HELP NEEDED: A question for you serious western scholars

Well, I have used quotation marks for the word “real”, which indicates that the term “real west” is quite problematic. There is at best an idea of what the real west might have looked like, and in Ride the High Country Peckinpah presents a changed west which he contrasts with the memories of an older west, which maybe never was like McRea is imagining it. And this changed west is then only Peckinpah’s conception of the real west.

My assume is of course that Lordradish is looking for a western which tries to have a more “realistic” look at the west, or which confronts a different west with the mythological west (Like High Country or Liberty Valance). A more revisionist type of western.
And for this the twilight westerns about the destroying of the west, or a SW which is situated in a destroyed west, or one of these 70s westerns which are trying to show a “realistic” west (like Bad Company) are perfect to show how the western genre has developed in contrast to the old mythological westerns he is searching for in his film #1.

And I don’t think that deconstructing a genre is necessarily the same as Derrida’s philosophical ideas of deconstruction. But maybe I’m wrong.

Well, according to him, deconstruction is a way of thinking, applicable to everything, westerns included (I have no idea if he liked westerns though). What I meant to say is that if he, or any other deconstructionist, would talk about westerns, it would be in the way I described in my previous post (more or less, they’re not entirely predictable).

Any western can be used for a deconstructionist approach, those of Peckinpah included, but I think a deconstructionist would prefer a film like The Man who shot Liberty Valence or Once upon a Time in the West. As far as Peckinpah is concerned, I think Pat Garret & Billy the Kid would serve the method best.

I know what you mean, but there seems to be a broader use of the word “deconstructing” in a genre context.

I have to think about this

[quote=“lordradish, post:1, topic:2673”]I am scheduled to teach a history class at my community college next semester, one about the American west. I want to include a section on films, and I need some advice. I want to touch upon three predominant themes, and need film suggestions for each, as well as why you might think this film is suitable for that theme.

Film 1 should be an example of how Hollywood romanticized the west. I’m figuring a John Wayne film would probably be a good option. Regardless, something that epitomizes the unrealistic mythologizing of the west is what I need here, most likely something pretty well-known and of good quality.

Film 2 would be an example that deconstructs the myth. I’m thinking a spaghetti might be a good one, but remember, the audience here is not accustomed to spags, so it would need to be something rather high quality, and not too strange (as in not something with a lot of bad overdubbing, crappy acting, etc.). I’m maybe thinking a Leone film here, but which one, and what specifically about it tears down the sacred cows of the Western myth? It doesn’t necessarily need to be a spag, maybe the Wild Bunch?

Film 3 would exemplify the modern western… but what does that mean? What do modern westerns say, both about the art of the Western film, and of the historical West? I’m thinking Unforgiven or something of that caliber.[/quote]
I’m not accustomed to old U.S. westerns really so can’t really suggest one for film 1.

Film 2, Once upon a time in the West (I know I’m being a bit biased here ;D), Companeros, GBU, Mercenary or something of that ilk.

Film 3, how modern? The Long Riders, Unforgiven, Tombstone.

I’m not thinking about deconstruction, moreso a film that shows a more realistic vision of the west and dispenses with the whole white hat/black hat mythology.

The discussions going on here are great, and incredibly in depth, and teaching me a lot. But let me reframe it for a bit, to perhaps change the perspective (at least what I’m looking for - by all means continue the in-depth stuff, as it’s extremely helpful to me, as well).

I am teaching a lower level course at a community college. Some of these people barely made it out of high school, and others could go to a college or university with much higher academic standards but for whatever reason, chose not to. So any parameter for this has to be basic, and be able to reach a diverse group of academic ability. Look at it as though you’re teaching a student who has just finished learning an overall survey of the historical American west, and now you want to give them a basic idea about the ways that this history was portrayed, mythologized and demythologized by Hollywood, in three films. I would go even further, and even ask you to assume that perhaps the student has never even seen a western.

I would also add to the above that a three-hour Leone epic is probably a bit more demanding than I can expect from students at this level of teaching. OUATITW could take up half of a semester If I were to teach it properly.

Aw man. This is supposed to be my hobby / fun time! I’m here to talk about Sergio, not Saussure!

But seriously…I think you could pass along the basics of semiotics and encoding without getting into a formal discussion of it. If nothing else, it may inform the way you teach. Beyond just the simple level of signifiers like hat color defining good and evil, there are cultural questions of why we need such literal black and white distinctions. What does it mean, in Liberty Valence for instance, that Stewart wears the apron, and what does it mean when he takes it off? Why is the concept of education tied to the character with demeaned manhood? What is encoded in the point that Hallie chooses the educated, but less masculine Stewart over the rugged, naturalist Wayne? What is represented by Wayne’s death that spurs Stewart’s confession?

In the end, TMWSLV strikes me as being on the surface a film that’s aware of itself lamenting the loss of a west that never was, but in the end it serves only to reify the mythologized west. But it’s about more than that, if you read the signs. It’s about tensions in the American identity, competing ideas of masculinity, and questions of progress versus primitivism. It’s an involved film, about much more than gunfights.

Oop, I zealously overlooked the word ‘community’…

Well it’s almost impossible to argue-against My Darling Clementine and The Wild Bunch.
‘Number 3’ is tough. I’m tempted to suggest Little Big Man.

[quote=“Cat Stevens, post:28, topic:2673”]Aw man. This is supposed to be my hobby / fun time! I’m here to talk about Sergio, not Saussure!

But seriously…I think you could pass along the basics of semiotics and encoding without getting into a formal discussion of it. If nothing else, it may inform the way you teach. Beyond just the simple level of signifiers like hat color defining good and evil, there are cultural questions of why we need such literal black and white distinctions. What does it mean, in Liberty Valence for instance, that Stewart wears the apron, and what does it mean when he takes it off? Why is the concept of education tied to the character with demeaned manhood? What is encoded in the point that Hallie chooses the educated, but less masculine Stewart over the rugged, naturalist Wayne? What is represented by Wayne’s death that spurs Stewart’s confession?

In the end, TMWSLV strikes me as being on the surface a film that’s aware of itself lamenting the loss of a west that never was, but in the end it serves only to reify the mythologized west. But it’s about more than that, if you read the signs. It’s about tensions in the American identity, competing ideas of masculinity, and questions of progress versus primitivism. It’s an involved film, about much more than gunfights.[/quote]

I totally agree, but I am here to talk about Sergio too, not about Saussure, and I wasn’t trying to start a formal discussion. I just wanted to be sure what lordradish was planning to do. In my writings I occasionally refer to semiotics, not too often. If you want to be read, moderation is the key.

Sorry, this may not have been totally clear, but I was joking around in the first sentence. I logged on to take a break from writing my dissertation prospectus and found that I had somehow brought the theorists with me. ;D

Everything after that in my post, all the “yous” were meant for Lord Radish. What I mean to say is that I think Radish can pass along the concepts of semiotics in a basic form to his students, without getting into Saussure, Eco, Barthes, Hall, etc. As we’ve demonstrated, it can be as simple as identifying that a black hat is not just a black hat.

We can start a formal discussion of semiotics in western cinema if you really want to, Scherpschutter, if you’ll let me wrap up this prospectus first. :wink:

Apparently lordradish is teaching a bunch of “dropouts” ;), so they will be needing some film education:
with classics

  1. Stagecoach. It is probably the most influential Western ever made and really sums America’s treatment of the West right to the early sixties.
  2. For a Few Dollars More. It is, relatively speaking, short. No accusations of Leonian excess can be made out of it and it demonstrates brilliantly the moral ambiguity of the Spaghetti Universe, where a man can defiantly no be judged by what colour hat he is wearing.
  3. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. I am surprised this has not been mentioned. It perfectly encapsulates the present day state of the genre, which veering more to nuanced period drama rather than action film, perhaps because that niche has already been filled by other genres.

Btw why do you think that Ringo is a killer?
He is an outsider, but he only kills those who deserve it, and only in self defense. The Plummers in a duel, and of course lots of Indians. But killing Indians is in a more or less racist film (which Stagecoach unfortunately is) always justified.

I don’t remember what Ringo had done wrong in the past, but he is a very traditional western hero, at least as far as the American western is concerned. He is an outsider with a shady past, who redeems himself by aiding a community, in this case the people on the stagecoach. American westerns are more about redemption (they’re closer to the spirit of the New testament), while the Italian westerns were primarily about revenge (they’re closer to the spirit of the Old Testament). Shane, for example, is a Ringo like hero: he has a shady past as a gunfighter, he most probably was a hired gun, like his opponent (played by Jack Palance) and he redeems himself here by helping the people who cannot afford him. What is also very traditional, and very American (speaking about westerns), is this idea that it’s one single man who makes the difference, by doing what a man must do. They’re in other words, Redeemers, with a capital R, like that great Redeemer from the New Testament, Jesus Christ. The Great Silence is anti-traditional, anti-American in the sense that Silence fails because he is a loner: to Corbucci one man could never make the difference, a loner could never be successful as a revolutionary.

And now everybody can make his own red line of western heroes, from Ringo to Django (and the rest is Silence)

I had not before made that connection, but it seems valid. I’ll have to rewatch The Great Silence again with this in mind.

Oh, the choices, the choices. As of right now, I’m thinking TMWSLV and FFoD, and not sure if I’ll do a third. I still have a lot of research to do.

Well, I think I’m going with Stagecoach and Unforgiven, but I’m still stuck on that middle film.

I wanted to chime in with one more option for the third category: Open Range. Reasons: The town’s mud-filled streets are the closest I’ve seen in a film to depicting Cormac MacCarthy’s de-glamorized interpretation of the west, the close-range gunfights at the end with their lack of marksmanship, and the emphasis on work and property ownership, as opposed to roaming ronin gunfighters.

Now that I think about it, Lonely are the Brave would be a great third option as well, with its visual punchline of the old west getting killed off by a truck full of toilets.

That could work very well. It is a good contrast and easily shows how much the western has developed and changed.
What makes the western so fascinating is indeed that there was always so much development and change. A broad range of themes and styles.

[quote=“Stanton, post:39, topic:2673”]That could work very well. It is a good contrast and easily shows how much the western has developed and changed.
What makes the western so fascinating is indeed that there was always so much development and change. A broad range of themes and styles.[/quote]

That, and there’s plenty of critical analysis out there that I can draw from. I have to have them selected by this weekend, so if I can’t pick that middle one, I might just go with the two for now.