Thu 7 Aug 2014
A Western Movie Review by Jonathan Lewis: WICHITA (1955).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Western movies[18] Comments
WICHITA. Allied Artists, 1955. Joel McCrea, Vera Miles, Lloyd Bridges, Wallace Ford, Edgar Buchanan, Peter Graves, Keith Larsen, Walter Coy, Jack Elam. Director: Jacques Tourneur.
The first time the viewer sees now legendary figure Wyatt Earp (Joel McCrea) in Wichita, he’s an absolutely miniscule figure on horseback perched on a hill off in the distance.
A solitary man overwhelmed by nature, Earp is initially portrayed as extraordinarily reluctant to be the arbiter of law and order in the rapidly growing city of Wichita, Kansas. Earp’s also got a strong fatalistic streak, going so far as to tell a potential love interest after a bank robbery that “things like that are always happening†to him. As if he were just an object swept to and fro by the winds of History.
Directed by Jacques Tourneur (Cat People, Out of the Past), Wichita is not only quite good Western, it’s also a superbly well-crafted character study of how frontier violence fundamentally alters the course of one man’s life. With a supporting case that includes a youthful Lloyd Bridges as a villain and Peter Graves as Earp’s brother, Morgan, the film is definitely worth a look.
The story follows Earp (McCrea) as he journeys, both literally and metaphorically, from a lonesome figure on horseback to a married man tasked with establishing law and order in Kansas. Soon after the film begins, Earp encounters a cowboy encampment. After some initial pleasantries, his relationship with the men begins to sour – and how! – after two of the men attempt to steal from him as he sleeps. Although this initial encounter is brief, it sets the stage for what is to come.
Earp journeys onward alone, stopping briefing in front of a signpost indicating Wichita is ahead. The sign also notably states, in all capital letters, that “Everything Goes in Wichita.†Soon two fast moving stagecoaches barrel down on him, pushing him off to the side. The first stagecoach has a banner on the back with the very same words, while the second has one that reads, “Wine, Women, Wichita.†From that moment onward, the viewer knows that the rapidly expanding city is going to be both a somewhat lawless town, but also a frontier town where a man can reinvent himself.
Earp’s plan is to be a businessman in town. That plan goes by the wayside once he witnesses the aforementioned cowboys arrive in town and, in a drunken frenzy, shoot up Wichita, killing an innocent young boy in the process.
That’s when Earp decides he will take the mayor up on his offer and become a U.S. Marshal. Supporting him in his endeavor is Bat Masterson (Keith Larsen). The rest of the movie revolves around not only the conflict between Earp and the cowboys, but also a growing rift between Earp and Sam McCoy (Walter Coy) over Earp’s strong-arm tactics. Earp also falls for McCoy’s daughter, Laurie (Vera Miles) in a somewhat clichéd subplot that doesn’t really do much for the film, but may have been intended as a box office draw.
There are several scenes in Wichita that merit particular consideration. The first is Earp’s initial encounter with the cowboys. When he first meets them, he’s elevated on horseback. They are sitting. We quickly learn he’s a stoic figure, with his first words to them (and in the movie) as follows: “Howdy! My name’s Earp, Wyatt Earp.†While all of the cowboys are dressed in a dark colors, Earp is wearing a clean, bright red shirt. This marks the beginning of a personal journey that will culminate in his fight against the darkness and disorder symbolized by these ragged men.
The sequence in which the cowboys shoot up the town, injure a woman, and kill a young boy through carelessness also is likewise worth watching closely. These events prompt Earp to accept the position as U.S. Marshal. Look for the notable, stark contrast between the bright saloon and the dark, foreboding street.
Inside the saloon, there are many women, resplendent in a multitude of colors. Outside, on the dusty street, there are loud men in dark clothes engaging in recklessness and violence. By stepping out into the grey netherworld of the Wichita streets, Earp becomes the de facto protector of the town’s innocent women and children and a protector of Wichita’s desire for domesticity.
Finally, there’s a harrowing scene in which the cowboys shoot Sam McCoy’s wife. Again, the killing wasn’t so much intentional, as the result of lawlessness. The gunmen ride in front of McCoy’s house, shooting into it. We see McCoy’s wife fall to the ground and bullet holes lodged in the family house’s front door. This senseless act of violence again prompts Earp into action, making the final break between Earp the businessman and Earp the lawman.
Wichita has a lot to recommend it. With a running time of a little less than ninety minutes, the film has decent pacing and enough action to keep a viewer engaged. McCrea is generally very good in this, as is Peter Graves.
The film’s biggest downside is the fact that the plot is just a bit too predictable. Much like in Law and Order, which I reviewed here, the hero is a U.S. Marshal who defeats the bad guys and gets the girl. What sets Wichita apart, however, is its significantly better cinematography and use of symbolism to tell the story of Wyatt Earp before he arrived in Dodge City.
August 7th, 2014 at 12:34 am
I think McCrea may be the only actor to play Earp and Bat Masterson as well as Buffalo Bill. Too baaad he never did a Wild Bill.
August 7th, 2014 at 9:29 am
David,
McCrea’s Earp and Masterson are just names, or pegs on which to hang frontier fiction in familiar places. The characters are interchangeable and cold have been called Clayton Moore or Gene Autry. Buffalo Bill, no matter how manipulative, is at least a fictionalized attempt to get Bill on screen.
August 7th, 2014 at 5:13 pm
Thank you for a good review!
Wichita is a favorite film. It is indeed notable for the beauty of its color, design, composition and camera work.
August 7th, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Barry,
I agree, they are nothing to do with the actual men he is supposedly playing, but generic lawmen of the era. Virtually every other Earp including Hugh O’Brien was closer to historical accuracy (well, maybe not Costner’s, that was an awful waste of time and money however good the research claimed to be).
The Masterson film however does touch on the beginnings of his interest in journalism, if not as a sports writer and editor. Physically he fits neither man as Earp was slim and Masterson shorter and inclined to stout (though one photograph in his bowler looks a good deal like actor Glenn Corbett with a mustache). In the films of the Virginia City fight with Jack Johnson Masterson refereed he is downright fat as he is in the photo with his apprentice Damon Runyon in New York.
Still, both of these are good generic westerns whether they are the least historical.
My great grandfather was one of the gunfighters who joined with the Earps, Masterson, Holliday, and Ben Thompson to run the tables at Luke Short’s Lone Star saloon in Fort Worth when the competition threatened to run him out of town on his opening day. Needless to say nothing happened, most people would not have gone up against any one of them much less all of them.
August 7th, 2014 at 10:55 pm
Barry
I agree about BUFFALO BILL too though both Wellman and McCrea thought Cody a fraud which is why the fight with Yellowhand (Anthony Quinn) at Warrior’s Gorge, for which Bill won the Congressional Medal of Honor, is shown largely off screen.
It’s a remarkably good sentimental film considering both men’s opinion of Cody.
August 7th, 2014 at 11:32 pm
David,
The story regarding your great-grandfather seems to have far more potential than any of these fair-to-middling western movies we are discussing. More about him would be appreciated.
Re Buffalo Bill the movie. I know Wellman hated the ending ‘God Bless you Buffalo Bill.’ But, people felt that way about him. And I was happy to share that viewpoint.
August 7th, 2014 at 11:52 pm
Mike,
Appreciate your reading the review and the fact that you see something of value in “Wichita.” I confess, I have mixed feelings on Tourneur. I didn’t care for “Berlin Express” at all and think “Out of the Past,” while having some excellent moments, is considerably over rated
August 8th, 2014 at 12:12 am
Jonathan,
Yes to Berlin Express — it is a bore although one I wish I liked more. Heaven know why. As for Out of the Past, it certainly has something, atmospheric cinematography, Jane Greer and Kirk Douglas, and sadly the wooden headed Mr. Mitchum.
August 8th, 2014 at 12:17 am
I found Berlin Express to be a terribly muddled affair and I wish I liked it more. I tend to like films with Ryan in it and the scenes of post-war Germany (though not new to me) were interesting in a film of this nature.
It’s not that I actively dislike “Out of the Past,” it’s just that I’ve tended to see a lot of people uncritically repeat things such as “it defines the genre [noir]” or “one of the best noirs” or “one of the best films ever made.” It’s very atmospheric and the on screen tension and chemistry between Mitchum and Greer as well as between Mitchum and Douglas (“cigarette.”) is eminently watchable, but if I were to rank my top 5 favorite films noir, it probably wouldn’t be in the list.
August 8th, 2014 at 5:52 am
My article on Jacques Tourneur:
http://mikegrost.com/tourneur.htm
I too am uncomfortable with drastic over-simplifications like “Out of the Past defines the genre [noir]â€.
The screenplay of “Out of the Past” is indeed filled with noir characters, situations and dialogue. However, the film LOOKS like other Tourneurs, and its visual style is remote from most noir films of the 1940’s. This makes it a hybrid of noir and non-noir approaches.
Chris Fujiwara’s book “Jacques Tourneur, the Cinema of Nightfall” (1998) emphasizes the ambiguity in Tourneur’s films. The more you study them, the more each film seems full of a multitude of ambiguous, conflicting ideas.
The mixed approach in of “Out of the Past” is an example of this ambiguity, perhaps.
David Vineyard’s frontier family history is fascinating.
I don’t have anything like this. But my grandfather did drive a train in Chicago. So railroading is in my blood. I’ve seen Berlin Express countless times and always love it!
August 8th, 2014 at 10:53 am
Very informative. I have not yet seen Canyon Raiders, but plan to soon.
Also, I agree: David, your family history is fascinating
August 8th, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Jonathan:
Are you certain that Canyon Raiders is on your radar? It is an obscure Whip Wilson western. Possibly, if Jacques Tourneur is of interest, Canyon Passage is the film you are planning to see. It is well made and there are many complicated social and political things to address regarding this well photographed, scored and above all, acted, motion picture.
August 8th, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Barry,
My typo! Yes, I plan to see Canyon Passage on DVD this weekend
August 8th, 2014 at 4:21 pm
Thanks for the interest, I only mentioned it because he knew and worked with the Earps and Masterson. He started as a rancher on some of the early trail drives still in his teens, was a Texas Ranger, head of security (Range Detective) on the King Ranch (we have copy #300 of the 1000 copy special edition of Tom Lea’s history of the ranch printed for friends and family), professional gambler (as were my grandfather — his son in law — and his father in law a Mississippi River Boat Gambler), constable of Electra and owner of the Electra Hotel, in Electra,Texas, Pinkerton detective, Railroad Detective, minor gunfighter, and surprisingly for all that a gentle and loving family man.
My grandfather (his son in law) worshiped him. though his ironic summation was “Finest man I ever knew, meanest SOB who ever lived.” A good description of the breed. He is best known in South Texas for breaking the back of the Klan’s hold on the King Ranch and in West Texas for killing two drunken cowboys who rode into a church and shot it up killing several people. Actually he didn’t know about the church when he hanged them by himself, they had killed his horse too. Again typical of the breed. I’d write it, but even with the newspaper accounts and references who would believe it?
I’m named for him.
Mitchum got a bit tired of hearing about OUT OF THE PAST himself, and once complained that h had worn that same trenchcoat in five films in a row and the reason for the lighting in the film is they had such a low budget that they had to hide the sets with shadows. He even points out a scene where they didn’t have enough money to do a retake and you can see and extra hand the phone to Jane Greer as she is alone in her darkened apartment (and you can).
I agree about BERLIN EXPRESS, but keep in mind it was a propaganda film designed to show how the Allies were still cooperating in Berlin and barely got made and out before that fell on its face. Propaganda and not drama was its primary reason for being made, largely at the request and with the help of the State Department. It was about world peace and cooperation rebuilding Europe and particularly Germany, which in light of what happens makes it more science fiction than noir.
This one was just an assignment for Tourneur.
Re JT, he is very uneven, and much of his best work actually benefits from low budgets, but he does have talent.
Re OUT OF THE PAST, it maybe oversold some, but when they say it ‘defines’ the genre I think they are speaking in terms of style, use of the flawed hero (and Mitchum came to define noir heroes whether he should have or not), Jane Greer often called the definitive femme fatale over both Scott and Grahame, and Douglas near psychotic villain with hints of perversity a staple of the genre before and after. The story, the man running from his past, finding redemption, being tempted again, and dying to protect innocence and punish irredeemable evil is almost a blueprint for noir film.
I think it is the presence of so many of the elements of noir in a single film that accounts for much of its reputation. I don’t say it defines noir, but if I had to choose one film that encapsulated the elements that combine to make noir I would pick OUT OF THE PAST. It is not the best, but perhaps the most recognizable example of noir. There is no question it is noir, no subtlety about it being noir, nothing in the film that is not a trope of noir. In that sense watched by a critic or film student it defines noir as a genre not as the best, but the best example..
August 8th, 2014 at 8:20 pm
Thank you for the fascinating history
September 3rd, 2014 at 8:10 am
Just for the record, in this movie, Wyatt wasn’t a federal marshal, he was a town marshal, roughly a municipal police chief (in many frontier towns, the two titles were used interchangeably).
September 4th, 2014 at 9:45 am
Jonathan Rosenbaum’s study of Wichita has just become available on the Internet:
http://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/2014/09/art-of-dar5kness-jacques-tourneurs-wichita/
November 22nd, 2014 at 6:27 pm
Jim Doherty is right: Wyatt would have been a town marshal, not a US marshal, in Wichita. A mayor would not have the authority to appoint a US (i.e., federal) marshal. The terms are confusing, and it would be easier if frontier towns would have used the term “police chief” instead of “marshal.”
I believe Wyatt was a deputy US marshal years later (about 1882) in Arizona. Virgil Earp and Tom Smith were both deputy US marshals at the same time that they were town marshals.
IIRC, Randolph Scott played Wyatt Earp in “Frontier Marshal” and Bat Masterson in “Trail Street.” Both paid even less attention to historical accuracy than the McCrea films.