From: kaufman@eecs.nwu.edu (Michael L. Kaufman)
Subject: Re: Unforgiven (Was Re: Unforgivable)  ***SPOILERS***
Organization: EECS Department, Northwestern University
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1992 21:59:21 GMT

In <1992Aug14.104258.686@calmasd.prime.com> wwr@calmasd.prime.com writes:
>>(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.

>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, when Josey and
Fletcher finally meet. I certainly didn't expect that converssation. To have
them chasing each other for the whole film and then just walk away, and to do 
it a completely satsifactorily way, yes, I would call that scene original.

>>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.
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".

>	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.

>	You never once entertained the possiblity that Munny would be killed? 

Never. The hero never gets killed in your standard western. ;-)

>>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...

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.

>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?) I 
will give you that Unfogiven was pretty good story, but what would you say 
it's point is?

>Unforgiven was going beyond just a story.  It had something to tell on a
>bigger, grander scale.

What? I am not just yanking your chain, I would like to know.

>	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. I would brand him more as the
bully who runs the town. And the bully sherrif beating up someone has certainly
been explored in at least a few westerns before this one. ;-)

>best wishes Micheal... thanks for the input! ... walter

Ditto.

Michael

-- 
Michael Kaufman | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on
 kaufman        | fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in
  @eecs.nwu.edu | the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be
                | lost in time - like tears in rain. Time to die.     Roy Batty