"The Law and Jake Wade" is a dark Western with some big name actors. But for the scenery and acting by Richard Widmark, there's not much else going for this movie. The film is based on a novel by the same title that helped launch a successful fiction writing career for Marvin H. Albert. I don't know how well the script follows the book, or how well Albert fleshed out the "reformed" Jake Wade in the book. But the film leaves this as an unsettled, dark matter.
A couple other reviews have noted this. I kept looking for the film to explore the conflicts of Jake Wade over his past and present. In the beginning, that held my interest in the film. But as the movie progressed, and we never saw any resolution in the character of Wade, this became a nagging distraction from my enjoyment of the film. I agree with the few others who found fault with the plot and some of the scenes (Indian attacks) as well. But, I'd like to discuss this big hole in the story further.
The dark aspect of the film is the character of Jake Wade. Has he reformed, or hasn't he? The question is never resolved in the film, so I was left hanging. So, I disagree with reviews that saw this as a standard Western. Widmark, who plays Clint Hollister, asks the question point blank in the movie. Why did Wade bother to spring him from jail when he had been tried and was due to hang for murder? Does the simple answer suggested by some reviews answer the question? Was it a matter of honor for Wade, or a debt to be repaid as some think? If so, that means that Wade had not changed and did not put law and order first. Wade knows Hollister. They had been together for many years. Wade knows that Hollister plans to kill him. Wade freed Hollister knowing that he would go on robbing and killing.
So, the dark side of this film is that there is apparently no conflict in the person of Jake Wade. So, has he really reformed? Does he really believe in law and order? Does he really care about keeping the peace and protecting people? If he does, we don't see it, because any moral struggle over his actions never comes to the fore. Was it absent in the book? Or was it in the book but not explored in the film by the screenwriter, the director and/or the actor? Without exploration of Wade's moral conflict over his actions, we are left with a wooden marshal who has no thoughts about it one way or another. And in that lies the dark side of this film. The movie sets out to have us rooting for Wade as the bad guy turned good. But in reality, his bond to his former life was stronger than any moral sense and change of life for law and order.
Now, some reviewers seem to hold Robert Taylor up as a great actor; so I'll end here with some words about Taylor's acting and appeal. As a young person, I too liked the handsome, rough-hewn image of Taylor, the leading man. There's no doubt that he was a draw for me and many other movie buffs to see his movies. But, the last few decades as I've built up a film library for my family, I haven't found a single movie in which I thought Taylor was very good or excellent as an actor. At his best, he is just good or OK. Some of the films have been very good due mostly to the stories and support from others in the cast. Enough said on that – I still have a couple keepers in which Taylor stars. He's wooden in those as well, but the films are quite good.
"The Law and Jake Wade" could have been a great film if it had probed the character of Wade more deeply, and given him some conflicting emotions over his moral choices.
A couple other reviews have noted this. I kept looking for the film to explore the conflicts of Jake Wade over his past and present. In the beginning, that held my interest in the film. But as the movie progressed, and we never saw any resolution in the character of Wade, this became a nagging distraction from my enjoyment of the film. I agree with the few others who found fault with the plot and some of the scenes (Indian attacks) as well. But, I'd like to discuss this big hole in the story further.
The dark aspect of the film is the character of Jake Wade. Has he reformed, or hasn't he? The question is never resolved in the film, so I was left hanging. So, I disagree with reviews that saw this as a standard Western. Widmark, who plays Clint Hollister, asks the question point blank in the movie. Why did Wade bother to spring him from jail when he had been tried and was due to hang for murder? Does the simple answer suggested by some reviews answer the question? Was it a matter of honor for Wade, or a debt to be repaid as some think? If so, that means that Wade had not changed and did not put law and order first. Wade knows Hollister. They had been together for many years. Wade knows that Hollister plans to kill him. Wade freed Hollister knowing that he would go on robbing and killing.
So, the dark side of this film is that there is apparently no conflict in the person of Jake Wade. So, has he really reformed? Does he really believe in law and order? Does he really care about keeping the peace and protecting people? If he does, we don't see it, because any moral struggle over his actions never comes to the fore. Was it absent in the book? Or was it in the book but not explored in the film by the screenwriter, the director and/or the actor? Without exploration of Wade's moral conflict over his actions, we are left with a wooden marshal who has no thoughts about it one way or another. And in that lies the dark side of this film. The movie sets out to have us rooting for Wade as the bad guy turned good. But in reality, his bond to his former life was stronger than any moral sense and change of life for law and order.
Now, some reviewers seem to hold Robert Taylor up as a great actor; so I'll end here with some words about Taylor's acting and appeal. As a young person, I too liked the handsome, rough-hewn image of Taylor, the leading man. There's no doubt that he was a draw for me and many other movie buffs to see his movies. But, the last few decades as I've built up a film library for my family, I haven't found a single movie in which I thought Taylor was very good or excellent as an actor. At his best, he is just good or OK. Some of the films have been very good due mostly to the stories and support from others in the cast. Enough said on that – I still have a couple keepers in which Taylor stars. He's wooden in those as well, but the films are quite good.
"The Law and Jake Wade" could have been a great film if it had probed the character of Wade more deeply, and given him some conflicting emotions over his moral choices.