I'm having fun with my subject lines today.

I have to say, I was surprised to find myself, out of the blue, discovering that Kevin Costner has an upcoming film that I'm looking forward to!

I just saw the ad for it last night. Can't recall the title, but the film is a Western, and I like Westerns. More importantly, it co-stars Robert Duvall, which gives it instant gravitas.

[Update: Just checked IMDB. The film is called "Open Range." The tagline is, "No place to run. No reason to hide." The plot outline: A former gunslinger is forced to take up arms again when he and his cattle crew are threatened by a corrupt lawman.]

Has anyone seen it? Heard any buzz? Should I keep my hopes in check?

A good Western is long overdue.

So I am wondering if he did this based on the success of Dances With Wolves and the failure of The Postman. Maybe he found his niche, although, I am not a fan of Dances......

Has anyone seen Costner's Wyatt Earp? I think that would be a better gauge for wether this will be a good Western than Dances, which wasn't really a Western in the traditional sense (but I do agree that it's a good movie).

It's been a while, but I thought Tombstone was a much better film than Wyatt Earp, with greater historical authenticity as well.

I loved Tombstone, and I've never seen Wyatt Earp, so that's why I'm wondering.

Wyatt Earp is a pretty good movie with a MOST EXCELLENT Doc Holliday -- [Dennis] Quaid [thanks Peter; of course I knew that] BLOWS Val Kilmer's ballyhooed Tombstone performance out of the water. The scene in Wyatt Earp in which Doc and Wyatt meet is classic; the dialogue is wonderfully laconic and ironic, and Quaid's delivery is note-perfect.

But my favorite Kevin Costner Western has always been, and remains, Silverado. Now, there's a Western!

That's Dennis Quaid, not Douglas Quaid. And since I'm a big Quaid fan, I must admit I'm surprised I haven't seen Wyatt Earp yet. Then again, I'm not a big western fan.

As for Costner's new movie (and yes, I think I like Silverado more than all his other westerns and quasi-westerns, too), Robert Duvall caused a bit of a controversy here in Canada when he said that he preferred working in America because the actors there are better. Kevin Costner has been apologizing for that ever since, apparently.

Personally, like one local wag said, I would rather that he apologize for The Postman.

I didn't realize Kevin Costner directed Wyatt Earp. I am a Dennis Quiad fan as well but I think I would have to say that I like Tombstone better than Earp. I may have to revisit these two but there are other movies I would rather watch again instead.

asher wrote:
: I didn't realize Kevin Costner directed Wyatt Earp.

He didn't -- it's a Lawrence Kasdan film. (Kasdan also directed Costner in The Big Chill and Silverado; given that Kasdan's last film was Dreamcatcher, it's an interesting question whose career is in worse shape these days.)

[quote]I didn't realize Kevin Costner directed Wyatt Earp. I am a Dennis Quiad fan as well but I think I would have to say that I like Tombstone better than Earp. I may have to revisit these two but there are other movies I would rather watch again instead.[/quote]

He didn't -- Lawrence Kasdan did -- but people hated that movie so much that they just associate it with Costner.

I rather liked it, primarily for Quaid's great performance. I've heard others defend Kilmer's portrayal of the same character in "Tombstone," but I never could get into that film. I like the more serious tone of "Earp," even though it's sluggish and uneven.

Peter beat me to it...How come I didn't see his reply? He answered 12 minutes before me, and it took me only a minute to compose my response. I had refreshed my browser right before posting. Hmmm.

I didn't think he did. I was only comparing his Directed movies and suggesting that a Western may fit more appropriately with his style and talents in light of the comparison between Dances and Postman.

Christian wrote:
: I rather liked it, primarily for Quaid's great performance. I've heard
: others defend Kilmer's portrayal of the same character in "Tombstone,"
: but I never could get into that film.

FWIW, both films came out very close together, and I remember critics praising BOTH of the Doc Hollidays.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

FWIW, both films came out very close together, and I remember critics praising BOTH of the Doc Hollidays.

For some reason I remember Kilmer getting more of the laurels, perhaps because Tombstone came without the baggage of Kevin Costner in the starring role; but I find Kilmer's performance rather lightweight and artificial compared to Quaid's.

I don't know why, but Kilmer always strikes me, in virtually every role, as a whole lot of talent with something important missing at the center. In The Saint, when Elisabeth Shue asks him "Who are you?" he replies "No one knows, least of all me," and that's always struck me as somehow evocative of Kilmer's body of work as a whole.

But my favorite Kevin Costner Western has always been, and remains, Silverado. Now, there's a Western! [/quote]
I wouldn't exactly call it a Costner western. There were too many really good performances in that movie. Even the sheriff of Turly was fun. Silverado is SEVERELY underrated.

[quote]Wyatt Earp is a pretty good movie with a MOST EXCELLENT Doc Holliday -- [Dennis] Quaid [thanks Peter; of course I knew that] BLOWS Val Kilmer's ballyhooed Tombstone performance out of the water. ...[/quote]

Oh my.

I don't know what to say.

So I'll say nothing.

Except to register my astonishment that you are unimpressed with Mr Kilmer's performance, which I consider utterly astonishing, and that you prefer Mr Quaid's turn which, as solid as it may be, simply doesn't compare to the brilliance of Prince Val. Care to comment on your dissenting sentiment about his work here?

Still in shock,


Ron

P.S. But, yeah, SILVERADO is way cool.

Westerns aside, I've always believed Kostner's best film was A Perfect World. And I haven't seen Tombstone, but I have always despised Val Kilmer (or his acting, I suppose). "The Saint" is a movie that (To quote Ebert) I hate, hate, hate.

[quote]...I haven't seen Tombstone, but I have always despised Val Kilmer (or his acting, I suppose). ...[/quote]

Well, you really ought to check it out. I'd be interested to know if his performance in that film arouses your contempt, as his other films seem to have done. And if so, why. (Beware: your entire credibility as a perspicacious observer of fellow actors is on the line here.)


Ron

Tombstone's always been a somewhat guilty pleasure of mine, in the same category as Face/Off. Glad to hear that (a few of) the regulars give it credit.

I actually liked him in JFK.

(ducks, waits for bullets to fly)

[quote]I actually liked him in JFK.

(ducks, waits for bullets to fly)[/quote]
Yes. He was excellent. Just about everyone was excellent in that film too.
Bull Durham, Tin Cup, and OK, A Perfect World are just about as good as anyone could be. Didn't think much of Wyatt Earp other than Quaid.

Ron wrote:

Oh my.

I don't know what to say.

So I'll say nothing.

Except to register my astonishment that you are unimpressed with Mr Kilmer's performance, which I consider utterly astonishing, and that you prefer Mr Quaid's turn which, as solid as it may be, simply doesn't compare to the brilliance of Prince Val. Care to comment on your dissenting sentiment about his work here?

Still in shock,

Ron

It would be wrong to say that I was unimpressed with Mr. Kilmer's performance. I always find Mr. Kilmer impressive, but I almost never find him involving. I once described him in a review as "a versatile but remote actor who almost never opens himself emotionally to the audience or creates characters we ever get to know." For whatever reason, Mr. Kilmer's performances almost always seem to me like a man doing a trick, a very good trick that he does very well, but always leave me thinking "My, he does that well," rather than feeling the character's emotions or believing their situation.

Perhaps I find him a bit, I don't know, showy. Or show-offy. He does well with characters that have multiple personas (cf. The Saint, Batman, The Salton Sea). They showcase his talent and versatility, and the vague sense (at least, my vague sense) that there's something lacking at the center of the character seems to matter less.

I just asked my wife about it, and she had a slightly more succinct take on it: She thinks Kilmer is full of himself and that all his characters are basically variations on arrogant jerks. She adds that there may be other arrogant actors who can convincingly portray humility, but Kilmer may not be one of them.

Dennis Quaid's performance in Wyatt Earp I find to be much more powerful. There's conviction to his injured dignity, his tarnished gentility. The shrewdly penetrating gaze he turns on Wyatt bespeaks suspicion, old wounds, long experience in quickly summing up the measure of another man. He's a man uncomfortable with who he is and not likely to be impressed with others, but he's willing to give them a chance.

I'd like to say more, but parental duties call...

I'm still hoping for some feedback on the new Costner/Duvall film. Has anyone seen it? Is anyone planning on attending an advanced screening?

QUOTE

...It would be wrong to say that I was unimpressed with Mr. Kilmer's performance. I always find Mr. Kilmer impressive, but I almost never find him involving.... Etc...

Thank you, good sir! I breathe a sigh of relief, restore to you your Critic Rating of "Not Completely Boneheaded."

Thanks for taking the time to explicate - makes good sense. I'll have your jottings in mind next time I watch TOMBSTONE, or something else featuring Killer Kilmer.


Ron

P.S. Sorry about highjacking your thread, Christian.

[quote]I'm still hoping for some feedback on the new Costner/Duvall film. Has anyone seen it? Is anyone planning on attending an advanced screening?[/quote]

Saw it yesterday, and I recommend it. It's a solid Western with many virtues and a few faults. I'll start with Robert Duvall (my third mention of him today on this board) who again confirms that he's one of the best living actors (if not the best). Kevin Costner is fine, though excessively stoic. But that fits him. The supporting cast is quite good, even Mrs. Beatty whom I don't usually like. The landscape cinematography is gorgeous, as it should be, and I especially enjoyed the subtle score.

The story itself is fine. Nothing astounding, but it tells a good tale without losing its way. As this summer comes to a close, I'm wondering if that's harder than it looks. I wish the ending was better. It's not terrible, but it's the one part of the film that feels like it's trying too hard. The inevitable shootout is a nice mix of old-fashioned western and Unforgiven-like brutality. It works. Solid 7.5/10. Well worth seeing. Anyone else?

J Robert

Sounds great! I've been getting back into westerns recently, having stumbled on a string of Budd Boetticher/ Randolf Scott flicks on Starz-Westerns channel. Besides, I make it a point to see Duval.

I'm seeing it Tuesday.

[quote]I've been getting back into westerns recently, having stumbled on a string of Budd Boetticher/ Randolf Scott flicks on Starz-Westerns channel....[/quote]
I watched PALE RIDER and SHANE earlier this summer. Interesting to compare and contrast. Have you seen either?

Ron

I have not seen either in a long time, but I think that I prefer Pale Rider for its more fleshed out story, grittier telling, the apparant redemption of the Micheal Moriarty character, and the subtle avanging angel possibilities (SPOILERS: scar pattern on the Eastwood character, reaction of bad guy to seeing it, and the visuals of the closing credit sequence).

I liked OPEN RANGE a lot. The story takes its time at a number of points where it could have rushed forward and filled the screen with action, and that seems right for a movie about these kinds of people. The whole opening section, establishing the relationships among these men, was in no hurry to get to the initiating incident, and both the writing and the performances absolutely nailed that tough, taciturn way of relating that rings so true to my experience of some ranchers, farmers and oilmen I've known. And because the film spends as much time there as it does, this becomes a story that's much more about character and relationship than it is about shooting.

Even when the fim gets sentimental, I was willing to go with it because that seemed so right in the world of these men. They're suckers for a good dog or a good woman, and when we see the two of them in the presence of a woman (and her teacups), these men are careful and awkward boys, out of their element - but still they maintain a respect, even a reverence, so they never slip into childishness.

JBob's right, Duvall is perfection. I also appreciated seeing Kevin Costner direct himself in his own project and not go completely off the rails in yet another "saviour of mankind" role. And how great to see a woman in such a role who's got some years on her! She brings a lot of substance to the business of, shall we say, dealing with suitors?

Anybody else?

Pure trivia: "A picture is worth a thousand words" (or its variants) doesn't appear anywhere in print until December 8 1921, 'One look is worth a thousand words,' an advertisement to promote the Frederick R. Barnard advertising agency in Printer's Ink. In the March 10, 1927 issue they changed it to "One picture is worth ten thousand words", claiming to cite a Chinese proverb: no such proverb is known.

http://www2.cs.uregina.ca/~hepting/proverbial/27.gif

Saw this yesterday, and man, it's so refreshing to see a film that takes its time, that soaks up the scenery, that gives Duvall room to work his unique magic.

But the audience. Man, all they were there for was a shootout. And they laughed and cheered at the gunfight as though it was a sporting event. Really depressing.

Having said that, though, there were a couple of stunt shots that were so shocking they got a laugh out of me too.

I loved Duvall. Loved him.

I really appreciate Costner's eye for detail, like the tiny china cups, the dirt on the carpet.

The Western cliches were sometimes used in new and interesting ways, but were sometimes awkwardly routine. Costner is clearly at home with the rugged conditions of the outdoors, and he knows his way around a shootout, but he is still clearly an amateur when it comes to the particularlities of romance. Still, I applaud his choice of Annette Bening and his refusal to glamorize her. I enjoyed watching how much she got out of this thinly scripted, speech-heavy part.

Hardest thing to take: Michael Jeter's farewell performance. I loved that guy, and here he created a character completely different from any of his other roles. Nothing will ever top his singing-telegram transvestite in The Fisher King.
Biggest disappointment: the juvenile "Let's fill the bad guys with holes" plot. It's as if "Unforgiven" never came along.

Costner's performance was also disappointing. It's like his mind was on directing, and he forgot to make a character. He wasn't bad, but Duvall just wiped the ground with him. Gambon was brilliant too, creating another unique villain, as reprehensible as all of the others he's given us; Baxter seems like the great great granddaddy of the Big Tobacco godfather he played in The Insider.

It's too bad they couldn't find more for Diego Luna (Y Tu Mama Tambien) to do. He's a pretty good actor, but we never really got to know his character much.

The soundtrack found nothing new or interesting to do. I wish we'd seen Duvall doing more "cowboying", so we would have felt something when he led the horses back to the camp and the music swelled.

Oh well. I really enjoyed the "vacation" in the great wide open. It was well worth it for that, above all. I really admire Costner's willingness to make the film he wants to make instead of playing to the trends or the audience here. I just wish it hadn't felt like, as Danny put it when the film was over, a film that could have had the George W. Bush Stamp of Approval at the end.

P.S. Val Kilmer is a genius!! Mr. Buck, you need to go back and see The Doors and Heat and Top Secret again.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Biggest disappointment: the juvenile "Let's fill the bad guys with holes"
: plot. It's as if "Unforgiven" never came along.

Which is not to say that Unforgiven didn't fill the bad guys with holes, too ...

True, but there it was more of a horror, and here it was "justice."

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: True, but there it was more of a horror . . .

Very, very debatable. At the very least, the film is ambivalent on this point. For more on that, see Robert Jewett's discussion of this film and its conformity to the 'American monomyth' in Saint Paul Returns to the Movies and The Myth of the American Superhero. For my part, I have always seen that final shoot-out as the film's 'resurrection scene' -- Clint Eastwood's character, like the hero of many a western, is a Christ-figure of sorts whose identity is somewhat hidden or obscured at first, and then he is physically beaten (and in this case, he even 'descends to hell' for three days), but then he comes back to destroy evil with a vengeance. What is particularly interesting about Unforgiven in this light is that the film spends a LOT of time deconstructing the narratives by which legends are made -- the Saul Rubinek character arrives with the bounty hunter played by Richard Harris, and then he starts taking dictation from the sheriff played by Gene Hackman, who clearly wants to puff up his own mythic status, and it is clear in all of this that we are supposed to believe that the legends are only legends. But THEN, it is the Rubinek character who bears witness to the final showdown, in which Eastwood's character kills more people in a few seconds than anyone else has ever killed before -- and we learn that sometimes there is truth to these legends.

But, uh, I guess that's all off-topic.

Well if that wasn't, then this certainly is. From Harry Knowles:

Hello Harry,

I am a shadow who works in between the Matrix walls of Warner Bros. I have it on very high authority that Clint Eastwood might get back in the saddle one last time. The project is called LAST RIDE WEST which follows an aging cowboy who crosses the frontier near its end one last with a bunch of settlers heading to California and has to deal with how his way of life is coming to an end. John Logan is currently writing the screenplay and old Clint is going to star in, direct, and produce the film if all goes well. Sounds good to me. I think we can always use another good Clint Eastwood western.

So glad you liked the flick, Jeffrey.

[quote]... Costner is clearly at home with the rugged conditions of the outdoors, and he knows his way around a shootout, but he is still clearly an amateur when it comes to the particularlities of romance. [/quote]

Which seemed apt to me, given who these men were. They should be pros in the the particularities of romance?

[quote]
Biggest disappointment: the juvenile "Let's fill the bad guys with holes" plot. It's as if "Unforgiven" never came along.... ...there it was more of a horror, and here it was "justice."
[/quote]

I think there was some horror here, too. The two characters each having to decide whether to shoot a defenceless man in cold blood, however evil the man may be. Costner's reaction to the potently composed, distant shot of the townspeople chasing after one of the gunmen and killing him.

Still, UNFORGIVEN is the Western masterpiece on this theme.

[quote]
Costner's performance was also disappointing. It's like his mind was on directing, and he forgot to make a character. [/quote]

Can't agree with you here. Taciturn, yes, but I thought he turned in just what the role called for. I saw a lot of nuance there, and am convinced that he was at his best - relaxed, and somehow benefitted by Duvall as a scene partner. Some of Costner's best work - and, unlike the legion of Kevin bashers, I don't mean that as faint praise.

[quote]
He wasn't bad, but Duvall just wiped the ground with him.
[/quote]

Well, Duvall is simply a genius, and this one of his definitive performances. I almost admire Costner for even getting in the ring with him, let alone holding his own.

[quote]
I really enjoyed the "vacation" in the great wide open. It was well worth it for that, above all.
[/quote]

Well put. It really did give me the feeling I'd been away somewhere big and clean. A movie I was really able to move into and inhabit for a couple hours. Kind of like I used to be able to disappear into an adventure novel as a kid. A bit of that feeling. Good summer reading, this movie.

[quote]
I just wish it hadn't felt like, as Danny put it when the film was over, a film that could have had the George W. Bush Stamp of Approval at the end.
[/quote]

The movie did have me contemplating my own ability to willingly suspend not only disbelief, but also belief - my beliefs, that is. For an avowed pacifist, I find it fascinating (and sometimes disquieting) that I can so enjoy a vengeance movie. Your comment that OPEN RANGE isn't far from Bushism underlines that personal inconsistency, for me.

Not that anyone wants to watch me gaze at my own navel here, but I've been thinking about this inner divide this way. I don't deny that there's a very human part of me (maybe the fallen part, maybe just the human part that's not so very far from the animal part that I think we all have) that craves justice, retributive justice, violent justice at times. The point is that as a Christian pacifist, I've concluded that almost always, such an instinct, if indulged, leads to worse things: the very time we're least able to rightly make such a decision is exactly the time when we're most inclined to do so. So my choice to put aside violence doesn't have anything to do with not wanting violence: it has to do with a conscious choice to set it aside as an option, precisely because of its easy appeal.

So I wonder what violent revenge movies are for me, then? Occasions of sin? (I don't think so). Opportunities to look again at that whole range of behaviour, to consider something that is a central preoccupation for me - essentially to excercise that "ethical muscle," to keep weighing these choices? This next idea sounds stupid, but I wonder if there's something legitimate there: acknowledging that violent element in myself, to give it some expression in a setting that does no damage, to keep it from being one of those bottled-up, denied, repressed things that suddenly explodes, or works itself out in other negative ways? (Good lord, I'm making myself sound like a mass-murder time bomb, ticking away...) I do believe that the arts of fiction in general allow us to "try on" different lives, different modes of being in the world, different behaviours and choices, and to get a taste for the outworkings of those things in a context that doesn't reap any whirlwinds. (Though of course it can: sometimes the vicarious experience of certain things in fiction feeds unhealthy proclivities, gives us a taste for something we begin to act out. Certainly there are people who have these concerns about movies, and sometimes there's real validity there.)

I dunno. But when I see those organ transplants, and the bad guys striding through the streets of that innocent town....


Ron

Still haven't had a chance to see this one, but I note that Steve Sailer calls it "the best oat-burner since Unforgiven". As usual, he also brings his political perspective to bear on his review in interesting ways, e.g.:

The Western is timely once again. Now that the Bush Administration has decided to go into the nation-building business overseas, it's becoming clear that Americans no longer remember much about how nations are built, even our own. Up until about 1970, we at least could learn from the Western film, a genre that, more than anything else, was about nation-building -- the invention of order, justice, representative government, and a society fit for decent women and children.

Cowboy movies were prototypically about the establishing of a legitimate monopoly of violence. As the Old West receded into the distant past, however, Hollywood switched to the cop film genre, which is about maintaining that monopoly. In recent years, we've come to simply presume the rule of law, an expectation that has ill-equipped us for our stays in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[ snip ]

Costner underlines the appeal of anarchy to men during the panoramic early scenes set on the endless rolling grasslands at the foot of the Rockies. Moreover, living beyond the reach of the law demands more of a man's character -- his courage, honesty, and loyalty -- than does modern life, where the punishment of wrongdoers and enforcement of contracts is delegated to the government. Indeed, the frontier demands more of men than they can be expected to give. Open Range recognizes both the sadness and rightness of its passing.

I definitely hope to see this in the near future. But first I've got a few deadlines to beat ...

QUOTE

Cowboy movies were prototypically about the establishing of a legitimate monopoly of violence. As the Old West receded into the distant past, however, Hollywood switched to the cop film genre, which is about maintaining that monopoly. In recent years, we've come to simply presume the rule of law, an expectation that has ill-equipped us for our stays in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But isn't most "Law" in the frontier towns of traditional westerns what the "Law" (ie. the sheriff or marshall) says it is? In this sense, no one would be happy with that kind of frontier justice in those countries. And isn't this "Law" a bit more romanticised and also a lawabiding oasis from the chaos of the wilderness beyond "jurisdictions" (both natural and human)? But here, it might make more sense in connection with the ongoing conflicts.

QUOTE

Costner underlines the appeal of anarchy to men during the panoramic early scenes set on the endless rolling grasslands at the foot of the Rockies. Moreover, living beyond the reach of the law demands more of a man's character -- his courage, honesty, and loyalty -- than does modern life, where the punishment of wrongdoers and enforcement of contracts is delegated to the government. Indeed, the frontier demands more of men than they can be expected to give. Open Range recognizes both the sadness and rightness of its passing.

I was about to come up with counter-examples, but this applies to many anti-hero westerns as well. The Wild Bunch and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid spring immediately to mind. The difference here is alternative codes that are at the heart of the "courage, honesty, and loyalty" on the part of the Bunch and The Hole In the Wall Gang.

Finally saw this yesterday. Liked it a lot. Not a great movie, but a good movie -- I appreciated the solid storytelling (especially after the disaster that was The Postman), I appreciated the devotion to character (including little quirks like Costner telling Duvall he won't go to his Maker not knowing what his boss's real name is, and Duvall's last visit to the grocery store), I appreciated the fact that it was a relatively mature story in which every major character was played by someone over 40, I appreciated the striking imagery (not just the beautiful landscapes, but also things like the flooded street), I appreciated the abruptness and messiness of the shoot-out (especially in this age of over-choreographed fight scenes), and I especially appreciated the nuances of the script (especially the very, what's the word, laconic? taciturn? roundabout? way the men communicate the things that matter most to them -- I love the way Costner says "I have no trouble killing, I never have" in one scene, and then Duvall asks him about this ("In all the years we've worked together, we've never talked much about each other, and that's fine, but the last few days you've been saying things that sound like they have a ... history") in another scene that takes place a few days later, and then Costner answers him in ANOTHER scene late one night, some time later). The one thing that didn't convince me so well was the romance -- the idea that Costner's character and Bening's would fall for each other so quickly, or that one as demon-driven as him could settle down so readily -- but as actors, they did their best with the material; indeed, the very maturity of the characters, and the fact that they haven't got THAT much life left to live, gave them a reason for bonding as quickly as they did. All in all, this film is one of the summer's brighter spots, for sure.

Rich Kennedy wrote:
: But isn't most "Law" in the frontier towns of traditional westerns what the
: "Law" (ie. the sheriff or marshall) says it is? In this sense, no one would
: be happy with that kind of frontier justice in those countries.

Yeah, and here's it made very, very obvious that the marshall is in the pocket of the local rancher. Oh, and Jeff, I think this film DOES recognize the horror of the "justice" that is being meted out -- even if it takes the position that such horror is a necessary evil.

QUOTE

Oh, and Jeff, I think this film DOES recognize the horror of the \"justice\" that is being meted out -- even if it takes the position that such horror is a necessary evil.

SPOILERS

I think that this is undeniable. Two clear moments of evidence: The horrifying look on Bening's face when Costner keeps shooting the guy who was using her as a shield; and the look on Costner's face when, post-shootout, he sees the townspeople hunting down one of the bad guys and just shooting and shooting. There's definitely an attempt to raise some Unforgiven-type ambivalence.

Glad you liked it, Peter. I pretty much agree with everything you said. It's a nice, mature movie.

J Robert

Nice rundown, Peter.


(Oh, by the way, the friend I saw it with is the brother of one of the costumers. Has one of Duvall's shirts from the movie. How cool is that?)

SPOILERS

jrobert wrote:
: . . . the look on Costner's face when, post-shootout, he sees the
: townspeople hunting down one of the bad guys and just shooting and
: shooting. There's definitely an attempt to raise some Unforgiven-type
: ambivalence.

Absolutely. And the thing about that particular moment is that the killing of that one bad guy seems so unnecessary. I mean, he had already fled the fight. He had fled for his life. He was NOT a threat to Costner any more. (I mean, he was clearly just a mercenary working for someone else, and had no particularly villainous agenda of his own.) And this was AFTER Duvall had already talked Costner out of killing one of their wounded opponents. So that line between "revenge" and "justice" had already been raised in our minds, and what we see the townsfolk doing to that last bad guy ... well, it sure seems more like "revenge" than "justice" to me. It actually drives home the possibility that there might, in fact, be no such thing as an "innocent bystander". Once the violence is unleashed, and once the fight has gone in such a direction that it is safe for the regular, average townsfolk to get involved, they dive right in.

There are definitely white hats and black hats in this film, but the hats are all rather, well, muddied, y'know? I liked how the head bad guy's death was so pathetic, from his scrambling about behind the trough to his final moments inside the building, but we never got a feeling of triumphalism over his death -- or at least, I did not. I just found myself thinking how my OWN pride is often put to the service of my own pathetic tendencies, and how the undoing of my own pride often leaves me looking pretty lame. And when a villain is that pathetic, how much joy can a hero really take in defeating him? Duvall's refusal to "waste a good bullet" to put the head bad guy out of his misery was pretty ambivalent, too -- it was kinda good, because I think mercy killing is a sin anyway and to kill a guy when he's wounded might have crossed that line from "justice" to "vengeance", and yet, it was also kinda bad, because of the way he effectively made one human being's life worth less than a tiny piece of metal.

Oh, and Ron -- nice catch on the 'thousand words'! I live for that sort of thing.

Peter,

I agreed with your comments almost word for word.

Saw this last night, and it was well worth the wait. Duvall is always worth the hire fee, but his performance for me didn't quite match that of the last film I saw him in A Civil Action. What I liked was the ay it played against some of the usual cliches. Tjere was no one perfect shot killing, even Costner who was the most acomplished killer had to shoot people several times to actually kill them, and as someone said above Gambon's death is so low key, and unplayed we don't even see him die.

I also liked the way the movie gave itself a mythic feel, there were so many dissolves and fade inn and outs you couldn't really get too lost in this being just a film - it was a story, of how things used to be. It also acheived this by the way it put lots if distance between the camera and the action so many shots through glass (including numerous ones in the course of subverting another movie cliche - the assasain outside the house - I thought that scene was brilliant), but we're frequently behind fences, windows you name it. Again really aware of being in the sotry but only as an observer.

But the romance was a bit lame - even though the older woman thing was great to see (though face it she was hardly unattractive), and what the hell is with all the dogs? The camera seemed sadder about the dog's death than Mose's.

But such sentimentlaism couldn't spoil a good film.

Matt