3:10 to Yuma Philosophical Analysis

1035 Words5 Pages
Philosophical Analysis: 3:10 to Yuma Throughout my viewing of the film “3:10 to Yuma” I believed it to be the customary good versus evil plot as were so many other motion pictures that I have witnessed. However, this proved to not be the case as the ending will stop a viewer, constructing him or her to ponder the deeper message behind what unfolds in the last few scenes. This ultimately brings me to contemplate if it is truly possible that people can change in nature or are we born all good or all evil. “3:10 to Yuma” is the sole destination in the quest of Dan Evans (Christian Bale), or is it? Is Evans doing his duty as a man to provide for his family through this endeavor he volunteers for or is there a deeper meaning of trying to be the hero he wants his sons to believe that he is? The movie goes back and forth making the viewer see both sides as the dangerous, yet inevitable voyage to the town of Contention is unfolding. The drought has hit the Evans family hard, leaving them with little feed for their cattle, no water in the creek, and a burned down barn. Two-hundred dollars is on the table so-to-speak if Dan can help get a ruthless outlaw Ben Wade, played by Russell Crowe, on the 3:10 train to Yuma Prison. When they reach the town of Contention Evans is presented with a choice. He can take one-thousand dollars offered to him by Wade to set him free, or he can take the two-hundred dollars he rightfully earned. To the viewer it seems that Evans is contemplating accepting Wade’s offer, because waiting for him outside is a thirty to forty armed men making sure that Ben Wade does not board the train to Yuma. Even so, Evans does not budge, determined to finish his duty, eventually leading to his death. Did Dan Evans do it for the two-hundred dollars offered to him by Mr. Butterfield, or did he believe it was his moral duty, or maybe

More about 3:10 to Yuma Philosophical Analysis

Open Document