First of all, what Eastwood wants to say has nothing to do with the "hero twilight".
On the surface, "Unforgivable" is an "anti-hero" film, but at a deeper level, it is actually an "anti-violence" film. The anti-genre film is called this because it subverts all the elements that often appear in the genre film, so you must be prepared to be mentally prepared to be broken one by one when you watch the film. What are the Westerns we usually see? Two cowboys are standing opposite each other, their swords are drawn, and justice triumphs over evil? So it can be said that this film deconstructs this point from beginning to end. First of all, the protagonist is not the usual cowboy who punishes evil and promotes good, but a cowboy who used to kill people for the benefit of money. Obviously from the beginning, the director parted ways with traditional western movies. There is no noble foundation here, only the most realistic reason. After that, the film made a mockery of the usually imagined gunman duel through the story of the British gunman and his autobiographical writer. The role of a writer is very intriguing. He easily believed in the bragging experience of the British duel. Later, through the eloquence of the sheriff, he learned that it was just a complete boast. The British gunner won entirely because of his opponent's stupidity and bad luck. And its ruthlessness when the opponent is unarmed. The sheriff told the real situation of the confrontation and shattered the imaginary myth of violence. It can be said that the role of a writer is actually to mirror those media, to believe in myths, to exaggerate the facts in order to cater to the market, and to be as timid as a mouse in the face of violence. Of course, these are just anti-types on the surface. Obviously Dongmutou's ambitions do not stop there. This step is only to complete the "anti-hero", and his real goal is "anti-violence."
Revenge and punish evil and promote good are usually noble reasons for the justification of killing. With these reasons as the foundation, killing becomes a very pleasant thing without any sense of anxiety. These two points are also indispensable in this film. It is the prostitutes who undertake the task of revenge, and the two cowboys who are being revenge, regardless of whether the person who disfigured the prostitute is guilty to death, his companion, the young one. It is true that the cowboy has never done anything worthy of killing. He stopped by his companion when he was violent with the prostitute, and then took the initiative to compensate a horse because of guilt. He was finally killed by the killer played by Tomomoto. Obviously, there is no trace of "justice" in it. Let’s look at the death of the protagonist’s black partner. When he regretted his decision to return, he was caught by the sheriff and then beaten to death. Even though he had murdered in his youth, there was no reason. Many years later, he was executed for an unwarranted crime. Although the sheriff's purpose was to maintain order and "punish the evil and promote the good," it was not so fair. Look at the people killed by the protagonist in the tavern, sheriff, should he die? He is bossy, but he has no moral problems, nor has he done any heinous things. He just wants to maintain legal discipline in the small town. Tavernkeeper, although he is not a loyal person, he shouldn't be shot to death unarmed. As for the assistants around the sheriff, none of them was damned. However, they were all killed swiftly and neatly. In fact, the conversation between the sheriff and William at the end of the film is the highlight of the film. The sheriff said "he shouldn't die" and William said "should he die has nothing to do with this", and then shot him in the head. , I think what the director wants to express is here. When the killing begins, no one cares about whether you should die or not. This is reality, not a heroic legend. This is the essence of violence. There is no pleasant revenge or justice to punish evil. Violence is violence. He is desperate and cruel, just like what Dongmutou said in the film "Killing is when you take away everything from a person's past and future." Speaking of this, you might think that the protagonist must have deserved the slaughter in the end and died at gunpoint. If the director arranged this way, then he would actually go back to the circle of "should you die" again. Obviously Dongmutou was never so simple. He let the owner return home fairly and peacefully and led his two children to lead a peaceful life. All this seems so unreasonable, but this is the director's brilliance." The people who don’t deserve to die are dead, and the people who “damn” are not dead. Everything looks so messed up, here is what I have to say, there is actually no such thing as "damn or not", this is just the crown that people are looking for for killing. No matter the sounding reason, the director uprooted the rationalization of all killings, and shattered them, restoring the essence of killing: irrationality and uncontrollable, without revenge and justice, all that is left is unnecessary bloodshed. No one has the right to judge whether a person deserves to die or not. Sin is a person’s inner responsibility, not an external accusation from others. I think this is also the original intention of the title. The protagonist will live quietly in the unforgivable self. For the rest of his life, and during this period, no one will go to him to "get justice".
Why did I only give 4 stars instead of 5 stars? It’s because of Eastwood. Dongmu’s aura is too strong, so he played the role righteously, causing most of the audience to watch the film. A sense of identification with the protagonist without seeing clearly what the director really wants to express is caused by the inconsistency of the performance form and content, and it is also a defect of the film.
View more about Unforgiven reviews
