The Barren Western

T. Wilson

THTRFLM 3L03

April 1, 2019
 1

Originally a short story written by Elmore Leonard, ​3:10 to Yuma​ has been

adapted to film twice. The 2007 remake, directed by James Mangold, tells a nearly

identical story to the 1957 version, but with key differences in the Western genre. The

release dates of the two films makes them interesting to compare, since one was made

in the classical stage of westerns, and the other in the mannerist. The differences

between the films are a reflection of film industry standards and audience expectations

changing over time; the classic western tale of good coming to a savage land is distorted

by supplementary ideological dilemmas intended to shock the audience. While the ‘07

film is a more thrilling cinematic experience, it’s message is confused and weak

compared to that of the original.

Mangold’s adaptation of Leonard’s short story keeps all of its events and motifs,

but presents them with the style and shock factor of modern cinema. The film follows a

coincidental run-in between Dan Evans, a poor rancher, and the notorious criminal Ben

Wade as they journey to a train station not far from Evans’ ranch. Wade is captured

early on, seemingly on purpose, and is to be escorted to a train to Yuma prison by a

variety of interested parties. This includes a bounty hunter out for Wade’s head, several

Pinkerton agents, various law enforcement officials, and the financially struggling Evans.

As the party races to beat Wade’s gang to the train station, Evans’ embarrassing history

and Wade’s temperament are slowly revealed. While there are several interruptions

along their journey, they serve mostly to incite Evans and Wade into conflict. At the

climax, Wade shows his compassionate side and assists Evans in finishing his mission,

kills his gang, and allows himself to be taken to prison. Although there are some

changes earlier, the final confrontation at the train station takes a turn from the ending of

the first movie and short story.

 2

The differences between the original story/film and Mangold’s remake seem

largely irrelevant at first. Small details and character traits are added to give the short

story more depth, and events are added to extend the developed time frame. For

example, Evans’ service in the Civil War was created to help explain his psyche, which

was not present in the classic film. Similarly, the scenes in Apache territory and at the

Chinese Labour camp were added to give the characters more chances to interact.

These changes were clearly made with the intent of ‘modernizing’ the story, but

complicated it too much during the process. The 1957 production of the film was only ¾

as long, and moved much slower than the remake, but overall told its central story

better. By giving all the characters the depth we expect from a modern film, Mangold

seemed to lose sight of what the story was really about. Instead of seeing two opposite

men clash as the fundamental good and evil, Mangold presents us with an explosive

slice of life in the wild west.

All of this being said, the ‘07 version of ​3:10 to Yuma​ is narratively very true to its

original form. The story was added to, but only actually modified at the very end. The

cinematic elements are several decades more advanced, but use a similar style.

Defining characteristics of the western genre are largely at play, such as the railroad

coming to town, frontier issues with natives, and aftermath of the Civil War. In fact, the

remake features these phenomena more than the original, but somehow carries a

different meaning. The original film told a stark story of justice versus savagery, which is

at its core what defines the western genre. All of the common themes can be reduced

down to the opposition between society and anarchy; the railroad bringing civilization to

the badlands, savage indians being pacified by the white man, lawbreakers being

arrested, confederate holdouts being quashed, and honest people being rewarded.

Leonard’s short story wasted no length developing such a setting, instead pitting avatars
 3

of these primal forces directly against each other as Evans and Wade. Mangold’s

remake weakens this opposition by complicating it with surface level western aesthetics,

making it more visibly a western to modern audiences, but losing an aspect of what a

true western is.

To see what really changed about the complete story, each of the changes

should be analyzed individually and justified. The biggest deviation in Mangold’s remake

is the final showdown scene at the train station. Evans is gunned down by Wade’s

follower Prince, who is then killed along with the entire rest of the gang by Wade. In the

original, Prince is the only fatality, who Evans kills and walks away from unscathed.

Evans’ death is the key event, as Wade killing his gang is in retaliation for it, and most of

the previous changes are to set up for it. This includes the entire side story of Evans’ son

William, who has little respect for his father until he watches him complete his task and

be murdered. William’s presence in the film completely changes how the story is told

and why, because it makes the most crucial moment about father and son rather than

society and savagery.

The change in meaning of the final scene is not immediately obvious, but it is

heavily foreshadowed early in the film. Evans’ entire character is based around him

being pathetic, rather than just poor, and this is seen several times. Evans is held in poor

regard by his family, especially William, which is exacerbated by his melancholic

behaviour and Civil War shame. It is much easier to relate with, and sympathize for,

Mangold’s version of Evans, who seems to have been pushed around by bad luck and

happenstance repeatedly. Evans’ motivation in both the original film and the remake is

nearly identical, but in the former he seeks justice for justice’ sake, rather than as some

kind of recompense. In a fist fight between Wade and Evans, he says, “I ain’t never been

no hero Wade… only battle I seen was a retreat… my foot got shot off by one of my own
 4

men… you try telling that story to your boy, see how he looks at you then”.1 This prompts

Wade to stop choking him, as he finally realizes Evans is just a man trying to do right.

However, is Leonard’s story about a man trying to do right? Sort of. The anonymity of

the original tale made it larger than life - Mangold’s deeper version instead makes it

about one man.

Another seemingly minor difference between the two films is the role of Evans’

wife Alice. The changes made to her both serve Mangold’s new underlying meaning,

and are a reflection of modern society’s opinion of women. In the original story, Evans’

family exists for no purpose other than to anchor him to his ranch. When Alice asks

about the boys’ horses getting stolen, William replies, “Well what else could we do? You

want us to get shot?”.2 Alice is sympathetic, and later confirms to her husband that she

doesn’t think poorly of him or expect better.3 In this version of the story Evans has the

support of his family unit, and is shown to be struggling through the drought with their

support instead of their disdain. Another change is that it is Alice, not William, that later

shows up to support Evans. Neither of the boys are seen again after staying at the

ranch. Strangely though, Alice makes a mostly unexplained appearance in the hotel

before the final battle to the train station. She has somehow travelled the same distance

as the two groups of cowboys in about the same amount of time, and goes into the

held-up hotel to try and convince Evans to give up like the others. When she realizes

that he isn’t going to be easily persuaded, she says, “If I ever said anything that made

you think I was complaining… or about how hard things were… but it just isn’t true…

because I love everything and every minute, all the worry and the work… all the hurts of

life”.4 Evans has nothing to prove in this situation, or back on his ranch; his family

1
​3:10 to Yuma​, directed by James Mangold (U.S.A.:2007), 1:45:00.
2
​3:10 to Yuma​, directed by Delmer Daves (U.S.A.:1957), 8:11.
3
​3:10 to Yuma (1957), ​9:22.
4
​3:10 to Yuma (1957), ​1:21:40.
 5

understands that he is doing his best in times of hardship and wants nothing more than

to thank him.

Mangold’s remake had a completely different version of Alice and William.

Instead of being a loving and supporting wife, Mangold’s Alice looks to her husband with

shame after hearing the story of the stagecoach robbery. She is visibly dissatisfied

throughout her entire presence in the film, which ends after Evans and Wade leave his

ranch. William is similarly unhappy with Evans, not listening to his commands in the

stable fire, and questioning whether he will stand up for the family in the aftermath. In

this film, Evans is under attack from the opening credits by his family unit, who he not

only needs to fend for, but who he also needs to prove himself to.

The matter of pride and shame in the remake is especially relevant after William

joins up with the posse escorting Ben Wade to the hotel. He appears and disarms Wade

just after Wade had gotten free and turned a shotgun on his captors, telling his father

“I’m doing a damn sight better than you did”.5 Where he had previously been dismissive

at the ranch, William becomes increasingly hostile over the journey as he sees his

struggling father side by side with the cool and powerful Ben Wade. We even see

William’s admiration for Wade’s stature when he tells his mother “Ben Wade don’t have

to lift a finger, his gang’ll do it for him”.6 William’s opinion of Wade is made clear in the

hotel, where he asks him to call off his men and admit he is at least partially a good man,

and when Wade denies, he insists that “[he] doesn’t believe [him]”.7 William rebukes his

father several times earlier in the movie, but in this intense moment stands by the virtue

of an admittedly evil man.

5
​3:10 to Yuma (​ 2007), 1:05:12.
6
​3:10 to Yuma (​ 2007), 51:20.
7
​3:10 to Yuma (​ 2007), 1:34:43.
 6

Whether or not Evans has the support of his family is not an important detail until

the final moments of the story. Either way, he asks for the job so that he can support his

family with the reward money. In the hotel he is still offered the $200 by Butterfield to

give up, and declines both times on principle. However, in the 2007 version of the movie,

Evans’ explanation for his expected suicide mission is much different than in the original.

In the 1957 film, while talking to his wife, Evans reaffirms that he is not doing it for the

money, and not doing it for her, but because “The town drunk gave his life because he

believed people should be able to live in decency and peace together”.8 This brief

dialogue is the crux of the western. Evans is not just a man when he says this, he is a

symbol of justice and morality that exists outside of the film. He is an embodiment of the

positive societal values that post WWII audiences would have believed in, and that many

Allied soldiers died to preserve. Evans’ backstory is shallow enough that he is practically

anonymous; he is a stand in for the virtuous American everyman who wants nothing

more than to do good. Seeing this, it is hard to find the same power behind Mangold’s

version of Evans. He recites a very similar line about the casualties of the journey,

saying, “What did Doc Potter give his life for? McElroy?”9 - but this is a rhetorical

question rather than a statement. A modern viewer will probably recognize the cliched

rhetoric of ‘what did [a character] die for?’, but beyond its associated meaning, what is

the purpose of the statement? McElroy was a Pinkerton hired to escort the stagecoach,

so although he may have been a just man, he was a contract killer trying to do his job.

Even less heroic is Doc Potter, who was volunteered by Marshall Weathers to

accompany the wounded McElroy, and goes along with it without an explanation.10

When Evans asks what the two men died for, there is no clear answer. Instead of

8
​3:10 to Yuma (1957), 1 ​ :22:2.
9
​3:10 to Yuma (​ 2007), 1:36:00.
10
​3:10 to Yuma (​ 2007), 35:55.
 7

championing a specific ideal, he is fighting because he is tired of being, and being seen

as, a weak man who doesn’t stand for anything.

Another important indicator of Evans’ change in motivation is his reasoning for

not accepting Wade’s bribe when the two are alone in the hotel. Wade offers Evans

multiples of his initial $200 price, up to $1000, just to walk away. He seems to at least

partially convince Evans that he could do right by his family with such a fortune, and

suggests a cash transaction when Evans laughs at the idea of depositing a $1000 bank

draft from Ben Wade. Evans snaps out of his daydream and denies the bribe, asking,

“How would I account for that amount of money? What would I tell people when I spent

it?”.11 Evans’ first reaction is to not take the idea of deserting seriously, but when it turns

out to be feasible, the best excuse he has is that other people would think poorly of him

for doing it. Combined with his Civil War shame and dismissive family, Evans’ insecurity

appears to be the primary influence on his actions. Evans declining Butterfield’s offer of

the $200 to walk away is proof that he had deeper motives than paying off his debts, but

it is already established that his motive is to prove himself, not to fight injustice.

Having laid out the difference between the 1957 and 2007 versions of Evans, the

final climactic moment at the train station can be deconstructed. In the original story,

Evans’ dedication leads Wade to tip the balance in his favour, allowing him to kill Prince

and board the train. Wade implies he will be able to escape Yuma, and Alice watches

the train leave as rain finally breaks the three year drought. In this version, the audience

is given a scène à faire that politely concludes the entire film. Wade has been delivered

to the train, the drought is broken, and Prince is dead, leaving Evans to relax and collect

his reward. The film presents the audience with an opposition between good and evil,

and explicitly shows the virtuous triumph while the barbarous fail. The only imperfect

11
​3:10 to Yuma (​ 2007), 1:23:41.
 8

moral in the ending is that Ben Wade intends to escape Yuma, but this is a necessary

action as his character would not allow himself to be captured and hanged. The stark

ideals of this ending are hard to find in Mangold’s remake. Instead of Evans fighting to

the tipping point and Wade choosing to let him win, Evans is assisted by Wade and

William only to be gunned down by Prince. Wade proceeds to kill the entire gang in

retaliation, and then boards the train at William’s gunpoint. William and Wade both

complete their story arcs, with Wade seeing the fault in his ways and William finally

admiring his father.

Mangold’s changes may seem to merely take the story on a detour to the same

meaning, but this is hardly true. Evans succeeds in his mission, but only because Wade

chooses to board the train at the end rather than walk away. He proves himself to his

family, but leaves them fatherless in a dangerous place. He earns the money to pay his

debt to Hollander, but leaves his family on land about to be developed into a railroad.

Evans gave everything to get Wade onto the train and protect his family, but did he really

achieve either of those things? Wade got onto the train of his own volition and clearly

intends to skip his execution, and Evans’ family is hardly better off with $1000 instead of

a father. The audience is given a powerful dramatic moment as Evans reaches the

height of victory only to be immediately shot down, but a dramatic moment is all that it is.

Mangold’s version of Evans does not represent or stand for anything but himself, and

while there is an explained precedent for this, it opposes the core intention of the

western genre.

It would be difficult to say that the 2007 version of ​3:10 to Yuma​ is a bad movie.

Mangold took a slow and impersonal classic film and transformed it into a modern hit.

However, by developing the plot and characters, and adding aesthetic features expected

of a western, Mangold made a film that appears more like a western than it really is.
 9

Leonard’s short story, and the film adaptation of it, are about good standing up to evil

and justice prevailing over anarchy, but Mangold’s film is instead about Dan Evans, the

poor disabled farmer that embarrasses his son. While the latter is a more exciting and

relatable plot for a two-hour piece of entertainment, it would be better categorized as an

action/drama than as a western.

 10

Works Cited

1. 3:10 to Yuma.​ Directed by James Mangold. U.S.A.: 2007. 122 minutes.

2. 3:10 to Yuma.​ Directed by Delmer Daves. U.S.A.: 1957. 92 minutes.