Ned shot at Davey and hit his horse, which fell on Davey and broke his leg, then couldn’t take the next shot. Hardly an “innocent man”. Yes, Munny took the killing shot, but I think even a modern court would convict Ned of first degree murder under those circumstances. “I shot at him and missed, and I felt really bad about it so my friend finished him for me” isn’t much of a defense.
Never got that from the movie. Good excuse to watch again!
Yeah, Ned is definitely accessory. His entire reason for being at that location was to help kill two guys.
I like to think that Will Munny helped the world just a little bit by scaring the Schofield Kid into going legit. Lets just hope that he was also able to get away with his share and prosper in dry goods.
Legally, I think he’s more than an accessory. An accessory would be someone who drove the getaway stagecoach. Shooting at the victim makes just as guilty of murder as Munny is.
The closing text of the movies indicate that he did start again, in San Francisco: “Some years later, Mrs Ansonia Feathers made the arduous journey to Hodgeman County to visit the last resting place of her only daughter. William Munny had long since disappeared with the children…some said to San Francisco where it was rumored he prospered in dry goods. And there was nothing on the marker to explain to Mrs Feathers why her only daughter had married a known thief and murderer, a man of notoriously vicious and intemperate disposition.”
Even if that text wasn’t in the final scene; there’s no way the Kid wold try to make off with the money. He saw the change come upon Will Munny, and he was scared shitless.
In the paraphrased words of Jules Winfield “I just thought that was a badass thing to say.”
I always just thought it was a reinforcement of the reality of nature. You personally may feel as if you do or don’t deserve it but it’s irrelevant to an indifferent universe. Everything that lives dies and what it does while alive doesn’t change that.
Whoosh.
I thought this, too.
Munny’s wife, whom Munny still loved and revered as a good person, died young, leaving behind young children. It doesn’t matter whether you deserve to die or not, we all got it coming, and probably not at a time of our own choosing.
One of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies of all time. The way I interpret that line is that whatever happens to any of us - good or bad - has nothing at all to do with what kind of person we are or how we treat others. If that were true then at some point the world would be rid of all the selfish a-holes and have only decent people in it, wouldn’t it?
Personally, my favourite line was when he shoots the bar owner.
__
Little Bill Daggett: Well, sir, you are a cowardly son of a bitch! You just shot an unarmed man!
Will Munny: Well, he should have armed himself if he’s going to decorate his saloon with my friend.
__
It goes to a similar sentiment though: Why the hell do you idiots think there’s rules about any of this?
I took it as confirmation that Munny was a psychopath. He didn’t need a reason to kill Little Bill, and he wanted Bill to know that before he died.
Shooting a horse isn’t capital offense and certainly wasn’t even in the Old West. Little Bill beat Ned to beat because he scared when he discovered that Will Munny was the killer. Daggett knew that Munny was a stone cold killer and that he had to show that he wasn’t afraid of him or Ned’s threat that Munny would come back to kill him if he continued to hurt him.
That wasn’t right or moral; that sadism and cowardice.
Perhaps the subtlety of that particular portion of the narrative was lost upon you.
Munny may have been a psychopath (I don’t see that in the film), but he certainly had a reason, and he gave it: “… for what you did to Ned.” If you can draw a distinction between Justice and Vengeance, then the line makes sense. Munny isn’t dispensing Justice, he’s extracting Vengeance. Similarly, Justice has nothing to do with the killing of the cowboy who cut the whore. He deserved jail, not the death penalty. That, too, was about vengeance. The title of the movie boldly declares it’s a film about Vengeance.
No, Ned was there to protect his friend. During the scene by the campfire before they get to Big Whiskey, Ned subtlety tries to talk Will out of continuing down the road, only to have Will ignore him and claim that he wasn’t that kind of man anymore.
The “Schofield Kid” was probably going to go straight as he was shown not having the mettle for a life as a killer or outlaw. The film doesn’t show that as it really doesn’t matter; the narrative was about Will Munny and the choices that he made and what they cost him.
As far as Munny, it’s doubtful that he ever went “straight.” As portrayed in the film, he was an anti-social killer who sought external solutions for his internal demons and constantly failed at that task. If he made a poor farmer, it’s doubtful that he would have made a better shopkeeper. He was a killer and he would returned to his “roots” regardless of where he resettled to.
Shooting at someone riding a horse with the intent to murder them is attempted murder. If your partner, who also intends to murder the victim then kills the victim, you’re both guilty of murder. The fact that Ned missed with his first shot in no way, shape or form renders him magically innocent of the crime. Even a modern jury packed with liberals would convict Ned.
There were never any legal proceedings in the film.
You did watch it,right?
Ned was whipped to death by a sadist seeking information about his alleged co-conspirators. Now perhaps Ned MIGHT have been hanged if they (the posse that was being assembled) had been unable to catch up to Munny and The Kid. But the narrative of the film never goes in that direction.
Or perhaps he simply would have been lynched as while the film chooses to ignore the fact that he was Black, it would have been a serious issue in the Old West. But again introducing legal opinions of what a jury might or might not have decided is irrelevant as Ned was never charged with committing a crime.
Of course I watched it. Yes, there were no legal proceedings against Ned. But had their been, he was undoubtedly guilty of murder. I was responding to your statement:
Which led me to believe you meant that Ned’s only crime was killing Davey’s horse, which is incorrect.
Your later post seemed to support that interpretation as well:
While I completely agree that Little Bill had no place whatsoever to torture or kill Ned, it’s the thought that Ned didn’t really do anything THAT bad that I disagree with.
Little Bill was torturing Ned to get information to find out where Will and the Kid went.
Little Bill always acts in the perceived best interests of the town. He beats up English Bob and Will so murderers don’t come to his town and kill people. He tortures Ned to get information to catch murderers and maybe present another murder. He never acts out of selfishness or personal spite. Will and Ned travel to kill two strangers for money. In the traditional morality Little Bill is protecting his town and Ned and Will are cold blooded killers. Little Bill is saying that in the greater scheme of thing he is a better person than Will and does not deserve to die at Will’s hand. Will’s retort is that is about vengeance and luck not justice.
I agree with everyone who’s said the line to Little Bill confirms that he’s let the ‘old’ Munny out of the cage. The line that’s always made me think that, is when he brings up the drover to Ned:
‘Just ‘cause we’re goin’ on this killing, that don’t mean I’m gonna go back to bein’ the way I was. I just need the money, get a new start for them youngsters. Ned, you remember that drover I shot through the mouth and his teeth came out the back of his head? I think about him now and again. He didn’t do anything to deserve to get shot, at least nothin’ I could remember when I sobered up.