Visionaries and the Inheritors

I. Introduction

Understanding the Western genre seems simple. Like films of other genres, features of Westerns occasionally follow a formula that seasoned audiences can predict. The Western is more or less about an era of exploration and development in the United States. Furthermore there is a character or emblematic Western figure that stands tall, possesses great strength, and is quick with a revolver. This figure is also sometimes accompanied by one, two, or even a group of men at his side that faithfully follow his word as law. However presupposing that Western film is merely formulaic and simple does not do this genre justice. There are many complex devices used to convey much deeper meaning that portray the beginnings of the American West.



II. Introduction to Central Argument

In Red River (Howard Hawks, 1948) Tom Dunson, played by John Wayne, is a hovering man with ambition, tenacity, strength and an unwavering work ethic. His qualities can be compared to a Benjamin Franklin type of American; a hard working, self-made man. He is accompanied by a loyal and somewhat of a clownish character, Nadine Groot and an adopted son named Matthew Garth. In juxtaposition, a character in The Man from Laramie (Anthony Mann, 1955) who can be easily compared to Tom Dunson is Alec Waggoman. Waggoman has built his Barb Ranch from the ground up just as Dunson did (beginning with just one bull and one cow). They both have severe ambition that becomes overwhelmingly authoritative. As the two narratives progress one can say that they begin to lose sight (in Alec’s case it is quite literal) and degenerate the loyalty of their men and disenchantment of their dream. But maybe the most significant similar quality of these two Western figures is their relationship they have with their sons. Tom Dunson and Alec Waggoman both have a strong desire to carry on their legacies by passing them onto an heir which adds to the conflict in both narratives. Vic and Matt also imbibe similar characteristics, especially in their interactions with their father figures. There are strong yet subtle parallels and contrasts that one can draw between the fathers and sons of both films, each possessing characteristics that instigate the ambiguity between good, evil, society, and law. The same characteristics that instigate this ambiguity can also draw upon some intriguing answers in a profound American sense. Perhaps in the uncertainty between friend, foe, father and son, Red River and The Man from Laramie suggests that the promises of a new frontier, new land, and a legacy built from the ground up can result in an endless search for the visionary’s dream.


III. Tom Dunson and Alec Waggoman: Visionaries  

In analyzing Tom Dunson and Alec Waggoman as father figures, there strikes a resemblance to a type of American that almost seems mythic in modern times. Historically, the US patriarchal sentiment was ubiquitous. Americans honor their founding fathers by naming states and cities after them, illustrating them on currency, and building epic monuments in their honor. Like the legacies of the founding fathers, Dunson and Waggoman have branched out towards the West and built something of their own from the ground up. Dunson, with just one bull and cow, grew a vast herd with thousands of head of cattle. Likewise, Alec Waggoman has spent his entire life building up his Barb Ranch. Unlike The Man from Laramie that begins in media res, Red River offers the audience the beginnings of Dunson’s dream;

"Ten years and I’ll have the Red River D on more cattle than you’ve looked at anywhere. I’ll have that brand on enough beef to feed the whole country. Good beef for hungry people. Beef to make em’ strong. To make em’ grow. But it takes work, it takes sweat, it takes time, lots of time. It takes years."

There is a strong sense of optimism in Dunson’s tone. As the audience hears his speech, images of Dunson’s dream transitions in and beholds a promising future for his legacy. As the fourteen long years pass the audience sees a grown-up and experienced Matt, an older and wiser Groot, and an embittered Dunson. The market has no demand for beef and Dunson’s vision came to an end. This is a significant portrait of the American dream; a story of optimism, promise, gain and loss. The American dream has given much optimism to one who partakes so ambitiously in her promises, but nothing prepares this individual for failure.

In The Man from Laramie, Lockhart enters the town of Coronado and is greeted by a deep and complex structure full of tension and mystery. He and the audience soon find out the order of things and the social politics that govern it. It is apparent that Alec Waggoman runs things in Coronado. Yet there is a sense of imbalance, especially in Alec Waggoman. If the film began with a young Alec in his prime where the audience could see him building up his ranch, one would most likely confront a character full of promise, confidence, and a clear vision. Yet the audience is greeted by an old and decadent character that is going blind. He states, “I own a hundred thousand acres yet cannot see ten of them.” The loss of his vision is both in his eyes and his dream. The gradual blindness of Alec can act as a symbol of disillusionment and adds to the ambiguity of the narrative.

With his ranch established, it would seem that Alec’s dream of building up a legacy has come into fruition. But there is a sense of unsettledness, probably owing to the fact that his heir to his legacy is an incompetent and spoiled brat. When Alec reveals his inevitable blindness to Vic he speaks with candor which sets off a string of events that leads to Dave’s untimely death;

Alec: I’ve been pretty hard on you Vic. Maybe a little harder than you deserve. Maybe I’m a little jealous because you’re not my son too. Take care of my boy. Love him like a brother, and I’ll love you like a son.
Vic: Alright… Pa.

This dialogue between Alec and Vic is intriguing. Much like the relationship between Matt and Dunson, there is genuine love between unrelated kin. The bond that is formed is legitimate as if they were related by blood, but will soon be betrayed by Vic. Alec is full of uncertainty and the truth is not revealed to him until the end when his physical blindness completely takes over. The truth being that now his legacy will not be carried on with Dave and Vic both dead.

IV. Vic and Matthew Garth: “Inheritors”

Vic, not in blood relation to Alec Waggoman, is much more fitted to be Alec’s son because of his ambition and strength. During the film, the audience finds out that Vic is behind the selling of the repeating rifles to the Apache which got Lockhart’s brother killed. In trying to cover up this deed along with his ambition in one day inheriting the ranch along with Dave, more evils occur that are willed upon Vic. There is something much more distorted in just painting Vic as a villain because of the misdeeds that happen at his hands. Vic has many of the same characteristics Tom Dunson has. He is ambitious and worked years at the Barb. Consider the scene where Barbara attempts to convince Vic they should just leave Coronado and start a new life;

Barbara: This is no place for us Vic. I want to leave and I want you to leave with me.
Vic: Where can we go?!
Barbara: Anywhere.
Vic: That’s the same as nowhere! Look Barbara, we’ve been all over this before. Here in Coronado we’ve got something, if we leave we’re a couple of nobodies.
Barbara: You keep saying we got nothing if we leave. If we love each other doesn’t that mean anything?
Vic: I love you Barbara you know that, but I worked my whole life for the Barb. I got years of sweat and blood soaked in that ground and I’m not giving up what’s rightfully mine.

The pouring of sweat and blood in the Barb is reminiscent of Dunson’s speech, when he says “it takes sweat, it takes time.” The vision is clear of what Vic wants and he will do anything to get what is rightfully his.

Matthew Garth is situated somewhat similar to Vic, as they are both not in blood relation to their father figures. They both stand and expect to inherit a legacy which they assisted in building. They both have a stake in it and are willing to go against their fathers in order to achieve it. With Matt, the audience sees a strong and perseverant man, but of delicate charisma. Wherever he goes people tend to like and follow him. Unlike Dunson who forces his will onto his comrades, Matt works with people and yields much more freedom. This overwhelming will of Dunson soon turns into madness which prompted Matt to turn on him and take over his cattle drive. Dunson’s haunting words “I’m going to kill you” manifested into the ears and heart of Matt that plague the cattle drive up to Abilene. Driven by fear and hope, Matt traverses the landscape always looking over his shoulder. The sudden shift from love to hatred projected by Dunson comes at somewhat of a shock, but it is soon realized that Dunson’s hatred and urge to kill Matt seems false in his confrontation with Tess;

Tess: Why do you want to kill him?
Dunson: Because he’s a theif.
Tess: You think he thinks that?
Dunson: He should! I picked him up in the brush fourteen years ago leading a cow. He saw what I was planning, saw what I was building. He knew someday it will all be his. His land, his cattle, the whole thing. He even talked of a woman. A strong woman who will bear him sons. A woman like you.
Tess: Why did you want him to have a son?
Dunson: Because I built something. Build it with my own hands and I can’t live forever. Can’t live to see it grow. I thought I had a son, now I haven’t and I want one.

The last words in this dialogue are of significance towards the central theme of the film. It is what drives Dunson. Everything he has and built would need to be continued after he is gone. When he dies, his legacy would die with him without a son.

There is also a strangeness of the proposal to Tess about bearing a son for him in trade for half of everything he owns. It is almost as if he is treating her like one of his cattle, to breed him a son.  

V: Women’s Roles interlaced in Father/Son Element

The treatment of women and the lack of mothers in the central narrative of these films deserve some analysis. In context of when these films were made, the roles of men and women were clearly defined in social and private spheres. Considering this, and the Western cementing its place in popular culture perhaps it is not surprising, however as Robert B. Pippin suggests in his essay, Red River and the Right to Rule, there is a supposed “impossibility of women in this new world.” (Pippin 33)  Dunson leaves Fen for Texas to start on his vision and Matt leaves Tess to finish the drive to Abilene even though both of these women are strong and independent, it is impossible for them to participate in these legacy building narratives. For Dunson, the plan to build his legacy without a woman seems a bit complicated, however Pippin again argues a valid point, “As we shall see in other contexts, the issue being joined here is not sexual politics but the politics of founding and the idea of self generated (and so entitled) mini-empire.”(Pippin 35) Moreover, Dunson’s ambition is far too great to settle down and betroth to a woman. His vision does not account romance, only to build his legacy on his own.

VI: Conclusion

In Red River there is some suggestion brought up by Cherry Valance that Matt is too soft and feminine, which might get him killed. These qualities hold true, yet enable him to successfully lead a group of tired out men and thousands of cattle for days into Abilene and to stand up to Dunson earning his “M” next to the Red River D. The resolution at the end gives way to a sense of order from the chaos of Dunson’s cattle drive. Furthermore, in The Man from Laramie, Lockhart leaves Cornoado, a town that finds peace and order in dénouement.  However, there is something uncanny about both endings. There is more order, yet things seem unfinished. In one film, there was a happier ending, where Dunson and Matt forgave each other and in the other Alec Waggoman lost his sons yet reunited with his first love, Kate. What one may take from both these endings could be laid out in reflecting upon the American West. Hordes of men just like Tom Dunson and Alec Waggoman went searching for a vision. They envisioned prosperity, but did they find what they were looking for? There is something that will always be provocative that searching for one’s vision and the promise of achieving it seems to always be undone and ambiguous.



Works Cited

The Man from Laramie. Directed by Anthony Mann. Performed by Arthur Kennedy, Donald Crisp, James Stewart. 1955.
Red River. Directed by Howard Hawks. Performed by Joanne Dru, John Wayne. 1948.
Pippin, Robert B. "Red River and the Right to Rule." Hollywood Westerns: American Myth 26-58.