Jesse James is a sprawling biographical film about, you guessed it, Jesse James, famed outlaw, bank robber, and enduring icon of early America. Props to the man himself, if I may, for having a great name. History needs more badass Jesse's, although I admit to some bias. The film centrally stars Tyrone Power and Henry Fonda as the James boys. The film is directed by Henry King, whose work, besides this film, I am completely unfamiliar with. So how does it come out? Well... unfortunately, the best word I can conjure is "decent." Jesse James is a decent movie that could have been better, had it chosen to infuse a bit more humanity.
Despite being ably performed (Fonda and Powers both do their best with the material), with strong showings both in acting and cinematography, the movie feels somewhat clunky in both its scope and pacing, which stand strangely at odds. We follow James from farm boy to famous outlaw to his eventual death at the hands of the coward Robert Ford (shoutout to Andrew Dominik's far superior 2007 outing with Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck), but the sprawling chronology does a disservice to the substance that could have been gleaned by lingering a bit more on any of the periods in between. Simultaneously, and somewhat paradoxically in theory, the film lacks inertia, and seems to meander from scene to scene at times, a result, perhaps, of the lack of weight and internality in the interstitial space between the larger bullet points of the narrative. It's just a bit too big, and at the same time, just a bit too thin.
The big problem with the film, even more so than the somewhat lethargic direction and pacing issues, is one of interiority. The context of the James boys, as set up by a playful yet dramatic introductory sequence wherein the brothers knock the daylights out of a railroad con-man come to swindle their mother out of her land, is prime for some demythologizing, and yet the film fails to capitalize on this potentially interesting avenue, and instead goes for the opposite. Outside of a select few scenes, we are never given to understand the depth of James' character. He remains at a distance to us. Furthermore, almost all of his motivations are established through dialogue with other characters. In essence, the film does such a poor job of showing us James, that it has to continually tell us about James. This seems intentional, as a way of mythologizing, but consequently leads to a feeling of shallowness, on the whole.
This is all quite negative, but I feel I must reiterate that the movie is not some grand failure. Many of the scenes are quite good, and, as noted, the performances are excellent. The movie shines whenever Fonda and Power get to play together, and James' relationship with Zee (Nancy Kelly) provides the film a solid enough emotional core, but this is once again hampered by our somewhat distanced view of James, who never gets "that scene." You know what I mean, that movie moment that defines the character and etches itself indelibly on the memory banks, like Henry Fonda's speech at the end of The Grapes of Wrath. And it really could have used it.
FINAL TAKE: Jesse James is a fine movie, even a pretty good one at times, but lacks the cohesion necessary to elevate it into a title that you'll remember for years to come. In taking the long view, its major failing is in making James a character of relatability and depth, and instead inhabits that well-populated space of entirely watchable yet overall stolid movies that, for some reason or another, failed to reach the mark. Worth watching once? No problem, but it'll likely be a one-and-done experience.
Despite being ably performed (Fonda and Powers both do their best with the material), with strong showings both in acting and cinematography, the movie feels somewhat clunky in both its scope and pacing, which stand strangely at odds. We follow James from farm boy to famous outlaw to his eventual death at the hands of the coward Robert Ford (shoutout to Andrew Dominik's far superior 2007 outing with Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck), but the sprawling chronology does a disservice to the substance that could have been gleaned by lingering a bit more on any of the periods in between. Simultaneously, and somewhat paradoxically in theory, the film lacks inertia, and seems to meander from scene to scene at times, a result, perhaps, of the lack of weight and internality in the interstitial space between the larger bullet points of the narrative. It's just a bit too big, and at the same time, just a bit too thin.
The big problem with the film, even more so than the somewhat lethargic direction and pacing issues, is one of interiority. The context of the James boys, as set up by a playful yet dramatic introductory sequence wherein the brothers knock the daylights out of a railroad con-man come to swindle their mother out of her land, is prime for some demythologizing, and yet the film fails to capitalize on this potentially interesting avenue, and instead goes for the opposite. Outside of a select few scenes, we are never given to understand the depth of James' character. He remains at a distance to us. Furthermore, almost all of his motivations are established through dialogue with other characters. In essence, the film does such a poor job of showing us James, that it has to continually tell us about James. This seems intentional, as a way of mythologizing, but consequently leads to a feeling of shallowness, on the whole.
This is all quite negative, but I feel I must reiterate that the movie is not some grand failure. Many of the scenes are quite good, and, as noted, the performances are excellent. The movie shines whenever Fonda and Power get to play together, and James' relationship with Zee (Nancy Kelly) provides the film a solid enough emotional core, but this is once again hampered by our somewhat distanced view of James, who never gets "that scene." You know what I mean, that movie moment that defines the character and etches itself indelibly on the memory banks, like Henry Fonda's speech at the end of The Grapes of Wrath. And it really could have used it.
FINAL TAKE: Jesse James is a fine movie, even a pretty good one at times, but lacks the cohesion necessary to elevate it into a title that you'll remember for years to come. In taking the long view, its major failing is in making James a character of relatability and depth, and instead inhabits that well-populated space of entirely watchable yet overall stolid movies that, for some reason or another, failed to reach the mark. Worth watching once? No problem, but it'll likely be a one-and-done experience.