High Noon

Last night TCM showed one of the all-time classic Western, Fred Zinnemann's High Noon. I had watched the film many years before, and remember not having been crazy about it, but I decided, now that I'm a committed cinephile, why not give it another go? Especially considering my high regard for Zinnemann's other work, and the fact that I had nothing else to do but study, it seemed like it was worth a rewatch.

Well, it was, but surprisingly my opinion has little changed since I was a 14 year old. As a film, High Noon has its virtues: a fine cast amd excellent direction and editing in particular. But for all its hype as an intelligent, "adult" Western, with lots of political baggage (begin rant about the blacklist and ignorant confusion of Joe McCarthy and HUAC here) and "deep" themes, it's hopelessly confused. I think DVD Savant's review of this film says what I want to say, and better, but I'll give it a go regardless.

In case you don't know the plot: Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is the long-serving Marshall of Hadleyville, who wishes to marry committed Quaker Amy (Grace Kelly) and retire. Unfortuantely, his old nemesis Frank Miller (Ian McDonald) has other plans; he's been pardoned from jail and is headed back to town with three henchmen (Sheb Wooley, Robert J. Willkie, and Lee Van Cleef) to seek revenge. Kane tries to organize a posse, but finds the townspeople indifferent, scared, or outright hostile, and his wife is unwilling to stand by his side. Finally, Will must go it alone, facing four vicious outlaws in a climactic showdown for the ages.

High Noon has always been read as the ultimate parable about a man sticking up for what's right. If that's the level you want to address the film on, it works well-enough. Will Kane is a curious character. He is a rugged individualist, who is willing to sacrifice himself for the sake of a town that appears to loathe him. This isn't necessarily believable on a personal level - especially considering the horrible, repeated backstabbing we see him go through - but as a character type - the ultimate Good Guy, facing up to the Evil no matter the cost - he makes a very strong impression. On this level, the movie works, not the least for Gary Cooper's wonderfully dignified, straight-laced performance. Whatever the faults in his character motivation, Cooper's performance successfully transfigures Kane into an emblem of individual righteousness, making at least one of the film's major strands work perfectly.

The movie really stumbles, however with its story and plot - or rather, the way it goes about them - and supporting characters. This movie is perhaps the ultimate exemplar of characters being merely cogs in a story rather than believable people. It takes an unbelievable amount of convenience and contrivance to bring the movie to the point where Kane is forced to make his lonely stand, and some of the techniques employed by Foreman and Zinnemann are heavy-handed to the point of being insulting. Upon further reflection, a lot of them don't even make sense.

The whole movie is a series of carefully orchestrated events designed to lead to the inevitable conclusion, depriving Kane of support and leaving him standing alone, and very little of it works - simply because, frankly, it doesn't make much sense. Why aren't these people willing to stand up to Miller? It's fair to assume that the rowdy saloon crowd might like Miller, and even some of the town's more unscrupulous businessmen would prefer him to the upright Kane, but the arguments advanced by some of the town's leading citizens are just ridiculous. Thomas Mitchell's grotesque speech in the Church is perhaps the biggest example - he's worried about one day of violence besmirching the town, but presumably letting Miller and Co. have free reign in the town will be good for them? The contrivance of Kane's deputy (Lloyd Bridges) being an ambitious prick willing to sell out the town for his own sake doesn't really come off either, nor really is the judge (Otto Kruger)'s fleeing at the first sign of trouble. Amy's character is even more problematic; her opposition to violence seems warped and out of place (would a Quaker really side with a vicious outlaw gang over the law?), and her taking up arms to save her man is a crude and sick joke. It's rather bizarre that a leftist would write a screenplay advocating such an openly pro-violence, pro-individual and anti-society message, but here you are.

Even worse, the movie continually undercuts its message - which it seems is that people are just no damned good - through its own actions. Kane himself notes that several members of the surly saloon crowd had helped him put Miller away all those years ago. What exactly "changed", as one of them helpfully says, that they're now either cowards or openly siding with Miller? The movie could have addressed this, but it completely skirts the issue, merely setting Kane up for another fall. The fact that many are willing to help Kane, only to disappear into the woodwork when it's convenient for the story make it all the more aggravating; what happens to the four guys who immediately jump up to help at Kane's appearance in the Church? Was their sense of right and wrong destroyed by listening to a speech? What about the rest of the Church congregation who vehemently argue Kane's side (including Virginia Christie's poignant appeal: "What's WRONG with you!?"), or the children who look up to him? These good characters are swept under the rug due to story convenience, providing a horribly one-sided and inaccurate even within the film's frame of reference view of things. When Kane throws his star into the dirt at the end (a big fuck you to the assembled townspeople), we're presumably supposed to forget all the good people who are in the town. If that's the way he feels, then why did he bother sticking around in the first place?

More troublesome still are the film's alleged "political" meanings. Carl Foreman was a committed leftist, and heavy-handed political preaching was his biggest liability as a writer (even his escapist works like Guns of Navarone was unable to escape this), but any attempts to read the film as a blacklist parable aren't very pertinent to me. I'm sorry, I find it extremely hard to see any parables between a sheriff standing up to a gang of outlaws and Hollywood actors being; the fact that the threat comes from outside the community rather than from its government further complicates things (and might make an alternate reading, of Kane standing up to the insidious Commies and their pinko friends, possible). Maybe in the most abstract way one could read it as such, but any direct analogy is extremely problematic. It seems to me a case of critics making up stuff after the fact; Foreman was blacklisted, so this film must be about the blacklist! Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Technically, the movie is extremely accomplished, and this is the area where it is most successful. Zinnemann's direction is quite handsome, handling both his fine cast, the mise-en-scene, and the action scenes with aplomb. This movie is much more gritty than Zinnemann's later polished, handsome films, and yet he doesn't seem a bit of place. The movie's real ace, however, is the editing by Elmos; the use of clocks throughout (the film being in almost real-time), and the use of montage (particularly the intercutting of the main cast members just before the final showdown) provide brilliant tour-de-force works of editing. And the final showdown is among the best the genre has to offer, skilfully directed, choreographed and edited. It's very hard to fault the flm on this level, though I for one find the Tex Ritter score to be horribly annoying.

The acting is good for the most part, in spite of the characters they have to play. Besides Cooper, Katy Jurado's sexy, vibrant Mrs. Ramirez, Lloyd Bridges' selfish punk deputy and Thomas Mitchell's backstabbing friend come off best. I've never been a big fan of Grace Kelly and as usual she's adequate but little more. It's also nice to see future Western vets Jack Elam and Lee Van Cleef in small roles.

So, High Noon has its virtues as a film, but its story relies on too much contrivance to really work. I think a 7/10 rating would be more than fair.

Rating: 7/10 - Recommended