From: wwr@calmasd.prime.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Unforgiven (Was Re: Unforgivable)  ***SPOILERS***
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:42:58 GMT
Organization: Computervision - A Division of Prime Computer

> 2) WWR, you need to settle down a bit. Just because someone disagreed with you
> about a film, is no reason to become insulting. I mean, it's not like he was
> defending _Darkman_ or anything. ;-)

	Yeah, you right, man.  I wrote it on the sperm of the moment & got a
bit carried away with it all; *however* I do not apologize for anything.  It
*could* have been said better/more diplomatically, but the point would've been
the same.
> 
> Now to the film:
	
	Agreed:
> 
> I am big fan of Clint Eastwood, particularly of Clint Eastwood westerns and 
> I have to say that this was only fair. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't call it
> great. It had two major flaws as far as I was concerned.
> 
> 1) The story. Rather then "never taking the easy way out" there was not a 
> moment in this film that was a suprise. Taking the major moments of the film
> in order, you tell me if you were in slightly suprised by:  Okay.

Muuny deciding to
> go after turning the kid down. 

No, I suppose not, but is this a major moment?  It did *have* to follow some
sort of plot right?  Can you name *any* film that is void of predictable
situations? Neither can I.  Not recent ones at least.

(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?  I don't think so.  The important
thing here is the correlation that it make to a young Will Munny, the changing
of the times, the perception of, what once was, a common act, *and* (lest we
overlook this crucial element) that it was done well.  We all knew the kid
hadn't killed five men as he claimed... the acting/direction support this
moment.  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.  (Honestly, I can think of one off the top of
my hat "Barton Fink", but that's sort of like comparing apples & oranges,
right?  The point of Barton as a film is it doesn't comform, the point of the
Unforgiven is that it falls within an old, comfortable frame of reference but
uses different perspectives to tell the tale.)

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 you anticipate that?  Kudos to you if you did.  
	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.

Munny going back to
> drinking. Munny killing Gene Hackman and all the bad guys. Munny surviving and
> going home. 

	You never once entertained the possiblity that Munny would be killed? 
This film was just a complete "stock"/"off the shelf" item for you?  It took a
path and you saw where it had, was at, and where it was going to end up simply
because of what was going on?  No doubts, nothing original, you didn't see that
this film could've been done a dozen different ways?  And that this film was
really an amalgamation of all those others that you say it copies.
	My point:
	Take each of these characters & scew your persception just a little. 
They all could've been portrayed as honorable, decent, righteous in their
intentions and actions, but in this film none of them were.  
	Munny who, perhaps, came closest to this, we are told @ the bginning 
& them reminded at the end that he  was far from being considered anything 
redeemable.

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?

but it 
> was basicaly the same story.

	Again, it's a "w-e-s-t-e-r-n".  I, personally, don't think that this is
the same story as Silverado, but whatever.  The portrayal of the story is
original, not necessarily any *one* particular part of the plot, but instead as
a whole.

> 2) The character of Will Munny. Lets face it, Munny is basicly a one-note
> character. THe whole film he keeps saying that his is not a violent guy
> anymore, and we don't believe it, and we suspect that he doesn't really
> believe it either (that's why he keep saying it, he is trying to convince
> himself) and eventually we see that he still is violent. He is a cartoon of 
> the old-western type. 

	Cartoon character?  NOT!!  When I think of cartoon characters in films
I look to Lethal Weapon 3.
	Was I the only one who expected Clint to know Hackman?  Weren't you
surprised that he didn't?  
	Was I the only one who expect to see Richard Harris again?
	Wasn't it the tiniest bit surprising for Morgan to leave the "hunt"? 
To not be able to kill the kid?
	Was the lack of any type of "romantic" sub-plot (i.e. the rancher's
good looking, reckless daughter, or the whore with a heart, so the cowpoke
love's her anyway, or any # of stereotypes that were dodged...).
	When Clint shot the Billiard Baron, that didn't surprise you?  Not even
a little?
	The kid *not* dying didn't surprise you?
	How about some credit for some pitfalls that this could have fallen in
to?  If you start to see those, instead of the relatively few that it did (and
basically had to "nothing new under the sun" and all).

We don't know his motivations except for the moment 
> when he avenges his friend - certainly a stock western theme if there ever 
> was one.

	I'll say no more.  (about this "stock" thing at least :)
> 
> 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. 
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.
	Josey was a very enjoyable story & I agree with you on it, but the
Unforgiven was going beyond just a story.  It had something to tell on a
bigger, grander scale.
	*That* is the difference.  *That* is the point.

It certainly was not a typical
> "western" scene. Can you pick a scene from Unforgiven that you can make those
> claims about?

	How about the "good guy" sheriff brutally beating an innocent man? 
That was typical to you?  Okay.  If you say so.

> Unforgiven was ok, but IMHO it was by no means a great film.
	Well, I'm at least glad that you enjoyed the  story.  But, honestly, no
bull shit, there is much more to this than just a story.
> 
> Michael
> 
best wishes Micheal... thanks for the input! ... walter