I like individual scenes in Unforgiven, but I'm not sure that I like the movie as a whole. It's got a good cast and good intentions, but ultimately I find it a little too preachy, and I'm not sure that its moral compass is pointing in exactly the right direction.
Also, I just can't agree with critics who call this film a "ground-breaking" Western that "broke the mold" by condemning violence instead of glorifying it. I can think of many anti-violence Westerns that are years or even decades older than Unforgiven -- The Ox-Bow Incident springs to mind, and even Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West showed the horrible consequences of violence without getting on a soapbox about it.
On a similar note, I'd like to point out that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance had already explored the idea of "debunking" mythological Western figures, while The Wild Bunch exposed an aging gunslinger's fallibility by showing him slip and fall while trying to mount a horse. My general point -- I do have one, I think -- is that everything allegedly "groundbreaking" about Unforgiven had appeared in Westerns before 1992. This film is not some radical break with Western tradition; it owes its predecessors in a big way.
Indeed, I think Unforgiven's rather obvious moralizing is vintage Western stuff. The film's anti-violence message is well-intentioned, of course, and I almost feel like a jerk for pointing out that it's hammered home with no subtlety and sometimes hokey dialog.
I don't want to bury this movie, because I think some of the performances are great, the locations are perfect, and even the melancholy theme tune is well-chosen. But I do want to challenge the notion that this is some kind of totally original, really deep piece of art. It's really not that deep; it raises old questions in old ways, and doesn't necessarily suggest interesting answers or provide too much food for thought. Maybe it's thoughtful by movie standards, but it's hardly literature, is it?
Unforgiven also has some problems that have nothing to do with its message. For instance, I find it a little problematic that Gene Hackman sort of steals the movie from Eastwood. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I find Eastwood's stoic acting boring, and I frequently think that his co-stars trump him (see also Eli Wallach, Lee Van Cleef). Even Richard Harris makes more of an impression than Eastwood with just a cameo, I think. Morgan Freeman, meanwhile, is so typecast as a sagely mellow guy that I feel sorry for him.
However, as I said, there are individual great scenes. The "Duck of Death" confrontation, the exchanges between Eastwood's character and the prostitute, and the various brutal killings are all extremely memorable. But I just don't think the whole thing hangs together, and I get the uncomfortable feeling that the film ends up glorifying violence anyway despite trying to do exactly the opposite. Who knows?
Ultimately, I feel very little guilt in proclaiming that a fun/violent Western like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is actually a lot better than Unforgiven, even if it isn't as self-consciously PC. I have no immediate plans to go out and shoot anybody myself, therefore I don't really need Unforgiven to dissuade me from committing murder, do I? So, I'd rather be entertained by my Westerns than preached at by them. Know what I mean?
Also, I just can't agree with critics who call this film a "ground-breaking" Western that "broke the mold" by condemning violence instead of glorifying it. I can think of many anti-violence Westerns that are years or even decades older than Unforgiven -- The Ox-Bow Incident springs to mind, and even Sergio Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West showed the horrible consequences of violence without getting on a soapbox about it.
On a similar note, I'd like to point out that The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance had already explored the idea of "debunking" mythological Western figures, while The Wild Bunch exposed an aging gunslinger's fallibility by showing him slip and fall while trying to mount a horse. My general point -- I do have one, I think -- is that everything allegedly "groundbreaking" about Unforgiven had appeared in Westerns before 1992. This film is not some radical break with Western tradition; it owes its predecessors in a big way.
Indeed, I think Unforgiven's rather obvious moralizing is vintage Western stuff. The film's anti-violence message is well-intentioned, of course, and I almost feel like a jerk for pointing out that it's hammered home with no subtlety and sometimes hokey dialog.
I don't want to bury this movie, because I think some of the performances are great, the locations are perfect, and even the melancholy theme tune is well-chosen. But I do want to challenge the notion that this is some kind of totally original, really deep piece of art. It's really not that deep; it raises old questions in old ways, and doesn't necessarily suggest interesting answers or provide too much food for thought. Maybe it's thoughtful by movie standards, but it's hardly literature, is it?
Unforgiven also has some problems that have nothing to do with its message. For instance, I find it a little problematic that Gene Hackman sort of steals the movie from Eastwood. Perhaps I'm being harsh, but I find Eastwood's stoic acting boring, and I frequently think that his co-stars trump him (see also Eli Wallach, Lee Van Cleef). Even Richard Harris makes more of an impression than Eastwood with just a cameo, I think. Morgan Freeman, meanwhile, is so typecast as a sagely mellow guy that I feel sorry for him.
However, as I said, there are individual great scenes. The "Duck of Death" confrontation, the exchanges between Eastwood's character and the prostitute, and the various brutal killings are all extremely memorable. But I just don't think the whole thing hangs together, and I get the uncomfortable feeling that the film ends up glorifying violence anyway despite trying to do exactly the opposite. Who knows?
Ultimately, I feel very little guilt in proclaiming that a fun/violent Western like The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is actually a lot better than Unforgiven, even if it isn't as self-consciously PC. I have no immediate plans to go out and shoot anybody myself, therefore I don't really need Unforgiven to dissuade me from committing murder, do I? So, I'd rather be entertained by my Westerns than preached at by them. Know what I mean?