A film that deserves your attention on this step towards finishing up watching the AFI Top 100 (10th Anniversary Edition) in a relatively short amount of time.
This one is pretty brutal. And I love this film. Know what? I don't need to say that anymore. The last 10 are all films that I love. So, from now on, assume that I love the balance of what I'm writing about, and that I'm likely going to be discussing things from a perspective of a guy who's seen the film a BUNCH of times.
Bah. On with it.
Film 92
92. "Unforgiven" (AFI Rank #68)
Know what's funny? I don't like Westerns. Except that I got to watch 6 of them on this journey, and I love all of them but one. This one, however, was one of two I'd actually seen before this started. When I was putting together my far too complex matrix of the order in which I was going to watch these films, I decided that I was going to put this one in the last 10. Not because it's one of my 10 favorite films, or anything like that, but because I think this film is great because it's really the opposite of its genre. It has depth. It shows regret. What's crazy is that an argument could be made that ALL the Westerns on this list have that as a theme. This one, I knew, though, and it moved me from the first time I watched it 20+ years ago. And I saved it for this group because of that emotional tie.
Like John Wayne before him, Clint Eastwood is an iconic actor in this genre. Like John Wayne before him, Clint Eastwood also doesn't really seem too far away from the guys he portrays in his film work. Decidedly rugged, decidedly neanderthal-ish in terms of politics/personal life, and decidedly unapologetic about it, Eastwood has "Cowboy Hero" written all over him...on screen and off. Did you know that he made his "wife," Frances Fisher, hide her pregnancy during the Oscar stretch with this film so that it would not distract from HIS Oscar race? Did you know that Clint was quoted as saying he'd never win an Oscar because he's "not Jewish?" Yeah, some of that may be tongue in cheek, but that has the appearance of a trend. I'm not even talking about his speech to an empty chair at the Republican National Convention.
What's great, though, is that I can watch him in this film, and forget every bit of that. What's greater is that he was also behind the camera on this film, and his experience with this genre, along with a terrific script, makes for one hellaciously good film. Opening with rolling titles that say,
"She was a comely young woman and not without prospects. Therefore it was heartbreaking to her mother that she would enter into marriage with William Munny, a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.
When she died, it was not at his hands as her mother might have expected, but of smallpox.
That was 1878."
Set behind that is the sun setting on a man, obviously digging a grave underneath the only tree in sight. It's a stirring shot, and the language of the text is so well thought out, so descriptive...we know something special might be in store. And something special is.
I must admit something. It's been a while since I wrote one of these reviews. That's because I wrote about 4 long-ass paragraphs detailing the plot of this film, and realized I was not here to tell you what the film I watched was, in a frame-by-frame way. I had struggled with how to get this back on track, and then, I struggled with cutting those 4 paragraphs. Well. I cut them. I'm going to go on under the assumption that you've seen this film, or that you don't need the whole damned thing spelled out for you.
Taking an old familiar storyline and making it special is a tough thing to do. In this case, it's the "one last job, and then I'm done" story. William Munny (Eastwood), the aforementioned man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition, has given up his life of murder, crime, and general nastiness, and has settled into a farm in Kansas. He is raising two children on his own, as his wife, the woman responsible for helping him reform has died. One day, while having a particularly rough time with some pigs, a stranger named the "Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett)" rides up and requests that the famous William Munny come help him kill a couple of cowboys that have cut up a prostitute in the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming. As the job pays $1000, and William is most assuredly down on his luck, he decides to take the task on, and with the help of his old friend Ned (Morgan Freeman), the three killers head to Big Whiskey, and do indeed, *SPOILER ALERT FOR A 24 YEAR OLD MOVIE* earn their $1000.
That's the nuts and bolts of the story. The film, however, is full of so much more. Populated with rich, developed, nuanced characters, the film is the kind of "anti-hero" movie that I find so damned fascinating. The local lawman, Little Bill Daggett, played with ferocity by Gene Hackman, is decidedly harsh, and one might even say...criminal. Meanwhile, the most earnest people in the town are...the prostitutes. They share a sorority feel, and their actions/decisions are unilaterally just, and based on the notion of fair play. Led by Frances Fisher as Strawberry Alice, these characters could have been easily dismissed, but Eastwood, and the script, spend so much time making their plight matter that we wind up really finding our commonality with them, and most of us could never imagine ourselves as...well...them. Rounding out the compelling characters are another assassin named English Bob (Richard Harris), and his biographer W.W. Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek).
I mentioned that I saved this film for the final 10. Let me see if I can sum up why.
Acting. Hackman won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and he's magnificent. Morgan Freeman is my favorite actor when he's given a meaty character, so I love this. Fisher is vulnerable and tough. Harris has real depth in a character that could easily be dismissed. And Woolvett's final moments in the film are simply brilliant. However, with all that, Saul Rubinek all but steals the film for me. Brilliantly written, his Beauchamp is played with so much wonderful opportunism, and surprisingly little depth of humanity. Watch his face when Little Bill gives him the opportunity to shoot him in the chest. Listen to his voice when, after the final brutal shootdown (not out), he explains to William Munny why he chose to shoot Little Bill first. He's absolutely convinced that he knows what is going through Munny's mind. And that, folks, is what makes the character of William Munny so transcendent. There are very few glimpses into his mind. Beauchamp is there to make sure we know it, and in the hands of a less-skilled performer, we might miss that.
I haven't discussed Eastwood's acting in this. I'm going to point to one moment. As the Kid, Ned, and Will find the first of the cowboys they are in town to kill, we see the Kid unable to take a shot because he can't see. We see Ned refuse to take the shot, as his life as a killer has ended, and then we see Munny pick up the rifle, one he doesn't feel comfortable using, and just start shooting at the man. After a few shots, he announces, "I got him." Now, all of that is chilling. But, it's the next move that makes the acting so splendid. As Davey, the cowboy, is howling about how he's dying, and begging for someone to bring him some water, we see Will start picking at the rock in front of him, in the kind of non-verbal shit that just rocks my world. Rather than emote through facial movements, we see an almost involuntary motion give away Will's feelings. That, my friends, that is what great acting is. And there. I've said it. Clint Eastwood, noted movie star, whose roles tend to range from justified killer to...justified killer, turns in a whopper of a performance in this film.
I mentioned the writing a couple of times. David Webb Peoples was given an Oscar nomination for this film. He did not win, losing to Neil Jordan's "The Crying Game." I'm going to say that most any other year, this film's screenplay wins that award, hands down. I've mentioned the characters, but the story is so rich, and the final shootdown is so brilliantly executed, so taut with drama...yes, Eastwood's Oscar-winning direction was on display here, as was the Oscar-winning editing, but all that happens from something written on a page. I haven't mentioned writing too much in these reviews. This script, this film, shows how much of a film inspired writing can carry. Everything in this film is made better because of that screenplay. I started this post with a quote from the film. I'll repeat it. In the final moments of the film, as Munny has slaughtered a barroom full of men for killing his friend Ned, the first guy he shot, Little Bill, recovers, and in his death throes, tells Will that he doesn't deserve to die like this. Will's answer? "Deserve's got nothing to do with it," and he raises his gun back up to finish off Little Bill. It's as cold a moment as you'll find, and...well. I love it. Just love it. Mostly because Little Bill...deserves it.
This is a beautiful film, a tribute to all the vistas, manly intentions, and justice from so many Westerns of yore. Yet, it has the decided lack of moral compass that makes it riveting. The bad guy is our hero, and the good guy is horrible. We find ourselves in a stew, having watched a man commit mass murder, yet still wanting him to get away. AND...the final shot, of Will riding away from a being-heavily-rained-upon Big Whiskey, with an American flag illuminated in the background. Folks, that's great filmmaking.
I've got 3 more that I've watched to write up at this point, and I apologize for the delay. I just couldn't focus this one. I think I did. In any case, I urge you to watch this film. It was in my final 10 because it's one of my favorites. It was in my final 10 because I think it's brilliant, from start to finish. It was in my final 10 because watching 100 movies in a short period of time and writing about them is hard, and I wanted the final stretch to be populated with films that I knew excited me. It's in my final 10 because...because it's amazing. Did I mention that?
Ebert wrote about this one in his "Great Movies" series. Wow. I just read it. Ebert can turn a phrase, and he writes much more eloquently what I tried to express above. I'm still gonna pat myself on the back a bit that I seem to be seeing these films the way that critics, especially one of the great ones, do. His thoughts are here.
I must admit something. It's been a while since I wrote one of these reviews. That's because I wrote about 4 long-ass paragraphs detailing the plot of this film, and realized I was not here to tell you what the film I watched was, in a frame-by-frame way. I had struggled with how to get this back on track, and then, I struggled with cutting those 4 paragraphs. Well. I cut them. I'm going to go on under the assumption that you've seen this film, or that you don't need the whole damned thing spelled out for you.Taking an old familiar storyline and making it special is a tough thing to do. In this case, it's the "one last job, and then I'm done" story. William Munny (Eastwood), the aforementioned man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition, has given up his life of murder, crime, and general nastiness, and has settled into a farm in Kansas. He is raising two children on his own, as his wife, the woman responsible for helping him reform has died. One day, while having a particularly rough time with some pigs, a stranger named the "Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett)" rides up and requests that the famous William Munny come help him kill a couple of cowboys that have cut up a prostitute in the town of Big Whiskey, Wyoming. As the job pays $1000, and William is most assuredly down on his luck, he decides to take the task on, and with the help of his old friend Ned (Morgan Freeman), the three killers head to Big Whiskey, and do indeed, *SPOILER ALERT FOR A 24 YEAR OLD MOVIE* earn their $1000.
That's the nuts and bolts of the story. The film, however, is full of so much more. Populated with rich, developed, nuanced characters, the film is the kind of "anti-hero" movie that I find so damned fascinating. The local lawman, Little Bill Daggett, played with ferocity by Gene Hackman, is decidedly harsh, and one might even say...criminal. Meanwhile, the most earnest people in the town are...the prostitutes. They share a sorority feel, and their actions/decisions are unilaterally just, and based on the notion of fair play. Led by Frances Fisher as Strawberry Alice, these characters could have been easily dismissed, but Eastwood, and the script, spend so much time making their plight matter that we wind up really finding our commonality with them, and most of us could never imagine ourselves as...well...them. Rounding out the compelling characters are another assassin named English Bob (Richard Harris), and his biographer W.W. Beauchamp (Saul Rubinek).
I mentioned that I saved this film for the final 10. Let me see if I can sum up why.
Acting. Hackman won an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, and he's magnificent. Morgan Freeman is my favorite actor when he's given a meaty character, so I love this. Fisher is vulnerable and tough. Harris has real depth in a character that could easily be dismissed. And Woolvett's final moments in the film are simply brilliant. However, with all that, Saul Rubinek all but steals the film for me. Brilliantly written, his Beauchamp is played with so much wonderful opportunism, and surprisingly little depth of humanity. Watch his face when Little Bill gives him the opportunity to shoot him in the chest. Listen to his voice when, after the final brutal shootdown (not out), he explains to William Munny why he chose to shoot Little Bill first. He's absolutely convinced that he knows what is going through Munny's mind. And that, folks, is what makes the character of William Munny so transcendent. There are very few glimpses into his mind. Beauchamp is there to make sure we know it, and in the hands of a less-skilled performer, we might miss that.I haven't discussed Eastwood's acting in this. I'm going to point to one moment. As the Kid, Ned, and Will find the first of the cowboys they are in town to kill, we see the Kid unable to take a shot because he can't see. We see Ned refuse to take the shot, as his life as a killer has ended, and then we see Munny pick up the rifle, one he doesn't feel comfortable using, and just start shooting at the man. After a few shots, he announces, "I got him." Now, all of that is chilling. But, it's the next move that makes the acting so splendid. As Davey, the cowboy, is howling about how he's dying, and begging for someone to bring him some water, we see Will start picking at the rock in front of him, in the kind of non-verbal shit that just rocks my world. Rather than emote through facial movements, we see an almost involuntary motion give away Will's feelings. That, my friends, that is what great acting is. And there. I've said it. Clint Eastwood, noted movie star, whose roles tend to range from justified killer to...justified killer, turns in a whopper of a performance in this film.
This is a beautiful film, a tribute to all the vistas, manly intentions, and justice from so many Westerns of yore. Yet, it has the decided lack of moral compass that makes it riveting. The bad guy is our hero, and the good guy is horrible. We find ourselves in a stew, having watched a man commit mass murder, yet still wanting him to get away. AND...the final shot, of Will riding away from a being-heavily-rained-upon Big Whiskey, with an American flag illuminated in the background. Folks, that's great filmmaking.
I've got 3 more that I've watched to write up at this point, and I apologize for the delay. I just couldn't focus this one. I think I did. In any case, I urge you to watch this film. It was in my final 10 because it's one of my favorites. It was in my final 10 because I think it's brilliant, from start to finish. It was in my final 10 because watching 100 movies in a short period of time and writing about them is hard, and I wanted the final stretch to be populated with films that I knew excited me. It's in my final 10 because...because it's amazing. Did I mention that?
Ebert wrote about this one in his "Great Movies" series. Wow. I just read it. Ebert can turn a phrase, and he writes much more eloquently what I tried to express above. I'm still gonna pat myself on the back a bit that I seem to be seeing these films the way that critics, especially one of the great ones, do. His thoughts are here.
