Unforgiven
Violence in movies, whether it be action, horror, western, or any other genre, is almost always shown as being something with the most minimum of consequences and in many ways, a glorious method of preventing the viewer from falling into sleep induced boredom. Whereas in real life, violence along with the literal taking of human life has a number of negative descriptions that can be applied to it including horrific, excruciating, idiotic, and nauseating. Even more interesting is the dynamic of (mostly liberal) Hollywood stars who have made more than their fair share of Grand Guignol blood and guts films, yet they still like to openly trumpet their dislike of the same thing in real life. Certainly if there is one movie star whose name and films have come to be identified with violent content, itâs Clint Eastwood, from The Dollars Trilogy and The Dirty Harry films all the way down to the various other entries on his filmography, Eastwood has always been seen as the type of guy who is not to be messed with or god forbid he will come out with guns blazing and / or fists flying, but yet he too has also publicly stated a profound dislike for the real thing even as he has always been the one star above all others to have had a very tight control over his own screen persona and many might say over his personal life as well, so when the script for this 1992 film finally came to him (after being in development for 20 years), he saw in it the chance to âredeemâ his sins of the past in allegedly glorifying violent, even possibly antisocial behavior by strapping on the spurs one more time and settling into the directorâs chair to make what many considered to be an âanti-Westernâ, one with no clear cut good guys or bad guys and whose overall sense of moral ambiguity on both sides might amazingly cause the viewer to actually root for different characters at different points in the film depending on oneâs own personal values. In doing so, Eastwood also managed to recruit Gene Hackman (who at one point had turned down the lead role in the early 80s) who was no less a legendary actor than he was, to not only play a key role but to arguably give the single greatest acting performance of his career that not only garnered him a second Oscar (for Best Supporting Actor) but also solidified him as being one of the most hardass movie stars to ever live. And what a success it was, as along with Hackmanâs win, the movie won Oscars for Best Picture and Best Director for Eastwood (his first) along with being a smash hit at the box office on what was only a $14 million dollar budget. The film begins at a whorehouse where an unpleasant scene has broken out, as one of the âclientsâ has just taken a knife to the face of a prostitute (Anna Thomson, an average looking actress who somehow had an unexplainable streak in the early 90s by appearing in supporting roles in some of the greatest movies of that era before fading into obscurity), cutting up her face and permanently disfiguring her. When he and his friend (who was seemingly just trying to pull him off but still takes half the blame) are restrained and tied down, the local Sheriff named Little Bill (Hackman) considers giving them a thorough bullwhipping (a reasonable punishment), but when they instead make an offer to the establishment owner (Anthony James) of some prize horses as compensation for his damaged property, the owner agrees and Hackman sends them on their way with no restitution being made to the traumatized girl herself since she is considered to be merely the property of the owner. This decision by Hackman sends the Madam of the house (Francis Fisher) into such a self righteous rage that she pools the money of all the other girls together to offer up a âbountyâ of $1000 (or so they claim) to anybody who actually KILLS the two offenders, clearly showing this character to possibly be the true, actual villain of the film whose bloodlust is actually much stronger than that of the rather passive victim and is constantly instigating the call for vigilante violence throughout the film even when one of the perpetrators in all sincerity offers the injured girl herself directly a prize horse of her own, only to have the Madam spit on him âon her behalfâ and shriek at him about how he is going to die, which also leaves Hackmanâs mostly tough but fair Sheriff with the problem of how now he is going to have to deal with the assortment of bounty hunters and killers that will come into his peaceful town (which has a no gun ordinance except for law enforcement) while still declining to take any action against the (unharmed) lead prostitute who is stirring up the problem, since at one point he even states that he would never harm a woman. As word of the bounty spreads, we meet Eastwoodâs William Munny, once said to be one of the most vicious killers to ever roam the West but is now a widower pig farmer raising his two kids alone. He is approached by a young, big talking punk named âThe Schofield Kidâ (Jaimz Woolvett) who knows Munnyâs reputation and persuades him to come help collect the bounty (which Munny badly needs) provided that they bring along Munnyâs old friend and partner (Morgan Freeman) to ensure that the job gets done right. Meanwhile, Hackman has just caught in his town one English Bob (Richard Harris), a pompous ass of a gunfighter (who carries around his own personal biographer played by Saul Rubinek) who spends half of his screentime pontificating about how easy it is to kill a President but not a King or Queen since any possible assassin would be too blinded by âthe majesty of royaltyâ, but when Hackman gets ahold of him, he starts by first beating the shit out of him before metaphorically emasculating him completely, sparing his life but still completely destroying his own badass, cold hard killer reputation that he had worked so hard to falsely enhance before Eastwood, Freeman, and The Kid arrive in the town shortly thereafter. The beauty of the story is in just that kind of complexity especially by Western standards, as even though Hackman is brutal and uncompromising in dispensing justice (even killing somebody with that damn bullwhip), he nonetheless does what he has to do in order to maintain law and order and is never ever shown mistreating any actual law abiding citizens, whereas Eastwood and his companions talk about their little mission as if theyâre nobly defending a womanâs honor, but in truth they are just lying to themselves, going about planning and committing acts of premeditated murder solely for the MONEY. In this host of great actors, the only performance that doesnât quite measure up here is Woolvettâs Kid, sticking out like a sore thumb amongst his more acclaimed costars all while doing such a bad Christian Slater impersonation that one wonders why Eastwood didnât just go ahead and hire Slater himself to play the part (it seems as though this young actor must have watched Slaterâs performance as Arkansas Dave Rudabaugh in Young Guns II 100 times in a row in order to prepare for this role) and Woolvettâs own disappearing off the cinematic landscape afterwards seems almost emblematic of this issue, especially as his later scenes pretty much consist of him constantly whining almost nonstop. But the realistic, unglamorous horrors of violence and killing and the outright refusal to employ the old Western archetypes of good and evil is what made people sit up and take notice of this movie then just as they do now, and Eastwoodâs performance itself (coming from a guy who has killed scores of people onscreen) embodying that of someone who carries the deep psychological scars of all that killing even as he assumes an almost demonic form for the filmâs climax in order to take care of his final piece of business is easily among his best and most impressive, successfully making a statement to anybody who cares to view the film on how a lifetime of violence has severe consequences to the violent person far beyond that of either legal or moral boundariesâŚ
9/10