In every genre, there are stories that either blatantly rip off or reinterpret the material of a prior picture without being considered a traditional remake. No matter which fantasy worlds, sci-fi adventures, or action movies you’re stepping into,more than likely, you’ve already seen something similar before.This is maybe especially true inthe Western, a genre that thrives on either staying true to or subverting its own genre tropes to tell an impactful frontier tale. Not evenClint Eastwoodis immune to this type of imitating, ashis 1985 WesternPale Riderfeels suspiciously similar to another film that hit theaters a few decades prior:the 1953 Oscar-winnerShane. But while these films share similar plots,the details are different enough to make each of them stand aparton their own.
How Is ‘Pale Rider’ Similar to ‘Shane’?
It’s not uncommon for Westerns to share a similar, or in some cases the exact same, basic story with other pictures.John Waynefilms did this all the time, perhaps most notably withEl DoradoandRio Bravo. In the 1990s, two Wyatt Earp biopics centered on the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, Arizona,withKevin CostnerandKurt Russelleach playing the character, albeit interpreting the lawman differently. In the case of Clint Eastwood’sPale Rider—the filmmaker’s only Western of the 1980s— the plot derives directly from the 1950sGeorge Stevens-directed classic.Shaneis an incredible Western. It pulls from just about every traditional Western idea we’ve seen before yet without feeling too clichéd. The tortured gunslinger with a heart of gold, the corrupt cattleman hoping to rule the town, andthe smiling black hatwith a penchant for violence. It’s all here.
ButShaneandPale Rideronly really intersect in terms of the basic plot itself.Both films follow a lone stranger who wanders into town on unfinished businessonly to find himself working for a local family struggling to make a living off the land they’ve settled on. These struggles have been made harder by a ruthless land baron who hopes to either drive the pioneers and homesteaders off the land completely or pay them to work for him instead. In either case, the townsfolk refuse. As a result, another man (one who “takes care of things”)is called in to stir up more trouble and end the conflict,sort of likea strike-breaker or some other violent enforcer.Our wandering hero has it out with this villain, comes out on top, and rides off on horseback into the mountains — presumably to die. While audiences and critics have connected the dots between these two pictures, there is no official confirmation thatPale Rideris indeed a remake ofShane— and maybe that’s for the best.
‘Pale Rider Is a Clear Homage to ‘Shane’ and Classical Western History
The clear threads between these films make it obvious thatClint Eastwood likely intendedPale Riderto at least be an homage toShane. It’s a clear, though exceptional, recycling of the material that’s loaded with depth and classical horse opera flare. When speaking about the 1953 flick specifically, Eastwood once revealed his impressions of the titular characterin an interview with the American Film Institute. “Alan Ladd[was] a very small man in stature, but he seemed much, much larger than life in this particular film,” the filmmaker noted in a clip juxtaposed withShane’s final shoot-out. On another occasion, Eastwood told AFI that what makes a good Western is ultimately a good story, pure and simple. “I think that the story is the king,“he explained, “and that everything else is interpretive art around it…”
It’s no wonder then that, if Eastwood was going to pull from any traditional Western plot,Shanewould be the production he’d steal from. Not only was the film — which was, in turn, based on a 1949 novel byJack Schaefer— an impressive display of Western prowess, earning itself an Academy Award for Best Cinematography (and rightfully so), but the plot isbased in pure Old West history.Shaneitself was an adaptation of the events of the historic Johnson County War, a Wyoming-based conflict that pitted homesteaders against the cattle companies that aimed to take away their stock and water rights.
While the plot of bothShaneandPale Rideronly lasts a few months at most, the Johnson County War lasted for several years. The range war was largely mythologized by authors and filmmakers over the years, and was either adapted or referenced in productions such asTrue Grit,Heaven’s Gate, and the 2002 miniseriesJohnson County War. Though, of all the great adaptations of homesteading conflicts such as these,ShaneandPale Riderare among the very best. Even so, there are still plenty of differences that make both Alan Ladd and Clint Eastwood’s versions particularly compelling. Though they share similar plot threads, their leading men are quite different, which produces different results.
Shane and the Preacher Have Different Outlooks on Violence
If you’re tempted to think thatPale RiderandShaneare just the exact same movies, think again.Eastwood’s Western takes a different approach to the issues of love and violence that makethe 1953 film feel so timeless, and that’s toPale Rider’s benefit. InShane, there is no mistaking that the titular hero is a genuine gunslinger with a rough-and-ready past. Alan Ladd’s Shane isa tortured individual who hopes to escape his younger years of violenceand yet springs into action at the sound of a gun. He doesn’t think twice about taking on a half dozen men on his own to prove he’s worth his mettle. When it comes down to the final confrontation between Shane andJack Palance’s smiley-but-deadly Jack Wilson, our hero walks right into the bar knowing that he’s going to kill these men and walk away. If not for the surprise attacker from above, Shane would’ve walked out without a scratch.
But inPale Rider, the mysterious preacher (Eastwood) is never presented asa gunslinger or any type of fighter. For most of the film, he doesn’t even carry a firearm, and we know next-to-nothing about him. When he first meets Hull Barret (Michael Moriarty), he saves him with a simple bucket of water and a wooden beam. After that, he’s just a hardworking man of the cloth. It’s not until he decides to confront Marshal Stockburn (John Russell) himself that he retrieves his guns from safekeeping while leaving his clerical collar behind.Contrary to Shane, the preacher doesn’t initially shy away from violence; instead, it’s his main approach. He tries, at first, to broker peace between the independent miners and Coy LaHood (Richard Dysart), but when that doesn’t work, violence inevitably ensues. Even so, the preacher is saved by Hull in the end, while Shane requires no such salvation.
Love Is a Complex Theme In Both ‘Pale Rider’ and ‘Shane’
As far as love is concerned,these movies take vastlydifferent approaches to romance. From the get-go, there’s a clear subtext between Shane and Joe Starrett’s (Van Heflin) wife Marian (Jean Arthur), but it’s never quite explored on the screen. Shane understands that he’s not the type of man that’s right for a woman, and he respects Joe enough not to jeopardize his marriage. In fact, the gunslinger is even willing to beat up Joe in front of his bride if it means that the rancher won’t follow Shane to kill Wilson and Ryker (Emile Meyer), which would likely have left Marian a widow. Shane cares deeply about the Starrett family, and while he has some unresolved feelings for Marian, he honors them best by protecting her family, even from himself.
Burt Reynolds Ended Up in Western Production Hell Because of Clint Eastwood
Eastwood’s recommendation led Reynolds to take on a role he would quickly regret.
On the other hand,Pale Rider’s preacher, despite his name and assumed vocation, is willing to partake in this forbidden fruit.Eastwood’s characterholds a clear affection for Sarah Wheeler (Carrie Snodgress) and even spends the night with her (despite her commitment to marry Hull). Some have noted that this love affair seems to come out of nowhere, but that may speak to the preacher’s apparent supernatural origins (more on this in a moment). But if it wasn’t enough that Sarah has eyes for him, her daughter, Megan (Sydney Penny), carries a torch for the man as well, all the way to the very end of the picture. “We love you, I love you,” she calls out as he rides away, leaving behind any chance at mortal happiness. While both film’s love connections end the same way,Shane takes the more honorable approach.
There’s Another Major Difference Between ‘Pale Rider’ and ‘Shane’
Shaneis your traditional, technicolor Western that appeals to the genre’s most basic sensibilities. There’s nothing here you won’t expect, and that’s to the film’s benefit. In some ways,Shaneis the archetypal Western from which all others ultimately derive. Despite noappearances from John WayneorJimmy Stewart, it’s about as classic a horse opera as you can get, and that’s part of why it remains one of the genre’s most influential tales. You just can’t beat it, and it’s no wonder then that modern picturessuch asJames Mangold’sLoganstill call back to it over sixty years later. But whilePale Ridercertainly echoesShane’s classical ideals, it factors in a spiritual component that the original lacked. The preacher is, well, a preacher, sure, but that’s not the only detail added in.Pale Riderquickly becomes a supernatural Western, albeit not in the traditionally demonic sense.
As is the case with mostWestern heroes, the preacher arrives in Carbon Canyon from out of nowhere and later leaves without us knowing where he’s going. Like a ghost, he wanders in and out of the lives of the local miners without hardly any fuss at all. Only this time,the preacher actually is a spirit-made-flesh, one called from the great beyond by Megan’s prayers. ThoughPale Riderdoesn’t confirm this directly in the narrative, it masterfully clues us in throughout. For starters, when the preacher confronts Stockburn at the end of the film, the marshal compares him to a man he knows is dead. This comes after the revelation that Eastwood’s character has six bullet wounds in his back (wounds he likewise inflicts on Stockburn). This may also explain why the Wheeler girlstook such a quick liking to the stranger,he may have resembled (or perhaps simply was) Megan’s father. To make things clearer, the moment the preacher rides into the camp is juxtaposed with Megan’s reading from the biblical Book of Revelation, specifically Revelation 6:8, which says, “And I looked, andbehold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him.”
It can be presumed thatthe preacher was brought to Carbon Canyon as an “avenging angel.“He arrives to “make things right” for the mistreated settlers, not unlike Shane’s relationship with the homesteaders. Only, his work comes directly from a Higher Power, making his victory a sure one. The film’s very title echoes the idea thatthe preacher might not be as human now as he once was,and the fact that he ends up walking away from every fight without so much of a scratch all but confirms this.Shaneends with its hero wounded and riding toward the Grand Tetons to die away from prying eyes, whilePale Riderconcludes with the preacher’s return to the mountains from whence he came —returning to the afterlife, now at peace.The ending alone echoes Eastwood’s 1973 Western,High Plains Drifter, thoughShaneremains this picture’s clearest source of inspiration.
Clint Eastwood’s ‘Pale Rider’ Honors ‘Shane’ as an Unofficial “Soft Remake”
For the most part,critics receivedPale Riderwell, with many obvious comparisons drawn toShane. But while some consideredPale Riderto be an impressive entry in Eastwood’s filmography —Roger Ebertcalled it"a considerable achievement, a classic Western of style and excitement” — not everyone was overly impressed. “Pale Riderdoes nothing to disprove the wisdom that this genre is best left to the revival houses,“Richard Corlisswrote forTIME Magazine. “A double feature ofShaneand Eastwood’sHigh Plains Drifterwill do just fine, thanks.” ButPale Rideris more than just a riff onShaneor even Eastwood’s previous gunslinger outing.The film takes concepts from both pictures and weaves them seamlessly together in a way that honors the original material while also crafting something that feels new. Frankly,Pale Riderstands out as quite unique despite the clear influences, both fictional and historical, it pulls from.
The truth is thatPale Rideris different enough fromShanethat it can’t be considered a direct remake. If it was, no doubt folks would be disappointed in all the changes. No longer does the stranger help a band of honest homesteaders, but instead a band of starving gold miners.The hero isn’t a gunslinger with a troubled past,but rather a mysterious, ghostly preacher. Even the romance and violence hold different significance here in Eastwood’s film than they do in George Stevens’ film, and that’s not to mention thatShanepropagates the myth of the American West whilePale Ridertakes a more historically-based, revisionist approach to the genre. And yet, even in all of this,Pale Riderhonors the original material well, playing more as a pure homage to the 1953 film rather than an uninspired plagiarization. If you haven’t seen thisClint Eastwood picture, it’s well worth your time, but just be sure to start withShane,the original Western classic.
