The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Posted by J on October 24, 2008
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance attempts to be the American allegory. It might have succeeded. Since 
the frontier was our dreamscape, the place where fortunes could be made, where nature was tamed, where cowboys battled Indians and the sky and land went on forever — since this was our national dreamland, it is the best place for an allegory.
Everything in this movie is a political comment. There are two main characters, Jimmy Stewart and John Wayne, the first of which is a lawyer and educator who rejects gun violence, and the second of which is a tough cowboy with hints of kindness. Stewart represents our political class — pro-education, anti-gun violence, with an unwavering trust in the law — while Wayne represents the classic frontiersman. When the story opens, Wayne has just died, and Stewart has just come back from Washington DC to honor Wayne. Stewart has long been an important politician in the federal government. When newspapermen ask him why he came back to honor Wayne, Stewart begins to tell a long story that happened decades ago. This story takes up almost the whole movie.
We can immediately see what comment the movie is making. Wayne is dead, hence the frontiersman is dead and so the frontier is closed. This was Frederick Jackson Turner’s famous lament: what would happen to American democracy if there were nowhere for pioneers and settlers to go to? Turner worried that American democracy would die, potentially, because the spirit of democracy was wrapped up in the existence of the frontier. Our political institutions might become less free, more centralized, more like Europe’s.
The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance romanticizes the long-gone frontier at the same time it worries about the frontier’s death. We do not know who shoots Liberty Valance, a notorious outlaw, because there are two different versions of the story told. Perhaps Stewart, the gun novice, shot Valance. But perhaps Wayne shot Valance. Stewart believes that Wayne shot him, but the entire world believes that Stewart did, which enhances Stewart’s personal and political career. The story is a frontier legend, told again and again. But it might not be true. The movie, in certain ways, considers this a problem.
The movie shows that guns are useful, because Stewart learns that men like Valance don’t believe in obeying laws anyway. In order for laws to be effective, we must have a moral populace, which obviously doesn’t include Valance and his gang. But the movie also privileges many of Stewart’s positions — unflinching patriotism, trust in never-ending progress, faith in the federal government, distrust of open-range ranches. At least that’s the way Stewart tells his story. Of course, by the end of the movie, Stewart seems to be reconsidering his beliefs. He wants to leave Washington and go back west, to retire and settle down.
Problems exist. There is no hint of religion in the movie, not even a shot of a church or the use of a minister as a character. Surely, in a movie soaked in patriotic rhetoric and symbols, churches would be included. Also, Liberty Valance is wholly evil. We watch him beat people unmercifully several times, to the point where these beatings feel like they are meant for sadists to enjoy. The movie has many disturbing undertones, beneath its presentation of a plucky and determined American spirit.
This is not, perhaps, a better movie than others that are similar thematically. Shane is superior, as is The Searchers. But it is surprisingly complex and ambiguous. Maybe the American allegory should not be so naively happy after all.
Entertainment: 7
Intelligence: 8
Morality: 7
