Events Calendar
In This Section
Most Read Stories
Suitcase causes bomb scare at Akron bus terminal
Akron City Council OKs higher speed on I-77
Chapel Hill isn't rolling right along
Motorcyclist killed, wife injured in Stark County crash
New eateries expand menu of options
Man says he was punched, robbed by 3 people in parking lot
Patrick McManamon: Here's what the Browns should try the rest of the season
Louisville athlete commits to play for Boston College
Family found dead in Ohio home
Blogs:
Pets:
It Takes All Kinds
The Heldenfiles:
Tuesday Notebook
Patrick McManamon:
An interesting thought from a reader
Akron Zips:
Akron vs. Mount Union — Liveblog
Tribe Matters:
Indians announce spring dates
Cleveland Browns:
Mangini doesn't name a quarterback
Kent State Sports:
Flashes interested in another Cincinnati player
Cleveland Cavaliers:
Shaq: It’s All About Winning Championships
Buckeye Blogging:
Buckeyes Roll 100-60 / Season Outlook
Varsity Letters:
Report: Walsh baseball player commits
All Da King's Men:
More On The Fort Hood Jihadist
Blog of Mass Destruction:
Simply Incapable of Telling The Truth
Akron Law Café:
Health Care Financing Reform: (63) Commonwealth Fund Report on Primary Care
See Jane Style:
Muffle Your Muffler
Car Chase:
Clock Tender- Extending the Life of Collector Car Clocks
Let's Talk Real Estate:
Rumors: Akron Starbucks Closing
Ohio Travels with Betty:
Jack is looking for a trip to Southern Ohio the week of November 16.
Sound Check:
Aeromsith looking for new singer as Steven Tyler contemplates solo career
HRLite House:
Personal Rant – Why People Do Not Live in Northeast Ohio
Akron Gamer:
Video: 'Modern Warfare 2' hits the streets
Retelling of story carries the burden of matching success of 1957 version
By Rich Heldenfels
Akron Beacon Journal
Published on Friday, Sep 07, 2007
The new version of 3:10 to Yuma has a long history and a big burden. It holds up most of the time.
The tale dates back to a short story, published in 1953, by Elmore Leonard before he was the king of American crime fiction. The story was adapted into a 1957 movie, also called 3:10 to Yuma, with Van Heflin and Glenn Ford. Considered a worthy companion to the similarly themed High Noon, it has been called ''a landmark Western'' by the encyclopedic Motion Picture Guide.
That brings us to the burden the movie carries, of helping to revive an old genre. The 50-year gap between that movie and the new one tells you something about the modern state of the Western.
Indeed, according to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com), only three Westerns since 1980 have achieved the blockbuster status of taking in $100 million at the box office: Oscar winners Dances With Wolves and Please see Yuma, D3
Unforgiven, and Western comedy Maverick. Of those three, Dances With Wolves was most successful and still ranks only 94th overall in ticket sales since 1980.
At a recent preview of 3:10 in North Canton, the members of the audience skewed toward middle age, not a good sign for youth-obsessed Hollywood.
Still, some filmmakers are drawn to the form. James Mangold, director of Walk the Line as well as 3:10 to Yuma, has reportedly said the 1957 version is one of his favorite films. And October finds Brad Pitt in another Western, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.
And you can readily see in 3:10 the attraction of the form. It allows for considerable violence, as well as the beauty of land largely unspoiled by concrete and steel. The Western inhabits a world that is simpler than the present day, because a man with a gun can take the law into his own hands without censure. But it is also more complicated, because of the moral dilemmas raised when that man with the gun must choose what is right and wrong and not only for himself.
That dilemma is at the center of 3:10 to Yuma. Rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is close to being run off his land to make way for the railroad, and only a payment of his debts will stop it. To make that money, he agrees to be part of a group escorting the outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a prison train. But the journey will not be easy, with threats from Wade's gang (especially the murderous Charlie Prince, played by Ben Foster), Indians and other foes, and from Wade himself, who is cunning, ruthless and quite deadly even when in handcuffs.
Even before the journey to Yuma begins, we know that Wade's biggest obstacle to freedom is Evans. But how to get past that? Wade could kill Evans easily enough he has more than one chance but even as he claims to be bad, Wade operates by a code when it comes to things like killing. (This is in pointed contrast to Charlie Prince, who has no qualms about whom he kills, and needs no big reason to do so.)
That leaves seduction. The movie is full of little seductions: Evans' older son is captivated by Wade's roguishness, Charlie Prince's feelings for Wade are not only professional but somewhat amorous and nearly all the characters feel the lure of money to be made, either legally or illegally.
And money is in the biggest attempt at seduction, by Wade toward Evans. The rancher needs money. Wade has it, and is willing to share. But there's more in their dealings. The system, such as it is, is crushing Evans. Wade has skillfully beaten it. Is it so bad, then, that Wade has killed some people along the way? But even as Wade tries to woo Evans, the rancher's own code and his desperation begin to have an effect on Wade.
Crowe and Bale play their scenes quite well, and there is genuine tension leading up to the movie's climax. As the most eerily entertaining Western character since Val Kilmer in Tombstone, Foster steals almost every scene he is in. Peter Fonda, as one of Wade's old adversaries, is appealing, and put to far better use than he was in Wild Hogs and Ghost Rider.
But the movie has too many distractions, including Luke Wilson in what proves to be a very small role and the setting up of situations in which Wade could easily escape but doesn't. And the ending feels too manufactured, a case of the writers trying to get out of a box they have built too well.
Rich Heldenfels writes about popular culture for the Beacon Journal and in a blog at http://www.ohio.com. Contact him at 330-996-3582 or rheldenfels@thebeaconjournal.com.
The new version of 3:10 to Yuma has a long history and a big burden. It holds up most of the time.
The tale dates back to a short story, published in 1953, by Elmore Leonard before he was the king of American crime fiction. The story was adapted into a 1957 movie, also called 3:10 to Yuma, with Van Heflin and Glenn Ford. Considered a worthy companion to the similarly themed High Noon, it has been called ''a landmark Western'' by the encyclopedic Motion Picture Guide.
That brings us to the burden the movie carries, of helping to revive an old genre. The 50-year gap between that movie and the new one tells you something about the modern state of the Western.
Indeed, according to Box Office Mojo (http://www.boxofficemojo.com), only three Westerns since 1980 have achieved the blockbuster status of taking in $100 million at the box office: Oscar winners Dances With Wolves and Please see Yuma, D3
Unforgiven, and Western comedy Maverick. Of those three, Dances With Wolves was most successful and still ranks only 94th overall in ticket sales since 1980.
At a recent preview of 3:10 in North Canton, the members of the audience skewed toward middle age, not a good sign for youth-obsessed Hollywood.
Still, some filmmakers are drawn to the form. James Mangold, director of Walk the Line as well as 3:10 to Yuma, has reportedly said the 1957 version is one of his favorite films. And October finds Brad Pitt in another Western, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.
And you can readily see in 3:10 the attraction of the form. It allows for considerable violence, as well as the beauty of land largely unspoiled by concrete and steel. The Western inhabits a world that is simpler than the present day, because a man with a gun can take the law into his own hands without censure. But it is also more complicated, because of the moral dilemmas raised when that man with the gun must choose what is right and wrong and not only for himself.
That dilemma is at the center of 3:10 to Yuma. Rancher Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is close to being run off his land to make way for the railroad, and only a payment of his debts will stop it. To make that money, he agrees to be part of a group escorting the outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to a prison train. But the journey will not be easy, with threats from Wade's gang (especially the murderous Charlie Prince, played by Ben Foster), Indians and other foes, and from Wade himself, who is cunning, ruthless and quite deadly even when in handcuffs.
Even before the journey to Yuma begins, we know that Wade's biggest obstacle to freedom is Evans. But how to get past that? Wade could kill Evans easily enough he has more than one chance but even as he claims to be bad, Wade operates by a code when it comes to things like killing. (This is in pointed contrast to Charlie Prince, who has no qualms about whom he kills, and needs no big reason to do so.)
That leaves seduction. The movie is full of little seductions: Evans' older son is captivated by Wade's roguishness, Charlie Prince's feelings for Wade are not only professional but somewhat amorous and nearly all the characters feel the lure of money to be made, either legally or illegally.
And money is in the biggest attempt at seduction, by Wade toward Evans. The rancher needs money. Wade has it, and is willing to share. But there's more in their dealings. The system, such as it is, is crushing Evans. Wade has skillfully beaten it. Is it so bad, then, that Wade has killed some people along the way? But even as Wade tries to woo Evans, the rancher's own code and his desperation begin to have an effect on Wade.
Crowe and Bale play their scenes quite well, and there is genuine tension leading up to the movie's climax. As the most eerily entertaining Western character since Val Kilmer in Tombstone, Foster steals almost every scene he is in. Peter Fonda, as one of Wade's old adversaries, is appealing, and put to far better use than he was in Wild Hogs and Ghost Rider.
But the movie has too many distractions, including Luke Wilson in what proves to be a very small role and the setting up of situations in which Wade could easily escape but doesn't. And the ending feels too manufactured, a case of the writers trying to get out of a box they have built too well.
Rich Heldenfels writes about popular culture for the Beacon Journal and in a blog at http://www.ohio.com. Contact him at 330-996-3582 or rheldenfels@thebeaconjournal.com.
Comments
Click here to post your comments
