Western Genre Analysis

Below is a essay I was tasked in completing for Film Genre Case Study course under Film Studies with Film Production. I was tasked to analyse 2 different films that are part of the Western genre, and I received a 57/100 as my mark.

After the release of the Man Who Shot Liberty Valance in 1962, the western genre entered a revisionist period, a period where the narratives of the genre changed to challenge the traditional beliefs of America and the genre itself. Both the 1964 film Cheyenne Autumn and the 1970 film Little Big Man are brought together through being part of this new wave, mainly through their new challenge to the beliefs of Native Americans. The films both represented the Native Americans in ways they had never been shown as before, with the films seeking to represent them positively after them being shown as villains and monsters in previous releases. As author Susan Kollin argues, ‘the western had entered a revisionist cycle and could no longer demonize Native Americans as savage enemies.’ (2015:101) Through this new depiction of this group of people, both films explore the new wave’s disillusionment with America and its armed forces, with America being shown as an antagonistic force throughout both films rather than their previous heroic depictions in previous westerns.

Westerns in the classical era would usually represent the Native American as either a noble savage, a helper of the white hero, or as a savage villain, representing their culture as a Native as the reason they are so savage. They are never seen as the crux of a narrative, only a villain or a helper, as pointed out by author Barry Keith Grant when he says, ‘Indians are either demonised as savage heathens or romanticised as noble savages, but rarely treated as rounded characters with their own culture.’ (2019:36) However, the films of the revisionist period sought to break the generic verisimilitude of the genre, with Cheyenne Autumn and Little Big Man specifically portraying the natives as the centre of the films, not side characters but rather protagonists and rather than being villains, as victims of the American government. With the creation of the revisionist Western, there was a new change in syntax to fit these films, with the films changing the role of America to a more villainous role, taking a more critical outlook on authority figures, and squashing the previous beliefs about American imperialism. Little Big Man’s narrative follows this change in syntax, as it follows a man named Jack Crabb who was raised by Native Americans as he moves in between America and the natives, before finding out how savage the Americans are compared to the noble people who raised him. Cheyenne Autumn’s narrative also follows this new syntax, following Native Americans travelling back to their homeland after having their land taken from them by the US, with the film deriving its narrative from the real-world event of the Northern Cheyenne Exodus of 1878-1879.

Little Big Man makes its revisionist views of the natives known in it’s very first minutes, with the first native character being introduced with no big change in direction or music. The native is introduced in just normal natural lightning with the same musical score featured beforehand, conveying the sense that the natives are people too, they can share music and direction styles that the American characters have and that the film is not othering these people. The film draws heavy attention to the difference between America and the natives, with author Barry Keith Grant pointing out, ‘it is the Indians who are humane and civilised, while the pioneers are violent, corrupt, sexually repressed and madly ambitious.’ (2012:292) Lighting is used commonly across the film to show the difference between the two groups, with the natives always being shown in natural lightning that shows their kind faces and even being in full light during ambushes, while the American troops are commonly introduced in darkness, their silhouettes are commonly shown or they are shown hidden in fog, like they are a force of nature that doesn’t care for the destruction it causes. It’s clear that the film views the American military as the savages rather than how the natives were portrayed as in the classical Westerns, this is shown through the juxtaposition between each groups’ actions, with the military murdering women, children and even animals when they are defenceless, while the natives save defenceless women and children and even help them become part of their tribe.

Colour is used commonly across the film to expose the differences between the natives and the Americans, commonly shown through the character progression of Jack. Jack is the protagonist of the film, a character who finds himself swaying from the native’s side to the Americans and then back again constantly, with the colour of his clothing showing each stage in his development. Jack is commonly shown with white and brown clothing, reflecting his purity, but when he comes back to American society he is dressed in black, conveying the sense he is being corrupted by the Americans, his white purity now gone. This colour change is shown again in Jack’s Swedish wife Olga, who is first seen in white as she is an immigrant, purity existing outside of America, but when she becomes a larger part of American society, she begins to wear black as well. All the other various characters in American society wear a combination of white and black clothing, reflecting a sense of inner darkness that they are trying to hide behind their white purity. The character of Louise Pendrake shows this off perfectly, she is dressed completely in white and seems perfect, but has a level of darkness shown in her choker, reflecting how she is willing to cheat on her own husband, she is the one who is a savage through her willing to lie. The film exposes the natives as the ones who are most human, their clothing is colourful and unique, showing they have nothing to hide, they have a sense of honour that the Americans do not.

The film also commonly makes use of satire to make the American soldiers seem like idiots, with author Will Kaufman pointing out that the film, ‘compounds the genocidal violence against the Sioux with depictions of American generals and policy-makers as deadly buffoons.’ (2009:102) The sequence of the stagecoach being attacked by the natives is a prime showing of this, with various American generals brandishing guns but not knowing how to use them at all to defend themselves, with cartoonish music in the background to make it feel like the scene fits into a comedy. General Custer’s character also fits into this cartoonish depiction of American generals, with him being a horrible general who completely refutes anyone else’s opinions, which leads him into an ambush. The final battle of the film depicts the real-life event of the Battle of the Little Bighorn with the film depicting the event faithfully as a disastrous defeat for America, backed up by the argument by author Michael Leory Oberg when saying, ‘depicted so often in American myth as a famous last stand, Custer’s defeat was a rout.’ (2017:209) Custer’s depiction in the film is far from a good outlook on him, with him seeing himself as superior to his own men and not caring about leading them to their deaths, leading to his own death in the battle where he goes insane, talking to himself and imagining his men as the president speaking to him.

Cheyenne Autumn is another film that exposes the American military compared to the natives, specifically through the early sequence of the natives arriving for their scheduled help in resources in their settlement. The natives arrive all together and early, like a community in unison with one another, but the department of internal affairs receive no news on when the military will arrive, showing the disconnect between the two groups, the natives are a community while America lie and don’t hold promises. The scenes show the natives as victims, with their leader fainting from exhaustion while waiting for the not caring government, alongside the slow and sad score being played in the background when mentioning how much danger they have been in, slowly dying from disease. Directed by John Ford, this film was designed to be a reflection on how the American government abused the natives and a reflection on how badly Ford represented the natives in his previous films. In Ford’s previous films the Native Americans were represented in less positive ways, with films like The Searchers portraying the Native Americans as savages and villainous characters, even going as far to make their culture seem like a corrupting one, with them kidnapping people which leads to the main characters believing that the people kidnapped have now been corrupted. This film however shows the natives as victims and not villains, they want to travel back to the land that they once owned and are hunted for it, with the film’s opening narration exposing the lies that America gave them, when saying, ‘the promises made to them when the white man sent them here,’ and, ‘the promises that had led them to give up their way of life.’ This narration refers to the Indian Removal Act, a law implemented in 1830 that led to the natives being thrown out land that was there’s so that they can be moved elsewhere when the Americans wanted their land, a decision made by the Americans that historians Elizabeth Glenn and Stewart Rafert argue that, ‘the purpose of Indian removal legislation was ethnic cleansing.’ (2009:61) As Professor Lester D.Friedman points out with the film that it is, ‘distinctly siding with the Indians as noble savages robbed of their birth right by the white settlers.’ (2007:128)

America is not shown positively at all in this film, with them being shown as blind to the suffering that the natives are going through, attacking the natives because they see them travelling to their ancestral lands as an act of rebellion, with them not willing to see the moral injustice that they are committing against them. The people only begin to care about the natives when it might affect their lives, with the press printing multiple lies about the number of deaths that the natives have caused, starting from 9 until reaching 109. One newspaper business even begins to print positive messages about the natives, not because they care but to sell more papers for being different. The film shows the true difference between the natives and the Americans by showing native leaders angry at one of their own for causing a shootout, not wanting to kill, while the Americans only want to deal with the natives because it may cause them a loss financially, they feel less concern for human life than the concern that they may lose money if they must give up their valuable land. As shown by author Neill Campbell, the only goal of America is, ‘to isolate them, to extricate them from their cultural habits, and to save them from the vices of the outside world,’ (2008:235) as they wish to weaken them as they seem them and their cultural as a financial threat. There is no chance that the government will help the natives because it brings them no financial gain and because they are not honourable like the natives, they can only use the plight of the natives to gain more money by printing lies. Decisions like these are what causes America to be the sole ones responsible, for how author Andrew Pepper puts it, ‘the eradication of the indigenous Indians.’ (2019:122)

Many of the various military members featured throughout the film are also not seen in a positive way at all, with the military’s presence always being felt by a booming score being played, a score that comes across as presenting them as a non-caring force of nature. The military members are shown to be built on emotion, not smarts, with Thomas, the leader of a small military group not even knowing the names of his men. Thomas is a conflicted character throughout the film, feeling pity for the natives but only really helping them to keep his love Deborah out of danger, and he feels a sense of anger to the natives for the way they see the Americans, with him not being smart enough to realise why the natives dislike the Americans. The natives are shown as a unified force, moving in unison while the Americans are sloppy, with characters like Scott defying orders and starting fights while the natives only fight back in self-defence.

In conclusion, it’s clear to see that both Little Big Man and Cheyenne Autumn have ideological foundations in showing a more authentic outlook on Native Americans, one removed from just conveying them as author Stephen Neale puts it, ‘noble and tragic.’ (2000:128) These films show the Natives as major characters in their own narratives and expose their roles as victims of America. Through various characters in the American military, the films expose the military as the true savages, showing the horrendous things they have done to the natives and comparing them to the honourable natives. It shows clearly that both revisionist films have ideological foundations in trying to do justice for the Natives, changing the way they are shown in cinema and exposing the past that films of the past shied away from.

Bibliography:

Kollin, Susan 2015, ‘On Savagery and Civilisation’, Captivating Westerns: The Middle East in the American West, 1st October 2015, p.101

Keith Grant, Barry 2019, ‘History and Ideology’, Film Genre: From Iconography to Ideology, 25th July 2019, p.36

Keith Grant, Barry 2012, ‘Ideology, Genre, Auteur’, Film Genre Reader 4, 1st December 2012, p.292

Kaufman Will, Halliwell Martin and Staff Oostrum Van 2009, ‘Film and Visual Culture’, American Culture in the 1970s, 19th February 2009, p.102

Oberg Leroy, Michael 2017, ‘The Invasion of the Great West,’ Native America: A History, 24th July 2017, p.209

Glenn Elizabeth and Rafert, Stewart 2009, ‘After Indian Removal, 1840-1870,’ The Native Americans, 1st December 2009, p.61

Friedman D. Lester and Crawford Natalie, Margo 2007, ‘Genre Revisions: Cowboys and Musketeers’, American Cinema of the 1970s: Themes and Variations, 1st April 2007, p.128

Campbell, Neil 2008, ‘Strata and Routes: Living on Reservation X’, Rhizomatic West: Representing the American West in a Transnational, Global, Media Age, 1st July 2008, p.235

Pepper, Andrew 2019, ‘The Cinematic Big Screen, Surround Side, Ride’, The Contemporary Western, 1st June 2019, p.122

Neale, Stephen 2000, ‘Westerns’, Genre and Hollywood, 28th January 2000, p.128

Filmography:

Cheyenne Autumn (1964, Directed by John Ford, America, A John Ford-Bernard Smith Production)

Little Big Man (1970, Directed by Arthur Penn, America, Cinema Center Films)

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962, Directed by John Ford, America, John Ford Productions)

The Searchers (1956, Directed by John Ford, America, C.V Whitney Pictures)