Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
Yes, I was watching the classic western Liberty Valance over the weekend. Its a great film by any measure.
Jimmy Stewart plays a lawyer in a frontier town that is terrorised by Lee Marvin and his gang.
Politically the film is a bit of a mish mash. Stewart is a civilised man who believes in the rule of law. However he is forced to confront Marvin with a gun in his hand. Stewart represents modern civilised values whilst Marvin is a savage. John Wayne bridges the two worlds.
If you havent seen it yet then you are in for a treat.
Anyway one of the side issues in the film is the fight for statehood and this seems to be a hotly contested proposition.
On the one side are the small holders from “south of the picketwire”. They are represented by Stewart and are all for statehood. John Wayne is supportive of this as well.
On the other side are the big ranchers who do not want statehood at any cost. Their man is Lee Marvin.
Anyway my questions are as follows.
What would be the arguments against statehood ?
Surely it is a good thing in itself ?
If the big ranchers are against it would that be because they are powerful enough to not need the protection of statehood ?
Is statehood such a big deal ?
Many thanks, TT
Jimmy Stewart plays a lawyer in a frontier town that is terrorised by Lee Marvin and his gang.
Politically the film is a bit of a mish mash. Stewart is a civilised man who believes in the rule of law. However he is forced to confront Marvin with a gun in his hand. Stewart represents modern civilised values whilst Marvin is a savage. John Wayne bridges the two worlds.
If you havent seen it yet then you are in for a treat.
Anyway one of the side issues in the film is the fight for statehood and this seems to be a hotly contested proposition.
On the one side are the small holders from “south of the picketwire”. They are represented by Stewart and are all for statehood. John Wayne is supportive of this as well.
On the other side are the big ranchers who do not want statehood at any cost. Their man is Lee Marvin.
Anyway my questions are as follows.
What would be the arguments against statehood ?
Surely it is a good thing in itself ?
If the big ranchers are against it would that be because they are powerful enough to not need the protection of statehood ?
Is statehood such a big deal ?
Many thanks, TT