Film- High Noon

Released - 1952
Writers - Carl Foreman, John W. Cunningham (Magazine Story)
Director - Fred Zinneman
Stars - Gary Cooper
Supporting - Grace Kelly, Katy Jurado, Thomas Mitchell, Lloyd Bridges, Lon Chaney, Jr.

Let's talk about this "controversial" film a little. The only things that made it controversial were rumors of allegory depicting the HUAC. If the script really is allegorical, it's a weak allegory. Certainly there is an approaching enemy and the hero is abandoned in his hour of need, but those attributes could be descriptive of any number of things. I've never found anything in the movie that speaks plainly to the rumor.

That isnt to say that High Noon isnt symbolic, or even allegorical. There's plenty of both for the observer. I wont go into all that. You're probably smart enough to see them for yourself.

My take on High Noon is that it's a very well made, artful film. If Rio Bravo was indeed made as a response to this film's alleged disrepect for the pioneer spirit and unrealistic portrayal of life in a Western town, then it was a silly reason to make a good movie. Like Mark Twain's criticism of James Fennimore Cooper, John Ford's answer addresses the artistic license taken by Zinneman.

What I see in this film are several types that Zinneman used to bring us to his conclusion.

Marshall Kane is a proud man, which is his downfall. He allows his ego to bring him back to a place where he shouldnt go. Regardless of the outcome for the town, the people there have assured him that they want him to go. They're willing to face whatever comes. Of course, this speaks to the script's continuity. When trouble does come, they're all unwilling to do anything.

Kane's character tells us about pig-headed American individualism. He's a godless man who cant do the right thing because it might sully his manly image. Instead, he is forced to go back and have it out with the outlaw, no matter if he widows his new bride before the marriage is even consumated.

She, on the other hand, is a Quaker, with all the pacifistic baggage that drags along. We arent told how this unlikely couple came to be married. To explore that would probably bring us to an unexplainable compromise on both parts. So, we're left to accept that they somehow got to this place.

What this character accomplishes is conflict. She is a barrier between him and several things. First, she stands between him and his own sense of self. To follow her advice and keep moving down the road would leave him with the unanswered question of whether he was a big enough man to handle the outlaws who were coming to kill him. Second, she has come between him and the town he has fought to clean up and stabilize. Finally, she is a barrier between him and a woman he's evidently been involved with before.

This other woman shows us the opposite of Kane. She is pragmatic and resolved to self-preservation. She'd have allowed herself to love him, if it didnt mean risk. She is leaving town despite the arguments of her younger lover.

In my mind, this film sits on a shelf beside Ingmar Bergman's Nattvardsgasterna (Winter Light). Both are concerned with characters who struggle with their own inner workings. Cooper's Kane and Bjorgstrand's Pastor Ericsson both struggle to find some kind of answer to the struggles of life. In Kane's case, the problem is immediate and demands instant action. Ericsson's struggle is prolonged, having begun some years before, with the death of his wife.

The townspeople in High Noon are dependent on Kane to solve their earthly problem. Ericsson's parishioners look to him for spiritual guidance. Neither man is allowed to look beyond himself. Because Kane does plead with the townsfolk for help, his personal conflict doesnt become real until they've rejected him.

There are other reasons I put these two films together, but I dont want to do a side by side comparison.

What strikes me about High Noon is the change in Cooper's character. There's a point at which he realizes that he's in over his head and will probably die. From then on, Kane is afraid, but I dont think it's only a fear of death. His faith in people has been dissolved, his wife has left him on their wedding day, and he has no faith in God. For the first time, perhaps ever, he is completely alone. It's at that point that I see him give up to fatalism (not fate). From then on, he is functioning almost solely on instinct.

It's an interesting character study and what makes the movie one that I have watched over and over.

I'll post some video later.