Shattering the Golden Calf: "The Searchers" and Aristotle's Grand Narrative

    “Tragedy is a representation of a serious, complete action [...] accomplishing by means of pity and terror the catharsis of such emotions.”  This phrase, lifted from Aristotle’s rather dense text, the crux of representation for thousands of years.  The intent of his work is somewhat difficult to suss out and has been the source of some heated discussion over the years.  If we approach his work as a textbook of creation, we see that our works should focus on plot, action that is probable and necessary, and result in the catharsis of emotion. (The significance of which is also a subject of debate.)    Such an approach is severely limiting to artists today and often scorned and repudiated.    That being said, his work is based in the fundamental belief that there is a right way to do things.  Tragedy that does not follow this way should be rejected or at the very least looked down upon.
    We can look at his codifying of the tragedy.  It’s parts consist in: plot, character, reason, diction, song, spectacle.  He explains each part in detail and reveals a very reasonable explanation of what works and what doesn’t.  He establishes the god of theatre as emotional response.  All of these aspects must bow at the altar of catharsis.  By defining a goal and determining the best means for achieving that goal, he sets a standard.  This Discourse over ages has created a hegemony within the theatrical world (and by association film and television).  While students may not study The Poetics explicitly, the doctrine of plot above all and empathetic engagement have continued to be a part of the art of representation.
    The western is a form of representation which has its own Discourse connected with that of Aristotle.  Within the western a codified construct is designed to elicit a strong emotional response.  We have stock characters with their ethnic and economic associations.  White settlers are “good” and native injuns are “bad.  The structure is simple and follows a direct chronological path from exposition to resolution.  There are a series of reversals and recognitions , both necessary and probable, of increasing magnitude until a climax is reached.  We feel pity for the plight of the poor white settlers at the hands of evil conspiring injuns and terror for the protagonist as he reaches his crises.  All of this fits nicely within the prescriptive methodology of Aristotle.
    Additionally, and perhaps more interestingly, it represents the continuation of the fundamental assumption of right that is implicit in Aristotle’s work.  Aristotle believed that there is a right and a wrong to theatre, a grand narrative, and that is reflected in the traditional western.  Not only are the characters polarized to a center and an other, but the aping of the the tropes of the western by each successive director indicates the hegemonic Discourse.  That grand narrative of theatre exists only because of that belief in a right or wrong.
    John Ford’s The Searchers pays homage to that narrative while questioning it’s Discourse.  The most obvious example is the decentering of the protagonist.  John Wayne’s character is presented to us as a good, one to be emulated.  But as the film progresses, his character begins to exhibit behavior that one associates with the other.  He adopts the comanche beliefs enough to desecrate a corpse and ultimately scalps the Chief.  Ultimately he is willing to kill his niece for becoming “infected” by the comanche culture.  (She refers to the comanche as “her people”.) This being the case the film does not go so far as to flip the binary.  The comanche are not necessarily portrayed as good and certainly are not placed at the center of the plot.  This ambiguity of good and evil brings into question fundamental beliefs as to what is good and bad and more importantly, who is good and bad.
    Though Aristotle places the primary importance on plot, the film instead questions the morality of a character indicating a subversion of that very notion.  Both the antagonist and the protagonist do similarly things feel similar hatred, so what they do is difficult to distinguish in its morality.  The audience is left then to focus on character, on who not what. It is clear that John Ford wanted audiences to face the ambiguous morality within an individual, doing so places primacy on the character over plot, which challenges the Discourse of both the western and Aristotle himself.  The fact that doing so actually increases the empathetic response in the audience and thereby the catharsis shows that there is not a right or wrong in representation.  One can still bow to the god of theatre without following the code.  The final shot of the film is indicative of this.  The family brings their “adulterated” daughter with melding of white and comanche tradition back into their home through the door and the protagonist remains outside with his and our notions of right and wrong, good and bad, or center and other.  The narrative of Aristotle’s Poetics and the American western is thereby subverted and we must then wrestle with our own narrative and decide what to leave outside the door.