Clint Eastwood and the Western, a man and a genre etched in the history of films, yet a man and a genre that I have failed to love and appreciate as much as most. Therefore Unforgiven on the surface does not seem like a film that I would (Very lately) join the praise for, however the film, like the characters that populate it, is so much more than the aesthetic assumptions that come with the Western.
Clint Eastwood plays William Munny, a man who was once a killer and is now a pig farmer. He has a reputation of violence, yet when married he put such a lifestyle behind him in order to raise a family. Following the passing of his wife however, he is struggling to raise his two children. When a young, cocky hotheaded gun slinger comes to Munny with a job, Munny tells himself that it is for the money and not for the glory that he will agree to once again pick up the gun and kill.
Unforgiven is, as many have noted, a deconstruction of the Western myth. It does not portray the Western clichés, yet does not mock them in a self-reflexive Scream-esque way either, it instead presents the characters of a Western in a way that feels real and relatable. A personal theory of mine as to why Western films are no longer being made the way they used to, is that they no longer touch the zeitgeist, can no longer strike an emotional chord of familiarity in the hearts and minds of modern audiences. Unforgiven however is a film that despite its setting, feels modern, through its story, dialogue and characters. Unforgiven has modern relevance in a way I did not expect and arguably more now, than it did upon its release in 1992.
Clint Eastwood is introduced to us in this film, rolling around in a pigsty. The first time he shoots a gun in this film, it is towards a tin can...and he misses. The film shatters our usual perception of Clint Eastwood in these films within seconds, providing us with an old man, whose past we already know a little about. A far cry from the young, mysterious man with no name types, upon which Clint Eastwood built his idol status. Every character who seems to initially be representing one of the placeholder characters of the Western genre, is then subverted and revealed to be more than clichés but instead characters. The town sheriff is the villain of the piece and the closest this movie gets to a hero, is a man who upon the film’s conclusion, accepts the fact that he is going to hell.
This film won four Academy Awards. Given the nature of current Best Picture winners, such as this year’s victor being most likely The Artist and last year’s being The King’s Speech. I find it both surprising and reassuring that a film which is this bleak and ultimately intellectual, could walk away with the big prize. Unforgiven is not a film which provides easy answers, or a clear-cut hero, just who exactly in this film is Unforgiven? The whole film can be summed up in its best scene, where Munny speaks with the young hothead, who has just killed a man for the first time. Munny says that, “It’s a strange thing killing a man, you take away everything he’s got and everything he’s going to have” the character played by Jaimz Woolvett says, “Well I suppose he had it coming” to which Eastwood’s character replies, “We’ve all got it coming” An accurate four word summary of Unforgiven would be...there are no heroes.
The violence in this film is particularly noteworthy. Each act of violence in this means something and makes you feel something. The film’s story is book ended by brutal acts of violence, with what comes in-between suggesting an endless cycle. None of the violence in the film is glamorized and without purpose. This handling of the violence can be seen as a further deconstruction of the Western but also as a deconstruction of film violence in general. Unforgiven is a film with violence, which has something to say about violence. Most films and particularly the westerns that Unforgiven is subverting are films with violence, which have little to nothing to say about violence.
In terms of the performances this is perhaps the role of Clint Eastwood’s career. His character is fascinating in the sense that when he returns to the Western Eastwood we know it is not a triumphant moment but arguably a tragic one. Some have suggested that this film is Eastwood apologizing for the movies and characters from which he made his name, however I see it is an examination of where those characters would be had they aged with Eastwood. He is not apologizing for every Western character he has played but instead if anything, getting the audience to apologize for the glorification and reputation they placed on such characters. However the film is not a preachy, finger waving, guilt inducing piece of self-righteousness, nor is it apologetic. Ultimately it is up to the viewer to decide, who if anybody is apologizing and given the moral ambiguity, dark desires and actions of each character in the film, whether apologies are necessary or meaningful.
The film should remind current filmmakers that the Western because of its clichés that have become so rooted in society, is the perfect place to examine the justice system and the dark, violent, corrupt underbelly of men.
Jaimz Woolvett as the young gunslinger is the closest the film gets to the traditional Western characters. He is revealed by Ned (Played by Morgan Freeman) to be short sighted, unable to see past fifty yards. This character at this point in the narrative is not only shortsighted psychically but also psychologically. He brags about murders he has not committed and after finally killing a man, breaks down, trying to silence his tears with a bottle of Whiskey. Upon the film’s end, he renounces such a lifestyle, having seen what perhaps Will Dunning wished he could have seen at such an age.
Unforgiven is a complex film to analyze due to the ambiguity of its characters and their actions. Analyzing the film and the actions of those who inhabit it, will undoubtedly lead to contradictions, as these are inherently contradictory characters, without the comforting consistency we have come to expect of not just the Western but all Hollywood film genres. People can interpret this film in multiple ways not because it has a wide-open story but because the characters actions can be read in multiple ways. It is a film I have only seen once but look forward to seeing again, anticipating a change in the way in which I perceive certain character actions now I know both what precedes and succeeds them.
Unforgiven is the first time I can honestly say that I have seen Clint Eastwood as a great filmmaker. Visually the film is expectedly gorgeous in regards to its cinematography and with such a cast, good to great performances are expected. What really struck me and is staying with me as I write this however, is the way in which Eastwood’s subtle, slow, subdued directed style really shone against a surprisingly nuanced screenplay. Gran Torino was my favourite of Eastwood’s films prior to viewing Unforgiven and a film, which ultimately did and said similar things to what Gran Torino did and said, is replacing Gran Torino. While Torino deconstructed and subverted Eastwood’s image in a modern setting, Unforgiven did the same but in the past.
Unforgiven is a Clint Eastwood Western film for people who don’t like Clint Eastwood Western films. It visually deconstructs the Western characters and clichés, portrays violence in a real, effective manner, has modern relevance through its themes (Which could ultimately make it a timeless classic) and has the interpretive license, nuance and depth that you would expect out of a great novel.
Unforgiven is not a perfect film however. The pace is rather too slow at times and the film does go on too long. The character of English Bob is a controversial one in the sense that many argue his character could be cut out and the film lose nothing other than running time. Others argue however that he is crucial to the plot and develops the sheriff played by Gene Hackman, who like almost every character in this film could have a thousand word plus essay written about. Ultimately I am in both camps, can see both arguments and cannot pick a side until I have seen the movie a second time.
I’m hesitant to label Unforgiven a masterpiece, so soon after viewing it. However it is a film I admire greatly for its performances, dialogue, themes, portrayal of violence, modern relevance in an unmodren setting, its deconstruction of the western and its moral ambiguity.
Give us all your thoughts on Unforgiven in the comments below or in the Your Say section.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
Clint Eastwood plays William Munny, a man who was once a killer and is now a pig farmer. He has a reputation of violence, yet when married he put such a lifestyle behind him in order to raise a family. Following the passing of his wife however, he is struggling to raise his two children. When a young, cocky hotheaded gun slinger comes to Munny with a job, Munny tells himself that it is for the money and not for the glory that he will agree to once again pick up the gun and kill.
Unforgiven is, as many have noted, a deconstruction of the Western myth. It does not portray the Western clichés, yet does not mock them in a self-reflexive Scream-esque way either, it instead presents the characters of a Western in a way that feels real and relatable. A personal theory of mine as to why Western films are no longer being made the way they used to, is that they no longer touch the zeitgeist, can no longer strike an emotional chord of familiarity in the hearts and minds of modern audiences. Unforgiven however is a film that despite its setting, feels modern, through its story, dialogue and characters. Unforgiven has modern relevance in a way I did not expect and arguably more now, than it did upon its release in 1992.
Clint Eastwood is introduced to us in this film, rolling around in a pigsty. The first time he shoots a gun in this film, it is towards a tin can...and he misses. The film shatters our usual perception of Clint Eastwood in these films within seconds, providing us with an old man, whose past we already know a little about. A far cry from the young, mysterious man with no name types, upon which Clint Eastwood built his idol status. Every character who seems to initially be representing one of the placeholder characters of the Western genre, is then subverted and revealed to be more than clichés but instead characters. The town sheriff is the villain of the piece and the closest this movie gets to a hero, is a man who upon the film’s conclusion, accepts the fact that he is going to hell.
This film won four Academy Awards. Given the nature of current Best Picture winners, such as this year’s victor being most likely The Artist and last year’s being The King’s Speech. I find it both surprising and reassuring that a film which is this bleak and ultimately intellectual, could walk away with the big prize. Unforgiven is not a film which provides easy answers, or a clear-cut hero, just who exactly in this film is Unforgiven? The whole film can be summed up in its best scene, where Munny speaks with the young hothead, who has just killed a man for the first time. Munny says that, “It’s a strange thing killing a man, you take away everything he’s got and everything he’s going to have” the character played by Jaimz Woolvett says, “Well I suppose he had it coming” to which Eastwood’s character replies, “We’ve all got it coming” An accurate four word summary of Unforgiven would be...there are no heroes.
The violence in this film is particularly noteworthy. Each act of violence in this means something and makes you feel something. The film’s story is book ended by brutal acts of violence, with what comes in-between suggesting an endless cycle. None of the violence in the film is glamorized and without purpose. This handling of the violence can be seen as a further deconstruction of the Western but also as a deconstruction of film violence in general. Unforgiven is a film with violence, which has something to say about violence. Most films and particularly the westerns that Unforgiven is subverting are films with violence, which have little to nothing to say about violence.
In terms of the performances this is perhaps the role of Clint Eastwood’s career. His character is fascinating in the sense that when he returns to the Western Eastwood we know it is not a triumphant moment but arguably a tragic one. Some have suggested that this film is Eastwood apologizing for the movies and characters from which he made his name, however I see it is an examination of where those characters would be had they aged with Eastwood. He is not apologizing for every Western character he has played but instead if anything, getting the audience to apologize for the glorification and reputation they placed on such characters. However the film is not a preachy, finger waving, guilt inducing piece of self-righteousness, nor is it apologetic. Ultimately it is up to the viewer to decide, who if anybody is apologizing and given the moral ambiguity, dark desires and actions of each character in the film, whether apologies are necessary or meaningful.
The film should remind current filmmakers that the Western because of its clichés that have become so rooted in society, is the perfect place to examine the justice system and the dark, violent, corrupt underbelly of men.
Jaimz Woolvett as the young gunslinger is the closest the film gets to the traditional Western characters. He is revealed by Ned (Played by Morgan Freeman) to be short sighted, unable to see past fifty yards. This character at this point in the narrative is not only shortsighted psychically but also psychologically. He brags about murders he has not committed and after finally killing a man, breaks down, trying to silence his tears with a bottle of Whiskey. Upon the film’s end, he renounces such a lifestyle, having seen what perhaps Will Dunning wished he could have seen at such an age.
Unforgiven is a complex film to analyze due to the ambiguity of its characters and their actions. Analyzing the film and the actions of those who inhabit it, will undoubtedly lead to contradictions, as these are inherently contradictory characters, without the comforting consistency we have come to expect of not just the Western but all Hollywood film genres. People can interpret this film in multiple ways not because it has a wide-open story but because the characters actions can be read in multiple ways. It is a film I have only seen once but look forward to seeing again, anticipating a change in the way in which I perceive certain character actions now I know both what precedes and succeeds them.
Unforgiven is the first time I can honestly say that I have seen Clint Eastwood as a great filmmaker. Visually the film is expectedly gorgeous in regards to its cinematography and with such a cast, good to great performances are expected. What really struck me and is staying with me as I write this however, is the way in which Eastwood’s subtle, slow, subdued directed style really shone against a surprisingly nuanced screenplay. Gran Torino was my favourite of Eastwood’s films prior to viewing Unforgiven and a film, which ultimately did and said similar things to what Gran Torino did and said, is replacing Gran Torino. While Torino deconstructed and subverted Eastwood’s image in a modern setting, Unforgiven did the same but in the past.
Unforgiven is a Clint Eastwood Western film for people who don’t like Clint Eastwood Western films. It visually deconstructs the Western characters and clichés, portrays violence in a real, effective manner, has modern relevance through its themes (Which could ultimately make it a timeless classic) and has the interpretive license, nuance and depth that you would expect out of a great novel.
Unforgiven is not a perfect film however. The pace is rather too slow at times and the film does go on too long. The character of English Bob is a controversial one in the sense that many argue his character could be cut out and the film lose nothing other than running time. Others argue however that he is crucial to the plot and develops the sheriff played by Gene Hackman, who like almost every character in this film could have a thousand word plus essay written about. Ultimately I am in both camps, can see both arguments and cannot pick a side until I have seen the movie a second time.
I’m hesitant to label Unforgiven a masterpiece, so soon after viewing it. However it is a film I admire greatly for its performances, dialogue, themes, portrayal of violence, modern relevance in an unmodren setting, its deconstruction of the western and its moral ambiguity.
Give us all your thoughts on Unforgiven in the comments below or in the Your Say section.
By Movie Parliament Prime Minister,
Michael Dalton
RSS Feed
