This article is causing some heated debate over at Criterion forum...

[Antares]

Yumpin' yiminy!!!  , Shane is not overrated. Alan Ladd, Van Heflin, Emile Meyer, Jean Arthur and Jack Palance give superlative performances. Performances that John Wayne could never on his best day achieve. Stevens' pacing and framing is exceptional and Loyal Grigg's cinematography is majestic.

I'll take this film over any of Ford's westerns hands down.

At one time I use to tire of Brandon de Wilde too, but over the years, I've come to understand why Stevens had him recite his lines like that. Now, he doesn't bother me at all.

I mean, if this kid bothers you, how come Victor McLagen's over the top brogue and John Qualen's ridiculous Dutch musings do not elicit the same reaction?

I say it again, yumpin' yiminy!!!

[Jon]

I mean, if this kid bothers you, how come Victor McLagen's over the top brogue and John Qualen's ridiculous Dutch musings do not elicit the same reaction?

In a way, they do. But they are more easily tolerated as side-show characters and even elicit disdain from the main players in some moments. That goofy, cross-eyed robot-child is front and centre! He's the films little emotional centre. No thanks! Out of interest, why did he act like that then?

And I'll take John Wayne over Alan Ladd any time. Ladd never did anything as complicated as Ethan or as honest as J. B. Books in The Shootist.

[Antares]

No thanks! Out of interest, why did he act like that then?

He lives out on the range with only his parents, no brothers or sisters. The only other children around are miles away and they're all girls. His lives in a big landscape where no one really pays him much attention. He's confined in character due to these limitations and when Shane arrives, the pent up emotions burst forward like a dam that has been breached. His hero worship of Shane sets him free, just as Shane's actions at the end of the film, will set all the homesteaders free.

Ladd never did anything as complicated as Ethan or as honest as J. B. Books in The Shootist.

First, I don't find Ethan to be complicated at all, he's pretty straightforward. He's a cold-hearted man. And like the argument made in that article, I too, could never understand the complete 180° turn his character takes at the end of The Searchers.

In regards to Ladd's ability to play someone complicated, the scripts and roles he was given weren't exactly the same quality stuff that Stewart, Fonda or Mitchum were getting at the time. He wasn't considered top star material due to his diminutive stature.

Could he have played Lin McAdam or Howard Kemp, I think so. But, could Stewart have played Shane, or for that matter, could Wayne and still have Shane be so iconic? I don't think so, Stewart would have played him as a wizened and tired old gunman, while Wayne would have portrayed him just as he's portrayed every other character he's played, stiff and wooden.

And finally, if you cant see the similarities between the Books character and Shane, then I can't help you. But Shane is a character brimming with humility and integrity and does understand that his time is passing. Which is made quite evident in the final shootout at Graftons and in his final conversation with Joey.

[Jon]

He lives out on the range with only his parents, no brothers or sisters. The only other children around are miles away and they're all girls. His lives in a big landscape where no one really pays him much attention. He's confined in character due to these limitations and when Shane arrives, the pent up emotions burst forward like a dam that has been breached. His hero worship of Shane sets him free, just as Shane's actions at the end of the film, will set all the homesteaders free.

Hmmm, I always got that, but I don't think he needed to be quite so... 

First, I don't find Ethan to be complicated at all, he's pretty straightforward. He's a cold-hearted man. And like the argument made in that article, I too, could never understand the complete 180° turn his character takes at the end of The Searchers.

He's a complicated man because that isn't a complete 180°. I love the story and see Ethan as softening his hard-line over the years the plot unfolds, but he's a proud boorish man and can't show it for losing face. I'm trying not to sound like I'm making an excuse for it, because honestly, I never questioned it. Surely you know the sort of person who would die before admitting they're wrong, but still do the right thing when it matters?

In regards to Ladd's ability to play someone complicated, the scripts and roles he was given weren't exactly the same quality stuff that Stewart, Fonda or Mitchum were getting at the time. He wasn't considered top star material due to his diminutive stature.

Could he have played Lin McAdam or Howard Kemp, I think so. But, could Stewart have played Shane, or for that matter, could Wayne and still have Shane be so iconic? I don't think so, Stewart would have played him as a wizened and tired old gunman, while Wayne would have portrayed him just as he's portrayed every other character he's played, stiff and wooden.

And finally, if you cant see the similarities between the Books character and Shane, then I can't help you. But Shane is a character brimming with humility and integrity and does understand that his time is passing. Which is made quite evident in the final shootout at Graftons and in his final conversation with Joey.

I do see the similarities, but it's also horses for courses. I don't rate Ladd really, but he was a good match for the role. I'm not questioning his ability, although I personally couldn't switch him for any of Stewart's roles. Stewart could have done Shane, but he did so many like it, he may not have tried to work anything interesting into it. Ladd made it is his own. Wayne would definitely have been wrong, but it's not an acting thing, because Ladd would have been useless as Book.