You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. -- Dr. McClurken


====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

In terms of this movie being a used as a secondary source, the film does not have a lot of merit. However, it should be worth mentioning that this was the third film that focused on Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and the fight at the O.K. Corral. Like many historical films used as secondary sources, **it introduces the topic of Wyatt Earp to someone who isn't familiar with it**, and upon watching it, someone would have to read and watch more to learn what actually happened and who individuals like Earp and Doc Holliday actually were. It should also be worth noting that although this film romanticizes Earp and Holliday, it does not do so as much as films before it, such as //Frontier Marshall// (1939), which showed Holliday dying before the battle took place in 1882. 

Bibliography:

oscar-nierstrasz-448-176770. “Wyatt Earp Movies,” October 29, 2017. https://www.imdb.com/list/ls025409183/?sort=release_date%2Cdesc. 

“Frontier Marshal.” IMDb. IMDb.com. Accessed October 21, 2020. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031346/?ref_=ttls_li_tt. -- Jordan Petty 


The film would be a terrible secondary source as it **does not draw enough from the scholarly historical record** to be of any use besides as a primary source to understand the American romanticism of the west, gunfights, and cowboys. The historical record informs us that there was a town called Tombstone in which a gunfight happened near the O.K. Corral and is named for it and it involved the Earp brothers, Clantons, and Doc Holiday. The film also mentions how one of the Earps was made a marshal in Tombstone and that Wyatt was once a marshal in Dodge city. The wild west was certainly a violent place, but the film fails to present this in a convincing manner as every presentation of violence either serves the plot is explained so well that it seems purposeful rather than arbitrary as the primary sources we read seemed to stress about how people feared constant threats in the west. The film does an amazing job of **furthering the romanticized notions of the wild west** with suave gunslingers who can enjoy Shakespeare, complex love dynamics, and a clear-cut idea of good and bad. The story of the film is a dramatic account of a gunfight that caught popular interest and became bigger than itself and the film is an indicator of this trend. -Robert Keitz

I do not think that this movie would work very well as a secondary source; due to the fact that so much of the movie is fictionalized. **While some of the names and characters were based on actual people, there seems to be too much dramatization and falsities elsewhere.** I believe that it adds to the stereotypical idea of the early American West, and does little to show more of the realities of the people living there. Also, like a lot of the other movies we have watched so far, **romance is one of the main focuses of the film**. If the filmmakers had focused more on historical accuracy and depicting the true story of the fight between the Earps, Clantons, and Doc Holliday, the movie could have been used for a secondary source. -- Mariah Morton 

The film could certainly work on a basic history level, like what weapons and outfits and professions people had in the old west. But the real story is so heavily altered for the sake of dramatization, adding characters, murdering characters like James Earp who would not die until 1926. They also set the events of the film in 1882 for some reason, despite **all of the films events taking place a year earlier in reality**. This film definitely would not work as a secondary source to the events portrayed.--- AJ DeGeorge

The movie gets a number of historical themes correct but is inaccurate with most of the specific events involving the Earps.  Doc Holliday is a type of character that could very realistically exist in that time and place.  As Theodore Roosevelt said in the sources for this week, "people find themselves surrounded by situations which accentuate their worst conditions and make their best qualities useless.  **Doc Holliday went from a qualified doctor in the East to an alcoholic, violent, greedy man in the West.**  His character clearly fits the exact description Roosevelt writes about.  While the real-life Doc Holliday was not quite portrayed accurately, **the character archetype was representative of a possible real westerner from the time period**. -Daniel Walker

This movie should not be used as a secondary source for studying Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday, Tombstone, Arizona, or the incidents surrounding the 1881 gunfight at the OK Corral. In fact, this film is more or less **based on the largely fictional biography of Wyatt Earp written by Stuart N. Lake** and published in 1931. Like this book and other adaptations, they get most of the “historical actors” correct. For example, Wyatt Earp was a real person who was a Marshal in Tombstone. This film also included three of Wyatt Earp’s siblings Virgil, Morgan, and James Earp, Doc Holiday, and the Clanton family. 

I have to agree with Robert here this film is definitely **a dramatic account of this famous gunfight because it doesn’t seem to be as dramatic as this film makes it out to be**. -Megan Williams

I personally wouldn't say this film is a good secondary source. It is way too romanticized with **the movie being named after some woman who doesn't actually exist**. As someone who enjoys the movie Tombstone this entire movie threw me off. Not to say that Tombstone isn't inaccurate but my mind already has this story imprinted as happening a certain way due to that film. If someone wanted to use this story as a jumping off point for research they have to first understand its inaccuracies. Constantly, **there are people dying that never died during those moments in real life**. I understand they have a story to tell, but it could've been done differently. - Dan Dilks  

I would say this film definitely cannot act as a secondary source for learning about the life of the Earp brothers, Doc Holliday, or the shootout at the OK Coral. From what I remember, the more recent //Tombstone// is a better representation of the historical events that this story is based around. There are simply too many historical errors in both fact and interpretation that make this film unusable as a solid secondary source. //My Darling Clementine// drops the ball with so many basic facts to push the story and narrative which makes me ask, why? Clearly the filmmakers were trying to lay out a much simpler story and a clear protagonist but is the real story SO bland that to make an interesting movie the filmmakers had to change so much? **It's films like these that make historians dislike historical films; adding fictional characters can sometimes be a helpful storytelling tool, but altering the actual history of the story is less forgivable.** -Wilson 

My Darling Clementine was not a very good secondary source. The characters, although based on real people, hardly followed the stories of the real people or their position within the town. However, **the actual story of the main characters aside, the film captured that many men worked different jobs, gambled. The film also captured the violence and the “lawless of life in the wilderness” that existed in the old west.** —Helen Dhue
 
So far throughout this semester, this has been my favorite assigned movie. I really enjoyed this movie and feel like it was filmed in such a beautiful way. Of course, there are some mistakes within this movie, just like a lot of other historically based films or movies. In the beginning, the movie portrays a Native American as being violent and drunkenly attacking people. As we know, Hollywood has portrayed the Native Americans in a very incorrect way. In addition to this, there does seem to be some added characters and storylines that are not the most truthful rendition of the real story, but that was added to capture the attention of the audience. -Kaylee Williams
====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
As far as historical films go, this has got to be the most historically inaccurate one that we've seen so far. For a film that is regarded as being one of the best Westerns of all time, that's kind of sad. I have multiple reasons why this film is not a good secondary source, and most of them deal with the characters. The only thing accurate about this film is the names of some of the characters (Wyatt Earp, Virgil Earp, Doc Holliday, etc.) and the ending shootout, which is famously known as the Gunfight at O.K. Corral. The first thing I noticed was that the year in which these events took place was wrong. Yes, this film is set in the vague time period when cowboys and bandits roamed the American West, but it seems like it is based on an actual event that screenwriters had heard of and just decided to go with as the plot of the story. I'm talking about the fact that the Gunfight at O.K. Corral happened in 1881, a solid year before the movie takes place. Then there are the issues with the characters. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday were real historical figures and are each regarded as legends in the American West. I cannot stress how much it annoyed me that Wyatt Earp was the Marshal of Tombstone in the movie, because historically it was his brother, Virgil, who held that role. Then there are issues with Doc Holliday. In the movie, Doc is portrayed to be a surgeon who ventured out west after being diagnosed with tuberculosis. In reality, Doc was a dentist, not a surgeon, but at least they got the tuberculosis issue correct. Then there is the fact that the movie implies Tombstone is the place where him and Wyatt Earp met. The truth is that Doc Holliday had known the Earp brothers and ended up in Tombstone with them. At the very end we see the Gunfight at O.K. Corral, where Doc is supposedly killed. The shootout was not as dramatic as the film makes it out to be, and Doc did not die leaving Wyatt to ride valiantly into the sunset. The entire film is one giant exaggeration that is a fictional version of historical events, making it an abysmal choice for a secondary source of the time period. -- Lyndsey Clark

There are quite a few historical inaccuracies that are portrayed throughout the plot of //My Darling Clementine//. Wyatt Earp and his brothers were not cattle drivers, they were lawmen and marshals. Wyatt owned a brothel, **Virgil and James owned a saloon, and their brother Morgan was a sheriff.** All four of the Earp brothers had many different occupations while they lived in different towns. Before he had a reputation with gunslinging, **Doc Holliday had been a dentist, not a surgeon**. He had dealt with tuberculosis throughout his life, and died of tuberculosis years later after the gunfight at the O.K. Corral, not from a gunshot wound. **James Earp at the beginning of the film was murdered while in his teens when in actuality he lived to be 84 years old.** The gunfight at the O.K. Corral had actually happened in 1881, not 1882 as the movie suggests. -Lauren Simpson 

My Darling Clementine features the conflict of the OK Corral and those involved. There are many problems with the film, however. The most important of these is the people that died. For one, the eldest brother, James, is claimed to have died at “only eighteen”, though we know that he actually lived to be 62, never in Tombstone for the gunfight. Also, **Doc was also not killed in the gunfight, rather he would die at the age of 36 in Colorado**. --Tara Scroggins

Although the film was not as romanticized as //Frontier Marshall//, it still glorifies and warps the story. The most glaring inaccuracies deal with the timeline being depicted, in that **the fight at the O.K. Corral actually took place a year before what was shown in the movie.** James dies at the age of 18 in the movie, but actually lived from 1841 to 1926. This was probably done to dramatize the story. **The introduction of fictional love interests was also unnecessary in telling the story**, but was most likely done to draw more people in, adding that romantic element. IN terms of accuracy, there is a lot wrong with the film, and I think it works in the same way that movies like //Pocahontas// do. -- Jordan Petty    

The film, My Darling Clementine, seems to have **drawn most of its plot and details from the idea of the gunfight near the O.K. Corral rather than any historical record concerning the event.** There are four Earp brothers in the film as they have added James Earp and his death as incentive for the other brothers to remain as marshals in Tombstone. Furthermore, the details of the Earps is incorrect as **Virgil is killed in the film before the gunfight while historically it is Morgan who died**, and Virgil was wounded both of which happened after the gunfight. Other characters are also changed for the sake of the film as Doc Holiday is a surgeon in the film while he was historically a dentist, was gunned down in the fight while he historically lived on until finally being claimed by his Consumption, and **met Wyatt in Tombstone when they had known each other in Dodge city.** **Doc’s Woman Kate was split into two existences with the prostitute Chihuahua and the ex-love interest Clementine Carter who at the end of the film declared she would stay and become a schoolteacher similar to the historical Kate who ended up becoming a schoolteacher.** The gunfight in the film was fully devised from popular imagination as the gunfight took place at the corral and involved numerous deaths over what felt like an hour when it historically took place at a vacant lot with 3 deaths in less than 1 minute. The film prefers to appeal to popular imagination with a long drawn out shootout that ends with one side victorious and the other group dead while the actual shootout was but one event amongst a long conflict between the Republican merchants and Democratic ranchers that did not end with the gunfight as the film suggests with the notion of justice served. The film presents a romantic notion of a western story with vigilante justice and love being behind the **‘good’ guys against the hostile and violent ‘bad’ guys**. The details and events surrounding the gunfight are cut away and replaced with a love triangle that guides a big chunk of the runtime instead of an exploration of the historical gunfight and its greater implications. The ending of the film is the clearest example of the romanticism that was favored with the happy ending of the remaining two Earp brothers riding off after serving justice while Clementine has grown from her selfish quest over Holiday to stay in town and become a schoolteacher for some unknown reason. **All fluff and love rather than any presentation of a historical film** rather it is a film that draws names from history while ignoring just about ever other detail of the historical record. -Robert Keitz

Let's set aside the blatant racial stereotypes for a second, and discuss the fact that the movie doesn't even get Wyatt Earp's own life correct. To be completely honest, before class on Tuesday I assumed Wyatt Earp was an entirely fictional character- a perfect idea of what a cowboy should be, but nothing more than fantasty. //My Darling Clementine// completely **romanticizes Wyatt Earp's life, turning him into a classic American moving out west with his brothers to start a new life, rather than the fairly sketchy individual he actually was**. His run for law enforcement is shockingly true in both instances, his reason for doing so is nowhere near as noble as it appears to be in the film. Doc Holliday and Earp were actually very close friends in real life rather than semi-antagonist he appears to be, although I suppose they couldn't be seen as too close since Holliday was such a shady character--can't besmirch the Earp name! Essentially, it feels like the **directors and writers took the bare bones of who Wyatt Earp was--mainly, a western cowboy-- and then dressed him and the other people involved however they wanted to in order to tell a classic, idealized version of life in the American West.**  -- Cat Kinde  

There are definitely problems with historical accuracy in this film. The major error was the fact that **the gunfight did not even occur at the OK Corral**. The gunfight took place near CS Flys Photographic Studio and Boarding House, six doors down from the Corral. Another thing that I feel as if this **film downplays is how developed Tombstone, Arizona was for the time**. The town had two dance halls, dozen gambling parlors, and twenty saloons. I feel as if they downplay this because the film only shows the one saloon.

This film also does not portray Wyatt Earp accurately. He was never a cowboy and never owned cattle. In fact instead of being a “revered” marshal he was a fugitive of the law when he arrived at Tombstone. In reality, when he arrived in this town he was not just passing through instead he came there hoping to make a fortune in silver. Many believe that Earp was not better than the Clanton's, the difference was he had a badge. 

Another thing this film doesn't show is the fact that **Virgil Earp was the person who carried the gunfight**. Virgil Earp was the brother responsible for trying to restrict guns in Tombstone. It reported that he tried to convince the Clanton’s to drop their weapons (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crrag6Yw_xs). -Megan Williams

I think one of the more interesting inaccuracies in this movie was the depiction of Doc Holliday. There was a strong emphasis on him being a great surgeon. He even does surgery on Chihuahua after she is shot, unfortunately she still ends up dying. In reality, Doc Holliday was actually a dentist. Furthermore, he didn't die during the shootout. He died about six years later as a result of tuberculosis. The character of Chihuahua should also be mentioned again. She was obviously supposed to be a prostitute that was Doc Holliday's girl out west while Clementine was Doc Holliday's girl back home. In reality, the prostitutes name was "Big Nose Kate". She was from Hungary and had been with Doc Holliday for years. - Dan Dilks

Among many inaccuracies in the story, one thing I noticed was the lack of Chinese characters in the film. **The only characters that were not white were the Mexican characters and one Native American man that Wyatt Earp drags out of the saloon.** Chinese immigrants were a large part of the west, many men came as a part of the gold rush, and others set up laundries, worked on the railroad, etc. this part of the west was not represented at all. —Helen Dhue 


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/doc-holliday-kills-for-the-first-time


====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

Despite the film being a classic western filled with many shootouts and gunslingers walking around, I would argue that //My Darling Clemintine// is actually pretty tame compared to the historical reality. **Edward Buffum describes how a man was almost robbed and killed by 5 men before they were stopped by the town.** In the trial, the judge asked the crowd what they thought the men's' punishment should be, the response was that they should be hung- //and they were//. Honestly, it felt more like I was reading something from the French Revolution than from 1800s America. Furthermore, women in the west are brushed aside entirely in the film. **Chihuahua's character is fitting every stereotype of both Latina women and the saloon girl.** Besides being a love interest Clemintine doesn't really have much substance to me, which is a shame because as a woman who came all the way out west on her own, I would have hoped she would have had more character. Letters written by Mary Abell show how difficult life was, having to deal with prairie fires, build a house from scratch, and when she gave birth, having no doctor nearby and no one to really help afterward. By comparison, Clementine really is living a "darling" life. --Cat Kinde

In this article (http://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/Film/Week9--MP--196-205.pdf), there is a section entitled “Theodore Roosevelt Describes Cowboy-Land, 1893.” Within this section, Roosevelt discusses how as cities start to grow the “instinct for the law asserts itself,” however until then “individual is obligated to be a law for himself.” **He then goes onto discussing how reckless men, road agents, and murders have a good side to their characters.** However, it is often hidden by bad choices because they are in an environment that forces them to make bad decisions. Roosevelt then says that men would do deeds that   “would be starting to dwellers in cities and in old settled places.” 

Based on this section the film’s overall interpretation deviates from this historical source. A big reason why it deviates is the fact that **the Clanton family were constantly portrayed as these bad people when in reality they weren’t always bad.** In fact, as this article suggests the behavior of men in the west moved on a spectrum from good to bad. For instance, Wyatt Earp was a wanted criminal but did good things as a Marshall. Another example was when one of the Clanton family members ran a lunch counter to help others. **This film ignores this aspect because like most films they needed to have good guys and bad guys.**-Megan Williams

This movie makes living in the west, ignoring the lawlessness, seem easy which wasn't actually the case. **Women couldn't afford to sit around and be taken care of.** Based on the reading about female settlers in the west, women back then were very self sufficient and worked hard to take care of themselves and their family. Sister Monica's and **Mary Abell's letters show how they shared the workload with the men and didn't try to be waited on.** In comparison, Clementine seem to be a very tame character. She doesn't seem as independent or self-reliant, she takes on this damsel in distress persona. -Purnaja Podduturi

An important scene in the film, which sets Wyatt Earp up as the tough "do it yourself" good guy, was the scene when Wyatt reluctantly leaves the barber shop to deal with the drunk Indian who is shooting up the saloon. **This scene represents not only a blatantly racist stereotype, but also a misinterpretation of historical evidence.** From this article http://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/Film/Week9NewSouthExpandingWest.pdf we see that violent interactions with Native people in the West was most often started by whites, not the other way around. Also, when there were instances of violent incidents started by Natives, it was often in retaliation or something that was completely exaggerated by white newspapers. According to sources, **it probably would have been rare to see instances of lone Natives shooting up small-town saloons completely unprovoked**, and is just an example of racist stereotypes used to create a "good" and "bad" narrative. - Wilson LeCount

====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

The movie, //My Darling Clementine//, can be used as a primary source for the American West. The movie is largely fictionalized with major distortions and inaccuracies concerning the main characters. However, the story is a staging of the gunfight itself that is based on a firsthand account of Wyatt Earp produced by John Ford. The film is considered a classic of the Western movie genre. It is one of the first movies to elevate Wyatt Earp to legendary status and establish the legend of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral in 1881. The movie was a reflection of the time period it was made in. There is a statement of civic values and the creation of a civilization out of the wilderness into the West. This movie creation was an approach to an emerging nation from World War II by a team of filmmakers who had served in that war. The western town of Tombstone in the film becomes a point where savage forces; such as the wild countryside, the rugged Monument Valley backdrops, and the brutish Clantons; and civilized forces such as the urban barbershop, the new church, and the "respectable" Earps meet. -Lauren Simpson

 The film deviates heavily from history but can be seen as source for American culture and cinema.  The plot line is full of good versus evil and antihero tropes.  Henry Fonda’s character of Wyatt Earp is the idealistic American cowboy, who valiantly saves the town from outlaws and leaves the beautiful woman behind due to virtue.  The scene of a cowboy tipping his hat and riding off into the sunset is a cliché now but was fresh and exciting in the 1940s.  **Clementine and Chihuahua as the two love interests of Doc Holiday represented contrast in female sexuality and society’s mixed feelings about it**.  The character study reveals a lot about American culture and customs.  – Janis Shurtleff 

//My Darling Clementine// is a great primary source to discuss thsoe who talk about the West and manifest destiny. The filmmaker, as we discussed in class, is based off of a "biography" that was written about Wyatt Earp. It is interesting to see the early foundations of fantasized romanticizations of the wild west. The film further embellished these lies that were shown in the biography, though it is a larger statement about what it means to be a Western film. This would be an excellent primary source to compare it to modern-day films of the West. -- Tara Scroggins

As far as western films go, //My Darling Clementine// is one of the best and most classic films, and I think that is what needs to be considered when watching it. Most of America's films that focus on the western frontier were produced between the 1940s and the 1970s, and this film serves as an excellent early account. Films like //My Darling Clementine// also heavily contributed to the legend of Wyatt Earp and really helped make his name well known, something that films before it were trying to do. -- Jordan Petty

This movie serves as a good example of a primary source for a number of reasons.  As a post World War II movie, it has a sense of American nationalism in it.  The west is fanaticized and romanticized.  There is a capable, justice-seeking, gunslinging American hero who saves the day and avenges his family while keeping the town safe.  The movie glorifies the West, America, and justice in a way that parallels post World War II patriotism.  It shows the nature of public opinion after the war. -Daniel Walker

While this movie would not make a very good secondary source of the historical event, I do believe it would make a very good primary source of filmmaking. I think that it shows the typical way that the American West was portrayed in films and television. I believe it does a good job of portraying certain aspects of the West, such as the dry climate, small, spread-out towns, and different types of people in the West. I think that it also shows how far filmmakers have come in their depiction of the West, and what their focuses are on when creating films about that time period and place. --Mariah Morton


This movie serves as a primary source for the 1940s in my opinion because this is the time in American history in which people were very obsessed with the Old West. This movie is considered a staple for many Americans when watching Westerns, and it is very representative of its time. It was a popular black and white film during the time period when the witch to color was beginning to occur, and it even reflects some of the 1940s societal values into the movie itself. The men in the movie appeared to be significantly more moral than they were in real life, as to not promote immoral behavior by 1940s standards. -Morgan Gilbert

I think that this movie would make a good source for the 40s because of its portrayal and help in development of western stereotypes in media. I think it was made in a way that played to what people hoped western expansion looked like, and turns the title of Marshall into what people wanted it to be. There are a lot of 1940s values and language instilled in the movie and a lot of literal terminology, such as the corral being a literal horse corral, something that would be less confusing to people who didn't know the story. I think that this is an important contribution to the genre of the old west image and it is an early view of what was to come in terms of stereotypes of the old west and the story of Wyatt Earp. --Kimberly Sak 

This film works as a good primary source for the culture of the American Western and Hollywood's depiction of the West in the mid-1900s when this film was made. It very much follows the idyllic wild west frontier that films at this time conveyed with wild saloons, lawless towns, vigilantes, and saloon girls, and avoiding most historical accuracy beyond pulling some historical names and slapping it on a "classic" western romance and love triangle. They take a story in which both sides were not the greatest, and throw in a few well-placed character deaths and villain stares to create a clear villain in the form of the Clanton family and **Wyatt Earp as a reluctant "hero." It also follows that trend of a lot of 'historical films of the time of trying to create that clear hero and villain in history** - and poorly representing Native Americans. - Ashley Dimino


I believe My Darling Clementine shows how Americans were still trying to glorify and justify the idea of westward expansion and manifest destiny. The decision to make Wyatt Earp a man of justice shows the willingness to make a White man out to be the hero of the story, where the only Native American was a drunk guy at a saloon. **As well the lack of Chinese characters also highlighted the erasure of that chapter of history.** During WWII the United States treated Japanese Americans terribly, putting them in internment camps. I felt like leaving out characters of Chinese origin in the movie was a way to avoid the conversation of racism towards people of Asian descent. At that time the U.S. treated Chinese Americans very poorly, not allowing them to have citizenship because they were not white. --Helen Dhue

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
//My Darling Clementine// shares its name with the popular western folk ballad "Oh My Darling Clementine." This song has been credited as early as 1884, and has much more historical roots than the movie of the same name. The song is a story told from the perspective of Clementine's lover. Clementine herself is the daughter of a miner and while doing her daily routine one day falls into the raging brine. Her lover, who cannot swim, is reluctant to help her and she drowns as a result. As it stands, the song is very reminiscent of life in the American West at the time of the movie, and does offer its own perspective of life during the 1880s. The song appears to be interwoven throughout the movie despite having nothing to do with the ballad other than Clementine Carter sharing the name. The movie begins to the tune, references it at the end, and Wyatt is even seen whistling the tune as he walks into the saloon and Clementine is sitting in a nearby chair. There are connotations relating Clementine Carter to Josephine Marcus, but Clementine herself is fictional and the historical element does not fit into the theme of the song. Her role in the movie is not necessarily related to the song, from which the movie gets its name. I find that a bit perplexing, because you would think a western that not only includes a character named Clementine but is also named after the western folk ballad is not really related to the song. It is possible that the song is being used in a romantic sense, because there is a love square going on in the movie between Wyatt, Doc, Clementine, and Chihuahua. It may even be alluding to the fate of certain characters in the movie, specifically the deaths of Doc and Chihuahua. While they don't drown as Clementine did in the song, the song is ultimately about death, which is how the movie ends. -- Lyndsey Clark


I think, ultimately, it doesn't really matter how people see Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday, as gunslingers or lawmen who brought order to Tombstone, or if Clementine was a real person or not, in my opinion it ultimately does not really matter. I think telling a good story should come before historical accuracy, and ultimately the historical inaccuracy in this film, unlike other films, is not detrimental to society if people believe false myths about the west. Is it really bad if we as a society believe the Clantons killed Virgil Earp and Wyatt id it as revenge? I do not think so. However I believe this question is al opinions anyway. If someone does not like this film for its historical inaccuracy it is fine, however If you enjoy this film despite its inaccuracies there is nothing wrong with it. 

Also it feels as if they just added a character names Clementine so they could use the song which is a bit ridiculous --- AJ DeGeorge

This film came to be one of the first famous Western movies in the history of American cinema.  Many Western movies since then had very similar aspects because of this film's success.  As a result, American audiences were fed more and more with the idea that duels, lawlessness, and vigilante justice were common throughout the days of the Old West.  The West did have each of these things but to varying degrees.  They were not as common or as dramatic as the movies portrayed them to be.  The fact is, directors knew what would sell to the American public so they continued to feed them with stereotypical westerns based off this film.  **This film is important because is was one of the main contributing films to the lasting fame of Western movies.**  -Daniel Walker

This movie is considered by many to be one of the classic Western movies, and the director John Ford is well known for some of his other Westerns such as Stagecoach or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. This movie alters a large portion of not only this event but also many Americans' perceptions of what Western America was like in the 19th century. The movie doesn't really touch on many of the hardships people faced living in the rough American west and doesn't even begin to describe the journey most people took to get there. Clementine herself just arrived on a stagecoach without a lot of affairs, making travel West appear easier than it was for most people as seen in the sources we read for this class. This movie greatly outstate the morals of Wyatt Earp and greatly alters large portions of the narrative to make the movie more modern and exciting for viewers in 1946. While this movie certainly helped introduce some of the tough personalities people took to survive in western America, it had forever altered most Americans’ understanding of the West. -Morgan Gilbert 

I may be underestimating this movies reach but I honestly don't think it matters. This story has been told so many times that it will get to a point that it is hard to keep track of and it will always change. Most people probably know this story from the movie Tombstone instead of My Darling Clementine. Figures like Doc Holliday and Wyatt Earp will always be those legends of the old west. I don't see that changing - Dan Dilks

The movie romanticizes and idealizes not just Wyatt Earp's life but also life in the west. It creates this glorified image of the west that remains till this day in some form. Many stereotypes on the west came to because this film popularized, and in some ways immortalized, this culture. It has allowed people to fall in love with cowboys, tough sheriffs, saloons, and shootouts.  Despite all of its inaccuracies, this film is important for its impact on western movies and perceptions around the west. -Purnaja Podduturi

I think the so what of this movie is more of an entertainment factor. It kind of takes the lives of the characters and shows what the people want to see in the stereotypes of the west, things that were just emerging at the time that this movie basically helped to create. I wouldn't watch it as a source for the west but I would definitely consider it a source for both its time and for the genre of western movies as a whole, making it an important installation in history, just not for its intended purpose. -- Kimberly Sak 

Films like //My Darling Clementine// and other Westerns of the period contribute to the **mythology of the "Great American Wild West" and glorify the period in a similar way that// Gone with the Wind// does with the Antebellum South and slavery.** These films create a false understanding of history for the Americans that grow up watching these films and never have those views challenged in a history class in school. The portrayal of Native Americans in this film is a great example. The only Native American in this film is portrayed as a crazy drunk wildly shooting guns in the saloon at the beginning of the movie only to be pistol-whipped by the reluctant cowboy Wyatt Earps. They serve such a minor role in the film despite being very present on the Western frontier, and they are portrayed very negatively, ignoring the terrible treatment Native Americans received from the American government at this time. The presence of these kinds of films and their continued popularity contributes to that misunderstanding and false view of history in the United States, particularly with regard to the treatment and plight of minorities like Native Americans and African Americans.  - Ashley Dimino

The western genre of film is synonymous with patriotism and identity in America, particularly for midcentury audiences who were fighting in wars and experiencing rapid technological advancements.  **The cowboy represents a loner in a foreign land which can be compared to U.S. forces entering and fighting in foreign wars.**  Though it is a heavily flawed and fictionalized retelling of the old west, often including racism, sexism and whitewashing, Hollywood’s version of Deadwood lives on as a distinctly American place.  -Janis Shurtleff