Skip to content
The Searchers – 1956 Ford
- John Ford’s The Searchers is many things: a meditation on wilderness and civilization is chief amongst them
- An update of Melville—John Wayne is Ahab here, obsession—monomaniacal
- My #1 film of all-time, #9 on TSPDT, #7 on Sight and Sound
- The greatest work from 4-time Oscar-winning best director John Ford
- Dazzling on-location shooting in Monument Valley. Ford shot there often, but never like this aided by VistaVision—the stunning red rock made of sandstone make for true architecture as character
- This is from Ebert- he compared the low-brow humor which is a running trait in Ford’s oeuvre- to Shakespeare’s clowns- I like that
- There is humor and community in Ford’s world- an important theme and habitat
- Heavily influenced Kurosawa, Scorsese (Taxi Driver specifically)- Schrader (ditto—made Hardcore and Taxi Driver which are updated versions of this), Spielberg, John Milius De Palma, Godard, Wim Winders, and George Lucas (the massacre scene from The Searchers is lifted and used in Star Wars of course- both fantastic filmmaking)
- Pop culture- “little Debbie” and “that’ll be the day” inspired Buddy Holly
- Best of the 14 films made by Ford with Wayne
- I’m going to leave this section from Ebert—I think it holds true—- Ebert “The Searchers” indeed seems to be two films. The Ethan Edwards story is stark and lonely, a portrait of obsession, and in it we can see Schrader’s inspiration for Travis Bickle of “Taxi Driver;” the Comanche chief named Scar (Henry Brandon) is paralleled by Harvey Keitel’s pimp named Sport, whose Western hat and long hair cause Travis to call him “chief.” Ethan doesn’t like Indians, and says so plainly. When he reveals his intention to kill Debbie, Martin says “She’s alive and she’s gonna stay alive!” and Ethan growls: “Livin’ with Comanches ain’t being alive.” He slaughters buffalo in a shooting frenzy, saying, “At least they won’t feed any Comanche this winter.” The film within this film involves the silly romantic subplot and characters hauled in for comic relief, including the Swedish neighbor Lars Jorgensen (John Qualen), who uses a vaudeville accent, and Mose Harper (Hank Worden), a half-wit treated like a mascot. There are even musical interludes. This second strand is without interest, and those who value “The Searchers” filter it out, patiently waiting for a return to the main story line.
- Ford’s First film was in 1914 and started directing in 1917. More according to the great Roger Ebert: “Ford had an unrivaled eye for landscape, and famously used Monument Valley as the location for his Westerns. Ford’s eye for composition was bold and sure. Consider the funeral early in the film, with a wagon at low right, a cluster of mourners in the middle left, then a diagonal up the hill to the grave, as they all sing Ford’s favorite hymn, “Shall We Gather at the River” (he used it again in the wedding scene). Consider one of the most famous of all Ford shots, the search party in a valley as Indians ominously ride parallel to them, silhouetted against the sky. And the dramatic first sight of the adult Debbie, running down the side of a sand dune behind Ethan, who doesn’t see her. The opening and closing shots, of Ethan arriving and leaving, framed in a doorway. The poignancy with which he stands alone at the door, one hand on the opposite elbow, forgotten for a moment after delivering Debbie home. These shots are among the treasures of the cinema.
- The opening framing, we have the shadow, the open door, tracking up and then panning right from behind Aunt Martha—it’s absolute cinematic bliss
- Ford could stage a frame so well- I love the shot of the family standing in awe on the porch as Ethan returns
- Clearly Edwards is racist, from the beginning he goes after Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) who is 1/8 Native American
- There’s an incredibly rich unspoken backstory which gives the film such depth and nuance. There’s a grave of Wayne’s (Edward’s parents) “killed by Comanche’s” and then there’s the past love with Martha which is more than hinted at with the way she pets his confederate coat
- It is one of the greatest examples of architecture as character in photography and film—these characters are swallowed up by the rugged uncivilized world. It’s both beautiful and unforgivably harsh
- There are transcendent stand-alone moments like the shot of Wayne, alone, saddling his horse looking up knowing what’s happened to the family—the violin is a bit on the nose but it’s a very great scene— another would be the dolly-in on Lucy’s face as Martha blows out the lantern because they will soon be under attack. It’s pure fear- and pure cinema as the tracking in enhances the performance… there’s another when the camera slides in on Wayne’s distasteful face after he seized the crazed white captives
- The door as a frame is Ozu—it’s brilliant and Ford emphasizes shadow. It happens again and again not just at the beginning and end which are two of the greatest moments in cinema history acting as bookends…. There’s the scene where Wayne finds Martha’s body, shadow, arriving at the Jorgensen’s, inside the cave escaping Scar towards the end and again chasing after Debbie—it’s brilliant visual film form
- Ford is one of cinema’s true artists. He makes the avant-garde choice here more often than not over naturalism. Look at monument valley—there are no houses there- this isn’t realistic… look at the staging of the first battle with the Native Americans and the straight lines- it’s gorgeous
- Max Steiner’s score is an underrated all-timer. The ending, the best film ending of all-time, doesn’t work without it
- It’s a big masterpiece, my #1 of all-time but it’s close with Apocalypse Now and 2001 amongst others. There are flaws- broad comedic moments that fall flat, Ebert’s point about the secondary story, musical cues too on the nose and some of the clumsy writing with Wayne’s Ethan calling Hunter’s Martin “chunk head” and “blanket head”, there’s the ending with Pat Wayne stabbing Ward Bond in the ass—it’s just nails on the chalkboard after the great scene, the transcendent scene, of Wayne hoisting up Natalie Wood—I think the film also slows down cinematically in third quarter of the film (roughly 1 hour in to 90 minutes in) as Ford strays from Monument Valley and we spend more time on the Martin story, letter reading, “Look”, etc
- I do think that the wedding, funeral, and community are important here as they’re important to Ford’s world. He creates a world like Lynch, Tarantino, Bunuel—“Gather at the River” song played at both Funeral and Wedding—
- It’s one of the most American films of all-time and the racism is a part of that- it’s ugly, the civilization and frontier is a part of America as well- it’s Ben Franklin’s American- they call it a “Texican” here but it’s a more rugged race of people as Franklin says
- The photography is stunning even without the landscape and shadow work- the dust kicking up during the fight at the wedding (this is the section shown in Scorsese’s Mean Streets”. There’s a comedic “is this somebody’s fiddle?” and the rules of the fight, shaking hands…
- A masterpiece
Drake2020-07-03T10:30:02-04:00
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
The Searchers on 4K is just incredible, in terms of visual quality, the transfer could not be better
@James Trapp- love hearing this
@Drake – I am usually pleased with the quality of 4K transfers. If I shell out those extra bucks for UHD I expect the transfer quality to be worth it and it usually is. But this one seems especially great. Lawrence of Arabia, Don’t Look Now, Blade Runner, Vertigo, and Apocalypse Now are several others that come to mind
Might be a bit of a goofy question but do you use your grading model for other art forms at all? I don’t use it strictly like I do with film, but I can’t help but sometimes think of albums (not novels, I don’t read enough for that) through a looser MP/MS/HR/R framework. Obviously if a “masterpiece” level film is labeled as a “top 1-3 of the year quality film” or a “recommended” film would not crack the top 10 of a year, the numbers associated with the grades will surely vary for literature or music. And while I’ve made no effort to recalibrate the grading system to other art forms, I think have a general idea of a “masterpiece”/“recommended/“highly recommended level work of art is
@Matthew- Very interesting – thanks for sharing. Cinema has been my passion for so long- I don’t really evaluate paintings, music, literature in any sort of serious way- or have the desire to. But I can’t help but appreciate the style.
“An update of Melville—John Wayne is Ahab here, obsession—monomaniacal”
I like that comparison. I agree.
Out of curiosity, do you extend your primarily form driven focus and appreciation to literature as well ? Priority to prose and style over content and matter. And if you don’t, is it purely from a lack of critical tools to do it as well although it’s worth striving for, or because you don’t think it’s comparable ? Obviously the nature of translations and its impact on style would make it a lot more challenging in many cases than the universal cinematic language.
@Vaanilla- I do for all art forms- but I am far less studied in literature and other forms
“It is one of the greatest examples of architecture as character in photography and film—these characters are swallowed up by the rugged uncivilized world. It’s both beautiful and unforgivably harsh”
It’s the natural/wilderness answer to Antonioni!
Question for Drake and everyone else. If you could recast the supporting cast of the film who would you choose? I don’t want to say it’s a weakness of the film, but this isn’t a Brando, Pacino, Duvall, Keaton, Caan, etc etc level ensemble and The Searchers would definitely be elevated with a cast that’s leveling up closer to Wayne
I agree that there are comparable effects, and I m not arguing that it’s the greatest shot or scene of all time. But in your first comment you said you don’t see how The Searchers is a great accomplishment in film form so I explained as I understand it. As for 2001- I haven’t seen it since I didn’t know how to evaluate movies and thus cannot opine. Why is it so good?
@K
I’m*
I see what you mean about film form. I didn’t understand that your comment was adressing film form in general. From that point of view, I see what you mean about how that repetition builds a formal effect.
It is difficult to explain what makes 2001 so powerful, but gun to my head (and I could never do justice to such a complex movie), I would say above all it is the “Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite” sequence. The entire, 20 minute long seqeunce is the greatest accomplishment in history of cinema. It is a visual symphony, a sequence of beautiful and poetic images, bouncing off one another, varying, repeating, developing; structurally flawless. Each shot is a piece of pure beauty, all meticulously arranged to create an effect far greater than the sum of its parts.
Here is a fascinating article on the form of that final sequence: https://hartzog.org/j/2001beyondanalysis.html
If great cinema is visual beauty + formal rigor, then that final sequence is the most visually beautiful and formally perfect cinema ever made.
@K – “Each shot is a piece of pure beauty, all meticulously arranged to create an effect far greater than the sum of its parts”
Yep, I gave a name to this concept in previous postings on this site; YouTube Movies. With great films some have many brilliant individual scenes like The Godfather or Goodfellas. You can watch invidual scenes from these films on YouTube. They are amazing films as a whole that also have a collection of amazing invidual scenes. Then you have films that do not necesssarily have amazing individual sequences that you would want to watch isolated from the rest of the film. Some examples of this would inlude films like Stalker (1979), Tokyo Story (1953), and Bicycle Thieves (1948) to name a few examples. Don’t get me wrong these films have moments but need to be watched in their entirety to be appreciated. I am not saying that every all time great film can clearly be placed in one of these two categories but I would lean toward placing 2001 into the “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts”
I wasn’t describing 2001 as exactly a “YouTube Movie”. What I meant was more that every shot in the final sequence was visually incredible (the strange lights, the alien landscapes). You could take any shot from the final 20 minutes and hang it up on a wall. Not only was it visually astonishing, but also beautiful in an incredibly inventive way. While the final sequence might not exactly be a YouTube movie from a narrative point of view, it is a visually astonishing sequence, that is also formally brilliant.
Discussing 2001 as a YouTube movie, I think there is a case both for and against: sections are definitely slow, but I can rewatch the first or second monolith encounters or the final sequence endlessly. The Shining, on the other hand, would be a perfect YouTube movie; almost every scene in the second half of that movie is iconic. I think that effect may have something to do with the fragmentary nature of the construction, and with Kubrick’s habit of composing films as sequences of “non-submersible units”.
@K – okay got it, to be clear when I use that term I am referencing scenes as opposed to singular frames or even shots. I just mean a film where you can watch some individual scenes in isolation from the rest of the film. Something like Goodfellas I can watch almost any scene in isolation and be in awe. Stalker (1979) is one of the greatest films I have ever watched but I don’t think there are really scenes I would watch is isolation without larger context even though there are many breathtaking individual frames throughout the film. Its greatness comes in the totality of the film
@K – Another funny coincidence, I am watching The Shining this weekend. I have seen many times, none the less I picked it for a movie club I do with my family. It is endlessly fascinating and in my opinion the best horror film ever
@James I hate horror in general, but I love The Shining. I watched it once in movie theaters, and I think it was genuinely the most terrifying experience of my life. It plays around Halloween where I live, probably the same everywhere. If you get a chance, I highly recommend seeing it in theaters. Some of the theories are so wild, but so interesting. I am not sure the Moon-land theory is even the wierdest: there’s a site called Eye Scream which claims you need to play the entire movie, backwards and forwards, over a Beetle’s album (among a dozen other crazy theories)
The root of this is you seem to think (correct me if I’m wrong) that only two doorway shots exist in the movie; there are many others, including:
1. When Ethan discovers the remains of his family- Ethan himself and the area beyond covered in shadows (the dark side of his nature is fully awakened by this sight)
2. When he discovers the remains of Look- the area beyond dimly lit just as his eyes are dimly lit with compassion (sign that he is beginning to see things from the Comanche perspective, if only at a subconscious level)
3. When he catches up to Debbie at the edge of a cave- the area beyond covered in shadow (representing the potential for Ethan to do the same thing to Debbie that the Comanches did to Martha- a connection he makes if only at a subconscious level)
The final shot is just as bound to all of these as it is to the opening, and they are to each other. It is bound to 1 because Ethan himself is covered in shadows like the area beyond, and though the people he’s looking at aren’t dead this time, they are inaccessible to him like the dead. It is bound to 2 because of Wayne’s acting, as goodness is visible in his lonely eyes. And it is bound to 3 because Ethan departs from the cabin’s entrance just as he did from the cave’s- in Ford’s language this means he has given up both domestic and primitive life, and has to ‘wander forever between the winds’
@K
I understood that there were multiple doorway shots. It wasn’t that I didn’t acknowledge the brilliance of the bookends, I just felt there were other comparable effects in cinema. Even from people who didn’t much love the movie, I had heard The Searchers had the “highest highs” of any movie, and that even if it was less consistent than 2001 or Apocalypse Now, it made up for it with the bookends.
If The Searchers falls lower than 2001, and yet still came out above for the power of its best scenes, than those best scenes must at least be above the highest scenes from 2001. But, just as The Searchers has a visually beautiful, thematically resonant visual motif (doorways) repeated throughout, so does 2001 (alignments, the monolith). The only case I can see for putting The Searchers over 2001, is that in the case of The Searchers, that shot was the exact last shot, giving it extra potency.
I really enjoyed The Searchers, but I don’t quite see it as the greatest ever. It is currently about #10, and it could fall as I watch more classics. I can see it stablizing at about #20-30, still very high, mostly for its visual beauty. I wasn’t really bothered by the humor, do I did see the movie meandering somewhat. However, many people here laud the movie. Whenever you talk about it as the greatest film ever, you always mention the bookends. The opening and closing were both nice scenes, but I don’t understand what makes them so genius.
How is the ending of The Searchers greater than, say, the ending of Vertigo? Since I really respect your analysis, and feel like I might be missing something, I would love it if you could discuss in a bit more detail what you find so brilliant about that final shot (and more generally, what makes The Searchers a great accomplishment in “film form”). I don’t see it yet, but I could be wrong (I have only seen the movie once).
@K- I’ll let others chime in here and here’s a bit from Ebert- but one main difference in the ending is just the strength of the composition:
from Ebert https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-the-searchers-1956
Ford’s eye for composition was bold and sure. Consider the funeral early in the film, with a wagon at low right, a cluster of mourners in the middle left, then a diagonal up the hill to the grave, as they all sing Ford’s favorite hymn, “Shall We Gather at the River” (he used it again in the wedding scene). Consider one of the most famous of all Ford shots, the search party in a valley as Indians ominously ride parallel to them, silhouetted against the sky. And the dramatic first sight of the adult Debbie, running down the side of a sand dune behind Ethan, who doesn’t see her. The opening and closing shots, of Ethan arriving and leaving, framed in a doorway. The poignancy with which he stands alone at the door, one hand on the opposite elbow, forgotten for a moment after delivering Debbie home. These shots are among the treasures of the cinema.
@K – I am not Drake, but had a few thoughts just in general
I have been tracking/grading films I watch for about 4-5 years, by no means am I saying you need to wait some specfic amount of time or that there is a minimum number of viewings to properly grade a film but I do view it as an ongoing process. And for me its tough to really gage a film’s value after a single viewing. To be clear I am not saying you are right or wrong regarding your assessment of The Searchers, just sometime to keep in mind.
Over time I have increasingly focused on assessing a films greatness in terms of Tiers. For example, when I made a top 100 list I had The Godfather (1972) ranked at # 1 and Citizen Kane at # 6 but I would not waste my breathe arguing against someone who considers Kane superior. I would take issue with someone declaring that one of those is substanitially superior to the other. Trying to distinguish between those 2 in quality can be fun but is ultimately futile.
@K – regarding the bookend, aside from the obvious aesthetic beauty of these shots they are a visual representation of one of the films key themes of society vs nature/the wild. In the film the Wayne character Ethan Edwards is an outsider who never quite feels comfortable in the community (check out below article) He is obviously a bigot and really probably just a misanthrope as he strikes me as the type of person who only feels alone surronded by other people. Thus these bookend shots relate to both the films themes and the Ethan Edward character in general.
Film being a visual art form, the ability of a filmmaker to use memorable images to convey key themes deserves high praise. I do not know if you have got to Fellini’s 8 1/2 yet but the opening dream sequence with the Marcello Mastroianni character trapped in a car is a brilliant example of this concept. In that film images from that opening scene foreshadow key themes, in particular the films depiction of an artist feeling suffogated by the pressure coming from basically everywhere in his life.
https://the-rearview-mirror.com/2020/03/25/cinemas-greatest-scenes-the-searchers-doorway-scene/#:~:text=In%20its%20final%20moment%2C%20The,interpretation%20of%20the%20doorway%20scene.
@James I am actually watching 8 1/2 in a few hours; what a coincidence!
I definitely agree with you on grouping movies into tiers. So far, I would have (in no particular order) 2001, Vertigo, Sunrise, The Rules of the Game, Last Year at Marienbad, and The Shining in Tier 1. The Shining is clearly the odd one out, and it would take too long for me to make my case here; you can ignore it when comparing for now, if you want. I would put The Searchers in Tier 2, next to Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Battleship Potemkin, etc. Though I am lower than this site on Apocalypse Now, I feel I understand that movie well enough to grasp the case for it, though I rate it slightly lower.
With The Searchers, I still can’t fully understand what makes that final shot so brilliant. I have been thinking about it since I started this discussion, and I am prepared to acknowledge this: the closing shot of The Searchers is possibly the most beautiful closing shot in movie history, and gains added power from being symmetrical with the almost equally powerful opening. I need to think more about the thematic content.
On the other hand, I do not think it is the finest shot in movie history in general: for me, the elevator from The Shining, but I could also see the 360 degree shot (Vertigo), the red spacesuit (2001), the grounds (Marienbad), and a few others. Nor do I think it is the finest final SCENE: for me, the ending of 2001, but I could also see Vertigo.
I guess it comes down to this: The Searchers has a final shot that may be the best in history, though the case for the final scene in general, or the final shot against all other shots (final or otherwise), is much weaker; furthermore, it has other defects throughout which drag it down.
I am more impressed with the final shot now, then I was before, but I am still going to keep researching to see what makes it so transcendent, that it elevates the movie to the highest tier.
In any case, I appreciate the discussion!
@K – that is quite the coincidence indeed, let me know your thoughts after watching, it is quite an experience. Just out of curiousity do you have any particular way of picking films? Are you just looking at some greatest films of all time lists and going through the list or you looking to watch from a particular era, filmmaker, etc?
I finished watching 8 1/2. It is an interesting film, a bit different from what I was expecting. It seemed a little less wild and more contemplative than I expected. I will post a longer comment on Fellini’s page, to avoid cluttering it here. I will say that the moral, self-reflexivity, and autobiography where not particularly impressive to me; but the casting (especially Marcello Mastroianni), score, and particularly the camerawork were all brilliant.
Roger Ebert called the screenplay’s construction “meticulous,” and I think I felt that intuitively, even though it was confused on the surface. But I will need to consider the story more to figure out where that feeling comes from.
I don’t really have a set order, but watch movies that stick close to the subject I am studying (Battleship Potemkin, when I had been reading about editing) and are convenient (I watched Resnais’ three memory films close to each other). I am slowly making my way through the top of the TSPDT chart. So far, I have watched six of the top 10: Vertigo, 2001, The Rules of the Game, 8 1/2, Sunrise, and The Searchers.
To those detracting the Look character:
She is formally significant because when Ethan stumbles upon her body (after Union soldiers have raided her camp) the doorway shot is repeated, just as it was when he discovered the remains of his own family. However, this time the area beyond is not covered in shadows- it is dimly lit. And when Ethan brushes the snow off of her hat, so are his eyes dimly lit by compassion for a brief moment. This is the moment when begins (if only subconsciously) to see things from the Comanche perspective, and foreshadows his decision at the end.
*This is the moment when he begins (if only subconsciously) to see things from the Comanche perspective, and it foreshadows his decision at the end.
@Frodo- Thanks for sharing this
Found this in a paper on Mose
” Mose’s roles follow four sequences of action each symbolically
enhanced by his attire (or lack thereof), particularly his hats.
In the first search to locate the fleeing Comanches, Mose plays the role of an Indian scout, wearing his plains-swept hat
with the Indian feather.
He later meets up with Ethan and Marty in the New Mexico Terri-
tory, this time wearing a blue Union soldier’s cap tipped toward the back of his head, antici-
pating the cavalry attack on Chief Scar and the rescue of Debbie.
In a later incident, Mose
appears naked from the waist up and hatless, after, ironically, feigning madness to escape
the Comanches.
In the concluding scenes of the film, in his retirement rocking on Mrs.
Jorgensen’s porch, Mose wears a gentleman’s musty hightop beaver hat so large it falls over
his ears. The symbolic movement for Mose is from the primitive landscape of the searchers
and Indians into the more civilized and domesticated society of the Jorgensens”
To elaborate upon a comment that I made a long time ago: I do not think that the subtext of Ethan killing Lucy can be verified because to misquote Socrates “I am wise enough to believe that I know nothing” plus Ford and Wayne and Nugent are all dead so…
However I will try to present what I believe to be the strongest argument in favor of this theory: if so meticulous an artist as John Ford did not want us to consider the possibility of such a thing, would he not have included at least one minute detail in one composition or one line of dialogue that serves no other purpose than to reassure us that Lucy was killed by Comanches? Instead he does the opposite, and the barely noticeable details do nothing but reinforce the idea that she wasn’t.
When Brad and Martin watch Ethan ride into the canyon, why does the camera remain in the same position as Ford dissolves to his emergence? Because the viewer like Martin and Brad, is not prepared for what they would see if the camera had followed Ethan down this path. He immediately cleans his knife when he returns to them because what he has done with it gives him no pride (unlike the killing of Scar, whose scalp he does not hesitate to collect) It is in some ways a commentary on censorship because Ethan conceals the terrifying facts of life (one of which is his own nature) from them just as the Hays code sought to from American audiences. They are treated like children, seated at another table so the grown ups can talk about war and religion and such. Why would Ethan (Ford) suddenly change his mind in the next scene, and decide that they (we) are ready to know the whole truth? Is it simply a coincidence that not a single word of Ethan’s confession to Brad and Martin contradicts the notion that he killed her?
“I found Lucy back in the canyon. Wrapped her in my coat an’ buried her with my own hands. Thought it best to keep it from you.”
“What do I gotta do, draw you a picture? Spell it out? Don’t ever ask me. Long as you live, don’t ever ask me more.”
I will put a to be continued here as this movie is so deep in a way that is so cinematically pure, and I love talking about it and I don’t want to delete this by accident, etc. etc. etc.
@Max – Great share here- thank you for the comments and for visiting the site.
Haven’t commented on the site in awhile, but I just watched this one again for the third time, and the first time in over a year, and wanted to share a few thoughts. Like you, I am absolutely blown away by the bookends of this one; not only by how emotional they are but I also love the Ozu influence with the doorway framing, it’s incredible form. I also was surprised at how deep the subtext is in it, I guess I must not have picked up on all of it before. Ethan and Martha definitely have a history together, which is shown in the scene where she holds his jacket in her arms. Ethan’s deep hatred for the Comanches probably stems from the fact that his mother was killed by them, which you can see for a split second on her grave when Debbie goes by it. And the one I found most interesting, is that Scar, like Debbie, might be a white that was captured into the tribe and rose up the ranks. This happened a lot in real life, and Ford was a student of the West, so I think it’s very plausible. Anyways, although I dislike being so blunt, I think this is about as close to “the greatest film of all time” as you can get. It’s not flawless (I think it has less flaws than you do because I think a lot of the questionable decisions can be given explanations in the subtext), but it has higher highs than any film I’ve ever seen.
Steven Speilberg on John Ford, great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqIYH-FsWDM
I learned something about The Searchers a while ago that utterly blew my mind. I’m not sure how many cinephiles are aware of this, but it’s enthralling:
Ethan Edwards evidently feels that Debbie has been “contaminated” by her (sexual) association with the Comanches, to the extent that he is willing to kill her. It is strongly insinuated that Lucy (the other girl) was raped by Comanches, and then killed, but we never actually see Ethan find her dead. Instead, we see him returning to his companions and digging his knife in the dirt as if he were cleaning it, and he tells them that he found Lucy in the canyon and buried her with his own hands. If he was willing to kill Debbie, who’s to say he didn’t kill Lucy for the same reason? He responds with furious anger when further questioned. “As long as you live, don’t ever ask me more.” Earlier, Ethan had stated that they were not to fire their guns to avoid detection, which would explain why he had to kill Lucy with his knife. I honestly think the fact that this was conveyed so cryptically makes it even more disturbing because countless people watch the film and it goes over their heads, as it went over mine for several years. It adds a whole other layer of dark pyschology to an already haunting and brilliant film.