What's in a Western?
A Critical Response to Jane Tompkins' West of Everything
 

In the introduction to her book West of Everything: The Inner Life of Westerns, Jane Tompkins imparts to the reader several key elements which she feels are instrumental in talking about the importance of the Western. These elements can be grouped under three questions: What makes a Western; Why Westerns are made; and What is wrong with the Western?

Tompkins begins the essay with a statement in the second sentence that displays the conventions of the Western genre which will concern her throughout the essay. She explains that "[She loves] to hear violins with the clip-clop of hooves behind them (p. 3)." This auditory description instantly brings to mind two very separate images, though they are tantamount to one another: The civilized and uncivilized worlds. Orchestral music, heavy with the sounds of stringed and woodwind instruments is often times heard when a Western town and/or family appears on screen. Antithetically, the telltale sound of a horse is associated with the rough and rugged individual. Striding -galloping- into town (an exception to this singular appearance is the arrival of an Army or Ranger brigade, but soldiers can essentially be treated as a collective entity), bringing chaos to the serene existence of the family, disrupting the setting put forth by the aforementioned strings. Violins and horse hooves are two of the most important elements of the genre. It remains, however, unclear as to the reason she feels the need to mention horse hooves as a sound. The reason might very well be that she considers the horse hooves to be an instrumental piece of the genre’s jigsaw, as I myself do. Or it might simply be due to the fact that the "groundwork for [her] later love of Westerns (p. 16)" stemmed from the fact that in her adolescent years, she was "horse-crazy (p. 16)." From the start, Tompkins shows that the Western draws her because of the wealth of sensory images that it provides. She goes on to talk of the "arch-images of the genre (pp. 5-6)" which include gunfights, horse chases and silhouettes set against a sky. These images are observations made of people on the screen, and the audience recognizes them as being quintessential aspects of the genre. However, those seemingly simple images that casual viewers, which Tompkins identifies as being "a significant portion of the adolescent male population (p. 5)," cast off as simply a part of the movie and pay no attention to the possible undertones. Tompkins herself does not prove to be much more scholarly in this regard. She makes note of the images, obviously, and hints that they "carry within them compacted worlds of meaning and value (p. 6)" and "codes of conduct (p. 6)" but she does not explain what those worlds and codes are. Instances like this, where she casually comments on one thing or another, and there are several throughout her introduction drastically undermine the points that she does give evidence for. Failure to properly support arguments such as the ones that Tompkins makes leaves the reader feeling as though he or she has perhaps missed something important, when in fact nothing has been said at all.

In addition to talking about the visual and auditory components of the Western, Tompkins also allows herself to get very philosophical and metaphoric when she explains the purpose behind the creation of the Western. For the majority of the people "living in the first three fourths of the century (p. 5)," being entertained by the Western picture was the primary goal and reason for the viewing of the Western film, as Tompkins points out when she writes that "people think of Westerns as light entertainment (p. 10)." Tompkins feels enjoyment was not the only reason behind the genre. She feels that there is another, apparently inexorably more important reason for the Western’s creation and use throughout much of the 20th century. The genre’s purpose to send a message to the viewers. This message was one of freedom, and the Western protagonists, such as John Wayne, who was "the American symbol of masculinity from World War II to the Vietnam War (p. 5)," were the freedom fighters. Scenery like the "big sky country (p. 4)" provided, as Tompkins tells, "an escape... from modern society (p. 4)." While this is true, it is generally true of all films. They are, after all, works of art. However, the Western provides a more unique escape simply because it showcases a journey into a land so completely free and unknown that the public cannot help but want to be a part of it. In the early part of the 20th century, America found itself split between rural and urban locales. The city was the site of industrialization and capitalist success, with nearly everyone in the workforce playing the role of a nameless cog in the corporate machine.

What the Saturday matinee viewings of Westerns did for the American populace was allow for a self-transformation from the cog into the free, rugged and wild Westerner. More sensory images are used by Tompkins when she describes the cause for this self-transformation. She talks of the "desert space, the creak of saddle leather (p. 4)" which she believes instill inside the movie-goer a feeling of being "more authentic (p. 4)" and "more real (p. 4)." Although this transformation only lasts for a brief period of time, a few hours at most, the transformation still occurs.

Tompkins provides a thesis and an antithesis for the third question, where she indirectly asks, and then explains what is wrong with the images that the Westerns project. Her main argument for the thesis is the treatment of Indians in the seventy-five to eighty Westerns she boasts of having watched. She explains that in addition to watching Western films, she also read many Western novels written by the likes of James F. Cooper, Zane Grey and Louis L’Amour. The novels tainted her perception of what the films would be like, as she "expected to see a great many Indians (pp. 7-8)." She recalls reading Cooper’s stories featuring characters such as "Uncas, Chingachgook, [and] Hardheart (p. 9)," and therein lies the preface to her thesis: There are no Indian characters in Western movies. She imparts that the Indians she expected -the ones in the novels- did not appear. She states, and rightly so, that " the ones [she] saw functioned as props... textual effects (p. 8)." She then recalls the scenes in John Ford’s The Searchers (1956) that "featured" the Indian (not character) Look. In one of the rare instances in her essay (and the only such instance regarding a film), Tompkins describes in a particular image in moderate detail. She describes how Look was "treated abominably by the characters... ridiculed... killed off casually (p. 8)." The most important thing to note about Tompkins’ observation is that fact that she does not say "the other characters" but rather "the characters." This coincides with her general idea that there were "no Indian characters... with a personal history (p. 8)" but rather they functioned as parts of the scenery, adding more to the image of the land rather than the narrative. The Indians were, as she plainly puts it "there but not there (p. 9)" and if they were there, she could not remember them. She also says that images which we have come to equate Indians with were the only real instances of the Indian that Westerns exposed the audience to. She defines some of these images as the "yipping sound.... that accompanies Indian attacks (p. 9)," "the beat of tom-toms growing louder as you near the Indian encampment (p. 9)," and the camp, with its tepees and blanketed squaws. There is an instance in the essay where Tompkins treats the gross injustice done to the Indians in a very sarcastic manner, saying that she had "managed to see seventy-five to eighty Western films that by chance had no serious representations of native people (p. 9)." Of course, the sarcasm is lessened when she makes the addition of a comparative phrase, but a sarcastic tone can still be drawn from her writing. However, it is the second phrase that she adds which serves to identify the reason for her discussion of the treatment of Indians: "Or something is wrong with the popular image of Westerns (p. 9)." She simply could not come any closer in her inference without actually saying that the image the Western gives of Indians is totally wrong. What is also particularly interesting about this third point is that Tompkins also makes an attempt at refuting the argument which she initially proposed. She states that there is at least one case where the Western tries to put Indians in a more positive light, that being Dances with Wolves (1990), a point which Tompkins provides evidence for by saying that the Lakota Sioux are "attract and believable (p. 10)."

What Jane Tompkins talks about in the introduction of her book is very well written. The arguments she makes, such as the Western serving as a release and escape from daily monotony are intriguing, if not convincing. However, she has placed items and points in several places throughout the essay that she simply adds, almost as an afterthought, to give the appearance that she is trying to cover all of the bases. She fails to elaborate on points of discussion such as the importance of the images that she lists frequently. She also fails to give specific examples as to where such images can be found. Her discussion on the (lack of) placement of women ironically falls into the same trap. These two points are there, but not there.