The Silver Screen Oasis

Guess I really am old, then...too much blood and violence...I'm outta there.

Oh my gosh, knitty, that is the most hilarious avatar!

JackFavell wrote:Oh my gosh, knitty, that is the most hilarious avatar!

I loved it and Knitty ... your sense of humor is fantastic here!

JackFavell wrote: Joel, I also think you are pretty special, because you jumped in to talk about a movie when everyone else was cutting it down, which shows how passionate you are about all movies getting a just examination. It's a tough thing to do, and I especially liked your rough summation of the themes, it will definitely help when I go to look a second time. GULP!

Thanks for the compliment, but it's nothing that any of my friends wouldn't do (you included). The aforementioned gun scene.

[youtube][/youtube]

There is some great dialogue just before this, where Boshame (the writer) quizzes Hackman's character about past events, only to discover that history in the west is much the same everywhere else--it really depends on who is telling the tale and how reliable they are.

Nothing glamorous, or blood thirsty (or gory) about a scene like this. Freeman's character has changed so much that he cannot pull the trigger, so Eastwood's character must perform the task. While tons of westerns have similar scenes, they rarely show the gravity of what "killing a man" actually entails:

[youtube][/youtube]

too much blood and violence...I'm outta there

Last night I was watching something where a doctor treated a hand wound. I turned away! Why put this stuff in a show? Can't they just cut to the bandaged hand? I don't know about you, Knit Wit, but I get less tolerant as I grow older. I used think, "It's part of the experience. Blah, blah, blah." Now I don't buy that. I don't want to see this crap!

This is the reason I gave up smoking, Joel. It doesn't necessarily kill you right off the bat. A slow death is far worse, especially on the conscience of a gunman.

RedRiver wrote:too much blood and violence...I'm outta there

Last night I was watching something where a doctor treated a hand wound. I turned away! Why put this stuff in a show? Can't they just cut to the bandaged hand? I don't know about you, Knit Wit, but I get less tolerant as I grow older. I used think, "It's part of the experience. Blah, blah, blah." Now I don't buy that. I don't want to see this crap!

As much as I love the tv show "BONES", I can no longer watch whole segments of it. The gore isn't shown to illustrate or inform about medical issues, but to show in detail the horrors one person can inflict on another. So, yes, I guess to the "old"label, I can add "less tolerant", too.

I too wish they would quit showing the graphic beginnings on Bones. We've already established that Bones is not affected by it, and the only other reason would be to show something that had to do with the actual case... but that hardly ever is how it works out. It's just gratuitous.

JackFavell wrote:I too wish they would quit showing the graphic beginnings on Bones. We've already established that Bones is not affected by it, and the only other reason would be to show something that had to do with the actual case... but that hardly ever is how it works out. It's just gratuitous.

Totally agree. I have no problem with graphic situations if it's what the movie calls for, but I'm not a fan of sex, or gore as substitute for poor plot, or bad acting. There so many films where offscreen violence is a better choice than something graphic because the imagination can complete the scene so much better than anything that could be shown. In a case where you do show such things, I think you need a lot of taste and restraint. Too much and you ruin the plot--not enough and you don't get the emphasis that you're looking for. It's a very fine line.

I'm with you, Joel.

And I have to say, those clips you posted from Unforgiven were pretty powerful, all pointing up how violence affects or even stunts a man, rips him up inside, turns him dark. Those stories of western heroics can be dangerous. They could also mask deep feelings of guilt. The boy reverted back to the western mythos he bought into before killing the man, but it had a very different meaning when he spoke it afterwards. It's difficult to accept moral greyness in a hero, but in every person in the film? That's a tough sell. The bad guys are just guys, like anyone, rather sympathetic in the end, the good guy has seen too much and should be able to stop himself, but can't which is true evil. Or is it just human? It makes for a tough watch.

I think one thing that has not been stated about Unforgiven is the fact that Eastwood's character is never seen as a truly bad man in this film. That is his past.

When the film opens, he is a widower with a farm and two children and lives a quiet, mundane existence. He takes the job because his family is starving and he must provide for them somehow. We hear stories about his past, but he, himself is a changed man, who honors other people and has no taste for violence, alcohol, or death. He still loves his wife, who changed his heart and spends time at her grave. The final straw comes with the killing of Ned (Freeman), who never shot anyone, when he takes revenge on Little Bill (Hackman) for his death.

People have called Eastwood bad and nasty in this film, but he sticks up for his friend, treats the scarred whore with kindness and respect, and is trustworthy with the money (Ned & the Kid take advances by having sex at the whorehouse). It is actually the other players who have no honor, with two cowboys who cut up a woman for laughing at them, Little Bill who rules the town with an iron fist and only gives the whores a pony in exchange for justice, The dandy gunslinger Bill, who makes a living with his gun, with an exploitation writer in tow, and even Clint's partners aforementioned failings.

The epilogue of the film verifies Eastwood's redeemed character. We have watched the film and seen who he is, but much like Bogart's character in High Sierra (1941) society does not share that view or forgive, unlike his wife and us:

Some years later, Mrs. Ansonia Feathers made the arduous journey to Hodgeman County to visit the last resting place of her only daughter. William Munny had long since disappeared with the children... some said to San Francisco where it was rumored he prospered in dry goods. And there was nothing on the marker to explain to Mrs. Feathers why her only daughter had married a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.

Ah, OK. I just can't remember Eastwood's character or the plot that well. I should know better than to talk about a movie I haven't seen for years!

I really need to give this one another try, probably before I try to discuss it again!

To be perfectly honest, I'm not a fan of Martin Scorcese's work for this very reason. I know he's considered a true artist by many. But my goal as a patron is not to be disgusted. If the experience is unpleasant, I'm not interested.

You make me want to see it, too, Joel, though I expect I'll be shutting my eyes through some scenes.

Loved "Tombstone." Loved "Silverado." Loved "Unforgiven."

Here's a most unique presentation of Ennio Morricone's music: