My genuine dislike for the aging-gunslinger-trying-to-find-his-way-into-heaven plot only increases my love for films about aging gunslingers who feel comfortable about what they have done with their lives and just want to die with a sense of dignity.
"The Shootist," John Wayne's final film, came fifteen years before Eastwood's "Unforgiven," essentially the same story. The outward motivation for their actions is different: Clint wants money to feed his starving family, Duke has cancer and less than two months to live. On the inside however--the reason these men truly are who they are and do what they do--is virtually identical.
They are killers. They don't regret it, and if they had to do it all over again they'd do it the same. Both films feature excessive violence, punctuating the determined will of the characters. Both films end in a blood bath, one that could most definitely have been avoided--if we were dealing with anyone but John Wayne and Clint Eastwood.
What makes each film so wonderful and able to stand on its own is the one essential difference between Eastwood and Wayne in all of their films: the Duke believed he never killed a man who didn't deserve it, Clint just killed anybody.
Both "Unforgiven" and "The Shootist" take their stock characters to task, challenging them for their actions. In the end they both have the opportunity to redeem themselves, and neither choose to take it.
It can be argued that Wayne's character believes that more bloodshed rids the world of more bad men, while Eastwood's character believes that he is already in hell, and no one can be above anyone else when we're all six feet below.
It is the singular reason/motivation for why The Duke and The Man With No Name have remained such vital characters, each representing the two sides of the western genre. It is also the reason why Wayne hated Eastwood's films. I wonder, if Wayne had lived long enough to see "The Unforgiven," that he would still feel the same.
"The Shootist" features magnificent performances and a near perfect script. I have nothing against Don (Body Snatcher) Siegel, but I can't help but wonder what a glorious film this might have been. With the masterful acting and sincere, heartfelt words, this film might have taken a place alongside Kurasawa's "Ikiru" and De Sica's "Umberto D" were it helmed by a true master.
Ah well, such is life. This is still a beautiful, powerful film, and a perfect end to John Wayne's career. Plus, as far as I know it's the only time you get to see the Duke framed by a hand-held shot. Only a couple of times, but it's kind of cool and strange--like eating cold pizza.
Go To Page: 1 2
