There are plenty other aspects of this movie worthy of discussion, but I wanted to put out my thoughts on the following sooner rather than later. The reviews I've read, even glowing reviews, often say that the Ben Wade character is muddle with mixed, incompatible motivation. I think this is not the case. I also think that, my viewing of the movie allows for greater depth overall.
If we stereotype Ben Wade as the outlaw, the bad-guy-type found in "Westerns". (Some reviews of the film seem to wish for the good old days when Westerns had a good guy, a bad guy and his posse, the good guy gets the gal and guns down the bad guy.) Viewing the character in that fashion makes some of actions seem arbitrary and contradictory, out of character. At many points in the film Wade could escape any time but doesn't. The audience can easily see how Wade could escape. He even does escape. But oddly, he doesn't escape other times when he has the opportunity. Also, he clearly saves the lives of his captors. Especially his heroics at end don't fit with the bad-guy-type character. If he has "some good in him" so he helps the good guy, the audience can only be baffled by his brutal slaughter of all of his own men. If we assume the stereotypical view of the movie then we would say the writing is poor. The Wade character isn't unified. The film-makers sacrificed believability for sake of keeping the action going. These are criticisms of a poor viewing of the movie.
Viewing the movie in accordance with contemporary realism requires we only assume the characters is a man of a certain time period. We must draw conclusions from the evidence given on the screen. If we find that the film wildly averts from the assumption that a man's personality forms a unified whole, then we can criticize the film-makers. We can then trivialize the film as a well-enough made "Action Western".
I view the film as more than a simple "Action Western". The reason I view it as more is tat the character, Ben Wade is shown to be an aesthete. We can start with simple evidence: Wade's predilection for sketching. He first appears in the movie sketching a bird. He sketches the woman bar-keep, in repose. Later he sketches the other major character of the film, Dan Evans. Furthermore, he takes delight in the color of a woman's eyes. He jokes by asking to have his steak cut-up for him without the gristle. He watches Evans cut the steak. Wade sketches Evans in repose while Wade lays calmly in the bridal suite. Laying flat on the bed he amusingly points out that many brides had taken in the same view as he, creating humorous irony through enaction. We can see that Wade is more than just a bad guy who likes to sketch.
Wade, though somewhat a psychopath, sees life as a place to play-out his aesthetic fancies. He makes no bother to disguise himself when he comes to town. He doesn't see anything to fear. He doesn't see himself as a participant in the events, rather an orchestrator and an audience. He had the capacity to escape at any number of junctures, but passes them up so he could play out the events. He finds the journey especially enjoyable because Evans comes along as guard. Wade has seen Evans in an earlier scene, knows Evans' basic situation, knows that Evans leaves two boys and his wife to dangerously accompany a viscous criminal in spite of the greater danger of Wade's gang. Wade has experienced a lot- cities, country, witnessed genocide, met a spectrum of people, and finds very little new in the world he travels. The new is glorious to the aesthete. The New, to the aesthete, blooms capacious wonders. Wade is impressed by the manner in which Evans creates Wade's capture. He sees in Evans no usual man. So he wants to enjoy the situation as it plays out. If Wade gets annoyed during the trip he casts off the annoyance to continue- he kills two of his guards impetuously. However he defends the his guards, and himself, from Indian, what tribe I do not remember, attackers so as to continue the trip, not out of the goodness of his heart, but to allow the journey to carry on. He defends the himself but also the group in the escape from his torturers. And so on.
Now we can account for the end. Wade could easily escape and leave Evans to slaughter. He is about to kill Evans until he hears the reason Evans assiduously keeps to the plan of delivering Wade to the train. Wade hears that Evans wants to create a particular image of himself for his boy. Wade realizes the possibility of a new level of orchestration. He and Evans are to participate in the creation of Evans' desired end for an audience, Evans' son. Other motivations aside (feeling somewhat akin to the boy or pity for Evans or anything else), Wade wants to create a work of art by enacting Evans' desire. Wade's gang are confused by Wade's actions. They continue attacking despite the odd behavior of their leader. The continual attack lets Wade create his masterpiece: a complete simulacrum.
Wade's actions at the end are more complex. Wade's art gets tarnished by the too brutal gunning down of Evans and so kills his own gang coldly, like painting over a mistake. Even with the mistake he gets on the train. He sees that Evans' boy may not appreciate the situation. The lad greaves hard over his father's torn body. But Evans completes the work, gets on the train. He isn't able to create the appearance of being forced on, so his work is tarnished. But he needs to complete it nevertheless. Then he can easily bail out of the situation. He told Evans that he escaped twice from Yuma Prison. The entirety of the journey was futile, the movie's plot made absurd, and the movie becomes vacuous, rote "Action-Wester" if we are to view the movie without apprehending the subtle, aesthetic motivations for Wade's actions. The film merits repeat viewing for this reason (among others)- the audience can appreciate the film from Evans point of view, from a deeper aesthetic appreciation of the world presented.
Note: This posting was taken from another blog.
