Talk:The Searchers

Influenced Directors

I removed the part about the directors who were influenced by John Ford. It came right after the list of directors who were inspired by the film. Since this page is about the film, and not strictly Ford, I removed it. Besides, some of the directors who were listed, like Capra, made most of their big movies before The Searchers came out.

Cleanup

This article needs cleanup. Because it has been written piecemeal it lacks structure, the overall content is OK but it needs put into sensible order. PatGallacher 17:02, 2005 July 13 (UTC)

I've had a go. The Analysis section has a lot of POV in it but I've left it in for now.--Shimbo 23:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

You are absolutely too kind. The "analysis" is entirely POV. The opening para references the open door shot--without noticing it's a bookend shot. Ethan is seen riding up through the door--and at the end of the movie he walks away (to the verse of the ballad "ride away") through the exact same perspective at Jorgenson's, and the door closes, exactly as a book closes. The analysis' conclusion that it's "family" vs. "a man's world" is illogical, the attacks on Alan LeMay unwarranted, the description of the final charge as "nothing more than a massacre" absurd (it's a remake of the final scene in She Wore a Yellow Ribbon--watch and you will see that no one is shot in either--Ford uses his favorite scenes and shots over and over in his films--the Comanche charge at the river is the same as the Apache charge in Sgt. Rutledge, filmed at the same location), and pretty much leaves Ford's love of the visual out of the "analysis". John Ford loves texture in color films--detail, color, panorama--obvious from as far back as Drums Along the Mohawk--which is the main reason he returned to the Monument Valley and Moab for his locations time and again--anyone who has been to west texas knows there is no similarity. LeMay studied old west mores regarding Indians in all his books--he described, not judged--but clearly (see The Unforgiven) did not sanction racism. (It is no accident his Texans refer to Indians as "red niggers"). Ford stayed remarkably true to the novel--note: novel, a story, entertainment, a western, not a message--until the finale. Amos Edwards did not suddenly decide to take Debbie home (which is my only gripe with the film). IMO 90% of the analysis is someone's unsupported opinions, therefore OR and deletable. btw despite all the analysis, Ethan's motive (as was Amos' in the book) was simple: revenge. He was in love with his sister-in-law, Martha Edwards.--Buckboard 22:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be true except that the movie does not reflect the book at all. In the book, Brit Johnson bought back his wife and children, which evidently happened in real life. The purchase price was 7 ponies. In the movie, a Ranger attack on the village allows the killing of the chief who took the girl for a wife, and her recovery (which you never know is willing or not) by force. This mirrors absolutely the Parker case. (Look at the article in wikipedia on the Battle of Pease River. Film historians have noted for years that the movie reflects the real life events of the Parker case far more than the book by Alan LeMay. Stillstudying 12:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Debbie wants to be rescued

Just wanted to mention that if you think you're sure that Debby doesn't want to be rescued, you need to watch the scenes with her as a teenager more closely. The second time we Debby, when she is telling Ethan and Marty she doesn't want to be rescued, she has a whole tribe in ambush waiting for her and the boys to make the wrong move, so she is motivated to say whatever that will prevent people from getting killed, and in this case that would be saying that she wants to stay with the tribe.

In a later scene when Marty later wakes her from her slumber to rescue her, she is noticeably more recipient to being rescued, and in fact seems almost like a different person. This dramatic shift in behaviour would make a lot of sense if she was merely pretending to want to stay with the tribe in the first scenario, and actually wants to be rescued. This isn't in your face evidence of her willingless to return, but in a very well respected movie with layers of subtlety underneath a seemingly simplistic facade, what's true isn't always what's obvious.Krymson 10:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The critical scene is the scene chronologically missing from your gallery, between the third and 4th image. Debbie's reaction to Marty and her willingness to leave the tepee is not indicative of someone who has found their home with the Comanches. Also, you have ignored the "50 billion Indians with knives spears and guns at my back" point.Krymson 04:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

The novel makes it clear that Debbie has ambiguous feelings about remaining with the Commanches, and the ending is substantially different. The book's worth reading, so I won't say any more. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Error in Analysis

In the analysis, it explains that Ethan says "there's more at stake here than your sister!" near the end of the film. However, it was not Ethan that said this, but rather Sam Clayton. This can be verified by either watching the film (at approx. 1:49:40) or reviewing the screenplay (http://www.aellea.com/script/searchers.html). However, the line as said in the film differs from that of the screenplay cited. The actual line said in the film can be seen on the script (http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/s/searchers-script-transcript-john-ford.html) near the end. The complete line as said by Clayton in the film is as follows: "Now son, I know that this is a bitter thing to say, but there's more at stake here than your sister". Ethan simply agrees by responding with "there sure is".

Bwiegand 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The error is much worse than this first note indicates. The analysis in the piece is quite inaccurate and I have, therefore, removed it. Clayton's point is that the removal of the Comanche threat outweighs any personal concerns that Martin might have about Deborah. Czrisher 02:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Influence

A recent edit adds Brokeback Mountain to the list of films influenced by The Searchers. If this is a serious comment (and it strikes me as more opinion than fact), could someone explain just how this influence reveals itself? I'm trying quite hard to think of anything plot-wise or theme-wise in Brokeback Mountain that draws exclusively or extensively from The Searchers. I realize this is the cue for a lot of people to make jokes, but I'd love to have a thoughtful response. Monkeyzpop 06:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know this myself. I cannot imagine how this movie influenced Brokeback Mountain, except in some of the scenary, perhaps. Stillstudying 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Other than drawing a parallel between racism and homophobia, I don't see any obvious influence or even connection, and I've seen both film several times. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

References to use

• Telotte, J.P. (1998). "A Fate Worse Than Death: RACISM, TRANSGRESSION, AND WESTERNS". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 26 (3): 120–127. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Clauss, James J. (1999). "DESCENT INTO HELL: Mythic Paradigms in The Searchers". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 27 (3): 2–17. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Sickels, Robert C. (2003). "A Politically Correct Ethan Edwards: Clint Eastwood's The Outlaw Josey Wales". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 30 (4): 220–227. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Thomson, David (2004). "The last frontier". Sight & Sound. 14 (2): 12–15. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Sharrett, Christopher (2006). "Through a Door Darkly: A Reappraisal of John Ford's "The Searchers"". Cineaste. 31 (4): 4–8. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Nachbar, Jack G. (2003). "As Sure as the Turning of a Page: A Bibliography for The Searchers". Journal of Popular Film and Television. 30 (4): 228–229. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

The last resource lists over 60 other resources that can be explored for The Searchers. I am not sure if it is acceptable to duplicate the details here, but I encourage anyone who wants to add critical interpretations for The Searchers to locate this citation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I found the collection of 60 resources publicly available at FindArticles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Link expired; here's the archived link. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

More listed resources. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk These are all good sources - I think we need to discuss the movie and its take on racism, and the other topics Ford tried to explore. I will start that section, and I hope others will assist. Stillstudying 11:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I usually work with more recent films, so I don't find as many critical interpretations of these films. There was a discussion with WikiProject Films recently, though, about including critical interpretations from those involved with film studies or studies of a topic that was in a film. Not all films will have that available, but films like Jaws and Sunset Boulevard almost definitely have them and actually lack them, being FA articles. I hope I can encourage this encyclopedic expansion -- will try to do that for Fight Club, American Beauty, and Dark City on my side. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Erik (talk I am going to try to be more involved with WikiProject Films, including working on this one. You listed some really good source material on this movie, and I have long felt that it needed a section on Ford's messages in the movie - I am going to try, and I think others will help. You take care, and I will see you over on Dark City or Jaws! Stillstudying 11:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• COLE, David L.: "Mose Harper: eccentricity and survival in The Searchers" Literature/Film Quarterly (0090-4260) v.28 n.3 , November 2000, p.222-226, English

Above is a reference that could be used to detail the character Mose Harper, perhaps to the extent of a character article. It depends on what else is out there about the character. Erik (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Another below. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Pye, Douglas (1999). "Writing and reputation: The Searchers 1956–1976". In Bignell, Jonathan (ed.). Writing and Cinema. Crosscurrents. Addison Wesley Publishing Company. pp. 195–209. ISBN 0582357586.
• Gilmore, Richard Allen (2005). "John Ford's The Searchers as an Allegory of the Philosophical Search". Doing Philosophy At The Movies. State University of New York Press. pp. 15–32. ISBN 0791463915.

Removing citation tag

I am going to finish citing this article today or tomorrow, and unless someone objects, will remove the citation tag at that time. I appreciate everyone's help in how to cite, and think the article is better for it. Stillstudying 12:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss wholesale changes in peer review

Monkey, obviously I think your changes were poor ones. Please discuss wholesale revisions in the peer review, as the rest of us do. I remind you of the 3 edit rule. Stillstudying 11:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Having studied this film for forty years, written about it, been published on the topic, interviewed many of the players and crew, and collected possibly the largest private collection of material relating to the film, I obviously have some sense of awareness of the film and its background, themes, and the critical responses it has gotten over the years. Forgive me if I am not as fully confident in your take on things, especially as simple matters such as grammar, spelling, and formatting cause you some difficulty. This is not an insult, rather an observation that one's first look at your submissions makes one wonder how strong your academic credentials are. But that's not as important as reaching a clear-cut encyclopedic version for Wikipedia of what this film is and what the responses to it are. Let's take some of your objections one at a time. But first: let me apologize about the three-revert rule. I was thinking of reverting the material on this page in one fell swoop, but found it physically easier to do it section by section. If I'd done it all as one revert, I'd have not broken the 3RR. I forgot about that. Sorry. (I do note that you edited the same page 23 times within 48 hours, a clear and pretty large violation of 3RR itself. ;-) ) Now on to your objections. You've asked for peer review. That's fine. But peer review does not mean no one can now edit a page without "permission" or consensus. It just means you're asking for and (hopefully) receiving commentary. Some of the peer review comments about my submissions make sense to me. Others don't. But the first "rule" of Wikipedia, the one that is trumpeted loudly whenever someone new comes aboard, is "If you don't want your material edited brutally, don't submit it." ANYONE can edit a page, whether that page is under peer review or controversy. So I'm sorry if you're unhappy that someone has "edited your material brutally" but there's nothing wrong with that, not by my reading of the rules of Wikipedia. Next: the fact that John Ford "never talked" about Ethan's love for Martha is both wrong and irrelevant. He certainly talks about it -- on-camera! -- in Bogdanovich's Directed by John Ford, but the main point is that Ford doesn't have to be on record talking about something for it to be relevant to the article. As you will note, I referenced about eight different citations regarding the Ethan/Martha love and how it is the unspoken but driving force of the story. That takes nothing away from the racism theme; in fact, it's absolutely interwoven into it and inextricable from the racism theme: Ethan loves Martha, already-hated Indians kill Martha and steal her child, Ethan seeks revenge for Martha, rescue for her child, and then purifying death for the child once Indians have defiled it. The fact that the love between Ethan and Martha has been a topic of scholarly discussion for fifty years is both verifiable and notable. To discard it shows a comparative unfamiliarity with the film's historical analysis and criticism. It's like throwing out all references to outer space in an article on Star Wars just because no one actually says "outer space" in the movie. Next: some of the items I deleted were deleted only because you say them in almost identical words three, four, or five times. In the case of these repetitive items, I did not delete all of them, just the redundant one or misplaced ones. I'm under the impression (correct me if I'm wrong) that you think anyone who would dare change what you wrote must be wrong or deliberately interfering. I assure you I am not deliberately interfering, and in this case I don't believe I'm wrong. I've been a published author for many, many years, and before that an English composition teacher. That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credential to critique writing style. I appreciate your efforts, and some of your points are quite wonderful. But your writing style can use some help, and I have tried to help (not so much help you as to help Wikipedia, which to be trustworthy should at least be as well-written as possible). Next: I've spent a lot of time with the LeMay book, and while it differs from the film in notable ways, to say that it "does not resemble the movie at all," as you did, is to ignore willfully what is in the book. Of course the book resembles the film: it has the same characters. It has the same locale. It has the same basic plotline of loss and rescue. These are resemblances! Even if the book takes liberties or detours from the detail of the novel, to say there is no resemblance is demonstrably erroneous. The fact, and I bow to your research on this, that the filmed version may indeed resemble MORE CLOSELY the Cynthia Parker story is no reason to state that it thus bears no resemblance to the book. No one who has experienced both the book and the film is going to take you seriously if you purport that. And I don't believe I edited anything of yours to suggest that the Parker story is not more relevant to the film. I only changed your POV that the book is IRRELEVANT to the film, and suggested that there is a middle ground. Which there is! Clearly these are matters of opinion, which, in Wikipedia terms, means that we can state that there ARE differing opinions (citing them is good), but we cannot insist that one opinion is the ONLY one, which is what you are doing in denying a relationship between the book and the film. You may believe that. I may believe differently. But neither of us can say that the other opinion doesn't exist or is wrong. You bolster your argument by citation, not deleting. I believe I have adhered to Wikipedia rules and tried to bring an objective awareness of this film which I have spent my life studying to this page. You can argue with my placement of certain things. But to insist that you are right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong (which if not in so many words is very much the tone of your edit summaries and talk page contributions on this subject) is quite the antithesis of what Wikipedia aspires to be. I'll post this on the peer review page as well. Monkeyzpop 21:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Geeze, "Monkeyzpop", never heard of splitting up your text with some whitespace? HTH!

[Addition, a few minutes later] "That doesn't make me God, but it makes me fairly well credential to critique writing style." That probably would be easier to take from someone who could write "fairly well credentialed" correctly. (And split up his text into separate paragraphs.)

And, "Stillstudying": It's "tack", not "tact". HTH! -- CRConrad (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Monkeyzpop I am sorry you chose to take this tact. However, I should not have written I felt your edits were poor, that was uncalled for, so I will take a lighter tact in responding, and hope we can avoid this sort of unpleasantness. First, let me say in plain english that I never said I was right and anyone who disagrees with me wrong - if you read my messages to other editors I have worked with, you would find the opposite to be true, that I seek consensus, and seek third or fourth party opinions when my work differs from someone elses in order that I may find whether mine is lacking. You left a somewhat different message on my talk page, which I responded to differently, and would hope that message would govern our responses. Frankly, I always sigh when someone begins to trumphet their academic achievements. I was educated in the good old law, to answer your question, not as a movie reviewer. But I have a degree in history also, (and another in legal studies), I suppose that qualifies me about as much as you to write an article on this film. To get to the issues and avoid more personal nastiness. First, I never suggested that there is NO relationship between the LeMay book and the Ford movie, I said that there was no nexus to point to except Brit Johnson did rescue his family by ransoming them. I think that needs to be pointed out, and I was careful to cite the close relationship between cold hard facts of the Parker saga and the Ford movie - Schneider said it better than I ever could! I wrote, and mean it, that I seek to work with you and craft an article we both can agree on, rather than engage in an edit war. I note that your edit summary in answering Erik's reversion was at least as tactless as mine. But I don't feel that we have to engage in this sort of unpleasantness, or "how many college degrees do you have, because I have three and that means WHAT?" (I have to admit amusement that you are a published author - I have articles published in the "real world" also, and I taught history in Texas, before the law seized on me! Your insinuations I lack your education please, the personal attacks on my academic credentials - it brings to mind the old saw, if you have the law, cite it, if you have the facts, recite them, if you have neither, call names. I will post this also on the peer review page. I say in closing that I respectfully ask you to not attack me personally - the worst thing I can be acused of in this disagreement is saying I thought your edits were poor. You, on the other hand, stated I am uneducated, (without a clue what my education is), rather suggested I said things I plainly did not, and made this quite personal. I think your attack on me speaks for itself. But I believe we can do differently, if you cease the personal attacks. By the way, the 3RR rule applies to such situations as ours, where one editor reverts the other without discussion and reverts 3 times in 24 hours. You can edit 1000 times in 24 hours if the edits are not reversions. Stillstudying 02:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Monkeyzpopgreetings! I know you are on the road now, and probably cannot take time to even look at this, but when you return, I really would welcome your assistance to finish up this article. I added several pictures, the first, of Ethan and Martha, for obvious reasons - I think that thread runs through the movie, and the picture of her staring yearningly into his face, is a great one. The second is one of a rider against the vastness of the plains, and emphasizes the incredible power of the land itself in the movie, emphasizing how puny two men must have felt as they searched the vastness of the southern plains! The third, of Debbie looking desperately up, goes with the themes of racism and miscegenation than ran throughout the movie. Please let me know when you return, I am very curious for your reaction to the totality of the changes in the article. Thanks! Stillstudying 13:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Less Parker, more Searchers

I'm sorry for the people that worked so hard on this article, but it looks more a case on the influence of the Cynthia Parker story over the film, than a true analysis of the movie. As other contributors said, nothing is said about the cinematographic achievements of the film which, I would say, are at least as important as the analysis of the plot (and any possible real life influence on it) or the racism -and how it is depicted- in it. Nazroon 21:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. How about condensing the Real-life inspiration section to something more neutral like this: “Several film commentators have stated that “The Searchers” was inspired by the story of Comanche captive Cynthia Ann Parker, who was abducted in Texas in 1836 and recovered in 1860. Novelist Alan Le May studied a total of 64 captivity cases from Texas while writing the book on which the film was based. In real life, a number of relatives of captured children went in search of their missing kin, including Parker’s uncle, James W. Parker, who made several journeys during an obsessive but unsuccessful search for his missing family members. Le May’s surviving research notes for the novel suggest that his real-life model for the searchers was Brit Johnson, an African-American teamster who ransomed his wife and children from the Comanches in 1865 and kept searching for other captives until his death in 1871.”Grossville 14:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Setting for the film

Mr. Pop,

The movie, The Searchers is about the Comanche in 1868. And I never heard of the "Great Comanche Raid of Galveston".

Distribution of Comanche tribes, 1740-1850.

The Comanches are not known to have gone east of the Trinity River after Fort Worth, and hardly ever east of the Brazos River, at point in Bosque County south of Fort Worth, near Hillsboro. The farthest West that they are known to have usually gone is the Sacramento Mountains of southern New Mexico and the Rio Grande headwaters in Northern New Mexico/Southern Colorado. After the White hunters depleted the Buffalo they were then forced to seek government beef as far west as Fort Wingate in Gallup, New Mexico.

By 1868 the land east of the Trinity was fairly settled and did not have Indian raids. And everything west of Fort Worth is: West Texas.

• Foster, Morris W., Being Comanche: A Social History of an American Indian Community
• Kavanagh, Thomas W., Comanche Political History
• Richardson, Rupert N., The Comanche Barrier to South Plains Settlement
• Wallace, Ernest, and E. Adamson Hoebel, The Comanches

Also, if you read the book, The Searchers by La May.

Additionally, articles like:

"The rider is John Wayne, cast in one of his strongest roles, the vengeful, remorseless Texas frontiersman Ethan Edwards. After an absence of several years, he returns to his remote west Texas ranch and his wife, son, two daughters and a young man named Martin Pauley (Jeffrey Hunter), adopted by the Edwardses after a Commanche raiding party massacred his own family years earlier."

Arnold, Gary. - "Heroes' Welcome for 'The Searchers'". - Washington Post. - September 23, 1979

So, if it looks like West Texas, smells like West Texas, tastes like West Texas, guess what, it is West Texas.

Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Follow_up: The Searchers is based loosely on the Comanche raid at Fort Parker near Groesbeck, Texas. Click on that link, look at the map, and explain how The Searchers MUST be set in West Texas because the Comanche in Texas ONLY were found in West Texas. The Comanche raid and kidnapping that suggested the novel and film took place in what is visibly and demonstrably in the eastern half of the state. Since the film makes no distinction, and since Comanches were clearly active east of West Texas, I suggest that plain "Texas" better suits the article. But do what you want. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The novel was set in north Texas. Alan Le May wrote, "The locale is indeed regional to Fort Worth, intended to vaguely resemble, more or less, parts of Palo Pinto, Parker, Wise, Jack, or Young Counties interchangeably." In another letter, he stated more precisely that "Mart and Amos’ home ranch belongs in Palo Pinto County, most likely in the southwest part." Le May's correspondence is housed at UCLA's Special Collections. Grossville (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Change of section heading

I have changed the heading 'Reception' to 'Critical acclaim'. To my mind, 'Reception' should refer to how the movie was originally received when it was first released. The section actually details critical acclaim the movie has received more recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.53.45 (talk) 11:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethan's racism

The "Themes" section somewhat simplifies Ethan's racism, which throughout the film is clearly shown as being primarily motivated by the atrocities committed by the Indians. This is for which he despises them. What drives him is more an obsessive sense of vengeance than pure "racism". He is haunted by the pain, cruelty and loss he has encountered, and Ford stresses this point in several scenes. It is definitely not true that "Wayne's Ethan Edwards hates practically everyone, but reserves a special bile for Indians." (and the footnoted reviewer being paraphrased here doesnt say so either.) He has a rough, irascible temper but clearly shows affection to his brother's family and later on even to Martin whom he resented first for racist prejudice. In the scene when the two find Look's body in the tent Ethan is shown as being affected and not cynical at all. Later in the movie when Ethan encounters Scar Ford indicates that a vicious circle is going on, and Scar too is taking mercilessly revenge for his family. In a way Scar is Ethan's Alter Ego. These are key elements of the film and to Ethan's character which should not be omitted. Wilutzky 14:20, 27 December 2008 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.64.6 (talk)

Please note that it is exactly this ambivalence that gives The Searchers it's lasting power and fascination. This is not a "politically correct" film about racism with an easy way out and a one-sided message. --- Wilutzky 14:55, 27 December 2008 (CET)

Unfortunately, you have overlooked the beginning of the film. Before the killing of Ethan's brother and sister-in-law, the family sits down to dinner. Ethan insults Martin by stating that Martin looks like a half-breed. He makes a point of distancing himself from Martin, though he is comparatively warm to the rest of the family. Ethan's facial expressions are clearly angry and antagonistic towards Martin in this scene. After he is reminded that he rescued Martin as a baby, Ethan minimizes his role in the rescue in a manner that is clearly insulting to Martin. "Blanket-head" is Ethan's preferred nickname for Martin, and he uses it diminutively on several occasions despite the fact that Martin is the single greatest proponent of Ethan's search. How can you claim that a character so racist as to attempt to ostracize an adopted member of his own family based on nothing but a slight blood connection to the target culture is mostly motivated by a lust for vengeance when the character's worst examples of racism occur before the event supposed to have inspired this lust for vengeance has occurred? There are few things as annoying as an argument based on evidence gathered in a childishly biased manner. You display laughable conceit in submitting your evidence as anything resembling support for your conclusion. Particularly amusing is that despite your "thorough" gleaning of evidence from various points in the film's timeline, you are incapable of digesting the film's first ten minutes.--N88819 (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

While I concur with your points, I would remind you of WP guidelines regarding civility and presumption of good faith. I can see nothing in Wilutzky's comments that justify public ridicule, however much you might disagree with him.Monkeyzpop (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If Ethan hates Indians, and notices someone with Indian features, it's only natural he's going to comment on it, and not favorably. The point being not just "he's a racist", but "he's racist for particular reasons". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire commentary on this film is based on the idea that it is "thoroughly tainted by racism and the fear of miscegenation". This is an extreme, and indeed racist, interpretation of a historical reality. Settler's didn't like Indians, and Indians didn't like settlers. Was this racism? Only in a modern liberal context. Just consider if the setting was modern day Afghanistan. Change the Indians to Taliban tribesmen, and the settler's to the families of American soldiers and mercenaries. Are the attitudes any different from those in the film? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is a "refusal to let her live as an Indian" 'mere racism' - or racism at all? Surely it is a desire to return her to her family, and not let her live with kidnappers. Has race anything to do with it? (I accept that many of Ethan's other comments and attitudes are racist).203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

March, 2008 edits

I would like to invite some discussion on the recent edits. I have not altered anything, despite some disagreements with the edits, but I would like to get some consensus regarding the edits of the past few days, particularly in regard to what is being deleted for reasons described as "POV" or "editorializing." I feel that a number of these edits are worthwhile, but many are not so much removal of editorial opinion as they are removal of citable and truthful reports of public opinion. Also, I think several of the edit summaries are either mistakenly or disingenuously described. Although a good number of the recent edits have been helpful, I would like to determine whether there's any consensus on my opinion that the article has primarily suffered by some of these deletions. I think the question is subjective enough to bear seeking discussion rather than my personal inclination to revert some of these edits. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand how to go about this, as this is the first comment I've ever made:

The Ending of the Movie is not accurately recited in the "Plot" section--or, it is rendered confusingly, anyway. It gives the impression that Ethan is not invited to enter. That he is excluded. The door, though, in fact, does not close until AFTER Ethan has expressly rejected its invitation. Only after he turns and begins walking away does the door close. I submit that this is a distinction worth keeping clear. Thus, I would alter the concluding lines, which now read, "The film, which opened with a near-identical shot of another doorway, slowly revealing the film's landscape, finishes with a reversal: the film's players enter the darkness within the doorway, and the door closes, just before the end title, leaving Ethan isolated outside where he turns and wanders away into the wilderness" to read: "The film concludes in a circular movement referencing its start. The movie began with the opening of a cabin door framing Ethan's returning figure, and in a parallelism it ends with everyone in the final scene but Ethan entering the house through its open doorway. Only Ethan does not enter. Instead, he stares at the open door a moment, then turns and walks away. It is only then, upon the retreating figure of Ethan, that the door closes and the end title appears." Morty Causa (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

James Box killings

I have read this edit two or three times and cannot for the life of me understand how it *specifically* relates to this film, other than to recount part of the circumstances of an act of vaguely similar violence. I can't find anything about it that deepens my understanding of the film or its background, certainly not to the extent that its prominence in the section now suggests. There were Indian raids in Texas. The Indians had reasons for those raids. In this context, those facts have been pretty well established outside of this new edit. Is it really necessary to have a treatise on another example? This "background" section already stretches the boundaries of what's necessary to understand and take meaning from this film and has, at times, verged on overwhelming the article. Few other film articles provide such a history lesson imbedded in discussion of the film. I'm all for providing background, but concision and precise relevance are called for. Right now, the whole middle of the article reads something like an essay on Texas Indian wars. Perhaps a link to an actual article on such matters would be more proper. Comment? Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The Film versus The Novel

I've never liked the film -- partly due to a knee-jerk dislike of John Wayne -- but the film does have obvious problems, not the least of which is that it's "about" racism, rather than "about" racist people. John Ford was Trying To Make A Point, which is not usually a good way to tell a story (qv Rod Serling, Gene Roddenbery, et al). The result is an unmotivated and seemingly incomprehensible change in Edwards' feelings at the end, which leaves some viewers going "Huh?".

I just finished the novel, and was not the least surprised that it was a richer and more-satisfying story. Given the film's great popularity; its significant alteration of the book's viewpoint; and the small-but-loud minority who don't think much of the film; shouldn't this article include a discussion of the significant differences? I think "Brokeback Mountain" is a great film, but I'd never write an article about it without thoroughly discussing the criticism it received. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Original Critical Reception

The article near the top says "While a commercial success upon its 1956 release, The Searchers received no Academy Award nominations." However, Andrew Sinclair, in his book John Ford (1979), says "When The Searchers was released, the public stayed away and the critics were hostile." (p. 178) I will attempt to do more research on the contemporaneous public reception of the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotoffashovel (talk • contribs) 05:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It was made for $3.75 million (including publicity; negative cost was 2.5 million, and grossed $4.9 million in the U.S. alone, with an additional 2.5 million foreign, for a total profit of 2.6 million. It was the 11th highest grossing domestic U.S. film of 1956, according to Boxoffice magazine and noted in Ronald Davis's John Ford: Hollywood's Old Master. Furthermore, worldwide, it was third behind Moby Dick and Giant. A very successful film at the boxoffice, by and large. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Medal

What is the medal that Ethan gives to Debbie at the start of the movie? It looks Bavarian or Russian. 64.169.154.113 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's Mexican. Monkeyzpop (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not Mexican, it's not the Order of St. Guadalupe (they have pictures of the Order of St. Guadalupe on the Internet). I've found no Mexican medals that look like it. It might be a medal from one of the many German states before Germany was unified in 1871. --But what would Ethan be doing in Germany? Any medal collectors out there? The medal resembles the Order of St. Stanislaus from Russia, or the Heinrich Lion Knight's Cross 1st Class from the Duchy of Braunschweig. 64.163.110.217 (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The medal used in the movie appears to be something the props department dug up; in the screenplay it says "It is a gold medal or medallion--something appropriate to Maximilian of Mexico--suspended by a long multi-colored satin ribbon". Martha says "It's solid gold". Ethan replies "Just something I picked up in Mexico". So Ethan got the medal in Mexico, but it's not a Mexican medal. So just what is the medal in the movie? 64.163.110.217 (talk) 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Since Maximilian I is of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, might the medal be of that house? Or since he was supported by the French, maybe of French origin? What medal did French officers receive who went to Mexico and served? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I found a French Intervention medal on the Internet but it's red and doesn't look like the medal Ethan gives to Debbie. 64.163.110.217 (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Confederates didn't issue any medals during the Civil War except for 47 Davis Guard medals issued to the 47 men who defeated 5,000 Union troops at the Battle of Sabine Pass in 1863, so John Wayne would have had to have had a medal from Mexico. Unless John Wayne was at the Sabine Pass. 63.192.100.202 (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Since John Wayne was born in 1907, he could not have been at Sabine Pass in 1863. 209.86.226.19 (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, has everyone forgotten that The Searchers is a film, a work of fiction, filmed in the 1950's? The plot required a medal awarded in Mexico in the 1860's. Assuming it would be an official medal, one of Emperor Maximilian I would seem most likely - Order of the Mexican Eagle, Order of Saint Charles, or Order of Guadalupe. These are all Mexican orders. The props team probably couldn't find one, or didn't bother. So the medal seen on the film could be anything. It would probably not have been kept by the actress, most likely went back to the props room.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. As another editor noted, the screenplay by Frank S. Nugent called for "a gold medal or medallion -- something appropriate to Maximilian of Mexico -- suspended by a long multi-colored satin ribbon." However, Ford obviously used another medal as a prop in order to represent this item. Nevertheless, the purpose of the item within the context of the story itself is quite clear: Ethan spent some time in Mexico, likely participated in the French Mexican Expedition during his mysterious three year absence, and perhaps learned Spanish during that time. It's quite useful to filling in the gaps in the story. -- Flask (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The Medal--another Ruby Slippers?

Since the AFI named "The Searchers" the Greatest Western of All Time, then the medal that Ethan gives Debbie would be another Ruby Slippers and could be worth a lot of money. (The Ruby Slippers--there were half a dozen pairs--have sold for over half a million dollars). I wonder what the medal is and who has it now. --Lana Wood might know, she's still alive and living in Thousand Oaks, California. 64.163.110.217 (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ask the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) about the medal. They've got that big museum/archive. They must know something. 63.207.227.198 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Medal is the Order of St. Sava

The medal is the order of St. Sava, a Serbian medal which was instituted in 1883. But John Wayne has the medal in 1868 (hence the altered "1883" date on the medal). Maybe they picked the blue and white of the medal to match Aunt Martha's blue and white costume, thereby giving us another clue that Natalie Wood is John Wayne's daughter (in the movie). Hence the medal becomes another "Rosebud". And where is the medal now? Hidden away in some props dept. somewhere? It's a valuable museum piece. And it holds the clue to the movie. --Was John Ford really that sly? Ford was an Admiral in the Navy; he would have known about medals, so he used the Order of St. Sava medal for a reason... 63.192.100.202 (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The medal in the movie strongly resembles the Order of St. Guadalupe (which is green and red) so maybe the Order of St. Sava is the closest they could find. The Order of St. Guadalupe is supposed to be rare, given out to just a few, so what did John Wayne do to get it in Mexico? 63.192.100.202 (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, maybe this is the clue: Helen Keller received the Order of St. Sava, so maybe John Ford is telling people that they're deaf and blind for not seeing all the clues that Debbie is John Wayne's daughter. It's a reach, I know, but Debbie is a brunette and her older sister is a redhead... 66.122.183.244 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting analysis, but it's original research, so it doesn't qualify for inclusion in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not originasl research. It is stated at St Sava medal an online source that can be cited (be sure to click on the More Facts section) Rjensen (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Richard, isn't the title of your link misleading? You called it "St Sava medal", making the reader (me) think that there was a website dedicated to the medal. But, in fact this is onlinemovieclub.info/, a WordPress blog run by one person, Jenoa Haymor (a little pea-n-shell there). Aren't blog sites discouraged in WP:EL, links to avoided? Were did Jenoa Haymor get her information? She is not a recognized authority on film, she has no articles or books published. What if the IP person above is the same person, Jenoa Haymor? If you title your work, or links, you should not title it "Zebra" when in fact it is really about lions eating zebras, and the only part of it that is zebras is food. I think a nice reliable/credible source would be better don't you? 209.86.226.27 (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

the link indeed deals with the St Sava issue that we are discussing, Is it a RS for a movie trivia question--yes just barely, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 21:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's another conundrum: the ribbon on the St. Sava medal is green with red stripes (not blue and white as the St. Sava medal is). The French agricultural medal the Merite Agricole has the red and green stripes--and was also started in 1883, the same year as the St. Sava medal was started. Does the date 1883 have a significant meaning in the film (or for John Ford?) or is it just co-incidence? And no, I'm not Jenoa Haymor, I just think the three best westerns are "The Searchers", "Shane" and "Hud" so I have an avid interest in them. Why didn't they just get an order of St. Guadalupe medal for the movie is the puzzle. 209.77.229.167 (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Because the way movies are made, particularly in 1956, when no easy method of freezing frames was available to the average moviegoer, no one expected anyone to have more than a passing glance at the medal and to be having discussions like this. It is almost certain, in my informed opinion, that the propmaster found a selection of reasonably "authentic"-looking medals, showed them to Ford, who then picked one at random. No one very likely anticipated people being able to freeze or rewind and study the props used in pictures then. Even now, when such freezing and rewinding is easy and frequent, anachronistic errors are made with props all the time. A simple look at the Goofs section on a variety of films at IMDb will confirm that. I think the choice of the medal in the film was simply, "Does this look like it could pass for a Mexican medal from the time?" Somebody said, "Yeah," and that was that. No hidden meanings. Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Debbie Scar's wife?

I think there might be some validity to the recent edit (since reverted) regarding Debbie's place in Scar's family. I've always presumed (as did, apparently, the reverting editor) that Debbie was one of Scar's wives. But the recent reverted edit suggesting she is actually the widow of one of his sons bears looking at. When Ethan and the others join Scar in his tent, is there not an early reference to Scar's sons being dead and therefore their wives occupy the other side of the tent? Is there actually any textual confirmation that Debbie is the wife of Scar himself? I haven't the film to look at at the moment, but despite the fact that there's something a little OR about deciding the matter this way, it's no more OR than using what was previously posited, that Debbie is Scar's wife. Either way, a citation would make solid whatever choice is made here, though I think the film itself leans (without irrefutable commitment) to the idea that Debbie is one of the sons' widows. If there's consensus on this, perhaps the previous edit should stand.Monkeyzpop (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Replace British poster image (non-free) with US poster image (public domain)

This is just a note that I'll substitute the US theatrical release poster for the British one that's presently used for the infobox. The British poster won't enter the public domain for many years; the US poster has already entered the public domain. There is no discussion in the present article that is specific to the British poster, so we should prefer the public domain poster. See WP:NFCCP (no free equivalent). Easchiff (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I endorse this replacement and am surprised it was not done earlier. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Lots of free-use posters have incomplete descriptions; I only learned a week ago that the poster presently used here is the one for the British release. There is an opportunity also: most US posters with copyright notice before 1964 are apparently now in the public domain due to non-renewal. The low-resolution fair-use images that are now prevalent could be upgraded as desired. Easchiff (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I must confess I did not realise there were different posters for the US and UK markets. I am quite happy with the change to the US poster. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot mystery

The last sentence says that at the end Debbie is safely with her family. But haven’t we been told earlier that her whole family, apart from her Uncle Ethan, has been killed? Mystifying? --Hors-la-loi (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Martin is her adopted brother, which is made clear at the beginning of the film. No mystery at all. David J Johnson (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over the word 'raped'

In the plot, why does it say that Ethan finds Lucy brutally murdered and presumably raped in a canyon near the Comanche camp? There is no rape scene and it's not even mentioned. Rape is when you force someone to have sex with you against their will. In general/common, sex is associated with love, not with hate. The Indians hated Lucy because she was white. If Indians hate white people, why would they want to have sex with them? That is morally violet and morally brutal. In general/common, violence dwells on pain or injury, not on sex. The film is rated U or PG. Brutal Sexual Violence is associated with rated 15 and 18 films. Therefore these two words presumably raped should be removed.109.151.68.104 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no actual rape scene but the RS say "rape" is implied. 1) Alexandra Heller-Nicholas - 2011 - ‎"the abduction, captivity and implied rape of Debbie (Natalie Wood) in John Ford's The Searchers (1956) drives the narrative"; 2) Edward Buscombe - 2000: "But he turns off the trail to penetrate a narrow crevice in the rocks, and when he emerges his savage stabbing with his knife seems to mimic a violent sexual act, drawing us 'a picture ' of the act of rape which obsesses him"; 3) The Searchers: The Making of an American Legend by Glenn Frankel - 2014: "Rape was a fact of life for many captives"; 4) Jon Cowans - 2015: "The Searchers, and Trooper Hook (1957)—also dealt with the rape of white women captured by Indians" 5) Richard Slotkin - 1992 - ‎"the concealed rape/torture images in "The Searchers"; 6) Yvonne Tasker, ‎Diane Negra - 2007: "rape (actual, imagined, or threatened) as a starting point for male revenge — for example, The Searchers (Ford, 1956)" Rjensen (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC) repeated Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the same person who editing from multiple IPs in the Northern Ireland area of the UK, and has been banned from editing several times before. They have a unhealthy obsession with rape in numerous film articles and are likely to be banned from editing yet again. David J Johnson (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Already blocked (for block evasion) - but only for a week. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

|}

If there was a rape scene, it would be disturbing and hard to watch. And so would the mention of the word 'raped'.31.54.250.128 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Lucy could have been wearing a corset (undergarment) behind her dress like all the other women did, not naked. To my opinion, the Indians could have killed Lucy and took her dress. Leaving her in nothing but her underwear(half-naked)- before Ethan found her. If she was nude behind her dress, it could be embarrassing to them and could not take it off.31.54.250.128 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)