The 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma is vastly different from the 1957 original film. It fits the dark, cynical characteristics of a revisionist film. Many scenes were added, and roles extended. The outlaw Charlie Prince, for example, had a much larger role in the remake. He embodied blind faith and pure evil. He had a goal, and his loyalties lay in saving his boss Ben Wade. Prince was willing to kill anyone that got in his way in the slightest, yet in the end, Wade showed no appreciation. His thanks was killing Prince without blinking an eye. This can be seen as referencing the war in the Middle East that was going on during the time the film was made.
This leads to the revisionist film’s focus on violence. Everything showed more gore and had a larger impact. In the 1957 film, when the stagecoach was held up there were very few casualties. In the remake, it was a full on chase scene with both sides fighting back and many more people being mercilessly killed. Other examples of added violence include the opening scene with the barn being set on fire, Wade stabbing Tucker to death with a dinner fork, and the ending massacre scene when the train is coming in. This isn’t including all of Charlie Prince’s atrocious murders throughout the film, such as burning a man alive after he provided the desired information. The added brutality may reflect society’s focus on violence in the 21st century: in the media, gangs, and greater TV exposure to crimes committed.
The alpha male is an evolved character in the new version. In the old, Dan Evans was certainly not as powerful or as successful as he wanted to be. However, in the new, Dan is far more emotional and physically damaged (missing a leg from the war). Ben Wade can be seen to fit the revisionist role of an anti-hero. He is the villain in the beginning of the film, but then show’s good qualities towards the end. These include saving Dan during the Apache attack, and refusing to duck down or leave him behind in the ending scene. Both characters are further developed by the background information provided about them. How Dan was shot because he was a deserter, and how Ben’s mother abandoned him at a train station. The characters are not black and white; they have depth – good and bad values.
There are a few statements about government in the remake that were not present in the first. This could be due to United States’ unrest in 2007, with the war in the Middle East, and a presidential election coming up. The movie mentions the Apache people, and how they are fighting back against being constrained to a reservation. Also, in response to Dan’s compensation for his injury, “They weren’t paying me to walk away; they were paying me so they could walk away.” Dan was hinting that the small sum the government provided him was only so they would have no further obligations toward him. The 2007 film as a whole was clearly a revisionist approach to the original movie, and it made many statements about the United State’s social and political characteristics at that time.
The 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma is vastly different from the 1957 original film. It fits the dark, cynical characteristics of a revisionist film. Many scenes were added, and roles extended. The outlaw Charlie Prince, for example, had a much larger role in the remake. He embodied blind faith and pure evil. He had a goal, and his loyalties lay in saving his boss Ben Wade. Prince was willing to kill anyone that got in his way in the slightest, yet in the end, Wade showed no appreciation. His thanks was killing Prince without blinking an eye. This can be seen as referencing the war in the Middle East that was going on during the time the film was made. In 1957, the Suez crisis was going on, and Korea had just ended. For both of the movies, they criticized the violence going on in their time periods.
ReplyDeleteThis leads to the revisionist film’s focus on violence. Everything showed more gore and had a larger impact. In the 1957 film, when the stagecoach was held up there were very few casualties. In the remake, it was a full on chase scene with both sides fighting back and many more people being mercilessly killed. Other examples of added violence include the opening scene with the barn being set on fire, Wade stabbing Tucker to death with a dinner fork, and the ending massacre scene when the train is coming in. This isn’t including all of Charlie Prince’s atrocious murders throughout the film, such as burning a man alive after he provided the desired information. The added brutality may reflect society’s focus on violence in the 21st century: in the media, gangs, and greater TV exposure to crimes committed.
The alpha male is an evolved character in the new version. In the old, Dan Evans was certainly not as powerful or as successful as he wanted to be. However, in the new, Dan is far more emotional and physically damaged (missing a leg from the war). Ben Wade can be seen to fit the revisionist role of an anti-hero. He is the villain in the beginning of the film, but then show’s good qualities towards the end. These include saving Dan during the Apache attack, and refusing to duck down or leave him behind in the ending scene. Both characters are further developed by the background information provided about them. How Dan was shot because he was a deserter, and how Ben’s mother abandoned him at a train station. The characters are not black and white; they have depth – good and bad values.
There are a few statements about government in the remake that were not present in the first. This could be due to United States’ unrest in 2007, with the war in the Middle East, and a presidential election coming up. The movie mentions the Apache people, and how they are fighting back against being constrained to a reservation. Also, in response to Dan’s compensation for his injury, “They weren’t paying me to walk away; they were paying me so they could walk away.” Dan was hinting that the small sum the government provided him was only so they would have no further obligations toward him. The 2007 film as a whole was clearly a revisionist approach to the original movie, and it made many statements about the United State’s social and political characteristics at that time.