Clint “William Munny” Eastwood in Unforgiven.
Hooker gets face slashed and the whorehouse puts a bounty on the slasher’s life.
Sherrif beats the crap out of any would-be assassins coming into town.
William gets beat up, and later on, finds out that his buddy…Morgan Freeman…is beaten to death.
William shoots to death Sherrif in revenge.
The “Hero” is an assassin…a murderer for hire. The “Villain” is a law enforcement officer trying to prevent the crime of homicide and upholding law and order.
But that’s not really controversial, is it? The movie itself makes it pretty clear that no one is the “good guy” in any of this, except maybe for the prostitute who got cut to start the whole thing off.
Hell, even William Munny acknowledges that, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
Pretty much the entire Revisionist Western genre in a nutshell. Morally grey sheriff vs. morally grey outlaw vs. morally grey natives vs. morally gray preacher… maybe there’s an orphan who the outlaw takes pity on and protects but ends up teaching them rough ways. Sometimes they get over the top but it’s been the dominant western type (at least when those come out) for 40 years.
Every white person in Gone with the Wind?
I watched Animal House again the other day. While it is a funny movie it’s basically a master class in white entitlement. The Omega house, while portrayed as stuck up bullies is also presented as consisting of various campus leaders and high achievers. Dean Wormer is really doing nothing more than trying to preserve order at his college.
The “heroes” of the film, the slovenly Delta house, aren’t really trying to accomplish anything beside not get kicked off campus. In fact, the audience is never really given a reason why we should root for Delta, other than we’ve been told they are the “good guys”. They aren’t really “underdogs” in any real sense. Delta isn’t being picked on because they are underprivileged or belong to a disadvantaged class. In fact, the interactions between Otter and Greg and Greg’s girlfriend (who Otter previously dated) implies a familiarity from traveling in the same circles.
Ultimately, Animal House is a story about a group of young white men fighting to preserve their entitlement - That they should have the right to live on campus in a big mansion where they can drink and party without having to attend class or face consequences for the various crimes they commit and damage they cause throughout the film. And, in fact, the ending credits indicate that all the Delta house members go on to successful careers.
Animal House is one of the earliest examples I can think of where the “hero” is really a total fuckup but somehow are able to achieve their goals for no discernable reason other than the story says they should. This is different from a traditional “underdog” story where the hero overcomes some disadvantage or learns some life lesson.
Good analysis. I always thought Dean Wormer had some really good advice for Flounder when he said “Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son.”
Animal House is a celebration of chaos for the sake of chaos. Whether or not you root for Delta depends on how much the idea of breaking rules appeals to you.
And yes, if they weren’t all rich white men, “breaking rules” would have led to much more severe consequences. That goes without saying. If they had been actually underprivileged, their antics would have most probably led to legal action, jail time or even death. But then it wouldn’t have been much of a comedy, would it?
You also have to look at the context of when the film was made. Animal House was released in 1979 and takes place in the early 60s. There are more than a few mentions of the Vietnam War in the film (Wormer threatening to call the draft board and the ending reveal that Needermeyer was eventually killed by his own soldiers in Nam). So it’s very likely that Wormer and the Omega house represent the same corrupt, elitist, and misguided established order that mismanaged America’s involvement in Vietnam. The Deltas are still part of that same established order. But rather than embrace their role in it and using it to increase their social status like the Omegas, the Deltas embraced a sort of nihilistic view. Almost as if to say “You created this system to give people like us every advantage. Why do we need to put on this charade to make it appear as if we are deserving of those advantages?”
The Deltas aren’t there to change the system. They are just there to highlight its absurdity.
I put it to you, msmith - isn’t this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
You didn’t see Delta House taking in the cripples and minorities rejected by the Alphas; just the legacy and his normie friend.
“We need the dues.”
I agree. So, too, were there some warnings about the house sorting that went nowhere. I did find the conclusion very “meh.”
Eh, I think he fits into the archetype of morally-gray-outlaw more than he is actually morally gray. When he finds out that he stole a shipment of expensive but much-needed medicine he returns it instantly without a second thought. What’s the genuinely morally wrongest thing he ever does?
Kicking Crow into the port engine could be called “pre-emptive self-defense” I suppose. He also robs banks.
Only by someone predisposed to excusing Mal. It was straight up murder, and that it was of another killer doesn’t make it any less so.
One of the grandmothers has a line in that version: “If only [Charlie’s] father were still alive.” The makers wanted to streamline things a bit…Charlie’s dad was kind of a nonentity in the two books anyway. They also pointed out that the omission made dramatic sense…Charlie was a fatherless child, and Willy was looking for a (metaphorical) child to leave the factory to. (I always liked to imagine that the movie’s Willy might end up wooing Mrs. Bucket.)
Quoting myself from where I was talking about Mal.
As for his actions, in the same episode you reference, when one of the flunkies of the buyer he double crossed (admittedly for a good reason) refuses to deal and says he will continue to go after the crew, he flat out murders him. That, even if justified is not a good act.
Repeatedly stabbing a defeated and surrendered duel opponent? Who was, admittedly, an absolute jerk, is still evil, even if the wounds aren’t fatal.
Again, I would still argue that his overall intent leans to good, but it isn’t hard to argue the other direction.
Well, that’s where the money is.
So your position is that murder is always wrong regardless of the circumstances?
In that situation, to do otherwise falls into Lawful Stupid territory. Sure, Mal & Crew double crossed the Big Bad, but made a good-faith effort to return things to status quo ante by returning the front-money. The Big Bad wasn’t that kind of guy, and his Dragon and Mooks were dead-set on killing our POV characters.
The scene in question didn’t try to sugar coat or excuse what happened; it was a deliberate example of Good Is Not Nice and/or Soft. If Mal & Crew decided to keep the drugs and sell them for their own profit instead of passing them on to Niska as contracted, then we get into gray-vs-gray morality, with all its Chronic Backstabbing Disorder. If this was the case, then Mal winds up being at best a Lighter Shade of Black (but that’s debatable), and his killing of Crow is merely Pragmatic Villainy; likely, the rest of the Mooks would have followed Crow (probably not through the engine, but definitively into the afterlife).
Certainly! I should hope everyone feels that way!