I definitely think you have a point about the “new centrism”. Of course, there’s also a long history in movies of what you might call “old centrism.” It’s always kind of amusing to see how a truly leftist book like “The Grapes of Wrath” became just vaguely pro-FDR in the film, while the borderline fascists writings of Ian Fleming became just sort of safely Kennedy Democrat/Eisenhower Republican, pro-free-world in the Bond movies.

Excellent essay. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen “The Big Country” so I can’t respond directly to your essay with much authority (patriarchal or otherwise), but here goes…

“The Big Country” is one of those films whose signature score is bettered remembered than the film itself. Another example would be William Friedkin’s “Sorceror,” whose Tangerine Dream theme lives on.

I do recall the scene of Gregory Peck breaking the horse “in private” as being very important. This is the liberal-pacifist version of “walk softly yet carry a big stick.” Peck can talk peace but as a Cold War Liberal (as opposed to whimpy com-symps) he must be willing and able to use violence when necessary.

Similarly, James Dean in “Rebel Without a Cause” attempts pacifism in the face of an unruly teen gang, yet when pushed too far he fights back successfully—the ultimate “macho liberal” fantasy.

Thus, “The Big Country” does not contrast violence with pacifism, as you noted, but opposes New Deal Liberalism and (neo)conservatism. Yet in the “vital center,” left-right “consensus politics” of the Cold War these two positions are not truly opposed.

Liberal and conservative must unite to fight totalitarianisms of the left and right. The sympathy the film expresses towards Peck’s opponents is a clear expression of liberal generosity towards other factions within the left-right Cold War alliance.

As the left-right Cold War alliance broke apart over the Vietnam War and other issues, films like “The Big Country” stopped being made, and Hollywood films divided into a Left and a Right Cycle, as Robert B. Ray has argued.

Since the 1980s, as the social divisions of the Vietnam Era have healed, the left and right cycles have recombined to create what I call a New Centrist Film, in which extreme left and right positions are entertained within a single film.

A good example is James’ Cameron’s “Terminator 2: Judgment Day,” which oscillates between nihilism and traditional heroism, eco-feminism and hyper-machismo, mother love and cyborg-as-Promise-Keeper, comic book fascism and a somewhat dubious pacifist-humanism. Cameron called it “a violent film about peace” which pretty much sums up Hollywood’s slightly confused opportunism of the last few decades.

I’ve addressed classic westerns and the Iraq War in my essay “George Bush: Western Hero?” I wrote this in response to an essay by the learned-yet-conservative Victor David Hansen in National Review.

Here’s the link to my blog

http://latemodern.blogspot.com/2006/09/george-bush-western-hero.html

Re: issues of fatherhood/manhood. It’s interesting how the film winds up completely breaking the biological father-son relationship, while the surrogate son winds up remaining loyal despite himself.

And here’s one fun fact I couldn’t work into the post. The movie is a based on a book by Donald Hamilton, who’s best known as the creator of, of all things, the Matt Helm spy novels. Now, as per wikipedia, the Matt Helm books are way different than the Dean Martin spy-spoofs. Much more serious and realistic. I obviously haven’t read any of this, but it would be interesting to track down the novel and see how much of all this was there in the first place and how much was added by the various screenwriters, presumably working under Wyler and Peck’s heavy supervision.

Interesting take on the political subtext - you probably know that when the movie came out, some reviewers interpreted it as a Cold War allegory, all right. But I think you’re spot-on that on a more fundamental level it’s a debunking of the concept of manhood as, er, a function of size, especially in the way Wyler constantly lets the “bigness” of the landscape dwarf all the struggles of the human players. I think the movie’s also very much about patriarchal inheritance (both in the biological and material sense), which can also tie into classic imperialist themes. Also psychoanalytical ones.

Psychoanalysis aside, though, I loved Ives’ final scene with Chuck Connors, too - and think it sort of has its parallel in Steve Leech’s last scene w/ the Major. No matter how despicable the guy is, he’s still your son/father.

And I’m glad you brought up Carroll Baker and Jean Simmons. Their characters are crucial because the obsession with masculinity is very largely for their benefit, and they represent an important reflection of it. And, yes, the performances by both were first rate. (And, of course, they’re both pretty as can be.)

And I absolutely agree with you about Burl Ives. “Cat” might be a more actory role, but there’s a depth to his work here that’s really interesting. His performance is all about his eyes.

While I’m at it, it’s worth mentioning what a strong impression Charles Bickford makes. His character is basically incapable of growing or learning (sound like anyone we know?), so in a sense there isn’t as much for him to do — but you can’t take your eyes off him.

Bickford, btw, was the star of the “Hell’s Heroes,” Wyler’s great early-talkie western (the first sound version of “Three Godfathers”).

I would have liked to write about that instead, as I think it’s my favorite Wyler, give or take “Best Years of our Lives”, but it’s not on DVD.

And Burl Ives and Chuck Connors were quite touching in their final showdown. I always liked Ives better here than in his Oscar-winning turn as Big Daddy.