High Noon (1952) Fred Zinnemann


“This is just a dirty little town in the middle of nowhere. Nothing that happens here is really important.”– The Judge

First a confession!  Dave over at the excellent Goodfella’s Movie Blog is in the middle of a year-by-year countdown of the best movie of each year. If you have yet to visit his site please do, you won’t be sorry. Now that’s not the confession, so what is, you ask? Well, in my comments at Dave’s blog for the 1952 best film selection, I stated that I was not a big fan of Fred Zinnemann’s “High Noon”; subsequently I did not include it in my own list of favorite films for that year. Recently, TCM ran the film again, and unlike the many times it has been aired before, I did not ignore,  but decided to revisit it for the first time in many years. So here is my big confession, truth be told, I was wrong, “High Noon” is one of the great films of 1952 and one of the great westerns of all time! Now this won’t come as a shock to many of you who even without my proclamation already knew “High Noon” was a great movie. Frankly, I am just catching up.

Now that I got that weight off my chest, I can move on…

John Wayne proclaimed his dislike for this movie, seeing it as a parable for the blacklisting and anti-communist furor that was taking hold in the early 1950’s.  He found it disgraceful that Marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) tosses his badge into the dirt at the end of the film. Seven years later, Wayne and Howard Hawks would made “Rio Bravo” as a response to the radical “High Noon.” As late as 1971, Wayne, in a Playboy magazine interview, called “High Noon”, “the most un-American thing I’ve ever seen in my whole life.” If Wayne disliked what the film stood for, Hawks abhorred it, insulting his sense of professionalism. He therefore made a film where the sheriff refuses help from the town’s citizens, instead accepting help from only other “outsiders” like the young gunslinger and the town drunk. Whereas, Will Kane, in “High Noon”, was an accepted member of the town’s social circle with friends. John T. Chance, in “Rio Bravo” separates himself from the town, he is a professional lawman, an outsider and not part of the town’s citizenship.

highnoon-Coop-Kelly_1_     Ironically, over the years, people and even countries, from both sides of the political spectrum have come to find their own personal values in this film. The former Soviet Union accused the film of being “a glorification of the individual.”  Pro-McCarthyites saw the film as communist propaganda and anti-American. Yet President Ronald Reagan loved the film for it lead character’s “strong sense of and dedication to duty and law.” Both Presidents Eisenhower and Clinton loved the movie. Clinton ran the film no less than 17 times while in office! He even recommended it to then incoming President Bush.  So how can one film be interpreted and satisfying on both sides of the political fence? Possibly, because, no matter where you stand politically, the film has come to symbolize the courage and perseverance an individual needs during hard and difficult times. Here was one man who stood up for what he believed in, despite the abandonment, the lack of conviction and courage from the community he helped build and protect. Perhaps the Soviet Union was right, “High Noon” is the glorification of the individual, how American!

Even before the film was completed, staunch conservatives were attacking it. The film was made during the height of the anti-communist witch-hunts. The House of Un-American Activities (HUAC) was finding communist everywhere including in your toaster! Hollywood was under siege, forced by Congress to rid itself of any writer, actor, director who even smelled of leftist leanings. Socially conscience filmmakers were driven out of the country, Jules Dassin, Joseph Losey to name two, while others were put in jail (the Hollywood 10).  Still, more lost their livelihood and had to retreat to theater or get out of the business all together. Screenwriter Carl Forman, a known left-winger, was eventually fired by producer Stanley Kramer who was under pressure to do so. There is plenty of irony when you consider that star Gary Cooper was conservative, as was composer Dimitri Tiomkin, both card-carrying members of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, an anti-communist group that worked with the HUAC in “cleaning up” Hollywood. Additionally, Tex Ritter who sang the title song shared similar sentiments. Lloyd Bridges and cinematographer Floyd Crosby (father of rock singer David Crosby) were “gray listed” for working in the film. producer Stanley Kramer and director Fred Zinnemann had liberal views and while not blacklisted were considered sympathizers.   high_noon_clock

The plot is simple, three men ride into the town of Hadleyville, one is Ben Miller, brother of recently released ex-convict Frank Miller, who is arriving on the noon train. Five years ago, Marshal Will Kane sent Miller to prison. Originally, Miller was sentenced to death until the courts changed his sentence to life in prison. Eventually he was released after serving only five years. At the time of his sentencing Miller swore vengeance and now he has come back to collect. This same day, Will Kane is retiring as Marshal and marrying his young sweetheart Amy (Grace Kelly). Right after the ceremony, word arrives that Miller is out of prison and coming to town, to kill Kane. His neighbors tell him it is best if he and his wife leave and disappear. They hustle the couple quickly out of town; however, once on the trail Kane has second thoughts. His wife tells him it is crazy to return, Kane says he has never run from anyone before; he has to go back. When he seeks help from the town people, they refuse. Some resented Kane’s tactics while he was Marshal. Others say since Will is no longer Marshal, why should they risk their lives.  Some thought life was better years ago when Frank Miller was here and the town was wide open. Kane’s Deputy Marshal Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges) quits, blaming Will for not speaking up for him so he could inherit the Marshal’s job upon his retirement. Even the judge who sentenced Miller is packing and leaving town, urging Kane to reconsider and leave too. “The man is crazy”, he says.

High_Noon_poster  Approximately 1 hour and 11 minutes into the film, director Zinnemann and his editors, create a mosaic of tension, and a class in film editing. It starts with Kane sitting at his desk writing out his last will and testament, Dimitri Tiomkin’s music begins a tense pounding. Kane looks up at the clock, in extreme close up we see the swinging of the pendulum, the camera moves upward toward the hands of the clock, which reads 11:58. We cut to the outlaws waiting at the train station, then to a low angle shot of the tracks. Next, we see the interior of the church, close-ups of the solemn parishioners. Zinnemann cuts to the saloon, its customers. Back to the pendulum swinging, Will Kane at his desk, a long shot of the exterior of the town, cut to another angle of the town. Back to the railroad tracks, the killers waiting. By this point, the pace of the cuts have accelerated. Zinnemann cuts to a close up of the previous Marshal sitting in his chair, a friend cowering in his home, a close-up of Helen (Katy Jurado) the saloon owner,  and then a close up of Amy. Back to the swinging pendulum, and then the clock, as it is about to strike noon. Quick cuts to the killers, Amy and then, the sudden sound of the train’s whistle. It’s high noon. The camera is back on the tracks and far off we see the smoke puffing from the train engine, the music stops, the quietness is startling; we are back looking at Kane.

It’s time.

Kane comes outside on to the street, he sees Amy and Helen on a buckboard riding toward the train station. Zinnemann now gives us a shot the Marshal in close up. As he looks around Zinnemann’s camera begins to pull back. A crane shot, the camera moves back and up high over the entire town. The streets are empty except for the Marshal.high still

In the final sequence, we see Kane marching toward his confrontation with the band of four who are walking toward him from the other end of town. The gun battle ends as we expect with Kane the victor but only after he gets some unexpected help from his Quaker wife, who came back from the train when she heard the first gunshots, and shoots one of the outlaws in the back just as he was about to kill Will.

The town’s citizens come out of hiding surrounding Kane and his wife. He looks at them in disgust, takes off his badge and tosses it into the dirt. The Marshal and his wife climb up on the buckboard and ride off.

“High Noon” is less than 90 minutes long and takes place in almost real time starting with the three men riding into town and the wedding of Kane and his young bride. Time is a recurring motif in the film. We constantly have shot of clocks, men looking at watches as the minutes tick away toward the arrival of the noon train and Frank Miller.  The film is unconventional in many ways. Unlike most westerns, there is little action here, except for a fight between Kane and his former deputy Harvey and the climatic ending. At one point, the Marshal openly admits to Harvey that he is afraid. There is also no talk of the west being the opening of a new frontier or the beginning of a new community, themes common at the time to western film mythology. “High Noon” is nothing a typical western is suppose to be, it is the antithesis of John Ford’s more romanticized version of west. No wonder The Duke hated it.

Additionally, much was made at the time of the age difference between Cooper, who was fifty-one, and looked a lot older (he was ill), and the young and beautiful Grace Kelly who was about twenty-three.

high-noon-Kelly-Juarado11    Cooper gives an impressive performance as Kane. Looking visually worried, sweat on his face, bound by a sense of honor, he finds himself standing alone amongst the town people he swore to protect.  Like John Wayne, Gary Cooper is one of cinema’s iconic western heroes,  having appeared in “The Virginia”, “The Plainsman”, “The Westerner”, “Vera Cruz” and “Man of the West” among others.

“High Noon” is one of the most beautifully framed and photographed films, brilliantly shot with deep rich blacks. I was truly impressed by the framing of many of the images that could have easily been plucked from the film and work elegantly as black and white still photographs. The man responsible was Floyd Crosby, who surprisingly did not even receive a nomination for Best B&W Cinematography that year. The music by Dimitri Tiomkin has become as iconic as Cooper’s image walking down the empty streets of the town. The haunting title song with the word’s “do not forsake me oh my darling”, a constant reminder that Kane has been abandoned by everyone. Tiomkin by the way would score Hawks “Rio Bravo.” The film also has some great character actors including Lee Van Cleef as one of the killer’s, Lon Chaney Jr. as the former sheriff, Harry Morgan as a so called friend of Kane’s, Katy Jurado as the saloon owner and former lover to both Will Kane and Frank Miller. Most recently, she had hooked up with the young immature deputy played by Lloyd Bridges. Other well known charcter actors include Thomas Mitchell, Jack Elam Otto Kruger and Harry Morgan.

The film’s political overtones are still there, a reminder of uglier times. Though they have faded from memory of some, younger viewers may even be unaware of any political overtones; just read the comments on IMDB.  Still the film resonates with many in the audience today. The politics of prisoners receiving early releases, their sentences being reduced is as timely today with audiences as it is portrayed in the film. Note the discussion about this topic in the church when Will seeks help from the churchgoers. One of the town people speak out saying Miller’s release from prison is not their fight, it is the responsibility of those northern politicians, who released him from prison. In the final analysis, “High Noon” does not fit snugly into any one philosophy. It does not take a straight liberal or a conservative stance. Viewers looking for a particular ideology that fits neatly into their vision will be disappointed. Politically, there is no comfort food here such as conservatives find when they watch FOX news or liberals find watching MSNBC.


21 comments on “High Noon (1952) Fred Zinnemann

  1. dear. that’s because of that film i decided my alias would be “Kane”


  2. Sam Juliano says:

    Amazing, John simply amazing. You revisit a film that you have misgivings for, and the result is the greatest review you have ever written–or at least the greatest I have seen from you! And well you should have looked on it again as it is one of the two greatest westerns in the history of the cinema (the other is John Ford’s THE SEARCHERS) So magnanimous of Howard Hawks to attack this film, especially as in his heralded career he never made a film as great as HIGH NOON. Ed Howard may come over from ONLY THE CINEMA (I like Ed a lot, and I’m only posing friendly cinematic divergence here) singing the praises of RIO BRAVO and RED RIVER, but truth is, neither of those is as perfect as HIGH NOON, nor as emotionally engaging, nor as tense, nor as perpendicular. And its denouement is unforgettable. Gary Cooper gave the greatest performance of his career here, and all the support (including Katy Jurado) is magnificent. Those who owned the Criterion laserdisc may recall the superlative scholarly commentary track by Professor Howard Suber, which was one of the finest ever recorded. Of course, some have objected to the time frame, calling it too pat, but these are the same people who deride the traditionalist approach, and complain the film plays it safe. I’d rather have as film that narratively enthralls, grips, rivets, and stirs the emotions than a convoluted abstract treatise any day, even if there is a place for the latter, when it duplicates the resonance at least in some measure as HIGH NOON does.

    I enjoyed your enthralling historical context, and am relieved that you have now seen this as the masterpiece of American cinema it is.

    Shame on John Wayne.


    • John Greco says:

      Sam – I have always liked Hawks work and I like “Rio Bravo” which has been a favorite however, I do agree “High Noon” is a better, more thoughtful and complex film. It was either Hawks or Wayne who commented on Cooper’s character admitting to being afraid finding it weak. Well to me, that seems like common sense. His fear did not stop him from doing what he felt was right, but he was afraid. You’re going into battle, there should be some trepidation on your part otherwise you’re heading into it without thinking. Wayne never seems in doubt of the outcome in “Rio Bravo.”

      Overall, “High Noon”is tense and there is never a relaxing moment. It is just a continuous build up until the final shootout. Zinnemann never lets anything distract you from what is happening. The film is so tightly made and finely edited that there is not a moment wasted. My biggest problem with “Rio Bravo” is the Rick Nelson. He was not much of an actor and unconvincing as a gunslinger. I know Hawks used him for commercial reasons to draw in the younger audience of the time. Unfortunately, it hurts the film. However, I like seeing Nelson and Dean Martin sing together though it is irrelevant to the rest of the film.

      This film is definitely now in my pantheon.


  3. To open up the context a bit, Hawks’s gripe against High Noon reminded me of his pal Ernest Hemingway’s complaints about James Jones’s novel From Here to Eternity, coincidentally also directed on screen by Zinnemann. Hemingway’s language was much nastier (you’ll find it in his Selected Letters) but it seemed to boil down to upholding some ideal of male conduct not unlike Hawks’s “professionalism.” Hemingway and Hawks seemed unduly hostile to any confession of male weakness even while the protagonist of High Noon, especially, remains an exemplary hero. For people who probably saw themselves as hard-boiled realists, Hawks and Hemingway became hard-shelled idealists in an unpleasant way in their later lives.

    As for High Noon specifically, Foreman’s script appeals to an ideal of solidarity that must have been alien to Hawks’s worldview. Wayne, I suspect, was either influenced by Hawks or simply inclined to impugn the motives of politically-suspect creators. How one responds comparatively to both High Noon and Rio Bravo does depend on one’s views on society, though that’s more likely to influence one’s view of the Zinnemann rather than the Hawks, which is a fine adventure film regardless of its inferred agenda. To me it seems appropriate for a lawman to seek assistance from his community, while the “professionalists” have the burden of showing why this is somehow wrong.

    Judging aesthetically, I find that High Noon has a deeper emotional range than Rio Bravo precisely because it indulges in feelings that Hawks wants to suppress. On the other hand, the relative hard-boiledness of Rio Bravo sometimes rings more true; Hawks’s ideal of professionalism is rooted in something real. I like High Noon better as a total film, more concise with a unifying musical concept. I like the odd notes it strikes, like when the title music keeps playing for a few title cards over the outlaws riding after Tex Ritter has finished singing. That sort of sets up the fact that the movie isn’t going to operate on conventional movie time. The whole film must have seemed revolutionary in 1952, and its virtues persist today, except for people who might for some reason still be offended by them.


  4. John Greco says:

    Samuel – Good point on the Hemingway attack on James Jones’ From Here to Eternity. Hemingway and Hawks definitely come from the same “hard-boiled” old school where men are machismo driven and showing any sign of weakness is unacceptable and in the case of Hawks and Wayne, practically un-American.

    I agree with your statement, “How one responds comparatively to both High Noon and Rio Bravo does depend on one’s views on society” though “High Noon” seems to be able to find virtues from both sides of the politcial table, whereas “Rio Bravo”, is not so much political as it is an old style macho tale.


  5. Dave says:

    Well, since Ed hasn’t wandered over to defend Rio Bravo, I suppose I’ll shoulder the load! 🙂

    I like High Noon, unlike a lot of people who I have known over the years who act like love of High Noon and Rio Brave are mutually exclusive. They most certainly are not. I think High Noon is a good western, while as I said in my review, I consider Rio Bravo to be in the top two or three best westerns ever made.

    My gripe with High Noon has nothing to do with politics, and neither did Hawks’ when you hear what he has to say about it. Everyone automatically assumes that Rio Bravo was meant as a conservative response to High Noon (and maybe it truly was), but nothing in Hawks’ comments say this. His main problem with the film and Will Kane is the same reason I didn’t relate to him — the going around begging for help. It felt very phony to me, as it did to Hawks. I don’t think Hawks had anything against male characters showing weakness — for all of Chance’s go-it-alone attitude in Rio Bravo, he depends on Dude and Colorado to get him out of some very tight spots and realizes that he can’t survive without them. And he was far from portraying Tom Dunson as a flawless man. Where I do agree with Samuel, is that Hawks did approach things from a more hard-boiled viewpoint, to where acting professional was equated with being manly. Still, I don’t think that he ignored pointing out any weaknesses in characters. And I also agree with the “Quaker wife saving his guts” complaint that Hawks would repeat.

    The movies do two completely different things in my opinion. As Sam points out, High Noon may indeed be more tense or emotionally engaging, but I have never been able to relate to any of it. Maybe I sound too much like Howard Hawks, but the begging for help in doing YOUR OWN JOB starts to wear on me after a while. With Rio Bravo, the tensity isn’t what is appealing to me — I’m just drawn to the camaraderie, friendships and loyalty that Hawks is brilliant in creating. That’s the draw for me. I’m not concerned about edge-of-your-seat excitement, I’m interested in seeing how the ties between Chance, Dude, Stumpy, etc. play out.

    The politics of either film have absolutely zero appeal to me — I just judge them on how much I enjoy them and how well made I think they are. In this sense, personal taste will have to leave us all agreeing to disagree, as I don’t even consider the two to be on the same level… that’s how much better I find Rio Bravo.

    Maybe I’ll revisit High Noon at some point in the future and have an epiphany as John has. Still, I think that this is another superlative review, John, and if the High Noon vs. Rio Bravo debate is hijacking the focus of the thread, just say so. But I do think it’s an interesting debate.


    • John Greco says:

      First let me say, I love this debate! The passion shown by all for these two films I believe speaks volumes for the quality of both works. “Rio Bravo” has always been in my top ten favorite westerns films list and after this most recent viewing of “High Noon”, I find the two sharing the same space. I do believe from an artistic point of view “High Noon” is a better made film (the editing is superlative) however, that is not saying “Rio Bravo” is not a masterful film in its own right.

      I don’t believe if you like one of the films you must hate the other, the debate between the two rages on because Hawks made his film as a response to “High Noon”, whether it was political or not, subsequently tying the two films together. Additionally, “High Noon” has always been surrounded by political baggage and as I said in my review, folks from both sides of the political spectrum have amazingly found points in the film that suit their respective agenda. However, the politics of the film is just one layer and you can obviously enjoy either film without muddying the waters with political rhetoric.

      Dave, I respect your opinions and as you say personal taste always plays a part in what one likes and dislikes. And we certainly can agree to disagree.

      There has been some great dialogue here and I appreciate everyone’s passionate input. I would love to here some thoughts from Ed on this, as he is a well respected blogger and a mighty Hawks admirer.


    • To clarify my own position, I don’t believe that Howard Hawks’s attitude toward High Noon was political, though I suspect Wayne’s may have been. I don’t know whether Hawks was conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican. To the extent that my response to Hawks is political, it’s in my belief that it should never be solely the delegated official’s own job to keep the peace in a community. There is such a thing as a posse, at least in westerns, and it’s within a lawman’s rights to try to call one into being in a crisis. Having said that, I don’t think that the approach taken in Rio Bravo is “wrong,” but I object to the claim that Will Kane’s approach is wrong. If the objection to High Noon is aesthetic, however, then I defer to each person’s sensibility. The difference between the two films is not so great, in my view, to compel a vehement argument.


      • Dave says:

        John – You’re absolutely right that you can appreciate both films. I do, as everyone else in the thread seems to as well. It might sound like I’m ripping on High Noon by pointing out some flaws, but that’s not really the case. It’s just that in comparing it to Rio Bravo, I’m comparing it to a film that I would probably list among my 10 personal favorites of all time, so not many moves are going to stack up favorably against it!

        Samuel – I agree. I don’t mean it to be a vehement argument, which is how I was afraid my response would be taken. It’s not meant that way, just a friendly debate among movie fans. I was just responding for why Rio Bravo appeals to me so much, whereas I appreciate High Noon mainly just on the superlative production.

        From what I’ve read concerning the films, I don’t think there is any doubt that there were political motivations on Wayne’s part. Whether that was the case for Hawks seems less clear — the impression that I have gotten on the topic is that it was more that High Noon offended Hawks’ beliefs concerning “professionalism” rather than a political ideology.

        You’re right about the posse. And I agree that it should not always be a delegated official’s job to solely keep the peace. What felt phony to me was not so much the attempt to raise a posse. But the way it played to me, and I would assume Hawks, was shying away from responsibility, as if everybody has the obligation to assume the same risks as a sheriff, whose job it is to handle such work. Obviously, it didn’t play like that to others, so I suppose I’m in the minority. Then the Gracy Kelly bailout just felt… awkward.

        I don’t know that I’d go so far as Will Kane’s approach is “wrong,” it just doesn’t resonate with me like Chance’s. Again personal taste — I won’t argue with anyone’s love of this film. I’ll readily admit that it truly is suspenseful and it looks outstanding. I just don’t hold it in quite as high esteem as most others.

        Again, this is a most interesting debate and all three of you guys (John, Sam, Samuel) are my favorites among movie bloggers, so it’s nice to engage in it with you all.


  6. cantueso says:

    As to the Mayor asking for help and not getting any: I think it is now worse, not because of cowardice, but because of a general feeling that one cannot really know what is going on.

    It is maybe some sort of politeness plus awareness of 10000000 conflicting voices and interests.

    The plot summary is very well written. I have seen the film three times. Problem: I do not watch TV and have not seen almost any other films, but want to write a post about this one….


  7. John Greco says:

    Thank you for your comments Cantueso. They are appreciated.


  8. m2c says:

    nice review, and critique of a classic film.
    the good guy wears a black hat. classic.

    in the end, he is all alone.
    he must choose what to do, with help from no one.


  9. […] As noted above, I’d regard both films as deserving their classic status.  High Noon is arguably the more groundbreaking of the two, defying expectations within the Western genre at the time, but the somewhat lumbering From Here to Eternity did surprise me with its depth and complexity.  Top 100?  Maybe, maybe not.  But definitely worth seeing. References for High Noon: Commentary by Ted Goranson Entry @ Film Reference Twenty Four Frames Review […]


  10. Geren N says:

    Seeing this 59 years after it was made I jumped to a political analysis that is apparently quite different from the conservative complaints of in the ’50’s. Kane’s situation struck me as Chamberlain in Munich except of course Kane decides that he has to stand and fight. Kane’s community enumerates all the reasons that they should avoid fighting Frank Miller all of which were advanced for tolerating the 3rd Reich. I can see why conservatives in the 50’s would not jump to that analysis because when you do you next start to figure out which character or characters represent America 1938 version. Was it the character with the excuse of too dangerous, too expensive, you are not the right religion, its your fight not mine I just do not like you or perhaps all of them that represented America? The soft way out is to say that it is Grace Kelly, the character in white with a high minded moral objection to violence but who in the end comes back to save Kane.

    Clearly the ‘political message’ quite malleable and can be turned many ways. It is an intense story of life in a violent time of a hero struggling with the world. I agree that the cinematography and the score contribute greatly to convey the tension and pain of the story,

    If Howard Hawks had trouble with Will Kane I would like to see his brief on Achilles the skulking bisexual Greek hero.

    Katy Jurardo’s character, Helen Ramirez, I found very interesting. Mrs. Ramirez a single Mexican woman with serial lovers might be judged now in 2011 as a successful business woman with a private life no messier than your next door neighbor. In the 1950’s and the 1880’s she would have felt and been regarded as very alien and was always at risk of being run out of town. She had been Will Kane’s woman but the first scene of the movie Kane is marrying a very white Protestant Grace Kelly. (The Irish Quaker sect). I suspect that Kane dumped her because a Mexican Catholic was not for marrying. But I also suspect that as Marshall he remained scrupulous in respecting her legal rights something that a Mexican American businesswoman might not have been able to expect in the 1880’s. Indeed Sra. Ramirez’s 3 lovers seemed have have been chosen on the basis of their ability to provide her protection.

    I for one would like to see the prequel to High Noon. There are more threads of prior history alluded to in the original movie than one could deal with fully; lots of potential material.


    • John Greco says:

      Thanks for sharing this thoughtful analysis. I especially like you ideas on Katy Jurado’s character and agree with what you say here. I am sure that in those days and times a respectable sheriff did not marry a Mexican woman. Marrying Kelly was certainly more proper, yet Kane was man enough to respect Jurado’s rights. There is a lot of backstory that could fill another two hour movie for sure.


  11. Great review–thanks! It made me see the movie in a different way.


  12. […] …disappointed. Politically, there is no comfort food here such as conservatives find when they watch FOX news or liberals find watching MSNBC. Talkwalker Alert: 50 results for [food news] […]


  13. […] Two film related books on my shelf that sound like absorbing reads are Glenn Frankel’s High Noon: Hollywood Blacklist and the Making of an American Classic and Noah Isenberg’s We’ll Always Have Casablanca. Being an admirer of both films, these books are making me salivate. You can read a review I wrote on High Noon here. […]


  14. […] High Noon, time keeps moving closer to twelve o’clock when the noon train is expected to arrive. One of […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s