"Each man has a song and this is my song." (Leonard Cohen)

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Shane (Paramount, 1953)

A gun is as good or as bad as the man using it


Many regard Shane as a monumental film and talk of it in the same breath as High Noon or The Searchers, for example, as one of the greatest ever Westerns. The American Film Institute ranks it as the 45th greatest movie of all time and No. 3 among Westerns.

My own opinion is slightly different: I don’t know how many times I have watched it. A lot, anyway. And fundamentally I haven’t changed my opinion of it: that it is a mighty example of the genre; that it deals with classic Western themes; that it has great merits (notably visually); but that it is fatally flawed by the casting.
Rather an uninspired poster, actually
George Stevens had started in the film business as a cinematographer in 1923 and added directing from 1930 but he specialized in comedies and had no reputation for Westerns. In fact the biopic Annie Oakley (1935) with Barbara Stanwyck was his only Western as director, until he decided in the early 1950s to make ‘the’ Western movie, Shane. And, like William S Hart before him, he seems deliberately to have set out to make the definitive Western, whatever the cost. As Brian Garfield wrote in his splendid 1982 Western Films: A Complete Guide, “Shane is a conscious retelling of the purest elements of the classic Western legend.” In this way it is a most American film.
 George Stevens (right with his Oscar for Giant)

Stevens chose as his starting point the 1949 novel by Jack Schaefer, Shane. Many consider this to be a children’s book and in many ways it is. Schaefer revised the first edition in 1954 (i.e. after the movie had come out), taking out all the damns and hells and making it suitable as a book to be read in school. In fact the first time I read Shane was in a lovely boys’ edition illustrated by Wendell Minor in the Illustrated American Classics series. And it makes a good book for children because it is short, it is written in a direct, straightforward style, it has a noble hero to be admired and the story is told from the point of view of a boy on a farm with whom juvenile readers can identify.
Jack Schaefer and his novel
The 1984 “critical edition”, however, edited by James C Work, University of Nebraska Press, makes excellent adult reading because as well as the unexpurgated text of the novel you get a series of interesting essays about the book and about the author, as well as reviews of the famous film. For of course this novel is more than a children’s book. It has become an iconic statement of the Western myth. It has appeared in more than seventy editions and thirty languages.

Marc Simmons says of the characters in the story in the Foreword to the critical edition:

[They were] cut from noble cloth. They were strong, hardworking, brave, self-disciplined, responsible, honest; ungalled by self-doubt or any sense of inferiority. In short, they possessed those virtues that, by the mid-twentieth century, were increasingly being dismissed as outdated or unattainable.

The tone of this quotation is perhaps nostalgic, even reactionary, and that is one weakness of the novel (and, by extension, the film). It has a certain naïvety about it, an overly bucolic sentimentality that the “boy’s eye view” cannot wholly excuse or disguise. Another way to say it would be that it now seems terribly dated.

But perhaps this describes the appeal of all Westerns, books, movies or in other guise. They described a simpler time, when justice was administered directly and when if might was right, it was tempered by qualities of decency and fairness in the dispensers of the frontier justice. Of course, this time never existed but it makes a satisfactory myth.

Shane is in many ways the summation of the myth of the gunfighter, that samurai-like knight errant of the plains, sometimes a lawman, sometimes a badman, sometimes a gun for hire, whose skill with a firearm and courage to use it is summed up in the aphorism from the film that I have used as the title of this article. It is a very American notion, at once popular and democratic yet at the same time quite ‘rightist’ and élitist. In an evil world, it seems to be saying, the only effective remedy is a good man with a gun.
At any rate, that was the story Stevens chose. And in many ways it was well suited to his purpose because it was the archetypal treatment of that most Western of themes, the myth of the gunfighter as outsider who comes from nowhere, rights wrongs in a community and then rides off into the sunset.

By 1953, when the movie Shane came out, Westerns had followed a slightly different trail. Through the 1940s the genre had got ‘psychological’. Westerns were noir, Westerns were black & white, Westerns were intense. Movies like Pursued (1947), Blood on the Moon (1948) or The Gunfighter (1950) were dark, powerful films with Freudian touches. In a way the culmination of this type of Western was High Noon (1952), which had none of the sweeping wide-open vistas we usually associate with Westerns. Like The Gunfighter, it was almost a theater play, observing the classical unities, a town-based story with many interiors in which the characters interacted passionately in the face of looming tension and tragedy.

Stevens wanted none of that. He wanted to return to the epic scale of the open range, and he wanted a story of nobility and conflict set in mighty mountainous locations, shot in stunning color. His town, such as it was, was a tiny settlement of shacks dwarfed by the Wyoming vastness. Civilization is frail here. There is no marshal or sheriff. Men must make their own law and seek their own justice.

And of course the plot is another of those classic Western tropes, the big cattle rancher versus the humble homesteader. Although it is not explicitly referred to, there is a sort of Johnson County War theme to the story. This was one of the oldest and most commonly treated Western plots of all. Usually (though there were exceptions) the ranchers were ruthless plutocrats, little kings who had carved out their domains by fighting hostile nature and wild Indians and who were damned if they were going to let sodbusters come in and plow up their cattle graze, whereas the homesteaders were decent farmers, symbols of economic progress and democracy, exercising their rights as Americans to settle on open land. That was certainly the approach of Stevens and his screenplay writer AB Guthrie Jr.
AB Guthrie Jr
Guthrie was, of course, himself a noted Western novelist (Shane was his first screenplay). He depicted a rugged, generally unromanticized West, often filled with authentic historical detail. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his 1950 book The Way West (made into a so-so film in 1967) and was equally well known for The Big Sky (published in 1947, filmed the year before Shane).

Both Schaefer’s novel and Stevens’s film open with the arrival of the mononymous Shane. The book’s Shane is dark, tall and dressed in the fine clothes we might associate with a high-toned gambler. Stevens elected to have short, blond Alan Ladd (replacing original choice Montgomery Clift) in soft buckskins. Perhaps the clothes were meant to suggest a past as buffalo hunter or plainsman but, with the fancy silver-decorated gunbelt, the costume comes across, as William K Everson says in his 1969 book A Pictorial History of the Western Film, as pretty. And here we come to what is, for me, the principal weakness of the movie Shane. The part called for a classic tall Westerner, with an air of strength and toughness about him, at the very least Peck or Fonda but ideally Gary Cooper. Instead, we got a Hollywood Shane in a Beverly Hills tan and with coiffed blond locks.
Alan Ladd
Alan Ladd was certainly a very nice man and he could also be a good actor but he never suited Westerns. He didn’t look convincing in them, and his clothes always looked like costumes. He led in twelve Westerns, between 1948 and ’60, but the four before Shane had been ordinary at best (and the seven after were no better). Shane revived his Western career, indeed his career tout court, and made him a ‘famous’ Western star among the wider public but he was always one of the weaker heroes in the saddle. Though Shane is by far Ladd’s best Western, and he does surprisingly well in it considering, the movie never recovers from his performance.

They had to do 119 takes of the scene where Shane demonstrates shooting to Joey, which must have tried even the perfectionist director’s patience. The fancy gun-twirling Shane does in the climactic showdown was actually performed by gunsmith-stuntman Rodd Redwing. Other Ladd scenes were doubled by Henry Wills (later stunt coordinator on The Magnificent Seven). Well, that’s OK, most Western stars used stunt doubles.
At least Brandon was shorter
Where Ladd shines is when displaying elegant manners and giving courteous compliments, best seen in his dancing gracefully with Marian, and probably Stevens was going for an attempt at courtly love as the knight of the plains chastely woos the out-of-reach lady. The idea of Western heroes being aristocrats – or at least ‘nature’s aristocrats’ – was an old one. It went right back to Fenimore Cooper. The Virginian had it too.

But the film would have been so much better with an earthier, tougher, taller Westerner who gritted his teeth and did the decent thing.

In his review of Shane, Roger Ebert perceptively writes about the gunfighter:

There is a little of the samurai in him, and the medieval knight. He has a code. And yet--there's something else suggested by his behavior, his personality, his whole tone. Here is a man tough enough to handle any threat and handsome enough to win the heart of almost any woman. Why does he present himself as a weakling? Why is he without a woman? There must be a deep current of fear, enlivened by masochism. Is he afraid of women? Maybe. Does he deliberately lead men to think they can manhandle him, and then kill them? Manifestly. Does he do this out of bravery and courage, and because he believes in doing the right thing? That is the conventional answer. Does he also do it because it expresses some deep need or yearning? A real possibility. "Shane" never says, and maybe never knows. Shane wears a white hat and Palance wears a black hat, but the buried psychology of this movie is a mottled, uneasy, fascinating gray.

As Richard Slotkin points out in his essay on Shane in Gunfighter Nation, there is a symmetry to Shane. Sturdy farmer Starrett (Van Heflin) and autocratic rancher Ryker (Emile Meyer) are the leaders of their respective camps but both have to give way to their hired men who will decide the outcome of the conflict: Shane will fight for the common man’s rights and hired gun Wilson (Jack Palance) will seek to assert that might is right. Both are professionals. The first appearance of Wilson in the saloon is as dramatic as that of Shane, though darker, more sinister. We see him as he enters Grafton’s saloon, dressed all in black to contrast with Shane’s light buckskins, viewed from a low angle so that he seems huge, and as he comes in with measured tread a dog gets up and slinks off. Wilson is the anti-Shane and it is crystal clear that the final battle will be between them and them alone. One of the most memorable shots in the film is of Starrett and Ryker exchanging hot words while the camera watches the silent Wilson and Shane sizing each other up for the deadly ritual to come, and smiling slightly.

The choice of Palance was inspired. A stage actor who had made his name as understudy for Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire, finally taking over the part, he had made his film debut in Elia Kazan’s Panic in the Streets. An Eastern, ‘urban’ figure, he was an unlikely casting choice for a professional gunslinger. He knew nothing of horses or guns. But he was brilliant, and conveyed sadism and menace with real steel. Roger Ebert says, “He arrives in town on foot, leading his horse - an effective entrance, even if Hollywood lore says that Palance at the time was so awkward on horseback that Stevens put him on foot in desperation.” Palance’s Wilson is catlike, and this is greatly emphasized by the view of him mounting up: Stevens filmed him dismounting (which Palance could just about do) and reversed the footage.

Jack Palance, sadist
Woody Allen is, surprisingly perhaps, a huge admirer of Shane and he has said:

If any actor has ever created a character who is the personification of evil, it is Jack Palance. We've all read about the size of the horse, how Stevens put Palance on a smaller horse so he'd look even bigger. But when he arrives -- the music is great -- he's all in black; he's so poetically evil. He looks like he'd gladly kill the guys who hired him if they looked at him wrong. He's just bad news. Serpentine. In our minds, he's set off against Shane, one particularly good, almost too good to be true, and the other is totally evil.

Van Heflin, second choice after William Holden - who would have been splendid - turned it down, did a good job as the stolid settler Starrett, tall, broad in the beam, not over-gifted intellectually but basically decent (he was in some ways to reprise that role in 3:10 to Yuma four years later) and as his wife Marian Jean Arthur was very good indeed. She was another unlikely choice. She had been Oscar-nominated for another George Stevens movie, a comedy, in 1943 but Shane was her big-screen adieu. She was in her fifties yet played a young mother with skill, and her sublimated romance with Shane is marvelously well done. It is said that Katharine Hepburn had been considered for the part; certainly, that would have completely changed the character. The book calls for a person of reticence and restraint. Arthur did that admirably and hers was a nuanced, subtle portrayal.
Jean Arthur as Marian
There were many plaudits for child actor Brandon De Wilde as the Starretts’ son Joey. And indeed he was nominated for an Oscar for the part. Myself, though, I found him too young and too whiny, perhaps because I already had a clear idea in my head from the novel of an older boy, a tough teenager. This is no criticism of De Wilde, for many of these child actors were astonishingly good and you can’t expect more from a boy of ten. I criticize the casting choice rather than the child. Rin Tin Tin lad Lee Aaker had originally been penciled in. I always thought Aaker an excellent boy for Westerns and it’s a pity he didn’t do it. He was only nine but he would have been a better pioneer child, I think.
Brandon De Wilde as Joey
But the story revolves around the boy and so that casting was vital. As Philip French wrote in his 1973 book Westerns,

In a rather old-fashioned way, Westerns assume that young people have a lot to learn from their elders and very little to teach them, and that the process of learning is long and painful, that a man must prove himself in a variety of rituals before he can take his place in adult society.

Nowhere is this truer than in Shane.

The farmers are good, particularly Edgar Buchanan as Fred Lewis in a cap and Elisha Cook Jr. as feisty bantam Stonewall Torrey. The death of Stonewall is famously done. Stevens had won the Legion of Merit for his work heading up a combat motion picture unit in World War II. He filmed the Normandy landings and had seen death at first hand. He knew what gunshot wounds were like and he was determined that there would be none of the usual fake B-Western ‘deaths’ in his picture. Elisha Cook had to be jerked backwards on a wire as he was shot by Wilson, and land flat on his back in the mud. Death by gunfire was inglorious and squalid and shocking and loud, and that’s the way Stevens wanted to show it. Woody Allen again: “There's never been a shootout in a cowboy movie to equal it, in terms of evil against innocence.”
Elisha Cook Jr. excellent as Stonewall
And I liked Emile Meyer as Ryker, perhaps his finest Western role (of 70). As Paul Simpson points out in his 2006 The Rough Guide to Westerns, in his shaggy mane he looks like an Old Testament prophet. As ‘old timer’ Ryker, Meyer was actually ten years younger than Jean Arthur’s ‘young mother’ Marian. The first thing Ryker says is that he doesn't want any trouble. At several later points during the movie, Ryker tries to be reasonable, at least according to his own lights. He attempts to convince Starrett to come work for him, and later he tries to hire Shane. He is no cardboard cut-out villain. You can see his point of view even if you are, as Stevens wants you to be, on the side of the homesteaders.
Rancher as Old Testament prophet
Among the extras, two Ladd sprogs feature as ‘little girl’ and ‘little boy’ and Clayton Moore, then in dispute with the producers of The Lone Ranger and being temporarily replaced by John Hart, is a Ryker henchman. Director Stevens’s voice can be heard off-camera shouting encouragement in the saloon fistfight.
In the saloon...
For me, though, probably the best actor in the movie had a minor part. It was Ben Johnson (it is perhaps no coincidence that Johnson was a John Ford protégé) as Chris Calloway, the barroom bully bested by Shane who comes to decency. Johnson was one of the finest Western character actors of all time and he was rarely better than in this small part.

Ben Johnson the Great
Visually, Shane is stunning. As Bosley Crowther said in his New York Times review of April 24, 1953,

Beautifully filmed in Technicolor in the great Wyoming outdoors, under the towering peaks of the Grand Tetons, and shown on a larger screen that enhances the scenic panorama, it may truly be said to be a rich and dramatic mobile painting of the American frontier scene.

DP Loyal Griggs rightly won an Oscar for it (the movie’s only Academy Award) and this despite subsequent cropping to fit the new widescreen format that was all the rage. Long lenses were used to bring the Tetons ‘nearer’ to the characters and the Technicolor is superb. The film has to be seen in a theater; even the new large TVs don’t nearly do it justice.

Loyal Griggs
There have been criticisms of the look of it and indeed there is something almost picture-postcard about the film, like a chocolate-box lid illustrating the beautiful West. It isn’t John Ford. It is only really during the tree-stump scene that the characters truly interact with the land; otherwise it is there as a beautiful backdrop. I myself love the Corot-like trees on the way to town. Stevens has been accused of being ‘mannered’. Certainly Griggs and Stevens took ages to frame shots, often reshooting, using miles of film, to the frustration of Paramount, and then spending almost a year editing the results. But in the last resort, Shane is a visual masterpiece. Crowther added that the cinematography “gives the whole thing the quality of a fine album of paintings of the frontier”.

The chocolate-boxiness is heightened by the Victor Young music which is probably too ‘sweet’ and cloying. Stevens evidently thought so too because he replaced Young’s score for Shane’s ride to the showdown with music previously used in Paramount’s Rope of Sand, and in the saloon before the final confrontation the music is from Ladd’s own crime noir movie The Glass Key.

The film, just under two hours long, has a measured, almost languid pace. Film critic Dave Kehr calls it “Overblown, overlong, and overelaborated.” The Variety review of the day said that “Stevens … never rushes the picture or a scene” and added that “This measured, deliberate handling in many of the sequences may seem too slow for the tastes of the more regular run of audiences.” The action, when it comes, is sporadic, sudden, episodic, which, I suppose, ‘action’ usually is.

Originally scheduled for 48 days of shooting with a budget of $1.9m, it finished after 75 days of shooting at a cost of over $3m. Shot in the summer of 1951, it underwent endless editing and didn’t première at Radio City Music Hall until April 1953. The studio execs despaired and at one point tried to offload it to Howard Hughes but he refused it. When he saw the first cut, though, Hughes changed his mind but that made Paramount hang on to it, rightly, because it was a big box-office hit. It grossed $20m.

Is Shane dying as he rides away? Stevens rightly leaves us guessing. He is slumped over in the saddle. Wounded? Yes, Joey notices blood. Fatally wounded? Remember, earlier, when Ryker taunts him by saying he is “a dead man”, Shane makes the fell retort, “That’s the difference between us. I know it.” Or is he simply deeply sad at leaving Marian and Joey, sad at the failure of his attempt to hang up his gun and find peace? You sense that Shane always leaves after a showdown. "There's no living with a killing," he tells Joey. "There's no going back from it. Right or wrong, it's a brand, a brand that sticks."

''I don't like to think that he's dead,'' Woody Allen said, putting into words what many of us hope. ''Just that he's wounded. I hate to think that he dies in the end. I think they probably are pointing to the fact that he's dying because, you know, he's ascending. But I don't like to think that he's dead yet.'' Shane’s world is dying though, the world of gunfighters and the Old West. He knows it and so do we.
Shane! Come back!
In 1966 David Carradine was Shane in a not very good ABC TV show which only lasted one season. Clint Eastwood made a homage to Shane (you might even call it a remake) in Pale Rider (1985) with cinematography by the great Bruce Surtees and this the equal of Shane visually. Eastwood himself in the central role was much stronger than Ladd. Pale Rider is perhaps less subtle and complex than Shane and of course less original but it is in other respects gutsier.

In The Western Film (1976), Charles Silver said, “[John] Ford sees that progress and history are not necessarily synonymous, while Stevens tries to keep things simple for his audience.” I don’t really agree with that. Dave Kehr says that in ShaneStevens is aiming to have the last word on a genre: everything aims for “classic” status, and everything falters in a mire of artsiness and obtrusive technique.” That too is perhaps being overly harsh. Others have been great admirers: Kurosawa, Peckinpah, Leone, Eastwood. At any rate the movie lost out in the race for Best Picture to From Here to Eternity. You can pick Shane apart, and some film critics (such as François Truffaut) have done so, but despite its apparently clichéd plot and stylized nature it remains moving, entertaining, beautiful and subtle, and it is quite clear why many regard it as ‘the’ Western.

I would suggest that Shane is a must-read and a must-see, and both are leading examples of the Western genre. The movie is one of the great American films. But neither the book nor the motion picture was the greatest ever example of its kind.



  1. What a great post. Love the way you reference all of the various directorial perspectives on Shane. I don't think I can remember a woody allen comment on a western but he's right on both of the ones you mention.
    I agree that Ladd isn't as good a casting choice as one might have hoped for.. I haven't seen him in too many westerns - saskatchewan & Red Mountain come to mind. Still his scenes with Arthur are great
    One thing to add to your comment about the way george Steven's treats death - how about the sound of the gunshots- they are loud and percussive - can't remember a western with that clarity and aural impact.
    Thoroughly enjoyed your post and will seek out the novel.

  2. Well having thought about it for a minute or so the gunshots in Open Range are also loud and compelling but they don't have the aural/visual combination w have with the Palance - Elisha Cook & Palance - Ladd confrontations.

  3. This is a wonderful, spot-on essay. While I think a great deal about Shane (Arthur is wonderful, and I rather like young Brandon), there are huge holes in it thanks to casting.

    I have always found something oddly … revolting about Heflin. Holden would’ve been a much better choice, especially if Clift was on hand as Shane. But, Holden would also have made a terrific Shane, as would Peck or Coop or Stewart or Fonda … hell, even John Dehner or Richard Boone. (Even Jack Palance, the villain, would’ve been a more interesting choice!) Shane is the ‘good’ badman; and there just is no badman to be found in Ladd. In my mind’s eye, when reading the book, I pictured Shane somewhat like Robert Vaughn in The Magnificent Seven: resplendent in frock coat and well-groomed hat. Certainly not the mountain-man look of Ladd. (I don’t think Shane necessarily had to be tall … a few years later, and Steve Macqueen would’ve been excellent.)

    But for all of its faults (and there are many), it retains this curious power.

    1. Thanks, Lyson and Bob, for kind comments.
      As to the sound of gunshots, yes, Stevens pioneered this. I do think, however, that modern sound FX have got out of hand and are overdone. Spaghetti westerns were early culprits, because of their post dubbing and desire to shock. Nowadays we even have to listen to those stupid phew-phew noises when someone twirls a pistol.
      Best wishes,

  4. In the late '60s a movie buff friend of mine was staying in an upmarket hotel in Hong Kong. He walked into the lift and found himself alone with Jack Palance. His face lit up and Palance shook his head. "I don't want to talk about it!"

    Jeff - your piece on Shane is superb, possibly the best movie criticism I've read. I agree with you about Ladd. I detect a sadness in his performance. It's as if he's distracted the whole time.

    1. Thanks, Bill. Very kind.
      I think your comment on Ladd is very perceptive.

  5. The trouble I have with 'Shane' is I know I SHOULD like it because it's a great western and I love westerns. And my earliest memory as a child is the shootout. It's the darkness of the lighting I remember not the action. And it screams out at me 'This is a great western' and I just can't. I think the first 10 minutes is good especially when he says 'I'm a friend of Starrett's' but I'm just not interested. There's nothing that I can put my finger on that's bad - maybe it strives so hard for greatness it collapses under the weight. I like the dog getting out of Wilson's but it makes me laugh and I don't think it's supposed to. The fact is I love westerns but if I were on a desert island it isn't one I'd want. Let me ask you searchingly - are you SURE it's really worth 4 guns or is the fourth one more out of a sense of obligation? I mean - obviously - it's better than 2 but is it maybe just 3? It feels almost sacriligous to suggest such a thing.

    1. Very interesting and I agree with much of what you say.
      Many (even most?) Westernistas would give it five revolvers: it often appears at or near the very top of 'best Westerns of all time'. Not me.
      But it's not a 3-revolver picture either. Despite the miscast lead, visually the picture is superb and Ladd or no Ladd, there is something truly iconic about the lone gunman riding in from nowhere, righting wrongs with hs six-shooter and riding off into the sunset.

    2. It's possible most reviewers judge a picture according to what their peers might think of them if they felt different. That would explain why I never read an original opinion in the Radio Times film pages all the time my wife insisted on getting it and how Citizen Kane came out year after year as the greatest picture ever made. I don't know if it still does because after we stopped getting Radio Times I never saw another list of best films again and as far as I know haven't suffered from the loss. Is the test of a film it's 'greatness' or if it's the one you would choose to save from the sinking ship? My heart would be broken if I couldn't grab three-revolver The Tall T and Ride Lonesome. If so, does it make it a better picture or is it a good thing Mahler symphonies exist even though when it's time to press the play button it's Louis Armstrong singing The Gypsy that gets chosen time after time? My taste is so bad that time after time I would choose The Five Pennies over The Searchers and I have the cheek to call myself a western lover.

    3. Yes, I am quite sure that people often say they like what they think they ought to like. As a reviewer I try to avoid that and give my own opinion but I may not always succeed.
      My desert-island grab would probably be The Magnificent Seven, a movie many regard as commercial and hardly art.

  6. I found myself thinking about this the other day. You're right, Jeff. There are a lot of good things about this picture. The photography. Score. Dramatic situations. The script. The acting. All good. The problem is Ladd, as you say. The only way it works is if you think of him as a kind of angel sent to help or an idealized hero in a young child's picture book. Paul

    1. Yes, maybe. All blond and kind.
      But angelic gunslingers were a rare breed...

  7. I know most will disagree with me, but I think that Shane died in the end.


    George Stevens was a detail-oriented film maker (he was the director of the film) and if one watches the last few moments of the film very carefully, I don’t think there would be the controversy of “did he or didn’t he die” that has gone on for some 65 years.

    The film doesn’t actually end with young Joey calling the famous “Shane! Come back.” This is *almost* the end, but the film does go on a tiny bit longer.

    Pay attention to this final few seconds of the film.

    We see Shane riding into a cemetery – not the one where the murdered homesteader is buried – he did not ride towards this cemetery (which was a ways in front of the town) when he rode out of town. He rode away from the back of the town, in the opposite direction from the cemetery, towards the mountains.

    So this is cemetery as allegory: Everyone dies, when it is their time. It is Shane’s time.

    Again, in the final frames of the film, we see Shane riding towards the camera, into this cemetery, a bit slumped in the saddle – he is not looking forward, he is leaning in the saddle so that we can only see the top of his hat, looking down towards the ground.

    Just as an aside: as a long-time rider of horses, this is not (as has been suggested elsewhere) a typical posture in riding a horse uphill. This is the posture of a rider about to fall off.

    At just about the moment he rides by the camera we hear, very faintly on the soundtrack (it is very soft, difficult to hear, but is included even in the English subtitles) Joey’s voice, very softly: “Bye, Shane”. The rider is now miles away from Joey and the town, Shane could not possibly hear him.

    This soft “Bye Shane” symbolizes that Shane has died.

    The very last frames of the film (only a few seconds remain) then show Shane, past the pov (point of view) of the camera now, riding towards a very bright light that illuminates a whole section of the sky, where there should be no light (the setting is dark night). No moon is visible.

    Allegory again: Shane’s bright spirit is ascending into the sky [heaven – this was 1953, after all].

    Then, at the very last of the film, we see Shane and his horse *descend*, until both are lost from view. Shane’s mortal body has been returned to the earth.

    Fade to black.

    Again, it is no accident that Mr. Stevens, an extremely careful filmmaker, included this final bit of footage in the film. Mr. Stevens spent nearly two years in editing and post-production on “Shane”. Anything included in the final cut of the film was not accidental, it was intentional.

    If the intention was to have Shane just “ride out of town” the film could have easily ended at Joey’s “Shane! Come back!”. But it does not end here, but continues to this true denoument.

    These last few seconds of the film are extremely moving, at least they are for me.

    So. Yes. If you watch the film all the way to the end, it is obvious that Shane dies. The conclusion is inescapable.

    Also very melancholy, and extremely sad.

    And just about perfect.

    1. Some interesting comments. Thank you. I myself feel it is perfectly possible that Shane was dying. The ambiguity of the ending is, for me, even more powerful than a clear statement one way or the other.

  8. The thing about Shane is that it was probably the most authentic looking Western of its time (the town, the muddy streets, the guns and the costumes) and that's all likely due to Joe DeYoung, a protege of Charlie Russell and the technical advisor on the film. But then you have Jean Arthur's hair and makeup and Ladd's weird getup (not exactly inaccurate but definitely feels a bit too theatrical). And then you hear stories about Stevens going so far as wanting skinnier cows for the sake of authenticity. It's confusing. Anyway, it's certainly more authentic than any John Ford movie (although I still love most of those)

    1. Certainly the look of it is great. I love the skinnier cows!
      Ford did't really go for authenticity; that wasn't his thing (though he sometimes claimed his pictures were historically accurate, they weren't). But he had other talents…

  9. Excellent approach to Shane. Even though I disagree with some small details, I respect your well-placed observations.
    In fact, I consider "Shane" the greatest Western. I really like "High Noon", “The Man who shot Liberty Valance ", “Rio Bravo", “The Searchers ", “The Wild Bunch", “Red River ", “Last Train from Gun Hill", "Josey Wales" and "Hombre", but I always put "Shane" first.
    Shane's story was written by Jack Schaefer and published exactly in the year I was born - 1949. It is a powerful story, addressing "part" of the very violent conflict that actually occurred in Wyoming - USA, in the late 19th century, between settlers and cattle farmers (Johnson County War, 1892 - Wyoming).
    The competent George Stevens runs the western. A detail-oriented and perfectionist, Stevens did it in 1951, but only in 1953 did he release it for exhibition, taking almost two years in its edition. Alan Ladd plays the hero and did it with great dignity, composing an extremely doable character.
    In the film, Shane - a true wandering knight - appears on the scene, descending the Grand Tetons Mountains, around 1880, towards a huge valley occupied by settlers, in a government project, and disputed by cattle ranchers. He doesn't know it yet, but there is a huge and inevitable conflict there:
    - some want to plow and cultivate the land, harvest fruit, build fences - the settlers;
    - others want free space for their cattle - the breeders !!!
    The fact is that Shane is an unknown gunslinger - you can tell by his instinctive reactions - but he reveals nothing, (some think they have heard of him and appear to fear him). In fact, Shane ends up unbalancing the dispute in favor of the colonists, even though he decided, when he reached the valley, to practically retire his weapon.
    Rufus Ryker, the "cattle baron", realizing that he has lost control of the situation, decides to hire a bloodthirsty gunman-Jack Wilson-to put an end to the issue.
    In the film, Jack Palance enters the scene, also in a beautiful interpretation, giving the character enormous credibility.
    The tension builds and the confrontation between Wilson and the agitated Stonewall emerges. After the cowardly assassination of the settler by Wilson, and seeing that there will be no peaceful solution, little remains for Shane. Determined to protect the family and all the settlers, Shane tries to sensitize the settlers at Stonewall's burial, asking them to come together and not leave the valley.
    Stonewall's burial scenes are certainly among the most perfect in the history of cinema.
    Ryker becomes threatening and wants to lure Starrett into a trap. It's the last straw! Shane takes charge of the action, picks up his weapons, leaves for the city, faces the gang, and settles with the three terror protagonists: Ryker, his brother Morgan and Jack Wilson.
    Shane leaves for the mountains, under little Joey's sad call: Shane, Come back, Shane !!!
    It is, without a doubt, one of the finals and one of the most poignant farewells in the history of cinema !!!