Red River

Starring: John Wayne, Montgomery Clift, Joanne Dru, Walter Brennan, Coleen Gray, Harry Carey, John Ireland, Noah Beery Jr., Harry Carey Jr., Chief Yowlachie, 'Snub' Pollard (uncredited), Shelley Winters (uncredited)
Directed by: Howard Hawks
Rating: Passed
Genre: Western, Drama
1948

Times Seen:
Tim: 1

Summary: A struggling rancher (John Wayne) decides to make the first cattle drive from Texas to Kansas. Along the way, he and his men experience myriad set backs, enemies, and challenges from within.

Review:

Tim: It's always an odd experience when you watch a movie and think, "That was good," and then you read accolades about it, like it's deemed one of the best Westerns of all time and such a great movie. Really? I thought. It's offputting and it causes you to become introspective. Did I miss something? Was I in the wrong frame of mind for the film? Those questions don't have obvious answers, so I have to stick to my honest opinion. I liked Red River, but I'm a bit flummoxed at all the praise I read.

The film feels both like a "classic" Western and one that does subvert some expectations. The thrust of the story is that a group of cowboys make a dangerous cattle drive through the West, facing all the obstacles and challenges you'd expect on the way. The big difference is that the greatest threat here is a growing insurrection among the men, against their leader. This was surprising, because that hard-nosed leader is played by John Wayne. That probably all sounds pretty good, actually. As I read that back, you start to see why this movie might be loved. I had some problems with it, though. For much of the movie, we see Wayne's character acting hardheaded, dismissive of other perspectives, overall a bit of tyrant on the drive. His men obviously don't care for this. It starts to make sense that they would rebel. I'm not sure the film quite sells this, though. Being disgruntled, yes. But, getting those emotions to the point of an active rebellion against their leader, willing to "steal" his cattle from under him? I never quite believed that. I think part of the issue is actually Wayne in that main role. He needed to be difficult, somewhat unlikable. But, he can't really be the "villain" of the story. That would be going too far. The film eventually gets to its resolution, which I didn't buy. This is fundamentally my biggest issue with the movie- the conclusion felt too convenient, wrapped up too nicely. It might be somewhat unexpected, but it felt like a cop out. I couldn't imagine real people acting in this way. It felt like a story, not authentic. If you buy the story, then yes, you probably liked the movie a lot more.

I do give John Wayne a ton of credit for playing a more challenging character here. He's the classic Western good guy, so it was fun to see him be an antagonist for part of this film. Broadening his role outside of the norm was definitely a plus for this film. Wayne was a performer and knew how to take up space on camera, so yes, he makes a lasting impact on this film. It's interesting he really shared the spotlight with Montgomery Clift. Clift is really the protagonist of the film. I've long been a big Clift fan. His life story is tragic, but he was such a terrific actor. His performance here is incredible. As much as I like Wayne, Clift is the heart and soul of this movie. You see him start firmly in Wayne's character's shadow, and slowly emerge as a force in his own right. By the end of the movie, he's clearly the hero and we are with him. Seeing Wayne and Clift face off throughout the film is definitely a highlight. I really enjoyed Clift's performance here.

The supporting cast is solid, although Wayne and Clift take up most of the oxygen in the film. I always love seeing Walter Brennan, he makes every movie better. Joanne Dru gives a great supporting performance, one filled with fire and energy. She draws your attention on screen and makes a lasting impression. She works well opposite Clift and has a nice sequence with Wayne, too. Dru was certainly effective in this film. Coleen Gray was good, too, although her role was quite small. The rest of the cast works well, too.

The film was nominated for two Academy Awards- Best Writing and Best Film Editing. I'm not sure if it had an actual chance at either, but it's impressive for it to receive two nominations. I'm a big Howards Hawks fan- the guy was a great director. Now, as I've been writing about Red River, I've honestly considered changing my mind. Was I too harsh on this film? Should it have been a 7.5? I have to stick to my guns, though. The film absolutely has strengths, as I've outlined above. I loved specific elements of it. However, the film as a whole didn't move me nearly as much as it should have. The story felt forced, not authentic. The big events in the movie didn't feel natural or authentic. I struggled with being convinced about the men staging an uprising and I struggled with the resolution of the story at the end. Those things push the film's quality down a bit in my eyes. Maybe someday I'll revisit this, but I simply don't see how this is such a landmark Western.

Rating 1-10
Tim's Rating: 7



If You Enjoyed This Movie, We Recommend: El Dorado, Rio Bravo, Silver River