What do you think?
Rate this book
John Ford: The Man and His Films
This radical re-reading of Ford's work studies his films in the context of his complex character, demonstrating their immense intelligence and their profound critique of our culture.
600 pages, Paperback
First published April 29, 1986
27 people are currently reading
367 people want to read
About the author
Tag Gallagher
13 books15 followersFilm critic, author of two monumental books ('John Ford. The Man and his Films' and 'The Adventures of Roberto Rossellini: His Life And Films'), has written about Costa, Dreyer, Ferrara, Fuller, Hawks, Hitchcock, Mankiewicz, McCarey, Mizoguchi, Max Ophüls, Preminger, Renoir, Sirk, von Sternberg, Straub, Ulmer, Vidor, Walsh, and has made DVD editions commenting several movies of these filmmakers.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 28, 2017
A Great Tribute to One of the Greatest Directors of All Time
Tag Gallagher’s study John Ford. The Man and His Films may seem like an intimidating book what with its sheer volume and the author’s occasional inclination towards unnecessarily complicated language. However, to anyone interested in John Ford’s movie œuvre, or even in the classic cinema at large, this book is definitely a must-read – as long as they are willing to accept the auteur theory approach Gallagher follows. To rebut this objection from the very beginning one may say that, along with Hitchcock, Renoir, Hawks, and maybe Wyler – I would also want to add my favourite, Anthony Mann –, John Ford is most certainly a director who managed in most cases to maintain full authority in the process of making his films, not only through Argosy Productions but also due to his working style and his special personality.
Gallagher divides Ford’s films into four different periods – Introspection, Idealism, Myth and Mortality – and works out the specific features of each of these eras by closely analyzing its respective films. Some films, like How Green Was My Valley, Stagecoach, Mogambo, The Searchers, or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance are covered in extensive detail, whereas other films, like The Iron Horse obtain less attention. All in all, however, Gallagher gives a very good impression of most of Ford’s movies. As he hardly ever provides plot summaries and, instead, implies that the reader be familiar with the films, the more Ford films you know, the more you will get out of his analyses. I actually re-watched several of the films after reading Gallagher’s remarks on them, which was a very gratifying experience – even if reading the book will take even longer. But then there are a lot of worse pastimes than watching Ford movies.
It quickly becomes obvious that Gallagher does not really write sine ira et studio but definitely in a strong spirit of admiration of Ford, e.g. when he attacks Bazin’s criticism of Ford’s allegedly manipulative style in Stagecoach – and rightly so, I would add after following his arguments –, but this does not make Gallagher a fawning yes-man at all (cf. his analysis of The Informer in case you need proof). It is even this spirit of admiration that leads Gallagher to some of his most valuable statements and discoveries. I was, for example, quite impressed to read Gallagher’s appreciation of Fort Apache’s seemingly conservative ending as an instance of Ford’s deeply-rooted skepticism of what some people’s idealism may lead to (cf. pp.246-54, but also p.494 n.63: “[…] how Captain York donning Colonel Thursday’s hat at the end is a Brechtian device […], and that we see clearly that an insane system needs the dedication of noble men to perpetuate itself.”). Far from being a starry-eyed and conservative myth-maker, Ford shows us that “[t]he evil, the true evil, that haunts his films is the evil of good intentions.” It is only that Ford, rather than telling us how we should feel about things, invites us to observe rather than identify and to come to our own conclusions. Ford’s cinema is unobtrusive and very clever indeed.
Gallagher finishes his in-depth analyses of Ford’s films by characterizing the director’s style (and by contrasting him with Hitchcock, another auteur). One must add, though, that the book is hardly what you would call a biography, although during the first few pages I was slightly dismayed at what I found to be rather erratic biographic information on Ford. Instead Gallagher tries to characterize Ford via his films, which, to my mind, is a venture he definitely succeeds in, now and then inserting some additional biographic information.
The book also contains a filmography of all films Ford in some way or other had a hand in; I was quite surprised to spot Hondo in that number. No praise, however, can be given to the illustrations which abound in the book and are meant to illustrate Gallagher’s analyses because they are often of very poor quality indeed, sometimes even completely useless without the accompanying texts.
This little qualification, however, in no way detracts from the outstanding merits of Gallagher’s analysis, and so I feel inclined to call this book the best study on John Ford that is known to me.
Tag Gallagher’s study John Ford. The Man and His Films may seem like an intimidating book what with its sheer volume and the author’s occasional inclination towards unnecessarily complicated language. However, to anyone interested in John Ford’s movie œuvre, or even in the classic cinema at large, this book is definitely a must-read – as long as they are willing to accept the auteur theory approach Gallagher follows. To rebut this objection from the very beginning one may say that, along with Hitchcock, Renoir, Hawks, and maybe Wyler – I would also want to add my favourite, Anthony Mann –, John Ford is most certainly a director who managed in most cases to maintain full authority in the process of making his films, not only through Argosy Productions but also due to his working style and his special personality.
Gallagher divides Ford’s films into four different periods – Introspection, Idealism, Myth and Mortality – and works out the specific features of each of these eras by closely analyzing its respective films. Some films, like How Green Was My Valley, Stagecoach, Mogambo, The Searchers, or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance are covered in extensive detail, whereas other films, like The Iron Horse obtain less attention. All in all, however, Gallagher gives a very good impression of most of Ford’s movies. As he hardly ever provides plot summaries and, instead, implies that the reader be familiar with the films, the more Ford films you know, the more you will get out of his analyses. I actually re-watched several of the films after reading Gallagher’s remarks on them, which was a very gratifying experience – even if reading the book will take even longer. But then there are a lot of worse pastimes than watching Ford movies.
It quickly becomes obvious that Gallagher does not really write sine ira et studio but definitely in a strong spirit of admiration of Ford, e.g. when he attacks Bazin’s criticism of Ford’s allegedly manipulative style in Stagecoach – and rightly so, I would add after following his arguments –, but this does not make Gallagher a fawning yes-man at all (cf. his analysis of The Informer in case you need proof). It is even this spirit of admiration that leads Gallagher to some of his most valuable statements and discoveries. I was, for example, quite impressed to read Gallagher’s appreciation of Fort Apache’s seemingly conservative ending as an instance of Ford’s deeply-rooted skepticism of what some people’s idealism may lead to (cf. pp.246-54, but also p.494 n.63: “[…] how Captain York donning Colonel Thursday’s hat at the end is a Brechtian device […], and that we see clearly that an insane system needs the dedication of noble men to perpetuate itself.”). Far from being a starry-eyed and conservative myth-maker, Ford shows us that “[t]he evil, the true evil, that haunts his films is the evil of good intentions.” It is only that Ford, rather than telling us how we should feel about things, invites us to observe rather than identify and to come to our own conclusions. Ford’s cinema is unobtrusive and very clever indeed.
Gallagher finishes his in-depth analyses of Ford’s films by characterizing the director’s style (and by contrasting him with Hitchcock, another auteur). One must add, though, that the book is hardly what you would call a biography, although during the first few pages I was slightly dismayed at what I found to be rather erratic biographic information on Ford. Instead Gallagher tries to characterize Ford via his films, which, to my mind, is a venture he definitely succeeds in, now and then inserting some additional biographic information.
The book also contains a filmography of all films Ford in some way or other had a hand in; I was quite surprised to spot Hondo in that number. No praise, however, can be given to the illustrations which abound in the book and are meant to illustrate Gallagher’s analyses because they are often of very poor quality indeed, sometimes even completely useless without the accompanying texts.
This little qualification, however, in no way detracts from the outstanding merits of Gallagher’s analysis, and so I feel inclined to call this book the best study on John Ford that is known to me.
November 8, 2013
One of the best critical biographies I've read, a passionate defense of America's greatest film director that makes even other masters lose their luster in comparison. Gallagher may not bring the same theoretical depth to Ford that Robin Wood did to Hitchcock (whom Gallagher erects in opposition to Ford's moral/aesthetic approach in his conclusion), but then I think that Ford's intent aestheticization of feeling over psychology and logic is Gallagher's point anyway. (And even so, he makes more than one argument for Ford's Marxist/Brechtian bonafides, even if Ford himself would have probably thrown a shoe at him for doing so). Gallagher often admits his inability to put into words the grace of a single shot, but he succeeds so often at verbalizing the ineffable qualities of Ford's total cinema that he reintroduces THE cinematic classist as a modernist voice awaiting fresh eyes to see how relevant and untouchable Ford remains.
July 22, 2023
Outside of his dismissal nature to some of the minor films (although his enjoyable hatred of The Informer and The Grapes of Wrath are worthwhile because he spends several pages on them), Gallagher's career-spanning consideration of Ford as a still great artist, defending him against his purported reactionary nature (best argued in his mid-'30s films, How Green Was My Valley, Fort Apache, The Searchers, and 7 Women), and the depths of his heroes, style, and critique of communities versus individuals is wonderful. This puts most of Joseph McBride's biography to shame in terms of criticism, albeit McBride's prior work on Ford might be better in those terms. Gallagher has likely created the definitive work on John Ford's films as a whole, not to say Sarris, McBride, Eyman, and others do not hold considerable value too.
February 14, 2019
Tag Gallagher is one of the preeminent scholars on Ford and the nuances of his films. Though this bio was written in the 80s it is just as relevant today. The nuances of Ford as an artist and craftsman are great. The detailed analysis of many of the films is even better. Even when I don't agree with Gallagher's assessment of the films I still take seriously what he has to say. If you love moves and film analysis, this is one of the best biographies of one of the greatest of the great old masters.
June 24, 2017
The best book about film I've ever read.
April 14, 2018
re-read 50%
July 7, 2021
One of the best pieces of film criticism on a single director ever.
Read
April 30, 2023Must read for any John Ford fan.
Read
August 1, 2023El mejor libro escrito sobre el cineasta John Ford. Contiene biografía, análisis, exhaustividad, rigor y un mundo de posbiilidades teóricas.
March 13, 2021
One can never read too many books about John Ford, of which there are dozens. But if you only decide to read one of them, it should be this one. It offers the best critical analysis of Ford's work in existence -- with Gallagher paying enormously close attention to Ford as a visual stylist -- and it features deep dives into a lot of Ford films that are considered "minor" by most other critics and Ford biographers (e.g., MOGAMBO), which is extremely gratifying. It is also one of the best book-length critical studies of any filmmaker, scholarly but accessible, and will make you wish that there were similar books that paid equally close attention to the way other great directors approach film form. If you read two books on Ford, the other should be Joseph McBride's Searching for John Ford: A Life, which is more of a straight biography.
September 14, 2009
Fantastic study of Ford's films from Gallagher. He helpfully divides Ford's career into different "eras", where groups of films cohere together in thematic ways. He does an excellent job of analyzing the films themselves, often devoting several pages to formal analysis, highlighting Ford's cutting, framing, camera movements, characterizations, lighting, and atmosphere. He does well to place Ford in a cinematic context, aligning him with other expressionistic filmmakers like Murnau and Renoir, and his concluding essay bringing together all the previous analysis is as rich and detailed as one would hope for. I suspect I'll be referring back to Gallagher's book often in the future. I may not always agree with everything he says, but I know I can at least expect a thoughtful argument about any particular film that will serve to clarify my own thinking about the film and help me to develop and articulate my response to it.
April 13, 2011
Ahhhh, John Ford. The best thing about this book is the attention it gives to the Master of the Cinema- John Ford. The worst thing is Tag Gallagher- an insufferable bore who will not use an easy expression when a difficult one will do. Ahhhhh, John Ford. Buy this book and use it only as a guide to systematically view the master's pieces, don't take the idiot writer seriously, really, don't. John Ford.
November 15, 2017
Without a doubt, this is the most comprehensive study available of John Ford's work. At the same time, it's solid history of the man, his movies and Hollywood over the decades. Sometimes, its prose becomes a little turgid. But whatever inadequacies present are outweighed by the volume of research and detailed critical analysis.
April 10, 2017
The best book on John Ford you'll find on the market!
Gallagher is a brilliant film critic and historian, author of some of the best writings in the field during the 1980s and 1990s. He didn't buy into what was trendy in academia back then (semiology and cultural studies), and maintained an "auteurist" approach instead. He thinks films are more similar to poetry and painting than to prose and language, and likes to analyze sequences and single frames from an aesthetic and stylistic point of view, adopting different sets of tools for different authors ("Frame enlargements can show a lot of Ford’s art - composition, camera angles rhyming from one shot to the next, lighting – but almost nothing of Rossellini’s art, because Rossellini turns everything into motion").
This book is therefore analytical and academically rigorous, and at the same time accessible and enjoyable by mainstream audiences.
If you want to learn more about his approach, you can read one of his best essays, "Reading, culture, and auteurs", at this link.
Gallagher is a brilliant film critic and historian, author of some of the best writings in the field during the 1980s and 1990s. He didn't buy into what was trendy in academia back then (semiology and cultural studies), and maintained an "auteurist" approach instead. He thinks films are more similar to poetry and painting than to prose and language, and likes to analyze sequences and single frames from an aesthetic and stylistic point of view, adopting different sets of tools for different authors ("Frame enlargements can show a lot of Ford’s art - composition, camera angles rhyming from one shot to the next, lighting – but almost nothing of Rossellini’s art, because Rossellini turns everything into motion").
This book is therefore analytical and academically rigorous, and at the same time accessible and enjoyable by mainstream audiences.
If you want to learn more about his approach, you can read one of his best essays, "Reading, culture, and auteurs", at this link.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews