The Dilemma Of The Gun

It's interesting that James Garner played Wyatt Earp in Hour of the Gun, since he'd play Earp again years later in Sunset. I wonder how often that happens, an actor playing the same character in unrelated films.

Unlike Sunset, Hour of the Gun is a more typical Earp film, focusing on the OK Corral and the aftermath, with Jason Robards as Doc Holliday, and Robert Ryan as Ike Clanton. I still prefer Tombstone myself, but this version has some things to recommend it. It's either more focused, or just less subtle about the idea that Wyatt is going against what he believes in. When the Earps are put on trial for their actions in the shootout, Wyatt makes it clear that he's not prone to killing men, except in upholding the law. This in contrast to Doc, who has mostly killed men over money since the war ended. Once of his brothers is killed and the other crippled however, Wyatt is depicted as having accepted the federal marshal position as a way to get revenge. He uses the badge as a license to kill, at one point goading one of the men responsible into drawing his gun so Wyatt can kill him.

That's contrasted with Doc who has signed on to watch out for his friend, and also because he seems to find the idea of serving law novel. At one point, while searching for liquor, he comes across one of the men with two buddies, and makes an honest attempt to arrest him. The two friends object, shooting ensues, and Wyatt, who had trailed Doc, gets to kill the guilty party. Doc ends up being Wyatt's conscience, for all the good it does.

My dad pointed out that Wyatt was throwing away everything he believed in, and for what? I said, the satisfaction of killing the men who killed his brother. Great, he says, what's he got left after he does that? Which made me think of two things. First, Ennis' Widowmaker arc in Punisher, where Jenny has to deal with the same issue.

Second, the idea of situational ethics. I considered bringing that up with him then, but the movie was still going, and it seemed likely to distract. I wondered if Wyatt couldn't set aside his principles because of the circumstances. Normally, he wouldn't abuse the power of the law to carry out personal scores, but in this particular situation, he had to bend his principles a little, or he might break. There were no witnesses, there was no legal way to arrest and convict those men, and Clanton made it quite clear he wasn't willing to settle for merely driving the Earps away from Tombstone. In that case, standing to his principles was a good way to get him and his entire family killed. Even if he survived somehow, he'd have to live with everyone else being dead.