From: wwr@calmasd.prime.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Unforgiven (Was Re: Unforgivable)  ***SPOILERS***
Date: 17 Aug 92 18:18:31 GMT
Organization: Computervision - A Division of Prime Computer

>>>(skipping ahead a bit) The kid being upset about begin a killer. 
>>Does this mean that you would have been surprised if the kid had
>>joyously launched into a career of mayhem?  
> 
> They would have had to do some quick explaining if the kid had enjoyed the
> killing. After making it perfectly obvious that he had never killed anyone, 
> and after all the talk about what it takes to be a killer they had pretty much
> told us that the kid didn't have it.

	This is it.
	You see a story.  I see more than *just* a story. 
	You see one perspective.  Mine is a bit more expanded, in this
instance!  I'm not claiming film omnipitence, but this time I think I see a
western that defies the conventional perspectives in all cases.
	I don't blame you for not liking this film.  At least you gave it a
chance, but do you *really* just don't see the things that I, others on this
net, and, likely, your local newspaper's film critic are pointing out?  I'm not
saying you should ride the bandwagon, but you are definitely in the minority.	
	But, hey!, the local critic here just gave STAY TUNED 3 and a half
stars, so go figure?  Maybe it is a good film?  I dunno' haven't seen it, BUT--
3 and a half stars?!?  HMMMmmmm....
	If you *really* don't see anything original in the perspective in which
these characters are rendered, then you're *really* missing out.  Too bad for
you.

>>NOT it's originality.  As I've said before, name me a *truly* original
>>moment in a recent film (a possible new line of convo here or what? :) and I'll
>>award you a nice little kewpie.  
> Well, to keep it in the same genre, the moment at the end of JW...
	Recent!  I said, RECENT!, film.  I like JW, too, but that's apples &
oranges.  The two films in their intents are different.  JW to entertain, and
Unforgiven to elucidate.  I happen to think that both films crossed this "line"
to one extreme or another.  JW did have more to offer than a simple story &
Unforgiven was more than a documentary.

>>>Morgan Freeman being caught and killed. 
>>So.  You saw this coming.  You were sitting there in the movie theatre
>>& said to yourself, "Oh forget what's going on now.  Morgan's going to get
>>caught & Clint's going to come to his rescue."  But Morgan was also killed. 
> 
> Did anybody not see this coming? After all the threads that we have had on 
> this group about how often the black sidekick gets killed you should have.
	I haven't been privy to these convos.

> For me, as soon Morgam Freedman (is it Freeman, or Freedman?) rode away, I
> turned to my friend on the theature and said "He's toast".

	Good for you.  Let me guess... you're not someone who watches a film
unfold; you try to anticipate it's direction.  Too bad for you.  Let the film
move you(except for really stupid ones, like, oh-I dunno, like Harley Davidson &
Marlboro Man.  Like there's a plot there anyway.) and you'll probably have a
better movie-going experience.  Oh, I know a good example, Once Upon a Crime. 
There was a plot, but so predictable that it stood out without having to look
for it.  Unforgiven was far from that.

>>	Personally, the way these characters were portrayed anything could've
>>happened to any of them, or any of them could of done anything, and I would
>>have, and simultaneously, would *not* have, been surprised.  And *that* is what
>>makes it original & good.
> 
> In a sense, I agree with you. While the characters consistently did just what I
> expected, they could have done almost anything without being too suprising.
> Why? Because there was very little depth to them. Writing a character is a
> process of exclusion as well as inclusion. This person will do this, but would
> never do that. When a movie first starts, a character can get away with doing
> anything, by the end, is much more limited. 
Isn't this true for all films?  Why pick on Unforgiven?  Even JW, 'fraid 'tis
true, my friend-- falls into this literary device.

	Again, the orginality comes from perspective & good acting.  Maybe
you're expectations were just set way too high for this film.  I would be
willing to bet that what you expected didn't happen & that's why you didn't
like it.  Try seeing again without those expectations... that's what good film
critics do.  They see it once to enjoy and once to critique.  Then write their
reviews.
	Let me make a guess... when you're talking to your friends about this
film, the phrase, "it just wasn't what I expected", or similar, has entered the
conversation at least (!) once?  Am I right?
> 
>>	You never once entertained the possiblity that Munny would be killed? 
> 
> Never. The hero never gets killed in your standard western. ;-)
> 
	You see Will Munny as a hero?!?  Yeesh... glad I don't live in your
part of town. 
	Physically he didn't die, but he died on an emotional level.  He left
the gravesite of his wife.  He had stayed there all this time, herding pigs,
but now he knew he would be Unforgiven by her for what he did (pretty catchy
working the title in, eh?  Well, okay, maybe not *that* catchy. ;)
	He must have known that he could be sucessfull elsewhere, or at least
suspected it, but he never left his wife, 'til now.  As Morgan said, "you'de
never be here if Claire (was that her name?) was alive."

>>>I am not saying it was a bad film. It was better then Silverado (a
>>> film I also enjoyed) because the characters were somewhat more complex, 
>>	At least you recognize my point as above, and might I say that you
>>contridict yourself a bit with this statement.  Agree?
> 
> Not at all. I never said that this was a film completely beyond redemption. I
> said that it wasn't a great film.
> 
>>>but it was basicaly the same story.
>>Again, it's a "w-e-s-t-e-r-n".  
> 
> So what? Do the films "The Outlaw Joesy Wales", "The Man From Snowy River",
> "The Magnificent Seven", "The Long Riders", "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance",
> "The Shootist", "Little Big Man", "Once Upon a Time in the West", "Loney are 
> the Brave", "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", "Goin' South", "High Noon", 
> "The Searchers", "Shane", "True Grit", or of course "Rustler's Rapsody" have
> the same story? Sorry about including so many films, but once I got started...

	The list is too long to go "one-by-one"ing it, but Man from Snowy was
original for you?  Boy if that isn't the played out "coming of age" story, 
"little boy versus big time rancher" story, "rich ranger's little, precious 
daughter falling for the plowhand" story, "the outsider beating the odds" story
... etc.  I liked the *story* of the film also, and I have consistently said 
that you see stories & I ... more than that.  I like all your films also and 
each of them had a note, at least, of originality to them & if you think 
Unforgiven just  simply devoid of any and all originality... it's *your* lose.
	Just curious, well, never mind.  I was wondering how old you were just
because I was betting that you didn't see Little Big Man, True Grit, the
Magnificent Seven, The Shootist, and one or two other of these films in the
theatre.  You saw them with their reputation attached on TV, cable, or rented 
them.
	Believe me, in years to come, you will find yourself in a shrinking
minority regarding this film.  Just don't be surprised if, with time, *your*
perspective changes & you see this film differently.
> 
> Still, it makes a good point. These are IMHO the best westerns (that I 
> thought of - I am sure I missed a few of my favorites) made. You argue that 
> "Unforgiven" belongs in this list. I just don't think so.
> 
>>>Compare this film to _The Outlaw Josey Wales_ (my personal Eastwood 
>>>favorite). Did you walk out of the theature discussing how his life went?
>>	But you weren't suppose to care about anything past *these* moments. 
> 
> What were you supposed to care about? Waas the film supposed to evoke any kind
> of emotional response at all? Or was it just a story? There is nothing wrong
> with a movie just being a story, or just being entertainment, but you are (I
> think) arguing that Unforgiven is more then that.

	You just don't get it do you?  Oh well, that's all right, you're
allowed, and I'm sure you're saying the same thing about me, so be it.
	We are on two sides of the same fence.  Neither of us are going to be
crossing over anytime soon (time being operative), but, in time, maybe you'll
come around!  :)

>>The Outlaw Josey Wales was a very good story, but it didn't really have a
>>theme, or a specific... I dunno' `point' for lack of better word.
> 
> I think the point of JW was (as Eastwood said in the film) finding a reason to 
> go on when everything you ever loved or cared about has been butchered and 
> killed. It's about finding reasons to live that are more important then your 
> reasons to die. It's about not giving up. (Can you tell I love this film?) 

	And none of this has been done before?  It's the acting, not the just
the story that made this good.  Same, at least, could be said about Unforgiven.

> I will give you that Unfogiven was pretty good story, but what would you say 
> it's point is?
> What? I am not just yanking your chain, I would like to know.

	First, you need to accept that nothing is going on by accident.  Morgan
didn't just die to fit into some mold of a western.  Those beginning and ending
words didn't just appear on the screen for the hearing impaired, the whore's &
their attitudes, the town's attitude of mere spectators, everything had a
point, a reason for being in this film.  Including the conversation regarding
masterbation, including Munny's turning away the cut up prostitute.
	The film is about forgiving, not being forgiven, retribution, the cost
of actions on someone's life, their own & others... but- being unforgiven is
*the* main point (as you've said, good films will have layers within layers).
The *most* poignant would be Freeman's and Clint's case, but _every character 
in this film_ could be seen in the same way.
	That's fresh & exciting for me to see.  Every character could be
perceived in the same way.  This is a, figuratively, "lawless" film depicting
a, literally, lawless time.

>>	How about the "good guy" sheriff brutally beating an innocent man? 
>>That was typical to you?  Okay.  If you say so.
> 
> No, but I wouldn't call Little BIlly a good guy. 

	There!!  There it is!!!!  That's what I've been trying to tell you!! 
Switch perspectives, try seeing it new, or better still, as what it could've
been/had been in the past.  Little Billy wasn't bad enough to be bad & not good
enough to be good.  
	THERE!!!  This is the essence of the film, *this* is what raises it
from above the mundane western.  No one is good, no one is bad, and they are
all unforgiven.

	Unless you have something new to bring to the table, I'm willing to
concede the point (like it matters, right. :)  .

	If you want, since this seems to be more of a private conversation,
reply to me privately & we can continue on while sparing others who are just
skipping past these posts saying to themselves, "There's that asshole, walter,
and that nice, but clouded michael.  Let's read something else, yawn."
	If other netters would like this to remain public assess (Wayne eat
your heart out), then jump in otherwise...

See ya' when I see ya'... walter
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies