Tag: Armie Hammer

Was Armie Hammer’s Portrayal of the Lone Ranger Offensive?

The Lone Ranger Critics have attacked The Lone Ranger (2013) for a number of reasons. Because of the movie’s big budget and low box office returns, some have labeled it a flop, although that is not how a viewer should judge a film. Many attack the film for Johnny Depp’s portrayal of the Native American Tonto, while others have defended his role. I understand the criticisms, and the producers should have expected that discussion. I am not qualified to add much to the Tonto debate, but I can say that the portrayal of the Lone Ranger disrespects the franchise and the Lone Ranger, by portraying him as kind of a jerk. [Warning: Post contains some spoilers.]

First, though, let me say I enjoyed the movie for a summer popcorn movie, which may explain why the film still has a Rotten Tomatoes audience rating of 68% compared to the horrible 26% critics’ rating. While critics have argued that the film shows that Westerns cannot do well at the box office, such conclusions are wrong. Good Westerns, like the 2010 remake of True Grit, will continue to find an audience. It is wrong to put the whole genre of Westerns on the shoulders of The Lone Ranger, which fails to succeed because it is not a great movie.

So what are the problems with the way the movie portrays the Lone Ranger? First, while Armie Hammer is a very good actor and captures aspects of the character, physically he is not right. Yes, it is a fantasy that folks will not recognize anyone who puts a mask around the eyes, but it stretches fantasy too much to expect someone would be fooled by the masked Hammer, who towers over everyone else. Further, the movie is never quite sure whether or not it is a fantasy. There are some realistic scenes of violence, but then we are expected to believe the Lone Ranger can ride Silver up and down the top of a moving train.

But the main problem is that this Lone Ranger is not a man of honor, and even if the intent of the film is to show the character’s evolution or it is meant to be a comedy, it fails in those respects too. In director Gore Verbinski’s The Lone Ranger, we are expected to accept the Lone Ranger as a symbol of upholding law, but he turns out to be kind of a dick. Some of it makes no sense, like the fact that he would leave Tonto to die buried up to his neck even after Tonto has helped him.

In another scene, we see that the Lone Ranger has evolved into an attempted murderer. In that scene near the end of the movie, the Lone Ranger points a gun at the head of his prisoner Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) and pulls the trigger in cold blood. Although the gun misfires and, yes, we have already seen Cavendish is a horrible person, the scene makes the Lone Ranger into a cold blooded (attempted) killer without addressing any of the moral ramifications.

The late Walter Wink wrote about the use of “redemptive violence” in movies, where an audience is manipulated into rooting for the hero to commit acts of violence by watching the bad guy repeatedly do horrible things to the hero. While I am not opposed to violence in movies, the problem is when we are supposed to accept the hero killing a captured prisoner out of revenge and still root for the hero.

Again, the movie is a fantasy, and we can suspend reality a little, especially once we hear the William Tell Overture. And for a summer movie, it is better than a lot of others. But as someone who likes Westerns, I hate to see The Lone Ranger used as a representative film of the modern Western genre or that this film will be the only portrayal of the Lone Ranger that kids will know.

Maybe I need to cleanse my palate with a viewing of my Appaloosa (2008) DVD. Or I can just watch the 1949 Enter the Lone Ranger below with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels, where the Lone Ranger captures Butch Cavendish instead of trying to kill him in cold blood — and where he does not abandon Tonto to die.

Conclusion? The portrayal of the Lone Ranger in the 2013 The Lone Ranger may not be offensive, but it fails to capture what made the earlier versions of the character heroic and fun.

What did you think of The Lone Ranger? Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • A Dark Humorless Somewhat Revisionist Western: “Hostiles” (Short Review)
  • The Unsatisfying Ending of Scorsese’s “Silence” That Is Still Perfect
  • “Westworld” is Coming to HBO
  • Moral Ambiguity and “Lawman” (Missed Movies)
  • 8 Reasons to Watch Terror in a Texas Town
  • Paul McCartney (and Famous Folks) in “Queenie Eye” Video

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    J. Edgar (Short Review)

    j. edgar
    J. Edgar Hoover’s long career in the FBI spanned a number of significant historical events, and the new film about the man, J. Edgar (2011), captures some of the scope of that history while trying to understand a very complicated person. In the film, we see terrorist activity from the early twentieth century through the gangster era into the Depression through the Lindbergh baby kidnapping and the Civil Rights movement through Kennedy’s assassination, until finally Hoover’s paranoia is passed onto the incoming president Richard M. Nixon. It is a big span for a movie, but Director Clint Eastwood never loses sight of its goal of telling the story of the main character.

    When I first heard Leonardo DiCaprio was going to play Hoover, my initial reaction was to think he was miscast. While some critics may still believe that (and also criticize the makeup on the aging characters), DiCaprio does a surprisingly excellent job filling the shoes of the larger-than-life Hoover. DiCaprio is one of the few actors who could convincingly play Hoover at a young age and at old age.

    Judi Dench plays Hoover’s domineering mother, and Naomi Watts plays Hoover’s long-time secretary. But much of the movie focuses on the relationship between Hoover and his longtime assistant, Clyde Tolson, played well by Armie Hammer. Many speculate that Hoover and Tolson had a romantic relationship, and the film focuses on Hoover as a repressed man. Whether or not they had a physical relationship, their close bond, among Hoover’s other repressions, is one of the devices used to try to understand Hoover’s secretive nature and interest in the sexual lives of others.

    While not perfect, the movie was fascinating, thoughtful, entertaining, and informative. Although the movie jumps back and forth through time, Eastwood was masterful in doing it in a way that never seemed confusing. But while I was never bored, watching the film is not necessarily a pleasurable experience. If there is a weakness in J. Edgar, it is that you have to spend two plus hours with someone who is not very likeable. Even when Hoover was doing some things that benefited the country and busting criminals, he seems less like a hero and more like a troubled person who happened to do some heroic things as a side effect.

    Conclusion? J. Edgar is a very entertaining film that is epic in scope but personal in focus. If you do not mind spending time in the company of an unlikeable character as long as the character is interesting, and if you are curious about American history, you will like this movie.

    Check out some other reviews because why should you listen to me? The Rotten Tomatoes website currently indicates a low critic rating of 40% with a higher audience approval of 66%. Mike Giuliano of ExploreHoward.com calls the movie “a worthwhile character study that’s able to transcend its various flaws.” On Flick Filosopher, Maryann Johanson, by contrast, concludes that the film “is too staid and static, and too unfocused, to make us feel much of anything at all.”

  • The Missing Marine From the Iwo Jima Flag Photo
  • Bryan Cranston As LBJ in “All the Way” (Short Review)
  • Why Did God Make Oklahoma?
  • Don’t Miss “Philomena” (Short Review)
  • Bob Dylan Believes in Detroit in Super Bowl Commercial
  • Ira Hayes Won’t Answer Anymore

    • (Some Related Chimesfreedom Posts)