"Shane" is one of my favourite novels and so I've always been a bit disappointed in the movie. The book has so many subtleties missing from the film e.g. in the book Shane rides onto the Starrett ranch not wearing a gun, which automatically tells us something about the man.
And in the book, Shane silently reveals the pain of his past when he's showing Bobby (pointlessly renamed Joey in the film) how to shoot.
Apart from this I think my main problem lies in the casting. Besides a suitably menacing Jack Palance (in part apparently due to his fear of horses), none of the cast impress. Alan Ladd looks too wimpy in his frilled top to look significant and Jean Arthur, normally one of my favourites is frankly too old and reserved to be a believable source of the sexual tension that appears between Marion and Shane in the book.
A fine western; but it could have been a great one.
And in the book, Shane silently reveals the pain of his past when he's showing Bobby (pointlessly renamed Joey in the film) how to shoot.
Apart from this I think my main problem lies in the casting. Besides a suitably menacing Jack Palance (in part apparently due to his fear of horses), none of the cast impress. Alan Ladd looks too wimpy in his frilled top to look significant and Jean Arthur, normally one of my favourites is frankly too old and reserved to be a believable source of the sexual tension that appears between Marion and Shane in the book.
A fine western; but it could have been a great one.