WOULD YOU LIKE TO... KNOW WHY 'HIGH NOON' IS HIGHLY OVERRATED?

.
[This Guide was written and originally posted online in August of 2005.]
.

.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"LET'S USE OUR HEADS FOR SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST COWBOY HAT RACKS!"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

==================
* SPOILER ALERT! *
In order to tear this movie limb from limb, it will be necessary to reveal significant plot points. I suggest you forgo reading this guide if you've never seen HIGH NOON but think someday you will.
==================

 TIME TO RE-EVALUATE THE "CLASSIC":

HIGH NOON (1952) is considered to be one of the greatest of the classic Western films.

In his book 'Western Films', Brian Garfield writes, "HIGH NOON is an exquisite thriller about the ninety minutes before noon on the wedding day of Will Kane [Gary Cooper], ex-marshal of Hadleyville. Kane learns that Frank Miller, a killer he sent to prison, has been pardoned & will arrive on the noon train to exact revenge." That's an overview of the plot. 

'The B.F.I. Companion To The Western' comments that "the film is memorable for its careful illusion of 'real time' suspense... [High Noon is] usually interpreted as a liberal allegory of existential man faced by the horrors of McCarthyism."

There are two ways in which HIGH NOON should be critiqued: Cinematically and Politically. The first part of this guide will look at it Cinematically. In Section 2, we'll examine its political underpinnings. The movie has been registered as a national treasure with the Library of Congress, but I think this has more to do with its politics than anything else.

HIGH NOON is NOT a terrible movie. Its use of "real time" suspense to heighten the drama was a unique idea in 1952. The scene in which the pendulum of the grandfather's clock ticks off the final minutes like a metronome before the train whistle blows was suspenseful and nicely edited. But overall, HIGH NOON does not live up to the accolades and cannot withstand a careful examination. There are some significant flaws in the movie: Some of the plot devices are too contrived. Some characters defy genuine human nature. As just simple-minded escapism, HIGH NOON is acceptable, but it is hardly the "masterpiece" professional critics have made it out to be.

THE CLOCK IS TICKING:

The problems start with Gary Cooper's performance as Marshal Will Kane. Although he earned an Academy Award for it, a glance through 1952's competition will show that there wasn't much of it. In truth, Cooper's performance was one-dimensional. He plays every scene with a whimpering look on his face and a lump in his throat. We can expect the hero to be experiencing fear, but at the same time, we're supposed to accept this man as a no-nonsense, frontier lawman who previously cleaned up the wild 'n' woolly town of Hadleyville. Cooper doesn't look like he's that man. In fact, the same expression appears on his face in the opening scene when he marries the Quaker girl, Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly). He looks as if he's about to cry, both at his wedding and throughout the rest of the picture! Brian Garfield praises Cooper's acting as "possibly one of the most intense performances by any actor ever to have been filmed". Only if Cooper were portraying a man "intensely" constipated, could I agree with Garfield's assessment.

Having married the man just minutes before, Amy Fowler learns that Kane is going to remain in Hadleyville to face down Frank Miller and his three fellow outlaws intent on killing him. She is entirely incapable of understanding his reluctance to tuck tail and head for the hills like a scared little dog. Objecting to having to wait an hour to find out whether she is a married woman or a widow, she gives Kane an ultimatum: Either dash out of town with her now, or say goodbye forever. 

Did Amy Fowler just drop from the sky? Did she know nothing about this man she married? Kane was largely responsible for saving Hadleyville from its criminal element and making it a respectable place for families. He was a well-known and (mostly) admired man in the town. How come Amy Fowler seems to know less than ANY other person in the town about the character of the man she has fallen in love with? Does it seem reasonable that she should be so ready to abandon him when he chooses to remain and face his responsibility, all because she MIGHT soon find herself a widow? By leaving him, in essence she was GUARANTEEING her "widowhood" by her own actions. Bright girl that Amy Fowler!

At the first sound of gunfire, Amy rushes back to her husband from the train depot. This makes all of her earlier protestations against violence ring hollow -- especially when she picks up a gun herself and shoots one of her husband's opponents in the back. (Something even he wasn't willing to do!) Clearly, Amy Fowler's motivations were lacking any REAL commitment and her threats about leaving Kane were nothing more than a contrived plot device meant to increase the perceived tension in the story. Everything about the character, Amy Fowler, was artificial -- she was simply a device!

Another plot device intended to heighten the suspense is the fact that the townspeople leave the Marshal to face the killers alone. Each citizen finds their excuse to abandon him. While this device accomplishes its goal, it is not the least bit believable! Those early Western pioneers were, almost without exception, extremely hearty and courageous people. They possessed an intestinal fortitude that today's soft Americans can't even imagine. It is not a lily-livered individual who packs up a few belongings and crosses the plains in a prairie schooner or Conestoga wagon, travels over mountains, across rivers, braving thunderstorms, dust storms, Indian and outlaw attacks to forge a new life in a barren land. It is entirely unrealistic to believe that every upstanding man in Hadleyville would suddenly turn chicken at the approach of four outlaws!

Two incidents from history serve to illustrate this point: When Jesse James' gang attempted to rob the First National Bank of Northfield, Minnesota, on Sept. 7, 1876, the citizens (not even the fearless Western variety, but mostly Nordic immigrants) responded with armed force and sent two members of the gang to their Maker. Within days, the posse killed another outlaw & captured Bob, Cole and Jim Younger. (See the movies 'Great Northfield Minnesota Raid' and 'The Long Riders'.) 

An even worse fate awaited the Doolin-Dalton gang on Oct. 5, 1892, when they rode into Coffeyville, Kansas, with the audacious plan to rob two banks simultaneously. When the news of what was occurring spread to the townspeople, they armed themselves & shot it out with the desperados who were attempting to escape. The Doolin-Dalton gang was decimated! Bone chips are probably STILL being collected from the streets! (See 'The Last Ride Of The Dalton Gang')

The most egregious example of a false motivation comes in the form of Deputy Sheriff Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges). Dissatisfied because Kane has not recommended him to the town council for the recently vacated position of Marshal, the Deputy Sheriff walks out on Kane. This device, designed to leave the Marshal alone, does not work because it is not the reasonable actions of a brave lawman. If Pell really desired Kane's support in garnering the promotion, wouldn't it have been obvious that standing with the Marshal in defense of his life, when all others turned their backs, would have resulted in the commendation he sought from Kane? Bright boy that Harvey Pell! HIGH NOON has too many contrived gears to make it the least bit believable.

Having been utterly abandoned, with only a few minutes remaining before the four gunmen come for him, what do you suppose a brave Western lawman would do? Formulate some sort of plan by which he might gain an edge? Concoct a way to even the odds? No, not in HIGH NOON!  Our hero sits down to make out his Last Will And Testament. Now there's a doggedly determined Western man for you! And just what possessions is he so concerned about leaving to his loved ones? We saw him earlier leaving town in a wagon and it didn't contain much of anything other than his new bride!


THE CLOCK STRIKES TWELVE:

...and here comes Frank Miller and his 3 outlaw buddies. They know that Kane is waiting in town for them, so what do they do? They do like any smart outlaws would -- they walk right up the center of the street, just like ducks at a shooting gallery! Bright boy that Frank Miller! Had Marshal Kane planted himself in a second-story window (instead of writing out his Last Will And Testament), he could have picked 'em off like shooting fish in a barrel! (But then all semblance of realism left this picture early on!)

Give Kane credit for being smart enough to maneuver himself behind the outlaws while they come marching up the street. Now he's in a position to open fire from behind before they know what's hit them. BUT NO! Kane couldn't do that! Why that wouldn't be fair. (As if Frank Miller is concerned with fairness! Four against one -- that's called "outlaw morality".) No, the only fair thing to do is to call out to your opponent before shooting. "Heads up, boys; I'm behind y'all here!" So, what happens when Kane yells to Miller? Miller & Company wheel around with their guns a-blazing, of course. Immediately the edge that Kane had managed to establish disappears in a cloud of smoke. Bright boy that Will Kane!

To make a long shootout short -- Kane dispatches his opponents (with the help of a nicely placed bullet to the back and a clawing of Miller's face by his pacifist wife, Amy). Just as the last gunshot echoes through the streets, a stable boy pulls up with Kane's horses harnessed to his wagon loaded for the honeymoon. Kane wordlessly drops his Marshal's badge into the dusty street, climbs onto the wagon with Amy and the "bright bride & groom" ride off into the sunset together. End of "Classic" Western. Boy, they don't make 'em like they used to! Aren't you glad they don't make 'em like they used to?

THE DUST SETTLES:

We're all adults here, so let's be honest... HIGH NOON may be suspenseful toward the end, but it is certainly no "masterpiece." This is just simple-minded "entertainment". That it's been registered as a "national treasure" is really kind of embarrassing. If you want to see the "real time" suspense concept utilized far more successfully, I suggest you check out the relatively unknown Western, '3:10 to Yuma' (1957). Although it is a HIGH NOON derivative and its ending is a bit implausible, '3:10 to Yuma' is everything HIGH NOON wanted to be and more! It boggles the mind to consider that of the two, HIGH NOON came to be regarded as the "Classic." But that's probably due to its hidden "political" agenda. Shall we?...

SECTION 2 

THE HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE POLITICS OF 'HIGH NOON':

HIGH NOON has a well known reputation as a political statement. It is my belief that its political aspect is more responsible than anything for its continued celebrity. HIGH NOON is supposedly the rebuttal to "McCarthyism" from Hollywood's Liberal Left.

As a political statement, the movie is wrong-headed and rather opaque, but then Communists / Socialists have never exactly been known for their smarts and lucidity!

I am borrowing the following explanation (*with its bias evident) from the Lycos / Tripod website, which will make clear what all the fuss was about. Due to space constraints, I've had to severely edit it:

* * * * * *
By showing an example of a man who stood up to outlaws, [HIGH NOON] criticizes those who gave the names of people with left-wing political views to the McCarthyites and the House Un-American Activities Committee during the Red Scare.

The 1947-1954 Red Scare directly affected Hollywood and the movie industry, but was not limited to them. Several people in the State Department lost their jobs as suspected Communists or went to jail. Two people -- Julius and Ethel Rosenberg -- were electrocuted for their (supposed) role in a ring to smuggle atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. The federal government and organized labor were also targets of the scare.

THE HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE (HUAC):

This committee was not held in very high regard during the '20s and '30s, and did not do much. But starting in 1947, when the Republicans took back control of Congress for the first time in 18 years, it became active again.

During the first part of the [HUAC] hearings, the Committee called cooperative (“friendly”) witnesses and allowed them to read prepared statements. These people testified about what they knew of Communist activity in Hollywood. Representing the studios were Louis Mayer and Jack Warner. Representing actors were Gary Cooper, Robert Taylor and Ronald Reagan.
.
In 1951, HUAC reconstituted itself under the leadership of Georgia Democrat John Wood. Also, the Senate got in on the act through its Internal Security Committee under the leadership of new Wisconsin Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy. These two committees were much more reckless and indiscriminate than the first phase of HUAC. They made wild, unsubstantiated charges about hundreds of people in Hollywood and the federal government. Thus, the term “McCarthyism” is equated with the more colorful “witch hunt.”

If you “named names” and recanted publicly in front of the Committee about your Communist past, you got to keep your job in Hollywood. If you stayed silent, you got fired. If you reasserted that you were a communist, you lost your job and were subject to prosecution by the government during this period. Hollywood people, especially people who had a leftist past, found themselves choosing sides, losing friendships and holding grudges forever.
.
'ON THE WATERFRONT' (1954):

In the 1930s [Elia Kazan] had been involved with the Communist Party for a few months, but then became disillusioned with its beliefs and methods, and dropped out. In 1952 he was subpoenaed to appear in front of HUAC. He agonized over what to do, but ultimately he “named names” and denounced Communism. He angered a lot of his friends and colleagues, some of whom would never speak to him again.

Depth of feeling about Kazan’s recantation and “naming names” still runs deep in Hollywood. In 1999, when the Academy Awards people wanted to give him a lifetime achievement award, many people walked out of the ceremony.

[*An indication that Hollywood is STILL loaded with Communists / Socialists! And which I believe accounts for the rabid esteem that the movie HIGH NOON still enjoys in Hollywood. ~ STMcC]

Kazan produced On the Waterfront in 1954. Many people have interpreted the movie as a metaphor for what Kazan went through in Hollywood. The hero of the movie is a dockworker who turns in fellow dockworkers who have been instrumental in letting the Mafia infiltrate and take over the union. In the end, the informant gets severely beaten and loses family members, but ultimately triumphs over evil. Substitute the words “Communists” for “Mafia” and “Elia Kazan” for “Terry Malloy” and you have a not-so-hidden defense by Kazan for his actions in 1952.

HIGH NOON (1952):

This movie stars Gary Cooper, one of the original “friendly witnesses” from 1947 who felt bad about his role in the whole thing. The script was written by Carl Forman, who was blacklisted right after the movie came out, and did not work in Hollywood again until the 1960s. Most people see HIGH NOON as a metaphor attacking HUAC and the Blacklist, which is plausible considering the situation of its writer.

The movie is much more subtle than 'ON THE WATERFRONT'. It is the story of one man who stands up against evil and violence to defend a town that will not even defend itself. The “evil” is McCarthyism and the Red Scare; the “town” represents Hollywood; and “the marshal” is a person who would not cooperate with the whole process. The power of this movie in delivering this message was not so subtle that people did not immediately get it. One of the most outspoken anti-Communists in Hollywood at the time, actor and director John Wayne, called HIGH NOON “the most un-American movie I have ever seen.”

* * * * * *

There is much I could write concerning this topic, but space being limited here, I will make just two points :

It is important to keep in mind that although his name has become synonymous with the entire so-called Communist "Witch Hunt" era, the Wisconsin Senator, JOSEPH McCARTHY, was not personally involved in the question of Communist subversives in the Entertainment industry. That was the House Un-American Activities Committee’s area. McCarthy was ferreting out Communist spies that had infiltrated our government. (A good idea, unless you're a Commie.) For his efforts, the man was demonized unmercifully by the mass media and even many of his fellow Senators. No man has been more vilified in the United States than McCarthy. Even Jesus still fares better in America. It's almost impossible to find anyone defending McCarthy's honor.

Everyone "knows" that McCarthy was the most evil American of the 20th Century. But no one can tell you why -- other than the generalities they've heard: "Didn't he smear the reputations of a lot of innocent people by making unfounded and reckless charges about their character and Communistic associations?"

Ah, but is that true?

That's what the masses have been conditioned to believe, and since few people bother investigating the facts for themselves, they assume it to be true because they see it printed and hear it said so often.

ARE YOU READY NOW TO LEARN THE TRUTH ABOUT THE "EVIL" JOSEPH McCARTHY?

There are only two groups of people "justified" in hating McCarthy: Communists & Socialists. That is such an important statement that I'm compelled to repeat it... There are only two groups of people "justified" in hating McCarthy: Communists & Socialists.

Unless you think it's a good idea to have Communists secretly working in sensitive departments of the U.S. Government, you ought to be appreciative of what McCarthy attempted to do before he was rendered ineffective by the Powers that be -- The Wizards Behind The Curtain. McCarthy was a good man who desired to save his country; he was a "great American patriot" (in the words of John F. Kennedy) who fought the forces of Collectivism and that's why the mainstream press still hates him to this day! 
.
The absolute truth is that the Leftists did to McCarthy EVERYTHING they falsely accused him of having done to others! NO? You don't believe me? All it takes to know is a little reading and verifying. You might want to read the following books that vindicate McCarthy by revealing the truth that you'll NEVER get from the controlled mainstream media :
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
Or...

Why not start with a cost-free examination on the worldwide web by clicking the following link?
.
Link:
.
THE REAL McCARTHY RECORD by James J. Drummey
.
After you've been thoroughly shocked by this truth, you need to consider how many other beliefs you might currently hold that are nothing more than the result of the controlled mainstream media's brainwashing! If they could fool you this badly about JOSEPH McCARTHY, couldn't they have fooled you just as badly about many other subjects as well? Give this some serious thought!

In the final analysis, HIGH NOON must be considered suspenseful but overrated. It's simple-minded entertainment at best, and downright un-American at worst (as John Wayne claimed).

As for me... I gotta go now. It's High Noon, and I hear my Mommy calling me to lunch. I think it's Peanut Butter & Jelly samwitch again. Oh boy!

~ Stephen T. McCarthy
2005, August