The Film Stagecoach - Essay Example

Stagecoach: The work of John Carradine as Hatfield The film Stagecoach, directed by John Ford in 1939 is considered to be a B film with a great many innovative directorial techniques and underpinned themes that were ahead of their time. The film uses concepts in lighting, sound, and cinematography that directors such as Orson Welles found so compelling that it became like a primary reader on how to craft a film (Roberts and Olson 160). The actors in the film are considered Hollywood legends, even though in watching the film there is a sense of the staged production sometimes rather than the ease of true life that is more commonly seen in later day films. The role of Hatfield, a cool morally ambiguous gambler who acts as a balance within the film, is played by John Carradine whose career as a character actor has been long and enviable. The film Stagecoach, which was released in 1939, was innovative in its use of sound. A great amount of criticism has erupted over the way in which the sound would vary in loudness since the actors were moving closer and then farther away from the microphones as they moved. However, there has also been suggestion that it gives it a sense of realism as sound outdoors is very subject to proximity. The use of asychronized sound gave the film an added dimension. Sound was used to enhance a great number of facets of the film, including using the sound of a donkey in the background on two occasions in order to indicate that the character of the sergeant was a buffoon (Weisand Belton 224). The social commentary of the film is extraordinary and future forward, as it is a “pro-Roosevelt” and “pro- New Deal” film that denounces the evils of the corporation through the only real villain in the story which is the Banker Gatewood. Gatewood declares “What’s good for the banks is good for the country” (Roberts and Olson 161), giving the clear message that greed and the organization of prosperity is against the health and well-being of the individual. Gatewood is the exemplification of the ideal of a country that has no interference its government in the running of business. The message at the end of the film when the couple rides off into the sunset is that it is laudable to be freedom of social convention and the need to be a part of the socially accepted. The sociologically aspect of freedoms from conformity is touted loud and clear. McBride and Wilmington describe the characters of Gatewood and Hatfield as rhetoricians in the film, balanced against purity of the roles of Dallas, Ringo Kid, and Doc Boone, who reveal their morality through actions rather than social convention. The representations of social convention talk with conviction, but do not act within recognizable morality. John Carradine, as Hatfield, puts on the airs of the social graces, creating an aura of refinement that he flaunts within his disdain of others. In an exchange with Doc Boone, played by Thomas Mitchell, he clearly states that he is offended by the fact that Doc Boone would smoke a cigar in front of a lady. This is not only indicated by what is said, but by the way in which he forms the event, pulling forth the reaction from Doc by challenging him with the tone he uses in his voice. In order to successfully define his character, he does not seem as much concerned with the lady herself, but with his need to insinuate his moral belief. He waves his handkerchief in front of his own face, then uses the excuse of the presence of the woman to declare his desire to see the cigar put out. However, the ambiguity is clear, he sees that she is discomforted, therefore has the moral grounds from which to complain. However, despite his flicking handkerchief, his own commanding presence is established by the way he phrases his command. “PUT OUT that cigar.” he says, emphasizing the first two words, not in a shout, nor either as a question, but as an indignant demand that has no room for denial. He isn’t losing control of his temper and he isn’t in a rage. He is cool and firm. This choice creates a point of balance from which comparison to future actions within the film can be made. Another revealing action is when a vote is taken to move forward once the stagecoach passengers discover their may be dangers should they continue forward. The role of Hatfield is full of restraint, but his own voice does not guide his decision. He sits up straight, emotionless, but towards the camera and away from the view of the other passengers, he raises his hand, the card deck before him cut to reveal to him his vote. The ace of spades is revealed, and by his answer of yes to move forward, the audience understands that he was powerless to make the decision, but that it was in the hands of fate. In his cool and unrevealing manner, the character both tells the audience that he shows no fears, but has them as he cannot make the decision through the power of his own perceptions. He doesn’t quake with fear or show in ambiguity, but rather reveals it in a smooth transitory move. The way the character is developed creates a sense of him that is revealed in the smallest of movements, rather than in strong gestures. He carries himself stiffly, answers thoughtfully, but without hesitation, other than his outside need for a devise in order to make a decision. That devise, the deck of cards, is the key to his whole inner world and in this one movement, a wealth of knowledge is passed to the viewer. His vulnerability is seen when he chooses to get water for the lady in the carriage, Mrs. Mallory played by Louise Platt. When he offers to get the canteen, opens his silver cup and pours for her, he doesn’t show a lascivious nature, but he shows a tenderness that reveals a layered sense of revealing his nature. Where the first scene that shows his intent on stopping the cigar smoke has an ambiguity, this new scene creates an odd sense that there is more to the relationship than he has revealed. According to McBride and Wilmington, the character of Hatfield represents the passing on of dead forms and lifeless ideals. His chivalry, restrained and distanced though it might be, and his attentions to the lady are examples of ideals that died with the old south, but he is restrained as they do not truly still have life as this is set post the Civil War period (61). The choices made reveal the way in which the period of time of the film has embraced the new order, and suggests to the audience a time when they will fully accept the new order of things as the 30’s had many social transitions and changes that were as cataclysmic, if not as violent, as the Civil War. Gatewood says to Hatfield “you’re nothing but a tin horn gambler”, but at that moment he is cradling the head of Mrs. Mallory in his lap, having taken responsibility for her welfare. The balances within the characterizations reveal the truths between what is done and what is said. With all the social conventions that are waved around and exclaimed, it is the actions that reveal the true nature of the dynamics of society. Some talk of what is right, while others do what is right. This revelation is clear in this moment as Hatfield, despite his seemingly rigid exterior, shows his moral fortitude over that of the doctor. The choices that Carradine makes are subtle. Another actor may have emoted more in proving that he was vulnerable to the plight of this woman, but Carradine is restrained; only letting audience glimpse his inner truths. The cast of Stagecoach is an amazing ensemble of some of the finest actors of the time. The transitions of Doc Boone, Kid Ringo, and Dallas are clear and well defined. At the same time, it is not done over the top, despite the stage play methodology of some of the scenes. Doc Boone is heroic in his tragic alcoholism, while it is clear the Kid Ringo, despite his incarceration, always had honor. Dallas is conflicted, her past in contrast to her character. The way in which the actors create these characters defines them individually, defines the social commentaries they embody, while telling the greater story in fluid, controlled revelations. While the character of Hatfield is not the most obvious in his transitions, it is clear that the acting choices that were made to define him took thought and deep conviction in order to portray them. It is easy to reveal sweeping emotional movement within a story, but more difficult to hold back and let the small seconds reveal an abundance of information. The simple twist of his hand, holding the deck of cards to make his choice for him said volumes about his character’s true identity. His subtle vulnerability and the way he holds onto lost ideals, stoically yet focused upon the one person who would appreciate them most, allows for the audience to come to an understanding with him. In making these choices, Carradine, along with his director, John Ford, creates a character that is as much on a journey as the other more flamboyant characters. Stagecoach is an extraordinary film allowing for the audience to go on a journey with a group of people who form a dynamic that reveals social commentary and strong transitions within their characters. Everything about the film is about the journey. The way in which the acting was approached allowed for each individual character to be fully explored, creating exposition in delicate doses so that the full story did not come too quickly. It is crafted within a time period of great transition, giving the audience that was contemporary to its first viewing a poignant relevance as they found themselves in a period of great change. So too, did the characters within the framework of the film find themselves changing, growing and developing through the craft of acting and honed by the skill of the director. Stagecoach created a worthy example of American cinema of the early mid-20th century. Works Cited Ford, John. Stagecoach, 1939. Youtube. 2010. Web. 10 July 2010. McBride, Joseph, and Michael Wilmington. 1975. John Ford. New York: Da Capo Press. Roberts, Randy, and James Stuart Olson. 1997. John Wayne: American. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Weis, Elisabeth, and John Belton. Film Sound: Theory and Practice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Read More