MovieChat Forums > The Unforgiven (1960) Discussion > Kinda anti-racist, kinda racist

Kinda anti-racist, kinda racist

posted 17 years ago by robschmidt
17 replies | jump to latest

The half-breed Johnny Portugal (played by John Saxon) comes off reasonably well, enduring racist taunts with quiet dignity. The Kiowas initially seem human as they negotiate for Rachel's return, but they turn into unrelenting animals as they throw away their lives in a vain attempt to retrieve her.

Several reviewers noted that "The Unforgiven" has a story and theme similar to that of "The Searchers". The racist depiction of Indians that ultimately outweighs any message of tolerance is also similar. This was an era of changing values, when moviemakers couldn't decide whether Indians were good or bad.

See the full review at http://www.bluecorncomics.com/2007/06/review-of-unforgiven.html.

[–] D_vd_B 15 years ago

What I don't get is why it is kinda racist. What the hell does that even mean?

And this movie, even though it's not regarded as one of the big ones, the racist theme is well well done! That the 'whites' fight the indians in the end doesn't have anything to do with racism in the theme...it's about the two main characters. Their love is stronger than any racial bond, or political message. The Inidans are there for her; not to kill her. They are even prepared to die for her and her alone. But still, Ben doesn't want to let her go. Their familiy is stronger than any political belief. They suffer and not all walk out in the end; they have lost everything except the values they have chosen. And that is why I think that this film isn't racist at all.

It's about the family and how they react to happenings in their immediate surroundings...not about the surroundings, politics and a family that gets moved by it.

[–] funkyfry 14 years ago

That's all very well said RudolfhetRendier. But I don't ultimately agree. I do think the movie is trying to have its cake and eat it too, which I think is what the OP was saying. Here's a characteristic part of the film's dialectic -- it's established early on that the younger brother (Murphy) is more racist than the older brother (Lancaster). When he finds out that she really is an "Injun", he gets drunk and proposes sending her off to the Indians, but older brother refuses. Now, in the final part of the dialectic movement, he comes back to the ranch to save the others -- thereby proving that he is not a racist against Indians by killing a whole bunch of Indians. See what I mean? There are logical contradictions buried deep within the structure of the thing.

I don't think the film was bigoted, but it was at least casually racist. It's as if the film-makers were slightly afraid of offending real modern/60s Native Americans so they threw in a couple things like the Saxon character and the character who's supposed to be Hepburn's real brother, but they don't follow through on any of those ideas enough that it might offend any of the conservatives in the audience. They don't want to be perceived as making a progressive western but they also don't want to seem hopelessly old-fashioned, so they opt for something poetic which is quite nicely handled by Huston, the brother's death scene in particular, but which doesn't really alter the fundamentally racist aspects of this very traditional type of story.

Did I not love him, Cooch? MY OWN FLESH I DIDN'T LOVE BETTER!!! But he had to say 'Nooooooooo'

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jamal-Nazreddin 10 years ago

Yes. I bet the word "racist" didn't even exist in 1960.

All the Lapsed Christians invented their new sins after 1960.

[–] jacowium 8 years ago

Now, in the final part of the dialectic movement, he comes back to the ranch to save the others -- thereby proving that he is not a racist against Indians by killing a whole bunch of Indians. See what I mean?

Some good and valid points made in your post overall, but I suspect you may have been trying to be too clever in uncovering this supposed layer of racism in Cash's final actions. For you missed an important element: Cash's return to help the family also indicates that he ultimately realised that he wanted to protect his "Injun" sister as well as his own blood relatives. His heart still harboured familial feelings for Rachel as much as it wanted to wreak (race-motivated) revenge on the Kiowans for his father's murder. In real life, such conflicting psychological nuances exist - mainly speaking for myself, of course. Anyway, the final voice-over alludes to shared values by the remaining family members, suggesting that Cash accepted Rachel as part of his own family.

I agree with the overall assessment that Huston had to execute a balancing act between an anti-racism narrative, and pleasing the popular "western" sensibilities of a 1960 audience. If you want to find elements of racism, you'll find it easily. Or if you're looking for anti-racism notes, you'll pick them up just as easily.

Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 14 years ago

YOU MUST BE AFRAID OF MINORITIES YOU BABY.GREAT FILM ABOUT TWO GREAT RACES CAUCASIANS AND NATIVE AMERICANS....THE TWO BEST RACES!

[–] Errington_92 12 years ago

he comes back to the ranch to save the others -- thereby proving that he is not a racist against Indians by killing a whole bunch of Indians. See what I mean? There are logical contradictions buried deep within the structure of the thing.

His racism does not come into the situation. He went back and killed the Indians as they were attacking his family which he eventually realised he did care about including Rachel. It was the love for his family which made Cash kill the Indians, not his racism.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

[–] Captain_Augustus_McCrae 11 years ago

That, and not wanting to get scalped.

"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's LIVING!"
Captain Augustus McCrae

[–] robbieinbox 7 years ago

The God I worship created all men equal.

[–] Felixthecat34213 10 years ago

I don't see it, to be honest I think the Searchers totally rips off Red River. Its' portrayal of Native Americans is actually more harmful and racist than The Unforgiven. In classic westerns Indians are always portrayed as "the enemy" and the Searchers is no different in its portrayal. The Indians are sadistic bastards, just because Scar's sons were killed doesn't justify his kidnapping and forced rape of Debbie and her sister. It's just a fcking sadistic and tasteless depiction of Native Americans. (I don't doubt that there were Native Americans who were like Scar, I just don't see any redeeming qualities at all portrayed on screen here.)

At least in The Unforgiven we understand why the Indians are so intent on getting Rachel back. And they try to do it peacefully the entire time until provoked into fighting. Most people will kill for the the ones they love. I think that's the problem this film beautifully articulates, that when we become boggled down in personal vendettas we lose sight of the bigger picture and our own senses.

In the Searchers they're just vengeful, evil bastards for no reason making Ethan look like a saint. Here there's a backstory that properly articulates the tensions between the Native Americans and the settlers. We're not necessarily meant to believe that the Zachary's are saints, whether or not we want them to come out in one piece.

[–] KayDrama 10 years ago

The half-breed

Johnny Portugal (played by John Saxon) comes off reasonably well, enduring racist taunts with quiet dignity. The Kiowas initially seem human as they negotiate for Rachel's return, but they turn into unrelenting animals as they throw away their lives in a vain attempt to retrieve her.

If they were white and walked into an Indian camp guns a blazin' to retrieve their little sister, then they wouldn't be "unrelenting animals" but John Wayne-type heroes? But your admiration for the John Saxon character "comes off reasonably well" because the oppressed should always wait until their long suffering and passivity makes the oppressors see them as human beings and finally decide to treat them with dignity or at least stop abusing them. Yep, they should always wait for the police dogs and fire hoses.

Now, while i do consider the views in the post I quoted to be blindly bigoted (meaning probably unintentional), I don't consider the movie itself racist other than where it intended to be in showing the white settlers and Indian conflicts of the time period. And of course there will be small missteps along the way in a movie made in the early 1960's about race. But I appreciate the effort.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zappalover 10 years ago

Yup, the movie plays it both ways and its end product is mediocre because of it. It's a reasonably good Hollywood effort for the time it was made in. Lancaster and his production company had a good story, strong direction, great music and fine acting, including an excellent Joseph Wiseman and a surprisingly sympathetic performance by Ms. Hepburn. It includes a great early climax where complex emotional fireworks are kicked off splendidly by the business partner's grieving wife and the hanging sequence. Unfortunately, the film devolves into a boring attack by the natives where they are casually picked off, like any B movie or TV show from the 1950's. The loss of Native American life is practically rote, without much intelligence involved. Its ending's point of view too obviously White when more could have been elicited for the dying natives. But Burt and his boys had a product to sell and it was 1960 after all, not 1970.

Life is a state of mind.

[–] KayDrama 10 years ago

Yes, and apparently Burt L thought he was being sympathetic to Native Americans by making this movie in answer to John Wayne's movie (The Searchers, I think is the one); and in truth, considering the views at the time BL made this film, it was more forward (rational) thinking than most.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 9 years ago

Negroes are the racists.Wake up.

[–] robbieinbox 7 years ago

You need prayer.

[–] bear022013-588-696101 9 years ago

Wrong.