This is an essay I wrote in March 2023 for an English class.
It is about an 8 Min read.
The Western is a genre that is so effective at
speaking to our morals as people that it transcends culture, language, and
borders as well as time. Unlike other genres that rely on cautionary tales or
contrived drama, Westerns delve deep into moral questions that touch the very
core of our being. This is because a Western is not subject to the typical
parameters of society. The lines between what is considered civilized and
archaic are significantly blurred. The vastness and semi-lawlessness that
exists in the genre is what challenges us to ask ourselves what we would do in
difficult situations, and if our actions align with what is right. They force
us to question the very foundations of our civilized society, both past and
present. In short, the power of a Western lies in its ability to make us feel
something unique. They tug at our heartstrings and leave us with a sense of
purpose. To me the movie that encapsulates this feeling the most is called 3:10
To Yuma, a 2007 remake of a 1957 film of the same name. It is a story about
choices, respect, parental relationships, and the many forms of evil.
The film starts with teenager William Evans,
who we can infer has been reading about outlaws, as he faces a pivotal personal
dilemma – to choose the direction of his life. He deliberates wordlessly
between achieving glory through lawless infamy or living a mundane and lawful
life. The cinematography suggests that William is enamored with the idea of
living as an outlaw, as he stares longingly at his books, before his life is suddenly
and violently interrupted from his thoughts by a gunshot. William's family is
attacked by deputized debt collectors who are trying to sabotage and prevent
the family from repaying their debt. This is also when we are introduced to the
main protagonist, steadfast image of goodness, and William's father Daniel
Evans; as he is pushed to the ground.
Dan is a one-legged, Civil War veteran who has
faced near financial ruin due to personal failures and an unseasonable drought.
In the wake of the debt collectors attack, young William raises a rifle to
shoot after the attackers as they flee the area, but his father stops him,
aware of his frustration and trying to set a positive example. Dan tells his
son, “I’ll take care of this,” to which his son disrespectfully retorts, “No,
you won’t.” This scene sets up the central interpersonal conflict of the story
between a father and his son, and subsequently good against evil, as William
finds himself more and more estranged by Dan’s good nature.
As the story unfolds, we are introduced to the
third character point of this dramatic triangle: the murderous outlaw Ben Wade.
Introduced as a hobbyist sketch artist, Ben is in truth, a well-known,
successful, and ruthless gang leader. Ben has been a lifelong criminal, and as
such, cannot even imagine any other way to live. His past is deliberately
shrouded in mystery, but it is clear he has traveled extensively and
experienced both wealth and poverty, leadership and servitude, and many
romantic liaisons. Despite his many adventures, there is an undeniable
emptiness about Ben that even he himself does not understand. Ben attempts to
fill this void by committing more crimes and seducing women. However, his
arrogance eventually leads to his downfall, and with Dan's fortuitous
assistance, Ben is finally apprehended by the authorities. While Dan is driven
by pure intentions, Ben embodies the opposite extreme of cruel self-indulgence,
remaining an unstoppable force even while literally restrained. He serves this
role as a foil for Dan's character throughout the rest of the story.
Upon Ben being captured, Dan immediately
volunteers to ensure that he is taken into custody on the 3:10 to Yuma Prison
train that departs from the nearby town of Contention. In exchange for his services,
Dan will receive $200, which is enough to pay off his family's debt and save his
ranch. While on the run from Ben's gang, Dan hosts an uncomfortable dinner
party where a not-so-subtle showdown of personal philosophies takes
place.
At the dinner table, Ben commits a social faux
pas by starting to eat without saying grace, thereby displaying a sense of
superiority over those around him. A debate ensues over whether shooting an
animal is different from shooting a man. Dan explains to his son that there is
a significant difference, but Ben rudely interjects with a matter-of-fact,
"No, it isn't". Throughout exchange, Ben flaunts his restraints like
a badge of honor, while Dan remains quiet and only speaks when necessary. Dan’s
son William becomes so infatuated with Ben’s behavior that he stops eating in
order to fully pay Ben his undivided attention. Unable to begin a conversation
with Dan, Ben manipulates Dan's decency by asking for help cutting his food, as
he was only given a fork to eat with. Dan reluctantly agrees to Ben's entitled
request and further demeans himself in front of his son by doing so. William
turns away ashamed of his father’s actions. Dan is suddenly called away from
the table, and during his absence, Ben flirts with and flatters Dan's wife, who
cannot help but accept the compliments. When Dan returns, the dinner takes an
uncomfortable turn as Ben has interacted with everyone except Dan, and he has
defied their initial negative expectations of him as a violent murderous outlaw.
One crucial detail that often goes unnoticed
is the way in which characters communicate with one another. This can reveal a
lot about their level of respect for each other. In the film, we can observe
that Dan and Ben use each other's first names when speaking, while the lawmen
and gang members use more formal names or titles. For instance, the lawmen
always address Dan by his last name, which may seem respectful at first glance,
but this action actually establishes a hierarchy where Dan is viewed by them as
inferior. On the other hand, the outlaws only refer to Ben as "boss"
or by his full name, indicating that they are both fearful and loyal to him,
even to a fault.
In the next important scene, Ben again tries
to have a conversation with Dan while he is on night watch, as they are on
their journey to the town of Contention. Unlike their previous interactions,
this time the conversation takes place privately while everyone else is asleep.
Dan shares with Ben and the audience details about his military service and
implies a sensitivity about the way he lost his leg. Ben, in a moment of
genuine interest, asks Dan, "What are you doing here?" He cannot
understand why a family man would risk his life for a mere $200 reward,
especially after Dan already put in his years of civil service during the war.
Dan responds with a clearly evasive response, "Maybe I don't like the idea
of men like you on the loose." This makes Ben smile a little, as he has
discovered that Dan has a hidden motivation for joining the lawmen and is
intrigued to figure out what it is. In an attempt to enrage Dan and get him to
reveal his secret motivation, Ben insults Dan's ability to provide for his
family. The strategy works enough to enrage Dan, but he still restrains himself
from physical violence or revealing his true motivation. Ben is pleased with
Dan's outburst because it is understandable to him as a man ruled by impulses.
After this moment, Ben begins to respect Dan, and from this point on, he treats
him as an equal for the remainder of the film.
Dan is soon replaced by the debt collecting
deputy from the beginning of the story that burned down Dan’s Barn. The deputy
is quickly killed by Ben due to his needless cruelty. Young William witnesses
the murder and feels vindicated for his earlier anger at the deputy. Though he
didn't kill the deputy himself, William appreciates Ben's ability to do so, and
he respects the outlaw once again.
Outside of the central cast there are also
other characters that are diametrically opposing forces. Pinkerton Byron and
Charlie, Ben Wade’s second in command. Although these men share very little
screen time together and are on opposite sides of the law, it is interesting to
note how similar they are. Each one is a vile, indiscriminate killer, and a
force of evil. Byron has killed many native Americans, including children for
pleasure and under orders. This mirrors Charlie who also kills for pleasure and
under the orders of the gang’s leadership. This dynamic does not play out, but
it does expect the audience to reassess the society that has allowed these men
to thrive, both using the power they have to bring chaos and destruction. Ben,
however, does have the ultimate will, as he personally murders both men on the
journey.
As the film nears its end, the lawmen and Dan
arrive in Contention with Ben. They take shelter in a hotel and wait for the
prison train and Ben's gang, who is on their way to rescue their leader. Ben
tries to pay Dan twice the reward money, but Dan refuses him. Ben realizes that
money doesn't motivate Dan and resorts to using fear tactics, referring to his
own gang as “animals”. William asks Ben to call off his gang, but Ben explains
his own corruption saying, “Kid, I wouldn’t survive 5 minutes leading an outfit
like that if I wasn’t rotten as hell.” Ben then predicts that the lawmen will
turn against Dan and is proven right when his gang shows up and outnumbers the
law 2:1. When the lawmen confront Dan about their cowardice, Dan stands
resolute that someone will walk the outlaw Ben Wade to the train. When the
lawmen attempt to pay Dan his reward upfront to walk away, he refuses but asks
that instead a greater sum and protection be given to his family homestead.
When they agree, William becomes worried that his father will be killed, but
Dan reassures him. The camera focuses on Ben, when Dan tells his son, “I am
going to need someone at the ranch to run things, protect our family, and I
know that you can do that because you have become a fine man, William”. In this
moment, the battle for William’s soul has finally been won, because although
the allure of a lawless life may seem glamorous, it is the innocent that suffer
the cost. Dan has earned his son’s respect and admiration and thus ensured the
survival of his soul. Ben realizes that the empty feeling he has felt since the
start has been the void in his soul, and until this moment, he had never seen
such a degree of selflessness or honor displayed so clearly before him. The
realization that his reckless and sinful life will have dire consequences for
an innocent family man weighs heavily on Ben, leaving him looking crushed.
In the film’s climax, Dan and Ben walk out of
the hotel’s backdoor amidst a massive gunfight. Ben, who is unarmed, helps Dan
by blocking his gang’s shots and spotting threats. Once they are far enough
away from the chaos, Ben tries to flee from Dan, saying “I’m not doing this no
more, Dan … Ain’t nobody watching no more”. Referencing the absence of Dan’s
son William, which is Ben suggesting that personal pride was to blame for their
current situation. The two men begin to fight before Ben gets the better of Dan
and pins him down. Dan then tells Ben about his true motivation, revealing that
he has been trying to prove his courage, respectability, and manhood to
himself. Dan reveals that he was never a hero to anyone, and only lost his leg
in the war to friendly fire. He has always felt like a failure, and he needs
this moment more than he needs to live without it. Ben finally understands and
willingly walks with Dan to the train station.
On the way to the station, Ben does everything
in his power to keep Dan alive, even killing his own men and planning their
next move. When they reach the station, Ben jumps on the train, happy that he
was finally able to help someone. However, his happiness is short-lived when he
sees Charlie, his former right-hand man, shoot Dan in the back and chest
killing him. The music is dropped completely when Dan is killed to instill the
seriousness to the scene. Ben is unable to cope with the situation, and in a
fit of rage, he kills the rest of his gang, including protégé Charlie.
As mentioned before, Charlie is an evil man,
but he is significantly younger than Ben and it is implied they have been
together for some time. Charlie is furiously loyal, obviously to his detriment,
but this speaks to another relationship. The father-son dynamic that exists
between William and Dan is ripe with disrespect and turmoil, whereas the
father-son dynamic between Ben and Charlie is much more fluid and respectful.
Despite the cordial appearance, Ben and Charlie’s relationship is toxic and has
brought innumerable suffering into the world, as Ben has incentivized the
criminal behavior Charlie now freely exhibits. Charlie enjoys torturing men,
killing, and stealing throughout the film, and is easily the most reprehensible
character therein. It is never stated,
but it is implied that Ben has been a mentor to Charlie, as Charlie repeats the
phrase to the Ben’s gang “Don’t forget what he done for us.” Charlie is an
absolute force for evil, but it is unclear if that evil is innate or subject to
Ben’s authority. Regardless, Ben does appear to be remorseful in his last act
with Charlie, saddened that Charlie’s death is necessary for him to leave the
criminal world if he chooses too.
William arrives just in time to see the
showdown, and although he considers killing Ben, he decides to stay with his
father's body instead. This also illustrates the point that William is choosing
to be like his father rather than be to be like Ben. Ben jumps back on the
train, devastated by the experience and possibly a changed man. The movie ends
as Ben’s train leaves the station.
As stated before, Westerns transcend culture,
language, and borders as well as time. Media
like Breaking Bad, Fargo, No Country for Old Men, Firefly,
are examples of westerns set in the modern day or even the future. Whereas Australia,
Ned Kelly, or The Good, the Bad, and the Weird are examples of
when the westerns leave the typical US setting and exist in similar periods of
time. Despite these fantastic examples 3:10 to Yuma is still the film I
imagine when someone mentions the genre. It is as cinematic as it is
emotionally poignant. The fundamental relationship of the father to his son,
and then to himself will never fail to be relevant. The charismatic Ben Wade
that earns the viewers’ respect, and makes us question our morals, remains a
subject of lively debate. And the overall way that evil is portrayed by various
characters reminds us that evil comes in many forms and persists in the grey
area of the law. 3:10 to Yuma is a cinematic standout, and it
encapsulates the best kind of story that the Western provides, it truly speaks
to our morals as people.
Works Cited
3:10 to Yuma. Directed by James Mangold, Lionsgate, 7 Sept. 2007.
Comments
Post a Comment