I first watched LAWMAN in 1989. Although my father told me he had not liked it when it came out, I had been curious about a Western that boasted one of the greatest casts ever, especially in terms of supporting actors: Robert Ryan, Lee J. Cobb, Joseph Wiseman, Robert Duvall, Richard Jordan, Albert Salmi, Sheree North.
That first viewing had me agree with my father that the ending left something to be desired. However, subsequent viewings have added significantly to what I see as the film's merits in terms of construction, script, cinematography and further confirmed my initial perception that acting was of the highest order by everyone, even in very minor parts.
Still, I have to agree with my father that the character played by Lancaster is both inflexible and contradictory, and his killing of the very man his love interest had asked him not to kill, with a shot in the back to boot, was unnecessarily mean. Maddox (Lancaster) and Ryan (Ryan) know what killing is about: you may not be fastest on the draw, but your readiness to kill makes the difference.
Although the point about Maddox's contradictions remains valid, I have come to view LAWMAN as a well crafted study of the law implemented to excess, however much the implementer supposedly sticks to the letter of that law.
Michael Winner's direction is firm and succint. He would go on to direct DEATH WISH, with Charles Bronson a civilian vigilante. LAWMAN is the precursor to DEATH WISH: Lancaster's actions border on vigilantism under cover of his tin star.
The dangers of excessive implementation of the law are obvious but LAWMAN's merit is that it avoids moral judgements. It brings those excesses out in unadorned but exposing light, and it stays on your mind for days.
That first viewing had me agree with my father that the ending left something to be desired. However, subsequent viewings have added significantly to what I see as the film's merits in terms of construction, script, cinematography and further confirmed my initial perception that acting was of the highest order by everyone, even in very minor parts.
Still, I have to agree with my father that the character played by Lancaster is both inflexible and contradictory, and his killing of the very man his love interest had asked him not to kill, with a shot in the back to boot, was unnecessarily mean. Maddox (Lancaster) and Ryan (Ryan) know what killing is about: you may not be fastest on the draw, but your readiness to kill makes the difference.
Although the point about Maddox's contradictions remains valid, I have come to view LAWMAN as a well crafted study of the law implemented to excess, however much the implementer supposedly sticks to the letter of that law.
Michael Winner's direction is firm and succint. He would go on to direct DEATH WISH, with Charles Bronson a civilian vigilante. LAWMAN is the precursor to DEATH WISH: Lancaster's actions border on vigilantism under cover of his tin star.
The dangers of excessive implementation of the law are obvious but LAWMAN's merit is that it avoids moral judgements. It brings those excesses out in unadorned but exposing light, and it stays on your mind for days.