The many fine qualities of this film are appreciated well enough; so that I hardly can say something new, except adding my sincere admiration for Eastwood's last western. What I prefer to turn your attention to, is the generally accepted as granted vision of the film's place in cinema history as an end of the western genre.
I. Was the movie ground-breaking "deconstructing the myths"?
1 ) What were Leone's westerns or "A Bullet for the General" of Damiano Damiani? What were Eastwood's "High Plains Drifter", "Outlaw Josey Wales", "Pale Rider" ? Didn't these movies revolt against long ago established clichés - and far not only cinematographic , but much more historic,social and psychological stereotypes.
Wild West without virtuous pilgrims, but with plenties of bandits, bounty hunters, prostitutes, mercenaries, cheaters, etc. Without clean shirts, shaved faces and pastoral landscapes; but with dust, mud, sweat,vulgar language,ghost-towns, stinking of tobacco, cheap alcohol and horse-saddles. Wild West in which evil is not an exception, instantly corrected by a highly moralistic hero(es);but a norm which continues to rule no matter how many morally dubious gunmen come and go. A Civil War in which "good" and "bad" are not differentiated by the blue or gray uniforms. Indian tribes being eradicated in the name of white man's civilization; petty farmers ruined in favour of railroad and other tycoons; unrestrained crime labeled as "honorable business". Town communities welded by racism, greed, hypocrisy, ignorance, etc. Corrupted high-level politics and politicians, imperialist US government that intervenes in the affairs of the smaller nations...all of that and more was in the movies that I envisioned above (and maybe some others ,too, I just mention movies that I have watched). In that sense "Unforgiven" doesn't seem to be so revolutionary, but much more a contributary work - which is in no way a depreciation!
2) In "Unforgiven", after all, we saw some of the most repeating patterns(like a revenge plot, a dramatic comeback of the treated as an underdog main character), including the one that is most inseparable of that genre - the final shoot-out. And that shoot-out was hardly realistic - 1 against 5, plus the rest of the fellows run away when Munny's pistol is already empty (or with one bullet). In that sense the most mythical of all myths remained untouched: no matter what and who were the fearless, cold-blooded, rattle-snake fast and pin-point accurate gunmen - they existed! In this sense "Unforgiven" is a continuation - though with new means of expression, in a new environment and in a generation-lag time later! - of western's implicit, but clear enough admittance that the invincibility and especially the extraordinary gun-skills of his movie characters play role dominantly as a materialized, visualized expression of the innate spirituality of the archetypes presented and the collision of their natures and ambitions.A deliberately unrealistic epitomization of the otherwise pretty realistic struggle for deserving and keeping your place under the sun - which actually is the struggle, that makes the viewer identify himself with the story on the screen.
3) Was the moral outlook of the characters so blurred as claimed ?
Not for me. I myself can clearly define my attitude towards a thug-like Little Bill, the consciousless Skinny, the arrogant English Bob, - and on the other hand, the burnt-out, afflicted and overwhelmed by burdens Will, the friendly loyal Ned, the disfigured Delilah. Of course - the halftones in many cases were obvious, but far from hiding the essence of each character: again something seen in many previous films (were you ever against The Man With No Name?).
The same as
4) The question of the price of violence
I doubt that the earlier westerns so light-handedly treated that topic: just remember the POW camp scenes in "The good, The Bad, and The Ugly",the execution of a traitor's family in "For a Few Dolllars More" or the meeting of Josie Wales with chief Ten Bear; or the murder of McBains family in "Once Upon a Time in the West". Simply here the main line revolves around that problem.
II. The end of the genre ?
Eastwood himself said in an interview that a good film is made by a good story that is revealed in a good way. It's far not necessary to be a Hollywood legend to make this statement. The funeral march of western was announced long before "Unforgiven", while the script for that movie is far not something that appeared (in mid' 1970s) as a deliberately planned end of genre. Is it just a chance that after "Unforgiven" during the first half of the 1990s came a wave of new westerns? Why they were not successful is a different question :were all "spaghettis" at the level of Leone's works?
Yet there's something more: what can kill a genre and cinema at all is not a "masterpiece that shall end all masterpieces", but trivial scripts, hollow performances, butaforic pictures, simplistic characters, shallow musical scores, box-office idolatry, political conjuncture, etc.
"Unforgiven" as a whole stays in the line of revolt against that mainstream - that's why it's so outstanding. Some people say if others movie makers learn from it - how to make not cinema-industry, but cinema-art - that can give a new life to the genre and the cinema at all. Up to now, unfortunately, that expectation seems an empty illusion. The mainstream has totally conquered everything and has no intention to forgive the unforgiven sin of being a rebel against it.
One final point -I saved one star from the 10 , because I don't the movie had a good music. "Claudia's theme" is too lyric for the bitter feelings in Munny's soul. Besides , the same tender melody was played when Will and Ned were going on a their bleak mission. No separate memorable tunes for the climactic moments, for marking the other important characters or scenes.
I. Was the movie ground-breaking "deconstructing the myths"?
1 ) What were Leone's westerns or "A Bullet for the General" of Damiano Damiani? What were Eastwood's "High Plains Drifter", "Outlaw Josey Wales", "Pale Rider" ? Didn't these movies revolt against long ago established clichés - and far not only cinematographic , but much more historic,social and psychological stereotypes.
Wild West without virtuous pilgrims, but with plenties of bandits, bounty hunters, prostitutes, mercenaries, cheaters, etc. Without clean shirts, shaved faces and pastoral landscapes; but with dust, mud, sweat,vulgar language,ghost-towns, stinking of tobacco, cheap alcohol and horse-saddles. Wild West in which evil is not an exception, instantly corrected by a highly moralistic hero(es);but a norm which continues to rule no matter how many morally dubious gunmen come and go. A Civil War in which "good" and "bad" are not differentiated by the blue or gray uniforms. Indian tribes being eradicated in the name of white man's civilization; petty farmers ruined in favour of railroad and other tycoons; unrestrained crime labeled as "honorable business". Town communities welded by racism, greed, hypocrisy, ignorance, etc. Corrupted high-level politics and politicians, imperialist US government that intervenes in the affairs of the smaller nations...all of that and more was in the movies that I envisioned above (and maybe some others ,too, I just mention movies that I have watched). In that sense "Unforgiven" doesn't seem to be so revolutionary, but much more a contributary work - which is in no way a depreciation!
2) In "Unforgiven", after all, we saw some of the most repeating patterns(like a revenge plot, a dramatic comeback of the treated as an underdog main character), including the one that is most inseparable of that genre - the final shoot-out. And that shoot-out was hardly realistic - 1 against 5, plus the rest of the fellows run away when Munny's pistol is already empty (or with one bullet). In that sense the most mythical of all myths remained untouched: no matter what and who were the fearless, cold-blooded, rattle-snake fast and pin-point accurate gunmen - they existed! In this sense "Unforgiven" is a continuation - though with new means of expression, in a new environment and in a generation-lag time later! - of western's implicit, but clear enough admittance that the invincibility and especially the extraordinary gun-skills of his movie characters play role dominantly as a materialized, visualized expression of the innate spirituality of the archetypes presented and the collision of their natures and ambitions.A deliberately unrealistic epitomization of the otherwise pretty realistic struggle for deserving and keeping your place under the sun - which actually is the struggle, that makes the viewer identify himself with the story on the screen.
3) Was the moral outlook of the characters so blurred as claimed ?
Not for me. I myself can clearly define my attitude towards a thug-like Little Bill, the consciousless Skinny, the arrogant English Bob, - and on the other hand, the burnt-out, afflicted and overwhelmed by burdens Will, the friendly loyal Ned, the disfigured Delilah. Of course - the halftones in many cases were obvious, but far from hiding the essence of each character: again something seen in many previous films (were you ever against The Man With No Name?).
The same as
4) The question of the price of violence
I doubt that the earlier westerns so light-handedly treated that topic: just remember the POW camp scenes in "The good, The Bad, and The Ugly",the execution of a traitor's family in "For a Few Dolllars More" or the meeting of Josie Wales with chief Ten Bear; or the murder of McBains family in "Once Upon a Time in the West". Simply here the main line revolves around that problem.
II. The end of the genre ?
Eastwood himself said in an interview that a good film is made by a good story that is revealed in a good way. It's far not necessary to be a Hollywood legend to make this statement. The funeral march of western was announced long before "Unforgiven", while the script for that movie is far not something that appeared (in mid' 1970s) as a deliberately planned end of genre. Is it just a chance that after "Unforgiven" during the first half of the 1990s came a wave of new westerns? Why they were not successful is a different question :were all "spaghettis" at the level of Leone's works?
Yet there's something more: what can kill a genre and cinema at all is not a "masterpiece that shall end all masterpieces", but trivial scripts, hollow performances, butaforic pictures, simplistic characters, shallow musical scores, box-office idolatry, political conjuncture, etc.
"Unforgiven" as a whole stays in the line of revolt against that mainstream - that's why it's so outstanding. Some people say if others movie makers learn from it - how to make not cinema-industry, but cinema-art - that can give a new life to the genre and the cinema at all. Up to now, unfortunately, that expectation seems an empty illusion. The mainstream has totally conquered everything and has no intention to forgive the unforgiven sin of being a rebel against it.
One final point -I saved one star from the 10 , because I don't the movie had a good music. "Claudia's theme" is too lyric for the bitter feelings in Munny's soul. Besides , the same tender melody was played when Will and Ned were going on a their bleak mission. No separate memorable tunes for the climactic moments, for marking the other important characters or scenes.
Tell Your Friends