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+00:00
Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!
I love how you always site the great ebert, but what about gene siskel. I know he isn’t as great a critic as ebert but he is knowledgeable about the art form of cinema and always t ties to back up his claims
@Wayne— thanks for the comment here. I think It’s mainly that I’m just less familiar with Siskel. I own the Ebert books, his website is such an impressive archive, he lived longer of course (Siskel died in 1999 I believe which is roughly when my interest in cinema started) so I had more familiarity with him.
Ok, I’m gonna confess that I can’t get behind The Searchers as the best film of all time. You really make a strong case for it but I consider every other film on your top 10 and many others out of your top 10 better. I mean, obviously it’s a masterpiece but as you said it has many flaws, I think the greatest film ever must be closer to flawless. I agree with you about all the flaws you mentioned and I must add that some of the scenes are shot – of course you know that already- in sets and that bothers me a little, it looks really weird and throws me out of the movie. And I get that some sets can’t destroy the artistic value of the film but there are many flaws, it’s very cliche and that’s okay, many films of that era are like that. Look I don’t want to get mistaken here, the film is great but a film like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly or Once Upon A Time in the West feels more mindblowing to me. I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong here but a film like 2001, Raging Bull, Kane, Apocalypse Now, Vertigo, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Stalker or Tokyo Story is clearly better.
I may not think the searchers is the GOAT but it’s really close for me. Very artistic, beautiful to look and at, paints a complex portrait of racism and the ending where Ethan goes ( his heart filled with rage) to kill his niece and instead lifts her up is magical. I full expected him to kill her but he picks her up and says ‘let’s go home’. I had literal goosebumps at that point.
Also drake is right, the shots through the doorway are some of the best in cinema history.
Dont forget the searchers has some of the best character development I have ever seen and it has a brilliant soundtrack too. Drake pretty much mentioned all of its other strong points.
@cinephile . Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. First off, although I believe The Searchers to be the greatest film of all-time, I’ll admit that it’s not something I can prove. I’d argue for it (and have) over the last 10-15 years but if someone else makes the case for any number of movies (you list many here) that’s fine- so be it. However, you said that some others are “clearly better” and this is where you lose me. I think that is false. It is the #9 movie of all-time on the TSPDT and I think (obviously of course) that it belongs at least in the top 10 on anyone’s list. I don’t think any other film is “clearly better” than it any more than The Godfather, Seven Samurai, Stalker, Vertigo, Raging Bull, Citizen Kane, etc…
As for the flaws— I mean some I agree and some I don’t agree. I would not call this movie cliche, and as far as the sets– I think the film is indisputably gorgeous. I’m not going to spend time going through the greatest films looking for flaws (that sounds awful and I’m not sure what it tells us) but I will say that there are artistic highs and lows in every film (including the ones you mention that are “clearly better” than The Searchers) so I don’t believe in a “flawless” film. I don’t look at it that way. What I am confident is that the artistic highs in The Searchers higher than the artistic highs in many (if not all) of the films you mention. I absolutely love Leone— and he was a genius and his films are all over my top 500 of all-time— but he never achieved artistry on the level of what Ford achieves here with the bookended opening and closing moments…. I can’t shake those moments. There are 20-50 other brilliant moments The Searchers (most noted above) but again I think are the finest moments in cinema history.
@Azman, I agree, that’s why I find it a masterpiece but I also have many problems so I’m far away from calling it The GOAT.
@Drake, I agree that the word “clearly” is false so my mistake. They are not clearly superior but with a strong debate they can be proved to be better, I mean the word clearly indicates they are far superior and obviously that’s not true, they are close artistically.
Okay, as I said I find it cliched, the flat comedic moments, some of the music, the clumsy writing all of that are indicators of many cliches for me.
The sets are obviously wonderful, my point is not to call the bad looking, but they feel pretty weird, I mean in one scene you watch the shots on location and at the other you get the sets.
You’re right that it’s not good to analyze a film only to find flaws but here the are pretty visible, I mean in a film like 2001 there are not clear flaws so as you said we don’t need to try to find one.
Obviously I don’t agree that the artistic highs here are higher from a film like let’s say Vertigo ( I mention especially Vertigo because both are from the 50s )
As for Leone, well obviously Ford achieves greatness here with the moments you mention but I’ve got to say that the finale of Once Upon A Time in The West is pure transcendence. ( or the finale of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly or the many great moments those films have ).
First of all I’m not a critic let me make that clear so you may not think much about my opinion. I’m only a cinephile(no pun intended?) EVERY film has flaws and strong points. All the flaws you pointed out are valid I just realised. But when I watch a movie I try to ignore the flaws and focus on the strong points so I can actually enjoy the film and experience the moments of pure bliss and ‘transcendence’ that only film can provide.
From an artistic standpoint, the searchers has WAY more strong points than flaws.
Drake said that this film must be in your top 10. You said that there are many films clearly better than the searchers. Both of you aren’t wrong. It’s a matter of personal opinion. There will ALWAYS be some disagreement. (That’s why drake has a most underrated and overrated section on this website)
@Azman, you’re right here, I agree in everything you say
@Azman and Cinephile— Thanks again for the comments. I should correct myself. I shouldn’t have said The Searchers should be on everyone’s top 10. You are correct here Azman. I think Seven Samurai, Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and a select few other films, that aren’t on my own top 10– are valid choices if someone were to argue that they are the single best of all-time. To me that’s still not the same as “it’s a matter of personal opinion”. I mean i guess it is to some extent but we’re talking about a very select few films over the 100+ year history of cinema. If someone says like Pretty Woman or something is the best film of all-time or even a film 10X better, like Denis Villeneuve’s Prisoners (a very good film,I watched last night) says that is the single best film of all time. They are wrong. Everyone can have a favorite, but “best” is something different. And everyone can have an opinion— but all opinions are not equal.
Yes I agree with you. I’ve said this many times. Film is mostly objective. But why is the pornographers not on tspdt top 1000 but loved by you? Why is jeanne diekman a masterpiece in many peoples opinion but bad for you? There will always be some level of subjectivity. It’s called an unpopular opinion and there’s a reason its unpopular(most people think it’s good or bad) but that’s fine. Some disagreement is okay.
@Azman– good stuff here. agreed. It’s why I always ask why you, @cinephile or others, either why they liked or didn’t like something we differ on. I try to pinpoint the difference. Maybe we’re using different criteria (emotion vs. aesthetics) or maybe one of us missed something (I’ll be the first to admit that after seeing Jeanne Dielman only once- I could absolutely be missing something and it is my fault, not the film) or maybe people haven’t seen Imamura’s work or seen The Pornographers which is why I’m always trying to check out new films and not just stick with the canon.
Hi, I kind of get what you mean here… in regards to Pretty Woman – you’re kind of 100% correct. On an artistic level, it is so far removed from being the best film of all time. However, if someone were to say to me Prisoners is their favourite film of all time I’d see it just as valid as The Searchers, for example. Although I might be slightly bias on that point because I didn’t love The Searchers as much as everyone else (I’d probably give it like an 8). Even out of the John Wayne Westerns, it’s not the best – I’d probably say Rio Bravo is. But all the same… I wouldn’t criticse anyone for saying The Searchers was the best. In my opinion, if someone says any movie with a clear aristic drive which has been well-made and put together with care (be it from Coppola’s The Converstation to Villenueve’s Prisoners to Nolan’s Memento to Ford’s The Searchers) is a reasonable choice… It is a tad ridiculous to claim that there are only about 20 or so films that could be considered the best… Besides “best” is an inherently subjective word… There is never going to be a definitive “best”… Like my favourite film is probably, depending on the day, Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, Fincher’s Zodiac or PTA’s The Master – but if anyone said to me that they thought those films were merely like a 7/10 I wouldn’t bat an eyelid. I might if they said the film was awful and has no merit. Point is… film opinions are pretty subjective – especially when it comes to a specific level of greatness..
@Jeff. I tried to convince Drake that film is subjective. However when I think about it, it is neither subjective nor objective. It is mostly objective, (Drake’s list is similar to TSPDT top 1000 and so is mine and ebert). Hiwever there is some level of subjectivity involved. Gene Siskel and I think fMJ is a masterpiece but drake and ebert think it’s only a decent movie. Basically it depends on how you evaluate a film. Movies and good art is mostly objective with a degree of subjectivity involved.
I’m glad to see you agree with me. From the movies you mentioned as ‘clearly’ better than searchers, I have seen most of them and most of them are in my top 20.
I’m just curious, what would your top 10 films of all time be?
@cinephile
@Azman, it’s pretty hard to make a top 10 list so believe it or not I don’t have one, but I have a list with films I consider great, something like Ebert did. I think Drake’s top 10 is one of the strongest lists I’ve ever seen by a person ( the tspdt and s&s are obviously as strong but they are lists made by multiple voters not by a single person). I think 2001, Apocalypse Now, Raging Bull, Citizen Kane, Vertigo, The Passion of Joan of Arc, Stalker, Tokyo Story rightly deserve to be there, I’m not there yet to consider Blade Runner top 10 of all time worthy but it’s close. As I said I can’t get behind The Searchers as a top 10 worthy film but again I don’t believe it’s far behind. So, those 8 films I fully agree the other 2 spots could belong to films such as
Au Hasard Balthazar (1966)
Mulholland Drive (2001)
Dekalog (1989)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
8 1/2 (1963)
Persona (1966)
Bicycle Thieves (1948)
Satantango (1994)
Aguirre, The Wrath of God (1972)
Andrei Rublev (1966)
Playtime (1967)
L’ Avventura (1960)
Breathless (1960)
Seven Samurai (1954)
Ordet (1955)
Ugetsu (1953)
Late Spring (1954)
The Rules of The Game (1939)
L’ Atalante (1934)
Sunrise (1927)
Battleship Potemkin (1925)
La Dolce Vita (1960)
Okay, there are some others but you could make a case for those to be top 10 of all time worthy.
What’s your favorite country for films? I’ve noticed that these lists are usually very American. Mostly Hollywood films.
I love all the movies you mentioned though.
I think American cinema is the strongest. What country has produced SEPARATELY as many masterpieces ? I mean separately because if you make a statement such as European cinema vs American cinema then Europe probably might win, but if you count every country alone I think as strong as France, Italy or Japan is ( the latest of course not from Europe) their all time resume is not on the level of America, take to account that by saying American films I don’t talk only about Hollywood, I mean everything coming out of America, it might me an independent film.
Okay, I didn’t get you here, you mean most lists are like that? Or my list especially is very American and Hollywood?
From the 8 films, the 5 are American and my other mentions to take the 2 spots I left are mostly non-American. You think those 5 don’t deserve it ?
Dumb question but is the Searchers also your favorite movie of all time?
@Randy– I’d say so- yes. Rewatchability and favorite are a little bit different. I think for me favorite and best are pretty much aligned at this point. I don’t watch and rewatch The Searchers as often as a few others. But I would call it my favorite.
“Rewatchability and favorite are a little bit different.”
I didnt really understand what you meant here. Could you expand? Maybe give some examples of rewatchable movies and favorite movies and compare them. I didnt quite understand what you meant
.
@Öz – Well I was saying that I think “best” and “favorite” are pretty much aligned for me at this point. But I probably find several films more easily rewatchable. Some have a breezier pace, more of a hang out film (I find Rio Bravo easier to slide into than The Searchers for example as The Searchers takes up so much of my energy). I hope that makes sense.
I’m still not completely sure about what you mean but I think I get it now. When I watch 2001, raging bull etc, I always feel emotionally drained and tired when the movie ends (definitely in a good way). They are such dense movies. With raging bull, schindler’s list etc the subject matter is depressing so it’s hard to watch. It’s like eating a heavy meal for breakfast. It’s so good but makes you feel full. You can’t have meals like that everyday. You prefer lighter snacky meals on most days. I know this is a really bad example but is this what you meant?
@Oz — yes- this is well said, actually. This is what I mean. It’s like comparing a pop song with an opera.
I’m going to watch it again tonight my 5th time I believe. It’s my current #14 of all time and every time I watch it I move it higher. Let’s hope ill come closer to your opinion and launch it more high.
Also, if he sees the comment, I want to ask Matt Harris his opinion on the Searchers, do you believe it is the GOAT ? If not, at what place do you have it in your best of all time? I’m very much interested in your opinion.
Truly bizarre… I have attempted and failed to submit the same response (which is still copy/paste saved on my computer) 4 times and each time it comes back with an error when I attempt to post. I’ll try an abbreviated version. I think The Searchers is a massive masterpiece but not the greatest film ever made. My choice there is Seven Samurai. I had far more detail and rationale in the other post but apparently Drake’s website is blocking me for blaspemy or something. :p
@Matt Harris. Really sorry about that. No idea what’s going on. We’ve had a 50% spike in views on the site in the past 30 days but I can’t imagine it’s so much so that the site can’t handle it. haha. I haven’t had issues. I’m blaming your canadian wi-fi
I’m using ”Canadian wifi” too and I can assure you, it works properly?.
There might be an issue with your American website servers.
@Matt—Odd indeed, I haven’t found a problem like that in my comments here so it is truly weird. Anyway, Seven Samurai is also a Giant Capital “M” Masterpiece so it is rightly deserving the spot although for my money, 2001: A Space Odyssey is the apex of cinema.
Do you believe Kurosawa to be better than the #12 here on the best director lists ?
@Cinephile and @Matt Harris– I’ll just add this. I personally don’t spend a ton of time thinking about whether The Searchers is superior to The Seven Samurai or 2001. I’m not saying it’s not a fun discussion/debate. But they’re all so obviously ambitious and magnificent. I like talking about the specifics of what makes each film and filmmaker great– but I’m so in awe of all of them. Hell, I’m in awe of the 150th best movie of all-time— the 300th best movie of all-time— let alone these three at the very top.
@Cinephile – Yes, I believe him to be better than #12. In my estimation, there are a handful of filmmakers who can legitimately be called the greatest of all time and Kurosawa is inarguably one of them. He is simultaneously one of the greatest cinematic storytellers of all-time, and the single greatest composer of geometrical framings and capturer of movement within the frame to ever compose an image with a camera. I adore a great many filmmakers (including all 1-11 on Drake’s list), but for me Kurosawa is #1.
Following your comment about forming a ‘great movies’ list rather than ranking movies I have done the same. I believe it makes much more sense.
“2001: A Space Odyssey is the apex of cinema.”. Eventhough I dont like ranking movies, I’m inclined to agree. How many times have you seen the movie and how many viewings did it take for you to appreciate it? Did you watch analysis and explanations on YouTube from critics explaining or analysing it? Have you seen it in cinemas?
@Cinephile
@Azman— By my comments until now I seem a guy who watches a film many times- haha. That’s the case with 2001, I’ve seen it probably (or close to) 8-10 times. I saw it for the first time when I was 10 years old ( around 1994 ) and I was blown away but at that age I couldn’t understand much so I was just awe-inspired. In the next viewings, I was already a bonafide cinephile and I was blown away even more, I’ve studied it a lot since (yes, I’ve watched it in cinemas ) and yes, I’ve seen a lot of video analysis and explanation about it. Whenever I watch it again I’m still blown away every time, it feels as an inhuman creation, way ahead of it’s time and more intelligent than humanity if you know what I mean (haha). Although there’s other films you could call the GOAT I’ve never changed my opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Agree with every thing you have said here cinephile! I’m not really a rewatcher as such, but I’ve seen this a total of 6 times…. in a year! I plan on rewatching it multiple times. And yes I agree with you eventhough I dont rank movies (like you)”Although there’s other films you could call the GOAT I’ve never changed my opinion on 2001: A Space Odyssey.” Maybe I may come across a better movie some day. Who knows?
How often do you rewatch it? Every year? Every 2 years?
I’m just confused about 1 thing tho. In one of your comments you mentioned that you dont really rank movies but you have a great movies list like Ebert. Yet you say that 2001 is your #1 and the searchers is your #14? I’m confused. Do you list movies like Drake or have a great movies list like Ebert?
@Azman— Until the 2010s I had seen it probably 3-4 times. But yeah in the 2010s I watched it like 6 times so that makes a rewatch every 2 years. As time passes i try to rewatch it as often as possible.
I rank films but whenever I do it I’m not sure, my opinions change a lot so I don’t want to make statements like “this is #1” or “this is #10” and I end up mentioning the “greats”. But in the last weeks I tried and I finalized some of the lists. Thats why I said 2001 is #1 and The Searchers is #14.
When and what did you think of the Searchers when you first saw it?
@Azman- I think I saw it in 2000 or 2001 for the first time. I thought it was fine but overrated and not as good as American History X or Primal Fear (I was, and am, a big admirer of Edward Norton-haha)
Really the first time I saw him I already knew that Wayne was saving Natalie, by the image where it appears holding it, do you think it was too spoiler?
Was he supposed to be intrigued because he was going to kill her?
I don’t know if that ruined my experience
@Drake, interesting. I love American history too. I knew someone who worked as a production assistant and on the set of the movie. I like talking to them about it.
@Aldo I don’t know man. Sounds like you may have ruined it slightly(not a big deal at all). I saw searchers 2 years ago and I clearly remember the intense emotion I felt when Wayne lifts Natalie and the perfect final bookend shot. The moment is so poignant and transcendent because as the audience, you are expecting Wayne to kill his niece. Ethan is extremely racist but at the end he has a moment of compassion and feeling and does something that you weren’t expecting.
Obviously the ending is spoilt for you if you knew it from the start, however that may not be a bad thing for certain movies(it is for searchers). I always go into movies with some context and if it’s confusing I try to get as much context(even what to look for in the ending) as I can. Tree of Life was certainly enhanced by the context I went into it with.
Also, rewatching 2001 and finding nemo(when I knew the ending), helped so much. Most rewatches, I remember the ending but that actually enhances the experience like it did with Drake and the Searchers.
However, if you are watching a movie for the first time, try to watch it only with basic context.
@Aldo, by context I mean things to look for.
If the cinematography is groundbreaking, if the acting is revolutionary etc.
For example: before watching on the waterfront, I knew I had to look for the acting and directing since it had been praised so much. Before rewatching a movie, I will analyze it and then look for those things I may have missed in 1st viewing when rewatching it.
Every time you see a film after the first, it has already been spoiled for you. It’s a shame to have the full effect of that initial screening muted for you, but a great film (and the Searchers is very great) will still reward return engagements.
@Matt Harris Do you think that it varies depending on the movie and how much you know about the ending?
Before watching Barry Lyndon, I read a Scorsese quote :
“Basically, in one exquisitely beautiful image after another, you’re watching the progress of a man as he moves from the purest innocence to the coldest sophistication, ending in absolute bitterness:. I knew Barry would end up lonely and sad at the end but by knowing it would end this way, I was looking and observing Barry’s demise and that slowly built into a satisfying and emotional ending.
Also, for movies based on real life events (Bonnie and Clyde for example), the audience already knows the ending or the fate of the main characters. It doesn’t make the ending any less powerful. In fact it may even enhance it.
Well I only commented on it since most mention the emotion when Wayne lifts her up instead of killing her, but I didn’t feel anything, but I guess you’re right, horror movies like Psycho and The Shining are still great even though you already know the plot
@Aldo .
It’s the worst when you know a twist ending.
What do you rate the searchers out of 10. Even if you know the final moment, it’s still an artistically brilliant movie.
Like which according to your @Azman?
I can only think of the sixth sense
If you are going to name one, just put the title, so as not to spoil me haha
I would give it a 10, i didn’t really know the end, or anything, or what it was about, i only saw the image, and when i saw the cave i knew i would load it
I did not even know that Natalie would be the one i was looking for until the middle of the movie
There are many movies with twist endings not just Sixth Sense
Fight Club, Cabinet of Dr Caligary, may be even Chinatown and of course The Usual Suspects.
I’ve never understood why people don’t mention the Searchers when they talk about the best westerns, for people there only seems to be The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Once Upon a Time in the West, they even think Ford’s best is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Why do you think it is like that?
@Aldo That’s strange. Everyone I talk to mentions Searchers or a John Wayne movie when talking about Westerns. Its #7 on TSPDT.
Really? I mean specifically “people” not critics, critics praise him a lot and instead people not much.
Yes, I mean ‘people’ people. Every person I speak to who knows about old Westerns knows about John Wayne and his movies (the searchers being his best and maybe his most famous. It would be weird if people knew about Wayne and Westerns but they only knew about Liberty Wallance and not the searchers. Maybe it would be different based on country. The Western is a largely US/North American genre.
ford’s best might be liberty valance. i love the searchers and have only seen valance recently but felt a strong connection to the characters. i did for the searchers too, but i really liked in valance how it was the whole town united together against a common threat and how stewart used our great American law system to fight for justice. visually and based on waynes performance though, definitely searchers,
I think that Stagecoach is Ford’s best film, Liberty Valance second and Searchers the third. Just to go full circle haha
Ford’s best is The Searchers. He made a number of other great films but doesn’t have one that comes terribly close.
drake thank you for introducing me to this film, or i heard about it before but once i discovered your site and saw it number one i wanted to watch it and since have seen it three times. i still think 2001 is better technically but this is perhaps my favorite. i always come back to this in my mind and always listen to the brilliant soundtrack. i think john wayne’s performance might be the best ever in cinema.
The Searchers- 1956, The Man Who Shot Liberty Balance- 1962, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly- 1966, Ride Lonesome- 1959, 7 Men From Now-1956, Stagecoach- 1939, Shane- 1953, The Wild Bunch- 1969.
[…] The Searchers – Ford […]
I come to comment here, for your review of All about eve, as far as i remember it ends a little after the freeze frame.
If it had ended right then after the flashback, would it be a bookend?
I must admit that i still don’t know what “exactly” a bookend is, it’s when it ends the same or almost the same as when it started, right?
At first i thought that a bookend was the shot of “the searchers”, just like that, a darkened frame, for example “the souvenir”, but i think not.
Final comment, Gone girl has bookends ?, from what i remember begins / ends with a close-up of Pike, although it is not exactly identical.
@Aldo – its the second of the two Wikipedia definitions “occur or be positioned at the end or on either side of (something).”
Ok, thanks, but you didn’t answer me if Gone Girl has bookends?
Also what are some of the best bookend examples? apart from obviously the searchers
@Aldo- yep- Gone Girl works- there are some supercuts out there of the best… some of these examples are random, or stretches’ at best– https://nofilmschool.com/2018/03/first-and-final-frames-back-show-us-power-bookending-films Breathless is a good one
I have seen this list, but as you mention, it is not very precise it is random, that’s why it confused me.
I always had that question about Breathless, we mean Belmondo running his finger over his mouth and Seberg running his finger over his mouth, right?
Chariots of fire counts too, i think. It begins with the runners on the beach with the song and ends with the runners again on the beach with the music of Vangelis.
Do you think Letter never sent has bookends?
It begins with a shot away from a helicopter after leaving the scouts and ends with a one shot away from a helicopter saving the last scout.
@Aldo- yep- we’re on the same page here. Yes on Breathless and Chariots– sounds right on Letter Never Sent but without rereading my page or watching I don’t remember. I followed first and final frames for awhile- certainly even if they aren’t bookends it can still be interesting to see the first and last shot- but it does confuse this discussion.
I will be adding other bookends on this page, after all there is no better use than in the searchers, really hits you.
La haine also counts? a close-up of Said looking at the police and a final close-up of Said after Vinz dies.
Does a bookend necessarily need to be focused on the very first and very last shot? I believe not. A film may have an opening similar to its ending that does not match in the exact opening or closing moment. For a recent example of such an “irregular” bookend situation, there is Nomadland, which includes a shot of a van driving down a highway both a minute after the movie opens and at the finale (coincidentally, the penultimate shot of the movie shows McDormand walking out from an open doorway into the great outdoors, and I’m certain we all know what inspired this). Raging Bull, in its opening scene, shows Jake LaMotta rehearsing his lackluster theatrical routine in front of a mirror, as does the ending. My third imperfect bookend is something of a stretch, but I will mention Vertigo, whose first and last scenes eventually depict a frightened Scottie peering down toward a comrade he has inadvertently caused to fall.
Saving Private Ryan has a more exact bookend; it begins and ends with a close-up of the American flag.
I hope you don’t ask me haha, as you can see i don’t have much experience in bookends.
And i don’t think it should be like that, irregular, i don’t know if you’ve seen Pickup on the south street, it could have ended the way it started, but instead it spreads to a cheesy scene.
From what i have read it must be a circle or a cycle, in which you feel that it has concluded, such as Gone Girl
What is your opinion of Vera Miles’ acting? I must admit that I don’t think she’s all that great. Her facial expressions in the wordless moments are adequate, but many of the times she speaks, she unskillfully overplays her character’s emotions and comes across as rather annoying. Of course, in the grand scheme of the industry, she is obviously one of the better actresses in Hollywood at that time or else she wouldn’t have been cast in so many great movies, but I can’t help feeling that she contributes to a majority of the weaker acting moments in two of Ford’s best works (The Searchers and Liberty Valance). As you note, the third quarter of The Searchers (the section where Miles has a major role) falters cinematically as well as narratively compared to the rest, and I honestly can’t say that she isn’t one of the reasons for that being the case. Needless to say, she doesn’t come close to ruining these films, but I bet there are better actresses that could have been cast. I will finally admit that she is actually pretty good as Marion’s sister in Psycho.
I thought she was actually pretty good in Liberty Valance myself, especially in that devastating ending scene with Stewart on the train, but I can’t help but agree on The Searchers for the most part – her character can be irritating to watch as she just throws herself blindly at Martin – but that’s one I’ve been dying to revisit and I hope I will have a different perspective on her performance when I do.
Yes, I would agree she is not all that bad in Liberty Valance. I think she is better in the frame story (aka present time) segments at the beginning and end than she is in the flashbacks that constitute most of the film. She is better at being nostalgic than being sympathetic. I will also add that Ford was privy to some inarguably performances by women, including Jane Darwell in The Grapes of Wrath.
Sorry I meant “Inarguably BETTER performances by women,” skipped a word there
Let me rephrase what I wrote about Vera Miles’ section in The Searchers. I don’t necessarily mean she’s the reason that segment is weaker than the rest of the film – it’s primarily because the film shifts attention away from Wayne and the spectacular desert landscapes at that point, and because of the uninspired attempt at comedy with the Native American woman, whose role completely goes against the main themes of the movie. However, I think a more talented actress (imagine Ingrid Bergman circa mid-40s) could slightly elevate the sequence.
@Graham- I’ve never really thought about Miles’ acting in it per se. Perhaps because I’m distracted by Jeffrey Hunter (I’d replace him first if I were recasting this)– but– I’d chop out much of this portion of the film- the portion that doesn’t stick to Wayne’s Ethan Edwards.
Finally rewatched this one, Jesus Christ, so much cinematic brilliance it’s overwhelming, I’m still processing it since a lot of it is pretty back-loaded. I can’t imagine putting it below #3 of all time now, for perspective I would’ve had it around #30 off my first viewing. That being said, I still think Sunrise and Apocalypse Now are better, but I’m a lot closer to saying they aren’t than I was before.
The Searchers is a good film but not even close to being the greatest film of all time.
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.
Steven Speilberg on John Ford, great
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqIYH-FsWDM
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.
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.
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 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
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.
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 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)