Week 9 Response
Letter to Film Forum
Dear Programming Director,
I have just seen The Searchers and am at once astonished and deeply disappointed. I understand why this movie so fundamental to the American cinema. The final shot is, in and of itself, about as elegant as a distillation of the theme of a movie as I have ever seen in a single image. The film is littered with visual mastery. The juxtaposition between the carefully constructed and populated interiors representing the sacred "home" and the shots of the characters positioned against the awe-inspiring largeness of the Western landscapes contributes immerse the viewer in the central questions of the film -- where is the line between the home and "out there" and how much can a domesticated sacred home remain "pure" when manic violence is being committed to keeping it that way.
The Searchers, operating in the mode of the classic "Hollywood Western" has much to dislike about it. It goes without saying that it is horribly sexist and racist. It is often considered the greatest example of a genre that was built upon mythologizing and valorizing a genocide. To begin the next sentence with "but" is perhaps a moral misstep. If films like The Searchers are propaganda for genocide than it might be right to simply discourage their viewing, argue for their removal from the "canon" and uplift under-seen films that represent acts of resistance to the outrageous lies about the West that this film helped to sell. But I think that would be a mistake. I do not believe this on the grounds that the artistry and influence of The Searchers, regardless of its politics, make it a film worth screening. People know of The Searchers and the internet exists. If they want to understand how it influenced Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now they can always rent it on Netflix or buy it on google play. There are plenty of films your theater could play that match the beauty and grandeur of Ford's camerawork, without subtly reinforcing the myths it promotes.
Nevertheless, I still believe the film should be shown, not in spite of, but because of its politics. The film exists as an artifact of an interestingly troubled, but limited understanding of whiteness and the West. Like the examples from Whitman and Ginsberg that Claudia Rankine shared at her recent talk at Stanford, the film represents a perturbation of the standard American narrative, but fails to actually take the perturbation any farther than what is convenient . Ford has made a Western in which the hero is by no means a straight forward hero. The racism he displays is depicted as a kind of wild insanity. The most "sympathetic" character in the story is part Caminche and we see John Wayne's twisted, white madness through his eyes. The film shows us that the conquering of the West was accomplished through a wild-eyed, racially motivated violence that we must find repulsive. But ultimately it falls for short of any kind of true interrogation of the questions it raises. John Wayne's character is redeemed with "Let's go home." And the film end with him safely outside the home. The question of the legacies of the the violence for the society created, is similarly left "outside." And finally, tragically, predictably, and so, so, so stupidly (or evilly depending on your read) Ford shows himself to be completely incapable of seeing the Native Americans in the film as full human beings. They are either mute clowns (the wife) props to be slaughtered for vicarious thrills (how many Native Americans die on screen) or one-dimensional villains (Scar). While raising questions about white violence, the film is blind to Native American humanity. Who is surprised?
Show the film if you'd like, but show it for the right reasons,
All the best,
Patrick
Dear Programming Director,
I have just seen The Searchers and am at once astonished and deeply disappointed. I understand why this movie so fundamental to the American cinema. The final shot is, in and of itself, about as elegant as a distillation of the theme of a movie as I have ever seen in a single image. The film is littered with visual mastery. The juxtaposition between the carefully constructed and populated interiors representing the sacred "home" and the shots of the characters positioned against the awe-inspiring largeness of the Western landscapes contributes immerse the viewer in the central questions of the film -- where is the line between the home and "out there" and how much can a domesticated sacred home remain "pure" when manic violence is being committed to keeping it that way.
The Searchers, operating in the mode of the classic "Hollywood Western" has much to dislike about it. It goes without saying that it is horribly sexist and racist. It is often considered the greatest example of a genre that was built upon mythologizing and valorizing a genocide. To begin the next sentence with "but" is perhaps a moral misstep. If films like The Searchers are propaganda for genocide than it might be right to simply discourage their viewing, argue for their removal from the "canon" and uplift under-seen films that represent acts of resistance to the outrageous lies about the West that this film helped to sell. But I think that would be a mistake. I do not believe this on the grounds that the artistry and influence of The Searchers, regardless of its politics, make it a film worth screening. People know of The Searchers and the internet exists. If they want to understand how it influenced Taxi Driver or Apocalypse Now they can always rent it on Netflix or buy it on google play. There are plenty of films your theater could play that match the beauty and grandeur of Ford's camerawork, without subtly reinforcing the myths it promotes.
Nevertheless, I still believe the film should be shown, not in spite of, but because of its politics. The film exists as an artifact of an interestingly troubled, but limited understanding of whiteness and the West. Like the examples from Whitman and Ginsberg that Claudia Rankine shared at her recent talk at Stanford, the film represents a perturbation of the standard American narrative, but fails to actually take the perturbation any farther than what is convenient . Ford has made a Western in which the hero is by no means a straight forward hero. The racism he displays is depicted as a kind of wild insanity. The most "sympathetic" character in the story is part Caminche and we see John Wayne's twisted, white madness through his eyes. The film shows us that the conquering of the West was accomplished through a wild-eyed, racially motivated violence that we must find repulsive. But ultimately it falls for short of any kind of true interrogation of the questions it raises. John Wayne's character is redeemed with "Let's go home." And the film end with him safely outside the home. The question of the legacies of the the violence for the society created, is similarly left "outside." And finally, tragically, predictably, and so, so, so stupidly (or evilly depending on your read) Ford shows himself to be completely incapable of seeing the Native Americans in the film as full human beings. They are either mute clowns (the wife) props to be slaughtered for vicarious thrills (how many Native Americans die on screen) or one-dimensional villains (Scar). While raising questions about white violence, the film is blind to Native American humanity. Who is surprised?
Show the film if you'd like, but show it for the right reasons,
All the best,
Patrick
Comments
Post a Comment