The Searchers - How to Write a Compelling Antihero (WGA's best screenplays #97)
This post is part of my WGA Top 101 Screenplays series. Each post examines one film from that list, trying to find what’s great about it and what screenwriting lessons we can learn from it.
I genuinely tried to see what Roger Ebert, AFI, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and nearly every filmmaker and institute I admire see in THE SEARCHERS, but alas, I don’t share their enthusiasm. However, I believe the secret to its success lies in the design of its protagonist - a deeply flawed antihero. THE SEARCHERS offers some valuable lessons about how to create a complicated protagonist, even when working in a mainstream blockbuster genre.
Context
THE SEARCHERS is considered by many film scholars and critics to be one of the best and most influential American films ever made, and the peak of John Ford and John Wayne’s collaborations. It was named the greatest western of all time by AFI in 2008, and the 12th greatest movie period in 2007. David Lean allegedly watched it in preparation to shoot LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, and Vince Gilligan claims the last episode of BREAKING BAD was also influenced by it. The film came out in 1956 to mixed to positive reviews. Some reviews considered it ‘the best western since SHANE’, but none suggest the reverence it will ultimately earn. It made about $4.8 million on a $3.75 million budget.
This is the second film directed by John Ford on this list, and the first not to have been Oscar-nominated for its script, written by Frank S. Nugent (also known for MISTER ROBERTS and THE QUIET AMERICAN), based on the book by Alan Le May.
Premise:
What if the heroic cowboy got so corrupted by violence and racism, that he became a danger to his own family? (this radical notion is tempered somewhat in how the story is fleshed out, but at its core, this is what THE SEARCHERS asks).
So what happens? (Spoilers, obviously)
After his brother’s family is massacred by a Comanche tribe, former Confederate officer ETHAN EDWARDS sets out to rescue DEBBIE, his niece, who has been taken captive by the Comanches. MARTIN, a young one-eighth Comanche, who was raised by the deceased family, insists on joining Ethan. The two search for years, picking up various hints and tracks to where Debbie might be, and which tribe is holding her. When they finally find her, held by a tribe led by SCAR, Martin is disturbed to find that Ethan is aiming to kill Debbie, considering her a Comanche now. Ethan’s hate for Indians runs deep, and it takes Martin’s intervention to save Debbie’s life. They are chased by Scar and just barely survive. Later, Ethan gives Martin his will, where he leaves all his possessions to Martin, despite berating Martin all throughout their journey for his mixed heritage. They head back home.
Once returning to their community, a Texas Ranger is waiting to arrest Ethan. Before he can take him away, a Yankee soldier arrives, and says he’s leading a company hunting for Scar’s tribe. The Texas Ranger agrees to wait with Ethan’s arrest until after Ethan helps rescue Debbie.
They all head together to the Comanche camp. Martin sneaks in and rescues Debbie, killing Scar, but she evades them as a full out battle erupts. Ethan hunts her down, corners her, grabs her and… lifts her up, hugs her, and takes her home. As Martin, Debbie and her family go back into their home, Ethan is left outside, alone, to keep wandering.
What Can We Learn From It?
Lesson #1: Saving the Antihero
In its concept, THE SEARCHERS revolves not just on whether Ethan will find his niece or not, but what he’ll do to her if/when he does. This is a great mechanism with antiheroes. Knowing a protagonist has darkness in them allows a story to play with bringing them to the precipice of committing a terrible act, from which there is no return, creating suspense (and hope) in the audience that they won’t. In movies as different as YOUNG ADULT, NIGHTCRAWLER and JOKER, we watch, horrified, as a protagonist indulges their worst urges, and hope against hope, that someone or something will prevent them from crossing that line (unlike in these examples, Ethan does stop before falling into the abyss). Prequels in particular (like JOKER and REVENGE OF THE SITH, or BETTER CALL SAUL and BATES MOTEL on TV), make their audience wait, coiled, knowing that an explosion that will seal the antihero’s fate is coming. We dread it, yet yearn the cathartic release of when it actually takes place. Prequels add a deterministic streak, creating a sense that this tragedy is/was inevitable, that these characters were always going to become the people we know they really are. (Sure, JOKER seems to point to many moments where Arthur could've been saved, but how disappointed would we as an audience be if the movie had a social worker intervene just before Arthur put his face paint on?).
In THE SEARCHERS, there’s more free will. We wonder if Martin can perhaps soften up Ethan’s wrath and hatred. We wonder if this dark man is really capable of killing his own flesh and blood, an innocent child just because “Living with Comanche’s ain’t being alive”, as he puts it. This seems to be part of what scholars love about the film, but I didn’t feel the story sold it. Ethan lays out his views early on, but until he actually pulls a gun on Debbie at the end of the Act II, I didn’t really believe in the danger inside him - I was simply told to fear it. I would also argue that THE SEARCHERS doesn’t offer a clear, compelling explanation to why Ethan finds his humanity and forgiveness in the last moment, and decides to save Debbie rather than kill her. What changed between the end of the 2nd act and the climax? Sure, making Martin his beneficiary seems to be a step towards being less racist, but it feels more like a result of the camaraderie earned after years of travelling and fighting together, rather than Ethan’s growth as a person.
Clearly charting the acts and events that push your antihero towards the point of no return, is a great mechanism to use when writing tragedies. You can focus it on a single clear act like THE SEARCHERS does, or use a more diffuse approach like some of the other examples I mentioned. This kind of story must have seemed novel when THE SEARCHERS came out, especially in a western and especially with John Wayne playing the antihero. Making the cowboy an antihero, exploring his darkness and eventual redemption seems to be a big part of what people love about this film. Charting the descent of an antihero can be a great way to create complexity, and in this case, it elevates what would have otherwise been a simple rescue mission.
Lesson #2: Deactivating Conflict and Unearned Change
One thing that drove me crazy watching THE SEARCHERS, was how often stakes/conflict are presented and then immediately deactivated. Ethan can’t turn away the wife Martin bought, because her family will hunt them - but then she leaves on her own, and Ethan just assumes she won’t go to her family. The ranger is about to arrest Ethan - but then lets him go so they can hunt Scar, and it’s never mentioned again. And of course, Ethan is so crazy he’ll kill Debbie, but when he sees her, he simply picks her up and takes her home.
It can be hard to show a last minute change, but not impossible. AMERICAN BEAUTY does a good job of this. Lester has a clear (if illegal) goal throughout the entire film - he wants to have sex with his daughter’s underage friend Angela, who presents herself as a confident, sexually-experienced teen. In the film’s climax, Lester and Angela are finally alone. She’s naked and they’re about to have sex. But then she tells him that she’s a virgin. This reveal changes Lester’s perception of her. This moment of vulnerability makes him no longer see her as a seductress, or an object of desire, but as a young girl in need of guidance. It reminds him that he’s the adult here. He moves away from her, and becomes supportive and protective. Of course it’s too late for Lester, as his misguided actions have already inadvertently sealed his fate. There is no such beat in THE SEARCHERS. There is no reversal in Ethan’s final encounter with Debbie, no challenge that might make him reconsider his values - at least not one that I saw.
Lesson #3: Complicating the Fantasy
Most straight thrillers are designed, perhaps counterintuitively, to make us feel safer. In these stories some force of evil or abnormality occurs, and it is eventually conquered. The more interesting thrillers are the ones who complicate this simple structure. I think Ethan’s character plays on the same sense of security and satisfaction we get from watching Liam Neeson beat up the various criminals who kidnapped his daughter in TAKEN: A commanding father figure, someone extremely violent, but who has harnessed their violence for good - they only kill bad guys. These men aren’t part of a government or an agency (at least not anymore), no one votes them in. They’re just good, capable men, roaming the world, making it a safer, better place for all of us. This is, of course, problematic on many, many levels - they’re vigilantes, there’s usually some racism involved - but there is something deeply Jungian and ingrained in this core fantasy we have - of someone who is protecting us, someone who makes us feel safe. To its credit, THE SEARCHERS tries to complicate this fantasy by making this father figure dark, obsessive and racist. When you take in the fact that Ethan is a former Confederate soldier who refuses to accept that they surrendered, you get an even deeper question: after these men finish their violent jobs (like fighting a war) where do they channel their violence? It doesn't just dissipate. THE SEARCHERS’ answer, exemplified by its famous last shot, is that these men don’t (or can’t) be a part of society, they can’t have a family and a home. And while there is something sad and perhaps fitting about that, it also serves to aggrandise this archetype, somewhat dulling the complexity achieved earlier. Most people see this as a tragic ending for Ethan, but I felt THE SEARCHERS lets him off the hook too easily, especially if you’d have me believe that he was about to cold-bloodedly kill his own niece. Still, I think this complication is part of the secret of the popularity of this film. (For a modern-day example of this, see THE BOYS, which exuberantly complicates our idyllic notions of superheroes).
Lesson #4: The Troublesome Antagonist
In my book, I differentiate between “bad” antagonists - forces who genuinely want to harm the hero - and troublesome antagonists: otherwise decent people who just happen to be in the protagonist’s way. Martin is a great example of a troublesome antagonist. Ethan’s racism barely allows him to tolerate Martin through their journey. However, they travel together and work together, and end up developing a camaraderie. Through Martin’s very identity - competent, heroic, part Native-American - he challenges Ethan’s core antihero tendencies - namely his racism. Martin is also antagonistic in other ways: he impedes Ethan from achieving his ultimate goal - killing Debbie. Their interactions challenge Ethan’s beliefs, and may be key to Ethan eventually deciding to save Debbie rather than kill her. This pattern - a supporting character of color functioning as a Troublesome Antagonist, helping a protagonist grow out of their racism - is an Oscar magnet (IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, DRIVING MISS DAISY, GREEN BOOK) but feels antiquated and condescending in 2020 (If you want to delve into that, read all the critical articles on GREEN BOOK - this is not the focus of this piece). However, the idea of a Troublesome Antagonist can be used to challenge more complex and interesting values your lead holds.
Lesson #5: Shane Does it Better
Reviews of THE SEARCHERS when it came out billed it as ‘the best western since SHANE’. Baffled by the acclaim Ford’s film has, I decided to check out SHANE - maybe in relation, THE SEARCHERS’ qualities will shine. The opposite happened. SHANE is superior to THE SEARCHERS in every way: the dialogue, cinematography, acting, themes, mise-en-scene (every shot in SHANE tells the entire story of the moment visually). Most importantly, SHANE created a gallery of fleshed out, realistic characters, who all wanted different things, had different opinions, and different ideas on how to solve their problems. This is especially clear when in the bottom part of the second act, the main antagonist offers a COMPROMISE to the good guys, and thoroughly, calmly, even movingly, explains why he’s doing what he’s doing. There is one character of pure evil in SHANE (Jack Palance’s gunslinger), but nearly everyone else feels real and complex, making for rich conflict and a powerful, satisfying resolution. Thematically, SHANE has such a complicated approach to violence, yet still has a very clear point to make about it (basically, that even if it was necessary to get us thus far, we should never hold it up as a model, or pass it on to our kids. Shane himself agrees by the end that ‘this valley would be better without any guns in it’).
THE SEARCHERS essentially tells the same story. A violent man comes to town, and does what the town’s folk can’t - beat away the bad guys and restore harmony. Both films suggest these heroes have no place in a home, with a family. But while SHANE grapples with the need, excitement, cost, and consequences of violence, the thematic conflict in THE SEARCHERS seems to be about whether or not Ethan is racist enough to kill his niece. I suppose there is something primal and moving about Ethan and Martin’s years-long search for Debbie, and again that big sweep in the end, when Ethan takes Debbie in his arms, is perhaps what we wish every strongman out there would grow into. But I was just not convinced by the film’s case.
Structure breakdown
Inciting Incident: The Massacre of Ethan’s family.
Plot Point 1: Ethan decides to continue searching for his nieces, joined by Martin.
Plot Point 2: Ethan and Martin find Debbie, but realize she prefers to stay with the Comanches.
Climax: Ethan faces Debbie… and takes her home.
Personal Opinion
Look, maybe westerns are just not my thing, and trust me, I get no pleasure from arguing with AFI, Sight & Sound, Cahiers du Cinéma, and Roger Ebert, but THE SEARCHERS just didn’t work for me. Many of its beats didn’t quite land, and in general, the film just wasn’t exciting. Blame it on my wokeness, but Ethan isn’t nearly as captivating a character as the aforementioned institutes make him out to be - he’s rather one note, and his main personality trait seems to be racism. Even without the 2020 hand wringing over it, I don’t think that alone can make for a compelling character. It’s Wayne’s performance, charisma, and the way the role builds on his star persona that make Ethan stand out.
THE SEARCHERS wasn’t that big of a hit when it came out, commercially or critically. Why is it still so revered today? I honestly don’t know. Film scholars seem to have a soft spot for westerns, and the ‘complexity’ of Ethan could be read as a criticism of the values of the western up to the film’s release, and by extension, a criticism of America. Yet, I feel the film isn’t as subversive as these critics make it out to be. What perplexes me most, is why obsess over THE SEARCHERS, when SHANE is right there? SHANE isn’t even on the WGA’s list, and I would happily let it take THE SEARCHERS’ place.
Luckily, the next film is not only, thankfully, not a western, but also an old favorite of mine, so I’ll get to stop being a buzzkill.
