3:10 to Yuma: Not as Good as Brokeback Mountain, but Easily as Gay
I was bored to hell by 3:10 to Yuma and I can't understand why a lot of people are really enthusiastic about it. I liked the first forty seconds or so -- the title credits are cool, and I felt the anguish and fear of Christian Bale's character (Bale's a great actor, but even he and Peter Fonda can't save this thing) as he watched his barn burn. But then the shitty script took over. The only thing I thought was pretty interesting was the persistent gay subtext (more on that later).
As you probably know, the movie's about a poor rancher (Christian Bale) who joins an ad hoc convoy of lawmen escorting a vicious stagecoach robber and gang leader (Russell Crowe) to a train station from which he'll be taken to Yuma prison.
Nothing makes sense in this movie. The filmmakers have made a ton of bad choices. (SPOILERS AHEAD.) Why give Bale's character a peg leg and then never show it or have it factor into the action (and don't get me started on how he jumps across rooftops at the end)? Why have Russell Crowe stick around town after robbing the stagecoach? He'd have been home free if he hadn't done that. How come Bale and Fonda and the other guys taking Crowe to the prison train just sort of let Crowe suddenly kill some of their number from time to time? He's stabbing guys in the neck, throwing them off cliffs...nobody does much about it. They just sort of grit their teeth and keep on going. And would Crowe really just shoot all his men at the end? And are we expected to believe that Crowe's horse can hear his very quiet little whistle from a hundred feet away outside a loudly chugging train? And why is Luke Wilson in the movie?
Also, everyone looks too pretty (particularly Crowe, the kid playing Bale's son, and the two women in the movie -- who are both clearly wearing lots of lipstick and makeup). If I'm going to watch guys in funny hats fighting each other, I better be embedded in the film's reality, because otherwise I'm laughing. In 3:10 to Yuma, the violence doesn't stick and neither does the grit. (It's rated R but should be PG-13. The violence is bloodless and the one naked barmaid is tastefully covered up by a sheet. What the fuck?) For a grimy, bloody, authentic-looking Western with depth to match, rent John Hillcoat's amazing The Proposition instead.
Weirdest of all is the uncomfortable mix of homoeroticism and homophobia under the surface in 3:10 to Yuma. Now, ever buddy movie has elements of homoeroticism if you want to see them, but here there's some serious sexual tension building between Crowe and Bale's characters (it's the Ben Foster character that's the clincher...I'll get to that in a second). By the third act they share "the bridal suite" at the hotel. Crowe repeatedly says things like "I like this side of you, Dan" while suggestively tilting his head. Watch the scene where Bale cuts Crowe's meat for him: "Oh, cut off the gristle...I don't like the gristle...or the fat..." And by the end, Crowe likes Bale so much that he's crying "NOOO!" right as Bale gets shot in the back by Ben Foster's character.
Ben Foster -- right. Foster plays Crowe's psycho-killer right hand man who, with the rest of their stagecoach-robbing gang, has been trying to overtake and ambush the escort for the entire film. It's an atrocious performance, mostly because Foster was apparently told to play it as a superfabulous gay insane murderer. He rides and walks with exaggerated feyness, wearing a tight white leather jacket and what look like rust-red velvet pants that have, like, gold buttons all up the sides. His wrists are bent, his posture is effeminate, and his voice is high and nasal. And when he introduces himself ("You know who I am? I'm Charlie Prince") to Peter Fonda, Fonda replies, "Well, I once knew a whore named Charlie Princess -- is that you, Missy?"
(Even some of the advertising materials seem to be in tune with this aspect of this film -- as noted here and here.)
It's actually not that surprising that they've portrayed Foster's character this way -- Hollywood sometimes likes to make its psycho killer villains effeminate. Look at Dirty Harry, for example. Or Dressed to Kill. Or even Psycho. It's a way of imbuing them with an "other-ness"... a way of making them seem alien to mainstream audiences.
Anyway: Foster's character is totally infatuated with Crowe's character. He's loyal, obsequious, obsessed. And Crowe likes Foster back -- but not quite as much. So when the good feelings build between Crowe and Bale during the journey to Yuma, Crowe loses interest in Foster. During the final action sequence, Foster sees Crowe and Bale running the gunfire gauntlet together, like friends, and he gets jealous -- you can see the moment it happens. Maybe that's why he shoots Bale so many times when he kills him. And maybe that whole affection triangle thing is why Crowe then gets that pissed-off look and shoots Foster and his own entire gang before willingly getting back on the train that will take him to prison.
Or maybe it's just a bad movie where the characters are really inconsistent and poorly written.
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
actually, brokeback is about the inability to be gay. i wish i could be clearer about homoeroticism and violence in militaristic cultures like america. i just want to say that killer male couples that permeate american mythology kill in order not to be gay. also, the sports colossus is concerned with authentication of heterosexuality quite consciously. commercial products for men are also very concerned with being part of this certified-straight circle of bonded males- however tenuously. what all this supercedes is real individualism. it is the business of the military and the sports colossus to destroy individualism- and a lot of social interests are served thereby. i am not concerned with gayness- but rather the possibility for individualism to flourish. and in the sublimation and repression of a rampant homoeroticism, individualism is destroyed as collateral damage.
Brokeback Mountain had gay subtexts?
When men are men out herding sheep, the sheep are scared.
most action films involve bonding between old gruff white guys and young aware ethnic guys. america is a militaristic country and homoeroticism is a basic component of militaristic countries. the films usually involve the ritual slaughter of other males as a raison d'etre for the interaction of the protagonists. the gayness of the action film couple is so sublimated that they usually are constrained to bait and challenge one another to make absolutely sure that their gayness is totally repressed. cathartically witnessing a bonded couple ritually slaughter other males expiates the bonding of the male viewers from any repressed gayness as well. killing makes bonded males safe from gayness. the association of bonding and killing is rampant in military recruitment ads- even though neither is directly represented. in ancient cultures, killing excused gayness- now killing erases gayness.
i love westerns, i found ben fosters character very gay and the ending of the movie very disappointing. I also think they should have at least tried to shoot all the bad guys as they stood around under the hotel window, but, then the movie would have been done before my popcorn was gone.
That would have been sad.
Ben Foster's character's apparent gayness is beside the point: he's just not scary. He's a cross-eyed little punk who wouldn't last thirty seconds in a western that had, say, Lee Marvin or Warren Oates or Lee Van Cleef playing secondary bad guys. He's a twerp. A twerp with a gun, but a twerp. A performance that will be "remembered" at award time? What as -- a ridiculous embarrassment?
The plot holes are outrageous: how about the brilliant plan of sending a coach with one guy inside it and another driving it, to sucker the entire crew of bad guys? What a surprise when those two are immediately slaughtered. How about the seven bad guys lining up in a row in front of the window where the sharp-shooting (and one-legged distance runner) Bale is perched with a rifle? As Scott Evil would say, just shoot them! The original film was a Faustian tale about a simple farmer and a complex murderer; the murderer came to admire the integrity and courage of his captor -- and did not particularly want to stay an extra night with him in the hotel room where they are, well, holed up.
But it's true that Gay subtext runs through many a classic western -- RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY, anyone? Making that subtext more obvious doesn't bother me. Expanding a simple but effective story into a typically overblown, nonsensical Hollywood illogic fest does.
Gay? Why not? As far back as The Iliad heroes loved each other. I would see that movie again, anytime. Best damn stagecoach robbery I've seen ever. Guess I'm one of the few wimmen folk who like westerns. My son and I went to see it while his wife went shopping. You were a mean son of a gun giving the game away about how it ended. Elmore Leonard wrote it one way, the 1957 movie gave us another, and I enjoyed the surprise of this one's ending because I hadn't read your review. Your readers won't have that fun. But you've got a point about the gammy leg--I was so taken up by the running across rooftops and through building construction that I forgot about the foot. And yes, with all those pastings Ben Wade got from various characters it's beyond belief that he healed so quickly, although we weren't always sure of the passage of time--one of Ben Foster's men said Bisbee was 80 miles away. Crowe is one of those actors (not many around) whose face you just can't get enough of once he enters the film. I sure am glad he's back. One of the best movie actors of our time. Bale too. I liked the metaphor of the town of Contention, with the construction boom underway in the background and the temporary tents for the workers in the foreground. The background music was great.
That's funny-I just got home from seeing this movie and hadn't thought about a gay angle at all...hmmm
I think you may have missed the point of the end when Crowe gets back on the train.
Unless I'm mistaken, he is not willingly going to jail. He gets on the train in order to appear as though he's going to jail. That way, Bale's family will finally get the money that his character negotiated - if he gets Crowe on the train the Pinkertons will pay Bale's wife a thousand dollars.
Once the train moves out of town, Crowe whistles for his horse to come and get him... out of view from the townsfolk, hence the fade out.
Dude most of the plot elements you're writing about were in the original 1957 movie. Yes, the film makers jig-it a bit but I liked it much better then the '57 version. As for Ben Foster's character the original versions Charlie was just as wacked, but didn't get as much screen time. Lastly, Dan the rancher didn't die in the '57 version like he dose in the '07 version...
ARE YOU CRAZY???
I saw 310 to Yuma yesterday and I really liked it. I don't know that an authentic western like this has been made since Quigley Down Under, but I disagree on the gayness. In fact, oddly, I didn't get the slightest drift of your uptake on this the entire time, until you just mentioned it and I had a good laugh. I see your points though and thay are making me smile right now (am I gay?). I think if they had added all those onerous realism elements you mentioned it would have been really sluggish and corndog. *(there I go again). Two things: You really should not have given away so much of the PLOT darn it, you told the whole damn story, and I personally was bothered by all the ass kickings Ben (Russell Crowe) took and just shook them off, electrocutions, gunstock beatings, fist-a-cuff maulings and he just bounces up and rolls along in the next scene.
I liked Ben Fosters character. The wirey little crazy dude. He had a very Kirt Russell/Doc Holiday flair to him which I found very believable.
Now I'll tell you a new movie that really blows, Jet Li in War, yuck, those Martial Arts movies filmed in America just aren't the same, plus, nobody could fly and swordfight in the air while spinning triple sowcows and double axels in War.
THAT was boring.
!
Well, I thought Ben Foster was the sexiest one in the film, and as a professional actor myself I also think he gives the best performance in the film and will be remembering him during Awards season.
In any event, I am a gay man who doesn't really like action films, violent films or Westerns for that matter. My favorite film of last year was "Little Children". However, I absolutely loved this film, and so did my friend who I went with who is a member of the Writers Guild and is also gay. It was an entertaining ride from start to finish.
Brokeback Mountain is obviously a much better, deeper and grander and more essential film, one of the best films ever made. And as far as Western's go, "3:10 to Yuma" is no "Stagecoach", "Giant", "Red River" or "High Noon".
Your criticism are interesting and valid, and point out mistakes I hadn't noticed before, especially with the building jumping with one leg. But I still think most people will enjoy this film, despite the shortcomings you pointed out. I was on the edge of my seat at the end and enthralled all the way through.
You did mention "The Proposition," an Australian western, which is an amazing movie, and it's too bad it didn't get a wider audience. "The Proposition" is a great film and is definitely worth a rental. Most people don't even know that Australia has it's own cowboy culture and its history of settling the Outback was distressingly similar to settling the Wild West, both consisting of reprehensible treatment of the native population. But that's for another blog.
I'd recommend first Brokeback Mountain, then Little Children then The Proposition, then "3:10 to Yuma" in that order. But they all get thumbs up from me. Any of those films will be a good night at the movies.
"Proposition" was a great movie...an
And Butch and Sundance weren't gay--Ms. Ross was a beard.
Rio Bravo is pretty gay--Ricky Nelson and Dean Martin singing and 12 stepping--Martin naked in the bathtub or was that Robert Mitchim in the same damn movie except with a different title--El Dorado?
Wyatt Erp and Doc Holiday--gay.
Shane--gay.
Red River--homoerotic, my son is no sissy, driving cattle with a bunch of other guys while I threaten to beat the hell out of him will set him straight. GAY.
Billy the Kid--Gore Vidal and Val Kilmer. Please. Everyone is so pretty.
Buddy movies are just gay. If they can't get their attraction straight chasing women together they just have to kill each other or make love to each other.
Are the movies just ink blot tests? Really--all this subtext makes me want to watch a good ol' fashion Doris Day / Rock Hudson...G
Loading comments…
Posted September 10, 2007 | 07:38 PM (EST)