"Unforgiven" - 01/19/03 - 01/25/03

[Morticia]

This is a thread to discuss the technical and/or thematic merits of "Unforgiven".

The purpose being to foster intelligent discussion of films without resorting to "It's a piece of crap." or "It's the greatest film ever." (And so that we all can gain a bit of a film education from everyone.)

We'll discuss a new film each week. Either slade or I will post the film in this forum in advance, and lock the topic until the first day of discussion.

Thanks everyone. We are open to any ideas about running this forum.

****SPOILER WARNING**** of course this entire thread is going to be full of spoilers.

[NotaNumber]

"Unforgiven (1992)" is basically a remake of "Shane (1952)"

Not to say this is bad, but it is interesting that Clint Eastwood's superstar career begins with a remake of "Yojimbo (1961)" in "A Fistful of Dollars (1964)" and is rejuvenated with the remake of another film in 1992.

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by NotaNumber
"Unforgiven (1992)" is basically a remake of "Shane (1952)"

Pardon me for saying, but there was almost no resemblance that I can tell between the two films, other than the fact that they're both Westerns.

Care to elaborate?

[Locke_]

If character development is what you're looking for, then look to Unforgiven. Unforgiven has a great story and then another great story in that story. This is not a happy movie. There really is no good guy (the way I look at it). The way Eastwood and Freeman's (sp?) characters develop from who look to be friendly and gentle into killers is really good. And right away the audience knows Hackman is up to no good. English Bob was a neatcharacter who may be deemed as unnecessary to some, but the movie wouldn't be as good without him. He brings out the evil that IS Gene Hackman. I thought that the death of Freeman in such a subtle way was a little annoying, but then again, there is no "good guy" of the movie, so why celebrate the death of a villain? Now the biographer is the closest thing to the "good guy" of the movie as can be, although he never really does anything good. He does nothing realy bad either. But the audience can just tell his interest in evil throughout the movie. First the killer English Bob, then the mean nasty sheriff, then Eastwood. He takes risks to get the scoop on evil.

That's what I think the movie is really about: people.

[Morticia]

Originally posted by aintnosin
Pardon me for saying, but there was almost no resemblance that I can tell between the two films, other than the fact that they're both Westerns.

Care to elaborate?

Agreed...NotANumber, come on back and tell us!

Discussions like this can make Film Class great!

[Triple HHH]

The only real resemblance to Shane I could see is the story of a weary gunfighter trying to settle down, but both are caught up in violence again. Shane had no choice. But Clint Eastwood's character did -- he chose to go on one final run. But what both movies do very well is show us that violence and murder, no matter who you are, has consequences that will follow you.

I think one excellent scene in Unforgiven is when the biographer hear's the true story behind English Bob's notorious past. English Bob is diminished from a mythic legend to a feeble, fallible, yet ultimately human character. And I see that scene as an example of the theme of this movie -- to dispel the myths and legends and tall tales fed to us for generations and depicted in movies. Unforgiven couragously gives us a glimpse of an old West where the people were real and acted and reacted (like The Schofield Kid crying after killing a man) in a way not far from any of us today.

[aintnosin]

I think Unforgiven is also a story about how Western myths are born out of events that are anything but mythic. Even after seeing English Bob's mystique torn down, we can the wheels turning in Mr. Beauchamp's head after Munney guns down Little Bill's men at Greely's at the end of the movie. You get the feeling that, by the time the story gets back east, the events in Big Whiskey will be embellished for their readers and this distorted version will become the official legend.

[Chaplin]

I always thought that in the film, every single character is torn down in some respect.

Munny: He returns to the villain he once was--and which he probably never really changed from. He was always the villain.

English Bob: Like someone said earlier, his mystique (as the Western genre itself) is shredded to bits.

Ned Logan: Unfortunately for Ned, his recognition of his mistake (letting greed take over his decision-making) came too late, and he wasn't able to avoid being killed.

Daggett: Gene Hackman does such a terrific job of being a regular man with multiple levels. Unfortunately for him, his fantatical way of dealing with things comes to bite him in the arse when Munny finds Ned outside the saloon.

Scofield Kid: This one is obvious--his egotistical attitude is reversed dramatically after his first kill, and he become almost a shell of what he was (and what he wants to become).

An amazing script, all things considering--every character except the biographer (who represents the audience) has a significant change, and all for the worse.

[3DMan]

"It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got, and all he's ever gonna have."

I love that quote. Wish more people think that way today.

Gene Hackman dispelling the myths of the West are my favorite parts for me. His acting holds my attention more than anything else.

[Agalloch]

Originally posted by Chaplin
Munny: He returns to the villain he once was--and which he probably never really changed from. He was always the villain.

It may not have been intentional, or maybe it was, but I gotta disagree with this in that Will was never really a villain in the sense that he was say, pure evil, as he states in the film most of the time it was booze that made him do what he did, and I don't think he was always a villain, if that were true it'd be hard to believe he settled down with wife and had two kids.

I think the great thing about Unforgiven, which I'm sure has already been mentioned is the fact that there simply are no villains and no heroes. No one is innocent in this film.

I'd talk some more, but it's very early and I'm tired...maybe tomorrow.

Agalloch

[Chaplin]

There's nothing that says that a "villain" has to be "evil".

Will's motivations are simple--first greed (with some halfway-good intentions, assuming he's going to use it to provide a better life for his children), then blood-soaked revenge, which is a staple of a good villain.

In the scheme of things, perhaps to the audience of the film, he wasn't considered a "villain", but by the end of the film, the characters within the story considered a very dangerous villain.

[Dr. Evil]

Unforgiven couragously gives us a glimpse of an old West where the people were real and acted and reacted (like The Schofield Kid crying after killing a man) in a way not far from any of us today.

I think that scene was representative of the theme of this film, which was a Western with transplanted '90s values. A town in 1880s Wyoming banning handguns as a solution to gun violence? Not very likely!

The "crying" scene was yet another instance of the filmmakers attempting to impose European bourgeois values on a culture and era where raw courage and casual violence were still considered normal, respectable behavior in many quarters. The culturally imposed revulsion of violence that had been achieved in the U.K. and other long-established European societies had taken 700+ years of civilizing, and the American frontier, where the law came after, not before, the settlers, would not reach that stage until some years afterwards.

Unforgiven may be a first in that it plays down the violence of one brutal era as much as The Untouchables overplayed that of another.

RD

[Heckalaska]

This movie is a great example of a well written, well acted piece with every actor playing to type. None of the big 3 (Hackman, Eastwood, Freeman) pull of anything different than they've accomplished previously. If anything, they've taken rolls that they're seemingly most comfortable in and we, the audience, are comfortable seeing them in. Which could be a lesson to some actors. They're all at the top of their game and it clearly shows. Can you imagine any other three actors in these rolls? I mean, it's effortless and would have been a "good" movie if they'd sleep-walked their way through it. But the writing brought this film up to a higher level than I think anybody expected.

It didn't stray all that far from Eastwood's classic westerns with the exception of him playing down his role somewhat and playing to his elderly status (which was fairly bold). Yet it has that special something that sets it miles above the spaghetti westerns and the Dirty Harry movies.

There's something about the "evil" anti-hero that is just so entertaining to watch. With so little dialogue, every word Clint uttered carried a shitload of weight.

The only thing that detracted (albeit marginally slight) from this movie for me was Eastwood's borderline fetish in casting yet another Sandra Locke look-alike who can't act. I guess he has a thing for pale skinned, long haired blonds with weak skills?...

[aintnosin]

Originally posted by Dr. Evil
I think that scene was representative of the theme of this film, which was a Western with transplanted '90s values. A town in 1880s Wyoming banning handguns as a solution to gun violence? Not very likely!

Actually quite likely and not uncommon. A lot of towns in the old west did, in fact, ban firearms within the city limits.

The gunfight at the OK started as a result of the Earps attempting to enforce such a law (or maybe because they were using the law as an excuse to pick a fight with the Clantons and McLaury's) but there was such a law.

Of course, to enforce a law like that, the sheriff had to be a pretty tough and ruthless son-of-a-bitch, like the real Wyatt Earp and Little Bill in Unforgiven.

Originally posted by Dr. Evil
The "crying" scene was yet another instance of the filmmakers attempting to impose European bourgeois values on a culture and era where raw courage and casual violence were still considered normal, respectable behavior in many quarters. The culturally imposed revulsion of violence that had been achieved in the U.K. and other long-established European societies had taken 700+ years of civilizing, and the American frontier, where the law came after, not before, the settlers, would not reach that stage until some years afterwards.

I disagree. Even back in 1880's America, there would be people who never killed anyone and who, if they did, would be repelled by their own actions. And I would ask people living in India or other European colonies about their "revulsion" toward violence. They might have a different opinion.

[Dr. Evil]

The gunfight at the OK started as a result of the Earps attempting to enforce such a law (or maybe because they were using the law as an excuse to pick a fight with the Clantons and McLaury's) but there was such a law.

They were banning the carrying of firearms within city limits (a common measure), not the ownership.

Blanket bans on the ownership of firearms was a phenomena that gained momentum in the 20th century (South Carolina was the only state to ban handguns, from 1903 to 1966).

Even back in 1880's America, there would be people who never killed anyone and who, if they did, would be repelled by their own actions.

Those are middle-class values originally created in England, and they are not intrinsic to human nature, but instead have to be learned via cultural attitudes. Perhaps they would have been found in middle-class households in towns and cities, but with a working-class drifter on the frontier? I don't think so! The "Kid" role was obviously there to accomodate '90s sensibilities and concerns about modern-day gun violence, not portray historical accuracy.

And I would ask people living in India or other European colonies about their "revulsion" toward violence.

I was referring to the attitudes of Europeans in general regarding violence towards their fellow citizens, not that of their expatriates and administrators in the colonies.

RD

[bennygk]

According to http://us.imdb.com/Trivia?0105695:

The script floated around Hollywood for nearly 20 years...

...so I don't think it's really fair to say it's all about '90s values.

As far as I understood, Big Whiskey's ban on guns was only a ban on carrying, to prevent out-of-town bounty hunters from riding after the two cowboys. I do not recall the subject of ownership by locals ever being addressed.

I don't think you can really characterize The Kid as just being there to accomodate a modern anti-gun stance. He stood for a rejection of and disgust with violence and killing in general. The guns are just a part of the historical setting. They could have made this a gladiatior movie, and he would have felt the same way about swords.

As for the bourgie European values, as much as you see them reflected in The Kid, I see them rejected by other central characters:
-Eastwood's character is not just some working-class drifter. He is an alcoholic and killer reformed into a sedentary family man by his late wife, who I would guess was probably a religious woman. And despite his conversion and domestication, he inevitably sinks back into his old ways.
-Freeman may have lost the stomach for killing, but he has no problem committing the sin of adultery.
-Hackman tries to isolate himself from the madness of the town by building his own house in a peaceful location, but he turns out to be a poor carpenter. The only things he is good at involve violence. And in the company of Saul Rubinek's writer (given a French name, no less) he comes across as boorish.
-Rubinek's character wets himself when drawn upon early in the movie, and in the end, is unable to pull the trigger on Eastwood. Message? He can't hang.
-And lastly of course, there is English Bob, who prides himself on being as cultured as he is deadly. He turns out to be a coward, a liar and a weakling.

I think if anything, the subject of middle-class values is broached for the sole purpose of rejecting them as largely incompatable with that era.

[Version]

Those are middle-class values originally created in England, and they are not intrinsic to human nature, but instead have to be learned via cultural attitudes

Is that really how you feel about the idea of killing somone?

Certainly an interesting hypothesis (maybe even true) but I have to admit I find that a little distrubing. Even still, is your issue with the movie exclusively that it uses a western setting to discuss these issues?

You have to admit it is a well told story.

[Frank Gunn]

If anything, Little Bill is the good guy! He may have put a vicious beatdown on English Bob, but violence is always used as a deterrent to crime. Don't forget, English Bob was a hired assassin and a lifelong criminal. As for Ned's death, Little Bill was tracking the murderers who had shot a kid for money and was using every tool at his disposal to bring the killers to justice. If that meant beating a suspect, then that's what Little Bill felt had to be done. Hardly an evil viewpoint; many heroes throughout movie history have committed similar acts. I don't think it was little Bill's intention to kill Ned, and while displaying his corpse is quite cruel and callous, again, Ned was a hired killer with a grisly criminal past. Think about it this way:

Little Bill - responsible for several beatings and the accidental death of a suspected murderer, all with the intention of protecting his town from violence.

Will Munny - murdered seven men, five of whom were unquestionably innocent, for money and revenge.

This is a movie that is effectively told from the villain's point of view.

[slade]

While Eastwood's character was clearly the protagonist in this movie and Hackman's the antagonist, I agree with many of those above who see that the beauty of this film is that it is about humans who have both positive and negative qualities.

I think it is just as easy to argue that Eastwood's character is a "better" guy than Hackman's, but I think that is missing the point. Instead it is a nice study of several characters doing their best with what they've got--but that best doesn't seem to be enough. Very similar to most humans.

The question about whether killing is inherently repulsive or a learned value is an interesting one. While most large mammals (especially males) are violent and territorial (particularly around mating season--which, unfortunatley in this regard, is constant for humans) there are few that resort to killing to stake their claims. Most will intimidate or wrestle or fight in some manner, but rarely do they seem to kill (I'm open to someone giving several examples to shoot down this idea though--I'm no expert in this area).

This seems to be similiar to most of humanity. Males will often resort to intimidation and even violence, but relatively rarely--even in the old west--resort to actual killing.

Additionally, there isn't any natural advantage to killing your own species (for the most part).

Ergo, I think it's a safe bet that killing other humans is repulsive even to our Id, not just our Super Ego.

[3DMan]

I think it's an interesting theory that Little Bill is the good guy. I mean, he bans firearms in his town for his people. "I don't like guns, Bob" And his last words "I don't deserve this. To die like this. I was building a house!" And Munny's "Deserve's got nothing to do with it." It's like he's saying it's his nature to kill.