High Plains Drifter (1973)
Before I started this blog, I had an appreciation for Clint Eastwood as an iconic actor. I've made my views clear about how much of a shame it is that The Dark Tower Series is being made into film and Eastwood isn't in his prime to play the tragic Gunslinger.
Since I started this blog, I have branched out to some of Eastwood's movies I am less familiar about, and the most surprising thing I have found is how I have never before thought of the western genre to incorporate so much of the supernatural into some stories. Pale Rider and High Plains Drifter where I would never presumed that the supernatural was so integral to the story. Both films, while vastly different in style and story, are at their core, ghost stories hellbent on revenge.
Eastwood's characters however similar are also diametrically opposite. In Pale Rider he is dubbed as the Preacher as his character aids a small community, and in High Plains Drifter he is like a tornado force of revenge against the community that stood by and watched him die.
These questionable acts are what shocked me most of all about this film. Case in point: within moments of entering this veritable town of sin, Clint takes a woman who instigates a trivial offense against him; and forcibly takes her to a barn where he proceeds to have his way with her. As a guy who held Eastwood up to a high standard throughout his life as the epitome of good. Even if he is gruff, or his means questionable, he gets the bad guy in the end. Never was he so bad that I worried he was irredeemable for his actions. The arguable sex act depicted can be argued amongst film critics everywhere whether it was full on rape or not, but it was definitely an uncomfortable moment to witness. The film then goes to great length to justify that the whole town was implicit in the death of Marshal Duncan and that their evil is simply being reflected back unto them.
This was Eastwood's also first real foray into the world of directing and seeing him tackle such a complex story only makes me more fascinated with him and shake my head with frustration that he couldn't have been born 40 years later to make quality films as a youthful actor in this day and age. Oh well, he's still making quality films regardless, and that is a blessing.
The story is, as mentioned, a ghostly revenge tale, with several theories behind what actually occurs on screen. the villains are more than just the few bad guys that the town is preparing for, because almost everyone in the town is curse marked for sins committed. The return of the "bad guys" is only a catalyst to literally paint the town red, marking the town and its people as all having blood on their hands. It would be easy to dismiss it as conventional western genre fare where the bad guys get what is coming to them, and the hero rides off into the sunset, but I would encourage you to delve deeper and question what actually transpired.
The Good: Eastwood as always. The little person. The complex story.
The Bad: Not bad per se, just that fine line the story walks, might keep you jumping from side to side, depending on how which side of the bed you wake up on in the morning.
Final Thoughts: Any western film enthusiast may not feel this film is up to par with most conventional films in the genre. People who think John Wayne is the archetype to aspire to for westerns, will not appreciate Eastwood's turn here. People who enjoy films that push the envelope... check it out.
Add to the Vault? As much as I love Eastwood, and as much as I liked this film, I don't know if it needs to be added to the vault. It is a great flick, and I appreciate having watched it and look forward to the opportunity to discuss it with others who may feel differently, but it is a one off for the most part. Maybe in another ten years or so, I will re-visit it, but I am good for the moment.
Here's the trailer, enjoy!
