Dances With Wolves is one of the saddest films I've seen in recent years. Th ending is as melancholy as the ending from Gone With the Wind. I was asking myself at the end of the film; why did he have to leave the Sioux camp? Couldn't he have stayed? I guess not. After all that was said and done Dances With Wolves had to leave the camp and go his own way. If not he might have caused undo harm to the tribe. Still, I asked myself weren't they all screwed in the end? Couldn't they have known that the Union forces were too strong and that they would be defeated? I guess not. The film was made in 1990. It won several academy awards. It starred Kevin Costner who was also the director and co-producer. The film is a Western. It was the first serious film I watched as a kid.
The premise of the film centers around John Dunbar and his quest to find himself. Dunbar attempts to kill himself in the first twenty minutes of the film. Instead of seeing this as an act of cowardice, a Union General thinks it's bravery. In reward for his bravery Dunbar is given a horse and allowed to pick his post. He chooses to go out West to prairie country. There he befriends a Sioux tribe and becomes a member. In a final sequence he saves the tribe but is apprehended by Union soldiers and sentenced to be hanged. The Sioux tribe conducts a raid and frees Dunbar. In the final sequence he says he must go on his own way away from the tribe.
The acting was top notch. I really believed Costner's character. I thought he showed how a White man would behave in a similar situation. I thought his actions and words were genuine and his acting thoroughly believable. The other actors also came across as genuine. Wind in His Hair and Kicking Bird made me believe that they were plains Indians to the core. I never doubted for a minute that they were anything but real Indians able to speak the language and act the parts given to them.
Kevin Costner was the big star associated with Dance With Wolves. He turned in another great performance. After Untouchables and Field of Dreams, Dances With Wolves is another great performance for the ages that will last as examples of acting excellence in the 80's of American Cinema.
The film couldn't have been better with regards to film techniques. The editing, cinematography, everything was top notch. I couldn't get over the great shots of the plains. They were of overwhelming beauty. The canyons, the prairie, it made me want to visit there soon. Also top notch was the costumes. The Indian attire was totally believable. I felt like I was in that World. The Indian Village became alive with color and setting. So much so that I forgot about where I was and became immersed in the period decor of the film. The film was near perfect. The score was uplifting, the settings were unforgettable, everything was what an epic of The American West should be.
The film heralds a new kind of Western. It is particularly unique. It is a World away from The Searchers which demonizes Native Americans unfairly. The two films are similar in some technical ways. They both show the beauty and grandeur of the American West. The stories and characters of the two films are vastly different though. Dance With Wolves develops in its viewers an overwhelming sympathy for the plight of the American Indians. It is a thoroughly realist portrait of an experience of the American West totally unlike Sergio Leone's Spaghetti Westerns. It is perhaps familiar with Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller. Both are very realist portraits of experiences of The West. The only difference is that Dances With Wolves has a very recognizable opinion about Western Settlement. McCabe and Mrs. Miller is less subtle in it's expression of theme and conflict.
The message of the film comes across very clearly. With it's depictions of White settlers and soldiers as wasteful and brash there is no doubt that the Native American way of life, at least in some ways, is portrayed as better than how the Whites live. This develops a deep sympathy for the Native Americans who populate Dance With Wolves. It also upends decades of thought that White Settlement of The West was a good thing. It raises serious questions about how The West was won and how the Native American were treated. The film reveals its theme in even the most minute of details. It so ingrains its theme deep into the film that it becomes unquestionable that the Native American way of life was to be cherished and lamented at its passing.
Dances With Wolves is a revisionist film. It is much different from other films like The Searchers or other films that demonize the Native Americans unfairly. I remember back to Middle School Social Studies when we watched numerous movies about the Native American experience. In these films about Chief Joseph and others. a deep sympathy was created for the Native American experience. Dances With Wolves puts forth a new theme about Western Settlement. It destroys prejudice and breaks down barriers between Native American and Settler and only begins to ponder the amount of suffering that Native Americans endured while there lands were taken and their way of life was destroyed.
Dances With Wolves is a great film. It is different from other films from before the late 1960's when film started to change and themes were treated differently. I can only compare this film to The Searchers and how different it is from that film. In The Searchers the Native Americans are portrayed from a biased point of view. In Dances With Wolves the entire film shows how the Native Americans lived and survived without the help of the whites. The deep empathy which develops after repeated viewings of the film for Native Americans eliminates bias and prejudice and creates room for new narratives about The West. I would highly recommend this film to anyone with an interest in films about The American West.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
Review of The Wild Bunch
The final shootout of the film is incredible. It's the best shootout in the history of Westerns that I have seen so far. After it was over I asked my "do you think you could do something as good in a film you make?" I had to say no I couldn't. It was that good. The film is as good as the best of the Leone Westerns. I drew a comparison to The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and, in my opinion, it ranks in the same class as that film. It has all the elements that The Good.. does. More on that later. The films was released in 1969. Directed by Sam Peckinpah, it stars William Holden and Ernest Borgnine along with Robert Ryan.
The film follows aging bandits out for a last heist before they move South to Mexico. But all is not easy. Bounty hunters are hot on their trail, anticipating their every move. The plot thickens when the bandits meet up with a Mexican warlord out to get guns and become a power in Northern Mexico. The bandits commit to the general. They plot to steal guns from an American arms shipment. The bandits steal the guns and defeat the bounty hunters. But they still have to get payment for the guns from the general. This they do, but when one of their own is taken prisoner and tortured it's one step to far. The Wild Bunch stands up to the general and dies in a hail of bullets killing the general, his top men, and themselves in a great, final shootout.
I have to say upfront that I'm a big William Holden fan. So anything he does I'm biased for him. This was his last major role. And I thought he pulled it off well. I bought into him as the aging leader of the gang with baggage. His near apprehension with Thornton. His ongoing rivalry with him. The flashback to his lost love. Killed by her husband and severely wounding Pike. Holden is no John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. He is older, scarred, and looking for a way out. Like Holden, Dutch (Borgnine) wants a way out. He plays his role well as the trusted sidekick. I couldn't get over his little chuckles or his crazy eyes at the beginning of the shootout. Both put in solid performances.
The film uses creative techniques to tell the story. In particular the use of slow motion was effective and gruesome. Every time the slow motion effect was applied there was a gruesome death depicted. The use of fast cutting, close ups, and deep focus revealed the film in all it's glory. The palette of a filmmakers tools were all used in The Wild Bunch.
A strength of the film was it's violence. The shootouts at the beginning of the film, and in particular the end of the film, were excellent. They coordinated actors, guns, and cameras in a final sequence that was memorable. Perhaps too violent for some people, the shootouts were clearly influential on other filmmakers. Quentin Tarrantino for one, and, I'm sure, others delved into the horrific portrayal of violence shown in The Wild Bunch. The spurting of blood, the slow motion falls, the close ups on the guns, the faces, and the fallen bodies were a montage of violence unrivaled in film up to that point. Of course there have been similarly violent sequences in films after The Wild Bunch, but to my knowledge, none before it equaled it's depiction of blood and guts.
The film is true to it's name. The group of bandits stays close to one another. In the end they decide to rescue their friend. They take the side of the underdog. They throw away everything and fight for what they believe is right. The films message isn't too preachy or some kind of high minded narrative about human nature. It is simply that fighting for what's right at the cost of death is the right thing to do. Sticking close to the American Revolutionary slogan of "give me liberty or give me death" the group of bandits sticks it to the general in the final sequence. They die an honorable death in the cause of freedom.
The Wild Bunch is a rather unique film. It reminds me of Shakespeare in the way that everyone dies. But they do die honorably. In past Westerns it is almost always that someone lives to collect the gold. In The Good... Clint Eastwood is left standing to collect his gold. In The Searchers John Wayne has put aside his racial hatred of Indians and embraced his niece. In The Wild Bunch there is no one left standing to collect the gold. Thornton is left to resume his life as a bandit. He is no richer and is a rather minor character in the film.
The film ranks as one of the best Westerns ever made. Alongside The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and The Searchers it upped the ante for filmmakers to out do what Peckinpah did with the use of violence, camera techniques, and editing. It ushered in a new era of Westerns like the films of The New Hollywood. It is brilliant and beautiful. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in film.
The film follows aging bandits out for a last heist before they move South to Mexico. But all is not easy. Bounty hunters are hot on their trail, anticipating their every move. The plot thickens when the bandits meet up with a Mexican warlord out to get guns and become a power in Northern Mexico. The bandits commit to the general. They plot to steal guns from an American arms shipment. The bandits steal the guns and defeat the bounty hunters. But they still have to get payment for the guns from the general. This they do, but when one of their own is taken prisoner and tortured it's one step to far. The Wild Bunch stands up to the general and dies in a hail of bullets killing the general, his top men, and themselves in a great, final shootout.
I have to say upfront that I'm a big William Holden fan. So anything he does I'm biased for him. This was his last major role. And I thought he pulled it off well. I bought into him as the aging leader of the gang with baggage. His near apprehension with Thornton. His ongoing rivalry with him. The flashback to his lost love. Killed by her husband and severely wounding Pike. Holden is no John Wayne or Clint Eastwood. He is older, scarred, and looking for a way out. Like Holden, Dutch (Borgnine) wants a way out. He plays his role well as the trusted sidekick. I couldn't get over his little chuckles or his crazy eyes at the beginning of the shootout. Both put in solid performances.
The film uses creative techniques to tell the story. In particular the use of slow motion was effective and gruesome. Every time the slow motion effect was applied there was a gruesome death depicted. The use of fast cutting, close ups, and deep focus revealed the film in all it's glory. The palette of a filmmakers tools were all used in The Wild Bunch.
A strength of the film was it's violence. The shootouts at the beginning of the film, and in particular the end of the film, were excellent. They coordinated actors, guns, and cameras in a final sequence that was memorable. Perhaps too violent for some people, the shootouts were clearly influential on other filmmakers. Quentin Tarrantino for one, and, I'm sure, others delved into the horrific portrayal of violence shown in The Wild Bunch. The spurting of blood, the slow motion falls, the close ups on the guns, the faces, and the fallen bodies were a montage of violence unrivaled in film up to that point. Of course there have been similarly violent sequences in films after The Wild Bunch, but to my knowledge, none before it equaled it's depiction of blood and guts.
The film is true to it's name. The group of bandits stays close to one another. In the end they decide to rescue their friend. They take the side of the underdog. They throw away everything and fight for what they believe is right. The films message isn't too preachy or some kind of high minded narrative about human nature. It is simply that fighting for what's right at the cost of death is the right thing to do. Sticking close to the American Revolutionary slogan of "give me liberty or give me death" the group of bandits sticks it to the general in the final sequence. They die an honorable death in the cause of freedom.
The Wild Bunch is a rather unique film. It reminds me of Shakespeare in the way that everyone dies. But they do die honorably. In past Westerns it is almost always that someone lives to collect the gold. In The Good... Clint Eastwood is left standing to collect his gold. In The Searchers John Wayne has put aside his racial hatred of Indians and embraced his niece. In The Wild Bunch there is no one left standing to collect the gold. Thornton is left to resume his life as a bandit. He is no richer and is a rather minor character in the film.
The film ranks as one of the best Westerns ever made. Alongside The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and The Searchers it upped the ante for filmmakers to out do what Peckinpah did with the use of violence, camera techniques, and editing. It ushered in a new era of Westerns like the films of The New Hollywood. It is brilliant and beautiful. I would highly recommend it to anyone with an interest in film.
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
Review of The Outlaw Josey Wales
The Outlaw Josey Wales is a good film. It is rather slow. It takes it's time to progress from one scene to the next. The film starts out with an action opener. Wales' wife and kid are savagely murdered by Union "Red Legs" soldiers. This starts Josey on his quest for vengeance which is ultimately satisfied when he kills the Union Commander with his own saber. The film is a Western that falls into Clint Eastwood films as a category. More on Clint's Western films later. It was directed and stars Eastwood as Josey Wales. There are several other characters who play the old Indian man who acts as a mentor and comic relief to Josey's serious demeanor. Fletcher is also a decent role for John Vernon. The film was released in 1976 and did quite well at the box office.
Like other Eastwood films; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Unforgiven, and others the film is driven by the structure of abuse, recovery, and vengeance. Josey Wales is no different. Wales is abused by Union soldiers who kill his wife and son and burn down his house. It all happens within the first ten minutes of the film. Over the next thirty or so minutes Wales goes on a journey to get satisfaction for how he has been wronged. First he joins a Confederate guerilla unit, then goes it alone, then makes allies along his journey, and finally in a big shootout kills of the Union soldiers in pursuit. As the end credits roll, Wales rides off into the sunset.
Clint Eastwood turns in a quality performance. It's what you would expect from a Western with Clint starring. He is invincible. He shoots everyone dead. He is the righteous vigilante out to right wrongs, save the innocent, and stand up to the bad forces of society. In the case of this film it's the Union army who has won the Civil War. The other minor characters are defined by the Civil War. Fletcher who turns out to be an ally of Wales' at the end of the film is a character which creates sympathy for the Southern cause. The other minor character is the old Indian man Chief Dan George. He adds comedy and humanism to a film that sorely needs it with all the violence, shootouts, and brutishness of the other characters.
The film comes off as authentic. There are no errors in costume or cinematography. The settings reflect the period of the time. Yet the film could have been more creative. It is a straight forward film without much risk taken in the presentation of the film. Perhaps that's what Eastwood wanted. The edits of the beginning of the film into Josey's mind as he is taking his revenge add a surrealistic touch to an otherwise dull, realist film. The scene of the boat crossing is very slow. I thought it was boring and poorly written. Instead of showing where Clint and the kid were going we were told. The film really picks up steam with the raid against the pioneers from Kansas. The attempted rape of the white woman kicks up the intensity level. That carries the film into the negotiation scene with Ten Bears and the final shootout with the "red legs" soldiers.
The film has hints of being a great film, but it just doesn't get there. It is nowhere near The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The dramatic tension never rises to a similar level and the characters are too thin. It's also not as good as Unforgiven. There is no deep psychology behind Wales. Only flashes of the tragedy that has befallen him. And the abuse is rather short lived and mild compared to what Eastwood goes through in his other films. Perhaps it would have been better if he had suffered more directly like in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly or Unforgiven. In those films he is starved or beaten almost to death. In Josey Wales he doesn't endure enough pain to develop a deep sympathy for his character. More sympathy is created for the South rather than Josey Wales.
The message the film conveys is like the message in Unforgiven. Everything is corrupt; authority, society, and human nature. The only righteous way is to take matters into your own hands and settle things through a shootout. It plays on the fears of conservative America. That the Civil War was a mistake and Southern American culture and way of life are under siege and need to be defended to the death. That 's the moral high ground that the hero Josey Wales takes in the film. He is the equalizer, the defender of what is right. And he can not be defeated. Like in Unforgiven where everyone seems to be morally culpable, Eastwood stands on the high ground of morality. He saves the Indian girl from rape, he saves the white settlers from exploitation and slavery, and he finally does what every Southerner wishes they could do; he defeats the Union army. It is these fantasies that are the message of the film.
The film is like Buster Keaton's The General or Gone With the Wind. The cause of the South was a noble one, but it ended in defeat. Like the many films that re-fought the Vietnam War in the 80's this film re-imagines the Civil War where the South had the moral high ground. It ignores the brutality of the Slave system. And misrepresents the Union army and the righteous cause of re-uniting the country and ending slavery.
The Outlaw Josey Wales is a good film. If you liked The Man With No Name trilogy starring Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone, you will like this film. However one sided or historically biased the film is. Perhaps you like a film where the South has won.
Like other Eastwood films; The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Unforgiven, and others the film is driven by the structure of abuse, recovery, and vengeance. Josey Wales is no different. Wales is abused by Union soldiers who kill his wife and son and burn down his house. It all happens within the first ten minutes of the film. Over the next thirty or so minutes Wales goes on a journey to get satisfaction for how he has been wronged. First he joins a Confederate guerilla unit, then goes it alone, then makes allies along his journey, and finally in a big shootout kills of the Union soldiers in pursuit. As the end credits roll, Wales rides off into the sunset.
Clint Eastwood turns in a quality performance. It's what you would expect from a Western with Clint starring. He is invincible. He shoots everyone dead. He is the righteous vigilante out to right wrongs, save the innocent, and stand up to the bad forces of society. In the case of this film it's the Union army who has won the Civil War. The other minor characters are defined by the Civil War. Fletcher who turns out to be an ally of Wales' at the end of the film is a character which creates sympathy for the Southern cause. The other minor character is the old Indian man Chief Dan George. He adds comedy and humanism to a film that sorely needs it with all the violence, shootouts, and brutishness of the other characters.
The film comes off as authentic. There are no errors in costume or cinematography. The settings reflect the period of the time. Yet the film could have been more creative. It is a straight forward film without much risk taken in the presentation of the film. Perhaps that's what Eastwood wanted. The edits of the beginning of the film into Josey's mind as he is taking his revenge add a surrealistic touch to an otherwise dull, realist film. The scene of the boat crossing is very slow. I thought it was boring and poorly written. Instead of showing where Clint and the kid were going we were told. The film really picks up steam with the raid against the pioneers from Kansas. The attempted rape of the white woman kicks up the intensity level. That carries the film into the negotiation scene with Ten Bears and the final shootout with the "red legs" soldiers.
The film has hints of being a great film, but it just doesn't get there. It is nowhere near The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The dramatic tension never rises to a similar level and the characters are too thin. It's also not as good as Unforgiven. There is no deep psychology behind Wales. Only flashes of the tragedy that has befallen him. And the abuse is rather short lived and mild compared to what Eastwood goes through in his other films. Perhaps it would have been better if he had suffered more directly like in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly or Unforgiven. In those films he is starved or beaten almost to death. In Josey Wales he doesn't endure enough pain to develop a deep sympathy for his character. More sympathy is created for the South rather than Josey Wales.
The message the film conveys is like the message in Unforgiven. Everything is corrupt; authority, society, and human nature. The only righteous way is to take matters into your own hands and settle things through a shootout. It plays on the fears of conservative America. That the Civil War was a mistake and Southern American culture and way of life are under siege and need to be defended to the death. That 's the moral high ground that the hero Josey Wales takes in the film. He is the equalizer, the defender of what is right. And he can not be defeated. Like in Unforgiven where everyone seems to be morally culpable, Eastwood stands on the high ground of morality. He saves the Indian girl from rape, he saves the white settlers from exploitation and slavery, and he finally does what every Southerner wishes they could do; he defeats the Union army. It is these fantasies that are the message of the film.
The film is like Buster Keaton's The General or Gone With the Wind. The cause of the South was a noble one, but it ended in defeat. Like the many films that re-fought the Vietnam War in the 80's this film re-imagines the Civil War where the South had the moral high ground. It ignores the brutality of the Slave system. And misrepresents the Union army and the righteous cause of re-uniting the country and ending slavery.
The Outlaw Josey Wales is a good film. If you liked The Man With No Name trilogy starring Eastwood and directed by Sergio Leone, you will like this film. However one sided or historically biased the film is. Perhaps you like a film where the South has won.
Monday, April 9, 2018
Review of Unforgiven
I never tire of seeing Unforgiven's ending. I've seen the film five times now and it hasn't gotten old. The tension, the darkness, the rain, the whiskey bottle, and Munny's rising rage all make a great ending that will live as one of the greatest endings to a Western in Cinema history. The contrast presented between Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman is so stark. Like two heavyweights slugging it out to the end with Munny prevailing in cold blooded murder. Unforgiven was released in 1992. It was directed by Eastwood and is the last Western he has made. It would be great if he made another Western, but I think that is only wishful thinking. The film stars Eastwood, Hackmand, Richard Harris, and several other character actors.
The film has several lines of engagement. First is the direct and open story. A prostitute has been cut up by an angry Cowboy. The Sheriff refuses to punish the cowboys to the satisfaction of the group of prostitutes, so they post a bounty of 1000 dollars for the killing of the two cowboys. This leads to English Bob coming to Big Whiskey. He is run out of town by Little Bill (Hackman). The script proceeds along another story line concerning William Munny (Eastwood). Munny is a reformed drunkard and killer. He only grudgingly takes on the bounty hunt. Over the course of the film Munny turns back to his old ways and brutally kills Little Bill. The story of William Munny is intensely engaging. The story follows similar Eastwood Westerns like Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales. They all follow an abuse, recovery, and, finally, vengeance format. This film is no different and the ending is a cathartic release of emotion finally vented on Little Bill and his posse.
I thought Eastwood did a great job. It was typical Clint. The cold stare. The unwavering killer instinct. it was what you would expect in a Western starring Clint Eastwood. There were several scenes when he really showed his age. The script said Munny was in his thirties, clearly in the film he is much older. I liked the almost surrealist dream descriptions of Eastwood's near death dreams. He is totally believable. It's an evolution of his character from previous Westerns. It is deeper with darker psychological aspects. Along with the usual invincible character traits that define his Western persona.
The actors turn in high quality performances. Hackman is great as Little Bill. So is Morgan Freeman and "the Kid." I didn't think for a second that the film was cliched or unbelievable.
The cinematography was great in the film. The dark sequences of the posse riding in with Ned captured and the final scene of Munny riding in to kill Little Bill were done incredibly well. The mise en scene should be commended too. The scene with Munny and Delilah were expertly done. They showed her in the foreground and Munny in the background showing them talking. The same goes for the shots of Munny is sitting at the table and Little Bill harasses him. The revealing of Eastwood's face with dim light was a nice touch. The light revealed his face, then his eyeball only for a second, then his whole face was shown in a pale light through the window. It was all well done and brought out the emotion of the scene showing Munny as a vulnerable character that added to the sympathy we should feel for him.
The film is flawless. Everything works well; the acting, the writing, the shooting, the editing, all great. Unforgiven might be the best Western ever made. It certainly seems it's the best Western of the last few decades. Name one to rival it?
The theme of the film seems to be that no one can be trusted. Everything is up for grabs. Authority is corrupt. Little Bill stands as a big bully who refuses to do the right thing. The only thing left to do is put out a bounty that vigilantes will satisfy. I recently was talking about Unforgiven and I said it was a Post-Modern Western. And I stand by that. The characters are jaded. There is no clear right and wrong. And the subject matter has evolved from the staid Westerns of the 50's and 60's, even Sam Peckinpah's films don't deal with subject matter dealt with in Unforgiven. The movie tells a story about abused prostitutes, when has the ever been done before? I can't think of any other films that show how sex workers suffered in the Old West. It does stick to the old cliche of Westerns; the dead eye who can't be beat. It's a myth of the West, but let's face it the Western as a genre thrives on myth as the film makes clear in the inclusion of the WW Beauchamp character.
Unforgiven is a great film. It's the best Western of the 1990's. Aside from The Assassination of Jesse James, it's undeniably the best Western that's been made in the last few decades. I have yet to see Eastwood's other films that deal with his format of abuse, recovery, and vengeance. These include Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales. Perhaps Eastwood's format has grown tiresome? Maybe that is why he quit Westerns? I guess we'll have to wait to see why Clint gave up the Western genre. Is it really that bad to be the next John Wayne?
The film has several lines of engagement. First is the direct and open story. A prostitute has been cut up by an angry Cowboy. The Sheriff refuses to punish the cowboys to the satisfaction of the group of prostitutes, so they post a bounty of 1000 dollars for the killing of the two cowboys. This leads to English Bob coming to Big Whiskey. He is run out of town by Little Bill (Hackman). The script proceeds along another story line concerning William Munny (Eastwood). Munny is a reformed drunkard and killer. He only grudgingly takes on the bounty hunt. Over the course of the film Munny turns back to his old ways and brutally kills Little Bill. The story of William Munny is intensely engaging. The story follows similar Eastwood Westerns like Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales. They all follow an abuse, recovery, and, finally, vengeance format. This film is no different and the ending is a cathartic release of emotion finally vented on Little Bill and his posse.
I thought Eastwood did a great job. It was typical Clint. The cold stare. The unwavering killer instinct. it was what you would expect in a Western starring Clint Eastwood. There were several scenes when he really showed his age. The script said Munny was in his thirties, clearly in the film he is much older. I liked the almost surrealist dream descriptions of Eastwood's near death dreams. He is totally believable. It's an evolution of his character from previous Westerns. It is deeper with darker psychological aspects. Along with the usual invincible character traits that define his Western persona.
The actors turn in high quality performances. Hackman is great as Little Bill. So is Morgan Freeman and "the Kid." I didn't think for a second that the film was cliched or unbelievable.
The cinematography was great in the film. The dark sequences of the posse riding in with Ned captured and the final scene of Munny riding in to kill Little Bill were done incredibly well. The mise en scene should be commended too. The scene with Munny and Delilah were expertly done. They showed her in the foreground and Munny in the background showing them talking. The same goes for the shots of Munny is sitting at the table and Little Bill harasses him. The revealing of Eastwood's face with dim light was a nice touch. The light revealed his face, then his eyeball only for a second, then his whole face was shown in a pale light through the window. It was all well done and brought out the emotion of the scene showing Munny as a vulnerable character that added to the sympathy we should feel for him.
The film is flawless. Everything works well; the acting, the writing, the shooting, the editing, all great. Unforgiven might be the best Western ever made. It certainly seems it's the best Western of the last few decades. Name one to rival it?
The theme of the film seems to be that no one can be trusted. Everything is up for grabs. Authority is corrupt. Little Bill stands as a big bully who refuses to do the right thing. The only thing left to do is put out a bounty that vigilantes will satisfy. I recently was talking about Unforgiven and I said it was a Post-Modern Western. And I stand by that. The characters are jaded. There is no clear right and wrong. And the subject matter has evolved from the staid Westerns of the 50's and 60's, even Sam Peckinpah's films don't deal with subject matter dealt with in Unforgiven. The movie tells a story about abused prostitutes, when has the ever been done before? I can't think of any other films that show how sex workers suffered in the Old West. It does stick to the old cliche of Westerns; the dead eye who can't be beat. It's a myth of the West, but let's face it the Western as a genre thrives on myth as the film makes clear in the inclusion of the WW Beauchamp character.
Unforgiven is a great film. It's the best Western of the 1990's. Aside from The Assassination of Jesse James, it's undeniably the best Western that's been made in the last few decades. I have yet to see Eastwood's other films that deal with his format of abuse, recovery, and vengeance. These include Pale Rider and The Outlaw Josey Wales. Perhaps Eastwood's format has grown tiresome? Maybe that is why he quit Westerns? I guess we'll have to wait to see why Clint gave up the Western genre. Is it really that bad to be the next John Wayne?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)