Phillip Drummond.
High Noon.
London: British Film Institute, 1997.
(Series: BFI Film Classics)
High Noon at the publisher's web site.

I have mixed thoughts about recommending this book to others. When Mr. Drummond sticks to reporting facts his writing is clear enough and quite informative. However, his interpretative writing descends into turgid academese (the author is an British academic). Consider, for example, the final, concluding paragraph of the book:

"We create a different and lesser film if we reduce the modest intricacies of High Noon to assertions about social and political content and position, but we also take the risk of inventing an altogether newer film if we ignore the humble semiotic boundaries of the period by bestowing on the film too much complexity and grandeur. Its dedicated play with the staple semiotics of the genera produces an inventory of characters and their relationships which is, in turn, both routine and innovatory, but is in any case difficult to reduce to a single textual 'subject'. Sometimes ambiguous and even incoherent, it is the sophisticated simplicity of these dealings with the protocols of fifties cinema - from the general institutional pressures of the cinematic institution to the particular demands of narrative and image - which, in my view, guarantee the cultural longevity and mobility of High Noon."

After several readings of this paragraph, I may understand some of the author's meaning, but surely Mr. Drummond could convey his ideas more clearly. I like the concept of the "BFI Film Classics" series and have already puchased several volumes. This is the first of those volumes I have read and I sincerely hope that Mr. Drummond's writing is the worst in the lot.

In addition to the "BFI Film Classic" series (which BFI describes as "A series of finely written, beautifully illustrated books which honour the great films of world cinema"), BFI has a BFI Modern Classic series, described as "A series of books devoted to notable films of recent years", which also deserves attention.

Find more information about the film "High Noon" (1952) on the Internet at:
(a) IMDB - The Internet Movie Database
(b) Rotten Tomatoes
(c) Amazon.com

Lyrics to the song "Do Not Forsake Me" from the film "High Noon" on the Internet (some of the words are hard to discern in the film):
(1) High Noon (This web page has WAV and MP3 files of the song. Listen to it!)
(2) "Do Not Forsake Me [The Ballad of High Noon]" (In addition to the lyrics, this web page consists of a very nice interpretative essay by Deborah Allison.)


A couple books I have found very useful as guides or introductions to Art and Classic films:

[1] Jay Carr, editor.
The A List: The National Society of Film Critics' 100 Essential Films.
Cambridge, MA: De Capo Press, 2002.
The A List at the publisher's web site.

[Note: It appears that Emanuel Levy, the author of the essay about "High Noon" in this book, does not like the film! To quote the first sentance of his essay: "Context and subtext are far more important than text in Fred Zinnemann's High Noon, a western that over the years has assumed a mythical meaning and overrated status in American film history." I find this appalling. He dismisses the "text" of the film. So it's plot and themes are irrelevant?! It's "overrated"?! Mr. Levy makes much of John Wayne's and others' opposition to the film for various aesthetic and political reasons. Levy makes the statement: "Wayne was particularly offended by the last scene, which shows Cooper putting the marshall's badge under his foot and stepping on it, [emphasis added] an image later borrowed by Don Siegel for the ending of Dirty Harry." However, in the DVD edition of the film I have viewed, Marshall Kane tosses his badge on the ground in repudiation of the townspeople and there is no putting the badge under foot and stepping on it. What accounts for this discrepancy? Whether due to recent revisionist film editing or Mr. Levy's animus towards the film, I cannot say.]

[2] Roger Ebert.
The Great Movies.
New York: Broadway Books, 2002.

This book contains the first 100 essays that Ebert posted on his Great Movies web site: Ebert's Great Movies. Since then he has continued to write more such Great Movie essays, so if you're trying to decide what video to rent this weekend, I recommend you check out his Great Movies site.

[Note: Ebert has not yet included "High Noon" among what he thinks are "Great Movies." Why not?]


The film appears to remain controversial among professional film critics. Why?
Probably because the film's screenwriter Carl Foreman was a member of the Communist Party from 1938 to 1942 and, when he was called to testify before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Un-American Activities in September 1951 (during production of "High Noon"), Mr. Foreman sought refuge in the Fifth Ammendment (i.e., he refused to answer questions). Subsequently the film's producer Stanley Kramer disassociated himself from Mr. Foreman. Obviously, Mr. Foreman's Communist past tainted the film in the eyes of many during the 1950s. Equally, I believe, the well known "anti-anti-communism" of the political left has contributed to the political controversy surrounding the film. I don't think I over-generalize when I assert that most professional film critics have a liberal or leftist political inclincation. (Recall Pauline Kael's notorious comment in response to Richard Nixon's landslide re-election in 1972, for example.)

"High Noon" is a story of Good versus Evil, about Honor, and about what defines a Man (or Virtue). The character Helen Ramirez knowns what defines a Man, and she knows that Marshall Will Kane is a Man. None of the other men in Hadleyville measure up to Will Kane, and none of them stand up to defend their town when it is threatened by Evil, as incarnated in Frank Miller and his gang. (John Wayne, et al., probably expected more Honor in the characters in a "Western" genre film. The parade of cowardice we see as Will Kane looks for deputies indeed discourages. The success of this American republic depends upon the Virtue of its citizens. It seems contrary to what we know about America that Will Kane cannot find even one man of Virtue among Hadleyville's citizens. But this is necessary for the film's plot. In this sense, the 1950s conservative criticism of "High Noon" is justified.)

It seems to me that many film critics would rather persist in wallowing in the political controversies of the 1950s and thereby avoid addressing a timeless story that deals with such ethical concepts as Good vesus Evil, Honor, and Virtue. Emanuel Levy is one of those film critics, as he clearly implies in the sentence quoted above and a full reading of his essay demonstrates.

But should this really suprise anyone? After all, acknowledgement of moral and ethical absolutes (certainly those I've mentioned, and more) does not appear very fashionable among American liberals/leftists. Yes, I am saying that for many American leftists, in the 1950s and continuing through today, matters of morals and ethics are dominated by fashion rather than a recognition of permanent values. The recent example of Clinton, Lying, and Adultry proves this. Ever hear of the Ten Commandments? The response by Democrats to President George Bush's discussion of an "Axis of Evil" also supports my thesis.