Week 4

Two films from the 50’s this week. And expectations played a large role in my respective viewing experiences for each.

Shane (1953)

There are only a handful of westerns I like. Most sort of blur together in my mind; my apologies to fans of westerns—they’re just not my cup of whiskey…or sarsaparilla. But I enjoyed Shane. It feels different than a lot of other westerns I’ve seen—especially others made during this era.

For one, the photography is fantastic. It was filmed in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which could make a lovely backdrop for just about any film, but works especially well for this one by providing an authentic frontier feel (more than the California desert would have). It’s raw and majestic and a bit dangerous.

And I love that there’s an untold history to Shane’s past. The filmmakers don’t feel the need to over-explain anything. They’re comfortable letting us wonder. Same goes for Palance’s Jack Wilson character—we get bits and pieces of his past, but not the whole picture, which makes him seem all the more malevolent, along with his twisted smirk and his steady saunter.

Plus the fighting sequences in the film are thrilling and unique. I guess the filmmakers attached cables to the actors that would yank them back when they were “shot” on screen. Also, Director George Stevens worked very hard to replicate the sound of “real” gunfire (he even fired a small cannon into a trash can to simulate the sound). The lengthy barroom brawl in the middle of the film is great, too.  It’s almost uncomfortably long, but it’s oddly authentic. The punches sound and look pretty real. And the sequence doesn’t play much at all like a modern action-movie fight, which often includes exaggerated sound effects or stylized punches. 

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the film is the central conflict—a land dispute between the ranchers and the homesteaders. While the characterizations of good and evil are pretty clear, the conflict itself is a little hazy. It’s easy to side with the homesteaders, as Ryker’s crew is presented as ruthless and greedy. But while I don’t agree with Ryker’s “case” (and certainly not his tactics), I believe his earnestness, and I understand why he thinks he’s in the right.

The African Queen (1951)

For the longest time, this one wasn’t available on DVD. A fully restored version was finally released on DVD/Blu-Ray in 2009 or 2010, and a good friend gave it to me as a gift. This version is beautiful. The picture is sharp. The colors are amazing. The only downside to such a restoration is that it makes some of the process shots (the ones shot at a studio in London) a little more noticeable. Fortunately, much of the film was actually filmed on location in the Congo and Uganda. It’s a stunning setting, and I appreciate the effort. I understand almost everyone in the cast and crew was sick during the ordeal, though. Bogie famously claimed he was the only one who didn’t get sick, because he never drank the water—he only drank booze. Unfortunately, that lifestyle likely contributed to his esophageal cancer (and ultimate demise), but that’s a topic for another day.

This is one of several films that either Bogie or Hepburn appears in on this list. And like in those other films, they’re both predictably great in this one. Their characters are well drawn, their banter is witty, and their chemistry is strong. 

Overall, The African Queen is exciting and funny, and the ending is abrupt but satisfying.

But….

Unlike Shane, which I didn’t expect to like very much but ended up liking a lot, I did expect to love The African Queen. I ended up just thinking it was “good.”

Don’t get me wrong. I did like it. I just didn’t love it, and I think it’s because my expectations were too high. This is Bogie’s Oscar-winner, after all. And he’s very good in it. But I probably had Casablanca or Treasure of the Sierra Madre or The Maltese Falcon on my mind.

How about you? Anyone get the chance to watch these two? What did you think?