Lone Star: Film Analysis

Borders help define opposites. They help people to understand what is right and what is wrong, what is theirs and what is not, and when they’ve crossed a line. Borders can be physical or imaginary. Physical borders include rivers, mountain ranges, walls, and even roads. Imaginary borders are racial, social, cultural, and moral. All of these borders separate people in one way or another and this separation can often result in conflict between the opposing parties. Director John Sayles demonstrated this idea of borders and what happens when they are crossed in his 1996 film, Lone Star. Sayles tried to erase the expected borders with seamless transitions between the past and present instead of using a typical cut or dissolve. In an interview, …show more content…
Sayles destroyed one of these generational gaps by having Delmore Payne go through a revelation and make peace with his father and son. Chet Payne was the son of a military family, so his life consisted of moving from base to base as his father, Colonel Delmore Payne, was transferred across the country. As they were unpacking in their new home in Frontera, Chet tried to talk with his father about joining the track team. Delmore, however, just continued to rant on about his father Otis, saying “he’s had almost forty years and I haven’t heard a thing from him” and “he didn’t leave, he moved three houses down with one of my mother’s best friends.” When Chet finally managed to capture his father’s attention, Delmore cut him off before he could even ask, saying how his grades are too low. This was a demonstration of the power that Delmore had over Chet. When Chet stated that he said a B average, his father responded with “How many B average students do you think they take at West Point?” Chet said nothing to this but his facial expressions showed distaste and dismay at the suggestion of West Point (Scene 14). This showed that Chet was as estranged from his father, Delmore, as Delmore was from his father, Otis. Delmore’s wife convinces him to go and talk with Otis, but he isn’t home when Delmore comes to visit. In talking with Otis’ current wife, Delmore realized that Otis cared …show more content…
John Sayles erased these borders by having a certain character go through a moral dilemma. Sam Deeds spent a majority of the film trying to uncover the murderer of Charlie Wade, who died over forty years ago. Some characters saw this effort as fruitless. Mayor Hollis referenced his own opinion when he said “look at all this. Tackle, boat, all to catch a little old fish minding his own business in the bottom of the lake. Hardly seems worth the effort” (Scene 10). Sam already had a low opinion of his father, Buddy, but when evidence showed Buddy was a strong suspect, Sam wanted to believe it. From the identity of the victim to the kind and size of bullet found in the desert, Sam was absolutely convinced that Buddy was the murderer. Otis and Hollis tried to keep Sam from investigating, so he figured they knew more than they were telling. Sam confronted them in Otis’ club and told them what he thought was the whole story behind the murder. Otis and Hollis listened until he asked how they were involved. They reveal that the killer was not Buddy, but Hollis. Hollis had been tired of standing by while Charlie murdered as he pleased. When Charlie was about to shoot Otis, Hollis beat him on the draw and shot him dead (Scene 37). This demonstrated what Sayles meant in his interview when he said “once you cross that border, you may find out things you don't want to know” (qtd. in West and West). Faced with the