I like how the film is this grand reflection of the western genre. Clint Eastwood is not just playing a character who “hasn’t been on the saddle for a while” but himself as an actor reflecting on his career. The blind kid represents the mythic-making process of the western, giving himself a name, inventing a history. A biographer is even there to write it.
I like how it then subverts the western genre, by washing away all the romanticism of the wild west to expose its senseless violence. From the beginning it establishes the cruel mysogynism of 19th century America where women were literally property and especially vulnerable to violence (gender violence one of the reasons for revival of prohibition movement in this period). How it subverts the moral justification of violence that is just taken for granted in westerns, with a dubious revenge plot. How Eastwood describes what it's really like to see a person's head getting shot. How none of the cowboys are heroes and as the sheriff says, everyone here is going to hell...
I like how the landscape is shot, from the first moment it's clear it's particularly beautiful. Sometimes western landscapes are desolate places, an endless desert where men find solitude and seek redemption. But this was Edenic, flowers blooms, birds chirp, a complete contrast to the human corruption imposed on it.
I like how it unintentionally demonstrates gun control works :smug:
And I like English Bob. YOU GOT NO LAWS! YOU GOT NO HONOUR!
So there's a lot to like and I enjoyed it, but at the same time it's not a perfect film. The acting was a mixed bag, Hackman and Harris were good but Eastwood was wooden imo e.g. when he describes horrific visions his eyes just widen a little in a cartoonish way. Freeman was disappointingly just a one-dimensional plot device to help bring the film to its conclusion. The writing didn't have much subtlety (You aint ugly like me but we both have scars...)
A lot could be said about this film and about Eastwood (for all his heroism as a star-persona and in this film, he still is seen wallowing in pig muck and being a laughable old has-been of a shooter at the start), but in the end there is one fatal flaw with it. It tries to develop this theme of violence and killing as not being the piece of cake it usually is in many westerns but a psychologically and morally troubling act (through the characters of Ned, the kid, even English Bob who in reality did not kill in the way his myth tells it). Munny should not be a likeable character, we are told in no uncertain terms that he has killed women and children in the past (I consider this a brave touch in this movie), but then all this is cancelled out by the finale, where simply to avenge Ned's death we are allowed a cathartic explosion of violence and are supposed to enjoy it, trouble-free, a classic conventional finale for a western. This is a film that wishes to have its cake and eat it too, it is not quite brave enough to follow its argument to its conclusion and show violence as senseless all to the very end. The final touch does not quite ring true as how are we to believe Munny can still respect his wife's legacy having breached all her spirit was supposed to have taught him.
I like how the film is this grand reflection of the western genre. Clint Eastwood is not just playing a character who “hasn’t been on the saddle for a while” but himself as an actor reflecting on his career. The blind kid represents the mythic-making process of the western, giving himself a name, inventing a history. A biographer is even there to write it.
ReplyDeleteI like how it then subverts the western genre, by washing away all the romanticism of the wild west to expose its senseless violence. From the beginning it establishes the cruel mysogynism of 19th century America where women were literally property and especially vulnerable to violence (gender violence one of the reasons for revival of prohibition movement in this period). How it subverts the moral justification of violence that is just taken for granted in westerns, with a dubious revenge plot. How Eastwood describes what it's really like to see a person's head getting shot. How none of the cowboys are heroes and as the sheriff says, everyone here is going to hell...
I like how the landscape is shot, from the first moment it's clear it's particularly beautiful. Sometimes western landscapes are desolate places, an endless desert where men find solitude and seek redemption. But this was Edenic, flowers blooms, birds chirp, a complete contrast to the human corruption imposed on it.
I like how it unintentionally demonstrates gun control works :smug:
And I like English Bob. YOU GOT NO LAWS! YOU GOT NO HONOUR!
So there's a lot to like and I enjoyed it, but at the same time it's not a perfect film. The acting was a mixed bag, Hackman and Harris were good but Eastwood was wooden imo e.g. when he describes horrific visions his eyes just widen a little in a cartoonish way. Freeman was disappointingly just a one-dimensional plot device to help bring the film to its conclusion. The writing didn't have much subtlety (You aint ugly like me but we both have scars...)
ReplyDeleteA lot could be said about this film and about Eastwood (for all his heroism as a star-persona and in this film, he still is seen wallowing in pig muck and being a laughable old has-been of a shooter at the start), but in the end there is one fatal flaw with it. It tries to develop this theme of violence and killing as not being the piece of cake it usually is in many westerns but a psychologically and morally troubling act (through the characters of Ned, the kid, even English Bob who in reality did not kill in the way his myth tells it). Munny should not be a likeable character, we are told in no uncertain terms that he has killed women and children in the past (I consider this a brave touch in this movie), but then all this is cancelled out by the finale, where simply to avenge Ned's death we are allowed a cathartic explosion of violence and are supposed to enjoy it, trouble-free, a classic conventional finale for a western. This is a film that wishes to have its cake and eat it too, it is not quite brave enough to follow its argument to its conclusion and show violence as senseless all to the very end. The final touch does not quite ring true as how are we to believe Munny can still respect his wife's legacy having breached all her spirit was supposed to have taught him.
ReplyDelete