The Unforgiven

The Unforgiven (Western Drama 1960) Burt Lancaster, Audrey Hepburn & Audie Murphy (H

Sample

source: The Unforgiven

I just saw, in 2016, the 1960 film, "The Unforgiven" on satellite TV. I watched it because I love Westerns, the classic genre pitting good vs evil. This film should have been made in the '30s, when racism was the accepted social practice. When, worldwide, cultures taught that it was better to be dead than anything other than White. Whiteness was the historical universal preference. Film, more than any other propaganda tool (except religion), dominantly decimated this message. I've read the film's reviews, explaining that Director John Huston and Producer/Star Burt Lancaster were meaning to honestly portray the conflict between Whites and Native Americans. The clash between blood kin and family bonds. The dilemmas posed by Nature vs Nurture. Bovine excrement. The movie's theme is: Whiteness is the supreme value. Whiteness is a value more important than any virtue: loyalty, integrity, honesty, truth. In this realm, Whiteness is a virtue. Being White is the only life worthy of living. Killing any adverse opinion is honorable — sanctioned by government, sanctified by God (an old White man). Hitler would have loved this movie.

In many respects "The Unforgiven" is a dreadfully stereotypical 1950's western. Forty Indians attack, hundreds are killed, and forty ride off (sadly, this would have represented most of the able-bodied warriors in the Kiowa tribe at the time this film is supposed to have occurred). Most seem to be played by Italians. Values are again stereotypical, but the film has aged in a rather unusual way: the lead characters, who were written and directed to be sympathetic and largely admirable people, are changed in the light of modern values into the role of antiheroes. Lillian Gish, here recast in her "Night of The Hunter" role of a shotgun-toting grandma, has hidden a dark secret, allowed innocents to die in her efforts to preserve it, and won't reveal it even to her daughter until impelled by her entire family. It is a lie that poisons her life and that of her family for years. She is cast as virtuous for keeping that secret, but clearly, she would have had a better hope of happiness if she had not kept the lie. Burt Lancaster here reprises Gregory Peck's role of a strong but obsessed cowhand in "Duel in the Sun" (a film that also starred Lillian Gish, with a role for Walter Huston), this time with his obsession focused on Audrey Hepburn but bottled up even tighter. His madness and his moral vacancy is revealed when he threatens to kill men for saying something that he knows may be both true and important, and still more when he kills an Indian under a flag of truce because he would rather die with Audrey than surrender her to her birth family. Audrey, finally, surrenders her nobility when she starts to kill her family, starting with attacking warriors and ending with her own brother, who has braved death several times just to meet her, and has never raised a hand against her. He, the only heroic character in the film, never speaks to her. I could go on to discuss the gaping character flaws in some other characters - played by Audie Murphy and Charles Bickford - or the sparks of nobility seen in the tortured villain Kelsey, played by the early television star Joseph Wiseman - but the pattern is clear; Huston, aided by the passage of time and the recasting of social values, has turned virtue and vice around in this film until the stars are all antiheroes.

When the weird Abe Kelsey (Joseph Wiseman) with his saber appears in the Zachary's ranch threatening the matriarch Mattilda Zachary (Lillian Gish) and her stepdaughter Rachel (Audrey Hepburn), she does not tell to her sons Ben (Burt Lancaster), Cash (Audie Murphy) and Andy (Doug McClure). Later, when Rachel comments about him, Ben and Cash unsuccessfully chase him in a sand storm. Meanwhile, Kelsey poisons the relationship of the Zachary's family with their neighbors and the Indians Kiowa disclosing that Rachel would be a Kiowa baby stolen years ago in a raid by Kelsey himself and Mattilda's husband, when her parents were killed. Later, he wanted to trade Rachel per his son, captured by the Kiowa, but the old Zachary did not accept his proposal. The racists' neighbors turn their backs to the Zachary's family, while the Kiowa siege them in their house while trying to bring Rachel back to their tribe. "The Unforgiven" is a western about the impressive intolerance between Caucasians and Indians in the beginning of the colonization of North America by the whites. The story is very well developed, with the usual outstanding direction of John Huston. Joseph Wiseman has a magnificent performance in the role of a despicable villain, a revengeful man capable of destroying many lives. Burt Lancaster is also great in his leadership, while Lillian Gish is amazing in the role of a protective mother. Audrey Hepburn and John Saxon are convincing as Indians. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "O Passado Não Perdoa" ("The Past Does Not Forgive")

When I first became aware of the cast list (Lancaster, Gish, Hepburn, Murphy, Bickman, Wiseman) & the director (the great John Huston) for this movie, I just knew it was going to be a great Western, but I was sadly disappointed. The acting is good, no doubt about it, & the direction is fair, but there are a few things that go too far astray here. I mean, really, could you fall in love with & want to marry a person who you thought was your sibling for the past 20+ years?! Another problem here is that Lancaster's character seems to be portrayed as the noble defender of his family & as such, the Indians are made out to be his enemy, so they would seem to be the "bad guys," when all they're trying to do is repatriate one of their own (initially in a very peaceful manner). If the white settlers were to do the same thing, they would be considered heroes for doing so, & they'd make a movie about it with John Wayne as the hero & call it "The Searchers!" Kidding aside, there is too much injustice here that is left unconsequated (such as the killing of dozens of Indians & the killing of an innocent man who was only attempting to speak the truth) for this to be a satisfactory film for me. Audrey Hepburn is miscast here. Also, the score by Tiomkin is OK, but did the music have to dominate in such a loud manner as to drown out all other aspects of the film, including some dialog? I rate this only a 5/10.

This film is an unlikable mess and somehow I got suckered in to watching the whole stupid thing. No well-ordered review here; I'm just going to list things about the movie I hated (which is just about everything). At the beginning of the movie, there is a weird old man who wanders in. He knows a scandalous secret and comes to tell it. The secret is that one Rachel Zachary, living amongst her adopted white family for all her life, is not white herself but an Indian. That's right, the film would have us believe that Rachel Zachary (Audrey Hepburn) is a full-blooded Indian (of the Kiowa tribe) somehow living amongst her adopted white family for a number of years before the secret is out. I could accept that she is a "half-breed" (and indeed I was under that impression for most of the film), which would go a long way towards explaining how the secret could be kept for so long, but, really, to reveal that she is a full-blooded Indian (and that she needs to be stripped down in order to confirm this) is simply an insult to the intelligence. BTW, the weird old man ends up getting hung, but I couldn't for the life of me say why. This movie is making some sort of statement about racism. Well, if it wanted to give the idea that whites were racists against Indians, mission accomplished. Everybody in this movie hates Indians, and that includes Rachel, even after she finds out she is Indian. And at one point, after she makes the point that she is a Kiowa, her adopted brother, Ben (Lancaster) declares "only in blood, not in anything else." Let's just say my sympathies were not with the Zachary family from this point. Actually, they had already lost my sympathies when Ben orders his youngest brother to kill a Kiowa who had come in peace. The Indians also learn Rachel's secret and want her back into the tribe. They're willing to barter for her and come to the Zachary home under a flag of truce. Then Ben gives his order, which effectively ends any peaceful negotiation. The Indians then besiege the Zachary home. But here I find even if my sympathies somehow were with the Zacharys, I would have little need to worry. Because every single shot the Zacharys fire, hits and kills and Indian. Every. Single. Shot. Even Rachel, conflicted over her heritage and loyalty to her family, manages to kill one without even trying. The Zacharys meanwhile, suffer one fatality, Mother Zachary. And the Kiowas don't seem to have a single firearm. Later, when the Zacharys are cornered in their cellar by a fair number of Kiowas, another brother of Rachel's comes to the rescue and turns the tide all by himself. It's another insult to the intelligence. The reason Ben orders his brother to kill an Indian is because Rachel intended to go to the Kiowas willingly and Ben did as he did to prevent this (also, his family became ostracized after Rachel's secret was revealed, so Ben felt there was no way out in any case). But Ben's love for his sister is revealed to be more than fraternal, which is disturbing despite the obvious fact that Rachel is not his biological sister. Rachel, meanwhile, ends any doubt that she hates Indians when she murders one (who turns out to be her own, biological brother) at point blank range. There is happy music at the end of the movie, when the Zacharys (sans Mom Zachary) walk out of their house and stand awkwardly in the sunshine, beholding all the dead Indians and a flock of birds flying in V formation, symbolizing...something... Anyway, I detest this film. It makes me feel ill just thinking about it. I can completely understand why director John Huston didn't like it either.

I can't figure it out. Why does everyone love The Searchers? John Wayne's young sidekick in that film, and his absurd romance, sink the film like a stone. This film, which deals with a number of the same issues - racism, kidnapping, mass slaughter, etc. - treats them with greater seriousness and to better effect. There's wonderful moral ambiguity to The Unforgiven, an ambiguity which was obviously built into the story from the beginning ... so we need not pat ourselves on the back by rooting for the Indians in this one and thinking of ourselves as so much wiser than the filmmakers. When a lot of Kiowa get killed during the course of the film it is unsettling, partly because one thinks in real life that their fighting tactics would be better, but mostly because it is upsetting to see so much bloodshed. There are better westerns than this film - Open Range, Valdez is Coming, Destry Rides Again, The Long Riders, The Cowboys - but that doesn't stop The Unforgiven from being a first-rate movie filled with suspense and fascinating characters.

I am in no way criticizing the film by saying this, but what kind of accent is that by Audrey Hepburn. It's not that her performance is bad, no, it's great. But Audrey Hepburn could never sound like she should be in a western. She does seem to try hard at it, but she can't shake away the French/Posh English/Cockney accent. But who really cares in the end. It must be really difficult for an actress to look really good on the set of a western, with all that dust and everything, but she looks real good. Another reason why I like this movie is because of Audie Murphy. Sure, ol' Burt is a pro at this kind of thing, but he'll never be as cool as Audie Murphy. He's the one with the most conflicts, "My sister, an injian!?!?!", then he goes off drunk to his girlfriend Georgia. When she begs him to marry her, "I'm Drunk, but I not THAT drunk." Ha! Ha! The film also has genuinely tense and frightening moments, and we owe most of these moments to Joseph Wiseman, playing Abe, the guy with the sword. He didn't even blink, and that eye just stares right at you, but seems to be out of focus at the same time like it's looking right through you. It wouldn't be that surprising to see something like that in recent films, because they've done psychos and demon-possessed aplenty since the seventies. But in 1960, it probably was real scary. Saying it like the 'injians': FILM GOOD, YOU GO, SEE FILM.