DCist T-Shirts
dcistshirt.jpg
About DCist

DCist is a website about Washington, D.C. More

Editor: Sommer Mathis Publisher: Gothamist

About | Advertising | Archive | Contact | Mobile | Photos | Staff | Subscribe

Categories
DCist Exposed Photography Show -- Feb 20-Mar 7
Favorites
Contribute

Latest tip:

There is a suspicious package being investigated near 12th and D St SW, in front of the new Homel [more]

 

Latest link:

 

Latest Photo:

 

Recent Comments
Subscribe
Use an RSS reader to stay up to date with the latest news and posts from DCist.
Overheard
Voting Rights
Public Calendar
Links

September 10, 2007

Out of Frame: 3:10 to Yuma

2007_09_10_yuma.jpgDan Evans is the Charlie Brown of the post-Civil War American west. He just can't win. His wife looks at him with disappointment and disdain. His eldest son thinks he's a lily-livered coward. His creditors bully and insult him. Even nature thumbs her nose at him, refusing to give him the rain he needs to water the pastures that could feed his starving cattle. Only his youngest son still looks at him with admiration, mostly because he's too young yet to know what a failure his father has become since the Civil War crippled him. The worn out desperation in Christian Bale's eyes only serves to underline his character's inability to catch a break.

On the flipside of that coin is the outlaw Ben Wade. Quick with a pistol, a ruthless killer, and the perpetrator of a daring series of armored carriage and train robberies that has railroad executives seething, Wade is also a charming and sociopathic rogue who could probably talk the pants off his sworn enemy's wife. Or his sworn enemy. Wade can't lose, because he doesn't really believe in losing. Russell Crowe plays him with a cocky twinkle in his eye that occasionally flashes with the menace it skillfully conceals.

James Mangold's 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of the 50-year-old film of the same name (or a reimagining of the early Elmore Leonard short story, take your pick) crosses the paths of these two polarized characters, and sees what happens when their personalities and fortunes intertwine. For after his first chance meeting with Evans, Wade errs and ends up in the hands of the law. Evans, hopeful that fortune is finally shining on him, joins the motley crew of captors intent on getting Wade on the train to Yuma for a proper trial that will lead to his proper hanging. It's no easy task with Wade's gang in hot pursuit.

3:10 to Yuma is no Unforgiven, though comparisons to the modern Western masterpiece will inevitably be made due to the moral ambiguity that defines the film's central conflict. The newer film is neither as dark, nor as critical of its own pedigree. What Yuma does have working for it is a surprisingly ironic sense of humor, riveting performances not just by Bale and Crowe, but the entire supporting cast (particularly the Ben Foster as Crowe's rather frightening henchman), and a tension-filled final act to rival High Noon. Mangold's direction is effective, if unobtrusive, and the dusty deserts of the American west continue to provide a cinematic palette that fails to run dry.

Of course, the plot's setup is intentionally pulpy, and Wade's and Evans' initial characterizations are far more black and white than anyone could ever hope for in real life. The same is true of most of the other stock characters that populate the story. There's the tough-as-nails bounty hunter, who can have have a lead slug removed from his gut without benefit of anesthesia, played with grizzled relish by Peter Fonda. The mild-mannered medical man, who serves as the group's conscience (Firefly fans rejoice, it's the much-loved Alan Tudyk). The hateful hired thug whose comeuppance everyone is counting on, even if he is temporarily on the side of the white hats. The bad guy's right hand man, whose loyalty to his boss is only surpassed by his steely-eyed cruelty. And the women, few in number, but always leading to the demise of their men. Credit to the stellar cast for giving their all to what are essentially hoary clichés moreso than characters.

And credit to Elmore Leonard. Funny thing about the author. He makes those pulpy scenarios and shopworn characters work. Even when you can see a character's demise coming a mile away, because it's been that character's lot in life in a dozen other genre stories, it never ceases to entertain. More than that, it strikes deeper notes than the situation should allow, weaving fine silk purses out of so many sow's ears. As 3:10 to Yuma unfolds, it does carry little surprises. No, not from the plot. That comes out as you expect, and as genre convention dictates. But in the finer details lay the subtlety that sets Leonard apart from the dime-store junkheap. As they fulfill the destinies in their little interlocking dance, Evans and Wade ask questions of each others' philosophies and moralities, and if Yuma's plot is easy, the answers never are.

3:10 to Yuma is playing at Regal Gallery Place Stadium 14, AMC Loews Georgetown 14, and Phoenix Theatres Union Station. Check theaters for showtimes.


Email This Entry







Advertisement: DCist Continues Below!

Comments (3)

I thought the underlying morality of the plot was quite apparent.

 

POTENTIAL (VAGUE) SPOILERS BELOW

Christianity plays a role, but I think you're overreaching to call it Christian allegory. I think its an important point that at the dinner table it's Dan's wife who insists upon the saying of grace and Wade who is constantly quoting Biblical verse, but Dan himself never really displays any outward religious motivations. Which could just as easily be intepreted to mean that his morality is defined wholly apart from any concept of God.

Moreover, the ideas of what it means to be good or evil are not so clearly drawn as you make them out to be. And Wade's revelation about his history with the prison at Yuma while waiting for the train makes it quite clear that his actions at the end are not an indication of submission, guilt, or the turning over of a new leaf. It's safe to say that he has pity for Dan, as well as a great deal of respect for the man's honor. But to say that he admires him for his iron-clad morality might be going a bit too far, though. Dan may be as deeply flawed in his goodness as Wade is in his badness, and the picture doesn't really make either of them into unquestioned heroes.

 

I think the issue of Dan's religion could be argued either way. While, true, he did not openly promote religion, he did not discount it, either. One thing is for sure, he certainly had a spirit of humility and a strong sense of honor and morality.

I'm not sure what parts of the story lead you to believe that the issues of good and evil aren't clearly defined in the story. Dan never strayed from his morals. The characters who were arrogant or who were hypocritical were killed by Wade.

I can see your point that Wade could simply have pity on Dan. However, it really made me wonder why they bothered to show him contemplating the crucifix on his gun. Furthermore, I would say that honor and morality go hand in hand, so Wade did admire Dan for his honor and morality.

I believe that Dan's only character flaw was presented in his story about how he ran from battle. Dan did not die in vain for his goodness. His son ended up with a "right" outlook on life, he saved his family, he and his son defeated most of the gang, and it at the very least made Wade give pause to the issue of morality. While Wade was never punished for his badness, almost every other character was.

 
Post a comment (Comment Policy)

2003-2009 Gothamist LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. We use MovableType.

Site Meter