Shane: Dead or Alive?
Posted by Thomas J. Brown at 1015 hrs
Nicole recently visited the still-standing log cabin used in the 1952 movie Shane. I've always enjoyed the film, not only because it's a good movie, but because it spurs heated debate about the end of the film. The argument that always arises is: Does Shane die at the end?
I'm of the belief that he does die at the end. Not only is it much more, as Nicole puts it, film awesome, but I think there's actually evidence to support the idea. Before we go on, take a moment to watch the last ten minutes of the film so you can follow along (or go rent and watch the entire movie. If you like westerns, it's worth it).
After the final gun battle, Joey says, "Shane, it's bloody. You're hurt." Thanks to this line, we know without a doubt that Shane has been shot. Although Shane's next line is, "I'm alright, Joey," I don't think you can really say for sure that he is. After all, he's talking to a child who idolizes him. Shane knows this, which is why he tells Joey to "grow up to be strong and straight" (a line that, in light of the rampant homo-eroticism in the film, I always find to be hilarious).
While re-watching the end of the film today, I noticed something that I never had before: Joey's face. After he shouts, "I know she does," the camera cuts back to Joey and his expression changes from one of hope, to one of confusion. Cut back to the long shot and Shane has slumped over a bit. "Shane!" Joey calls again. Cut back to Joey's face. From confusion to reluctant acceptance. He knows Shane isn't ignoring him. He knows Shane is dead.
As Shane rides away, we see him slumped over on his horse, which takes him out of town. But wait! Earlier in the film (not in the ten minute clip, sorry) we learned something important about the ride out of town: It passes through the graveyard. The very last shot of the film is Shane, slumped over on his horse, riding through the graveyard. To me, that's clear evidence of his death.
I think it's important for Shane to die. We need to see his mortality. We need reassurance that's he's human. If he's supernatural, that what he's just done isn't very impressive (especially since he got shot doing it). If he's human, he's a hero, and someone we can look up to.
But, as with all art, it's a matter of interpretation. I've interpreted the clues we're given in a way that I feel enhances the film. What do you think?
UPDATE: I just found another clip on YouTube that shows a little bit more of the ride into town prior to the gun fight. Shane rides right through the graveyard, foreshadowing his death.
0 Trackbacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.alifelessordinary.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/873
9 Comments
On 10 September 2007, Nicole said:
Taken from Wikipedia article on the book, Shane.
Shane – the traveller and ex gunfighter.- a mysterious gunman who enters into the life of Joe Starrett and his family and carves a place for himself in their hearts. Although he tries to leave his gunslinging past behind, refusing to even carry a gun, he decides to fight Fletcher, the town nemesis, in order to save Joe Starrett's farm. After he kills Fletcher and Wilson, he feels he must leave the town forever. (There is an unstated implication that he may be dying, as he departs.)
So even in the book, it doesn't answer whether or not he dies, but it does illude to the idea that he might of. You can take two interpretations from that last scene.
1. He dies because saving those people was a sacrifice to make him the hero in mind that Joey believed him to be. Almost more than human. Leaving the way he did gives the "riding off into the sunset" (in the middle of the night) but he leaves his image with Joey as an immortal "super hero" of the west.
2. Or he lives and thats just as cool!
On 10 September 2007, wonderyak said:
Gawd. Ever heard of "SPOILER ALERT!" Geeze. :-)
On 10 September 2007, Thomas J. Brown said:
What are you talking about, Kris, I know you've seen Shane!
It's interesting to see that the book leaves it kind of ambiguous as well, but the first thing we learned in our adaptation class is that you owe nothing to your source. Look at Apocalypse Now. That had very little to do with Heart of Darkness.
On 14 September 2007, rebecca said:
I think the biggest clue - or argument or whatever - that Shane dies (in that 10 minute clip, anyway) is his speech to the kid when he says (something like), "There's no living with a killing; there's no going back from one," and then repeats, "There's no going back." I mean, c'mon. There's no living, and there's no going back. He's dead.
On 6 October 2007, Ron E said:
well, the final answer, unequivocably, is that he is alive. The last few seconds of the film, as we see him ride out *somewhat slumped over* is that he is holding the reins UP in his right hand. Now, maybe the director didn't want us to see this so that the possibility would be that he is dead (or alive) for dramatic storytelling, and an ensuing philisophical debate, but there is no doubt that he IS alive... kind of ruins it, doesn't it?
On 6 October 2007, Thomas J. Brown said:
I'll give you that his right arm is not dangling by his side, but I don't think you can definitively say he's still alive.
I wonder if anyone ever bothered to ask George Stevens, the director, or Alan Ladd.
On 6 October 2007, Lord_Kitchener said:
Homo-eroticism??...uhhh..maybe I am clueless..but where??..How?? When??...wait a minute..never mind...I don't wanna know
On 14 November 2007, deckard said:
"Rampant homo-eroticism"?
Please.
The very definition of perverted logic.
On 15 November 2007, Thomas J. Brown said:
Unfortunately, double entendre isn't a valid argument. Have you ever watched Shane? The stump-pulling scene is particularly suggestive.
On 21 November 2008, said: