#45 Shane (1953)

Shane (Alan Ladd), an out-of-town gunslinger, finds himself caught in a battle amongst local homesteaders and  a cattle baron named Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) who wants their land.  After riding into town, Shane settles in with the Starretts, a homesteader family.  Joe Starrett (Van Heflin) and his wife Marian (Jean Arthur), along with their settler friends, want nothing more than to defend their land.  However, after Joe and Shane get into a fist fight with Ryker’s men while buying supplies in town, Ryker vows to use any means necessary, including guns, to get the families to leave their land.  Shane then, having given up his gunslinging days, may be the only hope the homesteaders have to keep their beloved property.

Though it did not feel like as much of a western as Butch Cassidy or The Searchers, it contained enough horses, mountains, and gun wielding cowboys to make it so.  And it tops my list as one of the better westerns of the bunch.  Shane has more meat on its bones.  It is not just about land ownership; it is about love, idolization, brutality, self-righteousness, honor, and freedom.  It is about a man who roams from town to town and the reasoning behind his need to defend a man he barely knows, which remains officially unanswered and left open to debate.  It is about the innocence of a young boy who looks up to this man more than his own father.  It is about a wife who finds herself attracted to the man, though never vocally admitting it.  And it is about a town divided into two sects, the homesteaders and Ryker’s men, and the savage lengths each man will go to get what he feels belongs to him.

I had not thought about the psychology behind Shane’s motives until I read Roger Ebert’s review of this film.  He concludes the review by asking the reader why Shane involves himself in Starrett’s battle after knowing him for less than a few minutes?  Does he do it out of bravery and courage or does he do it to express a great yearning inside of him?  Ebert predicted if we were to follow Shane’s life, it would be filled with the same story over and over.  Shane rides into town, engages himself in a battle that does not involve him, vows not to use violence yet places himself in a situation where there is no other way, he saves the day and then rides off because, as Shane says, “There’s no living with a killing.”  Ebert summarizes Shane by saying, “He has…issues” and I would have to agree.  A man who runs from deep connections, runs from stability, and constantly needs to prove his values does have…issues.

My one major complaint about this film is the amount of time spent on little Joey Starrett’s (Brandon De Wilde) devotion to Shane.  If I never have to hear that actor say, “Shane” again, it will be too soon.  It baffled me because his own father was not a weak man.  Joe had a much manlier build than Shane and he was just as willing to fight Ryker’s men as Shane was.  Joe did not have the gunslinger quality, which Joey obviously found fascinating, but he was a loyal and upstanding father.  I found Joey’s admiration to be homoerotic and the way he stared at Shane left a bad taste in my mouth.  Ebert suggested bringing Freud into some of this film’s issues, stating it would “uncover all sorts of possibilities.”  Besides the gun Shane toted around, which Freud could have a field day with, I am not sure where Joey’s disturbing idolization came from, but I did not appreciate it.

Another love could be found between Shane and Marian, though it remained unspoken.  Shane is taken by her upon first sight whereas Marian seems to approach Shane more so as a caretaker.  In one scene, she stares as Shane walks to the barn where he sleeps.  Joe opens the bedroom door and asks her what’s wrong.  Without any embarrassment at having been caught, she turns to Joe and asks him to hold her tight, which he does.  After witnessing them dance together, the look on Joe’s face indicates he knows something is happening, but he does not fear it.  There are several unspoken subtleties throughout the film and most are left up to audience interpretation.  I am still unsure as to whether Marian felt the same kind of love for Shane as he did for her, but I know she did not regret being with Joe or living the life she led.

One critic pointed out that Shane “contains a disturbing revelation of the savagery that prevailed in the hearts of the old gun-fighters, who were simply legal killers under the frontier code.”  I walked away from this film thinking I would never have wanted to live during those times.  I got the feeling that no one was safe.  The men were savage and they went after what they wanted by fighting and killing.  I have no idea why Ryker wanted that land, which made the violence worse because I did not know what he was fighting for. The scenes were more action-packed and lasted for longer than I am used to seeing.  Luckily, they were not too bloody, but it sure made me appreciate modern times and the kind of town I live in now.

The acting was decent.  I could tolerate all the characters, though I liked Jean Arthur better in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  She had more energy and vibrance.  Shane was the last film she made before choosing to abandon her Hollywood career.  Alan Ladd had an impeccable way of leaving the viewer wanting more in terms of his character, which goes back to all those questions about why he did what he did.  Whether that was intended or not, it works for me because I like the mystery and awe in his character.  Is it his narcissism which makes him act as he does or his complete lack of self-esteem?  And Van Heflin played a lovable father whose only negative feelings seemed to arise when his land was threatened.  The fact that his son, and possibly his wife, loved another man more than him never seemed to bother him.  That one I do not understand, but would love to dive into deeper if I ever get the chance to meet the story or screenplay writer in heaven one day.

This definitely was one of the better westerns and I do recommend it.  The character’s motives provoke questions, the relationships spur curiosity, and the brutality evokes fear.  It is not your average shoot-em-up western.  It will make you question, think, and feel while being surrounded by horses, mountains, cowboys, fist fights, and two of the fasted gunslingers you will ever see.

#27 High Noon (1952)

Marshal Will Kane (Gary Cooper) is set to turn in his badge and begin life with his new wife Amy (Grace Kelly) when he gets word that Frank Miller (Ian MacDonald), a criminal he put away, has been pardoned.  Frank is due to arrive on the noon train and seek his revenge against Will.  Will, unable to leave without settling the matter, cannot find anyone willing to help him fight Frank.  His top deputy, Harvey Pell (Lloyd Bridges), quits because he wants to fight Frank on his own and the rest of the townspeople are either too scared or friends with Frank.  Will must now stand alone against the man he put away and risks his life, as well as his marriage, to bring about justice one last time.

How this movie made the top 100 list is beyond me.  I could have walked away fifteen minutes into the film and returned when there was ten minutes left without missing any important details.  I did a google search to find Ebert’s review on High Noon, hoping he would unmask the true beauty of it.  Not surprisingly, Ebert panned the movie, saying in one interview that he had rejected it as a candidate for his Great Movies series because it’s, “just not a very good film.”  I wholeheartedly agree.  It is not terrible, but it does not deserve a spot on this list, especially not the 27th spot.

The one unique quality of the film is that it is shot in real time, meaning the events are shown at the same rate the audience is experiencing them.  The film opens in the morning, a little after 10:00 am, with the wedding of Will Kane and Amy Fowler.  Immediately afterward, Will finds out about Frank’s pardoning and his expected arrival on the noon train.  For almost two hours, we watch as Will tries to get men to help him fight Frank, as Amy struggles to stand by her man, and as Helen Ramirez (Katy Jurado), Will’s former lover, tries to help the situation any way she can.  Like I said, I got the gist of the movie in the first fifteen minutes.  I could have skipped the entire middle and returned at noon just to see the outcome, which I was not even interested in anymore by the time the train rolled into the station.

Basic plots need sensational acting performances to maintain audience interest. High Noon, unfortunately, lacked all sensation.  I did not take much of a liking to Grace Kelly in Vertigo, but I gave her the benefit of the doubt and assumed her dull performance had to do with the role she was playing. However, after watching another dull performance in High Noon, I have to conclude that it has more to do with her acting abilities than the roles she is given.  There is no spark to her, no vibrance in her movements or words.  I can not feel any emotion from her and I need emotion in order to attach myself to movie characters and to want to keep watching them.  I need the emotion to remain interested in their lives and their choices.  I never once cared whether she got on the noon train or not, whether she left her husband or not.  And frankly, I could not tell whether she cared either.

Gary Cooper’s portrayal earned him the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role.  I can not even begin to explain that one.  All I saw was a fifty-year-old man on the screen running around like a chicken with his head cut off, at a turtle’s pace mind you, and getting nowhere.  Again, I saw no emotion and no vibrance.  I will attest to the fact that with all the running around he did and the one scene where he debated leaving town before the train arrived, fear was present in his character.  However, I would have liked to see more anger and rage centered around Frank Miller.  Will was willing to lose his wife and his life just to get to this man.  I needed passion.  I needed emotion.  Cooper did not deliver either.  He did not deserve that award with his stoic and subpar acting performance.

The two performances I did appreciate were those of Lloyd Bridges and Katy Jurado.  This was Bridges first major role.  Harvey’s adamant refusal to help Will and eagerness to get him out of town added a tiny fire to the film, which sparked my interest when Bridges appeared on the screen.  And Helen’s Spanish influence, along with her strong feminine aura and sly tactics, gave the film its slight edge that it so desperately needed.  Jurado won a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress, making her the first Mexican actress to win that award.

According to Wikipedia, High Noon‘s loss in the Best Picture category is seen as one of the greatest upsets in the history of the Academy Awards.  It comes as no surprise that this blurb is followed by the words, “citation needed.”  I suspect the writers of that page added their own “flavor” to the facts on High Noon.  I find it extremely hard to believe that anyone would consider High Noon‘s loss an upset.   It also lost the Best Writing, Screenplay award, which it never deserved to be nominated for in the first place.  It can’t be that hard to come up with the story of an ex-con coming back to seek revenge on the cop who put him away.  It did win for Best Editing and Best Music, which I will not argue with because the music accompanied the lethargic plot nicely and the editing was smoother than a baby’s behind.

Would I recommend a western that John Wayne despised?  Better yet, would I recommend a film that Bill Clinton loves and screened 17 times in the White House?  The answer to both is no.  It is not your typical western with a lot of action, mountainous views, and chase scenes, which threw audiences off in 1952.  Instead, it is a monotonous western filled with humdrum actors working through an unimaginative screenplay.  I’d go so far as to recommend any other western, even one I had never seen, before suggesting this one.  If you want real time, watch an episode of 24.

#73 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

Butch Cassidy (Paul Newman) and the Sundance Kid (Robert Redford) are bank robbers and the leaders of the Hole in the Wall Gang.  After one successful train robbery of the Union Pacific Flyer, they try for a second one on the same train, except it does not go as smoothly.  The six-man posse American railroad executive E.H. Harriman put together arrives just seconds later and chase Butch and Sundance.  In an attempt to escape the posse, Butch, Sundance, and the Sundance’s girlfriend, Etta (Katharine Ross), flee to Bolivia where they continue to rob banks.  Now, with the Bolivian officials on their tail and the threat of the posse finding them, Butch and Sundance must figure out whether they want to try going straight or continue living as they have been.

This is a simple movie with action, comedy, drama, and adventure.  In one sentence, it is about a couple of cowboys robbing banks and evading the law, based loosely on historical fact.  This film falls in line with the comment I made after watching The Searchers; no two westerns are alike.  The slapstick comedy is different from the veiled humor of The Searchers; the action is not as intense as that of The Wild Bunch; and the drama is nowhere near as emotional as it is in Unforgiven.

I will add to that by saying no two cowboys are alike either.  The goals may be similar, but the personalities vary from cowboy to cowboy.  Butch is the brains and Sundance is the brawn.  The film opens with Sundance being accused of cheating in a game of cards, where he has the opportunity to show off his fine shooting skills.  Butch then outsmarts Harvey Logan (Ted Cassidy), the man who is trying to take over the Hole in the Wall Gang.  Both characters are established early on and everything that follows helps to develop their characters a little more.  When Etta is introduced, we see how both Sundance and Butch relate to women.  And when trouble ensues, we see how each man handles fear and danger.  As opposed to the other characters I have observed in westerns, Butch and Sundance were more well-rounded.  They actually showed their fear and obsessions about getting caught.  They stayed as tough as they could, but they were not divinely fearless like the Wild Bunch or Bill Munny in Unforgiven.

Another major difference from other westerns, both in this film and the characters of this film, was the slapstick humor.  Many critics opposed this element.  Critic Vincent Canby said, “you keep seeing signs of another, better film behind gags and effects.”  Time magazine said the two main characters are, “afflicted with cinematic schizophrenia. One moment they are sinewy, battered remnants of a discarded tradition. The next they are low comedians whose chaffing relationship—and dialogue—could have been lifted from a Batman and Robin episode.”  I did not find the humor to be offensive and just like with The Searchers, I found it to be a welcome relief.  This film was not nearly as heavy as The Searchers, but comedy is my favorite movie genre, so I welcome it wherever I can get it.  I agree that it was a little “schizophrenic” in the back and forth between serious and comedic, but I was able to follow it without difficulty and it never distracted me from the plot itself.

This film made great use of montages, which is a favorite of mine.  Montages, or putting several images into one, speed the movie along and get across an idea without dwelling in it.  They did one in the beginning, which portrayed the nature of Butch and Sundance.  A series of sepia still photographs were shown when Butch, Sundance, and Etta traveled to New York and then to Bolivia.  And a third montage was used during their time in Bolivia to show their robbing history.  A montage illustrates a period of time in a few minutes where it would normally take hours to show in real-time.  I appreciate when directors use this technique because images are more exciting to watch and hold my attention better than a dialogue which would depict the same thing.

In terms of sound and images, the sets used were realistic and the musical score earned this film one of its four Academy Awards.  My favorite set is when Butch and Cassidy are trapped on the top of a waterfall and the only way to escape capture is by jumping in.  I am not sure whether those are real people floating in the rapids, but the scenery is beautiful.  Besides that, it is just like any other western with mountains and open land.  And there is music played throughout the film, which adds to the flow of the movie.  In one scene, Etta and Butch ride around in a bicycle and the famous song “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ On My Head” is playing, which earned Burt Bacharach and Hal David an Academy Award.

Speaking of awards, none of the actors were nominated for Academy Awards, but all three were nominated in the British Academy Film Awards.  Redford and Ross won their awards.  I like all three actors, but I agree with the Academy Awards; none gave an Oscar-worthy performance.  I suppose this is where the slapstick humor is a deficit.  If the characters had been a little more serious, forcing Newman and Redford to give deep, emotional portrayals, then maybe their performances would have been Oscar-worthy.  However, with all the humor entwined in the plot and the antics throughout, I found them more fun to watch than awe-inspiring, which is what I expect from an Oscar-worthy performance.  Both men are incredible actors and deserve awards for their work, just not in regards to this film.

I began this review not knowing whether I would recommend it or not.  I wanted to give it a fair chance before deciding.  I am going to go with no.  And it is not a, “no, this movie is terrible”; it is a “no, there really is no reason to see it.”  I am contradicting myself here, but I would say the only reason to see it is for the performances of Newman and Redford.  Not Oscar-worthy, but talent-filled and humorous.  They have an unbelievable chemistry together, which is true-to-life since they were such good friends off-screen.  And Ross is a welcome addition to their twosome, both with her individual qualities and the outside influence she has on the men’s relationship.  I still do not understand how it made its way onto this list, but Redford said it shot him into stardom and changed his entire career, making it worthy of honorable mention at the very least.

#12 The Searchers (1956)

Returning home from the American Civil War, Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) is greeted warmly by his brother Aaron (Walter Coy) and Aaron’s family.  Soon thereafter, a group of cattle is stolen from Aaron’s neighbor and Captain Samuel Clayton (Ward Bond) asks Ethan and a group of Rangers to follow the trail and find them.  The theft ends up being a trick pulled by the Comanche Indians to lure the men away from their homes.  When Ethan and the men return home, the village is in flames and Aaron, along with his family, is dead.  The only survivor is Debbie (Lana Wood), Aaron’s youngest daughter, who was taken hostage by the Comanches.   Over the next several years, Ethan and close family friend Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter) trail the Indians, searching for Debbie.  They only hope to find her before she gets sucked into the Comanche lifestyle.

In 2008, the American Film Institute named this film the Greatest American Western of all time.  I, having only seen four westerns in my life, do not feel qualified to make that judgement.  However, I can say it tops my list along with Unforgiven.  The plot involves action, adventure, humor, romance, and drama.  It has something for everybody and seeing how it was released in the 1950s, the violence is suitable for those faint of heart.  Twenty minutes into it, I questioned how I would ever sit through an hour and a half of two cowboys searching for a young girl, but to my surprise, the oddities of the plot and diversity of the subplots kept me glued to my seat.

I said it was just as good as Unforgiven, however I do not want to give the impression that those two movies are one in the same.  No two westerns are really alike.  The Searchers had an element I had not seen in the three previous westerns I watched – humor.  Though the general tone and plot was of a serious nature, there were funny lines and antics worked into it.  Vera Miles, who played Martin Pawley’s love interest, acted as the comic relief.  She poured cold water on Martin’s head as he took a hot bath, snuck herself a peek while he was in the bath, and got two men to fight over her in a funny, chaotic brawl.  Her character was the perfect relief for me and added greatly to my interest and admiration for the film.   I commend director John Ford for adding humor to an otherwise dark plot.  It is not something I see often, but worked wonders to lighten the mood when it was so desperately needed.

Besides humor, there was also romance, drama, and action packed into this film.  For those in need of a little violence, there are a few gun battles, murders, and a fist fight.  For those in need of love, there is the love saga between Martin and Laurie (Miles) or the unspoken love Ethan has for his brother’s wife, Martha (Dorothy Jordan).  Or for those in need of a good cry, there is the death of an entire family or the eventual reunion of Debbie (Natalie Wood as the older Debbie) with her family and her friends.  None of these themes is overbearing and each get an equal amount of film time.  The romance is not cheesy, the violence is not graphic, and the drama is not morose.  Like I said, this film has something for everybody and can be enjoyed from start to finish if you are open to watching some scenes that are not tailored to meet your needs.

This was my first John Wayne experience and he was everything I thought he’d be.  Tough, bold, outspoken, action-oriented, smart, and stoic.  When he set out to get something done, he’d get it done.  I enjoyed his character and it makes me wonder about the man behind the character.  Was Wayne anything like the character he portrayed or was it all an act?  I would assume he possessed some of those traits, but his acting abilities in this film were highly respectable and I could not see Ethan Edwards represented in any other way.  His co-star, Jeffrey Hunter (Martin), was a nice contrast and they played well off of one another.  Ethan was at least 20 years older than Martin and had a lot more experience.  Though the two did mince words now and then, the respect Martin had for Ethan was always apparent.  And in light of Ethan’s apathetic behavior, Martin’s youth and vitality provided another much-needed relief throughout the film.

Film critics focused on the theme of racism and genocide against the Native Americans in their reviews of this film.  I did not find myself focused on that at all, except for wondering if Native Americans and white people were really at such odds in the 19th Century.  This film was based on a book by Alan Le May, who studied 64 real cases of child abduction in Texas in the 1800s as background for his novel.  His two main characters are also believed to be based on a man who ransomed his wife and children from the Comanches in 1865.  That would mean the plot is not far from the truth.  Historically, Native Americans were driven out of their land by racist, self-righteous white people, so racism and genocide are very realistic themes.  I can say the Indians are portrayed as savage, killing the family for no obvious reason, and it is easy to get caught in the thinking that Ethan would be doing the “right” thing by killing them.  It makes me wonder what Ford’s feelings were on the issues at hand, but he could also have been trying to stay true to the tone of the novel.  Either way, when I kept in mind the time frame of the plot, as well as the release date of this film, the racism and genocide did not stand out much for me.

I highly recommend this film.  Twenty minutes into it, I thought I would rather pluck my eyelashes out than watch the rest of this film.  Problem was it had not hit on the scenes that attracted me yet.  Humor and romance are my fancies and it was just a short matter of time before the film touched on them.  The diversity of this film still amazes me and is hard to put into words.  I feel the way Ford constructed this film was rare with its ability to reach several different audiences, and honestly I am not even sure whether that was his aim or not.  But it happens and his style proves to be extremely refreshing.  For an ironically good time, pick up The Searchers.

#38 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)

Three men set off to the Sierra Madre mountains to find gold.  Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart) and Curtin (Tim Holt) are two working men in need of money and Howard (Walter Huston) is an old man they invite along who knows what gold looks like.  Besides the bandits they need to watch out for while in the mountains, the real enemy appears once the men find gold and the greed emerges.  Dobbs sanity begins to wane and his trust goes right along with it.  One day, Howard saves the life of a young villager and is asked to stay with the locals for a week.  He entrusts Dobbs and Curtin with his share of the gold.  Now with all the gold at their fingertips, the two are soon at each other’s throats and only one will survive in the end.

To my surprise, this was an intellectually deep movie with insightful moral and ethical lessons.  I would not expect that with a western, however this film was based on a book written in 1927 and it stayed pretty true to the book’s plot and tone.  Also, it did not make it to number 38 on A.F.I.’s list for no reason.  I can agree with its placement because it is much more than a shoot-em-up western.  It is a lesson in how far we are willing to go for our own needs at the cost of others and how far we can push our conscience before it starts pushing us back.

This movie is not about searching for gold; the gold is found early on.  This movie is not about fighting with the Mexican bandits; the Federales handle the bandits just as they did in the 1920s after the Mexican Revolution.  Neither is it about riding around on horses nor bingeing on liquor in a saloon.  This movie is about human ethics.  The theme is greed and the characters are its victim.  With it comes distrust, sleepless nights, warped thoughts, and murder.  Director John Huston wrote the screenplay and won the Academy Award for it.  It is one of the deepest, darkest plots I have encountered on the list and I was blown away.

This was one of the first Hollywood films shot almost entirely outside of the United States, mainly in Durango and Mexico.  To make it believable, Huston wanted to shoot on location.  The true nature of the sets added to the realism of the film.  I doubted the realism at first because in one of the opening scenes, there is a bar brawl with Dobbs and Curtin versus a former employer who owes them money.  The punches were so fake and the use of stunt doubles was disgustingly obvious that I was laughing throughout the entire scene.  But once the trio goes to Mexico, everything from the landscape, to the natives, to the donkeys themselves looked Spanish.  I wonder if real gold was used.  I would assume the answer is yes.

The actors added to the realism by displaying true emotions and changing their demeanor as the hunt for gold waged on.  Humphrey Bogart is an actor that “has me at hello.”  This is only the second film of his I’ve seen, but I took to him immediately just as I did in Casablanca.  Before watching the movie, I read on the DVD cover that this was Tim Holt’s breakthrough role, so I had good expectations of him.  And Walter Huston was the only one of the three to win an Academy Award for his portrayal.  All three men reveal themselves and their character early on.  You can pretty much tell who is going to go in what direction in terms of morals and ethical obligations.  Watching them get deeper and deeper into character is the fascinating part.

Dobbs has the darkest disposition and his descent into the other realm, so to speak, is brilliant.  Later in the movie, he speaks to his conscience and we get to hear the battle going on between his ears.  What kept me captivated was knowing he had an evil side, but not knowing how far he’d really go.  Curtin is the naive, young man looking to make a little cash.  With the naivety and intelligence he displays, I doubted he’d go too far over the deep end, but that was not a guarantee.  And Howard, being the wise old man he is, speaks the truth from the beginning and gains the audiences trust immediately.  Yet, he sometimes speaks too much truth and again, you never know how far he will go to hold onto his share.  It is that “you never know” quality about each character that kept me glued to the screen.  Greed is an insidious monster and it is unbelievable what it can get people to do.  This movie and the characters are a prime example of that.

I just looked at Ebert’s review and he too said, “The movie has never really been about gold, but about character…”  I was not hooked from the beginning, but as I kept watching and realized it had little to do with finding treasure in the Sierra Madre, I could not pull myself away from the screen.  I highly recommend this film.  The plot will suck you in, the characters will rip your heart out, and the greed will remind you of at least one episode in your life, if not get you thinking about what you would do in their situation and which man you identify with most.

#79 The Wild Bunch (1969)

A gang of savage outlaws in Texas, led by Pike Bishop (William Holden), arrange to rob their last bank in order to set themselves up for retirement.  Unbeknownst to them, they are setup by Pike’s old partner Deke Thornton (Robert Ryan) and a gang of bounty hunters.  Deke is guaranteed early release from prison if he can catch Pike and his “wild bunch.”  The scene ends in bloodshed and only four of Pike’s men remain.  They head to Mexico and are offered $10,000 in gold by Mapache (Emilio Fernandez), leader of the Mexican Federal Army, to steal a supply of weapons from a U.S. Army train.  Pike and his posse take the offer and head out to the train, the same train that is carrying Deke and his posse.  Needless to say, the gun fight at the bank was only the beginning of a vicious battle between good and evil.

Before watching this film, I read up on it.  Upon its release in 1969, controversy surrounded its extremely violent and bloody scenes.  I am not a big action fan, nor do I fancy gore and unnecessary blood baths, but the controversy sparked my interest.  I judge my gore tolerance level by the amount of times I must shield my eyes from the movie screen and the amount of times I wince from the sight of blood.  One time. The Wild Bunch amounted to one time.  And even then I was in awe of the impressive makeup job they did on a man who had been dragged through the dirt again and again and again.  If it had not been for the final scene, I still would be wondering what all the controversy was about.

Caution to those who do not enjoy action and fake blood.  There is a good amount in this film.  And when I call the “wild bunch” savage in my synopsis, I am not kidding.  I kept thinking about the film Unforgiven where Clint Eastwood’s character is described to have been heartless at one time, killing everyone including mothers and children.  That is the wild bunch.  It happens right in the beginning with the botched bank robbery.  No one is safe when they are firing their guns and no one is given special consideration except their own.  This film really had me wondering whether this is the true nature of American outlaws from back in the day. I know films overdramatize events, but both westerns I watched mention and depict the extreme cruelty outlaws possessed.

None of the actors really stood out for me.  In fact, I had trouble differentiating between the two posses.  William Holden and Robert Ryan looked very similar to me and the way I told the gangs apart was by looking for Ernest Borgnine (who played Dutch Engstrom).  If I saw him, I knew it was Pike’s posse.  If I saw a couple of yokels, I knew it was Deke’s posse.  They all just kind of blended together and the movie was not so much about the acting for me.  Anyone could have played the main roles and it would have made no difference to me.  Well, maybe if it had been people I recognized I would have enjoyed it a little better, but I do not think that was director Sam Peckinpah’s main concern.  He seemed to be more interested in the art behind the film, including abnormal camera angles and shots, the intrinsic plot, and the background music.

The art is what kept my attention.  If the actors can’t do it, I rely on a strong plot and innovative imagery.  This movie had both.  Peckinpah used slow motion camera work during shoot-outs, which is when the audience could see a shot hit a man and the blood come spraying out.  He used fast, choppy editing to indicate chaos and possible danger ahead.  And in the beginning, he used a creative montage to cut down the time of the initial bank robbery.  That became a model for future directors and changed the way they edited their films.

The plot is very simple, yet filled with intricate details and events.  Pike’s posse wants money and wants to retire.   Deke’s posse wants Pike’s posse and Deke wants to be a free man.  Both gangs are out to get what they want and aren’t going to let anything get in the way.  But there are several stories within that, such as Angel (played by Jamie Sanchez), a member of Pike’s gang, and his grievances over losing his fiancée to Mapache.  Or the betrayal amongst Pike’s gang when Dutch leaves Angel behind for Mapache to torture him.  Sometimes I found it hard to follow, but it did not matter much because there was always something new going on in the next minute.  As long as I understood the main plot, the rest was bonus material for my entertainment.

Peckinpah said one of his goals of the film was for audience members to get “some idea of what it is to be gunned down.”  He wanted to take the glamourized ideals of western culture and show people it was not all fun and games.  When I was writing about the brutal nature of the old west and whether or not there was truth behind it a couple of paragraphs ago, I was going to say I am grateful I do not live in those times.  Peckinpah got his point across to me; the west in the early 1900’s was corrupt and a shoot-out was not something I wanted to get in the middle of.  One writer said Peckinpah wanted to rid viewers of their violence by exposing them to its inhumane nature and barbarity.  He was greatly disturbed when he learned that failed and most viewers enjoyed the violence versus being disgusted by it. 

I can appreciate all the complexities of this film.  I am still not a fan of violence and action, but there was art behind this film.  I was surprised by how well this film kept my attention and now I do not know what to expect from the John Wayne film on my list (the name of it escapes me).  Seeing how the violence in this film was so controversial, I’d imagine it will not be as bloody, but will it be glamourized?  I recommend this film for those who feel they can handle it.  If you really do not like blood, gun battles, or crude dudes, skip it.  Just remember, I only winced once and I am not a woman who is shy about covering my eyes.  Maybe you can handle more than you think you can.  It is worth finding out.

#68 Unforgiven (1992)

After a couple of cowboys cut up a prostitute from a whorehouse in Big Whiskey, Wyoming, the other prostitutes offer a $1000 reward for anyone who will kill the two men.  A young cowboy (Jaimz Woolvett) visits the home of retired cowboy William Munny (Clint Eastwood) to persuade him to help kill the men.  Munny was once the meanest, dirtiest killer around, but his wife set him straight ten years earlier.  However, now that she has died, Munny accepts the offer and takes his old partner Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) along with him.  The three travel to Wyoming in search of the men.  The only problem is Big Whiskey’s sheriff, Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman), who won’t allow guns or assassins in his town and will do anything to prevent the killing of these cowboys, even if it means he has to kill the assassins himself.

This was my first western film and my first Clint Eastwood film.  Wow.  I can not believe it took me 26 years to watch a Clint Eastwood film.  Amazing.  And I mean the film.  And Eastwood.  And basically the entire cast.  And the plot.  And the setting.  And the flow of it.  All amazing.  Why oh why did I wait this long to watch a western?

Let me begin with the cast.  When I noticed Gene Hackman’s name in the credits, all I was thinking was The Royal Tenenbaums where he plays a goofy, insensitive father who pretends he is dying to get closer to his ex-wife and adult children.  And when I thought about that, I then thought, “How the hell am I going to see him as a sheriff from the 1880’s?”    Well, let me tell you – easily.  He played the ultimate son-of-a-bitch that you come to hate.  All thoughts of the Tenenbaums left my mind from the very first scene he appears in.  He won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor and though Morgan Freeman is one of my favorite actors, Hackman deserved that award hands down.  I am even tempted to say he was better than Eastwood, though I’d listen to any arguments of this opinion.

Freeman portrayed the same calm, easy-going character he normally portrays, but the beauty of Freeman is that his character is always needed within the plot and he has it down to a science.  There is always a need for a man with wisdom and Freeman’s character provided that, both to Munny and The Schofield Kid (Woolvett).  Woolvett played the role of a young, naive, cocky cowboy so well that he even got on my nerves, but the raw emotion he shows at the end is some seriously good acting.  And who can forget Eastwood, the man for whom without his production and direction this film would never have been released?  I could almost feel his physical pain as he was being beaten or just showing signs of aging.  Everything I have ever heard about him is true.  He is an incredible actor and he too displays a sense of wisdom about him, which made the partnering of him and Freeman so natural.

The rest of the cast did a superb job as well and they all meshed together.  There were very interesting contrasts, such as Logan and Munny, two retired cowboys who had a slate of names of all the men they had killed, compared to The Schofield Kid, a rookie cowboy who had never done more than hit a man.  Or Munny, a man known for killing women and children back in the day, and Sheriff Daggett, a respected man of the law who ends up being one of the most vile characters I have ever seen in a movie.  It seemed in the beginning that Munny would be the hated one, but plots do not always turn out as we first expect.

The plot was magnificent.  I am not sure if that is really how life was in the 1880’s, but I sure know that is not how life was in 1992 when this film was released.  It was very interesting to see a time in history that I am not familiar with, nor have any of the movies I watched thus far happened during that time frame.  My first shock was the acceptance of prostitutes.  Next came the realization that cars were not around in 1880 and the only way to go was by horse.  When Munny left his 10-year-old son alone to tend the farm and his 7-year-old daughter, I nearly had a heart attack.  That would be child neglect today, but in 1880 children grew up a lot faster and had a plethora of responsibilities at a very young age.  I also need to say I was shocked to see Logan and Munny partnered up.  I did not know blacks and whites got along back then.  Plus the fact that Logan’s wife was a Native American.  Interracial marriages in 1880?  I know this is just a movie, but to watch the differences and think about all this stuff made the film so much more interesting and helped me stay engrossed in its plot.

The setting and the sounds brought so much to the authenticity of the film. Real mountains and hills filled the scenery.  The sounds of horses clopping along and spurs jangling against the saddle could be heard throughout the film.  All the gunshots reminded me of The Great Movie Ride at Walt Disney World’s Hollywood Studios theme park.  And the costumes were right out of the 1880’s, or at least what I would think they’d look like.  It all seemed so believable to me because nothing was as it is today.  No cars, no factories, no big cities or bright lights.  Only open land, shoddy buildings, and a bunch of men wanting to prove themselves.  The American Way.

From the minute this film began, I knew I was going to like it.  I did not want to leave my seat.  It gets a little slow at about the hour mark, but it picks up again real fast.  I will credit Hackman’s character to a lot of that, but the entire cast holds it together.  If this is what westerns are about, I am all in.  Eastwood is a very talented man and I must give David Webb Peoples, the screenplay writer, a lot of credit for an amazing plot.  The way the characters meshed, the scenes flowed, and the story kept getting more interesting and twisted was sensational.  I highly recommend this film, especially if you are not a fan of westerns or have never given them a try.  It is so much more than cowboys and guns.  It is the Best Picture winner of 1992 directed by the Best Director of 1992.  Amazing.