PS: Credit for the International Psychoanalysis article has now been added.

PS: Credit for the International Psychoanalysis article has now been added.

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.

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.”