The western High Noon – a
wakening call
When you watch the four outlaws finally swaggering
through the streets of the small frontier town Hadleyville, you´ll have lived
through sixty minutes of suspense during which the town marshal has tried in
vain to rally support to fight them. Although the western High Noon, which was directed by Fred
Zinnemann, is more than sixty years old[1],
it has never ceased to be up-to-date. It is a fascinating film not least
because it illustrates perfectly the threat to a community posed by a coming to
power of populist leaders and authoritarian rulers. What is more, it asks the
vital question who will rise to defend the rule of law in a liberal democratic
society. The disturbing answer of this film is that not many citizens are able
or willing to do so. Too many have stopped appreciating it and they don´t seem
to be aware of the consequences of their indifference.
Hadleyville is on the New Mexico territory. It is the
late 19th century. Frank Miller, a convicted murderer was released from a
prison in one of the Northern States of the US in spite of a death sentence and
is about to arrive in the town at noon. On hearing this news, Will Kane, who
resigned from his office as the town Marshal earlier in the day, returns to pin
on the tin star again and to gather together a posse to protect the town
against Miller.
While the hands of the clock move steadily and
relentlessly from ten fifty towards noon and the expected violent
confrontation, the camera follows Kane around town in what is almost real time
introducing representatives of various social groups to the viewer and giving
an insight into their personalities and mindsets.
It is the shocking outcome of Kane´s quest that
neither in the streets nor in their homes nor in the church nor in the saloon
is he able to make men commit themselves to his cause. They refuse to support
the Marshal for a variety of motives. Some are simply scared for their lives.
The bartender in the saloon and his customers, however, come out in favour of
Miller. The bartender gleefully anticipates Kane´s death and his customers are
laughing in the Marshal´s face and hailing a new dawn. So is the owner of the
hotel who expects his business to revive after Miller´s return. Obviously,
Miller gains popular support by the mere presence of his gang even before his
arrival and although his sidekicks are undoubtedly villains.
The judge, who convicted Miller and who like Kane
embodies the law, leaves town. He does not only take his law books with him,
but also the scales, symbol of justice, and the American flag. While packing
his things, he compares the impending situation with the return of a tyrant to
Athens around 500 BC. Although the Greeks had banished him because he had made
their life hell, they let him invade the city on his return with an army and
'stood by while he executed members of the legal government'. The allusion is
strong evidence that the plot can be interpreted as an allegory of the threat
posed by an aspiring tyrant to a civilized community that is not willing or able
to prevent his rise to power.
In the church some speakers make a strong case for
putting up resistance. They argue that the town has been a safe place for women
and children since Miller was put behind bars. The law with Marshal Kane as its
representative has protected them effectively.
The proponents of defence are trumped, however, by
those who are reluctant to fight or even explicitly speak out against Kane´s
mission. The most eloquent speaker is a leading townsman, who claims that
potential investors from the North might lose interest if the news of a
shootout with Miller spread. He maintains that Miller only seeks to revenge
himself on Kane, so the problem would be solved if the marshal left the town. Those
who support him either underestimate the danger or they have come to the
conclusion that the Marshal´s resignation as well as the law´s hasty retreat in
the person of the Judge actually serve their interests. It seems that a number
of citizens who pull the strings behind the scenes are eager to clear the way
for a new era because they expect to benefit from the chaos and upheaval
Miller´s presence would cause in the town. They do not only believe that if
they left him alone he would leave them unscathed, but that like him they could
break the law with impunity, as well.
Having failed to rally support Kane prepares to take
on Miller and his gang single-handedly not only because the confrontation is
ultimately inescapable but also because he has made the defence of the rule of
law in the town his mission. Thus he does not arrest Miller´s associates
preemptively before his arrival given that they have not broken the law so far.
When the bandits seek him out in the end,
he only shoots them in self-defence, whereas Miller has come to execute those
who rightfully detained and convicted him. That Kane
does not lay claim to power after the shootout is further evidence that he does
not embody authoritarian leadership.
The director of the film, Fred Zinnemann, supports
this view in his autobiography: [2]
It
was a story of a man who must make a decision according to conscience. His town
– symbol of a democracy gone soft – faces a horrendous threat to its people´s
way of life. Determined to resist, and in deep trouble, he moves all over the
place looking for support but finding there is nobody who will help him; each
has a reason for not getting involved. In the end he must meet his chosen fate
all by himself, his town´s doors and windows firmly locked against him … It is
a story that still happens everywhere, every day.
Zinnemann, Fred (1992), An Autobiography,
London: Bloomsbury. 97.
Regardless of Kane´s exact role, it would be
interesting to know how affairs in the town would have developed if Kane had
not killed the four outlaws. The conduct of Frank Miller´s gang does not make
it hard to guess. In their search for Kane they count on the rule of law being
suspended and exercise the law of the strongest demolishing property at will.
Besides, studies on the success of populist movements
in democracies and the emergence of authoritarian regimes5
can complete the picture. In her famous study, Hannah Arendt has worked out
that the liberal democratic Weimar Republic in Germany (1919 – 1933) practically
abolished itself allowing that its democratic institutions were undermined.[3] As
illustrated in the film such developments are viable only with popular support.
The people either do not resist the changes or they even consent to the restriction
of civil liberties and the suspension of the rule of law.
In order to establish power and to consolidate it, the
rulers have to create bogeymen. Certain minorities are discriminated against or
made into the target of popular resentment. In the end, the community is
divided into the movement´s followers, the people, and others, who are vilified
as the enemy of the people. Hannah Arendt explains why it is
often one´s best friends who become denunciators (Arendt, 696-7). Thus, the citizens contribute to developments that are ultimately
against their own interests because they lead to arbitrary and oppressive rule.
Arbitrariness is a constitutive element of authoritarian regimes as it keeps
people in a permanent state of uncertainty and mutual distrust, which
stabilizes the regime.
By pointing out the dangers of political apathy and
disenchantment High Noon can serve as a wakening call for the citizens
of liberal democracies all over the world.
By
the way, Kane is only able to win the final shootout because his wife supports
him on an equal footing.
2014;2016;2018
2014;2016;2018
[2] The context of the 1950s suggested a variety of
allegorical readings, such as Kane standing for the USA as a superpower defying
communism, or the film criticizing the activities of the House Un-American
Activities Committee during the McCarthy era. Phillip Drummond, Zwölf Uhr Mittags. Mythos und Geschichte eines
Filmklassikers. Europa
Verlag Hamburg/Wien, 1997, 99-100; 110-12.
[3] Hannah Arendt
(1951) The Origins of Totalitarianism. I used the German edition Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft,
13. Auflage 2009, 659.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen