Thu 14 Mar 2019
A Western Movie Review: THE MAN BEHIND THE GUN (1953).
Posted by Steve under Reviews , Western movies[10] Comments
THE MAN BEHIND THE GUN. Warner Brothers, 1953. Randolph Scott, Patrice Wymore, Dick Wesson, Philip Carey, Lina Romay, Roy Roberts, Morris Ankrum, Katharine Warren, Alan Hale Jr., Douglas Fowley, Robert Cabal. Screenplay: John Twist, based on a story by Robert Buckner. Director: Felix Feist.
An unusual sort of western, one that place in the burgeoning small town of Los Angeles, circa 1850 or so. The town is a lot more elaborately laid out than most western towns that sit in the middle of a prairie for no great reason to be there. References to Santa Monica to the west, the La Brea tar pits, and the importance of water to the growing community all are intended to add to the historical authenticity, as are references to whether California should enter the Union as a slave state or not, along with the presence of a young bandit named Joaquin Murietta.
The plot is too complicated to go into (I didn’t understand it) but boiled down to as small a nutshell as I can manage, Randolph Scott (Major Ransome Callicut) comes to town undercover disguised as a schoolteacher (the latter being the result of some quick thinking on his part) to root out a gang of secessionists who also want to control the area’s water supply.
There are several other major threads to the plot, however, including killings, desperate ruses and several lengthy scenes of singing and dancing in the local saloon, not to mention some ineffectual efforts in the way of comedy by Dick Wesson and Alan Hale Jr.
There too many twisted threads in this movie’s tale, in other words, taking place mostly in cramped indoor sets. This is made all the more noticeable when at last the director takes the movie outside, for a big shoot-em-up finale. Scott is stiffer than usual in this one, looking far too old (55) for young Patrice Wymore (26), the real new schoolmarm in town. (I forgot to mention the rolling on the floor catfight the latter has with songstress Lina Romay, who also has eyes on Scott).
March 14th, 2019 at 3:14 pm
As it so happens, and I’d completely forgotten that I had, there is an earlier review of this very same movie on this blog, and written by the very same person, namely me.
You can read what my younger self had to say about this movie here:
https://mysteryfile.com/blog/?p=5340
March 14th, 2019 at 3:25 pm
Comparing the reviews, you seem to be getting less tolerant as you get older.
March 14th, 2019 at 3:55 pm
Thank you for saying “less tolerant” (if true), than “grumpier.”
March 14th, 2019 at 3:34 pm
Randolph Scott is Randolph Scott. No more need be said. He is the only reason to watch the film, and even then, once is enough. No Tall T this thing.
March 14th, 2019 at 7:34 pm
I liked both aspects singled out by Steve’s review: The early Los Angeles setting, and the endless complex plot. The film is no classic, but it is in there trying!
March 14th, 2019 at 7:37 pm
Sort of tired, but as Barry says, still Randolph Scott.
Nice to see the future Mrs. Jesus Franco though.
This one has a feeling of “Hey, we have Randy Scott, let’s make a Western.” Which honestly is good enough reason to make a Western any day.
March 14th, 2019 at 10:20 pm
In your earlier review I see that you comment about whether or not it’s a B movie, etc. I think by now, after discussing this topic several times, it is just about accepted that these 1950’s westerns are not B movies at all. Certainly the Randolph Scott movies had decent budgets and script writers, not to mention directors and supporting characters.
When we say B western now, I think in terms of Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Hopalong, and they are the better B movies. The lesser ones are the singing cowboy films made by dozens of minor actors, mainly in the forties.
March 14th, 2019 at 11:05 pm
Right you are, Walker. That this one’s in Technicolor is only the icing on the cake.
And as I mentioned in my comment following Dan Stumpf’s recent review of a Hopalong Cassidy movie, I’ve just about given up what are the true B-westerns, even Gene’s and Roy’s, even though they’re the better ones.
March 15th, 2019 at 12:16 am
B pictures have clear definitions, related directly to budget and distribution. Not much of a mystery. And some of Gene’s pictures are in budgetary germs on the cusp of being A films, the pre-war Republic product, and were sold as A’s. The Bowery Boys, for example, made a lot of money, but were always sold as B pictures.
March 15th, 2019 at 8:41 pm
Technically a B film was usually made by the B unit of any studio, and aimed at a supporting spot with an A film or Saturday matinees, though some B directors moved up to A product. Joe Kane, who did countless B films at Republic was directing A films in the late forties and fifties for instance.
I think the last technically B film is usually credited as a Western from around 1954. After that the B units at the studios were closed down or turned to producing television.