(Un)Seen

I decided to kick off my movie watching this year with one of the more highly regarded movies of years' past, the 1992 Oscar-winning Best Picture, Unforgiven.

A lot of what I've read about the movie praised the way it removed all the gloss and glory of Westerns in a revolutionary way. Unfortunately, it's much easier to take this for granted now, nearly 20 years later. (20 years? Holy crap!) There have been a lot of "true" Westerns made since then, most notably in my mind the phenomenal television series Deadwood. In short, if there was a novelty here, that's since worn away.

Man, does this movie start slow. For the first half of the film, it actually plays out like two separate films. One of them features Clint Eastwood as a reformed gunslinger who tells us about 47 times per scene how he "ain't like that no more." I found this film-within-the-film to be plodding, slow, and boring. I think it tried to trade on audience knowledge of Eastwood the actor in the Spaghetti Western roles from earlier in his career. When this movie's anti-hero constantly protests "I ain't like that no more," we're meant to know exactly what "that" is by virtue of having seen it in other movies. This in turn is meant to build suspense and anticipation to see the caged beast unleashed later in the film.

Well, it happens that I haven't seen any of those earlier Eastwood Westerns. So to me, this entire plot felt like the same scene played out multiple times. The only anticipation it built in me was for a return to the other film-within-in-a-film.

Because let me tell you, that movie was terrific. Gene Hackman earns every ounce of the Best Supporting Oscar he won here for his role as bullying, power-mad sheriff Little Bill. His scenes throughout the first half of Unforgiven are the highlight of the entire film. We see a clear portrait of a dangerous tyrant that holds an entire town under his thumb. I found myself simultaneously excited and dreadful over seeing what he would do next.

At long last, the two "movies" finally merge with an hour to go. And fortunately, the Eastwood-centric plot soaks up the vigor of the Hackman plot, rather than dragging it down. The movie goes on to make some potent statements about violence and vengeance, whether a "leopard can change its spots," and leaves hanging the question of just what is justice.

It's just really a shame about that patchy opening act. Or requiring you to do homework on Clint Eastwood's career to be able to appreciate the opening act -- however, you prefer to see it. Overall, I'd say it still works out to a B; in the pool of Westerns, I'd nestle it just between 3:10 to Yuma (better than Unforgiven) and Appaloosa (just a touch worse). It's a film worth seeing.

But of course, I suspect most of you reading this already have.