kind, but does its kind really represent everything cinema can do?
Fair enough Samuel. But the “everything cinema can do” label like every other judgement is a matter of taste or what one is looking for to make such a monumental decision. I say the film’s simple universality wed to one of the most wrenching emotional stories ever filmed qualifies it alone, but Ozu’s potent way of transcribing inner strength and drive bring it to the center of what can be defined as the human condition. One of the main reasons people go to the movies is to be emotionally moved, and few film sin history do it as powerfully, as unforgettably.
It belongs among the handful of true screen masterpieces.
As far as KANE staying on top reflecting “critical laziness” I’m not so sure I agree, but certainly it is one way to explain why it wins every ten years.
“I’m pretty certain David Thomson would like to see ‘Kane’ replaced…”
Maybe, but I’m pretty certain that many things Thomson would like to see happen absolutely no one else here or anywhere else would want to see go down (and Thomson voted Kane #3 in ’02, for what it’s worth; his #1, inexplicably, was Blue Velvet).
Thomson has little use of Ford or Kubrick.
Bizarre.
What is the tangible significance of the S&S poll? If Kane gets displaced by Vertigo or Tokyo Story does it mean anything concretely? How many people actually vote in it? I remember reading that Roger Ebert was putting Tree Of Life in his top ten, but I know very little about it apart from that. Is it some sort of publication/magazine or just random critics creating a canon as reference? Is it tied to the top 1000 films in TSPDT in any way…
Even for the perrenial poll haters and/or cynics, the repuation of S & S has always been intimidating to most. It means NOTHING tangible to answer your question, but it is the single reference point that is uses by the film schlars to gage consensus among the intellectuals. Hope Jamie doesn’t come here or he will shoot holes in the entire enterprise, be rest assured though I am not really defending the group, just explaining what I think the vote means.
Maurizio, Sight and Sound is a British film journal, some would say the British film journal; it arguably doesn’t carry the critical cachet it once did (and here I’d probably defer to Allan’s judgment), but its once-a-decade poll, for whatever reason, still does. It’s tied to TSPDT in no way, although you can bet your ass that that site’s placements will radically change once the poll results go public, since they weight the polls they include for their tallies, and since this is the big one.
FWIW, I’d much rather re-read your Making Peace with the Searchers piece than any of Thomson’s incoherent, disingenuous diatribes against Ford. He’s a fine writer but I don’t care for him as a critic or person at all.
Gotcha, the vote is basically meaningless. In that case I hope The Wizard Of Oz or perhaps Howard The Duck beats Vertigo, Kane, and Tokyo Story lol. But perhaps I’m just a cynic, who also quite interestingly, likes reading these polls… oh the irony.
Yeah, it’s a an enterprise that means incredibly little, but comes from a highly respected publication. I adore S&S.
Oh no I agree, it’s definitely a lot of fun.
& arguably more interesting than the results is that the ballots of all the participants go public, so you can see what Theos Angelopolous or Slavoj Zizek voted for.
In the same way I also really like the Criterion websites lists. Where celebrities, musicians, etc. list their favorite Criterion’s with brief descriptions.
The S&S list is a meaningless, but fascinating peek into the tastes of film writers and directors. Here’s just a small sample from the 2002 poll:
Amy Taubin — ‘Au Hasard Balthazar’ (#2)
Robin Wood — ‘Marnie’ (#6) Gag.
J. Rosenbaum — ‘The House Is Black’ (#7)
Camille Paglia — ‘Persona’ (#7)
Armond White — ‘Nashville’ (#9)
J. Hoberman — ‘Flaming Creatures’ (#1)
Peter Cowie — ‘Deliverance’ (#7) oh no, he didn’t!
Directors:
Shinoda — ‘Ivan the Terrible’ (#2)
Michael Mann — ‘Raging Bull’ (#9)
C. Breillat — ‘L’Avventura’ (#7)
J. Jarmusch — ‘Tokyo Story’ (#2)
John Waters — ”8-1/2′ (#6) man’s got taste and ‘Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill! (#7), and a sense of humor.
“the tastes of film writers and directors AT A CERTAIN MOMENT IN FILM HISTORY”……..which makes the list a valuable one
I like seeing the S&S poll and am actually looking forward to it a bit. I still think Kane will easily take the top spot. It still plays as rather significant cinema that never seems dated to me. You name any other film and you ask yourself, does it beat Kane? Sure, I have personal favorites, but I don’t think the list is supposed to reflect favorites. It’s supposed to reflect the summit of cinema. Not sure the voters look at it that way. As for Tokyo Story, I have not problem with it being named one of the 10 greatest films ever made. Number 1? Not sure. In the end, there’s not much difference among the top 10 I would guess.
@Peter: I’m no fan of David Thomson, but his list was in alphabetical order. Quite a few of the voters do that, as each film they mention gets one point regardless of top ten order. It doesn’t say when you look at the lists on the website, though, so you just have to be aware of it and spot it when it’s there.
I’m way too obsessed with lists and polls. I find them all over online and peruse them for hours, it’s pretty bad. As I understand it, the list will come out in S&S’s September issue, and will of course ignite a firestorm of debate. No doubt the blogosphere will be filled with think pieces and deep thoughts and assorted comments about it (I’ll no doubt be contributing myself!).
From what I’ve read there does seem to be a groundswell of discontent with Kane at #1, and there are bound to be enough new and eccentric worldwide critics out there to shake things up and put some more obscure/foreign/recent films on the map in their lists. See the discussion here, for instance: http://tinyurl.com/dyep2uy
But at the same time, Vertigo does not necessarily have the support to beat Kane. In a recent Indiewire poll, admittedly of mostly young bloggers, whose opinions seem depressingly narrow, Vertigo was quite popular as a film to eliminate from the Top 10: http://tinyurl.com/7ehlzw9
But neither of these necessarily reflect the mass opinions of the voters, and even while there will be scores of submitted ballots, the separation between the top spots can shift quite easily with a few votes here or there. Only 5 votes separated Kane and Vertigo last time, and the difference between The Godfather Parts 1&2 at #4 and Singin’ in the Rain at #10 was only 6 votes. Of course, the top two had more than double the votes of the bottom four, so whatever happens, they seem pretty firmly ensconced. My guess is that the variety of films mentioned will become much wider, and several major auteurs of the past 20 years will have films high up the rankings (I’m thinking Edward Yang, Hou Hsiao-Hsien, Abbas Kiarostami, Terrence Malick, Bela Tarr, Wong Kar-Wai, David Lynch, etc.), but the actual Top 10 won’t be hugely surprising. It’ll probably be significantly different, but all the films will be obvious classics, at least half of which will have been on the list before. I personally hope Tarkovsky finally makes it in, probably with Andrei Rublev, and a nod to Bresson would be cool too. Scorses could conceivably make it in with Raging Bull–he already did in the directors’ vote–but I kind of doubt it.
Only half bizarre Sam lol.
LOL!!! You have finally found a worthy ally!
Yeah, though due to my fondness for exaggeration it seems like I hate Ford more than is actually truthful. I do have some use for the director since I do like about half a dozen of his movies. In fact there is a chance he may be my 1940 pick for our own meaningless poll on Sunday.
“In fact there is a chance he may be my 1940 pick for our own meaningless poll on Sunday.”
Ha, now you have really rendered an insult! OUR poll is one to be proud od, even if in 1930 and now apparently in 1939 my aspirations have been dashed by you and your cohorts!!! LOL!!!!
If you are speaking of GRAPES, that is my #1 for 40 as well,
Nice.
I once heard ‘The Searchers’ described as Aeschylus in the desert, and with all the horror and gore and themes of vendetta and vengeance maybe this film does come close to a western ‘Oresteia’.
Peter, when you’re not so overworked you need to resume this valuable series — I’ve learned so much about Ford from reading it. Many thanks.
PS. I love the bit in ‘The Searchers’ with the senorita and her castanets dancing around Martin — just like a rattlesnake going in for the kill.
um, should you, mark s. continue this series….
I’d love to see Mark pick it up, and I look forward to the day when peter can return, but for now, it seems Jaimie Grijalba will finally get his day as every other Wednesday will now be his.
Nice essay Peter and sad to hear that you’re stopping the series. However look forward to some time in the future when it will be picked up. My grandpa and my uncle have always loved this film. I watched it with them when I was a kid. I liked it, but not as much as other westerns that were easier for me to understand. I’ve found the movie to have incredible depth as I’ve gotten older. It’s clearly one of the top 5 Westerns of all time, maybe number 1. I like your reference to Moby Dick. It seems a nice parallel. Is it pretty much a consensus that Martha and Ethan were lovers and Debbie is their child? Or is this just me?
I’d say it’s consensus. Wayne admitted as much in interviews (which I generally don’t enjoy reading–as great an actor as he was, he wasn’t a particularly pleasant man), and it’s just too Fordian not to be there.
At the very least, the film underlines very clearly that Martha & Ethan are in love, and Aaron knows it.
Got it. Yeah it seems too obvious to me not to have been planned to be received that way. Wayne is a tremendous actor, but actually I’ve never read much of the way of interviews. Interesting. This is probably his best role, although I really like him in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon too.
Completely agree that Aaron knows they are in love. His quiet speaks multitudes. Indeed, throughout the film the quiet moments say more than those with dialogue.
I don’t know if it’s consensus that Debbie is their child, though. Ethan’s been away a long time, and the honor and chivalry displayed by the men in general in the movie, and by Ward Bond’s character particularly in one scene, plus the fact that Aaron still welcomed his brother into his home, seems to me to imply a chaste romance, always longed for but never consummated. I think it makes more sense that way with Ethan’s quest as well–he loves and hates Debbie because she is the last offspring/emblem of Martha and he can’t see her violated, but if she’s actually his daughter and he knows it things just get way more complicated. I suppose it makes sense in an honor-killing sort of way to want to murder his daughter, but to me the idea would just change the whole film and feel wrong, somehow. That’s just not quite the relationship they have.
Hey Peter, count me among those who’ve greatly enjoyed this series and hope you’re in a position to resurrect it at some point down the line. My general blog commenting/perusal has suffered a lot recently, and I haven’t left a comment in the last few entries here but I’ve looked forward to and read along with every one of them. Great job overall with this.
Trying to summon up words for THE SEARCHERS has always been something of a futile task for me in the past; easiest just to say that you can throw me in the camp that considers it one of the most beautiful of all films.
Another excellent post, Peter, in a really terrific series. I’m very sorry to see it go. If you find time and inspiration to continue in the future, don’t hesitate! You’ll have at least on willing reader here!
I’m personally always a bit conflicted about The Searchers. It’s almost universally rated Ford’s greatest film, and it’s certainly his most influential, in terms of direct references and tributes by other filmmakers. And it’s big, beautiful, and colorful, features John Wayne’s greatest performance, and has some very dark hidden depths. But at the same time, it’s one of Ford’s most uneven major films, with some really corny humor that saps away the tension, few of the graceful and natural group scenes so essential to most of his work, technical issues like really obvious switches between location and studio shots and rather white-looking Indians, and an awkward structure that admittedly works better than it has any right to. I think it’s a great film and one of the great westerns, but my opinion of where exactly to place it is constantly vacillating. At the moment I think I’d put at least 3 Ford films above it, maybe a couple more.