If you missed my first post where I explain what this is and how I’m scoring things, here you go, and if you missed where I talked about my Monday posts, click here.
I definitely don’t spend enough time talking about directors. At least up until this point, I have missed out on some chances to talk about some really important people in the history of American cinema, mostly because I wasn’t paying attention to it, or other parts of the past films were easier for me to talk about. From now on, especially now that we are into the top 70 of the AFI 100 Years…100 Movies, I will make sure that I take a moment in at least the Technical Score category to shout out the director by name, and point out anything I learned about that particular filmmaker. Fortunately, for most of the films I’ve covered so far, the director will have another film higher on the list, so I can give them the credit they are owed. I know, these very old or even dead guys are probably not at all concerned about if another random dude with a movie blog writes about them, but just in case Robert Zemeckis somehow stumbles upon my writing, I want him to know that I appreciate his work and am sorry I didn’t mention him in my Forrest Gump post.
The reason I bring this up is because while I was researching the next movie on the list for this post, Shane, I noticed that the director, George Stevens, directed two films I’ve already written about, A Place in the Sun and Giant. Both of those movies earned Stevens a Best Director Oscar, and both of those movies had Elizabeth Taylor in them. Shane did not accomplish either of those things, but here it sits, higher on the list than either of those other two films. Having watched both A Place in the Sun and Giant, followed by now viewing Shane, I think it is clear to me that Stevens was really incredible at getting the best out of his actors. Of course, the whole “do the actors make the director look good, or does the director make the actors look good?” question is a sort of chicken and the egg type scenario that I’m not sure I have the right answer to, but most of the time it just seems that talented people are attracted to each other and want to work together, so I’ll assume that is the case with Stevens and the performers in his movies.
Thankfully, I don’t do any research on these movies until I’ve at least watched them once, because I could watch Shane without having either of the George Stevens movies I’ve previously written about in my head as I watched it.
So, what did I think about Shane?
Let’s talk about it in the categories:
Entertainment Value- 1/2
If you’ve made it this far into reading my thoughts about these movies, I think I’ve pretty well established my feelings on Westerns. It’s honestly a pretty big barrier of entry for me, and Shane can’t quite overcome it. The story follows a man named Shane, who has left a past of gunslinging behind and found himself a job as a ranch hand, working for the Starrett family, who are homesteaders in Wyoming. A man named Ryker is trying to run off the homesteaders so that he can have more land in which to raise his cattle.
This, honestly, is where the movie lost me. The primary conflict is a bunch of white guys trying to protect their land from another white guy, who claims to have been part of the group who essentially drove the Natives off of that particular area of land. As someone who acknowledges the incredibly brutal reality of what happened to the Native Americans, it was really hard for me to get invested in a story where white men are worried about their land being taken, when the land they are on has already been taken.
Overall, though, the acting was good enough to keep me somewhat invested, and the buildup to the final shootout at least brought some good tension to the story, so I’ll give it one point.
Correctness- 1/2
I kept waiting for some poor portrayal of Native Americans, or for someone to refer to the Indigenous people in a derogatory way, but if it happened I missed it. This is just a simple case of this movie having no diversity.
Influence- 0/2
I had never heard of this movie until I went looking for it on Amazon so I could add it to my collection. I will probably never talk about it again after I’m done writing this post.
“Rewatchability”- 0.5/2
If I’m with someone, and they have decided to watch through the AFI Top 100, and they happen to be on Shane, and they ask me to watch it with them, I’d agree to it. Other than that, I probably won’t ever put this on again. The fact that I don’t have an instant full body reaction when I think about watching it again is honestly an improvement over some of the films I’ve already written about.
Technical Score- 2/2
This movie looks amazing, especially considering it turned 70 years old recently. George Stevens’s movies always look good, and this one specifically uses its setting really well. The Grand Tetons are prominently featured in almost every outside scene, and they almost become a character in the movie because their presence is so magnificent. Special shout out to Loyal Griggs, the cinematographer, who was awarded Best Cinematography at the 1954 Academy Awards.
Overall- 4.5/10
This is a beautifully shot movie with a story that I just couldn’t find myself invested in, and that really hurts how I score it. Would I recommend it? Probably not, but it’s also far from the worst thing I’ve ever watched.
You can rent Shane from the service of your choice.
Hasta luego,
Josh
Up Next: #68 An American in Paris