Talk:The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Correction[edit]

Vera Miles was escorted to Tom's cabin at the beginning of the film by the Marshall and not by Pompey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.204.210.57 (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

Added Trivia regarding the song, the location, and the time of the setting of the movie. Mushrom 0128, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The closing scene of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance" is a rear view of the train heading away. This same scene is used in the ending of some of "Tales of Wells Fargo" with Dale Robertson TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.229.58 (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Theme--POV and other objections[edit]

Does discussion of Theme violate no original research? I would say the claims about the theme are highly controversial, and many other positions on the theme are possible (in fact, I read several reviews on rottentomatoes, and none of them agreed with this article on the theme). Since the claimed theme or themes of the movie are not attributed to a particular film critic, they would be original research.--Danielradetsky 05:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments in Theme are also absurd. "The smart handsome rich lawyer etc." is a US Senator on the verge of higher office "at the very outset", not a poor dishwasher. That's a plot device, not a thematic comment. The theme is of course violence versus rule of law as a means of solving problems, and the story (for that's what it is, a story) comes down on the side of gray, not black and white. Rule of law saves the day using violence--and surrogate violence at that.--Buckboard 09:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It is also important to note that Ransom and Liberty first meet each other when Liberty and his crew waylay Ransom's stage on the way into town and Liberty damages Ransom's law books. The bad blood between the two of them goes back to before Ransom's arrival in Shinbone.Scbmovies 18:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)sbcmovies[reply]

Revised plot line to point out that Stoddard learns about the "truth" of his shootout with Valance at the convention to pick a representative to the statehood convention, at the beginning of what would become Stoddard's long career, not the beginning as earlier written. -- OCWarner.

Gene Pitney[edit]

Gene Pitney did not write the song mentioned in the article. It was written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David. Pitney merely recorded it and had a hit with it!

More Gene Pitney[edit]

Personally, I always thought the theme actually used in the movie was beyond perfection and ideal for this particular film, infinitely more suitable than the Pitney song would've been. Wikichump (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this set in Arizona?[edit]

I agree the leandscape is about right, but the only reference in the film to a capitol is "Capitol City".

Staszu13 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are references to the "Picketwire" River, which is a distortion of the Purgatoire River, which runs through southern Colorado, and the film reference is to "south of the Picketwire," which could well be New Mexico, which is the state/territory south of the Purgatoire. The Purgatoire does not flow near Arizona, and doesn't quite reach New Mexico in its southward dip. Both Arizona and New Mexico achieved statehood (something the territorial citizens in "Valance" were hoping to gain) in 1912, maybe -- maybe -- a little late for the storyline of "Valance." (I don't think it's too late.) Colorado, on the other hand, the actual home to the Purgatoire River (though not much of Colorado is south of it), attained statehood in 1876, so it's more likely New Mexico is the territory in question. Monkeyzpop 02:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also possible that the 38 stars on the flag wasn't part of a carefully crafted clue by the director, but was just somewhat random. What is certain is that the film deliberately avoided naming the territory (notice the deliberately neutral name "Capital City"). So I think it is (a) wrong and (b) a violation of WP:NOR to state as a fact that this story took place in Arizona, or Colorado, or anywhere else. 24.23.139.195 09:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To today's (12 December 2009) editor re locale of film: Please read this discussion. The locale of the film is almost certainly, due to geographic details in the film, Arizona or Colorado, but CANNOT be presumed to be any state in particular, as it is not mentioned, per se. It is clearly intended to be a semi-fictional locale, as the "Picketwire" river and the admissions of various states are in some conflict. But the Picketwire/Purgatoire River, as well as the desert/cactus landscape, places it clearly in the Southwest, not Montana, Wyoming, or the Dakotas. Such speculation has been removed in the past due to WP guidelines against speculation, and will continue to be removed. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The exact location is left deliberately ambiguous. As other commenters have noted, there are fictional place names and conflicting locales that would rule out the "real" Arizona, Colorado, or Montana. As for the text of this article, the author is incorrect in his/her final paragraph of the plot summary when he/she writes that "[Stoddard] informs Hallie, to her delight, that he plans to retire from politics and return to the territory" to open a law practice. It is quite clear that the area that was a "territory" at the time of Stoddard's arrival is now not a territory but a state of the union. Maccb (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre vs. Theater[edit]

It's been changed to cinema, which I think is a perfect compromise. Originally the disputed portion read "in theatres." Someone changed it to "in theaters," which while acceptable is not a direct link to the WP article "Theatre." I changed it back to an equally acceptable word which DOES link to WP's article, which got a fellow's pantaloons in a bunch. He argued that "theatre," while WP's chosen variation and universally accepted as a proper spelling, was somehow "wrong." Fortunately, someone with more sense than both of us changed it to "in cinemas," which I think is an excellent compromise. I'm sorry that I didn't think of it myself. Of course, if the article had originally said "in movie theatres," I might not have argued the point when it was changed to the alternate spelling, since most sources suggest that there is a preference in some quarters for using the Germanic/Anglican spelling for movie houses. It's a tempest in a teapot, but as an uncredentialed etymologist, I have an inclination for the most historically accurate of two acceptable choices. At any rate, unless someone prefers edit wars to useful compromise, "in cinemas" it can remain. Monkeyzpop 03:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkeyzpop, I've sometimes disagreed with things you've mentioned in comments (and agreed with most of them) but this one is so sterlingly, resoundingly perfect that I might've written it myself. The Final Edict (talk) 13:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Theatre" is British usage; "theater" is American usage. An article on an American film obviously should be written in American usage. I've added a usage notice to this talk page as a reminder.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snoopy vs. the Red Baron[edit]

Background section says: "The Royal Guardsmen also covered the song in their 1967 album Snoopy vs. the Red Baron (album)."

I own that album, and my copy most definitely does not include "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence." What is the source of the above statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.192.21.44 (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the preceding. The album I own is "Snoopy and his Friends, the Royal Guardsmen." I was unaware of the existence of the earlier "Snoopy vs. the Red Baron" album until just now. The title cut of the earlier album is on both albums, which caused my confusion. 163.192.21.44 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions[edit]

I've reverted the erroneous edit locating the film in Wyoming, as this has been discussed at length (see above) and the film clearly takes place in the Arizona-New Mexico-Colorado area from internal evidence, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support Wyoming as its locale. In addition, I deleted uncited speculation as to why certain characters were given certain names. Imputing reasons to the writer or director without quotations or citation leaves remarks subject to deletion. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page says the film was an instant hit. The Jimmy Stewart page says it didn't do well at the box office. Any research for either claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.135.58 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One shot (in song) should be two[edit]

I have changed the wording in the song section to indicate that there are two drums strikes, mimicking the two shots fired. Also, I have altered the phrase that read: "kettle-drum, or tympani that slides upward" to "drum" as the original description doesn't make sense to me. Guyburns (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which came first: song or film[edit]

On the single of the song it states in brackets: "inspired by film of same name":[1] implying that the song came after the film. If so, the wording in the song section should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyburns (talk • contribs) 11:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read elsewhere online, the song was released the same year as the film but afterward, which means the movie could still have been in theaters. It was not used in the movie because of music publishing dispute. 5Q5 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would strenuously argue that Cyril J. Mockridge's amazing theme song used in the film was far better and more suitable than the Pitney recording would have been, especially since Mockridge's theme doesn't give away the plot of the movie to viewers before the first scene unspools. To my mind, one of the numerous aspects of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance that make it unassailably Ford's greatest masterpiece is the fact that it's the only Ford film in which there is no music in the picture that doesn't annoy or grate on discerning modern ears; Mockridge's theme is thrilling. I couldn't make that statement had Pitney's recording been substituted for Mockridge's. Interestingly, a variation of the theme was incorporated into the original trailer for Otto Preminger's River of No Return (1950) with Robert Mitchum and Marilyn Monroe, worth checking out on YouTube. Mockridge did the music for that film as well. The Final Edict (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two different versions in the 60s - 70s.[edit]

I first saw this film on television in the UK in 1968. In this first version that I saw, the famous shooting scene had the character Pompey firing the fatal shot, having been thrown the rifle by John Wayne's character, who was barely able to stand due to drunkenness.

We would argue at school about "who shot Liberty Valance". Some, including myself, would vehemently argue that it was the character Pompey, but we would be ridiculed by others, who would just as vehemently argue that it was the Wayne character. Came the time when it was noted that the film was on television again (circa 1969 - it used to be regularly shown in the 60s and 70s) and both sides of the argument jeeringly taunted the other to watch the film and see the 'real' ending. So we all did - and at the end, the character Pompey shot Liberty Valance, just as I and others had seen before. Our friends at school who had disagreed over this ending, could not believe that they had 'got it so wrong' and reacted with shamefaced disbelief in the 'fallibility' of their own memories.

So, that was that, until about a year later when it was noted that it was on TV again. One group of schoolboys taunted the other again, to watch the film and see the 'real' ending with Pompey killing Valance.. and I watched it again, only to see the fatal shooting of Valance by the John Wayne character. This time it was I who began to doubt my own memory - how had I got it so wrong? And twice in a row?

So we discussed it at school and came to the conclusion that we had seen two different versions of the film - one with John Wayne performing the fatal act and one with Woody Strode being the perpetrator. Over the next 2-3 years, it was shown again several times and we saw the two different versions repeated. Of the hundreds (maybe thousands) of celluloid prints of this film that were distributed worldwide, somebody had slipped in two different cuts with the two different endings. I suspect it was the Director who mischievously did so, without any publicity due to the then highly-controversial alternate ending in which a white man is shot dead by an afro-american. I note that the recent re-issue has the 'Wayne' ending and that none of the pre and post-publicity has any mention of the alternate version.

So.. to those older of you who doubt their own memories of this film, don't worry - there were definitely two versions of this film distributed, no matter what today's 'experts' may say.

78.147.190.86 (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss the article, not the movie itself. This is a moderately interesting anecdote, but unless you can cite a reliable source to support it, it's not something we can include in the article. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 02:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I never had any intention of my evidence being included in the article itself. It is for the Talk Page. Under Wiki Talk guidelines "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation.." which is precisely why I posted my and my fellow schoolfriends' experiences of having seen different versions of this film. I can as yet supply no 'reliable' sources other than empirical experience, but feel that the earlier deletion of my Talk Page comments was somewhat arbitrary and against Wiki Talk guidelines and the ethos of the site itself. Perhaps my comments may prompt others to post similar experiences and in the interest of Wiki ethos, I feel that my comments should remain undeleted, here on the Talk Page. 78.147.180.233 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat that the purpose of this talk page is to discuss the article about the movie, not the movie itself. I assume that Monkeyzpop reverted your anecdote because it was about the movie, not the article, and because it was clearly not something that could be included in the article without WP:RS -- and now you have said straight out that you never had that intention anyway. So technically, the revert was justified. It's no big deal in the Great Scheme, I don't care personally one way or the other, so I'll leave it to consensus to decide whether to leave it or remove it. All of that said, I've never seen this mentioned before, so if you do find any published evidence of an alternate version (I looked, couldn't find any), please post it. Cheers, DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been under the impression that any talk page was for both discussion about the article and the topic itself.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has undergone some changes over the past year which seem to restrict/delete a lot of how things are done and what can & can't be discussed --- much to the detriment of its "encyclopedia" purpose/status. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of "versions," I'm sure I've heard the song in the movie.
Is it possible that it was added at a later date?
Guess I'll have to wait until it comes on TV again. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 11:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I find the alternate version story of Pompey shooting Valance fascinating and the speculation that Ford might have slipped out an alternate copy intriguing. I've never heard this anywhere else but I'd love to see the other shoe drop concerning this. I'm sure the Pitney song was never in the movie but I could easily imagine some TV station playing it over the titles (despite the fact that it gives the plot away in advance). I've seen the trailer on Youtube with Pitney's Bacharach/Hal David song laid over it, which was certainly never exhibited in any theatre. The Final Edict (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion of the movie in this forum could ultimately lead to a new insight being ultimately incorporated into the article itself. Personally, I think it would be a mistake to take the Jeffersonian edicts of the Wikipedia high council (or whomever it is) too literally on this one. The Final Edict (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Timing issues[edit]

How could the events be set 25 years in the past? According to the reporter, after the State achieves statehood, Rance serves three terms as governor, three terms as senator, Ambassador to the court of St. James, then back to the Senate. As every Western state has 4-year terms for Governors, and senate terms are 6 years, this comes to a minimum of 36+ years. Erniecohen (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's fiction. You can't simply take real terms as a litmus test. It very well could be that this state had two year terms. Also, it's not stated he always served full terms, for instance, he could have resigned a governorship upon the death of a sitting senator to become senator himself. He also could later have resigned as senator early in his term to become Ambassador. -- fdewaele, 26 March 2016, 13:40 CET.

Take it to 'the Grave'...[edit]

hey, ya all might enjoy this lil trivia fact .. just a few months before the release of 'Liberty'... not less than 3, count 'em 3 stars/supporting cast where presented in a Twilight Zone episode from Oct 1961.. it was kinda spooky, weird to watch it. As it should be. oh, it was entitled 'the Grave' w/ Lee Marvin, Lee Van Cleef & Strother Martin. 2602:304:CDAF:A3D0:6CB1:3368:136:B07E (talk) 01:56, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watched that episode recently on Netflix. Lee Marvin's hat in that one was fantastic, I would love to have one just like it. Speaking of Marvin, he gave a detailed description of working on The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance in an in-depth interview later in his life, available on YouTube, in which he eloquently explains why there was no choice about choosing black and white over color and that the film would not have worked at all in color, which for once even enigmatic Ford himself was vocal about. Regarding the quote widely attributed to cinematographer Clothier about the studio insisting on black and white to save on costs, it was preposterous that they'd insist on that with two of the biggest stars in cinema at the pinnacles of their careers leading the cast, not to mention that even then studios preferred color film for foreign distribution purposes and because color movies usually tend to do better at the box office across the board. By the way, Lee Marvin's first name came from the fact that he was supposedly related to Robert E. Lee, whose enormous statue was concidentally taken down in Richmond VA yesterday as I write this. The Final Edict (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brody refs[edit]

In the Reception section, quotes (direct and indirect) attributed to Richard Brody were ref-ed to the Roger Ebert website (by name-ing an earlier ref). I found two good refs for the first quote and added them. I did not find refs for the rest of the sentence at those locations. The quotes are likely correct and Brody likely wrote about TMWSLV many times, but I did not find good refs, so the end of the sentence lacks a ref. Paleolith (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Man_Who_Shot_Liberty_Valance&oldid=1207433446"