| TRADITION IN TRANSITION | FEBRUARY 1963 | |||
|
|
|
|
|
| TIMELINE | FILM | TV | MUSIC | ADS |
|
FILM
|
| The Hollywood film industry was rather slow to embrace or even acknowledge many of the various social issues that came to pass throughout the 1960s. February of 1963 is a particularly good example of Hollywood's reluctance-which saw the release of the films Follow the Boys, a musical, 30 Years of Fun, a documentary about comedians, an animated film from Warner Brothers, Devil's Feud Cake, A Child is Waiting, a drama about handicapped children, and the western epic, How the West Was Won. | ||||
| One of the most popular films of 1963,How the West Was Won, embodies this reluctance to engage with controversy by instead offering its audience a safe and familiar conception of an ideal America based on traditional American values. In the context of Tradition in Transition, we see Hollywood's marked resistance to this transition in the hopes of remaining profitable. Yet, as it was the sensibilities of the American moviegoers that Hollywood did not want to arouse with controversy, perhaps this film is also indicative of what the American moviegoers wanted to see in light of the tumultuous events surrounding them, and it was their resistance that made these issues controversial. | ||||
| How the West Was Won was an epic cinematic event at the time of its U.S. release on February 20, 1963, but then, it was supposed to be. The growing popularity of broadcast television programming brought Hollywood a stiff competitor. The effect of this competition was diminishing returns on big-budget Hollywood films as T.V. gained a larger and larger following. Hollywood, therefore, needed to come up with something big to get people to come back to the theaters and to bring their money with them. So with the goal of a hefty box-office gross in mind, this film reflects Hollywood's reluctance throughout the early 1960s to grapple with more controversial social issues at the risk of being unprofitable. This film clings tightly to a traditional conception of America and to classic American idealism, such as the adventure spirit, the "American Dream" and "going west." The film's veneration of these values is portrayed through the various characterizations, narrations, music and tones of the film, which ultimately provide us with a rather ironic depiction of America when juxtaposed against the events that followed in the decade. | ||||
| Iconic American Values: Adventure, the "American Dream" and "Going West" | ||||
|
How the West Was Won celebrates the classic American values of adventure, the "American Dream," and, of course, "going west." These values, as suggested by the film, were at the hearts of those that settled the uncharted lands, and are integral still to the nation's continued greatness. The film's sympathies clearly lie with the characters that follow these traditional philosophies-as evidenced by those who fail and those who succeed and with the aid of a little emotionally appropriate music. |
||||
| A
sense of adventure was key to the American desire to set out and "conquer"
the west. No roads led out into this vast wilderness. The trails trod by
the settlers were ones that they trod themselves in the face of perilous
encounters with Indians, the elements and the unknown. The film follows
the Prescott family as they journey down river on a raft they build themselves,
and ward off treacherous river pirates and dangerous rapids (which sink
the raft and claim the lives of Ma and Pa Prescott, played by Karl Malden
and Agnes Moorehead). Our heroes also endure the threat of Indians and lawlessness in their great struggle to settle the west. A wagon train bound for California repulses an Indian assault and continues to push on, while later, a railroad construction camp weathers a spectacular buffalo stampede forced by an angry Indian tribe. In the film's final chapter, Marshall Zebulon Rawlins (George Peppard) subdues outlaws who seek to take advantage of the largely unprotected vastness of the railways in a daring train robbery. Despite formidable opposition, the settlers survive and continue to push on. It is the indomitable American spirit and thirst for adventure that makes their perseverance possible. Without it, they would never have had the courage to leave the comfort of their lives back east. |
 |
|||
| The
film also celebrates the American spirit of adventure in its fondness of
the "mountain men," men who, as the narrator (Spencer Tracy) tells us, "wanted
nothing from the land but what they found, and little of that." Men who
"held to no law but their own, drifted free as the clouds, settled nowhere,
kept forever on the move, their moccasin feet and unshod horses leaving
no mark on the land." One could argue that these men are an assertion of
the ideal American conception of masculinity (tough, gritty, fair) or perhaps
precursors to the hippie counterculture (peaceful, one with nature), but
this film even takes an "up-the-middle" approach to these stereotypes, as
actors like Jimmy Stewart and Henry Fonda (who play the "mountain men")
are not exactly brimming with machismo or radicalism. The film defers more
to their metaphorical significance as they embody the traits of the untamed
west. The settler, Eve Prescott (Carroll Baker) saves "mountain man" Linus
Rawlins (Jimmy Stewart) from himself as he decides that he has had enough
of the wild life and gives it up to marry her. This union parallels that
of east and west, where like the untamed west, Rawlins is "settled" and
civilized by the courageous easterner looking to begin a new life. |
||||
It is the American fondness for adventure that helps to bring about the settlement of the "Wild West," a spirit that was still very much alive in the 1960s with America's involvement in the Space Race-the new frontier for America to "conquer." The endurance of the settlers and their desire to persevere in the face of extreme opposition is evidence of this. This adventure spirit calls them away from the lives they know back in the east toward the hope of something better-despite danger and the unknown. The early marriage between Eve Prescott and Linus Rawlins mirrors this sentiment, as Rawlins embodies the rawness and yet the potential offered by the western territories that a courageous easterner like Eve Prescott finds irresistible. Perhaps, in the context of 1963, this metaphor suggests that a harmonious union is possible for those who endure in the face of daunting opposition, but does so in such a subtle, nondescript manner that it would not exclude groups in 1963 who would find inspiration from this comparison (like the Civil Rights activists or the burgeoning women's movement), but in a way that does not specifically endorse them either. |
||||
| The "American Dream" and "Going West" | ||||
 |
||||
| Many of the traditional sentiments of "the American Dream" are shared in the classic American desire to "go west." Both are principled in the belief that America is a land of opportunity, in which anything is possible through hard work and determination. The west was quite literally a "land of opportunity"-with its vast, untapped resources, and wide-open spaces, just waiting to be developed by an ambitious settler. In light of the unrest and disenchantment felt by much of the American people throughout the 1960s, perhaps this film's heavy-handed celebration of these values is an attempt to remind the average American that this country was still a land of opportunity for those willing to endure by giving them positive images of these principles. The narrator tells us of the philosophy of those back east: (see clip) | [SCENE 3-9:26'9:52] |
|||
|
||||
| With a keen sense of the inherent utility posed by this new territory, the uncharted west seemed to the easterner to be the land where "the American Dream" could thrive. This sentiment is echoed in the film's theme song, appropriately titled "The Promised Land." (see clip) | The
Promised Land, the land of plenty, rich with gold Here came dreamers, with bibles, fist and guns Bound for land-across the plains their wagons rolled Hell bent for leather! That's how the west was won! Side by side, they tamed the savage prairie land Nothing stopped them, nor wind, nor rain, nor sun All pulled together That's how the west was won! And they sang of the day, when they would rest their boots In a land where the still waters flowed There were dreams of man and wife who'd put down their roots And their love and the seeds of love would grow And grow, and grow! Dream by dream, they built a nation from this land Forging freedom for every mother's son Here it is, the beautiful, the Promised Land! And we won't forget them! That's how the west was won! |
|||
|
||||
[SCENE 31-160:05'161:44] |
||||
|
||||
| This song imagines an American population destined for greatness; a destiny realized through determination, of being "hell bent for leather!" In the face of turmoil and unrest throughout America in the 1960s, like racial tensions and threat of communism, this song hopes, perhaps, to remind the American people of their history, a history stepped in greatness, and that the principles this country was founded on (and are celebrated in the film) are the key to America's victory over whatever opposes her. | ||||
|
||||
|
Furthermore,
it is courage; a willingness to work hard that is celebrated by the film,
not acts of opportunism or simple dumb luck. For example, Lily Prescott
(Debbie Reynolds) is convinced to set out for California after she learns
that she has inherited a gold mine that will earn her a fortune. A gambler,
Cleve Van Valen (Gregory Peck), convinces her to allow him to accompany
her in the hope that he might also convince her to marry him and share
her fortune. Yet, when the pair arrives in California, they learn that
the vein has been exhausted and after all the expenses are paid off, no
money remains. The two then split up, but are reunited later by a shared
desire to make it on their own by starting a business in San Francisco.
(see clip) |
[SCENE 19-82:34'84:08] |
|||
|
||||
|
||||
[SCENE 25-112:53'114:07] |
Additionally,
those that attempt to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the
settlement of the west are painted in an even dimmer light. Unlike our heroes,
Mr. King, the supervisor of the Union Pacific Railroad company, is not "helping
the baby grow" for its betterment, but rather, for his own. As the narrator
explains, each mile of track laid by the two competing railroad companies
(Central Pacific/Union Pacific) amounts to some share of profits and land
bonuses. Mr. King is interested only in these profits, not the convenience
or the expansion of American civilization that his undertaking will provide.
(see clip) His single-mindedness brings about a confrontation with an Indian tribe, in which a forced stampede levels his camp, claiming the lives of many of its inhabitants. (see clip) |
|||
|
|
|||
[SCENE 27-129:15'130:22] |
||||
| In this scene, the film seems to suggest that those who value materialism over a communal sense of prosperity are instead, morally bankrupt, and that the west was "won" in spite of them, certainly not because of them. | ||||
| Similarly, the outlaws and desperados that prey on the settlers receive an equal treatment by the film. With his southwestern accent, broad moustache and cackling laugh, Charlie Gant (Eli Wallach), the leader of the desperado gang, is typical in appearance and characterization as a western villain. Gant, like Mr. King, is who not to be if one is to reap the rewards of the "American Dream." The juxtaposition between Gant and Marshall Zebulon Rawlins clearly reveals where the film's sympathies lie in how Rawlins, who enforces the laws and stands for order in an otherwise "wild" frontier (protecting the interests of those citizens who are working hard for a better life and nation) contrasts with the parasitic outlaws who plague western progress. (see clip) | ||||
|
||||
|
|
|||
[SCENE 29-143:52'145:18] |
[SCENE 31-158:54'160:08] |
|||
|
|
|||
| True
to form, Gant and his gang decide to rob a train full of gold. However,
their villainy is subdued by Marshall Rawlins in a gunfight atop the speeding
train. These villainous characters are not parallels to any particular social or political group in the 1960s, but rather, are examples of the kind of mentality that Americans should reject. They are given such an unfavorable treatment that the audience is then forced to identify with the selfless characters that strive for a better nation. |
||||
Those characters that are dedicated, courageous, and hard working, are made to succeed, whereas those who look for a back door to success are made to fail or rendered as villains. The film also suggests that this country was founded on a firm sense of something larger than one's self-as the "heroic" characters of the film all strive for the betterment of the nation. Yet, these values were beginning to be challenged in the climate of 1963, and, therefore, are artfully ignored by this film in the hope to avoid controversy. Instead, we are presented with a wholly traditional rendering of American values (work hard and you will succeed) in the context of when this philosophy existed without much opposition-the same values that groups like African Americans, women and other disenfranchised Americans where arguing did not include them in 1963. Thus, the film offers us an idealized America that less and less resembled reality as the 1960s progressed. The film also reminds us that the "American Dream" and the desire to "go west" are not the goals of individual prosperity, but of a national prosperity-of a morality that encourages selflessness rather than selfishness, perhaps echoing President Kennedy's call to "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The film reveres those that adhere to this philosophy and reviles those that do not. (see clip) |
||||
| How the West Was Won and Hollywood | How the West Was Won and America | ||||
| How the West Was Won is highly indicative of Hollywood's struggle to compete with the growing market of television. Shot in larger than life CINERAMA® (a kind of precursor to IMAX), with a huge, all-star ensemble cast, stunts that are still impressive to the modern-day viewer, and a budget that made it the third most financially ambitious film in MGM history ($14 million), How the West Was Won was an all-out attempt for unprecedented commercial success. The subject matter was also comfortable and non-threatening enough to capture a wide demographic of moviegoers. The results where extraordinary, with box office grosses in excess of $50 million worldwide, making the film one of the most profitable in movie history up to that time. The film was also a critical success, earning eight Oscar nominations and winning three for best editing, sound and screenplay. | ||||
|
||||
[SCENE 24-89:35'90:24] |
Yet, this film is also indicative of Hollywood's conscious avoidance of socially controversial topics in the early 1960s. Obviously set in the past, this film did not have to deal with the ongoing struggle for the "American Dream" as it existed in 1963, but its depiction of an America to the contrary is perhaps an unintended acknowledgement that the agitation for change exists if it must be ignored. The growing agitation for social equity among African Americans was a crucial event at the time of this film's release-yet, despite the film's near three hour duration, two-dozen cast members and enormous historical scope, not one black actor or extra is seen on screen. While African Americans did not figure in a prominent role in the early settlement of the west, there is an episode in the film that takes place during the Civil War. During this episode, there is not a single reference to African American slaves in the narration-an omission that seems rather self-conscious, given the thoroughness of this film. | |||
|
||||
|
||||
| Additionally,
the Indians (usually demonized and savage in western films) are given a
wide berth in the way the film explains their indignation toward the intrusion
by new settlers and railways into their territories-but strangely, it does
not seem to condemn or criticize the settlers for any wrong-doing, nor sympathize
with the Indians, simply chalking it all up to the price of progress. This contradiction is rather confusing, as the film, on one hand, demands our reverence for the settlers, yet, assumes a very neutral position on behalf of both the Indians and the settlers where their conflicts are concerned (not wanting to blame anyone). Again, this neutrality reflects Hollywood's "up the middle" approach (if it even took one) to controversial social issues. In the case of the blacks, where they could be ignored, they were. The Indians, however, who played a much more undeniable role in the settling of the west, are acknowledged on neutral terms and in as limited a capacity as possible. |
[SCENE 25-111:35'112:14] |
|||
|
||||
| By
setting a film in the past, the filmmakers could chose what to omit and
what to include, letting the audience fill in their own judgments and prejudices
when the film is deliberately neutral or where omissions of American history
have been made. None of the financial possibilities this film represented
could be risked by dealing with any touchy social issues bound to alienate
would-be moviegoers. Perhaps also, the filmmakers hoped to increase the
appeal of this film by offering a means of escape from the social tensions
in America in 1963 by setting it in a time where American idealism prevailed
in the face of danger and uncertainty-a comforting thought in 1963. In fact,
the only aspect of this film that could be construed as somewhat political,
is the film's heavy-handed endorsement of classic American values and its
romanticizing of the settlement of the west. Premiering after the Cuban
Missile Crisis and in the height of Cold-War uncertainty, the film presents
its audience with a flag-waving affirmation of the traditional concept of
the American way of life, reveling in a celebration of adventure,
the "American Dream," selflessness and sacrifice. Our heroes, by
the film's definition, represent what America was founded on and are the
types of characters essential to America's enduring greatness. Given the
real uncertainty and building tension in America in 1963, this fiction would
be a refreshing escape from the bleakness of reality. An interesting point of unintended irony in this film is that the sentiments it celebrates in 1963 are the very ones called into question more and more throughout that turbulent decade. As we saw with the Vietnam War, selfless sacrifice became senseless sacrifice, as young men were called upon to "serve" their country in the war against communism-and for the preservation of western ideals. The "American Dream," so revered by this film, was hardly a reality for African Americans (and other minorities, like American Indians) who were grappling for social equity in the very year of this film's release. This film is so blatant in its celebration of America; perhaps it could have been mistakenly read as satirical had it been released later on in the decade. It may have been the intention of the film makers to portray America in a way that reminds its beleaguered audience that greatness comes at a high cost, and asks them to celebrate America's great triumphs, not denounce her for her flaws. How the West was Won is highly indicative of Hollywood's early reluctance to acknowledge the burgeoning social issues that arose throughout the 1960s. Instead, this film plays it safe and retreats back to what is familiar and traditional with the offer of an uncontested portrayal of classic American idealism. Given the film's great success, perhaps this is exactly what many American's wanted to see. |
||||
| Click here for a listing of the other films that debuted in Febrary 1963, each accompanied with a brief synopsis. | ||||