Having watched the scene again this weekend, Davey comes in, Mike tells him to hold Delilah, Davey does, but it’s pretty clear he doesn’t know what Mike is going to do. After the second slash Davey lets go of her and physically tries to stop Mike, including attempting to tackle him. So yeah, Davey is probably least deserving of what happens to him, though even in a modern court I’d guess he’d still have been prosecuted for murder if Delilah had died.
And Ned’s Indian wife is Sally Twotrees. Will tells his kids to go see her if they need anything before he leaves, and tells the Schofield Kid to give Ned’s half of the money to her before he goes into the saloon.
I think you missed the main point Eastwood was trying to offer up in this revisionist piece of self-indulgent crap: There are no good guys. Every man has sins and flaws which ultimately lead to his downfall.
In case you hadn’t guessed, I really, really loathe this movie.
This movie is also about vengeance, and its unsatisfying outcomes.
The cowboy exacts vengeance on the whore who laughs at his little wiener. Which leads the whores to seek vengeance against the cowboys. Which leads the cowboys and Little Bill to exact vengeance on Ned. Which leads William Munny to seek vengeance against Little Bill.
I think the most powerful thing about it is the depcition of Munny throughout most of the movie as a sympathetic character in many regards. We here tales of his bad nature, but we don’t really see him do anything. But then, after a whole movie of building up sympathy, we see the visious cold-hearted William Munny at the end. And even if Little Bill deserved it, it isn’t clear the whole bar deserved it, but more important it really shows us what kind of many Munny must have been and is stil lcapable of. Munny is not, therefore, a sympathertic man, but a complicated, dangerous man. Our feelings about him are shaken up.
This whole movie also is simply the Western version of the Thin Blue Line.
I was with you until the very last paragraph there. I came away thinking that because Muny was to some extent avenging Ned by killing a despicable sheriff, and because he offers that one last threat in protection of the prostitutes, that he still got to leave holding some moral high ground. Which is why I disliked the movie.
Of course, I might have misread it that many years ago, so perhaps I should watch it again.
I don’t think this is a movie about morality at all. This is a movie about how the desire for ‘power’ or ‘control’ gets in the way of efficiency. It is at the same time a tale of ‘the effects of disproportionate violence’.
The cowboy who cut up the whore was trying to establish his power over her after she laughed at his little dick.
The whores wanted power over the cowboys because they thought the cowboy’s actions were disproportionately violent.
English Bob used disproportionate and unnecessary violence to control Chinese rail-workers and gain a reputation and attempted to use these to get money.
Little Bill used disproportionate violence to control/demean English Bob and send a message to any other ‘English Bob’s’ and thus maintain power.
The only character who doesn’t use disproportionate violence to advance his own ego/concerns is William Munny. Munny may not be a good friend (A good friend would have let Ned stay in his current life.), but he is a loyal friend. When Ned says he doesn’t have the heart to kill anymore, Munny lets him leave the party. Munny isn’t interested in controlling Ned.
Munny has no interest in shooting anyone but the cowboys who deserve shooting. He only goes after Little Bill after Ned is killed. He avenges Ned because Ned was his friend and Ned’s death was demeaned.
In the bar, Munny also declines to be disproportionately violent when he gives those who don’t want to be killed an opportunity to go out the back.
Munny doesn’t argue with Little Bill about whether Little Bill deserves death (Munny’s actions have nothing to do with societal morals, but everything to do with loyalty - first to his children and then to his friend.) but agrees that they will meet in Hell.
Munny lives because he never lets his ego influence, or get in the way of, his killing. He is simply the most cold-blooded/efficient killer.
I would love to see a sequel (ala Little House on the Prairie) about William Munny’s successful West Coast mercantile business. (With occasional reference to why customers should buy from him and not competetors.)
I disagree (but in a friendly way). I despise when characters with a mysterious backstory have that backstory explained. It’s always so underwhelming. An example - Lonesome Dove. Gus and Call were perfect as grizzled old Texas Rangers with a past. A past that was only relevant to the story in that it occasionally popped up to show how badass they were. When McMurtry went back and wrote that past (in later novels) it was just flat.
Or how about Darth Vader? Lucas took three movies to deliver a story that neutered the Dark Lord of the Sith. All the mystery about Luke’s father giving in to the dark side and getting encased in the black suit? Gone. And replaced with a meh backstory.
No, no, no, Leave it be. You already know all you need to know about every character in the movie. Adding more detail would ruin it for me.
Remember the incredulous tone of the deputy? “Little Bill? scared?”
The horrified tone of the prostitute as she recounts Little Bills description of Munny’s deeds?
Less is more people. Hitchcock would approve, the past deeds of Munny and Little Bill are more powerful because we don’t see them.
Ambiguity can be very satisfying. 12 monkeys? Pan’s Labyrinth?
Like in “The Usual Suspects” where we end up non the wiser as to whether Keyser Soze exists.
I had the same thought; I think others have as well. I seem to recall an interview in which Eastwood suggested that Unforgiven was the deconstructed sequel to A Fistful of Dollars. No cite; it was long ago and I’m not sure I’m not imagining it.
Yeah, I guessed, but why? Surely the “moral” that every man has his sins and flaws isn’t it or you’d hate most of literature, music, theater, and cinema. I dunno, maybe you do, but if not, what is it? My mind-reading is out of order today, I can only understand you when you use words.
Really? Even more than: “That’s right. I’ve killed women and children. I’ve killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I’m here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.”
