I have some more movies in mind that will allow me to continue this Friday series, but this week’s movie was the last one I presented to a class of junior high and senior high school boys. I chose The Shootist (1976) as the final movie not just for the character issues, which we’d pretty much covered already in other movies, but for the subtleties and shadings of character and the way a movie or story can manipulate our emotions and get us to identify with a “hero” who might not be all that heroic when you look really closely.

This is not to bad-mouth John Wayne at all, here appearing in his final movie, or even the character he played. Fittingly, this is the story of a famous but terminally ill aging gunfighter (or “shootist”) trying to find peace in his final days. The point I was trying to get across to the boys, however, is how easily we look for a “good” guy in a story and identify with him – even if it’s only because he’s “less bad” than others.



The movie features a great cast with Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, Lauren Bacall, Henry Morgan, Richard Boone and Ron Howard as a fatherless and impressionable young man. Howard narrates the opening sequence of the movie, a flash back of gunfights featuring the infamous John Bernard (JB) Books which were, cleverly, scenes lifted from earlier John Wayne movies. When Books rides into Carson City, Nevada in 1901 he suspects he’s dying and is looking to lie low and pass away in obscurity. After his doctor friend (Stewart) confirms the diagnosis, however, word gets out in the town that they have a “celebrity” in their midst and many people start angling for a way to make a name or some money for themselves at Books’ expense. In the process he meets and eventually befriends the widow (Bacall) running the boarding house where he stays and her son (Howard). In interludes with this broken family Books gains a small taste of the life he might have had as a husband and father if he hadn’t followed the path his life took instead.



There were three things I wanted the boys to get out of the movie. One was the way Howard’s character, young Gillom, attempted to act more “manly” by swearing and drinking and otherwise carrying on as he thought men do because he didn’t have a model in his life. Another lesson was in the way Gillom’s mother, a staunch Christian who deplored Books’ lifestyle and history, came to see the “Christian” way to act toward someone who is suffering. The main point, however, was the code Books emphatically claimed that he lived by — “I won’t be wronged, I won’t be insulted, I won’t be laid a hand on…I don’t do these things to others, and I expect the same from them” — and how he regularly broke that code without seeing the irony in doing so.



Points to Ponder:

• Does your life make your reputation, or does your reputation make your life?




• The influences (or lack of influences) that shape our lives.




• The consequences and significance of decisions we make.




• Society’s expectations and exploitation of heroes.




• Is being good, good enough?

Some questions you might want to be able to answer:

1. What was Books’ personal code that he explained to Gillom? Did he live up to it?




2. What were Mrs. Rogers’ personal codes? How did her codes come into conflict with each other?




3. How did Gillom try to make himself appear manly? What events in his life might explain his behavior?




4. Was Books a good man or a bad man? What qualities did he have that were admirable? What qualities did he have that were not?




5. What price did Books pay for his way of life? (What things did he give up, or miss out on?)




6. Did Books have faith? Was it sufficient to get him into Heaven?
   

Great Quote:

JB: “Damn!”

Bond: “John Bernard, you swear to much.”

JB: “The hell I do!”



As I said, I have a few more movies in mind that I think portray admirable character qualities and motives and are useful examples for young people and I hope to continue this series and format here. If you have a favorite movie that fits this profile and objective by all means leave a comment or send me an email; I’d be happy to consider watching the movie and including it here at some point.



In a future, separate, post I’ll describe the results of the class and the impact, if any, it had on the young men who participated.

bookmark to:

For the next-to-last film in this series for the class of junior high and high school aged boys I departed from the war, western and sports genres for a classic “chick flick”: Sense and Sensibility with Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Hugh Grant and Alan Rickman. This dramatic shift in direction led one of the lads to ask, “Are we being punished?” I told them that that wasn’t the case, but there were a number of reasons why I wanted them to learn the lessons within this movie.

For one, I said, the emotional and internal battles fought in this movie, while non-bloody, were every bit as intense and devastating as any war film we’d watched and were far more likely to occur regularly in their own lives than the scenarios in the the so-called “action” flicks. I also wanted them to see examples of the different ways that men and women think and act and the consequences of things said and unsaid. And, I added, “there are going to be times in your life – if all goes well – when you’re going to have to sit through a ‘chick flick’ and this is good practice.”

The story, of course, comes from the Jane Austen book and describes the hardships and romances of two sisters and their mother when the patriarch dies and, by law, his estate goes to his son, the sister’s half-brother from their father’s earlier marriage. While the father made the son promise that the women would be well provided for, the son – influenced by his grasping wife – ends up allocating them a pittance, setting the stage for all that comes after. The two sisters have different outlooks on life and love (the “Sense” and “Sensibility” of the title) and both undergo severe but different trials in the process of getting to the happy ending.

The story is an interesting character study not only of the time period but the way “power” between the sexes is divided and applied. There are heroes and scoundrels among both sexes and while the men supposedly have all the legal power and advantages, the main authority figures driving most plot changes in the movie (in terms of dictating what is going to happen) are women.

While there was some initial grumbling and groaning as the movie started, I soon noticed the boys were rapt in their attention and angered by the outrages and bad behavior, grieved by the near-misses and miscommunications, and, finally, looking around sheepishly at each other by the end of the movie as if afraid to show that they cared how it turned out.

Key Points:

• Emotions are serious matters not to be trifled with.
• The importance of honor and keeping your word, even unto your own hurt.
• Our actions – even when we’re young – can have far-reaching effects on the rest of our lives and on the lives of others.
• Even scoundrels can appear decent and honorable for a time, but substance and integrity (or lack of it) will ultimately be revealed.
• Neither men nor women are inherently noble by reason of birth or their sex, but must make choices.

Some Questions to Answer:

1. How did John Dashwood’s behavior at the beginning of the movie set the stage for the rest of the movie?
2. Many are harmed when someone doesn’t keep his word. Edward’s decision to keep his word, however, also causes problems. Why?
3. Both Edward and Willoughby made decisions when they were younger that dramatically effected their lives later. What were the decisions each made? How did each respond to the consequences of their decisions?
   Why does Marianne reject Col. Brandon initially? What does she come to value in him eventually?
4. What did Col. Brandon mean when he (speaking to Miss Dashwood) said Edward was “proud, in the best sense.”
5. Contrast the way Willoughby would talk about Brandon when he wasn’t present to the way Brandon spoke of Willoughby – even after describing him as “the worst of libertines.”

Points to Ponder:

• Who has he power in the movie – the men or the women? Why?
• Was Lucy Steele really in love with Edward Ferrars?
• Who was “Sense” and who was “Sensibility”? What is the difference?
• Which character in the movie do you think is the most like you? Why?

bookmark to: