Friday, February 24, 2012

High Noon - review

Here is a film review by critic James Berardinelli. Give it a read and check in at the end.




High Noon
Review by James Berardinelli

By 1952, movie-goers knew exactly what to expect from a Western: a clean-cut, self-assured hero facing down a good-for-nothing villain in a climactic shoot-out, lots of action, gorgeous scenery, and not much in the way of thematic depth. This was a time when the Western was at the height of its popularity, and when stars of the genre, like John Wayne and Gary Cooper, were revered as heroes of the Old West. Then along came Stanley Kramer and Fred Zinnemann's High Noon, and the Western was never quite the same.

Many fans of the genre regard High Noon as the best Western ever made. There are other contenders for the titles (including, but not limited to The Searchers; The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; The Wild Bunch; Unforgiven; and Dances With Wolves), but there's no debating that High Noon is amongst the elite - it is as much above the garden variety Western as something like Die Hard is above the generic shoot-'em-up action thriller.

High Noon contains many of the elements of the traditional Western: the gun-toting bad guys, the moral lawman, the pretty girl, and the climactic gunfight. But it's in the way these elements are blended together, with the slight spin put on them by Zinnemann and screenwriter Carl Foreman, that makes High Noon unlike any other Western. Audiences in the early '50s were drawn to the theater by the promise of a Gary Cooper film. Many viewers left confused, consternated, or vaguely dissatisfied, because things didn't play out in the expected way. It is rumored that John Wayne criticized High Noon's ending as being "un-American."

Indeed, 1952 was the time of "un-American" things, with Senator Joseph McCarthy wielding the power of paranoia and fear in Washington as he presided over the 20th century Salem Witch Trials. This time, the targets weren't servants of the Devil, but Communists (although some at the time might have said there was no difference). Carl Foreman, the screenwriter of High Noon, was blacklisted soon after writing the script. Also on McCarthy's list were actor Lloyd Bridges and cinematographer Floyd Crosby. To hear McCarthy tell it, High Noon was a veritable hotbed of "un-American" activity. And the story can easily be seen as allegorical -a man is turned on by those he called friends and comrades, and comes to see that the most valued principle of the masses is self-preservation.

[...]

The more one considers the atmosphere in which Foreman wrote High Noon, the easier it is understand the grim tone that underscores nearly every frame of the motion picture. The typical Western was a story of great heroism and derring-do. High Noon highlights much of humanity's base nature.

[...]

High Noon is about loyalty and betrayal. Loyalty on Kane's part - even when everyone deserts him, he stands his ground, though it seems inevitable that the action will cost him his life. And betrayal on the town's part. Many of the locals are agreed that they owe their prosperity to Kane, but they will not help him or defend him, because they believe his cause to be hopeless. There are even those who welcome Miller's return. In the end, Kane is forced into the showdown on his own, until, at a crucial moment, Amy proves herself to be a worthy wife.

The movie transpires virtually in real time, with a minute on screen equaling one in the theater. In one of many departures from the traditional Western, there is little action until the final ten minutes, when Kane shoots it out with Miller's gang. The lone exception is a fistfight between Kane and a former deputy, Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges). Other than that, the movie is comprised primarily of Kane's failed attempts to rally the townspeople to his cause. High Noon's tension comes through Kane's desperation, aided in no small part by Elmo Williams' brilliant editing as the clock ticks down to twelve. For a motion picture with so little action, the suspense builds to almost unbearable levels.

Many have called High Noon more of a morality play than a Western, and, in some ways, that's an accurate description. Aside from the primary plot thread, there are other quandries to be considered. Amy must choose between her dearly-held peaceful beliefs (which she adopted after her brother and father were killed) and standing by her husband. It's easy to be non-violent when there's no price to pay. Harvey Pell must decide between ego and friendship. High Noon places many facets of human nature under the microscope, and therein lies the complexity in a seemingly simple idea. The deeper one looks, the more High Noon has to offer.

The climactic gunfight is not played out with two men staring down one another across an empty expanse of street, with a tumbleweed or two blowing around in the background. Instead, it's a quick and dirty business, with a hostage-taking and a man being shot in the back. When Kane wins the day, as he must (this is, after all, Gary Cooper), it has the feeling of a hollow victory. And the Marshal's final action - throwing his badge into the dirt before he and Amy ride out of town - gives us a taste of the bitterness that has settled in his mouth.

There are really only two men one could envision playing the part of Marshal Kane - James Stewart and Gary Cooper. Cooper, the older of the two men, is the better choice. He brings a world-weariness to the part. From the beginning, we sense that he's a reluctant hero, and this is confirmed as the story moves along. He admits to being afraid, and one senses that he wants nothing more than to get on the wagon with his wife and head out of town before Miller's arrival. But his overpowering sense of duty, coupled with the concern that Miller will eventually hunt him down, is strong enough to keep him where he is. Cooper imbues Kane with equal parts dignity and humanity. There's no doubt that he's a hero, but, unlike the usual Western good guy, he is filled with doubts and all-too-human weaknesses. These are the frailties each of us finds in ourselves; seeing them in Kane allows us to identify with him intimately. It makes the film more personal. In 1952, the movie was unsettling for some because they were unprepared to see a reflection of themselves on the screen. They expected an invulnerable hero; they got a man.

As important as it was to humanize High Noon's protagonist, so the villain remained largely faceless - an unseen menace riding in on the railroad tracks. Although his presence looms large over the proceedings, it isn't until the final fifteen minutes that Miller finally shows up, disembarking from the train, girded for battle. In a way, the arrival of actor Ian MacDonald is almost anti-climactic. By this point, Miller had been so thoroughly demonized that the appearance of a normal (albeit tough-looking) man is a little disappointing.

[...]

As is true of nearly every great film, all of the elements mix together in High Noon. The black-and-white cinematography is perfect for setting the dark mood. The music is relentless. And the editing (with the possible exception of the fight between Kane and Pell, which is choppy) is nearly flawless. But the real elements to applaud are the acting, the script, and the direction, all of which are top-notch. Cooper appeared in more than 100 films during his long career; few aspired to the level of High Noon, much less attained it. And no credit on Zimmermann's resume is as impressive. The Western may be one of the few truly American art forms, and High Noon shows exactly how much potential it can embrace.

Reactions? Post in the comments below. Extra credit for additional comments and reactions to peers...as always.

151 comments:

  1. I'll start us off. Berardinelli says, "By this point, Miller had been so thoroughly demonized that the appearance of a normal (albeit tough-looking) man is a little disappointing." Was this effective? Should Miller's arrival had more punch? More gravitas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that it should have been a younger, crazier looking guy but besides that I believe miller's arrival was nearly perfect.

      Delete
    2. There was so much build up in tension that I think the everyone expected some wild guy to jump out of the train. I was a bit disappointed because I expected there to be more to it than him just getting off the train and taking off his jacket.

      Delete
    3. Rae - was that disappointment effective? And do you think it was intentional?

      Delete
    4. Narmandakh OtgonmunkhFebruary 24, 2012 at 11:59 AM

      I know i think i really do agree with John because when you think of a guy whose dangerous, u automatically think that he is going to be big and scrary looking.Other than that i think the movie was cool.

      Delete
    5. The disappointment was effective in my opinon because after that scene, I wasn't as into it because the director built up so much suspense but it winded up being nothing. I can't really tell if it was really intentional or not, but i'd like to think that it wasn't because if it was, it'd be very disappointing. The thing everyone was waiting for was the arrival of Frank Miller and it doesn't turn out to be much so I don't really think it was intentional.

      Delete
    6. I agree with Berardinelli here. I felt it was a little disapointing, I expeted Miller to be so much more intimidating. But it wasn't even his looks that threw me off, it was his departure from the train. After being bombarded with all those intense climatic images beforehand I was really pumped for something spectacular. But you don't even see his face until he's watching Remirez board the train. I feel like they either should have found a way to make his original arrival more intense, or saved the reveal of his face for when he sees Kane rather than Remirez.

      Delete
    7. Can anyone else think of a film with an anti-climatic climax that was somehow effective, even though the ending created the exact opposite effect that most endings create? (This is a good question.)

      Delete
    8. I didn’t think it was effective at all. The way the town's people talked about Miller, I thought he would tougher, more ruthless, and more violent. I had expected more. I thought he would have done more damage and I also didn’t expect him to go down that easily. Yes, I think Miller’s arrival should have had more punch. The shootout should have been longer; it seem like they were just playing a game. I think if there was a fist fight between Miller and Kane, it would have brought more excited to the scene.

      Delete
    9. I disagree with John Reynolds. I thought it wouldn’t have made a difference if Miller was younger, but I do agree that he should have been crazier. I think Miller’s arrival was weak. All I saw was, a man got off the train and start shooting. There was nothing to it.

      Delete
    10. When I saw Cast Away with Tom Hanks, I was a little upset by the anit climatic ending. The whole movie Hanks holds on to a package and when he finally returns home, you dont get to see what is inside. Then he goes off down a street with four different directions and the movie is over. Although it was nothing exciting, it gave the idea that what was inside the package was not important, that it was just a mental idea that motivated Hanks to get back home and deliver the package. Then when faced at an intersection, it is as if Hanks is choosing which route to take his life now and where he will go from here, leaving it somewhat open ended. It was an effect, yet anti climatic ending, but it had people talking and deliberating on what might have been in the package that Hanks delivered.

      Delete
    11. yes have them both run out of ammo right there and the deputy should have came though in the end.

      Delete
    12. I think that there really wasn’t enough character development with Miller. The first time miller is even on the screen he doesn’t say much. I think that it would have been helpful if there was a flashback of what miller did to the town before that made him so feared. Also he doesn’t look like a villain, in most western you can clearly know who the villain is by just how they look and act, but in high noon you only get to know miller for a few minutes before he is shot and killed.

      Delete
    13. I agree with the comments saying that it was a little dissapointing that Miller didn't really look very threatning or dangerous. All the people were talking about Miller like he was this big, scary guy. They built up so much tension, so I think they should of made him more scary. Or make an over the shoulder shot of Miller to build more tension

      Delete
    14. How about this for an ending...Kane waits for them in the sheriff's office. When they walk up on the porch, he pushes a plunger and sets off a few pounds of dynamite he has stuffed under the floorboards. Just blows them all up. Then he gets on his horse and rides off, leaving his wife behind as she calls out after him. Would that have played well back then? How about now?

      Delete
    15. I was not expecting Frank Miller to be so average. Yes, Frank looks a bit scary but i think he does not live up to the crazy evil man he was portrayed to be by the town. I believe that their should of been something else when Frank got off the train. What i mean by something else is he should of been crazier. He should of been more terrorizing. I think it would of added to the movie and made it more exciting.

      Delete
    16. That ending definently would NOT work then or now in my opinon. I mean the whole point of the film would be nothing. There would be no point to it because all we were waiting was the fight; showdown and we get a 5 second shot where he just blows them up? That would be very disappointing. Also it is very unrealistic too. It has too much of a "fairy-tale" happily ever after ending.

      Delete
    17. It wouldn't have played out well then nor would it have in retrospect. The whole morality would be gone from the film as brute force would overcome any attempt to reach out for a deeper message. I believe there could have been a more physically and mentally unappealing man rather than what we were given. There could have been a greater man vs. world struggle as well as a heftier man vs. man struggle if Amy were harmed in some way. It would seem like his world and society around him are totally collapsing yet he still manages to persevere and continue what he believes is right in the name of justice after being stripped of all he can love and cherish.

      Delete
    18. except he is also leaving him wife in the scene mr. cowlin described

      Delete
    19. Does anyone else think the way Frank Miller died was bad? I thought that was one of the most anticlimatic things in "High Noon".

      Delete
  2. Here's another question...How important is casting to the success of a film?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Casting is extraordinarily important to the success of a film! However (personal opinion) I tend to like movies that don't have top-star actors and actresses, because I'm able to see the character as the character them self and not a celebrity that I see across the headlines all of the time (much like what you said yesterday about Brad Pitt). That being said, I had no idea who Gary Cooper is so I really didn't jump up in excitement when I heard the name. Instead, I viewed the movie as him portraying the character that he really is, and I think that's why I liked the movie so much. I was really able to get into the plot and make it more personable than if I were just in a theatre watching attractive people speak overused lines of script. Anyways, sorry for rambling..

      Delete
    2. Casting is very important to the success of a film. Even the physical appearence is important because you want the audience to really get a feel for the character; mentally and physically. I personally liked the cast they chose for High Noon because the fact the marshall had a sad,tired,old face made us feel sympathetic for him and really helped us get into the film. Also, if even one person is not really into the part,or even doesn't look like how everyone else would envision it, it just ruins the film in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. In my opinion the casting takes a major part in this movie. As it does in most movies because getting the right person to play the right role is everything. Plus the biggest thing which is getting into character. If you had someone who has roles in mostly comedies be the bad guy then no one would be able to take him seriously. But if you had someone who looks intimidating or normally plays a bad guy then it would make believing his role a lot better.

      Delete
    4. I just watched Drive with Ryan Gossling (sp?). He does almost nothing, and does it well. I'm not sure I'd ever seen one of his movies before, and I'm not sure I have liked the movie as much if Matt Damon or someone I'm familiar with had been in it. Has anyone seen Drive, and do you think it was well cast?

      Delete
    5. I feel that casting is very important to the success of a film because the actors are the ones that make the film. Its not always about how famous or well known the actor is its more about how well the actor can adapt and play the role. Also can the actor relate to the role or have a past with the role really contributes to it as well.

      Delete
    6. Going along with the comments above, I agree that cast is crucial to the film. You want to like the faces of the people you are looking at. For example, if they had gone with an actor no one had heard of in the role of Will Kane, no one would like the part as much as they would if Gary Cooper played it because everyone liked Cooper. He was a face everyone had seen before and recognized. In other words, a part like Kane almost had to be played by a celebrity everyone was familiar with in order to like much of the film.

      Delete
    7. I like the last thing you said, and I agree. If not everybody is on-board, its obvious and it makes the audience feel awkward in their contemplation of "should I believe this? should I even bother getting into this movie?"

      Delete
    8. Film is a visual experience, so the actors casted in the film matter and effect how the storyline and character will be perceived by the audience. Personally, I did not like Gary Cooper in this movie because he didnt have much passion. Yes he had a fight and possibly death looming over his head, but he also had the option to leave. For someone to stay behind and possibly die for what they beleived in, I would think they would show more passion than Cooper expressed.

      Delete
    9. I agree 100% with you Dakota. I have been in situations where the actors in the movie are not on board and it just made me feel uncomfortable sitting there watching a poorly made movie.

      Delete
    10. Narmandakh OtgonmunkhFebruary 24, 2012 at 12:03 PM

      Yeah casts are really important because they are the ones who actually make a movie seem realistic and interesting. I totally agree with Dakota.

      Delete
    11. Give me some examples of a film in which the actors are "not on board." Not including a Rob Schneider film. Or Grownups. Or Daddy Day Care. Or Norbit.

      Delete
    12. Casting a part is nearly the most important thing. You have to get an actor that can display the role the way you want. The Marshall’s face showed a lot of detail. When you saw his face, you saw a sad, tired, depressed older man. I thought his face expressions did a lot for the movie. Also, I liked how Ms. Ramirez’s part was played as an independent, strong woman. Whereas, the Marshall’s wife, seemed more innocent. Actors are the ones who make up the movie, which is why they are so important. I feel like the main character is meaningful when the person is a famous celebrity people know.

      Delete
    13. Casting is very important to this film. There is only a certain type of actor that can be cast for the role of Will Kane. Like someone above said, if a famous actor is cast, he could not have been in a comedy because the audience will be expecting a comedic appearance from that actor. But if an actor that was not famous was cast, then it would not really matter what other films or shows he was in. The only thing that would really matter is if the actor could look and act the role. Of course someone that looked like Michael Cera would not be able to effectively play the role of Kane.

      Delete
    14. I think casting is very important to a successful film because the actors are they ones who makes the film look real. They are the ones who contributes the most in making a film.

      Delete
    15. How about every Matthew Mcconaughey movie except Dazed and Confused? He is just not a good actor and don't care about...

      Delete
    16. Looked like Michael Cera or behaved/acted like Michael Cera?

      Delete
  3. Now that you've read the review, who understands why yesterday I called High Noon a "political film" as much as a Western? And do you agree with that assessment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, if it was a polictacal flim were was the policts? It was more like a typical western. The bad guy comes in to town. Everbody is scared and hides. It's up to one sherfif or lone rider to save the day and get the girl.

      Delete
    2. The screenwriter, Carl Foreman, was blacklisted after writing the script?

      Delete
    3. it was political it was satirical of human nature and how we would sacrifice someone just so you dont have to do anything. and the fact that it sparked contraversy with that senator makes it in a more literal way political.

      Delete
    4. I think I understand what you mean here. Like, politicians used this film to show that they were etting somewhere in the fight againts communism. (By suspecting the writers.)

      Delete
    5. why was the Screan writer black listed because of the movie?

      Delete
    6. I disagree with Ali Shegarfi because I think a film has to have policts in it to be called a "political film".

      Delete
    7. How is sacrificing a man so you dont have to do anything. useall polical movies are about problems, big and actal problems accuring and how to fix them. Like Michal Moores movie sicko about how messed up the goverment is and the health care system now thats polical.

      Delete
    8. What no way Antonka smith. Then you tell me how was the movie polical.

      Delete
  4. What is intresting is that Kane is deserted and is left to fight the bad guys.What was unblevible too me is that even if one man use's gurrila warfare to kill for other armed men. The fact that Millers gang wasn't smartenough to kill one man is sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did Kane have an obligation to 'fight fair'? I mean that in two contexts: (1) according to the value system of a 1950s movie audience and (2) according to the value system of a 21st century audience.

      Delete
    2. I find the whole plot in the town essentially deserting Kane to be really strong. I can't imagine how terrible it would feel to literally be left by *everyone*-- your wife, your neighbours, your friends and acquaintances... which makes his fighting and winning all that more significant. The fact that he even had the fight in him, that he had enough self-dignity to save what he thought was important irregardless of his own life is what a true hero is about. Heroes are not always loved by everyone-- sometimes you have to be a hero for yourself.

      Delete
    3. yes he kinda did. he was allowed to bring any one he wants to help him fight. The only fight he got was from his wife. Macking it an unfair fight.

      Delete
    4. Kane was required to fight "fair" and whose decides whats fair and not fair. when it comes down to life and death, everything is game.

      Delete
    5. I think your right Dakota it would suck if you left to fight a gang of men by your self. How ever I think you wrong that the hero is not always loved his wife ended helping him out by love in the end.

      Delete
    6. The plot was obvious to me for the most part - the desertion part missing from my prediction - which caused this movie to just follow a linear path of a predictable movie rather than unfold in front of me. The moment i saw it was four vs. one i knew he was going to beat the odds as much as i knew that Amy was going to man up, since she returned, and leave behind non protestant christian values. I bring up christianity since its part of the whole political aspect as the times didn't look kindly towards pacifists. This later plays out well for America since they are expected to take up arms against the odds and defend what they believe in.

      Delete
    7. I guess in today's 21st century, it was almost kind of a relief the film didn't have some crazy action like ending. I like how they just killed the character of Frank Miller off pretty quickly. If this were a Michael Bay film, the whole town would of gone down in flames and explosions. I like how the ending is almost kind of "simple" I guess.

      Delete
    8. It doesent matter who says it far or not it was unfair for Kane and you know it.

      Delete
    9. I think your right Boyan the plot is kinda ovvious that the hero in the end wins. It is very western that the hero of the movie wins.

      Delete
    10. I agree that it was interesting how the people just left him and didn't help him at all. However, I disagree that Miller's men weren't smart enough to kill Kane. I believe that Kane was just smart and sneaky.

      Delete
  5. Throught the whole movie the townspeople describe Miller as a brutal man and that Kane will surely die if he stays in town. Upon seeing Miller,I was disapointed to find him average looking and not have such a mean attitude that he was described to have. I think this makes the town look bad and cowardly. The director built up all this tension to see how truely bad Miller was and see why all the townspeople were so afraid, and in the end it makes them all look weak and afraid that they were to scared to stand up to an outlaw. It reenforces the idea that Kane is fighting a nobel cause and that the townspeople should be ashamed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. i do think though that the film makers could add something at the end to point that fact out.

      Delete
    2. if i were to be directing i wouldnt have shown miller's face at all. it would make him even worse just show him from behind or have him put a bandana over him face after he gets off the train.

      Delete
    3. I think that they couldn't find a really ugly guy for the part. It's not like they could have gotten Danny Trejo like they do now. I think they just put make-up on normal looking guy and said "There, he's threatening. We don't need to develop any character as long as he looks slightly less appealing than the average man."

      Delete
    4. I think something like that would have made it more interesting. but i think the film makers could also have an actor that looked more intimidating.

      Delete
    5. Kendall-- LOVE this. I couldn't agree more, and even if the audience isn't satisfied with the result itself, such tension seems to me to be the art of filmmaking.

      John-- I agree. I almost wonder if I feel like I would be more satisfied not ever seeing the face in the first place than seeing one that didn't stand up to the controversy of the town.

      Delete
    6. I agree with that statement. While watching it and having all this built up anxiety to see Miller and then have this average looking guy get off the train was a major let down.

      Delete
    7. Narmandakh OtgonmunkhFebruary 24, 2012 at 12:09 PM

      Yep! I angree with Kendall 100% because i thought about the same think while i was watching the movie and also it does make the town look bad because he really did seem like a nice guy...

      Delete
    8. I agree with this also. I feel like once we saw what an "average joe" Frank Miller was, we wonder what the whole problem was in the first place. It makes the whole film look a bit..uninteresting. I mean besides the guy punching the window and stealing something, they looked like pretty average guys walking down the street to me which makes us all probably wonder what the big deal was with the townspeople.

      Delete
    9. I agree. Seeing Miller made the towns people look like cowards because he didn't seem dangerous at all. I was expecting a big, scary guy to come in. I thought that would be more affecting

      Delete
    10. I agree that the townspeople were cowards. If one man can take all three criminals and only get one injury and still be fine, than the townspeople were perfectly capable of taking them on. They should be very ashamed.

      Delete
    11. I disagree with kendal. Frank miller and his gang in the end got killed by one man and his wife. well who's so scary know. Besides Rae lim is right Miller and his gang was more like avege joes then a bad guys. The flim did try to bulid tension to make him look like bad guy but he just wasnt.

      Delete
    12. However the fact that the towns people were cowards do bring a good point in making Miller look like a bad guy. He and his gang still got owned by one man and his wife.

      Delete
  6. As I’ve mentioned before in class, High Noon does not excite me for it lacks character development in addition to the audience, us, being oblivious of the actors of the time. This review portrays the movie as an instant classic and a revolutionary film in regards to westerns but I’m still not convinced and I believe it's overrated due to the casting. I see it as an artistic take on westerns rather than a western itself due to the editing used. The review tried to focus on those aspects more so than the fact that this movie lacked development of the chemistry between Amy and Cane and depth in Miller’s sinister to-be role.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the movie could also have been made like "its own" i feel like every wester is like this where there is a shoot out at the end or whatever and it doesnt excite me either.

      Delete
    2. Explain how it is "overrated due to the casting." What do you mean by this?

      Delete
    3. Yeah, but every action-powered movie these days has a typical car chase seen and a shoot out with bigger machines and more special effects, and yet people continue to watch the same movie (basically) over. and over. and over. and over again...

      Delete
    4. Well the review pointed out that people came since Gary Cooper was playing Kane therefore people weren't drawn to it due to its originality but rather due to Gary Cooper, Grace Kelly (Since she was pretty not cause she was famous at that period), and the squinty eye guy. I feel like since many didn't view the western in this aspect of desertion and lack of justice, this movie only made it far due to the names involved.

      Delete
    5. I think most people went to see it because it had Gary Cooper. It is kind of like how people would almost always see a Stallone or Schwarzenegger movie. "He's in it so it must be good."

      Delete
    6. Boyan - Have you ever heard of Cool World? How about Kalifornia? They were both Brad Pitt movies. I disagree with you. I don't think star power has ever been enough to get a movie remembered a year or two later, let alone six decades. There must be something more at work here.

      Delete
    7. But if there was a different actor he could have also drawn crouds but no one really knows what would have happened then.

      Delete
    8. Those movies attract peolpe due to the actors which are casted as well though. Society in general has also simplified its philosophical views in general and therefore its easily entertained by high action movies in a country where action is inexistent. The media largely controls what people are intersted due to further development of psychological methods to control masses and therefore nothing stops the same idea to be republished and reviewed as long as it brings easy revenue.

      Delete
    9. I do think that this movie would be overrated because of the cast back then. People would come to this movie thinking this has to be decent because it has Gary Cooper in it. Now though it is not like that. As the movie gets older the actors will not be as well known. I did not come into the movie thinking of the cast. My opinions about "High Noon" were based on the characters, not the actors playing them.

      Delete
    10. I have heard of Kalifornia but not Cool World. Star power has its limits but I don't believe that this movie was that innovative. I think its the era which caused its popularity due to the blacklisting of the director(?) which caused people to go see this "un-American" movie. I'm not sure much of the youth now knows of the movie expect from either hearing about it from their elders and old time critics that still hang on to the hype that once was. I feel like its gotten to a popular spot and stayed there cause of what people used to remember about it rather than what it was as a movie.

      Delete
    11. I disagree with you. I think that there was no problem with casting (except maybe for Miller). However, I do agree with you that it was not along the same lines as a usual Western movie.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do understand that this is a political film more than a western. The film strays from the normal western type movie. To me Kane did not seem like a typical western hero. Kane for most of the movie is moping around trying to find help. The western hero is supposed to have exciting and energetic characteristics to him, but you just do not see this from Kane. Also it is so political because the movie is really telling the American people the government is not just or that the government has no control over the west as well. This is why it is so controversial. It is basically showing us how poor our government is. This might be the reason John Wayne said it was so un-American. Westerns are supposed to show that the law is always right and just, but “High Noon” is more of a “morality play” as the article put it. It shows us that the government does not understand the west as much as other westerns do.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with you Jake, We’ve seen it over and over throughout the years that when you put to many big named actor in one movie they seem to clash against each other and the movie becomes a bust. High Noon was different though the actors and actress gelled together which made the movie an A list Western.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The actor who played the retired law man was Lon Chaney Jr. He was also Dracula, the Mummy, and ... The Wolfman! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTNQEd8D4pg

      Delete
    2. His dad, Lon Chaney, Sr., was also famous for playing monsters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN6u28dq4qc

      Delete
    3. I just watched the youtube clip you put up and i liked it a lot! Very cool!

      Delete
    4. I don't believe that they gelled together that well. There was a missing element between Amy and Kane as they never really had any sensual moments. I understand it was a morality film but if you're going to involve romance i don't believe it should be done poorly. Romance can cause a great intimacy between the movie and the audience watching it since people tend to latch onto emotional ties when watching movies as they try to reflect on them.

      Delete
  10. What do you guys think would of happened if Kane had left town and the unsupportive townspeople were left to deal with Miller and his gang?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I guess it all comes down to if Miller was after Kane, or after the town, or after any type of revenge in general. Maybe he'd hop the next train back if he found out Kane was legitimately gone-- on the flip side, he could've just as easily taken out his anger on his gang upon hearing the same news if he was that ticked off. I'd like to think the latter just for entertainment purposes.

      Delete
    2. I feel like Miller and his gang would ram sack the town and take over the saloon and then when they finished up with that they would chase after Kane and his wife and try to kill them.

      Delete
    3. If Kane had left(anti-western), I'm pretty sure the Miller and his gang would win and take over the town. It seems to make sense because basically the hero, the protagonist, leaves and the townspeople are obviously not going to live.

      Delete
    4. I think the town would have went back to the time when Miller was incharge. I think Miller and his gang would controlled the town and no one would want to leave thier home.

      Delete
    5. I think Miller would have taken control of the town and it would have become a corrupt place where anyone was scared to step out of line and stand up to Miller. Miller already had the towns fear and that was enough to play off of to get them to follow him and his ways, whether they wanted to or not.

      Delete
    6. It just doesn't seem to make too much sense that if Kane wasn't there, the townspeople would die. So why isn't anyone else helping if they are going to die later anyway if Kane weren't there to help?

      Delete
    7. The town peolpe wouldn't die due to the fact that Miller was after Kane not any of the townspeople. Many of the men in the bar were friends of Miller and the judge himself saw that he was let go therefore he doesn't have anything against him. It would have just been a chase movie rather than a western movie. It might have been more action packed than what High Noon is now.

      Delete
  11. I agree with a lot of statements made in this article. I beleive that it was un-american that the townspeople didn't want to help him at all. He is the one marshall who helped the town to become a better place, and the one who proteced all of the peopele from harm. I agree with the article when talks about suspence in the movie. I think that throughout the movie, suspence was building up, and building up to the point where we can't take it. Finally the epic moment when the shootout begins, and even there the audience is holding its breath, waiting to see the results. Then it ends and we let out a breath of releif. Some people argue the movie was boring until the shoot-out, but I think that was perfect to build the tension.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't too relieved by the ending, and I don't think I was supposed to be. I just felt dissatisfied, just like Kane, which was really interesting to me. The ending is not really all that happy, which is really creative. It really fit with the grim tone that the movie was going for.

      Delete
    2. Its debatable if this movie really is un-american. i really dont think it was, and i kindof see what he means by political too.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Richie in terms of I didn't really think this movie was un-american.

      Delete
  12. The entire movie i was waiting for the big scene when miller comes off the train,(mostly because the entire movie people were talking about how bad of a person he is) expecting too much because he just walks of the train and his 'gang' is there waiting for him and this scene to me was actually quite awkward, or not as thrilling as i thought it would have. It definitly needed more punch to it but he just stands there, they ask him a few questions and then they go into town. The cast to me was great and i couldnt really imagine it with another cast the only thing that was a little wierd or off to me was Cane and Amy and their realtionship. It couldve been the age difference or maybe because they kind of acted like strangers to each other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think they tried to hard to make it suspensfull thats why it was not in the end.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree. Kane and Amy scenes could have had a little more romance, more chemistry. They didn't really seem like they were in love. At the end of the movie, I thought Kane and Amy would has a more passionate kiss.

      Delete
  13. I really wanted to agree with all of the review, but I found that I could not. I agree that it's original and ahead of its time, but I don't think the acting or the way it was shot was extraordinary. I actually thought the montage when the clock struck twelve was a little grating. I think just the reaction of some of the town, the chair, and Kane should be it. The shots of the clock were unnecessary. But I degress. I didn't like Cooper's performance. By no means did he deserve an Academy Award. It felt like it was just Gary Cooper playing a sheriff. When I think of Oscar award winners I think of Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump, someone who can go so out of his comfort zone, and make it likeable, believable, and work to the movie's advantage. Gary Cooper just seemed to be playing his usual role of the western guy, and I was in shock that he won an Oscar.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I honestly think "high noon" is nothing speacial. the casting was ok. the plot was like any other western. but the part i actually like was that it was almost in real time and the common idea of clocks being everywhere and all this built up just to see some normal looking guy get off the train. that is one of the casting desicions that that i think could have been better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, High Noon is fine, a little slow but okay overall. I think if you look for a deeper meaning you will find one, but you can do that for a lot of films.I agree that it is nothing that special.

      Delete
    2. I agree that high noon was nothing speacial it seemed very boring at times when cane was walking around looking for people to fight with him. I also agree that miller was a normal looking guy. I think it would have been better if the director picked someone who looked like a villain

      Delete
    3. Like the other comments, I agree. I didn't think it was anything special. But there were certain things I liked about the movie. I liked the tension that was building up for when clock hit noon, but when Miller came out, it ruined the tension. Also, I liked Ms. Ramirez's character. Lastly, I liked how the movie was a different kind of western.

      Delete
  15. Narmandakh OtgonmunkhFebruary 24, 2012 at 12:14 PM

    I think that would've been really bad for the town because now that Kane is gone, there is nobody that can protect the whole town and they seemed really scared of Miller. So they probably would have given up the town to him and his gang!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with you. I think think there would be any hope if Kane had left. If they didn't want to help Kane then they definitely wouldn't have stand up to Miller and his gang.

      Delete
    2. I agree! They would have regretted it. But I love at the end how he throws his badge down. He's like: "Yeah. I didn't need any of you, betcha feel bad you rejected me now."

      Delete
    3. I agree keelan. I like that part too.The way he gave them that dirty look and threw down the badge. I thought he waould have said somthing though, but he didn't. They didn't even thank him, thats very sad.

      Delete
  16. I'm just curious, what are some of your favourite movies with little-known actors? What makes you like these movie and why?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Does this mean at the time it was released or they never actually got famous?

      Delete
    2. either or. for example, my favourite movie of all-time is The Virgin Suicides starting Kirsten Dunst when she was much, much younger. Granted her name is bigger now, but in this movie she was just a youngin' and it made her role strike a much deeper chord than movies with Johnny Depp, etc.

      Delete
    3. I really liked Battle Los Angeles! I went into the theatre not expected much. (I don't really like movies that are about the world ending.) But I found myself loving the movie because of the intense combat and explosions! But I really LOVED the actress Michelle Rodriuez (I think I may have spelled it wrong...) She was my favorite! She was in Avatar too. I pretty much stayed in the theatre just to watch her shoot a bazooka.

      Delete
    4. Rocky was a great example of no-names turning into big star. Nobody knew who Stallone was until Rocky came out. Once it did, everyone was talking about him. That is how good his performance was. I liked how it was such a drastic change of going from a bum boxer to fighting the champion, and how they worked the romance and his relationship with Mickey and Paulie in as well. Though I guess Burrgess Merideth drew a crowd, but he wasn't a gigantic part.

      Delete
    5. I would ahve to say Nija Hutsle. It was such a great movie.I think I liked this movie becuase I didn't know any of the actors. Therefore, I didn't expect anything of them.

      Delete
    6. i would say equilibrium but sean bean was in it which is the guy who played boromir in the first lord of the rings and it has christian bale but it was before he was famous

      Delete
    7. A long time ago, I saw this movie, Run Lola Run. It wasn't my favorite, but it was a movie from Germany that was interesting to watch. I liked the movie, because basically, Lola receives a phone call from her boyfriend Manny. He lost 100,000 DM (German currecy) in a train that belongs to a bad guy. Lola has 20 min to raise this amount and meet Manny. You see the movie in three different ways of her getting the money to Manny, based on minor events that happen. I thought the idea of the movie was different and interesting.

      Delete
  17. Judeing by the saloon scene, most of the people didnt mind Miller and his crew coming back. i don't think it would have been such a big deal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually disagree. I think it would be a big deal! The damage that Miller and his gang could cause could be endless and no one wants that.

      Delete
    2. I think the reason it was a big deal was because of the history between the two.

      Delete
    3. They were just lying to themselves to justify their not helping Kane

      Delete
    4. I don't about that billy, When one of Millers crew members walked into the bar everyone seemed pretty supportive that he had came back.

      Delete
    5. I disagree with Riley. I thought it would have been a a big deal that Miller was coming back. I think the guys in the saloon would have been Miller's followers; they would be quick to do anything Miller says.

      Delete
  18. I felt like the music of the movie was fantastic. I loved how for sadder scenes it went slower and for more intense, or happy scenes it turned off or went faster. The way it reoccurred throughout the movie wouldn't let my mind wonder. I felt like whenever the music began it would be briing Kane back to the main task at hand.(Gathering a posse.) I felt it did the same for us too as the audience and made us feel we wated him to succeed. Am I thinking to much into this? Does anyone agree with me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree. I feel if they had composed a whole musical piece just for this, it would have taken away from the whole effect... But that small little drum beat in the background, constantly going in and out, growing more intense with the buildup and then ending on a soft note at the end of the movie, I really, really liked it. It made everything flow very consistently.

      Delete
    2. I didn't like how the same song kept playing, but I do agree that the more intese scenes without music really added to the film's tension and suspense.

      Delete
    3. I agree i think they should have changed the song up a bit because by the end of the movie the song just kept annoying me.

      Delete
    4. Sometimes lack of music says more than music in a scene. It just depends on the scene.

      Delete
    5. I thought the song was a good idea because although the same song was playing over and over, if I ever hear that song, I will automatically remember it playing in this movie.

      Delete
  19. The music definitly had an effect to the movie it made me more into what the character was feeling and made me more aware to what the character was feeling. The music wasnt bad at all, i loved the hollow like sounding drums mixed in with it becasue it was different and i wasnt excpecting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was simple. Just enough to accompany the film, but not too much to distract from it.

      Delete
    2. But at the same time towards the end it did distract me because it got on my nerves i think it could have been changed up.

      Delete
  20. Ok, so I was wondering what I would have done in Kane's situation. Would i stay and fight back? Or would I run for my life? I am still undecided but i would really like to know what you would do!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Character is what you do when no one is looking." We should look forward to those moments in our lives when we actually get an opportunity to test what we're really made of. Those moments come by far too infrequently, and we should cherish them.

      Delete
    2. I'm a people person, so I think I'd take into consideration the fact that a brand new marriage that's only a few hours old is probably not the best thing to suddenly risk for a town that has deserted you.... but I don't know.

      Delete
    3. lets see I got a cowdly depty, a wife that left me for her own life, a town full of cowards. What the hell what not commit sueside in a attempt to save the town. Hell he still kill me any way. why not put up a fight?

      Delete
    4. Well the reason Miller comes back is to hunt down Kane and kill him. Withthat being said if Kane decided to run away he would just be hiding from his problem. and i don't think thats the type of character he is.

      Delete
    5. If I was in Kane's positin. I would ahve stayed and fight, but when no one wanted to help me fight Miller then I would leave and left them to die.

      Delete
    6. If I was in his position, I would stay and fight. I agree with Antonika about the fact if nobody wanted to help me, I would of left. But knowing his character, I know he wouldn't back down, and he would stay.

      Delete
  21. If i were Cane i wouldve stayed and fought back. If you think about it, he was the sheriff and probably lived there a long time and its a small town so probably knowing everyone in town AND knowing cane he knew that if he left someone else would die.

    ReplyDelete
  22. High Noon had all the characteristics of a Western movie. But the way the movie was made, made it unlike other Western movies. For example the gunfight. Most westerns, you expect a tumbleweed in the background. Instead, it was a quick fight. I didn't think the gunfight was played very well. It didn't seem realistic at all. For example, like we talked about it class, when Grace Kelly was held hostage and she escaped, she had an easy chance to be shot. I thought Grace Kelly didn't act the part very well at some parts, but overall I thought the movie was well casted. I liked how Ms. Ramirez was this independent, strong woman.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think Miller's arrival was disappointing because of the way the town people were talking about him, what they were saying and the way the music was building when the train came. We the viewers were looking for a big entrance, but it was like, “Oh he’s just an ordinary guy”

    ReplyDelete
  24. I didn't have the pleasure of finishing the movie because I was out for two days. Though, from what I saw High Noon was obviously a western no doubt about it. But, it wasn't traditional, and we established that quickly. The fact the Cane's deputy left him hanging, the fact that everyine in the town was basically against him, and the fact that Cane himself seemed nervous about the arrive of Frank Miller was all very unconventional. In most westerns we see the hero and his deputy ride in to town and protect it. Most of the time the hero is the ultimate bad ass that the whole town praises and loves, in High Noon, however, Cane is AFRAID!!!!!! The hero is never afraid! I thought the movie was a bit slow for my face, and I don't think it really fit the characteristics of a western. Overall I'd give it a B-. The reason it's not lower is because Gary Cooper and his supporting actors did a good job of acting in the movie.

    ReplyDelete