Talk:High Noon

Initial comments

"Inventing a scene that was never in the movie, he claimed that Cooper's character ground his badge underfoot at the film's end." Not exactly. I've seen one version of the movie where he just let his badge fall on the ground, and another version where the scene doesn't happen at all. Art LaPella 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

My major at university (in Sweden) was "History and technique of the motion picture". I have seen the movie "High Noon" at least 10 times on television and at the cinema here in Sweden. The scene at the end were Cooper pulls his badge of, drops it on the ground and steps on it was ALWAYS there! It does belong to the original movie. However the scene was strongly criticised by among others John Wayne. Its quite possible that it was changed and even completely removed in later versions for TV screening(as to not upset the sponsors).(LarsS 06.11.07 11:12EET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.111.227 (talk) 09:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Cooper threw his badge to the ground in disgust at the townsfolk who had refused to help him, a reference to how Hollywood stars had remained silent while the lives of innocent people were ruined. That is why John Wayne, the number one supporter of McCarthyism, hated "High Noon".

Trivia removal

Took out unsupported "Some speculate that High Noon provided inspiration for Akira Kurosawa's The Seven Samurai." Clarityfiend 17:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they're getting it a bit mixed up with The Magnificent Seven, which was a remake of The Seven Samurai. --212.146.46.247 19:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Check this

Here a remark concerning the caracter of the citizens described in the film - I never found any remark of that kind elsewhere.

The name of the town is "Hadleyville"(see name-plate of the railway station). Well - Mark Twain wrote a story titled "The man who corrupted Hadleyburg". It is a story about citizens who lose interest in defending their common interests and retreat to protect only their very egoistic ones. If this is not a wilful allusion of the film - then tell me the probability of being a pure unintended incident (one to how many millions ... ?).

Article states "... has just married pacifist Quaker Amy (Grace Kelly) and is retiring at the end of the day...". I'll watch again, but I'm pretty sure that Kane has retired. There is the scene of hanging up the gun and badge, and there is dialog, IIRC, about the town being without a sheriff for a day. If Kane had not retired, he would be bound by obligation to act and the movie would be far less interesting. Whogue 04:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

In my defense, when I wrote that, it had been a looong time since I saw the film. But if he had already retired, why did he still have his badge (to throw in the dirt afterwards)? Clarityfiend 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

SPOILER: Because after he rode out of town... he stopped... felt guilty came back and since there was a day before the new sheriff would arrive he took back the badge... whether that makes it legal or not isn't too important. No problem getting it wrong... the important thing is that we correct it. gren グレン 09:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick rewrite which hopefully sorts out the factual issues and makes clear why the townspeople wanted him to leave. gren グレン 09:54, 15 March 2007 (U

Fair use rationale for Image:Highnoon.jpg

Image:Highnoon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Helen Ramirez

In the US edit the character of Helen Ramirez can be heard with an accent, in the german dubbing it is gone (I don't know about other localized versions, but assume it's the same). Does anybody know, if Katy Jurado actually had an accent that strong or whether she was instructed so, to strengthen the hispanic origin of her character?

Why is Carl Foreman (see Wiki entry "a revolutionary socialist and member of the American Communist Party") described as a "liberal" and John Wayne described as "right-wing"? That's some pretty disingenuous language.

So socialists and communists are "liberals", I'm sure Stalin and Mao would have a wry chuckle at that. And John Wayne is "as far to the right as you can get" Really? Pinochet? Franco? Peron? What do they teach you in film school anyway? Orwellian Doublespeak?

Wayne supported the likes of Pinochet and the US foreign policy that put him in place. It was clear what resulted from this, but the staunch conservatives of the time--and I daresay today--are wholly unapologetic. Whether or not Foreman did or would've also classified himself as a liberal is debatable; what is clear, however, is that John Wayne and his ilk made no such distinctions, that is, between Commie, Pinko, or Liberal. If being a heartfelt supporter of the McCarthy era tactics and right-wing dictators doesn't make one extreme right, then I don't know what does. signed, davidly

High Noon obivously means different things to different people. No matter which side of the fence you are on it delivers a message. Saying whether this message is right or wrong is up to the individual. As for peoples political positions, well it makes for entertaining trivia, thats about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Royston.J.H (talk • contribs) 21:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

High Noon does indeed mean different things to different people, but its writer Carl Foreman went on record as saying he wrote it as an attack on the Hollywood blacklist. Therefore it would be fair to call this a liberal movie. John Wayne and Ward Bond understood this, although Howard Hawks disliked the film for different reasons. (Smythloan (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC))

Reception

The reception section only contains negative comments. Did nobody like the film at the time ? How did it get put up for so many awards then ? -- Beardo 11:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I enjoy the film to a certain extent; however, it's pure fantasy. People in these communities were always ready to take up arms for the protection of their communities. In many cases, they had to in order to preserve lawless communities. This theme pops up from time to time in Westerns, and it's mostly pure bunk. Makes for good drama, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.168.198.34 (talk) 12:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits from Banned User HC and IPs

Wikipedia's banning policy states that "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves. As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion."

1) HarveyCarter (talk · contribs) and all of his sockpuppets are EXPRESSLY banned for life.

2) Be on the look out for any edits from these IP addresses:

AOL NetRange: 92.8.0.0 - 92.225.255.255

AOL NetRange: 172.128.0.0 - 172.209.255.255

AOL NetRange: 195.93.0.0 - 195.93.255.255

ALSO, THIS PERSON MADE CRAZY EDITS TODAY: 108.90.25.136 (8/10/11)SHOULD BE BANNED FOR LIFE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Will's former lover, an "implied madam" -- bias?

The article currently describes the Helen Ramírez character as "Will's former lover, an implied madam" [emphasis added]. I find this possible, but very unlikely, and i question its inclusion without some sort of justification.

When she's planning to leave, Helen Ramírez needs to sell her "shop". That indicates she's a shopkeeper, not a madam. Concerning her past, the hotel clerk (owner?) says she had been a friend of the marshall, and before that a friend of Frank Miller, the outlaw. That certainly suggests relationships between her and three men (counting the current relationship with the deputy), but to me that indicates only that she had different lovers, not that she was "an implied madam".

When she confronts the deputy about his immaturity, Helen Ramírez forcefully describes her former relationship with the marshall as based upon her admiration for him as a man, and there's no hint of any role as a madam. She tells Mrs. Kane that she hasn't spoken to the marshall for a year, which suggests an intensely personal relationship that went bad, not some sort of relationship between a madam and her customers. The deputy takes the suspected spark that still exists between Helen Ramirez and the marshall very seriously— enough to start a fight— indicating that he believed it had been a personal relationship, not a professional one. Helen later tells Kane's wife, "I hate this town. I've always hated it. To be a Mexican woman in a town like this..." That isn't necessarily the view one might expect from a woman who had done business with much of the town's male clientele, but it certainly could be consistent with the view of someone victimized by prejudice because of daring to have personal relationships with caucasian men in the community.

I suspect that we may still be witnessing some subtle prejudice in the inclusion of this claim in the article— someone cannot conceive of a personal of relationship between Gary Cooper's character and a Mexican unless it is a "professional" relationship. I contend that this claim is not based upon any context offered within the movie. I strongly advocate removal of the "implied madam" claim unless it can be justified in some way. I just watched the movie with this question in mind, and i don't think that i missed anything. Richard Myers (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re Helen Ramirez selling her "shop"... having just watched the movie I noticed when one of the bad guys rides up to the saloon to get some "liquor" the sign outside the saloon reads Ramirez Saloon. This is probably the "shop" they refer to, to be genteel, in the movie. Being the proprietor of the saloon implies she may have had some "ladies" working for her that helped bring in revenue by other means than buying drinks. Technically this would make her a madam but not so blatant as to imply she ran a brothel. As such she no doubt had relationships with a number of men over time. Halfscot (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Halfscot, take a look at the language you use to prove your belief that Jurado's character is a madame. The Ramirez Saloon is "probably" hers, and she "may have had some ladies working for her." Really? And why would you say there's "no doubt" she had relatonships with several men? The film doesn't imply any of this. You imply it. As for Ramirez, when she says how hard it was "being a Mexican woman in this town," she isn't kidding. There are harmful assumptions being made even in modern movie theaters. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Some corrections. Helen Ramirez chooses NOT to have her man help Kane, so there is something she can certainly do, but perhaps out of malice, does not do. Amy shoots the third, bald gunman in the back, not in the face —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.38.230.2 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Obvious bias

At the least, the artists behind the script have depicted a dark Mexican woman as immoral and a white Quaker as moral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The only denomination mentioned explicitly is the Quaker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is more about blond hair and dark hair. Take for example Colorado Territory, a dark-haired farmer’s daughter and a redhead of questionable morals are given as love interests for the hero. He ends up with the redhead, the other one rats him out… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.115.123.193 (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Another example would be DUEL IN THE SUN, with Jennifer Jones wearing thick dark pancake makeup and a dyed black mane. Her character, a mestizo, is a stereotype of passion and sexual wildness. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Analysis - first Citation request

In Reference #4, Carl Foreman is quoted to this effect, but Weidhorn does not cite the quotation. Section still needs work, but, a little bit at a time . . . --4.235.0.207 (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Spacing?

A minor point, but any reason for the non-standard spacing as marked with a do note remove note? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The one in Reception? It got added on Nov. 21 by an anonymous IP. I'll take it out. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It appears to be in almost all the sections. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The others were added by User:Ed Fitzgerald on Aug. 1, 2008 for his own reasons. He's extremely stubborn about formatting things his way. I (and others) have butted heads with him several times. There's another editor who goes around deleting these spacing comments, but I've given up on unproductive edit wars. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and clarification. I don't see it as a particularly big issue and will leave it be for now. I thought it was at least worth dropping a note on the talk page. The WP:MOS appears to be somewhat silent on the topic. Thanks again. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous plot claim

The famous Western writer Louis L'Amour once stated that the plot in High Noon was rediculous. Why? Because two thirds of the adult men in Western towns had fought in the Civil War on one side or the other and a gang of badmen,such as Frank Miller's, would have been cut to pieces by the townsmen. Witness what happened to the James-Younger Gang in Northfield, MN, or the Dalton Gang in Coffeyville, KS. Interesting take on the movie. 70.230.243.167 (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Mike

Flaws

Flaws (especially the show of modern Los Angeles) should be part of the article, otherwise possible reasons why High Noon didn't win Academy Award would never be known.tuco_bad 02:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

To clarify what I wrote earlier, a section on "flaws" is trivia, which is discouraged on Wikipedia. Assigning "flaws" to a movie is also original research, unless the flaw is big enough to be notable in reliable secondary sources. Merely saying someone on imdb or one of the movie mistakes sites has pointed it out doesn't necessarily make it notable. Speculating on reasons why the subject didn't win an award is also original research unless it's sourced. Dayewalker (talk) 03:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

When High Noon, one of the top movies ever made has a serious flaw: View of modern Los Angeles, that is very notable, and should be part of the High Noon article. Why would anyone want to remove that infomation? tuco_bad 03:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

Merely saying something is notable doesn't make it notable. It's an interesting bit of trivia, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Dayewalker (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As a child, I remember seeing a view of modern Los Angeles (circa 1955) at the end of High Noon. This was not my imagination as someone mentions the flaw in IMDB. Apparently, the scene was removed from the prints that are now viewed, and on DVDs, which means that the Academy Award members voted on the film with this scene.

Don’t you think this significant flaw should be part of the High Noon Wikipedia’s article and perhaps one day a film historian will see the High Noon article and be motivated to research the flaw in depth? --tuco_bad 15:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your views on the movie, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. There are other locations (such as imdb) to discuss movie trivia. Dayewalker (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Movie trivia in your mind, not film historians. cgersten tuco_bad 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone removes the Flaws Section of High Noon there should be a consensus. tuco_bad 16:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)

(OD) Wikipedia isn't written for or by film historians, it's an encyclopedia where facts must be notable and properly sourced. Two editors have reverted your addition of trivia to the article, please continue this discussion here. Are these flaws significant enough that they've received coverage in reliable sources? Dayewalker (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus already exists, Cgersten. It's called the policy that prohibits original research. You are also the single, and only editor arguing your case, while many others have reverted you. If that isn't consensus, I don't know what is. Either way, policy is clear. You can't have your way until you have consensus, not us, you. You are solely adding the challenged material. You must gain consensus for it's addition.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

3rr

I have reported Cgersten (talk · contribs) for an edit war violation at WP:AN3. Merely waiting 24 hours, then continuing to edit war is violating the spirit of the policy, and doesn't automatically make your edits allowed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

'Real Time'

To expand on my edit to the main article: it's surprising that almost every review or comment on the film states that it takes place in real time, when a few simple calculations will show that it doesn't. The first clock we see, a few moments in, reads 1033. The train pull in exactly at noon. Frank Miller's gang walk from the depot to the main street - it's never stated how far away the depot is from there, but earlier one of the gang rides in to get some whisky - and then there is a gunfight which must last around 7-8 minutes minimum. There is then the aftermath and Will Kane driving away - so the events, even at face value, would run almost an hour and 40 minutes.

Add to that Will's drive in early part of the film, where he goes far enough away from the town for it not to be visible before deciding to turn round. I haven't calculated this but I doubt that it could fit into the supposed time frame. Similarly the debate in the church would almost certainly be longer in reality than the time taken in the film. Again, it's not stated how far away from the main street is the livery stable where Will and the deputy fight.

The progression of time as shown as the clocks is probably fairly accurate but not completely so - it's difficult to measure when seen on British TV which runs the film 4% fast, but a magazine article some years ago (I don't know where) did a close analysis and observed that at one point the clocks almost stand still for a period, while elsewhere they move forward faster than the running time. Indeed in the last 10 minutes or so before two minutes to noon no clocks are shown, so as to disguise the fact that the time-scale is being squeezed.

It's quite a compliment to the film's conjuring trick that it manages to convince almost everyone who sees it of the real time illusion.

These comments and the edit to the main article were written as a result of seeing the film the previous evening (on high-definition satellite TV, where it looked superb).

EDIT: I see someone has removed the entire section containing my edit, and the article now continues to claim that the film takes place in real time. It does not; but I'm not about to type all that out again.

RFWilmut (talk) 15:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"it's surprising that almost every review or comment on the film states that it takes place in real time" = verified. Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

VANDALISM BY 108.90.25.136

THE PAGE HAS BEEN VANDALIZED BY 108.90.25.136. I CORRECTED SOME OF IT, BUT THERE IS MORE TO DO.

THE CORRECTIONS HAVE TO BE MANUALLY DONE BECAUSE THIS BOZO FIXED IT SO THAT SIMPLE "UNDOS" WON'T WORK.

THIS PERSON 108.90.25.136 SHOULD BE BANISHED FROM WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans100 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted to the last stable version. Dayewalker (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this, "The conflict of the role of the Western hero is ironically portrayed in the film Die Hard. The German-born antagonist, Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman) confuses John Wayne as the hero walking off into the sunset with Grace Kelly, only to be corrected by the protagonist, John McClane (Bruce Willis)", more vandalism, or just bad editing??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.158.123.43 (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright

What is the present Copyright status on the movie? --41.151.115.107 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias in Reception

Why does the reception section only seem to describe negative reaction? The whole section can be summarized as: "Politically engaged people didn't like it for political reasons" the thing has 96% score on Rotten Tomatoes, it's considered a classic, why is there barely any mention of this? 62.44.134.102 (talk) 23:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Golden globes

The introduction says it won two Golden Globes but then lists, parenthetically, four awards. The accolades section only mentions one Golden Globe. Which is it? 87.115.16.140 (talk) 12:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Pardon

Frank Miller was not "pardoned on an unspecified legal technicality". Technicalities are what allow acquittals. Pardons are granted by politicians on a whim.Royalcourtier (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Under federal law which obtained in the NMT, a convicted felon could have a gun, up until 1968. knoodelhed (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

David Bishop Reference

The bit about David Bishop on Grace Kelly's character under "Reception" misreads the cited reference, and indeed gets Bishop's argument exactly backwards. 73.36.76.253 (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary

"The events occur in approximate real time." does not belong in the Plot section. It is already in the Lead.
I have added the sentence to the Filming section— | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 18:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Revisionist Western?

I question if this should be regarded as a Revisionist Western. I quote the relevant article: "The traditional Western generally follows a standard format, centered around a strong, male lead character, who through direct action, leads the forces of a civilized people against the uncivilized forces that stand in their way. Traditionally, this pitted the "good guys,” usually lawmen, against the "bad guys,” usually criminals or Native Americans." This film shows a tough lawman deciding that "a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" and taking on a gang of rather stereotypical criminals. It might be seen as revisionist because some issues about the way it was made mean that it is widely seen as an allegory against McCarthyism, but IMHO that's not quite the same. PatGallacher (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

A fair question which applies to other 1950s Westerns but there is a school of thought to support this one. Please see the Legacy and cultural influence section for the views of Don Graham and Kim Newman. In essence, the film is considered revisionist for the presentation of its female characters and the cowardice of the townspeople. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)