Joe Starrett does listen and he hears Riker out respectfully and says he does appreciate what Riker and his generation accomplished, But the times have changed. In fact, this is one of the most important themes in Western films, the speed with which things changed. Twenty-five years is not a full lifetime, but it is enough time for a young man like Starrett to become an old man like Riker. One generation must give way to the next, just as we saw in Red River when Matt took over the cattle drive from Dunson. And just like Thomas Dunson, Rufus Riker is not willing to step aside and let the younger generation take over. He has his pride. If Western men had one thing, it was their stubborn pride.

But history doesn’t care about a man’s pride. History simply rolls on and in the West it rolled very fast. New people were constantly moving west and conflict was inevitable. We have already said big ranchers fought small ranchers, cowboys fought sheep herders, and in Shane, ranchers and cowboys are fighting with farmers. Rufus Riker and his cowboys represent the romantic figures who tamed the Wild West, but their time is largely passing. In taming the Wild West, they made it safe for others like the farmers to come and settle there. The new comers are not men looking to escape from their past or seek adventure, they are men with wives and children who are bringing civilization to the Wild West.

Reading Only
Here is the entire exchange between Riker and Starrett. By reading it, you get an even greater sense of just how much George Stevens is allowing Riker to present his case.Rufus Ryker: I had somethin’ I wanted to talk over with you, Starrett.

Joe Starrett: Whatever business you and I got, we can talk over right here.

Rufus Ryker: I’ll just lay it on the barrel-head then. How would you like to work for me?

Joe Starrett: I’m workin’ for myself. I’ve done enough workin’ for others.

Rufus Ryker: Wait till I tell ya: I’ll pay ya top wages, more than you can make on this patch of ground.

Joe Starrett : Nope. I’m not interested.

Rufus Ryker: I haven’t said it all. You can run your cattle with mine. What’s more, I’ll buy your homestead. Set a price you think is reasonable, you’ll find me reasonable. Is that fair?

Joe Starrett: You’ve made things pretty hard for us, Ryker, and us in the right all the time.

Rufus Ryker: Right? You in the right? Look, Starrett, when I come to this country, you weren’t much older than your boy there. We had rough times, me and other men that are mostly dead now. I got a bad shoulder yet from a Cheyenne arrowhead. We made this country. Found it and we made it. With blood and empty bellies. The cattle we brought in were hazed off by Indians and rustlers. They don’t bother you much anymore because we handled ’em. We made a safe range out of this. Some of us died doin’ it but we made it. And then people move in who’ve never had to rawhide it through the old days. They fence off my range, and fence me off from water. Some of ’em like you plow ditches, take out irrigation water. And so the creek runs dry sometimes and I’ve got to move my stock because of it. And you say we have no right to the range. The men that did the work and ran the risks have no rights? I take you for a fair man, Starrett.

Joe Starrett: I’m not belittlin’ what you and the others did. At the same time, you didn’t find this country. There was trappers here and Indian traders long before you showed up and they tamed this country more than you did.

Rufus Ryker: They weren’t ranchers.

Joe Starrett: You talk about rights. You think you’ve got the right to say that nobody else has got any. Well, that ain’t the way the government looks at it.

Rufus Ryker: I didn’t come to argue. I made you a fair proposition.

Joe Starrett: What about the others?

Rufus Ryker: Shane already knows he can work for me anytime.

Joe Starrett: The other homesteaders.

Rufus Ryker: Look, be reasonable! After all, there’s just so many hands in a deck of cards.

Joe Starrett: Then I’ve got to say no.

Rufus Ryker: You don’t give a man much choice do you, Starrett?

OH, BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU FIGURED OUT WHAT THE OLD TREE STUMP SYMBOLIZES YET? IF YOU HAVEN’T FIGURED THAT OUT YET, GIVE IT SOME MORE THOUGHT BEFORE GOING ON TO PART THREE.

Like Thomas Dunson, Rufus Riker has spent his whole life settling disputes with a gun. But he is remarkably hesitant to resort to violence against Joe Starrett. There is just the slightest suggestion that Riker admires Starrett and sees something of himself in the younger man. When Riker tells little Joey he doesn’t want “trouble” with his father he is being absolutely sincere. This is why he offers Starrett what he calls a “fair offer”…to buy his land and pay him a good wage. It is actually quite a bit better than a “fair” offer, it is generous. But Riker is also cunning. He knows that if he can get Starrett to give up his homestead, it will be easy to get rid of the other homesteaders at no cost. Starrett knows this, too. He could take the deal and profit from it, but Riker was right to see a little bit of himself in Joe Starrett, because Starrett has the exact same stubborn pride Riker has. He refuses the offer because doing so would be disloyal to the other homesteaders, it would be dishonorable. The one thing Westerners were most stubborn and proud about was their honor. It was worth dying for.

In this conflict, both sides have good arguments and legitimate claims. The conflict between Starrett and Riker is not a really a “black hat” vs “white hat” one, but simply a question of who has the best legal argument. Today arguments such as these are settled by the two parties going to a court of law where a judge rules based on who has the best legal claim. That is how civilization works. But in this place there are no courts, judges or even law men as of yet. It is still the Wild West, at least for a time. Civilization is just starting to take hold here. While Riker genuinely does not want to use violence against Starrett and the other homesteaders, he is becoming desperate.

It was Shane who shifted the balance of power when he came into the valley, first by standing by Starrett when Riker tried to intimidate him and then by beating Chris Calloway in the saloon fight, and then by beating the Rikers and their cowboys with Starrett in the second and more terrible fight. In that fight, Shane showed Starrett and the other homesteaders that Riker and his men could be defeated. Riker’s response has been to “up the ante” by bringing Wilson into the valley.

As Starrett and Riker negotiate, Shane and Wilson silently “size each other up”. Again, nothing is said, but everything is understood between the two men. Each knows what the other is. Wilson is there with the Rikers as an implied threat of what will happen if the offer is turned down. Riker has not said why Wilson is with them, but there is no mistaking what Wilson is. As Shane says, “he’s no cow puncher (cowboy), that’s for sure”. In the next excerpt we shall see just exactly what Wilson really is.

My theory about why people watch this stuff is that it is like going on a jet coaster ride at the amusement park. Even though the ride seems dangerous, we know it isn’t really dangerous. We are just having fun. When we watch the violence in movies today we all know (or should know) these things are not real. But audiences were very different in 1953. In 1934, Hollywood came up with a set of rules known as The Production Code, which we have already talked about. It was the Production Code that prevented John Ford from using the word “prostitute” in Stagecoach even though Dallas was clearly a prostitute. It was the production code that prevented the gay love story in Red River from being more open than it was. But in both films, you can understand what is really going on if you “read between the lines” (understand what is not being said). Maybe another reason my Japanese students enjoy these Westerns so much is because they are so good at “reading between the lines”.

The same rules applied to violence. The production code actually forbade the depiction of torture, mutilation or severe bodily harm. Yet, Hollywood films after 1934 are still quite violent. However, the violence is often suggested, masked or stylized. Just as we know Dallas is a prostitute in Stagecoach, we also know Ringo shoots and kills the three Plummer brothers at the end of the film, even though we don’t see him actually do it. It does seem odd that Ford should be squeamish about showing the final gunfight when he had no problem showing Ringo and the other passengers killing about two dozen Indians during the chase scene. But, those were Indians being killed! There was a double standard. Violence committed by or against Indians (or other racial minorities) was more tolerated. Remember how racist Hollywood (and America) was (e.g., the Production Code forbade the depiction of any romantic relationships between Blacks and Whites).

So, violence was always part of Western films, but it was very mild by our standards today. When shot, a man would grasp the wound and grimace, but we never saw the blood. Well, almost never. In all the films we have seen in this class there has only been one scene in which we have seen blood, the scene of Mr. Peacock being shot by an arrow. Ford broke the rules when he showed the blood, but he got away with it partly because it was an Indian arrow (remember; violence by or against minorities was more acceptable) and partly because he was John Ford and he was allowed to break the rules because of his high status in Hollywood.

George Stevens has a very different approach to violence than any of our other directors so far (even Arthur Penn in The Left handed Gun). For example, the scene in Red River, in which Thomas Dunson, Matt and Cherry kill the three cowboys who want to quit is quite terrible. I mean, it is a terrible thing that is being done …but even while we see all three men killed on screen, we really don’t see them very clearly. They are mostly in shadow. It is still a very violent scene, but it doesn’t come close to what George Stevens does in Shane.

Of course, Torrey was murdered, but Wilson killed him legally because it was Torrey who drew (or tried to draw) his gun first…in front of witnesses. This was the “stand your ground” law that still exists in many states in America and is probably still the cause of many gun deaths in the country. It was the same reason Jimmy Ringo could not have been arrested for killing Eddie in The Gunfighter. A man was entitled to defend himself.

As I have already said, this made it extremely difficult to prosecute anyone for murder because they almost always claimed they killed in self-defense. It is this strategy Riker plans to use to terrorize the homesteaders. Having failed to bribe Starrett into working for him, Riker is now willing to resort to this form of legal killing.