7.4
Compared to action movies, it is more like educational movies, and more like personal dramas than romance movies. The translation of "Two Tigers Slaying Dragons" is rather bad, but it makes sense. The core of the movie is to answer us "Who is the man who shot Libert Valence", just like the "Dark Knight" more than 40 years later. The core is to answer us "Who is that dark knight". Many meanings were narrated cleanly by a large monologue on the night when Mr. Peabody was drunk, "The courage can be bought in the tavern opposite, but is this our credit?" It's a pity, about the perspective of the story. The question is also here: How did Ranson Stodor, the storyteller, know about this drunkenness?
Obviously, as the ancestor of "The Dark Knight", this film discussed the so-called "what is a hero" as early as that time. Bruce Wayne hopes that Harvey Dante will be a role model for Gotham, and he is willing to exist as a "dark knight", and the only detective who knows it will not mention this. Times have changed, and the hero Gotham City needs is no longer someone who can only claim to "a tooth for a tooth" and "you can only protect yourself in the west". Law books replaced guns, just like railroads replaced horse-drawn carriages, Tom Deniffin fought for the land he lived in, even if new heroes replaced old heroes, and roses replaced cactus flowers. The newspaper workers crumpled the paper together, which means that the media helped the general public make a decision: This is the west, and the people don’t need to tell the truth, they just need legends.
Indeed, the creation of this paradox was extremely successful, otherwise the latecomers would not copy the similar structure. Everyone has worked hard for the future of this land, but one of them must face tragedy. The future that Lanson Star brings to this land seems extremely bright. It is similar to Paul Freire's literacy concept in the countryside. Teaching people to read is to make people participate in politics and understand their relationship with this country. But this future was actually mocked at the end of the movie. The election was extremely noisy, and several hammers were unable to silence the scene. Everyone could use sophistry and tricks. Riding a horse could also be on the stage. The quarrel made Lanson alone. Leave. In this way, Tom Deniffin looked like a foresee. He had already said that he had other plans and could not accept such a future on behalf of the citizens of the town.
But what lags far behind is that Libert Valence's villain character is really casual, and he died too lightly. It is questionable: Since Tom loves this land so much, and at the same time he can kill Valence so easily without any collateral consequences, wouldn't he have done so long ago? This is not the first time Valence has done evil. As a conservative straight male film, the heroine Hayley is unsurprisingly regarded as an appendage and transferred back and forth, just like Rachel Dawes in The Dark Knight. Rachel can only belong to the "hero" of Gotham, and Hayley can only belong to the "person who shot Libert Valence". She exists as a symbol, so when Tom "transferred" Hailey's ownership to Lanson Stardow, he was transferring the power to become a hero in this small town; however, she must exist as a drama tool at the same time. The audience felt that what went wrong: Since she was always close to Lansen, why did she miss the cactus flowers when she returned home many years later?
It is a conservative elegy. It does not mean that conservative ideological machine movies are necessarily bad; the concept of male-centeredness is strong, nor is it that male-centered movies are necessarily bad; cowboys are limited by stereotypes, and it is not that they are flat characters. It must be bad; the main ideas are all spoken in lines, and it is still impossible to determine that the lines prohibit revealing the theme. But if all your heart words are spoken directly with your dirty mouth, what else are they precious. The best scene is when Tom Dunniffin returns to the cabin he prepared for his fiancée. The fire that obscures the sky burns everything down. It is silent enough that we can see a cowboy who is often tough. How vulnerable is behind the people. It is a pity that the problem with the perspective of the story is also here: how did Ranson Stodor, the story narrator, know about this arson?
View more about The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance reviews
