Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21
Dan Evans is a Civil War veteran, who lost a leg in the conflict and sports a homemade prosthetic, struggling to survive in the frontier with a wife and two sons. Harassed by local men who want his land, and short of money to pay his debts, Evans takes a job with a group of men escorting an infamous outlaw, Ben Wade, to the train at Yuma (from which the film takes its title) so that Wade can stand trial and hang. Wade’s outlaw band, however, has conflicting goals. As Evans and Wade travel together, the film explores the morality of the two and what it means to be a man.
This film has all the makings of greatness. Director James Mangold did an incredible job with Walk the Line, and Russell Crowe (Ben Wade) and Christian Bale (Dan Evans) are accomplished actors who rarely miss the mark. Adapted from the story by Elmore Leonard and originally made into a film in 1957, this remake could have added the dirt and grit of modern, reality-based westerns like Unforgiven. However, the film is hampered by the script and direction in a way that makes it vacillate between a harsh, realistic landscape and the buddy westerns of the last century. While the film is supposed to explore the oil and water relationship between Wade and Evans, the screenplay itself feels like an oil-and-water treatment that never mixes.
The themes explored in 3:10 to Yuma are fascinating. Evans is a tried-and-true, honest family man who has sought to do everything the “right” way. Instead of being a dirty, obviously evil “black hat,” Wade is a well educated, artistic and virtually amoral man who takes what he wants and is capable of doing whatever is necessary to survive and thrive; he has virtually achieved Nietzsche’s ideal. It brings into question the “equity” of the universe—why do bad things happen to good people?—and even challenges Evans’ view of a traditionally moral and just response to the harsh world around him. Bale translates Evans’ pain and inner turmoil beautifully, his eyes burning with integrity but a deep pain beneath.
When Evans’ son is enthralled by Wade’s masculine and virtually animalistic view of the world and how to survive in it, this truly shakes the rancher’s foundation and makes him question what it is to be a man. Similarly, Wade is captivated by Evans… as if he’d never met a truly honest man before. Both are caught in a completely platonic infatuation with the other, studying the actions and reactions to understand what they are missing in their own lives. Also of note, actor Ben Foster delivers a memorable performance as Charlie Prince, Wade’s right-hand man and acting leader of the gang as they seek to free their boss; Prince is so wholly devoted to Wade, so loyal and eager to impress, that it is clear Wade has become the younger man’s surrogate father and role model.
Unfortunately, these intriguing scenes are interrupted and overshadowed by very conventional action scenes, both on the way to the train station and during the gunfight at the aptly named town of Contention. It’s a bizarre dichotomy of the film; as the action kicks in, the film suddenly becomes a cliché buddy movie. Contrasting with the fingernail grit of the human interest scenes, the “shoot the dynamite in midair” and “evade hails of bullets while exchanging witty banter” segments breach the established realm of realism and invade the integrity of the film. One character is shot and lies dying, and receives the traditional “did we make it?” reassurance speech, timed perfectly just before he takes his last breath. It’s this odd juxtaposition—mixing Open Range with Young Guns—that spoils what could have been an excellent film, exploring our moral code and how we live our lives. When the surprising climax arrives, it lacks the depth of character exploration to truly make it believable or compelling.
In a pluralistic world where we espouse that truth for one person doesn’t equal truth for another, how can we condemn Ben Wade’s ruthless outlook on life predominant throughout the film? Is Evans truly righteous, or does even he have self-serving motivations? Wade quotes the Bible, yet seems to have his conscience seared; Evans is bound to justice but seems to lack any joy. These and other philosophical musings would have been worth exploring if the movie provided a solid narrative flow, but unfortunately these things are better explored in better films. Maybe Mangold’s next film will get back on track.
