Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umd5.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!umd5!jay
From: jay@umd5.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE? (spoiler)
Message-ID: <695@umd5.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 10:27:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: umd5.695
Posted: Thu Aug  1 10:27:34 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 05:26:09 EDT
References: <982@mtgzz.UUCP>
Reply-To: jay@umd5.UUCP (Jay Elvove)
Organization: U of Md, CSC, College Park, Md
Lines: 28

>One of those strange reinterpretations of a film, but this one is valid
>it you look at the scene in question carefully:
>
>It was Stoddard who killed Valance.
>How do I know?  A bullet, particularly a rifle bullet, has a fair
>amount of momentum.  Valance has no side to side movement at all.  If
>the bullet that hit him had any impact, it was straight back.  Wayne's
>story was patently impossible.

While I think Mark Leeper's point is certainly interesting and makes Wayne's
downhill slide take an entirely different slant, I, myself, would never
base an interpretation of a film on the body movement of character.  I 
would especially not do so in an older film and, even more especially, not
in a shootout sequence where drama is king and reality is fodder for latter
day afficianados (like us?) to munch on.  John Ford's films are always
beautifully composed but his plots and characters are not subtle.
Stoddard is shown to have no skill with a gun; Valence is clearly an expert
gunslinger.  While it is probably not out of character for Wayne to
storytell for a noble cause, I don't think Ford intends his flashback 
narrative to be a lie.  This is not Rashomon we have here; this is Hollywood
storytelling.  We tend to believe the stories we are told in our films and
when we see them unfold before our eyes, especially in flashback
narratives, we assume they are true unless there is compelling evidence
to counteract our assumption.  In my mind, the manner in which Lee Marvin
takes a dive is not sufficient evidence on which to (re)interpret this film.
-- 
Jay Elvove       ..!seismo!rlgvax!cvl!umd5!jay
c/o Systems, Computer Science Center, U. of MD.