In this blog post, I’ll explore how ‘The Unforgiven’ subverts the conventions of both traditional Westerns and Spaghetti Westerns, offering a fresh perspective on the genre’s heroes and villains.
Macaroni Western? Western?
Western films produced in Italy during the 1960s and 1970s to cut costs are collectively referred to as “Macaroni Westerns” or “Spaghetti Westerns.” I’m not sure why a food name was attached to a genre that reeks of machismo, but in any case, this Western subgenre—simply by crossing the ocean—offers a different kind of thrill and action than traditional Westerns.
The Western genre, which originated in the United States, is steeped in American heroism and the pioneer spirit; it is truly the most American of genres, with characters clearly divided into good and evil. The plot is also very simple and straightforward: a wandering gunslinger settles briefly in a town, defeats the villains, and then sets off alone once again. Along the way, he falls in love, but it never works out. These Westerns established their conventions under John Ford, who spent his entire career making them, and—perhaps inevitably—began to decline after the release of the quintessential classic, ‘Shane’.
What emerged to fill the gap was the “spaghetti western” I mentioned at the very beginning. How did this spaghetti western differ from traditional Westerns? First, the distinction between good and evil was not clear-cut, and the pioneer spirit was replaced by brutality, which added to the film’s entertainment value. Because they were so entertaining to watch, they became a hugely successful genre commercially. When people think of the icon of the Spaghetti Western, they picture a gunslinger with a menacing expression and a cigar in his mouth, set to a familiar score—and that man is none other than the living legend of cinema, ‘Clint Eastwood’.
The Icon of the Spaghetti Western: Creating a Classic
In an interview with the L.A. Times in 1993, upon the release of his film ‘Unforgiven’, “Clint Eastwood” stated, “This film is a modern classic that encapsulates everything I feel about Westerns.” He also declared it to be his final Western; the film received nine Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Film Editing. Furthermore, having grossed approximately $150 million worldwide, it is recognized not only as a commercial success but also as a masterpiece of the Western genre.
The film’s plot is a simple Western tale in which an aging, retired gunslinger sets out on a bounty hunt and defeats evil villains in a town. Amid plots and conventions that have been endlessly reproduced for decades, what is it that has blossomed to make this film so beloved?
A Western character stripped of his facade!
As mentioned above, “Clint Eastwood” is, in a word, an icon of the Western genre. While the same could be said of “John Wayne,” “Clint Eastwood” likely strikes us as a more familiar hero because of his rebellious and unforgettable presence.
In any case, the Western gunslinger character epitomized by “Clint Eastwood” was typically a nameless, taciturn, and stoic hero.
While this is a hallmark of Spaghetti Westerns, it also aligns with the tradition of classic Westerns. Within that genre, he was not only an icon but could even be described as a mythical figure. The fact that he completely dismantled this aspect of his own character can be seen as the result of his long-standing insight into the Western genre.
In the film, Will (played by Clint Eastwood) was once a famous gunslinger but is now a retired farmer living in seclusion with his two children and raising pigs. However, he can’t even manage that properly; he can’t use a pistol effectively—he can’t even hit a target—and he can’t even mount a horse gracefully in one go. He has truly become a pitiful old man.
Any fan of “Clint Eastwood” would likely guess that “Will” is a character in the same vein as the nameless gunslinger of the past. However, in order to provide for his children and to prove he’s still got what it takes, he sets out on a bounty hunt. The companions who join him all have their own issues as well. “Ned” (played by Morgan Freeman) was a Black man who faced discrimination at the time, and “Kid” (played by James Wolbert) is a nearsighted gunslinger who has never killed anyone.
In a Western—a genre typically steeped in macho ideology—it is actually unthinkable for such a ragtag group of characters to take center stage and drive the plot. While “Clint Eastwood” followed the genre’s conventions, by creating such introspective characters, he may have brought his own deification to a close.
A betrayal of convention! Another evolution of the genre!
The Kid shot and killed a wanted man who was using the restroom. This is a major betrayal of Western genre conventions. This is because never pulling the trigger from behind is the most important unwritten rule in Westerns. It is a convention that was upheld even in “Spaghetti Westerns” because it embodies machismo and represents a romantic or idealized form of confrontation.
The focus of this film is not the story of righteous gunfighters, but that of “notorious gunfighters (outlaws).” It presents them from a realist perspective that makes it clear they are by no means heroic.
“Bo-Champ” (played by Saul Rubinek), who appears in the film as a biographer, is a character who lays this bare; while writing the biography of “English Bob” (played by Richard Harris), he recounts “English Bob’s” anecdotes in the style of the Western heroes we are familiar with. However, “Bill” (played by Gene Hackman) exposes these stories as lies, and at that point, we realize this is where we can begin to question the Western narratives we’ve come to know.
After all, while “Bill” is portrayed in the film as a righteous figure who helps women, he was in the past a villain of the worst kind—one who murdered not only women but even children—so this point can undoubtedly be interpreted in that light. This goes beyond a mere subversion of convention and can also be read as a critique of American-style heroism, as epitomized by the Western genre.
In this way, the film follows the genre’s conventions while gradually subverting its characters and conventions, thereby rescuing the genre film from simplicity and enriching it.
Moreover, what makes this film significant is that, despite rejecting the romantic tradition of the Western and adopting a reflective, revisionist perspective, it still feels close to the traditional Western and can be compared to Western classics—even though it features an aging outlaw gunslinger who can no longer sit in a saddle.
As times change, the demands placed on genres diversify, leading to their fusion or, conversely, their further segmentation for study and continuous creation. In fact, it’s fair to say that a single genre alone finds it difficult to survive. Nevertheless, it has been said that a masterpiece can only be created by someone who understands the genre best. This is why “Clint Eastwood” has enjoyed such a long-lasting career, and why he continues to alternate between masterpieces and fine works.
The Western, in particular, is a genre unique to the United States, so there are inevitably aspects that other countries simply cannot capture. In South Korea, while attempts like ‘The Good, the Bad, and the Weird’ were bold, the majority of works have merely stopped at imitation. Ultimately, the American sensibility has become a global sensibility through that single genre. Other countries are now reinterpreting and evolving it in their own ways.
It’s not too late to develop a genre unique to South Korea. However, it’s important to recognize that we possess our own stories and history, which give us a distinct atmosphere. No matter the genre, this can be expressed—and has been expressed. Isn’t our task now to “lead” the evolution of these genres?
