If you’ve read this blog for a while, or just snooped around a bit, you will remember that one of my earliest posts was on movies that I couldn’t finish, which is available here. But recently I’ve found another film to add to the list, and perhaps an entire genre as well.
The film in question is 3:10 to Yuma. I actually walked away from the television about halfway through the film, bored with and tired of what seemed to be a predictable plot with lots of violence to keep it moving. But I’m not sure the film itself is to blame. Maybe it’s actually a good film of its kind; maybe I just don’t like Westerns. When I talk about genre in my classes, I always point out that genres, like clothes, are subject to fashion trends through the years. For example, remember leisure suits from the 1970s?
Truly awful, right? Consider literary (or film) genres as if they were clothing, and you’ll see what I mean about trending fashions in genres. If 1970s was the decade of horrors like the leisure suit in terms of clothes, the 1590s were the decade of the sonnet in England. Everyone who was anyone was writing them–kind of like children’s books in the last decade or zombie/vampire/supernatural stories today.
What does this have to do with Westerns? While I’m not an expert on film or on Westerns, it seems safe to say that the heyday of the western film was the 1950s and 1960s, spilling over to television in those years as well, with shows such as Gunsmoke, Have Gun Will Travel, The High Chapparel, and of course Bonanza. Doing any Western film today kind of seems like revisiting an older art form, but in this case, it really is a remake: 3:10 to Yuma is a remake of the 1957 version of the film starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, a version I haven’t seen, but which I strongly suspect I would not like either.
Why? The answer is simple: I’m a woman, and the Western is a man’s genre.
I realize that is a loaded statement to make today, in an era of gender liberation, an era of liberation from gender itself. But let me point out why I left the couch last Saturday night to go play my guitar when confronted with another 45 minutes of watching a film I couldn’t connect with. It wasn’t the violence, or the cynicism, or even the sexist attitudes of the characters: these are things that I can understand and accept, given the plot and setting. Rather, it’s the fact that there are no women in the movie for me to identify with. In other words, while watching 3:10 to Yuma, I was left with the choice of identifying with either the prostitute or the faithful wife, neither of whom get a lot of time on screen–unless I wanted to do some cross-gender fantasizing, which is fine when it isn’t forced down your throat.
It kind of makes me want to slap the director. “Really?” I want to say to him. “We wait fifty years for a remake of a movie, only to duplicate the sexual stereotypes that probably made it a B-grade movie on the first go-round?” It seems like a monumental waste of time to me. I kept hoping that the boy William, who follows his father off into the sage on his mission to deliver Ben Wade to justice, would turn out to be a girl. I even concocted this whole story about how William’s parents created this switched gender for her in order to protect her from marauders and would-be seducers. In the end, I realized that the story I was making up to get me through the movie was, in fact, far more interesting than the movie itself, which is why I stopped watching it in the middle.
The truth is, I can accept a film that has gender stereotypes when it’s made in the 1950s and 1960s; we don’t quit teaching The Taming of the Shrew just because it’s antifeminist, after all, because we can explain its outlook from a historical perspective. For much of recorded history, women have been given the short end of the stick, so to speak, and it does no good to deny this. In fact, studying such depictions of women might even help us understand other forms of oppression, so I get the idea of tolerance for gender stereotypes in older films. But I expect more from a contemporary film, and I’d love to hear from readers out there if there is, in fact, a Western that does not demand we step into a mental straitjacket when we watch it.
Any takers? Leave your comments below, and I’ll start expanding my Netflix queue.
5 thoughts on “My War with Westerns”
What about True Grit? Both versions. Not exactly a bra burning moment for feminism, never mind that it’s a kid and not a woman, but…the kid is spunky and a female.
Good point, Cari6. I think maybe True Grit is why I concocted the story about William being a girl. I should take another look at that movie!
How about Silverado -also a strong female lead in Linda Hunt. In general, you are right but I’m happy that my gender is not affiliated with the mass killing of native Americans or buffalo. I am also happy that woman are not portrayed exacting deadly vengeance when “someone did me wrong”. Nevertheless, I happen to have a soft spot for westerns because my dad loved them. I think he loved the gorgeous western scenery portrayed in John ford movies. It provided an escape from crowded urban living. My father never missed a John Wayne movie. These films provided two hours of macho daring-do. Every man of that generation probably wanted to be just like him. Watching Bonanza, Maverick, Palladin, Wild Wild West, The Rifleman, and Have Gun Will Travel were de rigueur in my house. The difference with westerns today is that they are way too graphic with too much gratuitous violence. The Duke would never have tolerated that (and neither would my dad).
I think you’re on to something, Cyndy. What about reinventing the genre of the Western from a female (not necessarily or exclusively feminist) perspective. How would that be different? It’s kind of fun to imagine, isn’t it?
Perhaps this is why “folk hero” types like the real Calamity Jane and Annie Oakley gained such popularity …they are not the stereotypical western female, even if their cinematic portrayals leave much to be desired.