Lang's first Western seems, at first, to be terribly dated. The rapport between Pinky and Frank, for instance, is so -- Jim Crow -- it's embarrassing to watch. Moreover, the refusal of the Missouri court to consider the logic and justice of "felony murder" guilt escapes this viewer's understanding and patience. Finally, the Major's bloodlust and "shoot the slimy rats" self-righteousness come too close to the goose-step habits of the Germany Lang left behind. But is it possible that Lang (consciously or not) is subverting the genre's conventions by making the good guy's advocate a creep? Lang's later films, like Hangmen Also Die, criticize and condemn Nazis for behavior that only marginally differs from the Major's. Is it possible, then, that Lang also questions Frank's views, his motives, his exoneration, and the laurels that Lang -- and Frank's fans inside and outside of the screen -- heap on the bandit-hero's head? If so, what does this mean?
In addition to these interesting tensions, the film also offers the viewer several aesthetic pleasures. First, the color, mise-en-scene, and location photography are consistently gorgeous. Second, Clem and Frank's return to Missouri moves with a technical grace that surpasses anything and everything that I've ever seen. Third, Fonda's performance, more frightening than likeable, achieves a kind of grace -- fluid and intellectual -- that rivals Glen Ford's best work.
Why do Europeans (Leone, Ford, Lang) make such powerful Westerns?
In addition to these interesting tensions, the film also offers the viewer several aesthetic pleasures. First, the color, mise-en-scene, and location photography are consistently gorgeous. Second, Clem and Frank's return to Missouri moves with a technical grace that surpasses anything and everything that I've ever seen. Third, Fonda's performance, more frightening than likeable, achieves a kind of grace -- fluid and intellectual -- that rivals Glen Ford's best work.
Why do Europeans (Leone, Ford, Lang) make such powerful Westerns?