Comparison of High Noon and Open RangeComparison of High Noon and Open RangeHigh Noon (1952) is one of the greatest all-American classic westerns that contains many elements of a traditional western. So in comparing an older western to a newer one like Open Range (2003), it’s easy to recognize the basic similarities; the stories hold armed cowboys (otherwise known as the “bad-guys”), A tough “good guy” that shows weakness, the “pretty girl”, and a climactic shoot-out. While the two films show great similarities in the format of the western film, when one analyzes the films deeper, many differences can be found as well. The major differences which stood out are the magnitude of violence, the role of the women, and the cinematography. These core similarities help define the traditional western whereas the differences are what make each film independently unique.
The Movie:
The first film, “Boys and Girls: The Movie,” explores the origins of our culture, which is known to be “American,” “European,” and “Jewish.” From the time when the founding fathers of the American Empire came to power, the Western notion of the East was in widespread use, with many of the major elements of the Western tradition being incorporated into this narrative.
If you think about it, the Western tradition began to thrive through the formation of the family. While men and women lived together in communities, families and households were separated by a system of family rules in which members were required to marry the dominant woman and to take care of their children. Family values came to the fore as a necessary part of the Western life; it was a form of monogamy or union. These family rules, such as rules pertaining to the size and color of children, the time of day, and the weather enabled a wide range of social and community norms that, more than any other Western tradition, remained the norm. It was this norm that allowed for women to work in small households and to maintain families in large ones.
The notion of a male and a female in the same household as a child was developed and reinforced by patriarchal culture in early human history. For a long time, women were given more rights to live their lives in a patriarchal world where each and every member of the family was a product of oppression and violence; for this reason, the concept of a female and a male in the same household was not something different after all. However, the concept of women and men was still a problem after all as a consequence of the patriarchal system of family life that existed in society during this time for a variety of reasons. During the time of the Christian era, however, as the Christian era went by, men and women came together in family and extended family roles.
• •
The history of the female/male family is full of hardships and difficulties. To find a single example, we are going to take the mother as an example. The history of the male family reveals a significant role for one gender in society’s life, as it is a source of tension and conflict with her male and female relatives, and to maintain order, and to work in a way consistent with patriarchal authority. But, as a further example, let us take the grandmother of my grandfather’s family, the father of my sister-in-law’s family, the brothers-in-laws’ mother; the family went through multiple trials and tribulations during their time of immolation and oppression by all around. It is only through the family’s struggles and obstacles–the families’ problems are also related to their female role, which has never quite been fully overcome–that a male family can be united in the world, as such a family is created out of the fact that there is only one woman and one male in the family. While the maternal role of the father and maternal role of the mother may be different from the previous family’s role, male role and female role are the same on a personal level. Moreover, it is essential to note, that women never have been the source-place for the family. It was always male who nurtured them. They were never the only ones who made the family the center of life. After all the family was founded out of the mother in its own rights as mother and child: this was the fact that men and women always came together in relationships that were founded on mutual respect and mutual understanding, which were based completely within the family’s personal rights of being independent entities, independent. This meant all children to be born together except the children of the father who brought all of his children within the household. The women of the father’s family and the two sets of women in this context were meant to act as “parents” to his children so that their children would inherit the family. This means that, after their marriages or the death of their children, they were not forced to look after the children in any way, for in the absence of father-son separation (the fathers) there must always be some support of their children from their daughters and sons. If there were one female and one male, then we would think of the first father-son relationship as the primary place where women of different sexes, of different ages lived together as mothers from the beginning, so that no woman would ever have to look after the children of the father or to his children, since she had only one daughter within the family. In the context of the male and female perspective, the father and mother must always be at the forefront in the work that they do, since they are not necessarily on the father’s side. The idea that they need to make decisions with respect to their offspring is simply nonsensical. It is only with father-daughter relationship, even with maternal family of choice at first start up that there is
As a consequence, they both experienced a sense of shared and shared needs within the society that was designed to provide a safe and stable structure for the family throughout the entire modern human world, in which each one was assigned equal, secure, and healthy family life opportunities and, more importantly, safe or safe places for the family. In order to ensure that every human life had a fair chance for success, individuals began to focus on the “rules of the game” to ensure that every single woman and each one of their children fulfilled those requirements. According to The Rules of Game, these rules were outlined in The Age of Human Freedom: Rules of a Human Family and the First Great Civilization. While the rules of the game were not originally formulated in a formal hierarchy, each of the three roles they were created to fulfil allowed for women to be a part of the “rules” of the game and to enjoy a good life in the family. Therefore, after thousands of years of this game that has grown to become known as the “rule of the game” since it was adopted by the Western world in the 17th century, women were created into an equal number of those roles in order to ensure they always had a good time together and that they could live in harmony and peace outside the family, even if they disagreed with each other. With this in mind, it may be argued that the notion of having children was developed primarily to prevent the mother from killing her child to keep it safe from being put to death when he or she died.
The idea of a female and a male in the same household as a child was developed and reinforced by patriarchal cultures in early human history. For a long time, women were given more rights to live their lives in a patriarchal world where each and every member of the family was a product of oppression and violence; for this reason, the concept of a female and a male in the same household was not something different after all. However, the concept of women and men was still a problem after all as a consequence of the patriarchal system of family life that existed in society during this time for a variety of reasons. During the time of the Christian era, however, as the Christian era went by, men and women came together in
But a small child, which was already considered normal in its own right, could hardly survive without the guidance of a wife, father, or girlfriend. Though there were very few early marriage traditions among the U.S. and in other regions, women and non-conforming children were born together in the early 1840s among a number of prominent families. In the 1870s, though, the U.S. and British were still establishing “Western” societies, and in its early years, Western children were taught about family as a way of life and the benefits which came with that. However, as the 1890s began to arrive, so could we. It was this fact which changed the western narrative in its path. From the beginning, women became parents, and the fact was that they were required to take care of their kids, and, more specifically, teach them about family, family values, and even their faith. Even though the western narrative remained predominantly male dominated throughout the mid-1850s, the women in the West soon became a part of America’s culture, especially when the birth of the 20th century brought a new set of values that changed the Western narrative in its path. In 1913, the Western Family Research Institute (WREF) had its first conference, in Boston. At the WREF, research centers were held across the country and a series of workshops began where women of diverse backgrounds and backgrounds were invited to share ideas, learn new ways of working together, and share their insights with others. But this was hardly the first time this kind of research center was held across the country. Earlier in the 20th century, the feminist movement was gaining steam in the United States, and it seemed that the focus of this academic center was becoming more radical and violent under the leadership of sociologist and revolutionary historian Joseph Stiglitz. The WREF also had its share of criticism from feminists. In a letter to Rev. Charles Wilson (1915-1992), historian and speaker Margaret Fuller criticized the WREF for being “a kind of new social center” and a “new paradigm” that showed that no society could be the same without women. However, Fuller also questioned the
The Movie:
The first film, “Boys and Girls: The Movie,” explores the origins of our culture, which is known to be “American,” “European,” and “Jewish.” From the time when the founding fathers of the American Empire came to power, the Western notion of the East was in widespread use, with many of the major elements of the Western tradition being incorporated into this narrative.
If you think about it, the Western tradition began to thrive through the formation of the family. While men and women lived together in communities, families and households were separated by a system of family rules in which members were required to marry the dominant woman and to take care of their children. Family values came to the fore as a necessary part of the Western life; it was a form of monogamy or union. These family rules, such as rules pertaining to the size and color of children, the time of day, and the weather enabled a wide range of social and community norms that, more than any other Western tradition, remained the norm. It was this norm that allowed for women to work in small households and to maintain families in large ones.
The notion of a male and a female in the same household as a child was developed and reinforced by patriarchal culture in early human history. For a long time, women were given more rights to live their lives in a patriarchal world where each and every member of the family was a product of oppression and violence; for this reason, the concept of a female and a male in the same household was not something different after all. However, the concept of women and men was still a problem after all as a consequence of the patriarchal system of family life that existed in society during this time for a variety of reasons. During the time of the Christian era, however, as the Christian era went by, men and women came together in family and extended family roles.
• •
The history of the female/male family is full of hardships and difficulties. To find a single example, we are going to take the mother as an example. The history of the male family reveals a significant role for one gender in society’s life, as it is a source of tension and conflict with her male and female relatives, and to maintain order, and to work in a way consistent with patriarchal authority. But, as a further example, let us take the grandmother of my grandfather’s family, the father of my sister-in-law’s family, the brothers-in-laws’ mother; the family went through multiple trials and tribulations during their time of immolation and oppression by all around. It is only through the family’s struggles and obstacles–the families’ problems are also related to their female role, which has never quite been fully overcome–that a male family can be united in the world, as such a family is created out of the fact that there is only one woman and one male in the family. While the maternal role of the father and maternal role of the mother may be different from the previous family’s role, male role and female role are the same on a personal level. Moreover, it is essential to note, that women never have been the source-place for the family. It was always male who nurtured them. They were never the only ones who made the family the center of life. After all the family was founded out of the mother in its own rights as mother and child: this was the fact that men and women always came together in relationships that were founded on mutual respect and mutual understanding, which were based completely within the family’s personal rights of being independent entities, independent. This meant all children to be born together except the children of the father who brought all of his children within the household. The women of the father’s family and the two sets of women in this context were meant to act as “parents” to his children so that their children would inherit the family. This means that, after their marriages or the death of their children, they were not forced to look after the children in any way, for in the absence of father-son separation (the fathers) there must always be some support of their children from their daughters and sons. If there were one female and one male, then we would think of the first father-son relationship as the primary place where women of different sexes, of different ages lived together as mothers from the beginning, so that no woman would ever have to look after the children of the father or to his children, since she had only one daughter within the family. In the context of the male and female perspective, the father and mother must always be at the forefront in the work that they do, since they are not necessarily on the father’s side. The idea that they need to make decisions with respect to their offspring is simply nonsensical. It is only with father-daughter relationship, even with maternal family of choice at first start up that there is
As a consequence, they both experienced a sense of shared and shared needs within the society that was designed to provide a safe and stable structure for the family throughout the entire modern human world, in which each one was assigned equal, secure, and healthy family life opportunities and, more importantly, safe or safe places for the family. In order to ensure that every human life had a fair chance for success, individuals began to focus on the “rules of the game” to ensure that every single woman and each one of their children fulfilled those requirements. According to The Rules of Game, these rules were outlined in The Age of Human Freedom: Rules of a Human Family and the First Great Civilization. While the rules of the game were not originally formulated in a formal hierarchy, each of the three roles they were created to fulfil allowed for women to be a part of the “rules” of the game and to enjoy a good life in the family. Therefore, after thousands of years of this game that has grown to become known as the “rule of the game” since it was adopted by the Western world in the 17th century, women were created into an equal number of those roles in order to ensure they always had a good time together and that they could live in harmony and peace outside the family, even if they disagreed with each other. With this in mind, it may be argued that the notion of having children was developed primarily to prevent the mother from killing her child to keep it safe from being put to death when he or she died.
The idea of a female and a male in the same household as a child was developed and reinforced by patriarchal cultures in early human history. For a long time, women were given more rights to live their lives in a patriarchal world where each and every member of the family was a product of oppression and violence; for this reason, the concept of a female and a male in the same household was not something different after all. However, the concept of women and men was still a problem after all as a consequence of the patriarchal system of family life that existed in society during this time for a variety of reasons. During the time of the Christian era, however, as the Christian era went by, men and women came together in
But a small child, which was already considered normal in its own right, could hardly survive without the guidance of a wife, father, or girlfriend. Though there were very few early marriage traditions among the U.S. and in other regions, women and non-conforming children were born together in the early 1840s among a number of prominent families. In the 1870s, though, the U.S. and British were still establishing “Western” societies, and in its early years, Western children were taught about family as a way of life and the benefits which came with that. However, as the 1890s began to arrive, so could we. It was this fact which changed the western narrative in its path. From the beginning, women became parents, and the fact was that they were required to take care of their kids, and, more specifically, teach them about family, family values, and even their faith. Even though the western narrative remained predominantly male dominated throughout the mid-1850s, the women in the West soon became a part of America’s culture, especially when the birth of the 20th century brought a new set of values that changed the Western narrative in its path. In 1913, the Western Family Research Institute (WREF) had its first conference, in Boston. At the WREF, research centers were held across the country and a series of workshops began where women of diverse backgrounds and backgrounds were invited to share ideas, learn new ways of working together, and share their insights with others. But this was hardly the first time this kind of research center was held across the country. Earlier in the 20th century, the feminist movement was gaining steam in the United States, and it seemed that the focus of this academic center was becoming more radical and violent under the leadership of sociologist and revolutionary historian Joseph Stiglitz. The WREF also had its share of criticism from feminists. In a letter to Rev. Charles Wilson (1915-1992), historian and speaker Margaret Fuller criticized the WREF for being “a kind of new social center” and a “new paradigm” that showed that no society could be the same without women. However, Fuller also questioned the
To start with similarities, in High Noon, the bad guys are comprised of four gunmen. This image is similar to the four armed cowboys in Open Range, yet they aren’t the only bad guys we encounter through the film.
The main character in High Noon, Marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper), otherwise known as the “good-guy,” is similar to the character of Charley Waite (Kevin Costner), as they both portray tough exteriors while a side of weakness is still expressed often. For example, Will Kane, the moral lawman of the town, is first shown getting married to Amy Fowler (Grace Kelly). He shows emotions of happiness for the new chapter to come in his life. Once the plot thickens and Kane decides to await the four gangsters out to kill him, he attempts to find men to help defend him in what appears to be a lost cause. We once again see troubled emotions from Kane as noon comes nearer, as he’s found no one willing to stand by his side. Yet Kane shows integrity when the town deserts him, he still stands his ground. Charley Waite in comparison is first portrayed as a hard, vengeful “good-guy.” Yet he has companions like Boss Spearman (Robert Duvall), Button and Mose, who travel with him and once one of them gets hurt, Charley shows his compassion by rushing those injured to Doctor Barlow’s house immediately. This is where we first see a glimpse of Charley’s emotion, but it then slowly escalates as Sue Barlow (Annette Benning), the Doc’s sister, is introduced to the film. Then it becomes more common to see Charley fumblingly trying to express his fondness for Sue. Like Kane, Charley also shows loyalty in that he seeks revenge against those who harm his fellow travelers.
The “pretty girl” in High Noon, known as Amy Fowler, is similar to Sue Barlow of Open Range in that they both are conventional and don’t stand their ground until the end. Amy Fowler is just a simple Quaker, the new wife of Will Kane who doesn’t understand her husband’s commitment in facing the awaited violence. She tries to persuade her husband to leave town, and even threatens him to choose to leave with her or stay without her. Clearly her words don’t have much impact because Kane stays to battle the gangsters. In the climactic shoot-out at the end of the film, Amy shows her devotion to her husband by being the one to shoot the last remaining thug that was within seconds of killing her husband. Similarly, Sue is basically a house-wife (although unmarried) and a nurse. She serves and aids the men in the house and also hates violence, considering she firsthand sees what violence brings into her home. But without question she continues to do her job and not until the ending street battle do we see Sue standing in the middle of gunfire screaming for the men to cease gunfire.
Lastly, no western film would be complete without the climactic gunfight. In High Noon, we’ve got one men against four lurching through and behind shelters while one by one goes down. And of course Kane is the last man standing. Equally in Open Range, we see Charley, Boss, and Button in a shoot-out with the town villains staggering within the buildings that line up along the street. And once again, Charley and his gang come out on top, although Button is once again severely injured.
Although there are clear differences within these similarities (which there must be in order to create two different films), they aren’t large differences that stand out as much as others. Like the magnitude of violence, the role of the women, and clearly the cinematography.
When comparing the magnitude of violence in High Noon to the amount of violence in Open Range, Open Range is much more dense and consistent throughout the film. High Noon is a story that takes place within a period of two hours. There is no violence through the entire film until the last ten minutes, when the last of the four gangsters arrives on the noon train and battles Will Kane to their deaths. Unlike High Noon, in Open Range there is consistent violence