This violent ‘Valley’ is mainly full of idiots

Like many movie fans of my generation, I'm a fan of the Western. Even given how most of the examples of the genre explore myth more than actual history, I like how the greatest examples tell stories that delve into basic human behavior — the good and the bad.

In recent years, contemporary filmmakers have on occasion experimented with the genre, sometimes reinventing the traditional themes to better reflect modern sensibilities. Sometimes, though, they do little more than ape stereotypes for no discernible purpose. In a review that I wrote for Spokane Public Radio, I attempt to explain my reaction to a little neo-Western titled "In a Valley of Violence":

In his 1973 film “High Plains Drifter,” Clint Eastwood plays a lone horseman who rides into a town and, gradually, intentionally, leads it to ruin. Released a dozen years later, the movie “Pale Rider” has Eastwood portraying essentially the same kind of character.

The commonality here involves theme: Both movies tell the story of guys who have been wronged, humiliated and likely even killed, yet who have returned from – what, death? – to wreak revenge. That theme, in fact, is virtually the core of Eastwood’s whole career – especially, though not exclusively, in his Western films. His “Dirty Harry” character, Police Det. Harry Callahan, enjoys several of his own moments of retribution.

Moreover, the theme is central to the very Western genre itself. Think of “Shane.” Of “Winchester ’73.” Think of “The Searchers.”

And now think of “In a Valley of Violence,” a neo-Western that treads a mostly traditional path, both in terms of character and plot. Written and directed by Ti West, an American director known for making horror films, “In a Valley of Violence” might have be drawn directly from the Eastwood film library.

It focuses on Paul, a former soldier (played by Ethan Hawke) who – for reasons that never become clear – is headed for Mexico. Accompanied only by his horse, and trusty dog Abby, Paul finds himself in a dilemma: Out of supplies, yet still 10 days from the border, he is forced to stop in the town of Denton.

Once there, he runs into Gilly (James Ransome), a bully-boy of a deputy sheriff, and is drawn into a fight that – in fairly sudden fashion – he wins. But that is only the beginning of his troubles. Because even after being confronted, and released, by Denton’s marshal, who just happens to be Gilly’s father, Paul is waylaid by Gilly and his posse. They take his pride, his possessions and more – beware, dog lovers – but fail in their attempt to kill him. And that, of course, is their fatal flaw. Because then Paul, having lost everything else, finds himself motivated by only one thing: a desire for revenge.

All of this is familiar enough to Western fans. Here, though, is where “In a Valley of Violence” goes wrong. Contemporary films that ape traditional genres typically do so with a revisionist intention: Quentin Tarantino’s neo-Western “Django Unchained” is a perfect example. Yet even given each individual filmmaker’s quirks – and no director is more quirky than Tarantino – you’re likely to find some overarching purpose, some larger point to make.

It seems that West’s quirkiness involves no point at all, other than to create a familiar setting, throw a bunch of idiots together, and watch them act out their violent tendencies to somewhat predictable ends. I say “somewhat” because only the marshal, well portrayed by John Travolta, breaks type. The film’s closest approximation of an admirable character, he ends up being treated as wrongly as anyone Clint Eastwood has ever played.

Maybe that could make a sequel: The marshal coming back to seek his own measure of revenge.