Below
is an analysis essay comparing the film 3:10 to Yuma to its
short story by Elmore Leonard.
Transport to Contention
Character-driven stories, in this case, a western, are
particularly fascinating as they resonate with the reader or audience, allowing
them to interpret the reasons behind each character's actions. For this reason, 3:10
to Yuma is unique from other typical westerns featuring horseback
chase sequences, sharpshooters with cigars hanging from their mouths, or
vengeful duels in the glaring sun. Set in 1884, this is a compelling film
released in 2007 with the screenplay written in collaboration by Halsted
Welles, Michael Brandt, and Derek Haas and adapted from Elmore Leonard’s short
story, published in 1953. In both versions, a notorious outlaw arrested for
multiple robberies and murders must be escorted to a train heading to Yuma. In
the short story by Elmore Leonard, outlaw Jim Kidd is led by Deputy Paul
Scallen with a shotgun to the train station, primarily focusing on the tense
finale in the booming town of Contention. On the other hand, director James
Mangold’s adaptation depicts the events leading up to that point as the
struggling rancher Dan Evans involves himself in the arrest of outlaw Ben Wade
in the town of Bisbee, later leading him to the train station in Contention in
order to provide for his family. Although Elmore Leonard’s “3:10 to Yuma” seems
more sensible in the motives behind each character’s actions, the characters
are bland in comparison to those in its adaptation. Therefore, while the deputy
and outlaw stay true to their characters in the short story, its film
adaptation 3:10 to Yuma is superior due to the character
transformations of Dan Evans and Ben Wade.
While both versions are unrealistic in terms of action sequences,
the short story’s character motivations are more realistic. In both cases, it
seems quite improbable that Paul Scallen would survive the final shootout while
being surrounded by Jim Kidd’s gang or that Dan Evans would be able to reach
the train station after facing a town-full of armed men in spite of his
sharpshooter skills and military experience. But action scenes aside, the
characters are more believable in the short story than in 3:10 to Yuma. In
the film adaptation, Evans has nearly every reason to drop the job and return
to his family alive. He recovers his relationship with his son, William, who
now looks up to Evans after witnessing his courageous acts and begs him to come
home. In addition, Ben Wade repeatedly urges Evans to take his money to provide
for his family and restore his farm. However, Evans insists on transporting
Wade on the train to Yuma, even if this requires sacrificing his life. On the
contrary, it makes more sense for deputy Paul Scallen to risk his life for
justice by having Jim Kidd hanged for his numerous crimes. That is his job,
which is shown when Jim Kidd states, “You risk your neck to save my life, now
you’ll risk it again to send me to prison” (32). Paul Scallen is paid to
enforce the law. Furthermore, the fact that Jim Kidd would retain his image as
the villain with no remorse if Scallen were to be killed is more realistic and
expected as he merely respects Scallen for his loyalty to the law and
skillfulness. He has no reason to help Scallen accomplish his job because
neither of them revealed their personal lives to each other as in the film
adaptation and Scallen is perfectly capable, portrayed as a more typical hero
in a western. Compared to the unconventional, yet more entertaining ending of
the film adaptation, “3:10 to Yuma”, Elmore Leonard’s version has more realism,
a prevalent style in most of his work consisting of gritty crime thrillers.
In comparison to Paul Scallen, Dan Evans is a far more fascinating
character due to his transformation and how his values dictate his actions.
Once both characters are on the train to Yuma, Scallen finally smiles and
“suddenly felt closer to [Kidd] than any man he knew” (32). There is simply not
enough backstory or interaction between the two characters behind this vague
statement especially since not much is known about either. As the two men wait
in a hotel room for the train to arrive, Jim Kidd asks, “What made you join the
law,” and Scallen answers, “the money” (28). Both Paul Scallen and Dan Evans
are initially driven by money; however, this is where their motivations
diverge. In the end, Scallen remains primarily concerned with money, asserting
that he, “really earned [his] hundred and a half” (35). While this ending is
interesting and satisfying, it does not result in a large emotional impact as
the film does. Before Scallen steps out onto the streets and confronts Jim
Kidd’s gang, he, “kept asking himself if it was worth it” (32). In the context
of the short story, opening fire on a group of armed men with no backup does
not seem as “worth” the risk as Dan Evans’s more personal reasons for carrying
out the responsibilities of the deputies of Bisbee. What makes the film
substantially more moving is how each character unveils their true character and
inner secrets throughout the journey to Contention. As Ben Wade attempts to
escape, Dan Evans exposes the truth that, "I ain't never been no
hero, Wade. Only battle I seen, we was in retreat. My foot got shot off by one
of my own men. You try telling that story to your boy. See how he looks at you
then." The
fact that Evans would sacrifice his own life to maintain justice even though he
has “no obligation” makes him a more interesting character than Paul Scallen.
This indicates that Evans values honor and justice over his life, and this
sense of right versus wrong drives him to finish his job regardless of the
roadblocks he faces as Charlie Prince assembles Wade’s gang on the streets. In
addition, Evans does not give in to temptations as Wade repeatedly offers him
money for freedom. The fact that the son finally respects his father
demonstrates the impact that the mission had on him. Just after William threatens
to shoot the outlaw, Wade states, “there’s wild in his eyes” and that William
reminds him of himself. If William were still filled with loathing and
desire to follow Ben Wade’s criminal ways, he possibly would shoot Wade at the
conclusion. However, Evans wants to lead William on a respectable path far from
the amoral life of Ben Wade. Thus, Dan Evans is a more profound character and
has a greater impact on the other characters compared to Paul Scallen due to
his transformation throughout the film.
While Jim Kidd resembles the ruthless rebel in the western story,
Ben Wade proves to be far more conniving and murderous with the greatest
character arc in the film. From the beginning, Jim Kidd always underestimates
Paul Scallen. For instance, while the tension builds and Charlie Prince is
about to appear with the gang, Kid urges him to, “Run like hell while you’re
still able” (34). In addition, Jim Kidd does not seem quite as menacing as Ben
Wade. The way that he is portrayed in the short story, Jim Kidd seems just like
a rebellious kid with no chance against Paul Scallen such as when he attempts
to escape, “crawling frantically and coming to his feet when Scallen…grabbed
him by the collar” (35). Ben Wade is charming, yet cold, and does not hesitate
to murder, which is demonstrated in multiple instances. While they are camped
at night in front of a fire, Evans tells his son that, “shooting animals is a
lot different from shooting a man”, but Wade responds, “No, it isn’t. Not in my
opinion.” This also indicates that Wade leads a group of animalistic men with
no sense of morality, especially Charlie Prince. In the film, the two
characters seem to have respect for each other from the start. Wade initially
teased him relentlessly; however, he began to admire Dan’s strong character.
Wade points out all of the wrongdoings of the rest of the lawmen; however, he
respects Dan for being a genuinely good man. Wade and Evans are enemies, yet
they have this camaraderie. For instance, when Evans begins to regard Wade
as a friend, he wants Wade to know that he “ain’t stubborn…for keeping [his]
family on that ranch.” Towards the conclusion, Evans’s remark of being a “hero”
completely turned the plot around as Wade empathizes with him, and even tries
to save his life several times during the chaotic finale. This ten-minute
action scene at the end shows how Ben Wade wants Dan Evans to succeed even if
he is being escorted to prison. Wade admires Evans’s lack of fear to the point
of killing his entire gang in revenge after Charlie Prince shoots Evans. Thus,
the director uses action to progress the relationship between the two main
characters. While Wade’s character changes for the good throughout the film, he
is still Ben Wade the notorious outlaw, as it is implied that he escapes from
Yuma once again, whistling to his horse. This conclusion to a western film is
far more memorable due to the fascinating relationships between the characters
and their transformations.
In the short story, Paul Scallen and Jim Kidd are more typical and
predictable, yet more realistic that the characters in the film adaptation.
However, the reader does not learn much about either character in the short
story. Even though the film adaptation is unrealistic at times, this is
acceptable because of suspension of disbelief, and the execution of the
screenwriters and director, therefore, not detracting from the quality of the
film. 3:10 to Yuma is preferable because the two main
characters are considerably more engrossing characters that relate to the
audience and draw in their attention due to their contrasting and evolving
personalities and attitude towards each other. Furthermore, the film does an
excellent job of integrating themes of justice, values, and honor. Thus, the
film adaptation is essentially superior to the original short story by Elmore
Leonard due to the characterization, motives, and transformation of Dan Evans
and Ben Wade.
