![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Review: 3:10 To Yuma
Yesterday's movie was 3:10 To Yuma.
I usually try to write these reviews without major plot spoilers. In this case, to explain how I feel about the film, I have to talk about the ending. So be warned.
I'm not a fan of "horse opera". They display too much testosterone poisoning for my taste and honestly, I just don't savvy the genre. In fact, I kinda got stuck with this film 'cause I reached the cinema too late to see the movie I was planning to see and I was fully prepared to hate it. Instead I found an unexpected depth and a plot which hung on character instead of action. Not that it's short on action.
Something I say a lot about my writing, and fic I beta: the journey is all about the destination. If I don't know the destination, there's no story. In 3:10 To Yuma I didn't understand the destination until the last few minutes of the movie. And when I did understand, it transformed the entire film for me. This is one I want to see a second time, because I think it'll be a different film for me now I know what the journey really is.
The bulk of the movie is a physical journey: Dan Evans (Christian Bale) with a few others (including Evans' son, tagging along against daddy's orders) is attempting to transport outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) from an isolated town to the nearest railroad, from where Wade is supposed to be put on the eponymous 3:10 train to Yuma prison. Meanwhile Wade's gang are roaming the hills with every intention of rescuing their leader and not especially bothered by the body-count along the way.
Wade's gang are the epitome of that typical Western testosterone poisoning: they're all about the violence. Wade himself, though, is a more intriguing character. That's partly down to Russell Crowe's portrayal: it's a good role for him. Early on in the movie Wade is described as the son of a whore (literally, not as an insult) but he's literate and likes to sketch, both of which imply he comes from money and is educated. He claims to have read the Bible and quotes Proverbs a lot - though whether he's quoting accurately I can't say. It makes for a more nuanced character but the result, for me, was I didn't care too much whether his men rescued him or not. He's clearly a bad man who should be in jail but at the same time he's interesting enough to inspire, if not sympathy then caring.
Christian Bale's character is different. Evans is a struggling farmer who is about to lose his land to the railroad. The early scenes with his family establish him as a sympathetic character who is not much of a hero. He's not exactly a coward, but he doesn't seem one for major heroics, either. He's also disabled, having lost a foot in the civil war - not that this slows him down. The war wound seemed like an irrelevant detail but it became essential at the end.
I don't know what others will think this film is about. For me, the film asks - and answers - one question: What is the price of a man's honour?
Initially, Evans' reasons for volunteering to transport Wade seem obvious: he needs the money to save his farm. As the journey progresses, a relationship develops between Wade and Evans. I'm sure a lot of people will see it as slashy; actually I didn't, though there's unquestionably subtext. Wade reminds me of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs - I mean his stories and the questions he asks Evans seem very calculating. He's pushing buttons, searching for weaknesses and (though it's not clear why) had picked out Evans as the one he needs to turn. Evans remains focussed on his goal of getting Wade to his destination, refusing to be distracted.
Fans of the genre will, I'm sure enjoy the journey: there's a constant sense of threat and as the good guys die one by one the tension only mounts up. But for me, it's the ending that makes the movie.
Toward the end, Wade and Evans are holed up in a hotel, waiting for the time when the train is due. Wade, in what seems to be a last attempt to escape, offers a great deal of money if Evans will let him walk away. By this time Wade's gang are in town and it's pretty clear that Evans doesn't have a hope in hell. So if money was the reason he took the journey in the first place, why not take Wade's offer? There's a sense that Wade is making the offer because he's come to respect or even care about Evans: he doesn't have to pay him off with his gang outside ready to slaughter the entire town if necessary. And though Evans doesn't come off as a dishonourable man, there's no sense that he's a man who would die for honour, either. He's a man who cares about real things: his family, his farm, not intangibles. So why stick to his guns?
It doesn't make complete sense until almost the last moment. There's a half a mile between the hotel and the rail track. Evans has to run a gauntlet to get there with his prisoner, and even if he does reach the station, he's screwed to hell if the train is late. He tries it anyway, and doesn't get far before it's very clear he won't make it.
And this is the point where the whole film falls into place. He names his price, and it's not money. He wants the respect of his son, and the only way he can have that is to get Wade on that train. Wade meets his price. Suddenly, instead of being the prisoner, he's an ally and they run the rest of that gauntlet together. They reach the station, the train arrives (almost) on time. Evans' son sees the whole thing and he sees Wade get on that train.
This isn't quite the end. Of course there's a hero's death scene and a bit of a twist. It leaves questions. In particular, why did Wade do what he did, if he was so confident of escaping regardless? I suspect the answer is he does it all purely for the adrenaline but ultimately it doesn't matter why. We can imagine he wanted to do the right thing for a change, or that he has his own twisted code of honour to live up (or down) to. But it keeps his character as ambiguous as he began.
This is, as I said at the beginning, definitely not the film I expected. I enjoyed it a great deal and look forward to seeing it again on DVD.
I usually try to write these reviews without major plot spoilers. In this case, to explain how I feel about the film, I have to talk about the ending. So be warned.
I'm not a fan of "horse opera". They display too much testosterone poisoning for my taste and honestly, I just don't savvy the genre. In fact, I kinda got stuck with this film 'cause I reached the cinema too late to see the movie I was planning to see and I was fully prepared to hate it. Instead I found an unexpected depth and a plot which hung on character instead of action. Not that it's short on action.
Something I say a lot about my writing, and fic I beta: the journey is all about the destination. If I don't know the destination, there's no story. In 3:10 To Yuma I didn't understand the destination until the last few minutes of the movie. And when I did understand, it transformed the entire film for me. This is one I want to see a second time, because I think it'll be a different film for me now I know what the journey really is.
The bulk of the movie is a physical journey: Dan Evans (Christian Bale) with a few others (including Evans' son, tagging along against daddy's orders) is attempting to transport outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) from an isolated town to the nearest railroad, from where Wade is supposed to be put on the eponymous 3:10 train to Yuma prison. Meanwhile Wade's gang are roaming the hills with every intention of rescuing their leader and not especially bothered by the body-count along the way.
Wade's gang are the epitome of that typical Western testosterone poisoning: they're all about the violence. Wade himself, though, is a more intriguing character. That's partly down to Russell Crowe's portrayal: it's a good role for him. Early on in the movie Wade is described as the son of a whore (literally, not as an insult) but he's literate and likes to sketch, both of which imply he comes from money and is educated. He claims to have read the Bible and quotes Proverbs a lot - though whether he's quoting accurately I can't say. It makes for a more nuanced character but the result, for me, was I didn't care too much whether his men rescued him or not. He's clearly a bad man who should be in jail but at the same time he's interesting enough to inspire, if not sympathy then caring.
Christian Bale's character is different. Evans is a struggling farmer who is about to lose his land to the railroad. The early scenes with his family establish him as a sympathetic character who is not much of a hero. He's not exactly a coward, but he doesn't seem one for major heroics, either. He's also disabled, having lost a foot in the civil war - not that this slows him down. The war wound seemed like an irrelevant detail but it became essential at the end.
I don't know what others will think this film is about. For me, the film asks - and answers - one question: What is the price of a man's honour?
Initially, Evans' reasons for volunteering to transport Wade seem obvious: he needs the money to save his farm. As the journey progresses, a relationship develops between Wade and Evans. I'm sure a lot of people will see it as slashy; actually I didn't, though there's unquestionably subtext. Wade reminds me of Hannibal Lector in Silence of the Lambs - I mean his stories and the questions he asks Evans seem very calculating. He's pushing buttons, searching for weaknesses and (though it's not clear why) had picked out Evans as the one he needs to turn. Evans remains focussed on his goal of getting Wade to his destination, refusing to be distracted.
Fans of the genre will, I'm sure enjoy the journey: there's a constant sense of threat and as the good guys die one by one the tension only mounts up. But for me, it's the ending that makes the movie.
Toward the end, Wade and Evans are holed up in a hotel, waiting for the time when the train is due. Wade, in what seems to be a last attempt to escape, offers a great deal of money if Evans will let him walk away. By this time Wade's gang are in town and it's pretty clear that Evans doesn't have a hope in hell. So if money was the reason he took the journey in the first place, why not take Wade's offer? There's a sense that Wade is making the offer because he's come to respect or even care about Evans: he doesn't have to pay him off with his gang outside ready to slaughter the entire town if necessary. And though Evans doesn't come off as a dishonourable man, there's no sense that he's a man who would die for honour, either. He's a man who cares about real things: his family, his farm, not intangibles. So why stick to his guns?
It doesn't make complete sense until almost the last moment. There's a half a mile between the hotel and the rail track. Evans has to run a gauntlet to get there with his prisoner, and even if he does reach the station, he's screwed to hell if the train is late. He tries it anyway, and doesn't get far before it's very clear he won't make it.
And this is the point where the whole film falls into place. He names his price, and it's not money. He wants the respect of his son, and the only way he can have that is to get Wade on that train. Wade meets his price. Suddenly, instead of being the prisoner, he's an ally and they run the rest of that gauntlet together. They reach the station, the train arrives (almost) on time. Evans' son sees the whole thing and he sees Wade get on that train.
This isn't quite the end. Of course there's a hero's death scene and a bit of a twist. It leaves questions. In particular, why did Wade do what he did, if he was so confident of escaping regardless? I suspect the answer is he does it all purely for the adrenaline but ultimately it doesn't matter why. We can imagine he wanted to do the right thing for a change, or that he has his own twisted code of honour to live up (or down) to. But it keeps his character as ambiguous as he began.
This is, as I said at the beginning, definitely not the film I expected. I enjoyed it a great deal and look forward to seeing it again on DVD.
no subject
I grew up on westerns and burned out after awhile, but now I find they formed me a bit more than I thought. I respond to them on a gut level I was totally unaware of till I watched "Red River" again a couple of years ago, and - click - 'got it' suddenly, despite the testosterone, or perhaps because of it...
Thanks for the review!
no subject
despite the testosterone, or perhaps because of it...
The testosterone bothers me not so much because of the characterisation of the men, but because of what it does to the women. Westerns, by their nature tend to have a mostly male cast, which is unrealistic to start with. In this movie, there's grand total of two women. One is a whore. The other is Evans' wife, a sweet, shy little thing who cooks and simpers politely and doesn't even shoot a gun when the bad guys try to burn out their farm. And that's such bullshit. A woman in that society would at the very least know how to shoot, even if she didn't like to.
But despite that... it's a good film.