lrrshn
I just saw, in 2016, the 1960 film, "The Unforgiven" on satellite TV. I watched it because I love Westerns, the classic genre pitting good vs evil. This film should have been made in the '30s, when racism was the accepted social practice. When, worldwide, cultures taught that it was better to be dead than anything other than White. Whiteness was the historical universal preference. Film, more than any other propaganda tool (except religion), dominantly decimated this message. I've read the film's reviews, explaining that Director John Huston and Producer/Star Burt Lancaster were meaning to honestly portray the conflict between Whites and Native Americans. The clash between blood kin and family bonds. The dilemmas posed by Nature vs Nurture. Bovine excrement. The movie's theme is: Whiteness is the supreme value. Whiteness is a value more important than any virtue: loyalty, integrity, honesty, truth. In this realm, Whiteness is a virtue. Being White is the only life worthy of living. Killing any adverse opinion is honorable — sanctioned by government, sanctified by God (an old White man).Hitler would have loved this movie.
Thomas Drufke
Audrey Hepburn always brings a great amount of charisma to each role she plays. But with The Unforgiven, not to be mistaken with the classic western 'Unforgiven', she's never given enough good material to work with. The film focuses on a few families on the frontier who struggle to agree on much, and hell breaks lose when one of their own is murdered. The Rawlins family suspects the Zachary family after hearing their step daughter may have been an Indian child taken at an early age. The premise sounds a bit ridiculous but ends up being pretty dull.Back in the day, certain films called for over-the-top acting but it's highlighted in this movie. Both of the mothers stand out as having way too many 'give me a break' moments. They exaggerate the significance of each others involvement with the Indians. Racism is clearly present throughout the film and I wish the resolution would have meant more. By the time the Natives and the frontier families end up fighting, I didn't get the sense that they really cared about getting their daughter back. I wished I had seen more character development from the Native American side of things.With that said, the bright spot of the movie lies with the man who didn't have much development at all, Abe Kelsey. The mysterious filled man had some of the great lines and also had one of the more memorable faces in any western I have seen in a long time. The action scenes are also actually well done for it's time. The film was made over 50 years ago, and it looks believable. Hepburn gets completely lost in the shuffle here though. She ends up being just the object each side is fighting for. I didn't feel anything for her when she would break down. Where as in a film like The Children's Hour, the best scenes were ones that involved Hepburn emotionally devastated. She is usually great at portraying realistic emotion. So all in all, with a more polished script and interesting characters this would have been a decent film.+Abe Kelsey +Action is believable -Hepburn lost in the shuffle -Script is jumpy, and the film loses focus -Mother characters were over-dramatic-Didn't care for the characters 5.5/10
elevenangrymen
The Zachary's are a proud family of five on the Kansas frontier. Mattilda is their mother, and she rests easy. Ben is the eldest son, he is charming, and well respected within the community. Rachel is his adopted sister, who is carefree. Cash is quick and easily made angry. Andy is still a boy, yearning to experience manhood. Their father was murdered in a Kiowa raid, so they hold a grudge against the tribe. One day, Rachel sees an old one eyed man, who stares at her peculiarly.When the man visits her home, her mother picks up a shotgun, and threatens to kill him. She doesn't, and in no time, her brother Ben comes home from a cattle drive to Wichita. They hold a dinner for a neighboring family, and Ben's partner in the cattle drive. Flirtations abound, and Charlie Rawlins, a neighbor, asks Ben permission to date Rachel. He begrudgingly agrees, as he loves his sister.Then one day, a local Kiowa tribe shows up on the Zachary's doorstep, claiming that Rachel is one of their tribe. The racist town quickly begins to turn against the Zachary's, and even the family itself begins to question their loyalties.As you read above, the film had a tough time making it through production, and Huston and Lancaster were constantly at odds. One meant for the film to be a straight up western, while the other meant to make a serious commentary on racial relations in America. Obviously their visions clashed. This could have made for a very interesting hybrid, but unfortunately, it was Lancaster's vision that reigned supreme, and the film was a pretty ordinary western, stylistically.I do wish that Huston could have had his way with the film, and created something different. However, some of Huston's vision still remains. These parts feel stylistically different from the rest of the film, which made the film a little muddled. However, it is still an interesting film.I am a big Hepburn fan, and this was a very interesting performance. She gave her typical charm in the first half, but in the second half she showed her shame, and confusion at her circumstances. It reminded me of a similar performance in The Nun's Story. Lancaster has always been an interesting actor, at least for me. At his best, he shows man ferociously in love with his sister, and yet ashamed of her roots. At his worst, well, he is stilted and his delivery feels forced. Thankfully, he is at his best for most of the film, especially during the thrilling climax.War veteran Audie Murphy gives the best performance of the film, however. Cash is a force of nature, his blithe hatred of the "injun" runs deep. He is the most fully realized character in the film. Lillian Gish is good as well, and her performance reminds me of her similar character in The Night Of The Hunter. The cinematography perfectly captures the sun-baked landscape of the west, as most westerns do. I found nothing particularly special in the way it was shot, nor in its overall look.The score is over the top on strings in the way all Tiomkin scores are. It is unmemorable to say the least. Huston's direction is good, but I feel as if he was holding back a little. The film was certainly ambitious, for a western at the time, and I cant help but feel as if the film had great potential, but it wasn't carried out in the way it should have been. I really do wish that Huston could have had his way, it would have made a much more interesting film.There are of course two things that some may find shocking. For one, Ben's love for Rachel. It goes farther than brotherly love. I understand that they are adopted siblings, but I find it shocking that this kind of taboo subject was seemingly okay in 1960. Still, that was the year of Psycho...The other concern of mine applies not only to this film, but most westerns of the period as well. The racism is so rampant and seemingly accepted, that I felt incredibly sorry for the native Americans who are killed because one of them wants to see his sister. Indeed the prejudice is so shocking, that it even surpasses The Searchers, which is incredibly racist as well. I don't want to seem all PC, but at points it can be shocking. Cash threatens his sister, whom he loved and grew up with and knew all his life, just because of her origins.I do wonder what the title has to do with the film. Who is The Unforgiven, is it Rachel, can she not be forgiven because of her roots? Is it the town, for rejecting a respected member just because she was born of native American parents? Is it Ben, for wanting his adopted sister? I guess given the date and context, the first explanation is the one that is most applicable. Or perhaps they just thought the title sounded really cool (it does).Anyways, I am not saying the film is bad. It is quite watchable, even entertaining. It is suitably dramatic, at points and light at other. The climactic shootout and the first hour are a bit too long, but it gives you time to meet the characters. It may not be Huston's best film, but it is interesting enough to hold your attention for 121 minutes. It sounds like a failure, but it feels like what it is: a western.The Unforgiven, 1960, Starring: Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn and Audie Murphy Directed by John Huston 7/10 (B)This is part of an ongoing project to watch and review ever John Huston movie. You can view this and other reviews at http://everyjohnhustonmovie.blogspot.ca/)
