It’s not what but how: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

Leo Barton
Mar 17, 2018
4 min read

Updated: Oct 26, 2019

This film is phenomenal for a number of reasons; its amazing cinematography from Roger Deakins, its fantastic performances especially from Casey Affleck and its gloriously evocative score. But today I want to focus on a technique it uses which I so rarely see in film, that is telling you key plot points before they unfold on screen [this links somewhat with the article I wrote on expectation a few weeks back]. But, counter to what you would expect, knowing what will happen doesn’t subtract from the storytelling—in fact I would argue it enhances its filmic capabilities. Instead of waiting in anticipation for what will happen we know the what and instead watch more intently for the how.

The prime example of this device stares you right in the face in the film's title. Before we know anything of the film, where it’s showing or how we can watch it, we know the climax between these two characters—in essence we know how the film ends. This usually acts a repellent in cinema, we try with all our might to avoid plot spoilers—especially the ends of the films. Yet in this case Dominik ensures we know the climax from the outset. If we compare The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) to Jesse James (1939) this reveal of narrative information is the first thing to jump out, even though both films deal with the same characters and end in the assassination of Jesse by Robert Ford. The 1939 film intrigues us by the what (e.g. what will the notorious Jesse do to entertain us) but Dominik's film shifts this to the how and why of the assassination.

However this device goes much further than just the title of the film. The film opens with a narrator explaining exactly the date and time of Jesse’s death, and as the narrative progresses he constantly reminds us of the impending event. Not to mention the only intertitle in the film exclaims the arrival at that very date which was mentioned in the opening moments of the film. This intertitle is fascinating. It signals that the following scene(s) are certain to contain the assassination, and thus the dynamics of these scenes change completely. But let us step back for a moment to consider what happened just prior to this; the Ford brother’s are being kept near Jesse as he fears their betrayal (along with betrayal from all his former gang-mates). They live in fear of when he is going to end their lives but in no moment is there an explicit mention of them plotting to kill Jesse. However as we know Robert is to inevitably assassinate Jesse, we take everything with a slant—placing a new meaning onto what we see. One of the best examples of this is a conspicuous scene where Jesse gifts Ford a new gun, days before the assassination takes place. Although, again, there is no mention of anything suspicious we immediately identify this gun as the weapon which will be the end of Jesse.

Surely, then, as we know how these final scenes will turn out they will then be stale and lose the tension required for the drama? In fact I would argue the exact opposite. We look at expressions closer, pick apart vocabulary and even analyse the meaning of shots or angle changes during our very first exposure to these scenes. In this way (shifting the focus from what to how/why) it is in effect the same as watching a traditional narrative film for the second time (if we assume we approach a narrative film firstly by understanding the story and only secondly being liberated to truly analyse further). This permits us deeper access into the text, one which promotes on the fly analysis of the features we just mentioned. Although this analogy of the experience of the second viewing is complicated, as the film doesn’t come with any recognition of images or sound. Instead maybe the analogy of adaptation (literature to film) may fit slightly better, but either way we are removing the key interest from the overall narrative arc and placing it onto narrative/stylistic detail.

One of my favourite moments in the film takes place in the very last scene, after Jesse’s assassination. At this point we have passed the main anticipated plot point, and are then into the realm of what again—right? Not at all. The narrator continues to reveal the plot, talking us through the final scene one step (or one shot) ahead of us. But again, the beauty of the device holds. We look more closely at Ford in anticipation of the inevitable events we know are about to unfold, again shifting the focus to how/why and removing any question of what is coming next.

The only question which looms, then, is does a second viewing of the Assassination of Jesse James reward us if the first viewing already treats us with the analytical capabilities of a second? Of course. But the relationship here is interesting, I believe it is one of the few films where the experience of the first and second viewing are very alike. It is not in any way like rewatching Fight Club understanding the truth about Tyler, and thus keeping more attentive due to revealed information. Nor is it like rewatching Stalker where you can truly decipher the dialogue in light of the character’s later decisions. Thus I would argue that each viewing is similarly exciting—sure you know a little more about what is going to happen in each scene, but let’s be honest it was never about the what in the first place.