3:10 to Yuma: Original vs. Remake
Wednesday, March 12th, 2008 09:16 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
retsukoWatching the remake of a movie is almost always an exercise in annoyance, as you try to suss out what the filmmakers have decided was too "old fashioned" from the original and what they've added in to justify their remake in the first place. (The vile remake of the glorious "Wings of Desire" as "City of Angels" comes to mind, and the purported project to remake "Rosemary's Baby"--which, admittedly, could use a few better SFX than a guy in a gorilla suit playing Satan, but is fine in all other respects.) But every now and then, the remake surprises me with how good the costumes are, or how much of the story is more engaging as it's retold. Such a surprise was the remake of "3:10 to Yuma", which, despite its macho explosions and blood (definitely NOT in the original), was actually a good story, retold well, and with a better budget. Still, it doesn't come quite near enough the simplicity of the original in which the Wild, Wild West is full of bad guys waiting to go good, and good guys waiting to get better.
The original "3:10 to Yuma" was made in 1957 and starred Glenn Ford as robber/ne'er do well Ben Wade, and Van Heflin was Dan Evans, a rancher/Man With Issues. The story is fairly simple: Evans interrupts Wade and his gang in the middle of a stagecoach robbery; Evans passively lets Wade take his horses in order to protect his two sons from Wade's cut-throat gang; Wade and the gang ride into a two-bit town for some liquid celebration, where Wade gets a little too cocky and is caught by the local marshall; Evans happens by and volunteers to take Wade to catch the 3:10 to Yuma, where a trial and likely death penalty awaits Wade, who has robbed 22 stagecoaches over the past 15 years. Evans at first does this for the money, but then, as the people around him abandon the cause, stubbornly refuses to give up on getting Wade to the train because it's the Right Thing to Do. Two things are particularly mesmerizing in this film. Glenn Ford is pitch perfect as Ben Wade. He's not handsome in the traditional Hollywood sense, but he's incredibly suave and persuasive, and from the moment he has his first line, with his blank smile and round, baby-face, you understand immediately why his minions follow him so loyally and why women swoon for him. He's a guy you could meet on the street, even today, and he'd buy you a couple of shots, and you wouldn't even check if your wallet was missing until he'd long turned the corner and vanished. In the end, his decision to stick with Evans and catch the fateful train is a bit of mystery until you contemplate the idea that he's come to respect the other man, who never yielded to his offers of money, women, and booze and just stuck to the right path. The other wonderful thing about the original "3:10 to Yuma" is the pacing in the story is just about perfect for building suspense. The final third of the film is built around the wait for the train, counted down on pocket watches and people flaking out on Evans as Wade's gang appears out of the woodwork, and Evans' allies realize they're horribly outnumbered.
This is not to say that the original is not without its flaws. There is a goofy folk song that accompanies the picture, which Wade, rather paratextually, sings as he and Evans wait in the hotel. The '50s atmosphere of "the MAN makes all the decisions because he's the MAN" is so incredibly pervasive, it made me choke on my beer a little bit. And there's a weird form of comic relief in the form of the lovable town drunk, who sobers up long enough to come on the expedition to catch Wade, only to be killed by Wade's gang of thugs. Still, it's a fine film, one that still resonates today, with its views on right and wrong.
The remake of the film, in 2007, stars Russell Crowe as Ben Wade and Christian Bale as Dan Evans. Bale seems to have his facial expression set on "bedraggled, emaciated, and emotive" the entire time, and does well with the part. The writers gave both characters more background and Evans' story is more compelling as the story opens with Evans' creditors burning down his barn because he's late on payments. Less compelling is the additional characterization of Evans' whiney 14-year-old son who challenges his father's authority so much that I thought we were in 2007 and not the 1870's. As Ben Wade, Crowe smoulders and does a lot of bad-ass things, like killing one of his thugs for being sloppy (in decidely un-50s-like gorey detail), but also has a softer side, one that allows him to sketch hawks, naked women, and, eventually, Dan Evans waiting for the fateful train. He's nothing but a gentleman, but I still wouldn't trust him at all, and it's here that he loses to Glenn Ford, who I freely admit I would have handed over my wallet to. There are a couple of good line additions, like Wade telling Evans that people like him (Wade), which is why he escapes from so many dangerous situation (and prisons) so easily. The costumes and sets are also phenomenonal, conveying the atmosphere of the Old West much more clearly than the first film was able.
But the makers of the remake wanted add more action, and consequently, there are explosions, more action, more blood, and a lot more dramatic death. There was an interesting sequence where the Good Guys happen upon a work camp where Chinese immigrant workers are trying to blast their way through a mountain pass for railroad tracks under the supervision of a couple of cruel, white leaders (improbably, Luke Wilson was one of them). But on the whole, the added sequences did nothing for the film, and in general, detracted from the point that Evans will do what's right because it's right to do so. Instead, the film built up the idea that Wade is just a misunderstood guy who wouldn't have been an outlaw if his Mama had just loved him and not abandoned him in a train station when he was 8. Which makes Evans dogged adherence to getting Wade to the train somewhat a moot point, because the audience is meant to root for Wade to wait the whole time, and these aren't exactly two plot points that can co-exist. I wanted to yell at at the filmmakers, "Make up your minds!"
Of course, the final point of this is, which film is more faithful to Elmore Leonard's short story? I wonder which version the author would have preferred: the 50s black and white (black and white in more ways than one), or the 2007 color extravaganza. Both are good films, but the dispirit themes between the two are difficult to reconcile.
Watching two movies like this was actually quite a bit of fun--I'll definitely try it again soon!
Also! Spent 45 minutes on the elliptical machine and weights this morning! :D
The original "3:10 to Yuma" was made in 1957 and starred Glenn Ford as robber/ne'er do well Ben Wade, and Van Heflin was Dan Evans, a rancher/Man With Issues. The story is fairly simple: Evans interrupts Wade and his gang in the middle of a stagecoach robbery; Evans passively lets Wade take his horses in order to protect his two sons from Wade's cut-throat gang; Wade and the gang ride into a two-bit town for some liquid celebration, where Wade gets a little too cocky and is caught by the local marshall; Evans happens by and volunteers to take Wade to catch the 3:10 to Yuma, where a trial and likely death penalty awaits Wade, who has robbed 22 stagecoaches over the past 15 years. Evans at first does this for the money, but then, as the people around him abandon the cause, stubbornly refuses to give up on getting Wade to the train because it's the Right Thing to Do. Two things are particularly mesmerizing in this film. Glenn Ford is pitch perfect as Ben Wade. He's not handsome in the traditional Hollywood sense, but he's incredibly suave and persuasive, and from the moment he has his first line, with his blank smile and round, baby-face, you understand immediately why his minions follow him so loyally and why women swoon for him. He's a guy you could meet on the street, even today, and he'd buy you a couple of shots, and you wouldn't even check if your wallet was missing until he'd long turned the corner and vanished. In the end, his decision to stick with Evans and catch the fateful train is a bit of mystery until you contemplate the idea that he's come to respect the other man, who never yielded to his offers of money, women, and booze and just stuck to the right path. The other wonderful thing about the original "3:10 to Yuma" is the pacing in the story is just about perfect for building suspense. The final third of the film is built around the wait for the train, counted down on pocket watches and people flaking out on Evans as Wade's gang appears out of the woodwork, and Evans' allies realize they're horribly outnumbered.
This is not to say that the original is not without its flaws. There is a goofy folk song that accompanies the picture, which Wade, rather paratextually, sings as he and Evans wait in the hotel. The '50s atmosphere of "the MAN makes all the decisions because he's the MAN" is so incredibly pervasive, it made me choke on my beer a little bit. And there's a weird form of comic relief in the form of the lovable town drunk, who sobers up long enough to come on the expedition to catch Wade, only to be killed by Wade's gang of thugs. Still, it's a fine film, one that still resonates today, with its views on right and wrong.
The remake of the film, in 2007, stars Russell Crowe as Ben Wade and Christian Bale as Dan Evans. Bale seems to have his facial expression set on "bedraggled, emaciated, and emotive" the entire time, and does well with the part. The writers gave both characters more background and Evans' story is more compelling as the story opens with Evans' creditors burning down his barn because he's late on payments. Less compelling is the additional characterization of Evans' whiney 14-year-old son who challenges his father's authority so much that I thought we were in 2007 and not the 1870's. As Ben Wade, Crowe smoulders and does a lot of bad-ass things, like killing one of his thugs for being sloppy (in decidely un-50s-like gorey detail), but also has a softer side, one that allows him to sketch hawks, naked women, and, eventually, Dan Evans waiting for the fateful train. He's nothing but a gentleman, but I still wouldn't trust him at all, and it's here that he loses to Glenn Ford, who I freely admit I would have handed over my wallet to. There are a couple of good line additions, like Wade telling Evans that people like him (Wade), which is why he escapes from so many dangerous situation (and prisons) so easily. The costumes and sets are also phenomenonal, conveying the atmosphere of the Old West much more clearly than the first film was able.
But the makers of the remake wanted add more action, and consequently, there are explosions, more action, more blood, and a lot more dramatic death. There was an interesting sequence where the Good Guys happen upon a work camp where Chinese immigrant workers are trying to blast their way through a mountain pass for railroad tracks under the supervision of a couple of cruel, white leaders (improbably, Luke Wilson was one of them). But on the whole, the added sequences did nothing for the film, and in general, detracted from the point that Evans will do what's right because it's right to do so. Instead, the film built up the idea that Wade is just a misunderstood guy who wouldn't have been an outlaw if his Mama had just loved him and not abandoned him in a train station when he was 8. Which makes Evans dogged adherence to getting Wade to the train somewhat a moot point, because the audience is meant to root for Wade to wait the whole time, and these aren't exactly two plot points that can co-exist. I wanted to yell at at the filmmakers, "Make up your minds!"
Of course, the final point of this is, which film is more faithful to Elmore Leonard's short story? I wonder which version the author would have preferred: the 50s black and white (black and white in more ways than one), or the 2007 color extravaganza. Both are good films, but the dispirit themes between the two are difficult to reconcile.
Watching two movies like this was actually quite a bit of fun--I'll definitely try it again soon!
Also! Spent 45 minutes on the elliptical machine and weights this morning! :D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-12 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 01:18 am (UTC)Maybe it's because it reminds me of a whole "It's a Man's World!" mentality again or that the "White Man is all that matters!" Seriously, watching that sequence with the Chinese laborers made me inwardly groan. Not that I'm saying they should have cut it out but I just wasn't sure how to process this random bit of information from the movie. A move to exoticize the setting perhaps? *rolls eyes*
But the sounds!! Oh dear golly, this was the first film I felt particularly sensitive to the sound editing. The creak of carriages, the clopping of horse feet. I was pretty impressed.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 01:58 am (UTC)I haven't had a special interest in westerns in the past, but I've been a little more interested in them recently, after having watched the (yes, spaghetti) western Once Upon a Time in The West.* The settings and conventions of westerns don't really do anything for me, but I've come to be more interested in them in terms their place in American mythology, and I'd like to explore that.
*It was the all-time favorite of a dear friend and film buff, who remarked on several occasions that everything you needed to know about filmmaking was in that movie; when he saw it in the theater for the first time, it opened up his eyes to what a movie could be. It didn't quite do that for me, but I was impressed anyway.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 02:47 am (UTC)I thought the torture sequence in the Chinese workcamp was over the top. The camp itself made me remember what I know of immigrant history in California, and as squalid as it was portrayed, I think it was quite realistic. I liked the perspective that the whiney son got, seeing a boy his own age working in the camp.
And, yes, the sounds! They were indeed fantastic. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 02:50 am (UTC)I'm so glad you've Netflixed both. I'll be curious to hear what you think. I haven't seen Once Upon a time... and it sounds somewhat monumental. I shall definitely check it out.
BTW, if you want to do the Netflix buddy thing, just say the word. I am always amused at the little quiz things they come up with.
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 04:20 am (UTC)I have no idea what the Netflix buddy thing is, but I am intrigued!
no subject
Date: 2008-03-13 02:46 pm (UTC)Netflix has an option to add friends. (It's on the "community" tab.) You can see what they've rented, what's in their queue, their ratings, etc. It also gives you little quizzes like "Friend likes only of these 4 movies... which one is it?" It's completely silly, but if you're interested, let me know. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:25 am (UTC)The only thing that I felt was worth mentioning that you didn't was that my impression of the 1957 version of Butterfield was more positive than the 2007 version, and I wondered what, if anything, that said about the changing cultural image of the businessman. The 1957 version comes across as having more courage and integrity than the 2007 version (the former rides in his coach with his own men, taking the same risks, and when he's later spat upon for not attending the funeral of a man who died in his service, the audience knows that it's unfair--that Butterfield didn't go to the funeral because he's personally escorting the murderer to justice, at the risk of his own life).
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:25 pm (UTC)Something else that was different in the 2007 version is that when Wade offers Evans a thousand dollars, Evans basically says, I can't take it because I won't be able to legitimately account for it; people will know. Wade replies that no one has to know, but doesn't actually offer any solution. Later on, when all the paid help has backed out, and even Butterfield is chickening out, Evans talks about the government paying him for his lost leg "so that they could walk away," and then demands that Butterfield give Alice a thousand dollars and make sure the farm's okay, etc--"legitimately" buying with what turns out to be his life what Wade offered him for just his integrity.
They really elaborate on money, and buying and selling people's loyalty or sense of responsibility. Come to think of it, it's interesting that the two people in the film with the most personal integrity, and the most unsalable loyalty are Evans and Charlie Prince. Prince is psychotic scum, but he's absolutely loyal to Wade.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-18 03:39 pm (UTC)And speaking of black and white, may I just say that I loved Charlie Prince's costume in the 2007? The colors were perfect.
OK, that's it. Next week, I am buying the Elmore Leonard story and seeing which version matches up better to his. *determined*