“Can one shot redeem a film?” This is the question Roger Ebert challenges us to answer in his review of The Searchers, referring to Ethan’s sudden embrace of his niece, Debbie, after convincing us all his only intent was to kill her. While Ebert describes the cinematography as “astonishingly beautiful,” the real story lies within the context of the film, where an intense hatred and misrepresentation of the Native Americans emerges throughout the entire film and is in no way covered up. Sure, Ethan does rethink his motives and embrace Debbie at the last moment, but was this because of a change of heart towards the Comanche, or was it simply because he has finally learned of the importance of family?
Evidence throughout the movie strongly suggests the latter. From the beginning, the Comanche are portrayed in such a negative light, the audience automatically identifies them as the “bad guys” without even realizing it or taking a look at the entire situation. Our first encounter with the Native Americans is set up in a way that we know they are up to no good, shown by the desperate scream of Lucy when she realizes they are around, and the automatic search for the gun by her father. When they actually appear on screen, it of course is the scary looking chief up against poor, innocent Debbie with her doll, automatically making the audience think less of Native Americans; who would harm a little girl?
We then see the complete destruction of the home of the Edwards, complete with a hazy sky and thick, black smoke filling the air. Emotion runs high as their actions were so awful, Ethan cannot even allow the others to see what has happened. Of course the audience now wants the good guys to win more than ever, but it is a little much when Ethan shoots an already dead Comanche twice, showing extreme disrespect. The Comanche are even portrayed on the same level as animals when the Reverend’s plan is put to action and the men try to sneak up on the Comanche tribe in the evening, hearing only the sounds of crickets and frogs, but the calls and cries of the Comanche begin to blend in as well, taking yet another stab at the nature of these men.
The deepest stab, of course, leads directly to the significance of the scene Ebert brings up: the fact that Ethan feels as though those staying with the Comanche (including his kin) cannot be considered Americans, for being with that tribe is not being alive, leading to his decision that Debbie would be better off dead. Hatred does not get much stronger than that. The audience may, for a moment, think he actually has a point when we see the American girl that was held hostage and has gone completely mad, losing all comprehension whatsoever, and causing us to wonder if Debbie has had the very same fate. This suspicion strengthens when we finally are reunited with Debbie, but she begins to speak in Comanche and leads us to believe she does not remember her family, until at the last minute she shows recognition and the urge to come back home.
All of the elements leading to the dislike and distrust of Native Americans seem to fall into the category of modernism as it easily isolates Native Americans as a whole, bunching them all into one category: heartless savages. This plays into the idea of isolationism, which generally in Westerns goes to the hero of the film. Ethan does live out this role, shown beautifully in the first and final shots as he is clearly alone, however the Native Americans have an intense alienation and disconnect from virtually every group but their own. We cannot and do not relate to them at all, and we really learn nothing about them other than their ruthless nature. While this movie is obviously not trying to represent an actual historical event or fact, we interpret this Western world as a possible reality, which is troubling because of the evident one-sidedness we are often reluctant to point out.
Of course I am not saying the Native Americans were in the right to kidnap innocent victims, I am simply stating the lines of good and evil may not be as clear cut as we wish. During the final pursuit of the Comanche as the Edwards party invades the camp, we see a brief shot of a Comanche woman and child running, trying to escape the gunfire, but it is so quick, we barely have time to worry, an extreme contrast from the American child’s encounter with the Comanche where we enhance how horrible it is, even though the Comanche were unarmed.
To answer Ebert’s question, no, the single shot does not make the movie. It was crucial as the opposite outcome would have led to a disappointed, dissatisfied audience, but I do not think choosing the correct option justifies all of the previous actions. They took a stab at the Comanche almost every chance they got; they even added a shot of Scar throwing a rock at a dog. I also am a firm believer that this embrace signifies his want of a family and strong ties to his kin, especially since he made it clear that he had nobody left as he wrote his will, and even martin rejected him. Ebert was right, the shots are beautiful, and it does have an intriguing plot, but I cannot say one shot erases all of the alienation and disrespect from numerous previous shots.
I agree that the portrayal of Native Americans in the film is incredibly racist and does not give the viewer much chance to relate to them. I especially liked your note of Ford's attribution of animal characteristics to them when their cries blend in with the sounds of frogs ad crickets. I did not notice it when watching the film, but it is a very interesting idea. I also think that your analysis of Native American isolation is important. I do not believe, however, that it was entirely Ford's intention to criticize the Native Americans. Rather, I believe that the film was an early attempt at a social critique of their marginalization, which I especially noted at Martin's dismay upon learing of Look's death. While the film may have been an attempt at critique, I do not believe that Ford takes it quite far enough; if he meant to redeem Ethan (as far as his racist setiments) in his and Debbie's reunion, he did not, rather, like you said, he simply reunited the man with his family and himself.
ReplyDeleteI thought your ideas on isolationism were really interesting and applicable to this movie. The Native Americans did not want to be around the cowboys just as much as the cowboys wanted to be around the Native Americans. Even though Ethan's character did fulfill the role of the lonely character, this was also seen in the Comanche people. I didn't think of isolationism while watching the film but now that you brought it up I can definitely see it.
ReplyDeleteI think there are times when you can relate to the native americans. It could be very slight, but one of the main characters is part cherokee. Also, Look, a kind native american seems to portray some of the innocence of native americans.
ReplyDeleteI notice that you and the other four members of your blog group all agree about Ethan's character -- a complicated hero, but also a racist one. And of course the question that you all raise is whether the audience in 1956 would have shared Ethan's racism. It's perhaps worth comparing this film to The Outlaw Josey Wales (starring Clint Eastwood in 1976), who is also a confederate soldier who refuses to surrender to the North, but his relationships with Native Americans is more positive (as the documentary film I showed in class indicated.) So, the question is how all the symbolic condensation and displacement in a movie like The Searchers serves the ideology -- does it repeat a racist ideology or force the audience to question it? I think the moral ambiguity and tension the movie presents is one of the reasons why it remains such a classic film. And this tension is built up all the more by all the things we don't know about Ethan's past, especially what happened between 1865 and 1868.
ReplyDeleteAnd other point, I notice that you and everyone in your group and many of the published reviews that you all cited all observed the climactic scene when Ethan decides not to kill Debbie. What you don't question is why Debbie agrees to go back. In fact, the historical evidence indicates that most white people who became Indianized in the 18th and 19th centuries wanted to remain Indian. You might recall the earlier scene in the movie when Debbie says she intends to stay with the Indians. So, think about it. On the one hand, we today in 2010 are generally uncomfortable with Ethan's racism, but what does it say about our own racism today that we still can't imagine the possibility that Debbie would want to stay with the Indians rather than go back with Ethan?
--Steve