The Spaghetti Western is a different genre of western films which were produced and directed by Italians. Common themes of the Spaghetti Western have to do with Mexicans and the Mexican-American border, but also themes and characters that are not usually present in traditional westerns. Navajo Joe is a spaghetti western which portrays an unusual plot in comparison to the typical westerns we have viewed. The main difference of this western was that the main character was a Navajo Indian, and the plot surrounded him and his revenge towards a group of outlaws. Never before have we seen an Indian play a part anything other than an enemy or simply a prop. Joe on the other hand became trustworthy and the American village actually hired him to protect them from the outlaws. He does this successfully, making him a hero. This was a completely different twist in a western plot than traditional westerns. The hero was not the typical white alpha male, but Indian; someone who is usually killed by the alpha male cowboy. The power that the Indian holds over the town, because of his ability to protect them from Duncan, the outlaw, is remarkable. In traditional westerns, a village would not succumb to the need for an Indian to protect them, or to pay him for his efforts. The sequence of events that occur in this movie may reflect the idea of racism and how Indians are equal to, or even more capable than the average white man. The white village was dependent on Joe, which may be a reflection of the international view of Americans; that Americans are not superior to other races and may need the help of others to succeed.
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is another spaghetti western which is very different than traditional westerns through the use of its characters. Although the main character is the typical white alpha male, played by Clint Eastwood, the two other characters who represent “the ugly” and “the bad” are not white. There is an interesting relationship between Tuco (The Ugly) and Blondie (The Good) because they are somewhat friends but then become enemies when Blondie leaves him stranded in the desert. Tuco survives and catches Blondie and almost hangs him, and then Blondie gets away. This back and forth relationship between these two seems to reflect the idea of racism going on in the country; the way different races were battling back and forth. Another interesting part of the movie was the three main characters were able to easily fool the soldiers and act as though they were part of the regiments. This showed how unprofessional the army was, and how both white and men of other races can fool them and they were simply allowed into the army.
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
While both the classic and spaghetti Westerns share many of the same characteristics, it is the way in which each genre portrays the West that differentiates the two. The variation is noticed from the films' beginnings. Both The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Jo consist of a lengthy opening scene in which the Italian landscape is showcased with only music playing in the background, no dialogue is exchanged. Filmed in Italy and Spain, spaghetti Westerns always make the European mountains and desert land the focal point of the film. Music also plays a prominent role in both films. A character's appearance is anticipated by the audience with a song. This is exhibited with Blondie in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Each time he makes an appearance in the misc-en-scene a particular sound plays; it is as if someone is announcing his arrival onto the screen.
Many of the classic westerns tell of the lives of the cowboy on the frontier. They consist of the alpha cowboy who remains focused on accomplishing a task throughout the film while encountering "the other": women, African Americans or Native Americans. In Navajo Jo, the Native American is the alpha male of the film; he is no longer an object standing in the alpha male cowboy's way. This can be attributed to the time period in which the spaghetti Westerns were created. The 1960s brought about cultural revolutions, in which the line separating the rights of races and genders was slowly disappearing. It seems natural that a Native American would play the protagonist.
The Vietnam War was also occurring during this time period of the Cultural Revolution. The violence associated with war is what makes the spaghetti Westerns seen to be more adventure seeking than the plots of the classic Westerns. One of the first scenes of Navajo Jo involves Duncan's massive gang raiding the train headed to Esperanza with half a million dollars on board. This draws a connection to war, such as Vietnam, in which two sides with many people shoot mercilessly and fight each other. These films also portray the capitalistic society and its obsession with wealth. The main characters are motivated solely by their greed and the monetary rewards. Blondie, Tuco and Angel Eyes, along with Jo, only perform their tasks to gain wealth and did not care who they had to kill to do so, as long as they come out prosperous. In order to save the town, Navajo Jo tells the townspeople he will kill Duncan "for a price." Angel Eyes kills a father and son because he was hired to do so. He completes another man's task with greed as his motivation. These main characters are extremely deceiving when it comes to accomplishing a task and will use violence to kill anyone standing in their way of a reward.
Many of the classic westerns tell of the lives of the cowboy on the frontier. They consist of the alpha cowboy who remains focused on accomplishing a task throughout the film while encountering "the other": women, African Americans or Native Americans. In Navajo Jo, the Native American is the alpha male of the film; he is no longer an object standing in the alpha male cowboy's way. This can be attributed to the time period in which the spaghetti Westerns were created. The 1960s brought about cultural revolutions, in which the line separating the rights of races and genders was slowly disappearing. It seems natural that a Native American would play the protagonist.
The Vietnam War was also occurring during this time period of the Cultural Revolution. The violence associated with war is what makes the spaghetti Westerns seen to be more adventure seeking than the plots of the classic Westerns. One of the first scenes of Navajo Jo involves Duncan's massive gang raiding the train headed to Esperanza with half a million dollars on board. This draws a connection to war, such as Vietnam, in which two sides with many people shoot mercilessly and fight each other. These films also portray the capitalistic society and its obsession with wealth. The main characters are motivated solely by their greed and the monetary rewards. Blondie, Tuco and Angel Eyes, along with Jo, only perform their tasks to gain wealth and did not care who they had to kill to do so, as long as they come out prosperous. In order to save the town, Navajo Jo tells the townspeople he will kill Duncan "for a price." Angel Eyes kills a father and son because he was hired to do so. He completes another man's task with greed as his motivation. These main characters are extremely deceiving when it comes to accomplishing a task and will use violence to kill anyone standing in their way of a reward.
Spaghetti Westerns: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly & Navajo Joe
The classic Western is diverted into what is known as “spaghetti Westerns” when created by directors generally from Italy as well as Spain. These spaghetti Westerns have different takes than the classic Westerns on what the American West actually was. Spaghetti Westerns are generally much more violent, showcasing the West as a land filled with ruthless brutes, disregarding all ‘cowboy ethics’ that the Classic western attempts to portray.
In The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, we see an entirely different approach than what we are used to from the classics. We are presented with three primary alpha male roles; “the Ugly” being Tuco, a two-faced bandit who has no morals, completely consumed by his greed and self-interest, doing anything for his own money and well-being; “the Bad” known as Angel Eyes who falls into the typical category of an ‘alpha villain’, being more wise and canny than Tuco, as well as with a posse of bad guys as his gang just like the typical Western bad guys; and finally, Blondie, who is ideally “the Good”, supposedly representing the typical ‘alpha cowboy’, John Wayne style. The irony of Blondie as an ‘alpha cowboy’ is that the cowboy ethics are inexistent. Rather than being idolized as a hero for doing good for the people and the land, the alpha cowboy is seen working in terms of greed, aiming for money for himself before anything else. All three of the characters, along with everybody else in the film, seem to have only one interest that keeps them going: money.
Spaghetti Westerns seems to make quite an emphasis on the American craze for money. Navajo Joe portrays this inhumane alpha-capitalist ideal throughout the entire film. Everybody, even Joe the Indian, is in it for the money. When an empty train arrives in town, along with the news that all the passengers inside said train were killed, all people worry about is whether the money is safe. Navajo Joe also represents the foreigner’s perspective on the struggle between the white immigrant American and the Native American. In this movie in particular, Joe seamlessly dominates the white men by using his true knowledge and spiritual connection with nature.
In The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, we see an entirely different approach than what we are used to from the classics. We are presented with three primary alpha male roles; “the Ugly” being Tuco, a two-faced bandit who has no morals, completely consumed by his greed and self-interest, doing anything for his own money and well-being; “the Bad” known as Angel Eyes who falls into the typical category of an ‘alpha villain’, being more wise and canny than Tuco, as well as with a posse of bad guys as his gang just like the typical Western bad guys; and finally, Blondie, who is ideally “the Good”, supposedly representing the typical ‘alpha cowboy’, John Wayne style. The irony of Blondie as an ‘alpha cowboy’ is that the cowboy ethics are inexistent. Rather than being idolized as a hero for doing good for the people and the land, the alpha cowboy is seen working in terms of greed, aiming for money for himself before anything else. All three of the characters, along with everybody else in the film, seem to have only one interest that keeps them going: money.
Spaghetti Westerns seems to make quite an emphasis on the American craze for money. Navajo Joe portrays this inhumane alpha-capitalist ideal throughout the entire film. Everybody, even Joe the Indian, is in it for the money. When an empty train arrives in town, along with the news that all the passengers inside said train were killed, all people worry about is whether the money is safe. Navajo Joe also represents the foreigner’s perspective on the struggle between the white immigrant American and the Native American. In this movie in particular, Joe seamlessly dominates the white men by using his true knowledge and spiritual connection with nature.
Spaghetti Westerns
In the traditional Western film genre there is a standard template, which each character fulfills in every movie. There is the alpha male cowboy who serves as the hero and the helpless women characters who are at the mercy of the men. In addition, there are the African American characters who serve as the subservient helpers to the alpha male and the Native Americans who consistently prove to be an obstacle for the cowboy and townspeople to overcome. These unvarying roles are constant throughout the American Western genre. The spaghetti westerns however, provide a different view on these roles, as they provide a foreign perspective of America, particularly Italian.
In several spaghetti westerns it is common, like in Navajo Joe, for the Native Americans to become the victims, as well as, the “alpha male cowboy.” The protagonist in this film, Joe, was an Indian who saved the town from Duncan and his gang. This gang was trying to rob the bank and continually terrorizing the town. Duncan’s gang initially had killed Joe’s family and scalped his wife for a mere dollar. This film and others portray a significant increase in violence and are more graphic than the typical American Western.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was a violent film that showed the American West as a battle ground on the Mexican Border. In this movie there was a lot of gun shooting, whether it was shooting the hat off someone’s head, shooting and killing three men, or shooting to cut a rope around someone’s neck. In the classical Westerns there was not as much violence, the gun was a symbol for manliness not a weapon of mass destruction. Every cowboy, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, was after money as if they were starving dogs in a meat house. In classical Westerns the cowboys had a duty or a woman to motivate their actions. The Italian Director Sergio Leone represents his thoughts about Americans through the cowboy character. During the movie every cowboy is driving by money, they are constantly stepping on other people to obtain it. They kill for information, just as Sentenza, “the bad,” did in the beginning to the farmer and his son. Clint Eastwood also is driven by money, in the end he leaves with his half hung over his horse, as he rides off into the terrain. This drive for money is a depiction of the capitalist reputation given to all Americans by the rest of the world. Spaghetti westerns seem to make a satire of this reputation by over exaggerating the violence to show how much the cowboy wants the money. These super violent men go where they want, take what they want, and do what they need to do to get the cash.
Also in Navajo Joe the characters were also motivated by money. The outlaws chase the train in order to get the money that is stashed in the vault. They destroy and kill everything just to try and steal the vault. In the movie a doctor is motivated by money and he helps the outlaws for a cut of the profits. The director depicted everyone as money grubbing low lives. An example is Navajo Joe who walks away from helping the town because no one has offers to pay his price. Navajo Joe protects the city only because everyman was willing to pay him, a dollar a kill. The villains and the hero in this were also very violent also. This violence in both films can be the directors’ thoughts on the Vietnam War which was also very violent and gory.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Explain with examples how the spaghetti western and this spaghetti western differ from the classic western. From a cultural studies perspective, what ideas are being argued?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
3:10 to Yuma
The comparison between the 1957 and 2007 3:10 to Yuma is a clear example of Revisionism. Revisionism is considered to be a deviation from the traditional customs of a genre into a more modern and closer to reality approach. In the ’57 version of the film the main character is seen as a much more macho cowboy as in the ’07 version. In the modern version the cowboy seems more worried and weak than the cowboy in ’57. He is more worried about financial problems and making a name for himself. He tries to impress his own child and is weakened by a war wound.
Also in the ’07 version of 3:10 to Yuma more action is seen. Technological changes and the evolution of the cinematic world have clearly influenced the genre. The audience’s perspective into watching movies also forces modern directors to apply more special effects and use more action. This cinematic approach is more efficient in capturing the modern people’s attention more effectively.
Also in the ’07 version of 3:10 to Yuma more action is seen. Technological changes and the evolution of the cinematic world have clearly influenced the genre. The audience’s perspective into watching movies also forces modern directors to apply more special effects and use more action. This cinematic approach is more efficient in capturing the modern people’s attention more effectively.
3:10 to Yuma, 50 Years Later
The 2007 3:10 to Yuma is a revisionist Western film in comparison to the 1957 3:10 to Yuma, as the directors, writers, and producers changed multiple aspects of the original to cater to a modern audience. One of the most obvious differences between the two films is the amount of violence. It seems as though at least thirty more people were shot in the new film. While the original film already seemed violent to viewers at the time, today's society is used to violence in movies tenfold the amount society was fifty years ago. The railroad car in the beginning of the original film was not shot at for five minutes in an exciting get-a-way chase. The Pinkerton crew was not murdered in the original. Only one man was shot instead of the way all the men were killed in the new version. Despite a lack of surprises (such as being followed and saved by Dan's son) and chases through crashing railroad tunnels that the new version did have, the old version at least still had a gun fight at the end right? Well if you consider all of about five shots being fired in the last scene a gun fight. In the new film, Wade's gang had the whole town out for Dan's head. The new version had the gang kill all of the deputies instead of letting them just walk away. There were bullets flying everywhere. The intensity was multiplied by about fifty. In the old film Dan walked Wade to the Train (which was nice and on time in the original and not in the new version) pretty easily, whereas in the new version it would be a miracle if Dan made it to the Train. When he does finally make it to the train in the new version (after shooting his way through the whole town) he is finally gunned down by Wade's gang. Wade then kills his whole gang and gets on the train (without Dan who happily rode away on the train in the original).
The predictability, the amount of lesser violence, and the lack of an extreme magnitude in the situation of the original movie make most people in younger generations of today's gun crazed society favor the current one. All these things make the recent version a revisionist film. The director ups the ante in almost every aspect of the film, even changing the story where it would make the movie more intense, and at most parts over the top. The believability in the new version for someone who were to hear the story of Dan and Wade is minimal. It is a revisionist film because the new film is all about entertainment value. Where as the original version is more of a believable story for such an event to happen in 1957. The creators of the new film take the old film's traditional cowboy tale and spices it up in every way to stretch the imagination of the modern viewer.
The predictability, the amount of lesser violence, and the lack of an extreme magnitude in the situation of the original movie make most people in younger generations of today's gun crazed society favor the current one. All these things make the recent version a revisionist film. The director ups the ante in almost every aspect of the film, even changing the story where it would make the movie more intense, and at most parts over the top. The believability in the new version for someone who were to hear the story of Dan and Wade is minimal. It is a revisionist film because the new film is all about entertainment value. Where as the original version is more of a believable story for such an event to happen in 1957. The creators of the new film take the old film's traditional cowboy tale and spices it up in every way to stretch the imagination of the modern viewer.
3:10 to Yuma
When looking at the differences between the original and the remade 3:10 to Yuma, the most obvious is the role of Evans. In the 1957 version, Evans is much more of a stereotypical alpha male. He is brave, rugged, and looked up to. However, when we look at the 2007 version of the film, we see a much weaker character. Christian Bale portrays a father who doesn't command the respect of his children, and who has been embarrassed in the past for his cowardice in the war. He tries to act like the alpha male, but isn't nearly the man that Van Heflin played in the original. The reason for this is that the 2007 version is part of the revisionist western genre. In classic westerns, we were shown heroes that glorified the west, and made kids everywhere want to be cowboys. However, in revisionist westerns, we are shown that much of the west shown in these films is simply a myth. This is shown by Evans in the 2007 version. He represents the typical cowboy, that wasn't nearly as brave or talented as the legends make them out to be. However, in order to gain the respect of his family, he takes on a mission knowing he will likely be killed. In the end, we see Wade agreeng to go along with Evans. This shows how pride leads to the creation of a myth.
3:10 to Yuma
The two versions of 3:10 to Yuma are quite different from one another. Firstly, the appearance of the original is different from the latter because it is in black and white. Secondly, the second version of the film can be seen as more of a revisionist movie because the personalities of the characters are different (more modern) than those of the original film. The first difference in attitudes is the relationship with women. In the original film, Dan behaves with Alice in the same way that we have seen in the older Westerns which we have watched. He treats her as an inferior and neglects everything she has to say. Alice’s opinions are not taken seriously, and instead just ignored when she gets upset over a situation. Her role is basically that of a house servant, who cooks, cleans, and takes care of her husband and kids.
The other significant difference between the original and the revisionist film is the alpha cowboy’s role. In the original movie, Dan devotes his life to his “duty.” He takes his job very seriously and makes it his main priority. His wife and kids are notably less important to him than his duty as the alpha male. In contrast, the revisionist alpha male has different priorities. He devotes more of his time to being a good role model for his kids and an overall support system for his family. Of course, his job is very important to him, but the revisionist alpha male seems to believe that family is more important than work.
The other significant difference between the original and the revisionist film is the alpha cowboy’s role. In the original movie, Dan devotes his life to his “duty.” He takes his job very seriously and makes it his main priority. His wife and kids are notably less important to him than his duty as the alpha male. In contrast, the revisionist alpha male has different priorities. He devotes more of his time to being a good role model for his kids and an overall support system for his family. Of course, his job is very important to him, but the revisionist alpha male seems to believe that family is more important than work.
3:10 to Yuma
Although James Mangold’s remake of 3:10 to Yuma is essentially based on the same movie as Glenn Ford’s original 1957 version, it almost seems as if you’re watching a completely different movie along similar plotlines. Ford’s original version has all the great qualities of a classic western, while Mangold’s remake is more of a revisionist interpretation of the same story.
One of the key differences is the way the alpha cowboys are represented. They are less clean-cut and traditional looking in the remake of the film. While Ford did well in developing Ben Wade’s character as the alpha bad guy with a twist of good in him, Mangold’s version of the same character is more of a cold-blooded psychopath, unexpectedly becoming a better person in the end. Ford originally develops the plot in slightly surreal lines where everybody seems to follow cowboy ethics. Mangold, however, creates a much more action-packed film. You can see the difference in the part where Dan Evans escorts Ben to the train. In Ford’s version, Wade’s men seem threatening but don’t do much in the end other than create tension for Dan, letting it all happen smoothly. In Mangold’s film, however, they go crazy shooting their guns from everywhere, more people are killed along the way, and even Dan ultimately dies from one of the shots. It’s a much more ferocious and realistic approach to the Western environment, which essentially is what revisionist Westerns seem to represent.
The last scene is one of the most defining ones as to point out the revisionism in Mangold’s remake of the film. In the original film, Ben subdues into jumping along with Dan into the train. It’s almost like a happy ending, especially for Dan. However, in the remake, Dan is shot to death, which makes Ben kill everyone around him, and then jump himself in the train and leave. Needless to say, it’s all about action and violence in the remake.
One of the key differences is the way the alpha cowboys are represented. They are less clean-cut and traditional looking in the remake of the film. While Ford did well in developing Ben Wade’s character as the alpha bad guy with a twist of good in him, Mangold’s version of the same character is more of a cold-blooded psychopath, unexpectedly becoming a better person in the end. Ford originally develops the plot in slightly surreal lines where everybody seems to follow cowboy ethics. Mangold, however, creates a much more action-packed film. You can see the difference in the part where Dan Evans escorts Ben to the train. In Ford’s version, Wade’s men seem threatening but don’t do much in the end other than create tension for Dan, letting it all happen smoothly. In Mangold’s film, however, they go crazy shooting their guns from everywhere, more people are killed along the way, and even Dan ultimately dies from one of the shots. It’s a much more ferocious and realistic approach to the Western environment, which essentially is what revisionist Westerns seem to represent.
The last scene is one of the most defining ones as to point out the revisionism in Mangold’s remake of the film. In the original film, Ben subdues into jumping along with Dan into the train. It’s almost like a happy ending, especially for Dan. However, in the remake, Dan is shot to death, which makes Ben kill everyone around him, and then jump himself in the train and leave. Needless to say, it’s all about action and violence in the remake.
3:10 to Yuma
The two renditions of 3:10 to Yuma, the 1957 version and the 2007 version convey two separate views of the western. The first major difference in between the 1957 and 2007 versions is the amount of violence. In the 2007 version we see much more brutality between the outlaws and those escorting Wade to the train stop. The later is a revision a of the previous by this increase in violence. They director may have believed that it was necessary to recreate the scenes with more gun play to demonstrate the lawlessness of the west.
Another difference between the two films is the ending. In the original both Wade and Evans are able to board the train to Yuma, and the scene ends with rain. The rain signifies the end of the drought, and a new hope for Evans. He will be able to return and start up his farm again. In the 2007 revision, Evans dies, and Wade kills all of his outlaws. He then boards the train by himself. This could represent the fact that Wade shows retribution for his actions. He understands what he did wrong and willing to pay the correct consequences.
Also, Evan’s reasons for being an escort differ between these two films. In the previous version he was doing it only for the monetary benefit. All he cared about was getting paid for this little adventure so he could keep his farm up and running from the drought. In the revision of the movie, money was still an issue because his barn was burnt down, but the main reason was to prove himself to his son. He obviously believed that his son did not respect him, and wanted to show what a man he is. He seeks to prove himself to his son and show him that he can hold his own despite his disability. He lost a leg in the war and that clearly has hit him hard.
Another difference between the two films is the ending. In the original both Wade and Evans are able to board the train to Yuma, and the scene ends with rain. The rain signifies the end of the drought, and a new hope for Evans. He will be able to return and start up his farm again. In the 2007 revision, Evans dies, and Wade kills all of his outlaws. He then boards the train by himself. This could represent the fact that Wade shows retribution for his actions. He understands what he did wrong and willing to pay the correct consequences.
Also, Evan’s reasons for being an escort differ between these two films. In the previous version he was doing it only for the monetary benefit. All he cared about was getting paid for this little adventure so he could keep his farm up and running from the drought. In the revision of the movie, money was still an issue because his barn was burnt down, but the main reason was to prove himself to his son. He obviously believed that his son did not respect him, and wanted to show what a man he is. He seeks to prove himself to his son and show him that he can hold his own despite his disability. He lost a leg in the war and that clearly has hit him hard.
3:10 to Yuma
With fifty years separating the two versions of the film 3:10 to Yuma, there is certainly an element of revisionism in the later version when compared to the original. The obvious changes can be seen due to the updates in technology. Color film, increased action, and explosions are all included in the remake which makes that film more appealing and marketable for a western in present day. But there are also elements of revisionism in the details of the story that play out in the remake. For instance, the alpha cowboy, Dan Evan, is shown as a much weaker man in the remake. His and his family’s struggles are really illustrated in the remake as opposed to the original. We see that his son is sick, he is deep in debt, and he has to overcome a physical challenge of having only one leg. The dire straits that his family is in can be seen with how he first chisels a few dollars out of Ben Wade moments before he knows the marshal will arrive and then how he volunteers immediately and names a price for his services. The original shows Evan in financial distress but he has to be coaxed into escorting Wade to Contention City. There is a greater sense of urgency for the money in the remake. It suggests that today people are increasingly in need of financial help. This again can be seen later in the film with how the people of Contention City mobilized against Evan when offered $200 to shoot a member of the gang that was trying to get Wade to the train station. People even in the towns were some jobs exists are still clearly desperate for money. The original never shows this as Contention City is almost a ghost town as it nears 3pm. Only Wade’s gang is out on the streets to stop Evan.
Another area of revisionism that the remake touches on is seen in the others that existed in the west, specifically the Chinese working on the railroad. In the scene where Wade comes into the railroad tunnel site, we see the Chinese and how they are being worked to the bone in order to tunnel through the mountains. Those in control seem to disregard the conditions that the Chinese are in seeing they are not equal. The Chinese are all dirty, living in make shift tents, and looking physically beaten down. The original had no mention of any “other” in the film. With the remake including this scene, the filmmakers are certainly sending a message to show the human toll and punishment that took place in bringing the railroad west. It wasn’t all smiles and roses but rather gritty inhuman brute work done by a group being taken advantage of. The 1950s values that existed in society didn’t feel the need to display how racism existed in the west. But now as society is on a more diverse and equal level, issues like the treatment of the Chinese are projected forth.
Another area of revisionism that the remake touches on is seen in the others that existed in the west, specifically the Chinese working on the railroad. In the scene where Wade comes into the railroad tunnel site, we see the Chinese and how they are being worked to the bone in order to tunnel through the mountains. Those in control seem to disregard the conditions that the Chinese are in seeing they are not equal. The Chinese are all dirty, living in make shift tents, and looking physically beaten down. The original had no mention of any “other” in the film. With the remake including this scene, the filmmakers are certainly sending a message to show the human toll and punishment that took place in bringing the railroad west. It wasn’t all smiles and roses but rather gritty inhuman brute work done by a group being taken advantage of. The 1950s values that existed in society didn’t feel the need to display how racism existed in the west. But now as society is on a more diverse and equal level, issues like the treatment of the Chinese are projected forth.
3:10 to Yuma
It is interesting to look at the differences between the 1957 3:10 to Yuma film and the 2007 version. Half a century of advances in technology and film making helped make the 2007 a blockbuster hit. With super stars such as Russell Crowe and Christian Bale this film was an Oscar nominee with a ton of bloodshed. The remake director, James Mangold, spiced things up from Delmer Dave’s black and white classic.
The 2007 Yuma version is a more action-packed film catering more towards the desires of “Hollywood” effects. The biggest difference is in the ending of the films. While in the 1957 version, the film ends with train coming in and Dan waving to Alice and Butterfield with rain pouring down. This high and happy note is far different than the 2007 version. The updated version ends with a heavy gunfight in Contention City before Russell Crowe’s character hops aboard the 3:10 to Yuma with his horse following behind.
The 2007 revision of 3:10 to Yuma is a more action packed film and gives us a real Western feel with characters that people of today’s youth can relate to. This remake was much more enjoyable to watch than the 1957 version because of the revamped script and it was certainly nice to see some color in the film.
The 2007 Yuma version is a more action-packed film catering more towards the desires of “Hollywood” effects. The biggest difference is in the ending of the films. While in the 1957 version, the film ends with train coming in and Dan waving to Alice and Butterfield with rain pouring down. This high and happy note is far different than the 2007 version. The updated version ends with a heavy gunfight in Contention City before Russell Crowe’s character hops aboard the 3:10 to Yuma with his horse following behind.
The 2007 revision of 3:10 to Yuma is a more action packed film and gives us a real Western feel with characters that people of today’s youth can relate to. This remake was much more enjoyable to watch than the 1957 version because of the revamped script and it was certainly nice to see some color in the film.
3:10 to Yuma
The 2007 remake of 3:10 to Yuma is a revision of the original in a few different ways. The main character in the 2007 film is definitely a revision of the previous alpha male. Dan Evans in the 2007 film was definitely a weaker alpha male character than in the 1957 movie. In the 2007 movie Dan Evans had lost a leg in war, making him weaker than the prior alpha male, but also giving him a weakness that all the other men in the movie didn’t have. Dan’s children play an important role in both movies, but very different roles. In the 1957 movie they are confident in their father, and make him a stronger character. In the 2007 movie, the older of the two sons has no faith in his father, and is constantly putting him down. He doesn’t think his father will shoot anyone and is always out doing his father. Even at one point Ben Wade is getting away and Dan’s son saves everyone by sneaking up on Ben Wade and holding him at gun point and recapturing him. The personality of the alpha male in each movie was also different. The 1957 Dan Evans seemed to have a stronger personality, much more alike to the alpha males in traditional westerns. He seems to care much more about the savior of his farm and receiving the money from accomplishing the task. He was a lot strong in that he doesn’t allow Ben Wade to push him around in the least bit; he had his shot gun on Ben Wade at all times. The 2007 Dan Evans was very different. He was fighting for the money to help his family and to get the dignity of accomplishing the task. He wanted to prove to his sons that he could do it. This Dan Evans definitely wasn’t as confident as the 1957 Dan.
There were also some smaller differences such as the use of characters of other races. Ben Wade’s group of cowboys included a Mexican in the 2007 movie, which was a revision of the previous movie which didn’t include any characters of other races. The fact that this shooter was Mexican was hugely important because of how many people he killed. He killed many white men, which was very different to see a man of another race killing these men and having the power to end their lives.
Although these two movies followed the same plot, they had a lot of different aspects which categorize one as a traditional western and the other as a revisionist western.
There were also some smaller differences such as the use of characters of other races. Ben Wade’s group of cowboys included a Mexican in the 2007 movie, which was a revision of the previous movie which didn’t include any characters of other races. The fact that this shooter was Mexican was hugely important because of how many people he killed. He killed many white men, which was very different to see a man of another race killing these men and having the power to end their lives.
Although these two movies followed the same plot, they had a lot of different aspects which categorize one as a traditional western and the other as a revisionist western.
3:10 to Yuma
3:10 to Yuma has two versions, the original and the remake, which differ in several aspects. The most notable change is color and revisionism. Although both films follow the same plot, the remake is categorized as a revisionist western, due to the characteristics of the alpha cowboy and the “others.”Also, as time has progressed we no longer film or view in black and white, but use color to imagery.
One of the main differences of the “others” in the film is the women. The differing roles of Alice and Emmy are clearly seen throughout the films. Alice has the ability to stand up to her husband and demand answers all the while showing her disapproval, for example, when he did not stop the robbery and murder. Emmy on the other hand is just a mere object to her husband who never questions his authority or his decisions. If a question does arise, he can easily influence her view with materialistic objects or his “kind” words.
Another way 3:10 to Yuma the remake challenges the classic Western is the alpha male cowboy’s view on duty. In the classic Western, the cowboy views his duty to protect and enforce law only when he is affected by the actions of others. He does not believe he is there to fight someone else’s battle and hardly works for a monetary value. This is seen when Dan refuses to bring Ben Wade to the train. His reasoning for refusing to the sheriff is “that’s not my job, I ain’t no deputy.” In the remake it is Dan’s son who completes this task as Dan has been shot, but in the original Dan rides the train with Ben to ensure his arrival to Yuma.
3:10 to Yuma
The 1957 original version of 3:10 To Yuma has some major differences with the remake version of 2007. In fact, the 2007 version is in some ways a revision of the original. One of the biggest differences between the two films is the ending. In the 1957 version, Ben Wade and Dan Evans escape on the train to Yuma and it rains in the end of the movie. In the 2007 version, Dan Evans dies and Ben Wade kills his group of outlaws. Wade then gets on the train by himself to go to Yuma as Dan Evans’ son points a gun at him. The ending of the later film is much more violent than the earlier film. This seems to signify that the earlier film was not violent enough. Ben Wade seems much more violent and sociopathic in the later film because he kills more people not only in the end but also throughout the film.
In the later version, Dan Evans tries to prove to his sons that he is brave and heroic, whereas in the earlier version Dan Evans only wants to earn the money so that he can save his ranch. This is a revision, because in the later film Dan’s kids do not respect him and in the earlier film Dan’s kids think the world of their father. In the 1957 version, Dan’s children hardly make an appearance at all. His wife, however, makes many appearances, from the beginning to when she rides to meet him in Contention to when she sees him in the train in the end. In the later film, the director must not have wanted to make the same point with Dan’s wife because she did not have nearly as much of a role as she did in the earlier version. Dan’s son takes to the forefront in the later version. This is a revision because in the earlier version the women act as the main “other” whereas in the later version the young boy acts as the “other”.
Another point of revision is the point of other races in the film. In the newer version, Asians worked to build the railroad and both an Apache and a Mexican were part of Wade’s gang. In the later version, the director wanted to show all of the different types of people in the west, especially the Chinese that built the railroads, whereas the older version did not care to show many other races at all. This is a strong point of revision, because it signifies that today people are more apt to show people of all race and creed to play a part in an event, whereas in the 1950s people were less apt to show others of different races.
In the later version, Dan Evans tries to prove to his sons that he is brave and heroic, whereas in the earlier version Dan Evans only wants to earn the money so that he can save his ranch. This is a revision, because in the later film Dan’s kids do not respect him and in the earlier film Dan’s kids think the world of their father. In the 1957 version, Dan’s children hardly make an appearance at all. His wife, however, makes many appearances, from the beginning to when she rides to meet him in Contention to when she sees him in the train in the end. In the later film, the director must not have wanted to make the same point with Dan’s wife because she did not have nearly as much of a role as she did in the earlier version. Dan’s son takes to the forefront in the later version. This is a revision because in the earlier version the women act as the main “other” whereas in the later version the young boy acts as the “other”.
Another point of revision is the point of other races in the film. In the newer version, Asians worked to build the railroad and both an Apache and a Mexican were part of Wade’s gang. In the later version, the director wanted to show all of the different types of people in the west, especially the Chinese that built the railroads, whereas the older version did not care to show many other races at all. This is a strong point of revision, because it signifies that today people are more apt to show people of all race and creed to play a part in an event, whereas in the 1950s people were less apt to show others of different races.
3:10 to Yuma
The remake of 3:10 to Yuma had a very different plot because the director revised a lot of the aspects of the film. In the latter of 3:10 to Yuma many changes were made in the plot to revise this classic western. In the new film the character base was a mix of different races. The crew of outlaws had a Mexican sniper. During the scene when they are looking for Ben Wade they go through a rail road site with Asain workers. These characters were not present in the 1957 production of the movie where most people seen were Anglo-Saxon. Add a diverse cast is a revision of the western ideal. Children played a major role in 3:10 to Yuma. When Dan Evans’ son stuck up Ben Wade, a child in classic westerns never had the ability t overpower the bad alpha male.
The outlaws in 3:10 to Yuma were sociopaths. They killed without flinching, and were ruthless with betrayal. This is a revision because in the 1957 production the outlaws had a code. They did not look forward to killing; they tried to avoid because killing brought severe consequences. New technologies where used by the outlaws in the 2007 remake. The Mexican had a long barrel rifle with a long scope attached. Dynamite was also a weapon used by the alpha males in 3:10 to Yuma. These new technologies present the audience with intense action. This is a modern revision to most action movies.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
3:10 to Yuma
Although both the original and remake of 3:10 to Yuma follow an almost identical plot line there are many differences which exist between the two, much more than just the fact one is in black and white and the other color. The remake can be thought of as a revision of the original film because of the different ways the alpha male cowboy and “the others” are portrayed in these two films.
The role of the female is a distinguishing characteristic which makes the remake a revisionist film. In the original film, when Dan and his two sons arrive home after watching the robbery and murder, his wife comes running out of the house looking dazed and confused. Dan does not seem to have the time of day to explain to his wife what has happened and looks to his young children to explain to their mother. Throughout the conversation, Alice expresses disproval that Dan did nothing to help. He claims it was not his place to intervene. In classic westerns the female is often dismissed by the alpha male, especially when she speaks. In the original film, Emmy is seen as an object to Ben, someone he can bribe with pearls.
In the classic Western, the alpha male cowboy bases his journeys off of his duty. He lives by a sense of duty based ethics, in which he only completes tasks he sees as necessary and required by him. At the beginning of the original film when the sheriff asks Dan to bring Ben Wade to the train Dan refuses and says, “That’s not my job, I ain’t no deputy.” He only later accepts because the cash reward is needed to save his farm. In the 2007 version places a greater emphasis on Dan Evan’s role as a father and husband. While in both films Dan accepts the task of escorting Ben to the 3:10 train to Yuma, it seems that in the latest film he does so out of duty to his family, to make money for his boys, not his farm. The 1958 film repeatedly stresses the fact Dan is losing money because his farm is suffering from the drought. Although he needs the money to support his family as well, it seems as though Dan in the 2007 film has a greater connection with his family. In classic western films the alpha male cowboy is not tied down to a home and a family. In the remake Dan’s son is instrumental in the completion of his father’s task. After Dan is shot it is his son who holds the gun to Ben to ensure he boards the train to Yuma. In the original of 3:10 to Yuma, Dan finishes his duty and rides the train with Ben to guarantee his arrival to the prision.
The role of the female is a distinguishing characteristic which makes the remake a revisionist film. In the original film, when Dan and his two sons arrive home after watching the robbery and murder, his wife comes running out of the house looking dazed and confused. Dan does not seem to have the time of day to explain to his wife what has happened and looks to his young children to explain to their mother. Throughout the conversation, Alice expresses disproval that Dan did nothing to help. He claims it was not his place to intervene. In classic westerns the female is often dismissed by the alpha male, especially when she speaks. In the original film, Emmy is seen as an object to Ben, someone he can bribe with pearls.
In the classic Western, the alpha male cowboy bases his journeys off of his duty. He lives by a sense of duty based ethics, in which he only completes tasks he sees as necessary and required by him. At the beginning of the original film when the sheriff asks Dan to bring Ben Wade to the train Dan refuses and says, “That’s not my job, I ain’t no deputy.” He only later accepts because the cash reward is needed to save his farm. In the 2007 version places a greater emphasis on Dan Evan’s role as a father and husband. While in both films Dan accepts the task of escorting Ben to the 3:10 train to Yuma, it seems that in the latest film he does so out of duty to his family, to make money for his boys, not his farm. The 1958 film repeatedly stresses the fact Dan is losing money because his farm is suffering from the drought. Although he needs the money to support his family as well, it seems as though Dan in the 2007 film has a greater connection with his family. In classic western films the alpha male cowboy is not tied down to a home and a family. In the remake Dan’s son is instrumental in the completion of his father’s task. After Dan is shot it is his son who holds the gun to Ben to ensure he boards the train to Yuma. In the original of 3:10 to Yuma, Dan finishes his duty and rides the train with Ben to guarantee his arrival to the prision.
3:10 to Yuma
The remake is different from the original. Explain why or not the latter is a revision of the former. In what ways? Illustrate and support your claim.t
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Unforgiven
The 1992 film Unforgiven directed by Clint Eastwood is considered to be a revisionist western film, and a great one at that capturing four Oscars. While women play somewhat of a revisionist role, rebelling and asking for a hit to be put on their friend who was killed, the reason this film is considered a revisionist film is because of Morgan Freeman’s character Ned Logan.
Revisionism according to the New Oxford American Dictionary is “a policy of revision or modification…the theory or practice of revising one’s attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view.” Freeman is one of the first prominent African American characters in the Western films we have seen. Freeman’s character Ned Logan is skilled with a gun however, he is able to pull the trigger, and fires a shot but he is unable to kill the man. For the first time in Westerns, the gun doesn’t solve issues. This revisionist film was an interesting contrast to the films we have seen thus far.
Revisionism according to the New Oxford American Dictionary is “a policy of revision or modification…the theory or practice of revising one’s attitude to a previously accepted situation or point of view.” Freeman is one of the first prominent African American characters in the Western films we have seen. Freeman’s character Ned Logan is skilled with a gun however, he is able to pull the trigger, and fires a shot but he is unable to kill the man. For the first time in Westerns, the gun doesn’t solve issues. This revisionist film was an interesting contrast to the films we have seen thus far.
Unforgiven
Revisionist Westerns characterize themselves in modifying the already established tradition of classic Westerns. Typical characteristics in a Western, such as the superimposition of the alpha cowboy, the demeaning roles of women, and the lack of importance to “other” characters such as Indians, Mexicans and African Americans, are tweaked away from the farfetched and impractical to a more realistic approach of what the Western life was like, ultimately revising the views shown in the classic western. In a way, the film Unforgiven can be categorized as a revisionist Western.
We see an essence of revisionism n terms of the alpha male character, Munny, in contrast with his faithful partner, Ned. In classic Westerns, the alpha male cowboy, along with all other ruthless cowboys of the West, are generally white men. Ned Logan happens to be African American. This is the first time that a black man is given such an important role, especially important to the alpha male cowboy. It was Ned’s death that ultimately sparked the alpha cowboy to claim his revenge. Beforehand, the alpha cowboy was far from his glory days. We see him struggling with the farm in the beginning, just like he has trouble shooting the can from the tree at first. We no longer see an overbearing presence in terms of the alpha male cowboy, just like the villains seem to have more power.
If we take a look at the roles of women in the film, we are also presented with a seriously different representation of women from the classic Westerns. Traditionally, women are objects for the pleasure of men. They are in charge of the household, and spend their lifetime waiting for a man to wed her. However, in Unforgiven, we see a group of prostitutes who essentially are businesswomen. They might not have much power in comparison to men in town, but at least it’s not the typical background role of ignorance that women tend to represent.
We see an essence of revisionism n terms of the alpha male character, Munny, in contrast with his faithful partner, Ned. In classic Westerns, the alpha male cowboy, along with all other ruthless cowboys of the West, are generally white men. Ned Logan happens to be African American. This is the first time that a black man is given such an important role, especially important to the alpha male cowboy. It was Ned’s death that ultimately sparked the alpha cowboy to claim his revenge. Beforehand, the alpha cowboy was far from his glory days. We see him struggling with the farm in the beginning, just like he has trouble shooting the can from the tree at first. We no longer see an overbearing presence in terms of the alpha male cowboy, just like the villains seem to have more power.
If we take a look at the roles of women in the film, we are also presented with a seriously different representation of women from the classic Westerns. Traditionally, women are objects for the pleasure of men. They are in charge of the household, and spend their lifetime waiting for a man to wed her. However, in Unforgiven, we see a group of prostitutes who essentially are businesswomen. They might not have much power in comparison to men in town, but at least it’s not the typical background role of ignorance that women tend to represent.
Unforgiven
Unforgiven is a western modern film. Its modern view shows us how old cowboys and alpha males are still in touch with their cowboy side. They are easily drawn back into the world even though thy were living completely different lives.
Munny was living in a farm raising two children and Logan left his wife to go with the Kid in the mission he proposed to them. At first both were doubtful about the decision but in the end they followed The Kid and continued in their mission.
Even though this movie shows the hugry side of cowboys it also shows us a new image of them. The soft side that Logan portrays when he leaves Kid and Munny after the first encounter with Little Bill and the law.
At the end of the movie, the real cowboy is shown. There is a scene which show the alpha male’s true nature. Killing a lo of cowboys without receiving a hit and later threatening everybody and scaring them so they would not come in his way. He is shown alone in the bar drinking whiskey with dead bodies around him. Unforgiven is a western which truly knows the real meaning of the alpha male cowboy.
Munny was living in a farm raising two children and Logan left his wife to go with the Kid in the mission he proposed to them. At first both were doubtful about the decision but in the end they followed The Kid and continued in their mission.
Even though this movie shows the hugry side of cowboys it also shows us a new image of them. The soft side that Logan portrays when he leaves Kid and Munny after the first encounter with Little Bill and the law.
At the end of the movie, the real cowboy is shown. There is a scene which show the alpha male’s true nature. Killing a lo of cowboys without receiving a hit and later threatening everybody and scaring them so they would not come in his way. He is shown alone in the bar drinking whiskey with dead bodies around him. Unforgiven is a western which truly knows the real meaning of the alpha male cowboy.
Unforgiven
Unforgiven is a film starring the infamous new age western actor Clint Eastwood. Revisionism is defined as the attempted change of a long standing theory or activities practiced. In Unforgiven, we see a revisionist sense of the alpha male cowboy. An original underlying theme of the alpha male is the power of his gun. His gun not only represented a phallic symbol of the west, but showed how violence was a key aspect of this time period. The alpha male consistently looked to his gun to solve problems, or to get individuals to perform as he wanted them to. In Unforgiven we see the opposite. The characters come to a realization that violence may be a short term answer, but does not solve the issue down the road. When Deliah was cut in the Brothel, every female wanted revenge for this horrific act. Even after their hunger for revenge was pleased, the issue was unresolved.
Morgan Freedman plays what we consider the “other” in this film. His character constantly deviates from the normally roles of the “other”. Freedman is a skilled marksman, but cannot bring himself to shoot the outlaw in this film. In previous films such as “The Searchers” or even “Two Mules For Sister Sara” we see the other not having any trouble shooting down the enemy. In “Two Mules…” the female character even is able to kill when it is necessary. This is the first film in which we see restraint from an “other” character and continues to exhibit this non-violent recurring theme.
This film is also part of the Spaghetti Western phase of the time. The film parallels with many of the themes examined in Spaghetti westerns, most of which is violence. These Spaghetti westerns demonstrate how the west is interpreted by other countries. They saw it as an extremely violent place, with no justice on the horizon. This film does differ from many of the other Spaghetti Westerns because it tries to convey the message of anti-violence towards the end of the film. They try to show that the west was a very violent place, but we need to realize that it does not solve all of our problems. This film brought up the thought that maybe we don’t need to shoot everyone that we disagree with. It arose questions on whether this type of justice was really fair, or necessary.
Morgan Freedman plays what we consider the “other” in this film. His character constantly deviates from the normally roles of the “other”. Freedman is a skilled marksman, but cannot bring himself to shoot the outlaw in this film. In previous films such as “The Searchers” or even “Two Mules For Sister Sara” we see the other not having any trouble shooting down the enemy. In “Two Mules…” the female character even is able to kill when it is necessary. This is the first film in which we see restraint from an “other” character and continues to exhibit this non-violent recurring theme.
This film is also part of the Spaghetti Western phase of the time. The film parallels with many of the themes examined in Spaghetti westerns, most of which is violence. These Spaghetti westerns demonstrate how the west is interpreted by other countries. They saw it as an extremely violent place, with no justice on the horizon. This film does differ from many of the other Spaghetti Westerns because it tries to convey the message of anti-violence towards the end of the film. They try to show that the west was a very violent place, but we need to realize that it does not solve all of our problems. This film brought up the thought that maybe we don’t need to shoot everyone that we disagree with. It arose questions on whether this type of justice was really fair, or necessary.
Unforgiven
In the traditional Western genre, the alpha male cowboy only used his force when necessary. He never sought out violence or fought someone else’s battle. In the film, Unforgiven, the alpha male Billy Munny challenges these characteristics (those that John Wayne represents), therefore, the Unforgiven serves as a revisionist film. Munny is a retired assassin who has “gone good”. He now lives on a farm with his two children and attempts to live the normal life of a hog farmer. His qualities as the alpha male are not shown through this hard, laborious work, rather he looks like an invalid when his children can herd the hogs better than him. Another way Munny forces this film to be categorized as a revisionist is his reliance on others.
Although Munny is seen as the alpha male cowboy, he only possesses the knowledge associated with this role, not the ability with the gun or the good looks. He is also contradicting of the alpha male by his resistance towards alcohol and the touch of a woman, as well as, his deep connection with his partner and his dead wife.
In the beginning of the film, we see Ned Logan, an excellent marksman, unable to murder the outlaws for whom he is assigned to kill. Ned, not only being an African American, classified as the “other”, serves as Munny’s sidekick and partner in crime. His inability to pull the trigger when necessary portrays his defiance against the alpha male, Bill Munny. In several other revisionist films, the sidekick is able to kill those who get in their way, for example Sarah in Two Mules for Sister Sarah.
As the film continues, the viewer sees Bill Munny unravel. This sets the film apart from traditional Westerns, by showing Munny as a common human, losing his sanity caused by the death of his best friend, Ned Logan. He does not act in a rational manner where he has no emotions because he prefers to work in solitude. Instead Munny is seen on a rampage destroying the lives of those around him consumed with revenge for his partner’s death.
Although Munny is seen as the alpha male cowboy, he only possesses the knowledge associated with this role, not the ability with the gun or the good looks. He is also contradicting of the alpha male by his resistance towards alcohol and the touch of a woman, as well as, his deep connection with his partner and his dead wife.
In the beginning of the film, we see Ned Logan, an excellent marksman, unable to murder the outlaws for whom he is assigned to kill. Ned, not only being an African American, classified as the “other”, serves as Munny’s sidekick and partner in crime. His inability to pull the trigger when necessary portrays his defiance against the alpha male, Bill Munny. In several other revisionist films, the sidekick is able to kill those who get in their way, for example Sarah in Two Mules for Sister Sarah.
As the film continues, the viewer sees Bill Munny unravel. This sets the film apart from traditional Westerns, by showing Munny as a common human, losing his sanity caused by the death of his best friend, Ned Logan. He does not act in a rational manner where he has no emotions because he prefers to work in solitude. Instead Munny is seen on a rampage destroying the lives of those around him consumed with revenge for his partner’s death.
In the film Unforgiven Morgan Freeman plays a role similar to the alpha male cowboy. Morgan Freeman plays the old time partner of Clint Eastwood’s character, William “Bill” Munny. Logan, Freeman’s character, and Munny were once a band of killing machines. There past is stricken with evil deeds that neither have turned back upon. This past is revisionist because it portrays two alpha males one being Logan. His character is a revisionist character because in traditional Westerns an African American would be an “other” character. He would not be able to complete with the alpha male. In traditional westerns the “other” character played a minute part to the Anglo-Saxon prodigy John Wayne. Freeman’s character breaks this tradition, he is a sharpshooter, and he commands respect with a terrifying aura. He even has keen sense like the alpha male, he discovers that Kid cannot see father than 50 yards, and that he hadn’t killed a man. This portrayal of Morgan Freeman’s character is revisionism in the Western genre because it broke old traditional Western ideals. These ideals surround the main character, the alpha male, and his conquest over evil or unjust. The alpha male in “traditional” Westerns is the strongest person in the film. In Unforgiven the power is shared between the three male characters; Kid, Logan, and Munny.
Unforgiven
Just as The Ballad of Little Jo told the story of the West from the “other’s” point of view, Unforgiven gives a glimpse into the “African American perspective”[1] The revolutionary idea of using “the other” as a main character is what makes Unforgiven a revisionist western. Revisionism is “a departure from any authoritative or generally accepted doctrine, theory, practice, etc.”[2] While classic Westerns tend to focus solely on the white alpha male, revisionist westerns tell stories about “the other”. For example, in classic films, Native Americans were not even used to play the role of the Indians; instead white people were painted to look like a Native American. Unforgiven is revisionist by showcasing an African American as one of the film’s protagonists.
Ever since his first appearance in the film, Ned is seen as an equal to the alpha cowboy, Will. The two men’s silhouettes are seen riding side by side as they are off to complete their task. When meeting up with Schofield Kid, Will, introduces Ned Logan as his old partner. The Kid was skeptical to let Ned join at first but Will refused to participate if Ned could not. In this film Ned is viewed as a cowboy with human emotions, not an object; he talks to Will about how he misses his wife and is unable to shoot others out of compassion. Throughout the film, Will requires assistance from Ned Hogan after he is beaten and needs to hide out and be stitched up. The only time a reference is made to Ned’s dark skin is when Will says, "I must look kind of like you now” after he is beaten. When Ned is murdered, Will shoots wildly out of revenge and demands that the men give Ned a burial, just like any human deserves.
[1] http://www.filmsite.org/westernfilms5.html
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revisionism
Ever since his first appearance in the film, Ned is seen as an equal to the alpha cowboy, Will. The two men’s silhouettes are seen riding side by side as they are off to complete their task. When meeting up with Schofield Kid, Will, introduces Ned Logan as his old partner. The Kid was skeptical to let Ned join at first but Will refused to participate if Ned could not. In this film Ned is viewed as a cowboy with human emotions, not an object; he talks to Will about how he misses his wife and is unable to shoot others out of compassion. Throughout the film, Will requires assistance from Ned Hogan after he is beaten and needs to hide out and be stitched up. The only time a reference is made to Ned’s dark skin is when Will says, "I must look kind of like you now” after he is beaten. When Ned is murdered, Will shoots wildly out of revenge and demands that the men give Ned a burial, just like any human deserves.
[1] http://www.filmsite.org/westernfilms5.html
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/revisionism
Unforgiven
Revisionist westerns are those that stray from the traditional story line of westerns, and from the customary plot and characters. A traditional western can be summarized as one in which the alpha male cowboy is the main character and there are other characters who barely have any effect on him. Traditional western alpha male cowboy has very little respect for other characters, and don’t adapt well to the idea of a side kick. In Unforgiven, a revisionist western, there are many aspects that differentiate it from a traditional western from the start. The main plot involves revenge for the harm of a group of prostitutes in a town, giving the women a hugely important and influential role in the movie, which is unlike traditional westerns. The main aspect that differentiates Unforgiven from a traditional western is the focal relationship between William Munny and Ned. The first difference is that Ned is black, which puts a twist on the relationship from the start. In traditional westerns that we have previously viewed only include other races such as Indians, blacks as slaves, or Chinese as slaves, and no respect is paid towards them. On another level, the way the alpha male cowboy, Will, allows another person to become an equal and his companion is revisionist. Will chooses Ned to aid him in the search for the outlaw cowboys in hope for the bounty, and throughout the movie they continue their relationship as friends and companions. Not only does the alpha male offer to split the $1000, but in no way acts superior to Ned. The end really defines the movie as a revisionist film. The emotion Will shows because of the death of his sidekick, Ned after being brutally murdered for what Will had done, is not the way a traditional alpha male cowboy would react. A traditional cowboy would have little or no reaction, whereas Will travels back into town for revenge and then threatens the entire town that he will kill them all if they do not properly bury Ned. His respect and care for Ned really makes him different from the typical alpha cowboy, and classifies this film as revisionist.
Unforgiven
Unforgiven, exactly what Little Bill was in the end, as well as the two women cutters. Despite the alpha male character, Clint Eastwood's William Munny, being as ruthless as any traditional cowboy at the end of the movie when he kills five men, he is still different from traditional alpha male cowboys in his ways. His partner, Ned, also shows he is quite unlike the traditional cowboy. Due to the changing behavior of the alpha male cowboy and the nontraditional occurrences in Unforgiven, the film is considered a revisionist western. The film turns away from the long-standing plot structure and traditional scenes of the Western. In this revisionist film a viewer will not find a cowboy living off the land for very long periods of time, instead the cowboys receive food and hospitality from prostitutes. There is no stand off in the end, no structured duel, only Clint Eastwood's character walking into the saloon gun's blazing.
In term's of Clint Eastwood's character, William Munny himself, a viewer sees a new type of alpha male cowboy. In the beginning of the film Munny is a dirty, old pig farmer, who admits to being changed by a woman, his deceased wife. When Munny is offered a job which would bring him back to his old ways, he at first declines, which at first was not all that surprising. What was surprising for an alpha male character was that when he did decide to take the job, he went straight to his old partner's house. A partner? For an alpha male cowboy? The Schofield Kid was also surprised and put off by this. He rebuked Munny's idea of bringing a partner along, but Munny refused to work without him. This partner, Morgan Freeman's character Ned, was no ordinary cowboy either. The first night the three cowboy's set up camp, Ned is already complaining about missing his wife and his bed. A traditional cowboy has no problems sleeping on the ground and being on the road. At least the three of them still drink whiskey to get by on this trip right? Wrong. Will refuses to even drink. In addition to refusing booze, at least until the last scene, he turns down sex in town as well. He even refuses to have free sex from a prostitute, which a typical, traditional cowboy would have accepted. Like the cowboys in The Searchers, a typical cowboy does not quit or give up once he has a goal in mind. Ned quits the mission after just firing a couple shots. He turns around to go home, which then results in his capture and eventual demise. In William's revenge toward Little Bill, he shows no honor. Instead he shoots an unarmed man who he had never met, the saloon owner. The two main cowboys and the way the film plays out makes this film a revisionist Western.
In term's of Clint Eastwood's character, William Munny himself, a viewer sees a new type of alpha male cowboy. In the beginning of the film Munny is a dirty, old pig farmer, who admits to being changed by a woman, his deceased wife. When Munny is offered a job which would bring him back to his old ways, he at first declines, which at first was not all that surprising. What was surprising for an alpha male character was that when he did decide to take the job, he went straight to his old partner's house. A partner? For an alpha male cowboy? The Schofield Kid was also surprised and put off by this. He rebuked Munny's idea of bringing a partner along, but Munny refused to work without him. This partner, Morgan Freeman's character Ned, was no ordinary cowboy either. The first night the three cowboy's set up camp, Ned is already complaining about missing his wife and his bed. A traditional cowboy has no problems sleeping on the ground and being on the road. At least the three of them still drink whiskey to get by on this trip right? Wrong. Will refuses to even drink. In addition to refusing booze, at least until the last scene, he turns down sex in town as well. He even refuses to have free sex from a prostitute, which a typical, traditional cowboy would have accepted. Like the cowboys in The Searchers, a typical cowboy does not quit or give up once he has a goal in mind. Ned quits the mission after just firing a couple shots. He turns around to go home, which then results in his capture and eventual demise. In William's revenge toward Little Bill, he shows no honor. Instead he shoots an unarmed man who he had never met, the saloon owner. The two main cowboys and the way the film plays out makes this film a revisionist Western.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)