 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And is the old lined shaky VHS tape of The Good the Bad and the Ugly still better? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The great (and fearful) 'message' of 'Unforgiven' is that we're all on some level at the mercy of the Pale Rider, and that, guilty or innocent, 'Deserve's got nothin' to do with it ...' It's a great study in the 'theodicy' problem, whether there is any justice or compassion in the universe, and in fate: 'I was lucky in the order ... but I've always been lucky when it comes to killin' folks'. Plus of course the great speech about the significance of killing to victim and killer alike. And why DID that dead lady prefer to run off with the hero all those years before? In what way was this man who embraced the excitement of living on the edge 'truer' than an average suitor?
It's certainly bleak. If Eastwood's main character has any redeeming feature it's simply that he sees the coldness of the universe. If there's redemption, the viewer is invited to find it himself. The film never judges.
So it says something, it has value.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 28, 2017 - 4:29 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
MusicMad
(Member)
|
I disliked it ... despite liking the main actors. But then I didn't think much of The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) from which mould Unforgiven (1992) appears to have been cast.
I like my westerns to be more traditional rather than realistic.
Mitch
It takes courage to say that here.
I don't disagree.
But what do you mean by traditional?
Realistic westerns vs traditional westerns would make an interesting discussion. I don't credit Clint's films with being all that realistic, but I'm not sure how you are defining traditional and realistic.
Ah, I've probably been far too loose with my [generic] definitions since, once I think about it, there are far too many examples of cross-over. When it comes to film, I set my own criteria, happily ignoring the fact that no-one else has the same criteria 
I was brought up on westerns and without doubt, my favourite western is The Magnificent Seven (1960). But my favourite film is, probably, Dances with Wolves (1990) so how can this be? Simple! To me, the latter is not a western but a drama about a character set in the post-civil war years in the untamed (?) states of U.S.A. ... How the West Was Won (1962) hadn't reached there then ...
So, films like Rio Bravo (1959), The Far Country, The Man From Laramie (1955), The Comancheros (1961), The Sons of Katie Elder (1965) and many others with stars like Glenn Ford, Henry Fonda, Richard Widmark, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, Burt Lancaster, Gary Cooper ... often now described as horse operas ... these were my staple diet As the 1960s brought changes so I took to actors like James Garner (e.g. Duel at Diablo (1966)) and ... I struggle to name another ... until Kevin Costner. And, no, I'm not counting his aforementioned success but jump forward to 2003: Open Range ... probably my favourite film of the 21st C!
Even my favourite actors from the 1950s, despite being on-going stars of the 1960s, couldn't repeat their earlier successes ... True Grit (1969) is very good but pales against the Duke's earlier horse operas.
But, to me, these are traditional westerns ... often the lone hero fighting the odds, be it nature, the friend turned bad, or the indigenous population who don't want to surrender their lands ...
But times change and the European cinema looking for openings saw an opportunity. Despite liking the music and desperately wanting to see the films barred to me by their X certificate, I was appalled by the fakeness of Per un pugno di dollari (1964) when I finally saw it on TV a decade or so later. Perhaps I was so disappointed ... but whilst it successors were slightly better they couldn't compare to the brilliance of films such as 3:10 to Yuma (1957) or Last Train from Gun Hill (1959) which I was seeing on TV broadcasts.
But I persisted and saw Clint Eastwood as the saviour of the western. Until I departed the cinema, totally bored, after watching The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). It took me another three or four of his films to decide I had been wasting my time and money on his films ... but that's another topic.
I realised at some stage that his character was not the western hero I liked so much as portrayed by Fonda, Stewart, Peck, Ford, Wayne, Brynner et al. In fact it was a character I didn't like ... for whom I had no empathy. Would it have mattered if his character had been shot dead at the start of the film ... would the film have been any different? A stupid question but it demonstrates my feeling towards this type of modern western where the protagonist could so easily be the evil guy and we should be rooting for the unnamed characters dropping like flies.
If you're still with me: these are the realistic films where no-one is totally good and honest. The trouble is, James Stewart portrayed this type of character many times but the story had you supporting him. Now the filmmakers seem to say: this is how it was ... take it or leave it.
Until something like Open Range comes along ... and for the first time in years you're watching and hoping that the main character/s is/are going to survive because they mean so much to you.
Perhaps that is the simple distinction: in the traditional western you (well: me at any rate) actually care for the character(s).
A long-winded reply which probably doesn't answer your question ... thanks for reading.
Mitch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I relished the idea of seeing a new Eastwood western, though I only caught up with it on tv, and expected much with the Oscar win and all, and ended up wondering what all the fuss was about. So I'm afraid I agree with the above comment about why it got the Oscar. Rewarding a long time Hollywood star etc..
|
|
|
|
|
|
UNFORGIVEN is a great movie... in my top ten favorite Western list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
May 29, 2017 - 3:44 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
I disliked it ... despite liking the main actors. But then I didn't think much of The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) from which mould Unforgiven (1992) appears to have been cast.
I like my westerns to be more traditional rather than realistic.
Mitch
It takes courage to say that here.
I don't disagree.
But what do you mean by traditional?
Realistic westerns vs traditional westerns would make an interesting discussion. I don't credit Clint's films with being all that realistic, but I'm not sure how you are defining traditional and realistic.
Ah, I've probably been far too loose with my [generic] definitions since, once I think about it, there are far too many examples of cross-over. When it comes to film, I set my own criteria, happily ignoring the fact that no-one else has the same criteria
I was brought up on westerns and without doubt, my favourite western is The Magnificent Seven (1960). But my favourite film is, probably, Dances with Wolves (1990) so how can this be? Simple! To me, the latter is not a western but a drama about a character set in the post-civil war years in the untamed (?) states of U.S.A. ... How the West Was Won (1962) hadn't reached there then ...
So, films like Rio Bravo (1959), The Far Country, The Man From Laramie (1955), The Comancheros (1961), The Sons of Katie Elder (1965) and many others with stars like Glenn Ford, Henry Fonda, Richard Widmark, Robert Mitchum, Gregory Peck, Burt Lancaster, Gary Cooper ... often now described as horse operas ... these were my staple diet As the 1960s brought changes so I took to actors like James Garner (e.g. Duel at Diablo (1966)) and ... I struggle to name another ... until Kevin Costner. And, no, I'm not counting his aforementioned success but jump forward to 2003: Open Range ... probably my favourite film of the 21st C!
Even my favourite actors from the 1950s, despite being on-going stars of the 1960s, couldn't repeat their earlier successes ... True Grit (1969) is very good but pales against the Duke's earlier horse operas.
But, to me, these are traditional westerns ... often the lone hero fighting the odds, be it nature, the friend turned bad, or the indigenous population who don't want to surrender their lands ...
But times change and the European cinema looking for openings saw an opportunity. Despite liking the music and desperately wanting to see the films barred to me by their X certificate, I was appalled by the fakeness of Per un pugno di dollari (1964) when I finally saw it on TV a decade or so later. Perhaps I was so disappointed ... but whilst it successors were slightly better they couldn't compare to the brilliance of films such as 3:10 to Yuma (1957) or Last Train from Gun Hill (1959) which I was seeing on TV broadcasts.
But I persisted and saw Clint Eastwood as the saviour of the western. Until I departed the cinema, totally bored, after watching The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). It took me another three or four of his films to decide I had been wasting my time and money on his films ... but that's another topic.
I realised at some stage that his character was not the western hero I liked so much as portrayed by Fonda, Stewart, Peck, Ford, Wayne, Brynner et al. In fact it was a character I didn't like ... for whom I had no empathy. Would it have mattered if his character had been shot dead at the start of the film ... would the film have been any different? A stupid question but it demonstrates my feeling towards this type of modern western where the protagonist could so easily be the evil guy and we should be rooting for the unnamed characters dropping like flies.
If you're still with me: these are the realistic films where no-one is totally good and honest. The trouble is, James Stewart portrayed this type of character many times but the story had you supporting him. Now the filmmakers seem to say: this is how it was ... take it or leave it.
Until something like Open Range comes along ... and for the first time in years you're watching and hoping that the main character/s is/are going to survive because they mean so much to you.
Perhaps that is the simple distinction: in the traditional western you (well: me at any rate) actually care for the character(s).
A long-winded reply which probably doesn't answer your question ... thanks for reading.
Mitch
I agree wholeheartedly.
I've always felt alienated by Clint's ambivalence and callousness. His heroes are no different than the villains, and not really heroes. Nor does he play anti-heroes. There has to be good motives at the heart of an anti-hero, but Clint rejects motives completely, unless his character wants money. He has to get beat up in every film, a tactic he stole from Brando. Clint is cool; to show emotion or caring is not cool in his world. He built his stardom and his fortune walking the edge of ambivalence, but to me he's always been something of a fraud. His cool bores me. It worked under Leone because Leone was a brilliant director. Clint's cool became a drag real fast in his American films.
Realistic westerns could be positive, or they could be negative. There are many realistic westerns in which there is good will and caring. Take the original MONTE WALSH for example. These cowboys face a harsh existence, but they are not trying to be cool and deadly all the time. There are other emotions. Chet and Monte help each other out in little ways that matter, like giving their pay to the cowboy who is let go because they know he'll starve without it. Europeans couldn't tell that story; it takes a knowledge of the American west. THE SEARCHERS is loosely inspired by actual events; the wonderful thing about it is that Ethan Edwards must steel his nerves and be as hard on himself as he is on others in order to survive and do the right thing. He pays for it spiritually and emotionally. In the last moment, his love for Debbie overcomes his horror at what's happened to her and his hatred of those who inflicted it on her. Again, the Europeans couldn't tell this story because they have no knowledge of the American west, no interest in the humanity of the people.
Clint's ambivalence and aptitude for meanness makes him a one-trick pony without any real depth or believability. Underneath all his dainty posturing, there's just more posturing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Europeans couldn't tell that story; it takes a knowledge of the American west.......
.... Again, the Europeans couldn't tell this story because they have no knowledge of the American west, no interest in the humanity of the people.
I can't agree with this part. It is the novelist's or playwright's part to research, empathise etc., and you're greatly underestimating imagination. Any nationality of writer can write any story. That's art. It's a very nationalistic statement, even if not intentional.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"There are two types of people in this world, my friend... those with loaded text and those with little digs"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Europeans couldn't tell that story; it takes a knowledge of the American west.......
.... Again, the Europeans couldn't tell this story because they have no knowledge of the American west, no interest in the humanity of the people.
I can't agree with this part. It is the novelist's or playwright's part to research, empathise etc., and you're greatly underestimating imagination. Any nationality of writer can write any story. That's art. It's a very nationalistic statement, even if not intentional.
Of course it's bogus. It's part of being a writer, producer, composer, artist to empathize and extrapolate. If Europeans could not tell the story of the American west, how could an American write about a Jewish nobleman in the times of the Roman Empire? How could a male author write from a femal perspective?
In fact, why would an American have more knowledge of the American west than a European, as they both have to get that knowledge second hand via history books.
One of the all time greatest westerns was directed by an Austrian, for cryin' out loud (with a Russian born composer at that).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
