Reading yet another book on The Searchers (will they ever stop? yet the amount of books on the subject are proof of the richness of the material) and the author rises an interesting question which I'd like to share with you.

DID ETHAN KILL LUCY?

Ethan rides off into the canyon to follow a different trail. We never see what he actually DID find. We understand Lucy was raped. He doesn't give Brad the full answer ("..draw you a picture?") He comes back stabbing the sands with his KNIFE.

Later we learn:
1) from Laurie: Martha would have let Ethan "put a bullet in her brains" (meaning Debbie, but the same would go for the raped Lucy)
2) from Ethan: in the "Stand aside"-scene he would have done just that to Debbie.
3) Martin uses a kitchen knife when he tries to explain how the racist Ethan can get furious

Scar, the rapist of Martha, mirror of Ethan, "had" Martha which is of course what Ethan longed for. Therefore, to eleminate the very memory of it, he must eliminate not only the rapist himself but the victims as well.

Of course, this is an academic question since its one of the questions that Ford just lets unanswered as many others (it's got nothing to do if JOHN WAYNE would have killed Lucy, mind you). But as the complexity of this rich character goes, I find it an intriguing question. Any answers?

I have so many John Ford books around and its always fun to read the different ways people analyze all the scenes and hidden meanings! This is an interesting point that I have never thought of before. If someone is up on the history they could answer whether the possibility exists that she would have been left alive by the indians. I also think that Ethan was more enraged that a girl was living as an Indian rather than the fact that she had been violated. But I certainly would like to hear more thoughts on this!

Hi

This is an interesting topic that must be answered very carefully least it get out of hand.

Knowing nothing about the habits of Indians to that extent In the film Ulzana's Raid Indian Scout Burt Lancaster makes the comment that Indians will 'Rape to Death'

Also in Rio Grande when they find the wagon with the women in it Yorke prevents the lieutenant going down saying 'that if he had a friend he wouldn't let him go to see the bodies' and this was in 1950 in a picture that over here was probably a U catagory.

It is a concept very difficult to visualise and one that in pictures I must admit to not particulary wanting to. I would rather the unspoken reference than the brutal visual.


Regards

Arthur

Hi Roland,

Its an interesting question and I will try to answer it from the point of view which I interpreted the movie by.

1. On a simplistic note could the Comanches afford to leave her alive knowing that Ethan was close behind, there would have been the risk that she could have told Ethan what direction the Comanches went and other information that could have been useful to Ethan.

2. When Ethan actually tells Brad that Lucy is dead there is a lot of sadness within his character when he talks about burying her etc that would not have been associated with a person whom would have killed her.

3. I feel that this movie is primarily about racial tolerance and integration of different colour into society. There will be those whom will be totally against it(Ethan in this case) but as we know he learns to accept it at the end now had he killed Lucy originally the message Ford would have been transending would have been wrong. He would have been saying that in order to achieve racial acceptance you must do unjust onto your opposite colour if this happens in reality the world turns into a nasty place full of chaos and destruction. The message I ACTUALLY think that Ford gave was that even though Ethan had been sinned against by the Indians and even though he came to the brink to do an unjust act he eventually learns to accept his opposites in this case its Debbie.

4. Its quite early on in the Search when he discovers Lucy so in Ethans own warped mind he may not yet feel she has turned native.

5. It is never stated that Lucy was raped by the Indians merely only implied, there is little to no evidence of rape in my opinion.

If I was to take the opposite opinion why did he fly of on one after ridding down from the hill, he throws his rifle on the ground and digs his knife constantly into the ground. This is raw emotion which could mean he had just perpentrated the act and rode straight back to the other searchers after killing her.

His confederate coat is also inconclusive evidence did he find her naked and alive and allow her to wear it while he decided what to do with her or did he find her dead and wrap her in it before burial?

Why does he save Marty and not Brad after revealing Lucys death would Brad have asked too many questions?

One scene which has bothered me for ages within the Searchers is what was Ethan going to tell Marty at the Jorgensons ranch as Martins interpretation I feel was way off.

:agent:

I do not want to make any of you Tender-Feet Sick but my Grandmother was a Half Comanche from Texas and her Father was White, and they came to Southern Arizona at the foot of the Chiricahua Mountains just North of Bisbee and just East of Tombstone in the late 1800s. This was at the end of the Apache Wars. She would tell me stories about what the Comanches and the Apaches did to the dead White people that they had Killed, and it was not very nice.

She said that they would Dis-Member the bodies and spread the parts as far apart as they could, so that in the After-Life they would not be a threat to them again. This was done with the Intestines also!!! I do not think this was a very good time in American History, and the Whites did just about the same thing to the Red-Man!!!

I am sure that John Ford would have Researched this fact, and the knowing that he had almost lived with the Native Americans when he did Yellow Ribbon, Fort Apache and Rio Grande he would have known these things. In films today they might even show this type of thing but they will not get any of my M-O-N-E-Y!!! Chilibill

Movies were so much better when certain elements were left to the imagination. Everything has to be graphic these days and I think the younger generations suffer as a result - they are hardened to this style of cimema and won't accept anything less. Everything has to be spelled out.
So many older films had such a palpable atmosphere without (and probably because of) having to resort to graphic imagery.
So much for my soapbox rant!

Cheers - Jay <_<

I agree Jay, Hollywierd has become joke. The funny thing is they did it too themselves. :headbonk: :headbonk: :lol: :lol:

I'll tell ya what's nuts........survey after survey have shown that G and PG-13 movies draw more audience and make more money than R-rated films. Yet those Hollyweird clowns continue to crank out sleazy movies filled with sex, violence and filthy language. Always pushing the envelope, even if it cuts their own financial throats. Makes a helluva lot of sense, doesn't it? Not!!!!!!

I've maintained for years that tolerance is the main factor contributing to our cultural and moral decline. Give 'em an inch and they'll take 35 miles.

Back in the Thirties, Forties and Fifties the only people using dope were a few avant-garde musicians smoking mary jane. Because most people tolerated that, we now have grade-school kids addicted to crack and heroin.

About 1954 Hugh Hefner brought out "Playboy" and Alfred Kinsey released his findings on American sexual behavior, ushering in the "sexual revolution". Millions of unwed mothers later, accompanied by other millions of aborted babies, taxpayers get stuck with bills for day care, child welfare, juvenile delinquincy, and all the other ills that afflict these dysfunctional "families" and individuals.

Up until about the Fifties, readers and movie-goers were spared profanity in their chosen method of entertainment. Now even prime-time television shows contain language that woulda embarrassed a sailor when I was a young man just entering the service.

Tolerance is the culprit in all this, folks. What's that old saying about good people keeping silent and letting evil triumph?

Okay, now I'll get down off my soapbox too.

Remember George Carlin's seven words you can't say on television; think they say them all now.

Stumpy

I would agree with you on most of your sentiments however I don't think child welfare is a bad thing remember it is there to help children get the best possible start in life.

Like you I am totally against drugs being declassified I find that absurd.

I am not against movies stretching censorship boundaries provided it is done with common sense. Remember some of the silly old rules there used to be ie a male and a female could not sit on a bed unless one of them has a foot on the ground.

Shrek is one of the most popular movies of the last decade while it may not be to everyones taste it is free from sex, violence and profanity.

Thats my two cents worth on this subject.

:agent:

My own opinion on this question - I don't believe that Ethan killed Lucy. I think he found her, obviously without at least her dress (some Indian was wearing it), likely scalped and dead body left, perhaps also the victim of rape as well. She was Ethan's kin, and he was probably enraged and sickened to find her that way. He wrapped her in his coat (to cover her up), then buried her. I think he might have been stabbing his knife in the sand out of frustration - he probably would rather have been burying his knife in an Indian, could only imagine that he was doing so (has anyone here ever punched a wall out of frustration, wanting to punch someone in the face instead :angry: ?).

That's my take on it, how I've always interpreted the scene.

Mrs. C :angel1:

from Laurie: Martha would have let Ethan "put a bullet in her brains" (meaning Debbie, but the same would go for the raped Lucy)


When Laurie says this, she says I tell Martha would have wanted it that way. But this is after Debbie has been missing for five years; she has become a Commanche, she would have been raised by them and had a sympathy for them as we see in the end of the movie when Debbie is conflicted about going with Marty and Ethan. "These are my people"


Ethan murder Lucy, I say no.

This certainly is an interesting question and one which I too have not heretofore considered. There is enough to suggest that Ethan killed Lucy, but I think it far more likely that she was already dead.

I've read one possible interpretation of Ethan stabbing the sand that has not yet been mentioned: he is subconsciously mimicking the act of sexual violence. (You know what I mean.) There is a frustration in him - not only at the rape and death of these women and the fact that as of yet he's been unable to avenge them, but a sexual frustration, as Roland mentions. He never "had" Martha and someone that he loathes more than anyone or anything did.

Now as to why he's carrying the knife in the first place... that's a good question, isn't it? I can't recall if there's any explanation given in the film.

The knife certainly has a special meaning in this one (after all, in most westerns the men don't carry one at all).

As you said, Jen: why does he have one in the first place? He finally uses it to scalp Scar.
Martin mimicks him with the kitchen knife. And he uses his knife (taking it from the fire) to "open that wound again".
Finally, the young generation (Lt. Greenhill) has a much bigger knife - yet he cannot use it properly (misplacing it twice, and using it for a stupid looking salute).
Ethan gives away his first "knife" - the saber - to the family, passing it on to the younger generation - but Ben gets killed.

The knife is just one of the narratives that flow so subtle in this rich subtext. There's plenty more.

Despite the fact that Ford so seldom gave away information freely to interviewers, he was very clear about details such as this (for instance about how Ethan's medal should look, what this should suggest, et cetera), sending notes to his writers. Those subplots are constructed, not improvised - last of all unintended.

Having stirred up a little dust just for a fun discussion, I'd like to start a new one in a new topic: Was Debbie Ethan's daughter?

The script makes no mention of this. Yet it describes Debbie's appearence and stresses the point that the girl MUST have something that lets the audience instantly recognize her later.

Debbie has dark hair - as does Ethan.
The other children are blond.
She's the only child he takes in his arms when he arrives - the gesture repeated in the end.

Ethan & Martha's background is only suggested.
"Why do you come back?", asks Aaron. Indeed, why does he? Martha is married.

There is more subplot of "adopted" children:
Martin, the most obvious one.
Debbie is adopted into the Indian family.
Look is adopted into the white society.
Mose, in the end, adopted by the Jorgensens.

Ethan himself, not an obvious example, has lived with the Indians. Ford's own story suggestions included that he should ride on an Indian blanket when he first comes into sight. He certainly knows about the Indian way ("has to wander forever..."). He uses an Indian scabbard.

Why does he HAVE to find and kill her? To undo everything that happened? Not only what Scar did (Ethan's mirror) but also what he did to Martha/Aaron?

Is Debbie Ethan's daughter? This is rarely pointed out in literature about The Searchers.
What do you think?

My answer is a resounding YES she defently is Ethans daughter. The fact that Ethan never seen her before until his arrival at the start of the movie suggests that she was born shortly after he left to go to the war. The hair colour is also significant and the fact that Marthan and Ethan obviously had a relationship before he left to go to join the Confederates.

Why you might ask why did Ford make Debbie Ethans daughter, the answer is to show how extreme and bitter Ethan is about Indians that even though she is his daughter he will still kill he because she is no longer part of white society.

Remember that scene when Ethan and Marty return to the Jorgensons, Ethan has something VERY IMPORTANT to tell Marty but Marty blanks him out this could be what he was going to say. Ethan knew Marty didnt like him and Ethan though if Marty found out that Debbie was his illegitamate child he would give up the search and allow Ethan to be free to kill her.

Its a great movie but poor old Aron is defently not the father.

Another question is have what is the connection between Marty and Ethan prior to the story?

:agent:

I think that Martha and Ethan had serious romantic feelings for one another as has been said here already. What I think is that Debbie is the last remaining family member Ethan has left and she's the only reminder he has left of Martha, whom he loved dearly. Do I think Debbie is Ethan's daughter? I'll be contrarian and say "Nah."

Did Ethan kill half this conversation or am I just imagining there was more comments here.

:agent:

I didn't previously realise the significance of the knife but doesn't Marty carry one as well.

Ethan when talking to Clanton talks about the fact he still has his saber and in a humourous undertone states that he hasnt tunred it into a plough sheer neither. When Ethan rides down that sand ridge and starts digging the sand with his knife, I personally feel that he is doing nothing more than venting his anger. If the knife is a running subtext what exactly might it be stating.

:agent:

Originally posted by Robbie@Feb 17 2005, 05:41 PM
Did Ethan kill half this conversation or am I just imagining there was more comments here.

:agent:
14719


Hi Robbie -

I just mentioned on another topic that I posted four different items in the last 48 hours that simply fell off the map. I don't know what happened, but I hope the situation is corrected soon.

Cheers - Jay :wacko:

A good question, itdo.

Certainly, Ethan spent years searching for her, which might make one think she was his daughter. I can also see Cole Thornton's point, in that she was his last living family member, and Martha's child, so that he still might have been enough "possessed" with finding her.

My wife doesn't consider the hair color "significant." As she so rightly points out, we have six kids, five of whom are blonde and one of whom is red-haired (hm-m-m . . . -_- - no, just kidding - if you saw all our kids, you'd know without a doubt that they all share the same genes).

But I will also concede that Ethan being Debbie's father is a definite possibility.

Someone mentioned John Ford's books. Does he make any mention of that perspective?

Chester :newyear:

Hi

I've thought about this and although the Searchers is not one of my favourite pictures, it depends on Debbies age assuming that Ethan joined up at the start of the Civil War (1861) fought through till the end (1865) equals four years, and Debbie had been born at the very beginning. Ethan is away two years wandering after the war makes her five or six on his return and spends five years looking for her makes her eleven when he eventually finds her give or take a year and my mathmatics being not very good if he didn't know anything about her when he went off to war the time scale and biology doesnt add up. I would guess Debbies age at about nine when she is kidnapped and approaching fifteen when she is rescued. And if that time scale is right then he would certainly known of her exostance when he went off to fight.

And no I don't think she was Ethans daughter. I think the relationship between him and his sister in law was a mutual desire rather than a fulfilled event.

Regards

Arthur

There you go again, Arthur - logic, logic, logic - you Englishmen! :D

When you inject the mathematical aspect of age into the argument, all of a sudden the possibility of Debbie being Ethan's daughter disappears completely for me.

In general, I have always viewed Ethan and Martha's relationship as you suggested.

Chester :newyear:

mutual desire rather than a fulfilled event.


have to agree with Arthur. In fact all these years, never even crossed my mind that Debbie was really Ethan's daughter. Wow, this board gets deep.

Arther

The problem with your assumption is that Ethan didnt know of Debbies existance until he lifted her in his arms upon his return.

If the war started in 1861 Ethan didn't return until 1868 making the girl seven when in the movie she is actually 10. Now that is only assuming Ethan left when the war began there are many hints within the movie that he has been living or at least been in association with the indians so he could have left the Edwards ranch before 61. Lets look at the evidence

1. The eldest two children have different hair colour to the youngest.
2. Ethan and Martha clearly have feelings for each other and Martha is Debbies daughter.
3. Ethan did not know of her existance until his return.
4. Debbie is the only child Ethan embraces.
5. Ethan had something important to tell Martin at the Jorgensons what was it.
6. Debbie runs to the gravestone of her grandmother where it mentions Ethans name but not Arans.
6. The medal duke gained illegitably by possibly fighting for the spanish he gaves to Debbie the keyword being illegitamate.

Of course this is all probable and could be picked apart by most but I see little evidence to suggest Aaran is the dad.

:agent:

Well guys, I've never looked into all that. I never thought about Martha and Ethan having a relationship. As far as him wanting to kill Debbie, I thought that was because she had been raised by Indians. Overall I love the movie. Has Harry Carey Jr's movie come out yet? I know they filmed it in July.

LittleDuke

LittleDuke,

I'm glad to have you back. As for your question about the Harry Carey, Jr. movie, go to Comanche Stallion (http://www.dukewayne.com/showthread.php?t=1632). Hopefully this should answer your question.

Cheers B)

Good God .... Ethan ,Debbie..........
Debbie was the LOVE child of Martha and....Martin .
Think about it .........why did Martin argue againest Ethan wanting to do away with her.
Everything is Aunt Martha this Aunt Martha that .

Even Debbie knew................. "I prayed for you to come Martin"

Hey even Ethan knew........." don't let him go in there Mose ......it won't do him any good."

Thats why Ethan was always saying Martin WASN"T related to any of them, trying to get Martin to break.

And thats why Ethan walked away from the whole mess.


Rick

Reasr,

That line of reason sounds as good as any i've heard so far. :D

Chester

The point we should make is to not compare REAL life with REEL life. Of course, it happens that a dark haired family can have two blond children and one black-haired (for several reasons ^_^ ). But when you look at reel life, and a director does his casting, why should he cast two blond kids, one dark-haired? He could even have had Debbie with fair hair as a kid - then let her turn into Natalie Wood. He does a similar thing in Two Rode Together, where Jimmy Stewart explains that a family member wouldn't recognize the boy by hair-color because Indians use to grease their hair into that dark color. Yet he even uses Lana Wood, Natalie's dark-haired sister.

Personally, I don't think that the answer to the question I myself raised is Yes. Anyway, we won't either find the answer in the film (no matter how hard we analyze) nor in this discussion. Because the film leaves this question unanswered. So this is based on opinion. But with material so rich as The Searchers, we can go on for a long time.

Roland makes a good point. Casting isn't done accidentally - and with a director like Ford, there is very little that is left to accident. But it could be that Natalie Wood was just an attractive choice for other reasons - and she just happened to have dark hair. I think there is enough there to suggest that Ethan could be her father, but naturally not enough evidence to prove it one way or the other. That's the whole point - make us think, guess, wonder, discuss amongst ourselves.

I prefer to think of the relationship between Martha & Ethan an unconsummated one. It lends a greater depth and poignancy to the film, IMO. Unrequited love is one of the most painful experiences this old earth offers us.