Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Unforgivable ***SPOILERS***
From: chris@dranet.dra.com
Date: 12 Aug 92 10:24:42 CDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Data Research Associates, St. Louis MO

In article <rauser.713580217@sfu.ca>, rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:
> chris@dranet.dra.com writes:
> 
> 
>>Let me first say that I admire the approach of this movie by taking
>>an ambiguitous look at killing. It was not a typical Western, although
>>it ended up being one.
> 
>     ??? So was it or wasn't it? You say it was not typical, but ended
> up being typical. A wee bit of a contradiction here.

What I'm saying is that the majority of the film wasn't typical; the
ending was. Not because it was shootout, but because it was a very
unrealistic one.

 
>>I thought Clint Eastwood's character was very unbelievable. First off, 
>>he abandons his two kids in the middle of Kansas with no one to look over
>>them.
> 
>     Life is much different in 19th century America. It was the middle of
> summer, so the kids wouldn't freeze. They were born and raised on the farm
> and knew how to kill chickens, milk cows, etc...ie how to sustain themselves.
> The farm is out in the middle of nowhere...there's no danger of them being
> robbed or mugged or molested. The bottom line is that those kids in that
> time are far more independent than kids today. So, in the historical context,
> there was nothing unusual about Clint leaving them there for a couple of weeks. It seems kind of barbaric to us at first...but then ask yourself, what kind
> of danger are those kids in being alone?? None, really...save being scared
> perhaps, but they were clearly far more independent than kids today would be.

I have to plead ignorance in this issue. If that's the way they did it back
then, so be it.

>  Then were supposed to believe that he hasn't ridden a horse in so
>>long that he doesn't remember how to get on one (He lives out on a farm,
>>remind you).
> 
>    No, that's not true. The reason it was so hard for him to mount that horse
> is because that particular horse had never been ridden before. (Geez, weren't   you paying attention? :-)  


OK, I missed this point. However they still overdid the joke of Eastwood
falling down trying to get on the horse. They must of did it four times.

 
>  His character is lifeless who never really talks; he only
>>says funny one-liners which most of the time aren't even funny.
> 
>    So are they funny or not? Another contradiction (perhaps part of you enjoyed
> the movie and part hated it...Raising Cain in real life!!!)  


When I say "funny one-liners", I mean they're lines that are supposed 
to get a laugh from the audience. They didn't get a laught from me, 
however.  
 
>  Any finally
>>after being incompentant throughout most of the movie, Eastwood manages
>>to get it together to single handedly outgun the sheriff (Hackman) 
>>and about 10 deputies.
> 
>    This was typical Western bravado, true...but realize two things. The first
> is that the deputies were incompetent tools...they were wetting their pants
> over confronting English Bob, remember? Also, the important point the movie
> is making is about the killing itself and the fall of Clint's character back
> into his old patterns of behavior and morality...the logistics of the shoot-out
> are not really the issue. Don't miss the forest for the trees.

They were nervous about English Bob as anyone would be, but they wern't 
incompetent in handling him.  Sure they made stupid comments about
"getting shot on hot day rather than a cold one" but I wouldn't find 
that kind of behavior inconsistant with even the finest of police 
forces. 

I didn't mind the fact that Eastwood overcame odds to win the final battle.
My problem is that the movie took this movie to such an extreme as to make
it such an unrealistic comeback. I mean at the beginning of this film
Eastwood couldn't even hit a bucket 15 feet away with 6 shots from his 
pistol. It would have been a lot better if there were scenes of during the
movie of Eastwood practicing with his gun and getting his shot back, but it
never did. Not until he drank his whisky did his shot miraculously come
back.

> 
>>The character of the "kid" was very predictable:  A young naive kid
>>who wants to be a big time bounty hunter but finds out that killing 
>>someone is really harder on the soul that it seemed. How many times
>>have we seen this?
> 
>    I don't know...how many? I can't think of one. How about an example to 
> back yourself up? I thought watching the kid freak out after killing the
> cowboy was very moving and well done and NOT at all cliched.

A good example is Tom Cruise in "Born on the Fourth of July". A story of
a naive young kid who wants to go to war like John Wayne only to find
out how horrible war can be.

I don't mind this type of character only this film did nothing to 
portray this type of character a little bit differently. It just took
this character to the extremes. Before, he's a bragging killer whos
killed 5 people. After, he so digusted with his kill that he gives up
bounty hunting altogether. BTW, I don't think there was one person in the 
audience who didn't predict the kid's flip-flop on killing. 
 
I basicly sum up this movie as a bad execution of a good idea.


> Richard J. Rauser

Chris Yunker