AFI 100 Review: #98 Unforgiven

Unforgiven

1992

Directed By: Clint Eastwood

Written By: David Webb Peoples

Starring: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris, Jaimz Woolvett

The Acting: This film has some real heavy hitters and you get just what you would expect from such a lineup. Gene Hackman won an Oscar for his performance here as a real son-of-a-bitch former outlaw gunslinger turned lawman. He's as mean as a rattler and likes to have fun with his prey, but that's not really a surprise. This isn't new ground but Hackman performs well and is enjoyable in a sadistic kind of way.

Morgan Freeman also performs well. He's the former son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger turned farmer, as he states himself when we are first introduced to him. This part isn't really a stretch for him either. It actually reminds me of his character in Seven.

And, of course, there's Clint Eastwood as another former son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger turned farmer. He plays the torment well, here, as he slowly slides out of his decent life as a farmer and back into his old ways of killin'.

Richard Harris makes a brief entry into the narrative. But as one review I read commented, he really doesn't do anything to move the story along. If anything he's just enjoyable as a still son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger who espouses at length how much better the English do everything.

All the other players do well, including the one that plays the young gunslinger wannabe. But I can't remember seeing him in anything after this movie so his career must have floundered after this film.

Interesting: What's interesting to me about this story is the complete lack of discussion about a moral standard. Everyone's on the line here. The whores that band together to raise the bounty for the cowboys that cut up one of their own? They hire men to kill other men. Surely the woman was wronged, but is it deserving that the two should pay with their lives? The pair that did the cutting? Well, one of them seems like a decent boy caught up in something he wanted no part in. He is genuinely sorry and tries to make amends. The hired killers? Well, they hear it that the cowboys did much more horrible things to the prostitute than were actually committed. They know what they're doing isn't necessarily right, but this is all business so it's okay, right? The lawmen? Violent and cruel, but there is law and order in the town.

Now, we could debate all of these points and how I have simplified many of the elements of this story. But I think we can all agree that this film takes no position on right or wrong. In fact, Clint's character himself agrees with the following exchange:

The Schofield Kid: "Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming."

Will Munny: "We all got it coming, kid."

Cultural Impact: All of the reviews for this film speak of a eulogy for the Western film. That this movie was an excellent bookend for the genre. They also speak of the significance of the similarities between Eastwood's career and the arc of the character. I won't cover all of that here as you can read those reviews for yourself. But does any of that matter?

When I was in school, I had to present a short film that I had made. Prior to starting the film I stood in front of the class and began to explain what my intentions were when I set out to make this movie. The teacher stopped me mid-sentence and asked a very simple question: "Mr. Voorhies, do you intend to be in every theater in the country and explain what you intended before they show your films, should you become successful?" I immediately got his point. What I intended didn't amount to a hill of beans. The film had to stand on itself.

Now, that shouldn't be confused with anything that the audience projects on the film themselves. It's the difference between Eastwood intending this film as a eulogy for the Western genre and the audience getting to that conclusion on their own. Obviously the two can't be completely separated. The director does have some ability to imply and suggest. But all too often the audience comes to a completely different conclusion.

Take, for instance, The Thing From Another World and it's remake The Thing. The first was intentionally a allegory for McCarthyism. But the second became an allegory for the beginning of the AIDs epidemic when the audience noticed things about the film that the filmmakers never intended. (I wrote a blog entry on this here.)

Anyway, I don't see this film as culturally impacting. I don't consider it a eulogy for the Western since eleven years after this film was released my third favorite Western of all time was released: Open Range.

Does This Film Belong On My List: No, I don't think so. There are some really great moments here. But that doesn't make a great film.