Let’s talk about the theme first. The ending of the film seems too vulgar. The white man brought the robbed little girl back, and the Indian tribal chief was killed, which seemed to promote white supremacy. I'm not saying that a film must have any positive political significance, but since the film reflects the conflict between whites and Indians, at least it shouldn't be too flamboyant.
Then there is the plot arrangement.
The first thing that feels more contradictory is the position of the robbed girl Debbie. She first stood on the side of the Indians, and finally the chief was killed, but she happily returned to her hometown with her uncle Ethan. The change in the middle was not described or prompted, and it felt rather sudden.
Second, his girlfriend Luo Li married Charlie, and after Martin came back, he had a jealous fight with Charlie. This plot doesn't seem to have much to do with the theme, but the director has a lot of attention and spent a lot of time describing it. I find this a bit incomprehensible.
Third, when Ethan just came back at the beginning of the film, he seemed to have a conflict with his nephew Martin, but how it happened was not mentioned in the subsequent plot.
Finally the protagonist. Ethan's character strikes me as a rather contradictory one. The change in his attitude is relatively sudden. I think it may be easier for the audience to accept the change if some details are appropriately added to show the process of change.
After watching the film, I always have this feeling: the original book is a very long novel, but the film has omitted many plots considering the length, and some key plots are too "refined". Simply put, I don't think the editing is great. Most obviously, Deason left his nephew Martin to go to a store owner to find clues, but in the next shot, two people walked into the store at the same time.
Also, I don't think the actors' performances are perfect. I don't think the protagonist's acting is as good as the young actor who plays his nephew Martin. I haven't checked which actor the main character is, and no matter how famous he is, I don't think his performance is very good.
Of course, since so many people regard this film as the No. 1 of Westerns, there must be a reason. After I watched it, it felt like the scene was grander than other early Westerns. Many westerns with action gunfight elements are mostly limited to small towns, but this film has many wild scenes, showing the real western scenery in front of the audience. In addition, the film's depiction of Indian tribal culture is also in-depth. But other than the above two points, there is nothing that makes people feel very special.
(Add some guesses about the plot when I watched this film: I saw half of it and guessed that Martin was Scar's son, who was taken back and raised by Ethan when he was a child. Scar took Daisy for revenge. And the reason why Deason The reason why Martin was stopped from following him was to prevent him from killing his father. It was a shock to see the final result, so ordinary.)
View more about The Searchers reviews
