My Darling Clementine exemplifies the ideals and misconceptions of the classic western. The saturated stereotypes are present, as well as the aesthetics, but we also see the historical similarities to its time period. My Darling Clementine came out in 1946, just after World War II. Americans were feeling triumphant, but also angry, hurt and impressioned by such violence, threat and fear. Having all of that culminated in a culture creates a genre representative of what the audience might be feeling. That means archetype characters, and stereotypes for some, but for others it means that the films are true to their current state of mind. My argument is that Tag Gallegher has it right; that critics of this genre tend to over simplify and gloss over the subtleties and complexities of the classic western. But my amendment is that those critics have a point, however difficult it is to tease out. The "Classic Western", in this case My Darling Clementine, complicates the ideals of purity by incorporating violence, stereotypes, and sexuality in ways that appear either subtle or blatant, depending.
Lets begin by defining the "Western" and giving My Darling Clementine some historical background. Rick Altman prefers to borrow Jean Mitry's definition, "The western, Mitry proposes, is a "film whose action, situated in the American West, is consistent with the atmosphere, the values, and the conditions of existence in the Far West between 1840 and 1900"" (Altman, 31). This definition easily keeps My Darling Clementine within the western realm.
Now, to situate the film in a larger generic context I would like to specify that this film came out in the aftermath of a time of anguish and struggle. Which means that the plot, characters, and motives are more "everyone for himself" rather then incorporating the morals of cooperative living and working together as a community. The fact that its based off of real events but have changed the historical dates and isn't all that correct is another thing to think about. But as it is, its depicting something that happened in 1881, despite the fact characters in this film were either dead or did not die in the way this film depicts it. An interesting fact is that Doc Holliday was actually a dentist, not a surgeon. This fact makes his heroics dampened in a way, and the whole surgeon-nurse relationship with Clementine gets a different dynamic knowing the truth.
Gallagher writes about how critics ignore historical evidence in reference to westerns, are unsympathetic to the subtleties of "old" movies, and that they focus on the narrative of the film rather then the art, aesthetic and experience that one receives. In describing how critics approach westerns, Gallagher manages to tease out what makes a western, shall we say "worth it". What I mean is, westerns have a place in history, and a place in our culture as American people, hell, westerns even have a place in the greater scheme of cinema worldwide. Because the genre began so early, even "before the Lumieres caranked their first camera" (Galllagher, 265), the western exemplifies a saturated version of humanity, due to its own saturation as a genre through time. Gallagher's point is to say that previous critics couldn't see past the sexist, racist, predjudiced genre limitations to see what these films meant to say. The Classic Western is meant to point out the trials and tribulations of day-to-day life, but in an extreme environment in comparison to the movie-goers that sit and watch these films in the theatre. What I mean to say, is that Gallagher is writing to all those critics, and is trying to tell them that there is more then the narrative, and there's more then the saturated aesthetic. Its about the people, the characters, the experience the characters are going through.
Gallagher writes, "Genre criticism seems almost endemically antiphenomenological" (273). He writes about how genre criticism is becoming more based in fighting the surface of the genre, rather then looking at it as a culture, and getting into it's grime and dirt to really know what lies within it. The critics are rejecting the western in order to move on to other films....well what about the western? Isn't it worth a look see? Gallagher thinks so. Gallagher continues to write, "Literary critics exalt the "idea, but they regard its actualization as a mere illustration. They concern themselves with narrative because they comprehend cinema chiefly in therms of what happens, as a becoming, as "action". Cinema critics, on the other hand, tend to comprehend cinema more as being, as a world and soul experienced in an immediate now" (Gallagher, 273-274). Obviously, Gallagher sees it as a literary narrative versus an experience of an object, i.e. cinema. The interesting distinction between literary critics and cinema critics is astounding. It seems as though most of what Gallagher had read were that of literary critics according to this article. But in contrast with Gallagher, I see how the critics in both camps differ, but what they should have in common is the movie-going experience and spirit. Why not just go see a film and then think about its plot, characters, syntax, meaning etc after? We do not need to approach a film with a critical eye the first time we see it. We do have the ability to re-visit what we saw, without having to watch it a second time....although it helps. The initial experience is the most important part of a film.
Another point that Gallagher brings up in his article is that violence plays a big role in westerns, but also in history. Especially when My Darling Clementine came out. Gallagher focuses on how critics received the film. Crowther, a film reviewer from the New York Times, reviewed the film and wrote, " Too obvious a definition of heroes and villains is observed..." (Crowther) and continues to say things along the lines of a western saturated and over the top. But he goes on to write, "However, the gentlemen are perfect. Their humors are earthy. Their activities are taut. The mortality rate is simply terrific. And the picture goes off with several bangs" (Crowther). Here we see a true critic of the time see a film, review it, and finally at the end of his review, praise all that he originally criticized....but without knowing it. If you focus on his last notion there, the "mortality rate", "gentlemen are prefect...humors ..earthy" etc. we can see how this film got to this reviewer in a pleasing, satisfying way. Perhaps his critique said it like it was, but if you like westerns...you know you would like this one from what Crowther had to say about it.
One of the things that My Darling Clementine does really well, is create conflict around Wyatt Earp's motives among critics. Gallagher cites Nachbar, " [he, Nachbar, states] that Wyatt Earp's motives are "very clear" in My Darling Clementine: he has "both the right and duty to kill the Clantons. It is no surprise, then, that after the famous battle, Earp is recognized as the hero of the community and will soon be rewarded..."(Gallagher, 269). But then, Gallagher goes on to say that Nachbar misread Earp's character and the film's plot, as well as that Earp's "charm hides a self-righteous prig and a marshal's badge and noble sentiments hide a "near psychotic lust for violent revenge""(Gallagher citing John Sturges, 269). After which Gallagher brings in yet another perspective from Schatz saying:
"Wyatt clearly relishes lording it over people without using his gun, and Ford is far too much of a moralist to accept Earp simply as a "redeemer" (Schatz) who has an unequivocal "right and duty to kill" (Nachbar). Wyatt, in any case, morally abdicates his "right to kill" when, and just before the battle, he declines the assistance of the town mayor and parson, calling his feud with the Clantons "strictly a family affair"; however as a myopic, negative quality, is an obsessive theme throughout Ford's oeuvre, while the major theme of [the film] is wrapped around musing over whether one can ever have the right or duty to kill..." (Gallagher, 269).
Gallagher has a good point with Schats and Nachbar as supporting arguments, but what Earp stands for, and his motives, doesn't quite bring in what this film is trying to say. Earp might be the driving character of the film, the one we follow, whom we might call the protagonist. But with so many plot lines running parallel, chris-crossing and weaving within one another, its hard to pick out the supporting roles that show a new perspective to the public. Perhaps one about gender roles and how genre can tease out subtleties that show the audience in a subconcious way, how things might change in the future. The supporting characters and parralel plot lines I speak of are Clementine Carter's, Doctor "doc" Holliday, and Chihuahua. What might the perspective of a self-proclaimed cast-away and the representation of women have to do with our culture, society and day-to-day lifestyles? Well, many things for those in 1946.
What I'm talking about here is how woman were struggling to work jobs against those returning husbands who wanted them back in the kitchen, barefoot, baring children. The new-found glory of making your own wage, supporting yourself and your children while the husband was at war was being stripped away from these women who now had a new role model called Rosie the Rivetter. And some ways these women acted out was in being overly sexual, but others were proper and silently went back to the home. Some women love going back to that place of security and familiarity in the household. But the experience of being independent and the head of the house was still there in the woman's mind.
In My Darling Clementine we see two representations of women that create a dichotomy within the film. Chihuahua loves the doc, but is the town harlett as well, she also struggles with the racial implications that come with being a southern american girl in the new world of the west. She brings sensuality to the film, and lust, and envy. She exemplifies the distraught woman waiting, just waiting for her prince charming to take her up and save her. The equivelant of the damsel in distress. But it can be argued that Clementine can fit that role as well. Chihuahua comes from the low budget bracket....while Clementine comes from Boston, and is the pristine picture of posterity, propriety and poise. In other words, Clementine is the damsel in distress but only fits that role because she is somewhat of a foreigner to these parts, and doesn't have the know-how to negotiate the west quite properly with the demur of a saintly, schooled lady of the East Coast. Now, to bring these two representations forward to the front of the film is to say that the film asks the woman in the audience to choose, and then to be one or the other. The poor, helpless Chihuahua who pines and then slips up with another man to loose her beloved anyway, or the fancy Clementine who quietly knows what's best, and stays in her societal place with the demur of propriety. What comes to mind now is the boys these girls were after: Wyatt and Doctor John Holliday.
Chihuahua was after the good Doc who knew both the west and the east, and was sore about something, but something he wouldn't talk about. That drew in this poor woman and gave her something to love, hold and caress into a soothing western laze. But when Clementine shows up Chihuahua's world capsizes and Clementine ends up having two suitors. Doc's emotional turmoil leads him to not want anyone, and Clementine naturally doesn't press the matter, and slowly flirts with Wyatt and ends the film dancing with him. But Chihuahua is down and out for the count with no Doc, having been killed in the fight, and herself lost in the thows of the cutthroat west. So what does all this mean to the 1946 woman? That its better to just go back to the propriety of an educated life, no cutting up allowed. This limits a woman from going after her dreams, her creative outlets, unless its embroidery, or any of the acceptable hobbies. Luckily, the fifties and sixties slowly turned this around with the women's movements.
But the two men, Doc Holiday and Wyatt represent those men in the audience who had been at war, who had been fighting hard. They aren't all the men represented....there are many options for the men in the audience to choose a character to identify with, but out of the main bunch you get these two as the good guys....we have the clanton's as the villains. But who in a 1946 audience wants to be a villain? What srikes me is that the title points to Clementine as a choice for the women in the audience...so does that mean that the men should choose to be Wyatt?
Douglas Pye writes, "Northrop Frye constructs...five modes, defined in erms of range and power of action of the protagonist:...myth...romance...high mimetic mode...low mimetic mode...[and the] ironic mode..." (Pye, 204). What My Darling Clementine shows is a combination of many types of modes, and contains parralel plot lines. This may confusing for some, wishing for one plot line, but Wyatt's revenge is the main plot line to pull the rest along. Instead of a mash up of too many plot lines, it creates a myriad of choices for the viewer. It makes the film likable for almost everyone in the audience. In trying to fit this film into one of Frye's modes, we find it difficult to just pick one. We could go with myth, and say that Wyatt Earp is godly, but he's human as well, so that doesn't quite fit. We could try romance, but its got violence in it and a revenge plot, so that doesn't quite fly either. It is arguable that high mimetic mode fits this film where Wyatt is superior in degree to other men but not the environment, although low mimentic mode fits too where Wyatt is no better then anyone else, just another man of the west making his way through and happens to get caught by cattle stealers. The only one that doesn't fit is the ironic mode where the audience is superior to the protagonist, and our intelligence surpasses the protagonist. So, to bring Gallagher back, I believe one of his points to the critics that just don't see as much as Gallagher does, is that a western can be many things, especially this film. The western can work as a vehicle of sins so the audience can live in the cinematic world for 90 some minute to return to the way of life they like. It teaches what shouldn't be done, having that saturation give the viewer something to balk at, something to contrast, something to fight against being. The subtleties are still there for the women, and for the men....although those have to do with feeling inadequate (doc holiday), but the blatency of this harsh world in the west were the Clantons steal your cattle, makes it clear where the "right duty" lies. Gallagher also points out that Wyatt's struggle with doing the right thing is something to be looked at. Men and women of 1946 might look at this film and feel justified after, not because of the film, but because of the War that just finished. That is a good feeling, so this film may be a moral booster that brings in all the vain, humane vulgarities we face all the time in order to tell us that it is ok to get jealous, and feel revengeful, but only in small doses perhaps.
What Gallagher and Pye offer together is that fitting things into boxes isn't always the best way to approach life. Gallagher writes at the tail end of his article that "...sensuousness and logic create art..." (Gallagher, 274). We must appreciate the experience of art in order to perhaps, as Gallagher puts it, see that "art becomes an academic exercise, pornography or propaganda, raped of its capability, it aesthetic capability, to give us knowledge of ourselves and the world" (Gallagher, 274). The film we see before us is a tool to escape, but the place we escape to is right back where we were. And we learned nothing new, but what we already knew was true and the lesson learned was grand.
Works Cited
Altman, Rick. "A Semantic?Syntactic Approach to Film Genre." Film Reader III. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2007. 27-41.
Crowther, Bosley "THE SCREEN; 'Darling Clementine,' With Henry Fonda as Marshal of Tombstone, a Stirring Film of West." New York Times 4 Dec. 1946.
Gallagher, Tag. "Shoot-Out at the Genre Corral: Problems in the "Evolution" of the Western."
Film Genre Reader III. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 2007. 262-276.
My Darling Clementine. Dir. John Ford. Perf. Henry Fonda. DVD. Twentieth Century Fox, 1946.
Pye, Douglas. "The Western (Genre and Movies)." Film Genre Reader III. Austin, Texas:
University of Texas Press, 2007. 203-218.
No comments:
Post a Comment