Sergio Leone Web Board

Films of Sergio Leone => Other Films => Topic started by: El Indio on August 06, 2003, 11:37:10 AM



Title: Shane (1953)
Post by: El Indio on August 06, 2003, 11:37:10 AM
Non-spag topic, but I thought it was interesting.

I've noticed that there is a fairly heated controversy regarding the ending of Shane (apparently fueled by comments made by Samuel L. Jackson's character in the film The Negotiator) and was wondering what some of you thought.

Shane was wounded (I thought in the arm) during the final showdown. After he departs, leaving that irritating little kid in the distance, some people think that he dies there on the horse. I had never considered that, so I watched the ending a few more times. He seems pretty alive to me, and does not slump the way some of the death advocates have maintained.

He rides past a graveyard, which could have some metaphorical significance, but the problem is that he's clearly steering the horse around. He's also fairly upright in the saddle from what I can see. Of course, so was the Mexican corpse at the beginning of FFOD. I didn't see anyone run in and prop Shane up with a stick though.

I think that it's meant to be left open as to whether he lives or dies, but some say he's obviously kicked the bucket on screen. According to some comments on other boards, the book is not clear on his fate either.

Just wondering what some of you folks see.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Cusser on August 08, 2003, 10:11:09 AM
I never thought that Shane was dying.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Austin on October 09, 2003, 03:21:31 AM
OK this may be an old thread, but here are my two cents. I've always read the ending of 'Shane' as a metaphorical death, his forlorn departure much akin to Ethan Edwards' in 'The Searchers'. The old way of life is coming to an end as the homesteaders settle in to create the new nation, and the 'ancient race' of buckskin-clad titans fade away into the landscape from whence they came. I've also always considered Cheyenne's actual death and Harmonica's slow departure as a nod to this tradition.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: cigar joe on August 12, 2007, 08:24:20 PM
Watched this on TCM tonight and pretty much agree with the last comment made that Shane's is a metaphorical death.

Aside from the really annoying Bille De Wilde its not a bad old school film & Ben Johnson & Jack Palance have some great supporting roles.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: titoli on August 12, 2007, 08:27:16 PM
CJ, Palance has not simply a great supporting role: he makes movie history here.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: cigar joe on August 12, 2007, 08:52:44 PM
CJ, Palance has not simply a great supporting role: he makes movie history here.

true.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: The Peacemaker on August 14, 2007, 12:34:37 PM
I don't think he dies.


Shane didn't die in the novel.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on August 14, 2007, 05:37:18 PM
Shane, on my view, doesn't literally die, but I like the idea he undergoes a figurative demise (the journey past the cemetery signaling this). He can not long remain in human society, he is anathema to domestic concerns, because he has something to do with death. He may be the agent of grace, but he cannot share in it.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: moviesceleton on September 11, 2007, 07:36:49 AM
Just watched it. Very, very good. I'll give it 9/10. The biggest problem is the always so clean Hollywood style (how the F does Shane manage to keep his working clothes clean :o  ?)

I didn't see where he was shot but I think it's possible that he dies. But it doesn't really matter whether he dies really since he's dying breed. He either dies by bullet or then he dies spiritually when he's forced to adapt to the new way of living. I guess he'd prefer the bullet.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: moviesceleton on September 11, 2007, 07:57:00 AM
Shane (1952) - 9/10
Just watched it. Very, very good. The biggest problem is the always so clean Hollywood style (how the F does Shane manage to keep his working clothes clean :o ?)


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: marmota-b on September 11, 2007, 10:24:47 AM
Shane (1952) - 9/10
Just watched it. Very, very good. The biggest problem is the always so clean Hollywood style (how the F does Shane manage to keep his working clothes clean :o ?)

I've never seen it... I've read the book. I liked the book. And I'm a bit afraid of the film exactly for this reason.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Jill on September 11, 2007, 11:05:26 AM
Hm... I just watched the ending (the duel also) in youtube, and the pic was very bad, so I can't see where he was shot, but I can imagine it was something bad... like poor Cheyenne.  :'(
Shane was a man of the "ancient race" and he should die. Well, riding into the sunset is a symbolic death in a western, I think. But I can imagine he's deadly wounded, but didn't wanted the little boy see him die... so he was gone.  :'(


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on September 11, 2007, 08:35:57 PM
Well, riding into the sunset is a symbolic death in a western, I think.
Can be ("Going west" is a euphemism for dying). But context determines meaning. If the hero and his sweetheart ride into the sunset at the end of a film, then a happy life together is indicated.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Dust Devil on October 06, 2009, 11:53:37 AM
Shane is good alright. I (re)watch it from time to time and it mostly holds well the burden of time. It is old school, yes, but after you swallow the inherited naiveness of the (at times) dragging storytelling and some truly irritating character features, the good story and performances hold up the entertaining value pretty high. Nice cinematography too.

It always goes through my mind how it seems it was much easier to find great villains in those days. I mean in terms of talent, not to mention from the financial side.


7.8 - 8 / 10


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Dust Devil on October 06, 2009, 11:57:50 AM
And to answer the question: no, I never thought Shane was about to die in a literally sense.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 10, 2011, 05:16:39 AM
Watched this on TCM tonight and pretty much agree with the last comment made that Shane's is a metaphorical death.

Aside from the really annoying Bille De Wilde its not a bad old school film & Ben Johnson & Jack Palance have some great supporting roles.

1. I never thought Shane physically dies

2. The kid's name is Brandon De Wilde, not Billie

3. I think De Wilde is a) terrific, and b) essential to the film, which is a self-conscious bit of mythmaking. It is about the myth of the Western; the kid is the most important part of the movie


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: The Firecracker on April 10, 2011, 08:40:16 PM
This is my second viewing of this (the first time I fell asleep).

The kid is essential to the film in how it was shot (a lot of voyeuristic low angles) and told.
Thus making the boy's irritating speech tolerable.

The climax is superb I just wish it would have been less obvious that Ladd's gun isn't quite pointing at the final adversary when it goes off.

I got that Shane's fate is ambiguous.
Which was the intention.


8/10


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: T.H. on April 12, 2011, 08:22:32 PM
Shane is a masterpiece in my mind. I can't think of any potential shortcomings. I don't mind the kid, a performance can never ruin a movie for me especially something as great as this. This one gets better each view, looks gorgeous, has a great pace, good soundtrack and so many memorable scenes. The scenery is beautiful. I can't wait to see this on bluray.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 13, 2011, 09:08:22 AM
yeah, a very good score


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Groggy on April 13, 2011, 10:18:35 AM
I hate the kid but love just about everything else about it. A bit talky for a Western but it attains a perfect level of Western mythology and iconography that few oaters achieve.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: The Peacemaker on April 13, 2011, 01:42:53 PM
I recently re-watched the film myself after quite some time. First viewing I thought it was good not great. However when I saw it again a month ago I re-evaluated my first impression. I loved the movie. It's got everything I like in a western: breath-taking scenery, strong fearful villain (a big MUST), story of small ranchers and farmers against a force much stronger than they, and a fantastic musical score.

Liked just about everything about the movie. Though I do wish they explored Shane's PTSD a bit more, would've made for some dramatic sequences.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Groggy on April 13, 2011, 05:01:47 PM
I recently re-watched the film myself after quite some time. First viewing I thought it was good not great. However when I saw it again a month ago I re-evaluated my first impression. I loved the movie. It's got everything I like in a western: breath-taking scenery, strong fearful villain (a big MUST), story of small ranchers and farmers against a force much stronger than they, and a fantastic musical score.

Liked just about everything about the movie. Though I do wish they explored Shane's PTSD a bit more, would've made for some dramatic sequences.

That sounds like my experience.

Nice to see you Peace, it's been awhile. What have you been up to? O0


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: The Peacemaker on April 13, 2011, 10:11:57 PM
.

Nice to see you Peace, it's been awhile. What have you been up to? O0

Thanks for the greeting! I've just finished my newest short film: "McKinley!" I think I'll make a separate post regarding the film, but I must say I've been running around alot this year. Hope all is well for the board members.   O0


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 05, 2012, 03:06:51 PM
RE: the whole debate over whether Shane dies: The Negotiator was playing on AMC today, so I watched a few minutes of it; at the end, the Kevin Spacey character talks about how he loves Westerns where the hero dies at the end, and he says that Shane died. (Just mentioning that for the hell of it -- though I have never thought for a moment that there is any possibility whatsoever that Shane dies  :) )


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 05, 2012, 10:51:48 PM
RE: the whole debate over whether Shane dies: The Negotiator was playing on AMC today, so I watched a few minutes of it; at the end, the Kevin Spacey character talks about how he loves Westerns where the hero dies at the end, and he says that Shane died.
With my left hand, I send a gesture Mr. Spacey's way. With my right hand, I make a similar signal to the horse he rode in on.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 06, 2012, 07:44:15 AM
With my left hand, I send a gesture Mr. Spacey's way. With my right hand, I make a similar signal to the horse he rode in on.

I'd bet it was some sort of inside joke; maybe Spacey or the writer had been having that argument with someone and decided to stick it in for the hell of it.

It's crazy how this ridiculous debate has entered popular culture. Shane is clearly riding away at the end and is not dead. Sure, he has "come and gone," like the myth that he is. He represents the myth of the Western -- particularly the Western hero. Myths don't stay around forever, so he has come and gone into the night. But that physical person did not die.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on January 06, 2012, 08:39:25 AM
But there are many who think that the final shots implies that he rides away to die somewhere. I am not sure what I think about it, but I think there is something about the atmosphere which says death.

What I also noticed last time I watched it is that you never see the big ranch of the Rykers. Actually al what they seem to do all day is hanging around in that outpost and being bored. Normally such guys should work all day. Especially as they look as they would still do a bit more than only giving orders.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 06, 2012, 09:22:43 AM
But there are many who think that the final shots imply that he rides away to die somewhere.
Where were these people in 1953?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on January 06, 2012, 09:31:30 AM
Where were these people in 1953?

Means in 53 everybody thought it went well for Shane?

Just checked a German book. There's an excerpt from a Paramount tagline:

"Only until Shane mounts his horse Joey takes notice of his severe injury ... he silently rides away and leaves the valley for ever to die in solitariness."

(Re-translated from German)


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Groggy on January 06, 2012, 10:02:43 AM
Not a debate that's ever interested me. Will Penny does that kind of ending better.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on January 06, 2012, 10:49:04 AM
It's a meaningless debate because, as has already been demonstrated on this thread, the metaphorical implications trump the literal ones.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on January 06, 2012, 12:45:39 PM
I haven't read the thread


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 10, 2013, 06:52:50 PM
just saw the movie again.

The first time around, I thought there was no chance that Shane died. But after seeing it now, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made; you can definitely say it's meant to be ambiguous, or that it's metaphorical.

The dvd has a very good commentary, by George Stevens, Jr. and associate producer Ivan Moffat, but I was disappointed that they did not address the issue of whether Shane dies.

I think the final speech by Shane to Joey was way too verbose; at most, one simple line, like "I realized I am a gunfighter" would suffice.

The image quality is pretty bad by today's HD standards; they should do a restoration and release it on blu ray

the score by Victor Young is terrific

the actor playing the head rancher Rufus Ryker is terrible; the one playing his brother ain't much better

8.5/10


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on January 11, 2013, 02:09:02 AM
just saw the movie again.

The first time around, I thought there was no chance that Shane died. But after seeing it now, I think there's a legitimate argument to be made; you can definitely say it's meant to be ambiguous, or that it's metaphorical.

The dvd has a very good commentary, by George Stevens, Jr. and associate producer Ivan Moffat, but I was disappointed that they did not address the issue of whether Shane dies.

That would be stupid. The film implies that he dies, but yet in a way that it remains ambiguous.
Quote
I think the final speech by Shane to Joey was way too verbose; at most, one simple line, like "I realized I am a gunfighter" would suffice.
Yes, that's one of the sentimental scenes of the film. Without any sentimentality it would be a much better film.
Quote
the actor playing the head rancher Rufus Ryker is terrible; the one playing his brother ain't much better


Both are pretty impressive for me. Great faces.
Funny is you never see something of their cattle empire, and they seem to be very lazy guys hanging all day around in that trading saloon.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 11, 2013, 04:03:11 AM

Yes, that's one of the sentimental scenes of the film. Without any sentimentality it would be a much better film.
 

IMO it's not really about sentimentality; it's about explaining why he has to leave now, that he has chosen the life of a gunfighter and has realized it's too late to turn back, and that he hoped Joey lives to be a good person and not one who lives by the gun. I don't know if "sentimental" is the right word; I just think that the more you use words to explain something literally, the more it loses the effect.

Reminds me somewhat of the long speech by the psychologist at the end of Psycho, where he explains in very expansive detail exactly what went wrong with Norman Bates.

Here are the third-to-last and second-to last paragraphs of Roger Ebert's review of Psycho (full review here http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19981206/REVIEWS08/401010353/1023 )


For thoughtful viewers, however, an equal surprise is still waiting. That is the mystery of why Hitchcock marred the ending of a masterpiece with a sequence that is grotesquely out of place. After the murders have been solved, there is an inexplicable scene during which a long-winded psychiatrist (Simon Oakland) lectures the assembled survivors on the causes of Norman's psychopathic behavior. This is an anticlimax taken almost to the point of parody.

If I were bold enough to reedit Hitchcock's film, I would include only the doctor's first explanation of Norman's dual personality: "Norman Bates no longer exists. He only half existed to begin with. And now, the other half has taken over, probably for all time." Then I would cut out everything else the psychiatrist says, and cut to the shots of Norman wrapped in the blanket while his mother's voice speaks ("It's sad when a mother has to speak the words that condemn her own son..."). Those edits, I submit, would have made "Psycho" very nearly perfect. I have never encountered a single convincing defense of the psychiatric blather; Truffaut tactfully avoids it in his famous interview.




Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 11, 2013, 04:22:10 AM

Both are pretty impressive for me. Great faces.
Funny is you never see something of their cattle empire, and they seem to be very lazy guys hanging all day around in that trading saloon.

My problem isn't with their faces; it's once they open their mouths. Somethig about the way they speak, their voices/accents/cadences annoys me.

The one time you see some cattle was when they run some through Ernie's plowed land; as I recall, it looks like no more than 100 head; definitely not an empire. And I guess it's a Western tradition that the bad guys do nothing but hang around a saloon all day.

Though Leone was a great fan of Shane, Frayling says that Leone didn't much care for Ladd's performance.  One thing about Ladd: he looks like a girl when he punches ;D but maybe that's just cuz he has to punch upwards, cuz he is so short. (Perhaps he should have stuck to uppercuts rather than doing so many upward jabs and hooks  ;))

The guy who plays the Swede has the worst accent ever (I laughed so damn hard when I he says "Ve ned some vood fer de firevorks.") He basically just substitutes a "V" for a "W," and "De" for "the," and voila, he's a swede! Elisha Cook, Jr. has an awful Southern accent.

btw, in the commentary, George Stevens, Jr. says that Sam Peckinpah said Shane is the greatest Western ever. Apparently, Peckinpah and Shane director George Stevens (Sr.) shared a disdain for violence. In the commentary, Jr. talks about how Sr., who had experienced so much death in the military in World War II, hated how Westerns treated six-shooters like toys, showing people getting shot multiple times and then jumping up, recovering instantly; Sr. wanted to show the horrors and devastation of a gun, and de-glamorize the violence. Peckinpah supposedly hated violence but used a different way of showing it; by showing as much violeve as possible, and hoping it would horrify the audience; instead, he was horrified when the audience loved it. (I read that somewhere about Peckinpah; I don't know how much of that is true).

Also, (for a movie that is a "self-conscious bit of myth-making," to paraphrase Frayling), there was a great emphasis on realism; Sr. said he wanted the characters to wear exactly what they would be wearing if we parachuted into Wyoming in 1890. Another bit of realism is the main street with stores on only one side; he said that in most Westerns, the town has stores on both sides of the street, to block the view of Culver City  ;D There is really a wonderful realistic look here. I am no historian of the West, maybe cigar joe can comment on this, but it seems to me that visually -- the worked-in clothing, the muddy streets, the rough buildings with very dim lighting, the sparsity of it all, the isolation, the dimness of all the indoor scenes -- Shane is as realistic as any Western.

I really can't wait for this movie to be have a proper restoration and blu ray release.


And again, I have to urge everyone who is a fan of Shane to watch the awesome dvd commentary with George Stevens Jr. and Ivan Moffat


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: cigar joe on January 11, 2013, 04:41:50 AM
Funny is you never see something of their cattle empire, and they seem to be very lazy guys hanging all day around in that trading saloon.

I have a good buddy in Montana who family has a cattle ranch of 10,000 acres. I asked him how many cattle they could run on it, his answer was surprising, he said 375 beeves. That is all that amount of land could support it works out to about 32 acres per cow.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: cigar joe on January 11, 2013, 05:10:01 AM

Also, (for a movie that is a "self-conscious bit of myth-making," to paraphrase Frayling), there was a great emphasis on realism; Sr. said he wanted the characters to wear exactly what they would be wearing if we parachuted into Wyoming in 1890. Another bit of realism is the main street with stores on only one side; he said that in most Westerns, the town has stores on both sides of the street, to block the view of Culver City  ;D There is really a wonderful realistic look here. I am no historian of the West, maybe cigar joe can comment on this, but it seems to me that visually -- the worked-in clothing, the muddy streets, the rough buildings with very dim lighting, the sparsity of it all, the isolation, the dimness of all the indoor scenes -- Shane is as realistic as any Western.


Yea the one side of the street town is realistic a lot of towns still look like that, especially those situated along railroads or in a narrow canyon. Another factor would be the prevailing winds where the "front" sides of the town buildings would face away from the wind.

The biggest unrealistic thing in Shane is the presence of dirt farmers at all, nobody in his right mind would attempt to farm in a valley at 6,000 feet elevation that gets over 6 feet of snow a year.

Ryker & Co. should have just let them starve themselves out.  A more realistic confrontation would have been cattle vs sheep.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 11, 2013, 05:26:17 AM
Yea the one side of the street town is realistic a lot of towns still look like that, especially those situated along railroads or in a narrow canyon. Another factor would be the prevailing winds where the "front" sides of the town buildings would face away from the wind.

The biggest unrealistic thing in Shane is the presence of dirt farmers at all, nobody in his right mind would attempt to farm in a valley at 6,000 feet elevation that gets over 6 feet of snow a year.

Ryker & Co. should have just let them starve themselves out.  A more realistic confrontation would have been cattle vs sheep.

isn't the melted snow that drips down from mountains good for crops?


(one Western that I can recall that was based on the cattle vs. sheep confrontation was Montana (1950), with Errol Flynn and Alexis Smith http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042744/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2  It was one of the most ridiculous Westerns you will ever see. The squabbling parties sound like a bunch of 5 year-olds)


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on January 11, 2013, 05:36:38 AM
IMO it's not really about sentimentality; it's about explaining why he has to leave now, that he has chosen the life of a gunfighter and has realized it's too late to turn back, and that he hoped Joey lives to be a good person and not one who lives by the gun. I don't know if "sentimental" is the right word; I just think that the more you use words to explain something literally, the more it loses the effect.


I call this sentimental, especially in the way it was filmed by Stevens.

For Peckinpah. He did not film as much violence as possible. Only as much as the film needed. Just like Leone.

The filming of violence in Shane is very effective, but I'm not sure if it is really realistic. But Stevens wasn't the first one who made violence look violent in a western.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on January 11, 2013, 06:01:26 AM
Shane addresses the gun control question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn9GLS-lnV0&feature=youtu.be


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: cigar joe on January 11, 2013, 07:03:05 AM
isn't the melted snow that drips down from mountains good for crops?

It's not about water its about the number of frost free days.

(http://i841.photobucket.com/albums/zz337/cigarjoe/fig33_zpsdb14b3d2.jpg)

What are you going to grow when between 231 and 250 days of the year you have the probability of the temperatures dropping below 32.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: T.H. on March 26, 2013, 10:18:12 AM
The bluray will finally be released June 4th. I've heard rumors that paramount spent some decent cash remastering it, we'll see.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=10764

I hope we get a choice for the aspect ratios.

(http://www.highdefdiscnews.com/package/shane.jpg)



Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on March 26, 2013, 03:36:20 PM


I hope we get a choice for the aspect ratios.



You want a 16:9 version, or do you fear they will release it wrongly in 16:9?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: T.H. on March 26, 2013, 04:57:37 PM
I fear that there's only going to be the 1.66 version, which Stevens apparently hated and framed the movie for a 1.37 AR. While it may not be the equivalent of a butchery like hacking 2.35 to 1.33, I don't like that this movie isn't being properly preserved - even though I believe the original theatrical ratio was 1.66.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 30, 2013, 05:43:34 PM
My understanding is that the Academy Aspect ratio is best for this film (as it appears on all previous home video releases). But that's not the one we're going to get. A shame somebody like Criterion couldn't have gotten this and issued the title in 2 forms . . .


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 08, 2013, 06:01:08 AM
arguments contra a 16:9 AR begin here:
http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-shane-showdown-part-one-looks-like.html?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 09, 2013, 12:02:33 PM
Part 2: http://greenbriarpictureshows.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/the-shane-showdown-part-two-another.html


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Novecento on April 17, 2013, 08:30:17 PM
Seems it will be released in its 1.37:1 OAR after all:

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/movies/dvd_extra_extra_shane_blu_ray_now_rRRLlr9Ts3GDyA5zhGErQP#ixzz2Qm3s1q31


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 18, 2013, 10:57:11 AM
Very interesting. I wonder why they won't give us both ARs? That would be ideal and it's obvious that, except for the disc mastering, they've got both ready to go. Will it really cut that much into their profits forecast to give us two different versions of the film?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: T.H. on April 19, 2013, 01:08:55 PM
Two would be nice, but I would probably only watch the 1.37 version, so I'm happy.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 19, 2013, 03:55:17 PM
I agree that if we can have only one version the Academy ratio is the one to have. But I am curious about the widescreen version and would love to see it.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 29, 2013, 07:11:20 AM
Bob Furmanek now has two versions of the trailer up, uncropped and cropped: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Yeah, if I had to choose, I'd go with the Academy ratio.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 29, 2013, 11:38:16 AM
So the film would have been shot in 4:3, and the widescreen version would have the top and bottom chopped, correct? Or is it the other way around?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on April 29, 2013, 12:31:14 PM
It was shot for 1,37:1, but it seems after widescreen became popular when it was released that Shane was also projected with a masking of top and bottom parts. Bad idea.

I have seen this last year in Singin in the Rain. It often looked obviously awful with parts of the heads chopped off and dancing scenes without feet. Ridiculous ...


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 29, 2013, 12:58:07 PM
It was shot for 1,37:1, but it seems after widescreen became popular when it was released that Shane was also projected with a masking of top and bottom parts. Bad idea.

I have seen this last year in Singin in the Rain. It often looked obviously awful with parts of the heads chopped off and dancing scenes without feet. Ridiculous ...

So the point is that the 4:3 version would show everything that widescreen version would show, plus more, correct?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 29, 2013, 01:01:47 PM
according to imdb, the negative spect ratio is 1.37:1 while the theatrical aspect ratio was 1.66:1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046303/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Is there no way to know what George Stevens intended? His son George Stevens, Jr. is still alive and worked on this movie


----

as far as the movie is concerned: it's good, gets an 8/10, but it is not one of the all-time great Westerns. Alan Ladd is, while not the only problem, certainly the biggest. Perhaps a good actor could have made this a great movie


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: T.H. on April 29, 2013, 01:06:55 PM
Bob Furmanek now has two versions of the trailer up, uncropped and cropped: http://www.3dfilmarchive.com/home/widescreen-documentation

Yeah, if I had to choose, I'd go with the Academy ratio.

After seeing that, I'm glad the 1.66 isn't included. It needs to go away imo. The Ladd Palance duel looked horrible in 1.66.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on April 29, 2013, 01:19:43 PM
in that case, the movie must have been awful to see in theaters, cuz if imdb is correct, the theatrical aspect ratio is 1.66:1


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on April 29, 2013, 02:20:47 PM
So the point is that the 4:3 version would show everything that widescreen version would show, plus more, correct?

Yes, but that is also correct for nearly all 1,85:1 and 1,66:1 aspect ratios. Question is for which intended aspect ratio the images were composed. Normally for the widescreen aspect ratio to be shown in theatres, not for the full screen one which formerly often was used for TV and Home Video.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on April 29, 2013, 02:23:10 PM
according to imdb, the negative spect ratio is 1.37:1 while the theatrical aspect ratio was 1.66:1 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046303/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Is there no way to know what George Stevens intended?



The answer was already given in this thread if I'm not wrong in a linked text. Last page probably.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on April 29, 2013, 03:14:16 PM
Stevens composed the film in 1951 for 1.33:1, the only aspect ratio going at the time. The studio sat on the film and then released it two years later in 1.66:1, with Stevens co-operation, to take advantage of the new widescreen craze. So the film's original theatrical aspect ratio was 1.66:1. Later, when Stevens brought his personal print to film festivals, schools, what-have-yous, he always showed the film in 1.33:1. George Stevens Jr., his son, is on record stating that his father composed for 1.33:1 and always preferred that ratio, but co-operated with the studio to get the film released in the way the studio wanted to market it. So 1.66:1 is part of the film's history (and the basis for its Oscar), but 1.33:1 is the director's preferred ratio.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on May 03, 2013, 02:11:07 PM
New Warner announcement:
"The street date for the George Stevens production of SHANE in Blu-ray has been moved from June 4, 2013 to August 13, 2013 in order to complete remastering in the original 1:37 aspect ratio."


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on June 13, 2013, 11:32:22 PM
Amazon lists the blu-ray at 1.77:1 http://www.amazon.com/Shane-Blu-ray-Alan-Ladd/dp/B00C1TOTK0/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1371187817&sr=1-1&keywords=shane

 but I don't put much stock in what Amazon says. If an official Warner announcement has said it'll be in 1.37:1, I'd trust that, of course


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 07, 2013, 07:49:40 PM
-- I rated this movie an 8.5/10, but that is as high as I can go with a performance by Alan Ladd. I'm not saying the movie is perfect without him, but he is definitely the worst thing about it. I just hate watching him. I've seen him in two other movies, The Glass Key and the Western-heist movie adapted from the novel The Asphalt Jungle whose name currently eludes me, and all I can say is that he is at best an average actor. And that's why I can never place Shane among the all-time great Westerns. And it's a shame. All the great all-time great AW's have leads like John Wayne or Henry Fonda. But Shane has Alan F***ing Ladd. No use saying what-if, but man, I can just imagine if they'd put Fonda in the lead here, I think it would have been just perfect, and then this movie would have had a chance to be a near-masterpiece. As it is, it's about as good as can be with a crappy lead.

-- in the dvd commentary, Stevens Jr. or Moffat, mentions that in the scene where they needed the horses spooked, they had some guy dress up as a bear, so that the horses would be really scared. I think that's awful. My understanding is that although the Humane Society first started getting involved in movies where animals were used after a horse died in Jesse James (1939), it wasn't until after Heaven's Gate and the awful brutality of the crew toward animals – if half the stuff I read on wikipedia is true, I hope every one of those crew members dies screaming of anal cancer – that they started getting involved on a much more significant level, and the "No Animals Were Harmed During the Making of this Picture" started appearing..... I can't stand how the commentator - I'm pretty sure it was Stevens Jr. – just says this matter-of-factly, like it's no big deal, like it's just explaining another behind-the-scenes trick. I mean, I guess I can't expect him to bash his own father, but this story shouldn't be told matter-of-factly, like it's just another "movie trick" being revealed to us, like there's nothing wrong with terrifying the horses, making them think they're gonna be attacked by bears

Then again, I shouldn't be surprised; so many filmmakers are scumbags, and will do whatever it takes to get a scene. I remember Elia Kazan talking (in an interview in bonus features of DVD of A Streetcar Named Desire) about one scene he directed, in A Tree Grows in Brooklyn in which the little girl actress had to be crying cuz her father died - and the girl "nails" the scene. In fact, Kazan said, he knew that the little girl was very worried about her real-life father who was overseas fighting in the Royal Air Force WWII - so before the cameras started rolling, he started reminding her about her father, just so she would get all sad and start crying. Indeed, she began crying so hysterically, he said he couldn't even get her to stop after he yelled "Cut!" and then he spent lots of time hugging and comforting her (what a great, caring guy!). As he was saying the story, Kazan seemed to hesitate, as if he was embarrassed or wondering "what will people think of me now?" -  but at no point did he say anything like "I was an asshole for doing it, I regret it terribly, I was such a jerk." No, Kazan basically was just matter of fact about it, saying sumthin like (paraphrased), "a director is gonna do whatever it takes to get the scene."
Can you friggin' imagine that - making a little girl get sad over again, cuz she is worried about her father maybe never returning from war, just to nail a scene in a movie? Any normal person that knows a little girl has any concerns/fears/worries, would do all he could to try to comfort her, to make her feel better, to make her feel happier, but this piece of shit, just to try to get a friggin' movie scene to work as well as possible, makes a little girl sad to try to get her to cry.
That's the sort of story that, regardless of what else a person did in his life, that makes me hate the guy.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 25, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/shane.htm


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 25, 2013, 03:19:35 PM
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/shane.htm

why is it that Beaver's more recent screencaps are always bigger than the older ones? Is it cuz he now uses a bigger screen? Or is making them higher resolution? I wonder if that has any effect on the quality/accuracy of the screencaps, especially when comparing the bigger ones to the smaller ones?

(assuming these screencaps are really accurate): look at the first screencap comparison, of the deer drinking in the pond: doesn't it look like the blue is less blue on the blu-ray? The sky and the pond really look blue on the dvd; on the blu-ray it's more dull, like the sky looks much less bright blue, it's like more grey, and ditto with the water. of course, there are clouds in the background, but if you look at the non-cloudy portion of the sky, it looks to me like the dvd has a more realistic shade of blue to it.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Novecento on July 25, 2013, 05:44:26 PM
why is it that Beaver's more recent screencaps are always bigger than the older ones? Is it cuz he now uses a bigger screen? Or is making them higher resolution?

BD versus DVD


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on July 26, 2013, 12:14:05 AM
BD versus DVD

no, it's not just DVD vs. BRD. It's his older caps vs. his newer caps. Look at, eg. his caps for Vertigo http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/dvdcompare/vertigo.htm the first one is small, the others – which include both DVD and BRD – are all big. Again, I wonder if it's cuz his system got bigger as time went on (on bottom of his pages, he writes what system he uses; I think he used to use a 46" and now he uses a 60", something like that), does that have anything to do with it? And if so, wouldn't that affect the accuracy of his screencaps? It's not just the size difference, but that fact that he is comparing screencaps for discs viewed on different systems?


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Novecento on July 26, 2013, 07:22:50 AM
Quote
To more fully distinguish the differences we have, as usual, let our software upsize the anamorphic release to its chosen 960 pixel width. We have always found that this does a more consistent and less manipulative job that generic programs. We have left the non-anamorphic edition at 720 wide. Both are jpeg manipulated to a negligible 10% of original (90%) for purposes of posting on the Internet. So, bottom line, if we are being technically fair, the anamorphic images have had more manipulation for posting than the non-anamorphic, but this never results in improvement - only a slight softening that is virtually unnoticeable on standard computer monitors upwards of 1600pixel wide resolution.

And yes the BD ones are still the biggest and the only ones that can be clicked on and zoomed in on to see in more detail


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on July 26, 2013, 12:47:05 PM
Robert Harris gives the new BD a rave: http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/325315-a-few-words-about™-shane-in-blu-ray/


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 24, 2014, 01:07:28 AM
Just saw the movie again (I have the digital file on my laptop, purchased from IMDB; I'll eventually get the BRD). Here are my thoughts this time around: some are similar to my opinions last time around, others are completely opposite; so I won't belabor the repeats.

I give the movie an 8/10, max of 8.5/10. A better cast could have resulted in a higher rating. I like palance; I think Heflin does a good job with his role, and that's it. Everyone else in the cast is average at best, annoying at worst. I can't believe I once upon a time said de Wilde was terrific; now I think he is really annoying.


RE: the whole "does Shane die?" debate: Some people say that his riding past the cemetery is an indication of his dying. Perhaps you can argue that the cemetery is just on the outskirts of town (remember how the homesteader, played by Edgar Buchanan, who wanted to leave reluctantly agreed to first attend the funeral of Stonewall, since it's on the way outta town?) However, if you look closely, as Shane is riding away at the end, he is slumped over in the saddle. Maybe it's hard to tell cuz it is very dark, and Alan Ladd is very short anyway, but I am pretty sure Shane is not riding fully straight in the saddle; IMO that is a clear indication that he is dying.

I've previously mentioned how I thought that last long speech by Shane to Joey was way too long; the simple line, "I'm a gunfighter," or "I gotta go" (like Harmonica in OUATITW) woulda been so much better. However, I realize now that if Shane was indeed dying and knew it, then he is leaving town not because he realizes there is no place for him in the new world, but because he doesn't want Joey to see him dying. If so, it makes sense that he's give Joey that speech: he's about to die, he knows Joey idolizes him, and he now wants to make sure that Joey does not grow up to emulate him, but to be a good civilized gentleman. Of course, even if Shane doesn't believe he is gonna die, it makes sense he'd give the long speech to the kid before he leaves; however, it's less effective for the movie. So, if Shane doesn't know he is gonna die, I prefer the one-liner; but if he does know he is gonna die, then the speech is fine.

So IMO, the issue isn't merely, "Did Shane die?" but also, "Did he know he was dying?"



Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: cigar joe on March 24, 2014, 03:25:44 AM
good points I'd have to watch it again to comment further.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 24, 2014, 05:58:29 AM
It doesn't matter whether Shane is literally dying or dying symbolically. Either way, Shane has to leave the community. Either way, he knows he has to leave the community. As civilization takes hold, those who have something to do with death must fade from the scene.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: stanton on March 24, 2014, 06:20:27 AM
And when in Old Hollywood the hero can't bang the girl he loves he has to die anyway ...


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on March 24, 2014, 12:39:13 PM
-- DJ: it's true that whether he dies or not, Shane now has "gotta go" - like how Cheyenne actually died and Harmonica left town alive - point is, people who have something to do with death have no place in the new world. Nevertheless, I don't think that discussing whether or not Shane physically dies is a dumb discussion.
On the other hand, maybe you can say that the movie leaves it ambiguous for this specific reason: it's telling us that it really doesn't matter whether or not he really dies.

Finally: if the point is that a gunfighter has no place in the new world, IMO it's more effective to have him leave town alive - cuz he KNOWS he has no place. That's why I really wish that the movie made no implication of Shane's physical death: his physical death is meaningless/redundant (and involuntary); IMO it's more effective to have the Harmonica-like ending, where he knows, with a twinge of sadness, that the new world has no place for him.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: dave jenkins on March 24, 2014, 01:16:27 PM
I do not disagree with any of the above.


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: drinkanddestroy on May 05, 2014, 11:23:06 PM
just saw the movie again, first time on BRD.

I don't have much to add to the what I've written about the movie itself: I hate/dislike much of the cast (my only cast-related opinion that I'll say specifically cuz it's different than last viewing is that this time around, I thought Emile Meyer was alright as Rufus Ryker). I definitely think there is an implication that Shane dies, he is slumped over in the saddle as he rides away.

I really love the music - the main theme, besides being a nice song, sounds like a children's tune; after all, this is a fairy tale, a myth seen through the eyes of a child. Wonderful work by Victor Young.

Anyway, my main point is about the BRD - which is in 4:3 aspect ratio, btw. (No, I can't measure if it's 1.33:1, 1.35:1, or 1.37:1, but it's one of those aspect ratios we refer to broadly as 4:3.)

I own the digital file on my laptop, downloaded a few years ago from iTunes (back when I was an idiot and actually watched movies on my laptop from iTunes!), so I was able to compare that iTunes file to the BRD. Definitely a significant difference in color - not necessarily more realistic one way or the other, and of course I have no idea which one looks closer to how the movie looked in 1953, but there is definitely a difference in color between the digital file and BRD. (I have no idea how my iTunes digital file compares to the DVD). I'm sorry I don't know all the jargon how to describe differences in image quality, but I'll do my best.

At times the digital file definitely looks darker; I think that's more realistic for the night scenes as compared to the BRD, which is brighter. Digital file definitely has some fading on image, which you'd expect from any film several decades old; of course it's not as sharp as BRD. Color is significantly different at times; eg. in opening credits, wide shot of landscape, the greenery looks much greener in the digital file, less green in BRD. In various other shots, color looks significantly different between the two versions; again, it's hard to definitively say if one is more realistic than the other, and I have no way of knowing which looks closer to how it looked when the movie was released.
The BRD image generally has more information, as you can see in Beaver's screencap comparisons http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCompare7/shane.htm Those comparisons will also show how different the color is between the BRD and the DVD
(again, I don't know whether or not my digital file is identical to the DVD).

Bottom line: the BRD looks nice. However, since the BRD color is so different than the previous versions, and since the BRD is probably here to stay, all I can say is that I sincerely hope that when the BRD was made, it was with the intent of preserving, as much as possible, how the color looked when the movie was made, rather than using modern technology to "improve" on history. It's an old question of how far should film restorers go - do they make the film look the BEST it can be, or the closest it can be to how it originally looked? I think I'm best off when I don't worry about it too much and just enjoy the movie  ;)
But I'll just provide the link to an earlier post where I copied something Martin Scorsese said about this subject of preservation vs. improvement, so to speak http://www.fistful-of-leone.com/forums/index.php?topic=10908.msg160282#msg160282


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: titoli on June 20, 2017, 05:28:13 AM
Read the novel. As good as the movie. 9/10
The physical appearance of Shane is not very distant from Ladd's, in the words of the child narrator: "He was not much above medium height, almost slight in build. He  would have looked frail alongside father's square, solid bulk."


Title: Re: Shane (1953)
Post by: Spikeopath on June 21, 2017, 04:40:37 AM
A wonderful film, a Western essential.

A man has to be what he is Joey, can't break the mould.

Shane is a weary gunslinger, one day he happens upon a homesteader family and begins to do chores for them, he finds an inner peace that he long thought was behind him. Sadly his peace is short lived because a strong arm cattle baron is determined to drive all the small farmer families off their land, and Shane finds himself drawn into the escalating conflict.

Taken from Jack Schaefer's popular novel, Shane holds up today as one of the most popular revered Westerns because it has mass appeal to the watching public. It's main plot strand may be of a simple good versus evil type scenario, but it's the surrounding veins that enthuse the films heart with maximum results. The story plays out thru the eyes of a young boy, Joey Starrett, he worships Shane for the guns he can sling, whilst simultaneously not recognising his own father for the honest hard working man he is, this of course is not lost on the mother of the piece. The family axis then comes to the fore as Shane quickly becomes aware of his moral fortitude, and this gives us a fascinating inner picture to run alongside the outer evil cattle baron versus farmers story. Within this warm family environment Shane hopes to find redemption, but sometimes a man has to do what a mans got to do, and this leads us to the films crowning glory.

Alan Ladd is Shane, wonderfully attired and playing the character with just about the right blend of gusto and tenderness, perhaps dangerously close to stiffening up at times, Ladd however nails it and gives the Western genre one of its ever lasting icons. Van Heflin, Jean Arthur, and Brandon de Wilde play the Starrett family, all of whom come out with much credit, whilst Jack Palance leaves a lasting impression as the dark knight, deadly hired gun, Wilson. Brutal yet sweet, and seeping positive morality into the bargain, Shane is a film for the whole family to enjoy, oozing fine work from all involved, it is a smashing and permanently engaging film. Sometimes when one revisits the film it feels like it is the prototype Western, all the genre characters are so vividly evident, but it's a testament to director George Stevens and his crew that Shane holds up to the iconic status it has garnered. Loyal Griggs won the best colour cinematography award at the 1953 Oscars, within three minutes of the opening credits he well and truly deserved it, as good an opening sequence as genre fans like me could wish for, and of course the rest of the fabulous Big Bear Lake location in California is sumptuously filmed.

Both as a technical piece of work and as a shrewd story of some standing, Shane deserves every bit of praise that has come its way over the years, oh yes!. 9/10