Rooster Cogburn JL

The film Rooster Cogburn is vastly different from the classic Western. While the setting may be similar, the “other” character takes on new levels of importance. The time period that this film was produced helps the viewer to understand why the film has its characters acting the way it does. The film was shot when the Women’s Rights Movement was making progress and women were gaining rights. They had been given equal pay within the work place, given the ability to take birth control pills, and now could not be discriminated against for gender when applying for jobs. The idea of women becoming equal to men is shown in Katharine Hepburn’s character, Eula Goodnight. The way in which women are represented in this film is very different from the classic view that Western’s portrayal women. Typically women are seen as weak, over emotional, and dependent.

However, in Rooster Cogburn, Eula Goodnight is an extremely strong, independent woman. Her role is as important as Rooster’s and more important than Hawk and his men. She grabs the viewer’s attention with her sophisticated language and polite manner. Rooster calls her out on her speech and asks her where she is from. She says she is from the Boston and that she supposes she should “learn some southern phrases” (Rooster Cogburn, 1975). Another interesting aspect about Eula Goodnight is even though she speaks frequently, her language is strong and purposeful and does not do what it typically does to other women; makes them weak and crumble. Eula does not show a great deal of emotion when she talks in comparison to women in other Westerns. You can tell what kind of mood she is in but nothing exaggerated: instead, her language to shows her power. For example, when Hawk rides into her settlement, she greets them and when they refuse to obey her requests she simply continues talking and remains calm while being shot at. We normally see a woman at home tending to the house and children while her husband is at work. Conversely, Ms. Goodnight states that she does not need a man by saying she choose not to marry one and not to reproduce one either. Ms. Goodnight shows the viewers very early on that she does not fear guns nor does she approve or use them. This is a typical portrayal of women’s use of guns in Westerns. What is unusual is how Ms. Goodnight does not hesitate when buying a gun or using it. We find out later that she has an extremely accurate shot when she shoots one of Hawk’s men before he can shoot Rooster. She does not brag about the shot just explains that she has all brothers so they taught her.

Rooster Cogburn also incorporates Native Americans into the movie. In this film, they were not the “enemy”. Instead they are seen as living peacefully among whites and trying to learn the language. They are portrayed as harmless human beings who are very innocent. They do not drink or use guns. When Hawk and his gang attack the Native Americans are left to defend themselves with their bare hands. The way in which Rooster Cogburn portrays both women and Native Americans is representative of a time period in the United States when rights were being distributed evenly and equality was starting to set in.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly/Navajo Joe NC

These spaghetti Westerns differ from most Westerns of their time by the method in which the story is told. Both films start out with violence; TGTBTU shows Tuco shooting down bounty hunters and Navajo Joe starts with Duncan killing Joe's wife. The American Western film norm of the time did not start with such chaotic violence, in so much that early violence almost always included some character development to understand the reason for the violence. In these spaghetti Westerns, the audience is plunged into violence from the start, which continues until the end. The violence itself, much more prevalent, also almost always includes much more gore. The texture of the colors of nature in these films (the colors of the brown dirt, red/grayish mountains, and faded green grass) bring out the red of the blood. The films tell stories, but much of the films is devoted to conflict and death. Scenes are reserved in traditional Westerns that help develop the story, but spaghetti Westerns seem to be exclusively about violence at times. The violence is harsh, but it seems nonsensical at times. The doctor's death as well as his wive's in Navajo Joe, while not comic, almost invokes laughter due to its ridiculousness. The American Western builds up to serious scenes of life and death with talking and interaction, but the doctor and his wife seem to be senselessly shot down.

Besides the more common violence, greed and capitalism are also subjects more deeply explored. The gold in TGTBTU is on everyones mind, and characters are hurt and killed in its search, just as the bank's money in Navajo Joe is sought by the doctor (doctors are often well paid anyways, showing the intense greed of the character) while Joe acts in good will to be paid.

Though Blondie and Navajo Joe may arguably be the alpha male cowboys of these films if they carry alpha male cowboys, they portray the roles around the money. Joe's aim is to collect his pay for acquiring the money for the town, and Blondie rides off with the gold. Though The Searchers presents a John Wayne playing a character who had mysteriously acquired gold at the beginning of the film, the film does not center around this fact. The strength of greed in these films questions the idea of the alpha male in spaghetti Westerns altogether.

With the ideas of violence and greed, these foreign-produced films express from a cultural studies point of view the global view on America. As these films were created during a time when world travel was not the norm as it is today, most people living abroad might judge a people by what their respective medias said about them. Foreigners recognized the place of America in wars, and in seeing past Westerns and how American's acted, foreign stereotypes of the US may be thought to be exaggerated, but it may say how those abroad really do think of America. The world could think that Americans are violent and greedy by how the film was produced and the way the stories were told. Whether this is true or not, American Westerns have been seen as a mark of heritage and pride of American culture and expansion. Spaghetti Westerns try to say not-so-subtly how they believed Americans truly behaved and acted.

Unforgiven NC

Unforgiven is undoubtedly a revisionist film. Beginning with the lawlessness of the West and the bounty on killing the cowboys, the film expresses the complications and undesirable consequences associated with the hunt for money. The enforcement of 'justice' by the sheriff criticizes the government's system of handling crime, and as a result, the ideas of good and bad are twisted throughout the film, leading up to the climactic battle between the main characters and the 'law.' The men on the search for money seem to be good at heart, especially exemplified by their remorse from murder, making them anti-heroes.

Morgan Freeman appears as an equal to these men, even as being a black man in the setting he is in, but seems much calmer and wiser than the rest as seen in the campfire scenes. He is married to a Native American in the film. These groups were not cast in roles as cowboys in traditional Westerns, even from the position of the anti-hero. The very fact that he appears in the film is important, but the importance of his character shows how revisionist the film truly is.

As mentioned, these men are anti-heroes, best shown by Clint Eastwood's character William Munney. As a settled down father, he had relaxed from a life of killing and stealing and worked towards reforming his life and redeeming himself. Reluctant to accept the job, he does so under the pretense of money and not justice, but the end of the film in which Little Bill and his deputy are killed shows that William's actions did in fact lead to some good. In some way, justice was served.

The film breaks away from the old mold of the traditional Western, but tells a story just as well. Accepting other groups and being more tolerant of race, this revisionist Western shows that Westerns do not have to be exclusively white and censor elements of reality that are often forgotten in older films. The application of revisionism in my opinion does not make Westerns better, but helps to show the change that Westerns have moved through and grown from, culminating in the continuation of the American story through the placement of cultural elements.

3:10 to Yuma NC

The differences between the 3:10 to Yuma films do not take away from the basic plot, but in certain ways they seem as if they are almost two different Westerns. The first film follows the common older Western pattern of having scattered moments of violence, having large buildups in plot development beforehand. The newer film follows the common Hollywood trend of today, packing as much violence and special effects as possible. Though the older film uses the scenery of the West in the hardboiled fashion, the colorful update uses similar settings, yet the focus remains on the characters and the action throughout the entire film. In short, the first seems like a common Western, but the new version is updated for the times and lacks certain elements of the older Westerns.

What truly separates them above all else is the idea of revisionism. Though both can be considered great films, the difference in endings shows that the new film breaks the traditional Western pattern. As revisionism deals with reality, Dan's death in the new film does not occur in the first film, giving the audience the shock of violence in the West. Although the action in the new film can be seen as taking away from the old Western mold, the direction and use of town scenery rather than the picturesque scenery of nature allows the conflicts to show the grit of the West in a way that the older films did not. It is arguable that more violence in the new film is more realistic, but the plot structure of the older film appears to be stronger.

In the last scene, with Dan dying and his son by his side, the audience sees in this moment as well as other moments throughout the films the humanity of the alpha male cowboy. The older films make audiences think that the alpha males are a step above the rest, almost superhuman. They do not have superpowers, but their codes, their excellent marksmanship, and their ability to endure and evoke strength in others makes them stand out in their towns. The respect seen between Dan and Wade shows friendship, brotherhood, and emotion; these ideas are not necessarily new but through revisionism they are brought out and emphasized.

The main differences between the alpha male characters between both films is the bond shared between them. The first films shows Dan and Wade as working together at times, but the impression of a bond is never delivered. The newer films portrays the bond they share as guardian and protected shows a developing relationship throughout the course of the film. Dan and Wade could never be considered equals in the first film, but the second film's action allows the audience to see the connection the characters share and their reactions to different hazardous situations. Dan's death brings the full meaning of this relationship to fruition, but the fact that Dan survives in the first film does not allow Wade's colors to show as in the second film, when he actually fires on his own gang. Revisionism, though producing more often than not darker films, produces reality, and the friendship shared by these characters in the second film exemplifies this.

Gunfight at the OK Corral NC

Doc Holliday of Gunfight at the OK Corral serves not as another alpha male sidekick but as the other, albeit a major player. Earp is a marshal, representing good, while Holliday, a gambler, represents the lower way of life of the West. Alpha male cowboys are not known to be gamblers, but servers of justice. Gambling represents chaos and chance, and Holliday is nowhere near as solid as Earp from a point of goodness, but although Earp can be viewed as having a dark view of justice (handling the guard to save Holliday's life), he has good intentions at heart. Holliday has loyalty to Earp, but his end goal is not one of justice but one of worldly merit (gambling).

Earp pursues Laura Denbow, a female gambler. Though Earp represents justice, his friendship with Doc and attraction to Laura suggest that though he believes in the higher cause of justice, the practice of gambling does not dissuade him from other townsfolk. He does not belong to the law or a separate code, but rather has his own views, essential to the alpha male. Doc's good shooting skill saves them in the mountains, and though from a Western action standpoint, the alpha male is the best with a gun, Doc is not compared to be better or worse. The Earps hold their own during the last fight, but Doc's shooting skills show that he can fight with the best, as good as an alpha male, but the alpha male is about more than shooting skill.

The big difference as found in the film is that Doc is a survivor, as all men in the West are. But the alpha male as seen in this and other films is not only an excellent survivor but practices his personal code in all acts of life. Doc needed to be rescued early in the film, and in Western films this almost never happens. The alpha male is not shown to be beyond death but never helpless, even in testing his mortality. Doc, though a great addition to the film and a strong character in the role of the other, is not an alpha male

Day of the Outlaw NC

The film takes up a few different women's issues throughout its course. During one of the films first scenes (involving a 'neighborly' cup of coffee), the women are out of scene at first in the kitchen. This separation invokes a feeling of inequality as perceived by many Westerns. Expecting the women to simply care for the men, Helen is very outspoken and makes known her difficulty of finding a husband up to her standards. Often in Westerns, women are objectified and seem to be bartered like good at times, but this moment is a rare time when a man must meet a woman's needs and not the other way around. From this scene, the duality of social standards in the separation of the women contrasted to Helen's individuality and strength shows the struggle of women in becoming independent and expanding their rights in a rigidly masculine society.

Another woman's issue discussed is the fidelity of marriage. In a later scene, Helen confronts Blaze and offers herself to him, even as she is already married. She swears to tell her husband she no longer loves him and do as Blaze desires. This scene also offers a duality in that while Helen seems to be unconditionally surrendering herself to Blaze, giving up any control, she exerts control of her marital faith in that she does not take the form of a piece of furniture in her husband's life but instead gives proof that she has a voice and opinion. She controls her sexuality and shows that she can be cold as men of the West can be cold.

The dancing scene shows exaggerated objectification of women. As one man seems to be starting to rape one woman, another man comes to take her. A child curiously watches on the staircase in the background. Seeing the child, the scene made a point of showing how not just objectification but inequality plagues society, and women are victimized and children are helpless to act. The final scene of the movie involves a duel between the gang and men which decides what happens to the women, showing really that these women are still objects at the end of the film. The film's story was not to bring equality, but the audience can take away that the women, while making progress and becoming stronger, being portrayed stronger than most previous films, still have much progress to make and still have many social obstacles to conquer.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly/ Navajo Joe BD

The spaghetti westerns are very different films compared to the original western films. They do not possess the same view of American society that the original western have because they are made by European directors instead of Americans. The films are made based on how others view American society, not how Americans view themselves which in turn makes the characters have different qualities, mainly the alpha male cowboy. The alpha male is not the great hero that he is portrayed to be in American westerns; instead he has a much more villainous sense to him. He is not necessarily doing the right thing; he is simply more just than the villain. For example, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Blondie is going from town to town scamming the marshal into paying the reward for the outlaw Tuco and then shooting his rope before he is hanged in order to use him again to gain more money somewhere else. However, this is not as bad as the hired killer Angle Eyes who will kill anyone as he is paid to do so.

Also in spaghetti westerns, there is a greater use of minorities as others in the films than there is in American westerns. Both The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Joe are filled with minority characters, with Navajo Joe even having the main role be the portrayal of a Native American. However, these characters are only there in order to make a comment on American culture toward immigrants and minorities. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Tuco is a Hispanic character that is exploited by Blondie in order to obtain a reward. Even though he is freed each time, it is showing how Americans are thought to use minorities for their own personal gain, even at that point in history. In Navajo Jo even though the main character is Native American, he is stilled looked at as inferior to white men. He is told that he would not be allowed to be sheriff because he is an Indian, even though he is the only character that will be able to stop Duncan and save the town. Through this, Europeans are stating that Americans are much less tolerant towards minorities than they themselves are.

Navajo Joe/GBU LR

Spaghetti Westerns emerged in the early sixties when European film companies attempted to recreate their version of the American Western. The reason the term ‘spaghetti’ is used is because a large majority of these films were financed by Italian companies. These films were not as popular as the classic American western, yet were still watched and enjoyed by many. Some key differences stand out when comparing the classic and spaghetti westerns especially in the films Navajo Joe and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

In the film Navajo Joe, the main character is Native American. He is the hero of the movie and is constantly saving people from Duncan and his large gang of thieves. He has all of the characteristics of an alpha male cowboy of the classic western, but the fact that he is Native American is surprising. In the classic western Native Americans are certainly seen as the ‘other’ and always play a supplementary role. Even the half Indian girl who goes to look for him says she has never heard of a Native American named ‘Joe’ before. The spaghetti western is extremely theatrical and exaggerated in fighting scenes, relying on the slight humor of sloppy behavior to draw the audience in.

The film The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, provides a plot more similar to the classic western but does depict the civil war experience in a serious way. There was figure in the film that fought for good or had the goal of defending justice. The three main cowboys in this film are all after personal gain and solely driven by money. The European film companies did not truly understand why the people of America rallied around a strong alpha male cowboy figure that fought for good with a high moral standard. This style of film is known more for comedy and extremely sappy acting, and not for the upkeep of morals and a hero who represents the American dream.

NH Navajo Joe/The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The spaghetti westerns are extremely different than any other western film that we have seen thus far. We are used to seeing the alpha male cowboy played by John Wayne dominate the screen as he rules the land with only his gun. In Navajo Joe and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, the films do not contain the same characteristics that the American made westerns do. The spaghetti westerns are European made western films through which we are able to see the view that Europe has of the American people. In The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Clint Eastwood plays the character of "The Good." This is ironic because the character that he plays is in fact not all that good as he abandons his spanish comrad. It is also ironic because we are able to see the view of the American male the the eyes of the European people. Clint Eastwood is referred to as "The Good" when he is actually pretty juch the opposite. Leading us to believe that the European people have quite a negative view of the American male.

The spaghetti westerns are lacking the alpha male cowboy characteristics of the western that are typically found in the American Western. In the American western films there is always an alpha male cowboy. He is a dominant white male and he rules the land. In Navajo Joe, a Navajo Indian is the main character. Although he contains the traits of an alpha male cowboy he would not be considered one in the American western because of his ethnicity. This usage of a navajo indian as the alpha male cowboy exploits the prejudice of the American people through the eyes of Europe. An Indian man would never be seen as the leading role in an American Western during John Wayne's acting career.

Navajo Joe/ TGTBTU JL

The classic Western always portrays the alpha male cowboy as the hero. The alpha male cowboy can do no bad. In spaghetti westerns, the alpha male cowboy is the villain. The films are saying that while we think that non-Americans are the enemy, people outside of the United States believe that we are the villains. In Navajo Joe, Duncan was the leader or a bandit gang that caused havoc on every town they invaded. Duncan and his gang were almost all white men. Having the villains be white Americans is a shift away from the traditional Western villain. Navajo Joe is the hero in the movie. We almost never see the hero being someone other than an alpha male cowboy. When Duncan rides into town with the scalps of the Native American, the owner of the store says that they used to sell the scalps of the Native Americans when they were the enemy but now that they are peaceful they no longer accept the scalps. This shows the acceptance of immigrants within the culture. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Blondie and Tuco partner up which symbolized the American and immigrant becoming one. By having the prize that they are after being gold, it symbolizes the greed that Americans embody. Both movies were made the year after the national origins quota system was abolished. This shows that America was opening up to letting immigrants into the culture.

Navajo Joe/ TGTBTU JL

The classic Western always portrays the alpha male cowboy as the hero. The alpha male cowboy can do no bad. In spaghetti westerns, the alpha male cowboy is the villain. The films are saying that while we think that non-Americans are the enemy, people outside of the United States believe that we are the villains. In Navajo Joe, Duncan was the leader or a bandit gang that caused havoc on every town they invaded. Duncan and his gang were almost all white men. Having the villains be white Americans is a shift away from the traditional Western villain. Navajo Joe is the hero in the movie. We almost never see the hero being someone other than an alpha male cowboy. When Duncan rides into town with the scalps of the Native American, the owner of the store says that they used to sell the scalps of the Native Americans when they were the enemy but now that they are peaceful they no longer accept the scalps. This shows the acceptance of immigrants within the culture. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Blondie and Tuco partner up which symbolized the American and immigrant becoming one. By having the prize that they are after being gold, it symbolizes the greed that Americans embody. Both movies were made the year after the national origins quota system was abolished. This shows that America was opening up to letting immigrants into the culture.

Navajo Joe/ TGTBTU JL

The classic Western always portrays the alpha male cowboy as the hero. The alpha male cowboy can do no bad. In spaghetti westerns, the alpha male cowboy is the villain. The films are saying that while we think that non-Americans are the enemy, people outside of the United States believe that we are the villains. In Navajo Joe, Duncan was the leader or a bandit gang that caused havoc on every town they invaded. Duncan and his gang were almost all white men. Having the villains be white Americans is a shift away from the traditional Western villain. Navajo Joe is the hero in the movie. We almost never see the hero being someone other than an alpha male cowboy. When Duncan rides into town with the scalps of the Native American, the owner of the store says that they used to sell the scalps of the Native Americans when they were the enemy but now that they are peaceful they no longer accept the scalps. This shows the acceptance of immigrants within the culture. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Blondie and Tuco partner up which symbolized the American and immigrant becoming one. By having the prize that they are after being gold, it symbolizes the greed that Americans embody. Both movies were made the year after the national origins quota system was abolished. This shows that America was opening up to letting immigrants into the culture.

Navajo Joe/ Good Bad And Ugly BCG

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and Navajo Joe are defined as spaghetti westerns, as they were filmed across Europe, mostly throughout the likes of Spain and prominently Italy. These films differ from the classic western because of their perspective. The classic western focuses on the white alpha-male character, because these films were produced in America by Americans who knew the sentiment of the American public. Characters seen as the ‘other’ were mostly foreigners and women, playing miniscule roles in the classic western. It is interesting to point out that American made westerns were critical of capitalism and the gain of excessive money, while spaghetti westerns were based on the ideas of money and greed.

The spaghetti western was shot on locations outside of America, by foreign directors with through their own perspective of America and westerns. These two films revolve around the theme of money and greed. The most prominent example was when Navajo Joe focuses on the monetary benefit of killing the outlaws rather than the justice he can bring them after killing his wife and tribe. Had 3:10 to Yuma been a spaghetti western instead of American made; perhaps Dan Evans would have taken the money to help Ben Wade rather than the morally right thing to do and bring him to the train station so he could be brought to jail.

The European perspective for violence and greed of Americans comes from themes, events, and experiences that Europeans had heard, or seen of Americans. The stereotyping begins with the shoot-em-up Chicago gangsters, and follows with both World Wars, and the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was an economic stimulus package post WWII that the US threw at Europe to rebuild rather than humanitarian aid or materials. So if you had experienced the US for yourself, and your only experiences of Americans were violence and money, a film director would focus on these aspects in making a western film.

Europeans countries have generally been more liberal in terms of views on gender and ethnicity. There was no need for radical gender or racial movements for equality in Europe during the 1960’s because they already had improved rights. So the fact that the other, as seen as Navajo Joe, is not only the main character, but also the one who eventually saves the town full of white people, shouldn’t be surprising. However, with the Hispanic character being labeled as “the Ugly” in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly this is a direct criticism of how Americans felt regarding immigrants.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly/Navajo Joe MR

The main difference between classic westerns and spaghetti westerns is the fact that spaghetti westerns are Italian films made by Italian film crews. Thus, the narrative of the film will be a little bit different than if it were made by an American film maker. For example, Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Sergio Corbucci’s Navajo Joe, are both very critical of the Vietnam War, which America was in the midst of at the time the movies were made. This is not to say that there were not Americans that were against the war, but the foreign factor gives a different perspective than a domestic director would. An American director would more likely stand by his country and support their operations. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, however, condemns the war, and really any war, all together. When The Man with No Name, known as Blondie in this film, and Tuco meet the Union army after escaping from Angel Eyes and his posse, the Captain of this company is visibly distraught by the horrors he has witnessed during the Civil War. At this point, he has basically given up on humanity with men killing their fellow countrymen and brothers, he has taken to drinking right before a battle he is reasonably sure is coming. He has become obsessed with blowing up a bridge that is strategically necessary for both the Union and the Confederacy, because he knows that it is the only way for large groups of people to cross the river. Without this bridge, people will be unable to kill each other. When Blondie and Tuco finally destroy the bridge, a smile crosses the Captains face as he dies knowing that the killing has been deterred, at least for a little while.
When talking about Navajo Joe from a cultural studies perspective, the motives of the war itself is not necessarily criticized, but the complete apathy and lack of emotion for someone who has fought for them in a place where they cannot see what is going on is. The people of the town Duncan holds hostage do not even think twice about what may have happened to Joe when his horse returns with the money. When responding to a question of where he is, one of the townspeople simply says, “Who cares? The money is all that matters.” What Corbucci is really trying to say is that people should care about each and every one of the soldiers that fight for them and that they should recognize the sacrifices these soldiers make.

Navajo Joe/The Good The Bad CS

In classic Western films, the alpha male cowboy is portrayed as a heroic white man who lives a life of duty and is a symbol of masculinity in America. Ethan Edwards from The Searchers and Tom Doniphon from The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance are examples of this typical western cowboy. Spaghetti Westerns such as Navajo Joe and The Good the Bad and the Ugly show the American man through the eyes of Europeans and the characters in these films are not the typical heroes seen in American Westerns. In Navajo Joe the main character, who is ultimately the hero of the film, is not a white alpha male but a vengeful Navajo Indian. Blondie, the only white male character in The Good the Bad and the Ugly, is also not the typical hero. He is just as much of a bandit and villain as the Hispanic men labeled “ugly” and “bad”, but since he is the white man, he is labeled as “good”. Blondie also uses his Mexican partner, Tuco, to receive reward money by repeatedly capturing him, turning him in, and then saving him from being hanged. This exploitation of Tuco does not portray the white male in a positive light, especially since he also turns his back on him and leaves him to die in the desert.

Navajo Joe also shines light on the discrimination of minorities in America. Joe knows he is the only person capable and strong enough to stop Duncan, but the townspeople do not believe him because he is Native American. Joe also proves his worth when he explains that he deserves to wear the sheriff’s badge because every generation of his family is from America, and the sheriff’s own father was born in Germany, and therefore should not be looked down upon. The Civil Rights Movement was going strong during the late 1960s which affected the issues in these films. Immigrants and minorities were treated as second class citizens and were fighting to become equal to whites.

Both of these films also revolve around white men on a mission to gain money, and ultimately power. The Europeans behind these films clearly see Americans as only caring about becoming rich and powerful and not caring about who they have to step on to get there. This is a result of the multiple wars fought with Europe in the 21^st century and America emerging as a superpower.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly/Navajo Joe AP

Spaghetti westerns cast America and classic westerns into a whole new light. We are used to seeing America’s West through the American filmmakers’ eyes. However, in the spaghetti westerns such as Navajo Joe and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, we see how America’s West is seen through Europe’s eyes. There are many clear differences between the classic and spaghetti westerns; ranging from the characters themselves to the scenery. Europe’s view of America comes at a time when America is having problems within the country and with other countries such as Cuba.
The first prominent difference is the alpha male cowboy that is present in classic westerns but not seen in these spaghetti westerns. The classic western has a white alpha male cowboy, who is essentially our hero in the movie. However, in both Navajo Joe and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, a white alpha male cowboy is clearly missing. We see a Navajo Indian as the main character in Navajo Joe, and the white man in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, is not a hero of any sort. This already sets the spaghetti westerns apart from all the other westerns we have seen. In The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, the white man is called “the good”, even though he clearly is not a good person since he betrays his Hispanic comrade. And the fact that a Native American is the main character in Navajo Joe, makes the spaghetti westerns just that more intriguing.
Also the labeling that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly has for the two other characters, just shows more of what Europe thought about America. The Hispanic immigrant is labeled as “the ugly”. We can see how Europe sees America as having prejudices. Even though the white man is not a good person, he is not labeled a bad thing like the immigrant. This movie came at the time when the Civil Rights movement was taking up, so it was clearly stating how America was prejudice against immigrants. Especially Hispanics, whose population at the time was greatly increasing and who were starting to protest for rights. Also, the label, “the bad” is given to the man who finishes the job he is paid for. He is a Union sergeant. The fact that he uses torture and kills brutally, may just show how Europe sees America’s sergeants as vicious animals who do anything to get the job done, no matter how many people they may have to step on or kill.
An important part of these Westerns is the fact that the men in both spaghetti westerns seem to be solely driven by money. They are after money all the time and do whatever is in their power to get to that money. This just shows how Europeans think that America and Americans only care about money and power. America was in a crisis with Cuba, and was starting an arms race with Russia. America was perceived as wanting to be at the top, the most powerful nation in the world. This view is translated into the characters.
We see all of the things that Europeans find are wrong with America, depicted in these spaghetti westerns. There is a lot more violence and the characters in these spaghetti westerns are cruel people who are very different from those in the classic westerns.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly/ Navajo Joe DG

The films The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and Navajo Joe are considered to be spaghetti westerns. Seeing as they were shot in Europe, there is a different perspective on many things.

There are several differences between the classic westerns we have seen and these two spaghetti westerns. The first difference lies in the presence of a white alpha male cowboy in the film. In the classics characters such as Tom Doniphan and Ethan Edwards represent the white alpha male cowboy, but in the spaghetti westerns there is no white alpha male cowboy.

In the westerns we see the plot driven by the duty of the alpha male cowboy, but in these films the plot revolves around money. Weather it is Blondie scamming for bounties or Duncan stealing it, money is the main issue that the plot is built around. The reason for this is because that is the view Europeans had of America at that time. They believed that the only thing America cared about was money and the power it entitles them to.

Lastly, the classic western does not ever have any minorities that play important roles in the film. We see Tuco play a very important role in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly where he is teamed up with Clint Eastwood, as Blondie in the beginning of the movie. The interesting part about the inclusion of the minorities in these films is the way they are portrayed. For example, Tucco and Angel are labeled as "The Ugly" and "The Bad". Here we see the two minorities in the film labeled as ugly and bad whereas Blondie, a white man, is labeled as "The Good".

The differences the Europeans portrayed in the spaghetti westerns have to due with the attitude toward America at the time. Money was very important to America, to both the citizen and to the American Government. It was during the Kennedy regime where there were massive tax cuts further proving the importance of many to Americans. Also, the sixties was when the civil rights movement was in full swing. News of America's struggles reached Europe and their reaction is seen in the spaghetti westerns, which intend to be paradoxes to the classic western and the roles minorities played in them.

SP The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly/Navajo Joe

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Joe, as spaghetti westerns, differ greatly from the classic western films of America as a result of different perspectives. A key element of classic westerns is the alpha male cowboy who, though he may be morally ambiguous, is ultimately the “good guy” whom the audience supports. This alpha male is most usually a white man – such as Ethan Edwards of The Searchers, Tom Doniphon of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, or Johnny Guitar – which reveals the American perspective of the heroic white male. However, these two spaghetti westerns – The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Joe – do not follow this criterion and include no such white alpha male cowboy. Instead, both films set money as the driving motive for the plot, which suggests that Europeans see Americans as motivated only by their greed for wealth. In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, many of the main characters, such as Tuco and Angel Eyes, are nonwhite; such an inclusion of so many Mexicans is unusual in classic westerns, which suggests that the spaghetti westerns are more focused on including minorities. The main white character, Blondie, is ascribed the title “The Good,” which is ironic in this spaghetti western; Blondie is motivated by money just as any other man in the film, and he kills just as much, but his being white and depiction as a sympathetic friend to Tuco enables him to become “The Good” while his rivals are called “The Bad” and “The Ugly.” Such a distinction in title amongst similar characters suggests that Europeans deliberately distinguish the prejudices in American society through spaghetti westerns; white men are seen as good, while minorities are described as ugly and bad. This dynamic is presented in Blondie and Tuco’s scam; Blondie is perpetuated as the heroic white male capturing the criminal Mexican, while Tuco’s life is continuously put at risk in order to continue with the scam. The fact that Blondie is labeled “The Good” right after he abandons Tuco in the desert and addresses Tuco’s outrage by saying “such ingratitude after all the times I’ve saved your life” implies that in American society, people expect to be thanked after treating others horribly.
Similarly, in Navajo Joe, there is no decent white man with good intentions, as there usually is in classic westerns. Duncan and his gang are motivated to steal money, while the townspeople are most concerned with protecting their money. Neither group cares about killing or sacrificing people to protect their interests. This lack of caring about other people is most clearly demonstrated in Dr. Chester, a seemingly upstanding man married to a respectable woman, but who is really working for Duncan and who kills an innocent woman to protect himself. With this depiction, it can be discerned that Europeans viewed Americans as people who claim to be the most righteous and infallible people in the world, but in truth are people who lie, steal, and cheat, and possess none of the qualities which they declare they embody. Overall, the spaghetti westerns work to reveal the imperfections of Americans and put them in a much darker light than classic westerns do to reveal the perspectives of Europeans on American society, and how they do not idealize American values as Americans do.

SP 3:10 to Yuma

The main difference between the original and the remake of 3:10 to Yuma is the extent to which violence is depicted and the romanticized image of the cowboy is shattered. From 1957 to 2007, American culture has evolved into an extremely violent society, as shown by the extensive and horrific display of violence in the modern version of the film, compared to the lack of such violence in the original. In addition, the 2007 version, as a revisionist western, is much more focused on hopelessness and despair, and makes the audience question the legitimacy of the alpha male cowboy. This development is reflected in American society, as the mindset of the majority has become largely pessimistic of the world. The events of 9/11 and of a receding economy make the world seem to Americans hopeless and condemned, and that their “manifest destiny” is to live in a struggle to survive amongst such violence and despairing truths. This attitude is most clearly supported in the alternate ending of the revised 3:10 to Yuma, in which Dan Evans dies after working so hard through the entire film. Whereas in the original, Dan successfully boards the train and is presumed to prosper on his land as it starts to rain, that hopeful and positive thinking is lost during the fifty years when the remake is produced. The conclusion of the remake leaves the audience feeling disheartened that the hardworking Dan ultimately dies and leaves his fourteen year old son behind to take over caring for the family. Similarly, in American society, men who are working extremely hard for their families, and barely making enough to scrape by, feel this same despair that whatever they do will still not be enough, and that ultimately they will let their families down. Furthermore, the legitimacy of the alpha male cowboy is questioned as Ben Wade’s moral ambiguity is extremely amplified in the remake compared to the original. Russell Crowe’s Wade shows he has no morals whatsoever as he viciously kills both enemies and comrades, and his meticulous outfit reinforces his being much more of a sociopath than he ever was in the original. At the end of the film, even Ben Wade himself shows that he questions his legitimacy as an alpha male cowboy by killing all of his gang and putting himself on the train – a complete reversal of his character throughout the film. Overall, the remake of 3:10 to Yuma reinforces the lack of hope as the reality that happy endings are rare to occur is strongly emphasized in this version, compared to the idea of hope suggested in the original.

3:10 to Yuma JL

In 3:10 to Yuma, both versions followed similar plots. One major difference between the original and remake is the amount of violence in the films. The original had what we as viewers would typically expect in a Western. There were the classic duels in the town centers and the stage coach hold up. In the remake the use of guns is more prevalent. We see Wade shot a man in the head and another right in the throat when he and his outfit hold up the stage coach. Evans’s son even holds and almost uses a gun two or three times in the movie. The remake is more of an action movie than the original. In the remake more film time is spend watching how the characters move from shield object to shield object and spends more time filming each killing that occurs. Another difference is the scene with the barmaid. In the original we see Wade seduces her and then they come out from the back fully clothed but adjusting their garments. It is left to the viewer’s imagination to decide what happened. However, in the remake, we see Wade seduce the barmaid and then see her lying naked in the bed while he sketches her. The viewers can clearly assume that they had sex. The use of Native Americans is another difference. There were no Native Americans in the first, yet in the remake there is an entire battle scene with them. The revisionist aspects of the remake are the shift to a more action packed movie, the change in Ben Wade as an alpha male cowboy, the obviousness of sex with the barmaid, and focus on guns scenes.

There are a number of differences between the alpha male cowboy in the two versions of the film. One major difference is the degree of violence used by Ben Wade. In the remake he is a lot quicker with his gun and more apt to fight someone. He killed two men because he didn’t like the way they talked. Wade is does not show a sensitive/emotional side in the original version. In the remake he sketches both the bird and the naked barmaid. The biggest difference between the alpha male cowboy in the two films is the ending. In the original, Wade willing jumps on train with Evans and they both ride away unharmed. Conversely, in the remake, Wade guns down his whole outfit after they shot Evans to death and willingly get on the train to Yuma even though he could have escaped. In the remake Wade is a both more and less cooperative in his journey with Evans. He puts up a greater fight to escape in the beginning in the remake and eventually helps in battles the rest of the movie.

3:10 to Yuma LR

In contrast between the two versions of 3:10 to Yuma, the most recent version certainly reveals some revision of the more traditional elder version. In the beginning of the 2007 version Dan Evans, played by Christian Bale, is talking to his wife about how he borrowed money from Hollander. She is upset that she was not informed of his decision and almost reprimands him by saying, “Dan, I thought we made decisions together”. The alpha males in the earlier films did not typically make decisions with their wives, nor did the women have much say in any decision making process. This is an instance where the woman is not treated as the “other” as in the traditional western.

It is also surprising that in the newest version of the film that Ben Wade happens to have an Apache sharpshooter in his gang. It is almost unheard of for a Native American working together with an alpha male cowboy and being accepted by all the men in the gang. He was indeed on the side of the enemy like in the film the Searchers, but they fought together and not alongside white men.

Besides These two subtle instances, the biggest difference between these two films is the endings. In the 1957 version Ben Wade is successfully escorted on the 3:10 train to Yuma by Dan Evans, who completes his role of the common alpha male cowboy by providing justice and ending the story of the bad guy. In the most recent version of the film Dan Evans is killed before he can get Wade on the train and although Wade gets on the train regardless, the final shot is of his horse riding parallel to train leaving the audience guessing of what is to come. The alpha male cowboy of the traditional films did not allow the “Bad Guy” to win. Although this revisionist films provided plenty of 21^st century special effects and new age technology it does not accurately depict the first movie and actually takes away the genuine western feel from the original.

3:10 to Yuma BD

The film 3:10 to Yuma is made at two different points in history; the original in 1957 and the remake in 2007. This plays a large role in how the stories in the films are told and shown. There are many differences in the two films, which is due to the fact that the 2007 version is a revisionist portrayal of the film. The violence is depicted in very different ways throughout both films. In the original, there is very little violence until a few shootouts at the end of the film, but do not create much suspense overall. In the remake, violence is a constant factor throughout the movie; from the very beginning to when the credits roll. The violence in the remake also creates suspense throughout the film because the viewer is constantly on edge as to when Ben Wade will kill another or use violence in order to escape his captors. Another main difference between the violence in both movies is the visuals. In the original, the death does not look real and it does not have a great impact on the viewer when a character is shot. However, in the remake, violence is much more accurately portrayed. There is suffering shown after a character is shot, and blood and gore is a much larger part of each shot.

Another difference is the depiction of the antihero in the western. In the original, Wade is a much less favorable character in the eyes of the viewer. He does not have qualities that the audience will feel sympathetic toward him unlike the way the character in the 2007 remake does. In the remake, throughout the film, Wade becomes a much more likeable character throughout the film, which climaxes at the end when he tries to save Dan Evans , which fails, and ultimately kills his entire gang for killing his new found “friend.”

The alpha male cowboy is also shown differently in both films. In the original, Dan Evans plays a much more traditional role of the alpha male cowboy. He does not show much emotion and spends most of the film out in the wilderness instead of in his home. He also is only completing his task to do the right thing. In the remake, Evans is a much more vulnerable alpha male cowboy. He has a weakness throughout the story in that he is a recent amputee from the civil war and is not respected by his oldest son. Even at the end of the film, Evans tells Wade that his reason for taking on the impossible task of making sure he got to the train was for him to finally be the hero, which he never has been in his life. This will ultimately make his son finally respect him as a man. This sense of emotion is not generally shown coming from the alpha male cowboy and shows him in a much more modern, real light as a character.

3:10 to Yuma JY

The remake of 3:10 to Yuma made in 2007 has many of the qualities of a revisionist film. By looking at both the film from 1957 and the film from 2007 you can see some major differences that make this film a revisionist film. For one the weapons and technology in this film are much more advanced than in the original. The explosions are bigger and one of the cowboys actually has a scope on his gun which wasn’t seen in the other film. Also most revisionist films are more violent than older westerns and this remake was no exception. Every kill seemed more gruesome than they were in the original movie and it seemed as if more people were killed in the remake. Also in this film as in most revisionist films we see the emergence of an antihero. In this film Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) would be the antihero. He is labeled this because although he is a murder and a thief towards the end of the movie he begins to show a hero side when he kills his men after they killed Dan Evans. Wade makes a special bond with Evans and it was almost as if the two became friends at the end of the movie, which usually isn’t seen between the hero and villain.

In both the original and the remake Dan Evans is definitely the alpha male cowboy. But when watching the remake I noticed that Dan seemed more emotional than in the original. At the end of the movie Evans opens up to Wade and tells him the real reason he is so determined to get him on that train. This opening up of feelings is not usually seen by the alpha male and makes him seem vulnerable. Cowboys in the older westerns never would have opened up like this because of the fact that it did make them vulnerable. Also Evans seems more violent and better with his gun in the remake because he kills a lot more men than in the 1957 film.

I believe part of why these films are so different is because of the time period they are made in. In the remake made in 2007, the world is a much different place with the advancements in technology. Wars are becoming more violent and gruesome just like the 2007 film was more violent and gruesome than its original. Also in the time period of the remake the world is become a more open place which explains why Dan Evans is more emotional and opens up to Ben Wade.

3:10 to Yuma MR

There are many differences between Delmer Daves’ (1957) and James Mangold’s (2007) versions of 3:10 to Yuma. First is the way that the 2007 version of the film distinguishes itself from the one from 50 years earlier. While the 1957 film has a pretty calm tone until the end, the 2007 is pretty action packed with explosions and color, which is something that has become a part of American film culture. The only real similarity between the two films is the plotline. Sure, there are scenes that pay homage to the 1957 film like the hotel room, the dinner table, and the bar scene, but other than that, it really seems like the crew went out to make a movie that was its own being that would not be mistaken for the original. The next difference is between the spectrum of good and evil between the two movies. While the original has just the good rancher in Dan Evans and the murderous, yet seemingly good hearted Ben Wade, the 2007 has both of those plus the completely insane Charlie Prince. This way is a character all the way on the good side of the spectrum, a character in the middle, and a character that is pure evil. It makes for very good contrast. Another difference is the region of the world the actors in the film originated from. While Van Heflin and Glenn Ford who play Dan Evans and Ben Wade respectively in the 1957 film were both from North America, Russell Crowe, who plays Ben Wade in the 2007 film, is Australian, and Christian Bale, who plays Dan Evans in the 2007 film, is a Welshman. This is perhaps a throwback to the days of the Spaghetti Western with a foreign view of America. One final difference between the two films is the expanded role of William Evans. This is something completely new to the movie that was planned and executed perfectly. It really is a coming of age story for him as he starts out as an immature punk with absolutely no respect for his father, but eventually grows to be like him after he “walks in (his father’s) shoes.” Instead of shooting Wade as he wanted his father to do all along, he drops his gun and lets him step back onto the train.

3:10 to Yuma CS

The two versions of 3:10 to Yuma are very similar in the ways in which they both follow the same story lone and have much of the same dialogue, but the updated 2007 version has a much more revisionist point of view. In both films, Dan Evans originally agrees to the task of taking outlaw Ben Wade to the railroad station because of the financial compensation. In the 1957 version Evans continues to complete his task after he is told he can leave because he feels a necessary duty to do so. But in the new version, he refuses to give up because he wants to show his son he can be a hero and not just a rancher. The father-son dynamic seen in the 2007 version is not seen in the older one, which focuses more on Evans’ relationship with his wife. The updated Evans shows much more weakness as a result of his desperate attempts to succeed for his family and his injured leg.

The revisionist version of the film is also much more violent, shown in the opening scene when stagecoach is attacked, the camping scene and especially the final gunfight. Dan Evans played by Christian Bale is shot and killed in front of his son, whereas in the old version Evans lives and is able to safely wave to his wife from the train car. Ben Wade is more dark and cynical in the new version. He turns his back on his posse and kills the majority of them in the end, and also murders a man when the others are sleeping. After attacking the stagecoach, the only violence Wade shows in the old version is when he tries to push Evans out the hotel window. The new version shows the West in a much harsher and realistic way.

NH 3:10 to Yuma

The remake of the film 3:10 to Yuma(2007) is clearly a revisionist film. It contains the two main qualities needed in the revisionist film, the excess use of violence and the anti-hero. The character of Ben Wade is the anti hero. He plays the villain who also contains some good qualities as he helps Dan Evans at times in the movie. Evans' role is significant in the remake because of the amount of violence. Both him and Wade are much more violent characters in the remake than they were in the original 3:10 to Yuma film. From the very first scene in the remake film we are able to see much more violence. Also, the final scene of the movie contains much more killing from Wade and Evans. Although Dan Evans is clearly the Alpha Male cowboy in this film, it seems that Ben Wade isn't far from being an Alpha Male Cowboy himself. He has the qualities to be one but his true role of the anti-hero does not allow him to be. We are able to see potential alpha male cowboy qualities in Wade when he does not agree to do what his men say and drop to the ground so that they can get a clear shot off on Dan. Wade's feeling of obligation to keep Dan safe not only shows that he has some remorse for his actions, but also exemplifies that he has the ability to change inside of him. An aspect which is not normally seen in the bad guy of old western films.
In the original version of 3:10 to Yuma it is clearly set in a different time period(1957) which is quite clear when we look at the difference in the weapons in both films. The remake has much more modern weapons that would have never been seen in the original.

3:10 to Yuma AP

The 3:10 to Yuma made in 1957 tells the same story as the one made in 2007, but the revisionism in the newer version makes the two movies very different. Not only do the special effects in the new movie make a difference, but the characters also display certain differences in the revisionist western.

The alpha male cowboy, Dan Evans, is essentially the same person in both versions of 3:10 to Yuma. However, the Dan Evans played by Christian Bale in 2007 seems to be more violent and emotional. Not only that, but Dan also has a sort of sidekick in the second version, who is his son. His son also serves as another motivation for Dan to go through with his plans and take Wade, the villain, to the 3:10 train to Yuma. This revisionist western really brings about the whole idea of the alpha male character not being a perfect hero. We see him as a desperate man, who wants to do something that his son can be proud of and who is in need of money to support his family. He is even more violent in the 2007 version. We can see all of the violence in the end, when he kills and wounds many of Wade’s men. In both movies, we see Dan Evans as the alpha male cowboy but in the second version, Evans seems to be a more exposed to the audience and we see the real reason as to why he feels like it is his obligation to get Wade to that train.

Violence is a major player in the 2007 version of 3:10 to Yuma. We see a lot more killing and blood in the newer version. Part of the reason for this is because the revisionist western was supposed to expose the West for how it actually was. And it was a very violent place. We see that clearly at the very beginning when Wade’s men hold up the stagecoach and at the very end when Wade kills the rest of his own gang. Violence and dangers of the West are taken into the next level with the revisionist western. However, to me it also seems more realistic and it is definitely more engaging.

3:10 to Yuma DG

The original 3:10 to Yuma and its remake are different from each other in several aspects. The original film shot in 1957 is much less revisionist than the remake shot in 2007. Also, the alpha male cowboys in these two films are much different.

The remake which came out in 2007 was much more of a revisionist western than the first film. The scenes such as the opening scene, the campfire scene, and the ending scene are much more violent than we see in the original. The revisionist western is known to be much more violent, cynical, and dark, and many times it contains an antihero. In this case we see Ben Wade as the antihero who brings a sense of intimidation and fear to the other cowboys in the movie. His lack of a moral code and his persistent violent behavior establish him as the antihero. The revisionist western is also known to favor critical views of big business. In this case we see Dan Evans very much against the railroad that is threatening to come through his property.

Dan Evans definitely represents the alpha male cowboys in both versions of the film. He exemplifies qualities such as determination and a set moral code. Dan Evans kills much more men in the remake which shows he has superior gunslinging skills, a quality that is embraced by the alpha male cowboy. Another distinct reason that the Dan Evans from the remake is seen as more of an alpha male cowboy is his ambiguous past. Whenever he is asked about his leg he strays away from the question. This is common in the alpha male cowboy as we see with Ethan Edwards when he comes back home. Coins are found in his jacket that bring into question where he may have got them and further, what has he been up to these past few years? Dan Evans is an alpha male cowboy in both films but the qualities are more easily seen in the remake.

3:10 to Yuma BCG

The 3:10 to Yuma and the remake produced in 2007 have a multitude of differences. Remade in 2007, the second 3:10 to Yuma is nothing short of revisionist. The second meets all of the qualifications of a revisionist film, and most importantly, the use of the anti-hero, and increased use of violence. Ben Wade is the anti-hero, possessing all of the qualifications necessary for the villain, yet he holds up some sort of values, as he helps Dan Evans on the way to train station.

The increased use of violence is truly what makes this a revisionist film. The opening scene is ten times more explosive and violent than the original. The revisionist film uses technology previously unthought-of in Western films. A gaitlin gun mounted on a carriage? The use of the scope attached to a rifle provided precision and added effect of violence. In the entire last scene of the original, there was only a handful of Ben Wade’s men shot. In the revisionist film, not only did Dan Evans kill more men, but Ben Wade killed them as well.

Christian Bale’s character of Dan Evans shows is more emotional, and distressed than the character in the original. However, Christian Bale’s character seems to be more of an alpha-male than the original Dan Evans. This may be attributed to his expert use of the gun and his past. The past of Dan Evans is explained more in depth in the revisionist film. Dan Evan’s lost leg shows a weakness of flaw that was not a part of the original. With the addition of Dan’s son to the picture in the revisionist film, it adds an extra dimension to the choices that Dan Evan has to make. This critical flaw can be seen as part of the revisionist idea of the analysis of masculine figures. Dan Evan’s character still is provided with the dilemma to choose between his family and bringing Ben Wade to justice.

LRR

In the film Gunfight at the OK Corral, there is potential for multiple alpha male cowboys. This film presents the role of a sidekick for the obvious alpha male cowboy. Played by Burt Lancaster, Wyatt Earp is the marshal in town, being tormented by cattle drivers and cowboys after a man named Doc Holiday. Like Wyatt, Holiday was a legend himself, known for being one of the best gamblers around and being extremely useful with his firearm. Although at first Wyatt does not take kindly to Holiday because he is quick to kill and cause trouble in his town, he realizes that Holiday can be of use to him.

In this film the sidekick is not treated as the “other” and possesses the same ability as Wyatt although his motive is different. Wyatt serves for the purpose of his town and his honor while Holiday is in it for his own personal gain which is derived from his gambling. Regardless of motive both of these cowboys need each other in order to survive and it is not clear in every situation who is the sidekick. If it was not for Wyatt, Holiday would have been hanged after he killed the man in the saloon over a gambling dispute. If it was not for Holiday, Wyatt would have been overmatched by Shanghai Pierce and his gang of cattle drivers.

It is often that the alpha male cowboy rides alone and is able to take care of his business without depending on anyone else to fulfill the duty, but Wyatt is mature to realize that Holiday is his most valuable asset. In 1957, the release of this film, America was involved in conflict with Vietnam. This was a war fought on unfamiliar territory and a war that only the US was willing to fight. America took on the role of Wyatt Earp and was willing to fight for what the US believed in, but they entered the conflict alone as the alpha male cowboy. The US felt that they could easily win the conflict because Vietnam was such a small country, but the Guerrilla warfare was overwhelming and the US soon realized that it was not going to be as easy as planned. The US should have realized that they could not win the war without a strong “sidekick” like Doc Holiday, but continued on fighting alone and suffered bitter defeat.

Unforgiven LR

In revisionist film the characteristics of the traditional western are somewhat skewed. There are stronger roles for women, Native Americans, and other minorities such as blacks and Mexicans. In the film Unforgiven, we see this role reversal for a black cowboy (Ned), and for a weathered alpha male cowboy (William). This movie was released in 1992, decades after the civil rights movement, which explains why Morgan Freeman was able to play such a big role in western film, but this still falls under the category of revisionist because in general, traditional western films did not allow minorities to assume a strong role.

This film also presents a much weaker version of the traditional alpha male cowboy. William, who is currently a pig farmer in the outskirts of Wyoming, decides that he is going to follow a young cowboy into the west to capture two cowboys who have assaulted a prostitute and scarred her face. William had an extremely violent past and is well known for his killing ability, but in the movie our alpha male cowboy is older and less competent as a cowboy. Supposedly his fallen wife was the reason that he stopped killing and became a farmer leaving his dark past behind. She was able to sober him up for good and he raised his two children by himself. He had difficulty getting on his horse and even had lost his touch with his pistol. It is clear that he is still the alpha male cowboy because he is willing to leave his kids behind in order to fight for justice, yet he no longer has the power of the traditional alpha male cowboy.

These two examples reveal that this is revisionist film regardless of the time of release. In traditional western film a woman never had control over the alpha male cowboy and certainly would not be able to stop him from drinking or using his gun. In the traditional western the alpha is in his prime fearless of death, yet at one point William reveals to Ned that he is afraid of death. Ned being black and being the sidekick of the alpha male cowboy is the strongest sense of revision in this film because traditional westerns never allowed minorities to have that kind of power. Ned was a sharpshooter with the best skills out of any other cowboy in the film. Ned was able to fool around with the prostitutes and was initially welcomed into big whiskey without restraint regardless of his color. This proves the movie was not quite accurate of the time it portrayed placing it under revisionist film.

Unforgiven MR

Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven is a very powerful, revisionist film that really shakes up the Western film genre. Included in this film are strong female characters, a main black protagonist, an alpha male cowboy who doesn’t want to kill people, and a brutal sheriff. The women in this film are particularly unlike anything we’ve seen in this class because they may be even more morally ambiguous than even the alpha male cowboy, essentially putting a $1000 hit on two men who slashed one of their friend’s face and condemning them to death. Morgan Freeman’s character of Ned Logan is also very interesting. Keeping in mind that at this point in history slavery was illegal, it is still strange to see a black man as both a property owner, although this can be explained by his previous life as an outlaw, and as the best friend of a white man. In fact, Will Munney, Clint Eastwood’s character, cares for him so much that his death is enough to make him snap and go back to his old ways, killing everything in sight. Although Munney has killed women and children in the past, his wife was able to make him turn away from that kind of lifestyle. As a way to make sure he never went back to being the person he once was, he gives up drinking. Will Munney is a dry alcoholic with not only alcohol, but also killing. When he finally does drink, he keeps drinking, just like once he starts killing, he doesn’t stop. Little Bill Daggett, played by Gene Hackman, is the sheriff of Big Whiskey, the town where the movie takes place, but he is just as immoral as the men who slashed the prostitute’s face. He disfigures three different people throughout the film and doesn’t show any sign of remorse. Even though he thinks what he is doing is for the greater good, but in reality, he is obstructing justice rather than enforcing it. Perhaps the two men who slashed the prostitutes face didn’t deserve to be hanged for the crime. That would seem excessive. The fine that was implemented upon them however was too lax. One of the strangest things about this film is the extreme role reversal. Little Bill, the sheriff, is the primary antagonist while Will Munney, the outlaw, is the film’s primary protagonist. This is a way of saying that nobody, in the Western film or in real life, is all good or all bad.

Unforgiven BD

The film Unforgiven is considered a revisionist western film. Characters in the film are depicted in a different light than they are in earlier westerns. First, the women of the film have a much stronger presence than what women were shown to have in earlier films. The women, even though they are prostitutes, are the main cause for conflict in the film. Most characters in the film care about what happens to the women and are willing to fight for them. Most of this fighting is due to a reward offered by the prostitutes, which is uncommon for women to be shown to have any amount of money and to be important enough to cause such fighting.

Another example of revisionism is Morgan Freeman’s character, Ned Logan. He is a black man who is considered to be an equal to the alpha male cowboy of William Munny. In earlier westerns, minority characters were considered to always be inferior to white men or even as the villain, which are mostly Native Americans. They are never shown as being main characters in earlier westerns, only as servants to men. This change of character is due to the growing status of African Americans in society during the time in which the film is made.

Revisionist westerns also have a sense of lawlessness in the settings throughout the films. Even though there is an acting character as a marshal, the portrayal of justice is obscure. In this film, the marshal and his deputies’ act as more of a lynch mob rather than a formal group appointed officials. The marshal also acts out of line in his punishment of offenders in his town by mercilessly beating them for minimal offense. It is hard to distinguish where the real law is and the personal law takes.

Gunfight BD

The film Gunfight at the O.K. Corral is dominated by two main heroes, Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday. While both of these characters are essential to the story line and both have hero-like qualities, this film still only have one alpha male cowboy who is Earp. Holliday cannot be labeled as the alpha male because he is in the film with Earp, thus making him Earp’s sidekick. He is overshadowed by Earp and his character as a man which makes him only a sidekick to Earp in the film.

Doc is a formidable adversary who is willing to resort to the gun first in almost all situations instead of talking a problem out. He knows how to use a gun proficiently and is even feared by most for his great skill using a gun and delivering fatal shots to his foes. These are qualities normally reserved for the alpha male cowboy in most westerns. However, Holliday also has many flaws and weaknesses that limit him from achieving this status. He is a sickly figure throughout the film which makes him at times to be incapacitated when he is needed the most. This evokes a sense of weakness to the viewer, something that is not generally a characteristic of the alpha male cowboy. Also, Holliday is consistently drunk throughout the film. While the alpha male cowboy is not absent to drinking, he is rarely shown incapacitated by the drink. There are very few times that the alpha male is shown to have a weakness at all.

If Doc Holliday were also considered an alpha male cowboy, then there would be less of a need for Wyatt Earp in his life as well Earp’s need for Holliday’s help. They both work off of each other because of the need for companionship; one that is only seen between the alpha male and his sidekick. They both feed off of each other and help to survive in the tough west.

Unforgiven JL

After viewing Unforgiven I don’t believe it is a revisionist film. The alpha male cowboy is still a white male and he still dominates over the enemies. Women and nonwhite folk are still treated as objects and abused. Morgan Freeman’s character, Ned, is a perfect example. He is respected by Bill but that is about it. When he goes into the billiards building and goes upstairs every man at the tables stops and watches him. He is the only black person seen in the movie. Then once he is captured by Little Bill’s men he is whipped, like what happened to slaves when they disobeyed. Later on we find out that he is dead. By killing Ned, it means that he wasn’t an important character. By displaying his corpse in public shows the towns’ people lack of respect for him. Also, women in this film are viewed solely as objects. They are all “whores” and have no value in life. When the whore’s face is cut, the punishment was to give the owner of billiard’s seven horses. The men were never actually punished. This shows how valuable women are in the town. The men also handle to women as if they were men and slap them in the face and hold their arms behind their back.

The kind of alpha male cowboy Clint Eastwood plays is not the typical alpha male. First off he has a family. He is a widow and has a son and daughter. When he married his wife, he put his past of killing and crime behind him. Bill Munny at first is hesitant to accept but then finally accepts. We have never seen a cowboy hesitate to agree to take on a mission. He also makes mention of his dead wife many times throughout the film showing his still love for her. We also never see the alpha male cowboy get sick. Clint Eastwood gets sick and is unable to work for three days. Another aspect that we see happen to Clint Eastwood is that he gets beat up by Little Bill. Clint Eastwood does not put up a fight, due to his illness, and lets Little Bill have at him. We also never see a big change of character in the alpha male cowboy like we see in Clint Eastwood. He goes from being hesitant to kill the two cowboys to marching into the billiards with a gun loaded ready to kill Little Bill. He shifts back into the man he was before he married his wife. Once in billiards building he shoots five men with revenge in his eyes. He also takes a drink of whiskey for the first time since he married his wife.

Unforgiven BCG

I do not believe that Unforgiven is as revisionist as the time period would anticipate or expect the film to be. Although Morgan Freeman’s colored character, Ned Logan, plays a prominent role, his character, and his actions are those of an ‘other.’ Logan refuses to shoot one of the two cowboys who abused the prostitute. By passing the duty of killing the ascribed man to Clint Eastwood’s character it only enforces Logan’s lack of character in relation to the alpha-male cowboy of William Munny. Then by refusing to go after the second of the two wanted cowboys, Logan only reinforces his weaknesses as a character. William sees himself as an equal to Ned Logan. If Ned Logan and William Munny were equals as alpha-male cowboys, then he would have had the nerve to follow through on both occasions. In marrying a Native American, Ned’s character is further isolating himself, being placed along with the stereotypical silent non-character.

Clint Eastwood’s character as an alpha-male cowboy is different than alpha-male cowboys of previous films. At the beginning of the film William Munny is a single father, who isn’t interested in any other women’s touch, raising two children, withholds from drinking, and hasn’t shot in eleven years and to top it off, struggles riding a horse. His life seems very settled down, almost content in owning a small farm while raising his own children. The vastness of how radical his changes have been is new to the alpha-male. In his past, he was a drunkard, recklessly killing. With the advent of marriage, he became a changed man, no drinking, no killing, and settling down. In the present, with his wife gone, and the slaying of Ned Logan, he returns to his original habits of drinking whisky and shooting up saloons. Munny seems to find all of his violent tendency’s in killing those who stand in his way, and offer a more realistic and deeper personal consequences of killing than death in previous western films.

Unforgiven AP

The alpha male cowboy and his sidekick in Unforgiven display characteristics that are common in revisionist westerns. However, they are depicted as men who are very different from the ones we usually see in classic westerns.
Clint Eastwood, who is William Munny and also the alpha male cowboy in this movie, is a very morally questionable character. The revisionist westerns are casting alpha male cowboys in this light of crudeness. Munny admits to being drunk at the time of all his killings, and that already casts him into a bad light. In this western, we see an alpha male cowboy who clearly has flaws. He doesn’t protect a town, like the other alpha males in the westerns that we have seen, but rather he uses it. The revisionist western takes everything to a new level, where the alpha male doesn’t feel obligated to wait for a man to be armed in order to shoot him. This is clearly shown in the shootout in the saloon, where Munny shot five men without thinking twice. This scene was also very dark and took place on a rainy day, which displays revisionism. We no longer see men fighting out in the open sun, but now the violence takes place in the dark saloon on a rainy day. The new revisionist way of looking at the alpha male cowboy may be seen as a better way of interpreting the Old West or just as a critique of the classic Westerns. One thing is for sure, Munny is a different sort of alpha male cowboy. We see him in the beginning of the movie, as an ex-alpha male cowboy, who has a family and doesn’t kill anymore. This very aspect of the movie is making the audience see a different sort of alpha male. The alpha male cowboy who we see in this revisionist western is a critique of the alpha males we see in classic westerns.

Furthermore, we see a new type of sidekick in Unforgiven. Ned Logan, who is played by Morgan Freeman, is an African- American man. At several times throughout the movie, Logan is seen as equal to Munny. Munny seems to truly care about him and treats him like a partner, not as inferior or a sidekick. The revisionist western brings in the acknowledgement of another race, unlike classic westerns that only had people of other races as background. However, in this revisionist western, the white man is still the center. We also see how racial discrimination still exists, even in 1992, which is when the film was made. Logan was the only African American man in the movie, but he was also the only one who was brutally beaten and killed. Unfortunately, we can see that there is still some racial tension even into the nineteen nineties. We can see an African American man in a new light, as an important part of the movie, which is already a drastic change in the Western film genre.

Unforgiven CS

In a Classic Western, there are very rarely any African American characters in the cast, nevermind as a main character. But in the revisionist film Unforgiven, Ned Logan, played by Morgan Freeman, plays a former alpha male cowboy who has retired to a life of farming, along side of William Munny, played by Clint Eastwood. Logan is treated as an equal to Munny, seen when Munny refuses to hunt down the cowboys without him and insists he receive equal reward for it. But, Logan is seen as a weaker character than Munny because after he shots the horse of the prostitute’s attacker he cannot bring himself to shoot him, handing the gun over to Munny. After refusing to shoot, Logan decides he can’t continue on the violent journey and turns back to go home. As a result, Logan is captured and becomes the only one out of the three men to be tortured and killed. During the 1990s, the time period in which this film was made, African Americans were viewed as equals to whites, but still were victims of discrimination. This relates to the way in which Logan is treated equally by Munny, but killed by Little Bill.

The cowboy played by Clint Eastwood is not the typical alpha male seen in Westerns. In the beginning of the film, he is seen as a farmer and single father who no longer drinks or indulges in women and can’t even mount a horse. He also has lost his marksmanship skills from the days in which he was an infamously vicious killer and hasn’t murdered anyone in eleven years. He also shows weakness when he becomes ill and is taken care of by the prostitutes. But, over the course of the film, he regains his alpha male qualities and is once again a force to be reckoned with. In the end, William Munny returns to his old violent self when he shoots Little Bill and threatens to kill the wife and family of anyone who tries to shoot back at him. His actions reveal a more realistic view of violence and death rather than the classic western which views death as more transcendent and romanticized.