I will say this is a gripping movie. Kirk Douglas is a fantastic actor and this is certainly one of his greatest performances, but that doesn't redeem this frustrating and contradictory portrayal of "an old-time cowboy supplanted by modernity".
When it comes to food, you don't criticize an Indian buffet for being lousy Chinese -- it's not trying to be Chinese. So when critiquing this work, it's important to separate out what the work is attempting from what it is not. It's NOT attempting to be a feel good story of redemption or good guy triumph. It IS trying to portray a rustic and cunning cowboy as he interacts with a modernizing world that can nary afford a glance backward on the society it is replacing.
The biggest problem with this work is the fact that they're pretending to, but not actually, portraying a cowboy, when they're actually showing a Hollywood liberal-idealized version that renders an absurdist plot line. Douglas plays Jack Burns, a man who survives by his wits and grim determination in an unsettled wilderness with his horse while occasionally hiring himself out. Burns should be an icon of wilderness practicality, but basically the whole plot line is based on him being an idealistic buffoon. Examples:
1) Jack knows nothing about jail, but gets himself condemned to a hear in prison just to see his friend (visitation hours won't do). He sneaks a hacksaw into his cell and starts sawing the first night without taking the lay-of-the-land, determining who might rat him out, the guard rotation, etc.
2) Upon escape, he knows the police will be after him, but takes an excruciating amount of time bidding adieu to his former lover (now wife of his friend) and wandering around pensively. Is this a cowboy or a romantic philosopher?
3) While escaping through the hills he takes a nice rest during the day without having first reached the ridge he needs to get to.
4) Along the way he meets up with the police officer/jail guard that a) he had previously threatened and b) had extra judicially beaten him while in jail -- knocking out a molar. Instead of killing this menace to society, Burns is content to knock him out. Is this a hard bitten cowboy or a wandering Buddhist monk we're dealing with? If he's a legit brave cowboy he shouldn't be making empty threats he doesn't plan on following through on or failing to mete out retribution for breaking the tacit laws of the West. That guard was previously taunting Burns' best friend Paul in jail. Sparing him will have consequences Burns' impracticality won't allow him to consider. "This one's for Paul, you SOB!"
5) All of Burns' impracticality and dawdling is required to set up a final break for the trees after he reaches the ridge where he is being fired at by not one, but three separate groups of officers simultaneously.
Overall this adds up to lousy and lazy story telling. Don't pretend to portray a cowboy and then not do it. I know it's hard to mesh realistic acting characters with a gripping plot line. I know it's hard to try to understand cowboy culture and portray it vividly, but at least try. As it is it's modern-vs-modern critique where 1960's romantic ideals in the form of Jack Burns go head to head with 1960's modern realities. Weird.
When it comes to food, you don't criticize an Indian buffet for being lousy Chinese -- it's not trying to be Chinese. So when critiquing this work, it's important to separate out what the work is attempting from what it is not. It's NOT attempting to be a feel good story of redemption or good guy triumph. It IS trying to portray a rustic and cunning cowboy as he interacts with a modernizing world that can nary afford a glance backward on the society it is replacing.
The biggest problem with this work is the fact that they're pretending to, but not actually, portraying a cowboy, when they're actually showing a Hollywood liberal-idealized version that renders an absurdist plot line. Douglas plays Jack Burns, a man who survives by his wits and grim determination in an unsettled wilderness with his horse while occasionally hiring himself out. Burns should be an icon of wilderness practicality, but basically the whole plot line is based on him being an idealistic buffoon. Examples:
1) Jack knows nothing about jail, but gets himself condemned to a hear in prison just to see his friend (visitation hours won't do). He sneaks a hacksaw into his cell and starts sawing the first night without taking the lay-of-the-land, determining who might rat him out, the guard rotation, etc.
2) Upon escape, he knows the police will be after him, but takes an excruciating amount of time bidding adieu to his former lover (now wife of his friend) and wandering around pensively. Is this a cowboy or a romantic philosopher?
3) While escaping through the hills he takes a nice rest during the day without having first reached the ridge he needs to get to.
4) Along the way he meets up with the police officer/jail guard that a) he had previously threatened and b) had extra judicially beaten him while in jail -- knocking out a molar. Instead of killing this menace to society, Burns is content to knock him out. Is this a hard bitten cowboy or a wandering Buddhist monk we're dealing with? If he's a legit brave cowboy he shouldn't be making empty threats he doesn't plan on following through on or failing to mete out retribution for breaking the tacit laws of the West. That guard was previously taunting Burns' best friend Paul in jail. Sparing him will have consequences Burns' impracticality won't allow him to consider. "This one's for Paul, you SOB!"
5) All of Burns' impracticality and dawdling is required to set up a final break for the trees after he reaches the ridge where he is being fired at by not one, but three separate groups of officers simultaneously.
Overall this adds up to lousy and lazy story telling. Don't pretend to portray a cowboy and then not do it. I know it's hard to mesh realistic acting characters with a gripping plot line. I know it's hard to try to understand cowboy culture and portray it vividly, but at least try. As it is it's modern-vs-modern critique where 1960's romantic ideals in the form of Jack Burns go head to head with 1960's modern realities. Weird.