I took another look at ‘Unforgiven‘ the other day – one of those films whose original impact was muted by the fact that I saw it amidst hype, and, precisely half a lifetime ago, when I didn’t know that I had no idea what I was talking about. The difference today, I suppose is twofold; I still have no idea what I’m talking about, but at least I think I know this; and I’ve seen a few more films and thought a lot about violence and masculine archetypes.
‘Unforgiven’ has the reputation of being the revisionist Western to end all revisionist Westerns; but this misses the point, and isn’t quite accurate – ‘Dances with Wolves’, whatever you think of its aesthetic and philosophical merits, wasn’t exactly a cowboys-beat-Indians actioner, the genuine masterpiece ‘Heaven’s Gate‘ shatters the myth of the glorious frontier, Clint had done revenge-as-a-living-hell before in 1973′s ‘High Plains Drifter’, even the otherwise ridiculous and xenophobic ‘Cattle Queen of Montana’ had Barbara Stanwyck going off into the sunset with the unlikeliest pardners this side of the cast of ‘Twins‘: Native American hero on one arm, Ronald Reagan on the other. (See below for an analogy of how grating, if appealing, that particular contrast appears.)
So to see ‘Unforgiven’s strengths as merely relating to how ‘different’ it may be from other Westerns about men-who-might-as-well-have-no-name is to reduce its value to nothing more than an innovation. It’s far more important than that: it reveals the gaping wound in the typical Western vision of the male psyche, exposes the roots of violence, and seeks to provide a serious answer to the question of why people kill, and why portrayals of killing constitute so much of our entertainment complex. This answer, if taken seriously enough, could change everything.
The short version: people kill, and we like to watch portrayals of killing because we’re afraid of death.
There are some fascinating thoughts about this at the International Psycoanalysis blog here. If the author ((Herbert Stein, M.D., in his “Double Features: Discovering our Unconscious Fantasies in Film” (EREADS, 2003)) has a point, and it seems pretty compelling to me, then the causes of violence can be traced to an attempt at asserting power over death; which opens a fairly large can of worms when it comes to considerations of what happens when fear is, itself, the dominant lens through which some of us have been wounded into viewing life. This may all sound a bit flowery for the Film Talk or for a Friday, but I just wonder…if we accept the premise that politicised fear can lead to real death, can’t cinematic fear give some grounding to that same fear, and that same death? In that regard, would ‘Unforgiven’ be better seen as part of the pantheon of, or a kind of retrospective prequel to, films like ‘A Matter of Life and Death’, ‘Wings of Desire’, and ‘Magnolia’ where the notion of something transcendent gathering up the mystery of being human into a space that may not make sense as we understand it now, but constitutes an interruption of grace that cuts the poisonous flow that oxygenates the myth that violence fixes things? Just a thought.
posted in forum Miscellaneous by zad1138
posted in forum Miscellaneous by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by seanpdudley
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by Jett Loe
posted in forum General Movie Stuff by prawnman
Great post, and I have to admit to Unforgiven being one of my favorite movies of all time. Even when I first saw it at the tender age of 12 – not usually being a fan of westerns, hadn't ever seen a Clint Eastwood movie (first time I watched Unforgiven, I thought that Skinny was Eastwood, by the tone of his voice and the reveal of him holding the gun to the back of the cowboy's head.) other than maybe the orangutan movies – but there was just something about this movie that affected me. I watched it so many times, that when I eventually traded in my worn out VHS tape of it, and got the 10th Anniversary DVD, I didn't like it; because it was the first time I was seeing it in widescreen, and it threw off my knowledge of how the scenes looked.
Although, I have to quibble with you on the film being the “revisionist western to end all revisionist westers”. This movie was just the plain ol' “western to end ALL westerns”. (Naturally, that wasn't the case, as we've gotten a few good ones since then, but still.) It capped off the legend of the west, showed that the next generation wasn't willing or able to stand in the shoes of people like the main characters (in the form of the Schofield Kid, who for better or worse, would rather be poor and blind, than rich and dead, and learned that there's more to being a cowboy than bravado.) It stands in line with Eastwood's recent (but not quite as good) movie Gran Torino, which in its own way was an anti-thesis on “vigilante-justice” films, as well as to the ending of Unforgiven, itself. (Which, is a reason I love Gran Torino, as well.)
As for collecting this movie into a line with the other movies mentioned, I have to admit to not fully knowing how Unforgiven would fall in with them. Maybe it's having not seen the first two – Life and Death has been added to my Netflix queue; Wings of Desire, has also been added to my queue, for when it's released (Does it count that I saw the horrible remake, City of Angels, with Nicolas Cage and Meg Ryan?) – but from reading their synopses, and having seen Magnolia a number of times, I think that Unforgiven is approaching life, the human condition, and seemingly violence from a much different head-space.
The only transcendence I see in Will Munny is his view changing of doing “this one last job” for his family and well being, and accepting that when he used to kill people (for money or out of just plain meanness), he would do it with the courage of alcohol; and once he finds out what happens to Ned, that is where he again finds his solace. His going back to town isn't to become an angel of death, it's to payback Little Bill, for hurting someone that's innocent – much like he did for money, while also in the name of honor for the woman that was cut up – and it's only when he sees Ned outside the saloon, when there becomes more than one name on his hit list. (This is, of course implied from his stating of purpose, when confronting Gene Hackman's character. He's there to kill Little Bill, and any man decorating his saloon with Will's friend better arm himself.)
Granted, there's not much I thoroughly know about psychology, and the linked to blog (which I was impressed with Gareth reading, til I saw that it's linked from Unforgiven's Wikipedia page. :P) reads more like a thesis stretching to connect this movie to real life case-studies, than it does an actual psychological profile on Eastwood's character. Although, the fear of death leading him to kill thing is interesting. If anything that profile seems more relevant to Hackman's Little Bill, who over-compensates (whether it's because he knows he's getting old, or it's because he knows he has to be badder than the bad guys to remain in control of Big Whiskey) in his violence, and also seems to revel in it.
There's no point where Munny seems to enjoy killing, or kills in fear of anything. Quite the opposite, he doesn't kill anyone until after he's already surrendered to death, and comes out on the other end lighter (noticing the surroundings, and actually being kind to the cut up woman), and he's only killing for the money, and then again finally in honor of Ned (and to protect his own skin).
Anyway, sorry to rattle on – much longer than the original blog post, even – but this is a movie I'm pretty passionate about and I felt a need to state an opinion, whether I misunderstand the original post or not. :)
(And as always, I really enjoy listening and reading what both of you TFT guys have to say about movies.)
“The DUCK, I says.”
I enjoyed this post and John Muth's reply. I don't have a lot to add, other than agreeing with all of the above and also to suggest Unforgiven also says something about repututation and living off past achievements. And also about growing up in a world where one comes to realise older folks didn't necessarily get things right or know any better, even as their achievements are grandicised (is that a word? I'm sure there's an actual like real word I should be using there, but I'm damned if I can think of it right now).
I'd also suggest it as a more logical (though not necessarily better than Gareth's suggestions) to Flags of Our Fathers, where the mask is removed from the “traditional” view of bravery and heroism, and shown that sometimes the truth is even more heroic -just less caption-grabbing.
Gran Torino is something of a repeat of Unforgiven -less well rounded, but with a cute sidestepping to finish. If it does anything, it highlights the complete absence of reality in almost every US movie where nobody ever goes to prison at the end.
[...] like to watch portrayals of killing because we’re afraid of death.” I’ve often thought that action films with narrow [...]
Hi there – and thanks for your comment, and for taking my post seriously enough to respond. Just to clarify: when I suggest 'Unforgiven' has a place alongside the other films I mentioned, what I meant was that because it takes violence, death, and human psychology seriously; beyond that, all of these films take the FEAR of death seriously; seriously enough to suggest that this fear may lead to us behaving in terrible ways, or that the only thing that can transcend this fear is something beyond what we could come up through human ingenuity alone. (As for 'City of Angels' – it represents the unusual phenomenon of a Hollywood remake changing the ending of a European original and making it LESS happy. But it has some interesting visuals, and I loved Dennis Franz.)
PS: Credit for the International Psychoanalysis article has now been added.
Hi there – and thanks for your comment, and for taking my post seriously enough to respond. Just to clarify: when I suggest 'Unforgiven' has a place alongside the other films I mentioned, what I meant was that because it takes violence, death, and human psychology seriously; beyond that, all of these films take the FEAR of death seriously; seriously enough to suggest that this fear may lead to us behaving in terrible ways, or that the only thing that can transcend this fear is something beyond what we could come up through human ingenuity alone. (As for 'City of Angels' – it represents the unusual phenomenon of a Hollywood remake changing the ending of a European original and making it LESS happy. But it has some interesting visuals, and I loved Dennis Franz.)
PS: Credit for the International Psychoanalysis article has now been added.