News: See SULLY, starring Tom Hanks, now streaming and on DVD and Blu-ray!


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Unforgiven: The Best Movie Eastwood has made or an overrated piece of work?  (Read 31218 times)
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30996


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #40 on: March 07, 2012, 07:55:55 AM »

I did post a link to the final scene that you were referring to so you could check it out yourself.  But I'm glad you watched the movie again.  There are two references to "Three Fingered Jack" in the script and they were simply changed to "William Munny" in the movie.  It makes a whole lot more sense anyway, since William Munny is his name and no where else is he referred to as "Three Fingered Jack" or Jack or John or anything else close.  I can't even figure out why it was put in the script to begin with.

In the original script (as I posted above), Munny has only three fingers on his left hand. That explains the "Three-Fingered." As to the "Jack," it's clearly a nickname, like "Joe." Just a name people call someone who doesn't like to give out his birth moniker too freely. Apparently, the "Three Fingered Jack" who worked for Joaquin Murrieta was really named Manuel Garcia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaquin_Murrieta).

I wonder if Peoples's borrowing of a real bandit's nickname could be mentioned somewhere in the special features on the DVD? ???
Logged
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5636


His job ..... steal it.


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #41 on: March 08, 2012, 10:06:08 AM »

Unforgiven is the best movie anyone's ever made.  :)
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
fuel
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28


Beer....and a bottle.


View Profile Email
« Reply #42 on: March 08, 2012, 02:16:28 PM »

I think you may be overthinking the "Unforgiven" part of the title.
rojblake: That's a very good insight. An enigma wrapped in a riddle. It seems the Schofield Kid see's himself in Will Munny, before Munny see's the Kid in himself.
Logged

"Well do ya, punk?!!"
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #43 on: March 09, 2012, 01:13:22 AM »

Man With No Aim, don't bother..Lee Van Cleef is carrying an 1858 Remington New Army with a drop-in conversion cylinder. The "nipples" are in fact firing pins..you can tell if you look closely. This type of conversion is different from the one CE used in Pale Rider but the results are the same.

LOL! I do my netting nowadays on my 10" teeny tiny mini laptop. That way I can get horizontal on my back with the 'top precariously balanced on my solar plexus. I'm lucky that I could make out that the gun even had a cylinder, being as how I was looking at a tiny little partial screen screen cap and all.  Trying to look closely at THAT reminds me of long ago and far away when I was a kid looking at my stamp collection without a magnifying glass which I couldn't afford. I was lucky to be able to afford to buy a used stamp.

However, I could see it well enough to notice something. I was noticing how I could not see a separation line on the cylinder. So, after reading your post, I was left wondering how you think the cartridges would be loaded into such a cylinder. The lack of a sufficiently large cutout on the frame means that, no matter what, the cylinder would have to be removed to reload. But, I mean BUT, without a separation line on the cylinder, how did Lee get out the old hulls and put in new cartridges?

In my original haste to respond to KC's interesting comment and screen cap, I may have lost count myself and failed to notice all the clues about the gun identity. I noticed the little hump-back on the frame under the bottom of the hammer and thought I remembered that the peacemaker retained that bump. Sooner or later I somehow rummaged around enough to dig up my Navy and firsthand verified that ancestral Colt characteristic.

I will, in the next few minutes, net up some pictures of the 1858 and the Peacemaker, and prove to myself that you probably are right.

BUT I can't figure out how you can be right about the cylinder being a cartridge conversion cylinder. Those things really do look like caps to me. The rear of the cylinder and the caps look exactly like the rear of the cylinder and the caps on my Navy which I am, ver batim, holding in my left hand and staring at at this exact moment.
Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #44 on: March 09, 2012, 01:57:06 AM »

OK. The Remington 1858 had a round top wood grip like the screen cap gun. None of the Colts up through the Peacemaker had a round top grip, just only square grip tops.

The Remi had a slight kick-back of the frame at the hammer top. The screen cap gun, viewed on my postage stamp -imitation computer screen, seems to have a squiggle there.

The Remi seems to me to have the grip through-screw lower than the screen cap gun. The Peacemaker, to my view, seems to have the screw higher, about the same as the screen cap gun.

BOTTOM LINE SCORE....Remington wins on points, practically unanimously.

Shame me, blame me, flame me, (try to ) tame me, just somehow FORCE me to again watch what is arguably the best Western film ever made  8).

By the way, in the film Unforgiven there is a Remi in prominent view in a pivotal scene. As English Bob is attempting to exit the bobber shop and is got the drop on by the herd of deputies, a deputy in the scene foreground is holding a Remi in plain view.  And dramatically cocks it.

Lest we quickly forget, there is still the porblem of reloading the cylinder of the screen cap gun if it is somehow a cartridge conversion.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 03:17:15 AM by The Man With No Aim » Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30996


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #45 on: March 09, 2012, 03:49:20 AM »

MWNA ... you don't mind if I call you MWNA, do you? ... don't forget that we're supposed to be discussing the cinematic qualities of Eastwood's masterpiece in this particular thread. Maybe we could keep it a bit more on target (so to speak)? Though we've already wandered off a ways with the discussion of whether a certain sobriquet occurs in the film's spoken dialogue. And that's my fault! ;)

Logged
rojblake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


View Profile Email
« Reply #46 on: March 09, 2012, 08:52:01 AM »

Real quick on the Remington Conversion..try looking up an "R&D Conversion Cylinder" which is a drop in, no gunsmithing or altering of the weapon involved. The rear plate is removable & contains firing pins that allow the unaltered hammer of a percussion revolver to strike the primer of the cartridge.

In Pale Rider one will notice how quickly a Remington can be reloaded by simply changing a cylinder...far quicker than even the 1873 Colt.

As to Unforgiven & related issues..I do find that Unforgiven was very precise as to the weapons used. Munny was a gunman of a different era & when he was captured by Little Bill in the saloon points out that "his powder's wet" indicating that he was carrying a Cap & Ball..very period & corect (I believe he was carrying a Star revolver, but I may be mistaken).

Little Bill & English Bob, continuing with their Reps & proffession, have upgraded to more modern weapons...Colt 1873's each (the essential western handgun, but often overused on film.)

The Schofield was an interesting choice for the Kid, they were a secondary issue in the US Military (Custer carried them, as did some units of mounted infantry), but also a weapon not seen all that often on film.

The show-stopper (if only because of its rarity) was Ned's weapon of choice..the Spencer rifle is a very rare film appearence & possibly an original. Cimmaron Arms is now making a replica but it didn't come out until well after Unforgiven (probably demand for it after the film was the reason).
« Last Edit: March 09, 2012, 01:21:20 PM by rojblake » Logged
rojblake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


View Profile Email
« Reply #47 on: March 09, 2012, 05:01:24 PM »

Real quick on Westerns; AMC lists the top 5 as being:

5. My Darling Clementine
4. Unforgiven
3. The Good the Bad, & the Ugly
2. Shane
1. The Searchers


CE actually garners 2 in the Top 5, John Wayne snares but one, although it is the top spot.
Logged
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30996


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #48 on: March 09, 2012, 08:55:12 PM »

Again, let's try to stay on topic, gents. There are plenty of topics where posts specifically about the guns can go, particularly this one: Clint's guns.

And yes, Munny has a Starr.
Logged
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #49 on: March 10, 2012, 04:47:00 AM »

MWNA ... you don't mind if I call you MWNA, do you? ... don't forget that we're supposed to be discussing the cinematic qualities of Eastwood's masterpiece in this particular thread. Maybe we could keep it a bit more on target (so to speak)? Though we've already wandered off a ways with the discussion of whether a certain sobriquet occurs in the film's spoken dialogue. And that's my fault! ;)



Darlin', that is much sweeter that a whole lot of the things I have been called. Well, really, sweeter than most of the things I've been called. If it's easy enough for you to type, I reckon it's alright with me.  

Me? Me stay on target? But...I'm The Man With No Aim!

Yes, it did get started with something you said. But I'm beginning to like you so it's OK. I hope you stay around. Just when I get to liking somebody, they ain't around any more.  

Unforgiven has struck me as such a powerful film that it is easy to continue to discover more important ways that I appreciate it. So it will be easy to stay on topic (in theory at least...I am easily distracted (as you have probably noticed)).
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 05:52:22 AM by The Man With No Aim » Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #50 on: March 10, 2012, 05:24:02 AM »

One of the impressive things about the characterization given to Munny by C E is the boldness in the face of overwhelming odds that is exemplified by the very last minutes of the film. Harken back to C E portrayal of a man having to successfully bluff to survive in the early moments of earlier film Dirty Harry if anyone round here remembers it. Cop has emptied his six shooter (and believe me, even in all the excitement the PRO did not lose count himself). Knocked down crook is reaching for his shotgun. Even wounded, crook looks to Cop like crook may be physically stronger in hand to hand. Cop must successfully bluff, knowing he is holding an empty gun. And as portrayed in the acting skill of C E, Cop Dirty Harry pulls of the bluff!  

Proceed now into the past to 1880 when Munny has emptied the Schofield in knocking down Little Bill et al after his (probably) cap-and- ball shotgun misfires on its second barrel (rain dripping down the barrel). Munny counted his bullets when he first took the gun off of Schofield kid. Munny knew if he was carrying one under the hammer or not.

Munny was out of bullets when he bluffed the surviving saloon crowd to "leave now out the back if you don't want to die" after he had gunned down Little Bill and entourage. And he knew it.

When he then loaded the Spencer, he knew exactly how many bullets he had. After he used two on Bill and another deputy, he had exactly ONE bullet left. And in his departure from the saloon and the town, he bluffed down the entire town. WITH ONE BULLET.

C E gave us a unique personification of a heroic figure (though very arguably performing an amoral act) who used the strength of his persona to succeed even facing impossible odds. ONE bullet against dozens of fully armed opponents.

C E is one of a very few actors who could have successfully portrayed such bravado in a character who full well knew he was  bluffing. In fact, here on a moment's notice, I can't think of any other specifically who could have done it as successfully.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2012, 05:46:30 AM by The Man With No Aim » Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #51 on: May 25, 2012, 03:24:23 AM »

True, but the "Villian" is subjective here...William Munny is hardly an anti-hero in this piece. The film goes to lengths to make the point that there are no heroes; that Little Bill & William Munny are cut from the same cloth as it were.

Let's put it this way, many of the observations can be summed up with another (non-Eastwood) movie: "Many of the truths we cling to depend largely from our own point-of-view".

I think this was the inference between Munny & Little Bill with their exchange about "I don't deserve to die like this" & "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

Little Bill is a villian, but he has become a lawman (of sorts) he imposes a non-firearm policy to prevent the town from becoming a shooting gallery. (Many would be sympathetic to this tactic) Unlike the film Five Card Stud where the preacher recommends leaving the guns at home, while being the killer; in Unforgiven the story is more being told from the Villians (Munny's) point of view.

It is Munny who comes into town with the intent to commit murder (Beating & disfiguring a woman is reprehensible, but is it not a killing offence), it is he, not Little Bill, that is the criminal here.
If Little Bill was played as an upstanding citizen..would we have a different interpretation of the movie?

In truth, in the old west, many former outlaws became lawmen & "upstanding citizens", so is Unforgiven a morality play (for a group of immoral morons, the characters not the audience), or a story told from the villian's perspective?


 quoting Rojblake...."(Beating & disfiguring a woman is reprehensible, but is it not a killing offence)".

Some good time ago, I learned a handful (unintentional pun) of ways to kill someone with my bare hands almost instantaneously and regardless of whether they are greatly larger and stronger than me. I pray to God that I never feel the need to do so or to have to kill an assailant with my 44, but I have the peace of mind of probably being able to defend myself with or without a weapon in my hand.

Knowing how easy it is to deliberately kill bare handed makes me aware how easy it is to accidently kill without a weapon. It is not just manly fun to lay your hands on somebody and punch them out. An unlearned assailant can very easily kill because they don't know how to hit a victim the SAFE way. I personally consider it to be attempted murder if anyone were to threaten to make any uninvited physical contact contact with me.

In the day of the movie under discussion, medical knowledge was far more primitive than what we presently take for granted. In 1879 the smallest cut could easily lead to infection that had no miracle antibiotic cure. In the Civil War the vast majority of battlefield casualties were due to infections and not the soldier's wound itself. And it was widely known at that time, not some kind of quaint secret. So it was not just a silly ole boy being a silly ole boy when Delilah was slashed, in the darkness and in all the excitement, an artery  could easily have been slashed causing unstoppable bleeding and death or any one of such slashes could easily enabled contageous infection from the skin of the unwashed cowherders doing the cutting. I personally would consider it to be attempted murder if someone were to attempt to slash me under any circumstance. But especially in a hypothetical setting such as in the movie.

Not a killing offence? You are hallucinating. 
Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30996


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #52 on: May 25, 2012, 06:28:50 AM »

The suffering and death of President James Garfield, whose assassination in 1881 is alluded to in an early scene in Unforgiven, is a good example of the poor medical practices of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield#Garfield.27s_suffering_and_death

(Not for the squeamish.)
Logged
rojblake
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 43


View Profile Email
« Reply #53 on: May 25, 2012, 07:59:12 PM »

Man with No Name..while your points are well taken, consider that women of that time were at best second-class citizens; & in many cases treated as less than livestock.

As you are no doubt aware there are legally many varities of assault...none of which calls for the death penalty nor even very long prison sentences.

Granted it is all subjective & to each his own of course, my comment was based more on the mores of the period & not a commentary of right or wrong either then or now.
Logged
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #54 on: May 27, 2012, 02:42:33 AM »

The suffering and death of President James Garfield, whose assassination in 1881 is alluded to in an early scene in Unforgiven, is a good example of the poor medical practices of the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_James_A._Garfield#Garfield.27s_suffering_and_death

(Not for the squeamish.)


Thanks for supplying a really good example of the extent of medical knowledge at the portrayed time of the film. I tried to remember the portrayed date, as written on the first frame of the film, but my unreliable old man memory threw it off by a few years.

Sometimes I have imagined living in an era such as 1881 or during any of the thousands of years of known history, and if I were somehow flipped through a time machine into any time where medical ability were even more primitive than it is now, and I knew how primitive it was in the earlier time, I would be terrified to take any risk of infection or any other health misadventure. In my boldest moment I would be paranoid about any health issue. Not a swashbuckler candidate, I confess.     
Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 30996


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #55 on: May 27, 2012, 07:47:39 AM »

The "prologue," which shows Munny digging a grave for his wife on their lonely farm while an opening crawl tells you his story in brief, says that Claudia's death took place in 1878. That is followed by the first scene in Big Whiskey, introduced by a title: "Big Whiskey, Wyoming, 1880." Presumably late fall, as the cowboys are given until the following spring to bring the "fine" of ponies to Skinny.

That places the main action in 1881, and indeed, English Bob and Beauchamp arrive in Big Whiskey "on Independence Day" (as Little Bill points out, just before he wallops Bob), which was two days after Guiteau had fired the eventually-fatal shots at Garfield in Washington, D.C. Of course, the newspapers people are reading on the train into town are full of the story.

Logged
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #56 on: May 28, 2012, 11:32:45 PM »

KC has proved to be Accurate Historian Extraordinaire. Very good sleuthing of the time line clues in the film.

Another good, albeit much lesser, clue was in the first conversation between Munny and Schofield Kid. Munny discloses that Claudia has been gone about 3 years. Simple arithmetic based on the accurately sleuthed first frame date gives us 1881. 
Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2527



View Profile Email
« Reply #57 on: May 30, 2012, 11:18:50 AM »

In Unforgiven, Charley Hecker, the one deputy who has survived—because he is a coward and fled during the shootout—is standing with a citizen identified as "German Joe Schultz" as Munny fetches his mount and prepares to ride off. Schultz shouts, "Hey, Charley Hecker, go ahead, shoot him!" Which is of course Hecker's job. He actually raises his shotgun and aims at Munny, but then he gets cold feet and tries to hand the gun to Schultz:

He refuses the gun. Munny mounts, shouts his final threats (" ... Or I'll come back and kill every one of you sons of [email protected]") and rides off, unharmed.

This is rather the reverse of what happens in the three films first referenced in this thread. Instead of one of the "little people" saving the protagonist from an unseen foe, one of the townspeople incites another man with a gun to shoot him, only refusing to take on the risk and the responsibility himself when it's offered to him instead. It's actually yet another example of the many Western commonplaces that are overturned in Unforgiven.

This is a post from KC in another thread that I thought was highly relevant to this one, so I've coped it here. This is in response to a poster who pointed out that in several Eastwood films, there are scenes of Eastwood being protected from harm by another person in the film, and KC was commenting how the reverse happens in "Unforgiven." For more on that discussion, here's a link to that thread: http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/index.php?topic=9282.0

KC, this is a very interesting point that you've made. I would love to hear more about your views on "Unforgiven" in this thread. Is the fact that Eastwood successfully overturns the conventions of the Western one of the main reasons you love "Unforgiven," and why it continues to remain your favorite Eastwood film? I know that before "Unforgiven" you were not really an Eastwood fan, so what was it about "Unforgiven" that spurred your interest in his work, and why do you hold it in such high esteem?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2012, 11:25:19 AM by AKA23 » Logged
bdc28
Classic Member
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294



View Profile Email
« Reply #58 on: June 20, 2012, 11:33:46 AM »

I think we are all making the same points about the movie, in both praise and non praise. I dont know if it would be considered the best western ever, but it would definitely make my list of the most captive.

People have drawn parallels about this movie to Pulp Fiction, or Gran Torino. I would like to parallel it to something I think is a little closer, GOODFELLAS. Before that movie, mobsters were seen with this sense of honor, and respect. Always gently whispering into the DONS ear before carrying out an act in the name of the "family". But GOODFELLAS peeled back the stereotypes and let you see the characters for what they are, flawed...inherently, or noble. Good, bad, indifferent, funny...boring. The same could be said of Jules in PULP FICTION.

I think the terms we are searching for is "the human condition was adequately relayed to the audience". Alot of movies attempt to be realisitic, but then fall back on some ploy, nobility, etc. Even GOODFELLAS changed history a little to have the audience cheer for Henry Hill.
 
Where I think UNFORGIVEN is different is that; you were reminded constantly that there were no black or white characters, just like in life. Your boss you can love one day, and want to throw out the window the next. Family too. Munny was not an "anti hero"  or "hero" or anything of that like, he was just....Munny. The repetition to bring these characters down by reminding you of their dark pasts, but then within the same sentence Munny and Ned laugh about a joke...was to remind the audience "This conversation could be held by you if circumstances were different".

The nausea of killing, the rage and drinking to avenge Ned, the pain of listening to someone die, this is all as close to human that has ever been portrayed in a movie...and sadly thats rare. Dramas have certain formulas they rely on to draw emotion from us in the theater.....mostly empathy or disdain for certain characters. Had another director gotten a hold of this story, it may have taken a different route.

But it was more about "this story takes place in the west, its not a western" "Munny is a normal flawed person, not a hero" "Little Bill is likely loved by the good people of that town for the fear he causes the criminal element"....in other words....

Cinematically, this was as close as experiencing the real life of a killer in the west...without the romance...and with all the human flaws exposed to see. That, is VERY rare.

Again, I dont think its the best western ever, because by a western's standards, UNFORGIVEN isnt a western. There is no white hat, black hat, anti hero.

This was a very good story, told very well.
Logged

"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing wearing my pajamas I have no idea..."
The Man With No Aim
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 563


"There are two kinds of men in this world"


View Profile Email
« Reply #59 on: August 06, 2012, 12:11:53 AM »

bdc28 very eloquently expressed thoughts about the film which I had but was unable to adequately say.

Thanks to bdc28.
Logged

"In all the excitement I lost count myself'
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T