Johnny Guitar/Two Mules for Sister Sara

In Johnny Guitar and Two Mules for Sister Sara an example of "the other" is shown. In Johnny Guitar Vienna is, "the other", she has a innapropiate relationship with many towns people. She is then challenged in a fight with Emma, in classic westerns women would never be allowed to fight. This shows why women are the others, they are not important so no men protect them. In two mules for sister Sara, Sara is spotted being gang raped, she then smokes and drinks alcohol, two behaviors unnacceptable for a women to do. I this film this shows how she is not the class women but the other, she poses as a nun but in reality is a prostitute. In both films the cowboy is seduced by these women and fall for her ploy. This shows that the cowboy is not a perfect human and can even fall for faults that others have. In the time period that the films were made in women were just gaining rights, and this showed their new found freedom and independence

KB- rooster cogburn

Rooster cogburn is an example of revisionist films in regards to women. In the film Eula is a main character. This is uncommon in the genre of western films. Eula wants to track down the criminals who were responsible for killing the reverend. She is the ring leader in organizing people to go on the treck to get mercy for the reverand. In classic western films Eula would never think of taking control of an entire mission. Eula is not the classic female in western films and this is why this film can be categorized as a revisionist film. Although some main characters are male the plot revolves around a women which is unheard of in western films. Rooster Cogburn does follow the role of women and contradict them at the same time. In this film the women is trying to protect her church and her man. That is what a women "is supposed to do" so it shows the traditional role of a women. However a womn traditionally would never lead a mission with men following her lead. In the 1970's when this film was made women were all fighting for womens rights so it was an appropiate film to show how women can take control. At this point the womens revolution was in full swing and this showed how capable women are.

KB- The searchers

The searchers shows how cowboys rely on the land. In Tompkins she discusses how the land may be very vask but the cowboy has control over the land. He knows what is going on in all places and has control over it. In the searchers the film shows the cowboys relation to the land, when the cowboy is unfamiliar with the land he is subject to an attack. In this film when Pawley was on the indian land he got killed. This shows that land that is not known by the cowboys is unsafe. The cowboys rely on their land for protection and have a secure feeling when they are on it. The land represents the strength of the cowboy, it is lonely yet strong. The cowboy is still the ultimate here and is never afraid of what is ahead. He is a man of few words, like the land that he roams it is vask but has much meaning. The cowboy is simple and strong much like the land.

Unforgiven-KB

A revisionist western is a film that questions the ideals and stereotypes of a western. A revisionist film usually has stronger women roles, minorities as leads, and puts emphasis on negative plot lines. The Unforgiven is the epitome of a revisionist western. The first give away that the Unforgiven is a revisionist film is the role of Morgan Freeman. In this film Morgan Freeman plays a lead role as an alpha male cowboy. He is the side kick to a white cowboy and is seen as an equal. Morgan Freemans character is the first time we see an african american play a lead role as an alpha male cowboy. Another sign of revisionism is when the three men finally get to Big Whiskey and Munny is sick. We see the cowboy as a human and someone who is actually vulnerable to the environment. Munny got sick from the rain and showed that he was not a true alpha male going against the strong ideal of what an alpha male cowboy is supposed to be. This film shows indians as an actual threat to the three men and in prior films the indians were inferior. The main plot of the film is to protect prositutes, this is very forward thinking in the western film genre. Women are not supposed to be sexually provocative and the fact that a black man is protecting them shows that his film is truly revisionist.

Spaghetti Westerns - SJC

ince their founding Spaghetti westerns have been distinctively different from classic westerns in almost all aspects of the genre. Classical westerns like High Noon or The Searchers feature an alpha-male cowboy who is strong, silent but lives by a moral compass and always does what is right. This is where the spaghetti western differs from the classical version. Spaghetti westerns do not feature an alpha-male cowboy, who does the right thing or acts morally, but instead he is a questionable character and the audience is never truly sure if he is good or bad. In the film The Good, The Bad and The Ugly the man with no name played by Clint Eastwood is first introduced to the audience as “The good”. This introduction is telling the audience that Clint is the good character in the film. What is ironic about the introduction is the fact that right before being introduced as the good character he is seen stealing from the local government. He and his Mexican bandit friend run a scam where “Blondie” (Clint Eastwood’s nick name) turns in his Mexican friend for a reward, only to turn around and free him a few minutes later. This scam of the local government and working with a criminal displays the moral ambiguity of the spaghetti western. Besides not featuring a morally just alpha-male cowboy the spaghetti western genre is extremely violent when compared to the classical western. In High Noon a classical western film the total death count of the full movie is four bandits. In the film The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance there is only one man killed during the duration of the film; however, in spaghetti westerns like Navajo Joe Violence and death are featured throughout the entire film with the death count being in the high teens.

Like Classical westerns, spaghetti westerns are a reflection on the perceptions of America and how America is view through European eyes. Spaghetti westerns like The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and Navajo Joe show an America obsessed with money, uncaring about the morality of actions and willing to do murder to get revenge. These three traits give the films a far more dark and real feel of what it truly means to be an American.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

The Good the Bad and the Ugly centers around "the money", where the three characters that represent the title of the movie are all after a stash of hidden gold, and each other's heads. Instead of muddling around with the alpha male cowboy identity, the film (in my opinion) sets up the characters to directly represent the good and the bad. BLONDIE vs. ANGEL EYES? The ugly is an interesting matter. Rarely have we seen other minorities take such a central role to the plot, and the "ugly" Mexican is an enigma himself. Another interesting point that was different from previous Westerns is that the emphasis on ability and prowess is still there, but like the chaos that is the West, so to is fortune, and it's hilarious to watch how the three manage to one-up each other due to fortuitous circumstance. This constant change of the "king of the hill" and a clear progression from Point A to Point Gold keeps the audience on its feet as everyone may have differing views as to who "should" win. I don't believe that this movie is social commentary on capitalism and chasing money, I believe that economic pressure is universal, and the way in which the director has brought this to bear on the utilitarian cowboy is amusing.

Spaghetti Western

In the spaghetti westerns of these two films, the external perspective of the United States is explored. These westerns as a whole tend to over play the violence factor that is seen in the traditional western. Navajo Joe is a very different from the previous films. The theme of this film focuses on an "alpha" Indian who is fighting to get his land back. Joe is then hired to protect the people and save the day from the outlaws of the town. In the other films, the white people sought someone to protect them from the Indians, and we see a total reversal in this film. Joe takes on the role of the protector traditionally held by the alpha-male cowboy. Indians in the film were no longer portrayed as harmful, but the solution and is placed as more of an equal in this film.

In The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, another one of the spaghetti westerns, “The Good” is played by Clint Eastwood, and the bad is represented by the non-whites in the film. There are some aspects of racism between Tuco and Blondie during this film, due to the hostility of the incident in the desert. This characterization of them provides the European sentiment of the United States of the time.

Spaghetti Westerns CJ N

While the Western was the quintessential American genre, the Spaghetti Western gave it a different twist through outside eyes. Spaghetti Westerns were filmed and directed mainly in Italy, and rarely followed the typical template for the Western film. As a result, commentary and criticism towards America can often be seen through the films which reveals a foreign perspective on American society at the time. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly was released in 1966 and replaces the traditional quest for justice and the moral compass with a seemingly insatiable and greedy lust for money as the focal point of the film. Of the three characters in the film; Good, Bad, and Ugly, none of them represent the traditional ideals of the cowboy. The fact that Good is still far from the honorable alpha male we are used to as opposed to Bad and Ugly reveals the idea that there is only a lesser of two evils; no one is inherently and completely moral or just. Instead money is the primary motivator among men in America, at least through Italian eyes. Reflected here is criticism of a strongly capitalistic country who's gaps between social classes are ever widening. In the film, Tuco's life is even put on the line all for the sake of making money in he and Goldie's scheme. Likewise, the film's constant violence as the answer to every problem and situation is not romanticized, lending it a more real and heavy effect on the viewer. America has long been criticized for its use of warfare and violence as a means of attaining land, resources and power.

Money again seems to be the primary motivator in the film Navajo Joe which was also released in 1966. The protagonist asks the town for money in return for his protection in which he is constantly risking his life in confrontations with bandits. However, the protagonist in this film is a Native American and comparatively is the most moral out of the characters. Joe is met with discrimination and hesitance when he asks the town for payment for his protection as they "don't make deals with Indians". This is a clear criticism of the discriminatory nature of American society in the eyes of outside countries, as well as the lack of equality throughout the social hierarchy.

Spaghetti Westerns- KB

Spaghetti Westerns were given there name because these films were mainly directed, produced, and written by italians. Spaghetti westerns were an outlet for rising stars to enter into a genre which was popular in the United States. Classic western films display the alpha man, his side kick, and his struggle. Many different aspects of life motivated the alpha male cowboy, he wanted to make sure that he sustained his reputation and saved the day. In spaghetti westerns the cowboy is not always such a hero. The main motivator is money and greed. These films show how europeans view americans as greedy, self motivated people who will do whatever they can to help themselves. In reality this is exactly the opposite of what westerns are supposed to represent. Westerns show the good in cowboys make them a super human who is somehow always able to save the day.

Spaghetti Westerns-C. Phelps

Spaghetti Westerns give us insight into how foreign filmmakers (and their targeted audience) view American society during a particular time period. In 1966, they used The Good, the Bad and the Ugly and Navajo Joe to explain their perception of American capitalism and imperialism through film. These were both made through the eyes of Italian directors.
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly follow three men as they search for treasure. The "Good" is a loner and thief. The "Bad" is an assassin. And the "Ugly" is the most vile criminal; including rapist. There is no alpha male, which is common for both movies. The traditional western uses money as basic incentives but the spaghetti western revolves around money. The entire narrative is about these three men challenging each other to find the lost gold. The director for Navajo Joe uses a trail of money leading Duncan up a trail into a trap set by Joe. This is a perception that Americans are greedy and will follow a path without thinking of the consequences. This view is made possible because of the Vietnam War during 1966. The view of Americans invading countries for wealth and resources. Navajo Joe also used a Native-American as the protagonist. Again, this is the opposite of classic western films. The Italian director points out the racism during 1966, using Indians as the target. He also views American military involvement in Vietnam as imperialist and uses the fact that we took over our land with force and drove out the Natives as proof of our possible intentions. Money and expansion are the goals for American imperialism according to these films. It is the foreign culture being expressed through spaghetti western film.

Good,Bad,Ugly/ Navajo Joe Ashley

The classic western is typically harsh, focuses on justice, and consists of an alpha male cowboy. The story typically revolves around the actions the cowboy takes and aforementioned actions tend to act as a mirror to American culture. In the spaghetti western, those aspects of American culture are interpreted by European eyes. This type of western tends to have lighter emotional tones, an idea of justice and revenge, and a spin on the idea of the alpha male cowboy.
The films The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and Navajo Joe are both set in the west but are anything like the American western. Usually, the land acted as a means of compassion. The cowboy comes from the horizon and acts sublime and powerful. In the spaghetti westerns, the land is simply just a setting. It helps add to the plot, for instance, when The Ugly takes Blondie (The Good) into the desert as a means of revenge. The movie tends to have more humorous moments and less serious ones.
In America, the idea of justice and acting in accordance to moral standards echoes in every western. Yet, in the European interpretation of the western, “justice” is seen as individual revenge and a back-and-forth type of interaction between characters. The revenge was either pride based or financially funded. In Navajo Joe, when he works with the town to help kill the train robbers, he wants money for every scalp he gets. This is a type of revenge for all the Native American scalps members of the town had murdered to get. Additionally, in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, each character had his own vendetta against another character in the film at one point or another. Each character would seek their own idea of justice.
When the westerns portray a hero, it is a cowboy alpha male. In the spaghetti western the protagonist can be unclear. Joe, in Navajo Joe, would be the closest thing to an alpha male cowboy; yet, due to the fact he is a Native American who is not accepted by the town (the town initially does not even want his help), he truly cannot be the alpha male cowboy. It is ironic that his is the hero and not really accepted at the same time.
The films are used to poke fun at the perceived flaws of American society. In particular The Good, The Bad and The Ugly is used to reflect European view of America’s foreign intervention and capitalism. The film uses excessive violence and tense shoot out scenes to mimic American military strategies and reflect the Cold War Era. In fact, the scene with the grave yard was very similar to the American Cemetery in Normandy, showing the vast number of casualties. Both said film and Navajo Joe revolve around the idea of money: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly are trying to find it while Joe is trying to save it from the outlaws. The emphasis on money driving the plot is a clear perception of how Europeans view American society's capitalism. Lastly, the views of Native Americans and imperialism are clearly reflected in Navajo Joe. When Joe is talking to a man about where this man’s father was born, Joe emphasizes that only he is the true American, as he was born here and his forefathers were born here (and not in Europe). This idea of what an “American” is mixed with the scene of Joe’s abandoned village and of the hunting of Native Americans shows negative aspects of European viewed America.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly / Navajo Joe - Miller

Movies like the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Joe are Spaghetti Westerns films. Spaghetti Westerns are a genre of films were made during the 1960s and 1970s. These films were made incredibly cheaply in Europe, mostly Italy. Spaghetti Western films were similar to classic western films, except that Spaghetti Westerns were much more gruesome and brutal. These films become extremely popular all over the world, despite the low capital that was required to make them. The main reason why people enjoyed these films so much is because of the gruesome violence, they found it extremely entertaining. The reason why these films were made, was to portray the Italian’s view on Americas. After World War II, Europeans, Italians in particular, were frustrated with the United States do to the plan of action that they took to become a super power. They would do anything in their power to achieve the status of super power, and they did. They were overly violent. The Italians express this through producing these films, known as spaghetti westerns, to criticize the American life style.

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly- Chris Jones

Spaghetti Westerns are a very odd creation, they are an outside view of a time period and lifestyle which is completely unique the the United States. Because of it being an outside viewpoint there are different points of emphasis that when looked at in the same light as the other Westerns they may seem down right ludicrous. However the main social commentary of our most recent film, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was that greed is what drives the United States. This is one of the only Western Films we have seen where the money was the only real goal of the characters actions. In every other Western the alpha male cowboy would be doing some morally upstanding task and either be rewarded for it or be given money at some point along the way. This difference shows how the Europeans viewed our culture of the time, all we do is buy buy buy in their eyes where as to us it is nothing.

A secondary social commentary from the spaghetti westerns divergence from classic westerns is that the United States was still struggling to deal with its wide variation of cultures. This was pointed out because it took a European director for there to finally be a Mexican cast as a main role in a Western even though they undoubtedly played a large role in the actual time period of the frontier. Through this gap we can understand how Europe was more progressive when it came to the acceptance of people of different nationalities at this time.

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

After getting used to a consistent expectation of the Western genre we are totally shocked to see the differences in spaghetti westerns. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Navajo Joe give us a good sense of what Europeans view Americans like and how clear the differences are between an American Western and a Spaghetti Western.

The first noticable difference between American Westerns and Spaghetti Westerns would be the alpha male cowboy, or rather the lack of the alpha male cowboy in spaghetti westerns. In traditional Westerns we get a white man who takes on the role of the alpha male cowboy and has all the qualities as such; being silent and strong, being an excellent marksman are all part of who the cowboy is. But in Navajo Joe we get a Native American hero for once in the western film. As Tompkins says, the Native American is relatively nonexistant in the western with the exception of some roles where they are seen as bad or evil. And in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, while we do still have a white man as the lead role, he is in no means a cowboy because of the lack of moral compass.

The next difference comes from the actual portrayal of all the characters in these films. For instance, in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly the other characters of the plot are treated badly by the good thus referencing Americans problems with discrimination and prejudice. In Navajo Joe we can see that the main character clearly has people who dislike him and people who he dislikes. Both men also come off as appearing to be violent and have a vicious nature to them. Typically we don't see the level of violence we see in these movies in the traditional western but because they are spaghetti westerns it is Europes view on our natural behavior. Entering wars and destroying entire cities and forests was how we went about winning and the Tet Offensive was a prime example of this. Coming off as brutal creatures definately does not seem like the the norm in traditional westerns and these spaghetti westerns address this fact quite well.

One final difference is the affect money has on both characters in these movies. Normally in the traditional western, capitalism was seen as bad and the nature of the villian in the movie. But in spaghetti westerns that seems to have shifted to the good guy in the movie is all about money. This leads to insight into a couple of things but mainly the fact that Europeans viewed Americans as greedy and self-centered. Additionally the only goal that mattered was to make money at the end and as long as a profit was to be made then it didn't matter what the job was

3:10 to Yuma - HMB

3:10 to Yuma was released in 1957 and remade again in 2007. Although the plot lines are the same within both films there are distinct cultural differences. The largest difference between the films was the level of violence, the 2007 remake showed a lot more violence and added more scenes that involved both guns and death. In the 1957 film the idea is more focused on Dan Evans providing for his family and his livelihood by getting Ben Wade onto the train. This film is focused on the act of being honorable something upheld during the times of the Cold War, not backing down and crumbling to talk of the enemy. In the remake Evans is actually killed at the train station, and the focus is less on providing for his family than it is on making sure he looks good in the eyes of his son. In 2007 the family structure had been remade, and it was a lot more common for families to be split and abandoned by their male providers. Although the family still ends up losing the physical presence of their father, the son is able to hold a deep respect towards his male figure than seen previously in the movie.

Yuma CJ N

3:10 to Yuma was made in 1957, and remade in 2007. While the basis of the films remain the same, we are able to see a reflection of society at the time through both. In 1957, Evans is an honorable rancher representing the work ethic instilled in America at the time. He represents the struggle to act against injustice and persevere, much as America did during the Cold War and Vietnam War. This is shown through his initial passiveness towards the outlaw and the response his family gives him.

In 2007, Evans is no longer the traditional hero fighting for what is universally right and moral. He is crippled, he is not an idol to his son and in the end he is brutally shot. Like many revisionist Westerns, the violence is harsh and much less romanticized. In this film, the idea of filial piety is somewhat lost and by doing so reflects a much different society. Through this film political issues are brought to surface such as the youth of the country in ideas about education and healthcare.

3:10 to Yuma- KPower

The two films 3:10 to Yuma, made in 1957, and the remake, made in 2007, follow similar story lines but relate to the different cultural ideas of their time. In the 1957 version, Dan Evans is a proud rancher that has fallen on hard times because of a drought. He goes to town to get a loan of $200 dollars, is unable to procure it, and takes up the task of bringing Ben Wade to justice for the same price. Dan is clearly taking up the task to help his family, he says it is because he is tired of seeing his children go hungry and watching his wife work so hard. This relates to the Korean War that took place several years earlier, where the United States was fighting to protect South Korea from communist North Korea.

In the 2007 version, Dan Evans is a one-legged rancher that owes many people money. His sons think of him as a weak man, especially after seeing him do nothing when the stagecoach is being robbed. Dan takes up the task of transporting Wade to prove to his family his own forth. He wanted to give his sons a reason to be proud of him. This is made very obvious when Dan tells Wade that instead of losing is leg honorably in war like he had told his sons, someone in his regiment shot it off while they were retreating. Dan’s journey with Wade was one of self- discovery and self- empowerment.

This film also showed much more violence. The deaths were always brutal, at one point the viewer sees a man blown up by dynamite. There is also a huge update in technology, shown with the machine gun that is on the stagecoach. This relates to the idea of violence in America today and how it is much more acceptable to show death on TV.

3:10 to Yuma - KF

The minor differences between the original 3:10 to Yuma and the remake, are signs of how much the culture has changed since 1957. In the original Dan Evans doesn't die at the Yuma station, and is never out to really prove anything to his son, he's just looking to provide for his family. Although in the remake Evans is still transporting Wade to provide for his family, he is also doing it so that his son will respect him and even admire him for making sacrifices to take care of them. Evans in the 2007 film faces adversity at every turn, even with his own son. This is a sign of how misguided some teenagers can be in today's world, and how the respect most teenagers had for their parents back in the 50's just isn't around anymore. Parents, like Evans, have to go to further lengths to raise their children and provide for their familys. Parents in today's world have to deal with all sorts of problems that were unheard of in the 50's. This is represented by Evans' hurt leg. It cripples him, and makes him even more susceptible to harrassment from his son. Evans' bad leg could be anything from the economic troubles of today, or other vices that people succumb to. In the end he had to sacrifice his life in order to keep his family above water. Evans' death shows that in this day and age a positive attitude and some elbow grease don't always get the job done, which was more or less the motto of the American male in the 50's. The slight differences in these films are just noticeble enough to show the vast cultural differences that have surfaced between them.

3:10 to Yuma Ashley

The films 3:10 to Yuma made in 1957 and the film 3:10 to Yuma made in 2007 revolve around similar plots; yet, relate to different cultural ideas. In the former film, Dan Evans successfully takes Ben Wade to the train station all while making the money he needs to help his family get by. He needs the money to help raise his cattle: his lively hood. He seems to be looked down upon by his family for not initially doing anything to stand up against the outlaw. His journey to the train station is a form of his self empowerment and pride. The ideas in the film reflect American culture and its involvement in the Cold War and the Vietnam War. The ideas of standing up against injustice, or the ideas of communism, realate to American society. In addition the fact that he would not give up, even when times got hard, relates to America intervention and persistence. In the 2007 version, Dan Evan dies at the end after taking Ben Wade to the train. This film puts a negative spin making Dan Evans look foolish with excessive pride and the need to be a hero to his son. Also, Dan Evans is handicapped which is a heated topic in the millennium. Many American soldiers are coming home from the Middle East handicapped and their struggle has been a focus. The reason for Evans travels is different than his reason in the original. This time, his journey starts because his family is going to be evicted from their home. His problem relates to America’s collapse of the housing market.

3:10 to Yuma- AM

In comparing the two different versions of 3:10 to Yuma, there is certainly an element of revisionism in the later version when compared to the original. The fifty years of separation has caused different issues to surface within the films. Due to the new advances within the film and the technology sectors have provided, along with the culture, there is an increase in violence from the first to the second film. But there are also elements of revisionism in the details of the story that play out in the remake. For instance, the alpha cowboy, Dan Evan, is shown as a much weaker man in the remake. His and his family’s struggles are really illustrated in the remake as opposed to the original. His son is sick, deep in debt, and stuck dealing with his one legged disadvantage. The original film shows Evan, financially distressed, but still has to be coaxed into escorting Wade to Contention City. There is a greater sense of urgency for the money in the remake. This change from the original shows the change in mentality of money. There is a greater sense of urgency for monetary status, due to the housing collapse and the mortgage bubble. This again can be seen later in the film with how the people of Contention City mobilized against Evan when offered $200 to shoot a member of the gang that was trying to get Wade to the train station. People within the town are shown somewhat desperately looking for money and a job.

Revision is also seen where the members of the Chinese community are shown working in the west. They have the opportunity to work and develop the railroad. In the scene where Wade comes into the railroad tunnel site, the Chinese are shown working on the infrastructure. The white men are depicted in a totally different way than the Chinese men are. The Chinese are all dirty and the whites are cleaner; the Chinese are living in a tent city and appear to be physically and emotionally drained. The original 3:10 to Yuma did not mention the other. In this scene, it shows another revisionist point and a hind-sight perspective. The film showed the injustice that was put upon the immigrants that built the rails. It showed the American people taking advantage of a group of people and forcing them to do gritty and brute work that no one else wanted to do. Because of the values that existed in the 1950s, society didn’t feel the need to display how racism existed in the west. Hindsight is 20/20, and seeing the mistreatment of the Chinese provided a new medium to look into with regards to the western.

3:10 to Yuma-C. Phelps

The ability to watch American culture change over a 50 year span was the most interesting aspect of this assignment. In 1957, when 3:10 to Yuma was originally filmed, the culture was surrounded by fear and paranoia of the Cold War. In 2007, 3:10 to Yuma took on this traditional model of the Western and faced a new fear; violence.

The Cold War created the role of an alpha male in Western film. The male needed to be strong, courageous and independent. This was the only way to face the fear of Communism and the threat of nuclear war. In 3:10 to Yuma, Dan Evans fills this role. He volunteers to take Ben Wade, a killer and thief, to the train station in Yuma. Although he is looking to make money to help his family, he is also aware of what the future will look like with Ben Wade and his gang continuing their rampage. This mirror's the view Americans had of Russia during the 1950's. In 2007, the role of Dan Evans takes a twist. He has the same traits of the original alpha male but has a different view of Wade's violent behavior. The reality of violence in today's society is apparent in this film and compared with 1957, shows how violent film has become. The scene at the railroad tunnel is a great example of how culture has changed. Three men have captured a fleeing Ben Wade and start to torture him with electric shock. Potter, the doctor, comes into the scene saying, "that is immoral". All the other cowboys agree and they rescue Wade. This scene speaks to some issues like capital punishment, "water boarding" and Guantanamo Bay prison. In 1957 the fear was about being killed by the enemy; Russia. Now, the fear is being killed by our own citizens. Our society is growing weary of the ethical treatment of those captured by our government. The new model for the alpha male and the people in our society is to follow a universal standard for ethical guidelines. To stop violence and bring criminals to justice in a court of law. This is the culture that has changed over the last 50 years.

3:10 to Yuma - MC

3:10 to Yuma is a film made in 1957, starring Glenn Ford and Van Heflin, and was remade back in 2007, starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale. One might think that the two films are similar but they would be wrong because the films are very different. The main difference between the two movies is based on the fact that, from a cultural studies point of view, the social issues surrounding the United States were vastly different. Because the remake of the film was made in 2007 it has a revisionist approach to the film, taking on the darker aspects of the western. Most noticeably the violence level between the two is so extreme that after watching the second film, the 1957 version seems more like a fairy tale than an action movie. The point of the 1957 version was to show the steadfastness of the characters by not giving into Wade's bribes and letting him get taken by the people sent to free him. But that factor doesn't even exist in the 2007 version because people are constantly dying and being shot. In addition to that is the fact that death in two movies is shown much differently. In the 1957 version, when people get shot they just lie there and are dead, in other words it was a shot that killed immediately; but in the 2007 version there was much more suffering as people didn't die right away, they bleed out to death feeling every ounce of pain from the wound. Death is shown in a more realistic aspect in the 2007 version.

Like with many revisionist films we have seen so far, the alpha male cowboy character has become skewed with the actions they do. In the 1957 movie, Dan Evans is the alpha male cowboy, at least in a traditional sense of the term, meaning he shows all the traits and characteristics of being the alpha male cowboy. Most of the movie shows him being in the wilderness and being a strong tough character and his moral compass is very apparent, meaning he is doing the job because it is what needs to be done. But in the 2007 edition, Evans is a much more susceptible character where his weakness is obviously affecting him throughout the film. He lacks the respect he should have from everyone, especially his family, and his only goal for doing this job was so that he would be considered a hero. He shows emotion in all of this and this is not what is expected from a traditional alpha male cowboy.

3:10 to Yuma New and Old- Chris Jones

In the 53 year gap between the two versions of the film 3:10 to Yuma society had undergone significant and overarching changes that forever changed the way films were made. The first major change that can be seen from the differences in the film is that violence had become more prevalent in society. This is not to say that there were actually more instances of violence but it had lost some of its somber weight. In 1954 if someone was murdered it was a very large issue and people would be shocked and appalled each time they heard about one. However fast forward to 2007 and on any nightly news station there are likely multiple murders or possible murders, yet most of the time no one pays much attention. This change is represented in the film by the fact that every violent aspect of the original has become almost a caricature of itself in the remake. The second major cultural change that can be seen coming from this film is that sex had become a more acceptable thing in society. In 1954 people were very close spoken about their sexual activities and things of the like which is represented in the film by the fact that all we see of Wade and the barmaid is the two of them walking back in straightening their clothes, possibly implying they had sex. However in 2007 sex is something that can generally be talked about in discussion with the appropriate group of people and this can be seen in the changes to the barmaid scene. In the 2007 remake we see the barmaid stretched out on the bed naked as Wade draws her, leaving nothing to the imagination as to what had occurred.

As society changed and became more polarized towards sex and violence even a classic movie like the original 3:10 to Yuma had to adapt in order to fit into the current American Culture of Sex, Drugs and Money.

Unforgiven LJ

Unforgiven hosts a familiar face, Morgan Freeman. His signature tone of voice and strong performance in allows him to dominate even today. That a black actor would take on a central role in a Western is certainly indicative of the revisionist nature of Unforgiven. I believe that it also makes a statement about the rights of black people because it is significant that of the four main cowboys Logan is the one that is tortured to death, by none other than Gene Hackman, who is also later portrayed in other notable films as the conservative, stubborn old man. He in many ways represents the villian and sociopath, despite his intentions of keeping the town safe. He does so by his means, his rules; "rule of the gun". His method of keeping the peace is through brutality and violence, and that he would torture and kill the cowboy that showed remorse (God forbid such unspeakable heresy) shows that Gene Hackman was chosen to play the stubborn duty driven cowboy in a negative light. The film is interesting in how it portrays the good and the bad, since "Munny" the protagonist is widely known to have a terrible past, marked with the death of even women and children (innocents are usually spared by the alpha male cowboy). His motives are for his family, which is personal, but the climax and resolution of the film lies in a cold-hearted act of vengeance. Who is the better person? The brutally pragmatic and ultimately selfish Munny or violent Little Bill. It is implied that both had gained what they had by violence, and thus are not morally righteous at all. I believe that this conflict only highlights the victim; the black man.

Unforgiven AM

The new age western actor Clint Eastwood is the focal point of the new western in Unforgiven. Since the rise of Eastwood, he has been known as a revisionist- constantly questioning and attempting to change the current policies. In the original aspect of the alpha-male cowboy, we see a strong man that runs his life and rules the west by his gun. The alpha male constantly looked to his gun to solve problems, or to get individuals to perform as he wanted them to-- in an ethical manner. In Unforgiven the opposite is seen; the chara cters come to a realization that violence may be a short term answer, but does not solve the problem in the long run: the gun becomes a tool of personal agenda. When Deliah was cut in the brothel, all the women wanted to avenge this incident for this horrific act. We see that after their vengeful acts are completed, they still feel empty and unfulfilled.

In this film we also see Morgan Freeman playing the African American other. This revisionist film constantly questions what the other should be. Freeman is a skilled marksman, but cannot bring himself to shoot the outlaw in this film. This is the first negro that is seen with a gun and is a progression from the older westerns. In previous films such as The Searchers or even Two Mules For Sister Sara we see the other not having any trouble shooting the enemy or wielding a gun. The female character in Two Mules For Sister Sara is even able to kill when it is necessary. This is the first film where we see an African American with a gun, and also the first of the revisionist films that we see the other having an issue wielding a gun.

The film also resembles the Spaghetti Westerns, where the biggest theme is violence. The idea of the Spaghetti Westerns was Europe’s opinion of the United States put on the big screen. All they thought of the west was that it was a very angry place plagued by violence. This film, at the end, introduces a new idea. The idea is that maybe we don’t need to shoot everyone that we disagree with. It begins to question the whole plot of the movie and whether or not the characters accomplished everything they thought they would via the gun and violence.

Unforgiven - SJC

Produced in 1992 Unforgiven is a revisionist film that re-examines the western sidekick and the role of the alpha-male cowboy. This western film breaks the trend of the standard alpha-male cowboy when Clint Eastwood is shown as a more flawed and vulnerable man than cowboys, like John Wayne. Clint Eastwood plays Bill Money, who upon returning to his life of murdering and drinking becomes affected by the environment and catches the flu, which then allows him to be beaten by the hard sheriff Bill Daggett. To have an alpha-male cowboy affected by the environment is to have a cowboy who is not master of the land, this is not the standard alpha-male cowboy seen in the 1950’s and 60’s. Bill is also less honorable than normal alpha-male cowboys as he shoots the shore owner who owns no gun. Alpha-male cowboys always do what is right, they tend to follow a moral code; however, this film’s alpha-male cowboy followed no such code and even pointed out to the sheriff when he was killing him that “it’s not about what you deserve”. This means that while a character may be the better man or even the righteous one that does not determine whether they live or die. The Unforgiven was also full of moral grey’s, the actions of the antagonist Bill Daggett and the murder Bill Money commits put both men in question of their morality. To the audience Both Bills are morally questionable and flawed but in different ways, there is not clear righteous person in this film. To see an alpha-male cowboy whose morality is questionable is a part of the revisionist westerns. Changing what it means to be a cowboy and also who is respected.

Another feature of this revisionist film is the addition of an African American sidekick who fits the role of alpha-male cowboy better than the white man. Ned, played by Morgan Freeman, refuses to kill those kids for money, and is unaffected by the harsh environment. Ned, being an African American shows the ideals of the new American culture in that people of all races are respected and considered equals, while Ned does not survive or even win the day, his is shown as the true alpha-male cowboy of the film with this morally right actions, his loyalty to his friends and the refusal to give into the enemy.

Unforgiven- KPower

Unforgiven is an excellent example of a revisionist film. Revisionist films breaks away from the usual mold of pre-existing ideas. William Munny (Clint Eastwood) is extremely different from that of the typical alpha males in classic westerns. He was previously a killer (he states that he has killed everything that walked on the earth at one time or another), a thief, an alcoholic and a cold- blooded man. His wife changed him, he believed for the better. She got him to stop killing, stealing and drinking. He became a pig farmer, until The Schofield Kid got him to take up the gun again to earn some money. His partner, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) plays a large role in the film. He and Munny used to kill together, but he has troubling killing men again. When he is killed by Little Bill Daggett, Munny loses his control. This shows the close relationship that the two men had. Munny begins drinking again, goes into the town and kills Little Bill and 5 other men because they had put Ned’s body in front of the saloon as a warning to assassins. As he leaves the town, his last demand is that they bury Ned properly.

Gunfight at the OK Corral- KPower

In the film Gunfight at the OK Corral, Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday repeatedly pair up to save towns from ruffians and outlaws. Both men, one a marshal (Earp) and the other a gambler and criminal (Holiday) both fit into the category of alpha male, especially since neither one plays the role of sidekick to the other. Wyatt Earp has a reputation of being a very good marshal, who liked things to be peaceful and uneventful. Doc Holiday was previously a dentist, but became a gambler and is known as a killer. However, it is stated early on that he does not search for trouble; it just seems to find him. Both men act according to their own moral compass, Wyatt when he runs the town as marshal, and Holiday when he kills people. Both men have love interests that they leave behind. Wyatt has the intention of marrying Laura Denbow , although it is never shown in the film. Days before the wedding, Wyatt leaves to help is brother fight a family of criminals. Holiday and Jo Van Fleet have an on- again- off- again relationship. She repeatedly leaves him for the criminal Johnny Ringo. Holiday and Jo do end the film together, though this is also not shown. Both men have the qualities to be the alpha male; they act more like equal partners than alpha male and sidekick. Holiday and Wyatt both state during the film that they are the only friend that they have.

Unforgiven - KF

Unforgiven is without question a revisionist western. Many roles have been altered or redefined in this film. Most notably, the alpha male cowboy is cold and merciless. Both Ned and the Shofield kid show that they have a stronger sense of morality and justice. Ned in a traditional western would be considered the "other", and not really contribute to the story. In Unforgiven, Ned decides not to kill for money and to die for his friends; these are two scenarios that would never occur in a traditional western. On top of that, the sidekick, the Shofield kid, despite his tough talk, shows remorse and regret for his actions and acknowledges that they were wrong. The only one lacking a sense of morality, is the person who really should be the alpha male cowboy. At the end of the film not only does Will kill bad guys, he kills defenseless bystanders as they ran in terror. Granted, they might not have been the best people at heart, but they certainly didn't deserve to be slaughtered in that fashion. These events all unfold, at the hands of women. They were the ones who put the entire plan into motion, which is certainly not common in a traditional western. In Unforgiven, the entire hierarchy of westerns were turned upside down and became nearly unrecognizeble.

Unforgiven Ashley

Revisionist films are unique in the fact that they question previously, commonly held beliefs in society. In 1992, when the film was made, the second wave feminist movement was over. Women were considered equal to men; and in fact, other races were gaining respect. Unforgiven has revisionist undertones in respect to women, in the reluctant hero, in emotions, and in the sidekick. William Munny was a cold blooded killer and outlaw. He gave all that up and became a sober, family man when he married his wife. He often talked about how she changed him for the better. Only a strong women who reflected ideas of American Society could have made a cow boy change his ways. Other strong women in the film include the prostitutes. They have the daringness to throw poop at the cowboys riding into town. The importance of family, power of women and power of Munny’s wife to so drastically change him show the revisionist ideas in this western. Years after his wife’s death, the Shofield Kid asks for Munny’s help to kill a couple of cowboys who cut up a prostitute. He is reluctant to kill again but desperately needs the money for his family. When he does kill one of the wanted men, he feels bad about it. A cowboy in previous westerns is not as reluctant to kill. His initial reluctance to kill is a revisionist idea. Munny is also more open to his feelings. He talks to his partner Ned Logan about how he feels and what he would have done had his wife had been alive. Their openness is hardly seen in other westerns. Also, his emotions of love and consideration are shown in his treatment of his family and the treatment of the prostitutes. The sense of emotion is a revisionist idea that many westerns lacked at a previous time. Lastly, Ned Logan is a black man who is treated as a complete equal and Munny cares for him so much so that he avenges his death in the later part of the movie. Unforgiven truly breaks old ideas of masculinity and introversion and evolves the western film making it a accurate representation of society.

Unforgiven CJ N

Unforgiven is everything the revisionist film defines. It breaks the traditional mold of the Western in every sense, from the role of the African American to the harsh realism portrayed through its violence. There is no longer a clearly defined and singular alpha male, nor a romantic twist to the commonplace shootouts and deaths. Instead, the violence is brutally real and Munny is morally ambiguous; he does not live by his moral compass. While his aim is initially to avenge a disfigured prostitute, he is doing so for the money and eventually reverts back to his former, despicable self. He continuously commits cold blooded murder and blurs the line between the alpha male, villain, and anti-hero. Add this to the fact that an African American cowboy is in the lead role as a partner, not a lower, subservient position, and we no longer have a traditional Western. This movie, released in 1992, is a reflection of the change society has experienced since the time of the traditional Western.

Unforgiven-C. Phelps

Unforgiven opens the door to "the other" and changes the view of an alpha male. It is a true revisionist western. In past western films, an African-American would be cast as a sidekick (servant). In Unforgiven, Ned, played by Morgan Freeman, is a main character. He owns his own house, has a family and is seen as an equal among all other characters. The alpha male, William Munny, considers him a partner. Unforgiven also casts an English immigrant in a somewhat bright light. English Bob is viewed as a gun slinging hero at the beginning of the movie. People show him respect. In the past, an immigrant is usually viewed as a fool or an outsider. This film incorporates "the other" in a more substantial role.
William Munny is very different from the traditional alpha male. He has a family. He is uncomfortable in the wilderness, as can be seen in the camping scene with Ned and The Schofield Kid. He says, "I miss my bed". William is also scared to die. After coming down with a fever, and being beaten by Little Bill, he makes it very clear he is scared and does not want to die. He is also a poor shooter and horrible rider. These are unusual traits for the alpha male cowboy. Unforgiven revises the way people have embraced the traditional alpha male. In the end, he is a murderous psychopath and it is evident he is not a model for the male population in 1992.

Unforgiven - Matt C

The movie Unforgiven, directed by Clint Eastwood himself, is a throwback into the western film genre being a revionist film. Eastwood, who also stars in the movie, plays a retired cowboy, William Munny, along with his partner Ned Logan, played by Morgan Freeman. Both man are strong, retired alpha male cowboys which bring an element into the genre not seen from before. Yet what really makes this movie a revionist picture is Morgan Freeman's character because he is one of the few African American cowboys. In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Pompey was an African American but he was only a sidekick to Tom, although he showed just how far black people in American had risen from at the time. Eqully, Ned Logan represents the same thing as Pompey did back in the 1960's because in 1992, when this film was made, African Americans had come along even farther than they were in the 1960's and 70's. To show that, Logan was made an alpha male cowboy unlike the sidekick Pompey was. But Logan is not without fault as many African American's during the 1990's. There is a scene in the film where Logan is shot and refuses to shoot back giving the gun to his partner Munny instead who makes the kill. Now this could be symbolic of all the terrible things that fell on black people since the civil rights movement passed. Logan being shot is a metaphor for blacks in America being discriminated against and hate crimes. By not shooting back Logan lets other people handle the situation which is what the law against discrimination is for.

Clint Eastwood is in a similar boat to Logan in that he is not the typical cowboy that one would expect from a Western film. Instead, when we first see him, Munny is a farmer who doesn't drink and indulge in women anymore; a rather common man one might expect from a western town. He has lost most of his qualities that made him the infamous alpha male cowboy that he once was; but eventually it all comes back to him and in some cases is even scarier. Munny is more fierce this time and goes farther on after he shoots Little Bill to threaten to kill the family of anyone who says a word of it. This is a much darker and crueller cowboy than we are accustomed too in the western and that is a reflection on the current conditions of the country. Society was much more accepting of violence and supported more and more of it as time went on and this film does a good job of embodying the harsh world people now lived in.

Unforgiven-Chris Jones

The film Unforgiven is clearly a revisionist Western almost from the first time we see Clint Eastwood on his farm. In classic Westerns our alpha male cowboy never had a family and certainly would not have been a single father. It is shown almost instantly that Eastwoods skills are rusty as well, and that he can barely even get on his horse. These types of faults are not the type we see in a classic alpha male cowboy, but instead those we had usually seen shown by the "others". The next shocking point of the film we see is that Morgan Freeman's character is on equal footing with Eastwood's. This introduction of an African American as a main character in a western should instantly point out that Unforgiven is a revisionist Western because African Americans were never main characters in classic Westerns. The third point that was different from a classic Western was that the Scofield Kid was severely near sighted and couldn't see a target more than 50 feet away. This further cements that idea that there is no real alpha male cowboy in Unforgiven because each possible candidate has something that would not have fit at all within the mold of the original alpha male cowboy archetype.

Unforgiven - Miller

A revisionist western film is a film that goes against the common beliefs of western films, in this way, Unforgiven is truly a revisionist western film. Unforgiven (1992), directed by Clint Eastwood, is a movie about two very unusual alpha male cowboys William Munny, played by Clint Eastwood, and Ned Logan, played by Morgan Freeman. The main reason why Unforgiven is a revisionist film is because it has an African American as the alpha male cowboy, Ned Logan. There are many westerns with characters that play significant roles who can be categorized as “the other,” like Pompey in The Man who Shot Liberty Valance, but none as the alpha male cowboy. Another contributing factor to this film being a revisionist western is the role that the other alpha male cowboy plays, William Munny. William Munny is very different from the traditional alpha male cowboy. He is not as tough as he should be, specifically in term of where he lives. He lives at home, and when he is camping with Ned, he says “I miss my bed,” something that no alpha male cowboy would ever say.

The reason why this film is a revisionist western is due to the director, Clint Eastwood. Clint Eastwood is known for being the star in the spaghetti western The Man with No Name trilogy. Spaghetti westerns in themselves are revisionist westerns, as they are so brutally violent. With a director that is the star of countless spaghetti western movies, the only thing that you can expect is something very different than the traditional western film.

Gun fight at OK Corral - SJC

The film The Gunfight at OK Corral is a unique film for the fact that it features a side kick who is almost the alpha-male cowboy of the film. Doc Holiday is Wyatt Earp’s sidekick and longtime friend and helps Wyatt kill a band of bandits who threaten the town and Kill Wyatt’s younger brother. Doc Holiday features almost all the traits of an alpha-male cowboy spare a few vital characteristics that keep him at a mere sidekick level. According to Jane Tompkins an alpha-male cowboy needs to be strong, silent, and great with his weapon and act in a morally just manor. When looking at Doc Holiday it is evident that he fits most of these traits. Doc is quiet; he speaks only when he needs to or when actually addressed. Doc would much rather use his weapon to decide who is right or who cheated as opposed to using his words to discuss the disagreement. Doc Holiday is also an amazing shot and Wyatt even admits that Doc can use his weapon better than him. It is because of Doc and his great shooting skills that Wyatt and his friends win the day and survive as Doc manages to kill two bandits one who was about to kill Wyatt because Wyatt couldn’t kill the kid. Doc kills a kid to save Wyatt’s life, this is an example of why Doc is not the alpha-male cowboy as well as why he could be. He kills the kid to save his friend proving he is stronger than Wyatt but killing a kid is morally questionable. Killing children is never really appropriate and is why Wyatt almost allowed himself to be killed but since Doc has no moral compass killing is killing no matter who is the victim. Aside from killing the kid, Doc is also known to be a thief and a con-artist and routinely swindles people out of their money. Aside from being morally questionable Doc is also weaker than Wyatt. Doc Holiday is sick and dying and so physically he is weaker than the true alpha-male cowboy Wyatt Earp, being sick and being morally questionable is enough to rule him out as the possible alpha-male cowboy of the film.