Review of Shane (1953) by Matt M — 25 Dec 2013

One of the questions I always have when a novel is adapted to film is whether I should read the book before or after seeing the movie. In the case of Shane, I decided to read the book first, and that may have been a mistake.

Then again, if I'd seen the movie first, there's every possibility that it would have informed my viewing of the film, and that wouldn't have been good, either. One of my big problems right off the bat is that the character of Shane himself just isn't rugged enough.

Being a fan of such films as The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Unforgiven, I imagined Clint Eastwood as I read the book, and Alan Ladd doesn't have anything approaching Eastwood's weathered authenticity.

That ridiculous-looking buckskin outfit he wears doesn't help, either. (Palance's Wilson looks much cooler with his black vest and hat.) Brandon De Wilde was also quite irritating, and I didn't understand the point of renaming his character Joey.

(The character was named Bob in the book, and he wasn't the only character to get an inexplicable name change. I at least understand changing the first name of Wilson to Jack, since Stark sounds a little too much like Starret.

) That said, this movie was still highly enjoyable and featured a lot of great cinematography. Many of the themes of the novel were kept, so that helped a great deal. In a way, this movie reminded me of the aforementioned Unforgiven--yes, I know Shane came out first, but I saw it after Unforgiven--in that it's about a killer who realizes just how impossible it is to become something else.

This movie has rightfully become a classic because of the different levels on which it works, but I think reading the book first kind of spoiled the experience for me. I just couldn't help thinking how superior Jack Schaefer's novel is throughout the movie's running time.

So I recommend that you see the movie and then read the book. Just try not to picture Alan Ladd in that ridiculous costume as you read.