 |
| Images from http://www.cowboysindians.com/Blog/June-2013/ Weekend-Western-The-Lone-Ranger/LoneRanger56.jpg /http://www.cowboysindians.com/Blog/June-2013/ Weekend-Western-The-Lone-Ranger-And-The-Lost-City-Of-Gold/ lone_ranger_lost_city_of_gold.jpg |
Dirs. Stuart Heisler/Lesley Selander
The Lone Ranger (played by Clayton Moore). When his brother was
killed, he donned a mask and became a masked avenger in the American west to
fight wrongdoing. The man who found him after the shooting, Native American
Tonto (Jay Silverheels), decided to
join him in his goal. There's no denying this character, adapted once again in
a Disney blockbuster last year, feels
like he's from another era now, where despite the earnest nature of the
character and the potential for more works to be made, people will have political
correctness issues with them even though the new film does exist. And if this
wasn't a problem, the western has lost its interest for many unfortunately, and
even if it was revamped for this generation, it'll be a fifty-fifty chance if
there'll be a sequel to the new one. There's no denying these two films,
released on DVD in the UK, one disc, to tie in with the new Disney film, are from a different era
where it wouldn't be a commercial risk and b-movie features were much more
prominent. And that they were for children rather than sold to the widest
audience possible. There's a lightness in tone and a lot of humour. The bright
colours. The Lone Ranger's clean-cut image, which Moore carries on in his stoic behaviour and moments of comedy, and
the bombastic use of the 1812 Overture by Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky. The
Overture, starting with a horn, clearly begins as a Calvary charge,
befitting horse races or charging horsemen. But there's always been a jaunty,
playful side to it befitting comedy and for a character like the Lone Ranger
charging over the plains.
The first film, the first time
the character had a feature film, has him and Tonto sent into a community to
investigate tensions between Native Americans and the (mostly) white populous,
only to find the indiscriminate attacks presumed to be by the Natives are up to
question. The second concerns Indians being killed for unknown reasons,
possibly for very specific items, while a subplot follows a town doctor who is
hiding his true Native American heritage. The films as entertainment are
average. Their flaws equate to not being good enough westerns, for children not
meaning that they should not try to be as good as they can. They're not as
memorable as they should be, only alright. But there is a virtue to them that I
will keep even if I forget them, and connects to the sense of having lost
something now without films like these in existence. The films, for their
flaws, do have the virtue that their rudimentary meat-and-potatoes filmmaking
has the desire to have spectacle, showcasing talent and just having fun with
their material that is drastically missed from a lot of films now, especially
when CGI became a convenience for everything. They do show signs of limited
budgets. Rear projection including, bizarrely, on characters on horses stood
still talking. The only real technical flaw is with the first film but this
could have nothing to take the creators to task for. If it was, it's an
abomination of a production choice, cuts to black that suddenly kill the mood
and energy of scenes, but I suspect the version Classic Media have acquired for the 2013 DVD release is one
designed for television, the cuts designed for ad breaks. Commercials
undermining a film's tone is bad enough, but non-existing ones doing so is just
ridiculous.
The films have a solid quality to
them outside of this, conventional westerns but with the playfulness and the
willingness just to do something so a person can steal the scene for a trick or
stunt. Moore and Silverheels have a charisma on a team. Moore also has a character who uses disguises to help him get
information, including a Southern dandy in the second film, which with both
cases showed he was able to be varied in both speech and body language with
them, an impressive feat considering they skirt the line of being too broad in
the tone of the films. This extends to the horses of the protagonists, especially
the Ranger's trusted Silver, as much a person as the human characters in the
mannerisms the animal can act out. Moments like this can be cheesy in a cute
way, but the films show a sense of wanting to entertain the viewer that is
rewarding. That they had two lead actors from the television series who were
clearly so used to their roles but enjoyed them still. That they would get
trained horses who would act out mock moments of gesture and humorous gags.
That, especially, they would have the stunt work as they have in this; it's not
imaginative, but including a brief fire stunt, you cannot help but appreciate
real people doing real falls and other such sequences. This willingness to make
something of interest in these films, even if the structures of the plots are
what fail them, is of great appreciation.
It's also surprising, for such
friendly films in tone, that they have incredibly dark and serious subject
matter in them. People are still killed, and a key set piece in the first film
is about Tonto being a potential victim of a lynching in the middle of a town. As
the plot details for both films point out too, they are also both dealing with
racism against Native Americans. It's not perfect. The Natives are treated as
superstitious, played by white actors in dark body paint, and to quote Jean-Luc Godard, speak in "Navajo
English" that you probably only get in films. The Lone Ranger ends up at
times like a teacher lecturing children when talking to them. And while Silverheels has moments for his
character Tonto to stand out, for the most part he is a dogsbody to the Ranger.
If this was even a D-grade martial arts film from Asia, the Lone Ranger and
Tonto would be an equal ground if just in having enough time in the spotlight
as a team with the Ranger still the protagonist. Despite this though the clear
messages of unity and honour for Native Americans, from matinee films like this,
is still praisable and something immensely interesting about them. They suffer
from not quite getting to the idealised place but this willingness to go close
to these ideas, especially the second film with the doctor character who has a
big character arc for himself, shows an attempt at progression.
In the end, what should be taken
from films like this, for myself and anyone who viewed them, is that while it
was disappointing that they weren't as good as they should have been, there was
however a clear line of quality that was being kept up to. Admittedly what a
large piece of their virtue is is defined by them being films from another era,
where westerns like this were popular and that they weren't being made to be
"adult" in a way a teenager boy would view that term. In fact these
films, while still children's films in their playfulness, are far more adult in
what they cover than a gritty, teenager's film (in most cases) now. It
emphasises that I would rather watch films like this than many of now. Although
I have optimism for the new one...but that's an entirely different subject of
topic in my mind to deal with.
No comments:
Post a Comment