Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:That would be true except that wasn't what was going on in the movie. It was a deconstruction of the western for several reasons, one being that there is not truly good or bad guy; if anything everyone is more bad then good. No character is all good or all bad but morally ambiguous. There is no hero, there is no villain. It also tried to demystify the excitement of westerns as well as make violence seem unpleasant and nasty, with actual impact on people.

Again, the idea of a gunman as both threat and saviour of society is a key to the genre

Except that that is not true. In some westerns that is true, but not all. There are many westerns where it is as simple as the good lawmen and the evil criminals. Even so, no character in Unforgiven fits your description. No one is a savior or threat, if anything, they are society. The type you seem to be thinking of, such as the Man with No Name
films the character is an Anti-hero, but that is still a form of hero. The Unforgiven has a protagonist and an antagonist, but nothing resembling a hero/anti-hero.

sebster wrote:and in the best Westerns that needs a morally questionable main character.

I could list the number of great westerns where that is not true. Some great Westerns have easily delineated characters. Some do, some do not. Also saying 'best' is a value judgment and a personal opinion, not an empiracal viewing of the material. You may like those the best, but that doesn't make it so. It isn't as simple to quantify as that. Gary Cooper's sheriff may be in a moral quandary in High Noon but the character is never portrayed as morally questionable. In The Magnificent Seven, Yul Brynner and Steve MqQueen may not be lawmen (because they are masterless samurai of course) but are never shown as anything more than decent men with a strong sense of right and wrong.

sebster wrote:Otherwise, as jbunny said, The Searchers, Shane and The Magnificent Seven aren't classic Westerns.

He can say that, but that doesn't make it so. They may not be prototypical Westerns but they are certainly classics. Magnificent Seven transplanted a Japanese story onto western tropes; it isn't as if one is going to confuse it for Science Fiction. When Shane and The Searchers were released they certainly had more to say than other more simplistic Westerns of the time yet they too are still Westerns. It has been over 50 years since their release they easily qualify as classics of the genre. Adding complexity to a Western does not mean that it suddenly can not become a classic example of the genre. Subverting the genre or deconstructing it does not take a movie out of it's genre. Shaun of the Dead may be a send up of zombie movies but it is still a zombie movie. The reason filmmakers and film historians refer to them as classics, because they are.

Ahtman wrote:He can say that, but that doesn't make it so. They may not be prototypical Westerns but they are certainly classics. Magnificent Seven transplanted a Japanese story onto western tropes; it isn't as if one is going to confuse it for Science Fiction. When Shane and The Searchers were released they certainly had more to say than other more simplistic Westerns of the time yet they too are still Westerns. It has been over 50 years since their release they easily qualify as classics of the genre. Adding complexity to a Western does not mean that it suddenly can not become a classic example of the genre. Subverting the genre or deconstructing it does not take a movie out of it's genre. Shaun of the Dead may be a send up of zombie movies but it is still a zombie movie. The reason filmmakers and film historians refer to them as classics, because they are.

Yes, they are great examples of the genre, as Unforgiven is as well. But none of them are deconstructions of the genre, and nor is Unforgiven.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:He can say that, but that doesn't make it so. They may not be prototypical Westerns but they are certainly classics. Magnificent Seven transplanted a Japanese story onto western tropes; it isn't as if one is going to confuse it for Science Fiction. When Shane and The Searchers were released they certainly had more to say than other more simplistic Westerns of the time yet they too are still Westerns. It has been over 50 years since their release they easily qualify as classics of the genre. Adding complexity to a Western does not mean that it suddenly can not become a classic example of the genre. Subverting the genre or deconstructing it does not take a movie out of it's genre. Shaun of the Dead may be a send up of zombie movies but it is still a zombie movie. The reason filmmakers and film historians refer to them as classics, because they are.

Yes, they are great examples of the genre, as Unforgiven is as well. But none of them are deconstructions of the genre, and nor is Unforgiven.

Oh Sebster, will you ever get anything right about cinema? Or is this some elaborate joke where you are always wrong just to try and egg people wrong? Just to show how far off the mark you are, nowhere in my paragraph did I ever call any other film, hell, I didn't even hint at it, a deconstruction of Westerns other then Unforgiven. If you can't even read what I wrote correctly, how can I accept your poorly thought out arguments against them?

Ahtman wrote:Oh Sebster, will you ever get anything right about cinema? Or is this some elaborate joke where you are always wrong just to try and egg people wrong? Just to show how far off the mark you are, nowhere in my paragraph did I ever call any other film, hell, I didn't even hint at it, a deconstruction of Westerns other then Unforgiven. If you can't even read what I wrote correctly, how can I accept your poorly thought out arguments against them?

First up, it's unlikely I'll ever get anything right about cinema. Such is life.

Second up, I think you missed the point. No-one has suggeted that the other films mentioned are deconstructions, because they're obviously not. But that's the point; when other films in the genre have similar elements to Unforgiven yet aren't considered deconstructions, then Unforgiven as a deconstruction begins to look like a shaky argument.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

Captain Shrike wrote:If you don't know this quote you have not seen this movie:

Well that's quite the tautology.

Also, that quote appears in the musical Spamalot! so someone might know it from there instead..

OK, yes it was a needless repitition, what I meant to say is "You have not seen the greatist movie ever", sorry for the misunderstanding, but I was really tired at the time.

Ahtman wrote:

sebster wrote:Otherwise, as jbunny said, The Searchers, Shane and The Magnificent Seven aren't classic Westerns.

He can say that, but that doesn't make it so. They may not be prototypical Westerns but they are certainly classics. Magnificent Seven transplanted a Japanese story onto western tropes; it isn't as if one is going to confuse it for Science Fiction. When Shane and The Searchers were released they certainly had more to say than other more simplistic Westerns of the time yet they too are still Westerns. It has been over 50 years since their release they easily qualify as classics of the genre. Adding complexity to a Western does not mean that it suddenly can not become a classic example of the genre. Subverting the genre or deconstructing it does not take a movie out of it's genre. Shaun of the Dead may be a send up of zombie movies but it is still a zombie movie. The reason filmmakers and film historians refer to them as classics, because they are.

I never said they were not classic westerns, in fact I was impling that they were classic westerns with no typical good guy/bad guy. Which is the same as Unforgiven. If Shane and the Searchers are not Deconstruction westerns then neither is Unforgiven. Westerns basicly have two types. Easy to identfy Good guys and bad guys, and Complacated characters that have both good and bad in them. They are both Westerns.

sebster wrote:First up, it's unlikely I'll ever get anything right about cinema. Such is life.

We disagree on a few points on occasion, no need to be a drama queen about it.

jbunny wrote:I never said they were not classic westerns

Well then you need to have a talk with Sebster, he claims you did.

jbunny wrote:If Shane and the Searchers are not Deconstruction westerns then neither is Unforgiven

I think that is spurious reasoning, mainly because they are very different movies. The similarities are superficial. Eh, no need to keep beating on this horse anyway.

I see what you did there... Claim my reasons are false with out giving a supporting statement and they lets drop it.

Welcome to ignore.

jbunny wrote:I see what you did there... Claim my reasons are false with out giving a supporting statement and they lets drop it.

Welcome to ignore.

We've had enough posts on the subject already, which this thread isn't actually about, and I doubt it is going to be much more brought out. Most of the people coming to this thread didn't do so to read a debate on Western genre theory. I did give a reason actually:

Ahtman wrote:...they are very different movies. The similarities are superficial.

jbunny wrote:You stated If Shane and the Searchers are not Deconstruction westerns then neither is Unforgiven

I never said that anywhere.

If that is really all it takes to put someone on your ignore list? How do you get through real life? I mean this is such a minor issue, what do you do when people can see you and you can't just ignore them? Do people who don't agree with you on one thing really upset you so much it makes you cry? Do you really expect people to only sing your flowery praises all throughout your life?

If you really want to drag this on we can, I just thought we probably had better things to do and other posts to move on to. I guess you don't. If you want to fixate on this let me know.