Talk:Unforgiven

Film: Canadian / Core / American Start‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is on the project's core list.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Removed

Unforgiven is commonly considered to be among the five best westerns ever produced.

This is one of those statements which is impossible to disprove, but also non-encyclopedic, because it involves a subjective judgment among an undefined group...who considers it to be so? Critics? Film school professors? Fans? Actors? Film actors? Actors in western films?

See also Films considered the worst ever for an example of how this can get out of control. Ellsworth 19:41, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Roger Ebert

Is it true that he originally gave this film two stars? That can’t be true because two stars is a negative review and he originally gave this film thumbs up. Not only that, Unforgiven is #9 on his list of the 10 best films of 1992. Perhaps we should consider removing that fact from the page?

Siskel and Ebert’s 1992 review for Unforgiven:

http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/ebertandroeper/index2.html?sec=6&subsec=Unforgiven

Roger Ebert’s top ten lists:

http://www.innermind.com/misc/s_e_top.htm

You can quote me

Clint (on "Charlie Rose", I think) said, "If I didn't have to have stars, I'd have cast this whole damn thing out of Edmonton."

BTW, I consider Unforgiven among the five best Westerns ever produced, up there with "Silverado", "Josey Wales", & a couple I can't think of offhand... Pale Rider 07:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist?

The opening line calls this a revisionist film. This seems like a very strong statement, which is not backed up by any discussion in the article. I'm not saying it is or it isn't revisionist, but if it is in the topic sentence, it needs support. Since there is none, I'm removing it. -- Samuel Wantman 07:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final sequence?

I've seen this movie (an indisputable classic) a few times recently on cable stations in Canada that do not have the final text about Munney's move to San Francisco and prosperity in dry goods; they just run the final image of him visiting his wife's grave followed by a fade-out. Does anyone know why I might be seeing this, why they would remove the final on-screen text, and is this version is seen elsewhere? I swear it looks to me like they cut it because it wouldn't fit properly in full-screen. Is it worth a mention in the main article? - dharmabum 08:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Immensely good article, good discussion, but no citations. Which is a shame since most of this stuff can be cited by a good film student (I use this in the general sense of students of film, not in the particular sense of those going to film school) with access to materials, so if any such students read this, cite on young man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.227.246 (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moral ambiguity

I removed the section about Munny's motives for killing Little Bill. It was poorly written, orignal research, and some of it was just factually incorrect. Dancemotron (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took out some more of the Munny's motives for killing Little Bill. Any basic study of the film and one can see that he already has the money, never particularly bonded with the whores and therefore has NO REASON TO GO BACK except to avenge the murder of Ned. He doesn't do it "as retribution for killing not protecting the town's whores from cowboys who cut-up a whore". -Anon 28Feb08

Removal of original research

I've deleted the "Themes" subheading from the article. While it is fairly interesting and detailed, it is original research and thus not appropriate. While I suspect many of the points raised can be verified, I think that given the essay-like nature of the content means that re-editing it to conform with standard guidelines would be far more labor-intensive than simply rewriting it from scratch.

Sadly, I don't have enough time now to take a look myself, but I would suggest that the next step be to read through some of the critical analyses of the movie--I imagine it can't be too difficult to find critical commentary talking about the ideas that were raised in the deleted section. Here are some links that should prove useful:

Find sources for "unforgiven+eastwood" ( you must add "+" between words for phrase search ) : gbooks, a9, msbooks, gscholar, msacademic, gnews current, gnews archives

--jonny-m t 06:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role of women

I removed the advertising from this section, but it still amounts to little more than original research and doesn't improve the quality of the article. The article could include greater critical analysis, but it should cite sources. Doctofunk (talk) 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Can i just add that this part of the article in its present form is also poorly written with obvious spelling errors and poor grammar. Shaun3001 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol and violence

Alcohol and its relation to violence is another theme explored in this movie. Munny stresses throughout the movie he was a different person before his wife helped him stop drinking, and he repeatedly says he does not remember much of his early violent life, because he was drunk. Munny is sober when he kills the first cowboy and his behavior lacks any bloodlust or rage; he seems quite normal. However, towards the end of the film, when he begins to drink after learning Ned's fate, he quickly becomes a fearsome and intimidating individual. By the time he enters the saloon in the film's climax, he has finished the whiskey bottle and is full of murderous intent. Indeed, his rage is palpable, and the viewer sees in the end the demon that alcohol fully unleashes in Munny.

86.146.53.119 (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from William Munny

The character William Munny should not have a stand-alone article. Most of that article is anyway a reiteration of the plot of the movie. --Slashme (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pavement

Typo: pavement -> payment. I am sure that the two gun fighters were really not getting pavement from the prostitutes. Despite being "stone" cold killers. Proknosis (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the myth?

"A dark Western that deals frankly with the uglier aspects of violence and the myth of the Old West" – I just read this entire article and nowhere was the "myth of the Old West" discussed. The William Munny article somewhat goes into the gunfighter's history; drink is mentioned as the excuse for his past behavior and "evil" deeds. Is this what the myth is referring to? The "outlaws" of the West? – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 19:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The Myth Of The Old West" is something like: independent macho white men never feel afraid while doing things in a wide frontier to tame a primitive land, in which good people are always thoroughly good, bad people are always thoroughly bad, guns never jam or misfire, and every shot causes a quick, clean kill - rather than a lingering, painful death... basically, think of most "western" movies...

86.25.123.178 (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]