3:10 to Yuma

I was accidentally given this movie instead of the 2007 re-make! And I am grateful. For modern students of cinematography the 1950s Western genre may initially seem somewhat arcane, but movies like this demonstrate how movies of that era reach for a higher plane, not just in terms of the craft, but philosophy as well. This effort is almost perfectly constructed, and worthy of a student's close analysis. It could have been 10 minutes longer, to develop the characters of Ford and Heflin, emphasise some of the sexual tension, and to develop the relationship between protagonist and antagonist. Perhaps some back story should have been implied, too, between the gang and its leader (civil war loyalty ?) And incidentally, I was amazed and pleased how briefly, intensely and satisfying was the connection between Ford and the barmaid.An amazing scene, of just a few minutes - which surely must have shocked adult audiences of 1957 (and passed over the head of children).

Long before it was re-made, I treasured this modest gem of a western.

From the first notes of its mournful, affecting theme to to the poignant finale it draws you in and keeps you riveted as the tension mounts. It accomplishes this by keeping to the Aristotelian unities: a single theme about a single protagonist on a single day. Yes, there is an obvious parallel to **High Noon**.

Though cast as a villain for the only time in his career, Glen Ford's natural likability shines through in the role of gang boss Ben Wade. Van Heflin's Dan Evans is Everyman--no hero but spurred to heroism by desperate circumstances and devotion to family. In contrast to Heflin's homeliness is the godlike physical perfection of the young Richard Jaeckel as the outlaw gang's second-in-command, smart, dangerous, utterly amoral yet loyal unto death to his boss.

There is not a bad performance anywhere. But I must single out Felicia Farr as the lonely barmaid who gives Ford a last, quick good time, and craggy-faced Ford Rainey as a town Marshal with a plan.

With its mix of deep focus shots and closeups of the actors' faces, the cinematography was the obvious inspiration to Sergio Leone in his spaghetti western series.

Christian Bale and Russell Crowe are going to have to perform feats of magic to beat this film. There is no doubt that they have picked one of the toughest westerns to beat in their remake.

There is shooting, but this is not a shoot-'em-up western. It is a thoughtful game of chess between a ruthless outlaw (Glenn Ford) and a farmer (Van Heflin). To see Ford, who we lost last year, try to buy Helflin (Johnny Eager, Shane), and see Heflin grow in courage was magnificent.

Every one else fades as these two play their game. The ending was terrific. I am anxious to see if they change it.

Farmer Evans looks to avoid conflict and work his farm in peace, when he witnesses a stage coach being held up he doesn't get involved. However due to drought and debt threatening his farm, he takes the job of escorting the leader of the gang to Yuma and prison when he is caught. The sheriffs fool the gang into thinking that Wade has been taken by coach and Evans and Wade stay in a hotel room until the train to Yuma. However with Wade's gang getting closer, the clock ticking and Evans' posse deserting him man by man the stakes rise.

It's a western but it could easily have been in any setting if it was done this well. The story is clever but really picks up once Wade is captured – in both Evans' home and in the hotel room, the dialogue becomes clever and meaningful. The story is kept tense (with Evans getting increasingly sweaty) despite being very talky. Wade works Evans in a Machiavellian flow of dialogue that visually gets to him throughout. However once it is clear that honour is important over money the countdown to the tense walk to the train station is on.

Heflin is great as the farmer who takes a stand only to see pride swell up in his family, in a way he respects the criminal for taking risk and being brave in contrast to his middle road lifestyle. Ford is effortlessly brilliant as the criminal blessed with charisma and charm with a dangerous streak underneath – in one key scene he sets out Heflin's character when he easily casts a spell charming Heflin's wife and sons. However beneath the dialogue he is slightly jealous of the farmer's settled life and this adds spice to the relationship between the two.

Overall this is a fantastic western, but if it was set in the modern day it would be a brilliant cop thriller, or in space, a brilliant sci-fi. The key is the central relationship between the two men – here it is perfect and the tension that builds towards the fateful walk to the station is gripping.

I've liked this movie for a long time. Watching it last night, though, it finally occurred to me to wonder about the character played by Glenn Ford. I don't really understand what motivates him, or his gang.

Some people have commented that the closing scene is unbelievable, but I think that's only true because we never get a fix on Glenn Ford's character. Is he a psychotic killer, or is he a gentleman thief?

The psychotic killer label is supported by his actions in the opening scene of the stage coach robbery. He didn't even try to talk himself out of that situation, even though the driver was one against twelve and couldn't carry out his threat without being gunned down instantly. It's also supported by the fear that his name strikes into the hearts of all the townspeople. A man doesn't generate that kind of fear by simply robbing stage coaches. Obviously, he and his gang have done a lot of killing.

The gentleman thief label is supported by his complete lack of bullying characteristics. In every other situation of the movie except that opening scene, he uses his charm to try to get around people. He doesn't attempt to run roughshod over them. That completely contradicts the image of a guy who shoots first and asks questions later.

As for his gang, they show an extraordinary amount of loyalty to him and each other, which makes the shooting during the stage coach robbery that much more unconvincing. Why would they be loyal to a leader who didn't even try to save one of his own? Maybe that was just an anomaly. Ford tells us later in the movie that his gang will always go to extraordinary lengths to save one of their own, and they do just that to try to free him. Yet, at the end, he chooses to save the life of Van Heflin rather than go with his gang. Okay, so he decided that Van Heflin was a good guy worth saving, even if it did get his second in command killed. I don't mind that. What bothers me is, why is he so confident that, having turned his back on his gang, they are going to try to rescue him again in Yuma??? If I'm in that gang, he's made his choice and he can swing for it.