The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

analysis
#1

Just finished watching The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance and was struck by how clearly the argument is made for justice by force VS justice by law. For anyone interested, here’s my quick analysis, done mostly as an exercise to help better understand the Dramatica theory…

MC RESOLVE: Change
Ransom Stoddard (James Steward) sets his law books aside and confronts Liberty Valance at gun point.

MC GROWTH: Stop
The audience is waiting for Ransom Stoddard to stop hiding behind his books and take action (with Liberty Valance, his future in politics and his love interest Hallie).

MC APPROACH: Do-er
Ransom Stoddard is, essentially, a man of action. He goes out west seeking fame and fortune, earns his living washing dishes, picks up a gun and learns to shoot, starts a school to teach the townspeople how to read, etc.

MC STYLE: Linear
Ransom goes through his law books searching for a regulation that will give Marshal Appleyard jurisdiction to arrest Liberty Valance. He runs for office so that he can establish law and order in the territory.

DRIVER: Action
The stage coach Ransom is on is ambushed and his money and gold watch stolen.

LIMIT: Optionlock
Peace and order cannot not be established until the people establish their territory as a state.

OUTCOME: Success
Liberty Valance is killed and the territory becomes a state, establishing law and order everywhere.

JUDGEMENT: Good
Ransom finds his place, becoming a powerful senator and marrying his love interest.

DOMAIN: Activity
Surviving in the west, building the new frontier while battling outlaws.

CONCERN: Doing
The ins and outs of surviving, building a house, running a business, starting a family, running for office

ISSUE: Wisdom
Learning how to shoot a gun, learning how to read, learning about the constitution, learning about the democratic process

PROBLEM: Proven
When Liberty Valance comes into town, it’s not law books that keep him in order, it’s the threat of physical retaliation that keeps him in order. That’s the way it’s been and, according to the townspeople, that’s the way it’ll always be. No one questions it as it’s been proven correct in the past.

#2

The John Wayne character, Tom, must have been more prominent in the screenwriting/storyforming since he was the one who actually killed Liberty Valance, and he was John Wayne. imho

#3

Jerome, I suspect several of the Dramatica consultants will differ with you on your quick-turnaround evaluation of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Since the flashback bulk of the movie is framed by the vignettes of Ransom and Hallie on the train to and from Washington, DC, you have to be careful about deciding whether the train scenes are “actual story” or merely a frame. And if these scenes are “actual story,” perhaps that means most of what happened 25 years earlier in the town of Shinbone is actually more “backstory to the actual story.”

I would argue that the train scenes were very much intended to be part of the “actual story.” I think they set up Ransom and Hallie as MC and IC. Then, in the extended flashback, I think Ransom and Hallie serve as a joint MC, while Doniphan is the IC trying to convince them both that written law alone won’t bring order.

I mean, one seriously has to realize that the shooting of Liberty Valance is far from the climactic scene in the movie, since there’s a lot of story still to happen after that. And the goal of the Overall Story is never just about the shooting of Liberty Valance, but about bringing the rule of law to the wild West, and whether the rule of law is sufficient to bring and maintain legitimate order.

Also to be considered is how late this film came in John Ford’s directing career, when he was becoming fairly jaded, and also at a time when the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam Conflict was arousing more and more citizen resistance. All this context partly explains why Ford’s (and the film’s) message is much-moderated from his earlier “all-American” films.

In fact, this story is full of mixed messages and lots of irony, since only a vigilante rancher’s secret shooting of Liberty Valance apparently made possible the bringing of the rule of laws on paper.

So I don’t think your storyform takes into consideration enough of the movie. I believe Tom Doniphan is the one who ultimately changes (he accepts the rule of law as better than vigilantism), while Ransom Stoddard remains steadfast as a believer in and practicer of law, even though he knows that Doniphan’s marksmanship put him into a position to keep fighting for that law.

Yet in the end, it’s still very much about a lawyer, Ransom Stoddard—who has long felt guilty for his rise to political power coming out of Doniphan’s secret violence—finally understanding that even Doniphan came to believe the rule of laws on paper were a better way for society to go, even while Doniphan felt it necessary to shoot Liberty Valance in order for that rule of law to have a chance in Shinbone.

Just thoughts, based on my seeing the movie about four months ago, then reviewing its summary tonight on Wikipedia.

#4

Prish,

Yes, Tom Doniphon is the IC, representing law & order through the gun. The fact that he’s the one who actually shot Liberty Valance only goes to reinforce him as a steadfast IC, his views don’t change.

#5

keypayton,

Thank you for your reply, very insightful. I have a few points / questions:

Not sure how the bookend scenes could be recognized as actual story and the flashback (the bulk of the film) be seen as backstory. Only four things really happen in the bookend scenes: 1. Hallie acknowledges the life she could have had with Tom Doniphon (John Wayne), 2. the newspaper man decides to print the legend and not the fact, 3. Ransom suggests it’s time to retire from politics and move back to Shinbone and 4. Ransom and Hallie keep their mouths shut when people refer to Ransom as, “The man who shot Liberty Valance.”

How these bookend scenes establish Ransom and Hallie as the MC/IC doesn’t come across for me. They’re pretty much in sync right from the get go, no?

Your right about the climatic scene not being the shooting, but it is the moment where the main character acknowledges that the only way to stop Liberty Valance is with a gun. I also agree with the overall story being about establishing law and order.

I don’t see how Doniphon really changes his point of view though. He might be heart broken that Hallie goes off with the bookish Ransom and gets raving drunk over it, finally burning down his house, but his attitude towards guns doesn’t change one bit. After all, HE’s the guy who shot Liberty Valance, not Ransom.

I agree that I haven’t really covered the whole story with the limited assessment. It’s just the magical 12 questions needed to establish a single story form. None of those touches on the IC or the RS.

#6

First, Jerome, I acknowledge that Tom Donophon is much more the IC than Hallie. She’s more of a skeptic-sidekick to Ransom, with Tom trying to influence them both.

And yes, Ransom does intend to use his gun on Liberty Valance… but Ransom never said he thought guns would be utterly displaced under the rule of law.

In fact, all the movie’s political stuff (when Donophon nominates Ransom for office and tells him the truth about the shooting), plus the ultimate outcome of the story (Ransom’s good work in politics, and Hallie becoming a lady), clearly vindicates Ransom’s insistence that the rule of law and literacy should be emphasized first and foremost, with guns and vigilantism only as a last resort.

Indeed, the entire intent of the movie is that the rule of law and literacy brought civilization and true order to the wild West, while Donophon’s rule-of-force views only perpetuated the same kind of bullying fascism that Liberty Valance epitomized.

Add to this the fact that Tom Donophon apparently stopped carrying a gun soon after he shot Liberty, and never carried one again. (Pompey tells the returned Ransom this during Ransom’s first viewing of Tom’s body in the coffin.)

Yes, of course there’s irony in the fact that Ransom continued taking credit for the shooting of Liberty Valance. But as Ransom and Scott, the reporter, discuss at the end, that’s only because destroying that legend might detract from the widespread order that Ransom and his lawyering, politicking ways had brought to the town, state and nation.

Further, on a Dramatica note: In Success-Good stories, the Steadfast character (whether MC or IC) is the one whose views are vindicated at the conclusion. And Ransom’s views are definitely vindicated, even by those that completely knew who actually shot Liberty Valance.

That shooter was a rough man who, seeing what literacy and law were bringing to his town and his girlfriend, gave up her love to save a man who represented a higher, broader, more-noble approach to bringing justice and building civilization.

Ransom’s use of the gun is only a Steadfast MC’s “wavering,” whereas Tom Donophon completely altered his beliefs about how to maintain order, and never carried a gun again.

#7

Okay, I think I got it. BTW, your Dramatica “vindication” note makes me curious about the four story outcomes and who is vindicated in each of them. As per your note, the following can then be said…

Change MC with Success/Good: MC changes his / her approach and succeeds in doing something that is good for him / her and others. The steadfast IC has imposed his / her point of view on the MC, changing him / her for the better. Steadfast IC’s point of view… vindicated!

Steadfast MC with Success/Good: MC holds true to his / her core belief and endures all manner of humiliation from either the IC, or from others, but perseveres to the end and forces the IC to change by proving him / her wrong. Steadfast MC’s point of view… vindicated!

What about the other two story outcomes? Whose point of view, if anyone’s, is vindicated in a Failure/Good and Failure/Bad story outcome? Does the following make sense?

Change MC with Failure/Good: MC changes his / her approach and fails to achieve something, but this ends up being good for him / her and probably others. The steadfast IC has imposed his / her point of view, stopping the MC from achieving the goal, which, ultimately, is a good thing. So the Steadfast IC’s point of view would be vindicated, correct?

Steadfast MC with Failure/Bad: Steadfast MC holds true to his / her core belief, ignoring all the warning from the change IC who either gets the hell out of there before the whole thing came crashing down, or dies trying. So the Change IC’s point of view, which was to warn the MC all along, is ultimately vindicated. Right? 8*/ Not sure about that one.

Is there somewhere in the manual / software that has these points illustrated?

PS
I can’t imagine the amount of brain power that must’ve been needed to build the Dramatica theory. I am in constant awe.

#8

Jerome, I definitely agree with you about the genius of the Dramatica inventors! And yes, in your unpacking of the four different “endings” above, you are getting to some core principles of Dramatica:

  1. That any complete storyform can have only one of those four possible endings;
  2. each ending manifests which one of the two subjective characters (MC or IC) “wins” the story; and
  3. each ending shows whether that character’s “winning” is actually good for all concerned, or not.

You can read a lot more about this on Jim Hull’s site, NarrativeFirst.com, where he has a whole series of good posts on “meaningful endings” and how Dramatica guides you through them.

http://narrativefirst.com/articles/series/meaningful-endings

You can also use the software (or the Analysis -> Filter options at Dramatica.com) to see what stories come up when you select the four different variations (Change or Steadfast MC, Success or Failure Outcome, Good or Bad Judgment. If you familiarize yourself with these stories, you will begin to see how they do indeed “match” one of the four endings – yet in complex, unpredictable-until-fully-delivered ways.

To respond to how you define those four options:

I think you’ve got the first two pretty well correct. (Of course if the Main Character’s Resolve is Change, then the vindication of the Steadfast character may be more muted or downplayed, so the “hero” of the story doesn’t seem too-completely lame, or the story too preachy.)

As far as the latter two options:

If the Outcome/Judgment combo is Failure/Bad, then that means the story is a “cautionary tragedy,” where no principal character ends well and the audience is “warned” to avoid any of the characters’ defining choices. For example, in Hamlet no character chooses properly when it matters most, so only the Author of the story is vindicated in showing just how damning the characters’ choices were.

On the other hand, if the Outcome/Judgment combo is Failure/Good, that means the story is a bittersweet “personal triumph,” where the Main Character ultimately chooses to do different than what the Impact Character advised, and that divergent choice enables the MC to escape the Failure Outcome that befalls the great majority of the other Overall Story characters.

To see this “in action,” just put “Outcome: Failure” and “Judgment: Good” into the Analysis -> Filter tool at Dramatica.com. It’ll show you examples like Annie Hall, Terms of Endearment, The Producers, and about 61 others. Study these and you’ll see that with this Failure/Good ending, the MC is vindicated – and the IC may (or may not) be “saved” along with the vindicated MC.

Making this more-challenging is that you have to keep the Overall and Relationship Story Throughlines distinct in your storyforming mind.

Just know that if the Story Outcome is Success, it means the MC ultimately chose correctly (either to Change or to Remain Steadfast), because the MC as an objective character significantly contributed to the Overall Story characters obtaining the Story Goal they sought.

But if the Story Outcome is Failure, it means the MC ultimately chose incorrectly (whether to Change or to Remain Steadfast), and thus did not do enough of the right things to bring Success for all. Even so, a Failure/Good story implies that the MC still came out of the Failed quest a better person.

Have I confused you more than ever? :smiley: Then I’m sorry, thanks for the good interchange, and go read Jim Hull ASAP!

#9

No, actually, that was very clear. Thank you. Yes, I should definitely give myself more time to read and digest the articles on Jim’s site. Thank you for the heads up on the article.

All the best.